Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive57

Jared Boll

I noticed that the article on Jared Boll says that he played on the team Entrotech C-12 of the Chiller Adult Hockey league. I do not think this is true. I suspect that it might be vandalism. I have identified the editor's IP as 68.250.190.18 Should I remove it? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared it and added the stats for this year, thanks for catching that! Even if Boll did play a game in a rec hockey league during the lockout, it simply isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion in the stats table. Resolute 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well caught, 108.0.244.168. Ravenswing 03:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I stopped filibustering about roster technicalities and reported another user vandalizing an article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Where should I report a user vandalizing an article? The article of the 2010-11 Boston Bruins season with the entire roster of everyone who had been with the team at some point during the season had user 184.169.197.244 make an edit that listed Zdeno Chara as "Nicolas Dimase]". I fixed that article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to report vandalism to anyone. It's extremely common and the best thing to do is simply revert it or fix it. Read this. ChakaKong^talk 19:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I will just revert vandalized articles. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, and thanks! WP:AIV is a place to go if you see someone frequently vandalizing articles, or post a message here as there are several admins who read this page. Usually if it is a one-off, I will simply revert and ignore the editor. If you see someone repeatedly vandalizing articles, I would suggest leaving {{uw-vandal}} series warnings. It escalates from vandal1 (assumes good faith) to vandal4 (final warning, blocked if continues). Cheers! Resolute 00:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Where do I put the uw-vandal warning templates? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Warnings are placed on the user's talk page. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the various guidelines. This project talk page isn't the place to learn the minutiae of Wikipedia protocols. ChakaKong^talk 16:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We should always be welcoming to users wishing to improve the project. Resolute 20:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre NHL rule changes regarding who qualifies to have their name engraved

I noticed that before 1977 the standards were different. Some players have played in at least half of the regular season games or at least one Finals game, but didn't qualify because they did not appear in all the playoff rounds. Should those players be removed from the Stanley Cup rosters, as they did not qualify at the time; or should they stay the way they are, and use today's standards? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the NHL Official Guide and Record Book include them on the roster? If so, they probably should be included on the roster.18abruce (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if it includes them. I will check the book to see if it does or not. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• What we do is report the facts. The fact is that players whose names are engraved on the Cup in the 1960s are engraved on the Cup. That they might not have qualified in 1980 (or, for that matter, in 1940) is irrelevant. Rewriting history to suit current practices isn't part of our purview. Ravenswing 20:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not what I meant. What I meant was players who would qualify under today's standards, but didn't qualify at the time and did not have their names engraved because they did not qualify at the time. An example of this is Don Awrey in 1976. He did not qualify at the time because he did not appear in any playoff games, and was left off the cup. Should someone like this be removed or not? I was never referring to players who had their names engraved in the 60s who wouldn't qualify today. I meant that saying players like Awrey qualified would be rewriting history to suit current practices, even though he did not; which is the reason Awrey's name is not on the cup. Should these players who had their names left off the cup because they did not qualify at the time be removed? Doesn't it make sense that Awrey should be removed from that list because he did not qualify and had his name left off the cup? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I see, our article for the 1976 finals lists Awrey and Van Boxmeer and notes that they qualified to be on the cup but were not engraved. I checked the Official Guide and Record Book and it does not list either of them as being part of the roster. I think that article in particular needs some scrutiny because the explanation about engraving does not contain a citation and contradicts itself. It could be that those two player's story is notable because it played a role in changing the rules about engraving, but it is clear that neither player was on the roster.18abruce (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• See, this is demonstrating the disconnect of this whole Cup Finals/roster situation. We should establish that the names engraved on the Cup represent nothing more than that: that their names are engraved on the Cup. Those engravings shouldn't be taken to be proof of the official team rosters. Ravenswing 00:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Look at the article 1976 Stanley Cup Finals. I know the engravings are not proof of the official team's roster which these players were on, but the official Stanley Cup winning players list, the cup engravings, which Awrey and Van Boxmeer were left off the cup. Awrey and Van Boxmeer didn't actually qualify. But why can their names be listed as "official Stanley Cup champions" in the 76 Finals article, but not someone like Garrett Stafford in the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals article? Awrey, Van Boxmeer, and Stafford didn't qualify. I was told that players who were on the official teams' rosters but left off the cup should be removed from the articles' "official Stanley Cup championship teams", but now you are saying Awrey and Van Boxmeer should stay on that list, while Stafford should not? The Official Guide and Record Book of the NHL doesn't list any of these 3 players as qualifying Stanley Cup champions, as they didn't qualify. It seems that Wikipedia has a double standard, unlike the NHL Official Guide and Record Book, which lists every official Stanley Cup winning player. Unlike 18abruce, I do not take take engravings as proof of the official team roster. The 1976 Stanley Cup Finals article does need scrutiny. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me. Can you actually read. I said no such thing, I said they are not on the roster and that the article does contain contradictions. I believe that if the players in question on that particular article did in fact play a part in changing the rules of the engraving on the cup, then that aspect could be notable.18abruce (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I can read. Ravenswing said engravings are not proof of a team's entire roster, just the roster of qualified and petitioned players listed as official champions. The article does, however, contain several contradictions. The engraving notes need to be more accurate. I thought that only players who qualified, appeared, or were petitioned should be listed in the "Stanley Cup champions roster". Forget the roster issue, the fact is Van Boxmeer and Awrey did not have their names engraved because they didn't qualify. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian Championship article naming

Over at XXI Ukrainian Championship and the other related articles, a user has taken it upon himself to move EVERYTHING to new titles. I, as resident Ukrainian hockey guru...absolutely missed when this happened. Anyway, there wasn't consensus to move (it was 2:2, with 2 non-vote comments against the move as well), but the page(s) were moved anyway to a standardized Year-league-season format. The issue here, is that these pages were part of a series of national titles, which the naming mechanics used by the Ice Hockey Federation of Ukraine prefer to use roman numerals (like Superbowls). Now, the user who moved this also moved all the other season articles before a league even existed when it was just a tournament, and made up names like "UkrHL season" even though a "UkrHL" or Ukrainian Hockey League never existed - they were just the "Ukrainian Championships" and were entirely irregular, comprising multiple tiers, and differing season/round robin formats.

TLDR; I'm asking that I move them back to the correct titles.--Львівське (говорити) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:RM on Talk:2012–13 Professional Hockey League season. The result of the proposal was moved by GrooveDog. If you want, start the new RM. NickSt (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting a discussion right here. That GrooveDog moved without consensus is one of the reasons for this thread.--Львівське (говорити) 02:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it was 3:2 score including nominator's vote. Also, the name XXI Ukrainian Championship is absolutely wrong because many Ukrainian sports league (such as football, basketball, figure skating and so on) have own XXI Ukrainian Championship and we must have disambig for this page. Also, no reason were shown to reject standart year-league-season format. Also, was support vote per WP:CRITERIA, see User:BDD comment there. NickSt (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Do the other sports use roman numerals? If so, then insert 'hockey' between Ukrainian and Championship, just as the main article is Ukrainian Hockey Championship. As it stands, "UkrHL" isn't a thing. As for the PHL articles, there is no reason to break 20 years of article titles for a league that may not exist in a year.--Львівське (говорити) 16:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some media sources used: [1]. BTW I don't like UkHL name too, I only reverted to previous names due to disambig problems. If the main article named Ukrainian Hockey Championship, can we rename season articles (before last two seasons with PHL) using years as prefix, but not number? New variant: from 1992–93 Ukrainian Hockey Championship to 2010–11 Ukrainian Hockey Championship. Last two seasons will be with current names. Do you agree? NickSt (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided just says 22nd, not roman numerals. I still prefer to use the actual format that the Ukrainian ice hockey Federation uses, which would be "XIX Ukrainian Hockey Championship" format for all years. See the official logo, here: link I don't think the word "season" should be used because some years it wasn't a season, and were just round-robin tournaments; other times it was a few games for amateur teams and then Sokil would get a bye to play in the playoffs; I'm also skeptical that the 'seasons' were held over 2 years, as some were only 5 games (so 1992, not 1992-93, for example, unless we can get verified sources on the dates of the games). Too many issues just for the sake of making it look like other sports seasons. Also, I think the PHL seasons should pipe to the UHC articles rather than break the continuity; the PHL seasons are still Ukrainian Hockey Championships. Finally, "Ukrainian Hockey League" should never be used, as it never existed.

