Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive6

Biography assessments

Hello boys and girls. As some of you may know, the WikiProject on biographies is trying to classify the existing biography articles in terms of quality of the articles and importance of the subject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale for details). You may have noted the {{WPBiography}} template appearing on talk pages of some articles on your watchlist. I don't believe that any hockey bio should get the Top importance status as even the Great One has had very limited impact outside the hockey world and is pretty much unknown outside the handful of countries that play hockey. But there should be a few High importance ("Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin". Gretzky is already rated as a "high importance" bio) and mid importance ("Important in their discipline.") and this is where I think you all could help. For instance what would you all consider as the twenty or so most significant figures in hockey history? Of course, there are a few unquestionnable candidates like Wayne Gretzky, Maurice Richard, Bobby Orr but I'm also interested in having a few names from the coaches, and builders which have had significant impact. Thanks for your help. Pascal.Tesson 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. In addition to your list, I'd include the following players in High: Jacques Plante, Clint Benedict, Newsy Lalonde, Eddie Shore, Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe; players who've permanently shaped the game and whose impact goes well beyond the scoresheet and record books. (I can't think of any active player who might be worthy of that list other than Hasek.) For builders, I would have Frank Patrick, Frank Calder, Art Ross, Clarence Campbell and Mickey Ion, and that's about it. RGTraynor 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't have to do specifically with WikiProject Biography's own assessments, but I have a feeling that our own project might want to invest setting up an assessment scale of our own, so that we can work on articles better scaled depending on the view of this project itself, and not a project which encompasses every biography on Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious that, for example, a player like Ed Belfour would probably be High to us, but probably not even break Mid-level importance to their project. Resident Lune 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, Belfour would have to be a "Mid" at best; all he is is one of the most prominent NHL goalies of the last two decades. He's not even the best goalie of that time (I doubt many would rate him over Hasek, Roy and Brodeur, at least), and he hasn't done anything of which I've heard to revolutionize the practice of goaltending for hockey at large. IMHO, the only goalies in history to whom that applies are Plante and Benedict. RGTraynor 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of assessing hockey articles on importance to this project and the hockey world in general. Perhaps we could implement this and include it in WP:HOCKEY template? Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? CptUnconscious 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, this way it's easier too get working on hockey related articles beeing fetured on Wikipedia main page. --Krm500 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles Kings

Is it really necessary to have 96 citations, most of which are absolutely pointless?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Kings#Current_squad

J-Roc 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Got to admit, he's definitely thorough, and he gets full marks for totally barnstorming the article as a whole with references and citations. But you are right, the citations in the roster section are a bit overkill. Generally the link to the roster on another page (like a roster on the team's website or TSN or whatever) will cover all those things, so citations for trades is a bit much, unless it was in the body of the article and covering recent team history. Resident Lune 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Citations are great, but I've noticed that many people go overboard with them, and this is a prime example. There is no need to use a citation to prove that any player plays for that team. Simply listing a roster page in the References section is more than sufficient.

I asked over in the LA Kings discussion if I did it right when I finished adding all the citations (after there was some discussion about the citation format). No one said anything... *shrug*. Gmatsuda 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt all the citations added were great. They pretty much answer and add reference to anything and everything that would even need a reference in the team's article, and so you did an awesome job in tracking down all of that and then using them in a uniform manner. But there comes a point where a little leeway can be allowed. For example, just linking to TSN's roster for the team covers practically all members on the article's roster with the exception of around 4-5 of the forwards. In that regard, the specific links that point out that all these players are, indeed, with the Kings via signings or tradings becomes too much.

