Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive72

Alexandre Boikov and Alexander Boikov

Hi, the information on these two pages seems to be a mix of information about two separate people. For example, one page claims the person is a forward, while the infobox claims he's a defenseman. Plus the talk page for Alexander redirects to the talk page for the other guy. Would anyone be interested in fixing these pages? I don't know anything about the two and their careers, so I'd prefer not to do it and mess the pages up more. Thanks for any and all help. -Yupik (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yupik: Fixed the pages. All should be good now. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking for some clarification

In my summer attempts to clean up and source many of the minor leagues, I have recently turned my attention to the Canadian Women's Hockey League. I found sourcing many of this league's changes in past years to be quite challenging. Of note, it has recently come to light the Quebec Phenix never appeared to have played in Quebec City, despite being listed this way on the page since its creation], even though it listed a rink the Montreal area. I cannot find any sources to collaborate either way (although newer sources seem to be using wikipedia as a source).

Also, I am trying to navigate what happened with the creation of the Toronto Furies, their relation to the Toronto Aeros, and that some sources say the Aeros were also the Mississauga Chiefs. Each page then has some cross over, such as the Chiefs and Aeros each sharing a few seasons in their stats list. Then the Aeros list the 2010–11 stats, but there is a page called 2010–11 Toronto Furies season. I cannot find any live sources, but both this and this only call the losing team "Toronto" without a team name. Wikipedia should be informative, but I have no idea what to make of this as I am not Canadian and the on-line sources seem to all be dead (if they ever existed). So if anyone has some insight on how to proceed with this clean up, I am all ears. Yosemiter (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I know very little of women's hockey in Canada. I suggest pinging some of the folks in the Women's Ice Hockey task force. Flibirigit (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Ice hockey task force, but that project is not very active and has typically focused on more on individual Women's Notability, not much on hockey itself, teams, or records. I pinged that page anyways because I know User:mark Staffieri and User:Bill McKenna do keep some of the women's pages going. Yosemiter (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(@Flibirigit: and this kind of response is why I did not go that project first. The main editor there seems to think we are a bunch of misogynists that disregard women in hockey. In reality, we just focus on hockey and sometimes it includes women and women's teams or leagues. But we do not treat it any different than the media treats it for now, which is no different the media treats any minor league unfortunately.) Yosemiter (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, in regards to that comment, its not that its a women's league that has caused that, its that it is a minor league and a lot of minor league teams have been treated like that. In fact some sports don't even separate major league team relocations. I used to try and convince the baseball project to start doing it but the best I could do was to get them to create separate history pages for the previous locations. -DJSasso (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned that on their talk page (mostly because I was asking how their comment was in any way relevant to the move discussion). They, of course, did not seem to care. Yosemiter (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The CWHL 2010–11 standings says Furies, the 2011 playoffs just says Toronto, and the Clarkson Cup history page says the Stars defeated the Toronto Aeros. So still no idea. Yosemiter (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Even though the CWHL existed pre-2010–11 CWHL season, the league was completely restructured for the 2010–11 CWHL season. Some teams shut down and new ones took their place. This was Toronto's first CWHL season. I searched the Canadian Newsstream on ProQuest and the earliest mentions of Toronto Furies is October 2011. That name is then used for the entire 2011-12 season. It is not used at all prior to that season. My guess is that when the CWHL renamed the team on their site, it attached that name to every season which is why the 2010-11 season shows as the Furies, even though all media shows as just Toronto for that season. Also worth noting that the 2010–11 Toronto Furies season page was originally 2010–11 Toronto CWHL season until that season was over. Here's a quote from this souce ("The Toronto franchise in the Canadian Women's Hockey League (CWHL) has a new name and a new home arena this season. The Toronto Furies, led by Tessa Bonhomme, who helped Canada win Olympic gold in 2010 and is showing her versatility by doing well in the Battle of the Blades, currently on CBC, is based this season out of George Bell Arena." - "SPORTS SCOOP: For the week of Oct. 31". The City Centre Mirror. Willowdale, ON. October 31, 2011. p. 1.) I believe that during the 2010–11 CWHL season, the teams did not have nicknames. They just went by the city name. Or at least that's how all the media on Canadian Newsstream refers to the teams. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Back then, it was not very uniform, and some outlets referred to them as Toronto CWHL, and others were Furies. In reality, Toronto Furies should be the correct name to use for the 2010-11 season page Mark Staffieri (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nurmsook: and @Mark Staffieri: so the Aeros and Chiefs pages are incorrect that the Chiefs became the Aeros in 2010? Should it really be the Chiefs ceased operations and the Toronto CWHL began, later to be named the Furies? (BTW, if they did not reveal their name until the season was done, I think 2010–11 Toronto CWHL season would be a more accurate title if they never played as the Furies that season. A simple sentence in the lead that they took a brand after the season with a 2010–11 Furies redirect to that page would take care of inaccuracies. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I found no other references to a Furies 2010–11 season, just a Toronto CWHL season. But that is my interpretation.) Yosemiter (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Yosemiter: and @Nurmsook:. Very good insights by both of you. Back then, there was no formal announcement as to the dissolving of the Mississauga team. That season, two other teams (Ottawa and Vaughan) had also been contracted, but once again, no actual statement as to why. Regarding the existence of the Furies, there was never any official statement linking them to the Mississauga club.

