Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive79

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Should I propose deletion?

Happy New Year, WP Ice Hockey people! I've come across a couple of names today whose notability appears questionable to me, but before I prod their article, I thought I'd present them here for your input. They are: Michael Smith (ice hockey, born 1971) and Brett Brochu. The former has retired and logged a lot of games in the ECHL, and the latter has played a bit in the AHL and at the recently-cancelled World Juniors. I don't see how either one meets WP:NHOCKEY ("not yet" for Brochu). Thoughts? PKT(alk) 19:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I had actually PRODed the Brochu article the other day for similar reasons, but @Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl!: added some more citations and de-PRODed it. While I personally would still be in favour of deletion, it reminds me of Devon Levi last year, and that the new citations do seem to confer Brouch clears WP:GNG. That said, if the article could be expanded a bit I think it would help alleviate any concerns there. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Michael Smith doesn't seem notable enough for his own article, imho. I would support Delete. Masterhatch (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
So would I. Ravenswing 22:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Smith actually does meet WP:NHOCKEY, specifically number 4 "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or First or Second Team All-American)". He was 2nd team All-American in 92-93 playing for Lake Superior in the CCHA.Mushh94 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we need to adjust the criteria so players like Michael Smith don't get their own arricle. Kory Karlander is another player that "meets" the criteria but I think shouldn't. Masterhatch (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The criteria is written in the way it is to protect players like Smith who whould definitely have had many articles about him at the time of his being an All-American but that was a time before the internet was all encompassing so getting the sources would require digging into news paper archives. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Memorial Cup

At the moment, we've got an article on 2020 Memorial Cup, a tournament that didn't occur & we've no article on 2021 Memorial Cup, a tournament that didn't occur. Should the former be deleted? I haven't looked into every hockey related tournaments, but I suspect we've got inconsistency between many 2020, 2021 & 2022 tournaments of different leagues, organisations. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure how to handle it. I guess we can look at what other sports have done in the same case. Masterhatch (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I've expanded my concerns to WP:SPORTS. I suspected there's inconsistency across the board post-2019. Some articles existing, others deleted, others re-directed to the main sport article. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • They're likely search terms, and thus prime candidates for simple redirection to the main Memorial Cup article. I just did redirect the 2020 article, and I see that GoodDay's created the 2021 as a redirect. Ravenswing 07:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I am fine with a redirect, but remember that an event that was cancelled can be notable for the fact it was cancelled and thus still be a relevant article on its own. I wouldn't rush to redirecting multiple articles just cause they were cancelled. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

IIHF: Czechia, not Czech Republic

Would it be alright to move hockey article titles from Czech Republic to Czech or Czechia? Apparently, IIHF has accepted the hockey country's request to change their name in international tournaments. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to change it to Czechia. Masterhatch (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
There was no request. Czech Republic itself and other European countries have been using the short name many years before its appearance in English. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
No reason to use "Czechia" for me. Kante4 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I say that if they want to go by the name Czechia for the tournaments then we should grant their request and go by that name. Xolkan (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Just re-read my reply... it should've read "I see no reason not to change it to Czechia." In other words, if the English sources are using Czechia, wiki should too. I have not, though, gone around "counting" how many English sources are using Czechia. If it looks like most are, then we should too. Masterhatch (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
If there is ample evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME has shifted in independent sources, and it is the WP:OFFICIALNAME, then I see no reason not to move this season's teams at the least. Is the COMMONNAME for the team discussed somewhere? Yosemiter (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It does look like the media is calling the team "Czechia" this year. Both TSN and Sportsnet have been using the term, and during broadcast they seem to try to mention their own confusion at least once a game, regardless of who's actually playing. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: My concern is that we should reflect what the IIHF is doing, beginning with 2022 tournaments - use Czechia. Outside the IIHF, we continue to use Czech Republic or change to Czechia, depending on what leagues (not under the IIHF umbrella) are doing. At the moment, let's concentrate on the IIHF. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ: & @78.45.163.223:, your input is required, since you both reverted my changes, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this, might I suggest a clarifying note stating the IIHF and Czechia has changed their approved nomenclature? Probably in the same note section as Russia/ROC's note in 2022 IIHF World Championship#Participants would be useful for transparency. Yosemiter (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS say that on Wikipedia currently we are obliged to use the Czech Republic. This is determined by case discussed previously. Czechia is also used by other sports organizations like basketball ch. and Wikipedia still uses Common name defined. Also the United Nations are using it and despite that, WP doesn't. This topic should be discussed only on discussion designated for this purpose, which is around WP:Common Name. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Will you PLEASe stop reverting to Czech Republic. The IIHF uses Czechia, now. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Additional: Please stop reverting when WP:COMMONNAME is used. (IIHF) isn't autonomous concern, all WP rules are superior to this subarticle on Wikipedia. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't care about anything concerning the country outside the IIHF. Only the hockey teams they send to tournaments under the IIHF. I don't see you complaining about the men's tournaments. You don't like it? take your concerns to WP:SPORTS. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
You have nice behaviour. You "don't care" about WP Wikipedia rules? Good for you. Again IIHF isn't superior or divided from use of English names as a whole. WP:SPORTS concerns are to be in accordance with the WP guidlines unless otherwise agreed. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Not interested anymore. Do what you want, since you figure you know best. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@ThecentreCZ and GoodDay: I have no horse in this race, but a brief search into recent IIHF topics would seem to have shifted to using only "Czechia" when explicitly talking about the hockey teams. This include being used in leading independent sources such as Sportsnet and The Athletic. This would indicate that IIHF Czech teams would have the WP:COMMONNAME of Czechia as of 2022. I don't believe GoodDay is trying to change it anywhere else as far as I can see. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS certainly applies, but it can also shift. Perhaps there is a better wikiproject to discuss specific Czechia vs. Czech Republic usage and whether it should be universally applied even when certain topics may have a different common usage? Yosemiter (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the rest of you, as to what's to be done with the IIHF Men's & Women's 2002-onward tournaments, concerning this topic. I'm not interested in getting into an edit-war with a Czech editor. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've brought this topic up at WP:SPORTS. -- GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is clear the wiki as a whole still has consensus to use Czech Republic. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would say we follow suit. That being said a discussion on a wider platform that encompasses more than just our project should probably discuss if it should be used in all article text for all topics if the common use in those topics is different. Afterall, redirects exist for a reason. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • (nods) I'd say this is a Wikipedia-wide issue myself, and the IIHF has no more authority regarding what the English-language press calls the nation than the hockey WikiProject does. As far as I can find, there isn't any consensus guidance on the name, and I've just dropped a note on the Naming conventions (geographic names) talk page to see if they have any info on the matter. Ravenswing 16:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME doesn't mean that every instance of the word "Czechia" needs to be scrubbed because of the title of our article at Czech Republic. If the media and tournament organizers call it Czechia, then it's Czechia. There is also no need to remove instances of the name "Czech Republic" in previous tournaments. Agree with User:Yosemiter that the standard name "Czechia" should apply in any references 2022 and beyond. 162 etc. (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my preference is to not move the article for the teams at this time (until at least after the olympics to see if the entire COMMONNAME changes for teams), but to simply add a note to 2022 IIHF World Championship#Participants (and other 2022 articles) that looks like this:

  •  Czechia1
    1 As of November 2021, the national teams from the Czech Republic are playing as Team Czechia in IIHF sanctioned competitions...add citations and such

This is the same as we treat the teams from Russia right now due to their federation's current ban and  ROC still links to Russia men's national ice hockey team. Yosemiter (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This is probably the best solution. But John Maynard Friedman below makes a good point, that really the name of the team and the name of the country are actually two separate things. I would be ok with using Czechia as long as its noted as you do in your example. -DJSasso (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two questions here: (1) the name of the team and (2) the name of the country. In the Olympics, the team from the United Kingdom is "Team GB" (and its code is GBR). In Association Football, the team from Ireland is "Republic of Ireland". So it is not obvious why the the team from the Czech Republic can't be called Team Czechia in Ice Hockey on the same logic. If that is what they call themselves, it is OR/SYNTH to decide we know better. In the case of UK and IE, we don't. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This is getting a tad annoying now. Earlier, I had the Czech national men's & women's team articles re-named to match their intros. But somebody got them reverted. Again, this isn't about the COUNTRY, but the country's NATIONAL TEAMS under the IIHF. Note - I did make a mistake though. I should've changed the articles titles & intros to begin with Czechia, rather the Czech. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think you're on the right track and I support you. Masterhatch (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: IMO, I would hold off from moving the articles themselves to Czechia. Right now, the only COMMONNAME grounds we have are articles about the IIHF Worlds. The Olympics are very soon and generate significantly more coverage than the Worlds. I say wait and see what the COMMONNAME of the hockey team is used by general audience (independent) sources are throughout the Olympics before making possibly premature page moves. I think the intro sentence is probably fine for now though (using "Czech... representing the Czech Republic"). Yosemiter (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Reckon so, as it would be a waste of time & effort, if between now & then, I kept getting reverted. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Notable

