Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive25

Time for a Change

I originally posted this at project infobox, let me know what you think

The infobox format for NHL and NBA players should be changed to that of the format that is used for the MLB, NFL and the NBA's retired players, just check out what I'm trying to say the current format for the NHL players is this, similar to the NBA players (I'll use Eric Lindros as an example)

WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive25
Born	(1973-02-28) February 28, 1973 London, ON, CA
Height	6 ft 4 in (193 cm)
Weight	244 lb (111 kg; 17 st 6 lb)
Position	Centre
Shot	Right
Played for	Philadelphia Flyers New York Rangers Toronto Maple Leafs Dallas Stars
NHL Draft	1st overall, 1991 Quebec Nordiques
Playing career	1992–2007

What I'm proposing is to use the NFL/MLB format like this

WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive25

No. 88
Position:	Centre
Personal information
Born:	(1973-02-28) February 28, 1973
Career information
NFL draft:	1991 / Round: 1 / Pick: 1
Career history
Philadelphia Flyers (1992-2000) New York Rangers (2001-2004) Toronto Maple Leafs (2005-2006) Dallas Stars (2006-2007)
Career highlights and awards
NHL All-Rookie Team selection (1993) Hart Memorial Trophy (1995) Lester B. Pearson Award (1995) Bobby Clarke Trophy (1994-96, 1999) NHL All-Star Selection (1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002)
Career NFL statistics
Goals: 372 Assists: 493 Points: 865

Should you adopt this format which is far better than the current format, I will do everything I can to make sure every player gets this infobox.Beast from da East (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I like our format better. I could see adding an awards section (ala {{infobox swimmer}}) and jersey number, but adding a statistics section would be irritating as hell because people would constantly update it.-Wafulz (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wafulz. I think ours is much better than those in the MLB and NFL. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus nationality is huge in the NHL compared. Grsz^Review! 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New features can of course be implemented to the infobox, but I would oppose any change in layout since I think it's the best infobox on Wikipedia for any type of biography. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be the opposition to change in me, but I also like our current format. It has a feel of being cleaner, that is easier to read, than the other ones and still includes all the relevant information. The inclusion of the career stats and awards/achievements also seems like fertile ground for edit-warring. After all, there is several definitions of notable achievements for a player, and with someone like Gretzky, that section would either go down half the page, or be forced to use some artitrary cut-off. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, I actually think the other sports should change to our version, as ours is much cleaner and not so cluttered. -Djsasso (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Count me as one preferring the current version, and agreeing on the nationality issue, which doesn't seem as big a deal in the NBA and isn't a deal at all in the other major sports. Beyond that, we've had a lot of nonsense foisted on us (Not To Be Forgotten sections, anyone?) under the aegis of conforming to the other sports, and I've yet to see any advantages for doing so.  RGTraynor  13:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I prefer the current style as well. I find the baseball/football infoboxes to be highly intrusive. Resolute 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

More like 'Time for an Improvement.' Look at the Trent Edwards article as an example. Doesn't that look good? Maybe the stats up to the current week is silly, but it looks professional. Some of this is of course really dependent on what computer and color settings we have, but on mine with high colour, the Trent Edwards infobox looks good. And our hockey one looks, well, not so good. (I am really not into grey) It's not a competitive thing, one vs. the other, but our hockey player one could use some improvement. An infobox is definitely intrusive, but it's a good place to hold relevant data. I do like the idea of adding the team/college where a player graduated from, like the Edwards one. Alaney2k (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some colour could help, but the Trent Edwards infobox looks annoyingly loud. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That infobox simply drives your eyes away from the article into the infobox. Not good, imo. Personally, I don't see a huge use for adding the junior team(s) that a player graduated from. It simply is not all that relevant to a hockey player. Not like football where a 20 year vet is still introduced by where he graduated from. Resolute 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out how Lindros was also the number 1 NFL draft pick in 1991. I guess that's where the concussions originated... --Smashville^talk 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I used the NFL infobox as an example, it automaticly uses the NFL draft. Beast from da East (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is sports, after all, with cheerleaders, etc. It's entertainment. On my screen, the blue and red is not loud. It reminds me of sport. Sport is active, is colourful. Hockey is fast and loud. None of that is conveyed in the ice hockey template. I don't want to turn it into advertising, but the grey conveys nothing. On the junior/college inclusion, I would argue that players and organizations are proud of that, and readers would be coming to the article to look up that info. Alaney2k (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While that's true, we're creating Wikipedia, not hockey. We have no obligation to be attention grabbing (WP isn't a giant commercial). What we should strive for is clean-looking, easy to read general info. The purpose of the infobox is to give quick info, not summarize the whole person's life. Once you start thowing all kinds of random info in the infobox it loses its focus and detracts from the overall article. We should be concentrating on improving prose and making sure facts are properly cited and verifiable, what's wrong with reading a paragraph to get the info you need? (Remember reading?) We all love sport, but we can be effective even if we aren't flashy; oh and cheerleaders should be completely banned from sports. Blackngold29 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

By and large, I agree with you. Except for the cheerleaders part. :-) Do you think amateur/college team is 'random.'? Things like awards & record by and large just get into a list in the article anyway, so it's not like it gets written as prose. A well-done infobox helps people when they are looking for facts about a person. It encourages a standard approach. It -can be- nutritional.Alaney2k (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that if they're gonna be a list anyway, then why should the be repeated in the infobox? For example, look at the awards that Crosby has won, do you propose we add all of them to the infobox? Because that would make the infobox the whole right side of the article. I don't think that they should all be included, but it would seem you are saying some should be, so then we have to set criteria for what and what is not included, that same argument occured over at WP:BASE and it took forever and had little results. I think by leaving them alone we are avoiding a lot of discussion and headaches that we can easily prevent. Blackngold29 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit the awards section doesnt need to be there but I still feel the NFL/MLB infobox looks so much better and is easier to read then the current NHL infobox and I don't think having stats would cause edit warring because whatever points they get, they get, theres no war. If the NFL and MLB can do it for there infoboxes, why not the NHL and NBA? Beast from da East (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently because not everyone agrees that they "[look] so much better and [are] easier to read". Myself included. I don't think articles should rely on their infoboxes as much as their prose; and the more info in the infobox, the more that gets repeated in the prose. Stating info one time in the body of the article is adaquate for me. Blackngold29 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is just beating a dead horse. It was brought up before, and quickly shot down. NFL and MLB are ugly eyesores. The whole point of the infobox is just to provide a brief summary or the article while not taking away from the article itself. When I go to an NFL or MLB article, I don't even want to read the thing because I have this huge colorful box distracting me. I'm not going to lie, my overall favorite infobox on Wikipedia is those of swimmers, but after that not much compares to the ones we have here. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Idea for a list

Call me crazy, but I had an idea for a list. What about a list of all NHL players who scored a goal in their NHL debuts? I only ask this because it seems to pop up quite frequently, especially after Bunnstrom's incredible debut. What would the list be called? And how would it work? If I'm the only one interested in this list, I'll drop the issue. Just curious if anyone else out there thinks it would make for a potentially fascinating compilation, or if it's best left to Elias Sports Bureau. Anthony Hit me up... 01:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would definetly support that list. If memory serves, the NHL Record Book of a few years back included a note in the player bio section noting players who did. Perhaps a name such as List of NHL players who scored in their debut would work? I don't think the list could be that long, seeing how NHL.com had a list of players who did so in the last few years here. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a really interesting topic, problem is finding sources for it. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree it's the sort of list that sports wonks like. Hm. I was in the stands for Ray Bourque's and Mario Lemieux's first goals ...  RGTraynor  13:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now that we have a name, what information should we include in the list? Obviously name, team, and date, but do we also include how many goals scored, opposing team/goaltender, etc.? How do we organize, by last name or separate chunks for teams? As for sources, I know the Devils rookie Petr Vrana just scored in his debut, so the Devils had a list of all Devils rookies who scored in their debut (13, I believe), but it only had names, not dates or any other info. So I'll have to double-check all that. Maybe if different people took their favorite team and researched it (dunno if it's possible; I'll handle the Devils). Anthony Hit me up... 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest copying List of players with five or more goals in an NHL game, more info then that is trivial IMO. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Opposing goaltender might be helpful though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Or at least opposing team. Anthony Hit me up... 16:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I have created a sandbox page at the following link: User:FutureNJGov/sandbox/scoredebut. I put it there so we could work on it collectively before posting it to the main page. I know the header needs obvious work, but I took the info from the NHL.com article and copied the format of the 5-goal-game article. Please feel free to add as you see fit; add pictures, make changes, whatever needs to be done. I think this could potentially be FL-quality if we work on it enough. Anthony Hit me up... 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Standings links