I didn't notice the conversation in the Discussion section for the team, so I can't comment on that ... my watchlist tends to move a mile a minute, and I don't always have a lot of time to fish through discussions, unfortunately, unless it's with the Project discussion page itself. In any event, I just think that the citations for specific players isn't needed. And soon enough once the King's update their page, or TSN or ESPN update their rosters accordingly, it'll be just fine with one of those three as the link above the roster itself. Resident Lune 05:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As a freelance writer covering the Kings, I have access to media guides, official NHL publications and other information provided by the Kings Communications department, so it wasn't hard to find all the source material for the citations. Gmatsuda 05:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Reports

I've noticed that Tomas Kaberle's page has a "Scouting Report" section which is essentially all POV statements about him. Should I simply remove this section and merge any relevant information into the Playing Career section? And should I do this with any similar pages I find? Also is it possible to get rid of that god awful "Czech national team at the 2006 ice hockey world championships" template? It's very useless, large and unattractive. CptUnconscious 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In a couple words, yes and yes. Blast any POV you find, and if you want to list the template on WP:TFD I would vote for its deletion. BoojiBoy 15:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove it. If you come across other questionable text run a sentence or two through google to see if it got lifted. I couldn't find this material specifically, but occasionally someone will copy & paste from sites like hockeysfuture.com ccwaters 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That horrid template has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Czech ice hockey team at WCH 2006). And I fixed the Kaberle page. CptUnconscious 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better. I read the scouting report in the history, and frankly, it read like a copyvio. Nice rewrite of the article. Resolute 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just redid Matt Stajan and yesterday I did Pavel Kubina too. It's frustrating to see so much POV drivel in these articles. CptUnconscious 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is precicely why I tend to avoid biographies of individuals. It is far easier to remain npov with team articles. Even teams I hate. Resolute 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Quebec HC vs Quebec Bulldogs

I finally finished the last provincial list of hockey teams (thanks to those who have been making corrections and additions, btw!), however in doing the Quebec page, I came across both Quebec HC and Quebec Bulldogs. Near as I can tell, these articles are referring to the same franchise. Anyone with a greater understanding of the history of 19th century hockey care to confirm before I change Quebec HC into a redirect to Quebec Bulldogs? Resolute 17:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were. RGTraynor 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article should have been deleted then turned into a redirect. But it's no big deal i guess. Masterhatch 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

70.27.141.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another one to watch... this guy is pushing POV mainly in CHL articles - see [1] for one example. Here's another: [2] I've added warning templates and have been debating on the guy's talk page, but I'd appreciate it if you guys (particularly you administrator guys) could keep an eye out as well. If he keeps it up I'll report it. BoojiBoy 20:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reported him at WP:AIV as he has not responded to warnings. Please keep an eye out. BoojiBoy 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on article

Just updated the Frölunda HC article and just wanted too get some neutral pov comments on the article. What more should be there and what shouldn't be there. I know that the text hasn't been formatted yet but I'll get to that in a short while. You can see on the discussion page what's next in line, some of which is done but not yet uploaded. --Krm500 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested articles list

There should a very brief mentioning of the relationship requested article has to Wikiproject Ice hockey. For example: Allan Bester (goalkeeper) or Mike Kelly (hockey) (coach & executive). This would help get the research process underway, and prevent ambiguity if any. Flibirigit 12:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(IHL) team categories

I understand that some of the categories for IHL teams (ex: Category:Grand Rapids Griffins (IHL) players, Category:Peoria Rivermen (IHL) players) require the (IHL) designation in them, because there are active AHL teams with those same names. I also understand the reasoning behind Category:Phoenix Roadrunners (IHL) players, as there was a WHA team with the same name. In other categories, however, I feel the (IHL) part of the name is unnecessay. I propose these categories (and possibly more I have missed) have their names changed, with the (IHL) removed: Category:Cincinnati Cyclones (IHL) players, Category:Indianapolis Ice (IHL) players, Category:Kalamazoo Wings (IHL) players, Category:Long Beach Ice Dogs (IHL) players, Category:Salt Lake Golden Eagles (IHL) players, Category:San Diego Gulls (IHL) players. I see that the reasoning behind the (IHL) in these categories is that these team names have been used in other lower minor leagues. However, since no other teams in those lower minor leagues (WCHL, ECHL, CHL, UHL) have categories for their players, it should be inherent that the categories in question are for the IHL alumni of those teams. I hope that made sense. Skudrafan1 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and list them for renaming at WP:CFD. BoojiBoy 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Booji, I'll do that. I've never listed anything for renaming before, so I thought I'd come here first and make sure I wasn't way off base. :) Skudrafan1 20:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

