Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive61

Skater hockey

Skater hockey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? Is this different from roller hockey ? The article says it can be played with quad or inline skates, just like roller hockey has roller hockey (Quad) and roller hockey (Inline) variants. Most of the article seems to be about a particular federation. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• It probably isn't distinctive enough from roller hockey to have a separate article, and probably should be merged to that article. Ravenswing 04:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I think 65.94 has the right idea here with the split request, though I would implement slightly differently. I'd say to move that article to International Inline-Skater hockey Federation (assuming anyone has decent sources?), then retarget the redirect that skater hockey would subsequently become to roller hockey. Resolute 16:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • That would be fine by me. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• IISHF has been moved to International Inline-Skater hockey Federation. I haven't merged the skater hockey info to roller hockey yet though. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

UFA/RFA

This has become an anual occurance, but I'll mention it once more. We should wait until July 1, before we start adding RFA & UFA to the team rosters. FWIW, I won't be deleting them (like I've done in the past), as it's too much hassle. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It would actually be July 5 now, IIRC, but in the end, it hardly makes a difference at this point. There isn't much point reverting back. Resolute 18:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Really the point of those tags is to indicate who will be a UFA/RFA. So if they go up a few weeks early there is no harm because they still are making the point that those players will be those things come July 5th. Personally once the season is over I think its fair game to add them. Just like you are changing the season articles on all the team pages, when the season doesn't technically end until after the awards show per many previous discussions. Not really accurate but not worth reverting on. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky's retired number

Some team articles have the #99 listed in a table, titled (for example) "Edmonton Oilers retired numbers" - my problem with that is that #99 is not an Edmonton Oilers retired number. It's an NHL retired number. If any of these teams split from the NHL, the number would then be free to be used by a player on the team. It's not retired for each individual team's organization. On some articles, there is simply a note about the number being retired league wide, which is the format I think works better and proves more accurate.

The following articles have #99 in a table of that team's retired numbers: Edmonton Oilers, Los Angeles Kings, Phoenix Coyotes, San Jose Sharks, Vancouver Canucks, Colorado Avalanche, Dallas Stars, Minnesota Wild, St. Louis Blues, Winnipeg Jets, Florida Panthers, Montreal Canadiens, Ottawa Senators, Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets, New York Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals

The following articles have a note about #99 being retired and don't include it in a table: Anaheim Ducks, Calgary Flames, Chicago Blackhawks, Nashville Predators, Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Detroit Red Wings, New Jersey Devils, Philadelphia Flyers

The following articles don't mention it at all: Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Islanders

Opinions? Gloss • talk 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Edmonton and Los Angeles retired his number separately from the league action, so it's appropriate for those articles to include it in their team lists. But all other team articles should be consistent. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been a long term ...debate. My personal view is that it shouldn't be mentioned on the team articles, save for the Kings and Oilers. Nashville, Calgary, Florida, etc. did not retire his number, and I don't think it is important to mention on those team articles. It should, of course, be mentioned in the main NHL article. Resolute 23:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason for a retired numbers section is to show which numbers are out of circulation for a team. Since #99 is out of circulation for all teams, the articles should say such, and why. That said, only the Oilers and Kings articles should present the number as having been retired by the team; all others should just mention it in text. oknazevad (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. But, 0, 00, anything with three or more digits and fractions are all out of circulation as well. Mostly, I just don't see the fact that the NHL retired the number to be relevant to the 28 teams that did not retire it individually. I've rarely involved myself in the little fights though. I tend to leave the articles as I find them, with or without the note. Resolute 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really looking for a little fight here, just a solid consensus about how to approach this. Gloss • talk 23:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it seems reasonable to mention in the text of the article, but unnecessary to include in a table of retired numbers. isaacl (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the Kings and Oilers, who actually did retire 99. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 23:52, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above one of the main purposes of that section is to show numbers out of circulation for the team. Who retired it is less inmportant that the fact it was retired and not in circulation for that team. I would also note its consistent with other sports on wikipedia. Baseball for example has #42 retired on all their team pages. -DJSasso (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well with Jackie Robinson's number, every team prominently displays his number. The same's not true for #99. Calidum 01:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• For my part, as long as the retirement is mentioned, I don't give a tinker's damn whether it's In! The! Table! or mentioned in a note, since conformity-for-conformity's-sake doesn't impress me. What does bug me is when people get huffy about the format in which the mention is achieved, and take great pains to change it to their liking. If the Leafs and Islanders articles don't mention it, they should, but that's all the conformity I'm willing to push. Ravenswing 01:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And ... I just added it to the Isles article. It isn't mentioned in the Leafs main article, but there's a separate article for Toronto award winners, in which the club's retired/honoured numbers are mentioned, and Gretzky's mentioned in there. Ravenswing 01:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus here except for the fact that it should be consistent. So unless there is further objection, I'll soon go through all 30 team articles and put the information into a note or some kind of prose form instead of leaving it in the tables. Gloss • talk 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus to put the info at all 30 teams. The NHL retired number 99. Other than the Oilers and Kings, none of the others have retired his number, and it is wrong to list the number as retired by the other 28 teams. List it as retired in the articles for the NHL, Oilers, and Kings; but not at the other 28 teams. Dolovis (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. My read from the comments here was that it should be included, most people just didn't care where. But I'd fully support only including it in the Oilers and Kings' articles. Gloss • talk 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Gloss has implemented what he believes to be consensus on this issue and removed all mention from all of the teams except the Oilers and Kings. Reading the above discussion there were only 3 (Resolute, Dolovis, Gloss) out of the 10 participating who said the information should be removed completely. Roughly the same amount of people said that it should stay in some form or another. And 3 didn't say one way or the other. This appears to me to be no-consensus to remove completely. So could anyone who took part in this discussion who didn't comment one way or the other speak up. And/or could I get others opinions on what the consensus or lack thereof in this discussion is? -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gloss's first interpretation, which was that the information should be included in some form. I don't see any consensus to remove the information completely. isaacl (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that outright removal was a misreading of the consensus, and that the actual consensus was for a note to be included. As I said in my first coment, part of the reason for the section is to let readers know which numbers are out of circulation, and #99 is such for all teams. oknazevad (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus beyond including the retired number in the Oilers, Kings and NHL articles.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But do you see a consensus to remove them...I ask because a no consensus result would result in leaving them on the articles? Just asking for clarification as I was actually going to readd them back in as notes tonight since there was in my opinion no consensus to remove them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No consensus doesn't necessarily result in anything.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. I'd rather they were gone, but we didn't really come to a full agreement on what to do. I take Gloss' action as a valid WP:BOLD interpretation of the discussion, but unfortunately one that was not supported by wider discussion here today. But I think we all believe that whatever format is restored, that it be done so in a consistent manner! Resolute 20:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see a consensus on consistency either. Only Andrwsc and Ravenswing discussed it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to complicate things further, but I'll add my opinion: We should reflect what reliable sources do. From these two sources (Honoured Players Process Different For Leafs and Canadiens have more retired numbers, 14, than any other NHL team) it looks like they don't mention 99, but a more thorough search might show the opposite.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Coyotes used to have Gretzky in the Ring of Honor as he owned\coached the team. They could list him along with the Kings and Oilers. igordebraga ≠ 14:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge

I came across two pages that while having different data, have the same purpose: All-time NHL team performance list and National Hockey League all-time results. Anyone up to discuss\perform a merge? igordebraga ≠ 14:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And not only a merge, but a serious update are required there. Resolute 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Atlantic Division

