Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive24

NHL roster template?

I don't really like the NHL roster template. It's not compact enough and I think it should be more like an NBA one or even an MLB one. I like the sortabilty of the NBA one and the horizontal layout and succintness of the MLB one. Either way, I think it's time to change up the roster template. What kind have we had in the past (since I'm relatively new and the current one is the only one I know)? Jc121383 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the past, the roster template we use now was what we used as the roster section on each team article, with a template much like the MLB one used on the current season articles. It was decided that they were redundant, so we eliminated the template, and converted the team roster lists to replace them. Revising the layout is certainly something that can be discussed, and if you have ideas, feel free to create a test template in your sandbox. As a matter of personal preference, I very much dislike the MLB template as it not very informative. Names and nothing else does not offer much in the way of information. The NBA one is alright, but its compactness is mainly a function of the fact that NBA rosters are half the size of NHL rosters. Resolute 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted test templates before and I discovered I'm not so good at them. I could try again though. Jc121383 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the current layout but of course we can discuss improvements. A sort function would be nice to add. Anyone think we should change what information we should use, such as replace Acquired and Place of Birth possibly? --Krm500 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Height, Weight, Age, and perhaps instead of simply a year for Acquired how about FA-2008 for free agents, D-2008 for draft picks, and so on. Remove Place of Birth since the flags reveal the same information. Also, I prefer the NBA roster template (if the NBA template were essentially copied verbatim, a 23 player roster would be about the same size as the current NHL roster templates). --Flyer47 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking, Flyer47, regarding the Acquired column. As it is now, it can be misleading regarding draft picks (some I've seen their draft year, others I've seen the year they actually signed with the team). I do like the addition of height, weight, and age because we could then include, in a legend area perhaps, teams averages of those stats. I'm sure there's code on here for that somewhere. The place of birth is kind of redundant given the flags. Jc121383 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I like the height/weight idea. Is it really necessarry? If somebody want that specific of info it's on each player's article, plus with all the different sites (NHL.com, team sites, ESPN) reports might conflict. Just seems a little overkill to me. I do however, like removing the birth sites as the flags already provide that info—unfotunately WP:FLAGBIO seems to forbid that. So the flags should probably be removed. Blackngold29 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like the idea of height/weight. I much prefer things like Aquired. As far as the ambiguity on when they were drafted vs when they were signed, that isn't an issue of the template itself, but of the maintenance of them. As far as place of birth that is definately not redundant, as the flag is for the country they represent internationally and the place of birth is where they were born. Besides the current players listed below, former players whose birth place and flag wouldn't match include such big names as Brett Hull and Rod Langway etc. And as far as compactness goes, its actually the lack of being compressed that I like about this template, I find the MLB and NBA ones are too small and look out of place on the pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, place of birth isn't always redundant. i.e.: Robyn Regehr, Owen Nolan, Dany Heatly, Alexander Steen and every player born in the former Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia. Resolute 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For Swedish teams place of birth can be useful since you (if you are familiar with Swedish geography) see if the team use local boys or not. Djurgårdens IF Hockey for example have all but 3 players from Stockholm. --Krm500 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I started making anew template a while ago, and wasn't too happy with it because I lack the sufficient skills to get it where I want it. But it is here: User:Thricecube/Sandbox. I'm sure someone should be able to modify out the date/city of birth and add how the players were acquired as well as expand the length of some of the columns. Thricecube (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Change DOB to Age and use Template:Age nts. Change Name to Player and use Template:Sortname. I think Num. (perhaps # instead) should be placed first and Pos. should be after Player. Use Birthplace instead of Place of Birth. I'm not sure whether everything needs to be centered or whether the font needs to be 95% or 100%. --Flyer47 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I had with this one as I have with the NBA/MLB ones are that they are too skinny and look out of place in articles. If there was a way we make it wider then it would look much better, like have it set to fit the screen width like the current ones is. I have to disagree with Flyer47 in that I like Place of Birth better than Birthplace. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Philadelphia Flyers roster. I did not add Acquired yet. I might try to add Height/Weight just to see how it would look. --Flyer47 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps widen the name column and condense the shot/glove column? Thricecube (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely like how it currently appears. But Thrice's idea is probably a good idea. -Djsasso (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks superb. My only beef with it is the coding is a tad confusing, and will be to new users. Thricecube (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no set width for any field at the moment. If a team were to sign a Alexander Andrijevski the width of the Player field would expand if needed. If there were to be set widths, the gray bar would likely take up two rows. While that wouldn't be the end of the world, I would prefer that the gray bar take up only one row and use abbreviations for Nationality, Positions, Shot/Glove, and possibly Acquired. --Flyer47 (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but wouldn't it be easier if we built it up like the NBA template with template within the template? Would make it much easier for when players are injured to just add "ir = yes". --Krm500 (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working a bit on a template, does anyone have any requests? I was thinking creating templates for IR and Captains would be good, to ensure that we have a uniform look across all pages. --Krm500 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more questions? Should we use all players in the same table or break it up like we have it today into Goaltenders, Defensemen, Forwards? --Krm500 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I liked the breakup we used to have between D-men, Forwards, and Goaltenders but I wouldn't be upset if they weren't seperated. Do give it a shot and see how it turns out. -Djsasso (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to that, I think a default sorting weight would help. Goalies would be 1, Defensemen 2, Forwards 3 (with centers being 3.1, left wings being 3.2, and right wings 3.3), and then uniform number could be 4, and so on. I'm not sure on the technicality of what I just said, but I could look into it. Jc121383 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very easy to fix, but is it optimal? Take a look in my sandbox with different versions, both sortable but one in the old style with Goaltenders, Defensemen, and Forwards separated. Of course if chosen I will make sure so all lines match up like the old table did. --Krm500 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the sort numbers for the Flyers roster so goalies will appear first, then defenseman, and so on when you sort it. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's easier with the sortability to just put the players all in one table; if you want to view it by position, that can be done with the sorting. Also, it doesn't look like it was discussed here, but why were the piped links in "Acquired" changed to the team's season pages? I liked it better when it just went to the NHL season or draft. If it is a reference issue, this should be verified by the player page. By the way, overall, I do like the new format! I agree with the idea for captain, alternate, and IR templates. -- bmitchelf•T•F 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Krm500's "alternative". Adding age is great, and maybe height/weight too. IrisKawling (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like what we have now. Just about exactly how I imagined a potential change when I began this section. We just need it put in template form so it's easier to use for everybody. There's a lot of code in there now that wouldn't have to be and all rosters will be uniform. I mention this because I notice the Vancouver roster has already been changed. I think that's getting way ahead of where we should be especially considering we we just going to talk about a potential change. Jc121383 (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates are also a great idea, but it could probably just be put into one. Such as {{Rosternote|IR/Capt/Asst}} IrisKawling (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I created Template:Ice hockey team roster. A player template (like Player2) needs to be created along with Template:Ice hockey team roster/doc. --Flyer47 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I overlooked something, the template is done. It has been applied to the Flyers roster and seems to be working fine. Would anyone be in favor of listing the players in alphabetical order rather than by number on the edit page? Name changes are rarer than number changes and it would be easier to simply edit the player's number rather than move the player up or down the list. --Flyer47 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting creation, is this going to be implemented? Not exactly what I meant by a "template".. more of just a small simple one like Krm said with a switch for C/A/IR to be used within the code. IrisKawling (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do now is add C or A for cap and change no to yes for ir. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer47 I think we need to work out a few more things before we put it in use, I for one don't want to see the frame around the roster, and few other things with the formatting. --Krm500 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether there is a frame or not, I would prefer to keep the title bar at the top with the Tnavbar-header. I'm not sure that can be done without a frame. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another issue concerning the roster template: I would like to be able to put multiple positions for some forwards because some guys switch based on where they are needed in the lineup, especially due to injuries. Can anyone make this possible for the template? -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know on player pages we tend to just list what position they most commonly play, to avoid this issue. Another option would be forwards should just be listed as forwards maybe?-Djsasso (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

bmitch, if I'm looking at the right thing in the right template, you should already be able to do it...

| style="font-family:monospace;" | | pos = || Acceptable values are G, D, D/F, D/C, D/LW, D/RW, D/W, F, F/D,
C, C/D, C/LW, C/RW, LW/D, LW/C, RW/D, RW/C, W, and W/D.
Column will sort in this order.

