Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive48

WP:NHOCKEY

I have re-opened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) regarding precisely what we mean when we say "major award" (and don't worry, I referenced the old discussion). Please feel free to drop by and offer your thoughts. Not looking for anything revolutionary here, just seeking clarification, or better wording, or something.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 04:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerry D'Amigo

More eyes are needed on the Jerry D'Amigo article. User:Everyone Dies In the End is edit waring to include the National Team infobox tag which indicates that D'Amigo has played on the United States men's national ice hockey team. The fact is that D'Amigo has only played with the junior national team, and my understanding is that the National Team tag is used only for players who have played with the Senior Men's National Team in an international tournament. Dolovis (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted him because you are right the last discussion never came to a conclusion to add junior teams to the mix. However he only made one edit, please try to have a little good faith and not declare he is edit warring when he only made one edit. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Marcel Hudima

There is an AFD discussion on Marcel Hudima that was started a couple of days ago. Two things to note here. First off, it appears the majority of the edits on the article is being done by User talk:Marcel Hudima which seems to indicate a WP:COI. Furthermore, the same user removed the AFD template from the page, which I just restored and posted on his talk page to allow the discussion to go its course. Just wanted to make the project aware of this. -Pparazorback (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably just a fan, happens fairly regularly that fans name themselves after players or teams. Will keep an eye on it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible?

First off I feel pathetic that I have started the last three sections on this page, sorry.. Now on to my real question do you think there can or ever will be a category with the title of something along the lines of "Ice hockey articles missing career statistics"? Could it be added? It could be something we add to the template on the talk page of hockey articles if they are missing stats and then others or yourself could go back and add them later. Detredwings1139 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking questions is always better than not asking questions... Personally I think it would be better for people to go through and add the statistics themselves rather than just template an article and walk away. I often work on old-time Hall of Famers, and add the tables when I encounter an article in need. Resolute 03:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I mean you've been around longer than me so I assume you would know better. I was just looking for more of the sake of needing something to do and then being able to go to the list. Thanks for cropping that photo by the way. Detredwings1139 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Never assume I know better.  ;) I'm only speaking from personal opinion, and not any position of authority. I would think someone with scripting ability could provide a rough list, but I am not sure how difficult that would be, or who would consider doing it. Also, there are (unfortunately) a lot of cleanup projects to do at present. Resolute 03:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha, this is true. Too bad I don't even really know how to go about doing those. I've pretty much just been learning as I go along. Like with that list I wouldn't even know where to start or what to do. Detredwings1139 (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Detredwings1139 that a category to show which articles are missing stats would be helpful. It can be very time consuming to click through articles looking for those that are missing stats (I know because I have done it), and by the time the editor is ready to work he is already out of time and patience. When looking for things to do, such a category list would provide a useful focus for helpful-minded editors. Dolovis (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost exactly my thought process. Sometimes I just want to simply add to an article and that is something helpful but not too time consuming to add but it often takes me a while to navigate through to find an article that is actually missing stats. Detredwings1139 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody else? Detredwings1139 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I could add it into the template like we have needs-infobox and needs-photo which will place it into a category. Once I am done changing over the taskforce parameters I can look into adding that in. The only issue is that most pages are always in need of stats since we don't update mid-season so it could get a bit overused, but we can watch for that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Just add needs-stats=yes to the project template. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks so much. Hopefully it doesn't get too overused. Detredwings1139 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Russell Bowie

Hi everyone,

Working on fr:Russell Bowie, I used a lot of pages about Russell Bowie, ECAHA and others. I have some question.

• on Russell Bowie, in 1907-1908, it's written that he scored 31 goals
• on 1907–08 ECAHA season, he scored 28 goals (written in the text and in the table of leading scorers).

I've got also a problem with the total of goals. On wp, in the statistics, it's written that he scored 238 goals but in Total Hockey: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Hockey League, it's written (p.1742) that he scored 234 of them (same thing in the text of the article). The same problem is on Legendsofhockey: if we do the total of the goals that he scored, we reach 239 goals (1 more goal in 1905) but in the article, it's written 234.

Does some one know where is the truth ? Thanks for your help.

--TaraO (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC) (sorry for my english ...)

I expect that 31 goals is correct. I used the 28 goals from 'trail of the stanley cup' but both the hall of fame and the society for ice hockey research state 31 goals for bowie for the season and I trust them more. I'll update the ecaha article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Championship navboxes

A heads up – Lnhhm has made many NHL championship navboxes. I'll leave it up to you to decide if they should stay or not, and what to tell this editor. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted as recreations of templates that have been deleted multiple times via tfd. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Notice

It is about that time of year. The new season is about to start shortly, as such the Edit Notice for the List of NHL Statistics needs to be updated to support the new year. An Admin needs to update the Template:Editnotices/Page/List of NHL statistical leaders page to correctly be updated for the 2011-12 season. -Pparazorback (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! Resolute 22:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -Pparazorback (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexei Ivanov

Alexei Ivanov (ice hockey b. 1985) has been moved to Alexei Vladimirovich Ivanov. Will somebody please put this right as I am not permitted to do so myself. Dolovis (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Likewise, Alexei Ivanov (ice hockey) has been moved to Alexei Sergeyevich Ivanov, it should properly be moved to Alexei Ivanov (ice hockey b. 1988). Dolovis (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We use middle names prior to resorting to bracketed disambiguators with birth dates. Whoever moved them moved them to the right location. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That said, I am not sure this entirely resolves the dab issue, since there apparently is also a soccer player named Aleksei Vladimirovich Ivanov. Rlendog (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is true, though it is spelled different so the hat note probably suffices there. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexei Ivanov (disambiguation)? Resolute 23:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

BOLD and done. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with moving these articles to titles including the alleged middle names it does not follow the policy of Verifiability or Common names. The common standard for disambiguating ice hockey players is to use birth years, so I do not understand why we would want to change that very workable practice now. Dolovis (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We aren't changing it. The order we go in is Common Name -> Common Name (ice hockey) -> Common Middle Name -> Common Name (ice hockey b. date) -> Common Name (ice hockey position). It has been this way for years. Nothing is being changed. Once you have to have disambiguation nothing is common anymore anyways, that is the whole point of disambiguation, to stop it from being the common name that is conflicting with another person. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, while we might have a preferred disambiguation format, it does not exist exclusive of other formats. In this case, there is also a specific guideline for Russians. For my part, I think one is as good as another in this situation, and I think the current format is just fine. If you have a concern about verifiability, please talk to the editor who made the moves. Resolute 00:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Pulford

Bonjour !

I've another question about Harvey Pulford and 1903–04 Ottawa Hockey Club season.

• Pulford had scored 1 goal in Stanley Cup match in 1904
• in 1903–04 Ottawa Hockey Club season, it's written that he scored 2 goals vs. Toronto (February 23, 1904) and 2 others the February 25, 1904. There is one reference for each game but can't find a word about the game in the second reference ?

thank's for the help !! --TaraO (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the game summaries for the two matches from Trail of the Stanley Cup. The goal scorers for Ottawa in the February 23rd game were Pulford, Frank McGee (3), Alf Smith and Suddy Gilmour. Pulford was injured at some point in the game on the 25th (and didn't appear in the following March 2nd match against the Wanderers) and didn't factor into the scoring; the goal scorers for the Silver Seven were Art Moore, Harry Westwick, McGee (5), Smith (2) and Gilmour (2).  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 in ice hockey

Shouldn't there be a 2011 in ice hockey? Canadian news sources have been calling the worst year in hockey after the crash, what with the suicides and deaths this summer, the crash.

This might be useful in referencing disaster management for the NHL after the KHL crash.[1]

65.94.77.134 (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember the Titans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So an interesting team lineage issue just cropped up: The Trenton Titans were an ECHL team beginning in 1999. A few years ago the New Jersey Devils bought the team and renamed them the Trenton Devils. NJD gave on them and suspended operations this offseason, however the ECHL just announced that the "Trenton Titans" will be playing this upcoming season (complete with original branding). Is this a new team? Should articles be broken up? I personally think the should be 3 separate articles. Opinions? TerminalPreppie (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• ECHL says "new membership", ie new team: [2] TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Same team, they only suspended operations and then changed their name. We have a number of teams who have changed their name and then eventually went back to their original name. The only difference is that this team suspended operations for awhile. We don't separate for name changes and since they resumed operations in the same city they haven't moved which is what usually triggers us to make a split. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Although if they are calling it a new membership perhaps it is a new team. How did the last version end? Was it literally called a suspension of operations? If it was then I would just call the fact they call it new membership a PR spin and its really the same team. Since the Trenton Devils only ceased operations this July and this new team was announced in the same month its hard to think they are different franchises but I guess we will have to wait and get more information on the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the tricky part - the ECHL pulled the original press release, but it can still be found here, where they say the franchise operations were suspended. This article talks about franchise operations being suspended. However, the ECHL's press release announcing the Titans says that it was a new membership application and that the old membership was turned into the league. So is it a new franchise, or the same one rebranded again?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think in general, the majority of our hockey articles go like this:

• Same franchise, new ownership = one article
• Same franchise, new name = one article (Toronto St. Patricks being a notable exception, and one that probably should be merged back into Toronto Maple Leafs.)
• Same franchise, new city = new article
• Same city, new franchise = new article

If the new Trenton Titans is a separate franchise, I personally would create a new article, and rename the old Trenton Titans (1999–2011). However, if the suspended team was reactivated, use the existing. Resolute 19:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that splitting the article (unless someone has plans to heavily expand the original Titans and Devils portions) will basically leave us with two stubs. Cincinnati Cyclones (despite the infobox being for the most recent franchise) covers all three teams with that name—original ECHL, IHL, and new ECHL. I think it does a fairly decent job. Of course, the first Cyclones team is now the Stockton Thunder...why can't these guys just leave franchises where they are?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't have any information regarding this point, isn't it significant whether or not the new team recognizes the old teams records?

