Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive43

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This topic isn't covered

Sports-related outlines currently under development include:

But there is no Outline of ice hockey.

Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

To create an outline on ice hockey, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|ice hockey|Ice hockey}}

Then press Save page and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Here are some examples of developed outlines:

The Transhumanist 03:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is covered. Category:Ice hockey. Reso lute 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I never understood these "articles". Anything worthy of including on such a list should be linked in the main article in the first place. Grsz¹¹ 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It strikes me as being useless duplication of existing content, but there is some odd fascination with them - both for and against. I personally would consider it a waste of time to build an outline, and frankly think they should all be deleted. But, given there is a loud enough group that will shout down any attempts to remove them, if someone else does start this outline, there is practically no chance of deletion. The truly bizarre aspect of these outlines is that they are constantly linked to talk pages because they have absolutely no value in the main space. Discounting the master list, Outline of Tennis has no mainspace links, and Outline of Basketball has two: Basketball and the now utterly redundant Index of basketball articles. The same would exist here. Other than at Ice hockey, putting an Outline of Hockey article anywhere else would just be the spamming of a low value link for no good purpose. Reso lute 04:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Reso lute 04:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my conclusion after a brief perusal of the pages related to the concept: it seems like a Powerpoint chart version of a subject area—just bullet items to walk through the main points of a topic. Although it may not be everyone's cup of tea, I can see how some may like to scan through an outline to get a feel for an area, and dive deeper into any specific sub-topics that catch their interest. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, like a table of contents, but with hyperlinks. And to complement these tables of contents, there are alphabetical indexes, also supported by hyperlinks. The two go hand-in-hand and apply to their subjects like their literary counterparts apply to books. The big question though, is "since we have a search engine, why do we need them?" Both an outline and an index can help you quickly decide if you've come to the right place - does Wikipedia cover the subject well or should you go somewhere else? These lists can answer that question almost instantly.

Personally, I find indexes useful when I can't remember a term except for the first letter. Happens to me all the time, and when it does, searching through multiple subcategories is a real pain in the ass. Indexes are also useful as semi-random lists - the items are arranged by their letters which is somewhat arbitrary and puts some odd pairs together. Just pick a letter and go. Indexes also gather as many relevant terms as possible to the same list, which is very useful if you want to be sure you've surveyed all the coverage on that subject. From a comprehensive index of a comprehensive work you can set out to read every article on the subject, or at least read the title of every article on the subject for familiarity's sake – names usually give some idea of what their subjects are about. And once you know a term, you can then use it in the search box, but not before.

Outlines are even better for familiarizing oneself with an overall subject, because they are organized by heredity - they show parent-offspring relationships between the topics that comprise the subject. They are similar to the category system, except that they can include annotations to assist topic selection, can be formatted in many ways, and they usually include as much of the tree structure as possible on the same page for convenience. Scrolling through an outline to overview a subject is much faster than clicking around the category system. But the reason I like outlines much more than categories, is that when I go to study a subject and I find it isn't complete, it is much faster for me to develop the outline because it is a centralized location - add the material right where you are right now. Categories are decentralized and are much more time-consuming to build.

Outlines and indexes are reference tools, and are very powerful for those who know how to use them. Kids generally find them boring, just as they do with the tables of contents and indexes of books. They'd rather read the book than find out what's there first. And that's fine, as it fulfills their appetite. Adults tend to look over the contents of a book to see what's there and come back to it later if they need to, and they tend to be in more of a hurry - for them, time is running out, in more ways than one. Wikipedia provides many options. That's its main strength.

The Transhumanist 21:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Topics. That's what it is all about. Because on Wikipedia, pretty much every major subtopic has its own article (and therefore, link). So let's look at the links from Ice Hockey, in the order they are presented in the article:

Sport Ice Puck Canada Czech Republic Latvia Nordic countries Finland Sweden United States Russia Slovakia Germany Austria Switzerland Ice rink Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada National Hockey League Canadian Women's Hockey League Western Women's Hockey League National pastime International Ice Hockey Federation IIHF World Championships Ice hockey#cite note-0 Ice hockey#cite note-1 Ice hockey at the Olympic Games 1920 Olympics IIHF World Women Championships Mi'kmaq Ireland Hurling Scotland Shinty Field hockey Oral history First Nation Silas Tertius Rand Europe Hurley Ice hockey#cite note-Raddall-4 Shinney Wikipedia:Citation needed Lacrosse St. Lawrence River Montreal Quebec City Kingston, Ontario Ottawa Canadian Street hockey John Franklin Great Bear Lake Arctic Ontario Upper Canada Thomas Chandler Haliburton Windsor, Nova Scotia Stanley Cup Hockey Hall of Fame Ottawa Senators Lester Pearson First indoor ice hockey game Victoria Skating Rink James George Aylwin Creighton McGill University Montreal Victorias Amateur Hockey Association of Canada Oxford University Ice Hockey Club Ice Hockey Varsity Match Cambridge University Ice Hockey Club Bandy Governor General of Canada Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby 1893 AHAC season Montreal Hockey Club NHL Ontario Hockey Association Winnipeg, Manitoba Cricket Goaltender Canadian Amateur Hockey League Yale University Johns Hopkins University New York City St. Nicholas Rink Edward VII of the United Kingdom George V of the United Kingdom Buckingham Palace Professional ice hockey History of the National Hockey League Western Pennsylvania Hockey League International Professional Hockey League National Hockey Association National League A Kontinental Hockey League Czech Extraliga SM-liiga Elitserien Ice hockey equipment Lacerations Concussion Contusions Extension (kinesiology)#Hyperextension Ice hockey rules Hockey rink Ice skate Goal Vulcanization Rubber Hockey puck Hockey stick Offside Forward Center Winger Defenceman Shorthanded Powerplay Icing Bodycheck Faceoff Penalty Penalty box Power play Breakaway Penalty shot Checking Official Hockey Canada USA Hockey Saginaw Plymouth, Michigan Ontario Hockey League Checking Neutral zone trap Two-line pass Shot Peter Bondra Atlanta Thrashers Roberto Luongo Florida Panthers Extra attacker Fighting in ice hockey Enforcer Suspension Overtime Overtime (ice hockey)#Shootout History of women's ice hockey in Canada National Women's Hockey League Olympic Games Recreation United States Hockey League Karen Koch 1998 Winter Olympics Nagano, Japan Hockey mask Manon Rhéaume Tampa Bay Lightning St. Louis Blues Boston Bruins Hayley Wickenheiser Kirkkonummi HC Salamat Suomi-sarja Charline Labonté Kelly Dyer Angela Ruggiero Pond hockey World Pond Hockey Championship Plaster Rock New Brunswick Ice Hockey World Championships Winter Olympic Games Ice hockey at the 1920 Summer Olympics Ice hockey at the 1936 Winter Olympics Ice hockey at the 1960 Winter Olympics Soviet Union Unified Team 1992 Winter Olympics Gold medal 1980 Winter Olympics Miracle on ice 2010 Winter Olympics 2006 Winter Olympics Summit Series 1974 Summit Series USSR Canada Cup Rendez-vous '87 World Cup of Hockey Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics Euro Hockey Tour Czech national ice hockey team Finnish national men's ice hockey team Russian national ice hockey team Swedish national men's ice hockey team IIHF World U20 Championship IIHF World U18 Championships World U-17 Hockey Challenge World Junior A Challenge Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament IIHF World Women's U18 Championships 4 Nations Cup List of ice hockey leagues Eurasia Russian Super League Soviet Championship League 1940s 2008–09 KHL season Post-Soviet states EIHL British national ice hockey team Home nations England Wales Northern Ireland Asia League Ice Hockey People's Republic of China Japan South Korea Japan Ice Hockey League Champions Hockey League IIHF Continental Cup Victoria Cup Spengler Cup Davos Christmas New Year's Day Season Nordic Trophy Tampere Cup Pajulahti Cup Ice hockey in popular culture North America Popular culture Wikipedia:Splitting List of ice hockey games with highest attendance Talk:Ice hockey#Delete Heritage Classic.3F Cold War University of Michigan Michigan State University Spartan Stadium Moscow 2010 IIHF World Championship Opening Game Michigan Stadium 2003 Heritage Classic Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton Oilers Montreal Canadiens Wayne Gretzky AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic Pittsburgh Penguins Buffalo Sabres Ralph Wilson Stadium National Football League Buffalo Bills Orchard Park (town), New York New York Buffalo, New York Sidney Crosby Throwback uniform IIHF France Italy Norway United Kingdom Kazakhstan Ukraine Denmark Belarus North Korea Netherlands Poland Australia Mexico Hungary New Zealand Romania Slovenia Belgium

Let's say you've already read the article, but you want to browse Wikipedia's coverage of the overall subject. You try to look over the links in the article, but you notice that there's a lot of irrelevant links mixed in there. You don't want to click on those or even look at them. Also, how are all the hockey terms related to each other? They seem to be presented in an almost random order.

