Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive85

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

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 • Opt-out instructions

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:

Men's and women's ice hockey are two different classes of competition
A female or transgender athlete could medal in both categories
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, PK T(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. PK T(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........ PK T(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)

Why are the hockey infoboxes so empty of substance compared to other sports?

When you look at a page for an NBA, MLB or NFL player, you're given a list of all the teams they played for and the years they were on those teams, all of their championships, all of their accolades, and records they may have. When you look at the page for an NHL player, you see the teams they played for and the years of their career (though not the years they played for each team). Why is this? Somarain (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussions: [6], [7], [8] Conyo14 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And aside from everything else, a infobox is supposed to be a brief precis of the subject. If you want to find out information in depth ... read the article. Ravenswing 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Supposed to be brief according to whom? As I stated below, that opinion is not in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and it's certainly not the MO for pages for politicians, NFL players, colleges or countries. In addition, there are multiple things wrong with your second sentence. First, you shouldn't have to read an entire article to get basic knowledge. THAT is what the infobox is for. And second, in my brief look at Wayne Gretzky's page, basic information isn't covered in the rest of the article either. I was curious how many all star games he's played in. I couldn't get this from the infobox as you know. But it's not listed in the rest of the article either as far as I can tell. And this is supposedly a featured article. Look at the page for any NFL, MLB or NBA player and you could determine how many all star / pro bowls they played in in seconds, because their infoboxes list basic information. Somarain (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding years, unlike some sports, hockey player articles tend to include stats tables spanning a player's career, which can clearly show the reader the years spent with each team in a quick to locate format. But yes otherwise, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a guideline and keeping the infobox brief and pertinent rules the day. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I see the word brief only once in that link and it's not referring to the length of the infobox. Even if there was a rule in that link about briefness, it's ignored almost everywhere. Joe Biden, Tom Brady, Harvard University, Chile, all of these infoboxes are far larger and more informative than those of NHL players. From where exactly comes this "brief infobox" thing? Somarain (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To your other comment, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Echoedmyron (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the NHL infoboxes don't even contain many key facts, so they're not meeting the threshold of that guide at all. To your other comment, WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Somarain (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree the hockey infoboxes are pretty sparse and could be improved. Maybe there is a reason why people keep bringing this up. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like sports WikiProjects are slowly becoming "fan sites" and reflecting sports databases, rather than remaining encyclopedic entries. Infoboxes are becoming too bloated at the expense of quality prose. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are separated from the prose. They also get facts across much faster than prose (obviously the facts should be listed in both sections). Somarain (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The one thing the hockey template has over the others is it's limited to the basic info. There are sections in the articles listing all those other things. The lone issue I have with the hockey template is its appearance compared to the other sports. I particularly like the way the baseball template looks for retired players. --NHL04 (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly argue it does not cover basic info. Nor do the sections in other articles. How many all star games did Wayne Gretzky appear in? You could not figure that out from his "featured" article, as far as I can tell. Not in the infobox and not in the rest of the page. Somarain (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All-star game appearances are typically listed in the awards and honors section Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's scarcely "basic" info. Now if you're concerned that the Gretzky article lacks an all-star game count, what prevented you from adding it? Ravenswing 22:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

How is not basic info? Remove Gretzky's name from the infobox and I have no idea that I'm looking at someone who was considered rather good at the game. All Star appearances tell that story quickly. But if you think an all star is too trivial, surely you don't think the same thing about Hart Trophies? For your last question, my time is best spent here. The worst thing about the article, and all NHL player articles, is the bare infobox. It would take minutes to find out from the player articles information you could find in seconds from any NBA, MLB, or NFL player article. I'm focusing my efforts where I could potentially make the greatest change. Somarain (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is very clear on Gretzky's hallmark achievements. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I note that Template:Infobox sports league has optional parameters for {{{current_season}}}, {{{current_season2}}},{{{last_season}}}, & {{{upcoming_season}}}, while Template:Infobox hockey league has only {{{current_season}}}. It would be useful to have those alternative parameters available during the 3-5 month off-season. It could even be set-up to switch automatically. I don't know how to edit templates. Buffalkill (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League

There are two pages we need to add to the History of the National Hockey League Featured Topic nomination: History of the National Hockey League on television and History of the National Hockey League on United States television. These technically are part of the "History of the NHL" series and should be added. XR228 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And both would need a good bit of work before they were FA-worthy. Ravenswing 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

True. But we shouldn't go ahead with the History of the NHL topic without working on these two first. XR228 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Ravenswing 03:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential NHL Good Topic

Hello there. I've been remaking Hockey Mountain as of late, and one of its new sections will be about the NHL. I've created a hypothetical good topic based around the NHL, as you see below. Feel free to give feedback.

