Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive20

Ryan Kesler

Would someone mind watching over this article for the next while? I inadvertently violated the WP:3RR removing unsourced material that's borderline vandalism. Left a note on the user who did the first 2, Aducks4life, to find that he used an IP to leave the same comments. I wouldn't really care except that I am biased towards the article, being a Canucks fan and all, and there is no reference to the material, not to mention the users history consists of only a few random edits to hockey player articles accusing them of being dirty or whatnot. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll list it. I assume you're referring to the Pronger stuff? Grsz 11 06:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A reference is all I asked for, even though I still think it was a dirty hit by a dirty player. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was NPOV before he elaborated. I'm sure his intentions haven't changed. Grsz 11 06:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't violate 3RR. You need to make that 4th revert to violate it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even better then. Saves me some trouble. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Penguins and Echo Project

The Penguins article on the French Wikipedia here has reached feature article status. Is there anybody you is able and willing to translate atleast some points of their article? Grsz 11 06:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they must have much lower standards than the English wiki, because there are several unsourced statements, and quite a few small nitpicky things that would get a failure here (like spaces between the text and citations). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sammy Pahlsson

What is the policy on nicknames? I'm not sure where the policy note is. I found a cite for Sammy for Samuel Pahlsson, but I've been reverted. Alaney2k Alaney2k (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't generally use nick names that are only adding a y etc to their name because almost everyone has been called something like that at one time or another. A nick name is generally something like The Great One, The Next One or Sid The Kid. -Djsasso (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion on our talk archive 15 on the subject List of hockey nicknames but I dont know if there has been a nickname guideline written out. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be written out somewhere, then, or I won't be the last to do this sort of thing. Anyway, if a nickname like Sammy is in common usage, over Samuel, why should we disallow it. I saw thousands of Google references. Seems different enough. Is it not 'encyclopedic', what? Alaney2k (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a section on nicknames on the player page. "The use of nicknames that are simple diminutives is discouraged." I don't know more than that. Does that sum it up? Do we need an example? Alaney2k (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Archy Farefax

I was going through the Montreal Canadiens players category and found an article on Archy Farefax. However I couldn't find any record of him at hockeydb.com, legendsofhockey.net, Total Hockey, NHL Encyclopedia, etc. Is this article a hoax? Does anyone have any information on his career? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing a quick search, it appears that this is a total hoax. There is no mention of this individual on any roster for the Canadiens or Maple Leafs. I'll prod the article. Resolute 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a hoax, I just did a pretty extensive search. -Djsasso (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

HHOF main page report

Yesterday the Hockey Hall of Fame garnered approx. 23,000 views while on the main page. [1] This is a bit on the low side, most TFAs have three times that amount of views. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, the TFA two days before, had 82,000 views and the day after was viewed by by 21,000 people. As for the actual article, it was relatively stable with controllable amounts of vandalism and no major changes and there was little talk page activity (which is quite different from past TFAs I've had on watch). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:BuffaloSabresRoster

This was created earlier today and added to Sabres players' biographies. While I'm not totally against the idea of having something like this at the bottom of current NHLers' bios:

1) It is redundant with Template:Buffalo Sabres Roster, and 2) I believe past conversation here has frowned upon putting these templates on player pages

Comments? Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's redundant, and as per all of the previous such templates, I'd oppose it on the team rosters as non-defining. Resolute 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD removed and redirected it per the previous discussions. -Djsasso (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New possible templates

Crossposted from Template talk:NHL Team

In trying to merge the current season link into the template, I made three test templates which are located at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox1 (go down to see the other two). The last two are based on the football (soccer) infoboxes which I think are much cleaner. What do others think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is still that we should have one template for all ice hockey teams. We have one template for all players, active and retired, why should we have a template for 30 NHL teams, 12 for Elitserien teams and so on? --Krm500 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a different discussion. This is a discussion about how the current NHL template looks. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, if we're updating the template it's definitely something that should be discussed. I like the 2nd template the most btw. --Krm500 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, the reason the current template looks like it does is cause we tried to standardize it for all pro teams. So if we are going to discuss changing it we should discuss changing it for all. -Djsasso (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The CASH Line

The article has been moved from my sandbox into main space. Not by me. I don't think they are any more notable, than previously. I was working on the article, for possible submission 'sometime', but not anytime soon. Do what must be done. Alaney2k (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat LaFontaine

The Pat LaFontaine article has a lot of content, but, needs cleaning up, and POV removing. It also needs an infobox and a photo. This is a potential good article with some work. Flibirigit (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the infobox, but this Hockey Hall of Famer needs alot of copyediting. Flibirigit (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention with dashes

Should Telus Cup - Offensive and Telus Cup - Defensive be moved to Telus Cup–Offensive and Telus Cup–Defensive, or some other combination of spaces and long dashes? Flibirigit (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Or shoud we merge Telus Cup - Offensive and Telus Cup - Defensive into Telus Cup (QMJHL)? Flibirigit (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted they are two separate awards handed out. Flibirigit (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we could merge them, but it probably doesn't matter either way. Incidentally, WP:MOSDASH says to use en-dashes in article titles, with dashed redirects. But, it isn't really followed anywhere that I can see. I couldn't imagine moving about 1,000 season articles, for instance. Resolute 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: When you edit an article, a box is displayed below with symbols. In the section that says "Insert," which comes first, the "en-dash" or the "em-dash"? I can't tell the difference.Flibirigit (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

the endash (–) comes first. the emdash (—) is second. You can also use Alt+0150 to produce an endash. Resolute 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

I was thinking that it might be appropriate to send out another newsletter detailing what the project has done recently. It's been a few months since someone wrote one, and a lot of stuff has happened. It would be a good way to get all members up to date on the doings of the project. Thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's funny; I just had the same thought today. I would be willing to help out. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I won't need to do everything this time. :-) What topics? FT completed, 4 new FAs, a bunch of FLs..? Maxim_(talk) 00:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Add in the formation of the Bruins taskforce, that the HHOF was on the mainpage, the various goings on that are happening, etc. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay! AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic was passed for GA, so that can be included, too. -- bmitchelf•T•F 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article for Ice Hockey prospects

Does anyone know if you have an article to explain what Category:Hockey prospects lists? We currently have Prospect (sports), but it doesn't say much. Since the NHL Entry Draft is built on prospects, we should have such an article. Flibirigit (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read at the top of the category, it explains exactly what the criteria is. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Prospect (sports) is an unsourced article. We cannot use the category's criteria as a source. Currently the article is a stub with POV. I believe we have a strong hockey project here that can either improve the current stub, or write a specific a Ice hockey prospect article. It would related to, but distinct from junior ice hockey. Flibirigit (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Henrik Lundqvist

I've posted some at the Article Improvement but haven't got any replies so I'll bring it here. I'm currently working on the Henrik Lundqvist article, and would like some help and feedback. I think the article has potential to get to at least GA status (maybe even further?), but it's not comprehensive enough yet. --Krm500 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Would a low-res average-quality picture in the Frölunda dress from 2004-05 be useful? Thats about all I can help with at the moment. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! I've been searching for a picture of him while playing in Frölunda. Congratulations on the win today btw! --Krm500 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded and added to the Frölunda section. Feel free to move it around for better balance. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a missing citation in regards to his nickname. I spent some time looking for a source of "King Henrik", but couldn't find anything definitive in my limited time earlier. Although I did see other references to a Swedish soccer player with the same nickname. Could this be the origin of it at all? Kaiser matias (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt we will find a source for the origin, but I've heard it since he started playing for the Rangers, and it is certainly an established nickname. Henrik Larsson is the soccer player. --Krm500 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the fact that Lundqvist is called King Henrik. My only issue is in the lead it gives an explanation with no source. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic this came up as I just read that his nickname is The King in The Hockey News this morning. It actually labled it his nickname in brackets. So once I figure out how to cite a print source I will add it in. -Djsasso (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind looks like its already cited. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For future cases; Template:Cite paper. --Krm500 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Levesque

Chris Levesque was created today. While it is a pretty cool story...

1. I've removed the player from Category:Vancouver Canucks players and List of one-gamers in the National Hockey League, as he obviously should not be included in either. I left a comment about the removals on the article creator's talk page.
2. I have to question the notability of the player, since technically he never played professionally (see Chris Levesque career statistics at The Internet Hockey Database).