Outlines are about organization and link selection. You can see how everything interrelates at a glance.

But you can't do that by looking over the links of a prose article. The example block of links above is actually easier to browse than the links as presented in the article. With the links scattered throughout prose, you have to scan through the prose in order to pick out the links. That's even more time consuming.

Look at all the place names above. Is this a hockey list or a geography list?

In an outline, key words are readily discernible from the words that are help-linked (words not actually part of the subject but are linked to assist user understanding). Key words are usually listed on the left, or in blocks together. Help-linked words are usually in annotations, if they are included at all.

After peering uselessly at the link selection in the article, you go to the category, only to find a list of 27 miscellaneous topics:

That list is nearly as confusing as the block of links from the article. Other than having to do with hockey, and other than alphabetically, how are the items related? You can't tell by looking at the list.

Which brings us to the sub-categories. 39 of them. 39 alphabetical pages to click on to overview the subject of Ice Hockey.

In an outline, heredity is inherent to the structure of the list, and so you can see at a glance what belongs to what. For an explanation of how this aspect works, see tree structure.

Therefore, you get the strongest browsing features from prose articles (heading structure and description) and categories (categorization) integrated into a single page.

Scrolling down a single web page in which subtopics are organized in an intelligent fashion (not merely alphabetically) is an easier and faster research method than browsing articles or categories.

The Transhumanist 06:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think these sorts of articles duplicate the category structure and I don't see a real point to them, yes I know all the reasons you say they are usefull, but I think its just a case of shoving too many links on a page and calling it an outline when categories work better. I'd go as far to say I wish they would all be deleted in fact. -DJSasso (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, outlines work better, and have more potential. But cats are useful as a link collection system for building better pages, such as outlines, and so I would not want the category system deleted. I see the two types of pages as synergistic, and basically agree with WP:CLS.

A list builder can outbuild a cat in short period of time, giving cat builders a resource to draw upon in updating their cats. So the outline system provides a link collection resource to the cat workers too. It's an example of leapfrogging.

Some editors prefer to work on cats, and others prefer to work on lists. There is an ongoing war between them that has been raging since the creation of the category system. Back in 2006 I wrote Wikipedia:Categories versus lists, which points out some of the fundamental flaws of the category system. But the war is an incredible waste of time, since neither group is willing to let their respective systems be deleted, and both are strong enough to defend them. The synergy issue seems to be lost on them.

Navigational lists have wide support, as evidenced on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, in which the issue was brought up again and again.

Deleting outlines would be wasting a useful resource that many people rely upon. It would also be closing an avenue to an evolving article form that has a great deal of technological enhancement potential in the future. Outlines (in real life) have an entire branch of technology devoted to them, none of the features of which have been implemented on Wikipedia yet. The system of outlines on Wikipedia offer a rich data source upon which such tools could be applied, including viewing and processing enhancements. It's only a matter of time before somebody develops a javascript that provides these.

So, I'm looking for hockey afficionados who are also list builders. Any takers? The Transhumanist 17:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, your link dump on the ice hockey article is a needless attempt to generate confusion. One would expect that many links on an article will not be directly related to the subject. Likewise, your look at only the articles in the root of Category:Ice hockey is also designed to present a problem that does not exist. In truth, all of those pages should be (and in many cases, are) in subcats and the parent category should have no article entries. So, my outline of ice hockey is Category:Ice hockey. I want to know what leagues Wikipedia covers: Category:Ice hockey competitions --> Category:Ice hockey leagues. Well, there I am with a list of leagues that can be further drilled down in numerous different ways. Reso lute 23:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The link dump above shows that the link set in the root article is not ideal for browsing the subject's coverage on Wikipedia. The only confusion here is inherent in that body of links. Try using it to browse the subject in a meaningful way. Try using it as your main reference tool for browsing the subject on Wikipedia. You'll find it is woefully inadequate for that role. But that's a role that Wikipedia's outlines are specifically designed for.

You say that the links on ice hockey's main category page should not even be there. But they are there. And this is the case with most root category pages. This is confusing, especially to beginners. And inconvenient. With a category page without subcategories, all the links necessarily go on the cat page - so this is normal for many cat pages, but not all of them. This makes the role of cat pages ambiguous, as it changes from cat to cat. As soon as a subcat is created, some of the links no longer belong in the cat, and must be moved to the subcat. Those working directly on articles, especially new editors, often do not know this, and so they keep placing the cat at the bottom of the pages in the subject article they are working on, instead of the subcat. That's probably why the cats keep filling up with miscellaneous articles. The same thing applies to every level that has subcats.

Also, before a category for a varied subject has subcategories, the category is the dumping ground for all the topics of that subject, regardless of the subtopic they belong to. You are back to an arbitrary list of miscellaneous topics on that subject. Basically an incomplete alphabetical index.

In actuality, categories are not outlines, they are nodes. Outlines are a tree structure presented as an integrated whole (that is, all of its elements on the same screen or page). Tree structures and dispersed nodal systems are two different things (they are two different types of nodal systems) and they have different purposes. By the way, an outline is an integrated nodal system. In the dispersed system you see little chunks at a time, but each integrated system shows more of the big picture.

Unfortunately, categories are doomed to have holes in them, because they are decentralized. The tags that include an article in a category is located on the article page, not on the category page. And articles are often adopted, developed, and defended by specific editors who monitor and maintain the respective articles they have chosen. They don't always agree as to what belongs to a category and what does not. If such and editor believes his article does not belong to a specific category, he'll undo the addition of such a tag, leaving that article missing from the category. I stopped developing categories for this very reason, and have focused on centralized lists ever since.

Your league example shows one form of browsing, but not that of someone new to Ice Hockey. The category's nodal system forces a click-discovery form of exploration, which is tedious. Tree structures provide a scrolling approach, which is much simpler for initial discovery, and even more useful as a reference aid once you've become familiar with the list.

But none of this matters, because we are just rehashing the points of a debate that has been going on since the creation of the category system. Both sides feel they are right, and you wind up with a stale-mate. It's the same thing over and over.

The point is, many readers utilize navigational lists (both indexes and outlines), and Ice Hockey does not have one yet. If anybody is interested in making one, I'll be happy to jump on there and help develop it. The Transhumanist 18:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As it may have become lost above: it has been requested that a more central discussion on some link removals take place. As such, I invite anyone intersted to comment at Template talk:Pittsburgh Penguins of the addition or removal of some links. Reso lute 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Inline hockey question

Okay so i know this is the ice hockey project but seen as the IIHF deal with inline too i figure this would be a good place to ask. So i recently made the Australia men's national inline hockey team, but due to the duel governing bodies of inline hockey (IIHF and FIRS) Australia also has two governing bodies: Ice Hockey Australia (IHA) and Skate Australia (SA). Both these organisations field a national inline team with the IHA participating in the IIHF event and SA in the FIRS events. I made the article based on the Ice Hockey Australia controlled team, but my question is how would i deal with the SA controlled team? Salavat (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are they separate rosters? That is, do all players play on a single team but for both federations? If they're the same, I would keep it a single page, integrating where necessary. If they're completely removed from each other, I would create a second article. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say to keep them seperate, actually. They are each sanctioned national bodies, which makes each notable in my view. This would be something slightly analogous to the rift between the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and Hockey Canada back in the day. Reso lute 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit:And how about I comment on the actual question? lol. I would put both rosters on the national inline hockey team page, noting which roster competes in which event, and why. Seems the cleanest way to do it. Reso lute 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, upon looking at the FIRS rosters they are different but have some of the same players in 2010, i think ill merge both into the existing article and try my best to explain who controls what. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that while ive got a topic going on inline hockey there is a discussion on whether to merge the inline hockey article into the roller hockey article. Its been open since may so maybe we could get some extra voices over at Talk:Roller hockey#Merge Inline hockey into Roller hockey (discuss). Thanks, Salavat (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