Jc121383 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Ice Hockey

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there are five articles from our project on this list in need of cleanup: American Hockey League, Buffalo Sabres, Minnesota North Stars, San Jose Sharks and Staples Center. Personally, I can think of probably a hundred articles I would consider more important from a WP:HOCKEY perspective than Staples Center... Resolute 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo Sabres looks pretty clean. The others need work. I think Staples got there because it gets links into basketball, too? Alaney2k (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What about adding an importance to the Ice hockey template? Alaney2k (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Do we have Kaiser Matias around to assess all 12,000 articles again?  ;) Actually, an importance scale would be pretty easy, imo:

• Top: Top level league articles, players that revolutionized the game, i.e.: Orr, Gretzky, Plante, Howe
• High: Current NHL teams, teams in other current top level leagues. Hall of Famers, current stars.
• Mid: Historical NHL teams, Historical teams from defunct major leagues, i.e.: WCHL, PCHA, current players, Major NHL, international and amateur awards
• Low: Everything else
• Negative: Edmonton Oilers players. ;o) Resolute 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While the thought of sitting on my computer for the better part of 3 weeks grading the importance of 14,000 hockey articles, I might just have to pass on this opportunity. But don't forget to add the Leafs to that negative list. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention we have like 1287 articles that aren't even rated yet that still need rating. I don't think importance is that important. -Djsasso (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but it seems inevitable that it will be added, no? Maybe we can default the template to set all articles that include the template to low importance. Then only the ones higher (a much smaller number) need to be rated. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mm, plainly their rating system does, though, although I have to wonder about a system that includes the Izod Center and Ray Emery over scores of more worthy articles, and I can think of a lot of hockey concepts I'd want up before hat tricks. (This being the revenge of those of us thinking "RAY EMERY at FA?!?!?") I do have a thought ... if being unrated is something that disqualifies an article from this list, could we look over that Unassessed list and see what ones fail just because no one's rated them yet?  RGTraynor  15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding importance could possibly override a simple FA status. Ray is definitely low importance. (or negative). :-) Actually negative is an interesting concept to consider. Alaney2k (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the way they do it is, the higher the rating the more likely it is picked at random. So I would bet unassessed don't get chosen from at all. -Djsasso (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Importance doesnt seem to have a huge effect. Calgary Hitmen somehow showed up on WP:CANADA's list, which was just bizarre to me. Resolute 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the rating system isn't a huge priority, but it might also help organize articles a little. I really don't see there being many top or high priority articles, and really, even if implemented I don't see a huge need for a project to rank everything. Articles just get ranked when they get ranked, and so be it.

As far as the assessment goes, I suppose this is why we got the notice. The project is looking for feedback. Staples Center, Ray Emery and a couple others shouldn't be there ahead of some other articles. Aalborg Boldspilklub and Minnesota North Stars ranked ahead of HC CSKA Moscow? The list has 61 articles. Perhaps we can create our own list of 61 and submit it to this project, stating that these are the core ice hockey articles? Resolute 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I think the point of the random picking was to make sure that there was no bias as to what articles are going to be included and so that there is a fair representation of articles at each level, FA, GA, B, C etc. So if you are switching out say a Trevor Linden which is a FA you would need to switch in another FA. If we try to get them to change so many of the articles on the list there is a bias introduced. I think we were just being asked to remove articles that shouldn't actually be a hockey listed article. For example if Magic Johnson showed up in the list. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is their criteria, so I guess that does make playoff more important than Stanley Cup Playoffs, but some selections are fairly goofy even in this context. We can nominate articles that we consider important. Resolute 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes?

Some thoughts on changes.

• Ray Emery out --> Patrick Roy in
• Izod Center out --> Maple Leaf Gardens in
• Staples Center out --> Montreal Forum in
• TD Banknorth Garden out --> Boston Garden in
• Aalborg Boldspilklub out --> HC CSKA Moscow in
• Minnesota North Stars out --> Djurgårdens IF Hockey in? (need more international representation, but this article needs work)
• Quebec Nordiques out --> TPS (ice hockey) in? (again, international and needs work. Our european based friends might help decide which are the best teams to use)
• Playoff out --> Stanley Cup Playoffs in
• Trevor Linden out --> Gordie Howe in

Resolute 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add Gordie Howe, but that article needs cleanup and citations. Sad but true. The rest I can agree on, though I'd like to keep the Nordiques. Alaney2k (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell, if there were no limits, I'd like to add all NHL teams. But really, I think the current teams should be given preference. Hard to justify the Nords over the Montreal Maroons, for instance, or the original Senators. Plus they would be linked to in the Colorado Avalance article. Resolute 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Staples Center would be better included if it were as a representative of the basketball or NBA projects since it hosts two teams. Patken4 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that that is why its there. If it links to more than one project its listed in both and I think has a higher chance of being picked based on what I saw for some other projects. It is a part of 7 different wiki projects which all but guarantee'd it would be picked. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with Resolute's suggestions. Got to admit, much though I loved the North Stars and the Nords, having them in and Central Red Army out is insane, and if any player bar Gretzky deserves to be in more than Gordie Howe, I can't think of him.  RGTraynor  17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Then we should pitch in on the Howe article. It needs work. Maybe we need a 'historical players task force.' At one time I was going to, right after working on keeping Gretzky at FA. Howe is 80, we should not delay, I suppose, though I think he is pretty healthy. Alaney2k (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging articles

Does anyone know how to merge articles? I have three (!) articles that are for the same venue. They are the Everett Events Center, Comcast Arena at Everett, and Comcast Arena at Everett Events Center. The venue is home to the Everett Silvertips, so it is part of our project. It seems the official website refers to the venue as Comcast Arena at Everett Events Center. Can anyone help me out with this merge? Thanks in advance! Patken4 (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it; please merge Jonas Nordqvist to Jonas Nordquist. --Krm500 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do to merge is copy and paste what you are moving into the proper article and as an edit summary say which article you took it from. And then redirect the articles you no longer need.-Djsasso (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... there's no great secret to it. You take from the old articles what you think ought to go in the combined article, is all.  RGTraynor  16:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only important part is putting in the edit comments "meged from X" in the new article and "merged to X" in the article you are redirecting so people looking for who to credit the edits to can find them. -Djsasso (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Most viewed articles

Looking at the full list of articles from that Version 0.7 list, I noticed that it can be sorted to show articles by monthly page views. These would then be the most viewed articles from within this project:

Article	Rank	Views	Notes
National Hockey League		71,670
Wayne Gretzky		51,930
Erin Andrews	Start	49,920	rofl
Ice hockey	B	42,090
Madison Square Garden	B	41,610
Ted Turner	N/A	40,590	I removed it. Turner has no real association with hockey
Jockstrap	B	36,900	Ahh, the maturity of the internet
Kontinental Hockey League	Start	31,110
Detroit Red Wings	B	30,000
Toronto Maple Leafs	B	27,600
Mats Sundin	B	26,250	East coast bias!!
Montreal Canadiens	B/FFA	25,770
Hockey	Start	25,170	Marginally relevant
Sidney Crosby		24,990
Stanley Cup		24,780
Vancouver Canucks	B	22,260
Hat-trick	Start	20,940
The Mighty Ducks films	Start	20,790	Seriously?
New York Rangers	B	20,790

Resolute 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally responsible for some of those Erin Andrews page views. Patken4 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. But (inappropriate commment here) to get into the WP:Hockey? Alaney2k (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thirty seven thousand people look at a jockstrap article?!? Man. That is proof positive that we should throw all the computers away and go back to McGuffey Readers.  RGTraynor  17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Woho, Frölunda totally dominates hit count for SEL teams! With 2,460 hits.... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, but if you think about it, getting a tenth the hits of the Toronto Maple Leafs, on a foreign language Wikipedia, that ain't shabby. I bet they get a good many more hits on sv.wikipedia.org.  RGTraynor  00:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding "List of" to NHL team records articles