I think it would make sense to link the standings to the team's season page instead of the main franchise article. (ie. 2008–09 New Jersey Devils season instead of New Jersey Devils) The NFL does it and I like the feature since the standing templates are only used for one season, why not allow the templates to reflect that? Any objections? Blackngold29 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't those already used on the team season pages? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The templates are on the team pages, yes. My proposal is: On the template for Template:2008–09 NHL Pacific Division standings, instead of linking Dallas Stars to Dallas Stars I want to link it to 2008–09 Dallas Stars season. Does that make sense? Blackngold29 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup no harm in doing it that way. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started phasing them in as I update each division. Should be finished after all the games finish up tonight. Blackngold29 02:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did the same to the templates for the 2007–08 season. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NHL standings template widths

I'm not sure if this was discussed before, but is there a way to prevent the NHL division and conference standings templates from stretching to the full width of the page? Once they get below the team's season infobox, they are stretched to full width, creating a lot of empty white space in the team name box. No team's name takes up that much room, so controlling the width of that first box would keep things from unnecessarily stretching out completely. An unstretched version appears on season pages with very little intro (ex. Thrashers), and looks a whole lot better, in my opinion. Does anyone else want (and know how) to keep them narrower and looking better? Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This has crossed my mind before, but I never tried it: What if we put them in columns side-by-side? Example at the top I wasn't sure if it would work or not, but it seems to be fine. Thoughts? Blackngold29 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem—which I see a LOT on the templates and articles of this WikiProject—is the use of width=5% (for example) in table formatting. I think some editors use percentages instead of absolute pixel widths in the mistaken belief that it is more appropriate for handling a large set of different display settings. The correct solution (in my opinion), is to use em spacing, which accommodates all font sizes naturally but does not blow out on large screen sizes (especially widescreen displays). For example, use style="width:5em" for the numeric columns, and perhaps 16em for the team name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes to em width. Have a look at 2008–09 NHL season#Regular season. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they look fine. Check out the column format: 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season#Standings. I have to say that I like it. The only thing that could make it look messy would be a narrow monitor, but mine is 17" and there is more than enough room. Blackngold29 02:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eep, I don' think you should do that. A lot of users probably don't have monitors that support that, and they'll get the dreaded horizontal scroll bar. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the two column approach because it leads to some wordwrap in the team column for longer names and that division leader asterisk, and possibly a horiz scroll bar for small monitors. The use of em spacing appears to have worked, and looks much better. But I will point out that in each template's history, User:Rjd0060 undid revisions by User:CWY2190 that removed width="50%" from each template's first row, therefore stretching them back out. With Twas Now's em spacing edits, the 50% is too tight, but 75% works better should we want to tighten them back up a little more. It looks great as long as there is no team name wordwrap or inches of white space. --Mtjaws (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any percentage widths specified in those tables. Percentage widths are evil—unless you are only designing for a specific page size, which we shouldn't be doing on Wikipedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Franchise staffs?

I was thinking about suggesting a redesign of current team staffs, when I realized that the only one I can find is the Pens. I always just assumed every team had one, since most baseball and football teams do also. I like having it because I think it looks good on past season articles, so in 20 years we can look back and remember not only the players, but who was in-charge as well. I guess since it won't be a re-design (unless I'm just missing them all) it'll be a "design". I was thinking of something similar to the rosters format. Any thoughts? Blackngold29 02:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like to avoid navboxes like this as much as possible. And I know in alot of cases the project does as well, not sure if this is a case or not. Personally I don't see the point of a box like this. I mean I know why you created it and it makes sense, but a navbox is supposed to only include links to pages that would otherwise already be linked to in a perfect article on the subject that the box is being added to per WP:EMBED. Using other sports as an example on here can be a bit of a misnomer (just look at the infobox debate above). In general most of wikipedia disagrees with alot of ways they do things and their pages often look horrible but since there are so many sports fans out there, anyone trying to cut down on their over usage of things like navboxes gets shot down. Luckily we have managed to keep them under control for hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya know what's funny, I have no memory whatsoever of creating the page. I mean obviously I did, but cannot remember why I did or actually doing it. Like I said, maybe it was the other sports' influence and I didn't know any better back then. I guess I'm OK with getting rid of it, but like I said its nice to have some record of all the coaches and managers to look back on. I'll hold off doing anything until a few more people comment. Blackngold29 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to create a new one each year, and every template would only link to one article. I can't find the it now but I know "single use" templates are not popular here. You could just as easily create the little box in the main article, or work it into to the prose. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There isn't one for each year, it's like the rosters. It's a template on the current season and the franchise's main article and then it's subed out once the season is complete. The prose idea might be a good one, though it would get boring if it was like "Goalie coach was X, Head coach was Y." We could probably find some way to make it interesing though. Blackngold29 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks

The section Franchise history is oddly written. It reads like the marketing staff of the Ducks wrote it. Besides, is our job here to write year-by-year histories of each team? If so, we're going to create a lot of huge articles. Also, is there a MOS for hockey articles? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs cleaning up. We have formating pages for various types of articles if you take a look at the link bar on the main project page. Probably not quite what you mean but its a start. And no the main team page should only have a summary of the most important issues. Day to Day stuff should go on the various team season articles, and if the team warrants it (ie an original six team) then its own history page as well. -Djsasso (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a few articles that need serious work. I just tagged Edmonton Oilers for POV, tone, recentism, citation and peacock issues. Most team articles I just watch for vandalism. I was rather surprised to see how poor a condition that article is in. As far as a a hockey MOS goes, we have this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Structure, though the team page format is out of date. I'd suggest looking at our two NHL team FAs: New Jersey Devils and Calgary Flames for ideas on a potential rewrite. Alaney has done a good job with Ottawa Senators as well. Resolute 14:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Senators article looks good, but like many team and player articles it suffers from recentism. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To quote our PM, Steven "Marie Antoinette" Harper, "it's all just good buying opportunities." :-) The articles reflect the everyday nature of the topics. Don't expect too much. Here's how it goes. The Senators article is about a current topic and has been reviewed for this very issue. As hockey teams get renewed, what went by in the past becomes somewhat irrelevant. The time period of Firestone, and the Scotiabank Place building is not too relevant anymore. What is relevant currently is Bryan Murray and Eugene Melnyk and the time period after the lockout, including the Stanley Cup final appearance. You can't apply an approach from 30 years in the future. Similar things apply to most every NHL team topic. While you could argue that the last Maple Leafs Cup win is relevant to the current Maple Leafs, because the fans know about it, there is not much connection other than name to that time. You could drop all of the 'history' in the team articles to 'history of' articles. Alaney2k (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that's quite true...the New England Patriots lost its FA status for doing something along those lines... ;-) – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

An FA for a sports team is hard to maintain. The Canadiens and Maple Leafs were former FA's. The standards have gotten pretty high. I don't intend to push Senators to FA, if I could. It would probably lose it in a year. I try to maintain it to a GA status, and I am working on getting other articles to that level. The Sens article has a History of back-article, and I sometimes feel like cutting back on the main article. I worked through several GA reviews. It's a balancing act. I think FA is attainable for players, leagues, tournaments, lists, etc. That said, the quality of the writing is what has to be worked on on the articles mentioned. I'm no great writer. It takes me several rewrites to get some good grammar and structure together. Alaney2k (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Next season!?

It seems way to early for this, we're barely off the ground for this season. The info is good, but we just have so long until it means anything. I'll save a copy on my computer, but should it be deleted or should we just let it go? I hope it's an isolated incident; perhaps we could set some point that is the earliest to create articles for the future. Blackngold29 03:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrarily, I would choose the All-Star break or the end of the regular season. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it. There is a ridiculous number of precedents arguing against the creation of such articles, especially this early. I'd wait until this season is complete, really. Resolute 05:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On a marginally related note, could Template:NHLTeamSeason have a previous and next season field, like Template:NCAATeamSeason. Grsz^Review! 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. I'll look at the code tomorrow to try and integrate it, assuming nobody beats me to it. Resolute 05:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest merging it with Template:IcehockeyTeamSeason, redundant to have two exactly similar template with alternative names. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 09:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Template:IcehockeyTeamSeason different though? Template:NHLTeamSeason automatically links to NHL related pages, while Template:IcehockeyTeamSeason is open for other leagues to use, such as the AHL or ECHL. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is easy to adapt those changes to Template:IcehockeyTeamSeason. We don't have different template for players, so why should we for leagues, teams, or others such as this one? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For sure, I totally agree with you. Just wanted to point out for whomever makes these edits that they are not identical and that it would affect aritcles such as the 2008–09 Las Vegas Wranglers season article if no alterations were made to the NHL template. Sort of the same situation we have with Template:Pro hockey team and Template:NHL Team. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NHL profile template

Think it would be good if we had a template for NHL.com player profiles, is there a reason for it not existing or have we just been lazy? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We have one already, Template:Nhlprofile. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Facepalm... Searched for it with a space. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We also seem to have templates for tsn.ca ({{TSN-NHL-profile}}) and hockey-reference.com ({{Hockeyref}}). Resolute 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many others, too! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Merritt Centennials