On the ECHL website while viewing next season's Titans roster changing to last season the name automatically changes to Devils as if it is the same franchise. For me this indicates the ECHL views it as the same franchise (in the same city with only new owners and a new name) and therefore doesn't merit a new article. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The ECHL also never took Trenton off the website...just set it to an ECHL logo and blanked all the info until the Titans were announced. The only problem is that that's pretty much circumstantial—could just be that whoever up at the league offices updates the thing is lazy and didn't want to delete and then create a new team. I'm holding out to see if I can find a RS that indicates that the Titans are keeping the Devils/Titans history.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please bear with me and pardon some of the speculation that crops up below.

• So it looks like the "new" Titans are in fact a new franchise. The Devils turned in the old franchise and the new owners were issued a new one. So that points to them being different and having different articles.
• However, this was most likely to allow the new owners to start without having to be responsible for the debt accrued by the Devils' management of the team (the league absorbs the debt instead). I'd say this was part of the deal the ECHL had to make to get a team up and running in Trenton for the 2011–12 season.
• Additionally, the "new" Titans are admittedly a resurrection of the "old" ones, down to the logo and all. They're taking over the Devils' city, their spot in the Atlantic Division, their schedule, and even some of their players. It remains to be seen if they will inherit the franchise history (i.e. will Scott Bertoli's number 19 still be hanging from the rafters). It would be in their best interests PR-wise to do so. So that would seem to be justification for keeping them in one article.

It appears to me that the ECHL made the necessary deal to keep a team in Trenton, such that the "new" Titans are de jure a different franchise but de facto an extension of the old one. In that case, would it be appropriate to keep them in one article or should they be split?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 04:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If they honour the records then I would consider it the same franchise because the continuous history is the reason we don't split teams with name changes and this team would still technically have the continuous history, but it might not be until the season starts that we can see that. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have references for inheriting player contracts? That to me, would say its the same franchise. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in this article. It's not a great source per se because all it says is that Scott Bertoli "expects the team to maintain a handful of players that were a part of the Devils’ system." And this article, from The Times of Trenton, says the "Trenton Titans, the capital city’s minor league hockey team from 1999 to 2007, will return to the ice this fall after a four-year absence." It would seem that this intends to be a continuation of that franchise.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 15:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't necessary say they RETAINED any contracts. A lot of new franchises will go out an sign a couple free agent fan favorites, just to have some familar faces. I think the next paragraph is more telling: But with many ECHL players signing European contracts over the summer, putting together a competitive roster on such short notice — the Titans’ first game is October 14 — will not be easy. The first step will be to find a coach. Bertoli said he and Lisk have already reached out to some options hoping to speed along that process.. That's sounds like they currently have NO ROSTER. TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but I think the most telling indication will be if they retain the team history, as per DJSasso above. I don't think it makes sense to split the page on a business technicality if they plan on retaining the team history and records. That's why I'd prefer to wait.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been half watching all of this in the local papers all summer long. Just be careful about creating original research here. It doesn't really matter what the management and the league does, in terms of legalistic and accounting tricks and maneuvers. It looks as though The Trentonian is buying the "new team" line, so I'd say that it doesn't really matter what the (quite obvious, such as retaining most of their players) facts are that belie that position. The sources say that it's a new team, so it is. the more subtle reality of the situation can be covered in depth within the article content, if it's actually important (which I'd say that it is).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, and after re-reading Trenton Titans minor league hockey team to be revived at Sun National Bank Center, I tend to think that the Devil's ownership of the team ought to be it's own article (mentioned and summarized in the Titans article), while the old team and the revived team should continue to use the Titans article. I mean, Blue Line Sports LLC seems to be taking the stance that they're going back to the old team, so... ?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now it looks like the new Titans franchise intends to keep the old Titans history. The issue is whether or not they also intend to honor the Devils history by maintaining their records. It appears at the moment that they are treating this as a "rebirth" of the old franchise, which is a little wonky as the Devils honored the original Titans history as well. But if they're going to ignore the Devils history, then I say it should definitely be split out.

And I agree about skirting the borders of original research. The problem is that (in classic ECHL fashion) all the published information surrounding the change has been very vague ("Devils are gone! Titans are here! Who needs specifics!"). That's why I've been hesitant to move.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's a reliable source that we can base much other than stats on, but Eliteprospects is treating the team as a continuation of the old one.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question, and I'm not personally going to argue with going in any direction (or none at all) at this point. If I were to make the decision all on my own here, I'd just leave everything as is for now and come back to it sometime in mid-October. I know that's kind of a crappy answer, but... well, you mentioned "the typical ECHL fashion" yourself, which seems to be something that everyone involved realizes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it does make the most sense to wait. Lacking better information, holding to the status quo is rarely a bad decision. Resolute 00:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the article should be like the Oklahoma City Blazers article. The article starts about the most recent franchise, the second incarnation of the Blazers first in the first section, and then the second section is about the original franchise, the original Blazers. The Tulsa Oilers article has a similarly like the Blazers article. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I posed the question to the Titans PR folks, and their reply follows (and yes, I know that's OR and we can't use it in the article, but they indicate that it should be sourced by the ECHL—if no one else—shortly so it may become useful when that occurs):

As you will see in the upcoming ECHL Media Guide, the re-established Titans are retaining all records of the franchise that began in 1999-2000. Compare it to the re-established NFL Cleveland Browns retaining similar franchise marks.

Now, this of course isn't really a clear answer (and I've asked for clarification that hopefully will also be supplied in the promised media guide) as "all records of the franchise" could easily include the time as the Devils. However, given the Browns analogy I'm relatively certain that their intent is to retain the "old" Titans history and not the Devils. I'll keep tracking on this to see what comes out of it.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If the new Titans will not take the Trenton Devils records, than both the old titans and the new titans will be considered the same franchise and the devils a separate franchise. I do hope the Browns way works but I don't think it will since on the Trenton Devils website which is still up and running says they were formally the titans. This is not the first time this happened to a hockey team. The Hamilton Bulldogs of the AHL. The Bulldogs were founded in 1996 but, the franchise was founded in Nova Scotia in 1984. The franchise was in jeopardy of moving in 2002. The oilers (the bulldogs were affiliated with the oilers at the time) wanted to move them to Toronto. New owners purchased the team and the canadiens ahl team from quebec and relocated them to Hamilton joining the two franchises together for the 2002-03 season. After that season the oilers ahl franchise relocated them to Toronto and the canadiens ahl franchise remained in Hamilton as the bulldogs and were considered automatically the same Bulldogs franchise that was founded in 1996 that moved from Nova Scotia after the 1995-96 season. I also read the history of the franchise on the team's website and said that the original team didn't relocate to Toronto. It only said that the team affiliated with the canadiens for that season and continued to be an oilers affiliate for that season too. After the season was over, it said that the oilers moved their affiliation to Toronto. The Bulldogs continued there affiliation with the canadiens from the 2003-04 season to present. This could happen again with the titans except there will be no relocations. The ECHL should transfer the Trenton Devils records to the new Titans which would automatically considered the new Titans the same Trenton Devils franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hersheybearsfan (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the bulldogs story was from HersheyBearsFanHersheybearsfan (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification from the team: "New Titans will maintain the history of both the original Titans and the four Devils years." So if we get a source (such as the promised media guide) that corroborates this, should we keep one article?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 14:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes leave it as is since they are maintaining history. And when we have a source such as the media guide then you can put it in the article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

When does the ECHL media guide come out? Hersheybearsfan (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not until late September. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in time before the season starts. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the league, it goes to print in September and is available for purchase the first or second week of October. So yes, right at the beginning of the season. Figures.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the new ownership will not consider the current franchise a new franchise. The new ownership will probably automatically considered the franchise to be the same continuing franchise that was founded as titans in 1999, renamed devils in 2007, renamed back to titans in 2011. I found a source that said that the team will keep the records of the old titans and the devils. This source is on facebook. This facebook page is the official titans facebook page. For anyone to see it, you have to go to the titans website (www.trentontitanshockey.com) and click on the facebook page link. You don’t have to become a fan. Scroll down to see this post very slowly and read carefully. You will find a post that somebody wrote that regards about the old titans and devils records. The team answered this question. The answer was that they will retain the old titans and devils records. In conclusion, the titans article will continue to be one article and possibly the article should say that it is the same old continuing franchise that was formally known as the Trenton Devils, just like how the Cleveland Browns, San Jose Earthquakes and Hamilton Bulldogs articles are written. If there needs to be two separate articles then, well I can be cool with that. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that team history defines what type of franchise it is and that business records and debt records don't define the fate of this franchise. We have to wait and see how the team writes it's own history when they launch their fully new website with a history page. For now it will be regarded that this franchise is the same old continuing franchise that was founded in 1999. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Titans traded one of their players already who played with the Trenton Devils last season to Greenville. This is very odd. I think the Titans have a handful of players who played the Trenton Devils over the past four seasons. I think the Titans are already pursing to be considered the same Trenton Devils franchise. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

From the press release: "Hayes was one of the players protected to the Trenton franchise."

