Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Wild Card on the Playoff Bracket for National Hockey League

I would like to ask if we can add WC1 and WC2 on the playoff bracket (listed below) for NHL (LNH) it makes it less confusing on the playoff bracket and will make it easier for people to find out which 1st seed the wild card seed will play.

First round

Second round

Conference finals

Stanley Cup Finals

A1

Florida

4

WC1

Tampa Bay

1

A1

Florida

4

A2

Boston

2

A2

Boston

4

A3

Toronto

3

A1

Florida

4

Eastern Conference

M1

NY Rangers

2

M1

NY Rangers

4

WC2

Washington

0

M1

NY Rangers

4

M2

Carolina

2

M2

Carolina

4

M3

NY Islanders

1

A1

Florida

4

P2

Edmonton

3

C1

Dallas

4

WC2

Vegas

3

C1

Dallas

4

C3

Colorado

2

C2

Winnipeg

1

C3

Colorado

4

C1

Dallas

2

Western Conference

P2

Edmonton

4

P1

Vancouver

4

WC1

Nashville

2

P1

Vancouver

3

P2

Edmonton

4

P2

Edmonton

4

P3

Los Angeles

1

Legend

• A1, A2, A3 – The first, second, and third place teams from the Atlantic Division, respectively
• M1, M2, M3 – The first, second, and third place teams from the Metropolitan Division, respectively
• C1, C2, C3 – The first, second, and third place teams from the Central Division, respectively
• P1, P2, P3 – The first, second, and third place teams from the Pacific Division, respectively
• WC1, WC2 – The first and second place teams in the Wild Card, respectively

2603:8000:57F0:92E0:984F:2B76:242E:D663 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what's confusing about the current format? It is explained in every standings and seeding section where each team is seeded. It is unnecessary. Conyo14 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

+1. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Conyo14 I'll explan if I was a fan of Nashville for example Nashville is a wild card team and Vegas is a wild card team why did Nashville play Vancouver insted of Dallas well its because Nashville is in the First Wild Card Seed but we dont know that because on the bracket the wild card team is identified as WC if we identified the wild card teams as WC1 and WC2 it would clarify why Nashville being in the wild card Central Divison team is playing the first seed Pacific Divison team Vancouver. Im also willing to change the bracket format from WC1 and WC2 to just W1 and W2 if possible with out confusing the 2021 nhl playoffs. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:984F:2B76:242E:D663 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Then, I can look at the seeding section for clarification. Conyo14 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The seeding section doesn't give you clarification on which wild card team plays which the first seed again im also willing to change the bracket format from WC1 and WC2 to just W1 and W2 if possible with out confusing the 2021 nhl playoffs. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:984F:2B76:242E:D663 (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

In the first round, the lower seeded wild card in the conference played against the division winner with the best record while the other wild card played against the other division winner, and both wild cards were de facto #4 seeds (from the playoff bracket info). Logically, from the previous section (Playoff seeds) we can see that Vegas, the second wild card from the playoff seeding, shall face the top-seeded division winner whilst Nashville faces the second-seeded division winner, aka Vancouver. Conyo14 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late responce I do play college hockey and was on spring break and yes im the same person and I dont have a wikipedia account. So your last explanation is confusing which conference does the lower wild card seed play thats why I wanted to WC1 and WC2 or W1 and W2 on the bracket to visually answer the previous question which conference does the lower wild card seed play. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:D935:BECE:CB5B:CD0E (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the WC1 and WC2 format it does make it visual easier than the current format it also is confusing which first division seed the wild card team will play. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:B12B:16F4:DA9:9CE4 (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This is maybe the lowest-effort attempt at sockpuppeting I’ve ever seen. You do know this IP has edited virtually the same pages and geolocates to the same place, right? The Kip ^(contribs) 13:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Also the first 64 bits of the 2 addresses are the same, indicating that they are on the same LAN. And both IPs use the same style of no punctuation and no sentence separation that makes me feel like gasping for air when I get to the end. Indefatigable (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As Indefatigable indicates, those are different addresses on the same /64 range of an IPv6. Totally innocuous and normal, it changes like that automatically and uncontrollably; just treat them all as the same person, but nothing nefarious going on. No comment or opinion on the merits from a content standpoint. Left guide (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's fine just the way it is. Xolkan (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Change to WC1 and WC2 per IP. That's how most reliable sources do it, and honestly, I'm a bit puzzled as to why we've chosen to shorten it as "WC". Inaccurate, and possibly WP:OR. 162 etc. (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Original research how? Conyo14 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Implying that both wildcards are the same, when all sources (accurately) show them seeded as 1 and 2? 162 etc. (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello im the same person and I dont have a wikipedia account. So should I change the bracket? 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:3C0C:C983:E0DC:BAC1 (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change it right now, so no. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

