User talk:Deadman137/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Transaction Page

Thanks. I hate it. Hahaha, I was hoping I could sneak it in with the messed up league schedule! I still think it makes more sense to roll the year over on the same day the League rolls over - free agency - not the arbitrary Draft Day, but... here we are! Haha Let me know if you need any help on the draft page! I can do the nationalites/states tables again if need be. –uncleben85 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Yes, please do that. Deadman137 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Well if I didn't move it someone else would have done it. Plus at this point I'm more than happy to finally put an end to the 2019–20 season. Deadman137 (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Stanley Cup playoff article reply

Just to make sure I'm understanding, the parameters for the information added on for each series should be like the following:
- Series matchup
- Skip a line down
- Description of playoff history between the two teams
- Skip a line down
- If applicable, any series results with reference be added here.
- Make sure a line is skipped the preview information and the playoff series table.

If there's anything I'm missing, I just want to be aware. Evirdenilmiss (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Evirdenilmiss: All you really need to remember is if teams are meeting for the first time use

Ex. (from the Vegas/Vancouver series) This was the first playoff meeting between these two teams. These two teams split their two-game regular season series.

For any subsequent meetings between two teams use

Ex. (from the Islanders/Flyers series) This was the fifth playoff meeting between these two teams, with Philadelphia winning three of the four previous series. They last met in the 1987 Patrick Division Finals, which Philadelphia won in seven games. New York won all three games in this year's regular season series.

Don't worry as much about the regular season series parts as pre 2006 it's a bit more of a pain to do. Deadman137 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

NHL Season Lists Suggestion

I have been looking at the formatting for all the NHL season list articles, and I have noticed that there's a number of inconsistencies in how they are structured.

Differences I have noticed that one or more lists differ from the majority:

Some Differences
Majority	Repetitive Deviations
Contain BOTH NHL season and Team season links.	Contain only the season links.
Contain Division and Division Finish in separate columns.	Lists Contain Division and Division Finish in the SAME column.
Boxes to note the winning the Conference, losing Cup Final are NOT filled in green.	They are filled in green.

Most notably in the postseason result box, a team could have similar postseason results, and the formatting is completely different.

Example: 2014–15 Tampa Bay Lightning
Original	Some altered versions to represent how other lists would feature this
Won First Round vs. Detroit Red Wings, 4–3 Won Second Round vs. Montreal Canadiens, 4–2 Won Conference Finals vs. New York Rangers, 4–3 Lost Stanley Cup Finals to Chicago Blackhawks, 2–4	Won in First Round (Red Wings), 4–3 Won in Second Round (Canadiens), 4–2 Won in Conference Finals (Rangers), 4–3 Lost in Stanley Cup Finals (Blackhawks), 2–4	Won in First Round, 4–3 (Red Wings) Won in Second Round, 4–2 (Canadiens) Won in Conference Finals, 4–3 (Rangers) Lost in Stanley Cup Finals, 2–4 (Blackhawks)	Won First Round (Red Wings) 4–3 Won Second Round (Canadiens) 4–2 Won Conference Finals (Rangers) 4–3 Lost Stanley Cup Finals (Blackhawks) 2–4

I was thinking that would it be a good idea to have one set format that is used for all of the NHL teams lists.Evirdenilmiss (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Evirdenilmiss: As I've been going through these over the past year I have been trying to standardize the layout of these articles to what is used in featured lists. The issue that you'll run into with formatting though, is that there are a few different formatting options that have been approved as a featured list in the past; as such those articles should be left as they are until consensus is reached by the WikiProject as to which style should be used. Deadman137 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Atlanta Thrashers seasons

The rows for the 2004–05 NHL season have been "greyed out" in both the List of Carolina Hurricanes seasons and List of Washington Capitals seasons articles for some time now. Jericho735 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jericho735: Those two articles are outliers that should be fixed, the other articles don't do this. Deadman137 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

ANA/CBJ/TBL conditional pick mess

I just changed the October 7, 2020 trade between Columbus and Anaheim in the 2020–21 NHL transactions from "conditional 7th-round pick in 2021 or 7th-round pick in 2022" to "conditional 7th-round pick in 2022 or 7th-round pick in 2023". The original release from the Columbus Blue Jackets indeed says 2021/22, and they didn't list the conditions, so subsequently both the 2021 and 2022 reflect that, but that unravels when you look at the other deals surrounding it.

February 24, 2020, Edmonton traded Joel Perrson to Anaheim for Angus Redmond and a conditional 7th in 2022, I personally did not have the conditions listed for that, but recently just found out that it was based on Persson playing 25 games, and that number was reduced to 17 games, with the shortened season. (CapFriendly and ProSports both list that change, but I've only been able to find one "source" on it, here, that I am pretty sure got it from one of those sites, lol).

That pick and condition though (even though it won't be triggered) ties into the October 7, 2020 trade above. Anaheim can't give their 2022 pick to Columbus if they've already given it to Edmonton. But as I was looking at that pick, I was noticing that (again, without corroboration with a primary source) both CapFriendly and ProSports have that trade as a 2022/23 selection. Along with that, the condition is just on the availability of the 2022 pick. My best guess of why this change happened (if it wasn't just an original typo) is that since the Persson trade got restructured to make it "easier" for Persson to hit his target and the pick to transfer, the Columbus trade was also restructured.

But we can take this one step further now. March 24, 2021, Tampa traded Alex Volkov to Antoine Morand and a 2023 7th. That is conditional on if Anaheim has their 2023 7th (and moves to 2024 if they don't).

So Anaheim's 2022 could go to EDM, and if it does, then Anaheim's 2023 goes to CBJ, and then Anaheim's 2024 goes to TBL.

I think I am overthinking it, lol, and Persson isn't even under contract to ANA right now, so we won't realistically see that ripple effect, but I wanted to wrap you into my psychosis because I believe the CBJ/ANA conditional pick needs to be removed from the 2021 Draft page trade, the CBJ/ANA condition needs to be updated on the 2022 draft page, the ANA/EDM condition needs to be added to the 2022 draft page, and in case you're tracking it for when you make the 2023 & 2024 pages, we may potentially have a CBJ/ANA condition on the 2023 draft page, a TBL/ANA condition on the 2023 draft page, and a TBL/ANA condition on the 2024 draft page.–uncleben85 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Yeah, I've been looking into that since I saw your edit. The best link that I can find to show this is. [1] The original article published by Columbus states 2021 or 2022, it is possible that this is a typo as day two of the draft took forever to complete and the team writer may have been tired.

As far as finding an actual article goes, I haven't found anything useful yet from a credible source. While CapFriendly can be useful they don't always use the highest quality of sources and they likely used the article that you listed above. Unfortunately for us we cannot use those sites as they are not considered reliable enough.

The good news is that even if Anaheim did bring him now (unlikely as he signed a 3 year deal to play in the SHL) they only have 16 games left this season, so all conditions are now resolved. Deadman137 (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

16 games! Lmao. That's actually kind of funny. Maybe I should have checked that, haha. I just don't like having "Conditions unknown." on the transaction pages though.–uncleben85 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, watch Anaheim make yet another trade giving away their 2022 7th this year, forcing everyone's hands lmao

@Uncleben85: The good news on that front is that they do not currently own any seventh-round picks until 2024 as all conditions are now resolved. Now I just have to store the 2023 trade for a few months in the file that I keep. Deadman137 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CBJ is owed a pick. If the conditions were set on "if the pick is available at the time of the selection", which is what those "insider" database websites are saying, there's nothing stopping Anaheim from trading the 2022 7th away to someone else, and giving CBJ 2023 and TBL 2024. Heck, assuming everything was correct, they traded CBJ a conditional 2021/22 when they didn't even own a 2021 and the 2022 was already involved in a conditional trade!

