Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive58

Retirement of Kovalchuk

Shouldn't he be listed as a former player as he retired from The NHL? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would wait and see, news reports I have seen just have him retiring from the NHL but about to announce signing with a Russian team so I doubt he is retired completely from hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting. If that is the case, then he isn't "retiring". "Retiring" from the NHL generally means leaving the league and retiring completely from hockey. I don't think that is the correct word to use. Would "signing with a KHL team" be a better description? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As ridiculous as it sounds, what he did was retire from the NHL, then sign with SKA St. Petersburg in the KHL. Any article should mention this, as retirement was the mechanism he used to get out of his NHL contract. shaggy (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

How does one even retire from the NHL if a player doesn't go into retirement from hockey first? I have never heard this before. I thought that one would have to stop playing hockey first to get out of a contract, at least for a short period of time. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Because there is a [1] by-law in the NHL (p. 18, section 8, "Voluntary Retired List") that allows a player to retire and be placed on the Voluntary Retired List. In the context of these by-laws, he has retired from Organized Hockey and his Club can place him on the Reserve list (so they do not pay any salary and his cap hit does not count), where Organized Hockey is the NHL and all affiliated leagues. He cannot play in any league, amateur or professional, while he is on this list, and he must be on the list for at least 3 years before he can be removed without special dispensation from the NHL and the teams. Complicating the situation, the KHL does not have to abide by the NHL's rules regarding voluntarily retired players, as they do not have any sort of agreement or affiliation with the NHL. So, despite your personal opinion about the definition of the word "retired", he retired from the NHL and then signed with the KHL team. shaggy (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

North American "organized hockey" (common noun in lowercase letters) leagues don't have to abide by this rule? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Organized professional hockey" is used in the NHL bylaws to mean all professional hockey worldwide, but all of the rules and restrictions in the by-laws related to retirement really only apply to the NHL or an affiliated league - one that also abides by the NHL's by-laws. So, according to the NHL, Kovalchuk is retired. It is absolutely correct to say that he retired from the NHL. It is not correct to say that he retired from hockey. The sources in the league media are reporting this as Kovalchuk retiring from the NHL and then signing with the KHL, so that is what the article should state regardless of any semantic argument over the definition of the word "retired". Stating otherwise using your understanding of the word "retired" would be a violation of WP:OR. Even if you used a sourced definition, it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. shaggy (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Either way retiring just means from your current job. Logs of people retire from all sorts of jobs but later take on a part time job. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I will take this into WP:NOTAFORUM territory (with some personal POV), but there are several ways the NHL could try to take this. This "retirement" is a sham attempt to escape his valid NHL contract to play in the KHL instead. The NHL could treat it as such and consider Kovalchuk to be in violation of his contract. It could then press a US court to sanction the player - though that is obviously not enforceable unless he returns to the US. It could pressure/compel the IIHF to suspend Kovalchuk on the basis of his being in violation of his NHL contract. That would force the player out of the Olympics and any world championship. Additionally, the Devils could toll his contract, effectively suspending it until he returns, with the full 12 (iirc) years remaining. This is what the NHL could do. What it has done, however, is rooted more in the practicalities of New Jersey's financial situation. In my view, the Devils wanted out from that contract as much as Kovalchuk did. It was a horrendous deal that the previous owner forced onto the franchise, and with the cap recapture penalties, stood to cripple the Devils for a long time. Unless the player quit, right now. Given the league is already lending financial support to the team, it will play along with the charade and allow Kovalchuk to "retire" from the NHL. The Devils consider the contract terminated (which requires special dispensation from the league), and the player will be allowed to freely sign in the KHL. Thus, he is retired from the NHL, but not from hockey. Resolute 00:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I now understand that he is a retired NHL player playing in another league. I have never heard of anything like this before. It is unusual. The NHL will probably be more careful when reviewing contracts and block ones similar to this. Resolute, let's not discuss personal opinions. Point of view should be neutral. My question was about whether it was fine to use these words in the article in order to make improvements. The subject is closed. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions: as you've made a few posts asking questions to satisfy your own curiosity, you might consider being a bit more easy-going regarding the topics that others choose to pursue, particularly when they've been quite patient and responsive to your inquiries. Second, it's a bit brusque to declare a topic thread closed unilaterally, as you've done a couple of times. Since discussions are open for all to participate, it's not up to anyone's sole discretion to halt additional contributions. Your co-operation with other editors is appreciated! isaacl (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What Isaacl said. Strictly speaking, these talk pages are solely for discussion of and improving articles, not as general hockey forums. Your inquiry above as to why teams carry a third goalie is an example: why teams do that isn't really pertinent to article creation or improvement. Ravenswing 06:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about whether the article should say that he is a retired player to improve the article and get a consensus. Sorry for the poor spelling. I don't follow the Devils and forgot how to spell it because I didn't get a clear view of the spelling. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:NHOCKEY

I have proposed a change to several aspects of our subject notability guideline, and would appreciate it if all readers of this talk page would supply their opinions: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Tightening the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY. Thanks, Resolute 23:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am mostly neutral on proposals 3 and 4, although I believe players who have played in 100+ AHL/ECHL games or have been a First-team All-Star in the CHL/SPHL do get significant enough coverage to warrant articles on here. I do however have a major bone to pick with proposal 6. Players who have represented their country in the IIHF World Championships, from the Top Division all the way down to Division III, have their place on here. For starters, they are the best hockey players in their respective countries, selected from a pool of hundreds and often thousands of players to wear their home colors on an international stage. Also, the vast majority of these players have long careers in either their country's national league or abroad. These guys aren't one-hit-wonders who fade into oblivion once the World Championships are over. And finally, the lower-pool World Championships themselves usually get, at the very least, significant coverage in the host country/in the other countries taking part in the tournament. Not to mention there have been countless publications over the years which have information on the lower pools. I don't have a problem with clarifying the national teams guideline, so that players who played a few games in a throwaway tournament featuring reserve teams won't be deemed notable, but that's as far as it should be taken. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is best if the debate is held on the other talk page, but truthfully, "being the best in your nation" is not Wikipedia's bar for notability. The best cricket players in Canada are almost certainly not notable because they don't get coverage. I am happy to retract or modify my proposal if it can be demonstrated that we can expect any player to appear in a lower division of the world championships will have the necessary coverage. Otherwise, I would prefer to treat players at the lower levels on a case by case basis. Resolute 03:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

NHL temporary divisional designations

I've just reverted changes made in the division names for several NHL teams. This refers to the present designations as "temporary" pending new division names being chosen. This reference makes it appear the temporary names are an in-house tool that are not an official designation. Anyway, that's my take; if consensus says otherwise, so be it. Tiderolls 17:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The only concern I have is that although they are still being refered to by the temporary names (for what ever reason), the new division alignment is now active (at least as much as they can be in the off season). Subsequently, Detroit and Columbus are no longer in the Western Conference, and shouldn't be refered to as such, not do the Southeast or Northwest Divisions exist anymore (presuming the new divisions are given the names of the other former divisions). Actually, I would have not reverted at all, because the actual division alignment has changed, even if the names are temporary. oknazevad (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

While factually correct, Oknazevad, I cannot believe that these names will last any great length of time; and the designations are the actual point of my concern. This temporary naming system would have a place on the NHL article now, and perhaps on the previous division articles eventually, why shouldn't we wait for the new names to make our changes? Afterall, Wikipedia is not a journal. After the event unfolds and details are official we can add the content. Tiderolls 19:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that the NHL, the individual teams, and sports media are already using the Division A, Division B, etc, designations. This is the current state of the league, despite plans to change the names of the divisions before the season starts. For example, the Minnesota Wild are in Division B, not the Northwest Division (as that entity no longer exists). Maintaining the Northwest Division name on that article conflicts with the facts on the ground. It seems like a lot of the push against the usage of the temporary division names in the interim period is aesthetically driven, and not based on fact. shaggy (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The NHL has now announced new names and alignments, let the merriment begin: [2]. Indeed, an IP has already updated Atlantic Division (NHL) with the new teams, which raises a point I think: the most recent Atlantic Division was a renaming of the Patrick Division, and kept mainly the same teams. All those teams are now in the new Metropolitan Division, and the new Atlantic Division has 8 teams that were not members of the Atlantic before, at least not recently. Ergo, I propose that the Atlantic Division should not be considered a continuation of the old Patrick; but wonder if creating a new article that is split from the existing is worth the trouble and confusion. How best to handle?

