Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive85

Adding PWHL draft to the biography infobox template

Should we add it, or should we wait a few years for the PWHL to be more established? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Waiting a bit is probably best. Flibirigit (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

HC Bat Yam

Could someone take a look at HC Bat Yam? The article has a lot of Russian (?) text and the sources aren't good. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

List of NHL overtime game sevens

I just noticed this WP:CFORK article returned after being redirected to List of NHL game sevens for three years. Anyone mind if I resume the redirect? Conyo14 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, plus a subsection of the ten longest game seven overtime games could be added to List of NHL game sevens similar to the most frequent matchups in the List of NHL playoff series. Deadman137 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Wracking ^talk! 23:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

In that overtime article, it's easier to know what the home-vs-road split is in overtime game sevens. While the original game seven article also specifies which games went to overtime, it's harder to track how many overtime games were won at home vs road, and it would feel like a tangent to squeeze that into the original game seven article. Hence with the overtime article, it's easier to track that split. Strangewrite385 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Lester Patrick Trophy from the NHL season-by-season pages

Within the Awards section of each NHL season page (e.g. 2023–24 NHL season) we have been including the Lester Patrick Trophy. Personally, I don't think continuing to do something just because it is how we are currently doing it is always the best reason, and its inclusion I think is something to reconsider. The nature of the Patrick Trophy is "to honor a recipient's contribution to ice hockey in the United States" and the winners can come from a number of different peripheries of the hockey world, not the NHL. In fact, only a small portion of winners have been active NHL players (especially in more recent years), and it has no connection to the active NHL season.
On our "List of National Hockey League awards" page, the Patrick Trophy is listed in the 'See also' section as follows:

• "Lester Patrick Trophy - presented, in part by the NHL, for contributions to hockey in the United States, but not considered an NHL award"

On the actual Lester Patrick Trophy page it reads as follows:

• "It is considered a non-NHL trophy because it may be awarded to players, coaches, officials, and other personnel outside the NHL."

And in recent media by the NHL about their own seasonal awards, it is not even mentioned (see: NHL to announce trophy winners beginning May 14)
The NHL does not include it in it's annual list of awards, our own IceHockey Project does not include it as an NHL award elsewhere, and the actual definition of the award does not relate it to the NHL season.
And as for one final argument, we exclude even more relevant trophies in the tables - a peripheral award like the E. J. McGuire Award of Excellence which is tied into NHL scouting on the season and related to the team that drafts said player, or other community awards like the Willie O’Ree Community Hero Award, which, similar to the Patrick trophy, rewards members of the community not necessarily related to the NHL, but is actually presented by the NHL and is included in the awards ceremony, or the old NHL Foundation Player Award which was given explicitly to active NHL players who contributed to their communities, and is only included in like one season Awards table. We don't even include all of the defunct actual regular season performance related trophies on their respective pages (e.g. Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award - 2000–01 NHL season; NHL/Sheraton Road Performer Award - 2003–04; Scotiabank/NHL Fan Fav Award - 2009–10 NHL season).
All of this is to say, I propose we remove the Lester Patrick Trophy from the awards table due to lack of relevance and/or at least add all of the other peripheral trophies, too (I am willing to volunteer to do the work). –uncleben85 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. It is a non-NHL award, mostly kept intact by the HHOF. Conyo14 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If a person associated with the NHL receives the award, it could be listed in the see also section for that specific NHL season. Flibirigit (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Ravenswing 18:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't see any reason not to if it's not officially an NHL award. The Kip 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Award Table formatting discussion

Discussion here. Just looking for some feedback and participation. The proposal is to ignore MOS:LINKONCE when formatting the Winners table. Makes accessing relevant links easier and fits consistent formatting over other tables across the IceHockey Project that are "overlinked" (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc.) –uncleben85 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ice hockey template

I’m assuming that this has been talked about in the past, but I’m just wondering this for myself. Is there a specific reason that the ice hockey template does not support parameters like class or importance? Personally, I think it would be helpful. Can someone explain why? Thank you. XR228 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't have our own |class= parameter (WP:PIQA suffices), but |importance= could be helpful. Wracking ^talk! 21:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Just plugged in the class parameter, and it does in fact work, but the |1= makes it unnecessary, of course. The importance parameter does not work, but I think it could be put to good use. Is there a reason why it doesn't work? Can we make it work? XR228 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Eric Tulsky article needed