After a series of hostile, bad-faith moves (targetting me) by Davegnz (talk · contribs) (on 17 September 2008 between 10:55 and 11:05, EST), I moved all of our NHL team records to include "List of…" at the start of the article name. If you are interested in what precipitated this series of moves, see my comments on Davegnz. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon IPs => NHL article

The National Hockey League article's been vandalized nine times in the last eight hours by several anon IPs. Should we get semi-protection for it?  RGTraynor  16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, right away. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks at this point like it is only two editors. One is on a Level 4 warning, and will be blocked if they try again. Otherwise the article is pretty stable. I'm watching it, and will bring the hammer down on these two editors if they persist. Resolute 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, they should be forced to watch videos of the 1975 Washington Capitals-Kansas City Scouts game.  RGTraynor  17:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's just cruel and unusual. Resolute 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now that's fourteen vandalisms in a bit over 24 hours from five different anon IP addresses. Can we go for semi-protection now?  RGTraynor  17:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Get'er done. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would probably normally deny one with so little vandalism spread out over 24 hours. If 15 had happened in say 3 hours I would probably do it. But with the hockey season beginning it may get worse...so I have semi-protected it for 3 days. -Djsasso (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

O'Brien Cup/Trophy

When I took the photo of the O'Brien Trophy at the Hockey Hall of Fame, I noticed in big letters across the top, "The O'Brien Cup". This was probably the name it was known by, and its official name when donated. For that reason, I think we should rename the article to match what is clearly labelled on the the trophy itself. I don't think that the trophy is commonly known, and it would be likely impossible to determine the most commonly known name of the Trophy, especially during its usage lifetime, since it is has been defunct for many years. Changing it to Cup would be consistent with labelling things as they were known at the time, and especially with what is labelled on the item itself. As a final reason, it would mean it would not be confused with the Larry O'Brien Trophy also. Since it is an FA, that means some further steps would be done also. Does this seem incorrect to you folks? Alaney2k (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made it a requested move. Alaney2k (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound incorrect to me. As far as all the history books I have read have indicated, it's been called the O'Brien Trophy. Even the NHL and the Hockey Hall of Fame call it that. Now, if there's evidence that it was called the O'Brien Cup for most of the period of time it was being awarded, you'd have a case. Considering that all sources that talk about the award call it "Trophy" and not "Cup", however, I'd say to keep it where it is. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 00:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't as if, after all, a different article is named "Dominion Challenge Trophy."  RGTraynor  02:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper name has been forgotten, that's all. The trophy has not been awarded since 1950, after all. It is mentioned as the O'Brien Cup more than once in "Trail of the Stanley Cup". The 1910 Montreal Wanderers 1910 team photo has a picture of the trophy, looking more or less like it does today, as far as I can tell. As for the HHOF and the NHL, I think it is simply the case that the web site writers are not historians and just accept whatever. I know that those sites are argued as both reliable and as incorrect. I can see the parallel between the Stanley Cup vs. Dominion Challenge Trophy, but since the O'Brien is defunct, and long defunct, I think it is more appropriate to go with its proper name. Alaney2k (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I agree that "O'Brien Cup" is the true name of the trophy, but Wikipedia naming policy rests on the term most familiar in English, not the one most proper to the subject. Google searching both terms (+ hockey, - basketball, to weed out the Larry O'Brien Trophy) returns 650 hits for the O'Brien Trophy and only 35 for the O'Brien Cup.  RGTraynor  17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the exact search string you use in Google to do that? Just curious. I notice that people use that as a basis for article naming. Alaney2k (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In a Time Magazine article from 1927, available on the web here, it states the O'Brien Cup. I can look up Globe and Mail article up to 1950. But I think you guys would defer to the name on the HHOF and NHL web sites. Alaney2k (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I always, always use advanced search, just off the top. The settings here were "O'Brien Trophy" (or "Cup) as a phrase, with must include hockey, and do not include basketball. The point, though, is not what the 1950 Wikipedia would have called the trophy, but the most common term today for it.  RGTraynor  19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't always true. We use the names of Arenas as they were at the time. Alaney2k (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a different argument entirely though. We dont title the article on the Pengrowth Saddledome as "Olympic Saddledome" because it was once known as that. The title of the article is the name in current usage. Resolute 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we use the current name if the structure still exists, or the name it is most commonly known by now if it does not (in general). -Djsasso (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. My point is that the current usage doesn't match the name of it, doesn't match the name of it when it was used. Because it is not that commonly discussed, it seems that the current name was just 'invented.' without research. Lord Stanley was around when his trophy became commonly known as the Stanley Cup. If we forgot the name of Pompeii and gave it a name in an essay and other people used that name, would you not want to use the name Pompeii, when you found out that was what it was called? Alaney2k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season article a GA??

..Not unless, the alternate captains situation is solved. Sydor & Malone should not be listed. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They served for a majority of the season, and even still, isn't enough to unqualify it. Grsz^talk 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Malone & Sydor never wore the A's while Crosby, Gonchar & Roberts were in the lineup. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But did when they weren't, which was more often then they were in the lineup. Even Malone was still wearing it in the Eastern Conference Final. (Perhaps this should be discussed on that page). Grsz^talk 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Malone wore an 'A' in the Eastern Conference Final, whenver Roberts was a healthy scratch. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes him an alternate captain. If there's no stated standard regarding this, it's a non-argument. Grsz^talk 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, had Roberts been in the lineup (along with Crosby & Gonchar)? Malone would've been letterless. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why everyone who wore the "A" cannot be listed? Seems to me if they served, they should be listed; if prose is added as a further explination then fantastic. Who says there can only be two? We're the ones who make the rules. Blackngold29 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If we added every fill-in alternate captain. The NHL team articles (for example) would potentially end up with 'bout 8 players wearing letters. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, if a player wore an A he was an alternate captain, even if only for one game. But maybe you could also clarify that he was an interim somewhere in the prose. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I can't stop the article from being ranked an GA (with Malone & Sydor included as alternate captains)? I'm on the loosing end. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with eight people being listed; but anyways, I think we should just remove them, get the article passed at GA, and then discuss what should be done. Now that we have a pretty good system down for how season articles work, similar situations are bound to pop up in the future; we should just discuss it once and be done with it. Blackngold29 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The standard ought to be that if they wore the "A" even once, they are alternate captains, but with an explanation in a footnote or prose. But, I agree with Blackngold29, that it is something that can be hashed out after it is listed as GA. Definately not a life or death situation until it comes up for FAC --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with GoodDay on principle - If they fill in for a game or two, that's a bit ridiculous. At the same time, I don't see it as a huge issue here, given the length of time that players wore the A. Naming alternate captains is not as rigid as naming the captain is. Resolute 05:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but we aren't talking about a game or two, this is over half the season. Grsz^talk 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Beyond that: (1) It isn't as if alternate captains are a position for which official records are kept, as with captaincies; and (2) Do GAs really need to have no disputes as to formatting, no matter how trivial? For pity's sake, just put in a sentence along the lines of "Roberts, Malone, Sydor and Gonchar all served as alternate captains at varying times during the season" and leave the "A"s out of the roster block altogether.  RGTraynor  13:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK having checked the 1985-86 Montreal Canadiens season article, Grsz11 is correct about including Malone. Naslund filled-in for the latter half of that season, with Tremblay on the side-lines. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just FYI, as I said when I added Malone and Sydor back into the article, "there were four guys who had the 'A' in the front row of the official team picture, and there were four guys listed with the 'A' on the roster at the end of the season through the playoffs". Mark Eaton had the 'A' for a game when somebody was injured, I remember, but this is clearly a different example. ConkblockCity (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 NHL team season articles