National Hockey League

61 articles

XR228 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'd say this is a dashboard, rather than a topic. It will also require ongoing maintenance, because if and when ratings change, this dashboard would also need updating (as I just did for Western Conference (NHL)). That having been written, it's a nice tool for our project, IMO. PK T(alk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I know 61 articles is a bit much, but this is the National Hockey League. 32 teams + all the other stuff. If/when we want to make an NHL topic, this is it. XR228 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine, personally, with continuing to operate Hockey Mountain as a checklist for improving the pages of significant players. XR228 rightly pointed out that we should have a similar list for non-player NHL-related topics, and there's no reason not to have a Hockey Mountain Range. Ravenswing 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)

History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have pledged to help on the page, but I cannot be the only one. Conyo14 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I may be able to help out a bit, but I can't guarantee anything. I somewhat disagree with the idea that there's not enough post-2013 content (cup winners, notable outdoor games, notable seasons, etc are covered), but the sourcing issues are a real concern. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sleeman Centre (Guelph)#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sleeman Centre (Guelph)#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Update on Hockey Mountain revamp

Hello there. As many of you know, I have been revamping Hockey Mountain. I am not done yet, but I have categorized all the different parts. I will put it below. Feel free to give feedback.

Hockey Mountain is a name given in jest to the concept of getting ice hockey teams and players to Good Article (GA) status or better, to ultimately turn them into Good (GT) or Featured Topics (FT).

Articles listed as "WP:VITAL" have their goal marked as FA, in hopes that the editor who works on them will bring them to that level as suggested for Vital Articles. However, for the purposes of this project, they will be considered done at the GA level.

If you have any questions regarding the project, feel free to leave them on the talk page.

There are three parts which comprise Hockey Mountain. The first two parts contain multiple subsections.

Part 1: National Hockey League

Part 2: List of NHL players

Part 3: List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame

Notes

All parts of the National Hockey League are featured in Part 1, including the 32 teams.
While Part 2 is technically a subtopic of the Part 1, it is broad enough and has enough subtopics within itself that, for the purposes of this project, it can be considered its own thing.
There are no subtopics for Part 3. Instead, there are several GT/FTs that are arranged by year.

Credits

Leech44 — Created Hockey Mountain
Ravenswing — Took over Hockey Mountain from Leech44
XR228 — Revamped Hockey Mountain

XR228 (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters

Could anyone be so kind as to nominate this article along with the sister article (Eastern Conference) for deletion? I'd do it, but on mobile it's a tad difficult. Otherwise, I'll do it tonight. Conyo14 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters (2nd nomination) added it in. Conyo14 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Hi gang! I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for ages but finally got some time and energy to start editing again. I started by creating articles for active players of Frölunda who yet didn't have any articles, and ran into trouble when I wanted to create Isac Born since there already was a draft which had been rejected. I expanded the article a bit and re-submitted the draft but it got immediately rejected. Have the rules about notability changed? Last time I was active it was enough if a player had played professionally in any of the top leagues, but the only thing WP:NHOCKEY mentions are lower league notability requirements. Can anyone help me? Best regards —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 23:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

First off, welcome back! Lately, it's been specific to the National Hockey League as that it is the highest professional ice hockey league (and it's assumed they would have the GNG to support an article). However, this player does not satisfy GNG with the sources that were placed in there. So, maybe you could try to satisfy GNG first? Conyo14 (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