Canes' new interim GM is a redlink, but I unfortunately don't have the time to draft and publish an article at the moment. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Started a draft Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've expanded it and cleaned it up. Would anyone care to do a double-check then push it to the mainspace?

unsure about the "Hockey career" header but I think it makes sense to split up his early career (nanotech, chemistry) and later career (consulting, executive role)... couldn't think of a better title ("Hockey analyst and executive"?) Wracking ^talk! 20:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, made some minor edits. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 IIHF World Championship has been nominated for a blurb at ITN/C

The article, however, is substantially lacking in prose about the tourney, which will for the moment prevent it from being posted to the front page. Anyone willing or able to work on it? The Kip ^(contribs) 05:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of team nicknames

A discussion about the use of team nicknames has begun at Talk:Vegas Golden Knights. The scope of the discussion has expanded beyond Vegas Golden Knights. Join the discussion here. Wracking ^talk! 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Severely out of date articles

List of team payrolls in the NHL sorely needs some love, to the point where I almost question it's usefulness and value in keeping it (though it does get daily pageviews). The edit history shows no actual update to the page in years and the annual breakdowns for each team stop at 2007-08(!). The League table hasn't been touched since 2021-22 and is incomplete dating back to 2012-13, and Seattle isn't present anywhere in the article... I'll make some preliminary tweaks, but is this worth trying to setup as a project or just it just be WP:AFD?

List of player salaries in the NHL is also a little questionable, like the opening table that is described as covering between "1989–90 season and the 2020–21 season", but then titled as from "1989–90 to 2007–08" and includes dates to "– present" (implying the current 2023–24 season at time of writing this), but I can update this player salary table, and others seem to already be on top of the year-by-year section. National Hockey League all-time results will be getting a refresh too.

–uncleben85 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I too question the value of both those lists. A quick search shows that the other major sports don't seem to have similar lists. Masterhatch (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Seconding Masterhatch. Wracking ^talk! 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The creators of those pages, User:Centpacrr and User:Twas Now, haven't been active for some time. Masterhatch (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest nominating both for AFD. Flibirigit (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If List of player salaries in the NHL were moved to List of highest-paid NHL players, it would be in line with the baseball and basketball lists. Only the "Sample salaries from earlier seasons" section would have to be removed. --NHL04 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Second this move. It more accurately reflects the content of the article. I see no reason to remove the sample salaries section though. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"Sample salaries" are truly decontextualized indiscriminate information and should be removed, unless some sort of criteria is formed (e.g., list of historic league minimums or list of historic highest salaries). The footnotes on the list only mark its lack of rigor: it includes money that Ronnie Rowe wasn't actually paid and it includes Bobbly Hull's WHA salary.

Due to the lack of sources (only a couple dozen players are listed per decade), information related to historical salaries may be better represented in prose, if at all, in this article.

HockeyZonePlus seems probably reliable, though they only cite the publisher, not specific articles or dates. The original newspaper articles would be preferable. Wracking ^talk! 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support That's a reasonable solution–uncleben85 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support NHL04's proposal Wracking ^talk! 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Fourthed. Though the payrolls article should be placed into AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support this. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 1#List of team payrolls in the NHL @Masterhatch, Wracking, Flibirigit, NHL04, Wheatzilopochtli, Conyo14, and The Kip:

Importance parameter

I know I talked about this a few days ago, but I didn't get an exact answer—why don't we have an |importance parameter on the Ice Hockey template? All the other sports Wiki projects have them. We could come up with a system for how articles should be organized by importance. I'm just saying an importance parameter would help a lot. XR228 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it's entirely subjective, and riddled with recentism and homerism into the bargain. What exactly does it add? Ravenswing 07:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The importance parameter seems useless to me. I concur that it is very subjective. Flibirigit (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it we could make it work. Top importance would be level-4 vital article players (Gretzky, Howe), level-5 vital article teams (Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada men's national team, Ak Bars Kazan), and we can also add the NHL and the IIHF. I think we could figure out a system like this for other articles. XR228 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the ice hockey project wants to delegate an importance rating to the vital articles projects. The key question is if this is just going to be a time sink in arguing about whether something is top, high, mid, low, or bottom importance, versus spending a similar amount of effort on, say, creating new lists akin to User:Ravenswing/Hockey Mountain? isaacl (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Hockey Mountain and other lists is a great use of our time, but adding an importance rating could show us what very important articles really need work. Speaking of Hockey Mountain, we could instead base our importance rating on Hall of Famers. I think figuring out what articles get what importance won't be too much of a hassle. XR228 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wasting time on an unnecessary parameter does not reduce the work needed to climb Hockey Mountain. Flibirigit (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I know that. I'm saying categorizing articles with an importance parameter could help us come up with lists like Hockey Mountain for other important articles. XR228 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The simpler solution would be just to ask us what needs to be worked on. Flibirigit (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that could work. We could add stuff to our to-do list. XR228 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Importance parameter? I'll need a visual example. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? XR228 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree that importance parameter isn't needed and is likely to require more work than it's worth. Lists like Hockey Mountain can better fulfill the Project's needs. Wracking ^talk! 23:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have come to that realization. In fact, I have been working on something like that for the Boston Bruins. I think making lists can be good for this project. XR228 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also, I appreciate the work you've done on the main wikiproject page. It doesn't go unnoticed! Wracking ^talk! 23:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I've noticed that the WikiProject seems to be stuck in 2008, so I hope to make it less outdated. XR228 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to use edit summaries when working in the main space or project space. It helps everyone understand the rationale for a change. Flibirigit (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. XR228 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Hear me out. This may sound a bit insane, but just listen… What if we created a series of Good topics, all related to the NHL. The first topic can be the NHL and its teams and the second topic can be the timeline of the NHL. For the next four, we can use Hockey Mountain to help us. The third good topic can be a list of Hockey Hall of Famers, the fourth can be NHL players with 1,000 career games played, the fifth can be NHL players with 1,000 career points, and the sixth can be NHL players with 500 career goals. I know this sounds absurd, but it is possible. XR228 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree anything is possible. Maybe some editors could help you. My primary interests are outside of the NHL. Flibirigit (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good topics are basically just lists of related articles, so sure, you can start them if you plan to work your way through those articles to bring them to at least Good Article status (with, of course, anyone else interested free to contribute). If you don't have any plans to do so, then personally I'd suggest waiting until you do. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I just want to see who's willing to contribute. I think it would be nice if multiple people from the project could come together and work on this. I can definitely work on it. If anyone else wants to contribute, just say so below. XR228 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

List of WHA broadcasters

Just so everyone knows, List of WHA broadcasters has been nominated for deletion. Masterhatch (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dead subpages

So, as I've been combing through the many subpages of WikiProject Ice Hockey, I've noticed that these pages are either really outdated or simply not used (e.g. the article improvement, requested articles, and requested images pages to name a few). I've also noticed that nobody is using any task forces. I think it would be better if we all started using these pages again. If we don't, we may as well repurpose them or get rid of them. XR228 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Project members tend to bring concerns to this page for discussion. Task forces are disused since membership has decreased from the boom in the late 2000s. There is value is keeping these pages for historical reference and archival information. Please note that Wikipedia is not paper. The same concept applies to our WikiProjects. We don't throw out older discussions, we archive them. Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to echo Flibirigit’s statement in that I don’t think deletion is a good route to go, at least for archival purposes - they’re records of the project from its early days.

That said, I think this talk page mostly covers the requested articles page’s scope at this point, and task forces are mostly a one-person show at this point (ex. XR’s maintenance of Bruins pages, and my own maintenance of VGK ones). I think requested images and article improvement could still have use, though. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Making people use these pages will be hard. I have too much time on my hands, so I guess I'll just get these pages up to date. XR228 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm quoting you on task forces now being "one-person shows." XR228 (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

2023 IIHF World Championship Division II

The issue of the Georgian National Team's relegation has arisen again. Still zero reliable information available, but some input on the page might be helpful as a rather casual editor has decided they know what happened.18abruce (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Brantford 99ers

Please have a look at the page history for the Brantford 99ers, with respect to the team relocating. Several well-meaning IP addresses and a new editor have improperly overwritten the article with the new team name, but nobody cited sources. We should either move the page in question, or start a new article and preserve the previous team incarnation. Does anyone have time to play with this? Flibirigit (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war at Britta Curl