I'm getting anxious. Is it alright if I start adding the captains to the articles infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm definately getting anxious too. I would think if you can cite it, preferably in the prose somewhere, than it would be fine. Although I don't think all teams have made their leaders official yet, I haven't seen anything about Penguins' assistants since Gonchar got hurt. Blackngold29 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I could leave the alternate captains unlisted, until after the reg. season begins. But, I'll add the captains now. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel better? ;-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, now I won't be sqirming on the floor & biting my sleeves anymore; ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I will get to see an NHL game live for the first time in my life! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, Krm. Be prepared to see a ton of penalties, though. Under the post-Lockout rules, a player gets 2-min for holding, by simply brushing snow off his opponents jersey. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1993–94 Anaheim Mighty Ducks season article

I feel this article should be moved to 1993-94 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim season. Anaheim Mighty Ducks was never their official name so moving the article to meet it's official name at the time would make sense in my opinion. Anyone else see my view? Raphie (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but the more common name is Anaheim Mighty Ducks, no? Just create an alias and redirect it. Alaney2k (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

While it may be ture, the only reason it is common is because it's listed on hockeydb as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, because it cannot read team name first, it has to read city name first. It's the same with the Beast of New Haven (New Haven Beast) and all the foriegn teams (Avangard Omsk - Omsk Avangard). It's quite easy for a non-hockey fan to edit a hockey related article, using hockeydb as a guide and using Anaheim Mighty Ducks. All the other Mighty Ducks season articles read it's official name except this one which is why I rasied the question. Raphie (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how the name Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is handled? GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as we all use hockeydb here, I think I'd need a citation showing that that website is the only reason Anaheim Mighty Ducks is the most common. Resolute 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, hockeydb is not the only reason we name them in that fashion, most media outlets referred to them as such as well. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so I'll admit I'm wrong with my theory, please take it for granted that I am not North American, it would be extremely easy for me to screw up on these issues. I just find it strange that the other Anaheim Mighty Ducks season articles, redirect to read Mighty Ducks of Anaheim seasons, (2001–02 Anaheim Mighty Ducks season this being an example) Raphie (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The team name changed from Anaheim Mighty Ducks to Mighty Ducks of Anaheim to Anaheim Ducks. When they switched to Might Ducks of Anaheim most people kept on calling them Anaheim Mighty Ducks. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Apparently I was mistaken, but I could have sworn they started out one way and switched to the other. I guess its probably cause people are used to team nick names coming after city name. -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks guys for shooting me. Raphie (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's the most common name, unless it is completely incorrect. As we're discussing in the O'Brien above, that's what we use. Until they changed to the Ducks, I think that newspapers always referred them to as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. You can do a Google search and compare. I don't think that hockeydb.com is unique in the media in referring to the team as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Alaney2k (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• A Google search for "Anaheim Mighty Ducks" turned up 876,000 hits. One for "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" turned up 123,000.  RGTraynor  15:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A Google search with the hits limited on language returns roughly the same difference. It said about 627,000 English pages for "Anaheim Mighty Ducks" and about 108,000 English pages for "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim". --Bamsefar75 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, common-usage trumps official name? Just to note: before we changed the Anaheim Ducks article to its current title (in 2006), it was titled Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As unfortunate as it may be, the team was officially the "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" until the 2006-07 season. I would strongly favor, and say that its correct to historically reference the team as such during that time frame. ccwaters (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No no, I think the good folks have settled an agreement to keep it the way it is. Perhaps we should change any existing article reading the official name and change them to read its common name, if that what we are trying to suggest with these numbers. Raphie (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Mats Sundin

Assuming Mats Sundin won't be signing with the Maple Leafs any time soon (if ever) & the Maple Leafs don't name a new captain at the start of the reg season; shall we remove him as Leafs captain? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that, if the season starts, and he's not on the roster, and there's nobody named to wear the C, that the position is effectively vacated at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah at that point it would make sense to remove him. Or preemptively list John Tavares as the captain....-Wafulz (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, remove it will be. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• One consideration: we are in no rush, and no one's handing out awards for scoops. When the Maple Leafs make an announcement, or the team takes the ice for the regular season without a "C", we follow their lead.  RGTraynor  19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NHL rules & the Canucks

What should we do at the Vancouver Canucks article? concerning Captain Roberto Loungo. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You should probably put Vancouver Luongo in the captain's area, but footnote it to say that Willie Mitchell is the designated man to speak with the referee.-Wafulz (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to see how the NHL views this. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I'm under the impression that the Caps tried it with Kolzig and didn't get away with it.-Wafulz (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnoting is likely the way to go. Obviously the Canucks can declare that Skippy the Wonder Llama is the official team captain, but a non-goalie on the ice is the only one who can legally wear a "C" on his jersey.  RGTraynor  19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody pinch me, please. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I added Luongo as the captain, but we should have footnotes to both Mitchell handling on ice official duties, as well as to Ohlund being used in special situations, such as ceremonial faceoffs. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, special duties alternate captains? somebody give me spelling salts. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You get far to worked up about captains. :) Just breathe... -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm having a 'wiki-breakdown'. I'll try standing on my head, for a few hrs. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, when I saw this section title on my watchlist, I was thinking of something entirely different... like how certain rules don't apply to the Canucks in Vancouver. But that might just be my Calgary bias showing. ;o) Simply put, the NHL won't recognize Luongo as team captain. It has to be a skater. I'd say list the NHL recognized captain/assistant captains in the infobox and add a note in prose that the team chose to name Luongo the honourary captain. And then watchlist the damn thing because IPs will be reverting it on a daily basis... Resolute 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think rather than "(unofficial)" we should go with a footnote (for both instances) on the bottom of the page (in the same way as a citation) that says Luongo's captaincy is not recognized by the NHL, if that is in fact the correct statement. From the TSN article, all it says it that he can't wear the "C" so maybe that is the appropriate footnote. Also include that Ohlund is the ceremonial captain while Mitchell is the on-ice captain, even though that makes no sense to people who don't know about the situation. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Still standing on my head), I thought the Wild bugged me with the season rotating captaincy thing; but, the Canucks take the cake. Anyways, In agreement with Bmitchell. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think there should be a footnote to clarify. "Unofficial" by itself is misleading. He is, after all, officially named captain by the team. – Skyezx^message 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NHL.com has announced his captaincy. DMighton (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

six or five?

six or five captains? tsn.ca says six. I can only find five. Bill Durnan, Charlie Gardiner (ice hockey), George Hainsworth, Roberto Luongo, John Ross Roach Masterhatch (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Five's all I found in a cursory search. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this really warrant a category? And, if it does, it should definitely be renamed to something like Category:National Hockey League goaltenders who have served as team captain. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We determined captains for regular players shouldn't be made into a category, so I would probably agree for goaltenders and make it a List instead. -Djsasso (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A list works. Or a category. I don't mind either way. Masterhatch (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all a big publicity stunt, I feel. There's no one else on the team who stands out as captain material, so the Canucks need to break a rule, one that specifically states a goalie can't be captain. And for the record, I was thinking of the mess this would cause on Wikipedia while I watched the press conference. I can't believe I did that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I found two more Alex Connell and Roy Worters. I got those from tsn.ca Masterhatch (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this article lists the seven we have. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cup

Is it just me... or has the NHL virtually ignored the Victoria Cup?... No major network seems to be carrying it... and I don't see much of a reference to it on NHL.com... This is being played for a large chunk of cash as a prize... it would be nice to be able to watch it on TSN or CBC... Any thoughts? DMighton (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is because it's such a random concept thus far. It was put together too quickly I find. Maybe if we actually see the Stanley Cup champion versus the Champions Hockey League champion (ie: top European team versus top NHL team) in future Victoria Cup's, we'll see more interest. But hey, look at the FIFA Club World Cup. It's by far one of the less popular FIFA tounaments, completely pales in comparison to the UEFA Champions League. I think the whole concept has a few years to go before it gets some steam behind it. Until then, it'll just have to be up to us to push the concept ;) – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this year's competition even being played for prize money? That would be kind of dumb since the Rangers were just an arbitrary selection (and they don't really need the money with their expensive tickets). -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it is for 1,000,000 Swiss Francs. DMighton (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that is just in the future. This article doesn't say anything about a reward, aside from the trophy. You would think a prize would be mentioned if there is one. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Google search: "Victoria Cup" francs gives some results that mention that reward. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[1] It is mentioned here too. DMighton (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hockeydb new look