A 2022 request for comment discussion resulted in removing criteria solely based on playing a game in a league. This includes the NHL. The sports-specific guidelines for having an article have always, since their inception, deferred to the general notability guideline, so there is no change from the original intent. However that intent was not always taken into account by those closing deletion discussions. The 2022 RfC now provides a more recent consensus view that playing in a league is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that there should be an article for the player in question. isaacl (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, the surest method is this: demonstrate that the player meets the GNG by including in the article reliable sources giving the player "significant coverage." (Which, after all, ANYone creating a biographical article should do as a matter of course.) Ravenswing 13:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Typically, recent consideration has been that playing a game in the NHL is enough to pass NHOCKEY - not so much for other major leagues, unless significant news coverage can be found. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Same thing happened with tennis project guidelines. Our guidelines were simply playing in the major level of tennis was enough to create an article, so many stubs were created. But we also always had to pass GNG. Those two usually go hand in hand. We had also said you do have to show reliable sources for their notability and those were often left out. Our guidelines now say that playing at the major level of tennis is very likely to show notability but you must have sources to confirm it. Yeah, there are grey areas where if you played at Wimbledon 100 years ago you are going to have an article, period. But the newer emphasis on GNG does help stop articles being created with a serious lack of sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for swift replies, I'll focus on improving existing articles. I'm feeling a bit rusty, could someone please take a look and give some feedback, I expanded Sebastian Collberg with info about his early career and international play, I'll try to write about his career post 2014 as well. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Alberni Valley Bulldogs

Could a member of the WikiProject take a look at Alberni Valley Bulldogs and assess it per WP:NTEAM? In addition, there are also two non-free images showing the team's uniforms being used in the main infobox which might be an issue since given that articles about NHL and other hockey seem do something in the main infobox with respect to team uniforms. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The team passes WP:GNG, despite that the article is poorly written and lacking citations. Fair use images and other trivia has been removed. Flibirigit (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this Flibirigit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Miracle in Espoo

I'm having trouble finding any sources that call the game by the name the article gives it; neither of the references use the term "Miracle in Espoo". I have not found any sources that do use the phrase that predate the creation of the article, nor any sources at all that use the Finnish name (and there is no page for it on the Finnish wiki), which makes me suspect that it was made up by the creator of the page. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion unless anyone can find a source. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion. The name appears to be synthesized. Flibirigit (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I found an article that uses the name "Espoon ihme", which would translate to "The Miracle of Espoo" and one Facebook post that uses the "Ihme Espoossa" version. These were the only mentions of either of those names so it's obvious that this isn't a real thing. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Asia League Ice Hockey

Asia League Ice Hockey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

So I wrote above in the Notability section but didn't get any replies; It was a long time since I did anything beside general stats updates so would like if someone could take a look at Sebastian Collberg which I expanded and give som feedback, what could be improved and how are articles rated nowadays, etc. Best regards —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 01:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about Swedish links. I know that Eliteprospects cannot be used for GNG purposes. So, it looks fine as an article. If you're looking to make it a Good Article, you're probably almost there. Conyo14 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–)#Requested move 30 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–)#Requested move 30 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 12:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Subheaders

@XR228, they may look good but unfortunately they've taken away the table of contents navbox - appreciate the design, but maybe not something we should keep, unfortunately. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok XR228 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Female CHLers category

I'm thinking of making a category for women who have played in the CHL; is there a neat way to include both non-draftee players (eg Eve Gascon) and draftees who didn't play (eg Chloe Primerano and Taya Currie) into one category or should I just leave off the draftees who didn't end up playing major junior? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Could just do Category:Female CHL draft picks and Category:Female CHL players separately - there's nothing saying a category with only two or three entries can't exist. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Uniforms in the OHL

Hey all,

Was wondering if I (we) could start adding uniforms to active teams in the Ontario Hockey League.

Thanks for consideration. 27JJ (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If someone's willing to put in the work, I don't see the problem. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Roger that. Ty for the response. 27JJ (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My only concerns are that images meet requirements for non-free content and/or copyright. Prose regarding uniforms requires sourcing as per WP:RS. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If they're the illustrated renders similar to NHL teams, they fall under fair use iirc. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a fair concern, I had taken the time to try and familiarize myself with this. As reference, here is my upload of the Utah Hockey Club Uniform. The illustration, summary and licensing all meet the requirements as I have understood them. Fingers crossed that this won't be a problem. 27JJ (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Brantford 99ers team relocation