ok i'll wait for the consensus. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:3C0C:C983:E0DC:BAC1 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like NHL.com has been using "WC1" and WC2" on their brackets, see 2023, 2024, and the current 2025 bracket. Conversely, they use generic "D2", "D2", and "D3" for all the top three in each division. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  NHL.com is not tied to the hip with us. Conyo14 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  How long has this been occurring? If it's something that's only been applied for the last few years, we shouldn't be anachronistic by retroactively changing it on the entire NHL playoff history; that would be another form of original research. In other words, the bracket labels for a given playoff year article should reflect contemporary sourcing. Left guide (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hello im the same person and I dont have a wikipedia account. Are you asking how long the NHL (LNH) has been using wild card? The Wild Card seed started in 2014 with a minor switch in 2016 in the Western Conference were previously Central 1 vs Wild Card 1 and Pacific 1 vs Wild Card 2 in 2016 to Present the Western Conference swapped there wild card spots. Central 1 vs Wild Card 2 and Pacific 1 vs Wild Card 1. Also the wild card seeding wasn't used in 2020 or 2021 do to temporary Covid 19 division realignment. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:99D2:502A:719D:46C2 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's a helpful explanation, but I meant how long have "WC1" and "WC2" been used? Apologies for not being clearer the first time. Left guide (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I look at the nhl website and its been used since 2014 with the the exception of 2020 or 2021 because of the temporary Covid 19 division realignment. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:99D2:502A:719D:46C2 (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  It would be better find out whether the brackets from 2014, 2015, etc. included WC1/2. If they did/do, then I will agree with allowing them in. Conyo14 (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  yes brackets from 2014 to present have WC 1/2 https://www.nhl.com/playoffs/2014/bracket https://www.nhl.com/playoffs/2015/bracket 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:99D2:502A:719D:46C2 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sampling some reliable independent sources covering the playoffs of older years (haven't had the time to search for every year yet), Sporting News used wild card rankings in 2017, as did ESPN in 2018 and 2019. Left guide (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll admit, Sporting News provides the best moniker for it. I'm gonna be pedantic about the ESPN ones since they spell out "Wild Card No 1" but will side with those being the basis for change on the bracket. Conyo14 (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hello im the same person and I dont have a wikipedia account. Should I change the bracket granted that the playoffs started? 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:F8FB:3E10:43AE:E026 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Please wait until a consensus is formed. I may have changed my mind, but others need to as well. Conyo14 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a way we can start a poll to make the process go faster? 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:F8FB:3E10:43AE:E026 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll start one for you. Conyo14 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  It was decided to keep them at two characters to keep consistent formatting in what has been used in articles going back to 1982. Sadly these conversations happened on talk pages when the templates had their own dedicated pages, so when they got deleted a few years back we lost the data that showed the agreed to consensus. Deadman137 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello im the same person and I dont have a wikipedia account. The vote looks to be infavor of the changing the bracket should I wait to change the bracket or can I start executing the change?2603:8000:57F0:92E0:912C:8D3D:2DD8:4477 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like there's consensus, go right ahead. I'd highly recommend linking to this discussion in your edit summaries like this: [[WT:NHL#Wild Card on the Playoff Bracket for National Hockey League]] Thanks for checking in, and good luck. Left guide (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello im the same person and I dont have a wikipedia account. I will thank you 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:154D:F3E2:DDAC:D7B2 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead. There is consensus. Conyo14 (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

thank you 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:154D:F3E2:DDAC:D7B2 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Change the bracket?