Hello, could someone do me a favour and review the Merritt article for POV-related content? It is a well written article and well sourced... but the primary editor's user name has brought up WP:COI concerns. If anyone could give it a look and comment on the article's talk page it would be much appreciated. DMighton (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Commented. The images argue a very clear COI, but I think the editor has maintained a neutral POV. Nice to see a fairly well written Junior A article. Resolute 05:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree... I wish I could find more people interested in the Tier II (or other levels) teams... I do a lot of research and microfilming for stats... but I don't know enough about the individual teams to do what this guy has done... I would love it if he could upgrade the rest of the BCHL the Centennials' level or excellence. DMighton (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)\

Really, microfilm is probably the only way to write a really good Jr. A article as the histories just aren't available online. And that would take a lot of patience, as you pretty much have to scroll through the entire seasons to find hidden facts that are imortant to a GA or FA calibre article. Resolute 05:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability Question

Stumbled upon a few articles...before I took them to AfD, wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything:

• Dean Mayrand
• Mike Sgroi
• John Negrin
• Tristan King
• Drayson Bowman

--Smashville^talk 18:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Non notable, no need for AfD, just prod them. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dean Mayrand and Mike Sgroi have both played in minor professional leagues. They should not be prodded. The others should be. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the guideline states that they need to play five season Sgroi passes, Mayrand just barely... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayrand and Sgroi were the ones I had the biggest questions about...I'm still out to lunch on some of the guidelines on minor players. --Smashville^talk 19:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE states "competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" are notable. It doesn't say anything about how long they need to have played professionally. One game would technically be sufficient. WP:BIO trumps this project's guideline. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and the Wikipedia articles about the leagues Mayrand plays in state that they are not fully professional. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the leagues he played in earlier in his career. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bowman was an all-star at the 2008 Memorial Cup. Notable achievement? Patken4 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It helps, but I don't think that would be enough. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Prod on Bowman was contested. --Smashville^talk 04:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WBSPensCoach

I have here a template of coaches for the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins. I can't find any other templates used by AHL or lower level teams, and wanted to see the opinion of whether we really find this necessary. We don't tend to do things like this for minor league teams, and I wanted to see if it's worth keeping, or if I'm wasting my time sending it to TfD. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Head Coaches FL

During a dispute with an editor over the List of New Jersey Devils head coaches, I went to look at the other FLs to determine what the standard protocol was (Calgary, Detroit, and Vancouver). Much to my dismay, it appears that there is no set standard between any of them. The Devils page is the only one to include assistant coaches, the Red Wings doesn't link the dates, and none of them look like any of the other ones. The primary reason I am asking this question is this: for the years on the page, isn't it proper to include links to the appropriate season? In other words, October 27, 2008, instead of just plain October 27, 2008? Please tell me if I'm right or wrong, and if so, make a correction on the page, because one editor is hellbent on removing links to the seasons from the page (under the auspices of "over-linking dates"), despite the fact that it made FL status with the seasons linked. Any assistance would be appreciated. Anthony Hit me up... 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters as long it stays consistent throughout the article. Personally I usually avoid it because it saves time, space in the article, and I don't think it really adds a whole lot of convenience; but maybe I'm just being lazy (Unless I had a good reason, I wouldn't remove them if they were already there). I noticed a while ago that the Devils includes all assistants, which is a first from the coach lists I've seen (in any sport) however, the only thing about it that concerns me is that there isn't a cite for any of them. I think the list should probably be put up for FL review, because the lead is short and completely unsourced in addition to the lack of sources for assistants and even some of the head coaches themselves. Blackngold29 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Date linking is deprecated, so that is likely why the user is trying to remove them. It is, however, 2007–08 New Jersey Devils season is a much higher value link than 2008 is. I'd say to try and explain this, if you haven't already, and hope to come to a resolution. As far as the different styles go, the Flames don't publish a list of assistant coaches, so I couldn't use the Devils format. It seems extraneous at any rate. Nice to know, but not specifically relevant to a head coaches list. Resolute 16:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season

There is an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the 2008-09 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season should be deleted. The discussion can be found here, and I would appreciate anyone's insights and opinions on the matter. Thanks. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable amateur players

I've noticed in a couple of recent AFD's that some have suggested deleting the articles because they aren't professional. I also have been saying delete, but have been adding that they also have yet to win a significant junior/collegiate award. Are we still considering winners of significant amateur awards, for example the Hobey Baker Award, to be notable? I just want to make sure my reasoning is in line with established policy. I know this is part of our notability standards for players. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thats why I always place "or otherwise achieves notability" in my statements. To cover such situations. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course we are.  RGTraynor  17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Ponikarovsky nationality

Can I get another opinion on Alexei Ponikarovsky's nationality? User:Lvivske keeps filling the "nationality2" parameter as Canadian because Ponikarovsky holds a Canadian citizenship.-Wafulz (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken directly from Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player documentation:

• nationality_2 (if a player has dual citizenship)

On what evidence do you base your suggestion that nationality and citizenship are different? Why would we have a second nationality parameter if we do not allow use of the second parameter for players with dual citizenship? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux as Canadian-American. Then there's the fact that Wikipedia has different articles for nationality and citizenship. I had always figured these fields were used for players like Alex Steen who was born and raised in Canada but represents Sweden nationally.-Wafulz (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. I'm just going by the wording as it is (which I skeptically assume was agreed-upon). If there is consensus for your suggestion, we can change the wording in the template: "if a player represents a country in international competition that is not their country of birth". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think someone like Petr Nedvěd is the perfect example for it. Many players who play in the NHL probably have dual citizenship for legal purposes, I think it's unreasonable to list all of them. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Err ... for my part, holding Canadian citizenship would be a just dandy reason to list Canada as a second nationality.  RGTraynor  02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we have mostly used it for players who are born in one country and represent another. -Djsasso (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Height and weight on roster template?

Did I miss a discussion on adding these? I thought we weren't going to have these columns. I reverted the two template pages, so I apologize if I stepped on toes. It looked bad as it was and the editor didn't have much of a history. Jc121383 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt. I think the "Pos", "S/G", "Age", and "Acquired" columns in the roster table could all be made thinner to accommodate a "Ht." and "Wt." column. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NHLretired

Heads up everyone. Beast from da East has gone ahead and made an MLB-NFL type infobox for retired hockey players. I don't think he got any consensus for this as it seemed everyone around here was against it, but I could be wrong. Check it out at Russ Courtnall and Sergei Nemchinov. I've left those edits up for the time being. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems redundant to me given our current player adapts for retired players. I'd be opposed to its use. Resolute 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We have actually had the retired NHL player template deleted in the past. I will have to look for the discussion once I get internet back up and running. -Djsasso (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the template to the main template. Will clean up those three players in a bit. -Djsasso (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The template was re-created so I once again set it as a redirect. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Important Figures

Holy no original research, Batman! (Template:New Jersey Devils, Template:New York Rangers, Template:Philadelphia Flyers, Template:Pittsburgh Penguins, and Template:St. Louis Blues)... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Grsz^Review! 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the horrible misuses of templates that other sports projects have pushed. I'd just as soon remove these altogether. Resolute 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've removed most of the "Notable former players" from most franchise articles that I watch, it's completely POV and, like this, either needs criteria set or eliminated. Even including Hall of Famers isn't a great thing because they may not be in the Hall of Fame for work on that team. Blackngold29 19:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to create a criteria then? Different teams have different recognition programs. Team HOFs can vary in criteria or non-player personnel admittance. A lot of teams have multiple levels of recognition -- such as the Penguins who have 3 retired #s (including 99), a team Hall of Fame with 9 players and 8 other personnel, an in-arena mural entitle the "Penguins Ring of Honor" with 12 players and 3 coaches/GMs, and Pittsburgh has a city-wide Hall of Fame (that apparently and unshockingly isn't on the web). Because of variations like this it could be difficult to simply lay down a single rule or set of rules to dictate who's important where. Also as previously mentioned: just b/c someone is in the Hockey Hall of Fame it doesn't mean that he was important to every franchise he played for. Consensus should define the policy, but the question is then should it be sport-wide rules or should it be left to consensus on a per-team basis? Teams like Montreal or Detroit will have a higher pool of important figures than Atlanta, who honestly hasn't yet had anyone that's been a great player and positive influence for the franchise. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any criteria that can present an objective look at things. We dumped the "Notable players" sections of team articles some time ago for the same reasons. Also, notable players are linked to other articles in objective ways - player articles, coaches articles, and in some cases, award winners articles. Those are all linked to the templates, and they all have objective inclusion criteria. This section of the main team template is unnecessary and redundant. Resolute 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, let's just agree to remove them from the template all together. Yay or nay? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Which one means Yes?" Uhh, Yay I agree to eliminate. Blackngold29 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean Yea? ;) Resolute 23:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete them! --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been deleting for awhile now but they always get put back so I agree lets kill them all. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "important figures" section from the Rangers template, but left the "key figures" on the other templates. I don't think they belong either, but its hard to argue that listing the owner, GM, coach and captain as being POV. I'd think that setup warrants more debate. Resolute 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well based on WP:EMBED only articles that would otherwise already be linked to from that article (if it were in top condition) should be included in a navbox. So would the owner be linked to from each page that that template is on, would the GM or coach or captain etc etc. As long as we stick to only using this template on season/team pages then they should be fine to be on there. -Djsasso (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it can be so subjective I'd agree for them to be eliminated as well. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bring up another debate, but I came across this WP policy -- Wikipedia:Notable players -- and figured that it would be useful to have it available for the project for future reference. Don't think that I posted it here in order to justify important figure in navboxes. It's just relevant for article usage. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that its not a policy, it was a proposal which was pretty soundly rejected. The tag at the top should probably be changed to reflect that. -Djsasso (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