Hi. I came across this article, and was wondering why it is considered notable. Robert Orr (born 2003) Perhaps it is, and I am simply missing something, like a special rule? --2603:7000:2143:8500:508B:C400:F170:5B (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Olympic navboxes

Should navboxes of youth Olympics be nominated for deletion? I see that they were created by an already blocked editor – Template:Finland men's under-16 ice hockey squad 2012 Youth Olympics, Template:United States men's under-16 ice hockey squad 2016 Youth Olympics, Template:Footer Youth Olympic Champions Ice Hockey Boys, Template:Footer Youth Olympic Champions Ice Hockey Girls. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete them. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yup. I concure. Masterhatch (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How does one delete them? GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 Spengler Cup

I've begun the 2021 Spengler Cup article. Fee free to add any additional info. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been changed into re-direct to Spengler Cup, rightly so. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL (3rd nomination)

For those interested in taking part in the discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again keep won. I wonder if someone'll try for a fourth time anytime soon. Masterhatch (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It will continue to happen until the list is improved. Multiple editors have mentioned the existence of sources such as books and news articles, but none have been added to the list. Flibirigit (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
To be fair the first two were by the same guy who had a bee in his bonnet about the page. Not likely to happen again now that a very overwhelming keep one happened again. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

50th anniversary of Summit Series upcoming

This September 2022 will be the 50th anniversary of the Summit Series. I think it would be a great time to elevate this article to FA status from its current GA status. Then we could nominate it for the front page of Wikipedia.

Is there anyone in this project who would be willing to participate in this project?

What would it take to elevate the article to FA status? I would love to add pictures, for one thing. I would love to find a source for ones that we could use? Everything is probably copyright.

Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Being so recent (relatively speaking) pictures will be very hard to find that are not copywritten and being long enough ago that digital versions of personal pictures are not likely easily found on the internet. But other than that, it is a great idea. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I wish the article was moved back to the title 1972 Summit Series, as we've got 1974 Summit Series. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I am sure you realize the primary topic for that term is the 1972 version. Almost no one when they say the Summit Series would be referring to the 1974 version. But I am guessing you know that so I don't know why I am replying. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hm. On the picture front, we could go radical on this. Why not contact the HHOF or the NHL directly? Surely they could see the publicity benefit in higher exposure for the Wikipedia article, and it's not as if every corporate entity in the world doesn't get Wikipedia's importance by this point. They could grant us permission to use photos in their archives ... Ravenswing 21:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking into it, it does seem like after 50 years the copyright of images from the USSR expires under the transition to Russian copyright law after the fall of the Soviet Union. I am not entirely sure if I am reading that correctly, but if so we might be able to get an image that will be in the public domain. We might unfortunately have to wait until late September because that's the first game to have taken place in the USSR. TartarTorte 19:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion question (Goalies names)

Hi. I was just wondering what people’s thoughts are on foreign goalies names and if we should use their names listed on their jersey or an alternate name (if they have one) when referencing them in the decision category on a team season page. It was brought to my attention that I made an error by writing Igor Shesterkin when the correct name was Igor Shestyorkin for the 2021/22 NY Rangers. My opinion is that we should stick to the names on the back of the jerseys. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that you made an error. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive78#Shestyorkin vs Shesterkin. I have no idea why would you bring this up here if nothing bad was said (simply stated facts). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is that we follow WP:COMMONNAME. There is no notability criterion involving the backs of jerseys. Ravenswing 21:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC to abolish NHOCKEY

There is currently pending at RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS a proposal to eliminate NSPORTS, including WP:NHOCKEY. Feel free to weigh in there if you have thoughts on the issue. Cbl62 (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Cyclone Taylor FAC

I hate to do this, but I have Cyclone Taylor at FAC, and with no reviews in the past few days, there's a chance it'll get archived. Would anyone be interested in taking a look, and adding some comments there? Kaiser matias (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NHOCKEY) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT (and no other SNG) providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NHOCKEY] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." The new proposal is targeted solely at NSPORTS and would not impose similar changes on SNGs for academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

NHL Division article names

On the subject of Talk:Atlantic Division (NHL)#Splitting proposal, how does the project feel on splitting unrelated, same-name division articles. It was previously brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive76#NHL Division articles, but it does not look like there was ever a stated consensus outside of a general agreement that they are not the same divisions as the old.