This whole thing made me go back and look at Anaheim's past 7th rounds. On top of committing to their 2023 and 2022 7ths being guaranteed gone, they traded away their 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, and 2017 7th rounders, all in a row; if there is a team who is not afraid to trade their 7th, it's Anaheim!–uncleben85 (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: From what I can find it looks like it's a done deal as the only way that Columbus doesn't get the pick in 22 is if Edmonton got it; plus there is always one to three picks that need fixing every year when the official draft order comes out. Over the years I've maintained a 99% accuracy heading into the draft when it comes to what team owns each pick, so either way I'm not worried. Deadman137 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

ARI/NJD/WSH conditional pick Going to put this here for posterity sake, the third that NJD sent WSH today for Jonas Siegenthaler was conditional. If NJD has the ARI 3rd at the time of the selection, it goes to WSH, otherwise, WSH gets NJD's 3rd. I gather if Hall is traded back to ARI this season, or contract terminated and he signs with ARI, or some other rally obscure case where he ends up with ARI, then the third would become a second, and NJD wouldn't have the pick to give WSH, so they were forced to make it conditional. We all know how it will end, but, didn't know if you wanted to include the "if it is available" condition on the draft page.–uncleben85 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: If it's conditional then it gets moved to the unresolved table like all of the ones before it. Deadman137 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation bot

Hi,

Could you please stop with your massive category runs on the bot. It is preventing everyone else (including myself) from using the bot.

Thank you JamCor (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@JamCor: The answer is no, I'm going to run whatever categories that I want to, when I want to. In reference to this I'm going to refer you to WP:BOLD. If the bot was being misused instead of just being used by someone that's not you I would give you the time of day. The other interesting part is that there are others that do the same thing that I've done and yet I'm the only one that you're bothering. There are plenty of times that I have had to wait many hours to have the bot run what I have submitted to it, yet you don't see me complaining about it like you and a few others have been doing. Deadman137 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not about just "using the bot". It's about tying the bot up for hours, days and weeks at a time running massive runs across huge categories of legacy articles. If you were trying to use the bot in real time to assist with content development you would experience just how disruptive and frustrating this behaviour is. But you are correct in that you can't be held accountable, because there is no rule that says you can't do this. The real problem is with the bot maintainers, who are indifferent to the needs of content builders, and allow users like you to monopolise the bot. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: You need to take a step back and calm yourself down because you are blowing things way out of proportion. I know that the last year has been hard on a lot of people, but lashing out at someone because they used a bot when you wanted to use it is not healthy. Remember that Wikipedia does not have many deadlines for when things need to be completed. Your work is no more important overall than any other productive user's work and if someone decides that they want to use a bot to clean up a lot of articles that haven't been cited properly at one time, it's not your business to tell them what to do.

Now if you want to get into why I can't be held accountable for running the bot. It's not because there isn't a rule in place, it's because I've done nothing wrong by project standards. Deadman137 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Relax Deadman... of course any content development I might do should have no more priority than any content development you do. But there is a big difference between a bot request from someone doing content development and a bot request to check a category of legacy articles. Surely you can see the difference. Content development, whether yours or mine or someone else's, is often done in real time. For users doing content development, it's really helpful and speeds things up if the bot can be accessed as and when needed. But where is the immediate urgency about checking a category of legacy articles? That's something the bot should be programmed to do during quiet times when it is not otherwise needed.

That's not your problem – it's a software development problem. Nowhere have I suggested users like you shouldn't be able to use the bot for mass runs. To the contrary, I have been pushing for a server dedicated to the sort of mass runs you want to do. At your end, you can continue to dig in and frustrate other users by tying the bot up with mass runs whenever it suits you. Or you can step back a bit, and push also for a solution that works for everyone. — Epipelagic (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Gosh... what a champion you are Deadman! — Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Overtime

Hey Deadman137, I would like to know which overtime goal was scored first tonight Winnipeg's or Nashville's.Conyo14 (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Conyo14: Chronologically, the Predators and Hurricanes game ended 46 minutes (03:18 UTC) before the Jets and Oilers game finished (04:04 UTC). Deadman137 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!Conyo14 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of teams in the NHL

Hey, you reverted my good faith edit on List of NHL franchise post-season droughts. I understand your perspective, it's not necessarily interesting that Seattle Kraken will participate starting next season, at least not in a drought related list like that. The thing is, the statement as presented on the article ("there are 31 teams in the NHL") is false. Seattle Kraken is officially a member of the NHL and have been so since they paid their final expansion fee installment on April 30th. While they don't start playing until the upcoming season, they are already formally a member of the NHL. I agree that it's not of major importance how long Seattle's drought is (0 seasons), but I figure we should avoid presenting false information on how many teams NHL has. -- Lejman (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I more or less agree with you, it's just that until the season is over we cannot consider Seattle an active franchise because they were not active at the start of the season. Deadman137 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I suppose we can state that NHL had 31 active franchises during that season, as that would be correct and mean we don't need to include Seattle in the count. I'll do that. -- Lejman (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lejman: That will work. Deadman137 (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Welp

I'm just going to bury myself in my work and pretend that that OT loss didn't happen. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Any reason to revert this edit? Fizconiz (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fizconiz: Yeah, you're creating edit conflicts that aren't helpful, don't do it again. Deadman137 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't give you a reason to revert an edit that is meant to stay just because it caused an "edit conflict". Don't revert edits just because someone did it before you. Unnecessary reversion so don't do that again. Fizconiz (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it does. There is a big difference between trying to help and actually helping, you would do well to learn the difference. Even well meaning editors can be unintentionally disruptive without knowing it as you did here. Deadman137 (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No. There is no difference between trying to help and actually helping. It's 100% volunteer contributions. When you encounter an edit conflict, step back and see what edits had been made, then proceed with your edits. Reverting an edit and giving a reason because it caused an "edit conflict" is invalid, because what you're saying is that edit conflict means that the editor caused a disruption. If two editors edit at the same time, that isn't called for revert and neither saying it's disruptive. If I put 10% of the information and you put 90% of the information, that is completely fine. But if you revert edits like that for a similar reason, that isn't okay. No disruption was caused so don't make unnecessary reversions. Fizconiz (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fizconiz: You should calm down, plus you really only contributed about 1% of what was needed. Even if an editor does nothing wrong but creates problems for more effective editors it can be considered disruptive to the project. To quote from WP:DE "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." I know that you're not a disruptive editor, you are inexperienced and need to learn the ropes. Going forward it would be best for you to not make an edit like that again in these articles. Deadman137 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That is none of your business if I contributed even 0.1% to an article. That should not at all matter to you. This is a community editing project and making such reversions like that where you literally added the same information I added minus the individual period-by-period goals and stuff, is going to cause you problems in the future. Calling yourself an "effective editor" and others "inexperienced" will eventually harm you long-term. So it's better off you throw away that card. You're only collecting brownie points on Wikipedia so nothing to be effective here. You also need to understand that your chosen quote from WP:DE doesn't apply to this situation. That is a totally concrete statement and addresses concerns if good-faith edits have mistakes. If no mistakes were made in the edits, you shouldn't be reverting edits like that. Nobody needs your approval of what style of edits people should be making. Fizconiz (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyways, I'll leave that article to you.Fizconiz (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit in the Stanley Cup playoffs