College player

Can somebody take a look and second my prod of Jordan Schroeder? Will probably be removed, so in that case, feel free to AfD, as I'll be away for awhile. Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done --Smashville^talk 14:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a slew of others I came across. Opinions appreciated.

• Kevin Montgomery (ice hockey)
• Bill Sweatt
• Steve Mason (ice hockey)
• Logan Pyett

Grsz^{11 →Review!} 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Montgomery (ice hockey) — plays in the AHL. Y

Bill Sweatt — plays in NCAA; article does not establish any other reason for notability. N

Err ... the article in fact asserts that he played on the national inline hockey team and won a medal at the 2006 World Championships in the same. Y  RGTraynor  19:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. His participation at the 2006 IIHF Men's InLine Hockey World Championship would make him notable, as with it being a non-Olympic sport, this would be the highest level of amateur sport. Fails notability as an ice hockey player, but passes as an inline hockey player. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, true. Odd, but true. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Mason (ice hockey) — plays in the AHL. Y

Logan Pyett — plays in the AHL Y

— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought notability for minor pro leagues was 5 seasons/100 games. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's our project standard, but it still doesn't override WP:ATHLETE, and we can't use it as the sole grounds to support deletion.  RGTraynor  21:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The goalposts at WP:ATHLETE were moved after we came up with that criterion, so technically they are notable for playing just one professional game. I'd bet we could succeed in deleting the articles at AfD as the notability of minor league athletes is contested, but to what end? Resolute 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from that disagreement on the minor league issue is sharp. Heck, just look at what expansion has done: there are starting goalies in the NHL now who'd be lucky to get a job in the low minors in 1964, a year in which between the NHL, AHL, CHL and WHL there were 31 pro teams. If the likes of Guyle Fielder, Art Jones or Willie Marshall were born 30-40 years later, they'd have just wound down HHOF careers.  RGTraynor  00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been on that horse for awhile. What about Brian Kilrea and Ed Hoekstra? Lots of AHLers got a chance after '67. Lots didn't hang around. The talent pool is much bigger nowadays. The game isn't worse, it's better. Alaney2k (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots didn't hang around, and that the Kilreas and Hoekstras of the world (both over 30 in 1967) didn't last long's no surprise. Lots did: Gary Dornhoefer, Don Awrey, Ken Schinkel, Rod Seiling, Gilles Villemure, Simon Nolet, Andre Lacroix, Barclay Plager, Pete Mahovlich, Joe Daley, Mike Walton, Mike Corrigan, Jim Pappin, Jim McKenny, Ernie Wakely, Bill Goldsworthy, Wayne Cashman, Jean Pronovost, J.P. Parise, Dallas Smith, Ross Lonsberry, Doug Favell, Bernie Parent, Gerry Cheevers, Gary Sabourin, Al Hamilton, Andre Boudrias, Danny Grant, Jacques Lemaire, Serge Savard, Carol Vadnais, Rogie Vachon, Nick Libett, Fred Stanfield, Dave Dryden, Bill Flett, Lowell MacDonald, Paul Shmyr, Bobby Schmautz were all minor leaguers in 1967 who went on to play in post-expansion all-star games, and if I'm not mistaken, there are five Hall of Famers in that lot.  RGTraynor  17:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely normal for players to play in the minors before playing in the NHL. Nothing notable about that. Alaney2k (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think his point is that there were many people who never made it out of the minors in the Original 6 era that would have been superstars today because of 30 teams. So you can't use have to have played in the NHL as guideline. -Djsasso (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. Look at that list: given the Bruins of the 1970s, without expansion, without the WHA, either Gerry Cheevers or Bernie Parent makes it out of the minors; not both. Pfft, there's one HHOF career down in flames. Look at the 1967 Habs roster: without expansion and the WHA, they keep JC Tremblay, they keep Laperriere, they keep Terry Harper and Ted Harris, and poof! Serge Savard doesn't make it off of the Houston Apollos roster - another HHOF career gone.  RGTraynor  03:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just your guessing. Parent or Cheevers would have been traded. Too valuable to bury in the minors. The Canadiens traded Tony Esposito. Then there would have been retirements in the NHL. Guys like Hall and Plante would have been forced to retire, or stayed retired, instead their careers were lengthened. Definitely lots of players benefitted from expansion. I don't disagree with that. I just disagree that all-stars or hall-of-famers were buried in the AHL, just because of the number of NHL teams. (We will never know for sure of course) Of course, anything could happen, players getting injured or have drinking problems or don't get along with Eddie Shore :-) but that still occurs today. Alaney2k (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Expansion has diluted the NHL & will continue to do so. Just because there's extra teams, it doesn't mean a player magically gets better. Expansion to Europe?? ARGHHHHH. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on GoodDay, I know you would love to see Jiří Šlégr, Lukáš Krajíček, Roman Šimíček, and Tomáš Kůrka play in Europe where their names would be spelled correctly. :) —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In Europe? sure. They'd be great in the KHL. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean when HC České Budějovice of the NHL Europe division comes to a road game against your favourite team. ;) —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oy; Priscilla, get me my pills. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Random sidebar...it gets annoying that every freaking time we try to prod a junior or college hockey player, it gets contested...we go to AfD...we have to argue in circles with people who are not on the project that want us to essentially triple our workload (adding juniors + college players would give us probably 3-4 times as many articles to watch)... --Smashville^talk 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How about trying to cement our project views on notability as Wikipedia policy? We were asked some time ago but I don't think anyone answered the request. It would certainy make it easier during AfD processes if we had direct policy to refer to. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just so difficult to do something like this, because as we're seeing with the Jordan Schroeder, people will just look at WP:N and say "so and so has notability through three newspaper articles", with complete disregard to WP:ATHLETE because WP:N "over-rules" anything else apparently, even common sense. We'll see how this one closes, but if it doesn't get deleted, I will be completely shocked and would be more than willing to petition for something like this. Like Smash says, it's getting pretty rediculous. Lately it seems like we're up against a stronger and stronger wall when launching AfDs. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If we end with a keep, it's essentially "all college athletes are notable"...and considering there are over a million former NCAA athletes (I did the math on an AfD last year, but don't remember which...)--Smashville^talk 00:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Our project views are cemented; we have a solid consensus set of rules that have budged very little since I drafted them. The problem is that they're still only advisory, and WP:ATHLETE / WP:BIO trumps them all. The more serious problem is that there's constant chafing at WP:ATHLETE's loopholes and shortcomings, and there's never been close to a consensus to change it, largely because people keep trying to draft a policy that'll cover hockey AND basketball AND football AND soccer AND Olympic amateur sports AND etc, and no portmanteau rule will remotely work. What will work is to devolve power to the Wikiprojects, and I don't see that happening.  RGTraynor  04:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fram

User:Fram prodded List of OHA Junior A standings as not notable. I created the list, since I didn't have time to expand each season into its own article, as done with other league seasons. Anyone have time to expland? Flibirigit (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it's been taken to AFD. Flibirigit (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fram does seem quite reasonable in this discussion, and I can understand his confusion, as the article itself pretty much assumes it is notable without explaining why. It might be a good idea to add some brief history on the OHA, how it was one of the top junior leagues in Canada, competing for the Memorial Cup, etc., simply to add background context to those who do not understand how the junior level is ingrained into the hockey culture of Canada. Resolute 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be simpler to create the season articles, but I don't have as much time as I used to. Flibirigit (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:USA Hockey

Image:USA Hockey.gif For someone with the knowledge to fix the problem, USA Hockey logo is being removed under non-free use. Just a heads up, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a quick fair use rationale, but looks like the non-free use removal tempate was removed anyways. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 09:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

First being removed from their Olympic jerseys and now Wikipedia? Maybe someone from the IOC is a Wikipedia editor? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe Sakic TFA