Just noticed that hockeydb.com has changed their look, however, when viewing an existing hockeydb profile it reads the old layout in basic form. From my sources, the old address read pdisplay.php3?pid before the profile's number where in the updated layout, the 3 is removed. Does anyone know how to change the hockeydb code? Raphie (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The template is located at Template:Hockeydb. I'm not sure exactly what change needs to be made, so I'll let somebody else take care of that, or you if you could clarify. Thanks :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As it's protected only administrators can edit it at this time. I'll state an example of what would need changed. Say Paul Kariya for example. The old layout reads http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=2640 and the new layout reads http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=2640. The 3 in between php and ?pid in missing, so it definatley won't take much to change it. But again only admins can edit it. Raphie (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin ;-) . I've made the change. I've also spot-checked quite a few links using the template - seems to be okay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! Well only Damian Surma and Ray Sheppard (my most recent edits) seem to read the old layout, but Bruno St. Jacques was the same and after an edit, it read the new layout all right, so maybe for the other two, I'll just make a minor edit solely for them to work. Thanks for your time. Raphie (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Surma and Sheppard now read the new layout. Raphie (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I assume it didn't change immediately because of the job queue. Thanks for pointing this out to us. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

About time, the new format looks much better. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 07:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Teams notability

I'm not sure if the Detroit Dragons and the Chelsea Tornadoes are sufficiently notable and am wondering if an AfD is in order, but I can't find a relevant standard. Both were expansion teams in the Mid-Atlantic Hockey League, but the league folded before the teams played a single game. Grsz^X 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Did they play games? If so then I would say they are. I am sure there are reliable sources out there talking about them. -Djsasso (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They did not play games. They were schedule to begin the 2008-09 season, which now isn't going to take place. Grsz^X 16:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to just redirect the team articles to the league page. Resolute 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was gonna say but you beat me to it. Glad to see at least somebody sharing my opinion. Raphie (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thats what I would suggest as well if they didn't play any games. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding "name" parameter to player infobox.

It has been suggested that my proposal to add a "name" parameter to {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} should be mentioned here; I'm happy to do so. Adding a name will not only make the infobox more in-keeping with other biographical infoboxes used on Wikipedia, but will facilitate the use of an hCard microformat. Please comment on the template's talk page, not here, as I'll be watching there. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Krm500 up for adminship

Krm500 is up for a adminship and since he is a very active member of this project, I figured y'all would best be able to comment on his adminship qualities in either direction. His nomination is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krm500. -Djsasso (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

World Hockey Association reversion war

Just FYI, over the last few days, User:Average Guy and User:Gold Dragon are getting into it big over on the WHA page, involving Average Guy placing some fact tags, and Gold Dragon removing them with neither comment nor sources.  RGTraynor  18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Page is protected for now forcing discussion, so go over and discuss the dispute, however its pretty cut and dry. One thinks fact tags belong and the other doesn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just figured that while no one had gone over 3RR, there'd been a lot of reverts. Thanks for the assist.  RGTraynor  19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1967 NHL Expansion

Although an important event in NHL history, I question the need for full capitalization in "1967 NHL Expansion". Having it capitalized seems to give undue importance to the event—I would reserve full capitalization for truly important events such as the My Lai Massacre. What are people's thoughts on renaming this to 1967 NHL expansion? This would be more in line with Wikipedia's naming standards. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on if it was an official title or not. Did the NHL officially call it the 1967 NHL Expansion or is that just a term we use to describe it. If its the former it needs to stay capitalized. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the intro talks about the "major expansion for the 1967-68 season", as opposed to referring to 1967 NHL Expansion as a formal title. I'm leaning lower-case. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it was ever formalized. I think that it was just so drastic, after 25 years of only six teams, that people gave it a name. The 1967 NHL Expansion Draft, however, I would keep capitalized, as that was a formal event. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I created the article, and I agree it's no formal title, and that current naming conventions should have "expansion."  RGTraynor  06:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So where does this stand? 1967 NHL expansion? 1967 expansion of the National Hockey League? 1967 National Hockey League expansion? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say option 1. We tend to use NHL in most article titles such as seasons. -Djsasso (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

non notable?

does this guy George Pelawa deserve his own article? i know he died early, but does that make him notable? i mean he was a highschool star, not a pro star. Masterhatch (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:It could go either way, but I'm leaning toward not notable. It seems as if the article is based on his asserted potential, which may or may not have played out as expected. I would think most states name a player best in the state each year, and per the info included that would appear to be his biggest accomplishment. If/when the Flames have a History of the franchise article, I think the info could be merged there. Blackngold29 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is kinda in Mickey Renaud territory... but drafted higher... I'm more inclined to say keep it... but I dunno, is he notable enough? I've never heard of him until now sadly. DMighton (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mickey doesn't have his own article, just a mention on his team's page. Maybe something like that is the best fit for George Pelawa too. Masterhatch (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He passes the notability guidelines on being a first round draft pick. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And the subject of multiple, non trivial sources. Resolute 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I created the page because he was a first-round draft pick, not because he died. As per the notability guidelines posted by Krm500, first-round draft picks are notable. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me :) I was just checking. Masterhatch (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Brown

Essentially, we have three articles for Mike Brown hockey players as can be seen at Mike Brown (ice hockey). Now, two of these articles sort of have a random name. Basically, we have one Mike Brown born in 1979, so he fits the Mike Brown (ice hockey b. 1979) mold, but we have two Mike Brown's born in 1985 with articles titled Mike Brown (forward) and Mike Brown (goaltender). I was just wondering what your guys' thoughts would be on moving these articles so that we at least have the standard "ice hockey" term in the title? Or should they just stay the way they are? I personally am a fan of having the ice hockey term in the title, but to one his own. Any opinions? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion regarding him came up before, and this was the solution. -Djsasso (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

dab's of this sort are always ugly. You could possibly go to Mike Brown (ice hockey forward) and Mike Brown (ice hockey goaltender) if you really want ice hockey in the dab, but other than that, its going to be ugly no matter how we do it. Resolute 03:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am good either way. Stephane Richer (ice hockey defence) was an example of the other way, but its since been changed to coach. Which actually highlights the issues with dabs. -Djsasso (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Mike Brown (ice hockey b. 1979) is also a forward. Ha ha! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there no middle names that we could disambiguate these fellows with? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 07:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I've always been of the position time is better spent improving articles that searching for middle names to replace brackets. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the middle name thing. I really just wanted to see what people thought about this, and it seems like the consensus is to just leave the articles the way they are. So...sounds good to me :) – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While i prefer (ice hockey), i know that in many cases, it just doesn't work and so "different" solutions must come up. take a look at Greg Adams. it was done that way because "gus" and "C" were very common ways to refer to the different Adams (due to that both played on the same team at the same time). Now, i am not saying that using middle names is the best way, but sometimes it is a "better" way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterhatch (talk • contribs)

I believe we had a smiliar situation with the Steve Smith articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Current roster, injury tags

