Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive44

World Cup of Hockey

Since the next WCoH is in September 2011. I was planning to check for dios in the 1996 & 2004 WCoH articles, along with the Canada Cup articles. I was wondering, are dios allowed, as these Tournaments are international teams or are the barred as it's NHL based & located in North America tournaments? I just need clarification. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I treated them as international, and left the diacritics in on my rewrites of 1976 Canada Cup and 1981 Canada Cup. Also related, I've noticed an editor has been swapping various European player articles to a European date format. Personally, I've viewed this in the same vein as our diacritic compromise. Resolute 04:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute, and I would note GoodDay, that both tournaments featured games in Europe and North America. The round robin was split and half the games were in Europe and half were in North America. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, just wasn't certain. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Aeros

Please can you help me: I worked this page: update +new information +new roster 2010-2011 + new Staff and new link. But very important: the Mississauga Aeros are now called Toronto Aeros. It is a new name for the team in CWHL.There are changes to be made in the wikipedia. I do not know how . I write the same notice on talk page of Toronto Aeros. Thank for your help --Geneviève (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the page, go ahead and make any changes to the actual article that it needs. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of outdoor ice hockey games

Just created this article (held onto the idea for the WikiCup, heh), as it seemed like a fairly easy FL. I want to make sure that we have all of the outdoor games held since 2001 though. I plan to scour for sources over the next while, but if anyone knows of other games that belong on this list, please add them! Thanks, Resolute 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, I'd forgotten about the 1991 Rangers - Kings exhibition game. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are probably going to need to quantify the list somehow, because clearly these aren't all the outdoor games ever held, nor all the pro games held outdoors since if you go back far enough they were held outdoors a number of times. Personally I like the idea, but you know how picky they can get at FLC. However I suppose the way you labelled the section does do that. -DJSasso (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I realized that right away. I've mentioned the historical games in the article body, but yeah, unless the list is confined to post-2001, it is utterly unworkable. Resolute 04:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the arbitrary "since 2001"? Jmj713 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not arbitrary, actually. The 2001 Cold War game led to the 2003 Heritage Classic, which led to the subsequent games. The modern outdoor game phenomenon dates from 2001. Resolute 04:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. Just seems the title of the article would lead one to believe it's a complete list. For instance, it's missing the 2009 KHL All-Star Game at the Red Square. Jmj713 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely what I was looking for, thanks. Resolute 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how low of competition you want to go, but the Ft. McMurray AJHL team held an outdoor game November 27, 2010, the first junior one in Canada. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Already there. Resolute 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just added the first two outdoor games sanctioned by USA Hockey... the NAHL's Fairbanks Ice Dogs in 2009 and 2010. DMighton (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Some kind of restriction on the level of competition should also be specified. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• The 2010 outdoor game between Färjestad and Frölunda was not in the list, so I added it. HeyMid (contribs) 11:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Going to have one more to add, in a place I doubt any of us expected: Mexico City. Opening game of the Division III world Juniors between Mexico and Bulgaria is going to be outdoors. At the very least, it should help the NHL reconsider not having a WC in the southern part of the US. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

50k expected for a DIII tournament game? Damn... I think that one game will draw more fans than that level of the tournament has seen in a decade all combined. Resolute 01:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there won't be any admission to the game. But considering the type of exposure this is getting (article says massive media presence for practices, will be live on TV throughout Latin America, etc) I don't think that is a concern. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the forum-talk, but... any way to watch this in the United States? A stream, maybe? Jmj713 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The IIHF has done webcasts of top level games in the past (for a price), maybe they will do so here too? Resolute 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Think I have some (quite bad) photos from Frölunda vs. Färjestad at Ullevi if you want to use them in the article. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 03:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the opening game for the 2010 IIHF World Championships was an indoors game—should it be removed from this list? isaacl (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No it was outdoors in a soccer stadium. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It was in a retractable roof stadium with the roof closed to meet IIHF requirements that games be played in an indoors venue. isaacl (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's a requirement, then how is the Mexico-Bulgaria game being allowed to be played outdoors? Jmj713 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The article said it is a requirement for the IIHF World Championships. I don't know if they have changed the requirements or if they are different for the Juniors. isaacl (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Its probably symantics. But every reference you find will call it an outdoors game. And I am pretty sure the roof was open, they just wanted to make sure they could close it should weather be an issue. But I don't have a source for that. I will look. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This article on the IIHF site says that the roof was closed. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not reliable source evidence, but this fan video posted on a bulletin board shows the roof closed. isaacl (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said it probably comes down to symantics. What is outdoors. I know its common to consider baseball games played in retractable roof stadiums to still be outdoor games when the roof is closed, whereas games in fixed roof stadiums like they used to use in Minnesota were considered indoors. You really have to go with what most references consider the game I think. Or the best option would be to list it with an asterix I think mentioning the roof was closed. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think games in Rogers Centre with the roof closed are considered outdoor games. If we believe the non-reliable source I quoted above, the temperature was comfortable and not reflective of outdoor conditions, so without exposure to the elements, it would be odd to call it an outdoor game. The IIHF doesn't consider it to be an outdoors game, based on the article I linked to. isaacl (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I would probably list it, but have an asterix saying while most sources called it an outdoor game it was actually in a soccer stadium with the roof closed. Would cover both angles and make it clear it wasn't necessarily a true outdoor game, but it was considered so by many. Because I am sure in your google search you saw all the news articles calling it an outdoor game. So clearly common perception on it was that it was outdoors. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe rename the list to "non-hockey venues"? If we do go that route, that would enable listing this event, too. Jmj713 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, no, I didn't; a few days ago, I was trying to find confirmation of the status of the roof, and didn't find references to the game being outdoors. But I was not looking specifically for this. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of articles along the lines of this one that mention the game will be outdoors. But anyways...yeah said what I had to say lol. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The outdoor game concept is very specific, and that is what I am hoping to capture. Plenty of sources say the German game was outdoors, so that's good enough for me. The Ford Field game was indoors, but is captured on the list for games with highest attendance. Resolute 23:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Minnesota high school boys hockey results

While checking Uncategorized pages, I stumbled upon this article. Opinions? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably prod it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2012 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships

I had been keeping an eye on next year's World Juniors' page. I noticed someone added a schedule, all news articles I've read state that a final schedule has not been set. Is the schedule on the Wiki page, something official (i.e. is the schedule based on a rotation)? If not, then it must be something that was added in fantasy and should be removed. I only asked here before removing is in case the schedule was actually based on a formula. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Me thinks René Fasel is lurking around here. Maybe contact the IIHF or the tournament organizers (Hockey Canada?) to get conformation if the schedule is valid? —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 03:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If a schedule had been announced, I'm pretty sure I would have heard about it.  ;) No, the final schedule has not been released, though it is known it will be Canada-USA on New Years Eve. I suppose it is possible that the IIHF does this via a formula, so that the schedule is static with each team plugged in via its seed number, but that's only a guess. The IP did a nice job of setting the tables up for us once the schedule is posted, at least. As an aside, I'm not sure if I'll survive 21 games in 10 days... especially with the Latvians in town! Resolute 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

World Championships

I was looking for a table of nations participating in the World Championships, similar to what we have for the Olympic Games, and couldn't. I guess one doesn't exist. Is there one anywhere, or should I create one? Jmj713 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is one anywhere. Not sure how one might work since teams jump between divisions every year and as such are a different beast than the Olympics where you are either in the Olympics or you aren't. You would need a table for each level, because a gold in one level would not be the same as a gold in an upper level so you couldn't combine the tables. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what I was thinking, a table for the Championship, Div I, II and III. Jmj713 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an eight column table: Country, # of tournaments, last tournament, G/1st, S/2nd, B/3rd, Total medals, last/best finish? Of course, the Russian nationalism will come into play as well, so you'll have to deal with USSR/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic too. Resolute 20:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah just like that. Maybe also add first tournament, too. Jmj713 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've begun work on such a table. Hopefully I'll have it up in a few days. Jmj713 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How does this look? Just an example.