Comments? Skudrafan1 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, he did play a game. Just the way goalie games are counted are different from skater games. Skaters get counted as having played a game if they dress even if they don't play, unfortunately goalies do not because of the Win PCT stat. Personally I do think he should be in those Categories/Lists. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I posted on the article creator's talk page, the Buffalo Sabres media guide lists nine goalies who dressed for games but never officially took the ice for the team. I'm sure the numbers for other franchises are similar, if not larger. I just think including these players muddies lists of team's all-time players. hockeydb does not list Adam Dennis and Markus Ketterer (just to name the two who have Wikipedia articles) on its list of all-time Sabres players, not to mention it not listing Levesque on its list of Canucks players. That is the official source on the NHL player lists. So either the source we use needs to be changed/supplemented, or we need to not try to trump hockeydb. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He is on the NHL's list of players NHL.com so quite honestly, I don't see how we can make a judgement call and not list him as one. As for 9 players on the Sabres and similar numbers on other teams. I think that is an extremely low number and wouldn't in the slightest muddle up the lists/cats. -Djsasso (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC

By the way, the media guide lists them simply as a footnote at the end of its all-time roster, not as actual members of the roster (Buffalo Sabres 2007-08 media guide, p. 187). I realize that using the Sabres as an argument is a bit tangential, but I just feel this example aids my argument that players like this are footnotes in a team's history at best. You'll notice that the NHL.com biography doesn't say anywhere that he ever played for the Vancouver Canucks -- it just says that he existed. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true, because goaltenders aren't give a GP unless they step on the ice. I have no problem leaving him off the list, but I think he should be in the Category. -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could live with it. :) In fact, I wouldn't even mind seeing players like this listed as footnotes on all-time team rosters, sort of like what I've had here in my user space for reference purposes. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah Chris Levesque. I remember that night so well. It was quite the story. Actually brought up again back in December when the Penguins made their first visit back to Vancouver since that game.

While this seems to be notable as I can't think of any other occasion for this to have ever happened, he doesn't appear on any Canuck team lists from the Canucks all time roster. Keep in mind that several other teams have listed back-up goalies even if they haven't played a game. I think the article should stay; he definetly was notable. However, he didn't qualify to play, as there is no record of him from the NHL anywhere, so he should be removed from the various categories and lists. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool story, I don't mind the article, but I've chosen not to include goaltenders who hasn't played (for Frölunda) in game in the "list of players". Though I think he should be categorized as a Canucks player. --Krm500 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the NHL does list him in their list of NHL players NHL.com -Djsasso (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply as a matter of technical accuracy. He would have appeared on a game sheet as the backup goalie despite not playing, and that would have to be linked. Levesque never played in the NHL. As such, he doesn't fit the categories, imo. Hell, if anything, I'd suggest redirecting his article to the appropriate Vancouver Canucks season article. His story was a cool one, but that's all it is: a cool story. Resolute 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He signed a one-day contract, was put on the roster, was on the score sheet, and is on the NHL's website. For all intents and purposes, he was a player in the NHL, even if just for one day. I could easily see this article in a hockey compendium/encyclopedia, and really, rules are meant to be broken. That being said, I don't really care about the list/category thing- I was just tossing in every category I could think of.-Wafulz (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he should just be in the category for Canucks players because he officially suited up as a player in one of their games. He didn't play in the game, so I don't think he can be considered for the list of one-game players. -- bmitchelf•T•F 05:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a Peek

At the 'Teemu Selanne' article on Finnish Wikipedia. Very interesting stuff, Keith Tkachukin, Alexei Zamnovin, Steve Shieldsiim, Jeff Frieseniin? are spelt -incorrectly- there. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they are spelt correctly because those are called translations. Go look at the discussion above where it was explained what those are and what they are called. As was mentioned to you before that is completely different than simply removing diacritics. -Djsasso (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no word 'spelt'. The word is 'spelled'. No? Alaney2k (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Its called slang... Stop trying to poke the bear. (although according to dictionary.com Spelt: A past tense and a past participle of spell.) -Djsasso (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'double' standard is heartbreaking: Tkachukin is allowed at Finnish Wikipedia, but Selanne isn't allowed at English Wikipedia. I was quite disappointed by what I discovered. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My advice is - just look away. My opinion is that the Wikipedias of smaller languages are often less structured, more wild. This is the reason I am active mainly on the English wiki, and less often do editing on the Swedish Wikipedia despite me having lived in Sweden all my life. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But, you do understand the frustrations for editors like me? GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While I hate and keep out of the diacritics argument, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder why (just to pick one example) Sandis Ozolinsh redirects to Sandis Ozoliņš. This is not a simple example of using diacritics; this is an example of a name that is being used in a form that is not easily recognizable by English readers. Is this not a case where we should "translate"? Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I would probably change that one as well, I wasn't involved in the changing of that one. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see the articles have correct names. I do not speak Finnish, but I think those are just spelling rules, since they all end with in/im, not translations. Like 's is used after names in english. And GoodDay... Seriously? --Krm500 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh Krm. You know what I'm wishing for, at the NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a so called double standar you're looking for, take a look at the [lv.wikipedia.org Latvian Wikipedia]. As an example, Joe Sakic is known as Džo Sakiks. It took me a moment the first time I saw this to understand just what was said. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually just went to the fin wiki and looked, and unless I am looking in the wrong place none of those names are spelled that way. In fact two of them doesn't even have a page. -Djsasso (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok nevermind I see where you saw it, but the pages themselves are spelled in the way a english speaker would recognize so KRM is probably right thats similar to adding a 's or something like that. -Djsasso (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, one could at least argue -keep dios out- of hockey articles content (if not the title). I know 'each' linguistic Wikipedia does it's own thing, but one can understand my reaction to my findings (at Finnish Wiki). GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to even consider your arguement when you don't actually know what the im/in mean in finish. So no I do not understand your reaction in the least. When you understand the Finish language and know what im or in adds to a word then I might be able to understand. -Djsasso (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So after some research I found the following at wiktionary. A variant for the first-person singular possessive suffix. So KRM is indeed correct it just is adding possessive to the name as you would in english with 's. eg. GoodDay's dog ran away. So this is not a different spelling of the name at all. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What of the other Linguistic Wikipedias? GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about them? I have always supported the translation of names on English wikipedia. Again, not the same as diacritics. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

'George W. Bush' (for example) is spelt incorrectly on Japanese Wikipedia. Remember, you did say spellings 'without dios' are incorrect spellings on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read japanese symbols to figure out they used the wrong ones? I am impressed. If not, they my guess is it is spelled correctly since they use a different alphabet. We do the same thing. For example Pavel Bure's name is actually spelled Павел Владимирович Буре. You keep ignoring the fact that I say a translation is correct, and that removing diacritics is not a translation. -Djsasso (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An you (plural) continue to ignore the fact that Teem Selanne and/or Trebec are 'most commonly used in English. You're also ignoring the compromises' call for dios being removed from North American hockey articles & you've also ignored the 'vote' (last year) which favoured taking dios off the NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the discussion we had was player names. The tittle of the section I believe even said in player names. It was pointed out the last god knows how many times that you have brought this up that all that was ever agreed on was that they would be removed from player names on NHL articles based on the fact that the jerseys didn't have them. Never was cities brought up until after the fact when you noticed that people reverted you. Oh an as for forgetting the compromise, I have removed diacritics from NA articles, you even posted on my talk page about being impressed how I do that, so stop trying to smear me. Do you honestly not notice it seems like you come off trying to cause trouble within the project? And not even just this project, I have noticed other people from other projects getting upset at you for poking at fires and making them worse. Everything was calm here again and then you had to stir the pot as usual. -Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you pro-dios so afraid of a 50/50 split? Masterhatch is correct, the pro-dios (years ago) moved articles to dios & added dios to content without discussing it first. It was indeed (as Masterhatch said), an underhanded takeover. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

PS- You did not remove the dios from all the NA hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there is an overriding decision higher than the project that cities keep their diacritics unless there is a translation. As a project we can't over ride that. How many times do you need to be told a project doesn't over ride the rest of wiki. Secondly its not my job to remove them from all the articles. I do not edit diacritics unless I notice someone overtly changing them from one to the other. I have said a million times I have better things to do than to "police" diacritics. If you want them removed from all the player names in NA articles go do it. You realize you are making diacritics to be a war and crap, but its only the xenophobic people such as yourself that are really getting worked up about it. Is it affecting your life that much? -Djsasso (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the 'player pages'. I'm talking about the NHL team pages. And again, please note I've not edited anything out on the team articles. Also Ignore should be invoked 'concerning' the aforementioned NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You said NA articles, I am taking that to mean team pages and NHL related pages etc. I don't add them...I don't remove them. I am only even involved in this "debate" to keep you from edit waring with everyone else who edits wiki like you were doing in the past before the compromise. As far was WP:IGNORE goes. That goes for when going by a policy would conflict with common sense, but that isn't apropriate in this case as common sense says to leave the cities in their proper names since they are proper nouns. If everyone just ignored every policy they didn't like nothing would work on here. -Djsasso (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I better just drop it. There's alot of editors out there who agree with me, but for their own reasons (and I don't begrudge them) aren't standing with me. I'm out numbered & it sure stinks. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Yetman

Patrick (a Canadian) is playing for Modo in Sweden. Is that enough for notability? Alaney2k (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He's played AHL here. That's his highest level in N.A. Alaney2k (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MODO is a pro club, so yes and AHL is pro as well so he is good to go. -Djsasso (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MODO is also at the elite level of a national league (Elitserien), he easily passes WP:N. Resolute 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevant discussion to WikiProject Ice Hockey

Please have a look at Template talk:Infobox Sports league#Current season field and football image. It regards league infoboxes and current seasons. Flibirigit (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent?