Your proposal violates WP:OR. All five teams in the Atlantic division in the 2012-2013 season moved to the new Metropolitan division. All five teams from the Northeast, the Panthers and Lightning from the Southeast, and the Detroit Red Wings from the Central moved into the Atlantic division. Same name, same division. This is the way other re-alignments have been handled. If you want to say that the new Atlantic is fundamentally different from the old Atlantic and deserves a separate article, you will need to find notable sources that support that distinction. shaggy (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My point was meant more to be about the way that "predecessor" and "successor" references are used here. The existing division articles refer to other divisions as such, as though they are traceable in a direct line, however with teams being shuttled about so much the value in claiming that the current Atlantic is a successor to the Patrick or any other seems rather meaningless. The value of tracing a division's lineage is rather dubious in the first place, and now it's further complicated. For example: is the Metropolitan a successor to the Atlantic, if the bulk of its members came from there? How can it be, if the Atlantic still exists? Echoedmyron (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to figure this one out, as a well meaning IP tried to redirect the Northeast Division article to the Atlantic, then duplicated Atlantic division content into the Metropolitan Division article. Personally, I don't like the idea of "successor" and "predecessor" labels here either. But the IP's edits to raise a question as to whether we want to treat the divisions as brand new with new articles, or how we intend to treat the changes. Resolute 02:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

SchenleyCasino.jpg

The copyright status of image:SchenleyCasino.jpg is under discussion, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Conference Standings

I think the 2013-14 conference standings are all but meaningless. We should have standings that look more like the wild card race in Major League Baseball. We would list the top three teams in each of the two divisions in the top section, and the ten teams (eight in the west) that are currently in the wild card race in the bottom section.Juve2000 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uniform file names

I've gone ahead and updated all of the uniform file names to reflect the new divisions and each affected team's page has been updated with the new file names. Unfortunately while I can move files I can't suppress redirects so if someone with the ability could please delete the unused redirects, I would appreciate it. Thank you. --Kevin W. - Talk 06:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles containing players from countries with limited recognition

I am trying to get a consensus on whether to use certain flags in articles that contain players from states that have limited recognition. Should I use this flag for a player who is Kosovar, this flag for a player who is Abkhaz, or this flag for a player who is Nagorno-Karabakh? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a similar situation to the Finland/Aland flag situation you brought up earlier. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 03:48, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

These are not integral provinces like Åland. They are self-declared sovereign states, but are not widely recognized by the international community. Unlike Åland, they do not consider themselves to be territories of another nation. How should a sovereign state with limited recognition be listed by flag? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a moot question as the only place we use flagicons is to represent national teams. None of these regions are IIHF members. Resolute 13:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I just use the flag for whatever national team they play for? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the infobox of an article (e.g.: Jarome Iginla) or the roster templates, then yes. We typically use national team participation to determine nationality. For players with no national team experience, base the roster flag on the player's self-identified nationality - if you know it. (i.e.: Akim Aliu was born in Nigeria and grew up in Ukraine. But he considers himself Canadian) Otherwise, best guess. So upon reflection, your question may be more relevant than I initially thought. My belief - and this is personal opinion - is that if a region lacks international recognition, then the nation those places are considered part of by the international community should be used. Resolute 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I specifically would like to know if the flag of Kosovo should be used in the infobox for an NHL player who identifies himself as Kosovar (if there ever is one). There are several countries that recognize Kosovo. The NHL is made up of American and Canadian teams. The Canadian and the American government both recognize Kosovo. Should the flag of Kosovo be used if that is the case? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Until we have one I would not worry. Is Kosovo part of the IIHF? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo is recognized by the majority of United Nations members (103 of 193), European Union members (23 of 28), and NATO members (24 of 28). This is about a possible NHL player with no national team. The NHL is not a member of the IIHF. I don't think that such a player would approve of being identified as a player from Serbia, and he would probably refuse to play for the Serbian national team. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea why we are talking about this hypothetical. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I believe that a player's national identity in an NHL article should be based on what the player believes; and the recognition of Kosovo by the American government, the Canadian government, and the majority of the UN. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

But, there aren't any players from Kosovo. So, this is pointless. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and in that scenario, then we would not use any icon at all, as the only flag used in the hockey infobox is national team. Back to my original answer then, the question is moot. Resolute 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I was not referring to the infobox, but the team roster templates. Then should I use no flag for a player who doesn't play for a national team on the roster template? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can defer a decision until a player from one of these regions makes an NHL, KHL, SHL, etc. roster. Resolute 15:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to yet. It is not an issue so far. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

2013-14 NHL Individual Team Pages - Schedule

I would like to know why almost all 2013-14 individual team schedules have BOTH teams listed. For example, for the Philadelphia Flyers schedule, Philadelphia is listed 82 times!! Since we know it is the Philadelphia page, that team should NOT be listed on every line.

• it uses up valuable line space that could be used for other information
• it is confusing to the eye
• having just the opposing team listed with the "@" symbol for away games makes it must quicker to pick out home stands and road trips
• Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association team pages don't post the subject team on the schedule

It appears to be the work of one editor. Has this been discussed? Is he the grand chief of NHL team pages who makes all the decisions now? I would like this discussed because the 2013-14 schedules look ugly.AntropovNikki (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How other leagues format their season pages is irrelevant. No one else was adding the schedules to some teams, so I went ahead and added them. From last year's season, see 2012–13 Columbus Blue Jackets season, 2012–13 Detroit Red Wings season, 2012–13 Nashville Predators season, 2012–13 St. Louis Blues season, 2012–13 Calgary Flames season, 2012–13 Los Angeles Kings season, 2012–13 San Jose Sharks season, etc for other examples of the NHL schedule format. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 03:39, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

As with Canuck89, I don't really care how other leagues do it. Also, I don't find the current format to be either confusing to the eye or difficult or pick out road trips. The format Canuck89 created tables in has been the format most often used since we started doing these articles about six years ago. We can always discuss changes, but if you are going to come in guns ablazing with bad faith comments like "Is he the grand chief of NHL team pages who makes all the decisions now?", I am not sure how inclined anyone would be to bother. Resolute 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a LOT of areas in the hockey WikiProject, as in other areas on Wikipedia, where a single editor is the one who cares about this or that fiddling aspect. GoodDay, for instance, put a great deal of time and effort into team captains. He didn't secure anyone's approval to work on that ... nor did he have to do so, nor did anyone make any snippy, uncivil response such as "Are you the grand chief of NHL team captains who makes all the decisions now?" That being said, following Canuckian89 and Resolute, I not only don't give a damn as to what other sports WikiProjects do, I scorn the premise that there ought to be sports-wide conformity in pretty much anything. Heck, even within sports, conformity for the sake of conformity leads to pitfalls: take North American editors, which quite often disparage minor leagues as unimportant -- in contrast to many European editors, where the relegation/promotion systems prevalent in European sports leagues means that a top-level team could be a third-level team in just a couple years. (Something that, as a Wolverhampton Wanderers fan, is a sore point right now!) Ravenswing 05:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples can be found at WP:NCSP. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCSP. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Carcillo's uniform number with the Kings

Does anyone know if Daniel Carcillo will wear #17 for the Kings? If so, I would like to see the source for proof that the Kings roster template is correct. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say wait until the Kings' website officially reports his number. –B2Project^(Talk) 02:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1992 Stanley Cup Finals roster and engraving of Ken Priestlay

This article about the 1992 Finals contains a statement that confuses me. It says Priestlay played in 49 regular season games but was in the minors during the playoffs. That seems fishy to me. Doesn't a player have to be on the team's roster at the time of the finals to have his name engraved? It seems to me that he was recalled at some point later during the playoffs. Does anyone know if he was recalled? I am looking for an explanation for mentioning in this article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what the league guidelines for engraving were in 1992 -- they've changed, over the years -- but the current rule is that a player is eligible to be engraved on the Cup if he's played a single game in the Finals or to have played at least 41 regular season games for the team and be on the roster at the time of the Cup win. Priestlay would have qualified, if that standard was in place. Ravenswing 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It has been the current rule since 1977. Do players have to be on the final roster or not? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you've uncovered the answer to your own question (which is great!), so I'm not sure what your question is. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • My question is, does a player have to be on the team's final roster at the end of the season? Jack Johnson played in 61 regular season for the Kings before he was traded during the season the Kings went on to win the Stanley Cup. Johnson doesn't have his name on the cup. Does anyone know if a player has to be on the final roster? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • From my understanding, you've determined that the rule since 1977 is the one that Ravenswing specified. Are you asking for help in interpreting this rule? Perhaps you can step through each of the criteria Ravenswing listed, and state if you believe it is met. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I need help interpreting the rule of 41 regular season games or 1 Finals game. As I said, Johnson played in 61 regular season games as a King, but his name isn't engraved because he wasn't on the final roster. Otherwise, Johnson's name would be engraved. I think a player has to be on the roster at the end of the season to qualify. Is being on the roster at the end of the season one of the criteria? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Ravenswing has already answered your question. Perhaps you can go through each criterion he listed, and state whether or not the player has met the criterion, so we can see where additional help is needed? isaacl (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• You're right. I missed that. Thank you for pointing out that Ravenswing answered that. That means Priestlay was recalled to the roster some time later in the playoffs to be a "black ace" as part of their taxi squad. Should the fact that he was recalled before the Finals be mentioned in the article to eliminate confusion? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't imagine there'd be many confused people. It's safe to assume that most people would figure that players engraved on the Cup did, indeed, meet the league's requirements for doing so ... and where that isn't the case (mostly for the Vlad Konstantinovs and Marc Savards of the world, where the teams successfully petitioned for a waiver), the pertinent article is invariably noted. Ravenswing 05:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Is it a "fact" that "Priestlay was recalled", or merely a logical conclusion based on one interpretation of the facts? I would recommend sticking to the facts and not adding any interpretations. Using a different interpretation of "on the roster" which includes any player under contract with the team, but not necessarily "with the team", Priestlay could have been on the roster without having been recalled. I'm not claiming this is the correct interpretation, just that I can't find any reliable source evidence of the other interpretation. From my understanding, the extra "on the roster" clause was added to prevent traded players, like Johnson above, from being included. Without it, a traded player after one game of the finals could hypothetically be guaranteed to have his name on the Cup regardless of which team wins. 74.12.176.198 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that you mention that, I don't know. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of NHL employees' nicknames in articles