Country	T	FT	LT				TM	BF	WF
Australia	1	1960	1960	0	0	0	0	16	16
Austria	28	1928	2011	0	0	0	0	16	16
Belarus	12	1998	2011	0	0	0	0	16	16

Looks very good. Only change I would make, given the table isn't too wide, would be to spell out the headings in full rather than rely on tool tips. Resolute 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question on two NHL transaction "articles"

What should be done with 1922–23 NHL transactions and 1928–29 NHL transactions? PROD? AfD? Expand? As of now, both articles are unsourced and hold only a single trade. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd that those were done out of sequence like that. I've added cats for them. There are transactions lists for recent seasons, but no-one has gotten around to the 1920s. We can mark them as stubs for now. They will be expanded, eventually. When? I don't know. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Honestly? I think they should be merged into the appropriate season articles. No way there are enough transactions to justify forking off.  RGTraynor  01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  I would probably agree with that for the early years. -DJSasso (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Well, then we could make them redirects to the season articles? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Mark them as stubs. They will be expanded. Dolovis (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

move discussion

A move from Waivers (NHL) to Waiver (NHL) is requested. The discussion is at Talk:Waivers (NHL)#Requested_move. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Women's Ice Hockey in Finland

Hello Everybody, I worked the page Women's Ice Hockey in Finland . This page was written with a translation of Jääkiekon naisten SM-sarja on Finnish Wikipedia. I have a translate logiciel. But Finnish language is very difficult. Wikiproject Ice Hockey haven't a Finland Ice Hockey task force. Now I will go to Finnish Wikipedia: Maybe some Finlandais people help me in English for the page Women's Ice Hockey in Finland. Be it a good idea? Has It is the other mean there ? Thank for yours Advices --Geneviève (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Evening, bonsoir, I wrote a note in Finnish Wikipedia --Geneviève (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The existing top professional leagues

This issue has come up again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Winkler (2nd nomination).

WP:NHOCKEY states: “Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they 1.) Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league...” The consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey [1] appears to support the notion that the currently existing top professional leagues are the National Hockey League (NHL) plus the “Top 7” European professional ice hockey leagues. These 7 leagues have been identified and are listed below.[2][3] I am bringing this issue to this discussion forum so that all WikiProject Ice Hockey members will have the oppourtunity to voice their support or opposition to the notion that the existing “top professional leagues” as defined by WP:NHOCKEY, are as follows:

National Hockey League (NHL)

Sweden, Elitserien (SEL)

Russia, Kontinental Hockey League (KHL)

Czech Republic, Czech Extraliga (Czech)

Finland, SM-liiga

Slovakia, Slovak Extraliga (SVK)

Switzerland, National League A (NLA)

Germany, Deutsche Eishockey Liga (DEL)

Dolovis (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting this consensus from? It was established in that AfD that the DEL is top, but no other inclusion or exclusions were made. One person said top 7, and in the same comment said the countries in the championship level of the IIHF - there are 16 of those. Grsz 11 01:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the AfD to include 2nd nomination. It was previously kept under a different name (in a lazy dual-nomination), so it didn't automatically create the 2nd nomination page. I think I went back and got most of the links to the right place. Grsz 11 01:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

While I believe that Dolovis's opinion that our consensus only points to those leagues is incorrect, I believe that this discussion is a worthy one. There needs to be a listing of notable leagues for the sake of qualification to point #1 of W:NHOCKEY. This would cut down on the number of time-consuming afd discussions that we have had, especially recently. The footy project has such a list, why don't we? -Pparazorback (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally in the past top level league has always been the highest level professional league a player can play in in their country. Which is why we have Australian player articles for example. Because people playing in the highest level league in their country are likely to be covered in the news in that same country. We have never had a list before, because it was pretty straight forward that the highest league is the highest league. In soccer things are alot more murky as to what is what added on to the fact that they still follow the any league that is professional is good enough rule so they have to list what is pro and what isn't. We got more strict than them. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To throw a wrench into this, what about leagues with promotion and relegation? I would assume the player would have to play for a team while it was in the top league, which may hinder Scott Winkler. From what I can tell, he was with Frisk Tigers [4] while they were relegated to the First Division (the top level being the GET-league). His other play in Norway was with Frisk's junior team. Grsz 11 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thats where things like GNG and common sense come in to play. Remember NHOCKEY doesn't guarantee an article should be kept or deleted. It is just a guide to when sources are likely to exist. Really in border line cases like this one come up, its often easier to just go find some sources than argue about the fuzziness. -DJSasso (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But still, would it not make sense to have a list of known leagues so that an editor from the United States or Canada would be able to see which league is indeed the highest form of hockey in Sweden or Germany, or what have you? Ultimately, a listing of all known leagues and their status would be best. It would stop the arguments that we have seen recently that "consensus says that players from this league are or are not assumed notable" -Pparazorback (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

List of leagues

If we would use the IIHF Championship the leagues would be:

• NHL - U.S./Canada
• Kontinental Hockey League - Russia, Kazakstan, Belarus, Latvia
• Belarusian Extraleague - Belarus, Latvia, Ukraine
• Slovak Extraliga - Slovakia
• National League A - Switzerland
• Czech Extraliga - Czech Republic
• League Magnus - France
• GET-ligaen - Norway
• Elitserien - Sweden
• AL-Bank Ligaen - Denmark
• SM-liiga - Finland
• Deutsche Eishockey Liga - Germany
• Serie A (ice hockey) - Italy
• Austrian Hockey League - Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary

There are some that are debatable:

• Kazakhstani Championship as Kazakstan has teams in the KHL
• Latvian Hockey League as Latvia is represented in the KHL and Belarusia League

Though I'm not entirely convinced we should limit it to those. Grsz 11 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is to clarify the meaning of NHOCKEY, but what DJSasso and Grsz11 are arguing for is not at all what WP:NHOCKEY says, which reads: "1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League". It does NOT say the highest professional league in each country. The League Magnus may be the top professional league in France, but no one can seriously argue that it is a “top professional league” such as the NHL or Elitserien. Dolovis (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:POV. Use common sense, Dolovis. There is no such thing as a firm black or white answer. Frankly, if someone plays in the League Magnus, and we have sources for a decent article, that's plenty. Resolute 05:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is what exactly top professional league means, not what they are. There is consensus that top professional league refers to just that, the top professional league in a given country. Grsz 11 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Definite POV. The players in the French or Italian league are the best in their countries, and just as notable for their achievements. Grsz 11 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: So is it your proposition that a Canadian playing a single game in the French or italian league would be deemed notable? Dolovis (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That question did cross my mind. In many cases though, those players would probably have sufficient minor league status in North America. I don't have a definitive answer for you, but why wouldn't they be? Grsz 11 06:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, just a single Serie A roster gives us Michael Henrich, Ralph Intranuovo, and Layne Ulmer, all of which would pass outside of playing in Italy. Grsz 11 06:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So you founf three notable players on the roster, but the other 19 players on the roster are non-notable players. To play hockey in France, all you need is a pair of skates - talent not required. We should be looking at the top teams in Europe, not the individual countries. And the league should be a "fully" professional league, which the French league is not. Dolovis (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide the source for your comment that not every player in the French league is paid and that all you need is a pair of skates to play? -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I picked the three NORTH AMERICANS, which was what your question referred to. Grsz 11 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It just boggles the mind that you're arguing players in some of the best leagues in the world aren't notable, and at the same time saying that random 19 and 20 year old junior players are. Grsz 11 05:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my proposition. This would be not a list for deltionists to disallow articles. It is a list that could be used to deem notability. Of course WP:GNG trumps everything else, and with the right sources any article could be kept. Dolovis (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That is your point of view that it doesn't say that, top professional league quite easily means the top league in a system. ie the Swedish system where the Elitserien is the top league, the North American system where the NHL is the top league, the Italian system where the Seris A is the top league, and the League Magnus is the top league in France. Use some common sense, and look at how most leagues in the world are set up where leagues are like a ladder with a league at the Top. We aren't using Top to indicate skill level, we are using the word Top to indicate the league that is on top of the ladder. Players playing in the highest league in a country are going to have some sources in most cases, and that is all NHOCKEY is meant to do. Indicate when sources are likely to exist. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Everybody , I believe that it is necessary to be careful with " notable's " notion. Every country has its traditions in Hockey and a First Leaque in a country (as France cannot compare ) with the NHL ? Also in the Women's Hockey. In Canada and in the United States, several secondary leagues (NCAA...) or Junior Leagues (both at the Men and the Women) has a level of play superior to notable leaques in Europe or in Asia. So dear prudence to be careful with notable or no-notable in Hockey. Enjoy and Friendship --Geneviève (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unlike most other sports, the "top league in the system" are the top leagues in the world. The best Norwiegian player doesn't consider himself to have achieved his highest level when he makes it to the top league in Norway; he will be looking to keep moving up the "system" to play in the NHL or in an Elite European league. The non-elite leagues should be considered as "minor leagues" with the 100+ games rule to apply. Dolovis (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  You are still confusing skill with notability. No matter the skill level in the local national league, it is still the top league in that country and will be covered by the press in that country. Players in that country will be notable in that country. Skill and "moving up" don't enter into it, this guideline just lays out when a player is likely to have news coverage and that is it. -DJSasso (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The best Norwiegian player doesn't consider himself to have achieved his highest level when he makes it to the top league in Norway" - Can you show a citation for this, or are you just going to keep wasting everyone's time with POV and speculatory arguments? Resolute 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here I've put together a (rough) ranking of the top leagues in IIHF countries. Grsz 11 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Collection of leagues