Why Montreal Canadiens (as opposed to Montréal Canadiens), but Marián Gáborik (as opposed to Marian Gaborik)? I don't think any English-speaking hockey fan has every seen Gaborik's name with accents except here at WP, but surely Montreal with the acute accent is common in many English sources? Srnec (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because its been a big war on here on whether or not they should exist. As far as the hockey project is concerned we aren't using diacritics for team pages, but are for player pages. Basically, it had to do with the NHL seemingly not recognizing diacritics, whereas players names are players names and the NHL has no say in that outside NHL related topics. It's a minefield that is often best left alone. -Djsasso (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Overboard

Is this really a necessary page? Grsz 11 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, I prod'd it. If anyone disagrees with the prod feel free to remove it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Update Template:European Ice Hockey Leagues to show leagues relative strength

I updated Template:European Ice Hockey Leagues to show the league's relative strengths, but the changes were immediately reverted. (My changes here). I think it's important to give an indication of strength/importance/rating in this kind of Template (like is done in Template:Professional Hockey or Template:National cricket teams. I used the qualifacation ranking used for the Champions Hockey League so that the ranking wouldn't be arbitrary, but as defined by the IIHF. The labels I chose for each level aren't great, but the IIHF hasn't given names to these. (They do refer to the "Top 7 Nations" but it's not very formal.) Maybe I should take the High, Mid and Low Level from Template:Professional Hockey? (Though I don't want to indicate that a Low Level is the same in Europe as in North America.) I do think that leaving this list as purely alphabetical is unfortunate, for people to want to know relative strengths of the leagues, and we do have a reliable, outside source for this now. It isn't contractual like the NHL/AHL, and while a league might be "promoted," this won't be an order that will change greatly every day (or even every year). It'll be more like when the AHL took over as the 'AAA' league from the old IHL. Can I make this change? OR will it just get reverted again? FJM (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against it, but getting consensus here first might be a good idea. --Krm500 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My only real concern with this change is whether we are adding our own POV into which European leagues are stronger than the others. In North American hockey, it is very clear that the NHL is the top, that the AHL is the top feeder league to the NHL, and that the ECHL is the secondary league. Everything else is below that. The lines are fuzzier wrt Europe. Resolute 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid that POV, I'm using the IIHF rankings, and basing the tiers on which leagues qualify for which level of the Champions Hockey League. So I am explicitly trying to avoid POV. FJM (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that sort of information belongs on this template. It's not a template for the Champions Hockey League. But I wouldn't get all upset if others felt it belonged there. -Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What sort of information is inappropriate? The relative strengths of the leagues? It's appropriate in the Template:Professional Hockey, even for the Mid- and Low-Levels, where the situation is not as cut-and-dried as, say NHL/AHL. The point of using the IIHF rankings (and the "tiering" used to select teams to the Champions Hockey League) is to avoid an arbitrary separation. But, it should be clear that the Swedish league is better than the Slovenian league (which are both better than the Spanish league. I agree that the template has nothing to do with the CHL. It just uses data from there to separate the leagues, as is done in many other Templates. FJM (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The ranking information would be better suited for something like Template:ChampionsLeague, since it would be in context. Whereas differentating the levels on a simple navigational box for the countries is not appropriate. I think a better discussion would be, whether or not to replace the current template with a Champions League template. However, since the Champions League would not include every single European country, it would defeat the purpose of having a navigational box for all Euro leagues. Flibirigit (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also having issues with Template:Professional Hockey itself, since many editors (mostly anonymous) decide to change the level of their league to personal liking. Flibirigit (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this is just a navigational template. As Flibirigit mentioned, this sort of thing would be better as a seperate Champions League template. The Professional Hockey template is the way it is because there is a clear cut difference in levels between the leagues, however as mentioned by Flibirigit they still get changed between the levels alot. I would prefer it just be left as a navigational template as it is now. -Djsasso (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this fascination with the Champions League. The goal is to differentiate the relative levels of the European leagues. I (obviously) think this would be better, and parallel the Template:Professional Hockey. The point of even thinking about the Champions League is to avoid the problems of self-promotion that Flibirigit is talking about, hopefully keeping fans from "upgrading" their favourite league. (I also don't see how a CHL template would work. We'll have to wait until a couple of actual seasons are played.) FJM (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think what I am saying the best way to avoid people doing that is to leave it out completely. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to iterate the reasons given about why not make this change (with my reasons for disagreeing):

• 1- "It's not necessary." I think it really adds something, making it easier to nagivate among the leagues, and there are many other navboxes that do it: Template:Professional Hockey, Template:National cricket teams, Template:National rugby teams.
• 2- "It'll be too hard to keep vandals/fans from changing the tiers." This is a classic WP problem. I thought I'd use the independent reference of the IIHF rankings, specifically how they tier the leagues for the CHL. That idea got blown out of proportion, but the basic goal was to minimize people changing teams in these tiers.
• 3- "This is too Champions Hockey League-specific. Put it somewhere else." This has very little to do with the CHL, just using the IIHF league rankings to minimize vandalism. Any kind of CHL template would be very, very different. (List of previous seasons probably.)
• 4- "The leagues in each tier will change too often." I doubt it. The Russian, Finnish, Czech + Slovak, Swedish and Swiss leagues have been the best leagues in Europe for 15 years. The fact that the German league is now considered to be (at the low-end) of this tier is the only real change since the split of the Czech and Slovak leagues. It might happen that #5 and #6 change places, but it's unlikely that a league will change tiers.

Djsasso and Flibirigit, which of these is your reason? Or is there something I missed? Anyone else? FJM (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how much easier it makes it. I think it makes it harder in a way, because now you can't just go alphabetically by the name and instead you are assuming the reader knows where the league would rank. And that is very much not the case, which would make it more frustrating to use. -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its much more confusing and difficult to use, and non-inclusive of all leagues. Flibirigit (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a mockup here User:FJM/TestEuroHockyTemplate (not all the links are right). It includes all the leagues (in the low level tier) that are not eligible for the CHL, so it's just as inclusive as the old version. But there is a 5th point to add:

• 5- "It's too hard to use." Is it a little bit harder? Yeah, sure. Is it as hard to use as Template:Professional Hockey? Or Template:Professional Baseball? I really don't think so. And, like those templates, it makes it easier to distinguish and compare leagues of a similar caliber.

One thing I'm not sold on is the labels: High, Med, Low. I copied that from Template:Professional Hockey to be consistent. Could you (all) weigh in on whether the tiered version is really too hard to use? Thanks. FJM (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again with the Pro Baseball (and the NA hockey one) there is clear defined levels, there isn't for leagues in Europe and there never will be. If you go by the rankings from the Champions League and try to actually list them as such it will make the template confusing. If you don't label it that you got the levels from there, then people will just move leagues around. I can see why you would like it, but I think the cons outweigh the pros in this case. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you even look at the mockup? Here's the link again: User:FJM/TestEuroHockyTemplate. I agree that the levels aren't as clear in Europe, but there are real levels. And you've brought up point #2 again. So it seems that you don't like it because #2 "Vandals will wreck it" and #5 "It's too hard to use". Could you please look at the mockup and compare the two versions side-by-side? FJM (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I did look at them, I don't see the benefit of making the change. I think the old version is far superior to the new mocked up version. I am saying that there is no benefit gained by making the template more complicated. If anything I would rather strip out the levels in the NA version to make it match the euro version than the other way around. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Howzit? Maxim_(talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job, Maxim. Although, a bit more proofreading would have helped ;) . Excellent work though; look forward to getting them regularly. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Always good to see. Wouldn't mind helping out if need be. Always nice to see my name come up in the newsletter, makes me feel like I'm important. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice I got the newsletter, but it looks really nice! Maybe we can get more featured pictures in the project before the next newsletter; Tomorrow I'll be photographing the Elitserien playoffs between Frölunda HC and Färjestads BK, in Löfbergs Lila Arena, Karlstad. The best playoffs series I've seen, the hated rivalry between these two teams make for hard hitting action in every game so far. And suspensions, look at this. Frölunda have been pushed out of our home arena Scandinavium because of the 2008 World Figure Skating Championships, instead we play at our old home, Frölundaborg, which features the best atmosphere in hockey. Just see this which was filmed 15 minutes before the game started! --Krm500 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help proofread next time if I have the time; there are a couple of simple things in there. I'm disappointed not to see my name, but I know the article is more important. I think you did a great job considering there was less information than before! -- bmitchelf•T•F 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 in ice hockey