I personally really dislike the 2020–21 teams being included in the otherwise unrelated West Division (NHL), East Division (NHL), and the very existence of North Division (NHL) (as well as splitting out the Central Division (NHL)#2020–2021 with pointer link to the pandemic alignment page). There should be single article on the pandemic-specific alignment; it's not like Avalanche, Wild, and Sharks ever completed with the Blackhawks, Flyers, and Penguins during the 70s in the West Division. It's pretty clear the 2020–21 season was using a temporary alignment, using geographically relevant name, unrelated to the historic previously used geographic name usage, and would be better cover in a separate article such as 2020–21 NHL divisions or 2020–21 NHL alignment. Yosemiter (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to having two Atlantic Divisions, two West Divisions & two East Divisions. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I not proposing two West Divisions and two East Division articles; I'm proposing a that there should not be any XX Division article for a division that only existed for one season (ie East, West, and North for 2020–21). So two Atlantic, one East (1967–1974 only), one West (1967–1974 only), no North, and one for the temporary pandemic alignment. Yosemiter (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
But, I am proposing two East Divisions '1967-74' & '2020-21', two West Divisions '1967-74' & '202-21' & two Atlantic Divisions '1993-2013' & '2013-present'. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: The main purpose of these division articles is about the teams playing against each other, who was dominant or less dominant and rivalries. Each of them meet WP:GNG via WP:SUSTAINED coverage of divisional play. Divisions that existed for a single season would be duplicates of the content in 2020–21 NHL season#Impact of COVID-19 and temporary realignment and 2020–21 NHL season#Standings (such as what currently exists at North Division (NHL)) and has no tied-in history outside of being a single season blip. All division movements that took place before and after the 2020–21 can be covered in a single article as most independent sources cover the alignment for that season as one topic, not by any single division. Yosemiter (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I prefer to split them. They're different sets of divisions, which happen to have the same names. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Since it was a one-off scheduling arrangement motivated by the specific context of the season, I think it should just be covered in the 2020–21 season article, with any likely search terms redirected to an appropriate section of the article. isaacl (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Isaacl: That would be fine too, IMO. But I also know that there is a historical precedence for folks liking to have info on "X Team went from Y Division in 2019–20 to Z Division in 2020–21" and such, which is probably WP:UNDUE for the season article itself. I think there are ways around that, but people tend to like consistency for consistencies sake. Yosemiter (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Since these are one-off arrangements, I don't see the need to have an exhaustive list in one spot. The individual team season articles could have this info, if desired. isaacl (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the split. Look at how confusing Template:NHL divisions looks. The 2020-21 divisions are a one-off, "asterisk" type situation. 162 etc. (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@162 etc.: Please clarify. Agree with the split per GoodDay to have one article per 2020–21 division (make three more identical articles to North Division (NHL) but with different teams listed) or with one article on the 2020–21 divisions? Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
My preference would be for one article that includes all four divisions. Four separate articles would still be better than the status quo, though. 162 etc. (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Just cover it in the season article. Absolutely no need for a separate article for each of the one-season divisions that were always intended to be temporary in the first place, and no need for an article just about the alignment; it lacks any independent notability outside the context of the season and therefore doesn't belong in a separate article from the season.
Either way, they most certainly beyond absolutely do not belong in the historic divisions that they have zero connection to beyond being named after compass directions. That's pure and unacceptable original research by synthesis that is embarrassing and and makes Wikipedia look bad. oknazevad (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Deadman137, Old Naval Rooftops, Ravenswing, and Kaiser matias: as they contributed in the last discussion. One week later, it is one user for new articles on each temporary division (GoodDay), two for incorporating in the 2020–21 season article (isaacl and oknazevad), and two for an independent article for the season alignment (myself and 162 etc). Although, I would not disagree with adding it to the season article itself if done cleanly. Yosemiter (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The Central Division is the only division that continued to exist 'unbroken' (IMHO) since its creation. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree, only three of the eight 2020–21 Central teams were members of either the 2019–20 or 2021–22 divisions. If less than half the division are the same members, how is that a direct continuation? Yosemiter (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we'll figure all that out, later. I assume we're in agreement that there's two Atlantic Divisions, two West Divisions, two East Divisions & one North Division. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It's likely the NHL is going to expand (near future) the playoffs & perhaps adopt the NFL model of 4 divisions of 4 teams, per conference. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what this has to do with divisions names and continuity in 2020–21. If they keep flip-flopping teams around under indiscriminate division names (and there were no conferences at all in 2020–21), then the division articles become less notable under GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Yosemiter (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that all divisions (current & historical) be re-directed or deleted? There's some confusion here & lack of more input from others, isn't helping. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm simply suggesting that we treat 2020–21 as it is: a temporary alignment due to unique circumstances with absolutely no continuity to any other season's divisions. Yosemiter (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
So you want to delete the North Division article. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Or redirect it to either an article on the 2020–21 alignment or a section in 2020–21 season article. But yes, I feel it fails WP:SUSTAINED as there no historical rivalries, no history of dominant teams in divisional play, no year-by-year coverage, etc. It's just a list of teams. Yosemiter (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
If you want to nominate it for deletion or re-direct? Then go for it. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Concerning the Central, East & West Divisions? the 2020–21 lineups should be removed from their content. Maybe create redirects called "East Division (NHL, 2020–21)", "West Division (NHL, 2020–21)" & "Central Division (NHL, 2020–21)". GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to begin the process of splitting the Atlantic Division into two articles, in the coming days. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I'll actually be radical here: especially since the NHL's been frequently realigning since 1970, changing the names, changing the structures, changing even whether the "divisional" groupings were meaningful at all (the years where the playoffs were conference-based, not division-based), and all reflected in the wrangling above ... is it worth our while at all to have divisional articles? Can't we just leave it all to the respective season articles? Ravenswing 08:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete all NHL divisions, past & present? I don't think the other major North American professional sports leagues, have done so with their divisions. GoodDay (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
So what? There are a number of ways we all do things differently, from hockey's own notability criteria on up. I'm sure the other Wikiprojects can decide for themselves whether or not their leagues' groupings make enough sense for ongoing articles. Ravenswing 14:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I support deleting all division articles and ending this nonsense. Deal with it at the season article. Flibirigit (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe delete. But right now, I would rather just get consensus that the 2020–21 divisions are not independently notable. It would be a start at least. I think if we could all agree, except for maybe GoodDay, that West Division (NHL, 2020–2021), East Division (NHL, 2020–2021), and North Division (NHL) do not need to exist as articles, then we can move forward with evaluating others later. Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We should keep all the articles, past & present. Would recommend those who're pushing for deletion, to open an RFC on it. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing an WP:ATD for only the 2020–21 divisions first (specifically WP:ATD-M or WP:ATD-R). We can evaluate all divisions later based on the 2020–21 division consensus. Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to set up deletion nominations, so I'll leave that with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Atlantic Division split completed

FWIW, I've completed the task of splitting the Atlantic Division. We now have, the current Atlantic Division (NHL) & the original Atlantic Division (NHL, 1993–2013) articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't at all see discussion above about splitting it in this manor. The discussion above seems to consist of discussion on what to do about 20-21 season. If the name never stopped being used it is the same division regardless of the teams in it. Just like a team is still the same team even if the players from one year/decade to another are different. -DJSasso (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It's already been done. You snooze you lose. If it's undone by you or anyone else? Then consider me 'not' having any further participation into what we should or shouldn't do with the NHL past/present divisions. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The idea that the Atlantic Division 2013-present is not a continuation of the 1993 Atlantic Division certainly seems like WP:OR to me. @GoodDay: I urge you to revert this split until it is discussed and a consensus is found. 162 etc. (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You & others may do as you wish. I've had enough of it. Perhaps @Ravenswing: has the best option. Delete all the NHL division articles, past & present. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
PS: If you & others, oppose the splitting? You need only revert the 'pro-split' changes at the Atlantic Division (NHL) article & then unilaterally delete or nominate for deletion the Atlantic Division (NHL, 1993–2013) article. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't really see how it is the same division just because it maintained the same name. For example, there is Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996). Same name but completely different composition generally would necessitate a different article. To close with a policy based argument, from WP:CONSPLIT

When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered, and a disambiguation page created to point readers to the separate pages. Before proposing a split, consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic and to potential neutrality issues. If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article.

I would say in this scenario the conditions for a content split are met: (a) the topics are distinct but share the same name (despite being related) (b) the Atlantic Division from 1993–2013 is notable in its own right (c) this is not a WP:POVFORK. Seeing these three conditions met. I support the split. (Disclaimer, I did propose the split at Talk:Atlantic Division (NHL)) TartarTorte 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The difference is that the two Winnipeg Jets teams were two different franchises and two clearly distinct entities. The Divisions however were not, there were teams that were in both the so called old and the so called new. The equivalent comparison would be the "2020-21 Winnipeg Jets" and the "2021-22 Winnipeg Jets". Just because some players changed between the two seasons doesn't mean the two are not still the same Winnipeg Jets franchise. The argument is that they are not distinct so no I don't think the conditions are met. -DJSasso (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Djsasso: there were teams that were in both the so called old and the so called new is not correct. None of the five teams that were members of the 2012–13 Atlantic Division were members of the 2013–14 Atlantic Division, and instead were aligned into the 2013–14 Metropolitan Division plus three more teams. Yosemiter (talk)
@Yosemiter: It is correct, because its not only the year before that matters. Its every year of the division. But if you prefer a different example. The "2014 Canadian Olympic team" has a completely different roster than the "2018 Canadian Olympic team". No one would argue that its a completely different national team. We wouldn't have a new Canadian men's national ice hockey team every time the roster is different. An entity is not a new entity because its characteristics change. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
A separate topic perhaps. But those Men's & Women's national team articles should be split into separate articles for each different tournament. One for the Winter Olympics teams & one for the Ice Hockey World Championships teams, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to view the Patrick Division and the Atlantic Division that existed thru 2013 as the same division than to view the pre and post 2013 Atlantic as the same division. The 1993 realignment was about renaming the existing divisions with geographic names with a few minor team changes while the 2013 realignment featured more drastic changes in downsizing back to four divisions. When the 2013 realignment was announced the divisions originally had no names.[1] --67.214.7.27 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I can support that. The difference between the last season of the Patrick Division and the first season of the Atlantic Division (NHL, 1993–2013) is just the addition of Florida that was added for the 93–94 season and the shift of Tampa, who had had one season total at the time of the shift. TartarTorte 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Disagree on the above. Statements like "(...) view the Patrick Division and the Atlantic Division that existed thru 2013 as the same division" seem WP:OR. For example, the Norris Division was founded in 1974, but by 1981, only 1 of its original teams was still in the division. That doesn't mean that we need to have Norris Division (1974–1981) and Norris Division (1981–1993). No sources have been cited that indicate that the present Atlantic Division and the pre-2013 Atlantic Division are separate entities. However, there is reliable source coverage to indicate that the West, Central, East and North Divisions of 2020–2021 were temporary and exceptional, and this is why I don't support including them in the lineage of the West Division (NHL), Central Division (NHL), and East Division (NHL). 162 etc. (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I reject that it's OR to assert that the 2013– Atlantic Division is not a continuation of the pre-relaignment Atlantic Division. With the Norris Division, I think the argument that the division fundamentally changed in 1981 is not inherently a bad one. By 1981 there were more teams in the Adams Division from the previous year's Norris than in the Norris. With the Norris changing conferences as well there, I think that one could reasonable make an argument to split the article there, but that is not the splitting proposal here. I do agree with you on the last point about lineage. As I cannot just claim it's not OR without any evidence, here are places mentioning the Atlantic Division ending. For example, Jonathan Willis of the Edmonton Journal wrote: The old Atlantic Division moves wholesale to the new Metropolitan Division[1]. Further examples include, Don Wood of Bleacher Report The biggest change worth noting is that the Atlantic Division has now become a combination of the Southeast and Northwest Divisions from last year, and what was known as the Atlantic Division in 2013 will now be heralded as the Metropolitan Division.[2] and last, but not least Greg Wyshynski writing for Yahoo! Sports writes But the Atlantic Division is now the Metropolitan Division.[3]. I hope that this reflects at least that this is not WP:OR. TartarTorte 21:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the split, because the consensus has not been reached. This is not the first time that GoodDay does one thing and then changes opinion to the opposite when something does not go his way (I do not mean anything bad by that, but I have seen this behavior many times from the aforementioned editor). – Sabbatino (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@TartarTorte:, I still agree with you that there are two distinct divisions, named Atlantic & support your split proposal. But since my implementation of that proposal has been undone. The ball (or puck) is now in your corner. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that divisions are just scheduling mechanisms, and their names just labels selected by the NHL for convenience and branding, it seems kind of pointless to argue that the Atlantic division should be treated as two different entities. The divisions are basically generic: just labels on groups of teams conforming to a particular set of scheduling rules. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Count me as someone supporting the split. As noted by TartarTorte above, there was significant discussion at the time of realignment that the division currently using the Atlantic name is not the same division as the one previously using it, being there was zero continuity of teams between the two. oknazevad (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Apathy