Hi I was just wondering why you reverted my edit as you did here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1021601949?diffmode=source Which list the 4 teams in each division who now at this moment will make the playoffs. Cause it clearly states “ The top four teams in each of the four realigned divisions will make the playoffs.”When I original saw that section I noticed it was incomplete, there was one their was only 2 teams in the North division and 3 teams in central division, so I added 2 for the North division and one for the central and yet you reverted it it why?BigRed606 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@BigRed606: I didn't revert your edit, that was another user. Though they were correct to remove your edit as only teams that have clinched spots are listed there. Deadman137 (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Deadman137 sorry for the mixup BigRed606 (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@BigRed606: Don't worry about it, it was an honest mistake, we've all been there at some point before. Deadman137 (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I heard that the Bruins game is on Saturday. Is that correct? Mastergerwe97 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Might be, wait for confirmation from the league. Deadman137 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this. Why don’t I edit the Stanley Cup template after the games, and you can do the recap? Does that work? Mastergerwe97 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mastergerwe97: The answer is no, you have not shown the necessary temperament and competency to be effective. I understand that you want to prove yourself but you've been nothing but a nuisance editor for the most part. If you greatly improved on your skills and were able to demonstrate that you can keep your nose clean over a period of 6-12 months, then we would have something to talk about. Almost no one that edits these types of articles started in these areas, we usually started in small areas and worked our way up, that's what you'll need to do if you want to be taken seriously. Deadman137 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

But I’m successful with the template. I know how to do it. Mastergerwe97 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You’re such a douchebag. I keep telling you, it’s physically impossible to score 3 goals in 11 seconds. Are you retarded or something? Mastergerwe97 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyone knew the game was over. It is physically impossible to score 3 goals in 11 seconds. That’s a goal every 3.6 seconds. It’s not doable. Mastergerwe97 (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Mastergerwe97, let's not use language like that. I understand the "red tape" of Wikipedia can be very frustrating but let's try and treat everyone with some level of respect please. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

How about you stop reverting my edits when there is 11 seconds left in the game, and a team is up by 3. You are literally not helping anyone. Mastergerwe97 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You see, this is why I don’t get along with you. That fact is true. The Jets did score 3 goals in a span of 3 minutes. Just stop. You aren’t helping anyone. Mastergerwe97 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, can you do the updates for the goaltending? Mastergerwe97 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

2012 Stanley Cup playoffs

Hey, I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Stanley_Cup_playoffs&oldid=1026486350 I believe that the first round elimination of the Presidents' Trophy winners is noteworthy, as well as the absence of all of the previous year's Conference Finalists in the second round. Neither would happen until 2019, and in fact, the article on the 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs mentions both of these occurrences. If you disagree, the mentions of the Presidents' Trophy winners and the longest postseason streak should have been left at the very least, as that information is available in the introduction of all other pages on recent NHL postseasons. JuicyGang (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Need a favor

Hey Deadman137, I don't mean to add more work to the list of things that you have to get done, but I need help updating the game logs today for Winnipeg, Montreal, Colorado, and Vegas. Something popped up in my schedule, so I am guaranteed not going to be able to edit WPG-MTL. I'm hoping to be back home to do COL-VGK, but I'm not sure at this moment. If I am, I will message you to let you know that you don't have to worry about it. I have the game logs prepped for you in my sandbox, that way you don't have to do too much work. I'll give you the game summary for the COL-VGK game so that you can fill in the attendance column (attendance might show up during the game or a few minutes after). Thank you, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Yowashi (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Yowashi: Not a problem, non-elimination games are always fairly light. Deadman137 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about doing Colorado and Vegas, I'll be able to do it. Thanks for filling in for me earlier. Yowashi (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph of Previous seasons

I am sure you are aware; a user by the name of JuicyGang has added some info to the intro paragraphs of almost every playoffs. While I do enjoy seeing the trivia, it also creates redundancy to the section "Playoff Seeds" in many of the years. I don't think reverting these edits is necessary, after all it actually makes the playoffs seem more consistent in the Intros. I will do my best to fix up the Intros, but is it possible that we can fix up the "Playoff seeds" section of 1994–2013 to include how the seeding works? I feel it has been inconsistent with how 2014–2019 have gone. Thank you. Conyo14 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Conyo14: I see what you mean about that section. I'll come up with something tomorrow afternoon for the 2013 article and if we like it we can add it to the other ones in that range. Deadman137 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Conyo14: As promised, a new version is up in the 2013 article. If there's anything that you want to change with it, go for it and see what you can do to make it better. Deadman137 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Seattle Kraken roster

How is this official? You do know that we wait until there is an announcement about the signings so why would you base something according to Sportsnet, TSN and other non-official media? I am amazed that you – being a senior editor here – would go the other way this time when you usually base everything on official announcements and reverted anything coming from non-official media. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: The league is not putting that in to the related articles. Most of the time we can use Sportsnet, TSN and ESPN for initial confirmation for signings, and then use the league for secondary confirmation. In this case, I'm not sure what the league is doing because we have more than enough sources and are far enough out from the initial reporting to be able to confirm these details by any reasonable standard. At the same time, the league coverage also got rid of wingers and centremen in the position listings for the expansion draft, I'm guessing that this has something to do with ESPN coming on board.

When it comes to trades you have to be a little more careful with these sources as around half the time there is usually some type of conditional pick attached to a transaction and all sports media want to get the story out before all of the details come out. I've been burned a few times by using these sources too quickly and that's why on trades it is usually best to wait for confirmation from the league. Deadman137 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Reversion to 2021 second-round draft table

Greetings Deadman137: In reverting my edit indicating Montreal will have the last 2 picks in the second round of the 2021 entry draft, you explained that "That gets added once the location of the pick is finalized." Is that a requirement stated in a Wiki style guide or rule? Since we know Montreal will have the last 2 picks, we also know that "Montreal Canadiens" will need to be added into the table for picks 63 and 64 at some point. As noted in my explanation, only the footnotes will need to be edited once the cup winner is determined, just as the current Footnote 11 will also need to be edited after the draft occurs. So I figured we would be ahead of the game by making the edit to the table now. In addition, with my edits, more information is provided to the reader (Montreal will have the last two picks), and footnote 11 (which, again, will need to be revised in any event) also has more information, and is easily amenable to the ultimate edit at the conclusion of the season. Finally, as a result of my edit, there would be less overall work to do, whereas with the reversion the work I did would need to be done over again. Since it seems to me that my edits added wholly accurate information and at the very least did no harm to the article, I wonder what is the justification for the reversion. Pdelva (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting: it took you a mere 2 minutes (120 seconds) to undo my edit, and here it's been more than 29 hours (more than 104,400 seconds, or 870 times longer) to answer my good-faith question about why you did it. Pdelva (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pdelva: I know that you're an inexperienced editor around here so let's start with some basics. First, you will not always get someone's immediate attention to your issue, as most editors have lives and responsibilities that can keep them busy and can prevent them from quickly responding to you. Second, your edit was absolutely terrible; while your edit is true, it was of no encyclopaedic value and you completely screwed up the formatting of the notes section. The notes section is only used in those articles for confirmed transactions. Deadman137 (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You failed to address any of my points in your condescending and very rude response. I suggest you review Wikipedia pillars 3 and 4. Pdelva (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the section that you're citing. I addressed every point of yours that was of any relevance to the article. All I did was address the quality of your content, which is not a violation of any rule, if you're not happy with the response that's your issue to deal with. I gave you more respect than you gave me, now that your issue is irrelevant, there is no point in engaging with you any further on this subject. Deadman137 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Foligno trade