Based on that wording, it looks like the Titans inherited the Devils' list of players on their season-ending roster to whom they had extended qualifying offers.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, thats what happened. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed something that the ECHL does that other pro hockey leagues don't and will never do. They use the word membership alot when a team relocates to a different city, when a team is renamed, and when there is a new team entering the league. This membership thing really makes me mad. For example, sometimes the league calls the Stockton Thunder the Stockton Thunder membership. The word membership confuses people like me. We can't even tell if it's a new or old team, if the article is written like that Trenton Titans article on the league's website. The ECHL must stop using this word. If it's an old team, say it's an old team. If it's a new team, say it's a new team. If it's an expansion team, say it's an expansion team. The league also uses the term "expansion membership" for a new expansion team entering the league which makes me even more mad. A hockey team is more than just a so called membership. Any hockey team should be treated like a team that wants to win, that attracts good quality amount of fans, tries to sell season tickets at affordable prices, and tries to build a good loyal fanbase. That's what a hockey team should be treated like instead of being treated as just a so called membership. Also, both the Trenton Titans and Trenton Devils are refered to as the Trenton Membership together which is even more confusing. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that the ECHL could be a little more forthcoming in their press releases when it comes to franchise dealings, I don't think they're trying to be intentionally confusing or insulting. The term "membership" just refers to the relationship between the individual hockey team/club and the league. If a team wants to join a league, the ownership group literally has to fill out a membership application. It's a technical term, nothing more. The PHPA also commonly refers to ECHL and AHL teams as "member clubs."  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, a team obviously has to fill out an application in order for them to join a league, but the problem is that AHL and also the Central Hockey League don't say that they filled out a membership application, they just say simply that they joined the league. I like the term member club better than membership. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where there is a problem, except in so far as you're manufacturing one. First off, the ECHL can use whatever nomenclature it damn wants, and it's not going to ask our permission to do so just to make it easier for us to attach labels to things. (For one thing, if it did, we would have put that farcical "AA" nonsense to rest years ago.)

Secondly, life in the minors is like that - there are only three teams in the minor leagues with as much as 20 years without a city, nickname and/or franchise change. Colors change. Affiliations change. Nicknames change. Teams leave leagues and then come back again. Teams leave cities and other franchises immediately come into the new market, sometimes adopting the name of the old team. This is why we attach dates to articles.

Confusing? Yes, it sometimes is. But with these "membership" redirects you're inventing, what's your goal? I can't see any point or purpose to it.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  05:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This business with ECHL "memberships"

I just tagged redirect pages for 9 current and former ECHL team pages for speedy deletion under R3 (names consisting of "Victoria Salmon Kings membership," "Trenton Devils Membership," "Chicago membership," et c.. For the list, see here). Yesterday I had to go through those same articles to remove manually entered header text like this: "Victoria Salmon Kings membership" redirects here. Today I turn around and now there are edits (like this one) being made to these articles regarding the ECHL's use of the term "membership" as an alternate name or nickname for the teams in question.

Can we just put this to rest and agree that it doesn't matter if the ECHL calls them memberships, member clubs or happy fun time hockey brigades? I don't think it adds anything to the articles in question.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• They add nothing whatsoever to them, and are a stretch beyond mindless pedantry. I've just reverted a bunch.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that I don't see the usefulness of these pages. Every sporting club in a league is a member of the league; there's no need to create redirect pages for all of them, and I doubt there is any notable use of the terminology. isaacl (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  I agree...however, running around deleting the redirects is equally pointless. Redirects are cheap after all. -DJSasso (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  Redirects are indeed cheap, but we delete them when they are pointless.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  Some of them, like Chicago membership, were too generic to redirect to an ECHL franchise page. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Titans website launched with history page, but with Flyers press release; there being treated as the same continuing hockey team

The Trenton Titans website [3] has been launched with a history page. The history page says:

The original Trenton Titans debuted Oct. 15, 1999, blanking the Johnstown Chiefs, 3-0, in front of 8,041 fans at the Sovereign Bank Arena under head coach Bruce Cassidy.

In its second season – 2000-01 – the franchise reached the ECHL Kelly Cup finals, falling to the South Carolina Stingrays.

The franchise recorded four consecutive postseason berths in its first four seasons. The club missed the playoffs for the first time in 2003-2004, but the best was to come in 2004-05.

Under head coach Mike Haviland, an original Titans assistant coach and now an assistant with the National Hockey League’s Chicago Blackhawks, the Titans won playoff series with Atlantic City, Reading and Alaska. Led by captain Rick Kowalsky and leading scorer Scott Bertoli, who will serve as Senior Advisor of Hockey Operations for the 2011-2012 Titans, Trenton brought the 2005 Kelly Cup to home by defeating the Florida Everblades in six games.

The Titans also qualified for the playoffs in 2005-06 and 2006-07. Kowalsky and Vince Williams served as head coach and assistant coach, respectively, in 2006-07.

The original franchise, after a purchase by the NHL’s New Jersey Devils in 2007, operated as the Trenton Devils the past four seasons until the club was folded by the parent team July 6, 2011. The Titans were re-established July 28, 2011, after a vote by the ECHL Board of Directors under a new ownership – Blue Line Sports LLC.

This new chapter in Trenton ECHL hockey, with the re-establishment of the Trenton Titans, is certain to continue the traditions of those who are fans of the sport in the Greater Trenton area.

However on the Flyers press release article on the Titans website which is the same press release on their website says this:

Hockey will remain at the Sun National Bank Center in Trenton, NJ, as the Trenton Titans are returning to play the 2011-12 East Coast Hockey League season in Trenton, NJ. The team will now be affiliated with the Philadelphia Flyers whom they were originally affiliated from 1999-2006.

The announcement was made on Thursday afternoon at a press conference at the Sun National Bank Center.

“We are thrilled to be re-affiliated with the Flyers,” said Titans President/CEO Rich Lisk, who was the General Manager of the original Titans. ‘’It is important for us to be connected to the Philadelphia Flyers and their enthusiastic die-hard fan base. This is going to be a terrific affiliation and we cannot wait to drop the puck.’’

‘’There is a high interest in the Greater Trenton area for Flyers hockey and we know how much this means to our fans,’’ added Lisk. ‘’We are excited to be contributing to the development of future Flyers stars.’’

‘’The Philadelphia Flyers and the Comcast-Spectacor Family of Companies are excited to be affiliated with the Trenton Titans,’’ said Comcast-Spectacor President Peter Luukko. ‘’As our ECHL affiliate, we’re confident that our prospects will be playing in an environment here in Trenton that will help them develop their ultimate potential.’’

By realigning their affiliation with the Flyers, the Titans, which played the past four seasons as the Trenton Devils, will continue playing at the Sun National Bank Center. When Trenton first entered the ECHL, the team was originally affiliated with the Flyers.

‘’In addition, with our management company, Global Spectrum, operating the arena, and with our advertising and sales division, Front Row Marketing Services, selling sponsorship opportunities for the Titans, we will create cross-promotional opportunities to help grow their fan base and fill the arena,’’ added Luukko.

‘’This is a tremendous opportunity for hockey fans in Trenton and the surrounding region to identify new up-and-coming future prospects and watch them grow into possible NHL stars,’’ said Luukko.

The Titans, who are owned and operated by Blue Line Sports LLC, will open their 2011-12 season on Friday, October 14 when they travel to Elmira, N.Y.. The Titans’ return to home ice will be on Saturday, October 22 vs. the Florida Everblades.

I think it’s best to say it’s the same franchise. The article should be written like a baseball type article like the Durham Bulls article. The Durham Bulls are regarding themselves as one continuing franchise. On the Titans history page it has the records of the old Titans/Trenton Devils years. Phantoms007 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I saw the new website and while I concur that the new franchise is maintaining the team history (and therefore we should keep the same page), I would caution you against the notion that it's "best to say" it's the same franchise because it's not. The old franchise folded and a new one was established that retained the old franchise's team history (as their team history says). If you look at the definition of "franchise" as it pertains to a professional sporting league (see here) you'll see that it actually refers to the corporate organization, not the team itself. The franchise fields the team; the franchise is not the team. Unfortunately there is a tendency to incorrectly use the terms interchangeably that has caused some confusion here. The Flyers press release refers to the "team" (which is defined by things such as logo, colors, history, records, et c.) and is correct to call the current Titans a continuation of the old "team." So, all semantics aside, it's the same "team," just being operated by a new "franchise."  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 02:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking and was planning on expanding the article with Trenton Devils, LLC. Trenton Devils, LLC has already been redirected to the Titans page here. Phantoms007 (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Management Formats

I looked at archive copies of trentontitans.com, the team's former website. Over the years, the Titans management/front office staff have operated the franchise under the same format during their time as Titans. There were some changes, but was kept as the same basic format during the non-New Jersey Devils years. When the Devils took over the franchise, the management was not just changed, but complete realigned to a new format, the New Jersey Devils management format. The hockey operations format stayed the same until the 2010-11 season. I think and I might be wrong; when the new ownership came in, along with the team in debt, the management that was setup by the Devils was setup so bad that for the new owners to realign them back to how the franchise was completely run in the beginning, they had turn in their membership and the league gave them a new one in order for them to return to play and avoid paying off the debt. I also think that the reason that the new management says it's a different group is because they wish they were never part of the Devils organization; I don't blame them.