Looks like this split idea is going nowhere, per lack of interest. Even the editor who nominated the Atlantic Division article for splitting, seems to have drifted away from the idea. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I had been pinged earlier, and forgot to reply. But honestly I don't have strong thoughts towards any one direction here, so am going to not get too involved here. I'll follow whatever comes out though. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how long the Split Template is suppose to stay up. But, it's not attracting many WP:HOCKEY members. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If there's no objection over the next 24-hrs? I'll remove the 'Split' template at Atlantic Division (NHL) article. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Split template deleted

I've deleted the Split template, per no objections (from initiator) & no consensus for the article-in-question to be split. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Willis, Jonathan (19 July 2013). "NHL unveils the "Metropolitan" Division; misses an opportunity". Edmonton Journal. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  2. ^ Wood, Donald (14 March 2013). "NHL Realignment 2013-14: New Division Map and Playoff Format". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  3. ^ Wyshynski, Greg (19 July 2013). "Metropolitan Division? NHL reveals new division names after realignment". sports.yahoo.com. Retrieved 12 January 2022.

NHL season by team templates

I want to ask about the "consensus" mentioned in the edit summary at Template:2008–09 NHL season by team. I see that all seasons from 2008–09 spell out team names, while older seasons simply list the location (Los Angeles Kings versus Los Angeles). I also did not find anything in the archives of WT:NHL. Therefore, what is the preferred solution? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, the edit summary actually said there was "no consensus". And it looks like the 2008-09 template was different from the others, until @GoodDay: fixed it yesterday. Cheers, PKT(alk) 17:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@PKT: You should re-read what is written in that edit summary. It says that "Los Angeles = against consensus", while "Los Angeles Kings = per consensus". And no, GoodDay did not fix it (brought consistency but that is not fixing unless other editors give their opinions here), because this particular editor likes to change things when the discussion is ongoing and also has a tendency to start edit wars. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
PKT, if Sabbatino disapproves? then there's nothing further to discuss. He's always right & I'm always wrong. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not disapproving. You tend to rush in editing when the discussion is not over. Just give it time and see what others think. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

NHL team season intro over-linking

Seeing as the season & team are already linked at the top of the infoboxes, wouldn't it best to delete the links in the intros of the NHL season team articles? At the moment, we've inconsistency across the board on this matter. Even within the same team season articles, there's inconsistency in the linkage or lack of linkage. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there's no need to link team names in the openings of their seasons' articles. PKT(alk) 17:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I was considering removing those un-necessary links. But, might as well went for permission first. No point in removing them, if I'm just gonna be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Season-by-season records in defunct or re-located team articles

Not certain why, but the first few seasons of the Atlanta Flames & Atlanta Thrashers have been deleted. I know we use only the most recent five seasons for current NHL teams. But I don't think we should have such a limit for defunct teams or relocated teams in their original locations. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the Quebec Nordiques article, has the best solution. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor changing 2022-23 affiliates prematurely

Some assistance may be required as MxonlightTea is repeatedly removing the Charlotte Checkers from the Seattle Kraken's article despite the Checkers being the current AHL affiliate for the on-going season. They are also changing the affiliations for the Allen Americans despite no confirmations that the SEA/Allen ECHL affiliation is for more than just the 2021-22 season, such as this edit and this edit changing the current ECHL affiliation from an active team to an inactive future team. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Czechia vs Czech Republic

At the moment CBC sports coverage of the 2022 Winter Olympics, is giving us mixed-messages. Announcers are saying Czechia, while graphics are showing Czech Republic. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And the IIHF is labeling them as Czech Republic on all their tables and documentation. Easy to see why the CBC may be confused themselves.18abruce (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ice hockey article

Current dispute going on at the main Ice hockey article, dragged kicking and screaming to Talk:Ice_hockey. More voices welcome! Ravenswing 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Will see what happens after the 48-hour block expires. Flibirigit (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump proposals

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
  • Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
  • Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
  • Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
  • Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
  • Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
  • Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
  • Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
  • Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament

Looking for some help formatting the bracket. The semi-finals are supposed to be reseeded, but I have been unable to get it to work on the top half of the draw. The node-function-orphan thing worked for me in the woman's tournament, don't understand what is different.18abruce (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Frietjes:You are good with these, could you please take a look at what is going wrong?18abruce (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I would ask User:Codehydro who (as far as I can tell) implemented that feature. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There is also a problem with live updates during the game. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What does the wikipedia policy actually say? I can't see why we would remove officials who were nominated for that game days in advance as well as starting goalies. I did not think the policy related to hidden information either.18abruce (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Royal York Royals

Hi folks. I'm looking at the Royal York Royals article, I've added a reference to get it out of the unreferenced category, but I'm not really finding anything with good coverage of the team - just brief match reports in newspapers, and mentions in player bios. I assume that there's some big book of Canadian ice hockey teams somewhere that at least confirms the details in the article of the team (e.g., the changes in name and so-forth) - does anyone have access to anything like that? I can see that this is a real team but I'd be happier if I could verify what the article says about it. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Flibirigit - I did a swing-through of the hits for "Royal York Royals" on Newspapers.com and there was nothing but brief match reports, except for the Kim Crouch incident (which is, if anything, about the invention-story of the Neck guard that is also known as a "Kim Crouch Collar"). I'm assuming that there will have been some kind of almanac/encyclopaedia coverage. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Very few Greater Toronto Area newspapers are in newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com. Sometimes the papers in Kingston, Brantford, Owen Sound and Windsor have good coverage of junior hockey in Ontario. The best coverage of this team would be in periodicals from a library, or a membership to the Toronto Star/The Globe and Mail archives. Flibirigit (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Not super active these days but @DMighton: used to be our resident expert on that level of hockey and I think knew where to find good sources. Maybe try hitting them up. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Cup, Conference & Division titles

Concerning the infoboxes of re-located team articles. Should we or should we not, list the playoff/regular season titles in the infoboxes, won in their previous location. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

David Branch renaming...again

There is a new discussion at Talk:David Branch (fighter) to move the fighter to "David Branch" and keep David Branch (ice hockey). Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious, as to why the ice hockey player's bio was page moved to a disambiguation page, without an RM. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It was in the closer's comment of that first RM. It was moved as a result of that RM. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

David Branch page moved ... yet again

Natg 19 (talk · contribs) moved David Branch (ice hockey) to David Branch (executive) with the rationale that "(ice hockey) typically refers to an ice hockey player". While Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Ice hockey does not explicitly mention non-players such as coaches, executives, officials et cetera, this project has used (ice hockey) as a primary qualifier/disambiguation for all ice hockey persons. I think the article should be moved back to David Branch (ice hockey). Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware of this, so if the article should be moved back, that is fine with me. I was just under the impression that (ice hockey) was reserved for players. Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Moved back to ice hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Content disagreement at USA Hockey