How was it not the Toronto pick to Columbus for Foligno et al?

https://www.nhl.com/mapleleafs/news/maple-leafs-acquire-nick-foligno/c-323538080

Cheers, AEJ (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@AEJ: He could not go directly to Toronto because they did not have enough cap space to get him that way. He had to be dealt through a third party that retained salary to make the numbers work, which makes your edit incorrect. Deadman137 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I get that 3-team trades can get complicated, but my wording would be closer to what happened than simply Noesen for a first. AEJ (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately your wording is considered WP:OR and will not be permitted in the article. Deadman137 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried to change the wording. It's about as close to the link listed above - although not mentioning the 2021 4th round pick going to SJ. Hardly OR when it's all in the link from NHL.com. AEJ (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't find the current wording with no mention of Foligno at best misleading? Again, a Noesen for a first round pick is a very bad trade.

Oh, and try not to be a dick... AEJ (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The only thing misleading would be if we added anything that you attempted to add to the article as your claim is not true or accurate. Oh, and personal attacks are only likely to get you blocked from editing. Deadman137 (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

When you click on the note on the wiki page, it literally says Foligno to TOR for this pick. So can you stop saying that this is my OR? If not this trade, which trade sent Foligno to Toronto. You know that the Leafs will not get in cap circumvention trouble for this.

I did not make a personal attack, I asked you to consider your behaviour. Your comment when removing my second edit was definitely heading in the wrong direction.

Anyways, I learned a lesson about arguing on the internet a long time ago, so you win... AEJ (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 NHL Entry Draft

Just wanted to say thanks for taking care of updating this so quickly, and keeping it all in order. It's a lot to watch over, and it's nice to see someone handling it so well. Keep it up. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Draft and Loans

Curious how much thought we should put into players who played on loans this year, on the draft table. For now, for example, we have Mason McTavish being drafted from Olten of the SL, which is where he played, but he played there on loan, and the official NHL draft board is listing him as drafted from Peterborough, where he was loaned from. I think there's genuine merit to listing his Club team as Olten, but at the same time, McTavish was registered as a North American player, and his draft rights are being treated accordingly (two year expiry of a major junior player). Just figured I'd throw this out there.–uncleben85 (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: In all honesty I was just listing where they had most recently played. Though in reality this only affects OHL players as the other two leagues managed to get some games in last season. I'm not opposed to things matching up with what the league has listed. This might be one of the rare times where input from the rest of the group would be useful, I'm good with either choice. Deadman137 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Deadman137: I am okay with either, as well. If it doesn't get too crowded, we could also add hover-over notes about the loans, even. Should I post it in the Project discussion page?–uncleben85 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Just happened to see this, and my thought is to go with their most recent team played. That's what eliteprospects.com uses, and I would consider them a solid source. I haven't checked what NHL.com is saying, but that's only because I find their site to be garbage since their redesign. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2020 Draft change

That is BS. Those explanations are poor. These were either or conditions and providing only one of the potential outcomes does not describe the condition of a trade. Kevinskogg (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kevinskogg: We don't include all of the conditions once the issue is resolved. Only the condition that resulted in completing the transaction is kept to reduce redundancy. That has been the standard practice for longer than I've been editing these articles and it has worked very well so far. Deadman137 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That information is poor. I thought the goal was good information, not meeting a standard template. Absolutely, standards are required, I work in manufacturing and understand this. But if this interferes with the quality of the information, it should be reviewed. The example I am looking at, Zuccarello to Dallas is perfect. Take the 3rd pick. It was converted from a 1st because he didn't resign. How is that not pertinent? Kevinskogg (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kevinskogg: Until the CBA extension in 2020, trades of this nature were quite common. In the transaction in your example the Rangers never acquired a 1st that was downgraded, in this part of the trade they actually acquired a 3rd with an option to have it upgraded to a 1st if 'x' occurs (semantics yes, but the distinction is important). Similar to the situation with the Marc-Andre Fleury trade last month, Chicago currently owns a 2nd round pick and it can upgrade to a 1st if 'x' occurs.

The relevant community guideline that you're looking for in this matter can be found in WP:NOT. To quote from it: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Before the condition of a conditional pick converts we list as much verifiable information as we can. However, once the condition is resolved we're only concerned with the relevant outcome that caused the affected pick to transfer. Deadman137 (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a good explanation and although I disagree with it, that is your choice. That being the case, i believe based on what you said the entry does not follow that rule:

The Dallas Stars' third-round pick went to the New York Rangers as the result of a trade on February 23, 2019, that sent Mats Zuccarello to Dallas in exchange for a conditional second-round pick in 2019 and this pick (being conditional at the time of the trade). The condition – New York will receive a third-round pick in 2020 if Zuccarello does not re-sign with Dallas for the 2019–20 NHL season – was converted when Zuccarello signed with Minnesota on July 1, 2019.

Since it is about semantics. Here is says it was converted, but you are saying it should be viewed as not being upgraded. NYR received a 3rd round pick (that could have been upgraded had they resigned). But the parenthetical, according to what you explained to me, is immaterial because they didn't receive it. Then shouldn't it be gone?

If not, the word choice should be "satisfied," not "converted," and the use of hyphens is not standard:

The condition, New York will receive a third-round pick in 2020 if Zuccarello does not re-sign with Dallas for the 2019–20 NHL season, was satisfied when Zuccarello signed with Minnesota on July 1, 2019.

But really based on your statement, "Dallas received a 3rd round pick with the option to have it upgraded," the note should be:

The Dallas Stars' third-round pick went to the New York Rangers as the result of a trade on February 23, 2019, that sent Mats Zuccarello to Dallas in exchange for a conditional second-round pick in 2019 and this pick.

Kevinskogg (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother and have a useless debate about semantics. My previous response was meant to help you understand the error of your viewpoint, but obviously this is likely not the proper venue to accomplish that. As for your concern with the dashes, everything in the article with the dashes is compliant with the manual of style and will not be changed.

When we look at your edits, you wanted to add content about what could have happened to articles that are now only about what did happen. For the 2022 and 2023 draft articles it's fine to list what could happen because they are future events. In the case of the 2021 article and all the others that preceded it, the only thing that is relevant in all of them is what did happen. Also we do keep the full trade conditions in the related transaction article for each season as that is a more appropriate place for that content. Deadman137 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Bracket template for 2022 NHL playoffs

I'd like to hear your thoughts and what exactly you're taking issue with, in these edits. You directed me to the article's talk page, yet I don't see your response to the latest comments. Please let me know, and I look forward to a conversation. I've reverted the uncontroversial changes in the meantime. Thank you. A Red Cherry (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@A Red Cherry: In order to have a dialogue with you, you'll first need to stop with your edit warring as it is unproductive and if it continues you will likely be blocked from editing.