Hey guys, at User:Grsz11/Ice hockey leagues I started a list of top-level and other professional leagues. Feel free to make any required corrections or additions. I'll leave it up to you Europe experts to add European minor but fully professional leagues where applicable (with a citation maybe). We would probably just be better off using this with NHOCKEY. Grsz 11 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

According to its article, the AL-Bank Ligaen is only semi-professional. Ravendrop (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but it is the highest league in Denmark. Grsz 11 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, NHOCKEY #1 does not say it has to be fully-pro. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It says, and I quote, "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". By top professional league, I'am assuming this means fully pro. Because a league with both pros and amateurs really isn't professional, its semi-professional. Ravendrop (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The league is still a professional league because some players are paid. If fully pro was intended it would have said fully pro as it does on #3. Most leagues in europe allow unpaid junior players to play from time to time. By insisting on fully-pro we wipe out a large number of euro leagues that we still want to count. -DJSasso (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, you're arguing that an amateur player who played one game in a non-pro (or semi-pro) league such as the Danish league, or from Grsa11's list, say the Malyasian of Emirati league where they may may have just been filling in and have very limited experience, is as notable as a fully professional player in the Swedish Elite league or KHL, who has worked their way up through the minor leagues in that county; AND is more notable than someone who has played 99 games in the AHL, or even a junior player in the CHL who has played any number of games. If so, I think that i absurd. Ravendrop (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

NHOCKEY does not measure notability. It measures when a source is more likely to exist or not exist. There are always going to be some players who meet the criteria but aren't notable and some who don't meet the criteria and are notable. This is why its a guideline. Has nothing to do with who is more notable than who. As it says at the top of the nhockey page, a page may be created if the player doesn't meet these, and a player may be deleted if he does meet them. Any of those examples you mention, if they can't be backed up with sources get deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody reads what they're griping about anymore. "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they:" PRESUMED NOTABLE, not are notable. It all goes back to sources, etc. Grsz 11 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, NHOCKEY is not a guarantee. But just a guideline as to when sources probably exist, they just need to be found. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Even still, NHOCKEY #2 accomodates to lack of a professional league. So either way, the top league in a country is covered, be it professional, semi-pro, or completely amateur. Grsz 11 00:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso and Grsz11 are wrong when they say that NHOCKEY includes the lower European leagues in its meaning of "top professional leagues". That is a nonsensical interpretation of criteria #1. Dolovis (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to that opinion. However, when the project was writing the criteria that is what it had been discussed to mean. -DJSasso (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I was involved in writing the criteria and that is not what it had been discussed to mean. If I am wrong, then point me to the discussion point you are referring to. Dolovis (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you just as easily point out the discussion that you are referring to? Grsz 11 02:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The criteria were written long before you were editing on wikipedia atleast under the name Dolovis in 2007. What you were a part of was a slight rewording of them a few months ago. You've been told you were wrong in two different Afds by a number of different people. If you want proove you are right and everyone else is wrong then do the work and proove us wrong. -DJSasso (talk)

I cannot point you to a discussion point that has never happened. Djsasso is the one claiming that that is what is was discussed to mean, so he should be the one who can find the discussion he is referring to. I am not the only one who disagrees with your understanding.[5] Dolovis (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No but you are implying there was a discussion that it did not include those, so I would like to see that discussion. All I have seen so far is a comment from one editor mentioning a decent rule of thumb is either the 7 top countries or the top level countries at the world championships. But he has also gone on to say there is no hard and fast rule. -DJSasso (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To anybody interested, here was the discussion that altered NHOCKEY. No real discussion of this country's league is okay but this one isn't. Grsz 11 03:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Having looked at Grsz's list of leagues, I have large issues. The vast majority of those leagues have quality of play far worse than most North American minor leagues, and the notion that someone can qualify for an article with a single game in the Bosnian league is nuts. Truth be told, I wouldn't consider going lower than the top 8 for NHOCKEY#1, and would be more comfortable with the top 5.  RGTraynor  17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  But remember its not about quality of play, its about liklihood of news coverage. People playing a national league in alot of these countries are going to be covered in their own countries. There is no requirement in notability that requires us in North America to have ever heard of them etc. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  And it's not to say somebody is going to go out and create articles for all of these players. And even if they would, they would still need to show sources about the players to satisfy WP:GNG. If we as the project just list the leagues, it's still up to the individual editor to go find sources. Grsz 11 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah anyone that went out and tried to create every player in leagues in europe would probably be a little nuts. I doubt it would happen, and if it did it would still be up to them to follow it up with a GNG proof if someone challenges the article. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps we may alter NHOCKEY #1 to say players must have played in there countries highest-level, or a better league elsewhere, to prevent minor North Americans acheiving notability for playing in England, Spain, etc. Grsz 11 18:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  If the existence of reliable sources establishing notability is being assumed (subject to further investigation, of course) for everyone playing in the top-level league for a country, then I'm not sure on what basis an exception should be made for a foreign import player. isaacl (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  I dunno, DJ ... you're suggesting that (for instance) there's more hockey talk in the Dundalk, Castlereagh and Belfast press than there is in minor league hockey hotbeds such as Hershey, Winnipeg or Providence.

  Let's test the proposition. I find 38 articles about the Hershey Bears in the last month generated from Pennsylvania sources. [6] By contrast, I only get five news hits for the last month for the whole Irish Ice Hockey League on Google Ireland.

  Yet you imply that not only is the Irish Ice Hockey League more notable than the American Hockey League, but that more press coverage should be the governing factor.  RGTraynor  21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2007–08 Elitserien season by team

Template:2007–08 Elitserien season by team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Craig MacTavish

Hi, some of you may remember a few years ago a persistent vandal adding "contractual terms" that MacTavish couldn't drive the team bus. The guy is back, adding the sentence verbatim. ccwaters (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That goes back to 2006. ccwaters (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Watching as well. And yeah, like you, I wouldn't waste much time on that either - L4 BLP warning then blocks. Resolute 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. THAT guy is back? This is nuts. Block his ass.  RGTraynor  17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Huh. Looks like there have been vandalism on this from anon IPs for over a month now. Semi-protection, perhaps?  RGTraynor  17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah I will semi-pro the next time time it is inserted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  I looked at a couple IPs. I'm guessing he's jumping on public wifi hotspots. Its an awful lot of trouble for something so stupid. Semi-protect is probably a good first course of action. ccwaters (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  He also likes Jimmie Walker. ccwaters (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dy-no-mite! Semi, please! And too bad we can't deal with this guy more definitively.oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Major International Tournament Awards

I was reading through the AFD for Igor Bobkov and one of the comments was that being named the top goaltender at the U18s is not enough to be considered notable. It me wondering why? Since the U18s, World Juniors, Olympics and World Championships are the four preeminent international tournaments for national men's competitions, shouldn't these be enough to satisfy that? I would say winning Top Goalie at the U18s is much more notable than being the Top Goalie in the Colonial League. Providing of course that for IIHF tournaments it is achieved at the Top Level.

I would say winning Top Goalie or MVP or being named a tournament All-Star at each of these tournaments should satisfy notability:

Men's:

• World U18s
• World Juniors
• Olympics
• World Championship

Women's:

• World U18s
• Olympics
• World Championship

What does everyone else think? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the U18 tournament is a fairly minor tournament in the scheme of things and don't think I would consider awards from it to be that big a deal. The criteria are all about media coverage, and the U18 tournament gets next to none. It gets more than the U17... but not much more. I would also note that just playing in the Olympics or World Championships meets the criteria so there is no need to mention awards for those tournaments. Its really only the U18 and Juniors that would come into play. -DJSasso (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Come to that, I'm sure the top goaltender for the Memorial Cup gets a lot more press than U18 awards.  RGTraynor  14:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Everybody, for Women's hockey:

• IIHF World Women's U18 Championships
• Elite Women's Hockey League EWHL
• IIHF European Women's Champions Cup EWCC
• IIHF European Women Championships
• MLP Nations Cup
• 4 Nations Cup
• Ice hockey at the Olympic Games
• IIHF World Women Championships

enjoy --Geneviève (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

no tags ? no banners ?