Content disagreement has begun at Talk:USA Hockey. More opinions may be needed if it escalates. Flibirigit (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Don Cherry article moved 'without' an RM

Apparently, in the last few hours, someone has moved Grapes' article title from Don Cherry to Don Cherry (ice hockey), without going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to have been moved back. Masterhatch (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:NHL recap

I was wondering if this long dormant template should start seeing greater use, particularly since many team season articles had boxscore links removed last year and they need to be re-added anyway. The lone article currently utilizing it is 2007–08 Chicago Blackhawks season. I updated the template to require only a single value, but did not fully update the documentation page. --75.88.92.21 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League retired numbers

I did some cleanup on List of National Hockey League retired numbers, including a section of formerly retired numbers by relocated teams. Peter Stastny had been listed as being retired by Quebec on February 26, 1995, and was cited to an offline Colorado Avalanche media guide. Which might claim this, but no other sources do - likely because Stastny still played for St Louis at the time, and no online sources back this up, unless they mirror this article. The Nordiques didn't even play that day. An IP keeps re-adding it, ignoring my edit summaries and warnings. A minor annoyance, but additional eyes would be nice. Some better sourcing overall would be useful at any rate. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a source on me, but the Nordiques did retire #26 for Peter Stastny. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The team itself didn't, as they were sold before Stastny retired. But there was a ceremony in Quebec in 1996 (not 1995 as noted above), but that has no official standing on the Nordiques, Avalanche, or NHL (Hartford has done something similar, having ceremonies for former Whalers years after the team left). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah - this seems more likely, and could be what is muddying things. Echoedmyron (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
(ec) It's not mentioned in his own article, which would be a glaring omission if it had happened. There's easily found video of Michel Goulet's number retirement in 1995, weeks following Stastny's supposed number retirement for which no event seems to have taken place, and all I see when searching are blogs and forums where people "know" it happened, and sites that are mirroring what that wikipedia list said. His NHL.com profile doesn't mention it, neither does his HHOF profile. None of this is conclusive, but the onus is on proving something did happen, not that it didn't, per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Echoedmyron (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm only going by memory & it's quite possible that #26 was never raised to the rafters. We're talking nearly 30 year ago & I middle-aged now. So, if there's no source for it, then it couldn't have happened. Too bad though, he certainly deserved that honour, even though the Avalanche would've un-retired it anyway. PS: He did get to see his son where #26 with the Avalanche, however. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Echoedmyron: For your information, a number of Avalanche's media guides are available on their website. All of them claim the same – STASTNY'S #26 WAS RETIRED BY THE QUEBEC NORDIQUES IN FEBRUARY OF 1996 I do know that the Nordiques did not exist by 1996 but the Avalanche still list it. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This article appears to have an image from the event. Caption: “On February 4, 1996, Peter Stastny received a standing ovation from more than 14,000 supporters at the Coliseum in Quebec as his number 26 jersey was removed.” The same image/caption appears with this French-language article. --75.88.92.21 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What @Sabbatino: and @75.88.92.21: both have added to this thread actually support what @Kaiser matias: notes above: that a ceremony was held at the Colisee after the team no longer existed. The articles the IP posted also do not specify this was done by the team, and the phrasing used is "removed" and not "retired". Bizarre that the Avalanche have misrepresented this. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Podnieks has a book on retired numbers (Retired Numbers: A Celebration of NHL Excellence) that would also be useful here to look into. I don't have a copy available, but I'm curious what he says about Stastny there. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
IMHO, it's bizarre (and was disrespectful) that the Avalanche & the Hurricanes (unofficially not #9) chose to 'un-retire' their franchise's sweater numbers, after re-locating. Thank goodness the Stars & Coyotes, have chosen to do otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I stand corrected. The Coyotes unretired Bobby Hull's & Thomas Steen's # in 2014-15. Thus leaving the Stars as the lone team, to fully honour their pre-location history. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks

An IP keeps attempting to add the 2021-22 ongoing season results to the Vancouver Canucks' Season-by-season section. Despite my explaining, that we don't do such updates, until after the season ends. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of 2022 Winter Olympics ice hockey team roster templates

Template:2022 Winter Olympics Canada women's ice hockey team roster and other Category:2022 Winter Olympics ice hockey team roster templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hockey Mountain

For those of you unaware -- or who'd forgotten -- Hockey Mountain is a massive project once spearheaded by Mo Rock. Its goal was to take every player in the Hockey Hall of Fame, as well as other notables (retired numbers, 1000 pts, 300 wins, etc), (a) accurately assess their biographical articles, and (b) bring them all to GA or better. It's a fine template to chart what important hockey biographical articles need work, and I've used it many times over the years as a guide and source.

Unfortunately, Mo stopped editing Wikipedia five years ago. I've done some haphazard updates, as have others, but I've long felt that it needed some real work. So I've brought it into my own userspace, and I just spent the last several hours overhauling it, adding some fresh names, updating some assessments. I'm not quite done with the overhaul, but it's close to being done.

With that, we should use it! Only 17% of the articles on it have been brought to GA or better, but as it stands, 110 articles on it are Start-class, and 13 articles are Stub-class. I'm going to dive in to work on those stubs, but it's fertile ground generally for those with time and energy on their hands.

And I'd like to single out a few editors for especial praise. Kaiser matias and Maxim (with 12 and 9 respectively) have brought a bunch of those articles to GA+ status, and I hereby award them the first Hockey Barnstars with Crossed Sticks for their sterling efforts. The first Hockey Barnstar with Crossed Sticks and Diamonds goes to Resolute, though ... he's brought forty-six articles to GA or better, an eye-popping total. Magnificently done! Ravenswing 04:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  • By the bye, as far as deviations from the original: I've split off "retired numbers" from other notables, as well as adding a category for goalies with 50 shutouts, since the 300-wins mark tends to be recentist. The one player I added to the generic notables was Tiger Williams, seeing as the NHL career penalty minute leader is a significant notable. I'm mulling over adding the 16 Triple Gold Club names not otherwise on the list, but, eh. It's a tall enough mountain to climb as it is, and we don't need to overbloat it. Ravenswing 04:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
First, thanks for the award, it's nice to be recognized for just doing what I like doing. And I was actually just looking over this project the other day, and thinking about it myself. Good initiative to get started again, and would be neat to see if we can get some more improvements on it again. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Part of what needs doing, I think, is that we need to take a fresh look at the assessment ratings. I updated the assessments of about ten Hall of Famers, but in doing that, I changed the assessments on a few, on the "This ain't no stub article" front. Some of those stubs/starts are likely not improvable, what with the Hall of Fame just loving to elevate obscure amateur players on the basis of old-crony promotion (what more can one say about Russell Bowie's linemate, who had four good seasons over a century ago?), but beyond that, plenty of work for anyone.
Thank you Ravenswing for the barnstar. I didn't realize I'd contributed to that many articles on the mountain, although, admittedly, it's been many years since I've been active on hockey articles. I hope that some day I'll be more active here. Maxim(talk) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Estonians are at it again on Komarov's page

Estonian editors again change the birth place to whatever they like. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: This applies to all Estonian-born ice hockey personnel. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: & @Ravenswing:, perhaps you both can have a talk with @Klõps: & certainly @3 Löwi: on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

In full agreement with Ravenswing. Enough is enough, as this is no longer a content dispute, but rather disruptive editing behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't know if it was the best thing to do. But I've left a clear message over at WP:ESTONIA, to leave ice hockey articles 'alone'. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Update - Another attempt at Komarov's birthplace in the infobox, was made to push said-PoV. This time, the attempt was under a hidden guise of another edit. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And yet another attempt, this time by a familiar face. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I should point out. There's a related ongoing ANI report, concerning the behaviour of an editor, around Estonian PoV pushing in varies areas. Indeed, this has grown to editor disruption territory. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup aid requested

Megacheez is currently in the process of moving medal templates on literal hundreds of ice hockey player articles from the International play section to the infobox, despite my warning on their user page that this is against WP:HOCKEY/PPF and the infobox template itself. I am humbly asking the help of some cavalry to switch these back, since I cannot do it all myself (and would prefer to focus on some content work). As for the user, they have already been blocked twice for disruptive editing. I don't want to make an ANI mountain out of a molehill, but they did also rebuke my talk page message by saying that their method was "more convenient". — GhostRiver 21:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