Can we get a poll going or some other editor input? I think I've made my points and would like some outside perspective.--Львівське (говорити) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Soviet league

Nickst has now taken it upon himself to move the soviet championship article to "soviet hockey league" even though no league ever existed under the name "soviet hockey league" (it's descriptive, but not its actual name). Someone mind stepping in before everything everywhere gets moved without consensus? --Львівське (говорити) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• There were many Soviet leagues: basketball, handball, football and so on. Propose better name with word 'hockey' obviously. Maybe Soviet League (ice hockey), I don't know. NickSt (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  If it was called the "Soviet League", then yes, the latter suggestion would likely be better. Resolute 01:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It was just called the USSR Championship (Чемпионат СССР) as far as I know. Maybe add 'ice hockey' in there to qualify it, but it was never called a "league" ever, that would be "Sovietsky liga"...--Львівське (говорити) 01:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen! Please say your opinions on the WP:RM page: Talk:Soviet Championship League. NickSt (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why decentralize the discussion away from the hockey project?--Львівське (говорити) 02:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

For getting more opinions. I don't understand what is your point? Now we have the absolutely wrong name: Soviet Championship League (ru:Советская чемпионская лига?). You have restored this name. Give the references please for this variant. NickSt (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• For my part, I feel no need to raise this issue on the other article's talk page; it was brought here. That being said, it is not remotely within Wikipedians' purview to give things new names just to suit our own referencing convenience. WP:COMMONNAME mandates that an article title reflect its most common version in English-language sources. That would be, in this case, "Soviet League." Ravenswing 03:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, but how would 'Soviet League' be common use in this case? There were multiple Soviet leagues within their promotion/relegation hierarchy, the 'Soviet Championship' (of ice hockey) was the highest of such leagues. Renaming it the 'Soviet Hockey League' is "giving it a new name just to suit our own referencing convenience" in your own words.--Львівське (говорити) 04:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just factoid, but the KHL continues this tradition and refers to itself as the "KHL Championship", as in "KHL Championship tournament is divided into regular season and play-offs"--Львівське (говорити) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have created template {{Top sport leagues in the Soviet Union}}. As we can see, almost all articles are in the next format: "Soviet (sports) Championship". For example: Soviet Water Polo Championship, Soviet Women's Handball Championship, Soviet Women's Basketball Championship, Soviet Figure Skating Championships. Answer the question, I offer Soviet Hockey Championship - is it normal name? NickSt (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Also Soviet Championship (rugby union), so clearly everything follows the 'soviet championship' format, no?--Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, excluding Soviet Top League. Let's rename to Soviet Hockey Championship? Also categories and season articles too. NickSt (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, top, higher, major, supreme, vyshaya...lots of leagues with that name and synonyms thereof. As for 'Soviet Hockey Championship', maybe we can get a poll going here? I looked on google books and couldn't find common use in English "Soviet hockey league" (non-proper noun) or other derivations of championships/leagues. The official actual name was "Чемпионаты СССР по хоккею с шайбой" so "USSR Championship of ice hockey" - so either Soviet Ice Hockey Championship, Soviet Hockey Championship, or Soviet Championship (ice hockey)--Львівське (говорити) 18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As I see, many leagues missed word "ice" in their titles. KHL, not KIHL. VHL, not VIHL. MHL, not MIHL. I don't see the better variant now, only Soviet Hockey Championship. NickSt (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "хоккею с шайбой" mean "ice hockey"? None of those leagues have the 'shaiboi' part in their name. Or does it mean puck? I'm confused on the translation.--Львівське (говорити) 02:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

VHL: Top, Higher, Vysshaya

• One problem also. We have the article Higher Hockey League (ru:Высшая хоккейная лига), season article named 2012–13 VHL season. But previous league named Vysshaya Liga (ice hockey) (ru:Высшая лига), season: 2004–05 Vysshaya Liga season. Football analog: Soviet Top League. What is the right name on English according rules: Top, Higher, Vysshaya? NickSt (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

We've been using 'Major' for a while and the KHL also uses 'Major' and 'VHL' on their official site, so that seems to be the best IMO - also, with 'Major League Baseball' and 'Major League Soccer' here in North America, "Major" sounds more natural and fitting for sports than "higher". Higher and HHL was used by the FHR, but the league is owned by the KHL now, right? Higher seems to be in less common use. I'd avoid "Top" altogether, and Supreme also.--Львівське (говорити) 18:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose: rename to Major Hockey League? There was another such league (see Allan Cup Hockey). Major League is disambig now. Vysshaya Liga also. NickSt (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be 'Major Hockey League', though I'm torn on the RUS-2 league name being either 'Major League (ice hockey)' or 'Vysshaya liga (ice hockey)'--Львівське (говорити) 02:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Starting the wrong lineup penalty

The article about penalties states that the starting lineup has to be in the game at the start of each period, but I noticed that teams have made goalie changes at the start of the second or third period. I have also noticed that teams do not always have their first lines on the ice when the second or third period begins. The NHL rules on starting lineups say that starting lineups only need to be on the ice when the first period begins, which is the reason that the penalty is referred to as an improper starting lineup. Should a change be made to this article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Rule 7 of the NHL does not state anywhere that the lineups for the 2nd and 3rd periods matter, only the beginning of the game. Our page here was either incorrect, out of date, or applies to rules other than the NHL's. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's attention, I have modified the entry.18abruce (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate conformity policy decision

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Birth_date_format_conformity_.28second_round.29 has closed and there is consensus that when a birth date is used in disambiguation, it should be consistent as Name (subject, born YYYY) rather than random (including or excluding a comma, and often abbreviating born as b.) as has been the case. I know historically, WP:HOCKEY has used a different format. You will need to move your articles now and update your policy. I need some help rewriting the policy across WP at places like WP:QUALIFIER, WP:NATURAL, WP:DAB, etc. More importantly, how do we go about beginning to move the thousands of pages that need to be moved? Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Enacting_the_new_policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Middle name of John Tortorella

Some have cited sources that say John Tortorella's middle name is Francis, while others have cited that it is Robert. There have been several changes that others have made. I am not sure if any of them are correct. Where can I find the correct source to cite for his middle name? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Credibility of Jim Wiemer's biography

I have seen the article about him several times and noticed vandalism like "bad bad person, stay away"; and "treats his family horribly". That is not a neutral point of view. One previous edit said he did not get a ring because he didn't qualify and that the requirements for engravement are 61 regular season games or 1 Finals game. The requirement for engravement is 41 regular season games or 1 Finals game. There are no NHL requirements for a player to qualify to get a ring. Teams can give them to anyone. What if he does have a ring? Can it be mentioned in an awards and honors section of his biography if one is created to improve the article about him? Does anyone even know anything about his family? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

NHL team infobox and navbox review

I personally think it's time to put the current NHL team infobox and navbox format of white-on-white under further review. It's been about a year since it was implemented, and I think we should go back to the older format for the following reasons.

1. No other league has their team boxes doing it (NFL, MLB and NBA all let their respective team colors show).
2. "Accessibility" to me is a "lowest-common-denominator formula"...it just looks BORING. Plus it is a GUIDELINE, not a policy.
3. Should we risk taking away the aesthetic experience the many had enjoyed just to placate less than one percent of all Wikipedians?
4. Finally, as Mark Twain said about censorship, the current format you have is "like telling a grown man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."

Just my thoughts-I think it is time we reconsidered this discussion. Tom Danson (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

First off its been just over 6 months, not a year. Secondly it doesn't matter what other sports leagues do. They should be fixed as well. That they haven't yet followed the lead just points to the fact that there is no deadline on wikipedia. Thirdly the new version looks considerably better and very much more aesthetically pleasing. And this isn't remotely censorship as the colour are still on the boxes, they are just laid out in a different way. I very much support leaving them as they are. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In a different, barely-noticeable way (seriously, just having stripes on the top of them makes it look boring). And isn't "aesthetically pleasing" a matter of opinion? And you still haven't answered my question; why should we take away what has been visually pleasing to the majority of Wikipedians in favor of something less than one-tenth of one percent of them will benefit from? Tom Danson (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you know it was visually pleasing to the majority of Wikipedians? Did you do a survey? All you actually know was that it hadn't been reverted. We constantly received complaints from readers and editors that the boxes were hard to read. If anything based on what I have heard in the past was that most people didn't like the old boxes. Your whole argument is on the basis that your preferred method is more aesthetically pleasing, so you can't exactly complain when I reject that notion and disagree based on the same principle. No knowledge is being lost by our change. Only thing that changed was aesthetics while gaining the advantage of being accessable. Its not less than one-tenth of one percent of our readers that are affected. A full 1 in 10 men alone have some form of colour blindness. But beyond that there are many more who just have a hard time reading it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My two cents. 1) Aesthetically speaking I think the titlestyle is good, but the boxes (the groupstyle and abovestyle) are ugly. Why not just use the default for those? 2) Why does nearly every NHL team navbox list every head coach and general manager the team has had? Shouldn't the links to the articles that list them suffice? --72.25.52.124 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

On your second point, I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, I've finally given up fighting that battle. Too many people believe in bloated navboxes to fight against. As to the former, I have to admit the striped title bars don't look as good as I'd hoped. I'd rather keep some colour myself, but that really leaves only the team's primary colour as a background against either white or black text, depending on what the best contrast is. Resolute 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of the various databases

There are current discussions on Wikidata on how to source content, how to automatically harvest reliable data and whether to allow bots to import data from Wikipedia regardless of sourcing. One of the rare things that people agree on is that we should at least harvest as much data as we can from reliable repositories of information. So I just wanted to get a sense of how people feel about the reliability of basic data in hockeydb, eliteprospects, nhl.com. The answer might not be a simple yes or no: data may not be equally reliable for players in different leagues or different eras, data might be unreliable for certain things (place of birth) but very reliable for others (teams played for) and so on. In short: are there any hockey databases that are reliable enough to be used as sources for certain facts? Pichpich (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well just from the ones you listed. hockeydb.com is best at North American leagues stats etc. Eliteprospects.com is the best at European leagues states but is also pretty good at North American ones. And nhl.com is only really top notch for the NHL and even then some biographical details have been wrong there before. But as you say its a hard thing to nail down. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And from personal experience, hockeydb is very receptive to correcting any errors once pointed out. Resolute 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen hockeydb miss things before, though. The other day someone updated the stats on Ron Duguay using them, and wound up deleting Duguay's junior hockey stats, which NHL.com had - although NHL.com was missing some latter post-NHL stuff that hockeydb had themselves. Q: isn't hockeydb user-generated, in sort of the same way that wikipedia is, and therefore not RS? Echoedmyron (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No. It's managed by a handful of people, though they have relied on the work of other researchers. According to their FAQ, they only accept written submissions that include copies of the supporting material. Resolute 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how these databases are generated and maintained. Obviously, if a database is user-generated then it can't be considered a reliable source no matter how low its error-rate is in practice. I would expect that the nhl.com database isn't user-generated although it's probably hard to tell who entered the data in the first place, how the data is maintained and how errors are detected and fixed. In practice, would you view a player's NHL profile as a reliable source for any of the following?