An IP user keeps deleting the section of her article about her social media controversy. Given her recent media attention, at what point is protection warranted? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Has any attempt been made to correct the behavior? i.e. going to their talk page? Conyo14 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just left them a talk page message. It slipped my mind that that's an option for IP users. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Footnote formatting on entry draft articles

Hi all, seeking an additional opinion at Talk:2024 NHL entry draft#Footnote formatting. Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 18:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2024)

Field hockey stick and ball Hello, WikiProject Ice Hockey. The article for improvement of the week is: Sports equipment Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: National economy (Turkey) • State of emergency Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: Wracking talk! 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) on behalf of AFI •

List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise

We have previously discussed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#Draft:List of NHL players with most games played by franchise in May 2024. But now the same editor has copied everything from Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise to List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise. In addition, the creator has admitted in this edit summary that it is a WP:CFORK of List of NHL players with 1,000 games played and the page has no sources. Should it be WP:PRODed or go straight to WP:AFD? – sbaio 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You could give PRODing a shot. It might work. That being said though, I don't expect this article to last for failing WP:LISTN Conyo14 (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio: Wouldn't this be fairly easy to source to Hockey-Reference.com? This shows Henri Richard with 1,258 as the leader for the Canadiens and this shows George Armstrong as the leader for the Leafs. Though I do usually agree with @Conyo14, I could actually see it passing WP:LISTN personally. My caveat is that I'd think this may work best JUST listing the leader per franchise as opposed to the top 10 or so. I think it's a subject that is talked about often enough, x player played the most games for x franchise, but my experience is mostly American football related, so our coverage of different stats and aspects may be different than yours. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if given more sources I think it passes LISTN in its current form. It's been expanded drastically beyond being a CFORK of the 1,000-gamers article. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Utah HC plural or singular

This should be discussed again. Discussion can be found at Talk:Utah Hockey Club#"Utah NHL team" as singular v. plural. – sbaio 05:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetical Good Topic

Let's say I got List of Boston Bruins players to FL status, and I wanted to create a Good Topic around it. Would they allow me to only add players who have achieved some milestone with the team (e.g. 300 games, 500 games, 10 seasons with the team, etc.) to the Good Topic, because getting each of the Bruins' hundreds of players is just not feasible. XR228 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind guys, I think I found an answer. I could create an overview topic. XR228 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

ECHL team rosters

Was curious of peoples thoughts on if there's a benefit of keeping player rosters on ECHL team pages? For the most part 95% of players don't meet notability guidelines and the transactional movement in the league is on the high end. It's a fairly laborious work load with most rosters not kept up to date. Would like to see if there's a consensus either way, thanks! Triggerbit (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If they're not maintained I wouldn't keep them. The only reason I would think to keep them is occasionally there are players under contract with an NHL team sent down. If someone is actively maintaining a certain team I would leave it, but if a team has nobody regularly doing the work I'd remove them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I typically try to maintain the VGK ones, but I don't particularly care about the others. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You've been doing a ton of work on minor league rosters generally, and certainly deserve applause for it. But if you just stuck with AHL articles that'd be above the call of duty, honestly. Ravenswing 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to show consistency and remove the rosters league wide. After updating them for many years, I'm fairly aware that the overwhelming majority of teams aren't maintained, and really it adds no value to the article. The NHL contracted players assigned to the ECHL are mostly first year pros without notability so i think just hiding them on the AHL roster while updating their bio page if on the occasion they are notable is sufficient. Triggerbit (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel that rosters are little use for low-level professional teams in ECHL, and junior ice hockey teams in the Western Hockey League and United States Hockey League. The overwhelming majority of players are not notable at those levels, there is no added value in having this trivial information, and Wikipedia is simply replicating what can be found on databases. Any players who are notable, can be listed in the prose, or other sections such as award winners or NHL alumni. Furthermore, any time spent on maintaing rosters can be diverted to other pressing issues such as Hockey Mountain, or the thousands of citation needed tags on hockey articles. Flibirigit (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Enough time has been left open for feedback so i will remove the ECHL rosters as i come across team pages. I will add the teams list of players to the categories section where necessary Triggerbit (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Stanley Cup winners in NHL season pages

Each NHL season pages should include Stanley Cup winners on players that played their first and last seasons who made significant contributions in their careers. If it frustrating that we don't list Stanley Cup winners on those players and we need a new consensus about it. That consensus not listing Stanley Cup winners on those players is not good and it gets frustrating having to click their links to see if any of them won the cup. So we should talk about a new consensus about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

[1] last discussion about 11 months ago. [2] original discussion on this section for NHL season pages.