• The CWHL held its first draft in 2010, and several players from Mississauga were “protected”, as they were automatically joining the Furies. Taking into account that more than half of the roster was made up of players from the previous Mississauga team, including Sami Jo Small, it just became accepted by fans that there was some kind of linkage between the teams.

• In looking up Small’s page on the CWHL website [1], they have the Furies listed as the official name for any 2010-11 boxscores. Mind you, the website was redesigned last year.

• From what I remember about that season, most communiques made reference to the team as Toronto CWHL. Just a theory, but perhaps they had not yet copyrighted the name. It’s similar to another league conundrum whereby Team Alberta is known colloquially as the Alberta Honeybadgers, but that name was never issued in any official league correspondence. Technically, they should always be just Team Alberta.

• In addition, the book Who’s Who in Women’s Hockey (it’s a Canadian book so it only makes reference to people who played in the COWHL, CWHL, original NWHL, and WWHL) refers to the 2010-11 season as Furies, just so it is consistent. In addition, if you look up the schedule on the CWHL website, the 2010-11 season is referred to as a Furies season. Once again, it’s about consistency.

• Although there are valid cases concerning the actual name of the season page, the fact that both names have been included (2010-11 Toronto CWHL and 2010-11 Toronto Furies) simply prevents duplication of work. Mark Staffieri (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: and @Mark Staffieri:...my concern is that there are not actual sources from the 2010-11 season that refer to the Furies. All application of Furies to that season have happened after the fact. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I believe when the CWHL updated their website, they applied Furies to that season. In reality, if you use Wayback Machine to look at the CWHL website from that season (https://web.archive.org/web/20101121081953/http://cwhl.ca/), as I mentioned, no teams had nicknames. Remember, the 2010-11 season was essentially a reset of the league (information from CWHL.ca here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100723155205/http://www.cwhl.ca:80/). I believe the article sound be titled 2010–11 Toronto CWHL season per Yosemiter's suggestion. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nurmsook: and @Mark Staffieri: It seems the bottom of this article probably states it the best: The Canadian Women’s Hockey League (CWHL), in partnership with Ontario Women’s Hockey Association and Scotiabank, is set to make history with their 2010/2011 inaugural season commencing this weekend (Oct 23/24). The CWHL has currently restructured the league and will now feature five new teams - Montreal, Boston, Brampton, Burlington and Toronto. (Thanks for the archive link Nurmsook, I was having trouble finding it.) As part of the restructuring, all teams were "new" with the caveat that they could protect previous CWHL players. The teams then protect players that had previous played in the location for the "previous" team. The only one that seems to have been broken was the Mississauga-Toronto link. Am I correct in assuming this "restructuring" should have had more content in the history section of all teams involved as well as the CWHL page itself? All the league page says is: "In 2010, the CWHL expanded into the United States with the Boston Blades. The league would also restructure and the Ottawa Senators and Vaughan Flames CWHL teams ceased operations while the Mississauga Chiefs would also became the Toronto Aeros for the season (the team became the Toronto Furies the following season)." It does not seem the refs here back up the Blades or Chiefs-Aeros-Furies statements (as none are referenced by those names at that time) and was possibly WP:OR? Yosemiter (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at expanding the 2010 reorganization this weekend, it certainly needs some explanation. Then I will go through and start changing the references to the "Chiefs became the Aeros" stuff as it was really only a spiritual successor apparently (there were only 3 or 4 Chiefs protected by the Toronto CWHL in the 2010 draft). There is quite a bit of random overlap that needs to be cleaned up and made so they no longer contradict each other. Yosemiter (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Staffieri: @Nurmsook: First attempt made at clarifying. Please check this edit for correctness. I have had a hard time at finding exactly when Boston started using "Blades", but there was an article in November 2010 with that name, even though the league still did not use it. I am also not finding references for the Toronto protected players from the Chiefs other than Botterill, who was directly mentioned as the only protected player by Toronto (with no mention as it was because she was on the Chiefs). Small or Garland being protected as listed here but not here. They did end up drafting several former Chiefs, so I could see why Toronto was a"spiritual successor". Yosemiter (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone want to check my above edits? I also updated the Mississauga Chiefs page. Yosemiter (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Staffieri, Nurmsook, and Djsasso: I worked on the Toronto Aeros page and it needs a look/help. Took a lot of time and refs were very hard to come-by. The gist is that as an Org, the Aeros have been around for decades under many names. I can find absolutely no actual refs that call the 2010–11 CWHL team the Aeros, despite its usage on Elite Prospects (although, that site also has the 1999–2007 NWHL stats mixed with the new NWHL). I also can find no refs that said the Aeros played as the Chiefs in the CWHL, especially when the Chiefs already apparently existed in the NWHL as the Oakville Ice. What is evident is that both were separate hockey orgs hosting senior teams in the same area, which is not uncommon in youth and junior hockey. Still not finding any refs that says either the Chiefs or Aeros became the Furies, seems to be WP:OR for the time. Yosemiter (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And 2010–11 CWHL season Yosemiter (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Could someone have a look at this edit at 1926–27 New York Americans season. I suspect it's vandalism given the user's other edits but I don't know anything about these stats. Hack (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Its incorrect. The teams he edited only played one another 4-6 times a season (plus... his figures would make those teams go way past the 44 total GP). Leventio (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit was undone by User:GoodDay. Hack (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Kenora Thistles FAC