I apologize if this is mentioned already, but Joe Sakic will be the TFA on November 12. everyone should take a look at the page and make any necessary fixes before then, and keep an eye on it on the 12th. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Very cool, although on a side note, I believe this effectively kills the push for Trevor Linden to be TFA on December 17. Nevertheless, fantastic work by everyone on that article. Can't wait to see it up there! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll might try to find a few better images before then. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked Håkan Dahlström who is the photographer of the featured picture of Gretzky if he could consider uploading one of his fantastic images of Sakic. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This one is released under CC-2.0 — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the image I contacted him about and he changed the license and uploaded it at Image:Joe sakic.jpg. Could an administrator please change the image for the TFA and also change the caption which is Ronald Niel Stuart. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One the one hand, I'm glad to see my first nominated FA make the main page, and might I add what an excellent close-up of Sakic that Krm added. On the other hand, my goal of having the Linden article up next month does indeed seem to be a lost cause, unless some major persuading can be done, which is highely unlikely. Ohwell, I guess I'll have to wait until June 11 to see Trevor Linden up on the main page. Good job to all who have helped add another hockey-related article onto the front page, it should hopefully be good for the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not too late to ask Raul to hold Sakic until later. He rarely changes TFA's but he has done it before with hockey articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say throw Trevor Linden up on the nominations page regardless. While there might be an issue with it being the third potential hockey TFA since September, given its timely nature, it might still make it. 75.155.16.169 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(err, I'm Resolute... just commenting from a friend's PC) 75.155.16.169 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the image and caption on the FA page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rjd. I know similar subjects are often discouraged to appear on the main page withing close time frames, but we are talking about over one month here and looking at the TFA request page you will only lose one point for similar articles that have appeared during a three month period. Right? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So I was thinking, how about trying to get some more users involved with the project? Tomorrow would be a great opportunity to showcase what WP:HOCKEY has accomplished, maybe post a link on a few hockey forums to Wikipedia's main page, and also a link to the project main page? Explanation of what has been done and what needs to be done, and welcoming everyone to contribute. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Goalie stats

Sorry if this has been beaten to death but there seems to be alot of different versions out there, which for me is an eyesore. I see that the player format page uses Tomas Vokoun as the guideline but then there's variations such as Roberto Luongo, Andrew Raycroft, Marc-Andre Fleury (just to name a few)... so wats the general consensus? uniform layout or user discretion? -triggerbit (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only difference between the ones you posted is that Vokoun doesn't use SV% and OT or OTL is used. Personally I prefer having SV% in the table. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the format used on Fleury's article, myself. I think it is better that regular season and playoff stats are on one line, and that it includes all of the categories people are likely to see. Resolute 01:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that is the width. Some people will have the dreaded horizontal scroll bar. Aside from that I totally agree with you. Another problem though would be the exclusion of G, A, and PIM; some people might want that, I personally think it's a good thing. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

College/Amateur season notability

Per this discussion I think we need to establish whether or not seasons like this are notable, as we have with players. As I noted in the discussion, the main reason I am against these articles is: The sheer number of articles. If they are even created will doubtfully get beyond a stub. There are hundreds of NHL season articles that are still yet to be created; there is one out of multiple hundreds that is a GA. I think we need to improve what we have before creating more. Thanks. Blackngold29 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tentatively: Only the top national leagues (NHL, Elitserien, RSL/KHL, SM-liiga, Czech Extraliga, etc.) can have articles for each individual team's seasons. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how many would that be per year? Blackngold29 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Better off letting that AfD close first. If it closes as keep, then consensus would include college teams. Resolute 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Any team in the top national level for college teams? I hope it closes as delete. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know off-hand. The five leagues I cited have 94 teams between them; adding in other countries would put it up a lot more. I doubt most leagues would have people motivated enough to create these articles though (Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain, for example). We shouldn't be worried about how many articles are created, but about whether the seasons themselves are notable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Would this be equal to allowing season articles for J20 SuperElit teams...? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as we disallow Canadian Hockey League teams from having season article, J20 SuperElit should not be included. Anything with some sort of amateurism to it really seems a bit iffy to me. We have season articles for teams in the ECHL and even AHL that we have to worry about before we can even talk about going below those levels. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The AfD closed today as no consensus. Blackngold29 21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that if that season discussion had been brought up here sooner, more editors from this project would have commented. I think there would have been consensus to delete. Something to think about for next time. I don't know how to bring it up for review. Is that possible? Alaney2k (talk)

You can start a second AfD, but hold it for a while and see if there are any changes to the article. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The majority of season articles contain little to no "readable prose" according to WP:SIZE. Even organized tables, templates, links, references, statistics, etc. are not considered "readable". It is suggested that articles should contain a majority of "body text", with a minority "non-readable" prose. In the season articles, it's the complete other way around. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Luc Bourdon

I've currently got the Bourdon article up for a peer review, but wouldn't mind some comments from people familiar with hockey. I'm hoping to send the article off as an FA candidate as soon as possible, so any reviews would be helpful. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging list of coaches/GMs

Would anybody object to merging each NHL franchise's list of coaches with their list of general managers? I revised the List of Pittsburgh Penguins general managers, but do not anticipate enough information to make it a Featured list. I see no sense in leaving the list as is, when baseball (see List of Philadelphia Phillies managers) has had success with promoting a combination list. Thanks. Blackngold29 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'd personally worry about diluting the focus of the lists too much. Not every list can become an FL, and I don't necessarily see that as a problem. I'm working on a Calgary Flames Featured Topic, and while the GM's list can't gain FL status, that isn't an issue so long as it is audited. Resolute 16:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Men's Hockey League

I PROD'd this article... I am guessing the guy is protesting it... it seemingly was deleted when he went to remove the PROD so he restored it... It is a Men's Rec League in Montreal... Not Senior, Not Junior, Not Pro... I would appreciate some opinions on this... Talk:Mens/Montreal Hockey League. DMighton (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD it. If this league has teams that compete for the Allan Cup, then maybe it would be notable. However, I didn't see anywhere on the website that they do. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering it didn't even meet A7, I deleted it. There was no assertion of notability in that one. The "sources" were the league's website. --Smashville^talk 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin redeleted it... I think it has been deleted a total of 3 times so far. DMighton (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Only twice...once in May by DJ and today by me. --Smashville^talk 05:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh... ok... I only thought three times because the guy who didn't agree with the PROD claimed that when he tried to remove it that it had been deleted and he re-entered it... that's cool though. DMighton (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I see he has claimed more than once that the article had reliable sources...which it didn't. It had two links to the organization's website. Yeah, no...I don't understand it because I deleted it about 20 minutes after he left that note on your page... --Smashville^talk 05:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Links to related articles" boxes

Currently the NHL teams have all of their navboxes inside a main navbox titled "Links to related articles" (example here). I'd propose leaving it the same, however, taking the teams main navbox out of the big one. I've done this at the Detroit Red Wings article already, quite a while ago, and think it works better (example here). Thoughts? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The franchise navbox is the most prominent for the franchise article and shouldn't be hidden. The other navboxes are just supplementary. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

agreed as well. I did that at the Flames article as well, but was reverted a short time later. I'll do it again, and I think that one navbox should be hauled out for all 30 teams. Personally, I also think it should be forced expanded as well. Resolute 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As it isn't really a "major" change, and I don't anticipate any opposition or problems, I've went ahead and made these changes. Thanks for the comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Blackngold29 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Draft Age Restrictions????

Please have a look at this revision of the 2010 NHL Draft aricle. Have there any such changes, let alone a prospect list, been reported?