a) date of birth

b) place of birth

c) list of NHL teams played for

d) list of teams played for including juniors, minor leagues, European leagues

e) draft data (round picked, overall rank, draft team)

I'm somewhat skeptical for a) and d), very skeptical for b) but I would consider nhl.com as definitely reliable for c) and e). Given Resolute's clarification, I suppose the same question makes sense for hockeydb. Pichpich (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

NHL.com is good for city of birth, but its scripts automatically change any birth country to the current borders. So it mistreats players born in Czechoslovakia, The Soviet Union, etc. Otherwise, it is good for most of the rest of those questions, albeit and obviously only for NHL players. Even players whose NHL careers lasted less than one minute: [2]. (though it should be noted that that birthplace is not only wrong, it's not even close Ramholt is Swiss, born in Zurich). HockeyDB is better for birthplaces, I think, and excellent for NA stats, but weak on European, especially pre 2000s. Resolute 00:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with nhl.com is that they interchangeably use birthplace and hometown. So the what is listed as birthplace is very often wrong on NHL.com because it is often using what the player considers their home town. I believe this is the case in the Ramholt situation. I have run into this a number of times on NHL.com which is why I never use it for birthplaces. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Ramholt is simply a flat out mistake. He was born in Zurich, grew up there, played his minor and early pro hockey there, and returned there after the Flyers let him go. But you are right on the hometown issue. NHL.com used to list Hall's birthplace as Kingston (as did hockeydb and others), but I see they have since corrected it to Calgary (which hockeydb did after I sent them documented evidence of his birthplace). Resolute 15:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahh well figured that Ramholt might have a home in Fernie from his time with the Flames (but I suppose it was only a game he was with them). But yes your examples are what I am talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always figured nhlpa.com was better at biographical data, just because its job is to represent the players. I've seen discrepancies with birthplaces between it and the league (can't think of any at the moment though) and would lean towards the union data. It is however limited to active NHL players. TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Goalie's record

The article about goaltenders doesn't mention anything about how a goalie's record works. Does a goalie who starts a game and plays the entire 3 periods in a game that goes into overtime get credited with a tie if the team's other goalie receives an overtime win in relief of the starter? This would improve the article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A goalie either gets a win or a loss. There are no "ties." The goalie who was pulled at the end of regulation in your scenario has no change to his overall record. Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so that means only the goalie who won in overtime has a change in record. Games cannot end in ties, but what is the statistic T/OT for? What does it mean that Thomas Greiss has a career record of 17-16-3? What does he have three of in his career? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Games cannot end in ties only in recent years; for most of the history of the NHL, ties existed. It's not unreasonable for a common template to reflect this. Some footnote on the template to explain the stats wouldn't hurt, of course. Ravenswing 05:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. But Greiss entered the NHL after ties became impossible . What is the 3 on his career record? His biography is unclear. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Errr ... is there any reason to assume that your average hockey fan with an IQ above room temperature wouldn't figure out that this is where the "OT" part of that column comes in? Ravenswing 20:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But does OT on a goalie's record mean overtime losses, wins, or just games that go into overtime? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Games that went into overtime. A goalie who makes it to overtime and loses doesn't have the loss count against them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the NHL, teams are listed in the standings with wins, losses, and ot. The goalie in the net when the winning goal is scored, regardless of when it happened, is credited with the same outcome as his team. If fans understand the team standings, there is no chance that they will misunderstand what Greiss' 3 means.18abruce (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean that Greiss has 3 overtime losses? The OT stat is not added to the record if the the team wins in overtime? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Greiss has 3 overtime losses. Your second question I already answered.18abruce (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I get it now. The Sharks are 17-19 when Greiss was in when the winning goal was scored but 3 of the 19 losses were in overtime and counted separately. Should the section in the template be changed to T/OTL to indicate those 3 games are overtime losses on his record? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Day with the Stanley Cup tradition

The article Stanley Cup says that the day with the cup tradition started with the 1994 Rangers, but it doesn't specifically say which team personnel can spend their day with the cup, whether it is players, coaches, or team executives. Is it the team management's or the NHL's decision? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that is determined by the team itself. As well, I do remember Guy Lafleur taking the Cup to his home town and putting it on his front lawn, but that may have been before everyone did it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Brad McCrimmon took the Cup to his home in Saskatchewan in 1989, and he had to fight a battle of wills with the trustees to do it too. [3]. Resolute 22:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1994 Rangers were the first team when everyone began doing it. I will look up sources to determine who makes the decision and cite the source in the article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that most teams give every player a day with the cup. Does this mean it is the team's decision? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Like-named hockey players born same year

Hello.

There was recently a RM at Talk:Hans Johan Andersson, which closed as no consensus not moved.

This particular player is named "Johan Andersson", and the reason for including his middle name Hans (in his case placed first), is to disambiguate him from fellow hockey player Johan A. Andersson, born the same year.

Since "Hans" is not part of his commonname, it's not entirely correct to have the article at the current title. The same thing goes for the other guy, whose middle initial is not part of his commonname. (The use of middle initial(s) is not very common in Sweden; off the top of my head, the only name that comes to my mind is the former member of the Riksbanken board of directors, Lars E. O. Svensson.)

I know that we haven't done this before, but how about including the month of birth in the disambiguator, so that:

• "Hans Johan Andersson" moves to "Johan Andersson (ice hockey, born March 1984)", and
• "Johan A. Andersson" moves to "Johan Andersson (ice hockey, born May 1984)"?

Comment: this proposal is replaced by another one below.

Is this so bad, really?

Alternatively, Hans Johan Andersson could be moved to "H. Johan Andersson", to at least get some kind of consistency.

I think this situation is fairly rare. How about listing all similar cases here, to start with, just to get an idea on the numbers?

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We have had a few discussions about this if you take a look in the archives. Month really does make the disambiguator too long. We are supposed to keep bracketed disambiguators as short as possible. It will be even longer now that an RfC just passed on the guideline that will make us have to change the "b." to "born," Being that both of those names can redirect to the other names and will show up in the seach box when they start to be typed I don't see the need to actually name them that. This situation is actually used as an example on the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Disambiguating with another hockey player, Steve Smith. I would note that that move discussion closed at consensus to not move. Not no consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Having disagreed with WP:HOCKEY on so many issues, I am glad to see that you will be supporting the "born," convention on articles going forward at least.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think there needs to be a bit more discussion between "born" and "born," because I think we should use whatever is on the most articles as it currently stands. But I don't care enough I suppose to push for it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DJ, you're correct, the consensus was not moved, my mistake. That does not necessarily mean that everyone that participated in that discussion thinks the current title is correct. (The proposal was to move the article to "Johan "Bois" Andersson", and this was dismissed.) This is why I initiated this discussion. Do you know of more cases than this one and Steve Smith? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There are more but I can't think of them off the top of my head. The Steve Smith one has been debated to death over and over again because unlike the two above he was rather famous for his scoring on his own goal to knock the Oilers out of the playoffs. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always been against using dates at all in dabs, preferring nationality or player position in the past, or middle names or *something* (province/region of birth). I think where those articles are at now are fine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth could be useful. James Stephen was born in Glasgow, Steve in Trenton (Ontario), Hans Johan in Mariestad, and Johan A. in Motala. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth was tried in two different forms; Steve Smith (ice hockey defenceman b. 1963 in Scotland), Steve Smith (Canadian-born ice hockey player). It is part of the example on the naming conventions page. Makes them as long or longer than month. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Both Steves were defencemen, so that will not disambiguate.

How about this?

• Steve Smith (ice hockey, born 1963 in Scotland) (or Glasgow)
• Steve Smith (ice hockey, born 1963 in Canada) (or Trenton)
• Johan Andersson (ice hockey, born 1984 in Mariestad) (as "Sweden" will not disambiguate)
• Johan Andersson (ice hockey, born 1984 in Motala)

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nationality could change, as could playing position, although both are fairly uncommon. Place of birth, on the other hand, will never change. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Again look at how long those titles are vs James Stephen Smith and Hans Johan Andersson. They are almost twice as long. Disambiguation is supposed to be as concise as possible. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I know, I know. But the problem is that the current titles of three of these four players are not at their commonname: James Stephen's commonname is Steve, Hans Johan's commonname is Johan, as is that of Johan A. So, even if these titles are longer with place of birth than with month of birth – which incidentally wouldn't disambiguate the Steves – I think these dabs are the best (or least poor) titles, because they are not that clunky, but instead feel fairly natural. They are as concise as possible/needed, without being over-concise.