List of ice hockey terminology

I was looking through other sports today and noticed they all had an article for terminology (i.e. Baseball jargon, Glossary of basketball terms, Golf glossary, etc.) and I couldn't find one for hockey, so I made List of ice hockey terminology. Please add more stuff and correct stuff I wrote (I wrote the article rather hastily). Comments on what I've included would also be appreciated, thanks. CptUnconscious 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More category name changes

After my crusade against (IHL) categories, I've discovered a couple (AHL) categories which I feel need to have their names changed. You can find that discussion here. While there, check out the Moncton Hawks redirect to Moncton Hawks (AHL). It is completely unnecessary, no? I have contacted the user who originally made the move, so he can defend it on the article's talk page if he is so inclined. Skudrafan1 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugly Infobox

Why is the MLB infobox so much nicer than the NHL one? The colors look bad, there's extra information that nobody cares about (TV affiliates???) and they also should be wider. I'd make a new infobox but I dunno...--Sportskido8 16:30 EST, 23 August 2006

I think its nice, much better then the old one. But if you have any suggestions please post a link to an example of the MLB infobox and say what you would like too change on the NHL infobox. And here is more discussions about the infobox, Template talk:NHL Team Infobox --Krm500 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a new infobox, not too much different from the old one but a little more condensed, and with uniforms. It's called "NHL Team2" and it's up on the Devils team page right now. Any thoughts? --Sportskido8 17:39 EST, 23 August 2006

Sorry I didn't like it. But the idea with the uniforms was a good idea that I think could be worked in to the old template. --Krm500 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Too much information comapred to the current box was taken away. Additionally, the uniforms field seem a bit much, especially considering how often uniforms changes and how many third jerseys some teams can adopt. If we wanted a uniform pic, one could just easily go to NHLuniforms.com and look at the team's uniform history there. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, it is not TV affiliates, but media affiliates, meaning that it also encompasses radio affiliates. At least to me, there is importance in recognizing a hockey team's affiliates to the media, mainly because it is not as readily available as the other three major sports in North America. So in terms of importance? It may not work for an NFL team, but it can for an NHL team.

Like I said in the comment I left when reverting the box on the Devils' page, it was very bulky and had an unneeded amount of width to the box. The old box -- seen in this example [3] -- was also bulky, unwieldly, and generally not aethstatically appealing.

Additionally, too much information was removed from the box in your version. "City"? A short but simple "History" which touches on the previous names for the team throughout the years? The "Owner", which in many cases the owner is important. See the New York Islanders and their ongoing drama with owner Charles Wang as a prime example. And then the lack of "Minor League Affiliates."

You may not like the infobox, but as the person who made the current de facto one, I am rather offended at the labelling of it as "ugly". In the future, please consider a more constructive way of criticizing or critiquing it. Resident Lune 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the reasoning for the revert on the Devils attempt. I like the attempt, but the jersey images made it way too wide. Personally, I prefer the look of the infoboxes used for CHL teams (ie: Calgary Hitmen) compared to the ones with NHL teams. If we are going to do away with the facts section, I would like to see the infobox updated to include division, conference and league championships. Resolute 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me about a half hour at the least, and I think I can cook up an example of what they'd look like with all the championship labels. I know I have some earlier revision stashed away somewhere. Resident Lune 00:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I've added titles to the box. Additionally, I've added +5 to the infobox's width in terms of em on the code page for the template. An example of a team with numerous titles can be seen at the Detroit Red Wings where I already added the titles in. Feel free to give feedback. I'm concerned about the length of the box, but I'll understand if the majority like the titles in it. I should be back in a while. Resident Lune 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for calling your box ugly, but it kind of was. Let me just say what's on my mind. I promise this is all constructive and I'm not trying to pick a fight here.