Now let's look at the some of the problems that your edits are creating. First, do you honestly think that you're one of the first people to have the idea that the wildcards should be WC1 or WC2 in the template? Trust me you're not, this idea of yours has been continually rejected since the early days of this playoff format. As the seedings are only relevant to the first two rounds of the playoffs in determining home ice advantage there is no need to differentiate in the template which of the two wildcards in a conference were seeded higher as it does not affect their relative seeding in relation to other three teams in their sub-bracket for the first two rounds. The seedings are only kept for the final two rounds because the league uses them beyond that point and if we tried to change them to something else that would be classified as original research. Plus if you're reading an article where a yearly playoff template can be seen, you can easily find out which of the wildcards in either conference finished higher by simply scrolling through the article. The template is only there as quick reference to show what teams played each other in each round and what team won the series. It's not there to cover every single detail of how teams wound up seeded where they were, that's what the main article is for. So there is no point in going any further with this idea as any change to this is basically a non-starter.

There is no reasonable rationale for your edits to the 16-team template as this not exclusively used by only NHL articles. All of the other articles that use this template are setup to for two character usage which makes your edits completely redundant and inappropriate for the formatting of these templates and your continued efforts to change this needs to stop immediately. Deadman137 (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Playoffs 2022 bracket: I changed the names to "WC1" and "WC2" only once. The issue has been discussed on the talk page, where 3 of the 4 users support a change to the former setup, which would seem to suggest a consensus in favour. If you are opposed to labelling the teams in this manner, please respond to the talk page discussion and explain why. Conyo14 suggested a compromise, which I think is also a good idea.

Playoff bracket template: I widened the cell width from 30 to 40 pixels, and I only did so once as well. Again, if you are opposed to this change, please explain why you feel it would be detrimental to the usage of the template in the future.

Bracket template structure: In my edit summary, I have explained why I made these changes, and why they were necessary. You have not stated why you are opposed to them, or if you are even opposed at all, other than leaving a short note stating that you would be reverting the page to its "last good version". I have spelled out in clear terms why I believe the page was not "good" before, and how that edit resolved the problem and made it "good". Once more, if you could discuss why you felt the change made the page not "good", that would be helpful, and I would appreciate you doing so, instead of continually reversing the edit without an explanation. Thank you and take care. A Red Cherry (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@A Red Cherry: After reviewing your response and looking into some of your previous conduct I believe that you would benefit from reviewing the following essays WP:THEREISNORUSH and WP:VOLUNTEER. Then there is the issue of your uncivil conduct, you have falsely claimed that there is consensus by misrepresenting what another user wrote and you made uncivil comments that you wrote that were later retracted. In the first case I'm willing to accept that you misinterpreted what they said, however that does greatly affect your consensus claim. In the second case you need to keep yourself under control at all times according to the civility policies of this site. I accept that you retracted your uncivil statements and am willing to move forward but you need to make sure that this does not happen again.

The change to 40 pixels from 30 is not required as I already explained to you in my previous response; the templates that use this 16 team bracket do not require additional space as they are setup for two character usage, not three. All this edit does is change the aspect ratio for no reason other than your personal preference.

Now let's dive into your false consensus claim. First, only two users have expressed a desire to change the seeding formatting. Yourself and the other user supporting change, between the two of you, you are not even on the same page as to what should be done. Then there's your claim that Conyo14 supports your position which is not backed up by reading what they actually wrote. In their statement they expressed support for currently accepted version of the template not your revised version. Consensus on Wikipedia is not usually determined in less than three days by two users. Consensus is generally best determined by editing history and in this case we have 8+ years of data that suggests that the accepted community standard in this case is to use two characters for the seeding of the wildcard teams, not three.

I also saw your comment on the teahouse. It would be nice if you dealt with me in good faith, instead of trying to falsely smear my actions for your benefit. I made no additional edits on April 30 after I left a message on your talk page. I signed in yesterday to finish up the content related to the end of the current NHL regular season and to do deal with you. No sooner had I started to make the necessary edits to the affected NHL team articles that I noticed that you had violated site policy on content disputes after you were warned about not doing that, by reinstating your preferred edit. So if anyone is creating problems at this point it would be you. At this point it would be in your best long term interest to back away from this subject and move on to something else. Deadman137 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

2002 NHL Playoffs

I have made another edit on the 2002 NHL playoffs and possibly you may have learned what “Restored” means. Dweisz94 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Restoring an article means changing it exactly to the way it was before a previous edit. Dweisz94 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dweisz94: People that live in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones. You're lucky that I didn't issue you with a formal warning for removing content without an explanation, I won't be so kind to you the next time that I see you do that. Now given that this is an issue about nothing I'm done listening to anything else that you have to say. So go find something productive to do. Deadman137 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Recap link

Hi Deadman137,

Kudos for your work on the NHL-related pages! I come to wikipedia for well-written, direct information and your NHL coverage is excellent.

I don't know if it just me but the recap links mess up on me, for example: https://https//www.nhl.com/news/florida-panthers-washington-capitals-game-3-recap/c-333639484 Got the same result in Chrome and Brave.

Thanks! Barry905 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Barry905: Good catch, it was not anything that you were doing. Chalk it up to a busy week on my end, all the recap links should work properly now. Deadman137 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Seattle Kraken seasons

Hello, Deadman137,

Thank you for creating List of Seattle Kraken seasons.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article only has one reference (insufficient for NSPORT) and needs additional references for notability.
More importantly, this article is missing prose, which means it fails notability for sports seasons. League and Division season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. See WP:NSEASONS for guidance. Failing this notability guide, this article may be redirected to the main League or Division page. An example is LSU Tigers football Another excellent example is 2022–23 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team or 1987–88 AEK Athens F.C. season.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns, but this honestly did give me a good chuckle. First, the comparison of American college level teams to a team competing in a top level professional league is laughable. Second, this team did just complete their first season of competition, so a stub level list article is appropriate given the available history and level of notability of the subject. This is also consistent with the standard used in 2018 for the recent NHL expansion franchise the Vegas Golden Knights, of which both articles could easily pass any WP:GNG challenge.

As other users have already removed the tags that were added to this article, I'm going to ignore any further requests for action in relation to this issue. Deadman137 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

List of Boston Bruins seasons

Hello Deadman137,

For the List of Boston Bruins seasons page, I was wondering if you could add the green background to the the results column exactly like it is in the Conference column. This would highlight every time the Bruins won the Eastern conference championship in green very similar to how the Stanley Cup championships are blue.

Thanks,

Bryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usctrojansfan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, however I will not make the change that you requested. As the Boston article is designed to reflect a similar standard used in the Detroit article that reached featured list status. The same standard has been applied to all team season articles with some exceptions. The exceptions to this standard are that articles that reached featured status before the Detroit style was more widely adopted were left as they were, all of the others were changed. Deadman137 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Cup playoff rounds

I was working in JWB where I don't get revert alerts, so I didn't notice at first; I redid these a couple of times with different regex patterns trying to get them right. It didn't occur to me that someone would consider these to be proper nouns. I won't argue the point (for now at least). Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, this conversation comes up once in a while. If the league wasn't insistent on the usage, we probably would consider doing something different. Also leaving them the same way the league does reduce the chance for random IPs to be disruptive. Deadman137 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Reigning Western Conference champion

Why are you changing the defending Western Conference champion to the Montreal Canadiens? Montreal has never been in the modern Western Conference and the Western Conference did not exist for the 2020-2021 season. The Clarence Campbell Trophy was not linked to the Western Conference in 2020-2021. The Dallas Stars' win over the Vegas Golden Knights during the 2019-2020 Western Conference championship is the most recent championship. That's how the NHL views it and anyone who follows the league knows this.