Just wanna say, the new tags (the little medical cross) are super. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the rosters are really looking good, probably the best format of all of the sports leagues. The only I would consider changing is the reference link to the team's official cite; would it screw the template up if we put in a traditional <ref>Ref template</ref>? Would it just show up at the bottom of whatever page it's on in the References? That would be awesome. Blackngold29 23:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They'd look better if silly names that will never see NHL ice because the player got hurt in training camp weren't included, but that will sort itself out.  ;) Resolute 00:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, once all teams announce their final 23-man rosters—including the four teams who were allowed 24-men in Europe—all that should be worked out within a week or so. Blackngold29 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way that we can make the image link to the page "Injured reserve" as the old "(IR)" did? It looks very sharp! -- bmitchelf•T•F 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks a lot like the Swiss flag, anyone know if we have a similar icon with white background, red cross, because I think it would be more suitable. Also, the previous discussion regarding separating goaltenders, defencemen, and forwards died out. Should we try to reach consensus or be happy with what we got? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked at commons and there are two alternatives; and . —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd take 10 seconds and MS Paint to make a new one if needed.  ;) As far as the linking of IR goes, we could incorporate the {{Click}} template for the image. Resolute 02:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see the click template added. Having a link to the IR article would be exremely useful. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'd prefer a little icon showing a bloody stick-figure corpse and a severed head, I suppose the Star of Life icon'd be preferable ...  RGTraynor  18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha that's great! Sort of like how you could make Wayne Gretzky's head bleed on the old NHL game for Sega. -Djsasso (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we could come up with some fair use rationale...--Smashville^talk 19:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky harmed? only on video games, right McCreary & Suter? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Game log recap links

I don't know if there was a recomended link to each game of the individual game recaps on season page game logs, but I would like to propose that it be the "NHL.com recap page". The page contains the AP article, box score, a preview of the game, and thanks to NHL.com's awesome redesign: Video highlights of every game (a pretty good amount too). Should we reach consensus on this or are there any other recomendations? Blackngold29 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is to dump them. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. IMNSHO. Resolute 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I like them. Every bit of info you want and more! And it's from the the official site, so it should be good. Jc121383 (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I could see the argument for eliminating them, but if I'm some random dude who comes on looking for info (either next week or in 10 years) and I see a game that peaks my intrest for whatever reason, I think it's cool that we can provide quick access to in-depth coverage of that game. I guess if you really want that info you could go to NHL.com and seach it up, but I bet more people would click on the link if it's there than going to another site. Blackngold29 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute. And the problem is that we don't know long the links will be active. 10 years is really questionable if you ask me. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has articles dating back to around 1995 and there are online databases which have articles that appeared in newspapers from the 1960s to the present day. I don't think they're gonna go dead anytime soon because storage will inevitably become smaller, but then again, different companies do different things. Blackngold29 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to drive traffic to other websites though. A single link the team page more than sufficies. From there, an interested reader can browse a list of games from that season. Basically, per both WP:EL and MOS:LINK, we should not be using 82 external links where one will suffice. Resolute 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, I don't like the recap links for the reasons that Resolute just linked. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally a fan of having them around as it allows the reader to really see what was behind the game. With that said, adding 82 regular season links, plus pre-season and playoffs for all 30 teams...well just do the math and see how much bandwidth something like that would take up. We're already bordering on notability standards for team season articles themselves, so clearly game-by-game results are pretty iffy. If a game is notable, like the Winter Classic games, there can be a wikilink from the score itself. Otherwise, we have all the stats on the articles themselves, so...Overall, I'd say get rid of them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling change request on Bobby Orr

I have made a request at Talk:Bobby Orr#Spelling change request to change from American to Canadian spelling. My rationale is stated there and I would appreciate any responses and opinions there. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault under GA review

Hello there, the article Gilbert Perreault which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon name contribs

Take a look at this user 71.82.80.106. He/she has been going around changing the first names of players (ie: Dan Cloutier -> Daniel Cloutier, Brad Isbister -> Bradley Isbister, etc.) Names are always iffy, because it's tough to find birth names of people. Is this legit? Or just vandalism? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not providing a source for any of those changes, so I'd revert it and ask where he's sourcing this to. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a note and undone his edits. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pens media guide

I posted this over on the Pens talk page, but I think it's good enough to mention here. The 2008-09 media guide is avalible as a PDF, and is 421 pages in length. Now, I don't know if I should do this because some of you like your statistics way too much and we may never see you again, but it's some pretty astounding stuff. But hey, you never know when somebody will ask "What was the longest home winless streak for the Penguins in the 1977-78 season?" And you'll proudly be able to respond: 5! Blackngold29 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Four hundred twenty one pages? Jesu-Maria, does it come complete with Ken Schinkel's jock size and the middle name of the daughter-in-law of Lowell MacDonald?  RGTraynor  23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it for like ten minutes, page-by-page and I realized the scroll bar had barely moved, then I looked at the page count and realized why. Whoever typed these stats up must've been sitting at a computer for three years straight. 15 MB isn't all that bad for every stat in the history of the franchise. Blackngold29 23:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through it, and really didn't find much of anything that isn't included in the Oilers and Flames media guides from last year, both of which are just under 300 pages. The difference is that there is a lot of wasted space in some of the Pens information. Especially the all-time roster sections. Still, as I said on the Pens talk page, the big advantage is that it is freely available, and easily accessable. I gotta pay $10 for a Flames or WHL media guide. That said, it's amazing what they pack into these things. I just randomly found a list of every playoff OT game the Flames have ever played, how long they lasted and who scored the winning goal... and I've been through that guide so many times the spine is broken in two places. Resolute 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A copule teams now provide their media guides online. I'm pretty sure that Washington has all of theirs online, as well as Atlanta. That said, I just bought my copy of the 2009 NHL Record Book the other day, and alreay found an error, one that is correct on Wikipedia. Most playoff OT goals is 8 by Joe Sakic, not the 7 they have in the book. Forgot to add the 1 he scored this past spring. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

They probably all will now, as per new NHL regulations teams are not allowed to put out paper media guides as part of the NHLs Go Green initiative. -Djsasso (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As it is, I'm about to ditch all my Sporting News Hockey Guides and Registers from the 1980s; all that info's online now, and they're just taking up shelf space.  RGTraynor  18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI in addition to the aforementioned Penguins, Thrashers and Capitals, the Sabres and Hurricanes also have their media guides available as freely downloadable PDFs on their respective websites. 93JC (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, I wonder if the NHL would ever consider doing a Mega Media Guide with stats from every player ever. I'm sure it would be ginormous, but with PDFs it would probably be albe to fit on a CD and fans could have a "hard copy". Hockey DB is great for stats, but if they could work in prose histories for every team too... Blackngold29 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They already have.  ;) Total Hockey Resolute 03:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! That looks amazing. They should update it. Blackngold29 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And bourns on ditching paper media guides. I much, much, much prefer to have the book in my hands than scroll through eminently useless PDFs. Resolute 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Šťastný is featured

... on French Wikipedia :) If someone here learned more from french class then I did, please try to translate some of that information freely available. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

National Hockey League awards featured topic

Due to a change in the featured topic criteria, the National Hockey League awards featured topic has 3 months to satisfy criterion 3.c. by getting peer reviews done for the 3 audited articles in the topic: Mark Messier Leadership Award, Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award, and NHL Foundation Player Award. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created PR requests for two, and it looks like Scorpion created a request for the third right before me. Seems like needless beauracracy, but here we go... Resolute 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note Resolute, you are only allowed to request one peer review per day, which is why I only did one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They can't very well hold people to that if they are insisting they all get peer reviewed. -Djsasso (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Silly restriction that does not serve to improve the encyclopedia in this case. Resolute 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Cherepanov

Alexei Cherepanov died today. His page may need some more eyes to keep the vandalism out.-Wafulz (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got an eye on it. Sad, sad story... – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also watching Jagr's page. --Smashville^talk 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tragic, just horrible when this happens to young people. After the Bourdon incident I lost faith in peoples respect, so let's keep an eye on the Chere and Jagr articles... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call on watching Jagr's article as well. What an odd and tragic incident. Resolute 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Slightly non-wiki related, but what is the connection with Jagr? None of the articles I've read about Cherepanov's death have mentioned Jagr. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It was incorrectly reported at first that it was caused by a collision with Jagr. -Djsasso (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope they do something about the ambulance situation, I believe it's a rule for high school football games around here that one must always be present, it should be done for all sports on any level. Anyone know if the NHL is doing a moment of silence before games or something? Seems like they should. Blackngold29 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rangers held a silent minute in honour of Cherepanov prior to the Devils game at the Garden. And the ambulance and no stretcher situation is indeed bizarre. I know SEL games have two ambulances plus additional medical staff present in the building at all times. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career