Here are the links to the hockey operations and front office pages of both the Trenton Devils and new Titans:

Front Office: Trenton Devils Front Office and Trenton Titans Front Office

Hockey Operations: Trenton Devils Hockey Operations and Trenton Titans Hockey Operations

See the difference; the Devils made the franchise’s organization to complex and unnecessary while the Titans organization is just plain and simple, just like the previous Titans years. Phantoms007 (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you and the other guy who I am pretty sure is you as well are pushing the issue to hard. All we were trying to decide was if they should stay at the same page or not. I think that has pretty much been settled already so at this point you are just preaching to the choir. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

How am I pushing this to hard if nobody responded to the Titans launching their new website. I waited like four or five days. Somebody had to respond this launching of the new website for the hockey team. Phantoms007 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody responded because what you posted doesn't actually matter. You are splitting hairs that won't affect anything here is what I was getting at. This discussion was about if we should move the page or not. At this point it looks like we won't. There isn't really anything left to discuss. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict that somewhat negates the diplomatic effort of my post.)

I think the point that DJSasso is trying to make is that this thread originated to determine whether or not a new article was needed for the "new" Titans. Since everyone seems to be on board with keeping one article, the purpose of this thread is achieved. With that issue settled, if you'd like to discuss other concerns regarding the article, its talk page would be a good place to do so.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 00:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Revised the article with the philosophy of same team, new organization concept

I revised the article by adding Trenton Devils, LLC and that Blue Line Sports, LLC also operates the Titans instead of just owning it. I also fixed up the first paragraph. Phantoms007 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lionel Conacher

I would appreciate it if a few people could watchlist this article. We've had a slow moving edit war where either an IP hopping anon editor or a few people have insisted on adding information related to their utterly non-notable fantasy league for several days now. A few more eyes would be good! Resolute 03:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

List of ice hockey leagues

Hi folks. FYI, List of ice hockey leagues is a bit out of date with affiliations and such. I'll work on updates if I get a chance, but I thought a few more helping hands would be useful. =) Powers ^T 12:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gah, I linked the wrong article. It's List of minor league ice hockey leagues and teams that's out of date. Powers ^T 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Holy heck, it sure is ... talk about out of date, it lists leagues that don't EXIST any more. That being said, before you launch into a lot of work on it, do we need that article at all? It's orphaned, it's not much of an intuitive search term, it's likely to continue to be a running sore where the low minors are concerned, and anything it'd say is covered by the much better updated List of ice hockey leagues and the various league articles. (This quite aside from pushing the baseballish letter classification crap.) Should we just redirect to List of ice hockey leagues and have done with it?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with redirecting it. It's enough fun trying to keep the changing affiliations up-to-date on the league articles that I see no reason to go nuts trying to keep an orphaned list up-to-date.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have done as requested. Powers ^T 14:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Swift Current Broncos bus crash

After yesterday's devastating news in Russia, I was looking around and noticed there wasn't an article on the Swift Current Broncos bus crash in 1986. Should an article get started on this tragedy? It seems there are enough sources out there, including an excellent one from ESPN from 2006. And there are several articles from the time, including this NYTimes article. Anyone want first crack at it? Thanks Patken4 (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The team is notable, the league they play in is notable, and the crash appears notable. So I would say, we could do with an article regarding the crash. --Hockeyben ^✉ 17:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a huge story at the time, generating a lot of press then and thereafter. Heck, think about it: we have an article for the WHL league MVP trophy, named after the incident.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  22:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Dolovis managed to squeeze out nearly an entire paragraph at Swift Current Broncos bus crash. I've got a bunch of articles from the time, and there is definitely no shortage of material online, so we should be able to build a useful article. Resolute 04:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have thought about that article before. Unfortunately, the more you dig (the ESPN article is an eye-opener), the uglier (if it can get uglier than four deaths) it gets. There is a lot of bitterness in Swift about much of what went on around then. Canada Hky (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Navbox problem for you

It looks like a couple of navboxes in your scope have a problem. Template:Kelowna Rockets, Template:Saskatoon Blades, and the nearly identical (except for retired numbers) Template:SaskatoonBlades all contain WP:External links to Wikia, which is a violation of WP:NAVBOX#Properties, "Navigation templates do not provide WP:External links to other websites." The editor has used {{plainlinks}} to disguise the fact that these are external links rather than links to pages on the English Wikipedia. Could someone here look into repairing these templates, and perhaps disposing of whichever of the Saskatoon templates is no longer wanted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed the offending links and redirected the duplicate template. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Vitali Anikeyenko

I'm curious is there a reason that one team in the career stats is italicized? I looked in the MOS and couldn't see a reason. Does this designate something or should it be removed? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history it is because he was only loaned to the team. It used to say (loan) and it was changed to italics but they never put a legend as to what that meant below the stats. See here. -DJSasso (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so is that how we are handling loans? Just curious. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he was loaned should be something identified in the prose of the article. There really shouldn't be any indicator of it in the stats box. A stat is a stat, regardless of who holds your contract. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being done either way. This is the first time I have ever encountered a loan so doesn't matter to me. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Amateur leagues

I don't think these are usually terribly notable things, but I noticed Hockeyben recently creating several.[4]. What's our cut off for notability of a league without other independent sources covering it?--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't speak for all of them, but leagues like the Saskatchewan Senior Hockey League were very high calibre leagues that were eligible for the Allan Cup at a time when it's popularity rivaled that of the Stanley Cup. So any league that was Allan Cup eligible is definitely notable. Some of the American leagues I am not certain of, however. Resolute 23:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The minor pro North American leagues are as notable as the hundreds of other minor pro leagues on List of ice hockey leagues. Senior hockey was a very high caliber of Canadian hockey from 1910-1972, and as Resolute points out, was only a level below the Stanley Cup.--Hockeyben ^✉ 14:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. He referred to one league with that statement, not all. Were all the leagues in contention for the Allan cup that you created?--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Senior Hockey League, Western Canada Hockey League (1965-1968), and Prairie Senior Hockey League were the Allan Cup eligible leagues. The other articles created on 8 September were North American minor pro leagues, not in contention for the Allan Cup. --Hockeyben ^✉ 01:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I only called one league out as an example. Any Allan Cup eligible league I would consider notable. It is more the American leagues I am not certain of. But the notability of any of them can be established with the addition of a couple sources. Resolute 22:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Igor Korolev

I've opened a discussion of Igor Korolev being described as a "Russian-Canadian" at Talk:Igor Korolev. Is it appropriate or not to label him a "Russian-Canadian"? I'm not aware of precedents to follow, but I'm looking for help. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Lokomotiv Yaroslavl

Keep an eye on Lokomotiv Yaroslavl and its various players since a plane just crashed killing about 33 people. Likely to get lots of action on various pages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of assumptions on who was on the plane, therefore who actually died. Resolute 13:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that. Lokomotiv confirmed all players from the main squad were onboard. Resolute 14:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is now a dedicated article: 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash. This is so horrible, beyond belief. Jmj713 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we please edit restrict these? IPs are already writing about the team in the past tense. Jmj713 (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to edit restrict...but I might get to it soon. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Since media was reporting that the entire main roster and four youth were killed, I had started to add death notes to the infoboxes of players known to be on the main roster. But stopped since IPs were reverting them, so I figured it is futile at this point. For what it is worth, I saw on Hfboards that Russia Today is tweeting that Alexander Galimov's agent is confirming that he is the lone surviving player. Reports are the other surviving person on the flight was a crew member. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Until we have an official report with a confirmed list of casualties, I don't think we should touch anything right now. This is a fast-changing situation. Anything can happen. Jmj713 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea. I watch a couple of the ex-NHLers pages and IP editors are already assuming their deaths. Is semi-protecting the entire roster too far sweeping? TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that would probably be too wide. I just protected Pavol Demitra. For what its worth Russian Officials have announced the entire roster died. But there are rumours that various players didn't. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At this point, I'd say protecting the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl and Template:Lokomotiv Yaroslavl roster would be a good idea. A few minutes ago, Galimov was the only player on their page. Unrelated to this, Riley Armstrong has been reported dead by the CBC. However, he has tweeted that he is in St. John's, Newfoundland at camp (St. John's IceCaps?), so we should watch his page until that settles. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reportedly, Ruslan Salei was not on the flight. Jmj713 (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is one of the rumours I was referring too. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A horrible tragedy. And there have been so many this summer, Derek Boogaard, Rick Rypien, Wade Belak, now an entire team is killed. --Hockeyben ^✉ 14:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