1. "Media Affiliates" needs to be banned from the infobox. Nobody is reading that article for the media affiliates. It is extra information that should not be in an encyclopedia article.
2. "Team Colors" is redundant. We see them on the top of the infobox so you don't need that either obviously.
3. City? Hmm, I wonder what city the Detroit Red Wings play in. I understand that some teams like the Devils and Islanders don't list the city in the team name, but the majority of them do and it is a waste of space.
4. Minor league affiliates can be mentioned elsewhere, like at the bottom of the article. But it's not as bad as the other things listed above.
5. The infobox can be a little wider than it is right now, it doesn't have to be anorexic. Look how deep the Red Wings one is digging down.
6. The owner is really not as important as you're making it sound, and the Islanders example is a rare one where you even know what the owner's name is. That can really be deleted to and mentioned somewhere else.

Everything else is good. Uniforms, in my opinion, need to be in the infobox somehow or some way. Look at how the MLB infoboxes incorporate them. If they ever change it is very easy to make a new picture of them. Is there a way to put them in? --Sportskido8 20:30 EST, 23 August 2006

Disagree on media affiliates and minor league affiliates. Both are useful information, and well suited to the info box. Agree on team colors, city (its mentioned in the first paragraph. Personally, I do not believe uniforms are required in the infobox. Frankly, I think they are the ugliest part of the baseball info box. Resolute 01:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but hockey uniforms look cooler than MLB uniforms. I hate to neglect the uniforms out of the entire article. --Sportskido8 21:15 EST, 23 August 2006

1. I disagree, and I have stated my reasoning behind it. But that doesn't mean I won't remove it if other people feel the same way. At the moment I've never heard of any complaints about that section from anyone else between the template's creation and now.
2. "Team Colors" is not redundant due to the fact that many a color may not be recognizable by its color alone. How many people naturally think "Royal Blue" when they see the Maple Leafs? Or before the name and jersey changes, people weren't sure if the Ducks were eggplant or something else. How about the "Burgundy" of the Avs, or the "Brick Red" and "Sand" colors of the Coyotes? These are specific, not easily recognizable colors, and so the specific color is nice to know.
3. "City". Once again you're only using Major League Baseball as an example of the only template lacking a specific city section. Here's a great example from an NFL team ... the Dallas Cowboys. Dallas, right? Wrong. Irving, Texas. Beyond that, there are eight teams in the NHL with either a misleading name or a state name. Phoenix Coyotes? Glendale, Arizona. Carolina Hurricanes? Which Carolina and which city, exactly? These articles are supposed to be for the comprehension of any and all people who read them, and not just for people who know about these details and follow hockey. That is one of the key prerequisites for an article to reach FA status, and putting it as some minor footnote in the mass of an article's body would not do.
4. "Minor League Affiliates" are a very important aspect of teams and the NHL in general, and I do not agree with the relocation of that to anywhere else in the article.
5. "Owners" have the same rationale as city to me, where it is an important thing to mention in an infobox, and not have somewhere in the article body.

You place much, much too much emphasis on the infobox for Major League Baseball teams, if I may be so bold to say. Meanwhile, this infobox is an attempt to pick and choose some of the better aspects of the other infoboxes for the other professional sports in North America, as well as the prior NHL infobox before this one was made.

If you really would like to add jerseys for each team, consider going the route of the Atlanta Thrashers page where they are staggered across the team's article so that they do not make the infobox itself unwieldly and half the size of a 1024x768 screen resolution. Resident Lune 01:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything at this point I just wish the box could be wider. Look at all the blank white space between the table of contents and the infobox. I'd rather see the box take that up instead of having the consequence of the box digging down into the article. That's why I suggested cutting some things from the box...to make room for the championship information. As for the MLB infobox, I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's very well polished, that's all. --Sportskido8 12:38 EST, 24 August 2006

The problem with trying to eliminate white space is that each person's computer monitor is not the same size, and will resolves the page differently, thus having different amounts of white space, depending on the monitor size or resolution. What looks like alot of white space on your computer, may be just perfect on others. Flibirigit 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the standard infobox, which was created by consensus here earlier this summer. Leave it be. BoojiBoy 01:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's a lot wrong with it. See my comment right above yours. --Sportskido8 21:07 EST, 23 August 2006

There may be nothing wrong with the current box, but there is no reason why we can't consider options for improving it. Personally, I like Resident Lune's change, especially with the removal of the facts section. Resolute 01:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read your comment. Point stands. BoojiBoy 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Rough early morning. Alright, here's what I've done since last night and this morning. Depending on the response of the community, I can revert or even add other things depending on what people like and do not like.