My thoughts on this haven't changed. Sorry man, there's gotta be a bit more support for this. I just really don't care if Jordan Nolan or Devante Smith-Pelly played their final NHL games. Perhaps someone else can chime in? via myself from the last discussion. Conyo14 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonna second this. I wouldn’t mind adding to blurbs of guys who’ve already met notability requirements, but simply winning the Cup is not enough by itself. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it should. Stanley Cup is the biggest championship in NHL and is part of the Triple Gold Club. So therefore, it should be there. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just like months ago, your logic is recursive and boils down to “it should because it is.” The Kip ^(contribs) 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't. All manner of obscure people play on Cup-winning teams. This is trivia. Ravenswing 03:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not trivial. That is fact. You all are basing out of consensus that is censoring that information on NHL season pages and you are refusing to acknowledge that information as facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

…what? The Kip ^(contribs) 05:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, we're basing this on consensus. That is, in fact, how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 18:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but that consensus is not a good one or even a right one. In fact, that is considered censoring out something that should revealed as facts, not trivia based on that. That's a big flaw to it and it's very inconvenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, consensus isn't wrong just because it disagrees with you. That's quite literally how finding a consensus works; it's the majority's opinion, not everyone's. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's going to have to be amended because the majority's decision has caused problems by censoring of what should be on there, including the Stanley Cup winners, which is not right and deemed incorrect. Stanley Cup winners on the list of players who played their first and last games in NHL season pages are facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been on Wikipedia far too long to be ignorant of how it works. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Your personal approval is not necessary to validate consensus, and it doesn't become invalid because you yourself do not like it. This is not "censorship" any more than it is "censorship" not to include those players' birth dates, their hometowns, their junior/college teams, their marital status at the time of retirement, or any other bit of unnecessary cruft some disgruntled editor insists are "essential." If you want to know the players' CV, click on the links to the articles. Ravenswing 00:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That creates inconvenience of having to do that when users can see it easily on the first and last games of certain players who met the notable criteria to see the Stanley Cup winning accomplishment and it's equally frustrating of not allowing due to some consensus from the majority who failed to see it that way. It disenchants me that some consensus are causing problems and forbidding some things that we need to make things more convenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a suggestion to overload pages with more trivial facts. No thanks. We need more quality prose and fewer lists of facts. Flibirigit (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is frustrating to having not seeing Stanley Cup winners on those players. I know we can't list all players who won the Stanley Cup in first and last games. Just the ones who made massive contributions like winning certain trophies, played over 1,000 games and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm more okay with listing that for those who already met the notability requirement. Though like Flibirigit, quality prose should go above lists of trivial facts. Conyo14 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much this.

If it’s someone like Cogliano or Bergeron, who already meet the notability requirements? Go ahead and add it.

If it’s someone like Brayden Pachal or Alexander Volkov, who doesn’t? A cup win alone isn’t enough to add to the table. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that any players who already meet the notability requirements and won Stanley Cup should have the Stanley Cup on that table. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad you agree. That's what we should do. Players who already meet the notability requirements and won Stanley Cup should have that achievement on the list. In my opinion, the current consensus of first and last games is censoring some important contributions of player's achievements, including the Stanley Cup, which is a big deal. That information is facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would've just assumed that being a Stanley Cup winner with their name on the cup would in and of itself imply notability. Actually, until now I thought that being in the NHL was notable. I'm new here. Buffalkill (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In this case they don't mean notable as in worthy of an article, but a separate standard of notability for inclusion in the NHL season articles when they retire. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Quite alright, Buffalkill. Participation standards have been deprecated generally sports-wide. Playing in a competition doesn't make anyone notable, any more. Ravenswing 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like playing in a top-level professional league is a pretty solid standard of notability, is it not? Whether it’s one NHL game or 1,000. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Depends. "Top-level professional league" also includes someone playing a single game in the top Austrian league in the 1950s. Or for the NHA in 1909. Or a guy who pitched a single inning for the Worcester Ruby Legs in 1889. And so on. The number of players for whom all that's known is "Smith, P." sportswide is very large. That's why the GNG's in play for the vast number of people who didn't win scoring championships or named to season-end league All-Star Teams. Ravenswing 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding such trivia. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not trivia. That is actually fact. That so-called consensus about the achievements in player's first and last NHL seasons is censoring out who are Stanley Cup winner in NHL season pages in the first and last games section and it does not make it convenient. If you want to compromise, then add Stanley Cup winners on players who made notable achievements like who won certain trophies, played over 1,000 games and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're mixing opinions and facts. Trivia = fact that miscellaneous. You mean to say it is not miscellaneous. Conyo14 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, regardless, we should settle a compromise to amend the consensus to allow to have players who made other notable achievements have the the Stanley Cup win on those tables in the first and last games in NHL season pages? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I see Jay Bouwmeester is listed with Triple Gold Club in the 2019–20 NHL season and Patrice Bergeron in 2022–23 NHL season. What does that you all? That means they are Stanley Cup winners and that's the more reason why Stanley Cup should be listed in each NHL season on players' achievements on their first and last games, not censor it based on poorly voted consensus by the majority on this. Therefore, that consensus should be amended, one way or another. I do have a case about it, no matter how strong and weak it is to you all. Stanley Cup winning achievement is considered factual information, not trivial. Consider that a fair protest and fairly reminding you that something most of all found convenient to be blinded by that consensus. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't force others to agree to what you want. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