I'm making a subsection to form the consensus on the bracket and whether to include WC1/WC2 or leave as is — just "WC". My view shall be neutral as Left guide has provided some useful sources, but I don't care whether they go in or not now. Conyo14 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support the change. No reason to omit info that is relevant to understanding the whys and wherefores of playoff seeding, all to save a singe character. oknazevad (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support it makes it less confusing on the playoff bracket and will make it easier for people to find out which 1st seed the wild card seed will play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:57f0:92e0:f8fb:3e10:43ae:e026 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. 162 etc. (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Are there visual examples of the before and after the proposed changes? Flibirigit (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  After is at the top of the section. Before can be found here: 2025 Stanley Cup playoffs#Playoff bracket Conyo14 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Conyo14: The example shown atop this thread is a version of the 2024 bracket, not 2025. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Flibirigit: Please see the bracket at the very top of this thread, and compare it to the bracket at 2024 NHL playoffs#Playoff bracket. Left guide (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Same core concept? haha Conyo14 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose, but my main qualm is that the 2025 bracket is inherently incomplete as of right now, so a before-and-after comparison between a complete and incomplete bracket could be confusing to those trying to understand the proposal. Left guide (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Most games for national team?

Does anyone know if Lauri Lahesalu's 182 is now the record? (It includes friendly games) Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: Depends on if it's directly verifiable by a reliable source. The article cites this. So A) is the claim verified in the source? And B) is the source reliable? Left guide (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It is counted by the federation [1]. All local news articles reported these numbers. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Player, player/coach, manager and owner of the New York Americans (and President of the NHL).

Norman (Red) Dutton, born in Russell Manitoba July 23, 1897, held all of these positions. He was undoubtedly the only person in NHL history to do so. 129.222.112.103 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Your point? Masterhatch (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Braden Holtby retired or not?

Washington Capitals goaltender Braden Holtby has not played a game since 2021-22. Yet here we are 3 years later and his page still reads that he is a free agent. I doubt anyone who hasn't played hockey after that period of time is likely to return, so shouldn't he be considered a former player? 2001:569:6FF7:118C:7C46:A4EE:332:5081 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Landeskog returned, after three years. So can Holtby. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt that in Holtby's case. But sure, say what you will. They don't HAVE to publicly announce their retirement to be retired. 2001:569:6FFD:7E17:F5EE:10CC:F5D6:688A (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

+ Guy Lafleur, Mario Lemieux ... The unfortunate fact about today's NHL is that players don't officially "retire" until they say so, and there's not a lot we can do about that, short of starting to tag articles with "presumptively retired." In which case we're going to wind up being wrong a bit. Ravenswing 09:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Tell me about it, since the 2005-06 NHL season, players can't retire until their contracts are up. Still, deep down inside I don't see Holtby hitting the ice again at 40. That's laughable. 2001:569:6FFD:7E17:F5EE:10CC:F5D6:688A (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The IP editor from this range appears to primarily edit List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise, which was created by Marino13 (edit summaries are similar to this editor's). Therefore, I have a suspicion that this is in fact Marino13 logged out who supposedly "retired" at the end of 2024. – sbaio 14:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding not being able to retire until the player contract is over: you can't stop someone from retiring. Their salary will still count against the salary cap if the contract takes effect in a season where their June 30 age is 35 and up, but teams can't force anyone to play. They will of course stop receiving salary, so players have incentive to remain under contract either by playing or, if applicable, by being placed on the injury list. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This does not apply to Holtby, whose 1-year contract ended after the 2021-22 season. 162 etc. (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure; I was responding to "since the 2005–09 NHL season, players can't retire until their contracts are up." isaacl (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Toronto Marlies head coaches

An editor has created Template:Toronto Marlies head coaches, while the longstanding consensus is against such navboxes. Could someone nominate it for deletion or redirect it? Because I cannot find if there is a PROD template for navboxes. – sbaio 17:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no PROD template for navboxes, as pages in the template namespace are ineligible for PROD per the end of the lead of WP:PROD:

PROD is only applicable to main namespace pages (excluding redirects), and files not on Commons. Proposed deletion cannot be used with pages in any other namespace.