April 20, 1984 Canadiens-Nordiques box score

Does anyone have access to the box score from the infamous Canadiens-Nordiques Good Friday Massacre game? My recollection is that extra time was added onto the third period, but of course time can play tricks on you. Can someone help confirm or deny this, and make any necessary edits to the game's article? Isaac Lin (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP is right. The first brawl happened at the end of the second: [1] The second before the beginning of hte third. Reso lute 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to find a box score that would show the time when the penalties were assessed. However, absent any additional information, I will edit the article to remove mentions of extra time added to the third period. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding citations: I can find plenty of citations saying the first brouhaha happened at the end of the second period; I just wasn't sure how literal these references were (e.g. if the whistle was blown with a couple of seconds left, the articles might still say the end of the second). I found one mention of extra time added to the third, but I'm not sure how reliable it is (it probably cribbed from the Wikipedia article): [2] Isaac Lin (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it was meant literally. I'll check a couple of my history books for mentions later today. Reso lute 15:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Quebec (sports)

We seem to be missing the "Battle of Quebec" in ice hockey. There are articles on it for Battle of Alberta and Battle of Ontario. (Battle of Quebec is a disambiguation page) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Have there been books written on the subject is really what it comes down to. Rivalry type articles are usually pretty point of view and full of original research which is why there aren't that many of them written. If we have some solid sources from which to write a page then I say go for it, otherwise there might not be much to write that wouldn't be undesireable in one way or another. I must also say that while I have heard the terms Battle of Alberta and Battle of Ontario. I can't say that I have heard of something called the Battle of Quebec. Not to say I don't know of the rivalry, just that I haven't heard it called that before. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Two for one with this article: Battle of Quebec. Though shouldn't it be Battle of Quebec (ice hockey)? Reso lute 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It was/is a common term used in Quebec to describe the rivalry between the Canadiens and the Nordiques. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to find plenty of sources about this rivalry to meet the general notability requirement. Google news archives picked up 200 hits for "Battle of Quebec". See [[3]]. I would suggest building the article in your user space first, as I can see that it would immediately attract attention for deletion before you even really get going. I think a book does exist on the subject too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to merge the Good Friday Massacre article into it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to keep out the diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And the best way to keep it from being deleted would be to expand it to more than just hockey. Like the Alberta one. The Ontario one should be expanded to more than just hockey as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but I don't know of any other sports involved in the rivalry between Montreal and Quebec city. Possibly college football? McGill-Laval? There is plenty of coverage of the hockey rivalry to pass the general notability guideline. 'Course, it's all in the 80s, pre-Internet age, but that should not diminish its notability. It's one reason why Quebec wants to get an NHL team again. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily have to be about sports. For example there was a clear rivalry between cities in Alberta as far as Edmonton and Calgary go for politics and other things wide reaching beyond hockey. Not sure what those might be in Quebec, I am sure there are some especially since Montreal has such a large english population and Quebec City does not. In Ontario the obvious things to include would be Toronto being turned down for the capital of Canada and things of that nature. Was just a thought. I am no expert in those subjects by any means. But I know that things of that nature would help to make a very well rounded article that would be more likely to stand the test of time. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I could very easily build an article on ice hockey alone for the Battle of Alberta - entire books have been written about it - and I think that the Battle of Quebec could stand as a hockey only article as well. Given Quebec City and Montreal haven't competed in any leagues other than the NHL and its predecessors that I am aware of, you would have to stretch to find "Battle of Quebec" used outside of a hockey context. Reso lute 17:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't just meant sports. I actually mostly meant politics and the like. Battle of Alberta is special in an of itself...its probably the most written about rivalry in hockey besides maybe Toronto-Montreal. Most other rivalries while being mentioned in articles are rarely talked about in depth. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The undercurrent between the two teams' rivalry was Quebec sovereignty. However, given that there are already "Battle of Quebec" articles, to avoid scope creep, I think it would be simplest to confine any article on the sporting rivalry to just that. Other articles discussing a broader scope can link to it, if appropriate. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The anglophone vs. francophone aspect most certainly played a role in how intense the Nordiques-Canadiens rivalry was, but I worry about diluting the scope too much to involve any kind of division amongst groups in Quebec. These factors would certainly bear mention in the context of the hockey rivalry though. Reso lute 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Language issues I think are primarily just a part of the perpetual PR problems the Canadiens face with its staff, on and off the ice. The Canadiens' fan base in Quebec is, after all, majority francophone. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In the modern day, yes, but they were founded to be the francophone alternative to the Wanderers, and then the Maroons were founded to be the anglophone alternative to them. In the lead up to that 1984 brawl, the Quebec City media were certainly playing up the angle of the Nordiques being the provinces true francophone team. Lacking that opposing team, Montreal simply takes fire from all sides these days. Reso lute 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you are in disagreement or not—as you point out, even from its origin, the team's fan base was francophone, so the Canadiens-Nordiques rivalry doesn't rely on anglophone-francophone tension. (As far as I know the Maroons-Canadiens rivalry was not referred to as the "Battle of Quebec".) "Francophone" and "Quebecois" are distinct concepts; the media played up the Nordiques as Quebecois. Regarding taking fire from all sides, I'm not sure what you are referring to—off-hand, I can't think of any complaints about Canadiens operations from a federalist point of view. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do a Battle of Quebec (politics) that'd be nice too... there's so much Quebec City v Montreal griping in politics, or how the provincial government neglect Montreal and sucks all the cash away for other regions without giving appropriate representation as ridings in Montreal are too large per capita, while they are too small out in the boonies... Or how Quebec City resents Montreal's power and influence in the world at large... Though this idea might be better discussed at WT:WikiProject Quebec. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Insertion of additional details about what a hockey captain is into team articles

I would transclude them, but I think a quick review of User talk:Dolovis is all that is needed for background, other than the fact that info was added to all NHL team articles, then removed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that people don't think it should be there. About 6 people have said no. That being said Resolute offered a perfectly decent suggestion in that discussion for how to resolve the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this (lame edit war) resolved or do you need more opinions for consensus? I agree that a link to the captains article is the best solution. Those captains lists are tables. Putting prose with the tables would be inappropriate as we should try to separate that per MOS. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is resolved, assuming Dolovis accepts that his preferred wording has no support. As I said, an introductory paragraph that is specific to the team, and links to captain (ice hockey) would be sufficient. Reso lute 17:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute, esp. in cases such as Vancouver having a goalie captain or the Blues have four alternate captains -two for home games and two for away games. I'm sure there's some other special circumstances teams have that warrant a bit of explanation. But general stuff about what a captain is without such special situations of some teams is useless. Although we could combine every article on general ice hockey rules or play into the team pages :-P. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. RGTraynor 20:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Resolute's resolution. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:NCAAIceHockeyTeamSeason

Does anyone know what happened to Template:NCAAIceHockeyTeamSeason? It didn't use to look like that (it used to look much better). Powers ^T 00:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone made a complete undiscussed overhaul yesterday. -DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oi, I'm dumb. I was looking in the history and they all seemed to have the new look so I thought the change was in a supporting template somewhere. I forgot that the documentation on the old revisions would still be using the current template! Anyway, would it be a problem if I reverted it back and asked the author to discuss the changes first? Powers ^T 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope thats BRD. Go for it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the change to a proper documentation subpage. That should clear up any future confusion on what appears to the reader. (I don't consider you dumb since it wasn't done properly. But if you make the same mistake NOW...) –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 09:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Award Winner templates

Created again, TfD'ed again here. Reso lute 06:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where does {{Triple Gold Club}} fit in? It's existed for a while and links to all winners. If there is consensus for it, we can remove the winners, but I'd like to keep the template so that it links between the seven component articles. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the choice, I'd rather not include the players. For the same reasons, the list of winners is better noted at Triple Gold Club. Reso lute 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

24/7 (TVseries)

Heads up that the 24/7_(TV_series) page is suffering from what best I can tell is some anonymous proxy server (City of London is a bit suspicious for a residence or dorm) that is reverting it to TV2007 form. The article isn't marked as a hockey project page yet but it will showcase the upcoming Winter Classic and lead up to it. All of this has caught the eye of a admin, and I have run it by Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. With the show starting in a few weeks and the WC, the article might need some expansion and a check now and then to ward off any anonymous proxies? (ps I did invite him/her to join and discuss several times to no avail so we are dealing with a sniper out there seems only interested in operating in the shadows). As always thanks for the consideration. Hholt01 (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You were both partially right. 24/7 began as a boxing show, then they did a nascar season and now they are going to be doing a hockey season. However, the football that was mentioned was part of the Hard Knocks (TV series). I have fixed the article to reflect that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DJSasso. As you know I'm always up for a discussion (even if it means I wasn't completely right), only these proxies just PA in hit and run fashion with seemingly no intent to join the community. Thanks to you and Leech for watching and improving it, might be good to add a hockeyproject tag to it. Thanks again. Hholt01 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Team pages