They have also now been going through infoboxes and disrupting teams played for, merging moved teams rather than keeping them separate, as has been policy (ex. showing "Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche" rather than "Quebec Nordiques (break) Colorado Avalanche). Kaiser matias (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Roje Vala's refusal to communicate

Since @Roje Vala:'s arrival on Wikipedia (Jan 14, 2021), over a year ago. He's refused to communicate with any editor, be it on an article talkpage or his own usertalkpage. This 'nose-in-air' approach has become 'bleeping' annoying & I wonder if it hasn't gotten to block territory. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's something for WP:ANI, not here. 162 etc. (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
He's worked on (or wrecked) many ice hockey-related articles, which is why I mentioned his behaviour here. It's either a case of severe WP:IDHT or WP:CIR issues. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay and 162 etc.: There is quite a number of warnings on the editor's talk page. Just today I had to revert many edits by the editor. And I also see that @GhostRiver: has also noticed it and even wrote what is wrong with Roje Vala's edits, but looks like the editor continues to ignore it and keeps editing in the same manner. The editor's behavior is certainly a case of WP:CIR. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
If the editor in question has continued to make the same errors after I politely explained it twice now, then I agree that CIR has been reached. — GhostRiver 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It's either CIR issues or the editor's purposefully ignoring the rest of us. Only one way to stop the disruption & get his/her attention. A block. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reported him to the vandalism board. Enough, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: Vandalism board rejected the case. Told me to take the matter to WP:ANI. I'll leave that with you folks to go that route. Earlier in the month, an administrator complained about my 'posts' at WP:ANI. So, I ain't gonna bother with it. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I created a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Roje Vala and WP:CIR. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: just an FYI, but you are required to notify them of the ANI report about them. Yosemiter (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Update, he's been indeffed. Be on the look out for possible socks, as IMHO, it was a matter of him simply not giving a 'bleep' about the rest of us, rather then a CIR issue. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Roje Vala has started to make edits using a changing IP. [70.31.28.232/16 This is the current range]. – Sabbatino (talk)
Evading his ban. Now we know it's not a CIR issue. He's continuing to give us (Wikipedia) the middle-finger. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again

Be prepared. @BilledMammal: is proposing to start up another RFC on whether to use "Estonian SSR" or "Estonia". I advised him to limit it to the association football articles, but he wouldn't listen. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Ummm ... he is entitled to open a RfC on any subject that moves him to do, and I can't for the life of me imagine why a MOS issue should be "limited" to articles pertaining to one sport or another -- this is surely an issue that should be settled for every biographical article on Wikipedia. I don't expect there's much more a chance of a consensus than ever there was, but. Ravenswing 06:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Just finished reverting an editor (SpyroeBM), who been changing all the Soviet born/died Baltic ice hockey bios. Not sure if he's a sock. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

An RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to this Wiki Project. The RfC will add language to the WP:GUIDELINE and will affect multiple article titles. Please join the discussion at the above link. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Newman (ice hockey)

John Newman, a NHL player in the 1930s, has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Newman (ice hockey). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This recent trend is really leading me to want to spend less and less time here on Wikipedia. Connormah (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Clarify. What recent trend? GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I am assuming the trend in deletions for notable players. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There's been recent discussions in various sports where articles meeting WP:NSPORTS were deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There's also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. @Connormah:: Please don't be discouraged. You are one of the best editors we have on Wikipedia! Cbl62 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Connormah: I am also not fond of this new trend. It isn't really helping anyone. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the number of editors who write properly cited ice hockey biographies with significant coverage, are far outnumbered by those who do not care about quality or would rather see the articles deleted. That is a shame. Flibirigit (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
If a majority of editors are behind this trend? There's nothing much that can be done to stop it. Unless WP:HOCKEY can argue for its related-bios to be exempt. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, look. There's an easy way to prevent articles that would otherwise meet NHOCKEY to be perfectly safe from all of this: that they be written in the first place as proper articles instead of as permanent one- or two-sentence sub-stubs. If there is really nothing more than can be found about (say) John Newman than can be dredged from Hockey DB, a list article's the proper place for him until enough can be found. As it stands, the Newman article contributes nothing to the encyclopedia, and I want a better reason to charge to the ramparts than "OMG the barbarians are coming for OUR ARTICLES!!!" Ravenswing 06:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Article now substantially improved. Cbl62 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Time is better spent on improving articles rather than arguing about deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Well done @Cbl62:. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Fantastic job! Masterhatch (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I am late to seeing this, but amazing work, Cbl62, as always! Connormah (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

NHL outdoor logos

I firmly believe all NHL outdoor logos should be uploaded in the unbranded version. After all, that's what the players wear as the patch, plus it's just a logo inside a logo. And it's ugly :) I've just updated several logos but it's usually pretty difficult to find high-quality transparent PNG versions of them (the preferred format). I would appreciate any help in locating and updating the logos for the following articles where we still have the branded versions:

Thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jmj713: Fixed the 2016 Heritage Classic. And fixed some other logos, which you uploaded so they would comply with WP:IMAGERES. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Hopefully we can fix the others! And only use unbranded versions going forward. Jmj713 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sizing up team logos

Are these two editors (Andrzej95 & Backlund74) the same individual? Or, am I paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: A sock investigation is probably needed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Logo size changes. Yosemiter (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems the WP:ANI report may have gotten his attention. Though, he's yet to respond to it. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Team rosters

Was there a major change somewhere? All the players' names are bolded, in the rosters. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's weird, if you go into the template histories, all the old versions are that way too. 1995hoo (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The techno folks have been messing around again, without informing or asking for the input of the community. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I see Template:Ice hockey team roster was edited today, but I can’t tell from looking at it whether that edit caused the change, and I’m reluctant to try undoing it to see whether that would solve the problem because I don’t like to mess with something with which I’m not familiar lest it cause other problems. 1995hoo (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I undid it & there was no change, so I restored the change. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
It looks like there's another template for the "player4" line. I’m trying to figure that out, though I doubt I’ll figure it out tonight between Jeopardy and then the Caps–Flames game. 1995hoo (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Following up, I reverted the "Player4" template and that solves the problem. I guess I’ll try restoring the reverted edits one at a time to see which one was the problem since I have 15 minutes until puck drop. 1995hoo (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Last comment for now. I seem to have resolved it, but I don’t know what in the edit in question caused the problem. So I’ve restored the template to a version that doesn’t bold all the names, but I don’t know what caused the names to be formatted that way. 1995hoo (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The underlying HTML in my version is preferable for WP:ACCESS. If you don't want them to be bold, you can add the plainrowheaders class to the heading template, which would coincidentally align the players left. Izno (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The names are no longer boldfaced, but there's still something changed about the format of the rosters. Just wish, the technos would let us in on when they're gonna change anything. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If this is the new look for WP:ACCESS, can whoever made the changes also update the minor league rosters too for some consistency?? Triggerbit (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have no problem doing that if I know where to go for it. Izno (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to make sure it’s clear, the only thing I was trying to fix was getting the players' names not to appear in boldface. 1995hoo (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

NHL Heritage Classic vs Heritage Classic

Why the main page is called NHL Heritage Classic and pages for games are called "[year] Heritage Classic"? Official sources from the NHL consistently use NHL Heritage Classic so why a different treatment is being given to individual games? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like its just historical inertia. When the first Heritage Classic article was created in 2003, it apparently was originally titled that way without "NHL",[2] I assume because that is what the league originally called it (note the File:NHL Heritage Classic 03.gif logo). That convention was kept that way when the 2011 game was announced and disambiguation was needed.[3] The NHL Heritage Classic page was then converted from a redirect to a stub in 2013,[4] but no other consensus has apparently developed since then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
By all means, move them to Year NHL Heritage Classic. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships

Seeing as the 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships tournament will be (if things go according to plan) replayed, erasing the December stats. Will we be doing the same in August? or leaving them in, even though they're not gonna be counted. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We really don't know what the IIHF will do with the player stats. If games were notable in December they are still notable now right? For now the IIHF is listing them as two different tournaments, we should leave it alone until we know better.18abruce (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo sizes again

User 37.212.32.213 has made multiple changes to logo sizes in the Ontario Hockey League. I have reverted some of the changes which make the logo too big which violates WP:FAIRUSE. Flibirigit (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators GA Reassesment

Notifying the WikiProject that Buidhe has opened a GAR on the Sens after I initially raised concern about the article's citation and prose quality in later history, and all I got was one user in agreement it needed reassessed for another reason. This good article is approaching 14 years since listing, and if I recall correctly and nothing has changed since January, the primary contributor to this article's promotion seems not to be around anymore. If anyone wishes to save it from being delisted, I'm letting you know it needs you now. It cannot stay a GA like this. dannymusiceditor oops 20:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY RfC

So. With the admittedly radical removal of "participation" criteria, what we're left with is no criteria directly pertaining to major league hockey players. Now we're just not going to be able to come up with something to cover obscure guys who neither meet the GNG nor have done anything important, and I figure those will wind up populating List of Anytown Samplers players articles. Fair enough. Here are the changes I propose:

Played in a league all-star game, been named to a season-ending All-Star Team, or won a league-awarded trophy;
If a skater, are in the career top-50 goal, assist or point scorers, or for games played;
If a goaltender, are in the career top-25 for wins, games played or shutouts; or
Are in the career top-ten of any of the above categories for a single franchise that has played four or more seasons.