WP:TFD seems like the appropriate venue, but I am not well-versed in filing the paperwork there. Left guide (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated this template for deletion. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 2#Template:Toronto Marlies head coaches. – sbaio 07:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Lowercasing of WikiProject: Ice Hockey?

See this discussion, concerning WikiProject names. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not see how this will change what we do. Carry on editing. Flibirigit (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Maddox Schultz

We now have a biography on Maddox Schultz, a 15-year old prospect not yet in the Western Hockey League. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

To me, seems like there's enough third-party coverage to justify an article. The CBC of all outlets had an entire article on him. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I was gonna say, it looks like WP:BIO has been met. Conyo14 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it meets relevant notability guidelines but needs some cleanup work Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

COI editing at Grand Forks Border Bruins

B042Cody (talk · contribs) has stated that he works for the Grand Forks Border Bruins, and has repeatedly updated the article without sources. Any help cleaning up the article is appreciated. Flibirigit (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This conduct is absolutely absurd. This hockey team has made history with there recent accolades all of which can be easily verified though the KIJHL official website. Flibirigit has been unjustly distroying the Border Bruins page submissions made today which out proper research. B042Cody (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This has potential to be an edit war, and still no independent reliable sources have been added. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the article is WP:AFD worthy, but I did fix up the section. Conyo14 (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I never suggested AFD. Unfornately, B042Cody repeatedly reverts edits which remove uncited claims or dubious fancruft. Flibirigit (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Flibirigit and Conyo14: I've reported this issue to admin Star Mississippi who sometimes deals with COI matters, but hasn't yet responded. Meanwhile, anyone can feel free to post to WP:ANI if they feel it's urgent enough. A paid editor edit-warring against two volunteers to add unsourced and/or disputed content on their COI topic article after being warned on their talk page is absolutely unacceptable. Left guide (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay @Left guide. Unfortunately my on wiki time is currently minimal and I'm not able to step in here. But @B042Cody please do heed the advice of @Flibirigit @Conyo14 and LG, three experienced editors who are willing to help you if you're willing to edit within the project's rules and guidelines. You do not want this to have to go to ANI. Star Mississippi 12:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Coming a bit late to the party here, but quite aside from the good advice you've had from the others, false claims that you work for the team's "media staff" (there are precisely two media staff on my local American Hockey League team, and neither one of them are given to frequent spelling and grammar errors) gets you nowhere. Ravenswing 13:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Odd that someone would claim a fake COI; no tangible benefit from that. Maybe the perception is that declaring an affiliation bestows greater control of article content, but the reality on Wikipedia tends to be quite opposite. Left guide (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Lightning–Panthers rivalry game-by-game results

I have removed game-by-game results table at Lightning–Panthers rivalry. Then about one week later an editor came and restored it saying "other pages have it". Discussion about it can be found at Talk:Lightning–Panthers rivalry#Playoff rounds. – sbaio 02:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals complete team roster inclusion

Would it be fine to include the entire roster (including all injured players and healthy scratches) in the "Team Rosters" section, while only including qualifying and successfully petitioned players on the winning team in the "Stanley Cup Engraving" section. Doing so would allow people to know which players on the team at the time did not qualify or get successfully petitioned, as well as every player on the losing team's roster. Kart2401real (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kart2401real General consensus is only to list guys that played playoff games + a significant amount of regular season games - "black ace" AHL call-ups are pointless to include on the roster. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes black aces even get their names engraved on the Stanley Cup. Jeff Schultz did in 2014. Kart2401real (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