Note that I have recently handed out a vandalism warning to User:Icehockeyholic, because it smelled pretty fishy to me... Hockey-holic (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You did the right thing. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, lame vandalism by some kid looking to get his name in an article. The NHLPA cannot unilaterally change the draft age, neverminding the issues it would create surrounding the agreements the NHL has with the CHL and CJHL regarding underage players. The kid's invented claim to fame is also invalid, as the first pick in the 1963 draft was 16 years old. Resolute 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of (NHL team) draft picks

Just a suggestion, but could the articles named "List of (NHL team) draft picks", be changed into "(NHL team) draft history"? Examples of these articles are like Toronto Raptors draft history, Minnesota Timberwolves draft history, and Orlando Magic draft history. Though these are all NBA articles, I still want these related articles to have the same name form. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think most articles were named that but during FLC process it was deemed that List of ... was the correct form according to naming conventions. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, given that these literally are lists of draft picks, the current naming convention is more accurate. As I mentioned in my FLC, listing the trades is simply impractical for hockey teams with any length of history. Resolute 05:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, is there a preference for career stats as opposed to stats with the team? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot creating hockey biographies

I have requested approval for a bot that will create hockey biographies for nhl players. All users are invited to comment there. The code can be found here. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alerts template

I came across something I thought rather useful in Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky. It's an Alerts template added into the main project template that links to current items such as reviews or XfD's. It would look something like this:

WikiProject Ice Hockey Alert posted:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Alerts

Template:WikiProject Ice Hockey alerts would have the template and documentation. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Alerts would have the alert items and would be transcluded in the template. A separate page would allow easier editing. Let me know what you think. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This appears on the talk-page banner? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think it might be better utilized if it was compacted a bit, then used as a userpage template. i.e.: If I transclude it to my userpage, I could easily see the XfD's you mentioned, among other things. Articles facing high amounts of vandalism come to mind as another reason for an alert. Resolute 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be useful on a userpage, as well as in the article template, is it could draw the attention of outside users who would maybe get involved. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts. I already set it up though. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Teams

Perhaps the teams section on the current hockey infobox could be changed to include the years they played for that team [example: New York Rangers (2001-2004)] similar to the soon to be deleted NHLretired infobox. Nothing would be drastically changed and it could still be used for both active and retired players. Beast from da East (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that is something we can do manually rather than with any change to the template itself. Resolute 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Remember to use en dashes. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

For several players, the field (former_teams / played_for) is already very long, even without the years (pipelinked teams and leagues). Perhaps we should have some kind of sub-template for this, in order to make the code readable. Simply adding newlines in the code together with the xml/html line(br)eak seems to cause layout issues. Alternatively, we could go ahead and add more and more things to the field, extending its lenght. Is there a hard-coded character limit somewhere that we will run into? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually think this doesn't need to be put in the infobox, as mentioned the field is already too long for many players to begin with. Ideally this information would be found in the career statistics portion of the page which can be seen at a quick glance. -Djsasso (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for this in the infobox, it is well covered in the prose section. Just leads to confusion and clutter. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistics on season articles

I was under the influence (wrong word perhaps? _{english not my 1st language, sorry!}) that The no statistic updates during the season applied to all articles, not just individual player articles? Can we really guarantee that the stats are reliable when so many people come in and update them? Thoughts? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 08:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than the current season articles (ie 2008 NJ Devils season) I believe it was agree that they shouldn't be updated mid-season. Blackngold29 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that, I think the consensus was to only have rosters on the season article during the season. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, perhaps we missed it. The 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season#Player stats usually gets updated every week or so, so I don't think it would be worth removing it since it's already there. However, it does seem like a good deal of work over a whole season, so maybe in the future (or now if they haven't been added yet) we should just have an External stat link until the season's conclusion. Blackngold29 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

the only thing I am updating stats wise on the Flames and Blue Jackets articles are the infoboxes. I'm leaving it to the anons to update the player stats. If they get too far behind, I'll just hide the chart and replace with an external link pointing to the team stats page on nhl.com or espn.com. Resolute 00:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think most are getting updated fairly regularily. For instance, I update the Vancouver Canucks article within 24 hours of each game. Maybe for articles that don't get frequent edits, we could keep it off, but for those that do, like the Canucks, it's very valuable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against it but I'm afraid soon people will start to make similar arguments for individual player articles. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see very little evidence that even random IPs could update stats of every player after every game. Wikipedia's purpose isn't up to the second stats, that's ESPN or whoever's job. Blackngold29 15:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your worry with making the same arguments for player articles, but personally, when I update the stats on season articles, I do everything in one big edit. I add the game info plus the stats, everything gets updated in one single edit. If you're updating the score for the game log anyways, why not update the stats while you're at it. I think there's a very large consensus regarding not updating player article stats, personally I'm pretty anal about it, and remove 08-09 stats whenever I see them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Who coached the 1915-16 and 1916-17 Canadiens?

Okay, for the List of Stanley Cup champions, I'm starting to become confused. TSN.ca lists George Kennedy as the coach & manager of the 15-16 team [1] (it doesn't list the coaches of runner ups), but NHL.com lists Newsy Lalonde, who would have been a player at the time. [2] To add to the confusion, the official website of the Canadiens lists Lalonde as the coach and captain of the 15-16 team[3] but does not include him (or Kennedy) on their list of Cup winning coaches [4]. Meanwhile, wikipedia's own List of Montreal Canadiens head coaches lists Kennedy as the coach until 1921 (but it doesn't cite any sources, and the Canadiens website doesn't have a list of coaches that I have managed to find). So, does anyone know who the real coach of the team during those seasons would have been? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Claude Mouton's book, The Montreal Canadiens, it was Kennedy. Mouton was publicity director for the Canadiens when the book came out in 1987. That is what I've been using. I think Kennedy's title was Manager, but not manager like today. Manager like in soccer. This may be why there is confusion. I'll tidy up the parts that say Lalonde and add the cites. Alaney2k (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think I got that book. Among the colored shiney pages (it's mostly b&w pages), does it have the 75th Anniversary All-time Habs Team Photo (with Joliet in it)? GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Page 49 is a picture of the Montreal Canadiens "All-Time Dream Team". Joliet is in the middle, and was labelled as the eldest. He is with Plante, Robinson, Blake, Beliveau, Dickie Moore, Doug Harvey, Maurice Richard and Bob Gainey, who was then still playing. No date on the photo. Alaney2k (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed; we've the same books. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspended Notation For Roster Template?

I guess I would be an avid roster junkie, today the NHL suspended John Zeiler. I went to the Kings' Roster Template and couldn't find a place to notate this. Is this something that could be written into the template or are suspended notations so insignificant they don't need to be noted? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think its important but I am sure it could be added in as a switch. -Djsasso (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know which trophy this is?

This is a trophy that is on display at the Hockey Hall of Fame. It is in the same case as the Memorial Cup so it's probably a CHL or junior award, and when I took a picture of the Mem Cup, this one was included and I thought it was an okay image so I uploaded it. The card at the bottom is hard to read but I think it reads "Arena Cup", but as far as I know, there is no such trophy awarded in hockey. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Viewed full size, the caption on the image appears to give us just enough info... "The Arena Cup was the championship trophy of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association that was [awarded?] from 1905-06 (?) until 1908-09 ..." It gets too hard to read on my laptop screen after that. I would say that this award is a predecessor to the Memorial Cup. Resolute 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, here it is. There is already an image and it's better than mine, so it might as well be deleted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Legends of Hockey has a better image, but it isn't one we can use. Your free alternative would fit very well on the Montreal Wanderers article, given they were the only team to ever win it. Resolute 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, Somebody has already uploaded an image, but I uploaded a new version of mine as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm on the subject, I also got a pretty good picture of the "Father David Bauer Award". The problem is that not only is there no page for it here, I'm getting very few hits for it on google. [5] Does anyone know what the award is and if a page is needed for it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not positive, but I think it has something to do with contributions to building hockey. Father Bauer was instrumental in bringing the 1988 Olympics to Calgary and was vice president of hockey Canada among other things .-Djsasso (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You could add the trophy's photo to his page too.-Wafulz (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Defenseman (ice hockey)

Should this be moved to just "Defenseman"? There's no page titled "Defenseman" - it redirects to "Defenseman (ice hockey)." RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have it like that because there are Defencemen in other sports and it was a pre-emptive move to not have to change that 5000 articles that probably link to it when it is eventually disambiguated. Nevermind the fact it should be moved to Defenceman and not Defenseman if it is moved to keep its current english variant since its been titled Defenceman (ice hockey) since its creation. -Djsasso (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

List of (NHL team) draft picks (section 2)