Does anyone have time to deal with the relocation of the Brantford 99ers? Several anonymous editors and one novice editor make repeated changes, but nobody is citing any sources. This team may benefit from the page move process or an article for the newest team name, the King Rebellion. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on a Draft:King Rebellion. Buffalkill (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to add sources! Flibirigit (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of the 99ers article is actually discussing the Milton teams of the franchise's history, including the alumni section. All the Milton team names redirect to this 99ers article. For a junior A team, do we really need separate articles every time the team moves? I think this one should just get renamed. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support this idea. Looking at other OJHL team articles, they aren't usually split when the franchise moves. Brantford 99ers should become a dabpage with links to King Rebellion and Brantford Bandits. 162 etc. (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the city or town where a sports team resides is central to its identity. A change of location usually means new fans and new identity, even more so if they adopt a different name and uniform. In this case the King Rebellion chose a name that specifically references its hometown's history, i.e., the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion. Before the move, it was called the Brantford 99ers in reference to Jay-Z's 99 Problems. (JK) Buffalkill (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I am indifferent as to a page move or a merged history. Whatever is chosen, it needs to be cited. Unfortunately one less thing named for Wayne Gretzky. Flibirigit (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting better name for Template:Player4 and similar

Template:Player4, Template:Player5, and Template:Player7 have inscrutable names that are not explained in their documentation. Can we please move these templates to better canonical names, like Template:Ice hockey roster current player, or something more reasonable? I'm fine with the current names existing as redirects, but the current names are not helpful. The naming guideline says: "Template function should be clear from the template name". If someone can explain what the three current templates are for, I'll be happy to rename them without breaking anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that editors who watch this talk page are not the same who care about updated rosters. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Which page would be a better place to address the above concerns about inscrutable template names? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe contact the roster editors directly on their talk pages? I personally have little use for rosters. Flibirigit (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, these templates should be merged and certain parameters should be made optional. – sbaio 05:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Karel Vejmelka

Good afternoon,

I reverted an editor on Vejmelka's page after some drive-by tagging and now have the editor stating on my talkpage threatening to delete Vejmelka's page claiming the player does not meet WP:GNG. The page is currently cited, but needs more coverage. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Llammakey (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I’d be happy to help, but also, SIGCOV or not, the premise of said editor that a player with 140 NHL games played “isn’t notable enough” is absolutely ludicrous. We’re talking about a full-time NHL goaltender here, not some random prospect that played one game. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It is very hard to WP:AGF when the reviewer didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE search. Conyo14 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Especially given the sarcastic you think I could find any? Noooo. I've issued a deserved trout, hopefully should be the end of things. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Gretzky records

Can I draw people's attention to List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky? We have an editor who is trying to change 61 records to 62 by — basically original research. Masterhatch (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd welcome everyone else's input on that discussion, but as I've stated, the basis for my proposed changes is what the official NHL record book itself indicates instead of relying on a figure that comes from outside sources. Since I cite a pre-existing, official source, it doesn't constitute "original research." TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NHL.com says 61.Masterhatch (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

And their record book lists 62. There are many sports columnists who sometimes write articles for their respective sports league's websites, but it does not mean that everything contained there is reflects the opinion of the NHL itself. Using another sports league as an example, this article on MLB.com lists the all-time single-season wins record as 60, whereas MLB's official leaderboards has it at 59. Again, the official record book is the definitive account. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

where's the link to the list that has 62? Counting from multiple links to get to 62 is SYNTH. All the sources say 61 so we cannot say 62. Masterhatch (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Far from being SYNTH, it falls under WP:CALC if "the results of the calculations are correct and a meaningful reflection of the sources." For example, on the list of players who scored the points in a single season, counting the number of times Gretzky is listed on the first page (top 50 players) gives the figure of 12. The fact that a third-party source doesn't happen to literally explicitly spell that out shouldn't prohibit us from using basic common sense to arrive at such a conclusion. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

62 contradicts every source, so, no, not calc. Masterhatch (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH. What you are doing is original research. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Masterhatch (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again. I am using the NHL Official Guide and Record book to proof a record is officially recognized (listed) by the NHL. If a record that is present in a league's own official record book doesn't count "officially recognized," then no record is. In fact, there'd be no point continuing this conversation if you believe it so.