Hello Everybody, I know you have many preoccupations and many important works. There news pages in Women's ice hockey haven't no banners in their Talk pages:

• Annie Guay
• 2009–10 WWHL season
• Quebec Phenix CWHL
• IIHF European Women's Champions Cup EWCC
• IIHF European Women Championships
• Elite Women's Hockey League EWHL
• Mid-Atlantic Women's Hockey League MAWHL
• Laval Le Mistral NWHL
• 1998–99 NWHL season

Thanks you so much for your attention, merci beaucoup de votre disponibilité --Geneviève (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can add banners. I can tag them, but you are able to do it yourself as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the banners to the talk pages of articles you create is fairly easy, just add the following code:

{{WikiProject Ice Hockey}} for the hockey project banner

{{WikiProject Canada|importance=Low|sport=yes|ab=yes}} for the WP Canada banner, if relevant - note that the ab=yes parameter would add the article to WP Alberta's scope as well, and you can add or change any number of provinces this way, i.e.: on=yes, mb=yes, qc=yes, etc.

{{WPBiography|living=yes|priority=|listas=lastname, firstname|sports-work-group=yes}} - if it is an article of a person. Change the "listas=" parameter to the person's name, using last name first. If the person has died, change "living=" to no.

Hope this helps, Resolute 14:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thanks, merci --Geneviève (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename possibility

Every time I have to link it, it bugs me. Any reason why IIHF World Women Championships is the main page and IIHF Women's World Championship is a redirect? "World Women Championship" sounds like it involves some epic feats of womanhood, rather than just some hockey games. Thoughts? Canada Hky (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the tournament is referred to by the IIHF web site as the IIHF World Women's Championship. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No real objection to that either. The individual tournament articles are at Year Women's World Ice Hockey Championships. As a package, things are rather inconsistent. Canada Hky (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to match it with the men's tournament titles. Resolute 05:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The IIHF web site just calls the men's tournament the IIHF World Championship. Grammatically speaking, and matching the IIHF web site, each annual tournament is called <Year> IIHF World [Women's] Championship (singular). isaacl (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to start reorganizing everything as IIHF World Women's Championships and the tournaments as Year IIHF World Women's Championship. It'll take me a while to get everything straight, so I'll check back for objections before I actually do the work. Thanks for everyone's input. Canada Hky (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Everybody, I believe it's same situation in French language (les difficultés des langues et des traductions). Yes rename is a possibility but it's necessary that the links between pages (players biographies , the national teams..) follow this change. --Geneviève (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Placeholders

In the past these have generally not been used on any ice hockey articles except when added by the odd well meaning editor which are usually removed by someone else fairly quickly. Recently User:Dolovis has been adding them to numerous articles and when he gets reverted he proceeds to re-add them. A number of editors have asked him to stop. He has been pointed to a Centralized discussion where the result was clearly in favour of no longer using the image and depricating it. He does not believe that that constitutes a consensus. As such I am proposing a local consensus on ice hockey articles that we not use this image as it makes the articles look tacky and amateurish and generally degrades from the quality of the article. We have the 'needs-photo=yes' parameter in project tag to indicate that an article needs a picture. We do not need this image which brings down the quality of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that we not use them as well. I agree with DJSasso's assessment about the look and quality degradation. I would also add that putting these on pages could lead to some well meaning yet misguided use of non free images. Certain pages currently receive non-free images on a semi-regular basis and despite the fact that the image calls for free images I doubt that it would stop users from adding no free ones.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that, I had forgotten about that aspect. That is also one of my problems with them. It ends up encouraging non-free images to be added, which is a problem. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DJSasso, I kindly ask that you please refrain from responding to each and every comment posted by other editors. I have noticed that your habit of interjecting your opinion after every comment tends to stifle free discussion of the issue. Dolovis (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith comment already? Has to be a record for you. Back and forth discussion is what is supposed to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support the use of image placeholders because they tend to encourage other editors to create/search for and upload freely-licensed images of hockey players. On those articles that had such image placeholders I have noticed a significant increase in the placement of freely-licensed images over those articles that do have them. I challenge Mo Rock...Monstrous/Leech44 to show us examples of how the image placeholder increases the use of non free images. He will not be able to respond to this challenge because his proposition is false. The use of the image placeholder prevents the uploading of non-free images because it educates new editors on what a type of images are allowed. Dolovis (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  By all means then please show us the evidence that it has increased the use of non-free images. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty annoying when the placeholder makes the infobox twice as long as sub-stub articles that have been created recently. Grsz 11 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral I don't think the placeholder image helps or hinders articles. I don't add it if there isn't one in an article, nor do I remove it if it is there. Further, accuse me of bad faith if you'd like, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it - but the head-butting on every single issue that comes up surrounding hockey is getting old, and doing more to hurt the project in my personal opinion than any of these so-called "issues" themselves. Canada Hky (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose placeholder use: For one thing, I very much doubt that the unattractive box is outweighed by troops of editors motivated to seek out free images. For another, between the NHLPA and the league being far more tightassed in recent years regarding the use of player images and the success of the image warriors in ratcheting Wikipedia's restrictions to insane levels, it's extremely difficult to find anything which passes muster for a professional hockey player; Ray Bourque's photo, for instance, I took myself several decades ago when I was a journalism major in Boston interning for a local paper, and I posted a couple others scanned from my grandfather's collection, a man who was an original season ticket holder of the Boston Bruins and a personal friend of Milt Schmidt and Leo Boivin. Very few editors have such opportunities, and I rather think the placeholders will instead provoke editors to find some image, any image, to cover them up, resulting in a number of UNfree images being posted. Especially where current players are concerned - we've a number of amateur snapshots of portly, grey-haired retirees taken at card signings and alumni games - it's something of a losing cause.  RGTraynor  18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Not to mention a lot of these are on European players. Simply, they're never going to have an image, and I would prefer them adding substantial content to the articles than trying to find one. Grsz 11
• Oppose per others, and I would challenge Dolovis show examples of how the use of this placeholder encourages editors to upload images. He will not be able to respond to this challenge because his proposition is false. In short, it is ugly, useless and utterly redundant to the photoreq parameters on article talk page banners. Resolute 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per tackiness. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've always viewed that image to look odd on a page. It kind of dominated the infobox in my mind. With an actual photo, it looks alright, but not the placeholder image. Patken4 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Placeholder image use. Agree that they look tacky, and agree with above concerns of potential misguided, but good faith, non free image use.Ravendrop (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose usage of placeholders per already established consensus. -Pparazorback (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. I would prefer that we meet the players with our small cameras. Go no embarrassment, the players are approachable ? , ...--Geneviève (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see how these help the quality of the article at all. For the most part, they are placed in stubs which stretch the infobox to an ugly length in relation to the usually one or two sentences of prose. And as was previously mentioned, so many articles here will never have free images, so to essentially this "placeholder" becomes a permanent aspect of the article. At the end of the day, if you're pushing an article to GA and you can't find an image of the subject, there's a better chance of it passing without a placeholder than with a placeholder. It just doesn't help the quality at all, especially when we have the needs photo parameter on the talk page. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy

An editor has raised a CfD to rename the category for winners of this trophy here, stating that "Rocket Richard Trophy winners" is incorrect when the league calls the trophy the "Maurice Richard Trophy". I tend to agree with their rationale, and think we should move the article to Maurice Richard Trophy, eliminating the "Rocket" for the same reasons. Any objections to this? Resolute 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• No objections. "Maurice Richard Trophy" outGoogles "Rocket Richard Trophy" by about 300K hits to 5K, so there's very little question in terms of popular usage.  RGTraynor  18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  I am not sure about that... What search term did you use? "Rocket Richard Trophy" is 500k for me vs. "Maurice Richard Trophy" at 279K and "Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy" at 110k. It actually appears to be 2 to 1 in the other direction, more if you add the two that include "Rocket" together. -DJSasso (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, for one thing, I didn't use Canadian Google ...  RGTraynor  19:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • lol yeah...not sure if that makes a difference. It just automatically goes there for me. Let me try American. :) -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm google no longer allowes me to switch to another countries if I want to...it automatically redirects. It used to...bleh. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • And now I just read a nice article that explains that google.com filters out many non-us sites which would explain the difference in numbers. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• The NHL webpage for the trophy suggests that the Maurice Richard Trophy is the official name, with the HHOF webpage doing the same but adding "rockets" in quotes. We should go with whatever is the official name, which seems to be simply the Maurice Richard Trophy. Ravendrop (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Depends on what you believe to be official. The NHL page lists its as Maurice Richard Trophy, but if you zoom in on the picture of the trophy itself (in our article) it says it's the Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy. A number of articles directly on the NHL site also name it this way. I am thinking the missing "Rocket" was just a web developers mistake myself. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  I was assuming the quotation marks were being used to add extra, non official, wording to the official name. BTW who owns the trophy/is responsible for awarding it? Maybe the ultimate reference should be the name that the Montreal Canadiens used when they presented the trophy to the NHL when they created it. (What that is I don't know). Ravendrop (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, how can one 'fix' the appearance of the names in those trophy categories? The sections disappear when I go into the 'edit' box. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean where the names show up in the category page? If so its done on the article pages themselves. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For example: At Maurice Richard Trophy, Selanne doesn't have diacritics. But, in the category, he does. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That will happen no matter what, article titles still remain article titles when categorized. All you can do is adjust the order in which they show up. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In categories, what you are seeing is the article title. His title includes diacritics, which is why you are seeing them. Nothing can be done about that, its how the wiki software works. -DJSasso (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If I could just get into the Pages in category "Rocket Richard Trophy winners" section, I could add pipelinks. Currently, all those hockey categories are breaching WP:HOCKEY's agreement on dios. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible I think the category just pulls the information from the articles without ever generating a traditional page.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really...part of that agreement was that players articles titles would contain diacritics. Part of the reason for that is so that they would show up properly in categories. Either way the only way to do what you want would be to rename all the articles and you know that won't fly. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on the categories, but since nothing can be done about it, it's a moot issue. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in either case, I do support having the category name match the article, so would there be support in that CfD to alternate rename to Category:Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy winners? Resolute 16:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No probs here as that's the name of the trophy. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Move/rename article to Maurice Richard Trophy as that appears to be the official name of the trophy. I agree that the category should match the article, so that move/rename should follow this consensus. Dolovis (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Candidates for renaming & move

Aren't those the same things? GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it to me.oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the Candidates for renaming section. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be a pain... But the name "Candidates for renaming" sounds better to my ear. It's more formal and grammatical. The lack of a participle on "Candidates for move" is bad grammar. "Candidates for moving" would be a fair compromise, as it maintains the use of "move" which is the most common term on Wikipedia for retitling a page. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "...renaming". GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FLC question about a hockey list

Hey, I recently put up List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons for an FLC (seen here). I guess the one big question I have, is should I update the season table with the currently being played 2010–11 season? I figured I'd ask you guys what to do, your call on this one. Maybe a "Season in progress" row and once the season's over, update the numbers? Nomader ^(Talk) 21:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would suggest just using a "season in progress" for this year until the season is over. You would be linking to 2010–11 Tampa Bay Lightning season anyway, which should be updated. Resolute 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Endras

Anyone got a picture of him. I checked flickr but that returned nothing. I would like to have his image as the main image if possible over at 2010 IIHF World Championship rosters. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability question

How notable is Steve McCharles? He played some Major Junior... some Minor Semi-Pro... and is a former Jr. A coach. DMighton (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not, I'd say, barring evidence that he meets the GNG. An undistinguished junior career, a hundred games in the low minors, coached below major junior ... doesn't clear NHOCKEY, for sure.  RGTraynor  07:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

IIHF and cyrillic transcription

This is interesting: [7]. The IIHF is trying to standardize the transcription of cyrillic hockey player's name. How well it is received may have an effect on WP:COMMONNAME and our many debates we've had on the subject. ccwaters (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• It sounds like a good initiative. I don't think there's been any issue over cyrillic-alphabet names. (e.g. look at Alexei Yashin - there is no way we could use the cyrillic spelling) The names will still be converted to English spellings for the rest of us. There will be corrections here and I think the NHL would adopt them too. Would the IIHF do the same for, for example, Czech and Swedish names? ( I hope so. :-) ) In that case, I'm not sure some eds would accept them. It would be nice if there was an authority that doled out English translations for Slavic place names, too. :-) Not holding my breath. ;-> ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the NHL adopts this (though maybe it would generate profits in new jersey sales?), which will leave us with a buttload of edit warring over the "correct" spelling. Personally I prefer the IIHF way with Russian names, but I also see a WP:COMMONNAME issue over changing names like Kovalev, Fedorov, etc. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh good. Just what we needed, another language and nationalistic thing to war about! Will definitely be interesting to see how many leagues/organizations follow suit. Resolute 00:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

Disruptive IP at that article, assistance needed. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get that article, just scrap the alternates and make it a list of captains. Grsz 11 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. It used to be limited to the captains, If I recall correctly. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Trevor Gillies

A few eyes, especially of admins, would be beneficial on this article given what happened in tonight's Pens-Isles game. The article is currently protected, but only in the very short term. If the level of BLP vandalism picks up where it left off, we are going to want to quickly re-protect the article at some point tomorrow. Resolute 06:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not just the Gillies article; the Isles article was just vandalized.  RGTraynor  14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, a fair number have been, but Gilles is the most popular target, for obvious reasons. Resolute 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think that Penguins-Islanders game deserves an article? I mean, it's gotta be pretty notable. I've never seen teams finish games with six skaters. Jmj713 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Record PIMs for both teams, so I decided to go ahead with the article: Penguins–Islanders brawl. Please give a hand, if you'd like. Jmj713 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was about to suggest no myself. Recentism, and it is just a news story. I can think of several similar brawls over the last decade. The Flames and Ducks had a brawl fest in 2001 that finished with Calgary having only four or five skaters - three or four on the ice and one on the bench. Flyers-Sens which set the NHL record and Oilers-Thrashers, which ended with one team having no goalies for the last three or four minutes. Resolute 01:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Flyers-Sens one does have an article, btw: Flyers–Senators brawl. I didn't remember those other games. I'd love to create a list. Jmj713 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Well, if you haven't already, make sure your brawl article mentions the last game, as the Islanders were upset over a hit, the goalie fight and some taunting by the Pens led to New York's actions. Resolute 01:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of IIHF World Championship medalists

Yet another debate has popped up at List of IIHF World Championship medalists over the summary table. This time, a user wants to add a second summary table for 1993-present, so that it can show that the Czech Republic is the most successful nation of the era. Link to discussion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Flags in roster templates

I just changed the flag next to Patrick Eaves at Template:Detroit Red Wings roster from Canada to the US. I'm not really sure why it was Canada in the first place... aren't we supposed to defer to their national team when they've played internationally? It seems Jason Pominville is getting the same treatment at Template:Buffalo Sabres roster, while Paul Stastny has the American flag on the Avs roster template. I'm wondering if this is some sort of policy, because it strikes me as downright bizarre. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Go by birthplace, then national team if applicable. In your examples, you are corect, Eaves/P-Town should be USA.--Львівське (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

National team should get precedence over the birthplace. The logic is that players are identifiable by the national team they play for, so showing the flag provides that mental link of "Oh yeah, he skated for the US/Canada/Russia/Sweden/the Czech Republic in the Olympics." If a player doesn't have a cap for a national team, then it falls back to his place of birth or the national team he would be eligible for. —C.Fred (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup. We've long gone by national team first. Robyn Regehr is not Brazilian any more than Alexander Steen is Canadian based only on an accident of birthplace. In short, use logic when determining the flag. Resolute 05:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The flag identifies the player's nationality, not his birth place. If he has played on a National team then that is the player's nationality. It might get confusing if a person changes his nationality (for example Mario Lemieux became an American citizen in 2007) or if he has dual citizenship (such as Brett Hull) however, if a person has played on a National Team, then that is and always will be his nationality as a hockey player (i.e. Lemieux would get a Canadian flag, and Hull gets an American flag). So in short, I concur - National team should get precedence over the birthplace. Dolovis (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse 'nationality' and 'citizenship', problem solved.--Львівське (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Steen, he was listed as Canadian on the Blues template, as well. Clearly we need to look around because this was apparently an effort by someone -- MichiganCharms (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IP editors long tried to be helpful on the Maple Leafs roster. I lost track of Steen when he was traded. Watchlisted that template. Thanks for the reminder. Resolute 14:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah by national team first and then by birth place is the standard. Although every now and then people confuse nationality with citizenship so we have to fix a roster once in awhile. But its not usually much of an issue as there aren't a whole lot of players where the two are different. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, excellent precision because some players possess 2 citizenship. Thanks, merci.--Geneviève (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