*Awful news, looks like Galimov has been reported dead now. Russian TV is reporting he has died according to Russians on HFboards.Shootmaster 44 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I am not looking forward to seeing the updates to Deaths in 2011. And as far as Salei goes, there are reports both that he was, and was not on the plane. Oy. Resolute 15:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Life News has posted the list of dead at [5]. Translateable by Google. It appears that Salei was not on the plane, and Galimov has died in hospital. (not confirmed) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • sovsport.ru has a list of the dead and it includes Salei. url ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the KHL season will now progress, especially since today was the first day of the season. This has to be an unprecedented event for a professional sports league. Jmj713 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately not. The Torino soccer team was wiped out in the late 40s, a crash in Germany in the late 50s decimated Manchester United, and there was the terrible crash in the early 60s that killed the whole United States figure skating team.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I was thinking more about pro leagues. I guess Manchester United would qualify, I didn't know about that. I knew there were several national teams and such, but no real pro sports teams, like Lokomotiv. Jmj713 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mm, a lot of people would indeed consider soccer teams to be in professional leagues ...  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ironically I am currently discussing the removal of a section talking about these similar events from the crash article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Sovsport says that KHL will continue with existing schedule, minus Lokomotiv obviously, but upcoming games will have ceremonies to honour the team, and no regular in-arena entertainment will take place. url (russian) I would expect that there will have to be some sort of rebalancing the schedule. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be surprised if Lokomotiv keeps going with players lent to them. Sort of like "The show must go on" mentality. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I do wonder if we'll see any current UFAs that are left get talked into playing there? Not to turn this into a forum though. I do think we'll need to keep an eye on news coming out of Russia in the next few weeks. That way we can ensure that IPs don't run wild after the "security" leaves. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
        • A few reliable reporter types on Twitter are noting that the other KHL teams are in agreement that Lokomotiv should continue. Expect to see some kind of draft or something. Resolute 19:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Too bad it looks like we have no KHL team season articles. Perhaps a 2011–12 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl season should be created to document the events surrounding the tragedy and the rebuilding of the team. Jmj713 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Yeah the project generally only did team seasons for the NHL. Some people recently have decided to do some for the minor leagues and no one has deleted them mostly because if someone put the effort in to keep them up to date no one had the heart to delete them. But in the past it was often believed that individual team seasons just aren't notable below the top league in the world. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
              • But would you say this event qualifies for a season article? Plus, this is not a minor league team. I just think, tragic though it is, it will be interesting, from an encyclopedic point of view, to document the team's recovery and rebuild, since, as I understand, the KHL has stated the team will participate in this season's games, though it's unclear how just yet. Jmj713 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

*Yeah there are certainly always exceptions. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, I notice that 4 players are redlinks on the crash page. Since I do not read Russian, does anyone know if they pass notability for hockey? I'm thinking that it might be worthwhile to even create stubs for these players. I'm not sure whether the crash itself makes them inherently notable under GNG since they are now in 1000s of articles? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Being mentioned in a list of people that died does not create notability. That said, they were on the roster of a major league club, so I expect it would be fairly easy to find sources for each. Even if one has to rely on Google translate. Resolute 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like three of them are of the four youth mentioned earlier this morning. Does winning a gold medal at the World Juniors count as notability? I don't want these pages to end up being speedied or anything else if I create them. I realize that this isn't a memorial nor a one event thing. The one player should be easy enough, he's been playing in the KHL and the various incarnations since 2000. Its the other two that might have problems. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We have generally said no for gold medals at the world jrs. I think that is especially true for countries outside north america where they pretty much ignore the world jrs so are not very likely to have any coverage just for having been on a gold medal team. If they won an individual award you might be able to scratch some sources up. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have created a stub for the easiest of the four Mikhail Balandin. Looks like the other three may be hard if not impossible to satisfy even GNG for them. I will keep working on it and see what I can find. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Dolovis not surprisingly created articles for the other 3. I have redirected two of them because they don't meet NHOCKEY and I can find no articles for them beyond WP:BLP1E issues. -DJSasso (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one that I can find that pass NHOCKEY is Yuri Urychev. I would have created it myself, except I thought NHOCKEY was 100 games of KHL experience, not 1 game. Not that MHL experience counts but at least Pavel Snurnitsyn and Maxim Shuvalov exist. I'm sure if people read Russian, they can find sources for those two, but then again to pass GNG you need significant English coverage I believe. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Err, guys? It's ONE game in the KHL, not 100. The KHL is not a minor league; it's a top level national league, and specifically cited in Criterion #1.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  04:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I realized it before I posted the previous comment. However, the other two only have MHL experience and have never suited up in a KHL game. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the lone surviving player, the others will need to be deleted from the team's roster template. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Once it is known what is happening they can be. But right now people going to the page are going to want to see who was on the roster when it happened so they should be left. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A list, yes, but I suggest we do a subst on the roster to preserve it for this day, (possibly on the crash article page?) but we should probably note that the team is 'suspended', instead of just listing the survivor as a roster. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The team hasn't yet been suspended. I'd say to just change the header to "Roster at time of crash". Once the future plans for the team is known, we can update. Resolute 20:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this can be placed anywhere and if so where, but 24 of the 30 NHL teams were somehow involved with this crash. It does fall into OR though since it was from me counting the teams. But I believe only the Buffalo Sabers, Edmonton Oilers, Montreal Canadiens, Pittsburgh Penguins, Tampa Bay Lightning and Washington Capitals did not have a former draft pick/player/coach on board that plane. If I can find a reference of this somewhere, does this tidbit belong on any page? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's always the approach of going paper by paper in the NHL cities. The Chicago Tribune has a story up, "2 former Blackhawks among victims in Russian plane crash". —C.Fred (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

IMNSHO, WP:NOTTRIVIA. Resolute 23:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And the last one falls... http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-russia-crash Powers ^T 12:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Galimov

The lone-surviving player of the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash, Alexander Galimov, has passed away at the hospital while undergoing surgery. The flight engineer, Alexander Sizov, is still alive, but remains in critical condition. RIP Alexander Galimov and the rest of the Loko team ! --Hockeyben ^✉ 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Traverse City

Now that the tournament is getting even wider recognition by being televised on the NHL Network, maybe it's time to revisit this discussion? Here is a nice overview from a RS. Jmj713 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the last discussion if you can find non-local independent reliable sources that talk about the tournament in a significant amount then it is probably notable. The source you link to is not independent as it is written by a New York Rangers employee. So if you find multiple sources I would go for it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hockeyben and article creation

I recently came across an article that Hockeyben created [6]. He based this on some random unreliable source, and the amount of time that I've had to spend trying to figure out what this is, has been ridiculous, but I finally figured it out. Whatever this French "hockey archives" site is, it had a series of articles on the "Korean Championship" as he styled it, but actually it was multiple championships and the Korean hockey league all rolled in to one. The early years were an amalgamation of all hockey tournaments in the year as seen here [7], and then the site created a table totalling the cumulative results of all the teams over those tournaments. It wasn't in fact a Korean Championship as he insisted. It also didn't start in 1992 as he claimed, as hockey tournaments have been going on in Korea for over 60 years. This is just when the site started to detail them. In later years, what the site detailed as the "Korean Championship" was the Korean Ice Hockey League [8]. This ran for a few years and had 9 actual seasons. The league folded before Asia League came in, at least according to the Anyang Halla website they may have played 1 or 2 more championships after the league folded as they are listed as winners. Those were probably tournaments. I'll have to dig around and find out. Post 2004 or so, I have no idea where he's gotten this list of winners for the "Korean Championship" he's provided no further sources, and the french site doesn't have anything past 2002. Most likely it's the university level tournament or the "divisional" korea championship (it's another old tournament that's been around for about 50-55 years, but the pro teams don't take part in it). So he's somehow tried to jam together several tournaments, leagues and who knows what across more than a decade and claim it's some kind of "Championship", the top level one at that as evidenced by his repeated attempts to jam it in to this template he created [9]. I'd only checked a couple of his other articles and wondered about the notability of them, but honestly if this is remotely evident of the rest of his work, his article creations might need to be checked for sources, accuracy, and whether or not the things even exist. This has been a rather disruptive and time sucking exercise--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This was my source for the Korean championship. I admit it was incorrect and i apologize. The cumulative table was only for the 93 and 94 seasons, however. Hockeyben ^✉ 01:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Those were cumulative, some of the years belong to the KIHL and the rest we've got no idea where they've come from.--Crossmr (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, I admit I've made mistakes in that article, and it has been redirected.Hockeyben ^✉ 02:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My articles do not need to be "checked" whether they exist or not. I made one mistake on Korea, everything else, I have not made any mistakes on. If any of my articles need more sources, I can easily add more. Hockeyben ^✉ 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You had to be twice told that the All-Japan Championship is a tournament not a league as well. I also question whether these articles North Korean Championship (ice hockey), Chinese Ice Hockey Championship are accurate or "Leagues" as you've styled them. They are likely just tournaments. I know that the China Dragon are actually made up of the Harbin and Qiqihar team members so it's unlikely that they're playing two seasons together and are just doing a tournament. You've provided no sources for these either. Also keep in mind that a main site is not a reference, unless the information appears on the main page. Hong Kong Ice Hockey Championship here all you've cited is [10] this site, but what is that? It's a Czech site, not the hong kong ice hockey association site and even then we'd need the link to the actual page where the champions are listed.--Crossmr (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that the All-Japan Championship is a tournament, not a league. When did I ever say it was a league? To stop the whole leagues/tournaments debate, I'm going to move Template:Asian ice hockey leagues to Template:Asian ice hockey competitions. As for North Korea and Hong Kong, I have added better sources, so there should not be a question about them anymore. --Hockeyben ^✉ 15:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