Does anyone feel like creating 2008 in ice hockey? I might do it in the summer. Flibirigit (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstani Championship

Should the Kazakhstani Championship be classified as a European or Asian ice hockey league with respect to the List of ice hockey leagues, and Template:European Ice Hockey Leagues. Despite being in Asia, it appears to be closer linked to Europe. Flibirigit (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Geography of Kazakhstan is in both Europe and Asia. If one of the two continents must be chosen, then List of countries spanning more than one continent mentions that almost all of the country is in Asia. However, if at least one of the teams in the league is based in the European part of Kazakhstan, then the league probably is both European and Asian. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the applicable leagues in Kazakhstan and Turkey to both continents. Flibirigit (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkish and Kazakh clubs take part in the European cups. Note that Russia is also in both Europe and Asia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.123.131 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad Larsen

Brad was drafted by the Sens first in '95, then by the Avalanche in '97. How do we show this in the Infobox? Alaney2k (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't. I tried to work it into the box once, but it didn't look pretty. I usually just add the newest team into the Infobox and then make note of the older team in the prose of the article. Cause really only the second drafting counts. -Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do it using a line break and manual-creation of links... check out Nathan Paetsch, for example.Skudrafan1 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that isn't bad. I was trying to do that before and it never turned out that nice. Yup I would do it this way then. -Djsasso (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Alaney2k (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive20
Born	(1977-06-28) June 28, 1977 Nakusp BC, CAN
Height	6 ft 0 in (183 cm)
Weight	200 lb (91 kg; 14 st 4 lb)
Position	Left Wing
Shoots	Left
NHL team Former teams	Atlanta Thrashers Colorado Avalanche
NHL Draft	53rd overall, 1995 Ottawa Senators 87th overall, 1997 Colorado Avalanche
Playing career	1998–present

Using breaks, how about something like this. I personally think it looks a bit cleaner having two seperate draft statistics, versus putting both positions, and then both teams consecutively. You could even toss in another break after Ottawa Senators to give a bit of a gap. Comments? – Nurmsook! (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I like that way too. This is what I was trying to acheive when I was fiddling with it. Not sure why I never got it to work like this. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks great! Skudrafan1 (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Traded players stats

Do we put their full season stats in, or just their stats with that team? Or somehow note both? Grsz 11 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume in terms of a team season article? For the Flames articles, I have added only the stats with the Flames. I have contemplated going back and including the other team and overall stats as well, however, since that is how the media guide lists it for most seasons.

i.e.: something like:

		Regular season
Player		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	+/-
Joe Blow		72	45	42	87	63	29
(Toronto)		10	7	5	12	21	3
(total)		82	52	47	99	84	32

Resolute 15:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a change to the Ron Francis article but I see it has been changed to a new format with the new teams year slightly to the right. I prefer my example;

				Regular Season						Playoffs
Season	Team	League		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM
1989-90	Hartford Whalers	NHL		80	32	69	101	73		7	3	3	6	8
1990-91	Hartford Whalers	NHL		67	21	55	76	51		--	--	--	--	--
	Pittsburgh Penguins	NHL		14	2	9	11	21		24	7	10	17	24
1991-92	Pittsburgh Penguins	NHL		70	21	33	54	30		21	8	19	27	6

--Krm500 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like it better the old (above) way instead of the indented way...it's the way it's traditionally done. I mean, I've actually never seen it the indented way anywhere else. --Smashville^BONK! 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I like each team having a year next to it, even if they played for two teams. It just looks so much cleaner that way. There was a big discussion about this on the Player Page layout talk page with a tonne of examples. -Djsasso (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada vs. Switzerland by 1928 Olympic Medal round

Why does a Canadian team become 13 points? "0:4, 0:4, 0:3" ... 11 points. --Soregashi (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

According to tsn.ca, the final score in that game was, indeed, 13-0. Looks like the period-by-period score is incorrect. Trying to find a box score from that game. Resolute 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The official report of the 1928 Winter Games (online here, page 15) only gives the final scores in each game (and it reports a 13–0 final). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary Bettman

I've watchlisted this article for the predictable vandalism, but looking at it, this article really is in deplorable shape. And hell, given the length of the criticism section in comparison to his personal info, might fall into the wrong side of WP:BLP as well. This is on top of a litany of weasel words, factual inaccuracies, editorializing and POV garbage that it is rife with. Given Bettman has been one of the most influential people in recent NHL history, I think we really need to put some effort into cleaning this article up. I'm going to look toward rewiting it in the near future, but if anyone else wants to help, that would be appreciated. Some good sources would be great. Resolute 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to the position he holds, he is going to face a lot of criticism. How do you have the criticism discussed, without the 'weasel words'? Now, that's a dilemma? Alaney2k (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've completed a rewrite of the article, removing the weasel words, I hope. The two biggest things I aimed for was to balance the criticism with praise (as he has done good things for the NHL), and to make sure all of it is sourced. I still have to add some words about the Olympics deal (probably under television), but otherwise, I don't think I've missed any major concepts. If someone could take a look, that would be appreciated. Resolute 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Current and future event templates

I notice that User:Kildor is removing Template:Current and Template:Current sport citing Wikipedia:Current and future event templates as a reason. I believe since the league in in playoffs, that the current status is valid. Flibirigit (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the urge to revert all of it. He really has no justification. WP:CAFET doesn't apply here. Grsz 11 03:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My reason for deleting it is given at Template:Current guidelines:

• This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors.
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template.
• It is expected, when used properly, that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days.
• If you desire that an article be noticed as a topic about or related to a significant current event, see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works.

If you believe that these guidelines are wrong, please discuss it at Template talk:Current. --Kildor (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Season articles ARE updated daily by many editors, constantly wanting new statistics and results etc. This constant updating lasts all season, not just a couple days. Flibirigit (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

They weren't tagged with current templates, they were tagged with current sport templates. Guidelines in one cannot apply the same to the other. Grsz 11 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of his edits have been reverted anyways. If its going to be debated you might as well do it at the talk page for the template itself. But I am in agreement. The whole reason for that template is for league and team seasons etc. -Djsasso (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reflists

This isn't just for hockey, but I've noticed the references lists are now this larger, less aesthetic, ugly text. Anyone know the reason behind this? -RiverHockey (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrm...actually they are a shorter template now {{reflist}} instead of a bunch of html code. -Djsasso (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reflist code now looks like the old /references did. Even more importantly, someone messed up the template for infoboxes, or something, as they are all now situated at the top left of the page (before the text) instead of aligned to the right, resulting in an uneven and unsightly look. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing either of those issues, are you sure its not the settings on your computer. Maybe you changed the resolution on your monitor or something? -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, im on firefox, i will check with ie to see if it appears the same. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears normal with ie, don't know why it appears different in Firefox. Never did before. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will have to check my firefox when I get home. I only have IE at work. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am running Firefox 3 without these issues. Alaney2k (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here, it seems back to normal now. Just had me worried for a moment. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing "records" articles when a record is broken

We need to reconsider the current rule on not updating articles until the NHL season is done. For the most part, it is a good idea. Usually it is just IPs that edit only the stats of their favourite player, bump them up on an all-time scoring list, and neglect to update other active players, which can distort the order of the lists.

However, when a player breaks a league or franchise record, it is perfectly reasonable to update our "records" articles. An example is Calgary Flames records, since Iginla has broken the records for games played and goals scored. The fact is, those records are broken, even if the season is not over. The purpose of the page (to show records) should take precedence over the purpose of the rule (to avoid confusion). To not update the record is confusing—and therefore counterproductive to the current rule—because most users don't know about this project and its rules.