Hello everybody. Life has taken me elsewhere other than Wikipedia in the past couple years, but I'm making a slow return to the fray. Now, right off the bat, I have a question.... is it necessary for articles such as: List of Nashville Predators players or List of Dallas Stars players need statistics in them? I mean, Nashville's is horribly out-of-date, which carries a theme throughout the rest of the article of other things not being updated (ie., new players on the team). I am willing to revise these articles, but I really do not see how the stats are necessary... especially since sites such as hockeyreference and hockeydb can keep track better then we can. Let me know your thoughts, I don't want to come in again right off the bat and start stepping on people's toes, that's why I brought it to the WikiProject. Croat Canuck Talk 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow there is a name out of the past. Personally I had no problem when they were just names, however these lists for all sports seem to have been gaining stats over the years which I do also enjoy. But they do tend to get out of date. Unfortunately people don't go over them at the end of the year to update them like they should. But such is the life of a wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I could do without the stats. But, if there's people out there, willing to add them (and update them)? no probs. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel like they are necessary on team pages... unless someone steps up and says they will maintain them. But I feel like if the articles are just left, the fact that stats are going updated are also affecting whether players on the list are being outdated. I think on articles like the Nashville and Dallas ones that are not being maintained it would be best to remove them. P.S., Djsasso and GoodDay, you two are still kicking around here? Wow. Croat Canuck Talk 23:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the stats it helps to identify how much a player did for a particular franchise. If you look at a guys stats You can see how long he played and what he did in the individual years but it can be hard to gauge his overall production. I also think the stats table gives the page a better look than just the list of links they are with out the stats tables and I would like to see them stay to keep them constant with the Featured Lists of players. NHL.com is actually pretty easy to find all the stats for different franchises, I updated Florida and LA last year and updated new players last weekend. I am planing on doing Washington, which is absurdly out of date, sometime soon. I just don't have the free time to say that I'd take them all over.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd be easier just to delete the stats from all of'em. PS: Yeah CC, I'm still around. Wikipedia can't do without me. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the maintenance is the problem. I maintain the Flames list, but many are not. For the lists people aren't willing to maintain fully, I'd say dropping the stats would be good, but leave things like the years they played for the team. Basically, something a bit greater than bare lists of names. And welcome back CC! Reso lute 00:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I will do.... this seems to be the consensus... on pages that are clearly out of date such as the Dallas and Nashville I will remove the stat lines, and leave the ones that are maintained such as Calgary... and if someone wants to come along and start up and update them, then they can just go to the history and take all the stats formats or whatever. Thanks for all the welcome backs, everyone. Croat Canuck Talk 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would leave them on any that have acheived Featured List status as we will probably lose the Featuring I am sure if you remove them. :) Category:FL-Class Ice Hockey articles -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Colin Campbell (ice hockey) will need watching

There hasn't been any vandalism yet, but given the bombshell that hit the blogosphere today, this article may need watching. [4]. Reso lute 19:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap. Holy freaking crap. And irony of ironies, the Boston Globe has an article today (sparked by an unrelated matter) about how dangerous it is in the workplace to consider e-mails to be private communications. I foresee the mother of all NHLPA grievances. RGTraynor 19:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yup I would say his job with the league is done. Even if he didn't do anything, no one would be able to take anything he did seriously. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say I told you so, so… Welcome to Miami! —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 21:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Down with Campbell, down with Campbell", eery eh? GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of people under 18 and WP:ATH

Given our project has some articles on minor athletes, and this discussion has at least one editor pushing hard to reinvent WP:NSPORTS, people here may be interested in participating in this RfC: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Biographies of living people under 18. Reso lute 03:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What to do about this?

Looking over the orphaned articles in our scope, I came across this: 2009–10 NHL suspensions and fines. My first instinct was "trivial, WP:NOTSTATS, delete", but then considered we also maintain lists of transactions, and that the incidents that lead to suspensions and fines are often a hot-button topic in the NHL. As a single season article only, it is not useful, but is this something we wish to create and maintain for 2010-11 and going forward? Reso lute 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ... I can see encyclopedic value there. These things need to be thoroughly sourced, though; BLP issues and all. RGTraynor 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- This one is, which was very surprising. Reso lute 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see the value, but I would place it on the season page as opposed to a standalone page probably. I can't see people being able to keep these up the the standards that would be needed for BLP if they were their own distinct pages. Though yes this one is well done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at this article and found that one already also exists for 2010-2011 that is also well sourced -Pparazorback (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub Icon

The stub icon for ice hockey looks like a bandaid. Can we change it to something more identifiable as relating to hockey? AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, thats why we actually switched to the rink. It was more identifiable to non-hockey fans than something like a puck was. -DJSasso (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that as well. That being said, if anyone has an idea on a better, or clearer icon to use, we can certainly discuss it. Reso lute 23:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I liked the puck better than the rink, but why not use a ice hockey pictogram or the logo of this project? lil2mas (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the project logo because I don't think it would look so good that small. The pictogram could work but again the small size might be an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a fan, but it is legible at 25 and 50 pixels. Reso lute 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Winnipeg White Out

What to do with this mess of an article? 80% of it has nothing to do with the actual Winnipeg White Out, and instead is a dumping ground for other random events where teams encourage their fans to wear one colour. I am tempted to simply merge the relevant part to Winnipeg Jets and redirect the article there. Any thoughts, or should I just start a merge discussion? Reso lute 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure any of it has sufficient independent notability; I agree with merging any relevant bits to the different team pages. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would strip out the stuff about other teams. And still leave it as its own article. The Winnipeg White Out was a big thing back in its day and notability doesn't expire. It would be along the lines of the Towel Power article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Its hockey's Terrible Towel. Strip out any copy about other teams except the Phoenix Coyotes (right?). ccwaters (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely notable, but I was thinking of treating it along the lines of Calgary Flames#"C of Red" because once you pull out the non-Winnipeg bits, you are left with an article with one paragraph. Is that valuable as a stand-alone article? Or is it better to cover that in the Jets article and redirect the white out link? Evidently the former is the opinion. ;) Reso lute 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You could definitely do that. Depends how much you write up on it. The one I linked to above for example is a couple paragraphs and more than big enough to be its own article. But if you are going to only have a couple sentences then you should redirect it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alumni vs. Players

Is there a reason that CHL team categories are "Regina Pats alumni" while professional teams and other junior leagues (USHL) are "Houston Aeros players"? Should we rename the CHL team categories to be consistent? Canada Hky (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Because junior graduates are considered alumni of their organizations. Such a rename would take us from the correct terminology to the incorrect. It would also be like changing Category:Harvard University alumni to Category:Harvard University students. Reso lute 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So, should we change the USHL/SJHL/etc ones, then? There is an inconsistency somewhere. Also, for guys who play for multiple junior organizations, they are an alumni of all of them only by the broadest possible definition. They would be considered a "player" by any definition. Canada Hky (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The CHL considers itself "hockey school" basically. And they call their players alumni and when they leave the CHL they are said to be graduating. Other leagues don't really do this, which is why we don't name the other leagues this way. Also there is a common misconception that you are an alumni only if your graduate, which is not true, you are an alumni as soon as you go to a school. Or in this case a team. -DJSasso (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that isn't entirely true. The AJHL refers to its graduates as "alumni" as well, so I presume the SJHL would be the same. The USHL does as well. This is a battle I fought, and in some cases lost, in the past where there were those who felt that using the wrong terminology was better than being "inconsistent". I would be very happy with ensuring all junior categories properly use "alumni". Reso lute 23:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So if I flunked out of 1st year college then I'd still be considered "alumni"?--Львівське (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Per the actual definition of an alumni, yes you would be. Per common use. No not really. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I think we are at inconsistent and incorrect, so I think all junior teams using "alumni" would be a step in the right direction.Canada Hky (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Some time this weekend I will gather the categories and start a batch nomination or two. Reso lute 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, because I have no idea how to go about the renaming process. Would it help if I assembled a list of the junior categories, that are currently "players"? Canada Hky (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! Reso lute 07:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Started the list here: Junior Categories Canada Hky (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Most are now nominated here. I did not add the ECAC list as college sports all use players, so I'll defer to the NCAA project's categorization there. Excluded one team that was a pro category, and the Calgary Mustangs categories required separate nominations for the soccer and then the hockey teams. Reso lute 17:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the ECAC and other NCAA teams, but I stumbled across them as I was going through the hockey player categories, and added them so I didn't forget to mention them. Canada Hky (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

sigh*, that CfD is going about as I expected. Reso lute 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