After I removed the All Japan Championship from the template, you restored it here [11] DJSasso had to remove it again and explain to you again that it is not a league[12]. Nowhere in this did you address the citation issues, or whether or not any of these other leagues are real, or what they even are. I can only find one source that looks remotely reliable about the North Korean hockey league and it goes so far as to say no information is available about it outside the country.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I did add sources to the Chinese, North Korean, and Hong Kong leagues, which I addressed in my above post, if you read it. As for the All-Japan Championship it is the top level ice hockey competition in the country, which adheres to the renamed template. --Hockeyben ^✉ 00:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You performed those actions before the template was renamed, and you didn't have consensus to change the scope of the template, as you should note it's been changed back. And as it's already been pointed out to you azhockey isn't a reliable source and doesn't meet the criteria. As for the NK article, that information is written by this fellow [13], who says League action is clouded in mystery, because no news or game results from DPRK league are known outside the country. and who links to an "unofficial" hockey site for information on NK (A site which is down and never got archived). In other words, he's publishing information he has no idea whether or not its true. Furthermore the citations you provided don't even cover the last 3 championships. Its really beginning to look at this point like you don't have a strong grasp on WP:V and WP:RS.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For many of the Asian leagues, I've had to cobble information together from a number of different websites, the ones I remembered, I have listed. Just because one guy couldn't find anything from NK, doesn't mean others can't. As for the template, I moved it because I felt it was a better name, as it covered both leagues and tournaments. Hockeyben ^✉ 01:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest leaving those to people who can work with the native language if there are no reliable English sources. Because your cobbled together sources make an absolute mess of things. Read those two NK sources again, they're written by the same person. In 2005 he published a list of apparent NK league winners, but in 2008 he admits that there is no official information coming out of NK regarding the league and points to an unofficial site for information. We know he's not using reliable sources, thus his writings are no longer reliable sources. Hockey arena gives no indication where they got those 2 championships, and you've given no sources for the remaining ones. So in other words you haven't provided a single acceptable source for any of the articles I've pointed out and we haven't even looked at the other ones yet.--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete the articles if they are not wanted, then. It doesn't matter to me whether they're kept, or not. I'm sorry I wasn't able to provide better sources, these were the best I found. --Hockeyben ^✉ 15:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not that they're not wanted. The problem is that we have to provide accurate information about notable subjects and the sources you're using to create articles, and not just these, I checked several of the ones listed on that template and many had issues, are insufficient. Any time a user is using inappropriate sources its an issue, not just with hockey articles, but all articles.--Crossmr (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the sources I used for the Asian leagues were not the greatest, but the best, as for the lack of being able to find better English-language sources. The articles I've done on non-Asian leagues are much better referenced, as there is generally more coverage of the North American/European leagues. --Hockeyben ^✉ 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is our threshold isn't "The best we can find regardless". That's kind of the point here.--Crossmr (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if you want the Asian league articles deleted until better sources can be found, I have no objection. Alternatively, we could just keep the articles, and I can look for some better sources. --Hockeyben ^✉ 02:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You might try contacting Wikiprojects in relevant languages. It seems some of the leagues have shut down their sites, like the QIIHL. At the very least if we could get a newspaper article or something indicating winning teams it would be far better. Even if someone doesn't want to help you write an entire article they might help you find a single source about cup winners or something. I'm going to work on the Korean ones. The Korean championship you were referring to is the Kangwon Cup. It's now just called the Kangwon Cup, which was also the trophy during the KIHL days (but not from the beginning, it seems to have been introduced around 2001). Before that, I'm not sure what trophy they had, and the years before the KIHL were just random tournament rankings.--Crossmr (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted a guy from the German Wikipedia, and he is going to help me look for sources. There are no ice hockey wikiprojects on the Chinese, Mongolian, or Arabic Wikipedias. Thanks for volunteering to help with Korea, we could do with articles on the Korean Ice Hockey League and the Kangwon Cup.Hockeyben ^✉ 04:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You can try contacting the general wikiprojects for those languages, or you can pull up the category of wikipedians who speak certain languages, I know sometimes bilingual people will put notes indicating they're willing to help find sources and things like that.--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what the German guy can find first.--Hockeyben ^✉ 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree there is a real issue here with some of these articles. Not every league everywhere is notable. You do need to prove notability through references talking about the league etc. Some of these look very suspect. And the sources you added azhockey.com isn't a reliable source either. You can't use random websites people throw on the internet. They need to be a reliable source which means they either have to be a major news organization/publisher which a history of fact checking or they have to be a site which publishes its bibliography like hockeydb.com. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

These leagues would get notable coverage in their home country, but pretty much all of the leagues are based out of a country speaking a different native tongue. I don't know how to speak Chinese/Mongolian/Korean, so I can't find news sources for them. Azhockey does have a list of credits, see here. As for the notability, if the league is the top level competition in the country, be it amateur or professional, it is notable. Don't delete these articles, the leagues exist, the lists of champions are legit, there is no reason to delete them. --Hockeyben ^✉ 21:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That isn't always true. Something is only notable if it has news articles written about it in reliable sources. In some countries hockey is such a minor sport that even a top level league isn't notable because none of the news in that country covers it. We have deleted top level leagues in African countries before for example. As for the credits on azhockey that is just a list of people who worked on the pages, not a bibliography. A bibliography is a list of articles or sources that were used to find the information so that people can then go and verify the information if they choose to which is not the same as listing the names of the people who wrote the various pages. -DJSasso (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

These leagues seem to meet the N1 criteria of WP:NHOCKEY according to Grsz11's list. --Hockeyben ^✉ 00:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That list seems to be a personal effort of Grsz11's, something he was plainly working up as a proposal. It has never been presented to the project, has never met with the project's consensus, and it's the first I've ever seen of it, come to that. (Never mind that there is no freaking way in hell that we're going to rank national leagues in Luxembourg, New Zealand or the United Arab Emirates as being on a par with the NHL.) That being said, I agree with DJ; yes, a top-level hockey league is notable, but WP:V requires that a precondition for an article about it is reliable sources. Wikipedia's rules are clear and explicit: the answer to a lack of reliable sources for a subject is not to cut the article some slack and handwave the requirement. It is that an article cannot be sustained at all. Ravenswing 11:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi to all of you. I'm the German guy Hockeyben was writing about. It's not alway true that you can't find information about Asian leagues in English. For example there is plenty of news coverage about the ice hockey leagues of Qatar and Thailand in the biggest English language newspapers of their countries (and in Thailand even the German language newspapers write regularly about it for the huge local German community there which really shows the significance of the league). It's another thing with lets say North Korea (its difficult to find ANYTHING on this country even in politics and so on). Vicente2782 (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes certainly. I've used several English sources for the Asia League Article, the problem was that the English sources he was providing were not reliable sources and he indicated that they were the best he could do. To me that meant there weren't any suitable English sources for the articles in question. If there are suitable English sources he should be able to provide them on his own, but unless he speaks several languages, he's probably going to need to get native language speakers to help him for those.--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Worth including who played for the final in the abscence of the result?

So I've been slogging through the papers working on this article Korea Divisional Domestic Championship. Some interesting articles and old photos in these old korean newspapers. The problem I've run into is that in some years coverage of the event just abruptly stops or is incomplete. Oddly in 1961 one paper covers the event for 3 days, publishes full detailed results of the semi-final, then....nothing. I've contacted the website to make sure there isn't some problem with the edition of the paper. Another paper on the same day publishes the results, but only for the middle school level. I can't find any evidence of the final game, and unfortunately in the next year they don't seem to make mention of anything like "This team won it 2 years in a row now" or "this team is the defending champ". Newspaper space was at a premium in those days (2-3 pages only) so they didn't waste a lot of words on many things. I've also contacted the Korean Ice Hockey Association to see if they have some internal archives of the various tournament winners that I could get access to. Barring that, I'll have to keep digging to see if there is a mention of the winner, but in the meantime, should I go ahead and at least say "These teams were set to play in the final for their division"?--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO it's better to use all information available than just letting it out, so I'd say feel free to use what you have. Vicente2782 (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong CIHL

Hi guys. Has anyone already heard about the new CIHL in Hong Kong? According to the league's website www.cihl.com it's going to be a professional league with teams from Southern China, Macao and Hong Kong. Vicente2782 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm just reading their outline now. Only 12 minute periods, and ages 16 and up. Technically Asia League "covers" southern China, but they're not represented because they don't enter a team, but I'm sure they'd be permitted to. They can't be much worse than China Dragon. It's also a time travelling league because they've got results posted from their Oct 8, 2011 game.--Crossmr (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New Ukrainian league name

There is a new pro hockey league in Ukraine, just wondering how we should name the article. Unfortunately, they went with the extremely ambiguous name, "Professional Hockey League". Their logo in Ukrainian says that name, and above it it just says "Ukraine". So do we just stick with Ukrainian Hockey League, add "Ukrainian" before the PHL part, add "of Ukraine" after PHL, or what.--Львівське (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Professional Hockey League" isn't any more ambiguous than, say, "National Hockey League." If that's what they're calling the league, that's what we should call it. Ravenswing 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Or Minor Hockey League. If that is what they are calling it that is what we should call it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The website uses the acronym PHLU in the URL, the logo says PHL (with Ukraine on top), all other press reports call it PHL. The piss-off is that a few weeks ago they actually said, in so many words, that the name/acronym was confusing and they would announce something more appropriate when the season started. Then they got lazy and stuck with it! "the professional hockey league is a professional hockey league"...redundancy in the lead...ugh--Львівське (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For an article title I woud maybe suggest "Professional Hockey League (Ukraine)" just to clear up some ambiguity and help with search results. As for the lead, well I can't help you there. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For the lead sentence I would probably just say "The Professional Hockey League is a hockey league in...." you don't have to use the second professional because it is implied in the name. -DJSasso (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And you might also want one of those italicized taglines above the lead, saying something like "This is about the Ukrainian professional league of the same name. For professional hockey leagues generally, please see List of ice hockey leagues." Ravenswing 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Should I split the article from the prior organization (like we did with the KHL), or keep them together as a continuation (like the Russian Major League)? The Coles Notes version of the story is the league pulled a KHL where its now an independent pro league (previously controlled by the ice hockey fed); but the championship is still the same and under the same name; and the hockey fed still reserves the right to intervene in league affairs. --Львівське (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That conforms, though, to customary European sports practice, where there's a promotion-relegation pyramid and the national federations govern what individual leagues can do. That being said, I'm quite curious: exactly how does a Russian hockey federation have authority over a Ukranian league? Ravenswing 20:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Ukrainian hockey fed, I meant (I was using the Russian fed situation as an example; naming conventions and structure have been similar between the two)--Львівське (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The parallel isn't quite the same but in 1917 the National Hockey League was born out of the ashes of the National Hockey Association. However, the championship (Stanley Cup) and structure (and indeed some of the teams) all carried over to the NHL. So I'd say that since there was a distinct change as far as the organization of the new Ukrainian league, a new article is warranted.