I'll take a look around, and see if I can come up with more similar "duplicates". I'll just have something to eat first.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DJSasso that these disambiguators are longer than what is reasonable. On the other hand, the freak occurrences of the Steve Smiths and Johan Andersson are unreasonably rare so I don't think we should be overly worried about the length of the disambiguators. I didn't notice the requested move on Hans Johan Andersson but I would have supported a move to Johan Andersson (ice hockey b. March 1984) because despite the awful disambiguator, we maximize readers' chances of finding what they're looking for when we use the common name. Moreover, readers sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia will probably see the clunky disambiguator as a sign that there's a confusing cluster of Johan Anderssons who play hockey. Pichpich (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Found Stéphane Richer and Stéphane J. G. Richer, both born in 1966, and both born in Quebec. Fortunately, they played on different positions. "Stéphane Richer (ice hockey forward)" and "Stéphane Richer (ice hockey defenceman)" would be good titles, as I can't imagine "Stéphane J. G." was his commonname. Next problem: should it be "defenceman" with a c, or "defenseman" with an s? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to check out the recently redesigned naming conventions page WP:Naming conventions (ice hockey). As I mentioned most of this ground was covered just a few months ago. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the naming conventions mention, as an example ("for instance"), a similar case with three players named Sean Collins, one forward born 1988, and one defenceman and one forward, both born 1983. (In my opinion, the two forwards are inconsistently named.) It seems to me that the Stéphane Richer proposals above fit this model fairly well. As for the Johan Anderssons and Steve Smiths, the conventions don't mention the possibility of two players, in addition to sharing the same name and profession, also sharing year of birth and playing position. I couldn't find any recent discussion in the talkpage history, so maybe the naming conventions need to be amended? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier on in the discussion there are a number of discussions in the archives of this page. That is where those sorts of discussions would have been held. My point was Stephane already does fit the new criteria, it just hasn't been moved yet. The updating was literally a couple of months ago so not all pages have been updated yet. But the other two do not. They get unique treatment because of the situation with same name and position and birth year. In such it is already covered by the main naming conventions page at WP:Naming conventions (people) which I pointed you to earlier on. As such we didn't need to repeat it in the hockey specific ones. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Finally discovered the archive pages of this page. But found nothing there (I'm probably blind). Also had a look the WP:NC (people), where I found this: "Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable word.", and this: "Other examples where more creative disambiguation is required include the following". I can't find that these wordings rule out the above proposals. The only thing I observed, is that we now should use ", born" instead of "b.". If that is what you are referring to, I'm happy to adjust the proposal accordingly. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal adjusted. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have browsed through the American and Canadian ice hockey player categories (which ought to be the most populous), and didn't find more than the ones mentioned above. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I support any proposal to move articles to titles that don't use obscure middle names, even if the price to pay is a very clunky disambiguator but it's not clear that we have an absolute consensus on that. On the other hand, the moves for the two articles on Stéphane Richer shouldn't be controversial given the new guideline. Pichpich (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the Richer pages, since it seemed to be uncontroversial. I'm currently going through the articles that refer to the un-dabbed article. It turned out that several articles have been linking to the wrong Richer. In addition, both have played for Tampa Bay. Quite a mess. I also discovered that Richer the forward was in the team that won the 1985 WJHC, which wasn't mentioned in the article. All in all, a useful lesson in checking the sources.

I will prepare RMs for the Anderssons and Smiths within the next days. I will link to this discussion.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the point of creating RfM when based on this discussion its already pretty split. And looking at all the previous RfMs on Smith they were near unanimous to keep them where they are. Especially considering the Andersson RfM that just happened was near unanimous in keeping it at the name its currently at with a high turnout. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason for people opposing the previous RM was probably the proposed target, don't you thinks so? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you could try to make that case. Personally I would take that target far before I would take what you are proposing. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• New RM created at Talk:Hans Johan Andersson. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

template for men's national hockey teams

There is an article for Serbia and Montenegro men's national ice hockey team, but the template ih|SCG does not direct readers there, it directs to Serbia national ice hockey team. Can this be fixed please. Also ih|FR Yugoslavia should also direct there instead of to Yugoslavia men's national ice hockey team.18abruce (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated.18abruce (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, we are following the NHL standard for seasons as in the 2013–14 season technically does not start until the day of the draft. So any trades/signings/etc should be documented on the 2012–13 season. Correct? -B2Project^(Talk) 23:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The off-season begins when the team's season ends. Just look at the standard format of these articles - the span of events covered starts with an off-season section and ends with a regular season or playoff section. It is quite illogical to list trades (after the trade deadline teams are only allowed to make trades AFTER their season has ended) and signings made with the coming season in mind in the article of the team's previous season. --151.213.48.138 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No the standard we use on wikipedia is that the season ends between the day of the draft. You just have to look at any of our season articles to see this. This standardizes it for every team so they all end at the same time. The logic behind it is that the Awards are for the previous season and players drafted in the draft play in the following season if they make the team. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

When was this discussed and agreed upon? Most seasons articles I look at do not do it this way. I also see that the various (Season) NHL transactions articles have never gotten that memo. -- I don't understand the significance of the awards ceremonies since they have nothing to do with player movement. As I understand it most (if not all) the awards are voted upon a few days after the regular season's completion. -- But these trades and signings at issue "play in the following season if they make the team." Mark Streit can't very well play for the Flyers in the 2012-13 season since that season is over. --151.213.48.138 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should hold back on making all those changes until this discussion is over? Perhaps let a few other editors chime in first? Just a thought. --151.213.48.138 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We use the standard on every page that involves a season so that we don't have different season type pages using different definitions. There are going to be pages that are wrong as people change them and we don't notice. My comment about the awards was because the awards ceremony is the last event of the previous season. Generally a few days before the draft. This has been talked about and agreed on many times but one of the more recent discussions is here. You wouldn't be the first person to come along and not agree. :) As for my changes I am fixing mistakes that were introduced to articles. There has been a long strong consensus on the issue. As for my comment on players playing the following season, this was in regards to drafted players (ie players are drafted to play for the current season). Trades it doesn't really matter like it does for the draft. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomáš Vokoun was traded last year in a similar situation as Streit and the transaction appears on the 2011–12 Washington Capitals season and 2011–12 Pittsburgh Penguins season. If you look at the history of the Pens page these was debate then as to where the trade should be which eventually resulted in it being included on 11-12.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kristiāns Pelšs

Could a couple people add this article to their watchlists? There are reports out of Latvia and Edmonton that he is missing and presumed drowned, but nothing is yet confirmed. There's been no activity on the article yet, but it would be useful to have it watched in case speculation does get out of hand. Resolute 15:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Matt Cooke Article

I noticed the Matt Cooke article has been vandalized a few times, but is now fine. What is the reason for this vandalism? If a vandal gets into an edit war, how do I improve the article with a neutral point of view? Does the neutral point of view warning come into play here? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sports fans get passionate about controversial people and events, and they tend to take it out on our articles from time to time.  ;) If you see obvious vandalism ("He sucks", "He's gay", etc), freel free to revert. Note that for reverting obvious vandalism, WP:3RR does not apply, so if a string of vandals hit an article, you could make a dozen reverts without facing sanctions for edit warring yourself. You wouldn't be using NPOV warnings in this case, but rather {{uw-vandal1}}, {{uw-vandal2}}, {{uw-vandal3}}, {{uw-vandal4}} warnings. If an article is getting a lot of vandalism and you feel that it may require edit protection, WP:RFPP is the page to request it. NPOV would come into play in situations where there is a difference of opinion about the value of an edit, but for which the changes are not obvious vandalism. Cooke's incident with Karlsson is a good example. An editor tried to insert their opinion that it was a deliberate act into the article - definite POV, but not really vandalism. That opinion was reverted in the article, and a discussion directed to the talk page. Resolute 20:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I will revert vandalized articles. But was it vandalism when someone once said that "He is a disgrace to the game"? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would revert that as well as definite POV, personal opinion, editoralizing. I think it would become vandalism if such invective was repeatedly inserted, however. Resolute 22:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

NHL rosters by article quality

I did this last year out of curiousity, and again this year, to judge the general quality of our active player articles, per team. I've gone over the articles of anyone who appeared in a game this year and set the article quality rank (highly subjectively, of course). Most of our content is added by people interested in their favourite team or players and edit without the desire to build up to FA or GA quality. Among the things I noticed: Proseline is a major problem, especially on Oiler and Canadien player articles, though Henrik Lundqvist is probably the worst example of it. Every player had an article, except one: Andrej Šustr. And finally, a lot of our active player GA/FA articles need updates and a bit of refreshing. I've marked them at User:Resolute/FAGAReview, and will try to go through them all. If anyone else wants to look over a few and just make sure recent updates are complete and cited, etc, please do so and mark on my subpage that they are done!

As to the team list, I've scored each article as being 6 points for FA, 5 for GA, 4 for B class, etc., down to 1 for a stub. The change from last year to this is pretty meaningless, as a trade of a player with an FA/GA article can make a big difference, positive or negative, on an individual team. But I do think it is interesting that the average quality of most team's articles went up. Resolute 23:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

#	Team	FA	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	Total	Average	2011–12 Avg	Diff.
1	Vancouver Canucks	3	16	2	7	5	0	33	4.15	4.23	–0.08
2	Calgary Flames	1	5	2	13	15	0	36	3.00	3.10	–0.10
3	Pittsburgh Penguins	1	2	3	7	20	0	33	2.70	2.34	0.36
4	Colorado Avalanche	1	0	1	15	14	0	31	2.68	2.52	0.16
5	Buffalo Sabres	0	4	1	8	15	3	31	2.61	2.34	0.27
6	Los Angeles Kings	0	2	3	5	13	3	26	2.54	2.25	0.29
7	Toronto Maple Leafs	0	3	2	5	17	3	30	2.50	2.57	–0.07
7	Detroit Red Wings	0	2	2	8	18	2	32	2.50	2.48	0.02
7	Boston Bruins	0	2	4	5	18	3	32	2.50	2.31	0.19
10	Ottawa Senators	0	0	4	13	14	4	35	2.49	2.38	0.11
11	St. Louis Blues	0	1	5	5	14	4	29	2.48	1.90	0.58
12	New York Rangers	0	0	4	10	18	3	35	2.43	2.16	0.27
13	Edmonton Oilers	0	1	2	10	14	4	31	2.42	2.31	0.11
14	San Jose Sharks	0	1	1	11	14	5	32	2.34	2.17	0.17
15	Tampa Bay Lightning	1	3	0	7	18	8	37	2.32	2.30	0.02
16	Chicago Blackhawks	1	0	4	5	15	7	32	2.31	2.42	–0.11
17	Montreal Canadiens	0	1	1	7	19	3	31	2.29	2.33	–0.04
17	Washington Capitals	0	1	1	5	23	1	31	2.29	2.10	0.19
19	Philadelphia Flyers	0	2	1	10	19	7	39	2.28	2.06	0.22
20	Winnipeg Jets	0	2	2	3	18	5	30	2.27	2.16	0.11
21	Columbus Blue Jackets	0	1	1	9	15	6	32	2.25	1.87	0.38
22	Nashville Predators	0	3	0	6	16	8	33	2.21	2.11	0.10
23	Anaheim Ducks	0	0	4	5	15	7	31	2.19	2.06	0.13
24	New York Islanders	0	2	1	4	14	7	28	2.18	2.00	0.18
25	Carolina Hurricanes	0	1	2	6	22	7	38	2.16	2.07	0.09
26	New Jersey Devils	1	1	1	7	16	11	37	2.14	2.01	0.13
27	Minnesota Wild	0	1	1	4	20	5	31	2.13	1.59	0.54
28	Phoenix Coyotes	0	1	1	4	19	6	31	2.10	2.26	–0.16
29	Florida Panthers	0	1	1	9	14	11	36	2.08	2.32	–0.24
30	Dallas Stars	0	2	1	5	12	13	33	2.00	2.13	–0.13
—	Total	8	58	54	202	450	145	917	2.40