I propose we use this rule: Don't edit an article until the season is over, except when a league or franchise record is broken. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that there is a comment right at the bottom that says as of the end of 2006-07 season which you didn't update when you changed the table causing the dates and records to not match. It is exactly for these instances that we have this rule. If you update one record you have to update them all and all the active leaders as well. And if you do it for one team you have to do it for every team or they will be out of synch. And then suddenly all the numbers are as of some random game in the middle of the season. What would probably be easier to do is place a note at the bottom of the table indicating that the record was broken during the season. This is what we do on the milestones list. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's best to wait until the 2007-08 season has ended, before making any such updates IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a quick reply. I should have made a note saying "^‡ Iginla broke these records in the 2007-08 season". If your project is only maintaining these articles for fellow members of the project, then I don't mind waiting to update. I suppose that is for you guys to decide. But if you are open to the possibility that many more users (both registered WP users and anons) might use this article as a reference point, then I think we should let records be put on the record (which is why they are called 'records'). If a player scores 50 goals in 38 games, will we wait the final 44 games to update? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more for the fact that some records would inevitably be correct and some would inevitably be incorrect if we just let them be updated at any random time. If you keep it static to a specifc time frame them you know that all the information on the page was correct. But if you only update Iginla's record and not the other records on the page you suddenly throw the confidence users will have in the page out the window. -Djsasso (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the Flames article. That's a compromise I am willing to accept. I'm glad we could work it out. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I wish we could be up to date with the numbers so I am totally willing to compromise. But I just know there were lots of inaccuracy issues when we just let stats go willy nilly. -Djsasso (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to listing updated records on the records pages. You would have to impose some sort of rule over updates to Records pages. Something like a separate section where those changes go. Because those new records will need a separate ref tag, whereas the old ones all will or can come from one source, the media guide. I would think we need both the old and new record listed until the end of the season. And of course, those new records should be mentioned in the season page. Alaney2k (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now linked the footnote on the chart to the specific section of the 2007-08 Calgary Flames season page that lists all the milestones and records set during the season. That way they can read more if they so choose. -Djsasso (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the compromise as it stands now. The only problem with updating the records midseason, is to ask if you intend to change Iginla's games played and goals scored every night? It's far too much overhead. This works better, imnsho. Resolute 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do as you all wish. As somebody pointed out to me (weeks ago) WikiProjects can't control articles. It's up to individual articles to decide there own make-up (I found that out today at Scotland, much to my dissapointment). -- GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, we can only state what we think is best case. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving of national hockey teams

I notice that User:CWY2190 has moved many national team articles. Was there a consensus to have everything listed as "ice hockey" as opposed to just "hockey." The reason for the move was per WP:NC. The sport is known as hockey in the USA and Canada, just as football is known as soccer in the US and Canada.

1. Canada national women's hockey team‎
2. United States national women's hockey team‎
3. Canada national men's hockey team‎
4. United States national men's hockey team‎

Any comments? Flibirigit (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No it should still be ice hockey, as we do have field hockey teams here, even if the common usage is just hockey it would be an ambiguous name. -Djsasso (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, ice hockey is the common form on Wikipedia because there are several types of hockey. While I can buy the argument that for these teams, hockey is assumed to be the ice version rather than field, sledge, etc., but for the sake of consistency, I think they should remain with the qualifier of "ice" hockey. Resolute 21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating Template:Professional Hockey

The following section is also archived at Template talk:Professional Hockey.

I am pondering some changes to this template. First, I would like to convert the current table format to a collapsible navbox format, as was done with everything else at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Navboxes. I'm also going to suggest including defunct professional leagues, such as the World Hockey Association, and the International Hockey League (1945-2001). I think this would make it more complete, and consistently formatted. Flibirigit (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you start adding defunct leagues it will become messy, as there are tonnes of leagues that were at their time the equivalent of what we look at the IHL to be. I have no problem with making it colapsible, but I don't think you should add the defunct leagues in. -Djsasso (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of keeping defunct league in a separate group. The current leagues at the top, defunct leagues at the bottom, and the whole thing would be collapsible. I'm going to play around with a test page for it the box with and without defunct leagues. Flibirigit (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means give it a go. :) -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a test template below, without any levels. I'm working on the display if we wanna put levels in. Flibirigit (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are two more test templates located at User:Flibirigit/template. Any feedback? Flibirigit (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Test box 1 might look better if the High/Mid/Low Level headings were group items instead of list items. Test box 2 might have the same problem but it could become very tall. The Major/Minor League headings draw my attention before I see the Defunct Leagues group/sideheading. Current Leagues lack a group/subheading so those become a bit diffuse. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

I've bascially scrapped some other ideas and replicated the previous template, and converted it to a collapsible navbox format. Have a look at {{Professional Hockey}}. I hope this is a good solution. Flibirigit (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor-pro team subpages

I've take a keen interest in the Victoria Salmon Kings, and was just wondering, would it be notable to create subpages to the article like we see for NHL teams? For instance, a List of Victoria Salmon Kings players or records page. I noticed that there exists a List of Philadelphia Phantoms players, an AHL team. However, that's the AHL still a level above ECHL. Basically, I'm just not too sure if it would meet notability standards. I thought I should bring this issue here so I don't create a deletion mess. Any thoughts? – Nurmsook! (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically since the players would be notable (all pro players are) you could definately do it. The only concern with that level of detail for an ECHL team is finding info to make the list complete. Would you be able to find all the players who only played one game etc. But as far as records, you could definately do it, seperate records pages etc though are usually the result of the team page itself becoming to large so if there is room on the team page I would leave them there untill the team page is too large. -Djsasso (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I definately think it's possible to do a complete list. Fortunately, the team is relatively new (2004-05 ECHL season), so the list of players found on hockeydb is accurate. Thanks for the input! – Nurmsook! (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Legendsofhockey

I notice that {{Legendsofhockey}} will only work for regular players, not enshrined players. Please see comments at Template talk:Legendsofhockey. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Plante

I've worked on this article bit by bit for the past few months. Risker finished copyediting this article, and before I submit it over to FAC, I was wondering what project members think. Thank you for taking your time to look over it, Maxim_(talk) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article, nice to see a HHOF member close to FA status. A small thing that I would personally do, but probably not necessary, is expand the external links section. I try and provide links to hockeydb, Legends of Hockey, and the NHL.com player page. Again, thats just a personal preference, and shouldn't really have any effect on an FA nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried that Kaiser... see the discussion below! Flibirigit (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw that right after I wrote the above. Hopefully a solution can be arranged. The NHL profile link should still work though. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For my player FAs and GAs, I've usually cut down the see also and external links to a bare minimum. The hockeydb template is kinda useless, the stats included in the article don't change, the Legends of Hockey is totally pointless as it's redundant to the article and does NHL.com player page exists for Plante? Even if it did it would be kinda redundant to the hockeydb one which is already redundant to the stats section.Maxim_(talk) 12:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

hockeydb is redundant, I certainly agree, but for a hall of famer to have a link to his bio on the hockey hall of fame's website seems appropriate to me. I might link to legends of hockey, but that's about it. Resolute 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't you'd find anything new in the HHOF article as well. :-p Maxim_(talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the external links to LegendsofHockey. I find the legendsofhockey profiles informative and an alternate view of the biography, as well as the player photos available there. Flibirigit (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Is anyone up for an interview in the WP:Signpost for this WikiProject? If so, you can be slotted in for April 7. Regards, Rudget. 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pending my university exam schedule, I'd be up for the interview, unless someone else is more available. Recently found the interview section, and enjoy reading about other projects. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

University player alumni categories

What would be the project's consensus on categorizing players by alma mater? Such as by schools in the NCAA or CIS? Flibirigit (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is already done for most of the major universities. Category:Minnesota Golden Gophers ice hockey players for example. -Djsasso (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Seems to already be a standard. No different than junior alumni categories, I would think. Resolute 03:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on articles for the University of Toronto Varsity Blues alumni. Most Varstiy Blues alumni will be Canadian football players, then ice hockey players. What would be an approprate naming convention for a group of cats?? Flibirigit (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found Category:Toronto Varsity Blues ice hockey players. I'm not sure if its aptly named though. Flibirigit (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Emdashes

What is the current situation with the emdashes in scores and seasons. An GA reviewer recently wanted me to change all the - (hyphens) to – (emdashes). There are two ways to do that, eg. the HTML &emdash; and the input method of using Alt+0+1+5+0. The first method changes the underlying text. That is, I don't know what it does to searches. The second way is invisible and you can't tell during an edit. The other thing about the emdashes is that the team season articles' titles are not using them, just hyphens. Is there a mass move going to happen? Should the articles move to titles using the emdashes? Alaney2k (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an en-dash, not an em-dash. It should be used for scores, numeric ranges, etc. per WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Note the difference between 4–2 (correct) and 4-2 (incorrect). (An em-dash would look like 4—2, which is really wrong!) However, article names should continue to use the ASCII hyphen and not use unicode characters. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why continue with the incorrect titles, then? Alaney2k (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point; I was wrong. Per WP:MOSDASH, the article names ought to use the en dash, but with a redirect that uses a hyphen. The redirect would automatically be created with a page move. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the second link. I was wondering where I'd seen the endash policy before. Alaney2k (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Ice Hockey is to try to find time to review Alan Kulwicki and Matt Hardy. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

An Endash Bot

I am thinking of working on a bot to automate the use of endashes. I don't know of one already. It has to be careful to only work on clearly recognized places, such as changing 2005-06 to 2005–06, and game scores. Where it finds something like [[1950-51 NHL season]] it should change it to [[1950-51 NHL season|1950–51 NHL season]]. I don't think bots should change article titles, but maybe it would be okay. I am not a bot expert, but I am an experienced coder, so I think I can write a bot to do that simple procedure. Alaney2k (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