The other thing with this league is whether the Ukrainian Hockey Federation (or whatever their official name is) recognizes the league. What I mean is is this the case of Kontinental Hockey League where the Russian Hockey Federation recognizes it as the top league in Russia or more like the case of the Greater Metro Hockey League where Hockey Canada has declared those players rebels and banned them from participation in sponsored leagues. The reason this makes a difference is whether the league is considered a continuation of the previous league or whether it is disavowed by the Ukrainian federation and the federation considers the winner of a different league to be the "national champion." In the case of the KHL, the Gagarin Cup was created as the championship of the league which was different than the Russian Superleague. So there was a definitive change in the Russian national championship. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Its a direct continuation of the top division (Division A, or whatever they want to call it), but with new rules and the promotion/relegation stuff taken out. The fed recognizes it, and on their site still refer to it as the 2012 season of the 'Ukrainian Championship', so they are very intertwined. I'd have trouble splitting this from the former since they are considered by the fed a direct successor. Restructuring, renaming, not a rebel league or anything.--Львівське (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, the FHU considers this season the "20th Ukrainian Championship season" --Львівське (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Louis Berlinguette move

A requested move discussion is going on Talk:Louis_Berlinquette#Requested_move. This article has been moved twice already, so any input to settle this would be appreciated. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of world championships

I noticed on this list they list the IIHF World Championship as the "World Championship" for ice hockey. Since for the men's side specifically, the best players don't participate, would the Olympics be better served as the "World Championship"? I realize the IIHF calls the World Championship winner as the World Champion, but what do they consider the Olympic champion? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a precedent on style for a team splitting into two leagues?

This came up and its kinda giving me a hard time? The team HC Donbass played in the Ukrainian league(s) since 2005 but at the end of last season, it split. Half of the roster stayed (on the same team) in the PHL, and a few other guys & the head coach went to the Russian Major League. So there are 2 teams/rosters under the same name, under the same GM, in different leagues. Neither is a farm team for the other. Should there be separate articles? Which one inherits the history? Majority of the roster stayed in the Ukrainian league, but the team itself considers the VHL one the de facto real team and the UKR team "Donbass-2". The Ukrainian league and other sources don't refer to the UKR team as "Donbass-2", just the same ol' team. Thoughts?--Львівське (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I would make two articles. And I would put the history on both until such a time that a majority of sources show the history to be with one or the other. Its probably too soon to determine who should keep it. I would probably go with whatever the team itself considers to have the history. Its really their decision I suppose. -DJSasso (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Hockeydb – use page spelling or not?

I'm not sure about Oscar Alsenfelt regarding the hockeydb external link to that player. The official spelling is "Alsenfelt", but hockeydb lists him as "Ahlsenfelt". In such cases, should we use the spelling that hockeydb uses (as it is the title of the page)? HeyMid (contribs) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We use the title of the article on Wikipedia as we are supposed to keep usage the same throughout an article unless specifically talking about an alternative spelling. Dolovis has argued about this in the past, you were correct. He has been shot down a few times when he tried to push that point of view. The name parameter on the hockeydb template is only for removing bracketed disambiguators. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As an external link, the Wikipedia article title is to be used (as DJ has mentioned). However, if you are using it as an in-text reference, then you would be using the title as they do at HockeyDB (so it is properly sourced in the reference section). In this instance, however, because the use is in the external links, we don't have to title it like the webpage is titled. We can do it however we want, which is the way DJ has mentioned. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The name parameter is to be used when the external profile's title differs from the article's title. When there are alternate spellings being used for a person, the name parameter is a useful tool for highlighting that alternate spelling when it is being used by an external link. This is a standard Wikipedia practice, and this is how other profile template (such as Template:IMDb name) are used. To force each external link to share the same uniform title does not give our readers helpful information about the person or external link. Using the name parameter to show the person's name as it is shown at the external link serves the useful purpose of highlighting that alternate spellings are used. Dolovis (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you read the instructions on the IMDB template it tells the user to do exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. The name parameter is used so that you can match the name of the link to the wikipedia article title because the default gives the IMDB title. Whereas we smartly coded our templates to take the page title and to only need the name parameter when the wikipedia page has a bracketed disambiguator. -DJSasso (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the IMDB instructions says that the name parameter can be used when the Wikipedia page name contains disambiguation brackets, and the standard practice is to use it whenever the article's title differs from the profile's title. Dolovis (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't say to use it where the article title differs from the profiles title. And even if it did, its a movie template not a hockey template. Different projects have different guidelines. It says to use it for bracketed disambiguators and for cases where you are using the template on an article about a different person than the profile you are linking to. -DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're both wrong, actually. The IMDB template is used the same way ours is: it takes the title of the article by default. IMDB's instructions say to use the name field when there is either a disambiguator (as with hockeydb), or if the template is being used to link to a person other than the subject of the article. It says nothing about "highlighting an alternate spelling" (which is a bad assumption on your part, Dolovis). At any rate, since we all know how this is going to turn into a useless fight, my view matches that of Nurmsook and DJSasso - the title of the EL should match the name in the article. It is beyond useless to wait until the very end of an article to "highlight" an alternate spelling of a player's name. If differences in spelling are common, this is something we can note earlier, and in more useful fashion (i.e.: Earl Thompson (athlete)). Resolute 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Eastern European naming conventions

Do we have a rule on how to convert names on here? As with the KHL, most teams officially go by HC <<NAME>> (City), with the city being an afterthought and not necessarily part of the club name (following euro naming conventions, like Arsenal F.C.). However, the KHL english language site destroyed this and we now seem to ignore the HC part of the name, and keep the city. In lieu of a real hard english official source, do we convert the names as they are presented, or follow the KHL general styling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvivske (talk • contribs)

Go with the english style, as this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over some old game guides from the 80s and they do the same for NHL teams, ie, <<Minnesota North Stars>> (Minnesota) --Львівське (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes; Height and Weight

FYI -- readers of this page may be interested in the discussion and poll here as to whether a baseball player's height and weight should be reflected in his wp infobox.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Goaltender statistics – save percentage or goals against average?

The goaltender statistics in the 2011 IIHF World Championship article are based on best save percentage (SVS), but the NHL season articles (such as the 2010–11 NHL season one) are based on fewest goals against average (GAA). Are there any specific reasons that GAA is more reliable for goaltenders than SVS? GAA doesn't take into account how many shots the goaltender has faced, only the time on ice and the amount of goals the goaltender has allowed. In my view, GAA is less reliable because 1) I believe there is a difference between a goaltender facing, say, 60 shots in one game and allowing two goals, compared to a goaltender facing 20 shots and allowing one goal; 2) defencemen are dependent on how difficult shots the goaltender faces. HeyMid (contribs) 08:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The ECHL ranks goaltenders the same way. Perhaps because GAA is a measure of the goaltender's usefulness/contribution to the team, and save percentage is a measurement of his individual skill?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

GAA is the traditional measure; no better reason. Lacking a consensus for some other metric, it'll serve. Ravenswing 09:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Goals against has traditionally been the metric by which goalies have been judged. In fact, the Vezina Trophy originally, and the Jennings Trophy today, are given to the goalie(s) on the team with the fewest goals against. Resolute 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean that the goals against average article, which states that "Since the statistic is highly dependent on the team playing in front of a goalie, save percentage is usually considered a more accurate measure of a goaltender's skill", makes an incorrect claim then? Or is "skill" different from how "good" a specific goaltender is? I'd like some clarification here. HeyMid (contribs) 20:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who you talk to. There are people that think save percentage is better because it gives an idea of how many stops a goaltender makes compared to how many he lets in. So some people think that means that it has less to do with the team around him and more to do with the goaltender himself. Others believe it doesn't matter how many shots he stops it only matters how many he lets in. Its not an area that is easy to have an answer to. Save% is a relatively new statistic, the NHL only started tracking it I believe in the late 90's as an "official" stat. Some people think its just a way to try and make goaltenders on bad teams look better. Roberto Luongo in Florida for example. Some people argue it doesn't matter about the quantity of shots you stop but of the quality of shots you stop so they argue that save% is a useless stat. For example Detroit lets very few shots on net which could make it look like their goalies aren't as good, but the shots they do let through tend to be really good shots not just the lame shoot ins that might happen against a bad team. GAA is more the statistic that there really is little arguing about other than people saying things like Brodeur only had a low one because his defence was so good. -DJSasso (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also a large difference between what the cognoscenti consider important and what meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Few serious baseball people now claim that batting average, home runs and RBIs are the best measures of a batter's quality, but those three stats dominate leader boards, the same way they have for a century. OBP, offensive winning percentage, WAR, runs created and newer metrics, however more accurately they reflect performance, don't. Ravenswing 01:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics

I noticed that on the page someone has linked the U18 National team pages to each of the participating countries. Has it been confirmed that each country is sending their national U18 team to the tournament? The boys tournament seems to be limited to U16, not U18. The girls tournament seems to be U18 though. Is this an error? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a definite error. Here's a source from the IIHF stating the boys' as U16 and girls' as U18 [14]. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