I hate soliciting reviews for FACs this way, but if anyone is willing to go to the Kenora Thistles FAC nomination and offer some comments, or even go through the article itself and help fix it up, it would be much appreciated. I'm concerned that yet another article I put there is going to fail due to inactivity, even if it hasn't been long yet. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair use photos

Is anyone aware of a WP:FAIRUSE claim for photos of persons deceased for "X" number of years? I seem to recall one, but cannot find a specific license. Flibirigit (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The present policy mostly judges the waiting period for the deceased on a case-by-case basis (based on commercial viability/application). Funny enough though, a discussion adding a fixed waiting period has popped up yesterday in the NFC's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Images of deceased persons). Most of the people supporting a wait period suggest one that is six months to a year. That said, they couldn't reach a consensus on the issue the last time this was brought up (in 2017). So I'd probably just wait to see how that current discussion play out. Leventio (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

For some reason I was thinking it was closer to 25 years! Just to make sure, is Template:Non-free biog-pic the one in question? Flibirigit (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that should be the copyright tag you use. Leventio (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Atlanta Thrashers

Um, someone has just moved (without discussion) Atlanta Thrashers to History of the Atlanta Thrashers. I believe consensus is former NHL teams keep their own articles, no? (they've also done this to Montreal Expos for some reason - not sure what baseball wants.) What the hell? Echoedmyron (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, they keep their articles. This should be reverted. Ravenswing 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like it was taken care of by Yosemiter. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently that's what they do for defunct NFL teams? (See History of the Houston Oilers.) That makes no sense to me. Glad to see this project has some sanity. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what done for defunct/relocated MLB teams, with the exception of the Montreal Expos & Seattle Pilots. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I argued against it when the St. Louis Rams went to LA (you know, WP:COMMONNAME and more likely to be linked, searched for, etc). They did not care. It is weird that every project seems to treat these historical teams differently. The NBA is also mixed (see Vancouver Grizzlies and Syracuse Nationals as examples) for no real consistent reason. Yosemiter (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the history version is what we managed to convince some of the other sports to do instead of following our lead when they disagreed that what we did was appropriate. They used to not even have separate articles and would have everything all on the new name. I figured it was just a first step which would likely lead to the names being shortened to their old team names per commonname. But it has never gotten to that point yet. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Contract details in team's season page

The last time I asked about the final roster in team's season page. I wrote that I would take a look at the team's season page format and try to create a style guide for it, but did not have the time to finish it and this effort lies somewhere in my HDD. However, while thinking that I should get back to it, I thought of contract details for players in such pages. Team's rarely publish the contract details in their official press releases and CapFriendly is used most times as a source for these details, but those details are questionable since no sources are listed. Should contract details be considered as WP:FANCRUFT? They might be relevant to a player's page (which is still unsourceable), but is hardly relevant for the team's season page. I thought that the season pages of Calgary Flames could be used as an example in this post, but looks like it still lists contract details here and there. I instead started experimenting in one of my sandboxes, but want to see other users' opinions before showing an actual example to everyone else. Opinions from other users would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

In addition, some users insist on listing contract type (one-way or two-way) in the transactions tables as can be seen at 2018–19 Montreal Canadiens season, which is nothing more than a WP:FANCRUFT and is only relevant to players' pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be on a case by case basis, I wouldn't do it for every player on the team for the very reasons you suggest, but if there is a particularly notable one that made a lot of headlines I would include it. Say Tavares for example. And in saying that it should be in the prose of the season page, not as a list. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand that listing contract details in BLPs is a case-by-case basis (I rarely add them), but my main question was regarding the tables' formats in the team's season page (for example, 2018–19 New Jersey Devils season). Should contract details be removed from the tables? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't referring to their bios themselves, technically season pages are supposed to have sections of prose at the top of them that talk about what happened in the off season and during the season. I would include the notable salaries in that prose section but I wouldn't in a list (aka table). -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example of the transactions' section in team's season page. I think that the free agents' tables should get some work and could be merged into one table as can bee seen at 2018–19 Pittsburgh Penguins season#Free agents (contract details should be removed) or two separate tables could be placed more closely as can be seen at 2018–19 Calgary Flames season#Additions and subtractions. At this point I am not sure which of the three formats is better. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that the contract length is FANCRUFT. The money value on the other hand is complicated by bonuses and not knowing whether whatever salary capfriendly or whoever lists is precise. I've never been a fan of listing departing players contract details with other teams. A transactions section like this minus the contract values is my preference. --SP17 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is good that you showed what you prefer, but the changes being discussed here would touch all the teams' season pages. We are not changing the layout of the "Transactions" section and that could be determined later. We are discussing whether to list or not to list the contract details. I am not trying to change your opinion, but contract details are WP:FANCRUFT (contract's length included) since it only matters to a very small group of people and if a contract is really that notable then it could be mentioned in prose (BLP can have more information about it). In my opinion, all the transactions (excluding trades) should be converted from tables to lists since that is the format that WP:NHL prefers per many discussions in the past. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that length is cruft, as that is verifiable and important. If we are noting the signing, the actual length would be relevant as well. Only reason I don't think we should have the salary figure is because it is hard to verify. Length on the other hand is always announced. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