Is it even worth mentioning nicknames of NHL employees; like Daniel Carcillo's nickname "Gorilla Salad"? I know some mention the nickname "Faggy Magoo" to refer to Norman Green. Are these nicknames notable enough, or are they too trivial? I believe they are too trivial. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends on context, I think. The two nicknames in Carcillo's article are not explained when the nicknames are given (not to mention that neither the HR link nor Barstool Sports are reliable sources for this), so it is difficult to find value. In many cases, however, a nickname can be placed in context, and therefore a useful addition. i.e.: Red Dutton and why Al MacInnis was known as "chopper". Resolute 23:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it even possible to find any useful value to include Norman Green's alleged nickname in his article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Short answer? Most likely not. At best it's extremely doubtful and at worst it's a BLP issue. We're not talking about an Ace Bailey-type (either one) nickname here. It sounds like a pejorative (especially considering his history re: the Minnesota North Stars) that would not have been used in a WP:COMMONNAME context, and as such would not generally be appropriate for inclusion, unless you happen across some reliable sources that refer to its common use. Otherwise, it sounds a lot like gossip.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if well-sourced, and only if the nickname was in common circulation. For contemporary players, that's very seldom the case: even going back to the late 70s (by way of example), Terry O'Reilly's common nickname in the dressing room was "Taz," after the cartoon "Tasmanian Devil" character, but that was the day and age when the press started not doing nicknames any more. Ravenswing 01:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is mentioning that nickname of Green in the article considered vandalism? "Gorilla Salad" also sounds derogatory because it makes Carcillo sound like he doesn't care about personal hygiene. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Related, an IP keeps changing Phil Kessel's entry from leading with "Philip 'Phil' Kessel" to "Phil 'The Thrill' Kessel". I'm having a hard time locating an MOS to counter this; while it's relatively harmless, I'm of the opinion that "Phil the Thrill" is not as common parlance as say Rocket Richard, etc. Heck, even the Gretzky article doesn't lead with "Wayne 'The Great One' Gretzky"... Echoedmyron (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The nickname "Phil the Thrill" should not be in the article. Gordie Howe is often known as "Mr. Hockey", but rarely referred to as "Gordie 'Mr. Hockey' Howe", which also shouldn't be in an article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A search of "Phil the Thrill" shows that there are a couple people on YouTube somewhat obsessed with churning out clips of Kessel, using that term. What's conspicuously lacking are any reliable media sources. I'd say the nickname belongs nowhere in the article. Ravenswing 01:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable enough. I think the nickname "Faggy Magoo" is funny, but it doesn't belong in the article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Plus, as Cjmclark notes, it is an epithet, not a nickname. As far as the "Phil the thrill" nonsense goes, see also "the nuge". Facepalm. Resolute 03:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Are prank edits allowed as long as they are immediately reverted? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jayson Megna

I found discrepancies of the birthplace for Jayson Megna. It appears the article goes by here and the conflict appears here. I feel the nhl source is more reliable but wanted to get an opinion. –B2Project^(Talk) 04:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

NHL can be wrong quite often on birthplace. I rarely use it as a source for such. They often switch hometown and birthplace in their player profiles. I don't know the answer in this particular case but I wouldn't use NHL.com I would look for more sources. Some people prefer to use the nhlpa site instead. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most sources in this case use either Fort Lauderdale or Plantation, FL. Northbrook, IL is pretty much only used to denote hometown. While I agree on the NHL's habit of swapping birthplace and hometown, in this case, it seems they have are more likely to be right. Resolute 15:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the "official" sources can be startlingly unreliable: the Hockey Hall of Fame website's a particularly egregious offender, although it's cleaned up some in the last couple years. A number of the team websites are much more focused (as one might expect) on promoting management's interests than on historical accuracy. Ravenswing 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Robyn Regehr is Canadian but was born in Brazil. Make sure to look for the place of Megna's birth. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils uniform number policy and Kevin Weekes

Is the article on Kevin Weekes correct that the Devils uniform number policy is that the highest number a player can choose is 40, with the exception of marquee players? I know that several backup goalies have worn #35 and that players can wear numbers at least as high as 35. Currently, the player who has the highest number on the team who is not a star player is defenseman #33 Alexander Urbom. Does anyone know if the article about Weekes is correct? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. If this is correct, then the only player currently on the Devils roster who'd be considered a "marquee player" is Jaromir Jagr, who wears 68 pretty much anywhere he goes. Brodeur wears 30, Kovalchuk wore 17, Zajac and Elias wear 19 and 26, respectively. The only 40+ number the Devils have retired is 99, because of the league-wide Gretzky thing. So unless the Devils have some odd criteria for determining marquee-dom (or there's an RS out there that supports), I'd say this is unlikely.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Elias and Brodeur are considered "marquee players" by the Devils, but they were with them before they have established themselves and couldn't choose "high numbers" when they were starting out. They could chose those numbers now, but they want to keep the numbers they are known for. I know that the team has not retired any high number, but I heard Lamoriello usually allows players to pick numbers only as high as 35 or 40. Does anyone know if the policy is 1-35 or 1-40? A citation is needed. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, star players have more liberties to select a jersey number (which could be one out of the normal range made available, or just the same number worn while coming up from the minors). I don't think the Devils are particularly special in this regard. When the teams travelled by train, players with lower jersey numbers got better berths, and so the single digit numbers were highly desired. isaacl (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I can cite a source that states that Dr. John McMullen also started the policy of not giving out #13. This policy has been enforced until it was first given to Harri Pesonen. Is this notable enough to include in the article about the Devils, Dr. McMullen, or Lou Lamoriello? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2013

I think the Devils are unique in this regard. When Darryl Sutter was coaching the Sharks and later the Flames, he didn't allow "high" numbers. But he changed his mind since he became the head coach of the Kings. Dwight King wears #74 and Jordan Nolan wears #71. I haven't see a "low number policy" with any other team since Sutter left Calgary. Is the highest number generally available in New Jersey 35 or 40? Can anyone help me figure out Lamoriello's policy so I can add it to an article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to add contract information to player infobox

B2project put forth an idea to add current contract details to the infobox for active players at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Suggestions. Anyone have any comments on the idea? Thanks, Resolute 13:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Related, I've also proposed a minor change to move the HHOF banner to the top of the infobox, below the name, here. (Mockups of what it would look like here). Resolute 13:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I tested an version in the sandbox for the template and an example can be found here. The parameters for the contract and free agent are conditional and will only show up if the field is completed so it won't affect the players who don't have the info. I also added a option for free agent if you just enter "yes" it returns the generic "Free agent" if users don't know the terms of the players free agency status.–B2Project^(Talk) 05:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Dating Free agents acquired/lost

I modified these 2 tables on 2013–14 Pittsburgh Penguins season and think it is quite useful to have the dates of the transactions in the table. Another user suggested that this might be against consensus and that I should bring the topic here for discussion. Does anyone have a problem with this change? The start of the season seems a good time to decide so that work is not reverted later and also that if people want to adopt this on other team pages, it is still early before much work has been done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's up to you, really. I think over time, the specific date that a player signs a contract loses relevance in most cases, as all that is really needed informationaly is that they did sign one. I probably won't make the change on the Flames article, but nor would I revert if someone else did. Resolute 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On articles about a particular teams season, I would consider it highly relevant to know when specific signings were made. Less interesting on the roster list on the article about the team itself. But that's not what we're talking about here. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 23:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On 2013–14 Buffalo Sabres season there seems to be a tiff over when a season officially begins. In 4 plus years I've been editing pages it was always at the Entry Draft that the start of the next season was marked. I've gone with this and asked the anonymous editor to justify their actions in the talk section. I couldn't find an answer in the Wikiproject. Eric Ando (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This has come up several time recently. Each time I believe the conclusion has been that the Draft is the point at which we use as a separator. the most recent discussion was archived here. Cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rookie callups' uniform numbers