IIHF 2011 Annual Report

Link is here if anyone is looking for IIHF details from the preceding season. Lots of stats for registered players, etc. Canada Hky (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

London Nationals and London Knights deletion and merge

I thought the policy was that when an CHL, AHL or NHL teams change their name, it gets a new article... we only keep them merged for Jr. A and below... any thoughts? A user has put up London Nationals for deletion because it is part of the same franchise chain as the Knights and he thinks they should be merged... DMighton (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Only for moves not name changes. If they are in the same city they stay on the same page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We should look at Guelph CMC's, Guelph Platers and Owen Sound Platers, Owen Sound Attack as well. DMighton (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah those need to be cleaned up a bit. The OHL team pages have been a bit of a mess for awhile. We don't have as many editors who watch those or the Q for that matter compared with the WHL. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Toronto St. Pats, Toronto Maple Leafs and probably Toronto Arenas as well. My personal standard has been if there is a break in continuity. A franchise relocation is such a break. A rename is not. IMO, a franchise that folds, but has its assets purchased and a new team put in place would be split. Resolute 14:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I have always meant to merge the St. Pats into the Leafs but never got around to it mostly because the Leafs article already needs a lot of trimming. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I put up London Nationals at AfD thinking it might be the way to go, but it seems going for a direct merge of the pages is more appropriate. I did discover the same problem with the Kingston franchise as well; look at the team history of Kingston Frontenacs with two old mascots for the team.

Also, it is my opinion that if a team changes cities but remains the same franchise - such as when the old Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix to become the Coyotes - it should all be retained as one article. This being an NHL team, it might be a worthy exception to that suggestion, but definitely for Junior A and below it is worth exploring. If I looked up Detroit Junior Red Wings I'd quickly recognize they eventually became the Plymouth Whalers after being redirected there and reading the team's history. CycloneGU (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You won't get anywhere with the one franchise one article argument. Most if not all people in the project feel that a team moves it should have its own article. There are a number of reasons for this, the biggest being it allows for more in depth coverage of both locations. But it also avoids the problem that tends to happen where the more recent info gets bloated at the detriment of the older info. Also if I am looking for information on the Hartford Whalers and type in Hartford Whalers, I don't want the information about the Carolina Hurricanes. Most often if someone is searching for one location of a team or another they don't care about the information of the team at the other location except for the brief summary we give in the history section and lead of the articles. Name changes are different because its the same team in the same town with likely the same fans. That isn't the case when a team moves. -DJSasso (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Believe me, following the baseball and football project's idiotic (imnsho) lead on this is a non-starter. Resolute 02:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

West Coast bias?

So, I knew that thanks to a couple of over-dedicated editors, we had a lot of Canucks and Flames related GAs and FAs. I didn't think that our Northwest Division teams had this big of a lead. Out of curiousity, I compiled a list of FAs, GAs and FLs that related to each NHL team, even if a player appeared in only one game. The results, I think, are interesting. Beyond the top two, there is a heavy bias toward the original six, obviously. Meanwhile, the Panthers, of all teams, sneak up there almost exclusively because of how many transactions they have made with the Flames and Canucks. I also discovered that I am just about the only person routinely writing non-biographical GAs/FAs. Every current NHL team has at least one associated GA/FA, as do many of the defunct teams. Random trivia for you... Resolute 23:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Team	BioFA	BioGA		GenFA	GenGA		TFA	TGA	FL	Total
Vancouver Canucks	5	35		0	1		5	36	2	43
Calgary Flames	2	14		2	7		4	21	5	30
New York Rangers	4	12		0	0		4	12	2	18
Florida Panthers	1	11		0	0		1	11	2	14
Montreal Canadiens	4	7		1	1		5	8	1	14
Toronto Maple Leafs	1	11		0	1		1	12	1	14
New York Islanders	3	8		0	0		3	8	3	14
New Jersey Devils	1	7		1	0		2	7	3	12
Chicago Blackhawks	3	7		0	0		3	7	2	12
Buffalo Sabres	1	4		0	3		1	7	2	10
Boston Bruins	2	6		0	0		2	6	1	9
Detroit Red Wings	2	5		0	0		2	5	2	9
Edmonton Oilers	3	5		0	0		3	5	1	9
Los Angeles Kings	1	7		0	0		1	7	1	9
Columbus Blue Jackets	1	6		0	0		1	6	1	8
St. Louis Blues	3	4		0	0		3	4	1	8
Philadelphia Flyers	1	6		0	0		1	6	1	8
Pittsburgh Penguins	0	4		0	3		0	7	1	8
Ottawa Senators	2	2		0	2		2	4	1	7
Tampa Bay Lightning	1	4		0	0		1	4	2	7
Washington Capitals	1	4		0	0		1	4	2	7
Anaheim Ducks	1	5		0	0		1	5	0	6
Colorado Avalanche	3	1		0	1		3	2	1	6
San Jose Sharks	0	4		0	0		0	4	1	5
Atlanta Thrashers	0	3		0	0		0	3	1	4
Dallas Stars	0	4		0	0		0	4	0	4
Phoenix Coyotes	0	4		0	0		0	4	0	4
Quebec Nordiques	1	3		0	0		1	3	0	4
Montreal Maroons	0	3		0	0		0	3	0	3
Nashville Predators	0	3		0	0		0	3	0	3
Ottawa Senators (old)	1	1		0	1		1	2	0	3
Carolina Hurricanes	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2
New York Americans	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2
Winnipeg Jets	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2
Hartford Whalers	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1
Minnesota North Stars	0	0		0	0		0	0	1	1
Minnesota Wild	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1
Montreal Wanderers	1	0		0	0		1	0	0	1
Quebec Bulldogs	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1
St. Louis Eagles	0	0		0	1		0	1	0	1

Poor Minny...--Львівське (говорити) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stats, thanks for taking the time to put those together. Its more work than I am inclined to do, but it would be interesting to see the "current" team at the time the article attained status. Mine would be Columbus (Filatov), Brandon (B. Schenn), Toronto (L. Schenn, Aulie, MacArthur, Reimer), Washington (Laich) and New Jersey (Parise). My intent was Leafs and guys from Saskatchewan, though (I have no idea how the Filatov and Parise articles came about). Canada Hky (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably the same way I wrote Drew Doughty and John Cullen - they were there. Most bios are of retired or dead players, so team at time of writing wouldn't work well. But the Flames and Canucks would be runaway leaders on those categories as well. Resolute 00:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. Though the numbers are rather misleading in some regards: the 3 FA's for Chicago all played sparingly for the Hawks (Hasek, Morenz, Fleury), same with the 3 Islanders FA's (Linden, Luongo and Eric Brewer). Still, quite impressive how much has gone into some specific teams. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am impressed how the one man wrecking crew of Resolute is pretty much managing by himself to keep the Flames close to the Canucks who have a couple featured content writers on their task force. :) -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Adam McQuaid

Does anyone know if "The Big To-Do" is actually a nickname for Adam McQuaid? There is an IP who continual adds this, I have delete it several times and ask that they add a reference on the talk page but received no response. This has been an on again off again thing since last season that seems to have come back with the start of the new season. I really have no desire for a full blown edit war over this so before I go any further I was wondering if anyone knows if this is accurate. I tried to Google it but right now my Google searches are going to redirects, and all that seems to come up are mirror sights and other wikis. If anyone can help shed some light on this it would be most appreciated. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• If so, no one here in Boston, home of the Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins, has ever heard of it. Ravenswing 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That's an awesome nickname, but I don't think it is McQuaid's. Most nicknames start out as grassroots campaigns, so it would be interesting if this caught on. Canada Hky (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Origin of players / nationality lists

On the Kontinental Hockey League article there's a list like the NHL article has, where it lists the sum of players by 'origin'. The NHL article uses place of birth (hence: 'origin') but the KHL list is now going by 'nationality' or something like that...it's not well defined (and shouldn't use "origin" in the header if its not their origin!). Anyway, the source being cited, QuantHockey, by my numbers isn't even accurate (Latvians are less by 1, Ukrainians are down by 3-9). My question is, how should a list like this be handled and defined? Origin? IIHF representation? Citizenship? (Dual?!) If quanthockey is off, do we 'fix' their numbers and fall into WP:OR territory, or what?--Львівське (говорити) 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Quanthockey uses common sense and determines players nationality based on the fact which national side they last played for. If a player hasn't played for national team at any level, Quanthockey, just like NHL, goes by the place of birth (despite the fact that in some cases they are ineligible to even play for respective national team (see Konstantin Rudenko). For example Viktor Tikhonov's birtplace is Riga, Latvia, but he played for Russian U20 side so he is listed as a Russian player. Similiar cases like Sobchenko, Zherdev should explain why you seem to think some Ukrainians are missing. Utinsh (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well Quanthockey says both Bayev and Zemchenko as Russian-born Russian-nationals, which is wrong. Both were born in Ukraine and neither played for Russia. That aside though, what's the WPs stance on how lists of this nature should be handled?--Львівське (говорити) 23:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that WP has a stance. I would be in favour of excluding this type of content unless it can be reliably sourced, or the criteria defined more stringently. Otherwise we end up with this issue - and there is no good answer. Canada Hky (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as you lay out what the table is actually saying then either would probably be fine. But in this case I would probably just remove the table. It is pretty trivial for the KHL really. The only reason the NHL table is barely above the triviality line is that it is the top league in the world so the idea of seeing how "international" it is might be ever so slightly more notable than trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)