1. I've added a section for Stanley Cups, Conference Championships, and Division Championships. As a rule of note, when adding the pertinent information for these sections to the box? For the best alignment, as you can see with the Detroit Red Wings for example, simply use the second year of a season to denote which year a Cup/Conference/Division was one. So for 1996-1997, simply say 1997 with a link to that season.
2. I've enlarged the size of the logo for each team from 125px to 150px. I'm still for keeping the alternate logos out and placing them elsewhere in a team's page, if only because at the very least it adds to the article as a whole to have at least one image on an article. Take the Columbus Blue Jackets for example who, at least right now, have no other images. It also allows for an explanation of the logo, which most third jersey alternate logos tend to need.
3. I've accomodated for a larger infobox width-wise. The em number on the box was originally 20, but now it's 28. Why such an awkward number? Because that's just enough so that the longest title for a category -- Conference Championships -- is not broken down in to two lines. Doing this has now made the box larger in width than the previous incarnation from over a month and a half ago, however because of the added lines between sections, as well as smaller font, the box still keeps that cleaner, tidier look which it originally lacked in the first place.

These are all just probationary changes depending on overall feedback, but hopefully these are welcome changes. Resident Lune 12:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I rather see breaklines then the width of the new design. The old one was just fine. --Krm500 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Devils page

If anybody wants to join my quest of getting the New Jersey Devils team page to FA-status then feel free to. I guess it's not quite there yet, but it's on its way.

P.S. If the peer review critics don't care about the infobox then I guess I don't care any more. I just hope they don't say anything bad about it. --Sportskido8 16:45 EST, 24 August 2006

First of all there should be a better picture of Brodeur then a hockey card, and the resolution on the retired numbers are also questionable. That's the first thing I would change. --Krm500 10:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find a legal picture of Marty, but it ain't easy. The retired numbers are small and clear, are they not?

Actually I might have taken a few pics of Brodeur myself. I'll go check the archives. --Sportskido8 9:45 EST, 25 August 2006

Refactoring

They're coming fast and furious, so I've set up a 5th archive page. RGTraynor 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

69.156.156.23 (talk · contribs)

Who is this guy and why does he write these biased things? An admin should take a look at him and maybe bam him. --Krm500 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This user did not have a warning yet. So, I left the user a note. -- JamesTeterenko 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

24.79.60.31 at it again

24.79.60.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who we have previously discussed here and here, is at it again, pushing POV, converting spelling in American team articles to en-CA and his usual MO. Keep your eyes out for him. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just reverted more changes by 24.79.60.31 on the LA Kings page...same crap. Gmatsuda 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And I have just revert similar damage on the pages for the Blues, Stars, Ducks and Thrashers. What really frustrates me about this guy is that I've reported him in both WP:RFI and WP:AN/I and the admins have nothing to deal with him. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reported him at WP:AN/I for his latest behavior. I'm hoping something is done to curb this user's antics. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

player weight reliability

I just reverted a number of edits by 68.39.163.15 (talk · contribs) that were changing the weight listed for various players. I spot checked a number of them with the external links noted on the player pages and if none were there, I checked hockeydb.com. Seeing that they were all more consistent with the previous version and this IP has vandalised in the past, I reverted the edits. However, since many of the weights I did find on reliable web sites were not consistent among one another, this got me thinking about what we should do regarding a players weight. Some questions that popped into mind are:

1. Do we have a reliable source that we should use for player weights?
2. What about for retired players?
3. Should we be verifying this information on a regular basis, as it will fluctuate from year-to-year, and even within the season?
4. Should we put an "as of <date>" tag on the weights?
5. Given these challenges, is it really encyclopedic enough to include this information for players?