The article Number (sports) in the hockey section could use some extra notable details. Why do several rookies get higher numbers when they are recalled? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If anything the ice hockey section should be trimmed significantly. There is a fair bit of trivial information in it. I have to also remind you that this page isn't a forum. Those kind of questions that you keep asking are better asked at any one of a number of online hockey forums. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Then the section that mentions number 84 being the last number to remaiain unworn should be removed as well? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty trivial, when all is said and done. That being said, Dj is right: this isn't a hockey forum. How the heck would we know why rookies get higher numbers (other than the painfully obvious fact that guys who've been on the roster throughout tend to already be wearing the lower numbers)? It is, at best, a fuzzy bit of trivia that couldn't be reliably sourced so much as it being one of those "Yeah, we figure that's the way it's done." Ravenswing 19:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything else in the article that needs to be removed? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly a ton of minutiae in the ice hockey section, but given that the thing about number 84 is the only part of that section to have a reference I'd be inclined to keep it. At any rate, be bold and trim some of the more trivial things if you like. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that the thing about the number 84 stays while the thing about the Devils and number 13 was removed despite being referenced. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the thing about the Devils was about 1 number for 1 team, and the section is about ice hockey in general, with a lot of emphasis on the NHL in general. I'd say that the stuff about players picking numbers because they are puns / soundalikes for their names is trivial also. Stuff about goaltenders traditionally wearing 1 and Gretzky's number being retired league-wide is probably the most pertinent. Why any particular player chose the number that they wear is probably best left in that player's bio.Echoedmyron (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Another thing I find odd is that the thing about the number 84 can stay but mentioning rookies who have been called up tend to have higher numbers, even though it is about the NHL in general. Mike Commodore wanting to wear 64 is too trivial, Should that be removed? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Norman Green picture to put in article

Is this a picture of the correct Norman Green? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know off hand, but since that image will almost certainly be copyrighted, we can't use it anyway. For living people, the rules are pretty strict on using only freely licensed images. A few exceptions exist (e.g.: historical moments, just my ability to put Paul Henderson's famous image in his article). Resolute 14:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I tell if it is copyrighted? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For anything you find on the internet, assume it is copyrighted unless there is an explicit notice stating the image is public domain or is licensed under a compatible Creative Commons license (Namely CC0, CC-BY, CC-SA or CC-BY-SA; see the article for explanations). It gets more complicated for older images that may be public domain due to age, but there isn't much need to worry about that here. Resolute 22:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So then the point of this picture is moot, as it probably is copyrighted. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup. It tends to be very hard to get images of people from about the mid 1940s until the popularization of digital photography for this reason. Resolute 14:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This article has a picture of the right Norman Green that is probably copyrighted. Is this the same person that was shown in the first picture? If this one is also copyrighted (and probably is), where might I find a picture of him that can be included? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally if the person is still living you pretty much have to take the picture yourself if you want it to be included on Wikipedia. Sometimes you get lucky and can find one someone else took. But for a person like Norm Green you are probably on your own. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I take a candid picture of him and include it in the article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you were the one who snapped the picture then yes. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I will take one myself and put it in the article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of other alphabets for certain players' names

Should names of players like Andrei Loktionov have the Cyrillic spelling in their articles as well as the Latin one? What about players like Justin Abdelkader? Should the Arabic script also be used? Should these alphabets be included in their respective articles? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Loktionov is Russian-born, so it's not unusual to use the Cyrillic spelling in his article's lede. Justin Abdelkader, on the other hand, is a third-generation American, and it is extremely unlikely that he has ever used the Arabic alphabet for his own name. If he (as opposed to his grandfather) had been born in Jordan and emigrated to the US, then I could see potentially using it.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 00:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Tom Kostopoulos is Canadian-born, but the Greek alphabet spelling is included. Has he ever used the Greek alphabet himself to spell his name? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to realize, and I say this based on many similar questions you keep asking, that not everything at Wikipedia is consistent. And its not likely to ever be. Basically you just need to use common sense when dealing with many of these situations. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Given Tom Kostopoulos' apparent dedication to his Greek heritage and the Greek-Canadian community (as noted in his article), that's entirely possible. Otherwise, I'd go with DJSasso - use common sense. Not all hockey players who have names of non-Latin linguistic origin will necessarily require a transliteration in said origin's native alphabet.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I endorse Djsasso's comments about considering common sense, and the nature of consistency. That being said, there's a perfectly sound principle to hand: WP:COMMONNAME. The question to ask, following the notion of COMMONNAME, is simple -- would this be a transliteration that's in reasonable general use? For Loktionov, born and raised (and whose career started) in another country with a long hockey tradition, it's axiomatic that not only would Loktionov himself feel comfortable with his name rendered in that country's language, but that there are many reliable sources rendered in that alphabet. For Abdelkader, the notion that his name ought to be rendered in any language other than English is self-evidently absurd, any more than mine ought to be rendered in Lithuanian, Hebrew or Gaelic, just because my paternal great-grandparents were (respectively) a Jewish immigrant from the Baltic and an Irish immigrant from West Meath. Ravenswing 04:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Then the Greek alphabet should not be used for Kostopoulos, as he was born in Canada. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Again if you read his article he is highly involved in Greek cultural organizations so it would make sense in his case to have them as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(shrugs) I've been involved in Irish cultural organizations, but I know all of a dozen words of Gaelic, and I'm pretty sure my name has never been rendered in Gaelic. Ravenswing 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that is slightly different as most people even in Ireland don't render their name in Gaelic. But I am betting people who are heads of cultural organizations and have been marshals for parades about that culture probably have. At least in regards to literature for those events. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take that bet, because they don't. Your average North American certainly speaks no more Gaelic than is common in Ireland. Ravenswing 19:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean Gaelic with the last part. I meant Greek, since Greek is an active language and that is what the above discussion was about. On a side note, the only remaining active Gaelic community can actually be found in North America on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. People get sent from the British Isles to study it there. Just an possibly interesting factoid. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Kostopoulos' father immigrated from Greece, so the likelihood that Greek was used in their household is probably pretty good (though such speculation does border on OR). At any rate, I don't know that it matters that much, as there is no official policy regarding use of transliterations for hockey players' names, so (as Ravenswing said) we fall back on WP:COMMONNAME and common sense. It's a case-by-case thing.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Johan Persson (ice hockey) nominated for deletion

Johan Persson (ice hockey) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Persson (ice hockey). Input in the discussion would be appreciated. Heymid (contribs) 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"Gretzky"

The usage of Gretzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk: Gretzky (disambiguation) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jágr"

The usage of Jágr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk: Jágr (surname) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fallacy in winger article

The article winger (ice hockey) says that centers are the only official participants in a faceoff. That is not necessarily correct. Players like Peter Harrold and Shane Doan disprove that. I named examples of wingers and defensemen participating in faceoffs. How should that article be fixed? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the NHL's rule for face-offs, the term "center" is simply being used to refer to the player taking the face-off, regardless of the actual team role they fulfill once the face-off is completed. (I suspect the only other position specifically defined by the rule book is the goaltender position. From a rule perspective, there is nothing special about any of the non-goalie players after the face-off.) However to avoid confusion, it is probably preferable to reword the article; I will have a look at it. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for rewording the article, which specifically once referred to the actual center position. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Switzerland FLC

In case any of you are FLC reviewers, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Switzerland/archive1 only has one vote so far, and it's been up for over a month. Aside from the redlinked articles (which I'm working on slowly), I don't know of any other major issues. If I could get some input on it I'd appreciate it, thanks. Anthony (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Asking for some more sets of eyes on this FLC, because it still only has one vote. All of the issues, as far as I can see, have been addressed. Anthony (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of listing players' positions in their articles

Can Jeff Carter be referred to as a center in his article despite the fact that he normally doesn't center his line? Steven Reinprecht generally played right wing in Colorado. How should their articles explain this? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

NHL.com lists him as a center, he was also listed as a center with Philadelphia. Use what the sources say.18abruce (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any name used to describe a center, who does not center their respective line, that can be added to these articles? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to be a centre, but not take faceoffs. I'd stick with what sources say, but if sources give multiple positions, you can use Forward (ice hockey). Resolute 01:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I meant. I know that is possible, just like some wingers and defensemen take faceoffs. How should wingers who take faceoffs be listed in an article, like Carter and Reinprecht? Is there a term for wingers or defensemen who take faceoffs? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As 18abruce and Resolute have already said, use what the sources say. (Also note that whether or not a winger or defenceman takes faceoffs does not change his/her on-ice role.) isaacl (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, 108.0.244.168, there are two enduring truisms that apply to each and every conceivable content issue on Wikipedia: (1) We must never post anything for which reliable sources do not exist, and (2) We must never post anything based exclusively on our unsupported personal observations. If you can't find reliable sources saying so, it doesn't matter if you're a Kings' season ticket holder and see Carter playing half the season on defense: you shouldn't add that to the article. If you do have reliable sources saying so, you don't need our permission to post that. Ravenswing 06:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It says here, here, and here, that he is a winger. Are these sources reliable enough for his article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is where things get contradictory, unfortunately. The Kings list him as a centre on their website, as does their media guide. I'd probably defer to the team website and retain the centre listing. At most I might change to Forward. I would not mark him as a winger. Resolute 19:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that you've got reliable sources there, and marking as "forward" or "C-W" would be appropriate. Ravenswing 22:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