But I tell you this. Because when I see the eyes and faces of the players who won the Stanley Cup, it's like seeing them win an Olympic Gold Medal and winning the Super Bowl. That it's one of the biggest notable achievements in any playoff games on any hockey player who got the chance to win the cup that naysayers are obliviously blinded by their negative views that they considered it trivial, which in reality it is not and have failed to understand why it should be the list based on their accomplishments and censoring that on that list. I will not accept the current consensus that suppresses the Stanley Cup achievement on the table list in the first and last games in NHL season pages, everybody. Not I and I never will. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors will not be bullied into your point of view. Refusal to accept consensus is disruptive behaviour. Flibirigit (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not bullying. That is a fair protest. It's about how an unfair consensus that censors out what should be listed in the achievements and reminding how the majority of you found convenient to refuse to acknowledge that problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn’t “unfair” just because you disagree with it, lmao The Kip ^(contribs) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Holy cow, drop the stick already. This is pointless. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That is the consensus I don't agree with and never will. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As i said earlier: Ok 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No one's forcing you to agree. But as I said uptopic, your personal approval is not required in order to establish consensus. Ravenswing 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no consensus forming for the proposal-in-question. Recommend this discussion be closed. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I do have a proposal that I will set up whatever it takes. Maybe not now, maybe not in awhile, but when it does, I will make a case about it and I will use this discussion to raise some awareness. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Chris Patrick (ice hockey) article needed

Similar to Eric Tulsky, the Capitals just named a guy GM who we don't have an article for. I lack the time to do research atm and I'm not great at writing exec articles anyways, but some points to cover in the article are that he's been with the org for 16 years, was drafted by the Caps in the 8th round of the 1994 NHL entry draft, won the Cup with them in 2018, and is the son of Dick Patrick and great-grandson of legendary HHOFer Lester Patrick. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Draft:Chris Patrick (ice hockey), which I've based off of Tulsky's article. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

And it's now published. Carry on. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

British National League (1996–2005) nominated for deletion

British National League (1996–2005) has been nominated for deletion. The article needs a lot of work. Does anyone have time to play with it? Flibirigit (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Iginla kids' nationalities

Various users keep editing Tij Iginla and now Jade Iginla, changing "Canadian-American" to "Canadian." Elite prospects (which is currently having technical difficulties) has them listed as both so I've been reverting the edits, and although they both lived, played, and attended school in the States throughout their childhoods I haven't seen another source explicitly say that they have American citizenship. Can anyone confirm that they they are or are not also American? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the users making the edits provided sources to contradict EP, I should add. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Elite Prospects should be used with caution, since some if its contents are user-generated with editorial oversight. Please see the about page for details. Flibirigit (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that on the about page, am I missing something? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can sign up for an account with Elite Prospects, then edit and create players. Flibirigit (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Aside to the main discussion, but relevant to the point you are making: is that true? Anyone can edit a player? I thought EP player profiles could only be updated manually by the player or player's agent after identity verification. I'm genuinely curious! –uncleben85 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would take any assertion that they were "American" with an enormous grain of salt. They are teenagers who were born in Canada to Canadian parents, and have played internationally for Canada. It is vanishingly rare for people of their ages to seek to become naturalized American citizens, and I'd like to see some very solid sourcing for anything of the sort ... and Eliteprospects just isn't that solid. Ravenswing 10:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Gender in medal tables