New York Rangers

Could one of our kind admins slap a semi-protection on the Rangers' article? We've reverted IPs seven times in the last couple days on the Vigneault rumors ... Ravenswing 09:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks likes the rumors will end soon though, since the Rangers will be making an announcement at 11am (ET) tomorrow (Friday) at Radio City Music Hall, so one day of semi-protection would probably do it. (Maybe protect Vigneault's article as well, since IPs have been going crazy there too)Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 09:29, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Done. Set it to expire around the time of the conference. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(bows to the Sublime Master) Ravenswing 13:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I was going to suggest semi'ing the AV article too, but as noted, we're only 24 hours away from this (terrible IMO) announcement. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Done there as well set to expire around the time of the press conference as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

...And now, we've got pretty much the exact same situation again, except this time with Vancouver Canucks and John Tortorella rumors. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 03:26, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a rumor anymore. CBS Sports mentioned that Tortorella will be named the new head coach of the Canucks. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It remains speculation ("reports") until the team announces. Resolute 02:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Bernier‎

seems to be a lot of vandalism on the Jonathan Bernier‎ article with all of the trade speculation. Could some people keep an eye on this page for a bit, or someone lock it down for a while? Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Cup winning team pictures

I have looked at some of the Stanley Cup championship team pictures, including the 2008 Red Wings, 2010 Blackhawks, and 2012 Kings Stanley cup championship pictures. I noticed that players on the who don't qualify to have their name engraved on the Stanley Cup are generally included in the team picture. Teams generally have about 30 players on the roster and some may be covered up due to the number of players in the picture. Jake Muzzin was in the Kings Stanley Cup winning team picture. I don't believe Garrett Stafford was in the Red Wings 2008 Stanley cup championship picture, but it is possible that he is covered up. Does anyone know for sure if Garrett Stafford isn't in the picture or is covered up by other players; or if Kyle Beach, Hannu Toivonen, Shawn Lalonde, Jassen Cullimore, Jake Dowell, Corey Crawford, or Danny Richmond were in the Blackhawks team picture? I have seen the pictures and could not identify everyone. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Who are these players wearing Stanley Cup T-shirts? Who is the player with the beard behind Cristobal Huet? Who is that next to Marian Hossa? I am trying to add more details to their biographies. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Captioning this picture of the Red Wings 2008 Stanley Cup winning picture

How do I add captions to this picture file? Can anyone name every player in it? Is Justin Abdelkader or Garrett Stafford in this picture? I can't identify everyone. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure Abdelkader is in the back row, third from the right (he's the first player on the right in the back). Canada Hky (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding someone I was looking for. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Award lists in players' biographies

Can it be mentioned in an award list in players' biographies that a player was awarded a Stanley Cup ring by their team, or should these lists only include league trophies? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I would put it in prose in the appropriate section of their article, if it can be cited. Resolute 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this "awards section" for? Is it fine to list team awards as well as league awards? I noticed in Jim Slater's article that he won the community service award of the Winnipeg Jets. Why did one of you say that you would not list team awards like these? Why shouldn't anyone know about players receiving team awards? Is it not a good idea to say Jeff Carter has a Stanley Cup ring? Are team awards not notable enough? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't say Jeff Carter got a ring because we already say "Won the Stanley Cup with the Los Angeles Kings on June 11, 2012." -DJSasso (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't really have a set format for the awards lists. I've been creating tables on articles I rewrite (e.g.: Al MacInnis#Awards and honours or Brad McCrimmon#Awards and_honours), and I do include team awards. Personally, I don't often include "Stanley Cup championship", but as the MacInnis example shows, others often come along and add it anyway. But I would only include that if there is a citation that says "player won the Stanley Cup with team in year." Simply receiving a ring would not qualify that in my mind, as that would mean the wives of several teams' players would thus become "Stanley Cup champions" as well. Resolute 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What about players like Aaron Rome, Jake Muzzin, Tim Brent, Keith Aucoin, or Zach Hamill? Even though they didn't qualify to officially win the Stanley Cup, they received rings for being signed to the teams' rosters when these teams won the Stanley Cup. Is getting a ring assumed there? Is it fine to mention that they received rings, should it be mentioned in another section of a biography, or is it not notable enough? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I would follow the Aaron Rome example where it is mentioned in the prose with the related season. To paraphrase it states: he was called up for the playoffs, didn't qualify to have his name engraved, but the team gave him a Cup Ring and allowed him a day with the Cup. All of which is referenced.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have so far done this for Zach Hamill, Marc-Andre Cliche, Jake Muzzin, Martin Jones, and David Gove. Thank you for suggesting the Aaron Rome example. For players like this, is getting a ring, appearing in the team picture, or getting a day with the Stanley Cup assumed like Jeff Carter's case because the teams generally give these players at least one of these awards; or would these need to be cited? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue you are having is you are considering the ring an award. It isn't really an award. It is just a gift from the team to an employee. Just like you might get a Christmas bonus or something at your job. I wouldn't mention it unless you can cite it. And even then I probably would have to think hard if it was worth putting in an article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It it is a gift from the team to congradulate an employee. I can, however, cite sources that mention that a player receives this gift for being on a team that wins the Stanley Cup. Teams generally hand out such gifts to their players, whether they qualify to be official cup winners; or don't qualify, but are on the team's roster. Can it be assumed or not that non-qualifying players also receive these gifts? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As has been stated a number of times, all of this information should be traced back to references, and not assumed. However, since there are many facts that have reliable sources that could be included within an article, in order to ensure that the most important information is not crowded out by the rest, it is necessary to use judgment on what is worth including. Getting a gift, even for winning a championship, might not be sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion. isaacl (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Eeeesh ... we keep going around with this, 108.0.244.168, don't we? For the better part of a month now, you've been extremely focused on complicating a terribly simple issue. A player becomes a Stanley Cup champion by appearing on the ice for a team that wins the Cup. That's it. That's all it is. Being on the roster isn't, by itself, noteworthy. Being given a ring by the organization isn't, by itself, noteworthy. Appearing in a team photo isn't, by itself, noteworthy. (Heck, our endemic use of "Patrice Bergeron won the Stanley Cup" is incorrect -- he played for a Stanley Cup champion, but wasn't himself the Cup winner -- but that's a battle long since lost.)

There is nothing wrong with an awards section mentioning "Played for Stanley Cup champions in 1991, 2006 and 2011," and that's all that's necessary here. Ravenswing 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I am no longer debating what makes a Stanley Cup champion, but rather which team members receive championship gifts from the team. Maybe receiving gifts by itself is not noteworthy; but wouldn't most assume non-qualifying players don't get these team gifts if it isn't mentioned, even though they do? Jake Muzzin didn't play in any games When the Kings won their first Stanley Cup, but did become a member of the team when he was recalled during the playoffs. Is it fine to mention in Jake Muzzin's biography that he was with the team at the time and received team gifts if it can be properly cited? I just don't want people to incorrectly believe that they do not receive these gifts. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not some readers may make an incorrect assumption is not a criterion for determining if something should be included within a Wikipedia article. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

At least what determined a Stanley Cup champion wasn't completely trivial. That aside, there's not a single statutory bit about who does or does not get Cup rings; championship rings may be a now-pervasive sports custom, but it's always been nothing more than a custom, and the number of rings that goes out is entirely at the discretion (and the wallet) of the team. If there were rules about who got Cup rings, one would imagine the mania the Bruins indulged two years ago, when they gave everyone remotely associated with the team a ring (down to, and I am not kidding, the ushers in the Garden), wouldn't have happened. Ravenswing 05:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I at least remove statements that say that a non-qualifying player did not receive a ring because such a statement is not true? The article about Jim Wiemer actually once said that he did not receive a ring because he did not play in enough regular season games or a Finals game, which is a league requirement that has nothing to do with rings. He did receive a ring, as non-qualifying players generally do. It was a previous edit of this article that got me hung up on this issue about rings. Is it fine that I removed that false statement that was not cited? It was this false uncited statement in that article that was always bothering me because someone made an incorrect assumption, which was actually made by some editor, not a just a reader. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If you find an uncited statement you believe to be false, you may remove it. But make sure you note why in your edit summary. One of the disadvantages of editing from an IP is that many people will revert unexplained removals on sight. Resolute 02:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I always do give an explanation if I believe a statement in an article is false. I have seen uncited edits that are likely false statements. I am not sure whether that specific one was an incorrect assumption or vandalism, but I have noticed that it has been vandalized several times before. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that since the winning team management decides to whom it will bestow any gifts, it uses any criteria it wants to. So one team could decide not to give any gifts to players who did not qualify for having their names engraved on the Stanley Cup, and another could make a different decision. What one team decides can't be extrapolated to other teams. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that teams can give rings to anyone they decide. That is my point. One of the previous edits of the Jim Wiemer article stated that there is a league requirement for giving out team gifts, which is not true. The article has also been vandalized a few times, diminishing its credibility. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to this version, it makes no mention of a league requirement for receiving a ring. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I never noticed that. He did receive a ring, although this is no longer the issue. That version does, however, make a false statement that the requirements for a player's name to be on the Stanley Cup are 61 regular season games, 3 playoff games, or a Finals game. The current requirements since 1977 are 41 regular season games or a finals game. If you look at past versions of the article, like this edit, this version, and this one, there have been several bogus edits. This article was once plagued by vandalism and false statements that it took a long time to remove. Is there a template to indicate that an article may contain bogus statements? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

SHL statistics - merge with Elitserien/SHL statistics or treat separately?