-- JamesTeterenko 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel weight is overly important nor critical to the article. Flibirigit 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO

1. I would look at the teams official page, NHL.com or NHLPA.com.
2. Don't see any use for it.
3. Maybe check it once a new season starts, but not as a rule that it has too be done.
4. No.
5. For active player, yes.

--Krm500 07:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Player height and weight has never been reliable. (Heck, Rob DiMaio's listed as 5'10". I'm 5'10" and when we met, I looked down on him.) Short players are boosted to make them seem less teensy, chubby players are reported at the weight they wish to be. I just read an autobiography from Phil Esposito this week where he said that after being traded to Boston, Milt Schmidt asked him to come in at 205. He was 220 at the time, slimmed down to 210, and it was deemed all good. He was reported in at 205, listed as the same for the entirety of his career, and that's what you read in Total Hockey now if you pull up Espo's weight. All of that being said, Wikipedia's standard isn't whether something's true, it's whether the information is verifiable. RGTraynor 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at WikiProject Football

I just looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and noticed how much more organized it looks and how much the hockey project could be improved. I think that it has been up for discussion earlier, the quality of the hockey related articles and their importance on our project and on the bios project and etc. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has their own Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment, why not do the same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey? This might push us too make the articles better and hopefully get some more articles featured. How about it? --Krm500 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Come on, no takers? --Krm500 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's a good idea. But I think a lot of people are away for the Labour Day weekend. I am all for peer assessment. Flibirigit 03:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would love to do this at once but since I don't have that much experience on Wikipedia I wont start anything that I can't handle. But only one reply so far, is there no one else who feels that this is something to push for? --Krm500 18:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Serioulsy, I did expect more then one answer. Is there no one who agrees with this? My idea (taken from the previous post on the bio/hockey) was too look at and grade the hockey related articles by importance - Top, High, Mid, Low and by th quality - FA, A-Class, GA, B-Class, Start and Stub.

Also organize the project page, maybe add sub pages of new articles, infoboxes, members and etc.

--Krm500 12:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice, possibly, to have such a grading, but it isn't as if our Project members have so much time on their hands as to merit the endless debates over ratings that rating the several hundred hockey articles would provoke. If I had that much spare time, I'd rather just dig in and grab another dozen articles to improve from stubhood. RGTraynor 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone on this project who feels he/she can do the ground work? I could probably start the subpages but too write a good template - no way. --Krm500 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For example, instead of having 200 red links on the front page of the project, how about creating wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Requested articles? One seperate page for infoboxes and one page for all new, articles to improve and here the grading should be done too. --Krm500 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can repair your mistakes. Maybe we can try it for a while a see how it works.--Krm500 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you all look at wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Requested articles I did an example of a infobox/template that could be used for navigation between the diffrent pages within the project. Now this is just the football template with diffrent colors. But what do you think about it? --Krm500 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So I just started, feel free to add more to the template. The idea was to make it easier to navigate on WPH, and to make the main page of the project more readable. Now I just hope that we can get the assesment started as fast as possible. --Krm500 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils

OK, the Devils page failed FA nomination, and it has been (re)submitted for peer review to see what the problems are. We (Sportskido8 and I) would very much appreciate constructive criticism and assistance in moving this towards FA status (or at least GA). Anthony Hit me up... 14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A.T. Smith = Alf Smith?