It might be best to divide the Atlantic Division (NHL) into 2 articles Atlantic Division (NHL) & Atlantic Division (NHL 1993-2013). GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Permafrost46 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the Pacific and central divisions? CRwikiCA talk 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They haven't had the same issue of being essentially renamed using the former name of an entirely different division. That's the real problem here. Currently our article says the Atlantic Division lost all of it's members and gained all new members, when it's obvious to anyone except an obnoxious pedant that the old Northeast Division gained three members and was renamed, while the old Atlantic Division became the Metropolitan Division after it gained 3. The current naming implies a false continuity. The current Atlantic Division only shares a name with the old one. They should be split. oknazevad (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Being that they kept the same name I would actually go with the losing all members and gaining all members. We can't assume they didn't continue it with completely new teams as that would be OR. It may be hard to verify but I am sure there is or will be an official NHL publication that will clarify by listing the history as being new this year or will have a timeline going back farther than this year. -DJSasso (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see it being a problem. Teams in hockey move back and forth between divisions all the time; the notion that there's a "continuity" that must be enshrined is a bit silly, even if Djsasso didn't accurately cite OR. Ravenswing 01:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Names on the Stanley Cup

Currently we have a very sub-par article in the mainspace at Stanley Cup winning players, while Leech44 has been hard at work at a very nice-looking table. This is mainly directed at Leech44, but still I wonder if the one should not be supplanted by the other. Jmj713 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I would assume that that is probably the intention of what he is doing. He is doing the article work in sandbox space to eventually end up in mainspace. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My editing time has been pretty minimal recently and I have no I deal when I would get back to working on this page. I'm not opposed to someone finishing it up and moving it. There is a lot of work to be done on the page, as I went through several different ways of adding players to the list (by year, alphabetically) I think I made it through B using the links at the bottom of the page, but those stopped listing new players in 2008. I'd like to say I would finish this page but I've work on it off and on since 2010 and with less time working on WP its not looking good for me. If someone does pick this up I would prefer the players are taken from the web pages, NHL guide books, or other sources so black aces like Aaron Rome and Carter Hutton [1] aren't included which is one of my biggest beefs with the current page. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to see, though, is your table streamlined, because it contains (and will contain, once complete) so much information, it will simply be unwieldy. I would propose something to this effect:

Player	Times	Year(s)	Notes
Clarence Abel	2	1928, 1934
Sid Abel	3	1943, 1950, 1952
Keith Acton	1	1988
Craig Adams	2	2006, 2009
Jack Adams	2	1918, 1927
John Adams	1	1970	Had his name engraved on the Cup before he played his first NHL game
Kevyn Adams	1	2006
David Aebischer	1	2001
Dmitry Afanasenkov	1	2004
Andy Aitkenhead	1	1933
Tommy Albelin	2	1995, 2003
Keith Allen	1	1954
Doug Anderson	1	1953
Glenn Anderson	6	1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1994
Jocko Anderson	1	1925
Lloyd Andrews	1	1922
Dave Andreychuk	1	2004
Syl Apps	3	1942, 1947, 1948
Al Arbour	4	1954, 1961, 1962, 1964
George Armstrong	4	1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
Jason Arnott	1	2000
Barry Ashbee	1	1974
Ossie Asmundson	1	1933
Larry Aurie	2	1936, 1937
Don Awrey	2	1970, 1972

This removes the team, eschewing it in favor of yearly links to season team articles, and adds the number of times a player won the Cup (a much more useful visual clue). Jmj713 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think the team they were on is one of the most important bits of information such a table would need. I realize you can get to that information by following the links on each individual year, but for an article like this I don't believe I should need to. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize there's a tradeoff, but listing the team makes the table much too cumbersome, in my opinion. Plus you can hover your mouse over the year to see which article it links to. Or, perhaps team info could be places separately in the Notes column. Jmj713 (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Djsasso that the team information is vital for this table. I would prefer eliminating the notes over eliminating the team, as it is the potential for lengthy notes that make the table difficult to lay out. Relying on information appearing while hovering is contrary to best accessibility practice, as it is problematic for those who lack fine motor control, and it is a discoverability problem for those using screen readers. (This includes the spider bots for search engines, which may have a bit more difficulty associating the corresponding team with the player.) isaacl (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Anders Bergman

A curious substub here. Bergman, according to the lone citation on that article, was a member of the 1988 Swedish bronze-medal team, but did not play a single game. He also does not appear on the IOC's list of Olympic medalists - though that hasn't stopped a user from adding his name to the Ice hockey at the 1988 Winter Olympics article and threatening to "report" anyone who removes him. I could be convinced that his name belongs on the Olympic article, as he was evidently a roster player, but he clearly is not considered a medalist, so I've removed that information from his own article. @Hockeyben: - since you created the article, would you have access/interest in finding more sources that might help fill out this page? Resolute 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The IIHF lists him as a roster player at the 1988 olympics, but its register only includes his participation in the 1983 world juniors (he played three games winning all three giving up six goals), I will add the IIHF encyclopedia as a source, put I will look through the la84 archives first to see if he is mentioned there for 1988.18abruce (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've consulted my copy of the IIHF Media Guide & Record Book 2010, and found the same information as 18abruce. The book lists Bergman as having played three games in the 1983 WJC, but makes no mention of any Olympic participation. However, both eliteprospects and eurohockey state that he was a member of the 1988 Swedish Olympic team. So I think mentioning that he was a member of the team, but did not appear in any games - as the article does now - is the most sensible way to handle the situation. Regardless, I'd be happy to expand the article further, as Bergman enjoyed a long domestic career in the SHL, in addition to his international play (or lack thereof). --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Date for Coyotes name change

Just an FYI, the Phoenix Coyotes have given us the official date for their name change to the Arizona Coyotes (June 27, which is draft day). Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 00:32, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oh that works nicely since that is the day our season articles switch over. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1981-82 to 1992-93 Division champions

I've fixed up the team season articles of 1981-82 to 1992-93, to show regular season division championships, not playoff division championships. I followed the example set at the team article infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that really the best idea considering that some teams only recognize playoff division championships from that era? Deadman137 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the best idea, until someone can come up with a way to differentiate them. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