We've a tad problem with vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP 173.202.191.166 is at it again, having vandalized the St. Louis Blues (ice hockey) article. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Waivers (NHL)

More sets of eyes on the Waivers (NHL) article would be appreciated. Is it okay to mention Redden in the article, or is it more appropriate in another article, etc. See Talk:Waivers (NHL) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Connecticut Whale (formerly called the Hartford Wolf Pack)

FYI: A discussion has been started at Talk:Connecticut Whale#The Connecticut Whale (formerly called the Hartford Wolf Pack). Dolovis (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Career start in infobox

I know this has been discussed before but nothing ever happened. Could we change it so there's a way –present won't be there. TBA–present doesn't make sense anyway. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We did change it, we made it so that its Career Start is no longer Pro-Career Start. So now you put their first year of junior if they are a junior player and their first year of pro if they are a pro. See Template:Infobox ice hockey player#Required fields where it mentions this. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty dumb to me. I think it should just be left out if they haven't played pro. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The only issue there is turn of the century senior players. But the field needs to be made optional, imo. Reso lute 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we should change it so that it's optional. Having junior careers count for junior players and not for pro players is inconsistent. We usually don't even add the year their junior career started, we add "to be announced to present" which is just as dumb. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the infobox was originally only meant for pro's. Then people started using it on amateurs and putting in the TBA. We then removed the word pro from before career to indicate that it meant their current career. ie their amateur career or their pro career. It is consistant. But if you want to figure out making it optional go for it. We went the other route last time because no one could figure out how to make it optional and so that it would be consistent for women and men whose careers can be either amateur or pro. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok I managed to find code to do it. However, it will require the changing of every single use of the infobox. Currently we use career_start= and career_end= with a ndash between. Because of the ndash we can't make the two fields optional or the ndash will sit there on its own. So we needed to create a new field called career=. Which means you would have to do career=1990-''current'' for active players and career=1990-2000 for retired players. This brings up the question, since this isn't something I can see being able to do easily with a bot. Do we want to go through about 20k player articles we have changing to this so that we can avoid the 30-60 junior players having their amateur career being listed instead of just their pro career. The code can be changed but who wants to do the work switching all the boxes over is pretty much the question. It might be possible to get someone to write a bot that can add the two old parameters into the new parameter. But I don't know that for sure, would be complicated code for sure. Or we could ask someone better with wikicode to look, but this is all I could find after a long time of trying in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Jeff Hunt play hockey in the AHL?

Can anybody confirm if Jeff Hunt, the owner of the Ottawa 67's, is the same Jeff Hunt (born February 13, 1952 in Winnipeg, Manitoba)[5] who played hockey in the AHL during the 1970s? Dolovis (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not the same. The Ottawa 67s owner was born in Newfoundland, not Winnipeg as in the hockeydb stats page. It seems the minor league hockey player is not-notable at all, as I cannot find any non-trivial coverage of him. Reso lute 15:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Eyes on image deletion

I am asking for input on the discussion of deleting an image used in the History of the Ottawa Senators and Alexandre Daigle articles. Please visit Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_November_29#File:Daigle-yashin-1993-94.jpeg. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Dear editors,

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

Proceed here to cast your vote. Once you have decided how to vote, casting your vote is quick and convenient, using the Foundation's software.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Selke

FYI, the use of Selke is under discussion, see Talk:Selke (river) ... 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation case opened involving a hockey article

There is a mediation case open involving an ice hockey article here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is basically a merge, and so the expedient approach would be to merge the content of the misspelled article into the correctly-spelled article, following the standard method. To do it the other way would mean temporarily renaming the correctly-spelled article, correcting the spelling of the misspelled article, and then doing the merge. If the correctly-spelled article had virtually no edits, perhaps that might be worth doing (though I'm not sure even then), but otherwise it doesn't seem worth the trouble. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the incorrect version had nothing that the correctly spelled version didn't already have. So really the most appropriate action in my view was just to redirect the page. That way the history of both articles stays in the location that they actually were for. Seemed like a very minor issue, something we've done numerous times in the past. Kind of surprised it went to mediation. But since it involved a hockey article, I felt it was appropriate to notify the project. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the person who filed the case explicitly asked for someone outside of the ice hockey project to review the case, and in any case it was a procedural question and not a content dispute, I don't think it mattered either way. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, but I always notify any groups that might be affected. Thought it might be a good idea since technically it could change how others are done in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill Guerin has retired

Bill Guerin has retired. Will someone please edit the page entitled "List of NHL Statistical Leaders" and remove the bold from his name as well as his name from the lists of active leaders of the categories? I would do it but I don't know how/ don't want to screw it up.

67.22.26.40 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)PensFan8

Done. You can remove (or add) bolding by removing (or adding) three apostrophes before and after the text you want to bold: '''text''' : text. Using two will italicize the text, and using five will bold and italicize it. As far as screwing it up, don't worry about that. Mistakes are easily reverted in most cases. Cheers!Reso lute 03:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

I thought I would pass this Flickr user along. Looks like they are based in Washington, so if you are looking for a picture of an Eastern Conference team, this is a great place to look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bridgetds/with/5239848679/ All appropriately licensed for use. Canada Hky (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I contacted here a few weeks ago. Totally forgot to mention it here. Good thing that she is totally into letting us use the photos, as there are some good quality ones there on virtually every Cap and team to play in Washington this year. Some AHL photos as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled on them when I was looking for some Clarke MacArthur pics, and was pretty excited. :) There are some epic Movember staches in there as well. Canada Hky (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

it's a Treasure trove of pics there are some really good shots there. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not about her excellent photos, but I've added some of my own to the Wikimedia Commons. I'm not exactly sure how they should be tagged. I take photos at some Hershey Bears games, so I'll try to add more when I have them. AuroraHcky (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been a long time uploader of images, so if you have any questions, feel free to ping me. Reso lute 05:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed your images on my watch list, I'd had been looking for images of Brett Sterling and Zack Fitzgerald, thanks for adding them. The pics look good, keep up the excellent work.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Resolute! I'm sure I'll have some questions. leech44, I'm very glad I was able to add pics you needed. I have tickets to the AHL All Star game so I'm sure I'll be able to get some great pictures there as well! AuroraHcky (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Canad[i]a[n] vs. Canadian

I've noticed User:Moxy has been replacing wiki-wide "Canadian" with a wikilink to Canadians, the people. Now, it was my understanding that the persons demonym would link to the country itself (ie. Canada), especially for those who represent the country internationally, rather than the people. Should Moxy's edits stand?--Львівське (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for his changes, then his changes should be reverted, then discussed. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is more of a Canada project issue than a hockey project one, so if there is discussion on it, I would bring it to that noticeboard myself. I haven't looked over what the link has been repointed to to have enough of an opinion yet. Reso lute 05:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always tried to link it to the people when I know a people page exists. Because thats what the word is talking about "Canadians" as a people type, not the country "Canada". I think I may have started doing this because when I started editing we had the birth location in the lead sentence as well, so it didn't make any sense to link to Canada twice and provided more information this way. However, Resolute is right more a WPCanada issue then an us issue. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like its being discussed there. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DJSasso, that's the way I always done it. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 23:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ice Hockey/Unreferenced BLPs

I just knocked out the last two on the list (for now). I wanted to thank the editors who did some great work taking down the list. I'm sure there are more floating around that have yet to be tagged, but at one point there were 220 articles listed, so it was no small feat to eliminate the backlog. Nice job guys--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At its peak, we actually had 371 identified, unsourced articles. Good job to everyone who cleared the list! Reso lute 21:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Orr GA

Would anyone like to discuss the Bobby Orr GA review? Please see Talk:Bobby Orr. Need some opinions on the validity of the pictures under Wiki policy WP:NFCC. I guess basically from the point of view of hockey history? The GA reviewer has asked for second opinions on the photos. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NCAAIceHockeyTeamSeason