While I am against keeping the contract length, but I will accept whatever is decided (if decided). If we are going to continue listing the contract length then the field should be renamed appropriately ("Contract length", "Length" or similar). In addition, what about the contract type (entry-level, one-way, two-way, etc)? Yes, I know that the type is usually announced, but do we really need to list it? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we probably don't need type. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In a cap world, the salary hit and type of contract help a lot with understanding why teams make the moves they do. I agree, though, that the many readers aren't going to be taking advantage of this info, and so it may be better left to specialist web sites/databases. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Since there are users that agree, I intend to remove the contract details and leave only the contract length. Any objections? And how that field in the tables should be named? "Length", "Contract length" or there are better proposals? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Contract length is fine with me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying that "CapFriendly is used most times as a source for these details, but those details are questionable since no sources are listed" is just blatantly and demonstrably false. CapGeek is a verifiable and sourced web source as they do have sources for contracts. They note on their page whether a contract is confirmed or not as well. For example, here is a recent signing. You can notice that under the contract details a source is listed. Also, if you'd want to rid of the amount of the contract, then we should go with the annual average value which supplies better information than the contract total. I do not agree with this proposed new design either. Looks much worse and utilizes more negative space. If you were to change it to anything, you should've asked the curator of the Penguins season page since it easily provides the most information and the cleanest fashion. Nanerz (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the are no "page curators" as you are trying to imply and I do not have to ask anyone when a change is made per WP:BOLD. If you have not noticed, the format was based on the 2018–19 Pittsburgh Penguins season page with a few tweaks and I have not implemented the new format in the pages of the Calgary Flames, Philadelphia Flyers and Pittsburgh Penguins. The format was changed, because there is no need for 10 tables when the same information can be listed in less tables. Sometimes less is better, and WP:NHL does exactly that (for example, navboxes for Stanley Cup-winning teams are not created among other things). Secondly, very few news articles from the teams list the contract amount. Here are the examples of "reliable source" for players' contracts – Shea Theodore, John Tavares, Marc-André Fleury (no source is listed and only "CapGeek" is written) and many more. Reports from journalists are not reliable and the only reliable information comes from the teams. In addition, contract amount or type is WP:FANCRUFT and as I already wrote in my previous posts – it is only relevant to a very small group of people. If the information comes from the team, then it can be introduced in the player's page in prose, but there is no need to do that in team's season page. It is also strange that a new user pops out of nowhere (not talking about another account, which you are not using) and starts editing only the pages, which are related to the NHL teams' seasons and tries to force his/her opinion. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that contract type and salary information is of importance to only a small number of readers. Team transactions are heavily influenced by these and having this information presented as part of a team's season provides a greater understanding of its personnel decisions. That being said, a static table isn't the best way to provide this context; an interactive timeline would probably be better. Thus until this can be provided within Wikipedia, it may be better to allow other sites to fill this need. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, by curators I believe it was fairly obvious I was referring to those maintain a unique page from the other teams (those being Calgary, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis). Secondly, you state that you don't need to ask to make a change yet you did and no one saying you needed to. Thirdly, yes sometimes less is better, but not in this case. A better implementation would have been a single table for incoming and outgoing players akin to the Pittsburgh page yet you managed to make it look like an unorganized mess. My comment on asking the curator of Pittsburgh's page (as in the person who created the table) was simply out of respect to him. Fourthly, there was not 10 tables, there were 7, 2 of which most teams did not require. For my proposed table, there would only be 2 tables (incoming/outgoing players & re-signings/prospect signings). Fifthly, every signing if you have noticed does not source directly to CapGeek. They all have separate sources for their own respective signings. I do not understand how TSN, SportsNet, ESPN, etc. are not reliable news sources to you. Are there instances where sources are incorrect? Yes, as with every other news source. However these mistakes get corrected and shall get corrected when noticed. You are claiming that the only possible source for such information is only able to be found on CapFriendly, which is once again unequivocally false. Sixthly, you cannot claim that only a small group cares about this information therefore we shouldn't include it since you have no evidence of such and are simply relying on your own bias. Finally, you are no better than any other editor on this website. You are not above me or any other user that edits these pages. Is this how you treat all new users? Simply because I am a newer user does not mean that my opinion is any lesser to your own. I can edit whichever posts I want and do not have any necessity to edit any other pages than the ones I do. Check your ego at the door, for everyone's sake. This is not the first time you have treated me with disrespect. Nanerz (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