At no point have you disputed that this record is officially recognized by the NHL. You have only argued the validity of the "61 records" figure. Such figures may be based on information that isn't accurate, and if an authoritative source like the NHL record book shows that there are other officially recognized records, then it follows the figure must be adjusted to conform and not the opposite. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... I don't deny that that record is there at that link. The problem is no source says 62, not even nhl.com (which does say 61). And by doing math ourselves, thats original research. I think we need another voice in this. Masterhatch (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not original research to count the number of records held in the official record book, now present at https://records.nhl.com/. See Wikipedia:No original research § Routine calculations. As anyone can verify the count themselves, it's not hard (though tedious) to reach a consensus agreement on the number. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and that is exactly what I have done. Although I would have to recount to make sure of the validity of the figure, what I do know is that there are records listed there which aren't listed here, making the figure wrong by default. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So, the problem is with the consensus on that official tally. For all known purposes, NHL.com along with all the secondary sources I've found list it as 61, whereas the NHL Record and Guide Book counts out 62. Therefore, I would suggest a note be placed for the one record that might be questionable. This could be a record the NHL came up with after his retirement and therefore awarded Gretzky an additional record despite having 61 by the time he set it and was recognized (or whatever). Either that, or keep it at 61, and place an addendum in the article with the record that wasn't recognized during his career but after the fact.

Which edition of the Guide book is it? Conyo14 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It was 61 at retirement and the article has to reflect that. If a record was added later, the article has to show that, much like it shows his records that have fallen. Masterhatch (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's the one that is available online, found on NHL.com. I believe that for a record to be "officially recognized," it must be featured on the Official Record book. Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing the "62 records" figure is necessarily the right one; it could be 64, 60, etc. What I am arguing is that the correct figure, whatever it may be, should only take into account the records officially listed in the Record Book.

As an aside, using another sport, for the longest time, Ty Cobb's career hits total was listed for many years at 4,191. As it was an iconic record in baseball, that number was often used and repeated. However, research has shown that the mark wrongly counted a game for him twice and so it was actually 4,189. Eventually, the new number took precedence over the old one. I use this to show that there is no such thing as an infallible figure, even if it may be often repeated, and that when the evidence changes, so should the figures and not the opposite. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Now, if someone could pull a source that shows a c. 1999 NHL Record book that actually only lists 61 records, that'd be another thing. Then it's just the NHL retroactively adding records. But I doubt that's where the number came from anyways. I think honestly, what happened is it first appeared on Wikipedia and then gained traction elsewhere, because whether we admit it or not, most people tend to get their information from the Wiki. Ironically, that same traction got the number to get accepted as fact and is now used as a justification for keeping it on Wikipedia. Maybe a tad bit circular... TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I really doubt wikipedia started the 61 number. I actually remember his retirement (I was in my mid-20s) and that number of 61 was being tossed around then and that was pre-wiki. The most likely case is a record was added retro actively, in which case, it really was 61 at retirement and could very well be 62 now. It wouldnt suprise me if they add more records retro actively in the future (say most 200 point seasons or most 80 goal seasons). Masterhatch (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Happily, I have many of the NHL Record Books from the 1980s on forward to 2011. Just counted from 1999. Sixty-one. Ravenswing 09:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! How does that book from '99 compare to wikipedia's 61? Does it give him the record for most assists by a rookie in a game? Masterhatch (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Ravenswing 13:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, so that's where the number comes from. Thank you for explaining where the "61 records" figure actually comes from. Do you also know if the 1999 Record Book also makes any mention of multi-goal/assist/point records? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Records aren't awarded; they're just a list of stats with someone at the top. If a list was removed from the NHL official records (say, if the definition of a stat was changed, so the old list was removed and replaced with a new list), or if the leader was bypassed, then it's reasonable to note that someone used to hold an official record, but that it is no longer the case. But if a new list was added for an additional stat, then the leader(s) achieved that record during their career, even if the stat was not part of the official record book at the time of retirement. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So, I was the one who created the gretzky record article back in June 2005. Here is the original version. I don't remember which sources I used and I didnt add a source (wikipedia was a bit of a wild wild west back then). But I do remember at that time, all the websites had the same list and I do remember I didn't start that whole 61 record thing — in otherwords, I didnt take lists I saw and count 'em up to see how many there were. I also looked back at the Wayne Gretzky article from back at that time (from before my first edit) and it also had 61 records but witbout a list — only some highlights of the more impressive ones. Now, to figure out the 61 vs 62 problem, we need to take a closer look at the current official record book and compare and see where the differences are and go from there. Masterhatch (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that approach. For what it's worth, as a starting point I did a deep dive through only the regular-season records as listed in the Official Record book. While I would appreciate somebody else confirming the exact specifics, what I can confirm is that there are over a dozen records listed in the Official Record book that are not mentioned in the article, with virtually every multi-goal/assist/point record missing. In fact, they're not even mentioned in the "Unofficial Records" list, which is strange as Gretzky virtually holds every record in that category, which certainly constitutes an extraordinary achievement.