I'm not going to keep fighting you on this with a new champion coming in three or four weeks, but it is frustrating.

Montreal is not represented as a Western Conference champion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Conference_Finals#Western_Conference_(1994%E2%80%932020) or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Stanley_Cup_playoffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A802:4E9C:6039:E4E3:101C:98FD (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 NHL Stanley Cup page

I was at the Flames/Oilers game 5 and am not a fan of either team so I was reporting facts, not opinions. Please watch the game before removing my additions. Thank you. 64.141.43.67 (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether you were there or not has no bearing on why your edits were removed. Your edits were very biased and were not of much encyclopedic value, that's why they were removed. There are disallowed goals in a lot of playoff games, while this one did happen in the Battle of Alberta, it was not the only thing that determined the outcome of this game or series. Deadman137 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Without my additions, as time passes, people may think that game 5 was just a normal game without a major controversy, when that was not the case. 64.141.43.67 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not that major of a controversy, it certainly doesn't rise to level needed to be included in a league based article. At best, it is a half sentence mention in the team season article and even then it's a bit of a stretch. Deadman137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

2004 Stanley Cup playoffs

I recently added a literal shit-ton of refs to the 2004 article to help remove the "citations needed" template. I was wondering if you could review my work to see if there are any mistakes I made. Conyo14 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Conyo14: I didn't find much that needed work except for the Red Wings/Flames series. As their 1978 meeting occurred when the Flames were still in Atlanta, I already fixed it. There might be some minor details that I could add, but it's otherwise in pretty good shape after your updates, as usual. Deadman137 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization (first round)

You claim that "first round" is a proper noun. Wikipedia's own article, proper noun, says "A distinction is normally made in current linguistics between proper nouns and proper names. By this strict distinction, ... only single-word proper names are proper nouns". You may have seen "First Round" printed on a ticket issued for an NHL game, but they don't get to decide what is and is not a proper noun or a proper name. It would be good to read WP:SPECIALSTYLE, which describes the "specialized-style fallacy"; in this case, even if the NHL always capitalizes "First Round", it does not obligate Wikipedia editors to use the same style when writing articles about the NHL. There is a first round every year in the NHL playoffs, so "first round" describes a large class of objects; that is the definition of a common noun. Please stop forcing capitalization where it is not needed. Chris the speller ^yack 03:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not forcing capitalization where it is not needed, you on the other hand are confusing a common name with a proper one. In most normal cases your argument would be correct, however in this case you are wrong as you can see here [2] and here [3]. There are more examples that I could provide, but at this point I'm not going to waste anymore time on your useless argument. It's time for both of us to get back to more productive things. Deadman137 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Corey Perry

Is Corey Perry the first player since Marian Hossa to play for three different teams consecutively in the Finals? Conyo14 (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Conyo14: Yep, first since and second ever. I'm looking into whether anyone has won four consecutive Cups that wasn't a member of the Canadiens or Islanders. If there isn't anyone that fits that criteria then that will make my search much easier in case Patrick Maroon gets his fourth in a row. Deadman137 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So Ed Litzenberger did win four straight on two different teams in 1964. I'll finish the Canadiens and Islanders research this weekend. Deadman137 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Stanley Cup Finals

On 27 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Stanley Cup Finals, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Stanley Cup Finals Game 1

Hey there, I'm not sure why, but NHL.com isn't loading properly, specifically the goal scorers and penalties (maybe due to high traffic or bad wifi). I might not be able to do the game recap tonight, which honestly isn't too necessary at the moment. The table I won't be able to do either, so if you'd rather we wait until tomorrow morning at around 9:15 am PT for me to get to both, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, if you could do the table, that would be really helpful! Conyo14 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Conyo14: On it. The league site is having issues on my end too. Deadman137 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Conyo14: Just worry about the summary, I finished the table with a fairly big assist from you. Deadman137 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on a good year of editing. There was very little conflict this season which made it way easier. We have some maintenance to do for the next couple weeks, otherwise another year down! Cheers! Conyo14 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Conyo14: Looks like we have a bunch of citation needed tags to clean up in the Finals article as the article was nominated for in the news. On the bright side we were both listed as the primary contributors in the nomination. I've started on the clean up and will continue to do more tonight, unless you get them done first. Deadman137 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I allowed to cite YouTube/NHL.com videos as the source for the goals scored and other plays? It would otherwise be difficult to find an article source on each goal. Conyo14 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Conyo14: If it's from the league or one their broadcast partners it can be acceptable. Deadman137 (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The Article is In the News now, hopefully no more "citations needed" appear. Conyo14 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Part of it was bureaucratic nonsense because I schooled one of the opposing editors in an Afd last year that they were on the losing side of. Great work as always resolving the those citation needed tags. Deadman137 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Conditional pick

I have seen this pop up a couple of places now: https://twitter.com/vzmercogliano/status/1541810584118669315. WPG will be selecting STLs 2022 pick instead of 2023. Let's wait till something more official, but a hint to the last piece of the puzzle, as we get closer to Draft Day! –uncleben85 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Yeah, there isn't anything yet from one of the credible enough sources to run with it. Though the official list from the league should be out soon. Deadman137 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Now the list is out and nothing is out of place. As we both know, there will not be any transactions that could add chaos in the next 9 days to what has been assembled. Deadman137 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Transactions

Where is this coming from? We've worked together on these pages for how long and now you're suddenly making a personal stand? Please provide good reason for keeping the articles on Draft Day other than, "that's how it is done" and "you lost". Cause, I am really confused where the hostility and obstinance (and maybe that is not your intention, maybe I am reading that wrong, and apologize if so) is coming from... –uncleben85 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: There is no hostility on my end, never has been any hostility for you, never will be any hostility for you. Please realize that this is not a small project that you're proposing as this would cause many hundreds of articles to need to be changed for something that is minor and just not that important of an issue. Plus it would be easier to rip all the post-playoff/pre-draft trades from earlier years into the following year existing articles than to do what you would like and it would also make more sense going forward. Deadman137 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for misreading that, then. It came across as personal and targeted, to me. I am glad to hear it is not, truly. –uncleben85 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That would require going back to each season and verifying the end of the playoffs for each individual season though. My solution would rip all June transactions from the start of the article and moving them back the previous year. At worst it's the same premise as moving the post-playoff stuff forward, but here we have a hard, clear start date, at least. Nothing floating, no double checking from year-to-year. –uncleben85 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we both stop apologizing like a couple of Canadians? We've been through way too much together to have something like this to bring us down.

Or... We could just rip everything from the end dates going back to the 2004–05 lockout, as most of the articles prior to that don't have a ton of details and most people likely wouldn't even notice. Deadman137 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This could work too. Right now, I am withholding from editing the in-between stuff on the transaction pages. But the new page is partially written as a July 1 start and partially as a July 7 start, with duplicate entries on the 2021/22 and 2022/23 pages. Let me know what you think. –uncleben85 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uncleben85:@Deadman137: The season cut-off date is, and has always been, the first of the draft. That day this season was the 7th. Any transactions starting on or after the 7th pertain to the 2022-23 season. Nanerz (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It has been, yes, but the discussion is on moving that date. "That's the way it's always been done" is not a satisfactory reason for how to continue doing things, if there are other justifications. –uncleben85 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That actually is how Wikipedia operates, unless a compelling argument to change things can be made and agreed to. Otherwise it reverts back to whatever was the previous editing standard. Deadman137 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Monahan conditions

Montreal will have the option to receive Calgary's first-round pick in 2024 if the pick is outside of the top 20.