CapFriendly is generally considered not reliable, while there are some instances where they have a source, the vast majority don't, and they have often had wrong information so that site to this point has not been considered a reliable source. A perfect example of a non-reliable source was given as twitter is generally not considered reliable unless its something in regards to what happened on twitter itself. If Pierre LeBrun wrote it in an actual article with editorial oversight then it would be considered reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Again this is simply not truthful. You've offered no evidence showing that it is an unreliable source and as I stated above in reply to Sabbatino, it is not as if CapFriendly is the only source available. Stating that the vast majority don't is just blatantly false and nobody is using CapFriendly as a direct source to any contract, you can check this for yourself thus this argument is redundant. Nanerz (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, it is simply too detailed, and not reliably obtained enough for all players. Such information is routinely left to other specialized websites for all sorts of topics on Wikipedia. We don't house every single piece of information about every topic. Team season pages should match the format of our Featured level team seasons such as 1985–86 Calgary Flames season. -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that alot of this discussion and the issues that come from it can be solved if we as a group decided to revise and restructure the actual template that this WikiProject has listed to fit the current needs of the Project. If memory serves me correctly I implemented the current style of Free Agent transactions on the Pittsburgh Penguins Seasons almost 5 years ago due to there was no need for multiple tables just to say if a player left or joined a team. While I agree that listing the year by year salary will explain alot of CAP issues, I do feel that the yearly salary is not what is being stated on that table. You are specifically listing what that player was signed and the length of said contract when they were signed. Further I disagree with adding the waivers section into the free agency, they are two different situations and if you have a player that was signed as a free agent and then lost to waivers the table may get confusing. I will reiterate the thoughts I expressed at the start of my post. I feel that the template for this WikiProject should be enforced with the standards we set forth and if someone wants to deviate from that standard they can bring it to the majority here and suggest a change. –B2Project^(Talk) 23:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with respect to whatever format is chosen by the group. I will follow the template the group wants to use. I just did not see anything in the 2018–19 Tampa Bay Lightning season page history saying the change was due to a decision by this group. The revision I made was only to follow the previous season format for uniformity. A note with the change next time would be appreciated if there is a format change such as this one. As far as disagreement goes it appears the format has already been decided upon. Magnus221 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Gritty

Hello everyone. I'm currently watching the Gritty (mascot) article. I noticed text is being added to the article and I'm questioning its notability. Here are two examples of the text being added.

"Introduced in 2018, the mascot drew widespread comment for its frightening appearance and was embraced by the alt-right for use in racist internet memes. This was retaliatory, and was motivated by the widespread sentiment of the american left that the mascot should be used as "their very own Pepe the Frog"."

and

"Gritty has been the subject of numerous alt-right memes in which he is portrayed as loving Adolph Hitler and wearing various Nazi affiliated clothing items. He is represented as similar to Moonman, alternatively known as Mac Tonight, a former marketing character of Mcdonald's who has been similarly appropriated by the alt-right for us in racist internet memes."

I come here to the users passionate about ice hockey asking for your thoughts on the article and the direction it needs to go. FunksBrother (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Gritty being associated with any white supremacist groups. However, I did see the Philadelphia city council passed a resolution on October 25 concerning Gritty. It specifically mentions Gritty being widely declared Antifa. I am not sure how "widely" Gritty has been declared Antifa or how truthful that statement is, but it is out there apparently. Most likely it is just social media being social media. By that I mean that it is people making him into whatever they want him to be. Magnus221 (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Magnus221. Now, I thought I saw Gritty's image used in an Alt-Right parade but it could've been photoshopped and Google shows nothing. It was right to be deleted (it was unsourced anyways). Literally googling "Gritty mascot Trump" shows he was only used in Anti-Trump matters. As well, there seems to be far more support he is being used by people leaning left. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

QMJHL

Need clarification here. Are we using diacritics in players names on QMJHL team articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have been told this numerous times. You have asked here numerous times. They are used anywhere they are normally used, as the QMJHL is a french league they are normally used there. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I needed to know. Wasn't quite sure, since it's under the CHL. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We even specifically mention it on the WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject_notice specially because you always ask about it. To quote "All North American hockey pages should have names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey)." -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a new season

Howdy. We need the red message updated to 2018-19, at the List of NHL statistical leaders article. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I updated the notice....but by chance did you update statistics? If you didn't then the notice is incorrect as it stands... -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the stats have all been updated at the conclusion of the 2017-18 season. They must have been, as IPs have started making updates from the 2018-19 season (which have been reverted since). GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

