Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Names of ice hockey championship articlesEdit

I would like to unify article name formats. Some are in plural, some are with dashes... See these three examples:

What do you think it should look like? Maiō T. (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For one thing, it should look like what the organizers CALL it. Ravenswing 07:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea, Ravenswing. I searched on the internet and found the following official tournament names:
  • 2008 IIHF World U18 Championship Division II
  • 2017 IIHF Ice Hockey U18 Women's World Championship Division I
  • 2023 IIHF Ice Hockey U20 World Championship Division III
Things start to get complicated. It won't be as easy as I thought. Any idea what to do with it? Maiō T. (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. If, for instance, the 2023 WJC is labeled as a "Championship" instead of "Championships," go for a page move. Ravenswing 18:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ravenswing: The 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships article deals with six world championships (or divisions/groups/tournaments) so the plural is practically correct. We could create a new article that discusses only the Top Division; the name could be 2023 IIHF World Junior Championship (official tournament name as used by the IIHF). It already works for senior championships; compare 2023 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships and 2023 IIHF World Championship. What do you think? Maiō T. (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ravenswing: It's done. Now we have one parent article: 2023 Junior Ice Hockey World Championships and four child articles:
I hope Wikipedia users will like it. Maiō T. (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they don't like it. The 2023 Junior Ice Hockey World Championships article has been renamed twice in the last few days to 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. Maiō T. (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ravenswing: In 2012, the IIHF slightly changed the name of the championship. So I have to rename all WJHC articles since 2012. The format of article names should look like those four (2023) wikilinks above. Maiō T. (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what's been attempted here, but the WJC pages have been made confusing. Particularly when one clicks to the preceding & succeeding tournament pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NHOCKEY CriteriaEdit

I just noticed that the criteria on WP:NHOCKEY no longer make any mention to top-tier leagues (NHL, KHL, SHL, etc). In the efforts to cut down on notability that is all gone, though references to the Belarusian, Italian, and Belgian leagues (among others) are still noted there. I know there has been quite a pushback against sport bio articles recently, but this is clearly going to cause issues seeing how the guidelines here don't reflect reality in the least. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be in favor of abolishing it altogether, and leaving hockey articles -- biographical or otherwise -- to stand and fall on the GNG. Ravenswing 04:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also favour getting rid of NHOCKEY and simply using GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No argument from on that either; more making sure the broader community was aware. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would getting rid of NHOCKEY improve the 'situation"? I find there are biases in media covering all topics. I think I would find it harder to be encyclopedic on a topic if we did not continue to allow more than necessary bio entries. Is it welcoming to new editors to challenge them from the start? Is an NCAA player really that much more notable? It seems much easier to dig up sources on NCAA players in my experience. I feel like some sport-based guideline is important in differentiating the importance of sources, as opposed to very general guidelines. Is there really a big push-back against almanac-like content? Alaney2k (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's covered in the news, then it's notable. If not, then it's not notable. I fail to understand what possible bias your are talking about. Flibirigit (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
News editors obviously choose what to cover. It is not objective in terms of the sport. Their decisions are based on what is expected to be popular and bring readers to their paper/sites, etc. That does not necessarily match up with the importance of the topic/person within the sport. The Olympics are covered, but not necessarily the competitions that lead to qualification, etc. The pressure on traditional news media to compete for advertising only encourages less diverse coverage of sports (and other topics too). Also, there are less reporters available to write biographies on players. So I still believe some objective guidance based on wiki editor experience is still valuable. I'm not saying anything about strictness, I'm talking about players/builders/executives/competitions that may make a significant contribution to the sport, but not necessarily a high news media coverage. Currently there are Wiki articles about the several levels of IIHF competitions, but good luck finding news RS to meet GNG about competitions other than the top level. Alaney2k (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. I would think it far less challenging to new editors to simply meet the GNG, rather than a flurry of criteria that shifts from year to year. (I might also point out that neither NHOCKEY nor NSPORTS criteria generally has any guidance as to which sources are important or not, nor does NHOCKEY cover any hockey-related topic other than biographies.) Ravenswing 11:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NHOCKEY clearly needs a massive rework. Including clarification for top level players, as well as coaches, teams, leagues, tournaments etc. I think NHOCKEY should exist; there are entire leagues with non-stub pages that likely wouldn't meet GNG, but it definitely needs to be better. IceBergYYC (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion the only value NHOCKEY would have is for articles on subjects that existed before the internet age. It can be very hard to access or search up much of those sources particularly for non-english speaking countries. Combating recentism should have some value, and I believe that NHOCKEY could help with that.18abruce (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion re: tables versus lists for first and last gamesEdit

I'm bringing this discussion back to help because I disagree with the bullet-point lists which means nothing without notability. I honestly prefer tables that lists players, their first/final team, and notability. I disagree with both Ravenswing and Sbaio stances on the bullet-point lists on that because notability would mean something of those articles and they and others for voted for bullet-point lists don't see it that way. So I going to have a plan of change of consensus that will have player's notability and accomplishment lists on them with whatever lists we can do (I prefer tables to be honest with you). So these are two options. Either way, there is no way we're not leaving each player's notability unlisted in these season pages.