File Hockey current events.svg

This is at the top of all NHL team infoboxes & former NHL team infoboxes. It sorta clutters them. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's because someone is playing with some code and broke it. I will look for the cause. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually its cause there is a bug right now with a bunch of png/svg images and the tech team is working on it. I have changed the image for now until they figure out the issue and then I will change it back to the normal one. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Maple Leafs

Help needed. Somebody has messed up the team roster's location in the article. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The template had an extra opening <player4 tag that was confusing it and putting it in the page only after it had found a close for the tag. Should be good now. Ravendrop 03:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that was the prob. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NHL Winter Classic → NHL outdoor games

It has been proposed to move NHL Winter Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to NHL outdoor games to better cover the contents, and both Classics (Heritage and Winter). 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Animated diagrams

Hey all, since hockey's a fast-paced game that's hard to explain using just text, I decided to make a few animated .gif images (click for larger) to show the Neutral Zone Trap and Left Wing Lock. Now that I've made the animation template it's relatively easy to add new tactics/formations, so if you have any suggestions or requests, let me know. AtomicRED (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it, I like it. GoodDay (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! Needs goalies, though. Even of they aren't part of these strategies, it looks odd not having them there. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. I suggest slowing it down a touch to make it even easier to follow for those who don't know what to expect, with a pause at the end so it won't repeat right away, and maybe some "stop it right there!" moments when the action is stopped and a label can be added to describe what is going on. isaacl (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

List of San Jose Sharks players FLRC

I have nominated List of San Jose Sharks players for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Courcelles 12:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I made an adjustment to the images. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Engelage

Two questions about the PROD on this article. 1. The article claims he has the all-time OHL record for wins in a season by a goalie. Does that meet NHOCKEY? 2. He's played 55 games a professional, but he's a goalie. Do goalies also have to play 100 games or is there a lower threshold for them? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If true I would think that number one meets notability. I think there was some discussion about goaltenders meeting the game notability and that it should be lower but I don't know if anything ever came of it. Not sure any of this helps at any rate if claim one was referenced than the I would have no issue with the prod being removed of course that might lead to an AFD discussion on if it meets notability.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Found a cite for the OHL wins record. I cleaned things up a bit with a few more references, and removed the PROD. See how things turn out with further steps. Canada Hky (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, if I am not sure, I fall back to GNG. If there are a couple of solid articles on the player, keep. If not, well... Resolute 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing height/weight in an athlete's infobox

I've made a new abuse filter, Special:AbuseFilter/391, that tracks if an anonymous/new user has fiddled with the height or weight in a player's infobox. The filter is set to Tag only, so it merely flags possibly suspicious edits. The hits are tracked here or you could input the tag "changing height or weight" in Recent Changes. I originally put "changing weight/height" as the tag, but the software didn't see to fully agree with it, so I changed it. The only difference is that the first five hits by thefilter are here, and the rest would not display there, because the software shows by tag, and not by filter ID number. The filter should work not only for hockey, but other sports as well (so it might be useful to cross-post on other project pages?) Maxim_(talk) 22:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

AHL Mascots

I would like to see some information about Finz the Worcester Sharks mascot, such as when he was created, his likes, his dislikes, etc. I know that the Worcester Sharks would be more than happy to send information about their mascot and all that would be needed would be to post that information on the website. Here is his facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/FINZ06. Let's make this happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.33.69 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

I may need a little help here, concerning an IP. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

IIHF Women's World Championship

Hello Everybody, Bonjour à tous, the 2011 IIHF Women's World Championship runs from April 16-25 in Zurich and Winterthur, Switzerland. By means of Maple Leaf and Marc87, we work together on the differents pages of the women's national teams. More than 17 pages are already corrected and more than 4 new pages. But surprised ( oui une vraie boîte à surprise): on the various pages of several links manages towards to differents men's national hockey team:

• See in the bottom of pages and click the differents links:

1. 1999 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships (Lower Divisions)  Done
2. 2001 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships (Lower Divisions)  Done
3. 2003 IIHF Women's World Championship  Done
4. 2004 IIHF Women's World Championship  Done
5. 2005 IIHF Women's World Championship  Done
6. 2007 IIHF Women's World Championship  Done
7. 2008 IIHF Women's World Championship  Done

If a volunteer wants to help us to all to change the links towards women's teams.

• The following pages were verified and everything is correct.: 1990 IIHF Women's World Championship, 1992 IIHF Women's World Championship, 1994 IIHF Women's World Championship, 1997 IIHF Women's World Championship, 1999 IIHF Women's World Championship, 2000 IIHF Women's World Championship, 2000 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships (Lower Divisions), 2001 IIHF Women's World Championship, 2009 IIHF Women's World Championship, 2011 IIHF Women's World Championship, 2011 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships – Division V, 2011 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships – Division IV, 2011 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships – Division III, 2011 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships – Division II, 2011 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships – Division I.

Thanks, Merci beaucoup --Geneviève (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No volonteer for help us ??? --Geneviève (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Great!!! All the work makes by Salavat. Bravo. I thank him.--Geneviève (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that the articles for the individual world championships are titled 2003 IIHF Women's World Championship and so on, but the article on the championship itself is called IIHF World Women's Championships. Judging by the IIHF Federation's website http://www.iihf.com/channels1011/ww-iv the official title of the event is World Women's Championship, not Women's World Championship. Women's World Championship seems more idiomatic, but if World Women's Championship is the official title used by the IIHF, we should probably move all the Women's World Championship articles to corresponding World Women's Championship articles (which will automatically create redirects). If there are no objections, I can move the articles accordingly, and update the template links. --JN466 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think these were all updated a little while back, here's the discussion that preceded the moves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive44#Rename_possibility Canada Hky (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. From looking at that discussion it looks like the intention was to move the individual championships to 2003 IIHF World Women's Championship and so on (User:Canada Hky said they would, but doesn't seem to have done so yet). I don't honestly understand why the IIHF call it the World Women's Championship, because it sounds daft to me, but as they are the governing body, we should probably go with their term. Two out of three news sources do so too; compare [8] vs. [9]. --JN466 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I did it. It just looks like I screwed up, and went with the more natural sounding Women's World Championship for all of them. Well, technically screwed up. I still think World Women's Championship sounds like a championship of Women, rather than the women's world championship. Perhaps subconsciously, I put everything right where I wanted it. I have no issue if you want to correct it, but I am not going to, as I don't like it. TSN.ca uses "women's world championship" as well, which is where I go for most of my info. Canada Hky (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I will do one thing: I'll create redirects for the "official" titles to the titles you created them under. That way readers looking for the article under the official title will get to right place. Cheers, --JN466 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all to express your different opinions. To be honest, I do not know the best formula to name world championships for the women hockey players. But the IMPORTANT (for me) it is necessary to have a difference with men hockey Tournament name. --Geneviève (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

Looking for input on an FA article that is having a slow edit war the past 6 months - pls see Talk:Wayne Gretzky#Nationality removed from lead. Thank you allMoxy (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

2010-11 St. Louis Blues season

I'm having a little trouble here with Katydidit, concerning the infobox content of the captain & alternate captains. The editor merely re-inserts his/her changes & refuses to respond to my protestations there & at his/her talkpage. Myself & the editor-in-question, can't work things out, if he/she continues to ignore me. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1981-82 to 1992-93 Division titles

I haven't seen the banners of each of the then 21 NHL teams & so I don't know which recognizes 'regular season' or 'playoff' division titles. I do know this, we've got inconsistancy concerning this topic on NHL team infoboxes & the NHL team seasons articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I made some clarifications to these infoboxes, concerning the double meaning of 'division titles' from 1981-82 to 1992-93. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no double meaning. For some years the division title was the regular season award, and for some it was the playoff award. It wasn't ever both at the same time. However to complicate matters some teams put up banners saying they won the division when they didn't actually win the division. They just did the opposite ie they won the regular season during the years when the playoff was the official marker or they won the playoffs in the seasons when the regular season was the marker. I removed your changes because they weren't accurate or correct. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty much my take on it too. I know for a fact that both the Flames and Oilers count only playoff results for Smythe titles during those times, and both can be sourced back to the team's media guides. It is something that would be nice to put to bed entirely at some point. Resolute 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

But this is why I made the changes. There's no consistancy among the 21 NHL teams from 1981 to 1993, concerning their Division banners. Heck, the Canadiens have just the Stanley Cup banners. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Darthflyer correct? All the other NHL team infoboxes have all their regular season Division titles listed? GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. He changed more than just the Flames. What he is referring to, is the fact that most other lists don't have a footnote explaining that like the Flames, Devils etc do. But that is because the other pages aren't Featured Articles like the Flames and Devils season pages so have never been written to the same quality. In fact going through all the pages, every featured article had it and he removed it. So all the best season articles written had the information, the only ones that don't are sub-fa level. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Canucks page also had the note and the playoff title marked but he removed it. As the Canucks hang banners for all of the season I've been trying to find a reference for their total and the post season division championship. Since I have not found one yet I didn't replace the highlight for the division win for 1981–82.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's too much inconsistancy & lack of clarification on those NHL teams, concerning Conference & Division championships. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How to modify ??