They tend to get changed on the fly anyways. Running bots is always tricky business. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with such a bot is that it can't be automated as websites use plain dashes between numbers, and an endash will mess it up. Although, this account was created so my edits won't be messed up by massed of dashfixes (javascript), so you can give me articles you want me to look at. :-) Dashing Maxim (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that was what I meant but couldn't think of how to explain it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? I think the code can be specific to find the places where endashes are to be used in articles. Of course, it has to avoid a lot of places, like URLs and references. But we have a lot of tables with scores, and lots of articles with scores that are wrong according to Wikipedia. And it is impossible to use some simple search and find; that's why it would have to be a bot, IMHO. Alaney2k (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually its working quite fine with a simple search and find right now. The problem with a bot is that it wouldn't be able to tell if it was being used in URL or not. Or in places that you don't want it to switch. Bots aren't easily able to recognize the difference. Search and Find however on AWB has been working fine for me. Only problem is I have to manually change back to hyphens the wikilinks to other wiki's that aren't using them in their titles. -Djsasso (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Fred Bradstadt has a script specifically for this task. If you ask nicely he will help. Flibirigit (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signed prospects

Is there a proper place in a season article to note that the team signed a prospect? Nick Johnson was signed by the Penguins, and will play the rest of the season in the AHL. Grsz 11 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we list them, based on all the season articles I have seen we only put signed free agents and trades as far as transations go. -Djsasso (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators today signed Jesse Winchester (not the singer) as a free agent from Colgate and I added that to the Free Agent acquisitions section of the 2007-08 season article. He is supposed to play a few games for the Sens before the end of the season. There are no roster size limits until the end of the season. I've an article for him in my sandbox ready for when he plays a pro game. Alaney2k (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Team Notability

I don't really know much about Ice Hockey and I was wondering if amateur teams such as Minnesota Thoroughbreds have generally recieved the coverage required to establish notability. Sorry for the trouble. Guest9999 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would say definitely not. I wouldn't even say the league is notable enough to have an article, let alone individual teams within it. Skudrafan1 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they are a minor hockey team... they need to be at least at the Junior hockey level. DMighton (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Stastny

Modeled on Joe Sakic, this passed GA but I sort of consider that that was almost a waste of time, as frankly, it seems to satisfy FA criteria. Any comments/concerns? Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another photo might make it look a little better, but other than that, it passes my weak judgement. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no free photos available. If you can make one or more, that would very nice. Maxim_(talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use a promotional photo of a person in an article, but it was deleted. Pictures of a living person have to be public-domain or clearly have permission granted. Strict admins. You could write to the Avalanche. You never know. Alaney2k (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no idea writing them, they wont and can't release photos under acceptable wikipedia license. Our only way of obtaining images are; 1) take them our self. 2) ask people on Flickr. I can't thank people enough for releasing their images, since the image policy (though understandable) is really unfavourable for photographers. --Krm500 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If I could get more photos, I would without a doubt. The only problem is I live several hours away from any NHL arena, and am only able to go to games a couple a times a year. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article looks great! I'd agree with the photo comment, and also, for the "See also" section, is it really necessary to include the lists of Colorado Avalanche players and draft picks, as those lists can be reached through the categories themselves, which in my opinion is all that really matters, as we should try to reduce any see also sections. – Nurmsook! (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the three see also links are very pertinent and are good articles to consult after this one. But see also's are really a matter of opinion. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very true ;-) Regardless, good luck if you put it up for FA. It'll have my vote! Cheers! – Nurmsook! (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. I've nominated it here. Maxim_(talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Insignias pages

I was wondering if we consider adding an 'insignias' (rather than logos) page as a standard, but optional, part of article sets for teams. If we are to have History articles, I am not sure if it is best to put the insignias history in the main team article, or put it all in a separate article, or have it in the history of article. It seems to me the 'history of' should focus on the team play, although it could have a section on logos, though then the logo images would all be in one spot. Alaney2k (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well insignias are part of the teams history, so it could go in there, I would normally think they would be their own section of the team page. Basically the way team pages work is everything goes on the main page of the team until the page is too big and something needs to be split off. The History section just seems to be the first section split off usually as it grows the fastest. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New external link template for biographies

We now have {{Legendsmember}} for linking Hockey Hall of Fame members to their biographies on Legendsofhockey.net. Flibirigit (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the automatic updating of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Articles?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Articles was vandalized yesterday (minor, easy fix), which made it pop up on my watchlist. I had it on my watchlist because I always liked going through after Watchlistbot updated it, so I could add categories and infoboxes and all that other good stuff to new articles that normally would just fly under my radar. I realized that I hadn't seen one of those automatic updates for awhile, so I checked the page's history Watchlistbot hasn't updated it since August 31. What's up with that? I'm not sure how to deal with a bot. Can someone kick-start this thing again? It's really a useful tool. Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist bot hasn't edited at all since then. Says its in a "short wikibreak" but it would be nice if somebody else could create a bot, or set an existing bot to do this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do a similar thing, but I use the following list. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ice Hockey articles by quality log as it updates about every other day with any article who gets the {{ice hockey}} tagged or changed. -Djsasso (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the link! Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Legendsmember

I've noticed that since I created {{Legendsmember}}, I overlooked the fact that the URL syntax for players, builders, and referees is slightly different. If there's no objections, I can request to have the protected template edited to have an option to chose between player/builder/referee, or create a second and third template for builders and referees. Please leave comments at Template talk:Legendsmember. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Akim Aliu

Player for London Knights. Might have played for Chicago Blackhawks (2nd rounder) in exhibition. He was involved in the Steve Downie hazing incident. Is he notable enough or should it be nominated for deletion? Alaney2k (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not notable yet. But being born in Nigeria is interesting. Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just prod it. No point in nominating him, this level of player gets prod'd fairly frequently. -Djsasso (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Recognized content

Just updated our featured content twice today (Jacques Plante and List of Columbus Blue Jackets players) and we now have 49 featured articles and/or lists, 13 good articles, 1 featured picture, as well as 36 did you know? articles, with more to surely come. I recall seeing a different project showcasing their content on a seperate page. Since our front page is now more than half full of this so-called clutter, I've been thinking that we should maybe create a subpage to showcase just how great we all are. It would help clean up the front page of the project, while keeping everything we've done in one spot. Thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like to see all the accomplishments directly when I come to the project page, but it would be interesting to see the example you are referring to. I think the whole front page could use a complete overhaul, maybe this would be part of that? --Krm500 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As I was writing this, I actually think that I was mixing up different parts of projects, so I don't think that this idea actually exists. Regardless, I wouldn't mind an overhaul of the project page, as it does look rather low-key. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To whomever has the ability, the new condensed boxes for featured content has messed up the other articles that are linked into the articles. That probably didn't come out properly, but I'm certain someone here will be clever enough to figure it out and fix it. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. On the page the TFA summary is being transcluded from, there were extra < /div > tags that were causing the formatting issues once they were slapped into the new table. I've removed them. Resolute 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Standings documentation help

I noticed that Alaney2k was moving the titles for the standings templates to conform to WP:MOSDASH, and decided to assist to complete the other divisions. The problem now is that the documentation for the templates did not move with them. I attempted to move the Central division and it did not appear, but if you click on "create" on the documentation line, it appears there. Anyone have any idea? Template:2007–08 NHL Central Division standings and Template:2007–08 NHL Central Division standings/doc both exist, but the documentation is not showing up. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have had to fix this a few times. I will fix it in two seconds. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it is fine. -Djsasso (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do the doc first, then the template. In one case I did it the other way around. Alaney2k (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I think the standings templates should link to the season articles as the most relevant article. I'd make the switch if nobody objected. Grsz 11 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Czechoslovakian Entry Draft before the 1981-82 NHL season?

Today I surfed legendsofhockey.net and found some information about Jiri Bubla and Ivan Hlinka, both hockey players of Czechoslovakian descent. By reading their respective articles it was said that both where claimed in a "Special Czechoslovakian Entry Draft" before the sttart of the 1981-82 NHL season. It was the first time I heard about that draft. Does someone have further information? Thanks! --Thomas ^✉ 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A draft of 2 players and they both went to the Canucks? ccwaters (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, if this draft only consisted of two players. It's just the fact that I've never heard about that before... --Thomas ^✉ 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically the Czechoslovakian Ice Hockey Federation released Hlinka and Bubla to play in the NHL and all the teams went crazy. They played together in HC Litvínov and were absolutely outstanding. So the NHL had a special dispersal (along the lines of what happened to Tom Seaver -- basically anyone who was interested in these guys or something) and Winnipeg got Hlinka with Bubla going to Colorado. Eventually the Canucks got both of them (they sent Brent Ashton and a 4th round draft pick in 1982 to Winnipeg. Winnipeg then traded Ashton to Colorado and their 3rd round draft pick in 1982 for Lucien Deblois) The next year there was going to be more (Miroslav Dvořák, Milan Nový, etc.), but the NHL said go ahead and take them in the regular draft because there was no formal agreement between the Czechoslovakian Ice Hockey federation and NHL. I don't know all the details, but I think this is the jist of it. Hope it helps. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! A "draft" for just two players. Funny!:D --Thomas ^✉ 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

When is a template too big?