More on women's hockey for NSPORTS

Not sure why the project was not notified as it pertains to NHOCKEY, but editors are still questioning why women are not strictly mentioned in the SNG. Yosemiter (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If enough folks are questioning it, then it should probably be updated. There is a big push for WP:Women in red, and consensus can change after time. Flibirigit (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Although the folks questioning also claim they do not know anything about hockey. As I said in that discussion and many other times, finding independent reliable sources for both the CWHL and NWHL has been a challenge. However, I am still not opposed to adding it to WP:NHOCKEY #3 with an extra statement of minimum games played. That would eliminate the players who were in the top 10 scorers after the first few NWHL/CWHL seasons, but never played in any league again and got nearly no media attention. As women's leagues play far fewer games per season, I would probably suggest 25 or 30 games minimum in that league (not a combo). It should be noted the extra stipulations is why it has not been directly added, because it changes it from a simple "player achieved..." to "player achieved... if they did X plus Y in Z time". Makes it awkward. Yosemiter (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that achieving preeminent honours such as top ten in the history of the NWHL/CWHL should be sufficient for NHOCKEY #4. Just a thought. Flibirigit (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

NHOCKEY#4 is meant to be about college hockey specifically as there is no All-American in the NWHL/CWHL. There is not even All-First or Second teams either in the NWHL, just MVP, Top Forward, Top Defense, and Top Goaltender. Defensewomen (and men) in particular get lower GNG-worthy coverage as they don't score much. There is a difference in real-world niche notability vs. GNG/BLP wikipedia notability. Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe women should have their own bullet point instead. I think it would get lost in point 3 due to the first-team all-star thing if its not applicable. Move 4-6 down to spots 5-7, and create point 4 for women? Flibirigit (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but as investigated in this long discussion, it still would satisfy the goals of the Women in Red project, which is full equivalency to NHL players' presumed notability standards (stepping on the ice in said league). The more stipulations needed for a woman player to qualify (my example of "did X plus Y in Z time"), the more it looks like we are actually being more restrictive on women (as men simply need achievement X). As opposed to simply "Does this BLP meet GNG regardless of gender?", which should inherently be non-biased. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused on how adding a separate bullet point is related to what you just said. Flibirigit (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean, making essentially a new SNG specifically for women's hockey that is more restrictive than it is for men's players would not satisfy what the non-hockey editors are looking for. They imply they want Played in the NWHL, they are notable, period. No stipulations, no extra qualifications, just total inclusiveness. They want the NWHL in NHOCKEY#1, regardless of GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that consensus supports inclusion in NHOCKEY#1, but I could be wrong. It appears there is consensus for something lower down at NHOCKEY#3 or NHOCKEY#3A. Flibirigit (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, the consensus is that it in no way meets NHOCKEY#1 using the definition in GNG.

But that isn't their point. It gets brought up in every AfD for a female player, no matter how few games or how little coverage the player received. They have made it clear, that because the player is female and playing hockey, they should be considered notable and that NHOCKEY is biased against women and should be ignored.

I am saying: if we do make a #3A that is more restrictive or defined, it is highly likely the same users will point out that it is more restrictive and that NHOCKEY is still biased against women's leagues and should be ignored.

Do you see the problem? In their eyes, if we follow GNG, the SNG is always going to be viewed as biased for not having it equal to men. The SNG is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Yosemiter (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no problem in making a change to NHOCKEY if there is a consensus.Flibirigit (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I was actually going to adjust the wording somehow awhile back to make clear women can pass nhockey by playing the in the world championships so that we would stop hearing the women can't meet nhockey argument but I could not think of a good way to word it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to handle NHOCKEY in these situations. It's like how do you get more people to show up for women's hockey at the Winter Olympics, to equal the number of people showing up at men's hockey. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just responded to the village pump discussion, but when all is said and done, I oppose any change to the guidelines on this. Yosemiter is exactly right: the position of the other side in this is "They play in the NWHL, therefore they're notable, because screw the GNG, that's why." Nothing short will satisfy them, and they are generally unmoved by cites, facts, studies or comparisons; this is entirely a matter of ideology. Folks, we're not going to stop hearing this argument short of adding every women's league around the world (because we were getting the same carping a few months ago in AfDs for women playing exclusively in the Turkish domestic league) to #1. Ravenswing 19:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - rightly or wrongly, women's ice hockey just doesn't get the level of coverage that men's ice hockey does. There's nothing (nor should there be anything) that WP:HOCKEY can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

While I certainly agree we are always going to hear a complaint of some sort. I don't see where it would hurt us to make a change like

• Played on a senior national team for the men's or women's World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year.