True enough. I should have said I would not mark him exclusively as a winger. Forward or Centre/Right Wing would seem most appropriate here. Resolute 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I will cite both positions to make the infobox better. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

team logo size in articles

Is there an MOS for the preferred size of a team logo in infoboxes in team articles? An editor keeps enlarging the appearance of the logo of the Brampton Beast of the CHL, such as here: [3]; I've reverted it a couple of times, but it keeps coming back at 300px, which seems needlessly huge. I note that most other CHL teams have theirs in the 200px range, which is what I changed it to; even the NHL teams are largely 250 at most. A quick look at the MOS for page formats for hockey teams didn't reveal anything about preferred size, but rather than get into an edit war with this IP I thought I would raise it here. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For team logos I am not sure there is one. For player pictures in the infobox its 230px per the infobox page. So I probably wouldn't go larger than that. Or as you said 250 like some of the NHL teams. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress at Talk:Jack Adams

There is a move discussion in progress at Talk:Jack Adams which affects Jack Adams (ice hockey, born 1895). Input from other ice hockey editors would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Placement of the “NHLHistory” template

• History of the National Hockey League – Template at top
• History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) – Template within body
• History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) – Template at top
• History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) – Template within body
• History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) – Template within body

Two of the above listed articles have the the “NHLHistory” template at the top of the article, and three have the template located within the body of the article. For those three articles, I attempted to move the template to the top of the articles, but my edits were undone by another editor with his stated reason being “not only is that ugly, it is unnecessary and disrupts the LEAD image”.

The reasons I adjusted the placement of the template to the top of the articles is so it will be more easily found by interested users, and to make the articles uniform throughout this series.

I am now asking for the comments of other editors. Please give your thoughts on whether the “NHLHistory” template should be located at the top of the articles, or within the body. Wherever the placement, it should be uniform within all of these articles. Dolovis (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Being that it was featured with those templates in those positions they should probably be left as such. Every page has unique needs and conformity is not always the best option. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of the four detailed articles, only History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) is missing a game photo as a lede image. The other three all have the navbox rendered alongside the table of contents, below the first section, and this is both aesthetically pleasing and sensible. I think that adding an image to the top right of the 1942–1967 article would be the best way of making these articles consistent. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We had an image back in the day, but it must have been deleted and not replaced. Definitely something that should be fixed. Also open to suggestions on what the best image for the overall History article would be. As to your concern, Dolovis, I've always felt the placement of that sidebar template makes it rather obvious. It is actually in the lead, and parallels the table of contents. Resolute 19:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a sensible solution Andrwsc. I thought we did have a picture on that one as well originally. But I couldn't remember for sure. -DJSasso (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Resolute: The reason I noticed, and tried to rectify, this issue was because the first time I looked at these articles, I did over-look the template when I was searching for links to the following/preceeding articles in the series. The first place that I look for such links is at the top right (i.e. infobox) and second, at the bottom. For me, the template was obscured within the body, and so was over-looked. The placement may be "rather obvious" to you, but then it is not your first time visiting these articles, is it? Dolovis (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

quick stats table cheat?

Wondering if anyone knows of a quick way to convert stats tables in wiki markup, so that one that is plain text with no links, such as the one at Dennis Hextall could be converted to proper appearance. I figure probably not - because then someone would have created a script that can be run to update all the tables - but there's got to be a better way to update these old tables without having to type out 32 || 8 || 10 || 18 etc for multiple lines... Echoedmyron (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My "quick way" is to copy the table on hockeydb and paste special text into excel. From there you then cut the text out of excel and then paste into the webpage http://excel2wiki.net/ which will convert it to wikitable. Now only the lines for the season will be useable, you will have to grab the table headers from another page that is already done because our headers are different from that which that page will spit out. Still a bit to do but way faster than typing it out. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the tip. Will try it out when I have time. Cheers. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the same way I do it as well, I go a step further and use the CONCATENATE function in Excel which combines cells values into a new cell to build the season year link. Also using the autofilter in Excel will let you link the first appearance of each team without fishing through all the code after you run it through http://excel2wiki.net/. –B2Project^(Talk) 03:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh never thought about the autofilter to do that. Good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

One thing that the excel-to-wiki script doesn't seem to do is fill in the alternating grey background on every other line that most stats tables have. I suppose one has to still do that part manually? 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I do that manually. But its pretty easy, just copy it from another table or save it somewhere like your sandbox and just paste it on every other line. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Carter wearing the A for the Kings

I noticed that Jeff Carter was serving as an alternate captain during a preseason game. His article says he is an alternate captain. I noticed that the roster only lists Matt Greene, Anze Kopitar, and Mike Richards as alternate captains. Has Carter been named a fourth alternate captain or has he just served as an interim one? Should his article mention this? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Being that it was a pre-season game it doesn't really mean anything. Nothing about the teams in the pre-season is really all that official because they are trying out new things when it doesn't count. If the website doesn't list him then he probably isn't one. But we will know once the season begins. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Third annual list of featured and good articles by team

Team	BioFA	BioGA		GenFA	GenGA		TFA	TGA	FL	Total		Increase
Vancouver Canucks	5	39		0	2		5	41	2	48		+2
Calgary Flames	3	28		2	7		5	35	5	45		+7
New York Rangers	4	15		0	0		4	15	2	21		+1
Toronto Maple Leafs	2	16		0	1		2	17	1	20		+5
Montreal Canadiens	4	12		1	1		5	13	1	19		+3
Florida Panthers	1	15		0	0		1	15	2	18		+1
Detroit Red Wings	2	11		0	0		2	11	4	17		+6
Chicago Blackhawks	4	10		0	0		4	10	2	16		+2
New Jersey Devils	1	10		1	0		2	10	3	15		+2
Boston Bruins	3	11		0	0		3	11	1	15		+5
Buffalo Sabres	1	8		0	3		1	11	2	14		+2
St. Louis Blues	3	10		0	0		3	10	1	14		+5
New York Islanders	3	7		0	0		3	7	3	13		—
Philadelphia Flyers	2	10		0	0		2	10	1	13		+3
Tampa Bay Lightning	1	9		0	0		1	9	2	12		+3
Pittsburgh Penguins	1	7		0	3		1	10	1	12		+4
Los Angeles Kings	1	9		0	0		1	9	1	11		+1
Edmonton Oilers	3	6		0	0		3	6	1	10		—
Washington Capitals	1	6		0	1		1	7	2	10		+2
Columbus Blue Jackets	1	7		0	1		1	8	1	10		+2
Anaheim Ducks	1	8		0	0		1	8	0	9		+2
Ottawa Senators	3	3		0	2		3	5	1	9		+1
Phoenix Coyotes	0	8		0	0		0	8	0	8		+2
Colorado Avalanche	3	3		0	1		3	4	1	8		+1
San Jose Sharks	0	7		0	0		0	7	1	8		+2
Dallas Stars	0	8		0	0		0	8	0	8		+3
Nashville Predators	0	7		0	0		0	7	0	7		+3
Atlanta Thrashers	0	3		0	0		0	3	2	5		+1
Carolina Hurricanes	0	4		0	0		0	4	0	4		+1
Minnesota Wild	0	4		0	0		0	4	0	4		+2
New York Americans	0	4		0	0		0	4	0	4		+2
Quebec Nordiques	1	3		0	0		1	3	0	4		—
Winnipeg Jets	0	3		0	0		0	3	0	3		—
Ottawa Senators (old)	1	1		0	1		1	2	0	3		—
Montreal Maroons	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2		—
Hartford Whalers	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2		+1
Atlanta Flames	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2		+1
Minnesota North Stars	0	1		0	0		0	1	1	2		+1
Montreal Wanderers	1	0		0	0		1	0	0	1		—
Quebec Bulldogs	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1		—
St. Louis Eagles	0	0		0	1		0	1	0	1		—
Colorado Rockies	1	0		0	0		1	0	0	1		—

The chart reflects changes from September 19, 2012 to October 2, 2013 and has been updated for new GA/FAs and player movement over the past 12 months. Some big trends in reviewed content over the past year. Of the 30 active NHL teams, only three did not have at least one relevant article promoted: The Islanders, Oilers and Jets. I managed to get the Flames as the biggest mover with seven new articles compared to last year, but the Red Wings are also big movers (+6) thanks in large part to Rejectwater's featured lists. St. Louis is +5 mostly due to trades, as is Toronto. Two new FAs over the past year: Lanny McDonald, and Hobey Baker, written by Kaiser matias. Also of interest, we've had articles on two players who had trophies named in their honour promoted this past year. Bill Masterton and Roger Crozier. The latter being Heroman26's first GA, and hopefully the first of many! Resolute 01:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is neat, thank you for putting this together. For my part, I only did two featured lists, but yes I will take that credit. :) Rejectwater (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

It would be helpful if there were more participants involved in the AfD discusions concerning hockey players. There are currently two active discussions on-going, for Andy Powers and Sam Fields, and more participants would be helpful to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Dolovis (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone looking to do some Toronto-centric research....