He actually played in the playoffs. Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

He did, but he was called up as a black ace. He played because other defensemen were injured. Kart2401real (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kart2401real list guys that played playoff games The Kip ^(contribs) 21:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

What about black aces who don't play in playoff games, but still get their name on the cup? Kart2401real (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we include you if you're on the cup? Just curious. SportingFlyer T·C 07:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

There are some weird rules surrounding injuries and exceptions with the engraving. Some players might be on the Cup, but not play a single game in the Finals. It really should just be a case-by-case basis. Conyo14 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

From a quick search, the only reliable source I could find listing 2024 SCF rosters is Hockey Reference and they only include players who appeared in at least one SCF game. If there are other reliable sources presented here that show larger rosters, then maybe that can be re-considered. Left guide (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Roster lists in general are full of WP:ORIGINAL content, but in SCF articles, at least since 2023, each player gets a reference. Conyo14 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Here [2] is a random roster that I pulled that can be used for verification from 2021. I haven't done a deep dive to see how far back this goes, but I'll look into it tonight. Deadman137 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hockey Reference is just a statistics site, not necessarily a team roster site. NHL.com shows entire rosters. Why not go with what the NHL says? Kart2401real (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That's probably the most reasonable idea. Plus I did check some random Stanley Cup Finals games from different eras on the league website and you can find the scratches and rosters for verification. Deadman137 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Players who appeared in playoffs or Stanley Cup Finals can be found at NHL Stats website (filtering is needed to see it), while players whose names were engraved on the Stanley Cup can be found at NHL records website. NHL is probably the most complete out of all leagues in the world when it comes to statistics, records, trophies, etc. – sbaio`

The NHL lists entire rosters on the roster report for the last SCF game of the season. Here is an example. In the 2012 Stanley Cup Finals, the Devils had 42 players on the roster, while the Kings had 37 players on the roster, Players on IR not listed, but I found them elsewhere. Kart2401real (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like only players who are active on the first game of the Finals through to the end should be listed. Black aces may be accepted if there was a reference like from the NHL website. Conyo14 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I cite the NHL website and news sources at the end of the Finals. Appearing in a Finals game isn't necessary when news articles and the NHL site are cited. It is best to cite the complete roster, if possible. Kart2401real (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll second most of what Conyo14 said. I would limit it to players that played for the team during the regular season and playoffs. Injured players can be included as well on a case by case basis. Black aces should be excluded unless they meet one of the criteria above. Deadman137 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a good reason not to cite the NHL website and list everyone? If not, why not at least list everyone who appeared in a game? Kart2401real (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

You can use the league website as reference as much as you want. Just keep in mind that a normal roster is 23 to 25 players during the season so the playoff roster should be somewhat close in size in the Finals article. Obviously injuries happen in the playoffs so some increase in size is possible from year to year but realistically anything above 30 is probably too many players unless one of the finalists keeps getting hammered with injuries. Deadman137 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess I will try to avoid making it much higher than 30. Kart2401real (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Habs LTA getting more aggressive

Need more eyes on this one, see the accounts/contribs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rubbaband Mang. They're continuing to frequently edit, and they're aggressively reverting anyone who undoes their contribs while accusing them of vandalism. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip: They were banned as HabsFan2293 (talk · contribs). Check the history of the 2023–24 Montreal Canadiens season and you'll see similar patterns. Deadman137 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there any admins who frequent the hockey articles? I know that many other popular sports/topics have an admin or two who edit regularly, and are often more willing to put a lid on disruption with blocks/protections/etc, which makes it much easier. General site-wide noticeboards have a tendency to get busy and/or backlogged, and admins there are less likely to know or care about hockey. Left guide (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know of any anymore. Longtime hockey-conversant admins such as DJSasso and Resolute have retired from Wikipedia in recent years. Ravenswing 13:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I consider myself pretty active in this WikiProject and am an admin. I have already blocked one IP address who was doing a similar pattern of editing on Arber Xhekaj. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup champions