1. Yevgeni Groshev: de:Gestorben 2013 / no:Dødsfall i 2013 / ru:Умершие в 2013 году / sl:Umrli leta 2013

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals champion teams navboxes

They don't get to have navboxes, yet the MLB, NBA and NFL champions do? I don't understand the absurdity of that at all? By the way, golf and tennis have them for major championships and grand slam tournaments.HotHat (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Because those navboxes are pointless linkspam to articles that have marginal relevance to the subject article at best. They represent unnecessary clutter where literally the only statement of value is "won championship in year x" - statements that are invariably already placed in the lead and body of player articles, thus rendering the navboxes useless. Resolute 05:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with Resolute. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are both in and on the wrong side because they help to aid casual readers in the understanding of how many if any championships the players won without having to go through the arduous rigmarole task of finding it in the body of the articles. By the way, your project fails to put them into the infoboxes on the players pages as well, which is not adequately summing up of the players careers in the National Hockey League to leave the championship(s) they won out of the box. It is suppose to highlight the major details of the person playing career. Wayne Gretzky won how many Stanley Cups, who knows by looking at the infobox nor the apparently missing navboxes. Michael Jordan won six NBA championships, and that is readily available in the infobox, as well as, the appropriately created navboxes. Joe Montana is a four-time Super Bowl champion, which is easy to find. Derek Jeter is a five-time World Series champion that is also easy to find. So, you all get my drift that hockey players are being inadequately serviced by the utter lack of navboxes nor the mentioning of the championships won in the infoboxes.HotHat (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This raises a good point. As a hockey fan, I know Wayne Gretzky won a bunch of Cup with the Oilers in the 80's (the lede of his article mentions "four Stanley Cups" (without the years)), but where are the Cup-winning years listed on his page that is quickly accessible to a casual reader? Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 06:13, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to agree on those navboxes-in-question. Particularly at Henri Richard's & Jean Beliveau's articles, to name a couple. GoodDay (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it hurt or harm this encyclopedia if it had it listed in the infoboxes and/or navboxes is my standard for inclusion? I come down on it hurts and harms it by not having them included by the lack of readily available information. Basically, the Hippocratic oath.HotHat (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've only been expressing my misgivings about your proposal. I'm in no position to prevent you from implementing it. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• You all do what you want to do, but I hope to see your project make it a priority to highlight the Stanley Cup wins, and other key relevant awards pertinent to the NHL. The players who work so laboriously to earn their titles are being irreparably harmed by the lack of easily accessible information. I am just a music editor on here that has brought up this concern to your project in order for a discussion to happen. Hockey is not my forte if you know what I mean.HotHat (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Plainly. For my part, the notion that the players on Stanley Cup championship teams have even noticed -- let alone be "irreparably harmed" -- that it might even take reading through their articles to sum up their Cup totals, rather than it being possible to do so with a casual glance, is farcical beyond words. Quite aside that we are under no more onus to slavishly copy the basketball or baseball projects (any more than we are to slavishly copy the soccer, cricket, rugby or tiddlywinks projects), what's really absurd is the navbox creep that in many articles devotes more column inches to even minimized navboxes than to the whole rest of the article. Ravenswing 06:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oh well, I guess "ignorance is bliss" to not know when "The Great One" won his beloved Stanley Cups. It is not mentioned in either place a navbox or infobox for that matter!HotHat (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• And hyperbole is both annoying and generally counterproductive. Resolute 15:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Editors who make it hard to learn information are of no use to this encyclopedia. Readily available information needs to be a hallmark we work towards in this encyclopedia. By the way, when did Wayne Gretzky win his Stanley Cups, and with what other team members?HotHat (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Your gross hyperbole is unproductive, and your sneering is uncivil. While I recognize that you don't see matters that way, it is quite possible for editors to disagree with you without them being useless vandals. As far as, to take your repeated example, Wayne Gretzky's Cup wins are concerned, what is truly "ignorant" is the supposition that those interested in the total are unable to read the article and find out. Ravenswing 20:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sneering to some is advocating to others. Some people might not have the time to "read the article", and want the information readily available in the infobox or navboxes. What is truly dumbfounding to me is you think people have to read the entire body of the article to get the key details of when and where a player won how many Stanley Cups. It is unproductive to this encyclopedia, when the information is not readily and easily attainable by the casual or novice reader.HotHat (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• As Gretzky's article does feature two tables summarizing his international play achievements, and one summarizing his coaching results in the playoffs, I do think adding some kind of summary table or augmenting an existing one with his playing career playoff results might be worthwhile. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that the number of championships achieved by a player's teams in any of the top-level leagues is a key characteristic that is essential to a concise summary of a hockey player, and as such ought to be included within the infobox. I appreciate that opinions may differ on this matter, as I understand some believe team accomplishments are not essential in a concise summary. However, independent sources providing a brief, text overview of a player will invariably include championship information. Wikipedia's guidance on notability is to follow what the world at large has deemed to be of significant interest, based on the coverage by reliable, independent, notable sources. From this coverage, I believe that attaining the ultimate prize in a top-level league is a matter of significant interest to the general reader. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I don't believe a list of all the championship years is key information, just the total number of championships—I don't believe a brief text overview from independent sources would generally include a list. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I wondered about this comparison before. My first reaction was the list in other sports' infoboxes was useful in conveying information. My second reaction after seeing major athlete's bios was 'way too much info.' I recommend adding a list of Stanley Cup championships to the infobox for NHL players but not other awards (except maybe gold medals for olympics or world championship winners) in order to limit the length. Just my opinion. Canuckle (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• As long as, Stanley Cup winning years are listed in the infobox in player biographical articles, then I am fine with it at a bare minimum. The lack of inclusion of Stanley Cups and Olympic medals in the infobox is a significant draw back to this encyclopedia. I am sorry that I had to open a Pandora's box. By the way, infoboxes are "to summarize key facts that appear in the article." Stanley Cups are huge key facts, and that is why they are included in the infobox bios of MLB (World Series), NBA (Finals) and NFL players (Super Bowl). How can you have a summary without it being in the infobox?HotHat (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• On a well written article, SC championships already typically exist in three places: Lead (usually by year, unless the player has numerous), article body and awards and honours. e.g.: Al MacInnis. I am not sure I see a need to expand the infobox to add a fourth place for this. Resolute 17:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am just trying to make ice hockey player pages better by having the key facts more apparent, but some do not care, which makes me quite sad. So, I will not be back to discuss this any further, but others can if they see fit. I got better things to do with my time in improving and creating articles for music. So, I won't be coming to Wikipedia to learn about ice hockey players, and when they won Stanley Cups because it is an arduous task to find out the needed information. Peace to editors Ravenswing and Resolute, "Good Night and Good Luck" to your project that I will not be involved in at all.HotHat (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Somehow, some way, I'm sure the editors of the hockey WikiProject will find the strength to carry on, without the many contributions to hockey-related articles that ... you don't seem to have heretofore ever made. Ravenswing 04:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Stanley Cup Finals - List potential names on Cup?

In the 2014 Stanley Cup Finals article, should we note team members who may potentially get their names engraved on the Stanley Cup trophy? Should we name all members of the team, even those who may not get their names on it? Until recently, there were two small headers for "Coaching and Administrative Staff" as well as "Engraving notes" for players who did not meet the eligibility requirements. Wikipedia shouldn't be a memorial. Heymid (contribs) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be preferable to wait and list the people who actually get their names engraved on the Cup? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about speculation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. In other words, it seems best if we wait until the names have been engraved on the Cup. Heymid (contribs) 08:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. No need to rush. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Ice Hockey at Wikimania 2014

Please note: This is updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike Muller

I recently had an edit reverted when I added Mike Muller to a list of alumni from Wayzata High School. I'm just wondering if he fits WP:NHOCKEY Here's his page on hockeydb [2]--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

He would meet NHOCKEY on the basis of his play with Dynamo Moscow in the RSL. However, notability criteria depends on the level of coverage found in sources more than the level of play an athlete reached. The more you can find, and the more you can then write will help improve both the article's chance at long-term survival, and your ability to successfully add it to the high school article. Cheers! Resolute 20:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That shouldn't be hard, actually. I remember Muller from his days in Springfield, and there was a fair bit of press about his playing for Dynamo Moscow -- he was, apparently, either the first or one of the very first North American players to play in Russia. Ravenswing 05:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they have now nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Muller. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Schedules

All regular season schedules have been added, the only thing we will need to change is Phoenix to Arizona (I didn't do it yet because NHL still has it as Phoenix on all the schedules from their page). –B2Project^(Talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that would be because the name doesn't change officially until the 27th so the team is still Phoenix. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I brought it up because the season is already changed. –B2Project^(Talk) 16:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah that is a bit of a unique case, our season pages begin on draft day, which is the day the name changes. So technically that season will never be the Phoenix Coyotes season. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

use of flag icons in national team pages

I do not remember what the consensus was for where it is okay to use a flagicon and where it is not. There is an editor removing them from beside cities, teams, coaches and other places on national team's pages. It seems peculiar to me, but I don't know whether it is right or wrong. However now the flagicons were removed from the host listings on IIHF World Women's Championship even on the years where it is determined what country will host, but not what city yet. I am not strong on mos issues and would appreciate some input.18abruce (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Norris Trophy & Masterton Trophy