Since the FLC nomination of List of Calgary Flames draft picks was not promoted, I was wondering if we can make shortened versions of these lists. For example, WP:NFL only have their draft picks for the first round (ex. List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks). I think that we should also make shortened versions of these article, but not delete the current full ones, as many of the users who contribute to this WikiProject spent many hours on it (ex. Resolute). So, up for the challenge? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 10:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, shortened lists just to get promoted are ridiculous. We are not here just to get badges for articles, these lists should contain all the relevant information available as the current list does. Just because people are being ridiculous at the FAN nominee pages doesn't mean we should degrade how things are laid out. -Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Flames list failed due to problems with the sorting function. I've gotten far too busy lately to properly fix it, but once I do, I intend to re-nominate, at which point I expect it would pass. I agree wtih Djsasso. A gold star is not in and of itself an indication that a list is of the highest quality. I'd rather the draft picks lists contain all draft picks. Resolute 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've personally always disagreed with how the things are done on MLB, NFL, and NBA articles. The fact is, List of Calgary Flames draft picks is one of, if not the best draft pick list article for NHL teams. It is already looked upon as a guide to formatting less complete articles. While the gold star is a nice addition, it's really not that big of a deal. As Djsasso mentioned, shortened lists just to get promoted are ridiculous. While some people may be here just to get badges for articles, and you have done a great job at this, I think most people around here would argue against your proposition. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured list criteria #4: Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. I do not believe that scrolling all the way down just to see all of the draft picks are navigable. I don't (really) want stars, I want the readers to have better access to the information, and most reader tend to look at the first round draft picks rather than all the other draft picks. I'm going to ask why WP:NFL did shorten their list, and see if this can work out with the WikiProject. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Most often projects shorten their lists due to laziness or the quest for gold stars. There is no other reason to cut out vital information on the subject. Scrolling down does not take much effort so it doesn't violate #4. Nevermind the fact that you can make the list sortable by round in which case they don't even have to scroll. -Djsasso (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an either/or decision. It's Wikipedia, have your cake and eat it too. Per Nike, Just do it. I doubt that the first-round-only articles would be subject to a mandatory merge. Just fire up the shoeshaw and do it. BTW, it can get a little hard to properly source all draft picks for the entire history of a franchise. The myriad of lower-round trades (especially those made before draft day) just aren't documented well beyond the last few years.--2008Olympian^chitchat 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But you don't need to document the trades, just the players who were drafted, and that is very easy to source. -Djsasso (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So can we just make the first-round draft picks articles, and then put them on the See also sections of the "List of (NHL team) draft picks"? Also, I think we should put documents about the draft pick trades as some readers might want to know how they got more than two first-round draft picks or how they never got a first-round draft picks on a random year. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say no, its duplication and there are categories for each of the teams first round picks if hitting the sort button on the main draft page is too difficult. In general we haven't noted trades of draft picks because its very hard to source them and as Olympian above mentioned when you get to a certain point they become almost impossible to discover the true origin because they get traded multiple times. However, this is all just my opinion, I would say wait and see what the rest of the project says. -Djsasso (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, personally. It is basically a content fork, as a simple sort by round on this article would give the same information. I'd probably AfD such a fork, and I would be utterly shocked if it was kept. Resolute 05:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Uber-amateur leagues

What's the opinion on minor collegiate club leagues, such as Blue Ridge Hockey Conference and Great Midwest Hockey League. They don't seem particularly notable, the teams aren't even actual collegiate teams. Grsz¹¹ 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they can be merged onto the ACHA page into a list of member schools? --Smashville^talk 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree...seems a little much to go outside the ACHA page, although I'll be totally honest, I still don't really understand the notability of these teams. Seems like just a club to me, and most universities have a heck of a lot of those. Like a college beer league almost...But I could be totally wrong. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. Some colleges have 3 hockey teams - while the one that participates in NCAA competition is notable, the others that are clubs and their leagues are not. Grsz¹¹ 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way, the leagues I could possibly see having notability but it would be very little and I would probably agree on a merge and redirect to ACHA page. The teams I would definitely nix. -Djsasso (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Or at worst, a list for each division, given there are over 300 teams in the ACHA. Resolute 05:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pit Martin reported missing

Just a heads up on something that came across my watchlist this evening. Someone added an unsourced blurb to Pit Martin stating that Martin has been reported missing following a snowmobile accident. After some further investigation, I came across this article from RDS, which, although in French, confirms the addition. I've translated the article as best as I can and cleaned up the addition, but hopefully some of you guys can keep an eye on this page for the next little while as well. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Notablity of assistant coaches and assistant general managers

Two of the copyvio pages make me wonder about their notability. David McNab is the assistant GM of the Anaheim Ducks. Barry Smith was an assistant coach for several NHL teams and is now a coach in the KHL, I think. McNab's page was a lift from the Iowa Chops (ouch!) page. Smith's page was from a hockey fan site. The text might be reputable, but I don't how much it qualifies as published. I don't know enough about either very much. In any case, are assistant coaches and assistant GMs notable? In both cases, there is some head coach experience, but how much of that is notable. I could probably prod both pages and it wouldn't be noticed, but that just might not be right. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I prodded another assistant GM yesterday, didn't prod McNab because of his work with USAHockey. Smith I didn't prod because he is a coach in the KHL. But thats just my take on things. -Djsasso (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that becoming an assistant coach or an assistant GM in the NHL (or of course, lower levels) is not enough to make the person notable by itself, I would agree with that. Alaney2k (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that is what I was awkwardly saying. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

NHL Canadian Championships

For an imaginary championship, NHL Canadian Championships is a good idea. They are even keeping track of the games, although some teams play an uneven number of games between them. I've prodded the articles. They do use the NHL logo without permission, I'm sure. Alaney2k (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the image for speedy deletion on commons. There is no possible way the NHL logo is permissable over there. Resolute 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I had the local version deleted, but didn't notice there was a commons version.-Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

James D. Norris & Bruce Norris

Hiya folks. I've edited those articles to point out, that those fellows are half-brothers. Does anybody know if this is correct? I'm certain I've read it somewheres. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hockey's Future

I am currently trying to prove at the FA nom for Luc Bourdon that the website [www.hockeysfuture.com] is indeed a reliable source, but can't find the right places on the site. If anyone could help out in either proving its reliable or not, that would be great. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that we ever vetted that site to see if it was reliable. The reason hockeydb is reliable is that it has a page of references, I don't know if hockeysfuture does. -Djsasso (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

On the About page, it lists the main writers. Some of them have been involved in soem of the more important hockey publications out there, including the ISS guide. I just want to use the site because htey summed up the potential of Bourdon better than any other article I found. I could go and find another article, but it just becomes difficult to do 3 years after the draft. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think its reliable for the same reason you do. But FAC people can be picky. -Djsasso (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO such sites should be used sporadically as references (i.e. as you have done in this case), but never as a main source for an article. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm always on the fence when it comes to Hockey's Future. Some of the writers there are professionals with more respected publications, but others are heavily biased and really detract from the overall quality of the site. It is a case where I would judge reliability on the reputation of the writer rather than the reputation of the website. Resolute 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, use wisely as done in this case. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really into arguing the notablity of the site right now, so I found some better references. I was hesitent from the start of using it, but at the time I couldn't find anything better. Regardless, if only the FA reviewers trusted our judgement. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy vios

It seems that there are lots of ice hockey articles with text cut and pasted from other sites. An editor has put the copyvio template on lots of articles. See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_December_2. It says not to edit them until an administrator determines what to do. Alaney2k (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you should just rip out the copyright info or rewrite yourself. Looks like a certain user did this alot. I have already looked at a few today. -Djsasso (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming to request the assistance of your project with this matter. :) I've also brought it up at WP:AN, here.

I would be very grateful for assistance cleaning the copyright violations out of these articles. As I'm one of more active volunteers at the copyright problems board, I'm likely to wind up having to clean a lot of these myself when they come current on December 9th, and I have no background in hockey, which means I'd most likely have to just reduce them to a stub. There are (if I'm remembering correctly) 43 articles that have substantially copied content from other sites. (I think at least one of those is football, rather than hockey.) If anybody is able to look through the creator's other contributions to see if there are unidentified concerns, that would also be a great service to the project. I have looked at and located all I could from the article's he created. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Stubbing might be the quickest option for now, but I will try rewriting what I can as well. Cause deletion for these notable people really isn't valid. -Djsasso (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, though since the copyright infringement goes all the way back, the best option for some of them may be to rewrite them in temporary space as the template advises, so that they can replace the infringing versions. If you simply stub them, please explain why in the edit summary and at the article's talk page to help avoid reintroduction of the infringement. And thank you for your help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete them, and then recreate a stubby version is the best opinion. Secret ^account 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh that might be a good idea. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I created a temp stub for Milt Halliday. Did I just waste my time? Alaney2k (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, can always use whatever you created. -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I managed to clean up most of them for now, they all need to be expanded of course. The following I have not had a chance to clean up so if anyone wants to clean them up that would rock. They had alot of info added into the articles after Michael Drew created them so I haven't pruned yet. Barry Smith (ice hockey b. 1952), Myles Lane, John McMullen (engineer), Steve Brule, David McNab -Djsasso (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Barry Smith article is almost a 100% lift from that other site. I am not sure if we qualify assistant coaches as notable, even if they were/are in the NHL. I don't know if the site qualifies as a 'reliable source'. Alaney2k (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok stubified that one then. -Djsasso (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job, guys! Outstanding work, as always, in cleaning up this mess! Resolute 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done a basic stub on Steve Brule, Myles Lane, and David McNab. Can someone make these actual articles instead of temps? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -Djsasso (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Meticulous status reports