Am I over stepping the bounds by removing non notables from this list? After i remove non notables, they get reverted right back. Can some guys go there and have a look at the site. Am i wrong? should these players be mentioned? i mean, wikipedia isn't a memorial to players who were not at all notable and the only reason they made the news was because they died. Masterhatch (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would probably disagree with atleast one of the people you removed. The incidents, if not the people were notable. A player dying for being hit in the chest with a puck is extremely rare. -Djsasso (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specifics, but per the title of the list, I don't know if anyone should be removed until more specific guidelines can be set. I do agree with Djsasso though, anyone who actually dies during a game would be the most notable, I would think. Blackngold29 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the removal as well. One of the players you removed was stated to have been on the Rusisan Olympic team in 1994, and all of the players are no less notable than Kresse, Ruff, Kruger or Mantyka, or Mickey Renaud, for that matter. Those names obviously resonate with us in Canada, particularly the first four, it is reasonable to believe that the Russian players you removed would do the same in Russia. Resolute 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys have been a great help. I had always assumed that players (or people for that matter) in a list had to meet the same notability level as players (people) who have their own article. There seems to be some grey areas with this list, though. Masterhatch (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The nice thing about lists is that they can incorporate otherwise non-notable individuals. i.e.: lists of draft picks. The Swift Current four, as an example, aren't notable in their own right for articles, but their deaths were highly notable. In a list of hockey players who died young, they certainly belong. Resolute 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related situtation: is Category:Ice hockey players who died on ice really necessary? Skudrafan1 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think not, since there is only one entry, and I can't think of any others. Resolute 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was just created today, I removed two people who were incorrectly placed in it. Since I don't know if the 3rd actually died right on the ice or not I didn't remove him, but I would bet he didn't either. In which case I would remove him and them speedy the empty category in a couple days. -Djsasso (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is sufficient and Åkerblom didn't even die on the ice, he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. (edit conflict, written before I saw Djsasso reply)—Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Will speedy in 4 days as empty cat. -Djsasso (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okidoki, I found some refs for the Åkerblom article and I will try to expand it tomorrow. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kent Simpson

I came across this article today, Kent Simpson. Clearly fails notability based on previous deletion discussions. However, it somehow passed an AfD over a year ago as can be seen here (seems like none of us even knew of its existance which seems like the reason for this, it didn't have our project template at the time). Just want to make sure I'm taking the right approach to this article by adding a prod, or should some other method be used...? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some bad keep logic. The highest level of hockey in Canada is obviously the NHL (or the national team)...and he hasn't reached it. He's only 16, too...However, since it's passed an AfD once, a prod isn't going to work. --Smashville^talk 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that. I suppose I could just put up another AfD on it. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup in general we consider the World Championships or the Olympics the highest level of amateur competition. Put it up for AFD. Need be we can go and look at the hockey deletion archive which has 6 deleted Afds since July alone...nevermind the tonnes going back farther. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD up. --Smashville^talk 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate userbox

An alternative userbox for this WikiProject can be found here. Simply add {{User:Hucz/Userboxes/WikiProject Ice Hockey}} to your userpage. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say I really like the hockey player symbol you have there. We were looking for alternate free symbols for the {{ice hockey}} template. Perhaps this is an option? -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the full ice rink was great, but a little big. I found this via Wikimedia Commons. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a nice image, a while ago I tried to insert it in the WP:HOCKEY navigation template but couldn't get it to look good. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WHL task force?

Any thoughts on creating a Western Hockey League task force? Don't be afraid to disagree with me on this one, it's a bit of a stretch. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to create a task force, but I would try and find (which you are pretty much doing by posting this) a couple people that are regular WHL editors so that you know you have people who will work as a part of it. As you can see by looking at some of our other task forces, they start out like gang busters when they create them, and then die. I know User:Resolute edits WHL alot, and some like User:DMighton are really into junior hockey though he tends to focus more on the lower levels like Junior A etc. Perhaps something like a junior hockey task force might apeal to a wider set of editors? As it stands now most every decision on anything just comes to this main talk page anyways, but its nice to segregate some of the chatter to seperate talk pages for task forces. -Djsasso (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done — "Junior hockey task force" it is then. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Once you get it all sorted out let me know and I can add parameters to the templates for the task force. -Djsasso (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would, of course, be in, though atm I'm focussing more on NHL topics. There are a lot of junior issues I want to address though. Resolute 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, however, I'm not certain that this proliferation of task forces is all that necessary. We've got a well run project, but it isn't so large that such a division of focus is necessary. IMNSHO. Resolute 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty much my point in mentioning that they might want to find a few dedicated users first. Because most of our task forces do nothing except add a layer of tagging to the articles. Only the Swedish task force is truely active and its barely so. The Vancouver one is showing promise and the New Jersey one used to be active. The rest have never really taken off since the day they were created. -Djsasso (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. That's why it's a very vague task force, and not something exclusively WHL. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's why I suggested widening the topic a bit. I think this one will be a decent choice, just don't get to discouraged if it doesn't take off as you might hope. -Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Team rosters

Here is a template I've been working on. Let me know what you think. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 09:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I love it. Vast improvement on what is our current bland, eyesore of a template. Thricecube (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Still think our current new template is much better than a small box like that which will look out of place in the middle of an article. Something you might want to look at is the most recent discussion on this almost exactly a month ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#NHL_roster_template.3F. (The link may change some point today or tomorrow cause it will archive any day now since its been 30 days). -Djsasso (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest using em for width, not %. As described at W3Schools, "1em is equal to the current font size". This adds versatility: if they increase their font size, the column width increases proportionately. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's nice — but I prefer the current one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto that. --Smashville^talk 14:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but no thanks. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the purpose of going with a smaller font. As a personal rule, I like to keep tables and charts at about 75% of the page width. It reduces white space while leaving enough room on the right side for images, if desired. Resolute 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the current roster template adjust to fit the page size which is what I personally like, so if you have pictures it shrinks, if you don't then it eliminates the ugly white space. -Djsasso (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of first round draft picks (by team)

I'd like to create a "List of first round draft picks" for each NHL team, and I wanted to know if anybody minds as I was told there was a previous discussion on this.

I have reliable sources, and a format to work off of, and I have hopes of these articles becoming featured lists. Thoughts? iMatthew (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The first round draft picks are already covered in the draft history for each team, seams quite unnecessary to have two articles covering the exact same topic wouldn't it? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Although you are correct, it's a very popular topic, and I'm sure many people search for it a day. The first round draft picks should have their own articles to an easier reference instead of having to go to the draft picks page, then the individual draft page. NFL has them, and I think they are important. iMatthew (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at List of Calgary Flames draft picks, it is an easily sortable table that will provide the same information. What you are proposing is basically a content fork. Resolute 03:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2008—09 Seasons' articles