I have to ask, when is a template too big? Or perhaps, too broad? I've recently noticed that {{Ontario Sports}} was created. Is Wikipedia in general accepting of huge geographically-based templates such as a province, as opposed to an institution-based navbox such as a league? Flibirigit (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that {{Ontario Sports}} would be redundant with {{Toronto Sports}}. I'm not if one is more appropriate than another? I'm also questioning at what point "List of sports team by georgraphy" becomes redundant with templates? Flibirigit (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That is incredibly large! I would say that is far too big. Perhaps we should start a discussion on the talk page about splitting it up into several templates for each sport, all interlinked? Resolute 04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Some templates do exist for those leagues. Flibirigit (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was created under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or just trying to complete a template for everywhere! See also, {{Alberta Sports}}, {{Quebec Sports}}, {{Manitoba Sports}}, {{New Brunswick Sports}}, {{Saskatchewan Sports}}, and all 50 United states. What I'm trying to get at... is it overtemplatization? I would rather see one template, redirecting to different leagues. Flibirigit (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't stand seeing several templates on the bottom of pages, let alone huge ones that contribute nothing to the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TCREEP also comes to mind. Flibirigit (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Carolina Hurricanes seasons

Hello, I brought Carolina Hurricanes seasons to FLC. Reviewers have come to a deadlock and I came here to solicit help and find consensus. The argument is if the page should include Hartford Whalers seasons as well or just Carolina Hurricanes. One reviewer thinks so; the other thinks the other way. The whole discussion can be found here. If you have proficiency at this, please contribute. Thanks, PGPirate 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, holy crap!

Somebody just successfully speedy deleted half of the damn OHA teams! Can I get some help here? DMighton (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have pointed out some sort of reference to what I was talking about: [2]. DMighton (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored them all, he can take them to afd if he wants to. He should not have marked them as speedy and then deleted them himself, it is generally frowned upon to delete your own speedies. -Djsasso (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Another problem is he killed a gazillion back links too... Everything's such a goddamn mess. I am extremely frustrated as you can probably tell. DMighton (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time at the moment to fix the back links. If you could just go through refeverting those that would be cool. I am headed out in a short while. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He has nominated all OHA Junior C teams for deletion. DMighton (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He is well within his rights to do this. If I were you I would add as many references as you can in the next couple of days. I know you look through microfilm etc for this info, so just cite some papers. As far as the back links go I reverted a bunch of them but they are not all done, but I am going for real this time so if you want to clear those up go for it. But as I mentioned I would work on putting some references on those teams. --Djsasso (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tomorrow off from work... so I should have time (for once) to do that today and tomorrow. DMighton (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

I was looking over this article today, and it does not meet the criteria for a Featured Article. A few problems that I noticed were:

1. Lack of citations. This is a huge problem throughout the article. Notably, the "Edmonton Oilers" section has no references. Likewise, most of "Los Angeles Kings" is unreferenced and "St. Louis Blues" has no references. "New York Rangers" has only one reference. Five citations isn't enough for a career like Gretzky's (not to mention the biography of a living person). In addition, all of the other sections except "Off the ice" need more citations.
2. Incorrect use of dashes. Hyphens are used in many places throughout the article where en dashes should be used instead.
3. References are not formatted correctly. All of them should have at least a title, publisher, url and accessdate.
4. References are placed incorrectly in the text. They should come after punctuation.
5. Some sentences are too abrupt and need clarification. For example, the first paragraph of the "Edmonton Oilers" section end with: "The rule was later changed." No explanation is given as to what change was made.
6. Copyediting by someone who has not worked on the article (at least in a while) would help catch some problems with writing conventions (punctuation, etc.).

I don't mean to criticize, but this article needs some work if it is to remain a Featured Article. I wanted to mention it to this project first, as I don't want to see the article delisted. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Canadien seasons

Some seasons are labeled XXXX-XX Montréal Canadiens season, and others XXXX-XX Montreal Canadiens season. There aren't redirects in a lot of cases from one to the other. But I was wondering if the article should be in the accented title or non-accented title? I think the city's official name uses the accent, so that would probably take precedence. It's a can of worms, I know. Alaney2k (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It was decided awhile back to use the accent for Montreal. -Djsasso (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disgree with the accent. The team article is named Montreal Canadiens. The season articles themselves, and categories et cetera should match the main article's name. Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The english title of the team is Montreal Canadiens. Child articles should follow the same formatting, imo. Resolute 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia-wide, by the bye, "Montréal" redirects to "Montreal."  RGTraynor  17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I thought the article title had the accent. Nevermind then yeah I guess we go that way then. Now that I think about it, I am thinking about the fact that we use the french spelling still for its name Canadiens when someone wanted to change it to the English version Canadians. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I would suggest, there is no objection to putting all the articles at the non-accented title and have redirects in the accented? Alaney2k (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that at Montreal Canadiens's top infobox, the secondary 'accented' name, will be omitted? since the non-accent name isn't at the French Wikipedia version. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop focusing so much on what other languages wikipedias are doing wrong and make sure this wikipedia does it correct. --Krm500 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my point; Does the Canadiens article have it correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit problems at Miracle on Ice

There is a possible edit war at Miracle on Ice using youtube videos as references, and POV regarding USA / Russian actions/reactions. Anyone care to take a look? Flibirigit (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Group renaming for categories with hyphenated dates

Since we are updating hyphens according to WP:MOSDASH, can we speedily changed category names (such as Category:North American Hockey League (1973-1977)), or should we do a large batch nomination for renamings? Flibirigit (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to be taking care of that in a bit as soon as I finished doing all the pages that were linked to this league, but if you want to do a group nom go for it but they could probably all be put under speedy rename as its non-controversial. Actually I will just cat redirect them and a bot will take care of it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the BOT sounds good. Could you also do a BOT for {{IHL (1945-2001)}} into {{IHL (1945–2001)}}? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New Playoff Bracket

A user wants to propose a new playoff bracket. His proposal however is only on one playoff page and it would impact a few hundred season and playoff pages if it were to change. Go make your opinons heard. Talk:2008_Stanley_Cup_Playoffs#Proposal_for_New_Bracket -Djsasso (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Player Stats

So when do we get the green light to edit the stats for players on playoff teams? Should we get a headstart now or are we waiting until June after the playoffs? Thricecube (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All regular seasons stats can be updated. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay!!! Though looking at some pages, I wish people would have the decency to find some sign of common table...just look at the stats for Maxime Talbot. I got scared away for awhile. Grsz11 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes... --Krm500 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At least that was close to the PPF guide. Have a look at Richard Lintner before update. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well look at the code, that's the disturbing part. --Krm500 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I pretty much redo the tables from scratch when I run into them like Talbot's. -Djsasso (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the code with some searching/replacing in notepad. Going to remove redundant links and maybe add totals. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Scott Stevens

I have just completed an overhaul of the Scott Stevens page, and am looking for peer review before it goes to GA/FA review. I'm also opening up to any Project members who want to look at it and fix it up a bit.Anthony Hit me up... 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Columbus Blue Jackets