The following is every official record I found that is not listed, with a source for every one.

Most shorthanded goals, career: 73.

Longest assist streak, from start of season: 12.

Most 3-point games, season: 40.

Most 5-point games: 15.

Most multi-point games, career: 824.

Most 3-goal games: 10.

Most multi-goal games, career: 189.

Most 2-assist games, season: 44.

Most 3-assist games, season: 27.

Most 4-assist games, season: 12.

Most 5-assist games, season: 4.

Most multi-assist games, career: 575.

Additionally, the article lists Gretzky's 7 assists in a 1979–80 game as the Official record for most assists by a rookie in a single game, whereas the NHL actually lists Gary Suter with 6 as the record-holder. That is because the NHL never recognized Gretzky's 1979–80 as a "rookie season" due to him playing the WHA before that. It's why he never won the Calder that year. While I would support including this record in the article, I would not assign it official status. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I went through the records listed at https://records.nhl.com/ and tabulated all of those where Gretzky is at the top of the list for each stat (including where he shares the lead). I went through the pages for regular season records, playoff records, and Stanley Cup Final records for skaters. I didn't go through the "Game 7" playoff records, as they require changing a drop-down menu to access the individual records, nor did I go through the "Overtime" page that also has a drop-down menu. (There were overtime records listed on the pages which I did go through, so I'm not sure what's distinct about that page.)

Records held by Wayne Gretzky as of August 2024

In context of the lead section in question and the sentence, I agree with listing the count of records that were recognized at the time of retirement. I'm sure there's someone with the appropriate record book who can count them up (I can't remember if I do). A note can be added about any additional records held at that time based on subsequent lists being tracked. isaacl (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add a new section to the article that lists official records gained after retirement. Looks like there's quite a few. Masterhatch (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just in the middle of revising my comment as I changed my mind. Out of practicality, I think it's simpler to keep the article's current note on what records continue to be held out of the original set held at retirement, and possibly add information about additional recognized records that are held at present. isaacl (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the Lord's work with that list! While I still feel like they should be included outright as "official records," I won't object to including them but with an addendum that they constitute newly set/recognized records. At the very least, they deserve a mention. It's Wayne freakin' Gretzky we're talking about here. If we talk about his achievements, we better get them right.

I propose that the "61 official records" figure be denoted as "widely credited with" as that is technically accurate as evidenced by the secondary source documentation, while not making a judgment value on what constitutes an official record or not. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The key issue is that it requires backtracking through history to figure out what additional records were held by Gretzky at the time of retirement, and that does start to stray into the territory of original research. Sticking with the NHL official record book from the time is safer. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added the "widely credited" label to the 61 records figure. It's probably for the best to not attempt to go back to see which ones counted then and which didn't. That's a whole new hornet's nest and I wouldn't to open it.

The question then is: what do we do about the records that ARE now officially recognized, but weren't presumably then? How do we talk about them? TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Masterhatch and I have suggested adding info on what official NHL records are currently held by Gretzky, even if they weren't tracked by the NHL at the time of his retirement. We can see what other people think. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "widely credited": it's not a phrase I like in this context. There is no doubt about any of these records; they're events that have happened. The only thing that's changed is that the NHL is officially tracking more leaderboard lists. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's worth adding in information about the discrepancies of records that didn't exist. Unfortunately, yes, it's harder to track that. I'd say keep it at whatever most secondary sources say (i.e. 61 vs 62 records), and if the record book begins tracking a new stat, then we can write that in. Use best judgment for the stat and whether it's notable enough. Conyo14 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, "widely accredited" can be worded differently. I'm sure we can find a consensus. Conyo14 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that we have a direction to go with this. I think that we should continue the discussion at Talk:List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days so I won't be around much. Masterhatch (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ottawa Senators (original)

Ottawa Senators (original) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

List of Florida Panthers players - anyone want to help with improvement?

Stumbled across this when I was looking for a reference as I nominate List of Vegas Golden Knights players for FL. Thankfully it's nowhere near bad enough to justify an FL reassessment, partly thanks to my own emergency work, but man oh man, the lead needs some cleanup/sourcing, and the "Notes" sections of the tables need some updates (Barkov wasn't even mentioned as captain?)/general formatting improvement. I'm not sure if I have the time to do it entirely myself - anyone want to lend a hand? The Kip ^(contribs) 07:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)