I was trying to find some information on A.T. Smith, the manager of the Ottawa Silver Seven. However, I have run across a couple sources that indicate A.T. might actually be Alf Smith. To confuse things more, Alf Smith's middle initial is a F. I haven't found anything saying there were two Smith's on the team (other than Harry in 1906). The most compelling source is "The Official NHL Stanley Cup Centennial Book", which says under the winners roster that Alf was the playing coach and nothing about an A.T. on the club. Other books I've found have similar listings List of Stanley Cup Winners. However, Alf's HHOF profile doesn't say anything about him coaching the Silver Seven. What should I do? A re-direct to Alf Smith? Leave it as it is until we find something more definitive? Patken4 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles Coleman does, however, cite that Alf coached the Silver Seven after his retirement (Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol I, p. 655.) RGTraynor 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to find any source, either online or in a book, that says there were two A. Smith's on the Silver Seven. Some sources site the person as A.T. Smith, some as Alf Smith. So I am going to do a re-direct from A.T. Smith to Alf Smith because I have verifiable information that tells me they are the same person. I will, however, wait a couple days before doing this. If someone has information stating they are in fact two different people, please either add it to my talk page or post it here. If no one objects after this period, I will do the re-direct. Patken4 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about Image talk:SelkeGainey.jpg

Anyone verify if the other guy in that photo is really Frank J. Selke? It would be nice to caption that pic and even include it on Frank's article. — MrDolomite | Talk 19:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Columbus Blue Jackets article

Hey, I just wrote a new article for the Jackets because the other one was short and not very informative. I haven't done one before, so any comments or help would be appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Blue_Jackets

J-Roc 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read it all but it looked good when I scanned through the text, good work! --Krm500 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Carol "Cully" Wilson

This page really needs to be trimmed, it's bordering on copyvio and it is 31K, just thought i'd let you guys know. Renosecond 03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1999-2000 or 1999-00?

I figured I would copy/paste a topic from the History of the Philadelphia Flyers talk page, since it applies here. It is improper to list it as 1999-00. In an edit I said, "PLEASE LEAVE IT as 1999-2000, as it isn't 1999-1900 as is implied with 1999-00." Perhaps this is an exaggeration; I think most people might assume that 00 means 2000. Nevertheless, when have you ever heard someone refer to that particular season as 1999-00 or 99-00? It is usually referred to in its full form, 1999-2000, or 99-2000 for short. Perhaps it is typed as such, but it is never said like that. I think the use of 1999-00 shouldn't be changed where it is illogical to do so (see Flyers team standings), but in the article itself I think 1999-2000, the proper form, should be utilized. --Sparkhurst 03:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC) That is all. --Sparkhurst 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

the article was originally written "1999-2000 NHL season", but i changed it almost a year ago (with no protest from anyone) to stay consistant with all the other NHL seasons on wikipedia. 1998-99 NHL season, 1999-00 NHL season, 2000-01 NHL season, etc. looks a lot better than 1998-99 NHL season, 1999-2000 NHL season, 2000-01 NHL season, etc. Also, i think people are smart enough to know that 1999-00 means 1999-2000 and not 1999-1900 as that is a mathematically impossible sequence of years. Masterhatch 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is good reason there was no protest from others regarding the name change since I'm guessing the 1999-2000 NHL season isn't on many watchlists. I think it is a matter of interpretation whether the first sequence of years looks better than the last one. Yes, in season standings lists it would be better to use 1999-00 and there are a few other cases when it would be more logical to use it, but its use should be the exception rather than the rule. --Sparkhurst 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a mundane thing to discuss, but I figured I would drag this discussion here. --Sparkhurst 17:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be 1999-00. I've seen it that way a lot more often than 1999-2000. When talking about something that happened in the 1990s and ended in the 2000s after multiple years, I think the full year should be written, though. i.e. Steve Yzerman was captain from 1986-2006, not 1986-06. Anyone agree? J-Roc 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While wondering which to use in a hockey-related article, 1999-00 or 1999-2000, is something somewhat worth discussing, I forgot to specify what the particular issue was: whether the 99-2000 season article should be changed back to 1999-2000 as it originally was. Whether one chooses to use 1999-00 or 1999-2000, it will link to the article. As far as the second part of your response, I agree, but shouldn't that also hold true for 1999-2000? While they encompass the same season they are different years which start with two different digits. 1999-00 is as incorrect as 1986-06. Also, notice the 1999-2000 NBA season article. --Sparkhurst 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer 1999-00. DMighton 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer 1999-00 as well. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would confuse 1999-00 with "1999-1900". That is not a logical disconnect I see very many people making. Officially, it was the 1999-00 season, and we should be going with what the leagues themselves referred to those seasons as. Resolute 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say people would confuse 1999-00 with 1999-1900. I said it is implied. Officially, the years are not shortened at all (NHL website). With 1998-1999, you can shorten it to 1998-99 because the second year also starts with a 19. This isn't the case for 1999-2000 so it is improper to shorten it. Another official source, the Hockey Hall of Fame, seems to agree with me on this point. --Sparkhurst 08:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I prefer the consistancy of format. 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01 looks much cleaner, and is more consistant. Resolute 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the points I made make it clear that to list it as 1999-00 is improper. Seeing as some people prefer to list it as 1999-00 isn't a big deal and in some circumstances I agree that it is better to use it. But for the title of the season's article it needs to be the proper form, 1999-2000. 1999-00 will re-direct to 1999-2000. --Sparkhurst 05:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