List of Stanley Cup champions is experiencing mass additions and deletions lately, such as adding captains, and deleting game winning goal scorers. Any thoughts are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the article talk page and also filed a protection request due to the apparent edit-warring. Please discuss at article talk to reach consensus. Left guide (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Direct discussion link: Talk:List of Stanley Cup champions#Captains and series-winning goals. Left guide (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The protection request was completely unnecessary. It is akin to using a sledgehammer when a feather touch was needed. The edit warnings were excessive and unnecessary. Flibirigit (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oak Park Ice Arena

This has been tagged as unsourced for over 15 years. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You found reliable sources, but chose not to add them? Conyo14 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The rink deserves only a brief mention in the Detroit Whalers history. It's not notable and should be deleted. Flibirigit (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

So be it then Conyo14 (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10 #Utah NHL names

There is currently an RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 10 #Utah NHL names that may be of interest to members of this project. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks rivalries

Recently I published an edit on the Anaheim Ducks article stating that the Red Wings were a rival of the Ducks. Then it was undone because the source I had used was unreliable. I re-added the paragraph with a more credible source, only to be told that one source was not enough to prove a rivalry. So should the Red Wings be considered a rival of the Ducks? I have another source that says this, but I'm not sure if it's enough. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't read the source, because it tries to sell me a subscription within seconds of accessing the article. But as somebody whose first NHL team was the Wings (I grew up in Windsor, and moved to Toronto quite a while ago), I'd find it far-fetched to say that the Wings and the Ducks have a proper rivalry. They just haven't faced each other often enough, and there is limited shared history between them. Regards, PKT(alk) 23:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's too bad. I'll just print what the source says: "The Ducks will resume their rivalry with the Detroit Red Wings on Friday at Honda Center. Besides many intense playoff series and tangible hatred for each other, the rivalry has almost always featured great players on both sides who are definitive faces of their respective franchises." Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There are any number of sportswriters on deadline who toss up hyperbole salad; having just read the article (yay for NoScript on my browser), this is just another one. For my part, the teams play in different divisions, and haven't faced one another in the playoffs for a dozen years now. The bar for notability on sports rivalries is set very high: we're talking Habs-Leafs, Yankees-Red Sox, Celtics-Lakers and the like. Ravenswing 00:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Aren't there plenty of rivalries detailed, especially on List of NHL rivalries that involve teams that don't play in the same division? I originally stated that the Ducks had a rivalry with the Red Wings, meaning that it used to be a big rivalry. Could listing it under the "Historical" section of the List of NHL rivalries article work? Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Go for it. Ravenswing 14:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Mk8mlyp:, but the Red Wings and the (Mighty) Ducks have never had a "big" rivalry. PKT(alk) 16:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I was the one to originally delete the paragraph regarding it. From a fan's POV, any team can be a big rival. For Wikipedia, it requires proof. Conyo14 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Rivalry articles are heavily scrutinized, but rivalry paragraphs or big fights are fine. Conyo14 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

FanSided doesn't appear to be reliable per community discussions. The other two sources in question look like routine daily coverage from local beatwriters who's job is to exclusively cover (and in some ways promote) these specific teams. Windsor is across the river from Detroit, and Anaheim is in Orange County. For Wikipedia's purposes, they don't carry much weight, relatively speaking. If one looks hard enough, sources like this can be found for just about any pair of teams, which would cause Wikipedia to indiscriminately call every pair "rivals" in wikivoice, thus diluting the quality and due weight of stronger historically-significant rivalries. If reputable books and national/league-wide outlets provide serious secondary coverage of this as a "rivalry", then maybe an argument can be made. Left guide (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of uncited material and non-neutral tone at IIHF World Ranking by an IP

IIHF World Ranking is seeing the repeated insertion of uncited material and non-neutral tone at IIHF World Ranking by an IP. Please see article history. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:ANI#Disruptive IP range at IIHF World Ranking. Left guide (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)