Earlier this month, Elitserien was renamed "Swedish Hockey League". (abbreviated SHL). Dolovis raised an interesting issue on my talk page regarding player statistics. My question is: Should we merge future SHL statistics with Elitserien statistics (in total games played, points, goals etc., or treat SHL statistics separately from Elitserien? I prefer merging, because it's still the same league; the league has just been renamed.

Also, if we should merge, how should we treat the players' statistics? Should we change all instances of "SEL" to "SHL" in the statistics tables? And should we write "SHL totals", "Elitserien totals", or "SHL/Elitserien totals"? HeyMid (contribs) 20:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Stats should be merged since it is the same league. I would leave the old incidence of SEL alone since that's what the league was called at that time. On the total line I would use SHL total since it is now the name of the league and maybe add a note below the stats table about the name change. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Mo Rock above. Merge the stats and record as "SHL totals" on a go-forward basis, but do not remove/replace historical references to the Elitserien or SEL. Dolovis (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Or "SEL/SHL totals", but yes, it is one league, simply rebranded. Resolute 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Checking line

The article about forward lines mentions that the third line is generally a checking line. I have heard some say that the fourth line, the energy line, is generally another checking line, just like a team's third line. Is a teams fourth line also generally known for being a checking line? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rosters for the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals

Should Jay Pandolfo, Kaspars Daugavins, Carl Soderberg, Niklas Svedberg, Carter Camper, Aaron Johnson, or Chris Bourque be added to the Bruins roster if they end up playing in the Finals? I heard that there is a good chance Pandolfo, Daugavins, or Soderberg will play because Gregory Campbell is injured. What about Henrik Karlsson, Ryan Stanton, or Ben Smith for the Blackhawks if they play? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. To qualify for engraving on the Cup, a player must satisfy one of the following conditions:

• He played in at least 50% of his team's games in the regular season OR
• He played in at least one game in the Finals

Thus, if any of the players you noted above plays in any game in the Finals, they will qualify to get their name on the Cup. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 08:19, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Is the requirement this season still 41 games, half of the normal amount of regular season games; or was it reduced to 24 because of the lockout? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I would assume the requirement for this year would be 24, because many of the league's other things (salary cap, games played requirements for awards, etc) were also pro-rated for the shortened season. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 09:17, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question about the lockout. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Apropos, NHL Network's Kathryn Tappen tweeted out the league's requirements this morning, from a league source: Any player who appeared in 23 games or plays one Finals game is eligible. Additionally, teams can submit a list of additional names who "may not meet the criteria but can be considered". She noted Jamal Mayers (19 games) and Jay Pandolfo (18 games) as potential examples if they don't appear in the finals. Resolute 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What about Matt Bartkowski, Kaspars Daugavins, Marc Savard or Carl Soderberg? Torey Krug will likely play. If the Bruins win, is it possible the ones who don't play might have their names on a petition? What about Ben Smith, Ryan Stanton or Henrik Karlsson if the Blackhawks win? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of us can answer that. We'd have to wait to see whom they actually engrave on the Cup. Resolute 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Daugavins and Krug are playing in game 1. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, as to the "Who might play?" "Who might (Boston/Chicago) petition?" Since this is a talk page exclusively devoted to improving articles, there's no point speculating about things that'll spin out over the next weeks. Either (say) Bartowski or Pandolfo will play, or they won't. Either the Bruins (I hope) will petition for someone or they won't. The time to include the list of what names were engraved on the Cup is when the names are engraved on the Cup. We're really in no rush here, and no one gets a prize for being the first editor to scoop the rest. Ravenswing 15:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I can now make improvements to the qualification requirements in these articles by mentioning the lockout. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The Finals are now over. The requirement to qualify is 23 games? This article says Carcillo does not qualify because he was a game short in the regular season. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Stanley Cup Finals vandalism alert

The IP 205.200.148.43 has been blatantly vandalizing the article for the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals by calling Jonathan Toews "Jonathan Towes", saying he is from Norway, and ruining the Blackhawks roster template. Be on the lookout for this user and revert anything incorrect if this user does it again. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Cammalleri + Jewish POV

Just a heads up, but on the Cams article a user is pushing a pro-Jewish POV, adding to his early life section's lead "Cammalleri was born in Richmond Hill, Ontario, and is Jewish". This is despite and in contrast to the other sources which indicate he was raised non-denominationally and in a secular household - straight from his own mouth. His sources include a Sports Illustrated "best of" slideshow, a deadlink from a jewish newspaper, and an unverifiable offline article. Just need some help since he's using warnings on my talk page & threatening to get me blocked.--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the block warnings come from the fact that, yet again, you are turning to edit warring. I suggest you just stop and hash it out on the talk page. Resolute 17:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

why am i always the only one who wants to use the talk page / have to allow others to revert me without recourse. screw that.--Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Львівське, if the talk page isn't helping, explain to someone that you are making edits to explain an article from a neutral point of view, which is not edit warring, as stated by exemption no. 7 of the three revert rule. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case, that exception does not apply. There are a lot of sources that claim Cammalleri is Jewish. The point of contention is how prominently that should be mentioned. There is no NPOV exception to 3RR. Resolute 00:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Then what does this mean? '7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)'. Here are the rules for biographies of living persons. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In that context, bias would be implied to mean the source itself is not accurately reflecting the truth. As an example, using one political candidate's attack ad as a source against one of their rivals. In this case, Cammalleri has Jewish ancestry, which makes the claim that he is Jewish viable, and there are reliable sources that back the claim up. This is a content dispute over the best way to present the information. Resolute 01:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true that he has Jewish and Catholic ancestry. Presentation just needs to be accurate and it isn't an inaccurate representing the truth. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits related to NHL realignment

Well, that didn't take long. A few hours after the 2013 Cup Finals ended, an anonymous IP updated the Western Conference (NHL) page to reflect the new NHL realgnment.[4] I'm sure other IPs are going to follow, including changing the NHL article and the {{NHL}} navbox. My question is: should we updated all these pages now, or revert these IP's for the time being? And if we do update all these pages now, what about creating those four new division articles whose names the league has not announced yet? Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, revert the IPs on what grounds? The league IS realigning for next year, and the divisions *don't* have names yet. That they're putting in "Division B, "Division C," etc. might look lousy, but that's the current fact on the ground. Creating the division articles can be done, and they can always be renamed when the league gets around to naming them. Ravenswing 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The NHL has announced that it is realigning, but it has not yet done so. "Division B" is stupid and worthless. Same as when people rush to add coaches that the media speculates will be hired. It is a waste of their time, a waste of our time, and not reflective of the current status. Unfortunately, short of protecting about 40 articles, there isn't much that can be done about it, sort of constantly reverting well meaning but premature edits. I'm not really sure that is a battle worth fighting. Resolute 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The NHL has realigned - These are the facts right now. NHL.com[5] has been updated to show the Division A/B/C/D alignment for all purposes. Your personal opinion of the division names being "worthless" is not relevant. shaggy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Teams' reasons for petitioning to engrave non-qualifying players' names

I find some of the teams' decisions using the Mike Hartman rule confusing. I noticed the Lightning submitted Darren Rumble's name but did not with Shane Willis. Rumble played in 5 games and Willis played in 12. George Parros played in 37 games and had his name engraved because the Ducks successfully petitioned. The Ducks also unsuccessfully petitioned for Aaron Rome and Mark Hartigan, but didn't even submit Tim Brent's name. Brent played in 15 games, but Hartigan only played in 7, and Rome played in only 2. What are the teams' reasons for submitting the names of Rome, Hartigan, Rumble, and Parros, but not Brent or Willis? The Stanley Cup article should mention this but it doesn't. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, to mention something, we would first need sources documenting the teams' reasons for doing so. I do worry that such would be too trivial though. It is worth noting the rules for getting one's name engraved, but I don't think it serves much purpose to delve into the minutae of individual team decisions in any given year. Resolute 23:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it is too trivial to put in an article. I suppose I can research reports that have been published by some reliable source. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but why? I figure if I had extra energy to burn, there are quite literally thousands of hockey articles, and hundreds of stubs, that badly want improvement. I won't say I couldn't find hockey topics more trivial than parsing out the reasons why managements submitted some names but not others, but I couldn't find many. Ravenswing 04:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Updated Template:NHL to reflect new alignment

I just wanted to let you all know that I have updated the template to reflect the new alignment, using the current Division A, B, C, D format being used officially by the NHL until division names are released. These still link to the Pacific, Central, Northeast, and Atlantic divisions respectively, as these are the most "intact" of the current divisions and the logical successors. This can all be updated once the official names are released, which should happen relatively soon. shaggy (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Canadian and American English writing of hockey articles