I also propose, under the circumstances, that the draft criterion be expanded to first AND second rounds of the NHL Entry draft. Ravenswing 16:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Per the usual request for new criteria over the past few years, I think it would be helpful to check how reliable these criteria are as predictors for suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline. In particular, the existence of suitable coverage in earlier years will be important to establish. isaacl (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Truly, take a look at that list, isaacl. Can you imagine that anyone who can make it wouldn't have overwhelming sourcing? I'd eat my hat if as many as 5% of them couldn't make the GNG with several sources to spare. Ravenswing 00:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, my first instinct was to say we don't need criteria specifying All-Star teams or top-50 career NHL goal scorers, as these aren't the players that need any buffer time to find appropriate sources. But my primary experience is with the NHL, and with recent players. I'm not as clear that the criteria will hold for all the named leagues throughout history, or for all their franchises. (Are all the top ten in games played for the Montreal Wanderers going to meet the general notability guideline?) Also, since we've spent years telling editors for other sports to demonstrate the validity of their proposed criteria, it's reasonable for the same to be done here, in order to convince all those who don't know anything about hockey. isaacl (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Are the top ten in games played for the Wanderers going to meet the GNG? Glad you ask. Nine of them are in the Hockey Hall of Fame. The tenth is Odie Cleghorn, and it's a safe bloody bet to anyone familiar with hockey history that he'd meet it several times over. Ravenswing 23:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
That's also what I'm a little unsure about: are we talking top-50 per team? Though I will make note that I'm fully against the recent change, and think it's overall a huge detriment to Wikipedia as a whole, and honestly think it was done more out of spite than anything. I don't see any benefit to removing articles, and will do what I can to keep that from happening. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It was 100% done out of spite, the requirements for athletes are now more strict than any other biography. I would use the same leagues and frankly the same criteria, just change it from playing 1 game to being on the top 1000 goals, and assists etc. (1000 might be a bit much but 50 is way to small). Or even as Kaiser mentions the top 100 per team in x leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The answer Issacl about would all the top 10 on Wanders meet it, yes, we long ago established that simply playing 1 game would establish it. We were one of the better sports at making sure that was the case. So really any number we pick for stats list would meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The Wanderers played four games in the NHL before their arena burned down. (Of course, they played longer in the predecessor NHA, but that league isn't listed in the proposal.) So a "top ten in games played" criterion doesn't act as any significant filter above the soon-to-be-removed one-game-played standard. As Ravenswing has said previously, none of the older criteria were really tested beyond what the editors could agree upon as reasonable standards. Times have changed, and more editors are looking for better evidence on how accurately the sports notability criteria predict the existence of suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline. Now I agree hockey and baseball, for example, have done a much better job at setting reasonable criteria than some other sports, but that argument wasn't sufficiently convincing to others this time around. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
We should be drafting notability criteria with the couple hundred teams with credible histories, not the bare handful that don't. Which, as it happens, the Wanderers are not among. They played only four games in the NHL, but had a long hockey history before then ... and thank you for reminding me that I'd unaccountably left out the early pro leagues such as the NHA, PCHL and WCHL. I should add them to the proposal.

And let's be honest with ourselves. These changes weren't out of spite. They came out of exasperation. A lot of editors have been pissed off for a long time about one-top-flight-game being a bright line, unshakeable credential. Their anger was fueled by the antics of the Lugnuts and Dolovises, by the utter refusal of certain projects (like FOOTY and CRIC) to clean up their acts, by the appalling fact that one in seven biographical articles on Wikipedia were of soccer players, by the evident fact that however much sports editors said that NSPORTS was subordinate to the GNG we didn't act as if we really meant it, by the human waves of Keep voters at AfD defending permanent two-sentence sub-stubs with mumbles of "meets NFOOTY" without any intention of improving the article, because God forbid we apply common sense when we have to Defend The Sports Articles Against The Barbarians!

So yeah, it sucks that we were tarred with the same brush, but this day was going to come sooner or later, and for the most part, the sports projects preferred resistance at all points (and given the filibustering over implementing the changes on NSPORTS, still are determined to resist to the last editor) and giving the finger to everyone else to more constructive action. Ravenswing 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that any criteria doesn't have to be 100% predictive, and am not personally bothered by some level of false positives. But I think it's up to the project to provide evidence to those unfamiliar with hockey history.
As with all consensus-based decisions, they are workable when everyone is strongly aligned in goals. As long as everyone had similar ideas in mind regarding what athletes should have articles, a more flexible set of criteria worked fine. But as more people disagree, some with looser standards in mind and others with stricter ones, the flexibility fails to satisfy. So it's time to redraw the line to try to accommodate the larger community. isaacl (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I've no problems withe your recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo size additions, changes & failure to communicate

We may want to keep an eye on @BouwMaster:, concerning team articles. He was creating/size changing team logos & so far, refuses to communicate with anybody about it, or anything else. I suspect it might be an evading issue. But, others can decipher that. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Years of induction for members of the builder category in 1945 versus 1947

The list of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame reads that Allan and Stanley were induted in 1945, and seven others were inducted in 1947. Neither of two cited sources in the 1947 year support this, and fail verification. An article by the Canadian Press in 1945, list six builders inducted, see here Something does not add up here. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  • This is what the HHOF acknowledges: [5]. But we've seen in the past that the hockey establishment in general -- and the HHOF in particular -- are crappy historians. (Heck, the startling find I came across a couple days ago when upgrading Bill Cowley's article was that the Bruins rotated out captains most years in the 1930s and 40s, something that hasn't been referenced in lists of the Bruins' captains in the last half century at least, and which the team won't now acknowledge -- all this supported by contemporaneous newspaper articles and official team portraits. Check out the links: Bill_Cowley#Captaincy_question)

    So I think we ought to dig through newspapers.com, make sure we see a spread of contemporaneous clippings, and if there's a discrepancy, say so not only on the List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame article but note the affected bios as well. With that, I can already see a discrepancy: our list article has James T. Sutherland as a 1947 inductee, but the HHOF list on their site lists him as a 1945 inductee. Holy heck, there's more. Our article has Frank Patrick as a 1950 inductee as a builder; the HHOF has him as a 1958 inductee.

