Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967)

• • The timeline image is not that good. Did you create it? If so, I would suggest removing the line-by-line colors and instead use colors to say who won the cup, who was in the finals and so on. Pichpich (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll try to add more on these issues tomorrow. I know that conscription isn't an issue with the Rangers player woes, as the league was almost entirely Canadian. They might have just been hit hardest by the number of volunteers who left, or they might just have wanted to suspend because they felt the overall talent level was too low. Afterall, 90 players fighting the war is the equivalent of four full rosters - in a six team league! I don't think that the point where the NHL lost the CBS deal is fully specified, but I'll search my sources. Ditto on Sawchuk, though it is stated that his crouch was a precursor to the butterfly. I'll try to find a more direct connection between the two. As far as the image goes, I could certainly change it to perhaps a two-tone chart, alternating by row. Personally, I prefer "SC" to changing colours for each cup win though. As far as adding other info, that runs the risk of making the chart far too busy. Resolute 04:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I've tried to add a bit more on the league and WWII, suggesting that it wasn't only the Rangers that were hit, only that they were hit the worst. I'll look to the rest later today. Resolute 16:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• I spent a couple of minutes yesterday building an Excel table with colors only for cup winners/finalists and frankly it looks pretty good. I also added an asterix for whoever finished with the best record and it remains pretty readable. Because the table only has six rows, you don't really lose track of which is which. If you want I can upload it so that you can compare the two. Mine is better of course. :-) Pichpich (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  By all means! Improvements are always welcome.  :) One thing to keep in mind though, is that this is one of five articles on the topic, and while the timeline may seem a little extreneous on this article, on History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992), for instance, the potential for it to become extremely messy is pretty high. And, of course, it is necessary for all five history articles to maintain the same chart style. So, if yours really is better, I'm hoping that you will build charts for each article. Resolute 16:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• There you go Image:NHL Timeline (42-67).PNG. But note that a) I forgot to crop the damn thing and b) I forgot to add the color code (though I added it in the description of the image). I picked two random colors and I'm pretty sure there's a better option. If you want to experiment with other colors and things like that, I can send you the Excel file. I think it really shows how much the 6-team league was almost a 3-team league: I had never realized that the Rangers and Bruins had sucked systematically for 25 seasons. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm... I just read the second half of your comment above. I don't know if it will work as well in the other charts, in particular if you have ones for 30 teams. I guess one decent compromise between your solution and mine is to add slight shades to help differentiate between two rows (or even two columns). This would require taking colors that are even more distinguishable so that the shading doesn't affect the readability. But if you're in no hurry, I don't mind creating the other tables. I have the template so it should be easy. The only annoyance is checking hockeydb to figure out who deserves green, blue and asterix! Pichpich (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've just taken a look at Image:NHL Timeline (1917-1942).PNG and I'm convinced that keeping the same chart style is not a good idea. In different eras you're trying to highlight different things. In the foundation era, the important thing is the appearance and disappearance of teams and your table style is perfect for that. In the stable 6-team era, you're trying to highlight the domination of the dynasties and by sticking to the same style you can't do that. Perhaps you could change the title section from "Timeline" to "Timeline: Detroit, Montreal and Toronto dynasties". You could even add a couple of lines interpreting the table. In the article about the foundation era, you could similarly change the section title to something like: "Timeline of teams in the league" and add again a comment that points out the important stuff and links it to the earlier content of the article. Pichpich (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. This might be better taken to a talk page, but looking at your style, I think it can be modified to suit the other charts. Resolute 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

here are three ideas for changing the chart layout for the first article. The 42-67 article will be a cakewalk compared to the others, so I'd like to find a decent look for all. Thoughts? Resolute 21:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I like #1 and #3, although I think they should have the legend within the image (for #1, the legend explains the blue box is a Cup win; for #2 and #3, the legend explains SC is a Cup win). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we can add a legend within the image once we decide on what to use, and how much information to convey. I'm partial to the third option, myself, as the bold squares seem a little disjointed to me on the first. Resolute 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the third seems to mimic the appearance of most hockey player statistics tables (see, for example Peter Šťastný#Career statistics). It's probably helpful to have that consistency within the WikiProject Ice Hockey articles. (Are the colours, by any chance, the same as used in the statistics tables: #E0E0E0 and #F0F0F0?) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you're both set on this but I really don't get the argument of consistency. Having all player stats table the same I understand. But having consistent styles for timelines pointing out different things is like tying a hand behind your back. (and even more so if you insist in matching the timelines with the player stats) In any case, the style of the (rather fugly by the way) Timeline of the National Hockey League is different so consistency isn't really there to start with. Since these tables are used in different articles, the discrepancy isn't really striking and the cost of consistency is a net loss in terms of the explanatory potential of the table. I think meaning should trump aesthetics in this case. Pichpich (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was some discussion in remaking the timeline article using these images as a template. As a personal opinion, I think that a consistent style is important, but that does not preclude the chart from displaying more information. With the styles I posted, I simply took your layout and applied it to time period with a lot of franchise shifts. I only used the SC indicator for convenience. I kinda like the idea of adding the losing finalist and regular season champ as well. Ultimately though, the 42-67 image is just going to be a 6x25 block. It will look allright no matter what design we change to. Once we get a good design for the periods with franchise movement with a nice level of information, we'll be good for all articles. I'd love to hear your thoughts if you have a new design type in mind. Resolute 04:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)