How to modify a standing ? I look but I do not find how ?  Done {{2011 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships – Division V Standings}}

pages reference:

• 2011 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships – Division V
• 2011 IIHF Women's World Championship in section Division V

thanks for your assistance --Geneviève (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a template, so you need to go to the template page to edit. Here's the link: Template:2011_Women's_World_Ice_Hockey_Championships_–_Division_V_Standings Canada Hky (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ah ok. Thanks, merci --Geneviève (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

William Duncan

While this pilot is notable as a flying ace, he seems to have had an extensive hockey career also. More detailed info about his hockey career would flesh out the article. If it turns out that the article has to be renamed or repurposed, please maintain the link to List of World War I aces credited with 11–14 victories. (Also, please forgive the posting if it is misplaced.) Georgejdorner (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Filter for stats changes

I've made a new filter -- Special:AbuseFilter/393 -- that tracks possible stats changes to players' pages by anons. It is basically triggered by a direct section edit. I would be grateful if some users could take a look from time to time if it's working properly (ie not too many false positives, that sort of thing). Thanks. Maxim_(talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry articles

Almost all rivalry articles are open tasks. For example, the Blackhawks – Red Wings rivalry is an open task and needs to have information added. In addition, you need to see Yankees – Red Sox rivalry article about writing the rivalry between the Boston Bruins and Montreal Canadiens, as it's one of the most bitter rivalries in sports. – SNIyer12, (talk), 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. bon week-end à tous --Geneviève (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Nail Yakupov

Just a note that a deletion review is ongoing of this page. See the deletion review for details and to place your comments. Ravendrop 18:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Protect Canada men's national ice hockey team

There has been a fair bit of vandalism lately and in the past on the Canada men's national ice hockey team article, and I believe we should consider adding some sort of semi-protection onto it. Any thoughts? — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been a lot of vandalism recently -- just a bunch of stuff from mid-to-late March that wasn't reverted timely. I've added the page to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it for now. There's just not enough present activity to justify protection. Maxim_(talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. Thanks for watching it. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 06:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's Hockey task force

Bonjour à tous, Hello Everybody, that think you of the eventuality of future a women's hockey task force ?

The women's taskforce covers:

• All women's hockey players, clubs, leagues and competitions and associated articles.
• Articles associated with women's national teams.
• International women's hockey competitions and matches.

• Article list
• Women hockey players birthday list

Your ideas, opinions, criticisms and advices are welcome. Please add your name if you are interested in women's hockey task force. Thanks, merci, תודה --Geneviève (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - nice broad topic more then enough articles for a task force - even willing to help set up the task force page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Women's Ice Hockey task force.Moxy (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd definitely be interested, and these articles have a lot of potential. Canada Hky (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• By all means if you want to create one create one, but generally our task forces get created with alot of enthusiasm and then pretty much nothing is ever done on them and die pretty much immediately. Most discussion happens on this main talk page, which isn't all that busy, so I personally don't know that we need to create one when that discussion could just happen here... -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I question the necessity of task forces in general. They seem to be very inactive as DJSasso says above, and considering how WP:HOCKEY runs (caveat: as I think it runs, I might be a few years behind the times), wouln't it be more efficient to have one centralised place for discussion? For example, this thread might have been better placed on this page.(En général, je doute la nécessité des sous-projets. Selon moi, ils semblent de devenir très inactifs, rapidement après qu'ils sont formés, et prenant en garde comment le projet fonctionne, peut-être il serait plus efficace d'avoir une place centralisée pour la discussion? Maxim_(talk) 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Between Winter Games, IIHF, NCAA and CWHL, there is enough material for a task force but I agree with Djsasso that it needs enthusiasm. Maple Leaf (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No consensus and no 5 confirmed members ( reference: the guidelines state that 5 members is a good starting point). It is just to bad for a women's hockey task force in the WikiProject Ice Hockey. I remove my proposition. Thanks anyway for letting me know --Geneviève (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Stanley Cup Finals

Markup question: any way to have the last row of Finals (2010, 2011) not be centered and align with the others in the block without resorting to visibility:hidden"? Jmj713 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there probably is...but I think its centred on purpose. That is how these blocks of years are often done on templates. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To change it, you change the liststyle parameter at the top of the list. In this case removing "textalign:center" would left align the text as default. I didn't change it as I prefer the centreing, I think it looks cleaner, but for your future reference that's how. Ravendrop 05:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I just find it's better how each block of decades aligns with each other, and the misalignment of the bottom row is a little out of place. It should fall with the rest, preferable. No big deal of course, just aesthetics. Jmj713 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. It can be aligned using hidden links to 2012-2029. As we create each year's article, just unhide it's link. Resolute 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League

Just a question regarding the articles History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) and History of the National Hockey League (1992–present): why was it decided to split the eras at 1992 and not 1991? The San Jose Sharks started play in 1991 and that began the rapid expansion of the league. Prior to 1991 the NHL had one of its most stable periods with 21 teams. I don't really mind this, just find it weird that the latest history of the NHL starts without the Sharks. Jmj713 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The league's history is divided in 25-year segments. 1917-42, 1942-67, 1967-92, 1992-(2017). GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sharks weren't the start of the expansion era. They were a product of the Minnesota North Stars sale and breakup. The expansion teams started in 1992. 1992 also marked the end of the Ziegler presidency of the NHL. So it's still valid to split in 1992 on topic terms. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The league went from 21 teams to 22 in 1991. That's expansion. oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they were from the old Cleveland Barons, who merged with the North Stars in the late 70's. The Barons used to be the California Golden Seals/Oakland Seals franchise. It wasn't an expansion, but a break-up of a franchise that was once merged. Patken4 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Has the NHL actually granted the history of the Barons to the Sharks though? I know that was why Minnesota participated in the 1991 NHL Expansion Draft, but how does the NHL (and the Sharks themselves) view this? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The NHL certainly doesn't view it as a "demerger" or whatever the partisans call it. The NHL's Official Guide clearly states "Franchise date: May 9, 1990, on its Sharks' page. The year-to-year record clearly starts in the 91-92 season, and the club records clearly omit any reference to the Barons. To the degree to which the legend of a "demerger" is accurate - and the next solid source to NHL officials actually saying so would be the first - it'd be in the same category as the purported "reinstatement" of the Ottawa Senators franchise, a bit of PR fluffery that all parties promptly and permanently ignored.  Ravenswing  05:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Y'know, if the Gunds had threatened to move the North Stars to any other city besides the Bay or Cleveland (like say, Dallas), and that city wound up with the expansion team, or had it been any other franchise than the Stars, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. And I fail to see how a team that folded while playing in Cleveland is the same one as a new team in San Jose. It makes no sense. It's time for this myth to just die.

This is all a sidebar to the original question, though, which asked why the series of articles on league history breaks at 1992, instead of 1991 when the first wave of the major expansions began. Someone responded that expansion didn't begin in 1991. That is simply incorrect, as the NHL clearly went from 21 teams in the 1990–1991 season to 22 in 1991–1992. Regardless of some myth, the league increased the number of teams. That is expansion. Period. oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC) PS The real answer to the original question, as noted, is that it's consistent with the others, each of which cover 25-year periods.