    Damn. Honestly, Flibirigit, I think we need to turn this into a formal RfC to address the discrepancies, decide how we're going to present them, and possibly contact the HHOF directly for their comment. (Which, given the attitude of the Bruins' front office, or that of the Canadiens towards any suggestion that their franchise derives from the Haileybury Comets instead of "Les Canadiens]], will likely be dead silence, so as not to admit that they've screwed up.) Ravenswing 01:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • At a glance, it seems only the earliest inductees are in question, that is within the first few years of the hall's existence before any physical structure was erected. The confusion might be related to the Original Hockey Hall of Fame. It will take a while to do the research, but it is a worthwhile task. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed a similar issue years ago when working on the original "12" player inductees from 1945. Turns out there really wasn't 12, but 9, and that the HHOF seems to have confused itself in the past several decades (being off by as much as 4 years in the case of Art Ross, for example). I do believe this stems from the different Hall of Fames, as the "Original" one seems to match up with this incorrect information, while the HHOF used those dates for some time (they've since fixed Ross' induction on their website, but you look at most of their publications over the years, including many recent ones, and it still says 1945 for him). Kaiser matias (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I have access to both newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com and would like to work on this, but it will be a few weeks before I get around to it. Flibirigit (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Updates needed to the IIHF and the KHL

As per this article, IIHF calls for ethics probe of Russian federation, Fasel; updates are needed to the International Ice Hockey Federation and the Kontinental Hockey League. I'm working on the corresponding update for René Fasel. Does anyone have time for the IIHF or KHL? Courtesy pings to @Ravenswing, Djsasso, and 18abruce:. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

NHL team's owners

I wonder if all 30 NHL team rosters should be semi-protected. These last four weeks or so, have been non-stop vandalism of NHL owners infobox content. It's either copy-cat disruption, or one editor using many IP & one-time accounts. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

50 goals in 50 games

Over on 50 goals in 50 games there are some IPs that are insisting Auston Matthews be included. I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention as a bit of a revert war has developed. Masterhatch (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Matthews doesn't belong as he didn't score his 50th goal in his team's 50th game, let alone his own 50th game. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

46.53.251.205's lack of communication

As far as I can tell, @46.53.251.205: hasn't been disruptive since his/her appearance in Oct 2021 & so far roughly 90% of his/her edits have been to the Ducks & their AHL affiliate Gulls team articles. However, he or she hasn't communicated with anybody or responded to anyone, since his/her appearance. Lack of communication can be a tad troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Mike Bossy

Mike Bossy died on April 14, 2022, and has been nominated to be listed in recent deaths on the main page. The article needs more citations for career accomplishments. Is anyone willing to help? Thanks in advance. Flibirigit (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Roster templates

In my opinion the current one we have is really dumb and it looks bad. I hate it. I think we should change to something kinda like what Finland is doing. Example here: fi:malline:Porin Ässien kokoonpano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallit-on (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ryker Evans

Hi, I'm working on a page for a player named Ryker Evans: User:Scriptwriter/Ryker Evans. He was the second-round pick of the Kraken in last year's draft, just signed his initial contract this week and is practicing with the Kraken's AHL affiliate in Charlotte but he hasn't yet been officially added to the Checkers roster, although I expect it's possible he will be since the Kraken have brought Dennis Cholowski up for a cup of coffee with the big club and Evans can fill in for him on defense.

Question is, would it be appropriate to publish a page about him if the Checkers activate him for their current playoff run? He's not a first round pick and the Pats (his WHL team) missed the playoffs again, fourth year running at least; on the other hand, one of the articles I researched for the page says the Kraken are pretty bullish on him, and would already have elevated him to the AHL except they didn't have a roster spot on the Checkers for him (they are "sharing" the Checkers with Florida while the Kraken's AHL affiliate gets ready to debut next year and only have half the usual slots). There's little doubt he'll start with Coachella Valley this fall unless he manages to break through to the Kraken out of training camp.

And if the answer is "no", what would be the trigger? Because I have no doubt he'll be noteworthy soon enough. He's got that kind of drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriptwriter (talk • contribs) 06:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Scriptwriter: Personally I would hold it in draft form for a bit longer because right now it would probably have a tough time passing a deletion review. Based on what I could find about him, most of the reporting is routine sports coverage and I've seen articles with more coverage that this guy has get deleted. Don't let this discourage you, from what I saw of your work so far on him you have a really good start to an article. He just needs to accomplish a bit more before he warrants an article of his own. Deadman137 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Deadman137: Thanks for your reply. (You too @Flibirigit) Yeah, that sounds about right. I've seen a few articles about his earlier development and the upside the Kraken envision for him, but at the moment it looks like the best you can say about Evans is, he was one of the best players on a mediocre team for the last four years. I think I'll finish up the draft of the page, put it in my back pocket and keep it there until either he makes a mark with the Checkers (where so far he's not even on the roster) or when he debuts in the Kraken system next year. Sound good? Scriptwriter (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Beyond that, look: there are any number of high-round draft picks and can't-miss prospects that did. I just counted it up for a lark -- in the post-WHA era through to 2017, how many 1st and 2nd round picks never played so much as a single NHL game? I was expecting a lot, but frankly I was rocked: it's over four hundred players. So far, the 2015 and 2012 Entry Drafts are the only ones in the expansion era where every single first rounder has played at least one NHL game. Ravenswing 19:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

World Under-18 tournament, using Czechia

Just noting. The World U-18 Ice Hockey tournament this year, is using Czechia rather then Czech Republic. They're following this year's World Junior Ice Hockey tournament's example. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. Quick follow up question, going forward should we make the same change to the nationality part of the NHL draft articles? I'm good with either, I just want to make sure that we're consistent in our usage. Deadman137 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the NHL's continuing to use 'Czech Republic', though not certain. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd wait to see what's used in sources for that. Should become clear in the next few weeks though. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There's already sources in the 2022 IIHF World U18 Championships, using Czechia. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I was more referring to the draft articles; the IIHF has been quite upfront about the updated terminology, and broadcasters have largely followed suit. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Temporary captaincy

Anybody know if it's appropriate to have Dustin Brown on the captaincy list in the infobox over at the 21–22 Kings page? An IP editor added Brown, as he served as the team's captain during their game against Vancouver last night, I'm unsure if we're treating this like the temporary alternate captains that take over for injured players or not. If there is a past discussion on this topic, please redirect me to that discussion. Yowashi (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Temporary captaincy is non-notable useless trivia which is not encyclopedic. Flibirigit (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
If anything it could go on the relevant Kings season article, but yeah its otherwise not really notable. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've been considering removing such brief captains, like the Oilers' Ryan Smyth & the Kings' Luc Robitaille (not when he filled in for Gretzky, but for at the end of his career). Wearing the "C" for one or two games? just doesn't really cut it. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
We do list such captains, on the team articles. Though (IMHO), we shouldn't. Brown's a unique case, as he isn't retiring at the end of the regular season. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

BouwMaster

How many more socks does BouwMaster have to create, before he & his socks get blocked. His constant changing of hockey team logo sizes is tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

He has several accounts. I have a list somewhere with all the possible sockpuppets of this editor. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Porin Ässät

Is it too much if i raise the quality of the Porin Ässät page from C to B? --Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is not even at C-level quality, and could be downgraded to start-level. It has too many paragraphs without any citations, it has maintenance tags, and the reference section is poorly formatted. Flibirigit (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, i downgraded it. What does it mean that the reference section is poorly formatted though? --Kilaseell - Message me! - 19:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, the maintenance tag is for their jersey wich is nothing major. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 19:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The article has thirty citation needed tags. It needs a lot more work. The article appears to cite one book fourteen times, but it has incomplete citation information for the book, such as publisher, date, et cetera. If one book is used many times, it is best to list it separately. Some of the references are bare URLs and should have a citation template. Please see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY and WP:CITE, then ask any questions needed. Flibirigit (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Aside from the multiple cn tags, the writing style is odd, and much of it reads as though it was translated from a different language. For example: "The post-championship periods were more modest for Ässät. Ässät remained the same after the championship season and an arena was given to Pori, but no lasting success was achieved. In the four seasons following the championship season, the club placed in the middle caste of the series and did not seek medals, but there was no threat of relegation either." Is it possible that this article has been copied from Finnish sources via something like google translate? It needs a serious copyedit. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
+1 on that, just having read through it. It's not quite at the level of machine translation, but it certainly looks like the writer/s' command of the English language is spotty. For the OP, article assessment is a great deal more than adding a lot of bytes to the text. It's about the quality of the writing. Ravenswing 23:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I added citations to all the history stuff and fixed my bad translations. If someone sees any mistakes in my writing or machine translation level stuff, just inform me so i'll fix it. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the article looks improved to at least a C-level. Flibirigit (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's great to hear. If you do find any mistakes, however, inform me :) --Kilaseell - Message me! - 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If any one of you knows how to make those jersey pictures, wouuld you mind helping me a bit, the Ässät jersey is pretty outdated and it doesn't even include the 3rd jersey they have. Thanks in advance. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Moka Mo

Does anyone else have a feeling that Moka Mo (talk · contribs) returned as JoeyShmoeyJr (talk · contribs)? Editor Interaction Analyzer quite clearly indicates that this is the same editor based on edited pages and the editing pattern overall. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Just ip block him i guess, this does look suspicious. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive79&oldid=1091260625"