If Montreal declines to exercise this option or Calgary's first-round pick in 2024 is within the top 20, they will receive one of Calgary or Florida's first-round picks in 2025 or 2026.

If both Calgary and Florida's first-round picks in 2025 are outside of the top 10, Montreal will receive the earlier of the two.

If Calgary's first-round pick in 2025 is in the top 10 and Florida's is outside, Montreal will receive Florida's first-round pick in 2025; if Florida's first-round pick in 2025 is in the top 10 and Calgary's outside, Montreal will receive Calgary's first-round pick in 2025.

If both Calgary and Florida's first-round picks in 2025 are within the top 10, Montreal will receive Calgary's first-round pick, unless said pick is the first-overall selection in 2025; if it is, Montreal will instead receive the earlier of Calgary or Florida's first-round picks in 2026.

Montreal will receive Calgary's third-round pick in 2025 if Calgary's first-round pick in 2025 is the first-overall selection and Florida's first-round pick in 2025 is in the top 10 selections; otherwise no pick will be exchanged.

Montreal will receive Calgary's fourth-round pick in 2025 if both Calgary and Florida's first-round selections in 2025 are outside of the top 10, Florida's draft position is better than Calgary's, and the rights to Florida's first-round pick in 2025 are with another team; otherwise no pick will be exchanged.

Let me know if you interpreted anything differently –uncleben85 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Got caught at work, just going through this now.

So if Calgary in 2024 is picking from 1-19 they can keep their pick. If they're picking 20–32, Montreal can take the 2024 pick in exchange for the return of the conditional 2025 or 2026 pick from Florida.

The rest of what you have looks right to me, though I'll probably go through this again on the weekend just to verify. Deadman137 (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Well it's been a year

You posted in Talk:2020 NHL Entry Draft last year to "give it a year" about changing Stützle's spelling to be accurate. I went to go and do it but there was a notation saying that it would be considered vandalism because it's a North American hockey article, even though the name has always been spelled Stützle in media and particularly directly on his jersey when he plays games. I have never once seen it spelled "Stuetzle" in any context except when discussing the spelling itself. It seems to me that keeping it spelled wrong for the sake of being "North American hockey" even though everyone in North America has adapted to the ü is a poor decision. Is it about time to make the change then? --50.72.215.179 (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If you performed a simple search about him there is no clear consensus between sources, some use it and some don't. Also the relevant policy regarding this matter remains unchanged and it likely would not get the support needed to make the change that you desire. I've seen situations like this in the past and right now it's not worth wasting everyone else's time on a discussion that will not change anything. It can be annoying hearing to hear this, but you'll need far more media companies to adopt this change before a strong case could be made. Deadman137 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

One would think that the spelling on the back of the jersey would be more than enough but I guess Wikipedia bureaucracy is too resistant to common sense to consider that. Not that it is in any way your fault, mind you, just disappointing. --50.72.215.179 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:24TeamBracket-NHL-reseed

Template:24TeamBracket-NHL-reseed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Issues with user:Nanerz

I'm addressing this with you as you are fairly well-regarded in hockey pages to say the least, appear to have likewise had issues with him in the past, and I would really prefer not to take this to any higher level than it needs to go.

Nanerz has consistently and disruptively edited the player signings table on 2022-23 Vegas Golden Knights season, removing the contract type section for "consistency" with other team pages despite said section being on last season's VGK page with no issue, and likewise having no issue this year until he began to remove it. While some degree of consistency is desirable, no team page is exactly alike (Winnipeg didn't even have their schedule until a week into the season, while past VGK pages completely lack a transactions section), and neither myself nor user:Yowashi, the other most-frequent VGK editor, have had or appear to have had a problem with its inclusion, the purpose of which is to distinguish between re-signings of expiring U/RFAs, extensions of players under contract, and entry-level deals for prospects.

After repeated reversions of his edits, Nanerz posted on my talk page, declaring himself the sole consensus as he created the template used by other team pages, and likewise requesting I stop interfering with the table. Again, he is the only user to have had a problem with the way the table is set up, and he does not frequently edit the VGK page nor did he last season. As of the current moment, we are effectively locked in a slow edit war, as he refuses to accept the page's implicit consensus and I continuously restore the prior version(s).

If you have any words of advice, resolution, judgement, etc, they would be appreciated. The Kip (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

First off, I am going to repeat what I said on your talk page here.

I never said this is my page, but from what I'm reading you seem to think it is yours. Stop changing the template that is consistent across 90% of the team pages. I am not setting it for the reason of putting my foot down. The template was created to maintain consistency across the team pages. I have been updating the transactions sections of these pages after taking a break for a couple years. This may be why my edits are few in far between as I can only do them as I have the time and nobody else seems to be bothering with them (apart from a few other teams). You may go look for yourself and notice that without my work this task was abandoned. Please, stop changing the template for no reason, that is all I ask. Now on the Fleming point, Fleming was not drafted. He was not apart of the Vegas organization before he signed. The signings subsection is for players within the organization. The acquisitions subsection is for all free agents, which Fleming was. I hope that clears it up for you.

With that being restated let's go over your statements.

1. I have not consistently and disruptively edited the player signings tables. I am the one editing them. I created the template. Like I said above, without the edits I have done across these team pages the transaction sections wouldn't exist. They were a mainstay in years past, and after a loss in interest, I stopped editing and they went away. That is why previous Vegas pages lack the transactions section entirely. I believe around 2018 was when I stopped editing these sections.

2. The column being removed has a purpose. Again, I need not remind you I was the one that created the template, but alas I must again. If you haven't noticed, there is also now a new edition to these sections with the key. The column from last year would typically only use 3 different options and was a waste of space. With the key, everything that the column provided can now be portrayed with symbols with the use of the key. Now, entry-level free agents (like Joe Fleming) can now be shown as being a free agent and being under an entry-level contract with the † symbol. The key also uses ‡ to denote contracts that start in the next season, so now players that sign late in the year with contracts starting in the upcoming season can be displayed correctly. Both symbols also aid with showing entry-levels contracts and contract extensions, generally.

3. Again, bears repeating, the acquisitions section is for players incoming to the organization and the signings section is for players signing from within the organization. Just because a player is a prospect does not automatically determine whether they are an acquisition or signing under these circumstances. Again, re: Joe Fleming.

4. YOU were the one who has been undoing MY edits WITHOUT reasoning or explanation. I am not making a solo judgment edit, you are. You are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I have no issues with people contributing to these sections, I actually hope more people do. What I don't appreciate is people editing the template as they see fit and giving no reasoning or asking for any input, especially when there is consistency among the other team pages.

5. I do not have the time to edit these pages every time a new transaction occurs. Every couple weeks I go and add the transactions that are missing over that span. Regardless, the amounts of edits I make has no bearing on any of this. You do not have superiority because you have more edits. Nor do I have "sole consensus" as you seem to put it. Me saying I am the consensus has to do with the fact that I am the one who created the template and have installed it without issue over the last 2 seasons, until now.