Would someone remove the 2013-14 finalist sections from those articles, now that we know the winners? I can't do it, because of Chara & Jagr. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I got ya covered. Done.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 14:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sam Bennett (ice hockey)

Could a few people comment on the discussion at this talk page? The image that was in the article is being disputed for its accuracy. Thanks, Resolute 14:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

New York Rangers 93-94 season page

Hey all, I was looking for some help/opinions on the changes that were made to the 1993-94 New York Rangers season page, specifically in the Schedule and results area. First of all, the change of color for wins/losses needs to be changes back to the uniform Green/Red colors. But also, the user created tables for National/Canadian TV networks, etc. that I feel should be reverted and are unnecessary. I've worked on all of the New York Rangers season pages to try to make all of the schedule/results pages uniform over each season. I didn't want to get into a revert war with that user so hopefully someone here can take care of this who has more say than I. Thank you! Piemann16 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh god... I reverted it. That is a bad failure of WP:ACCESS for one. Readers with normal sight have almost no hope of parsing that, let alone anyone with a visual impairment. Resolute 04:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Have a feeling that is SNIyer12 back. He was obsessed with that season and the season with the Knick as wekk as with TV networks for hockey. If he continues I would probably block per WP:DUCK. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my first thought too, though SNyler never bothered with stat tables, IIRC. I'm going to assume it is a different person though - unless the IP branches back into old behaviours. Resolute 13:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, using a lot of edits to make modifications is one of the characteristics of the aforementioned editor's editing habits. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And making changes only to revert them, similar to this set of edits. isaacl (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

He was at it again this month. Can we get it reverted and locked? Piemann16 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

2016 Entry Draft article discussion

Some of you may be interested in commenting about the 2016 NHL Entry Draft at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 10. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 03:29, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

2016 Entry Draft article discussion

Some of you may be interested in commenting about the 2016 NHL Entry Draft at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 10. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 03:29, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Suspended coaches' statistics

Throwing this out to the community. Is there a consensus on how to input statistics of a coach who has been suspended. Looking at List of Vancouver Canucks head coaches, John Tortorella has the full 82 games listed to his name when in reality, Mike Sullivan coached 6 games due to Tortorella's suspension (the hatnote makes it all the more confusing). Also, on Sullivan's page, the 6 games are listed as wins and losses for him, while on Torts' page, the full 82 games are listed. This also would effect guys like Robbie Ftorek, Tom Webster, Jim Schoenfeld, and even a younger Tortorella from 2009. Thoughts? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem from what I can find: Logically coaches shouldn't be credited with games coached when they weren't on the bench. But, if you look at Hockey DB and Hockey Reference they both list Torts as having coached 82 games, while neither list Sullivan for any games [3], [4] I don't see a stats page for coaching on NHL.com. The closes I found was this profile of Torts. What I found interesting about it is, you made mention of his game total being effected by some other absence (assuming 2009-10), but if subtract the 82 games from his overall games coached from his page it totals the 854 games the NHL lists him at in their profile. Unless another stats reference can be found I would say that the 6 games should be removed from Sully's page and the full 82 should be applied to Torts. I removed the line about the games not being included in the totals from the list of HC page, not sure if that helps clarify anything though. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if the head coach is suspended or takes a leave of absence the NHL counts the games missed to their totals. Roger Neilson is an example. "Neilson went on medical leave in February 2000 and initially planned on returning at the end of the first round of the playoffs, but his doctors advised the Flyers that he lacked the strength to perform his duties as head coach. After interim coach Craig Ramsay led the Flyers to the Eastern Conference Finals, the Flyers named Ramsay head coach. The games Ramsay coached in place of Neilson are officially counted on Neilson's coaching totals." Neilson doesn't reach 1000 games coached without those 30-40 games. --Parkfly3 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Tables on NHL Season Pages

I started a discussion on the Talk:2014–15 Vancouver Canucks season regarding this table. I don't believable the page get's many views, so if any editors are interested in season pages feel free to drop by and weigh in on the discussion. It might effect other team pages as well. Cheers! --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is a need to expand the discussion taking place at the 2014-15 Canucks talk page. Using this forum, I hope a consensus within the Ice Hockey Project will be reached allowing for consistent formatting to be implemented within all 30 of the NHL teams' seasonal articles. There currently appears to be three different presentation styles being used within the “Transactions” section for each team. We should settle upon one style to be used for all 30 NHL teams. Samples of the three styles now in use are listed below:

1. Buffalo Sabres
2. Calgary Flames
3. Pittsburgh Penguins
4. Philadelphia Flyers (now added for consideration as suggested by Parkfly3 below) Dolovis (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we weight the pros and cons of each format to decide upon the best way to consistently deliver all the pertinent information to our readers. Dolovis (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Lest we forget another format: Philadelphia Flyers (for a more fully formed version see 2012–13 Philadelphia Flyers season#Transactions)

• Support for #2 (Calgary Flames): I prefer the cleaner look of the formatting style used within the Calgary Flames' article. Especially the use of the “Additions and subtractions” sub-section which can handle buyouts, free agency, and retirements, all with this double-table. Why use five or six sections to denote what basically amounts to two types of transactions: Additions, and Subtractions? Dolovis (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• I prefer the look of Option 1, since that lets me easily see how players were added and subtracted from the team (eg, waivers, retirement, free agency all having their own sub-sections). Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 01:56, July 15, 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 is my personal preference. I'll accept whatever version is adopted by WP:HOCKEY, of course. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• The Flames example, naturally. I just do not see the need for as many as seven (!) separate tables and sections that each say essentially the same thing: That a player joined or left the team. When it comes to tables and charts, simpler is cleaner, and cleaner is easier for a reader to parse. Follow the KISS principle, imnsho. Resolute 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• I would say Option 2. As stated above it prevents the page from being cumbersome with the proliferation of too many tables containing few players. Retirements/Buy outs/Waivers are all limited common events, meaning you get 0-2 guys a year in each category, so why do we need 3-4 tables to cover these events? This also allows for the addition of guys like Andrew Alberts, who won't be back with the team, but haven't officially retired and likely won't sign with another team. I am making the assumption that the contract terms for free agents lost can be kept, and player re-signings can remain player signings and entry level contracts added like they are on option 1, which aren't on the Flames page right now. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• My opinion, for now, would go towards Option 1 on the Sabres page. Though, I would lose the players released category. Ehrhof,f no matter how he became a free agent, is now listed in the free agents lost category so his name also being in the players released section seems redundant. Sections like lost via retirement and the waivers sections can be hidden until there are transactions to be listed in those categories. Though I could be swayed to Option 2 on the Flames page if player re-signings could be changed to just player signings and include re-signings and prospect entry-level signings as well.Piemann16 (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, that would make sense. Expand to all signings. Resolute 17:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• My personal preference would be to have one chronological table, so transactions can be seen in context of other deals before and after, and having the type of transaction in a column by which the table could be sorted. Add to/remove from roster can be another sortable column. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Side note

• Why are we putting references in a separate column? –B2Project^(Talk) 15:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

List of ice hockey countries

There seems to be an ongoing dispute/edit war on the List of ice hockey countries page... --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The person who nominated the article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ice_hockey_countries keeps adding speedy deletion tags even though an administrator told him to stop and keeps adding countries that don't play hockey. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well ... I wouldn't say there's a "dispute" going on quite so much as AaronWikia, having failed to get the article AfDed, is engaging in vandalism because he didn't get his way, first trying to speedy the article, then in trying to put in a bunch of bogus wikia.com references. Ravenswing 20:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• i just had a look at that article. there's stuff in their that's alternately inaccurate, out of date, and incorrect. can i go ahead and make edits or is it up for deletion or something? GLG GLG (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  It's survived the deletion request, so please, go ahead and make improvements as you can! Resolute 13:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed Whalen