  • Option 1: Retain the tables, listing the player, their final team, and notability.
  • Option 2: Switch over to a bullet-point list of the players and their accomplishments, omitting final teams. This is how retirements are typically handled for notable players on NFL and NBA season pages.
Inviting @Ho-ju-96, The Kip, Masterhatch, Zzyzx11, Masterhatch, Ralphierce, GoodDay, Conyo14, Deadman137, Xolkan, Kilaseell, Pavexim, and Mushh94: to comment as semi-frequent to frequent season-page editors. I'm sure Ravenswing and Sbaio will respond to this. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I prefer 2, would also recommend not mentioning any team. Just the player's name would do. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also prefer this method, but adding in a milestone or NHL record probably doesn't hurt. Conyo14 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 We don't need to list the final team a player played for as we already have the transaction article that covers this. We could link to the relevant retirement table for the season at the top of the section for most of the 21st century seasons. Deadman137 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2, because that was used in the past and someone just came over and changed it to tables without any consensus. In addition, the NHL season pages are already rather large (and probably one of the better maintained sports pages) so these extra tables do not really improve it. – sbaio 03:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2, I like what the NBA and NFL does, plus adding the final team delegitimizes the accomplishments they had with a specific team. Conyo14 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3: Or ... we could always do it as we did for many years: bulletpoint, player, final team. Those who want to know the players' accomplishments can click on the links and read their articles. Ravenswing 05:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not an option. You are used to this layout for so many years and it's a time for a change. It will be better to show the player's achievements in first and last games and clicking on links to see those accomplishments is not that convenient. Even Sbaio agrees with Option 2. I still prefer option 1 and several other editors do too. If you want, you can add player's names, final teams and their achievements with the bulletpoints. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ahem. What is an option or not is up for editors to decide generally. Neither you nor any one editor gets veto power over the process. Ravenswing 14:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because notability would mean something in NHL season pages and clicking on player's links is not very convenient to know their achievements. If editors want a easier way to know each player's accomplishments without clicking links to said players, including notability in each season pages is a way to do that. Even some editors agree with it. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I only chose "option 2", because there were no other options. Do not make an assumption that I am in full agreement with your proposals. – sbaio 17:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OPTION 2 I just like it :D -- Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 It's tells you more and such. But we will settle for Option 2 is if it get more votes. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oprtion 4: Delete all the lists and tables as a collection of mostly unsourced WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT violations. Flibirigit (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Who invited you? MLB, NBA, and NFL all do this AND it's all sourced. This also not trivia considering it's the NHL season article. Finally, this is not Fancruft as a large majority of the Wiki readers will enjoy seeing who has officially retired, milestones, first games for high picks, etc. Conyo14 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That option is out of the question, per Conyo14's explanation to you and that is neither trivial nor fancruft. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Anyone is allowed to comment, and nobody has to be "invited" to a conversation. Flibirigit (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My comment is meant as satire, mainly because your viewpoint is signifying a larger issue you're trying to resolve. An issue I along with the editors at the NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL don't see. It just seems you're grasping at straws, especially since every milestone, last game, first game, and special contribution is religiously sourced. I can not rule out your option, nor can any other editor, but I also think your basis of it seems unsourced. Conyo14 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your option is out of the question, Flibirigit. Any notable player who had such achievements like played 1,000 NHL games, trophies, how many Stanley Cup wins, All-Star games and such shouldn't be deleted because of your thoughts on this and it never fits for consensus. Not a lot of people will like your option here. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Conyo, exactly what "larger issue" am I trying to solve here? Please elaborate. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First off, "delete all the lists and tables as a collection" I'd assume means the retirements section, but then we become inconsistent with the other sports articles. If you see the last games, first games, and milestones section as an issue with it existing, then it becomes a larger issue in consistency with other articles. Conyo14 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not understand why you assumed that I referred only to retirements. I have no clue what is meant by "a larger issue in consistency with other articles". Please clarify. Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How can I be more clear? You have commented an option to delete all lists and tables. Like 2022 Major League Baseball season#Retirements, 2022 NFL season#Retirements, 2021–22 NBA season#Retirements has the same thing just in a different format. This section refers to first and last games, which we only say last games because what if the player died mid-season. By deleting this we become inconsistent with these articles. Is this what you want? Conyo14 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have said nothing about baseball, basketball or football. Why is it so important to you that ice hockey be like other sports? Flibirigit (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I'm done feeding you here. Deleting makes it inconsistent is all. Conyo14 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Insisting that I am a troll is an unprovoked personal attack. I have said nothing personal about you, and have tried to understand where you are coming from. Flibirigit (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the interest of working towards a consensus decision, I urge commenters not to disparage the viewpoints of others or to categorically rule them out as a possible consensus view. Please try to keep the discussion constructive. isaacl (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It won't be easy, but we'll try our best to keep it that way. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To list one specific example, I suggest not telling people their opinion is out of the question, as it gives the impression that you are defining what are the valid options. It's not too hard to skip saying this and just start with the substantive portions of your comment. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Isaccl: First of all, I don't agree with Flibirigit's option. That user's suggestion doesn't help improve anything and is not valid. All it will do is cause issues regarding information on which notable players who started first games in season and notable players who retired that season. It will create inconsistency with these NHL season articles. Also, we need some information about the notability of these players who earned achievements, such as playing above 1,000 NHL games, winning specific trophies, number of Stanley Cup wins and how many All-Stars they got. We need a good format for these NHL season articles to have all that, like some season articles in the MLB, NFL and the NBA. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I've read all your earlier comments already; repeating your points is unnecessary. There is of course no problem in disagreeing with others. Just skip over the part where you appear to be personally ruling out another person's view. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I took a look at the other leagues noted here, and really do not like the setup for both the NBA and NFL. It is very cluttered and confusing, and not helpful at all. If we are going for anything, keep it like what the MLB pages has, short and simple. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I rather not have to click links to see player's accomplishments when they retired in those season pages. It's not very convenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree with that, Battleshipman. It's the whole point of Wikipedia - ie, if you want more info, click on the link. PKT(alk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Round names capitalizationEdit