My point was that the teams from 1992 onward were planned. The Sharks are a byproduct of the Gunds/North Stars and not planned but by agreement between the Gunds and the NHL to allow a team in Minnesota to remain. I don't agree that there is any connection to the Barons. If anywhere, that could be property of the Dallas Stars as the Sharks are considered officially an expansion franchise. The NHL was planning expansion from the late 1980s and the Senators and Lightning were approved in 1990. You could argue for that date as the start of the era, although they had been planning it from prior to that date and the teams did not start until 1992. That said, it's probably best to just stay with 25 year segments. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It was simply an editorial decision on my part. The first two eras in the league's history broke cleanly, and evenly on 25-year segments: the early years (17-42) and the Original six (42-67). The decision to maintain the 25 year limit on the third was partially for symmetry, and partially because there was no single, clear change, but rather a series of decisions in the early 90s that gradually altered the league's direction: The 1990 expansion plan and first expansion (or de-merger) team in 1991, the 1992 strike and the 1993 hiring of Gary Bettman. For the current article, it is entirely conceivable, however, that we may be better off splitting at a smaller time frame, simply because the coverage is greater, and with 30 teams, there is more to cover. i.e., a split between 1992-2005 and 2005-present may become necessary if the article becomes too big. Resolute 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The titles given to the articles in the "History of the NHL" navigation box adds somewhat to the confusion. The 1967–1992 period is labelled the expansion era; it's a bit awkward for the expansion era to span the entire 21-team history of the league, plus one 22-team season. On a side note, the term "modern era" is a bit of a moving target as it has been used to denote the post-Original Six period of the NHL. Perhaps the last article in this series should just be labelled "current era", and whenever the next article of the series gets created, a more definitive name can be devised. isaacl (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

True enough, though the 21-team era was only 10 years out of those 25. The "expansion era" is meant to imply the growth of the league from six teams up to 21-22, but if you have an idea of a better name, that would be awesome! Resolute 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The first expansion era, with the league growing from six to twenty-one teams, could be considered to have ended with the start of a second expansion era (hey, maybe that would be a better name for the period from 1992 to 2005). The new wave of teams, combined with renewed attempts to expand the NHL's audience, characterize these years. Since 2005, the NHL is in a post-strike period, or perhaps in a more positive light, a salary cap period. It could also be thought of as a renewal era, with teams resetting their balance sheets downwards, a focus on building up the existing teams, and holding outdoor games, but to be honest, the salary cap has been the prime influence on the game during this time. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Luke Schenn

This article was recently archived after a run through at FAC, due to lack of support. If any of you hockey writer types wants to take a gander at it, I would appreciate it. The FAC discussion can be found here (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Luke_Schenn/archive1), if you are so inclined. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-existent national team articles

So an IP user recently just queried this on a few pages. Within the list of men's national teams we have a few articles on countries that have never played an international ice hockey game and there is no direct evidence that the team has actually been formed by their respected federation. It appears that the creator of the articles has confused the federation and the team as being members of the IIHF. The articles im talking about are:

• Andorra - Prodded
• Argentina - Prodded
• Azerbaijan - Prodded
• Brazil - Prodded
• Chile - Prodded
• Moldova - News article mentions team getting a coach but nothing more, dated from 2008
• Pakistan, article talks about Pakistan application to the IIHF but that would be better suited their Pakistan Ice Hockey Association's article.
• Portugal, have apparently played games but the article is completly unsourced.

So my question is does anyone know of any sources for these teams so the pages can be saved or should they put up for deletion? Salavat (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All the articles above that were prodded have now been contested without reason. I think there is a general misunderstanding that the National Association is the IIHF member and not the national team which is controlled by the association. Salavat (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I contested the prods due to the fact that they are all the teams proded/listed here are members, associate, and/or affiliate members and in the case of Pakistan a future member of the IIHF. I believe that makes them notable, although I am not an expert on international hockey. It might be similar to a pro league having a future/expansion or dormant franchise. Just because they are not playing does not kill their notability. They have potential and there should be some sources since they are affiliated with the IIHF. And esp if the country competes will have more sources. Note: many are unferenced so I replaced the Prod tag with Unreferenced tags. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But the teams are not members, their respected association is a member. Take Chile for example, they are an affiliate member meaning they only compete in inline competition. Its unlikely that they have ever set up a national ice hockey team. Salavat (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the affiliate status is because they are not regular participants of IIHF events. Other affiliates have played but not as often as the regulars, some are new National Associations. Like I said earlier, I don't have a lot of knowledge of international hockey, but I took the articles to be comparable to an inactive pro franchise. If those teams want they can participate in IIHF events. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to move the pages to the Andora Ice Hockey Federation (or whatever the official name is) instead of prodding the pages? Being members of the IIHF makes it a notable organization. Once they ice a team, they can be moved back. Also, in Chile's case wouldn't a rename to the Chile men's national inline hockey team be a better idea? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds better than deleting and something I had in mind too. Move these non-existent team pages to [country name] Ice Hockey Federation or whatever their governing body is. Except from that list at the top if Portugal has played then that just nees a sourcing/cleanup and if Moldova is adding a team than we can build off of those stubs. For the other non-existant- When/if they choose to compete then we can remove the team pages' redirects and expand those as separate articles. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These teams don't exist and don't have any indication that they will ever play. They, above all, are not notable in any way shape or form. If anything, they are speculativeand constitute WP:OR--Львівське (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Article structure if the Coyotes return to Winnipeg

There are reports (just rumours) breaking today that the league will announce the Coyotes are returning to Winnipeg once the playoffs are over. If this is true, how should we treat the article structure? Doubly so since it has also been reported that a returned Winnipeg team would not be called the Jets. Given the 15-year break in continuity, if the Coyotes return to Winnipeg under a new name, I would be inclined to create a new article for the new team name, leaving Winnipeg Jets as historical for the team's tenure between 1972-1996. But, if they come back as the Winnipeg Jets, should we use the existing Jets article moving forward, or move it to something like Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996) and create a new Winnipeg Jets for the revived team? Resolute 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If this doesn't happen, I will blame you for jinxing things....

I think if they come back under a different name, I would leave the Jets history alone. If they come back as the Jets, I would cram everything into one article. Canada Hky (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If the continuity is resumed, one article, if its a new name and new era, make it a new article--Львівське (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, someone I know with connections is pretty convinced that it would be the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg, which would make the article naming easy. Resolute 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless Manitobans decide to call them the Jets too... Canada Hky (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Save all your breaths, the NHL Board of Governors have no intentions of expanding to Canada or re-locating any franchises to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The tiniest little parade will bring someone out to rain on it. Canada Hky (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, GoodDay, your constant "I hate Bettman" posts add nothing to these discussions, and only distract from the relevant topics. Resolute 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this whole thread is a blog, as the Coyotes haven't been re-located. PS: Note that I said the Board of Governors, not Bettman. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Considering it was Doug MacLean reporting this, I'd be inclined to think the exact opposite is happening. That said, if Winnipeg and/or Quebec City were to get a team, I'd create a new article for them. We've done that for any franchise relocations, and assuming thats how those cities would acquire a team, I'd stay with that format, even with the same name. I'd then go ahead and rename the present Jets/Nordiques articles as "Winnipeg Jets (1972-1996)" (and likewise for the Nordiques). But I am rather pessimistic about this going through, especially at this point. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Won't happen. The NHL will expand/re-locate teams to Europe or Mexico, before Canada. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut out the forum-type posts or I will begin to remove them. This is a discussion about what to do with an article set if an event comes to pass. Your opinion of the odds are not relevant, and your continued posting of them are disruptive. Resolute 02:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If it were the Coyotes that moves to Winnipeg and they were to call them the Jets again. I would make it the same page. If the Coyotes were to move to Winnipeg and call it something else (which I think is extremely unlikely) then I would make it an outright new page. If it were a completely different team like the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg and using either the Jets name or another name then I would make it an outright new page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If Winnipeg gets a franchise & names it Winnipeg Jets? We should have seperate Winnipeg Jets articles Winnipeg Jets (1972-96) & Winnipeg Jets. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Coyotes move back to Winnipeg and use the Jets name, it would be the same franchise in the same city using the same name. They way I see it, then the current Jets article shouldn't be moved to Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996), but updated as the main article about the franchise. Some of the material can be split into an article called History of the Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996), per WP:SUMMARY, with an appropriate amount of summary at the main article, while also giving a brief summary of the Coyotes article, which would be retained as the next article in the series covering that period of the franchise history. The effect is mostly the same, but the "History of..." title makes it more clear that they're the same franchise. This is a bit different from the usual method of treating relocated franchises as different teams, but the NHL has never had a franchise move back to its former city before, so it'd be new ground.

Of course, if Winnipeg gets the Thrashers instead, with or without the Jets name, or the Coyotes do move to Winnipeg but don't use the Jets name, then separate articles is the best course.

To summarize: Coyotes go to Winnipeg as the Jets: Current Jets article updated as article for existing team, new "History of..." article created if the history section is too long. If Coyotes go to Winnipeg but not as the Jets, new article with new name. If the Thrashers go to Winnipeg without Jets name, new article at new name. If the Thrashers go to Winnipeg and take Jets name, new article, with the existing one moved to "Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996)". oknazevad (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)