As you all can see there have been some minor changes to the project site. I'm just about to create the assement/AID page but first I would like to hear some comments on how things have been going. Does it feel like this could improve the project? Any ideas or inputs on what should be improved and etc. --Krm500 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the new format. It is easier to follow changes. For the Requested articles page, I would recommend a brief explanation of who or what the article should be about. I have not, and some others mat not have heard of many of the people in this list. Flibirigit 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Great hockey history website

I stumbled across this site while doing research for my article on Calgary's hockey history. It is maintained by the government of Canada, and features reproductions of hundreds of full newspaper articles from the past century. Resolute 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes for SCP articles

I'm crossposting the italicised portion of my post from Talk:2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs because I thought this was a good topical place to mention it. The SCP articles, I have noticed, use the rather lazy method of succession boxes (usually used to link winners of awards together) to lead into other Stanley Cup Playoff articles. What makes this even more glaring is the fact that actual teams that have won Stanley Cups, such as the Hurricanes, DON'T have Stanley Cup Champions succession boxes on their pages.

The succession box at the bottom is, in my opinion, a shoddy way to link the SCP articles together. A better way, I think, would be to create a template listing Stanley Cup Playoff years, in much the same vein as soccer articles do. (Case in point, the template at the bottom of the 2006 UEFA Champions League Final article that enables quick access to any of the years it was played.)

A template box for the SCP pages should probably be necessary. How exactly do you go about making a template?

EDIT: sorry, I forgot to tilde. DamionOWA 05:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help

I am very well knowledged in hockey and the history of the NHL. And would like to help.--Dr. Pizza 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

You guys might wanna add Tommi Santala to your watchlist. People at the Canucks.com forums are depicting him as the next Chuck Norris (again). Last time, the page was so badly vandalized it had to be semiprotected. He's playing well in the preseason so far; expect the vandalism to possibly escalate. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just request semi-protection? Or is this infrequent enough that this wouldn't warrant such an action? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin, so I can semi-protect it myself (and have done so before), but there's no need for it yet. I just want you guys to be aware, just in case it DOES happen. It's kind of infrequent in a way -- it's sporadic. Once the vandalism starts, it arrives in huge waves. But then it quiets down afterwards. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It just started...--Krm500 20:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

68.39.163.15

Does anyone know who this 68.39.163.15 guy is? He makes minor changes in hockey related articles, an extra few pounds here and there and some wrird intros like changes from -"Player was drafted 15th overall" to -"At 6,2, 215 lbs, Player was drafted 15th overall". He also changed the year of both Forsberg's and Ovechkin's pro career start. --Krm500 00:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure who he is. Masterhatch 04:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to make it back

Alright i'm trying to make it back into the routine editing hockey stuff now that summer is over, and i have absolutely no idea what has to be done. I am now armed with much better internet, so if people can tell what has to be done I'm willing to help. Remember that I deal mostly along the lines of actual players and/or general statistics. Thanks. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! did you have a good summer? As for projects, i am not really sure what needs to be done as i haven't been contributing much myself. I have just been slowly working on player creation articles and their respective lists. Masterhatch 04:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)