Dicklyon (talk · contribs) is once again running around and changing capitalization of playoff round names. This time he targets pages at Template:NHL seasons by team. I thought he was told to back off with these changes? – sbaio 17:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, minor league pages like Jersey Devils are also affected so I assume that this editor will go through every single ice hockey page with his abusive AWB tool. – sbaio 17:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tool appears to be doing it to athletes of all sports too. We should also watch for it to affect NHL coaches. Conyo14 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this relates to the discussion taking place at WP:MOS/CAPS. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the discussion has been under way for a few days at WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already linked to the discussion-in-question, fwiw :) GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dicklyon is back at it again. Deadman137 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, still at it, fixing over-capitalization in Wikipedia, with a lot of that being in sports articles in recent months. I expect lots of editors to sample my edits and let me know if they see errors, and revert them if so. If you look at my last few weeks or months of edits, for tag "reverted", you'll see that I've thanked editors who found and reverted mistakes, and I've started discussions, or invited editors to existing discussions, when I didn't agree that what they reverted was a mistake. In the case of the ones you reverted, I've asked for some support for your "proper noun" assertions, but all I got from you was personal attacks. If others here see problems with my edits, or have support in guidelines or source evidence for Deadman's position, I'd like to hear about it. Dicklyon (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite a lot of people have problems with your edits, and have sourced evidence for the same. Ravenswing 01:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why I have come up with a proposal to end all of this capitalization nonsense that can be found here. Inviting to participate in the discussion. @GoodDay, Oknazevad, Masterhatch, Ravenswing, Conyo14, Old Naval Rooftops, Sbaio, The Kip, Randy Kryn, BilCat, Nemov, Skipple, and Dmoore5556: Deadman137 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have anything to add beyond what I commented over at WP:Baseball at the time. Uppercase when referring to a specific event or title, as this would be a proper-noun. Lowercase when speaking in generalities about a position or round. Skipple 13:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we put an end to this behavior? Please? Nemov (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've advised Dicklyon, to slow down or stop his lower-case train, on a few occasions. But to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's on a mission and nothing will stop him. Conyo14 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your personal opinion of what constitutes overcapitalization has been shown multiple times now to hold no consensus. And yet here you are once again tryin to force through your preferences after explicit rejection of them. This is truly approaching something needing to be addressed at ANI. oknazevad (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support this... this is something that deserves a topic ban. Nemov (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second the idea of a t-ban. There's been unanimous opposition to his actions and yet he continues anyways. The Kip (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thirded. Although I'd hesitate to call the opposition "unanimous", he's ignored warnings on the subject multiple times. O.N.R. (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fourthed. I know I started the RfC to resolve the dispute, but his conduct has been atrocious and also disregards the typical Wiki route of resolving disputes. Not to mention his continuing edits across WP:HOCKEY using his script disregard the ongoing dispute. A t-ban feels necessary. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what was the point of it, but some of us is mentioned at User:Dicklyon/ANI. – sbaio 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Conyo14, @Sbaio, @Oknazevad, @The Kip, @Old Naval Rooftops I have filed an ANI after considering it for a few days. Nemov (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the questions would have to be asked. Have WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POINT, WP:RGW & on talkpages, WP:BLUDGEON been breached. I reckon that's something for the community to answer. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He also used Twinkle to re-add his preferred edits while they were in dispute, so we have edit warring too. Deadman137 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis. All our articles got mass-changed and are still being changed. Perhaps there are enough at the hockey project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want this to end please show your support at WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again. Deadman137 (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification had been given several times already. Don't you think you've crossed the line to WP:CANVASSING now? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split of 2023 Juniors articleEdit

It appears that User:Maiō T. has moved the article 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships to 2023 IIHF World Junior Championship and created a new "parent" article which is now at 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. None of the previous years use this arrangement, and I certainly don't see it as an improvement. Any thoughts before reverting? 162 etc. (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also requested reverts of other pagemoves recently made by this user. [1] 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like there is a discussion above, though no apparent consensus for any pagemoves. 162 etc. (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"World Junior Championship" is the official name of the championship. Maiō T. (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@162 etc., GoodDay, and Ravenswing: I'm trying to harmonize senior and junior articles. It should look something like this:

Senior championships Junior championships
Parent article: 2023 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships
Child articles: 2023 IIHF World Championship
2023 IIHF World Championship Division I
2023 IIHF World Championship Division II
2023 IIHF World Championship Division III
2023 IIHF World Championship Division IV
2023 IIHF World Junior Championship
2023 IIHF U20 World Championship Division I
2023 IIHF U20 World Championship Division II
2023 IIHF U20 World Championship Division III

I'd like to edit also previous seasons in a similar way. Many articles need to be renamed to match the official titles of the championships. Maiō T. (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. 162 etc. (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - I sometimes get confused about IIHF tournaments. Best to let others work it out. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, this appears to be a reasonable plan........PKT(alk) 22:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral for now, I don't hate this idea but I want to hear more opinions before making up my mind. I'm also assuming that if this is adopted on the Men's side that the same would apply to the Women's side. Deadman137 (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, this discussion was not meant to be a voting. There are other procedures for that. Now what? I think this is the end of the discussion and everything's gonna be reverted. Ravenswing, write something! It was your idea to rename the articles. I just expanded it a bit by creating parent articles.
@Deadman137: Women's championships also use the "parent article / child articles" system. See 2023 Women's Ice Hockey World Championships and four wikilinks to child articles within that article. Maiō T. (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To my eyes WP:NHOCKEY has a couple issues I'd like to discuss.
The first of which is the definition of "preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, First-Team All-Star)". Obviously, other "preeminent" honors exist, so are we saying that strictly a first-team all-star award/all time top 10 satisfy NHOCKEY, or can other honors satisfy this.

Secondly, the line "For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines." leaves a lot to be desired. How can a coach or manager be named a first-team all-star or top 10 scorer? IceBergYYC (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some leagues name a coach as part of their hypothetical all-star teams. The intended top-ten meaning for coaches would be games won. Please note there is an active discussion earlier on this page about eliminating NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beyond that, that language was there prior to participation criteria being deprecated. As far as expanding what is meant by "preeminent honors," absolutely bloody not. The whole reason for listing precisely what was meant by it is that editors hellbent on flooding Wikipedia with non-notable hockey bios had ever-ballooning definitions, and attempted to claim that college hockey "Rookie Squad of the Month" or "Academic Forward of the Week" citations qualified as "preemiment." (I do not, unfortunately, cite those examples at random.) Ravenswing 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well sure, but there is also basically zero differentiation between the 3 tiers of leagues shown in NHOCKEY. A player making first all-star in the AHL is likely more notable than a player making first all-star in the ECHL. Likewise, a player not making first-team in the AHL, but receiving the Dudley "Red" Garrett Memorial Award is likely more notable than someone making first-team in the QMJHL. If you're going to have strict criteria separated into tiers of leagues, you kind of need there to be an actual meaningful difference between the tiers. It should be significantly easier to satisfy NHOCKEY in the AHL than in, say the Beneliga. IceBergYYC (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czech Republic men's national ice hockey teamEdit

With another World Championships upon us, was just wondering if there's any new push to change the national team name to Czechia? I am aware it's a divisive issue by looking at the Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team and it's surely been previously discussed here, but another year goes on with all media outlets and the IIHF using Czechia..