The Toronto Star archives are currently free to access until October 15. [4]. Resolute 00:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators team name

An editor has reopened the discussion on including the French name of the Ottawa Senators in the article. Feedback is welcome at Talk:Ottawa Senators#Bilingual. isaacl (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

KHL Team names discussion

There's a new discussion that's started regarding KHL team names here. The issue is basically using official teams from their official russian or english sources, using the en.KHL.ru site, or using 3rd party sites like eurohockey/eliteprospects to establish common use (which is chicken and egg if you ask me). Looking for insight on how to handle this.--Львівське (говорити) 21:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that using third-party sites as guides are suspect. In establishing the common names for such teams in English, one would naturally want to hear from the English-language sources that use such names. What the KHL establishes matters; what sites like Eurohockey or Hockey DB use also matters. Ravenswing 20:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick Canadian English spelling question

Howdy. I recently did some ENGVAR corrections at List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game, and there was one word I wasn't sure about: is "defencive" ever a correct spelling, even in Canadian English? I don't think so, and I left it spelled as "defensive", but I figured I would ask. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right; "defensive" is the correct spelling. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the quick response. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

NHL historical minor league affiliates

I am finding it very cumbersome to find the historical minor league affiliates for NHL teams. It would be useful if such information were available on the teams' seasonal article infobox. I propose that on Template:NHLTeamSeason, an optional field for “Minor league affiliates” be added. I suggest that this would be included in NHL team season-by-season articles in the same way as this field is now included in Template:NHL Team. Can this change/improvement be implemented? Dolovis (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me -- knowing the blizzard of affiliation changes just since I started seriously following the AHL in the late 80s, I cringe at how much work it'd take to get a historical record on the subject. How much of a pain in the neck would this be? Ravenswing 20:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't see why not. I'll try to add it tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. If I forget, just ping me in a couple days. Resolute 01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Template doc updated. You can add the parameter with |MinorLeague=. For an exmaple, see 2013–14 Calgary Flames season. Resolute 17:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on various NHL season and playoff articles

I received a message on my talk page[5] about a vandal who is apparently on a dynamic IP and is changing scores, seedings and standings on various NHL season and playoff articles. Could someone help me check and correct all these articles? Dur to real life, my access to Wikipedia may be limited in the next few days. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Did a random check of Stanley Cup Playoff articles, and found another at 68.6.34.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Looks like we will have some cleanup to do. *sigh* Resolute 15:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that. That particular IP was actually repairing earlier vandalism. At any rate, I went through all of the Stanley Cup Playoff articles. no further issues found. Resolute 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comeback

I have started a discussion on Talk:2010 Stanley Cup Finals regarding including the 2004 Boston Red Sox World Series victory in a list of comebacks from a deficit of three losses to no wins. Any comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Drummondville Voltigeurs

Just a FYI, but Drummondville Voltigeurs has been proposed to be speedily deleted. Patken4 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletions can be removed by anyone except the author of the page. As such I removed it as clearly not a speedy candidate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, the article didn't have any citations, just two external links. I've added one ref for their Mem Cup appearance, and presumably a few more citations for some of the team's highlights would keep The Red Pen - who invoked Wikipedia:ROUTINE#Routine_coverage - at bay. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If someone else doesn't get to it I will get some tonight when I get home from work. -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I also note that ROUTINE is part of the Notability guidelines for "Events" - and while I suppose aspects of the policy can certainly apply to other things, a hockey team is not an "event"... Echoedmyron (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In the context of a team, the guidance is used to rule out routine coverage of a team's games or other activities as being sufficient reliable sources to determine that the team warrants an article in Wikipedia. (So basic coverage of your local house league team's games isn't sufficient.) isaacl (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As a QMJHL team, they are automatically notable. Whoever proposed this must be new to Wikipedia. Tom Danson (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

While I obviously agree that the team is notable, there is no such things as automatically notable. Everything still has to pass notability requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:College ice hockey team roster

Editors, will you PLEASE consider removing that SPC column? It is in no way in agreement with MOS:FLAG (one doesn't "represent" a US state on a college team, and international players do not represent their countries), and it doesn't add anything useful to the table. Besides, the flags are tiny and barely recognizable, and make it look like something out of kindergarten, not an encyclopedia (and according to the Manual of Style you may not exclude the name of the state our country!). But MOS:FLAG is the main concern. what you have is a roster, about players and positions, and the SPC information is simply not "pertinent to the purpose of the list or table". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind the use of national flags to note the countries players are from, but I agree that state/provincial flags are not beneficial. I'd have no objection to removing. Resolute 19:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--that would be a start. But really, FLAG says they're reserved for articles with genuine national representation: think World Cup and Olympics and stuff like that. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I know the guideline, but I do think the exception we make with nationality in these templates - at least at pro levels - is valid. The cultural makeup of an NHL team is always of interest, and has been since the Iron Curtain fell. Resolute 21:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Current Sabres alternate captains

Are The Sabres currently dressing only one alternate captain, or are they dressing the maximum of two? If they are dressing others, I would like to know who they are so I can add them to the roster template. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the roster given on their website here, it's currently just Ott wearing the C and Ehrhoff wearing the A. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 05:04, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

I know that it only lists Ott and Ehrhoff on their website. Couture and Pavelski are wearing the A for the Sharks while Boyle is unable to play, but it doesn't say it on their website. It says it here. Are the Sabres actually dressing less than the maximum? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Team article moves

I've notice several relatively recent page moves such as:

• Kenora Thistles (1926–1940) moved to Kenora Thistles (1926–40)
• Windsor Spitfires (1946–1953) moved to Windsor Spitfires (1946–53)
• Winnipeg Rangers (1956–1967) moved to Winnipeg Rangers (1956–67)

to name just three such moves made within the past few months. I am curious to know if the ice hockey project has established a standardized format for titles such as these, and if so, what that standard is. Dolovis (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidance on the formatting of years is applicable. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not something we've discussed as a project that I can recall, but I also can't think of a good reason to ignore the MOS either. It seems the moves took the pages to their technically correct format, not unlike previously existing disambigs like Winnipeg Jets (1972–96). Resolute 23:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to follow WP:YEAR and think it is safe to assume that to be the project standard. Rejectwater (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a big RfC on it I do believe for all articles on the wiki. Those moves were just part of implementing the result of it. I don't recall where the discussion was. Personally I prefer the 4 digit years but I see no reason to ignore the MOS. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Miscapitalizations in team season pages in ice hockey and other sports

Hello.

There seems to be a somewhat widespread habit of making certain types of miscapitalizations over several team season pages, notably for teams in the 2013–14 NHL season, but apparently not limited to ice hockey pages. I recently copyedited two such pages, those of Anaheim and Calgary, and was going to continue checking the other teams' pages, had I not been reverted by User:Canuckian89 (twice in the Anaheim case). In order to avoid disruption, I'm now initiating this discussion.

I'm pretty sure that expressions like

• Pre-Season
• Game Log
• Regular Season
• Lost via Waivers
• Club Team

violate the WP:MOSCAPS guideline.

Also, expressions within parentheses should not be capitalized (unless they are a full sentence, or proper nouns). (This is an example of a full sentence, as such ending with a period.) Please note the difference in capitalizing for the two parenthetical expressions.

Another thing Canuckian89 reverted was the spacing before semi-colon. As fas as I'm aware, no punctuation is preceded by a space, whether they are periods, commas, colons or semi-colons.

Thus, it's "(home: 0–0–0; road: 0–0–0)", not "(Home: 0–0–0 ; Road: 0–0–0)".

Yet another thing Canuckian removed with his revert was the closing comma in date expressions per WP:Copyedit, section Common mistakes to fix, bullet point 2 under "Punctuation".