See Talk:Ed Whalen (ice hockey) for background. The article was created at Ed Whalen (ice hockey player) by Connormah and subsequently moved to its current title by Marc87. The problem is that the article is little more than yet another mirrored database entry, while Ed Whalen is a lot closer to a proper biographical article. As such, it's obvious that the latter Ed Whalen also has a connection to ice hockey. If no other information is available or forthcoming, I would suggest that he has a far stronger connection to ice hockey than the player. I recommend reverting the move and redirecting the (ice hockey) title to Edward Whelan (disambiguation)#See also with an explanatory hatnote. I just thought I would ask for opinions before initiating an RM. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well ... I'd think that someone who played for a couple years in a major professional league has a stronger connection to hockey than someone whose impact on hockey's was limited to the metro Calgary area. That being said, it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to assume that (ice hockey) applied to the modern day Whalen, and a disambiguation page is perfectly appropriate, as well as reverting the player page to (ice hockey player). Ravenswing 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Calgary broadcaster is easily the primary topic, and there are only two people with articles by that game, so a disambiguation page isn't really necessary. The Calgary Ed was a broadcaster in general, and his work as the voice of Stampede Wrestling is what would be his primary notability outside of Southern Alberta. I'm not too concerned about the player holding the simple "ice hockey" disambig. Resolute 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Resolute. The player would be fine with just the dab (ice hockey) and on the off chance someone was looking for the broadcaster you could put a hat note at the top of the player page. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Winnipeg Jets

The Retired Numbers section, in that article should be deleted, so as not to add confusion to the 2 franchises - Jets/Coyotes & Thrashers/Jets. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When should Draft articles be created?

Now that the 2016 NHL Entry Draft article has been restored (DR here), it got me thinking that perhaps we should set a date for when it is appropriate to create these draft pages. I would assume that GMs will trade picks involving their next two drafts, so for the next few months, we should be seeing trades involving picks for 2015 and 2016. That being said, it seems our previous draft articles began to be populated about 2 years before each draft. So, I was thinking something along the lines of

• Option 1 After the 2-year previous Cup Finals end
• Option 2 After the 2-year previous draft ends
• Option 3 On the 2-year previous free agency day (usually July 1, but I wouldn't expect another lockout soon)
• Option 4 Two years previous is too soon

For example, we could create the 2017 NHL Entry Draft article the day after the 2015 Finals are finished, the day after the 2015 Draft takes place, or on July 1, 2015? Thoughts? Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 01:40, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

TBH, I'd rather 'no waiting period' on creating Year NHL Entry Draft articles. There's no storage limit on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Me too, but unfortunately, as the two DRs about this article showed, there will always be people who think an article can be created too soon. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 02:03, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely ... and that's going to happen no matter the bar we set. We just can't idiot-proof the process. Ravenswing 03:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue, more than anything, is the motivation for creating an article. In general - lacking something large and concrete - I'd say that after a draft is held, the one for two years hence would become appropriate. So 2016 generally became appropriate after this year's draft. There will always be the odd minor transaction that involves drafts from 3+ years away, but those are easily stored at the various transaction pages for each season. Resolute 16:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all of Resolute’s idea except for one thing. Now that I’ve been through a few cycles of contributing to these articles it might be useful to consider moving the start date to about one week before the draft (ex. 2017 article would start on June 19, 2015). The only reason that I would suggest this is because there is a bit of a dead spot in that week that would be ideal for determining if creating the article would be viable. However if the majority decide to go with the start date being after the draft I would support that too, as we are only talking about a 7-10 day difference between start dates. Deadman137 (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd never quibble over such a short period of difference in something like this. And, of course, if the NHL announced something like a massive change to how the 2017 draft were to be held, it would become appropriate now, rather than in a year. Resolute 14:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything the rest of you have said sounds fine to me - the one thing I'd add is that if there's ever a case where the NHL advances the draft location farther than 'start date' contemplated or there is some notable draft change coming into effect, then the page should be started in any event.

I just had a peek at the draft pages for '15/16...the NHL hasn't been completely specific but has already said (without details) (1) the draft probability is being changed for '15; and there's going to be a bigger 'placement shift' in '16 (i.e. however they do the lottery in '16, it's not just going to be for the #1 spot - it's going to be for more movement in the order itself). The fact that these general changes are going to introduced can be sourced - however, at this point the nitty gritty of the changes hasn't come out. Is it worthwhile to mention the basic lottery changes on the pages - or is it better to leave well enough alone until the NHL releases more specifics? GLG GLG (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say hold off for now, once we have details from the league it won't take long to update. Deadman137 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, that seems very sensible. ha ha, although i wouldn't just assume that 'won't take long' for the NHL to update us...they seem quite slow. but, yes...i agree with you GLG GLG (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The NHL will take their sweet time to get off their ass and announce this change, I just meant that it would not take us very long to update things once the league makes the announcement. Deadman137 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ha ha, of course - sorry i misunderstood. in any event - the draft stuff sounds fine to me. GLG GLG (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Canada men's national junior ice hockey team

re the Canada men's national junior ice hockey team

i posted a comment on the talk page for this entry and then say that there's also the WikiProject page. I think this page needs a lot of improvement - and has the potential to be a really good one - especially because interest in the tournament is very high in Canada...so I think improving it is a worthwhile endeavour. Like i said in my 'talk' entry I haven't yet attempted any major 'overhaul' to a wiki page - and a bit nervous about messing things up. I'm happy about doing most of the work myself (depending on other's interest). But would prefer it if, at a minimum, there were others to talk things through with. GLG GLG (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that if you do break anything horribly, we can always just revert back and start again. Feel free to ping any of us here if you come across something that you're unsure of or otherwise want advice on! Resolute 13:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks...i'll just try to update it myself. i thought more and realize that if my motivation for wanting to fix something was that it seemed very low quality then probably i won't make it worse. i'm just nervous about making major changes to things. i will do my best GLG GLG (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

sorry for coming back so quickly for help - but something i've noticed about the page is that the title of the page "Canada men's national junior ice hockey team" isn't accurate. the team is the "National Junior Team" or, if you'd prefer, "National Junior Team (U20) - i'm not just pointing that out to be a moron. In the parlance of Hockey Canada (which the national body for the sport in Canada), the federation has specific terminology for the team - and the heading of the article isn't it. Obviously, I didn't try to change the heading/move the article or anything like that - but something to consider is whether a colloquial phrase for the name of the team is acceptable. My own personal preference is for the title of the article to be consistent with Hockey Canada's name for the team (which is also what is used for international (IIHF) competitions - but others can comment and i'm fine with consensus. GLG GLG (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The name represents a standard that has developed across Wikipedia. "National Junior Team" would be ambiguous as both other nations, and other Canadian sports, have national junior teams. For that reason we need to represent both Canada, and the sport (note that we've adopted "ice hockey" rather than "hockey" for article titles as an internal standard - though in article text itself, we call it simply "hockey" after the first mention). "Men's" is likewise included as a project-wide standard for national teams. Most will specify that they are men's or women's teams, even if there isn't a parallel with the opposite gender. Resolute 14:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks. that makes perfect sense. and i really appreciate you clarifying 'hockey norms'...i've tried to 'read up' re wiki but it's not always obvious - so i appreciate this, b/c some of this stuff isn't always as intuitive early as it is for you guys who have been editing a while GLG GLG (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrea Steranko Field

Dear ice hockey experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable hockey player, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking into this and I just can't find a way to argue in favour of her notability. Her time in the NCAA would be her biggest claim to notability, but even that seems to come up a little short.