Bolding mine just to show what has changed. This would at least stop the constant comment that NHOCKEY doesn't mention women and it wouldn't touch the leagues or anything and doesn't actually include anyone we don't already include, it just serves the purpose of clarity. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding in the national teams to NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. Although we will still hear "NHOCKEY is biased" arguments (that is what the Village Pump discussion is talking about after all, that making the Olympics or IIHF WC is too exclusive). But at least it is something explicit in the SNG. Yosemiter (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah there will always be complaints. There have been since WP:ATHLETE was changed to WP:NSPORTS. That is never going to end, people who see their preferred articles being deleted are always going to complain that it doesn't say what they want it to say. But there are always wording things we can do that will alleviate some of the easier to avoid arguments. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's a step forward. Flibirigit (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• This project should reconsider the following NHOCKEY text "a top level Canadian amateur league prior to 1909". Trying finding reliable sources for those guys that's more than stats. Also, the NHA is not mentioned in NHOCKEY. We should probably dump those players who did not play in the NHL if you want to follow NHOCKEY also. Those guys have little or no reliable sources also. Also, many one-game wonders have little or no notability. Like being listed in the stats and that's all. Alaney2k (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  The NHA is mentioned, its in the link at the bottom where we tell people to go look for leagues not explicitly listed above so that not every league has to be listed in the main text of NHOCKEY. Also remember meeting NHOCKEY doesn't mean an article has to be kept, if it fails GNG it still gets deleted, so if you can't find stuff for some one-hit wonders (after looking for hard copy paper sources of course) then nominate them for deletion. That being said pretty much every one hit wonder that people bring up I have seen sources for in the past. The only one I can remember not finding any for was a guy who we only had the last name for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Edmonton Oil Kings logos

There is a conversation starting at Talk:Edmonton Oil Kings regarding logos, if anyone is interested in joining. Flibirigit (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem at the Washington Capitals' player pages

We have a problem regarding the Capitals' player pages. Artaxerxes has been adding irrelevant (first goal/assist of the season), POV, editorial (for example, "chief rivals the Pittsburgh Penguins") and WP:CRYSTAL (Jakub Vrána's page) content to the players' pages. In addition, he has been adding and/or editing the 2018–19 statistics in players' pages. I wrote a friendly message to him suggesting that he would stop but wanted to let everyone know that there is a problem and editors of this project should be made aware of it if they would encounter this user. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ice hockey award

Template:Infobox ice hockey award was nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 28 if interested. Flibirigit (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

Just to let yas know. I've given up trying to stop IPs etc from updating the stats article during an active season. Only full protection during the regular season & playoffs, with protection lifted during the off-season (will stop the tidal waves of misinformed or purposeful ignoring of the 'red lettered' note), will work. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD and nationalities

Should players' nationalities in the lead paragraph be linked or not? I am asking this due to a disagreement at Lukáš Radil's page. MOS:OVERLINK says that nationalities should not normally be linked unless "there is a contextually important reason to link" and Category:FA-Class Ice Hockey articles does not help either since nationalities are either linked or not linked in that category's BLPs. Opinions regarding this matter would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Assuming the birth country is linked in the infobox, there's likely no reason to link the nationality in the intro box. Unless, we want to link the nationality in the infobox, to avoid any dispute in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Birth country is not linked in the infoboxes, which means that linking nationality in lead should not be the subject of MOS:OVERLINK as that would be the first instance. In addition, you can be born in France and be "Italian" by nationality. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course this assumes the birth country is the same as their nationality; while that's true most of the time, there are exceptions (Robyn Regehr being the first to come to mind; he's obviously not Brazilian). Kaiser matias (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Players that were born in the Czechoslovakia are not automatically Czechs. Same goes to people born in the Soviet Union, which does not make them Russians. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Nationality links also are supposed to link to the nationality article ie [[Canadians|Canadian]] and not the country article anyway so they are two separate links. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I always link to nationalities (the "Canadian" example) in the lead paragraph and fix it if the link leads to country's page. But that is what I want to find out - should nationality be linked or not linked in the lead? I thought about reinstating the link to nationality at Radil's page but some editors would better go to an edit war than discuss it... – Sabbatino (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We do typically link it yes. I was more replying to people mentioning linking in the infobox. Should have had better indenting. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the link to nationality at Lukáš Radil's page and included the link to this discussion in my edit summary. I hope that the user who is concerned with MOS:OVERLINK will at least read this discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could have notified me about that discussion. From the Overlink article "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked: This generally includes major examples of geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America), locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia), languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish), nationalities and ethnicities (e.g., English, British, Chinese, Turkish; African-American, Hispanic), and religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)." Kante4 (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You do not need to copy what MOS:OVERLINK says, because we can read it ourselves. In addition, if I remember correctly, this is not the first time that you are asking for "special" treatment as you have to be notified personally. I have started this discussion after your last revert at Radil's page and did not reinstate the link to nationality until today when it became evident that there is nothing wrong in linking it. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Special treatment? You hoped i would view this discussion because it became one after we disagreed at that said article but you did not pinged me, which would have been nice, nothing more, nothing less. I do invite people into discussions if needed. Back to the point, nationalities are ok even when MOS says, it should not be linked? Or did i miss something? Kante4 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article" For athletes nationality is a very major part of their biography, so it would be particularly relevant. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it's handled differently in other sports. Ice hockey is the only one i know where it is linked constantly, just curious for me. Kante4 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Honors, awards, and achievements sections in BLPs