This might be minor copyedit details, but I think the issue needs to be addressed.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The bulleted issues you mention, and the colon spacing I am rather indifferent towards. However, "Home" and "Road" in my opinion should remain capitalized, as they always have been, as they are in effect stand-alone sentences. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 10:34, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that "Home" is not a sentence. It's merely a word, and not even a proper noun. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't opposed to most of the changes and copyedits you were doing, just the Home/Road capitalization. It was just easier to undo a single edit than weed through lines of code and manually edit the page. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 10:39, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

And, as you mention, the capitalization issue affects other leagues. Also, every previous NHL season page I have checked so far has capitalized "Home" and "Road". Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 10:41, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's see what people think about that then. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Home and road I would definitely capitalize because they are headers (even if they are linear headers) and the first word in a header should be capitalized. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: in my view, "home:" – or "Home:" – is a prompt rather than a heading. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A prompt is a type of heading. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but when it does not stand alone, normal capitalization rules apply. There is another prompt just nearby: the month name. Month names are capitalized in English, but it could have been something else, let's say "Total". In this case, "Total" would have been capitalized, even though it's not a proper noun, because it's at the beginning of an stand-alone expression. That which is inside the parentheses are not stand-alone expressions, it's part of one. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that all of the items you mention are in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style. isaacl (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to have an agreement on everything but the home/road thing. Those who disagree on that, and I mean Canuckian and DJSasso, do you still maintain your views, or do you accept lower-case on "home" and "road" when it's within parentheses?

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully, I prefer Home and Road be capitalized in that context as well. If for no other reason than it simply looks better to me. Resolute 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute. Lowercase home/road doesn't look right. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 00:20, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

2013-14 conference standings templates

• {{2013–14 NHL Western Conference standings}}
• {{2013–14 NHL Eastern Conference standings}}

I am inclined to nominate these for deletion, as the NHL does not use a conference standing format any longer, but wanted to see if anyone here felt this would be premature. Particularly given "conference standings" are still available on TSN, ESPN, etc., though probably simply because they haven't removed it. Resolute 13:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO, they're still useful for general information purposes, and the NHL still lists the conference standings on their page too ([6]). Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 19:03, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

The standing are relevant for the 4th seed in the play-offs for each division as cross-over/wild card team. Whether they need to be included in each team's season article is of course a different question. CRwikiCA talk 20:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to delete them right now. Does anyone know the definitive playoff procedure? I'm not well versed in it, and ESPN.com's conference standings gives division leaders the 1 and 2 seeds, while NHL.com does not. I'm more inclined to believe the league's website though. In theory, couldn't a team have the 6th most points in the conference, but still miss the playoffs because they aren't one of the two wild cards? Tampabay721 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Under the new division playoff system, there's no reason to seed division leaders as 1 and 2, so I'm assuming that's why the NHL changed how they do their conference standings. As for the wild cards, yes, that could happen if the top three teams in a weak division get so few points that they have less than the top five teams in the other division. But, I don't think that's too likely to happen. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 02:31, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's too likely either. IMO, I'd give the season a few weeks, maybe no more than a month, just to wait for the movements in the standings to settle a little when there aren't teams jumping several positions after one win. Then we'd probably see if they're really that relevant to have. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• NHL.com has added "Wild Card" standings.[7] Those are more useful now, first listing the top 3 teams in each division and then showing all the other teams fighting for the wild card spots. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty neat. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 06:13, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see a day when the NHL had wild card standings like MLB, haha. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Did a rough draft of a test template here, just kicking around ideas. Same col format as the conference standings. –B2Project^(Talk) 07:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

There might be some added value in changing the conference standings into such a 2x top-3 + wild card table. The basic setup is good, it might be good to add some spacing between the 3 tables. In addition, a note below stating something to the effect of "The top 3 teams in each division and the two remaining teams with the best record qualify for the Eastern/Western conference play-offs." Two additional design choices would be to include the division in the table or not and whether or not to include position numbers. The way the position numbers are done on the NHL website, starting from #1 three times, might not be ideal. The only alternative is 1–16 (1–14 in the west), with the possibility that it is confusing. CRwikiCA talk 11:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The terminology bugs me because it isn't a wildcard (a la baseball) so much as a crossover system (a la the CFL). But in this case, we have to work with what they give us.  ;) I would definitely support replacing the conference standing templates with B2project's wild card template. As a thought though - would it make sense to remove the division leaders aspect of that template, given it will always be presented alongside the divisional templates themselves? Seems a little redundant given the way we present the tables. Resolute 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think removing the division leaders from the Wild Card template is a good idea, since all the season pages already have the division standings on them. All we really need is the bottom "Wild Card" portion, with perhaps a note saying how the top two teams qualify as wild cards for the playoffs. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 23:59, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

• Made some changes and added an explanation with a source. I think leaving the division leaders may be beneficial in the sense that we can add a ^{(SEED #)} to generate the seeds for all 8 teams like the MLB divisional templates do. –B2Project^(Talk) 03:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks good. The amount of text in the note is maybe a bit on the long side, but there is a lot of necessary information in there. I didn't know that both #4 in each division could be switched based on point total going into the play-off. This does make it more of a wild-card thing rather than a cross-over situation, where only a #5 would switch to a different divisional play-off bracket. In relation to some of the other comments, would it be possible to collapse the top-3's? CRwikiCA talk 11:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it may be better to just link to Stanley Cup playoffs#2013 realignment for an explanation of the playoff format, rather than duplicate the information on every page. If there is interest, I could make a template similar to Template:MLB standings that could be used to generate the standings tables. If there is interest, I would investigate designing the template so the results for all thirty teams could be placed in one season standings template, and then a parameter to the template would be used to specify which standings table to generate: divisional, conference, division leaders, or wild card. This could, however, discourage editors from updating the results if they had to update all thirty results at once rather than, say, a single division, so I'm not sure if this consolidation would be a net benefit. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Should a wild card rank be added to {{Infobox NHL team season}}? Tampabay721 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We could, but I don't really think it is that important, myself. It seems to me that a parameter for playoff results is missing entirely though, and adding that would take care of it. Resolute 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the right forum to introduce my first attempt at transforming the Eastern Conference Standings into something that is more useful to the user. The format is modelled after the format used by Major League Baseball in the 2013 season. Please note that this is a first attempt and further edits need to be made.

Top-3 Atlantic Division

R		Div	GP	W	L	OTL	ROW	GF	GA	Pts
1	Toronto Maple Leafs	AT	7	6	1	0	5	27	16	12
2	Detroit Red Wings	AT	7	5	2	0	5	18	16	10
3	Montreal Canadiens	AT	6	4	2	0	4	20	10	8

Top-3 Metropolitan Division

R		Div	GP	W	L	OTL	ROW	GF	GA	Pts
1	Pittsburgh Penguins	ME	6	5	1	0	5	23	15	10
2	Carolina Hurricanes	ME	7	2	2	3	2	15	21	7
3	New York Islanders	ME	6	2	2	2	1	19	17	6

Wild Card Teams

R		Div	GP	W	L	OTL	ROW	GF	GA	Pts
1	Tampa Bay Lightning	AT	6	4	2	0	3	23	15	8
2	Boston Bruins	AT	5	3	2	0	3	12	8	6
3	Ottawa Senators	AT	6	2	2	2	2	15	19	6
4	Columbus Blue Jackets	ME	5	2	3	0	1	12	12	4
5	Washington Capitals	ME	6	2	4	0	1	17	22	4
6	Florida Panthers	AT	7	2	5	0	2	16	28	4
7	New Jersey Devils	ME	6	0	3	3	0	11	21	3
8	Buffalo Sabres	AT	8	1	6	1	0	11	21	3
9	New York Rangers	ME	5	1	4	0	1	9	25	2
10	Philadelphia Flyers	ME	7	1	6	0	1	10	20	2