What are people's thoughts on this meticulous status report for a team's players? I think it is too much info. The only notes should be if the player is injured and possibly if the player has been called up. I'm not sure if this is on any other pages; this is just the page I happened to be glancing at. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be switched over to our new roster template is what it should be. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that notating the players on ATOs/PTOs are ok, but when a player is called up to the NHL or sent down to the ECHL/CHL he should be removed (or hidden). For ECHL contracted players I always use a section that notates where that player has gone and that they are on a Reign (or whoever) contract. That is how I have been handling the current rosters for the Manchester Monarchs, Ontario Reign and Reading Royals. I use the contract status part of the chart to indicate whether a player is on an ATO or PTO. As for the new roster template, it doesn't seem to carry enough information for use on minor league rosters. If someone could add spaces for the various injury lists in the ECHL (3 day, 7 day, 30 day), the suspended lists in the ECHL, berevement lists in the ECHL and a place to notate contract status, then I would be in favour of using the new roster template. Yes I am a roster junkie, but the old template was easier to adapt to the various minor leagues' little intricacies. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to add this. Perhaps we should create a standard convention for dealing with the minor leagues. My vote is that the template resemble what I have been doing on the Manchester Monarchs page for the AHL and Ontario Reign/Reading Royals for the ECHL. Since the Kings have no affiliates in the CHL nor the IHL, I don't pay attention to them enough to say what is the best idea. But I'm guessing a simple modification for their injury list intricacies would suffice. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Debut goals

Do we have an article on NHL players who scored a goal in their debut? I thought I remembered seeing one. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We began building a list at User:FutureNJGov/sandbox/scoredebut. Sort of died down, but still there! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look to add to the list, check out this list of Sabres players who scored in their first game in Buffalo. You'll have to sort out the true first-gamers from the players who were acquired in trades (and you'll have to look up the actual dates, which is why I abandoned it just now :)), but it's a good list nonetheless. Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that must have been it. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Conn Smythe Trophy

In the Conn Smythe Trophy article, is a trophy winner considered "active" only if they're in the NHL? People have been changing Claude Lemieux's colour to "active" even though he's playing below the NHL.-Wafulz (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)'

The whole "player is still active" thing has always been a little vague. Perhaps it should directly state "player is still active in the NHL". That would certainly remove some confusion. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That would make sense.-Wafulz (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it always was meant to be active in NHL. Might as well change the wording. -Djsasso (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed the wording or accept people changing the status. ;) —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar beef with 2007–08 NHL season#Last games - unlike Sami Kapanen, did Jagr announce retirement from the NHL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grsz11 (talk • contribs)

Until Jagr returns to the NHL, we should keep listing him under the last games section. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a consensus listed somewhere on what qualifies someone to be in those lists. Let me find the link. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Debuts and Last Games Notability. Though I suppose it doesn't cover the Jagr situation, but I agree with GoodDay. Technically he has played his last NHL game at the moment, it can be changed when/if he comes back, which seems highly unlikely. -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good templates

Hello. I would like to know whether there are any ice hockey player pages which are considered as "good", so I can copy the format and use this in future-creation of any ice hockey player pages. Also, are there any "good" pages for players which I can use, as a guide. --VoletyVole (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow this link and click show next to featured articles and you will see the best articles we have to offer when it comes to hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the projects player pages format to get an idea of how a basic article should look like. Regards. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Joe Sakic, Martin Brodeur, Trevor Linden and Ray Emery are exmaples of featured player articles. Articles like Curtis Joseph, Markus Naslund, Frank McGee and Sidney Crosby are good articles. Any of these would make excellent templates to use in building up the articles you wish to. Resolute 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can cites be found for these facts?

While working on New York Rangers seasons, I had trouble finding references for a few footnotes. Two of them relate to NHL realignments; the first is the 1974–75 realignment, more specifically how the Rangers were affected, and the second is the Patrick Division's move to the Prince of Wales Conference. The third note that needs a cite is the fact that in the 1980s and early 1990s, division champions were determined by the playoffs and not the regular season. There are no good sources online, and I don't have any books on the league's history. If anybody has books or access to old newspaper archives, I would really appreciate any help. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't have asked this before I packed all of my books to move, could you? lol. I've added a citation for the first two statements. The third is trickier, as I can't find a specific mention of it, but it is alluded to several times in MacFarlane's 100 Years of Hockey. i.e., from the 1982-83 playoff section: "The New York Islanders captured the Patrick Division title as they defeated the injury-riddled Rangers in six games." Not sure if that is solid enough to use as a source. Resolute 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't you just hate moving? haha... Then again maybe its just cause I just moved a few thousand kilometres. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

At least that makes it worth it. I'm moving about 3km. Resolute 18:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the two cites! For the division championships, do any books have a list of winners? That would probably do it. Failing that, the New York Times free archives do go back far enough to cover all three seasons in question, so I'll end up looking there next. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I split the notes into three seperate notes, one for each season that needs one. The NYT archives provided strong refs for 1986 and 1990, which leaves 1992. Does the 100 Years of Hockey book, or another, have a sentence for the 1992 Penguins that is similar to the Islanders one above? If so, that would be perfect. If not, I'll use something from NYT, even though it doesn't explicitly say "Patrick Division title"; what's avaliable is probably good enough, but I'm always looking for the best sources possible. While I'm here, the article is now at peer review. If anyone from the project has any suggestions, I'd love to see them. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

100 years ends at 1990, so no help there, unfortunately. Resolute 04:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a Seattle Times source for the other note through a Google News search, so I'm all done. Thanks again for the refs. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

NHL entry drafts Template

Any interest or objections to the following template?

This format is used in NFL Draft pages and allows linking to any years draft as opposed to the succession box currently in use on some of the NHL Entry Draft pages. I have not added this to any of the Amateur or Entry draft pages but I am willing to if there are no objections. Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 02:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That looks solid. -- bmitchelf•T•F 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What about knocking "Entry" out of the titles and throwing on the Expansion Drafts? Grsz¹¹ 14:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can do - and will work on this today Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 14:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You may need to clear your cache or go directly to the template to see the changes but I believe I've added all of the Expansion draft information available as well as several other related drafts to the template. I've tried it a few different ways and I feel the current layout addresses any chronological issues as well as a defined separation of the different draft processes. Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps all of the expansion draft articles should be kept together, instead of breaking them apart and putting some in between the Amateur and Entry Drafts. The Entry Draft was just a renaming of the Amateur Draft, so those should be kept consectutive on the template. Then you can have the list of Supplementary drafts followed by all the Expansion drafts. It'll just look a lot cleaner and less confusing if they're all together. Otherwise it looks great! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the expansion drafts, and I know that NHL Amateur Draft redirects to NHL Entry Draft but it just seems important to keep them seperate as the draft was renamed for a reason. Any thoughts? Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Sorry if it sounded like I wanted you to condense those as well. The way it looks now is exactly what think is best :-). One grammar thing though, make sure you use endashes to separate the years, and perhaps present would be better than 2009, or nothing at all. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As originally noted I based this on the NFL Draft template, I've never liked the expansion drafts intermingled with regular season drafts and I'm glad someone else agrees. As for 2009 I think the removal would be better than present however I also think something needs to remain as there is an article and it will eventually be a draft page, I'll let others weigh in on this one before I change it. User:Kaiser matias beat me to the endash which is just fine by me. Thank's for all the input. Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 22:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Emergency backup goalies

I wasn't going to AFD them yet, but what are the projects thoughts on the notability of novelties like Brett Leonhardt and Chris Levesque? I'm on the fence on them. ccwaters (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I brought up Chris Levesque back in March (here's the discussion) and he was deemed notable by the project's members. I would guess Leonhardt would be notable for the same reasons. Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrightly. I removed the SUNY-Oswego alumni cat, because he obviously transferred and therefore is not an alumnus. If you're going to create categories for both hockey programs, you should specify "men's ice hockey" because both schools have women's teams in Div III ECAC West [6]. ccwaters (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put back the SUNY-Oswego alumni cat back in, as the American Heritage Dictionary defines an alumnus as either someone who has attended the school (or a "former student of a school") or someone who has graduated from the school. I've personally attended two Canadian universities and consider myself an alumnus of both, even though one of them was only a one-year thing. As for notability, no question that both pass. Similarly, Aaron Sorochan would pass if he were to have an article created, as he is another goaltender to have had this experience. Lastly, can we come to some sort of consensus about college/university team names in the stats section? I had originally put the school names in there, not athletic team names, as that is the way that most ice hockey player articles have stats listed (ie: Paul Stastny). I personally like that way much better, as they are representing the whole school, not just the athletics department. I'll leave the change you made for now though, as that's just a housekeeping thing. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I've always used the athletic nickname for the stats. Most div I schools actually have an article for their athletic programs (Denver Pioneers, or even Denver Pioneers men's ice hockey). There's more detailed info at these articles then at the main school article. ccwaters (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh totally. I always link to the athletic team articles, it's just more of a question of if the piped link should say Denver Pioneers or University of Denver. I personally like linking to the team page, but keeping the University name like so: University of Denver for the reason I indicated earlier. Just was hoping to get some other thoughts on that. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I like to list the university name and then link to the team article. Team names tend to confuse people not familiar with the universities themselves as news articles rarely refer to the team name, they usually refer to the university name. Atleast up here in Canada. -Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also use the team name, seeing thats how the players are represented. The school name itself is mentioned in the prose, so it all works out in the end. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)