Most of these articles need some a good deal of work. Mostly copy-edit type stuff, but also if we want to try and make these look remotely uniform, that needs doing on most as well. Any help anybody can give is appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, I proposed doing something similar to the baseball WP does with their season articles. It wasn't really met with positive reaction, but maybe it would make it easier to pinpoint teams which don't have a user that keeps them updated; I don't care either way. It seems that most people, myself included, would keep watch over their favorite team's article. Unfortuately, we don't seem to have a fan of every team. Perhaps we could do something like an "adopt a team" for the season and people could do two teams if they have the time. Just throwing out some ideas... Blackngold29 01:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have Vancouver covered, and would be willing to add a few to the workload. In all honesty it wouldn't be too hard to update these all regularily. I'll take a stab at what needs work in the next couple days. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to this, any chance we can get a consensus on the game recap external links? We should really get that sorted before we go through and add or not add those to all of these articles. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we all do watch our favorite teams. I stick to the Red Wings' articles generally, but after taking a look at some of the other tonight, I think I'll lend a hand to some others. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also be willing to contribute to another team. I can't guarentee large amounts of prose, but I can atleast keep the game log updated, etc. I just need a team. I cover the Pens with Grsz11. Blackngold29 01:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For simplicity sake, I think that rather than trying to update player stats for each game, we should just link to the team's stats page on nhl.com, that will save a lot of effort over the course of the season. We can then post the full stats after the regular season and playoffs. And I will reiterate my opposition to ELs for each game log. The adopt a team idea is a good one too, provided we have enough people interested in maintaining a couple teams. I'll be on the Flames article, naturally.  ;) But I might pick up another team or two as well. Resolute 04:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps on the articles that aren't being regularly updated that will be fine. But some are, and I see no reason to tell people "No, you are not allowed to update this until after the season". I don't know if that's what you want, but I thought I'd mention it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well technically we already do tell people that with individual player pages. So it wouldn't be a stretch to do it with team pages. -Djsasso (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um...We can't do that. You're free to tell people not to, but of course they can if they wish. I'm going to continue updating a few and I'm sure others will as well. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There are notes on most of the current player pages telling editors not to update till the end of the season, its common practice to do so and has been done for years. The way we get around the can't is that we put a note indicating Stats as of the end of X season. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree for the player pages - it is pointless to update them daily. But for the 30 seasons articles, I see no reason to tell people they're not allowed to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have no problem either way, I was just pointing out it wasn't that much of a stretch since its done in other places. -Djsasso (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so it looks like the consensus is just to get rid of the game recap links, if something otherwise notable happened in the game, it can easily be put into the milestones section or into some prose. Perhaps we can get some sort of sign up list going for the season articles? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I see one or two people who say take it out. I like them, so my vote is to keep. I would like to see it discussed further, but obviously if the decision is made to remove them I will do so. Blackngold29 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I definately agree that it needs a bit more discussion, but I was going with an "as of now" tally, which pointed at four opposes (myself, Djsasso, Krm500, and Resolute) and two supports (yourself and Jc121383). Hopefully we can get a bit more than that though. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there were a few people earlier that said no, I haven't gone to take a look at how many. But as of now its clearly against it. There is no reason to have a link to every game when a single link will do, and technically WP:EL forbids using more than one link when one link will suffice. -Djsasso (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is eliminated we'll have to figure out some way to cite all of the games, though I guess we could just have an overall citation to the team's official site or HockeyDB. There has to be some sort of quick way to verify the info. Blackngold29 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup that is exactly what I was getting at and I think what Resolute was getting at. In general, we use one overall link to the official team site or NHL site as both have season history pages for all the games played. -Djsasso (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. For the Flames articles, I've linked to the Flames schedule and results on ESPN as a general reference, which takes you to each game log. Resolute 04:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we need uniform game logs...the 2008-09 Nashville Predators season and 2008-09 Pittsburgh Penguins season articles have entirely different formats (I like the Pens one better). --Smashville^talk 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also like the Pens version, as it is consistent with previous seasons. The Flames article currently has a third design, which I'm going to change to match the Pens once I have more time to spend on updating it. Resolute 20:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I might be biased, but I also agree that the Pens' is the best. I don't know who developed it, but it's very good. I started implimenting it in past Pens' seasons (first with playoffs, but I haven't done any full regular seasons yet). Also when the playoffs come around see the 2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season for the more in-depth log. Blackngold29 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When I changed the Penguins log format in 07-08, it was a copy from the Rangers. So whoever did that, good job. Grsz^X 02:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Like Blackngold, I'm biassed on the game log, as that was the design I came up with when I started on season articles. I'm rather happy that it stuck, even if it isn't the most efficient. Resolute 04:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think to discourage mid-season updates, we should include a line that links to NHL.com's stat page for that player. Using the last few lines of Joe Sakic's stat table as an example:

				Regular season						Playoffs
Season	Team	League		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM
2005–06	Colorado Avalanche	NHL		82	32	55	87	60		9	4	5	9	6
2006–07	Colorado Avalanche	NHL		82	36	64	100	46		—	—	—	—	—
2007–08	Colorado Avalanche	NHL		44	13	27	40	20		10	2	8	10	0
2008–09	Colorado Avalanche	NHL		Season in progress; see NHL.com for up-to-date stats.
NHL Totals				1363	623	1006	1629	608	172	84	104	188	78

Thoughts? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried that, without the EL, on a few articles last year - notably Sidney Crosby's. Seemed to help a bit. I'd go with it. Resolute 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have one question; Can we decide upon changing 'Decision' to 'Goaltender' in the game log? Decision seams very odd to me, maybe because I'm not a native speaker of english, but I think people not familiar with hockey also might misunderstand it. Thoughts? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Decision means who won or lost the game...its only given to one goaltender even if two played that night. So it kind of means something different. -Djsasso (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In the current Pens season, decision just lists the Penguins goaltender, regardless of who won. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they won or lost, its who gets the decision. ie the goalie who was in net when the other team scored the winning goal or the goalie who was in net for most of the game when they won. It will always be a Pens goalie, its just that it will never be two pens goalies. -Djsasso (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea Twas. That is what we usually do for the playoffs so I don't see why we can't do the same for regular season. -Djsasso (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Article drive proposal

I propose we try and organize editing the lesser-covered season articles. For example, I'll pledge that for every 3 edits I make at 2008-09 Pittsburgh, I'll make 1 edit at 08-09 Washington. If we do something like this, we can make sure we have sufficient coverage of every article, while we can still go beyond with our own interests. Let me know what you think. Grsz^X 01:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also volunteer, but we need a list of teams that are not updated regularly. Blackngold29 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Now this might be something worth creating a task force for. Resolute 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we have to get that formal. We just need a list like I mentioned above and some volunteers (which I think will step up). I certainly won't stand in your way, but it seems like more work than is needed. Blackngold29 04:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably just needs a page set out as opposed to a full task force. Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Featured Topic Drive for example. -Djsasso (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Resolute 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So what should we call it? Any volunteers to spearhead a groundbreaking WP project? ;) Blackngold29 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Season Article Drive perhaps? -Djsasso (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Could be good to set up guidelines and a 'how to' for the table formatting so new user can participate. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this as the description? Feel free to add anything you feel lacking, all comments are obviously welcome. Blackngold29 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too...since I'm at every game, I'll take the Preds...--Smashville^talk 15:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created the page at the proposed page. Let the name adding begin! Blackngold29 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. I've grabbed the Blue Jackets as well, given they are a team I expect little activity for otherwise. Resolute 05:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll spam the city Projects and direct them to that page to see if anybody is interested in signing on. Grsz^Review! 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I add Elitserien teams to a separate list? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New logo for WikiProject Ice Hockey

Here is a logo I designed as the potential new logo for WikiProject Ice Hockey.
Let me know what you guys think. Image:WikiProject Ice Hockey logo.svg — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's awesome. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, now, I like that. Very old school.  RGTraynor  14:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would have no problem with changing the ice rink to that. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I support this one as well. I love it! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's good. However, the player's face doesn't have any scars, and is not frowning. Don Cherry would not approve. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Very unique. Reminds me of the old Johnny Canuck logo the WHL Canucks used. I like it. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I approve. That's awesome! Blackngold29 18:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jolly good. Particulary because he doesn't have #99 on his sweater. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Real nice, I think this should given a few more hours and have the this change implemented, it seems to be snowing. butterfly (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I support it, but I don't like the face, could you possibly change it to Alaney2k description? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad you all liked it, that means a lot to me coming from you guys. As far as the face goes, yes I can make the requested changes to satisfy everyone. But for now, I think that the face details would but difficult to see if it is on the WikiProject template, so I guess what I'm saying is that we could implement the logo right now, while I work on his face. It'll update on its own. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestions to make the face look "meaner" will just make it look like a goofy caricature, rather than a simple illustration. Please reconsider this change. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought Alaney2k was fooling around. butterfly (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I had that feeling, too, but Krm500 supported the suggestion, and then Hucz indicated that the changes would be made sometime. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet started the changes, so I think I'm going to just leave it the way it is, because the majority likes it the way it is. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done – Seems like there was pretty much universal consensus for this change so I have updated {{ice hockey}} -Djsasso (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I was definitely fooling around. No need to change. It's good. Alaney2k (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)