Divisions: AT – Atlantic, ME – Metropolitan
After games of October 15, 2013

Juve2000 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, though per the discussion above, I don't think we really need the "top three" part of the table. The full division standings will be close by. Also, unless the NHL itself uses the "d" and "w" notation, I would simply leave the abbreviations as they have been in the past... x, y and z. Otherwise, I would definitely support this modification! Resolute 00:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Keep in mind if we leave out the top 3 standings we will not see the top 3 from the other division in the conference in the individual team pages.Juve2000 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I like what's being done with this, but one thing that bothers me is that it's kind of misleading: the three teams with the most points (as the season progresses) are not necessarily the three best-positioned teams, given that scheduling results in some teams having played more games than others. Could we rank them not on points, but rather points-per-game? Kind of like how baseball does with the percentage, but adapted to fit the NHL. -- Irn (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is, in fact, how the NHL does rank teams, though a winning percentage field is not typically used in hockey. But per the league's tiebreakers, fewest games played is the first. That is simply an error in updating on our tables. Resolute 01:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think one of us is misunderstanding the other, and I'm not sure who that is. According to the nhl.com rankings, right now, Detroit is in third place in the Atlantic with 13 points over 11 games and Tampa is in fourth with 10 points over 8 games. That gives Detroit 1.18 points per game and Tampa 1.25, which should put Tampa ahead of Detroit. -- Irn (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We, as Wikipedia users, don't have a say in the matter of how teams are ranked. Points per game is not a factor in the NHL standings, so we can't place a team above another just because they have been more productive. Tampa Bay will have their chance to catch/pass Detroit by earning points in the games they haven't played yet. Regardless, those two particular teams will have played the same amount of games by the end of games played on 10/29, so their productivity won't really matter then. One team will either have more points than the other or they will have the same amount and their placement will be based on total non-shootout victories, and if that is equal, their difference in total goals scored and goals against. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of: we just have to follow the sources, even when the sources use a stupid method of ranking because the NHL ranking is the ranking. But what are the criteria for columns? Do we have to follow the NHL on that as well, or could we at least add a column for points-per-game? It could be made so that it just calculates automatically, like the average in the MLB standings templates. -- Irn (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You could certainly suggest it. Wikipedia is all about consensus though (see: Wikipedia:Consensus), so based on the opinions of others, it may or may not end up being included. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I could? Is this not the place for that? -- Irn (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I did misunderstand you. But yes, the NHL ranks by points first and foremost. And in my personal opinion, while we could put a points percentage field into the tables, I don't see any great reason to. It will all wash out by the end of the season. Resolute 13:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't say there's any "great reason" to include it, but I would really like to see it. And you're right that once the season ends, it won't matter. But these templates often get updated at the end of every game day during the regular season, and since points-per-game is much more meaningful than mere points and is only a simple computation, I think it would be really useful to include it. -- Irn (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say if its not in the generally published tables that various sources use then we shouldn't use it. We follow the trends of reliable sources, we don't interpret and make the trends. Really points only is all that maters until season is over anyways. There is a difference between a standings table and a playoff position table. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"points only is all that maters until season is over" - This is where I disagree, and why I want to see points per game. During the season, points are misleading. (I can explain this more if you don't see why.) Once the season is over, points are all that matter (unless you need a tie-breaker). However, I understand that we follow the sources, and no one seems to agree with me, anyway, so I see no real point in pursuing this further.-- Irn (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we dropping the idea of presenting the conference standings differently? What are the rules for the current presentation? Do the division leaders get the top two spots or will we go strictly in points order, no matter the division. This would mean six teams from one division could be in the top eight in our classification. I just wish to reiterate that we should change the format.Juve2000 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say to go ahead and WP:BEBOLD and change the two templates to match your proposed format. They are certainly more informative than the current style given the new seeding procedures. Resolute 00:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the format. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 03:25, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

The only major problem I see with this that I didn't think about until now is that you can no longer sort any of the columns for the entire conference which takes away a major purpose of the table. For example I can see a ranking of entire conference in Goals For etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I liked being able to sort the entire conference by goals for, goals against, etc... as well. The main purpose of the table is to indicate playoff teams (but those would have been marked as such at the end of the season, like in previous years). Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 00:23, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

True, but given the tables have only 14 or 16 entries, I don't see sorting to be more important than disseminating information about the standings. Most people can sort such a small table internally. Resolute 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A simple hat note next to the playoff teams would probably solve the issue would it not? -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

United States Olympic FLC

Just a heads up that the United States Olympic ice hockey players FLC could use some more sets of eyes, if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Anthony (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Still looking for more editors to review this FLC - it's one of the oldest ones still going. Thanks, Anthony (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Flames honored number program

Is the Flames program to honor numbers intended to be done instead of retiring them, Like in Toronto; or is it a two tier system, like in St. Louis, where some of their great players have their numbers honored, and the most elite have them retired? This program seems unclear to me. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear to everyone, really, until they start adding more players and we get a better sense of things. The team stated at the time that The "Forever a Flame" program has replaced the retiring of numbers entirely. It is the top honour going forward. That does not affect the official retirement of McDonald and Vernon's numbers. Nor, likely, will it affect the unofficial retirement of 12 and 14. The Flames organization has also transferred the idea to the other teams they own - Kaleb Toth is the first member of the "Forever a Roughneck" program, for instance. Resolute 22:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So the Blues are the only team that has an honored number program that also retires numbers for the most elite? This would be good to mention in the article List of NHL retired numbers. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is an article or publication that makes that statement, absolutely! Resolute 14:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TV and radio broadcasts of Nordiques games in English

Did the Nordiques have TV and radio broadcasts of their games in English in Quebec City? The article says that there has only been one privately-owned English local TV station and no privately-owned English radio stations, but it doesn't say whether games were aired locally in English or not. XEWW AM 690, a Spanish news/talk radio station, airs local broadcasts of USC football games in English when there is a conflict with a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game on KSPN AM 710. Does anyone know if there were broadcasts of Nordiques games in English on French stations in Quebec City? This would give the article more detail. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Through most of the 80's and 90's CFAP was the rights holder, and they are French only. My understanding is that the only English games were CBC Saturday games from Montreal received by cable subscribers. Not sure if that is helpful at all.18abruce (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

NHL outdoor games

Following a long running (albeit lightly commented) split discussion at Talk:NHL Winter Classic, I've completed a split of this article into NHL outdoor games that can feature as an overview on all three of the NHL's outdoor series. I'll pick up NHL Heritage Classic and move it past stub status, but this new article, and the Winter Classic article can both use some cleanup and assistance from interested editors. Resolute 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Shinny and Pond hockey

The pages Shinny and Pond hockey each describe an informal variation of ice hockey, and each page allows that its title is a synonym for the other. If these are two different things, the differences should be made clear in each article. If they are two different names for the same thing, the pages should be merged. Cnilep (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they are separate entities, in the sense that I can't think of an umbrella term for both of them, unless they go in the main ice hockey article. Shinny can be played on a pond, but also anywhere else. Pond hockey can be a formal game (not really shinny) played outside. I think they are variations on a theme, rather than strict synonyms, in the sense that I wouldn't ever use the terms interchangeably. Canada Hky (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Pro hockey team

Would someone please expand the “Championships” section of Template:Pro hockey team to include a field for the Adams Cup as CPHL/CHL champions. Dolovis (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

does this work? Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As a work-a-round it works fine. Thank you. But I would still like to see the field added to the template if possible. Dolovis (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might make more sense to go the other way and remove the trophy specific fields in favour of the customizable ones. Allows us to custom configure for any future scenario. That said, I do say this knowing it would be a fair bit of work and that I am personally unlikely to perform much of it, so feel free to disregard my comment. Resolute 23:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured content nominations in need of your review and input

The following articles are currently up for Featured status nomination:

• Paul Henderson - Featured Article nominee, discussion open since 19 October. nominator: @Resolute:
• List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States - Featured List nominee, discussion open since 1 October.. nominator: @FutureNJGov:
• List of Detroit Red Wings award winners - Featured List nominee, discussion open since 12 November. nominator: Rejectwater

Your review and input in these discussions would be greatly appreciated. Also, if there are other articles up for review, please list them here as well. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Henderson and List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States have both been promoted. Good jobs by @Resolute: and @FutureNJGov:. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The US Olympic list hasn't been promoted yet, but I appreciate the support nonetheless haha. Anthony (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was moved to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log at 16:23, 22 November 2013‎ and listed at Wikipedia:Featured lists a few minutes later. The bot that usually archives the discussion, updates the article talk page, and adds the star to the article is broken, so those things haven't happened yet, but it has been promoted. Once again, congratulations, and good work. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In case you have any lingering doubts, it's also listed in the closure log as promoted at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. I went ahead and updated the article and talk pages manually due to the bot issues. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please contribute to a discussion on amending MOS language with respect to date formats

Hello - there is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date range redux to come to a final resolution the way dates for club tenure in infoboxs are displayed (e.g. - with a club from 2001–2007 or 2001–07). If you have an opinion one way or the other, please take part. The value in coming to a final resolution (either having language added to allow 8 digit date spans for this purpose or expressly forbidding it) is that it would provide certainty to these cases and stop needless reverting of this format one way or the other. If you do take part, please be sure to ground your arguments/opinions in fact, Wikipedia precedent and real world examples as opposed to preference only as this will help the project make the right call. There are thousands of articles (touched by thousands of editors) that use summary club tenure information in infoboxes, so there is clearly an advantage to settling it in a clear manner so all can comply. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Russian Olympic peer review

Hey guys, I've started a PR for List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Russia here. Any and all comments are welcome before I submit it to FLC - the plan is to get the Big Seven done before Sochi :) Anthony (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible issues regarding NHL lawsuit

As some of you may have heard, 10 former NHL player filed a lawsuit against the league today regarding concussions. In the interests of those 10 players and BLP concerns, I think it may be important we keep an eye on their pages. I don't anticipate any issues, but who knows how some people may act. As I understand, the 10 players are:

• Brad Aitken
• Darren Banks
• Curt Bennett
• Richard Dunn
• Warren Holmes
• Gary Leeman
• Bob Manno
• Blair Stewart
• Morris Titanic
• Rick Vaive

Like I said, I don't think there should be any problems; most of these guys are not what I'd call notable; however it could be an issue, and I don't think any of us want to deal with that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)