So about a month ago, I made changes to the {{NCAAIceHockeyTeamSeason}} infobox. I went though and converted the whole thing to the {{Infobox}} format, mostly because the coding was a huge mess and needed a clean up. A secondary reason was because the old version was bland, poorly organized, hard to read, general not good looking (IMO). Apparently, however, I need to ask permission to make these changes. In the end the template code needs to get cleaned up, and it is not really a big deal, stylistically, what it looks like. The version I implemented before it was reverted is at {{NCAAIceHockeyTeamSeason/sandbox}}. Please comment and makes changes if you see fit, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE retain the {{Infobox}} structure. There is a reason Wikipedia users created that template. Please let me know when it is okay to take the sandbox to live. Thanks. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not that you need to ask permission, its that its considered proper to discuss a change that affects large numbers of articles before making it. I have placed them side by side here for comparison. For what its worth I don't mind most of the changes, but absolutely hate the title being outside/above the box. It doesn't match any infobox we use in the hockey project and sticks out like a sore thumb. I would also note that there is often a reason that projects within wikipedia also don't use the {{Infobox}} code. I know we purposefully don't use it on atleast one infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is essentially asking for permission ... and I figured the style would come out in the wash. Anyway, that is besides the point. The title has been moved to the above param and is now inside the Infobox. Is this better? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also added a sample of how the infobox could be used to better represent the team it is giving information on. I am sure someone could come up with a better color scheme, but I still think it looks better than the default blue, or the original, for that matter. I would have spent more time on getting better colors worked out, but it's just a sample, and it's Minnesota, and I am a Badger fan. I also wouldn't be opposed to changing the default color scheme, if someone thinks of a better one. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the new layout looks good, although my one comment would be to keep the tournament results bar at the top as is seen in other hockey season infoboxes. Makes things a little clearer for the reader right off the bat. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 11:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Other than that I think it looks good. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I still prefer the old appearance. The blue-backgrounded labels stand out too much for my tastes, tending to lead the eye away from the important information (that is, the field values). And I also prefer the tournament results at the top. I do appreciate the skinnier layout, however. Powers ^T 14:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a subtle background colour can help with tracking across from the label to the value, in a less visually intrusive way than horizontal lines would. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Subtle, yes. The proposed scheme is not subtle at all. Powers ^T 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

After much work, I have managed to stick the tourney results between the picture and the rest of the box. And after much less work, I changed the default color scheme to a much more subtle gray. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So at what point am I allowed to make the sandbox live? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any major objections so you might as well go ahead. If there are any I am sure BRD will handle it. -DJSasso (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Fenton notability question

I noticed an article has been created for Tom Fenton, who was an emergency back up for the Coyotes, and I was wondering whether or not he actually meets notability standards. He signed a one-day amateur contract and saw no action in the game. Had he played he would fall under WP:NHOCKEY but since he didn't play he doesn't technically meet the criteria. His college career is not notable and the four articles used are all about the same, it's doubtful that anything else will be written about him. I'm not sure if he meets NHOCKEY by being on the bench or if he falls under some other notability standard or should this got to AFD? Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, being on the bench as a goalie doesn't count as playing. HockeyDB for example, does not count him as playing a game. I've prodded. Grsz 11 00:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought but I wanted to be sure so I wasn't wasting peoples time if I misunderstood. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. The kid who had the same experience with the Canucks a couple years ago has an article too, I noticed, that could probably be deleted for the same reason, even though it is fairly well written. Reso lute 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Although, perhaps instead of deletion, "Tom Fenton" should be redirected to 2010–11 Phoenix Coyotes season with a paragraph explaining how his 15 minutes of fame came about. Reso lute 00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I move over some of the information to the Coyotes season, I put it in the Transaction section, since I wasn't sure which one would be most appropriate. I didn't change the original page to a redirect yet, thinking I would give other editors a little more time to respond or to allow for the information to be moved to a different section of the page.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Levesque and Brett Leonhardt are examples of identical situations where players have well written pages. There was previously a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive20#Chris Levesque. I'm going to remove the prod. I think a bit more input than just a prod should be had (ie: an AfD), especially considering the previous discussion and the fact that the issue of "emergency players' notability" is likely to come back up again. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple, reliable, third-party references satisfy the GNG. I've found a number of references that cover him during his college years as well, which makes NOTNEWS a moot point. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a comment for one side or another. But it could be a case of WP:BLP1E even if it does meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be true if he had only ever received coverage for his short backup stint with the Coyotes, but I have coverage of him during his college playing days going back to 2006. He was named Rookie of the Week and Goalie of the Week several times by Atlantic Hockey. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

None of which would normally be enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Also none of those sources are in the article, or weren't when I replied to your comment, don't know if you have added them now. As it stands there is nothing on the article prooving that he meets notability requirements beyond the one event. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He was non-notable before he became a news story, and he remains non-notable after. Reso lute 15:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, multiple, reliable, third-party references serve to satisfy WP:GNG, which is the foundation of the Notability guideline. NHOCKEY is just a counterpart of the GNG, not a replacement for it. And as I've explained, BLP1E doesn't apply because his coverage in reliable, third-party sources extends beyond the single event. Just because YOU only know him for one event doesn't mean others do as well. I'd suggest you both actually read these guidelines before invoking them, or simply repeating "Not-Notable", which seems to fly in the face of the established GNG. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NHOCKEY can replace GNG (though doesn't usually for hockey). Both are only guidelines. Extended notability sub-guidelines in many cases do superscede GNG such as WP:PROF and WP:MUSICBIO. You need extensive coverage in 3rd party reliable sources, not just passing mentions. If the reason they have received widespread coverage is a single event it would still be a one event situation, even if they were locally covered previously. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (outdent) Subsets NEVER replace the General Notability Guideline, although they are independent of other specific subsets. The exact language at GNG is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. The article currently satisfies this requirement. None of the sources provided constitute trivial passing mentions. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually atleast 2 of the 3 initial refs on the page regarding his amateur career are trivial mentions. Secondly, yes subsets often do overrule the GNG. Many of them explicitly state that at the top of them. A portion of NSPORTS even talks about how high school athlete often meet GNG but do not qualify for an article. I would also point you to the wording presumed in the GNG. Not guaranteed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And to quote from GNG ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.". -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How about sending it to AfD and we'll see what happens? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of sending it to AfD because as I said I have no strong opinion one way or the other. If you can write a decent article about him like the two others linked to above then I have no problem with them and usually let sleeping dogs lie. But I suspect if it were to go to Afd it would likely be deleted. (and I say that because we routinely delete major junior players who are nationally covered with 100x the media attention this guy has ever had every couple weeks even though they meet the GNG) I was just pointing out its not as strong a keep as you think it is. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with above comments and cited criteria for notability. Think not in the present but think five or ten years from now. Does anyone remember any historic emergency call-ups who never saw any game action? Croat Canuck Talk 23:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. See WP:N. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks likes its been put up at afd. -DJSasso (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It has, and so far all the arguments for merging/redirecting/deleting are either incorrectly claiming BLP1E (in spite of mainstream coverage of him extending beyond the one event), or else WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFF, or WP:NOREASON. Seems a few people think he's "not notable" and want the article redirected and/or merged, but can't provide any solid rationale for doing so. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

HHOF section in NHL team articles

We've went over this a long time ago (years ago) & perhaps we should re-visit it 'again'. Players inducted into the HHOF, are done so not identified with a single team (unlike in Basebell). Perhaps, we should consider deleting the section from NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am of two minds, some players are identified by fans of course with teams, say Lafleur or Tretiak, so they should be somehow mentioned, maybe. On the other hand, check out Ken Dryden, he is listed as a Leaf that is in the HHOF (or was, I have not checked in ages) as he was the president of the team. So, on balance, I think it ought to be taken out I guess. Thank you for reading my thought process..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Or how the Canucks have (had? I don't visit that page ever) WHL Canucks like Andy Bathgate, Gump Worsley, etc listed. That said, so long as they played for the NHL team, I have no problem listing them with that team. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why any player who was in the hall who played for the team can't be listed. Yes, they aren't most identified with that team, but they did play for it. Ken Dryden I am not sure I would include since he didn't play for the team (and he isn't listed we had removed him previously), but anyone who played for teams should be listed. There is no reason why they shouldn't be, and we definitely should not be removing the section entirely. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Though the current version of the Baseball Hall of Fame's web site only permits searching based on "primary team" (with some curious data in there—Dick Williams's primary team is shown as the Expos, although he did manage the Expos for longer than any other team, it is surely not the team where he "made his most indelible mark"), it used to allow searching based on any team associated with the inductee (so, for example, Frank Robinson would show up in a search for the Expos, although he was inducted prior to his managing the team). The computers at the Hall also used to do the same (don't know if that has been changed). Since the overall contributions of a person to all teams are part of the determination of a Hall of Famer, I think it is appropriate to list persons with all of their associated teams. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave any one who player for the team on the team pages. After Igor Larionov was elected to the HHOF the Miami Herald ran a story about it noting him as the first Panther to receive such an honor, despite the fact he only played 26 games for Florida. So when guys are elected it can be notable to all of the teams they played for.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with GoodDay's proposal - Individual team's are justifiably proud when one of its former members is inducted into a Hall of Fame. To exclude acknowledgement of such notable players would be a disservice to the team's article. Dolovis (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As always, this is a case where prose is superior to a bare list. It is naturally tough to do with the original six teams, but for the rest, writing paragraphs puts these things in context. Reso lute 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Robbie Ftorek