Personally I would let the article go, but wait to see what some of the others have say about this. Deadman137 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The links included appear to be local interest stories. Resolute 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. If everyone refrains from editing it, and it should be deleted soon. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arizona Coyotes category renames

I've initiated speedy rename request for the main Category:Phoenix Coyotes category to be renamed to Category:Arizona Coyotes as this should be uncontroversial. However, for Edmonton, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks player, draft, coach, etc. categories were left separated separate. That is not a decision I agree with, but I suspect we will want to decide how we want both to go before any move to harmonize the other categories. Any thoughts? Resolute 00:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone has moved the Coyotes categories and how they were handled differs from how the Ducks categories were handled. The Phoenix Coyotes draft picks and players categories currently have a notice at the top saying those categories should be empty. -- Are you arguing that say Paul Kariya's categories should be Category:Anaheim Ducks draft picks and Category:Anaheim Ducks players even though he only played for the franchise while it was known as the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim? --Parkfly3 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In a way, yes. It's the same franchise in the same location. I don't see the purpose in splitting them out. What we do presently is more due to a long-term flaw in the system in that proper category redirects do not exist. Resolute

Yeah I disagree with that completely, we should keep them separated out like we have been doing in the past. These players didn't play for the Arizona Coyotes, they played for the Phoenix Coyotes. There is a very large likelihood readers might be looking for players who played with the team in one era or another specifically, jumbling them all together doesn't help anything and is possibly a hindrance in some cases. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it's not a relocation, no need to seperate categories. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a need to separate categories. I don't believe the sale and subsequent renaming of the team is a significant divergence in the franchise's history with respect to these categories, and disagree with the assumption that readers will be seeking a distinction. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I think readers will do it because I do it all the time. I very rarely want will want to see players from the Arizona Coyotes if I am searching for the Phoenix Coyotes players. In this case it won't be an issue yet when there will only be a seasons worth of players under the new name. But once you get to a number of season it makes things very hard to separate out. Not sure why we wouldn't subcat in this case like most other subjects would do when there is a large definable subset of the articles in the category. I should clarify I only mean for the players cat, the rest of the cats should be renamed. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a name change isn't a good enough reason for separate categories, and if there are separate categories for "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" and "Anaheim Ducks," they should be merged. Ravenswing 23:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't just be the ducks. There are probably a hundred minor league teams like this as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, that makes things more clear, as I was somewhat skeptical that you'd already done searches for Phoenix Coyotes players with the intent of excluding Arizona Coyotes players. I agree for minor league teams, renaming can often be part of rebranding and a reset of the team history, which means that information sources from the team might reset its statistics. I'm not sure a one-size-fits-all solution is best, though, even for all minor league team renamings, and in particular, I don't think an approach based on minor league teams is necessarily best for NHL franchises. An NHL's team history is generally not reset when a renaming without a move occurs, and it's a bit of original research to do so in the category system, particularly when a team just takes on a slightly different variant of the same name. isaacl (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I realise i am too late to this discussion, but i think DJSasso is on the better path here. These categories mark periods in time that should be identified. if you want to see all players of the one francishe together just go to the List of players that are referenced at the top of the category, i mean that's why we have a list of players page isn't it?!! ...it just seems wrong, to eventually see J.R or Tkachuk with a Arizona Coyotes player category when they only identify with Phoenix.... or the issue in the inconsistency of Paul Kariya to an Anaheim ducks draft pick but then have him categorized as a Mighty Ducks of Anaheim player? With the separation at least it was accurate

As it seems users just want to lump everyone together, is there a solution to just redirect the Phoenix Categories straight to the Arizona categories to keep the individual player's categories accurate then? Triggerbit (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Description of player contract value

I've noticed there are discrepancies on a page by page basis re how the players' contract value is described - leaving aside one year contracts...should the contracts be Year + total value or Year + AAV. It came to mind b/c i updated a page re aav - and someone else changed it to 'total value' (which is fine, i don't care about that change)...but was wondering (1) where there was already a committed view re how the contract value should be presented; and (2) if not should there by one or is it one of those 'who ever updates' things. GLG GLG (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I have always used total value when noting contracts. AAV is a figure that generally only has value when used in the context of the salary cap. For a player article, the total length and value of the deal is usually the important number. There are, however, always exceptions. Ilya Kovalchuk's contract controversy is one example where a mention of AAV would be useful to note since the entire point of the cap circumventing contract was to lower the AAV. Resolute 15:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks sounds good GLG GLG (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Standings templates

When the discussion currently located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive58#2013-14 conference standings templates was ongoing, I started working on a template using a Lua module that would let you enter in the data for all NHL teams in one template, and then you could transclude it with different options to generate the type of standings table you want, such as division, conference, conference wild-card, or league. I stopped due to encountering a coding problem and didn't return to it until now. I've fixed the problem, and have a basic proof of concept working, but am a bit hesitant to proceed further unless there is general agreement that the advantages of this approach outweigh the negatives. Here are the pros and cons as I see them:

Pros:

• Just one template to update, avoiding discrepancies between multiple templates.
• Team data can be entered in any order, as the Lua code can sort the results appropriately.
• Can use a syntax more easily amenable to copying-and-pasting from source material. For example, the proof of concept can support the following two formats:

  {{User:Isaacl/NHL standings
  |season=2012-13
  |separatorFormat=whitespace
  | ... more parameters...
  |Pittsburgh Penguins
  |36 12 0 33 165 119
  |Montreal Canadiens
  |29 	14 	5 	26 	149 	126
     ... more teams ...
  }}
  
  {{User:Isaacl/NHL standings
  |season=2012-13
  | ... more parameters...
  |Toronto Maple Leafs
  |3|0|0|2|12|8
     ... more teams ...
  }}
  

• Changes to the output format can be made in one place, and they will be propagated to all uses.
• Values that are calculable, like points, do not have to be entered. (In theory, when a team clinches a playoff spot/division title could be calculated, but doing so while also taking into account the specific head-to-head matchups remaining would be complex.) However, perhaps to simplify copying-and-pasting from say nhl.com, it may be desirable to support entering these values anyway.

Cons:

• Would use Lua code, so modifying say the output format would require someone comfortable with editing Lua.
• May discourage editors from updating division standings, since the results for all teams ought to be updated at once.
• Changes to the playoff structure may require Lua coding changes. For example, if the wild card playoff rules are changed, then the new algorithm would have to be incorporated into the code.

I'm sure there are other pros and cons; feel free to come up with more.

Another possibility to just relieve some effort with the current table-based approach would be to create a template that can be reused, but the data entered would still be repeated across each of the different types of standings table templates, instead of being centralized into one template. For a similar example of how this would work, see Template:MLB standings. This would eliminate the first two pros and the last two cons (changes to the number of wildcards would have to updated).