Should gender be included in the sport parameter of medal tables? I have been reverted both ways by different users so I think we should come to some kind of consensus. Personally, I am pro-gender for a few reasons:

1. Men's and women's ice hockey are two different classes of competition
2. A female or transgender athlete could medal in both categories
3. The medal table template uses gendered sports in its example

CC @Triggerbit @DetroitFan7 @Spitzmauskc Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you link to an example? Wracking ^talk! 17:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Berkly Catton has a gendered medal table, Lenni Hämeenaho does not. The template in question is Template:MedalTableTop Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be very opposed to any such inclusion. All that would do would be to inject a wave of disputes over gender politics as to whether any given player does (or does not) present as one gender or another or neither, and over a distinction that has never yet come into play. That a female or trans athlete could medal in both categories is as may be, but none yet ever has. (I don't think there's yet been a case where one ever has competed in both sides at the national or Olympic level.) Should that ever do happen, it's much better addressed in prose in the individual's article. Ravenswing 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the gender of the athlete, it is just specifying the class of competition in which they medaled. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm slightly in favor of including gender of the sport per #1. The gender of the sport is in no way a statement about the gender of the athlete (though, of course, it's often correlated). I don't think this would pose an issue with MOS:GID, because this is related to the class of competition. I do not anticipate major disputes being raised. See, for example, Harrison Browne—as far as I can tell, there has been no major discussion or dispute over the characterization of this (transgender male) athlete's classification within women's hockey.

Either way, we should try to be consistent and avoid male-as-norm bias (see also Wikipedia:Writing about women#Male is not the default). Wracking ^talk! 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion it's unnecessary and second Ravenswing thoughts. Triggerbit (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Concur. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with each of your points and feel including competition class leads to greater consistency in competition nomenclature overall, i.e. 'women's ice hockey/men's ice hockey' and 'world championship' rather than 'ice hockey' and 'women's world championship/men's world championship' (Wracking's note re:Male is not the norm is quite relevant here). The men's and women's world championship tournaments are not literally the same events and we would be leaving the reader to interpret competition class from a player's gender if we were to present both competition classes as 'ice hockey' and 'world championship.' Spitzmauskc (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur. If the player medaled in a women's world championship tournament, we should state that. If it was a men's world championship tournament, we should state that. There is zero reason to present less information. Who does that benefit? And it is very much important that we do not presumptively treat men as the default. Men are not the default setting of humanity. Period. oknazevad (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Lack of information should outweigh any inconvenience factor, and I don't think invites gender politic as much as it just presents facts. What we would be presenting is the simple fact of which event the player participated in, separate from the player's identified gender or biological sex as well as any editor or reader's beliefs on those matters. It provides clearer information as well as helps shift that gendered bias. –uncleben85 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

® and ™ in logos

Hello there. All NHL teams seem to have ® or ™ in their logos used on their respective websites, their respective Facebook pages and their respective Instagram pages. NHL also uses the logos with the marks on its website, see for example https://www.nhl.com/info/teams/. Therefore I argue that we should use this version as well. Sbaio however argues that there is no need for that, “that” referring to the addition of the marks. They argues that the logos without the marks are the versions used on the teams' uniforms and therfore we should use that version. I would argue that the one on the uniform is a printed version and the one used elsewhere is the digital version, and Wikipedia is a digital platform, hence the digital version should be used. What do you think? Jonteemil (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jonteemil - according to MOS:TMRULES, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." Regards, PKT(alk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that TMRULES applies to images, and WP:LOGO doesn't mention trademark icons Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I wouldn't say that logos would be article text nor citations. Jonteemil (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're only talking about logo images, I guess that if one of those symbols is in the image that's uploaded, there's not much that can be done - it's there. However, it seems to me that MOS:TMRULES tells us that they are not desired, unless it's unavoidable. I still agree with @Sbaio: that there is no need for the symbols. PKT(alk) 19:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Trademark symbols are not part of the trademark. Trademark owners optionally place them to let others know that the mark in question is trademarked. The trademark owner has the responsibility of enforcing its trademark rights; others are not obligated to indicate that a given mark is trademarked (as required by trademark law, they cannot use the trademark in a way that causes confusion about the origin of a product). isaacl (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Logos are proprietary and should not be altered or have elements edited out. Buffalkill (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable, however, to assume that the ® or ™ are not part of the proprietary logo. –uncleben85 (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Should I escalate this to WP:RFC? When thinking about it, not only ice hockey logos use these marks so there should be a Wikipedia-wide policy on this matter, whether it be ice hockey logos or fast food restaurant logos. Jonteemil (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If you do, take it to either WP:VILLAGEPUMP or the talk page of MOS:TMRULES, so you can get a larger range of opinions. Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Good advice........ PKT(alk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that's needed. Again, trademark symbols are not part of the logo. You can see, for example, the trademark registration for the Montreal Canadiens logo. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now posted WP:VPP#WP:Logo's stance on ® and ™ in logos. Jonteemil (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Free agent infobox