I don't know what more to add at this point. Please feel free to speak your minds. I am tired of this back and forth. I hope this clears up some things for you. Nanerz (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Yes, you created the section. However, team pages are not a monolith; there's absolutely no reason why certain teams' editors shouldn't be at liberty to edit their pages as they see fit. Pages shouldn't omit information for the sake of "consistency," and creating a template does not give one single person absolute rule over it, especially when that template is used across a large variety of pages with a large swath of editors.

2. The second symbol has been poorly-explained with regards to whether it applies to extensions or sliding rookie deals. Additionally, my personal opinion believes the symbol to be less friendly to MOS:NOSYMBOLS versus the outright wording, but again, that's merely an opinion.

3. Re: Fleming, again, pay attention. I literally said in retrospect I agreed with your move of him.

4. I have explained time and time again that this is what implicit consensus has dictated our page include for a year and a half, so when I see a single editor with little involvement on the page removing entire chunks of tables, I naturally will undo it. I've lost track of how many times I've stated almost exactly that.

5. Again, creation =/= command. I don't even know what else to say. The Kip (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Again, you are acting like you have authority about what happens on the page, which you don't. I am just as much an editor of the page as you are. Also, no information is being omitted. Use the key. The key actually solves the issue of information being omitted.

2. No, it's not poorly explained. It states, "Contract initially takes effect in the 2023–24 season." Key word, initially. Entry-level slides are also not transactions. I am also aware of MOS:NOSYMBOLS, however it does particularly apply since tables so not particularly apply under text. Other pages use symbols such as List of current NHL captains and alternate captains to display similar information.

3. I realize. I am once again explaining it to you since you implicitly referred to it.

4. Again, I added the the section. You are the one who has little to do with it that is intruding on it, not me. It is redundant information as I just explained. Stop adding it.

5. Again, I am open to contribution. If you have suggestions please discuss it appropriately. Do not take initiative to change others work without cause or explanation. Especially once it has been explained to you why it is a certain way.

And to Deadman, I apologize for this graffiti. Nanerz (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@The Kip: @Nanerz:

I have no problem being a neutral party to this discussion, but next time please use the relevant article talk page where the disputed content is and then ask for assistance if you want it.

I understand the desire to have the tables being consistent with previous seasons, but given that the majority of this particular table is made up of re-signings I can see the value in using symbols to denote the rarer occurences when a signing is an extension or entry-level deal. I don't have an objection to either format as they both accomplish the same goal. Though if symbols are going to be used it would be best if the key was moved underneath the table in question (instead of being at the top of the transaction section) to make interpretation of the table easier.

If either of you want to continue this conversation to further advocate for your position it might be best to bring it up at the WikiProject's talk page so that a greater consensus can be reached. The talk page can be found here [4]. Deadman137 (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it would probably be better for the key to be apparent for each table, however it is used for both the acquisitions and signings section so it would be otherwise difficult to display it anywhere else. Nanerz (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nanerz: I came up with an idea that would work and cause minimal disruption, you just have to add any new signings in the table above relocated key. Deadman137 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2020 Stanley Cup playoffs

Template:2020 Stanley Cup playoffs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2022 Stanley Cup playoffs

Template:2022 Stanley Cup playoffs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Deadman137: Expect this to be deleted. Not many nominated template articles for deletion survive. Conyo14 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Conyo14: Looks like it, too bad because it did reduce vandalism leading up to and during the playoffs. I'll be moving the information driving the bracket to the season articles from the playoff ones. It's not an issue once the articles are done, but I don't need constant edit conflicts during the event so moving them over will work out better. Plus we now have to copy and paste the bracket details from each prior playoff year into the season articles. Deadman137 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits it’s worth a lot

cordially 2001:56B:BCBD:DD00:70C7:CA58:D4D7:E8BA (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion

You are invited to this discussion board, regarding the listing of first and last NHL games. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification regarding sourcing on the draft page

You've reverted an NHL.com article I added saying that secondary sources are more reliable than primary ones; however, when I then replaced a primary source you added with a secondary source later on, you reverted back to the primary source and said the secondary wasn't necessary. Can I ask why, and which one should be used?

I'm not trying to be snarky or whatnot, I come in good faith; I'm legitimately just trying to understand the seeming inconsistency here for the sake of future editing. The Kip (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you come in good faith, you have made improvements in your editing since we last talked. I can appreciate that you're trying to learn the ropes, but you're making more work for me in the draft articles over the last few days than if you had just done nothing at all. You've got a small taste of how busy it can get at this time of year, but the last thing that I need during busy times around here is to have to babysit someone and clean up their messes even if they're trying their best to help.

In pretty much every circumstance you do not need to remove and replace any url unless it is heavily biased (normally this is something to consider in a political or science article), completely wrong/inappropriate or it's gone dead. In something that is not normally controversial like a sports you should usually leave any primary or secondary source url as it is unless it meets the above criteria.

The main reason you should look to use a secondary source over a primary one has more to do with trying to avoid the generally annoying bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Every so often editors from on high come around to review articles and some get into a tizzy about having too many primary sources. Primary sources are usually fine for sports articles as there is not much contested information in them. Basically whichever one goes in first should suffice.

The TSN revert from yesterday was necessary because the article was accurate and there was no reason to replace it. Plus the national sports networks in both countries usually keep updating the story for an hour or two after the initial report. So you can usually leave those citations alone unless something drastic happens. The one from today was necessary because you claimed that the report was a biased. There was nothing in that report that had any bias in it, to roughly summarize the article it was: team A trades player X for draft pick B. It does not matter if a team report is used or a league one as long as they are accurate. Plus teams are not allowed to make a report about a transaction until the trade call with the league is complete, unless they want to deal with tampering allegations, so you can usually trust either. Deadman137 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't the Canes' third-round pick converted?

The condition states that Carolina gets the lowest of Philly, NYR, or Florida's 3rd-rounders; now that Florida's the last one standing, after NYR's elimination, wouldn't Carolina receive that pick? The Kip (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

:I'm gonna be bold and edit it, CapFriendly says it's been converted. The Kip (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually doesn't appear it has, it's extremely confusing. The Kip (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@The Kip: Don't rely on Capfriendly for this information, we've been burned by trusting them before. Florida is the last one standing but you're using how the NFL does their draft, not the NHL. If a team wins one round in the NHL their draft position remains unchanged if they lose in the second round. So Florida has to beat Toronto for their selection to change, if Toronto wins then Florida stays at 17th in each round. The basics are listed on the talk page of the 2023 draft article. Deadman137 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Khoa41860

2022 Stanley Cup playoffs, need I say more? He's very persistent to get disregard WP:MOS. However, he is very slow on the edit war chain. Conyo14 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Conyo14: I reverted them again, I'll treat them with kid gloves today, but if it happens again I may not be so forgiving. Deadman137 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Conyo14: Khoa has now received a final warning and I've caught them using multiple IP addresses, as you've likely noticed. At this point they either back away from this or action will have to be taken against them. Deadman137 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The comma is needed before and because not including it doesn't make sense. In English grammar, when listing three or more things, commas are needed before the last thing on the list. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually it is not, you're using American English when all Stanley Cup playoffs articles are written in Canadian English. The link that was provided to explains how this works if you cannot understand that then it might be time for you to leave these articles alone and move on to something else around here. Deadman137 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s Canadian language. 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:11F8:C081:983:69E9 (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)