Please let me know what you think. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quebec Nordiques

Seeking more imput. Should we be linking Potential National Hockey League expansion to the Nordiques article? GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be included there in the Quebec City section already. CRwikiCA talk 23:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What GoodDay means is "should we be linking to Potential National Hockey League expansion on the Nordiques article," not the other way around. - SweetNightmares 23:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not, especially how it is done it is done now in the "See also" section. CRwikiCA talk 13:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Kimmo Timonen

An IP is going against the NHL rule book, by presenting Timonen as an associate captain of the Flyers, instead of an alternate captain. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• At this point, I don't think it's appropriate to mention it in the lead at all, given the odds that Timonen will ever play again, never mind this coming fall. It makes as much sense as stating in the lead that he was once an alternate captain for the Predators. Ravenswing 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Quite true, but the Flyers website still has him with an A. Of course, they'll be removing it in October, when replacements are named. GoodDay (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be alternate. I'd just leave the reference to the A there until such a time as it's removed GLG GLG (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

1984 Stanley Cup Playoffs

I was going through this article and I found a strange anomaly in the Wales Conference Final. For some strange reason it looks like Montreal had home ice advantage in this series which is odd because Montreal was the lowest seeded team (amongst playoff qualifiers) in the conference. The series ended in six games so it could be possible that the Islanders had home ice in game seven but I cannot find any sources to confirm this. League sources confirm that the dates and locations of the first six games are correct. If anybody can help me figure this out it would be very much appreciated. Deadman137 (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You will find a similar situation in 1985 with Quebec and Philadelphia. Though unsourced, I believe the explanation offered there is correct for the determination of home ice in this round.18abruce (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense from a competitive balance stand point. In addition the same thing happened in 1982 when Vancouver played Chicago. I guess that we should consider adding a note to the playoff format of the 1982-1993 divisional era. Deadman137 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New Islanders owner

In case you missed it, the New York Islanders will have a new majority ownership group after the 2015-16 season. Charles Wang will retain majority ownership until then. So should he remain as the designated owner in the teams infobox with the new owners added? Also, there is a very basic stub for the future owner, John Ledecky (though it may be spelled Jon Ledecky). Should his article be improved and kept or deleted? In the past, it seems owners have generally met GNG, however only for majority owners. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say to add the additional minority owners once the BOG approves them. Ledecky's article would depend on whether he does actually meet GNG now, I'd suggest. Resolute 14:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And for what its worth, I've seen it noted that he's Jonathan Ledecky. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Lists of hat tricks by season.

Anyone interested might comment at this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 NHL hat tricks. It seems that a few editors created such lists all the way back to 1989-90, so while this discussion is about one list specifically, it will ultimately impact about 25 articles. Would be good to use this AFD to form a consensus on the entire block. Resolute 14:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Media affiliates section in infobox

Regarding some recent activity on the Montreal Canadiens page making changes to the infobox: is the media affiliates section intended to list both national broadcast partners as well as regional? isaacl (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is intended for partners that are specific to that team. Montreal is a unique case in that one of its partners is technically national because its a french national network. Although I believe RDS isn't classified as a national broadcaster even though they really are so they would belong. TVA I am not as sure of. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

TVA Sports has the national Canadian broadcast rights with the new contract, replacing RDS. RDS retained regional rights, similar to how TSN has regional rights to teams such as the Jets. So last season RDS games were televised nationwide, but this season they will be blacked out in Canada outside of the Canadiens region. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Splitting Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario

Feel free to participate in Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#Splitting of this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this has been upped to a full fledged RfC now. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Playing Career Start Date

I've noticed inconsistencies about the time used as the 'start date' for the careers of players in their info boxes and was wondering if there was a consensus on what 'event' triggered the start date. Just by way of example, Bo Horvat's playing career is listed as starting in 2009 (when he would have been fourteen and probably playing in bantam); Malcolm Subban's playing career is listed as starting in 2013, which is when he started playing in the AHL; Patrick Kane's is 2007, which was the year he was drafted (and started playing in the NHL); Hunter Shinkaruk is 2010, which is when he started playing major-junior; Max Domi is n/a; you get the picture. When should the start date be? I would have thought when the player actually started playing pro at some level, but ymmv GLG GLG (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be the year they played their first professional game regardless of pro level. If it is otherwise it should be fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh. That's the standard? Most of the articles out there appear to use the first date the players saw NHL action. Fair enough. Ravenswing 07:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems all over the place. i think the problem is most obvious with younger players and players who are currently prospects (or whose page was started before they made the NHL or were even drafted) (Jack Eichel, Connor McDavid, and Mathew Barzal already have entries). GLG GLG (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well a player had their career start as soon as they were a professional right, your career starts once you are being paid. I know generally that is what was happening for a long time on players, but like anything on the wiki people who aren't sure start using what they feel is right. And using the first pro season as the marker makes it standard through every player where as using NHL date would make NHL players different from all non-NHL players. And junior we usually put TBD in their infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Professionalism should have nothing to do with playing career, as amateur status can also be applied. I would have to say the step after junior would be the best point to start looking all depending what the player has achieved. Any participation in the Olympics should definitely be counted as part of your playing career, and this is not always a professional player involved depending on the article. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The word career implies professionalism, otherwise its not really a career. And if you start trying to use amateur status then you have the problem of when you start? Most people who get a wiki article probably started playing amateur hockey around the age of 5. All that being said if the player never played professionally at all then yes you could use common sense and use their time they were an amateur competitor. But I was really only answering the above question, when the parameter in the infobox was created it was intended as their professional career. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment was not directed at you DJSasso, Simply my opinion on the subject of where a career should start and why professional status means nothing. I was also adding my input to the question posed by GLG GLG, apologies if it came out as personal but it was not. I have been reading a book on the history of the LIHG and just past the chapter regarding the switch over from amateur to semi-professionals so the topic was fresh in my mind. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the moment you sign with a professional team, even if you do not play. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

but if you use contract signing date and the player doesn't play, then how do you decide when his career ended? GLG GLG (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Could be one of those careers that never gets off the ground. Might just be one of those grey areas where it is dependent of the player himself/herself. I suppose if the career starting point on any player ever comes into question it could simply end up in the talk pages. I was watching an episode of Coach's Corner from this past playoff run and Ron MacLean read an article in the newspaper which quoted an NHL player saying his career started before he played in the NHL. It could all be a matter of perspective also, but I guess for an encyclopedic viewpoint some sort of guideline would be beneficial for all editors involved on hockey pages. Would help me also if we all could come to some agreement as to what we should go with.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking back I now see where the confusion is, I forgot the infobox used to label it Pro Career. But when we started getting more Olympic only players and women's players we worded it slightly differently so we could make exceptions for those players and list their international career since few of them will have ever played pro. So like I mentioned above, the most clear cut, same for everyone (who played pro) time to start from is when they played their first pro game. That way it isn't subjective and it is very easy to reference, atleast more so than the exactly when a contract was signed. (thinking older time players rather than today). -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the two should be separated into "Pro career" and "International career"? If desired, international career could be displayed only if pro career is absent. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That would actually be a good idea if someone could code a switch for that sort of thing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those annoying fields that I've always considered changing for the same reasons everyone has been bringing up. I have always used entire pro career for the range, and have long thought of changing the header to "Pro career". Problem is, there are a lot of amateur players that would mess up. I've thought about splitting into two optional fields: "Amateur career" or pro, but that is likely to introduce the problem of people using both fields, one for junior and the other for pro. Resolute 18:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the coding is straightforward enough to make one field only appear if the other is missing; it should be similar to having two names for the same parameter, where one overrides the other. I'll try to mock something up, if there's interest. isaacl (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• As far as the "amateur" thing goes, we can use the same standard as we do for leagues: amateur leagues that constituted the top level of competition for lack of a professional league count, so we'll have proper career dates for the Russell Bowies and Boris Mikhailovs of the world. Ravenswing 09:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we are moving closer to a consensus on the issue. First game with a professional team. Should this include minor pro and semi-pro teams? I would venture yes of course. We just need to make it abundantly clear. And I agree with User:Ravenswing regarding the amateur status from the early days.