I noticed some articles were written in Canadian and others in American English. Is there a certain standard for articles, or does it depend on the editor? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR which explains how English Varieties are handled. But a simple rule of thumb is, if the subject is American use American. If it is Canadian use Canadian. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And if neither nationality, I would go with where their team is located. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If an article has strong ties to a nation, use that nation's variant of English. If there are no strong ties, use the format established at the time the article was created. i.e.: For a Russian player whose article is written in British or Canadian English, don't flip it to American if he is dealt to an American team, or vice versa. Resolute 15:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line though? A player like Daniel Alfredsson may not be Canadian, but has played his whole NHL career in Canada. It wouldn't make sense to use American spelling on his page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd refer back to Resolute's comment. It would have been nice if whoever initially wrote Alfredsson's article had done so in Canadian English, but since it's been in American English for so long, there's no real reason to change it. Otherwise we find ourselves on an "o" to "ou"/"z" to "s" (or vice-versa) changing crusade for what amounts to little more than aesthetics. What's most important is that one style is maintained for the whole article.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I know we don't need a changing crusade. I always believed it depended on the nationality of the editor. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always used Commonwealth English for all articles where the subject wasn't an American topic. Simply because its the most common variant around the world and because most of the words we use for ice hockey articles are titled already using Canadian English so it avoids a redirect. That being said I generally just leave what I find. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What is Commonwealth English? Canadian, British, Irish, American, New Zealand, Australian, and South African English all have some differences. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think DJ probably means Canadian.  ;) Most of the spellings of hockey terms are consistent across Commonwealth variants. Centre, defence, etc. We don't really have to worry about the Tire/tyre issue and others. Resolute 23:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No I actually meant Commonwealth which is what the group of Canadian, British, Irish, New Zealand, Australian etc are usually grouped together as for simplicity. Yes they all have some differences. But in general the group of them are often referred to as Commonwealth. I used Commonwealth because of what Resolute mentions, in most of the variants of it they all use the same spelling of words that would be used in hockey. ie Defenceman, centre etc. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is Canadian, which has differences from British and Australian English. What if a player has been using a clamp to repair equipment? Shouldn't this tool be spelled "vise"? That is the spelling in American and Canadian English, while it is spelled "vice" in other Commonwealth variants. Canadian English has a few more words that are spelled like the American variant than other Commonwealth variants. What if the Subject is South African or Australian, as opposed to American or Canadian? If that is the case, shouldn't one of those variants be used? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Again you use the form of English that matches the subject. If the subject is a South African you use South African English. The example of US and Canada above was for simplicity since most players are from those two countries or they are from countries where there is no English variant. Again if you want to understand all the intricacies you can read WP:ENGVAR. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was always the case. I read the ENGVAR article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Fredrik Pettersson

The subject article uses a featured picture File:Fredrik Pettersson.jpg which passed in 2009. But as the article is stub like, the image cannot be displayed on main page in Today's Featured Picture. Hence requesting here to expand the article, if possible also write about this specific game. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

He's a former Calgary Hitman. I'll give it a shot. Resolute 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done! Resolute 00:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Saddledome flooded

Someone may wish to update the Saddledome and Calgary Flames to account for the loss and damage from the 2013 Alberta floods. According to the latest press conference, our Saddledome article is a bit light on the damage and loss (and loss of Flames historical items) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been covering it on 2013–14 Calgary Flames season, but will add more to the Scotiabank Saddledome article shortly. Thanks, Resolute 02:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the Flames season has been long over, but the playoffs are still on, is 2013-14 the right article? Or instead the 2012-13 Calgary Flames season ? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The impact is on the 2013-14 edition of the team, specifically the Flames' offseason. Resolute 22:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Saddledome article is short of details, and it is the thing that was impacted, so one would think the most details would be in that article? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The existing paragraph covers what news is relevant to the facility to this point. If (when) events begin to get canceled, that will increase the section, as will the eventual completion of repairs. The passage at 2013–14 Calgary Flames season is longer because it includes the experience of one of the players being evacuated. That part is not relevant ot the facility itself. Resolute 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nationality flag icons for players from certain Nordic countries

Should I use this flag template , for a player who is Ålandish; and this template , for a player who is Faroese? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. Go with what the sources say. So if sources claim the players you are thinking of are Danish, then use the Danish flag. Resolute 16:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I would think that sources would say a player from the Faroe Islands is Faroese and a player from the Åland Islands is Ålandish. But I haven't heard of any players from those countries. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do we post sub-national flags for any other country? Patrice Bergeron has the Canadian flag, not the Quebec flag. Jonathan Quick has the United States flag, not the Connecticut flag. Neither the Faroe Islands nor the Aland Islands are sovereign nations. Ravenswing 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that the question of how to represent Faroe island players and Aland players are equal to each other. Aland football players are listed as having a nationality of Finland, while Faroe islands are listed as having a nationality of Faroe Islands. There is a significant amount of hockey played in Aland (look up MIFK on youtube) so it is likely that there are pro hockey players originating from there, but while they have a measure of autonomy, I believe they consider themselves to be part of Finland (while most of them actually speak Swedish). The Faroe Islands do not have Ice Hockey at all, so it is likely moot, but I believe it would be possible for an emigrant from there to end up prospering in the game, and at that point it would be interesting to note how his (or her I suppose) nationality is represented.18abruce (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Quebec and Connecticut do not have as much independence and they are not self-governing regions. The reason I was asking this was because the Faroe Islands and Åland Islands operate as self-governing states within Denmark and Finland, making them similar to sovereign nations. I had no idea that there are several Åland Islanders who play hockey. I never said the Faroe Islands have a national hockey team. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The Faroe Islands do not have hockey rinks at all is what I meant, so the question of them having hockey players is very unlikely.18abruce (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
        • How should a players's nationality be listed if a player is from a self-governing posession of a country that is almost, but not exactly a sovereign nation? Ravenswing, analogies of Quebec and the Faroe Islands or Connecticut an the Åland Islands are not accurate comparisons. These two Nordic states are self-governing territories, Connecticut and Quebec are not. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I expect the governments of Connecticut and Quebec, both existing in a federal system, would disagree. That being said, I discount their national soccer teams as a valid analogy; FIFA recognizes all manner of non-sovereign entities as worthy of "national" teams, but how FIFA does things doesn't bind us. Ravenswing 02:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Autonomy is a flexible concept, and the Faroe Islands and Aland are not similarly administered. A more appropriate example would be to compare the Faroe Islands to Jersey or Puerto Rico, and Aland to Connecticut or Quebec. Jersey is a self-governing dependency of the British Crown, but is not part of the United Kingdom. Similarly, the Faroe Islands are a self-governing country under the authority of the Kingdom of Denmark, but are not part of the country of Denmark - they are not even part of the European Union. A similar arrangement is the arrangement that Puerto Rico has with the United States. In any of these cases it would be more correct to identify the player as being from the Faroe Islands, Jersey, or Puerto Rico than the country that they are dependencies of. As for Aland, despite the autonomy enjoyed by its government and people, Aland is an integral part of Finland, not a dependency. It is a region on an equal footing with the other regions of Finland, so the comparison between Aland and Connecticut or Quebec is much more valid. I would propose that players originating from dependent countries and territories could be identified separately, while players who are from integral parts (including autonomous provinces) of a country should not. shaggy (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• I just read the articles. Åland is a Finnish province just like Manitoba is a Canadian province, but Åland does have more autonomy. The Faroe Islands are a Danish Territory like Guam is an American territory. You mean that it would be best to use the Faroese flag for a Faroese player (if there ever is one) and the Finnish flag for an Ålandish player? FIFA has national teams for non-sovereign entities? I was not referring to national teams or if non-sovereign entities are worthy of a national team, but the nationality of an individual player in a self-governing non-sovereign territory. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • According to the MIFK site, Alandish players should be listed as Finnish, that is what they do. The question of Faroese players is, as I explained before, a strictly hypothetical one, so decide whatever you think is best.18abruce (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I think they should be listed as Faroese. I found out that there is now an ice rink in Tórshavn. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Arizona Coyotes?

It looks like one of the results from the city council vote is that the Coyotes will now be known as the Arizona Coyotes, starting in the 2013–14 season 1, 2, 3. Any idea on when the renaming will be official? Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:36, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It might be too late for the change to be effective for the 2013-2014 season. I would expect an announcement regarding the timing of the change sometime before training camps start up in September and updated logos/wordmarks next summer as soon as the Coyote's season is over. It's possible this happens sooner, but we should wait on communication from the team before changing anything or renaming the article. It would be appropriate to add a note that the team's name will be changing at some undetermined date in the future. shaggy (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering that the league was prepared to make such changes as were needful for a whole new city for next season, I imagine they can hack a name change. That being said, we should change the name only when there is an official announcement from the team or the league. Speculation in the press of a name change is just that -- speculation -- and no one's going to shoot our dogs if we wait until a formal announcement. Ravenswing 14:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

They will soon rebrand as the Arizona Coyotes, but a change should only be made after it is officially announced. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Kvalserien" in Swedish ice hockey

In Sweden there are a number of tournaments referred to as "kvalserien" (which literally means "qualifying series"), which determine promotion/relegation. Here on English Wikipedia, we have a series of articles with "Kvalserien" in their names, e.g. Kvalserien, Kvalserien (HockeyAllsvenskan). I think this sounds a bit off in English, because the word "kvalserien" is more descriptive than an actual title of anything. I find 2013 HockeyAllsvenskan Kvalserien to be especially weird, because we don't put the words in that order in Swedish either, so end result, the title is a bit inaccessible to everyone.

My preference would be to find a way to translate these titles entirely to English. My suggestion, given what a "kvalserie" actually is, is to name these articles "Swedish Hockey League qualifiers", "HockeyAllsvenskan qualifiers", etc, with the season-by-season articles in the same style ("2013 Swedish Hockey League qualifiers", "2013 HockeyAllsvenskan qualifiers", etc). Then have the "Kvalserien" page be a disambiguation page for all the various series that are called "Kvalserien" in Sweden.