In the wake of John MacLean (ice hockey)'s firing, I was looking at some other related articles. I noticed that the article for Robbie Ftorek is rated stub class. It surely more than that. I suggest it be reclassified. Trb333 (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I reassessed to a start, but with out more references I don't think it rates any higher. Also I rearranged some of the sections, including an attempt to put the two stats table next to each other. It looks good on my screen but could someone check to make sure that these are coming out properly? Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The stats tables don't look good side by side on my monitor, and I think it's fine to have them organized vertically. I think that's the case in articles of other people who were players and then coaches. Maybe I'll try to look for some references for Ftorek. Trb333 (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Montreal CWHL

Hello Everybody, the Page Montreal Stars: I make additionnal informations + new roster for season 2010-2011+ new links. Maybe next week, one photography with my camera compact HP R717. Enjoy --Geneviève (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Swiss NLA individual stats

Hello!

I'm having trouble finding in-season stats for players of the Swiss National League A, especially goaltenders. The league's site (German, French) does not seem to have a statistics menu, however some player profiles are accessible from the top right corner, such as this one.

There is especially trouble with statistics provided by an IP (diff) on Cristobal Huet's page. The stats are consistent with what we find on the Fribourg club's webpage with a 92.7% saves percentage after 27 games, but this page on the official website, without showing full GK stats, gives him 90.78% after 28 games, which does not match the previous stat (there would be a gap of 20 goals and no saves in a single game).

What's your opinion? Does a better statistics engine exist? Place Clichy (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Eurohockey.net is usually the best place for european hockey stats. That being said, we don't update player pages with current season stats (for reasons such as this), so you can just remove them anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree to remove them until the season is finished. However, do you have an idea on how to find current goalie stats for the ongoing season, on the league's site or elsewhere? Place Clichy (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Like was already mentioned, Eurohockey.net or Eliteprospects.com are good. I prefer the latter as it goes more in depth for players and has a cleaner look. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

National Women's Hockey League

Hello Everybody, I worked on this page NWHL. I have try my best because the league does not exist since 2008. I removed the banner outdated. It is correct or not? thank --Geneviève (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarify section of WP:NHOCKEY

Section in question (emphasis mine):

"Achieved preeminent honours (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 those of the Canadian 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);"

Its come up a couple of times recently as to what major award means in this sentence. In the past I recall it it being considered the equivalents of the big 3 in the NHL. ie Norris, Vezina, Hart. For example a in a number of afds on college players the Hobey Baker has been considered the only real award (other than things like all american which is mentioned elsewhere in the sentence) to meet this criteria and things like scholastic player of the year were not considered major. So I am seeking opinions on a new fresh consensus on what major means. And if there is another wording we can use to make it more clear and less open to ambiguity, such as listing the types of awards. (generically speaking). -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Awards from a professional hockey league would automatically fit the major awards criteria. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, but this sentence applies to both amateur and pro. What I am getting at is, is every award given out by every league considered major. Or does major only mean the top awards. For example the WHL, OHL, QMJHL has given out scholastic player awards for players that have good grades. Does winning such an award guarantee notability. In the past in afd's it has shown to not do so. What I am trying to do is see if we have a consensus on major award meaning every award a league gives out or if only certain awards count and if only certain awards count, which types. -DJSasso (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

An award for players with good grades, isn't truly a hockey award, IMHO. Such awards should be considered non-notable. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was told best defensive defenseman of the CCHA (not even the NCAA as a whole) was a "major award". I'm inclined to strongly disagree with that assessment. Grsz 11 01:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, its some of those edits that have caused me to seek a current consensus since that individual has taken a more liberal view than I believe had been intended when this was written and what has historically been the case at afd etc. I would agree with your assessment that that award is not a major award. -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DJ asked if I wanted to chime in, seeing as I'm the original author of the criteria, and his impression matches my intent: trophies awarded to league MVPs, defensemen of the year, goaltender of the year, and that's that. No sportsmanship trophies, no charitable contributions trophies, no plus-minus leader, none of that. I'm certainly willing to footnote it, the same way that the footy Project has a separate page listing all the "fully professional" national leagues in soccer, which is a whole bunch. What I wanted to do was set apart the Joe Burtons, Rudy Filions and Glen Ramsays of the world - whom I certainly believe to be notable - from lesser lights and one-season wonders. RGTraynor 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this project should have the same type of list for the "fully professional" leagues that a player should have played for to establish notability. Eliminates the gray area in that portion of the discussion. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's change the wording as follows: replace "won a major award given by the league" by "won the league's Most Valuable Player award" - the way I see it, someone winning defenseman or goalie of the year honors will almost always be named a First Team All-Star, which already is covered. Any takers? RGTraynor 01:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that and would agree with that. -DJSasso (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say a MVP would likely also make the all-star team. I would say "was leading scorer for a season, won MVP or voted best player at a position (forward, d-man, goaltender), or voted to the first team all-star team, for either the regular or post season.". Is a bit more long winded, but it accomplishes what we've thought in the past. Patken4 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, an MVP is a shoo-in for some all-star honor, so it'd be redundant. I like the explicit mention of voted best at a position, though wonder if the wording could be tightened. I think we should include scoring awards (like the Richard or the Ross). (A plus-minus award is a similar statistical leader award, but not so notable. I'll leave it up to others' input as to whether to include it.)oknazevad (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