Should a free agent be listed as such in the infobox? @Sbaio and I disagreed on this at Michael McLeod (ice hockey). I think it looks really bad in its current form with the lowercase t in team; either the free agent text should be removed or the template should be updated to say "Current team" if no league is listed. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This has always been the practice so I find it strange that you did not see that earlier. – sbaio 04:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the accusatory wording of your comment. I didn't see an instance of this until now; I've been editing regularly for less than a year and it's not common for a player to be a free agent for long enough that it appears on their page. I just wanted to have a discussion about changing either the practice or the template so that there's not a lowercase letter there. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally think the "‎ team" looks bad too, and would be in support of updating the box to say "Current team" instead of "[League] team". Is that really where we need to list the league anyway? It sort of implies there could be more than one active professional league/team. I also feel, just because something has been done one way for a while is not the best reason to continue it.--–uncleben85 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Patrick family article

Myself and @Hey man im josh mused on this a bit at Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Patrick (ice hockey) - the Patrick family certainly has enough history, as well as WP:SIGCOV, to merit their own article, rather than being contained in subsections of Lester Patrick and Craig Patrick. Lester, Craig, Frank, and Lynn are all in the HHOF, while Muzz was a player and served as a head coach/GM, Glenn was a player, Dick is a longtime Capitals executive, and Chris is the Capitals' new GM. The "hockey's royal family" notion is used widely across secondary sources.

Examples of similar articles can be seen at Sutter family and Apps family. I don't really feel the drive to work on one at the moment, but I figured I'd drop the idea here should anyone be interested in attempting to flesh one out. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an absolute tragedy that this family, "hockey’s royal family" (according to the Washington Post), doesn't have a standalone article. I was shocked to find that not only wasn't it a GA yet, it didn't even exist! 7 Patricks have their name on the cup, 4 in the HOF, and more experience in high level non-playing roles. This is ripe for an excellent GA and possibly good topic if anyone were up for it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The individual family members are notable, but the family as a whole must demonstrate GNG to be notable. Has anyone found articles specifically talking about the Patrick family as a whole? Flibirigit (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

[3], [4] [5] Conyo14 (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also a book: "The Patricks: Hockey's Royal Family" ISBN:9780887801037 Conyo14 (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

... which I happen to own. The Patricks have been influencing professional hockey for 125 years now. Their impact on the sport, its legendry and lore dwarfs that of the Sutters, Appses, Howes ... Ravenswing 01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

AND YET WE HAVE NO ARTICLE FOR THEM! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hanson Brothers

Does anyone have time to clean up Hanson Brothers? It has been nominated a second time for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson Brothers (2nd nomination). I'm too busy right now to do it myself. Best wishes! Flibirigit (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"NCAA" vs specific conferences

When linking to a college player or team and referencing the league they play in, do we want to be saying "NCAA" or the specific conference they were in, such as Hockey East or NCHC? A more specific framing for the discussion can be found here: Talk:2024–25 NHL transactions#Listing college hockey imports –uncleben85 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I rarely see the conferences specified when it comes to hockey, whereas the CHL component leagues are differentiated every time. I would lean towards NCAA in most cases, but as long as we're consistent (and imo apply the same treatment to U Sports and its conferences) it really doesn't matter at all. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)