Is this just a case of the issue being bigger then WP:HOCKEY?? Triggerbit (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this issue needed to be advanced to an RfC. There wasn't anyway to resolve the matter due to canvassing and also a general non-consensus. Personally, this does go beyond WP:HOCKEY, but for ice hockey, I'd say we can go for it. We just need an RfC or RM at the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, that the name should be changed to 'Czechia men's national hockey team'. We've been using Czechia in all the IIHF tournaments of the last three years. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Notable previous discussions here [2] [3] 162 etc. (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: NHL round names capitalizationEdit

Shall the names of rounds, Preliminary Round, Qualifying Round, Semifinals, Quarterfinals, Finals, as a reference to their full names (i.e. Stanley Cup Quarterfinals, Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, Gagarin Cup Semifinals, etc.) be capitalized in Template:NHL seasons by team, Stanley Cup playoffs articles, and any other small reference across all of WP:HOCKEY?

  • Option 1: Maintain status quo
  • Option 2: Lowercase these words in both references and general uses of the words
  • Option 3: ???

A larger discussion about article moves was here, which resulted in no consensus. A similar discussion regarding this particular issue is above and also discussed here.

My opinion is neutral in this (for now), but I don't want the constant fighting between different factions of Wikipedia. Conyo14 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Option 1 or what I proposed in the one discussion where we use what the originating source uses (they capitalize, we capitalize, they don't, we don't). This one size fits all approach has not worked and it's only causing problems. Deadman137 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just follow MOS:CAPS (opton 2, pretty much) – The status quo is essentially a mixed/partial hockey exception to the main capitalization guideline expressed there (only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia). Deadman137 has been arguing for "Lost in First Round" and "Lost in Preliminary Round" over "Lost in first round" and "Lost in preliminary round". There's no way to make that compatible with MOS:CAPS without a hockey exception or an agreement to stop improving the text of Wikipedia's agreement with its guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would you like to explain then how this [4] reached feature list status in January of 2008 or this [5] one in September of 2013 were both promoted if they were not compliant with WP:MOS at the time? This would also apply to all major North American sports. Deadman137 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because various people at the feature list/article processes don't care at all about MoS compliance. And those lists' promotions pre-date the existence of MOS:SPORTCAPS anyway. Old featured content is not "magically immune" to compliance editing to bring it into conformity with later guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah yes MOS:SPORTSCAPS, the fruit of the poisonous tree that you created where all of these problems originate from. In your initial proclamation for this idea you claimed that this passed with "virtually unanimous support", yet in the RfC where this came from you flat out refused to notify any of the affected parties. So how can any user actually take option 2 votes seriously when the foundation of the arguments that they're using are so fatally flawed? MOS:SPORTSCAPS should be temporarily suspended and all interested parties should be brought together so that an actual consensus with input from all of the relevant groups can be determined. Deadman137 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're engaging in the WP:Fallacy of the revelation of policy; every word of every policy and guideline was written by someone, and the fact that someone wrote it is not any kind of argument against it. You're welcome to go to WT:MOSCAPS and propose deleting or changing the MOS:SPORTCAPS section. (Good luck with that; the section makes perfect sense and describes site-wide actual practice.) Shaking your fist into the night and wailing that it doesn't suit your preferences is not constructive.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2. These are clearly not proper names, in this or any other sport, and are are routinely lower-case in independent reliable source material.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2, of course. Tony (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 Per a MOS:CAPS, which begins:

    Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization

    Capitalizing these does not add any extra meaning or insight to the reader; they are basic English words. Moreover, MOS:CAPS relies on independent source usage (emphasis added):

    Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

    Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 - these should follow MOS:CAPS, and as these terms aren't proper nouns, they should be not capitalised in prose, templates and article titles - so "Stanley Cup quarterfinals" (or quarter-finals, dependent on LANGVAR). This doesn't need to effect references, as references can be written in title case (see WP:5). I don't know why people think this should be changed by topic. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I took the nom's use of reference to mean Quarterfinals in reference to the full name Stanley Cup Quarterfinals. Not re: citations.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, I see. I thought the text of the reference was what was being referred to. I can understand why something could be a proper noun, but even if the term was a proper noun, just saying quarter-final on its own would not be. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 The usage "preliminary rounds" are common nouns in this case, referring to rounds that are preliminary, and not proper nouns. Should follow MOS, which states "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". --Jayron32 12:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 as MOS. I am amazed that this has come to an RfC? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sometimes, there's one person who's thinks their idiosyncratic style doesn't have to obey the general rules already laid out. An RFC is a good way to prove that they are wrong. --Jayron32 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Remember that they are guidelines, not law. Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which still means you have to give good reasons for breaching them. Tony (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of which good reasons have been given, but they’re being ignored anyways because non-involved editors clearly know better. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here are the arguments for Option 1 that I can find:
    • "use what the originating source uses"
    • "Best leave as is, IMHO"
    • "as someone who actively edits WP hockey pages"
    • "status quo. The 'First Round' can be interpreted as a proper noun"
    Is this what you mean by "good reasons have been given", or have I missed what you're referring to?
  • Option 1 - Best leave as is, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But "as is" is mostly Option 2 already. You prefer to just leave it inconsistent? Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Leaving as is" is status quo. But I would also fix up the articles to be consistent if Option 1 is accepted. If Option 2 is accepted then you can let your script do its thing. Just keep in mind this affects playoff articles too. Conyo14 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2-ish Per MOS:CAPS, we avoid unnecessary capitalisation. These are clearly not proper nouns but descriptive of a round of play - perhaps capitalised for emphasis or distinction or in the mistaken perception that capitalising an attributive (the first part of the noun phrase) confers capitalisation on the phrase in full. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't cap for emphasis or distinction. Save allcaps, I tend to think we should follow the capitalisation of the source in a citation of the title, which will often follow title case, the usual form of a title, both on and off Wiki. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your thinking would likely be towards option 1 or rather Deadman137's thinking. Conyo14 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 as MOS. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2: Per MOS:SPORTSCAPS, now that Finals has been removed from the nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 as someone who actively edits WP hockey pages, but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods. The Kip (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 Maintain the status quo. The "First Round" can be interpreted as a proper noun and this one size fits all approach to the English language is a huge waste of time. This is being driven by a single editor who continues to waste editor's valuable time. Also, the way this RfC has been handled is problematic. Dicklyon attempted to argue a WP:SNOW close yesterday and then asked for[6] a close request after 5 days. This behavior could be interpreted as disruptive. We're nearing the point where a topic ban might be necessary to save the community pointless discussions on capitalization discussion best determined on a case by case basis. Nemov (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a reader, how am I expected to interpret "First Round" differently from "first round"? —Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A very good question you can ask on a case by case basis reviewing the sources. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A perusal of source stats shows that it's most often lowercase in "* Cup first round". Even for Stanley Cup first round. Do you have any example where sources suggest capitalization? Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hold up, that first source you provided is NOT indicative of this sport. Cup first round? That could be any cup! It can be a red solo cup. That is not fair. Also, you are looking at books. News sources are the better inclination of how to determine whether this should be lowercased or uppercased. Conyo14 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    True, they're probably mostly soccer/football; is hockey extra special compared to other sports? It's hard to find "Stanley Cup First Round" in news, but I do find "first round of Stanley Cup playoffs". Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean ice hockey is its own sport, but I just wanted to mention the ngram source you provided cannot (rather should not) be used in debate here. Also, the second source you provided gives us something. However, "the first round of the playoffs" is unfortunately misleading and I'll explain why. From 1975–81, the playoffs had a preliminary round. Playoff stats and records still counted, but the NHL called it that for whatever reason. That was the first round of the playoffs though. Then in 2020 we had a series called the "Qualifying Round" that was paired with a round robin series. It was definitely confusing for the first five days once the NHL considered this to indeed be playoff games. Thus, the Qualifying Round is the first round of the playoffs, but then we had the official First Round, which is actually the second round of the playoffs. Regardless, these terms could still be lowercased. My own search only gives as the capitalization standard. Everywhere else is majority lowercase. I will still remain neutral, but case-by-case is not sounding awful. Conyo14 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't have any fundamental objection to "case-by-case", but I don't see a case where I'd cap "First Round". Like I said, one doesn't find "Stanley Cup First Round" in books or in news, so even if the NHL uses that name, it doesn't seem to be commonname, capped or not. Is it really the case that some sources use "first round" for the preliminary round and "First Round" for the next? Can you show us? Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Plus, the Deadman137 reverts that led to this RFC were things like "the First Round of the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs", and "the First Round of the playoffs", not the term "Stanly Cup First Round" that uses. Also "Won in Preliminary Round". Is there any possible justification for that one? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What Dicklyon is saying seems very sensible. Tony (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2020 and the "First Round" not being the actual first round (which was the qualifying round) seems to have been a one-off for COVID-19. If needed, it seems reasonable to consider IAR examples for that year, based on independent sources about 2020. However, I assume(/hope?) in a few years nobody remembers that, and presumably the first round is generally the first series played, thus not needing capitalization of "first round" for the different meaning, which was specific to 2020. —Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 These are not proper nouns, and "we avoid unnecessary capitalization" is a pretty simple brightline. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 per policy Alaney2k (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 - simply go by sourcing. If most sources capitalize, then so should we. If they don't we lower case it. 00:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)
    We do go by sourcing already. Are you thinking that the threshold of "most sources" would be less controversial, or less argumentative, or easier to evaluate, than what we have now in MOS:CAPS? Would it mean most books? Most News items? Most web sources? And are you thinking it might have led to a different outcome for the "Men's Singles" etc. that you fought so hard for with no support from the tennis project? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If we already go by most sourcing here at Ice Hockey then fine... no problem. But that should be what we strive for. As for the rest of your crap go whine somewhere else. I'm allowed my opinion here no matter if you think you own the place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I remind users to be civil in their discussion here. Conyo14 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MOS:CAPS already relies on sourcing, with the caveat that they be independent source (emphasis added):

    Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

    Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you are saying that those pushing no-caps go by that mantra, I think you are wrong. If I read what you wrote correctly, if 60% of sources like ESPN, or LA Times Sports, or Hockey News, almost always capitalize a certain term, then MOS:CAPS is being followed and those terms will be capitalized here. That's not what happens in practice here. Just look at the two following arguments... they say "not proper nouns." Nothing about what independent sources actually use. It's sheer brute consensus numbers. I'm not saying it's a right or wrong way to do it, but we do not go by what a majority of sources go by.... we go by consensus or our own somewhat arbitrary rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A couple of points on that: First, there has never been a clear consensus on what numerical threshold corresponds to "a substantial majority", but generally it's taken to be more like 80 or 90 percent; things that are clearly proper names (e.g. name of people, cities or such) show up usually with >95% caps in sources. Secondly, we're looking for use in sentence context; appearances in titles and headings are more often capitalized, but should not be counted. Thirdly, I'm not sure what capitalization arguments you're thinking of; the "preliminary round" and "semi-finals" reverts that provoked this discussion are certainly mostly lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2: Not proper nouns, so policy dictates the article titles should reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2: These are not proper nouns, and I see no convincing argument that they should be capitalized. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'll need a visual example of what's being disputed. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deadman137 provided some examples via his reverts: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] that led to this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would only be applied locally to the hockey playoffs, and not the baseball, basketball, or football playoffs, right? Or to the Stanley Cup Finals (which is the proper name)? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just Ice Hockey, though this could set a precedent for the other sports articles. Given how this conversation is going, you'd better watch them closely. The biggest evidence is ngrams and the lack of sports reporters capitalizing proper nouns. Conyo14 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If y'all believed in precedents we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are plenty of precedents that align with MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY. The editors that once governed this project (WP:HOCKEY) likely didn't care, and you can more-or-less see that considering the articles have greatly improved since its birth. Obviously, MOS:CAPS was created to set a guideline for capitalization across all articles. The only thing is that the ngram, while it's been around a bit, still is not the best indicator of CAPS. The sources you find get mixed with blogs or inconsistent reporters. This is because although sports are greatly covered in their field, the reporters are not formal writers. It makes this argument really stupid. Conyo14 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dicklyon and Conyo14, still haven't answered my question about the Stanley Cup Finals, which I assume is unaffected by this discussion (or is it hidden in the "Finals" and "etc." wording used in the initial question), and a name that the lowercasers will leave alone, correct? Even though the capping is mixed in n-grams], with uppercasing more prevalent, "Stanley Cup Finals" is the proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since nobody has yet answered that question I would ask Conyo14 that they remove 'Finals' and 'etc.' from the nomination question. Thanks. Stanley Cup Finals is the hockey equivalent of World Series and Superbowl. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll strike it :) Conyo14 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Randy Kryn, the RfC isn't particularly clearly written; however, where it refers to final it is not (as I understand it) referring to a phrase like Stanley Cup Final but to a phrase like advanced to the final which, depending on the context in which it is written, might refer to the Stanley Cup Final or to other competition final. A response like this should have been provided rather than just striking the word from the OP. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate to provide an explanation for the striking (usually in small text immediately following the OP) to explain the striking. A good number of editors have commented on the OP where this was not struck. What are the perceived implications of it being struck? The word final was an explicit part of the discussion leading to this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No matter what the RFC says, such things are likely to still be settled on a case-by-case basis, per the criterion in MOS:CAPS. Stanley Cup Final(s) are interesting cases, having been overwhelmingly lowercase "final" until very recent years. I suspect this is an example of sources following Wikipedia instead of vice-versa. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Above GoodDay wrote "I would also fix up the articles to be consistent if Option 1 is accepted. If Option 2 is accepted then you can let your script do its thing." It's the same either way. So I'll go ahead and re-do the downcasing of "final" in articles that are already titled as "final". If by some miracle there's a consensus to re-cap those, I'll put them back later. Based on what he says, I'll assume he won't undo that again. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the interest of collaborative editing, perhaps you can just wait for the outcome of the RfC to be evaluated? I'm certain you won't forget to implement the result. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dicklyon:, I didn't write any of that. It was @Conyo14: who did. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can confirm. And for clarification, that would mean I capitalize the remaining lowercased sources. Also, please do not mass move an article without going through the request process. Conyo14 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about my mixup there. And this discussion is not about moves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do wish that changes on ice hockey pages (re-lated to this RFC), would not be made, while the RFC is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone want to take this this to ANI? I've seen enough. I'd do it myself, but I've come into this rather late and don't have a full history. This needs to stop, regardless of this RfC's outcome. Nemov (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly would you be complaining about? That I've had two reverts of hockey-related edits since the RFC started? Did you even agree with those reverts? Did I do other edits that you think were wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The broader community has already discussed Use of capitals in a shortened title Some of the gist of the rationale to (arguably) support the capping of Final (and similar) in sentences and sentence fragments like Lost in Final is that Final is being used as a shortened form of a full name (eg Stanley Cup Final). The argument would continue, that there is no evidence of the broader community having reached a consensus on this particular matter; therefore, there is a need to arrive at a consensus on this. Please see Use of capitals in a shortened title, where this very matter was discussed. There was clearly consensus against this being a case where capitalisation would be permitted. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty much this. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snow close?Edit

The prevailing sentiment is clearly that Hockey is not a exception to MOS:CAPS and WP:SPORTSCAPS and WP:NCCAPS and such, and that we should lowercase such things that are not consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources (that is, we don't take our lead from the NHL, nor decide that reporters using lowercase are lazy slouches who just got it wrong). Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best to let the RFC go the full month, until the tag expires. We don't want editors showing up later, in an uproar. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree Conyo14 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is waiting 3 more weeks likely to be useful? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't even wait 1 week. Calm down. Some editors take their time to get a response in. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been two days since the last comment on this RfC and Dicklyon has asked for a close again.[12]. This behavior is so puzzling. Nemov (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you trying to rush this along? You are moving dangerously close to a ANI visit if you keep up this disruptive behavior. Nemov (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, his one-man crusade for this over the past months despite the opposition of many WP:IH editors has been enough arguably for a t-ban, which makes it all the more insulting the RfC will likely go his way. The Kip (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just today I realized that Dicklyon was the editor that made undiscussed moves regarding the NHL draft about three years ago (Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft#Requested move 26 May 2020), GoodDay's request at WP:RMT in May 2020, and a discussion at WT:NHL. In addition, looks like his behavior regarding pages moves (at least) has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon and page moves in May 2020, and he is a frequent guest at WP:AN, and has been blocked more than once. It is obvious that this is not the first time that Dicklyon ignores other editors and I think that at least a WP:TBAN (on ice-hockey related content) is a very strong option to stop this editor's disruption. – sbaio 13:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should likely include anything to with capitalization as he's still changing things to his preferred version while this RfC is ongoing. As he did at 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs today. Deadman137 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether the RFC is ongoing or not, sources don't capitalize "Preliminary Round" in that context, so why did you revert? I wasn't aiming for hockey there, but a few hockey pages matched the patterns of over-capitalization that I was fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dicklyon: I am asking you politely, do not capitalize until the RfC has reached clear consensus. You are not an admin, so you don't get to decide whether we reached it. As a belligerent, you also should not make that decision. Failure to comply to this reasonable request could force disciplinary actions. As you apparently are a repeat-offender, I suggest you tread lightly. Conyo14 (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have indeed been treading pretty lightly. I think Admin is not relevant here; this is a simple content dispute. Are you suggesting that you think Deadman137's revert to the over-capitalized form was reasonable, in light of sources and guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dicklyon: It is also not for you decide whether an admin is necessary or not. That being said, I've gone around the bin of discussions, and the basic idea is that you maintain status quo until a clear consensus has been reached. You sir, are not doing that. Conyo14 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'd advise you to stick to arguments rooted in policies, guidelines, and sources. It looks to me like the editors advocating for "Option 1" or "status quo" are also advocating to take me to ANI for my position and for a couple of edits while the RFC is open. The clear majority of respondents are in favor of following guidelines, whether that's up to me to decide or not. So stop with the threats and discuss in sensible terms, would you? Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not taking sides on this matter, because as I've said, this is a stupid argument. Your conduct is unbecoming in this though, especially as it is not in good faith to edit against status quo during an RfC. If you are confident about the results, you'll wait until June 10th, or whenever 30 days since the start have passed. Conyo14 (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IIHF Men's & Women's Finals pages moved, bypassing the RM routeEdit