SOME all-star honor, more often than not. First team? Not always. Bobby Clarke's first Hart, Phil Esposito was the First Team All-Star center. Gretzky's first MVP, Marcel Dionne was the First Team All-Star center; his last one, Mario Lemieux was. I'm against scoring awards. First off, I really wrote the bar high enough to mean "top ten all-time scorer," rather than "led the league one year." Long-winded = loopholes, and then you're back to people claiming - oh, for instance - that the "best defensive defenseman" really does count as the "best player at a position." Let's keep it short and simple. RGTraynor 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that long-winded means loopholes. I think if a specific intent is desired, it should be expressed as clearly as possible—let's say what we mean, and not just hint at it. Perhaps if someone could help provide a survey of official league awards that are handed out, so we can have an idea of the possibilities, and then choose exactly which award categories are being targeted? Isaac Lin (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Even as a fan of college hockey, I'm reluctant to say that even the MVP of the CCHA or Atlantic Hockey ought to be automatically considered notable enough for an article, let alone all six members of the first team all-star roster. Powers ^T 13:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For college, I would say the All-American team and Hobey Baker Award, as well as best goalie and defenseman for the NCAA as a whole. On a league scale, maybe Hockey East MVP? Grsz 11 15:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why stop at Hockey East? Some would say the WCHA is a better league. The CCHA is pretty good too, why not include them? (In all seriousness) Including the Hockey East POY, just because it's the Hockey East is akin to saying "We should only have articles about the AFC POY, because they are clearly better than the NFC, this year," when talking about the NFL. It doesn't make sense to single out one league, especially when, over their entire history, they're about even. I would be inclined to stick with All Americans, and the Hobey winner. A good question would be what's the lower cut off on notability of All American teams (meaning anyone with an Internet connection can publish an All American team, so which ones are notable)? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't pick one D1 league and not use all. Reso lute 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with RGTraynor's proposal - A “major award” is any league-given award (i.e. not a team award) that is presented annually (not weekly or monthly) to a hockey player who is a member of the such league. When a specific person is singled out to receive such a league-wide honour, it is safe to presume that there will be reliable independent sources to justify a stand-alone article for such player. The purpose of using a “major award” towards a presumption of notability is very useful because when a hockey player is named for such an award it can be pretty much guaranteed that one will be able to locate the sources required by Wikipedia:Verifiability to support notability (as demonstrated by my quick search for references in support of the John McFarland (ice hockey) article. To ignore reliable independent sources for major junior hockey players is summed up with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dolovis (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources? That's the issue. Obviously if there is substantial coverage to pass GNG, then a major award is not necessary. However, you've created a number of articles for players based simply on winning some award, without any evidence of media coverage. Grsz 11 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, as I mentioned in one of the afd's he says if it meets NHOCKEY you don't have to source it. Which is of course incorrect. You still need to have sources for all of them. And if they don't have them then they are valid to be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Not remotely. That was not my intent when I drafted that phrasing, that was not the consensus when that phrasing was approved, and that perverts the very meaning of the world "major" when you claim that EVERY annual award a league gives out must be "major." Hence my new proposal, because it's plain that no matter how clearly "award" is defined, someone will claim it means something else entirely. RGTraynor 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If the Official NHL Guide and Record Book deems the award notable enough to mention with the players name in that publication, then that is an excellent indication that the award is significant in the world of hockey, and should, therefore be considered by the Wikipedia ice hockey project a "major award". Dolovis (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your POV is Exhibit A as to why the wording should be changed. RGTraynor 14:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dolovis, if I'm understanding you correctly, a fellow who wins an award in one of the local hockey leagues in my area, should get a Wikipedia article -with a source of his winning, from a local newspaper. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. My proposal only applies to major junior leagues such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league [er WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't go any lower the CHL, as far as North American hockey is concerned. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And I have concerns about some of the lower European leagues, but that is for another discussion. Let's stay focused on the Junior and College notability criteria for now. Dolovis (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(Off-topic, humorous comment)All this talk of "major awards" during this time of the year. Anyone else picturing leg lamps with fishnet stockings?oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we should specifically state awards and be done with it. For example, Hobey Baker, Red Tilson, Four Broncos, Michel Briere, Stafford Smythe, and MVP at World Juniors. Am I missing any? Patken4 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with doing that, its how soccer basically does their list of leagues. But it would be a bit of work to create an entire list. We have to remember leagues like the KHL, SEL, DEL etc. Because it would apply to those leagues as well. Generally I think the best idea is limit it to MVP as RGTraynor suggested and leave everyone else to GNG. Makes it pretty straight forward. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no issue with the major professional leagues because a player is notable with just one game played. The minor professional leagues are also not an issue, as any major/annual league award will give notability if player does not yet have 100 games. The only issue is for the major junior and college leagues, and my proposal of using an objective standard such as the NHL Guide is reasonable. Subjective standards leave too much wiggle room (i.e. room for endless arguments), and those arguments are best left for WP:GNG. And the more we are able to limit such arguments by employing broad objective standards, will also limit such GNG arguments; which will give all of us more time to do useful editing work on articles. Dolovis (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"as any major/annual league award will give notability if player does not yet have 100 games" <- Well thats sort of the point, we are trying to determine what is a major league award. This applies to all minor leagues/junior leagues/euro minor leagues. So that it leaves out the wiggle room as you say. The purpose of these guidelines are to stop the spread of one line stubs on borderline notable people which is why we raised the limit from just people played pro to having to have played 100 games or winning a major award. We are trying to separate the cream of the crop from the also rans. Things like giving articles to anyone on an award in the NHL guide is an issue because having won an award listed in the NHL guide does not create a high probability that a player has had major media coverage on them. This is why prior to your objection, we always have taken that line to mean the MVP of the league because in the lower leagues and amateur leagues players even if they win an award still don't get national media attention, however, the MVP is more likely to than say scholastic player of the year or most gentlemanly player. Perhaps baseball has it right, where only people who have played in the MLB get articles and anyone else below has to have strong GNG coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There you go again saying "we" again (... we always have taken that line...). Please speak for yourself. If others agree with you they will speak up, but presenting your arguments as though you speak for the hockey project is innacurate and just really annoying. Dolovis (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as North American hockey is concerned, we shouldn't count any awards from leagues ranked below the CHL. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the NCAA is below the CHL and the Hobey Baker should definitely count. Patken4 (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Division III might be below CHL but D-I isn't. The top D-I players are AHL-level or even low-NHL-level talent. Lots of NCAA players go to the ECHL. Powers ^T 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option is to just take the award section out completely, remove it from being subjective and require those people to meet GNG instead. Which shouldn't be too hard to do if they won a major award. This section affects very few players. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option is to just leave it the way it is now without any changes. The John McFarland AfD and Alex Galchenyuk afD discussions are strong evidence that WP:NHOCKEY works just fine the way it is. That guideline was well debated, and the wording was agreed to by all involved. This knee-jerk discussion is much ado about nothing. Articles will continue to be created, prodded, discussed, and kept or deleted, as decided and required, and the meaning of WP:NHOCKEY will continue to be clarified as a result of the process already in place. Dolovis (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Another clarification request

Could we get a clarification for point 1: "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" Does "such as" mean just these, or do we mean every top professional league, to include all Top-level ice hockey leagues of Europe. For example, association football just specifies "fully professional" which includes many minor leagues. Point 2 is fine for minor leagues, but I think we could use clarification whether or not we accept every top professional league. Grsz 11 04:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Grsz 11 04:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested to read the Tom Kühnhackl AfD where I tried to get some clarification on that point for the Euro leagues. Dolovis (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I knew there was something that made me think about this. That AfD would be it. So the question we have to answer is if just the NHL, KHL, SEL, and SM-liiga, or are other leagues such as the DEL, the Belarusian Extraleague, etc. Grsz 11 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Western Women's Hockey League

Hello Everybody, same for this page, I worked and update but I have a Technique problem with second reference. It is cut on 2 paragraphs...I probably made an error. If a person can help me. Thank you --Geneviève (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I found now my error, thank --Geneviève (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghost towns

WP:TPF & particularly WP:PPF, have sorta been filled up with tumble weeds lately. Both are no longer the places of heavy traffic. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The never have been, they are just places that lay out the formatting. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Georges Vézina on Main Page Dec 31

Just a heads up that Georges Vézina will be on the Main Page on the 31st. If I could get a bit of help keeping an eye on it for the day to keep it clean (though I doubt anyone is going to attack an article about a goalie from 100 years ago), that would be great. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do have an idea for a certain change to the article, but I'll keep that quiet. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected a couple of errors in his playing career as he was listed as allowing a goal in his last game which according to nhl.com and hockeydb.com is incorrect, and the 1916-17 season was listed as being NHL instead of the proper NHA -Pparazorback (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

We should be having a vacation from having to patrol List of NHL statistical leaders for a while. I finally got tired of the Osgood reverts and asked for protection and we have ip edit protection until about 11 days before the season ends. What part of PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE STATISTICS FROM THE 2010–11 NHL SEASON. THEY WILL BE REVERTED. do these surf-by ip editors not understand? -Pparazorback (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of people thinking they get a cookie for being the first to make an edit. Its bound to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection, would be the only solution. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't do it since they are good faith edits. Just have to live with it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I had to take the article off my watchlist months ago. It darn near had me using obscene comments in my 'edit summaries'. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it looks like another admin decided it would be ok. So its protected now. :) -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I asked for the protection and got it until March 30th (3 months). By then hopefully most of the IP edits will be actual real end-of-season updates. -Pparazorback (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Women's Hockey League CWHL

Hello Everybody, It will be an enjoyment for me to contribute Women's Hockey in WikiProject Ice Hockey. Now I have update 4 pages: 2010–11 CWHL season, Canadian Women's Hockey League, 2010–11 Boston Blades season and Boston Blades. I want to update all the pages of the teams CWHL. Can be also to update the pages of the teams in the other women league: the WWHL. But I know less this league.... If I make errors, welcome for your opinions and your advice. Kiss and Enjoy for 2011 --Geneviève (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dale Mitchell

The AfD for Dale Mitchell has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. The input of WikiProject Ice Hockey members would be helpful. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Riot

There's a dispute over a quote in this article that's verging on an edit war, and I'd be interested in comments and input on the talk page there. RGTraynor 03:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Over 50 yrs latter & the riot still has reverbaration. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)