Should content in "Honors, awards, and achievements" or similarly named sections be converted to prose, lists or kept as tables? I am looking at such section on Alexander Ovechkin's page and it looks more like a statistics book than an encyclopedia section. A great example of how it should look like would be Michael Jordan's page, which looks decent and does not pollute the page with hundreds of links to the same thing. I thought about splitting Ovechkin's achievements into a new page, but thought about asking about it here, because it looks terrible in its current state. This is just one of the examples, because there are many ice hockey BLPs that look terrible when a player has many awards and all of them are put into a single table. In addition, listing teams' awards such as Presidents' Trophies, Conference titles and does not also make it better, because such sections should be for personal awards/achievements and not team's trophies or any other awards. Listing the awards, while playing for the national team/teams, is another problem since being a winner of some competition is already noted in the "International" section of the statistics. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I treat each person on an individual basis, or what looks best for each article. If a list of accomplishments is extremely lengthy, I would consider removing the least notable things, like "player of the week" et cetera. I generally prefer having some prose to support the accomplishments. Flibirigit (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, but I was asking what to do with it, because Ovechkin's page is in a very poor state and many of those achievements, for example, All-Star Game does not need to have a link to every year where he participated. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of changing it to proses (NHL awards could be bullet lists given the amount). Leventio (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Prose is always the best when reasonable. But as for linking to each of them, I don't find that an issue. Ovechkins looks fine to me other than missing some prose. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it makes more sense to convert everything to lists and list it as "10× NHL All-Star – 2009–2018" or "10× NHL All-Star (2009–2018)" than list every year of participation. In addition, having huge tables is excessive. When a player has five awards then I see no problem with having a table but when a player has 10+ or more then it is a problem. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the chart on the Ovechkin page. Nothing wrong with the links either. Flibirigit (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Problem regarding the Capitals' players

There is a problem regarding the Capitals players' pages. Artaxerxes is constantly adding non notable information (Reaves's hit on Wilson, first goal of the season, etc). I already wrote him/her to stop it, but he/she just ignored it and continues to add such information. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Project's opinion of game participation navboxes?

Any opinions on participatory navboxes such as Template:AHL Outdoor Classic that was just created? It doesn't seem to link anywhere helpful and just links a bunch of teams together that are otherwise already linked by the AHL navbox. Yosemiter (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This should be deleted since it does not link anywhere but teams' pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah seems redundant to me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking seasons in player stats tables

I was looking for a MOS recommendation for this, and had a quick look through archives and couldn't find any discussion of this - feel free to point me at something if I missed it. In most player stats tables, such as at Dennis O'Brien (ice hockey), the years in the season column are linked to an article for the league season, and teams are linked to an article for the team. But occasionally I will come across an article like Dave McLlwain, where the stats table is a wall of blue. In addition to league articles and league season articles being repeatedly linked, for NHL teams, the team names have been linked to that team's season article for that year - whereas non-NHL teams are being linked to the team articles, often repeatedly. I was going to start ripping out all the duplicate links, and also convert the team season links to single team links, but before doing do wanted to check on consensus. Is there any value in linking to team season articles in player stats tables? A small percentage of player articles are like this. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Echoedmyron: I would start with MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:DUPLINK for reducing the WP:SEAOFBLUE. Definitely remove duplicate links after the first use. Possibly don't link directly to team season articles unless they player has some significant reason to be linked to that team season, or link to the team season instead of the league season in the season column. Having both types of links in the team column seems a bit like a WP:EASTEREGG type link to me, as it is not clear what the link is going to go to without clicking/highlighting it. Yosemiter (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The relevant manual of style is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. A unique wikilink only needs to linked on its first appearance. Flibirigit (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Flibirigit:I'd actually looked there, but it's sparse on details. It just says "Make sure to link team, and league articles", but doesn't say how, and doesn't mention if/how to link season articles within the tables. I'm aware of the need to only link on first mention, I was more specifically asking if there was value in linking to team season articles as in the McLlwain example. But following the suggestion of Yosemiter, and reducing teams in stats tables to only the team articles seems the way to go to me. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Czech Republic/Czechia

Right now 'CZE' in a ice hockey template is coming up as 'Czechia'. Since that is the official name I don't really care, however it currently breaks the links so I am not sure what the appropriate action should be (redirects or some other solution). I think the roots go back to a change in the flag templates but I am not sure. I appreciate any help resolving this, thank you.18abruce (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The IIHF still calls them the Czech Republic, as does most every source relating to the hockey team, let alone the country. I would argue that is what we should use; after all no one uses the official name "Russian Federation" for Russia, despite that being the official name, or even "United States of America." And on a more irrelevant note I find it amusing that this "Czechia" discussion has come up recently, when the country circulated memos back in 1993 to use that name; no idea why it suddenly picked up 25 years later. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There was an official movement both internally, and at the UN, for them to be addressed as such, in 2016. I don't really have an opinion on it, just care about the broken links.18abruce (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

When was the flag template changed? That's the root of the problem, here. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Appears to have happened earlier today (discussion about it here).18abruce (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Kenora Thistles FAC

I am reluctant to bring this up, but I have Kenora Thistles at FAC right now, and as its been more than three weeks with little to no comments, I'm afraid it'll get archived again. So if anyone is willing to take a look, it would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)