Any thoughts about that? — SwedishPenguin | Talk 17:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is WP:COMMONNAME, which leads us to calling them what they are called in English sources. We can't just make up a name, we have to use what the commonname is. In this case I believe it is Kvalserien is what is actually used as its name in English. (although if it isn't then I am more than happy to use what is.) -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There aren't really English sources that refer to Kvalserien. In situations like that, we make up article names all the time on Wikipedia, making them as approximate of a translation as possible. I'd put translating "Kvalserien till HockeyAllsvenskan" to "HockeyAllsvenskan qualifiers" in pretty much the same boat as saying "SHL playoffs" instead of "SHL-slutspel". — SwedishPenguin | Talk 17:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked extensively but I have seen the main one simply called Kvalserien in articles in Canada most often. More often I see things like "Kvalserien to Elitserien" and "Kvalserien to Allsvenskan" and sometimes these with the word tournament added to the end. So it isn't uncommon to refer to them in this manner. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd emphasize again that of the very few sites I can find that refer to the tournament in English, none are established news outlets. Usually blogs at best. Under those circumstances, I'd still suggest translating a title that is a descriptor. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 19:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, sources that translate the term:

• The SHL itself. ("Elitserien qualifier", "Elitserien qualification") [6]
• The IIHF: ("Swedish qualification series", "Elitserien qualifier") [7]
• Hockeysfuture.com [8] "Elitserien qualifying series"

— SwedishPenguin | Talk 19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Like Djsasso says, we're supposed to use the common name as the article's title, even if it may sound a bit weird for English readers. It's true there aren't many English sources that refer to the qualification tournament (Kvalserien), but in this case the common name appears to be Kvalserien. We can't make up a new name, otherwise the (since moved) Elitserien article would have been named "Swedish Elite League", for example, even though that's never been an officially recognized name for the league. Also, articles such as Liga Nacional de Hockey Hielo and Eredivisie (ice hockey) may also sound weird for English readers. Your SHL and IIHF sources only mention "Elitserien qualifier" and "Elitserien qualification" as alternative names for Kvalserien, but still maintain that Kvalserien is its main name. Clarifying that Kvalserien is a qualification tournament for SHL is sufficient in my eyes. Heymid (contribs) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe "qualifying round" is the best name for this tournament. I have heard this description mentioned severaltimed for tournaments determining qualification in different sports. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Eliteprospects.com calls it "Elitserien Qualification" and "HockeyAllsvenskan Qualification". [9]

2) Of course you wouldn't translate a league name when it's a proper name (trademarked and all), like Bundesliga or Allsvenskan. But consider for a moment the reverse situation. Imagine you had an article in English on the "US Open Cup qualifiers". When creating an article on this in Swedish, you'd never call it the same as in English. You'd call it "Kval till US Open Cup". This to me is the same situation in reverse. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 22:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Qualifying round" is a general name in English I have heard broadcasters use in several sports. I believe it should be referred to as the "SHL qualifying round" (formerly known as the "Swedish Elite League qualifying round"). 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we use the common English name. If there is no common name in English, I don't think there is much in the way of guidance. "Elitserien" and "SM-liiga" are not English, but have been widely used in English publications, so we didn't translate them. But, "Kvalserien" is not a word I am familiar with having any real use in English. Consequently, I would prefer to use the closest translation that makes the most sense to English readers. Resolute 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Including hockey teams in US city articles

Quick general question regarding including hockey teams (or any other sports team, really) in city articles - is it generally acceptable to include the team in the article of the larger or more well-known nearby city even if it's not located there? My specific example is the South Carolina Stingrays - they play in North Charleston, South Carolina, and I recently reverted an edit adding them to the Charleston, South Carolina article. Looking for other examples, I find that the Washington Redskins are included in the Washington, D.C. article, even though they play in Maryland, while the Atlanta, Georgia article makes no mention of the nearby Gwinnett Gladiators. I can see the argument for the Redskins since they bear the Washington name. Thoughts?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well ... how many sports teams don't play in the municipality of which they're nominally associated? The Phoenix Coyotes don't play in Phoenix, the Miami Dolphins don't play in Miami, the Detroit Pistons don't play in Detroit ... it happens all over. Ravenswing 22:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• To be honest I don't think of the name as really relevant. What's relevant is that these teams clearly belong to the general community of these cities, whether they play within those particular legal city limits or not. Mentioning it doesn't seem out of order, though the articles could also mention that the teams in question play in a nearby suburb or whatever. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 22:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If there are metropolitan region articles, a mention there would be good for all the metro market major league sports teams. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Christian Berglund and the 2003 Stanley Cup Finals

Is it even necessary to mention Christian Berglund played in 38 games before being sent to the minors? I feel that this is unnecessary, unless he got recalled during the playoffs and remained on New Jersey's roster for the rest of the season. Does anyone know if he was recalled during the playoffs or remained in the minors? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Spare goalies on NHL teams

How often do teams carry a third string goalie on an NHL roster for the majority of the season? I noticed Henrik Karlsson of the Blackhawks was recalled on February 15. He didn't play in any games. What is the reason teams do this? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Because goalies get hurt. There've been plenty of occasions -- and league rules permit it -- when a goalie's been hurt in warmups, and teams scramble to get someone on the bench. I'm familiar with what's happened in Boston (and Hartford, back in the day) over the years, where college goalies were often given free tickets to games just so they'd be available if and when. The Whalers had a goalie injury situation in the early 90s where their Springfield Indians farm team was on a road trip, and they signed an American International College goalie to an ATO so he could sit on the bench, just in case. They figured that a netminder from a cellar dwelling Division II team was better than putting a senior no-check beer leaguer in the nets, or asking Pat Verbeek to strap on the pads ...

  This past season, with the shortened schedule wreaking injury havoc league wide, I'm sure a number of contenting teams like Chicago (in areas without convenient pools of college goalies upon which to draw) called third goalies up late in the season. Ravenswing 22:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Karlsson was actually called up early in the season. He was not a late season callup. What I mean is, how often do teams have a spare goalie on their active roster for most or all of the season in case a goalie gets injured? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is rare to happen for a large percentage of a season. When it does, teams usually resolve it quickly - the trade that sent Miikka Kiprusoff to Calgary is a more famous example of such. In Chicago's case, Karlsson was recalled due to an injury to Emery, but I am not sure why they didn't return him to Rockford. Resolute 23:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think they just wanted to keep a spare in Chicago in case of an injury to Crawford or Emery so they could have a spare who is always able to practice with the NHL team and is more familiar with the team. After he was recalled, he spent the rest of the season with the Blackhawks, earning a Stanley Cup ring. They probably also wanted a spare during the playoffs like most teams. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also the case of the year where Detroit carried Hasek, CuJo and I think it was Osgood for most of the season. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

in 2003-4 the red wings carried Hasek, Joseph, and Legace pretty much all season.18abruce (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that is the one I was thinking of, couldn't remember if it was Legace or Osgood at the time. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Vote at Talk:Hans Johan Andersson#Fresh start

More votes are needed at Talk:Hans Johan Andersson#Fresh start. Please vote there and/or participate in the RM discussion; we need to find a clearer consensus. Heymid (contribs) 16:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A suggested change to Template:Infobox ice hockey player

I'm repeating something here I wrote at the Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player a day ago.

The prospect_team/league fields are described on the documentation page as being intended for prospects that haven't played in the NHL, but it seems to be commonly used for younger players with some NHL experience and veterans who have been assigned to a minor league team. Oddly, it isn't really used much for its original purpose, prospects who haven't played in the NHL, as only two players selected in the top ten from the 2013 draft currently uses the prospect fields. Therefore, since the usage of the fields has evolved to what it currently is, I think the fields should be changed from prospect_team and prospect_league to assigned_team and assigned_league. The fields should then be used for players who are under contract with one team who are assigned by that team to play for another. Also, the (P) should be removed, so those veteran minor leaguers with NHL contracts are not listed as prospects. Thoughts? --98.21.62.11 (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the reason those pages aren't using those fields is more because those pages are new and haven't had the going over by more regular editors to fix such issues. The description should probably be updated because we do use it for players who have played a couple games in the NHL. But its not really meant to be used by veterans who have been sent down. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I corrected the three Flames first rounders, but with newly drafted players, there is always a rush by novice editors to fill in information. That is awesome for us, but does require that someone eventually go back and catch these little oversights. The field essentially means "rights held by", so perhaps we could consider changing the display text of "NHL team (P)" to "NHL rights", which would account for most situations. Resolute 13:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The "prospect_team" should be used for any active player whose rights are owned by a team playing in a higher level league (not just the NHL). This would include recent NHL draft picks whose are not yet signed, or signed players who are skating in a lower league. For example: an unsigned draft pick is a prospect for the team which owns his negotiation rights; and an AHL player signed by an NHL team to a two-way contract is a prospect, but an AHL player signed to an AHL contract is not a prospect. Dolovis (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

DJSasso: I was confused by the 2013 draft picks not using the fields and assumed there had been some sort of change, or as I said, it had evolved in that direction. I also assumed a big event like the draft would have most regular editor's attentions. I mostly edit Flyers related articles and held back adding the fields for their first two picks since I noticed most of the other draft picks didn't have them. -- Resolute: "NHL rights" (or whichever league applies) does make more sense. -- Dolovis: Is 32-year-old Yann Danis really a Flyers prospect? The definitions used at Prospect (sports) doesn't really mention age at all, and if only the slight change of "NHL team (P)" to "NHL rights" occurred, I suppose it doesn't really matter. The fields would remain prospect_team and prospect_league, but he wouldn't be labeled as a prospect when viewing the article anyway. Who is and who isn't a prospect can be somewhat subjective at times. --98.21.62.11 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)