FWIW, I've just noticed that back in late April 2023, that the 2000 to 2022 "IIHF World Championship Final" pages, were moved to "IIHF World Championship final" & accompanying categories, without discussion. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That one seems like a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bold page moves of those multiple pages, have now put them out of sync, with their own intros, links & infobox titles. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe not a proper name, I can see both sides of that one. Just so the lowercase-craze doesn't reach the super bowl, or world series, or the open championship, and leaves lots of other sports things the better for being uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title is a proper name with the IIHF, but the word "final" is not proper on its own. But that move should not have happened. Conyo14 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the pages should be reverted to their original (uppercase) version. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you should take a glance at sources before proposing such a retrograde move. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you should actually file a requested move instead of barreling through moves you know will be controversial. Like you were ordered to do by ARBCOM previously. Or did you forget that? oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't do these moves under discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no big hurry, so I'll wait for awhile, to see what others think should be done about the 2000 to 2022 (soon to be created 2023) "IIHF World Championship Final/final" pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note - Also in April, from 2019 to 2022, the "IIHF Women's World Championship Final" pages, have also been boldly moved to "IIHF Women World's Championship final", creating more inconsistency. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: – Josh moved all those World Championship Final pages to lowercase final. I have not encountered him before that I can recall, but yes we think alike and I would have done the same. But I'm perhaps better at the cleanup edits. I just went through and fixed a bunch of those inconsistencies, but GoodDay reverted me. Is he thinking that the raft of relevant discussions is not enough still? Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did revert your non-player changes, as it's quite possible the pages-in-question they link to, may end up being restored to their original names. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about (for example) 2023 Stanley Cup Finals? I don't think changing it to 2023 Stanley Cup finals, would be a good idea. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither would I. Like the World Series, NBA Finals, and Super Bowl, it's a proper title together and I would fully negate that move. "Finals" on its own could be lowercased though. Conyo14 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody needs such a strawman. There are clearly a few such event names that are consistently capitalized in sources, and which nobody would propose to change. Actually an interest question. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before we continue. Would you please put your JWB on hold & wait until this matter of Final/final is resolved. I had to undo most of your 'very recent' mass changes to page links. I suggest you undo the rest of your JWB changes, please. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You had to undo them why? Did I get something wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We haven't settled the matter, concerning using "Final" or "final" in the IIHF tournaments. PS- I left your changes alone, on the 'player' pages. That way, editors will have a better view of what's being discussed or disputed. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's not really anything special about "final", and it's been struck from the open RFC, so there's really no reason to fight to keep them inconsistent in the article leads. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was considering reversing the unilateral pages moves. But, I'll wait a week & if nobody else objects to those page moves? Then I'll leave them alone & so will see no need (any longer) to revert corresponding page links. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the moment, I object, as related discussions are currently ongoing. The one directly above isn't directly about page titles, but may affect them. O.N.R. (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC above also says it's not about "finals". These were good moves, and objecting without a good reason would just be disruptive. We don't need yet another discussion about how special hockey is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wouldn't be disruptive at all, objecting to unilateral page moves. Opening up RMs on multiple pages-in-question, would've been the better course to take. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should page moves be reversed?Edit

I'm considering getting the pages-in-question moves, reverted. But will wait for opinions from others, first. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've undone the page moves-in-question. If any editor believes they should be lower cased? Then, I recommend opening an RM for all the pages-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion is at Talk:2000 IIHF World Championship Final#Requested move 27 May 2023, unopposed so far; not even by GoodDay. And Randy, the reason it "seems like a proper name" is because it's capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing temporary arena within Template:Infobox hockey teamEdit

What are your thoughts on listing temporary playoffs arenas within the infobox? For example, a team plays at a different arena in the playoffs when their own rink is not available, or to take avantage of larger capacity for ticket sales. I understand that such temporary venues are not listed. An edit dispute began at Winnipeg Ice from this. I will make no further edits to this team's infobox and let the project decide. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Toronto Raptors of the NBA we used this approach when they had to play elsewhere due to COVID-19 pandemic. But this looks like a different situation since they did not start playing in that other venue until the final round of the WHL playoffs. – sbaio 13:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion of Switzerland league's season pagesEdit

A move has been proposed regarding season pages of Switzerland's National League (ice hockey) at Talk:2017–18 NL season#Requested move 9 May 2023. Please give your opinions there. – sbaio 14:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CHL included on "Career statistics" on player pagesEdit

I think that the Champions Hockey League (CHL), wich is the top level of European club competitions where only the best of Europe can play, should be included in the "Career statistics" sections of player pages. I don't know if some pages have it, but i haven't seen any yet so i'll assume that it is never included. I really think it should be though, but i just want your thoughts on it first. -- Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 20:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a problem with your suggestion, but are there reliable sources for the data you're thinking about adding? PKT(alk) 21:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Champions Hockey League website has the statistics but Elite Prospects has them too. I'm not sure about others. --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 17:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NHL Division championsEdit

There were five discussions about that in the past:

I noticed that pages at Template:NHL seasons by team and Template:NHL divisions, team season pages, and team infoboxes have quite a number of confusion about division titles. So my question would be – should it be changed to reflect the division titles from 1981–82 to 1992–93 seasons when winners of Division Finals were considered as division champions (I could not find anything about this rule in NHL-related media)? – sbaio 20:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winning the division title is different from being the division champion. That being said, we should adjust the template boxes to avoid that scrutiny. Conyo14 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then by your logic winning the Stanley Cup title is different from being a Stanley Cup champion. The 2020–21 Calgary Flames media guide quite clearly says The team has claimed two Smythe Division championships (1985-86, 1988-89), two Clarence Campbell Conference titles (1985-86, 1988-89), three Pacific Division titles (1993-94, 1994-95, 2018-19), two Presidents' Trophies (1987-88, 1988-89), and has advanced to the Stanley Cup Final three times (1986, 1989, 2004). They also for some reason omit the 2005–06 Northwest Division title. – sbaio 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the example you gave me, they claim the Smythe Division championship is different from the Smythe Division title. I don't see anyone claiming the Stanley Cup title. Conyo14 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect from 1981-82 to 1992-93, NHL teams approached this topic inconsistently. Some went with Playoff banners, while others went with Regular season banners. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After further inspection it looks like the NHL is indeed referring to division winners in those years as being a playoff thing per records.nhl.com1981-82: The first four teams in each division earn playoff berths. In each division, the first-place team opposes the fourth-place team and the second-place team opposes the third-place team in a best-of-five Division Semifinal (DSF) series. In each division, the two winners of the DSF meet in a best-of-seven Division Final (DF). The two DF winners in each conference meet in a best-of-seven Conference Final (CF). In the Prince of Wales Conference, the Adams Division winner opposes the Patrick Division winner; in the Clarence Campbell Conference, the Smythe Division winner opposes the Norris Division winner. The two CF winners meet in a best-of-seven Stanley Cup Final.sbaio 17:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure that material establishes anything because of the way they worded it: "The two DF winners in each conference meet in a best-of-seven Conference Final [sic] (CF)." The following sentence depends on that sentence for context when it refers to the division "winners"—it means the winners referred to in the preceding sentence, i.e., the teams that won the division finals. My recollection from the 1980s is that the team that won the division in the regular season was considered the division champion (it was a Big Deal here in 1989 when the Capitals finally hoisted a "Patrick Division Champions" banner after finishing the season in first place—and I note they didn't hoist any sort of banner the following year when they finally advanced to the Wales Conference Finals). I strongly suspect the text from the NHL page is not meant to state a policy on what constitutes a "division champion" and is simply meant to try to explain the playoff format as clearly as possible. Notice also how it refers to the teams that made the Stanley Cup Finals as the "CF winners" and not as the "conference champions" even though it's always been understood that the team that wins the conference playoffs is the conference champion. The fact that they use the word "winners" in that context strongly suggests to me that they're using that word solely to reflect advancing in the playoffs. 1995hoo (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1995hoo: But the NHL also says In each division, the first-place team opposes the fourth-place team and the second-place team opposes the third-place team in a best-of-five Division Semifinal (DSF) series. So that implies the opposite to what you are saying. I am curious with news articles from those years, but I am not sure if those are available anywhere (and if they are then most of them are probably not accessible to us who live in Europe due to General Data Protection Regulation). – sbaio 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know whether it does imply the opposite or whether the use of "first-place team" is simply because of the juxtaposition with "fourth-place team." Either way, we know the NHL sometimes tries to change history retroactively (such as their use of "Stanley Cup Final" in the quotation above—they didn't start omitting the "s" until 2006 or 2007), so I would be wary of regarding something they say now as definitive as to the way it was then. I think user GoodDay probably has the most sage comment about how there may have been inconsistency among teams—following on that, it's entirely plausible that the league just didn't bother to think about the issue at the time. 1995hoo (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to remember that the Hartford Whalers had a (regular season) Adams Division Champions banner up in the rafters, for the 1986–87 season. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is hearsay. I guess we need a source on whether champion means winner via playoffs or by most points in the regular season. Conyo14 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to point out to both of you that the period of this issue is from 1981–82 to 1992–93 seasons (much like with conference trophies being awarded for regular season from 1974–75 to 1980–81). I already quoted what NHL says about division winners. However, after a quick Google search I see that both the Islanders (regular season) and Devils (playoffs) have banners for winning the division in the 1987–88 season, with the addition of other teams who list either regular season or playoffs banners for winning the division. – sbaio 16:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hold on, the banner for New York's playoff champion for 1993 says "Patrick Playoff Champions." Also [13] gives some insight on whether it meant playoffs or regular season. Conyo14 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find a picture of the Capitals' banners here (except the Stanley Cup banner, which hangs at the end of the arena to the left above my seat): [14] It's easy enough to tell it's from this past season because of the videoboard tribute to Ovechkin's father, who died this past February. Interestingly, at one time in the past they had some "regular season conference champion" banners, but they eliminated those when they consolidated the different types of championships onto single banners. (That is, they used to have a separate banner for each division championship.) In terms of the reference to the Islanders, I guess the Caps could have hoisted a Patrick Division playoff championship banner for 1989–90, but they never have. 1995hoo (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conyo14's comments about the Islanders' banner got me interested in seeing it, as I have not yet made it to an Islanders home game. I found the following article from the New York Times (not paywalled as far as I can tell): [15] The interesting aspect is the following: "In the spring of 1993, the Islanders defeated Washington in the first round of the playoffs and stunned Mario Lemieux and the Penguins in the second to be the conference representative for the division formerly known as the Patrick. To honor the occasion, as many teams did, the franchise ordered a banner. But the N.H.L. did not officially recognize division titles won in the playoffs. In the eyes of the league, only the first-place team from the six-month regular season earned the right to have a banner. The N.H.L. told the Islanders they could keep the banner above the Coliseum ice for one year only." If that's accurate, presumably more information about it ought to exist somewhere. (Where, who knows!) 1995hoo (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger discussion at Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche seasons#Merger_discussionEdit

It has been proposed that the following articles be merged into the respective articles:

Please discuss on the talk page listed. Conyo14 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just bumping this up people's watchlists; additional discussion at Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche seasons#Merger Discussion would be much appreciated. CplDHicks2 (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dylan FabreEdit

Could someone take a look at Draft:Dylan Fabre. You can give me some feedback on the draft article and correct possible mistakes with grammar etc. Thanks --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed a few typos, "represented", no "c". Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!
I'm shocked. I have wrote the word "represent" wrong all this time :(
--Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 04:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made some copy edits regarding grammar, punctuation, and capitalization (and forgot an edit summary—my bad!)
I would recommend adding a source to each paragraph (see WP:TSI). I would also recommend adding an "International" section for his international play, as that's how most articles are structured.
  Well done on a detailed article! Wracking 💬 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM concerning IIHF tournaments, being heldEdit

See RM being held here. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM for Czech Republic → Czechia national teamsEdit

See discussion here.

Pinging @Triggerbit, Conyo14, GoodDay, and 162 etc.:, involved in above discussion. Wracking talk! 21:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]