Another team based WikiProject, this time for the Blue Jackets. --Krm500 (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Columbus Blue Jackets into this project as a task force. Flibirigit (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How about talking to the WikiProject creator first, or at least notifying him of this discussion before going through with it? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Inform him yes, but I think we already decided what to do in these situations the last time it happen. But I let it up to the admins to decide what to do. --Krm500 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, last time a WikiProject merged the talk section was called Bruins task force (currently visible far above on this page, perhaps soon to be archived). --Bamsefar75 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am the creator of WikiProject Columbus Blue Jackets, I only created it because I noticed other team based WikiProjects such as WikiProject Boston Red Sox. I would like to remain a seperate WikiProject (WikiProject Ice Hockey is big enough already), but if the admins decide to merge my project into a task force, then I will become a task force. 1bevingtonco (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Red Sox are (arguably) justified in having a separate wikiproject considering that team has over a century of history behind it. The Blue Jackets have been only around 8 years, so a WikiProject over such short-lived team with very little history or tradition is just a waste of resources and takes away from effort towards the main ice hockey wikiproject. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. WikiProject Hockey is way too big, and I believe that seperate WikiProjects would be a great idea. In adition NeoChaosX, you're not an admin, so there won't be any changes with the WikiProject for now. 1bevingtonco (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As a member of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Baseball, I can truly say things are much, much well run over here. Teams have to create there own wikiproject, because WP:Baseball, is too busy infighting. (I'm still the only really active user in WP:YANKEES). Becoming a task force isn't much different than becoming a separate wikiproject. The only difference is if something bad happens, you can come to the main project for help. Right now, you have less than 50 articles tagged, and I can only see a total of about 200-250 related articles right now, which is not enough for a separate wikiproject. In comparison, WP:YANKEES has about 1200 articles and WP:RED SOX has about 1600 articles. Your scope is too limited, please merge into the main wikiproject. BTW, discounting NeoChaosX opinion just because he is not an admin is a bad thing. Admins are not much different than regular users, they just have a few extra buttons. Anyone with an account, regular or admin, could move your page to a Wikiproject Ice Hockey page. BTW again, I am an admin. --Michael Greiner 13:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the decision to remain a separate project is made, the Jackets logo has to be removed from your project banner. Fair use images aren't permitted outside main article space, which includes talk pages. Regardless, whatever happens with your project, we're always available to help anyone working on hockey related articles. Resolute 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also have to mention, that most big projects do things this way for sub topics. In general a task force is its own project, but it helps to save on tag spam. There is absolutely no reason to have to have it called its own wikiproject when a task force is basically its own project. But it saves on talk page spam and it saves on standards wars because one project has a certain standard for something and the other project has another standard for something. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I don't see where you brought this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals when creating the wikiproject where consensus determines if your scope is large enough. Anyways I think it should be merged, task forces run mostly independently anyways. I will leave this here for a couple days to gain opinions, if consensus seems to indicate a merge is what is wanted then I will move it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes a task force would be much better in my opinion. Imagine what the Mike Sillinger article's talk page would look like otherwise.... --Krm500 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no further discussion and based on this and previous team based projects. I moved it to its own task force. However, I would like to add a graphic to the {{ice hockey}} template for articles like the Devils have. If someone could create CBJ and BOS (for the bruins) graphics based on the one for the devils. I will add them to the {{ice hockey}} template. -Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does work for Bruins? Should the border be dark? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that. I just can't use the logo due to non-free issues. I'll add that into the template in a few.-Djsasso (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well do one for Jackets too when I'm at it. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool template is all updated and they seem to be working fine on articles I just added the tag too. Will take a bit for the older articles to refresh. Thanks for your help! -Djsasso (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Krzysztof Oliwa for someone linked to all three task forces :) --Bamsefar75 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should fire up a Calgary Flames task force, just so I can add another banner to his article. heh. Resolute 18:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was totally thinking that myself. You'd have atleast 2 haha. -Djsasso (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Standings templates - how to distinguish playoff teams

Will the y, x, and e remain or will they be removed and the playoff teams bolded? I ask since I'm curious as to how playoff teams should be distinguished for other division standings templates from past seasons, such as Template:1967–68 NHL West Division standings. --Ulf17 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

100th Allan Cup

For those Senior Hockey junkies out there, including myself, I have created the 2008 Allan Cup article. Feel free to help out if you are interested. DMighton (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I hoping to get some photos when I'm at one of the games in Brantford. Flibirigit (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, that'll be pretty cool. DMighton (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When I'm researching older teams/leagues, I'm always a little sad that the Allan Cup has lost so much prestige. Hard to imagine a time when it was dead even with the Stanley Cup in terms of popularity. Resolute 05:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I really should look to create an article for the Bentley Generals. Any team once coached by Brian Sutter should have an article. Hopefully they represent the Chinook League well. Resolute 06:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... for me... both the Allan Cup and the Hardy Cup make me sad. Both once, but the Allan Cup more so, were considered amongst the greatest achievements you could have in hockey... heck, the winner of the Allan Cup used to represent Canada at the Olympics. For a while, the CAHA took pride in a challenge series between Allan Cup and Hardy Cup winners to determine a CAHA Grand Champion. All that could have been and used to be. DMighton (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Resolute. Too bad we don't have too many Quebec experts... because their Senior leagues are in desperate need of some recognition as well. DMighton (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All teams are in, Shawinigan Xtreme won game 7 of the LCH final tonight to clinch the final Allan Cup seed. DMighton (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

International Hockey League (2007–)

I am starting a dicsussion at Talk:International Hockey League (2007–) on where the league should be listed with respect to Template:Professional Hockey. Comments welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky Featured Article Review

Hello, this article, which falls under the scoope of your project, is currently listed as a Featured Article. I felt that there is sufficient reason to revisit this assessment, so I have listed it for a Featured Article Review. My preference is to see the concerns addressed and have the article remain at its current level, but some work its needed. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wayne Gretzky. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a 'to-do' list at Talk:Wayne Gretzky. The priority, I think, is to keep the FA status, and afterwards add relevant content. But if anyone is interested, take a look at the Talk page. I think all Hockey contributors, whatever their views on Gretzky would like to keep it at a FA level. (My thoughts are that we should work on several past greats, e.g. Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Ted Lindsay, etc. and get those to FA) Myself and User:Giants2008 have not worked on FA level articles, so we'd like some help, at least some input. Alaney2k (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

San Jose Sharks Task Force

I have created a task force at for San Jose Sharks contributors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/San Jose Sharks task force with three members. I will be updating the information on the main page. Thanks LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Post season results on Philadelphia Flyers seasons

Take a look at the post season results at Philadelphia Flyers seasons. After revamping the table, I figured I would abbreviate the team name and the playoff round (such as Conference Quarterfinals) so as to give the article a cleaner look. After finishing this I decided to post this suggestion to the three talk pages of the season articles I based my revamping on (Calgary, Carolina, New Jersey). The two responses I've received thus far said the non-hockey fan would be better able to understand the current format than the format I proposed. I don't really agree with this since whether it is COL or Rockies it links to the same place. Regarding abbreviating the playoff round, I did add a key for that. How is using the key to decipher that CF stands for Conference Finals any different from using the other key to determine that GF stands for Goals For? Thoughts? --Ulf17 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think I'm going to go ahead and bold all playoff series victories. --Ulf17 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on List of New Jersey Devils seasons, I think the abbreviations are unnecessary and confusing to non-hockey, or casual fans. There is no reason that I can see, to make the information harder to use. --Michael Greiner 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As a hockey fan, I prefer the format of the Calgary, Carolina, and New Jersey articles. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How does it look now? I got rid of the abbreviations except for the teams, made the font smaller (75%), and made a small change in how it is written (changed "Lost in Quarterfinals, 1-4" to "1-4 Quarterfinals loss") --Ulf17 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Conference Championships

A recent brief disagreement at Montreal Canadiens & 2007-08 Montreal Canadiens season, has brought a potential problem to my attention. There's some editors out there who are getting mixed up with what's a Conference Championship. Assuming we're using the NHL post-1981 criteria, is there a way to put in the team infoboxes, mention of the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl & the Prince of Wales trophy? GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A grudge match, might be developing folks. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A new wrinkle - at the post-1981 NHL team season articles, there's teams with both Prince of Wales/Clarence Campbell Bowl Winners & Conference Champions listed in their Infoboxes. Are both necessary? Doesn't one mean the other? GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it does. Should either kill the Conference Champions variable or change it to read Regular Season Blah Blah. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the Trophy Winners entry from the Infobox & keep the Conference Champions entry. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Division Champions

Also, from 1981-1993, the division winner was the team that won it's 2nd round playoff match-up, not the team that finished first in the regular season. i.e.: the 89-90 Oilers were the Smythe Division champions, not the Flames. Resolute 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that's correct. PS- I reverted your correct edit, sorry. Let's see Conference Champions 1974-75 to 1980-81 & Division Champions 1967-68 to 1980-81; 1993-94 to present are Regular Season. Conference Champions 1981-82 to present & Division Champions 1981-82 to 1992-93 are Playoffs. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up the articles Patrick Division, Smythe Division and Adams Division; I'm not sure what to do with the Norris Division. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I like the format of the Norris article - list both regular season and playoff champion, but note which was the "official" division champ. Resolute 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix those articles, to follow the Norris example. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, from 1981-1993, the division winner was the team that won it's 2nd round playoff match-up, not the team that finished first in the regular season. Are you sure this is the case? Is there a reference to back this up? --Ulf17 (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup champions

I made the list an FLC, but I think there may be a problem with the challenge cup section. At first I just wanted tho move the entire section to the challenge cup page and only list the winners, but this was objected to. Almost every winner is listed twice, with the second one being called "____ champion", but I've looked through several books and several reliable sources and found no mention of this. For example, apparantly the Winnipeg Victorias defeated the Winnipeg FC in March 1896 to become the "1986 MHA champion" but several books I checked (including the NHL and HHOF websites) say Winnipeg defeated Montreal in February, then lost to them in December. Am I missing something here or is there something wrong with the list? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)