I would include the minor pros (Central Hockey League, ECHL, AHL) and the secondary and tertiary Euro leagues. But not major junior (CHL, USHL) or college (NCAA, CIS). What happens with the players in the Euro leagues who will be playing for the team's U20 or U18 squad, but then get loaned to the parent team for 2 games or something - does that trigger the career 'start date'? The reality is that most players who pass the 'notability' test to justify a wikipedia entry will have top league experience (although i notice a lot of entries for prospects who probably don't meet the test). GLG GLG (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Category discussion concerning hockey categories

You are invited to join a discussion on category structure for ice hockey players by Canadian city. Judging by the names I see in the discussion, it doesn't look like the ice hockey project was notified that there is yet another debate on this topic. The discussion can be found at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 20#Canadian ice hockey people by city. Rikster2 (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Status of Brian Lee (b. 1987)

Brian Lee's page reflected that he was retired due to injury and to start a career in banking. I hadn't heard that, so I tried to look for a source and couldn't find one. The only thing I did find was this post on HFBoards saying that the info that he was retired wasn't accurate. I've changed his page to reflect him as a UFA (not a former player)...but if anyone knows of a source that says differently (i.e. that he has retired) please speak up (or edit the page if you want). I didn't see anything on Elite Prospects about him being retired either. GLG GLG (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah without a source or direct statement we generally mark them as a free agent until a year or so has passed and we can safely assume he isn't playing anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

yeah, that sounds fine. obviously, if anyone reads/hears anything to the extent he's retired already, it should be changed. i just moved him back to a UFA b/c i saw on HF that the specific story cited on the page re his retirement (i.e. he'd retired to start a job at a bank) was erroneously reported about him when actually it was another player with the same name GLG GLG (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is HFBoards a WP:RS? NHL, The Hockey News and TSN all show that he announced his retirement 2014-07-11. However they may have picked up the retirement from the retracted tweet by Bolt Prospects and replaced with the quotes in HFBoards, 1, 2, 3, 4. However Contact at bank is still insisting they're the same person. To me either solution is acceptable, he's retired per RS until he plays again or he's a free agent until a few years go by. 69.158.124.62 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 NHL suspensions and fines

FYI; the deletion nomination includes all six lists included in Category:National Hockey League suspensions and fines. Your input is welcomed. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks. i'm still fairly new editing on wikipedia. are there specific pages i should put on 'watch' so i know if hockey-related stuff comes up for deletion...or are all the links shared here? GLG GLG (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What 'former teams' to include in infoboxes...?

I know i've been starting quite a few sections recently...it's just i've been going through pages of current lesser known UFAs to update them so am noticing various inconsistencies. What teams should be included in the 'former teams' section of info boxes - obv. when a player has played for multiple NHL teams they should all be included...but what if that player has played at multiple levels within the same organization (i.e. some or all of NHL, AHL, ECHL) or the player has been loaned out to another minor league team. Adding to that question (and this is the scenario I've seen most) - how do you deal with a player who was within an organization, saw a little NHL time, mainly minor league time, was traded to (or later signed with) another team, again saw a bit of NHL time, mainly minor league time)...which teams should be included as 'former teams'? GLG GLG (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This topic has been brought up numerous times as well, usually the teams played with at the highest level in each country is only listed for each player. Even if he's spent only a limited time in the NHL, that is usually what they are most notable for. If it is a career minor leaguer who toils in the ECHL, CHL etc, all the clubs tend to be listed and are separated by league headers.. hope this helps Triggerbit (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

West Coast Hockey League

There is a MAJOR error in the article describing the history of the West Coast Hockey League. In the article, it says that the East Coast Hockey League and West Coast Hockey League merged. THIS IS NOT TRUE. In fact, The West Coast Hockey League suspended operations and the remaining teams in the league joined the East Coast Hockey League as EXPANSION teams. Shortly after, the league changed it's name to the ECHL.21:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullpup64 (talk • contribs)

• That's generally how a merger is done in sports. The NHL and WHA "merged" in exactly the same fashion. Ravenswing 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Besides which the article dosen't even say that anyway. Says absorbed into the ECHL twice, states that the remnants of the league exist in the ECHL.18abruce (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Latvian Railways Cup

Latvian Railways Cup, an ice hockey tournament, is currently a stub. Perhaps members of this project could expand the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

New Template

Would anyone object if I created a 16 team bracket template that can be used for the 1982-1993 Divisional era? It would look pretty much the same as the currently used divisional template, with just the seeds, round names, conference names and division names changed as needed. Deadman137 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't. You might eventually get flack from the small, but dedicated, group of editors who seem intent on reducing every single permutation of these templates into a single, bloated monstrosity, however. Resolute 13:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference link broken on "San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises"

On the page for "San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises" the external link from reference #4 is broken. The reference is to yahoo and can be found archived here: http://archive.today/dDv4V The exact same press release can be found on a maybe more stable page: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=653132 While the "The Associated Press" is mentioned on the yahoo page together with "The Canadian Press", on NHL.com only "The Canadian Press" is mentioned as a source. So, in an eventual change, this should probably be changed as well.

The reference in question is: "Sharks majority owner buys out investors to take bigger role with team". The Associated Press. 2013-01-30. Retrieved 2013-01-30.

The reason that I am writing here instead of just fixing it myself is that I have never edited or commented on a Wikipedia page before, so I don't want to mess anything up by doing anything stupid, against some standard or something like that. Don't hate me. :)

Link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_Sports_%26_Entertainment_Enterprises — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyoor (talk • contribs) 05:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with the link you provided. Thanks! Resolute 13:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Was Heather Jo Clark a pro?

Does anyone have any information about Heather Clark (fighter) or Heather Jo Clark apparently before she became an MMA fighter she played pro Ice hockey[5]. If so does anyone know the name of the team she played for and for how long so I can create an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. This is proving harder to find than I had hoped. I haven't listened to it, but perhaps This video interview might give you a clue. Canada does not really have a fully professional women's league, but the National Women's Hockey League or Western Women's Hockey League would have been the closest equivalent. I can't find evidence she played in either. I did find a trivial reference to Heather Jo Clark scoring a goal for a team called the Vancouver Jets at a college tournament in Calgary back in 2002. (for reference, "College" and "University" have different meanings in Canada, with colleges being at a lower tier, especially in sports). But good luck finding any real reference of that team. It was never one at the highest level on a national scale, so I suspect was a local/regional level league. She played at least the 1999-2000 season with St. Cloud State University, but beyond that, I've got nothing. And not even stats for time with SCSU. While she clearly played some sort of club hockey in Canada, my suspicion is that the "professional" part of her hockey career is likely just marketing to make her MMA bio a little more impressive. Resolute 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well ... there's yet to be a North American women's "professional" league. The best they've managed so far is to get sponsorship to cover travel costs, coaches' salaries and expenses, but that's no different from major junior or college teams. As Resolute suggests, this is obviously a bit of puffery: she can hardly say that she was a scrub for a season of college hockey. Ravenswing 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Winter Classic logos, again

I see the 2015 Winter Classic logo was uploaded, and it again uses the Bridgestone branding. As I wrote before, the actual logo used in the game (jerseys, pucks) doesn't have that branding. It's for promotional use only. I don't feel it should be present in our articles. Somehow I've had no luck finding good, or even decent, quality non-branded versions for the 2010 and 2012 games, using Google Images or TinEye. Would love it if someone could help me out on this. Usually, these non-branded logos are found on various nhl.com pages either for the teams, the event, or corporate pages. But I can only find very poor quality photos or scans of actual physical jersey patches or pucks, not a regular computer-generated image. Jmj713 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the branded logo. It is factual. Of course ideally we would have one without, but I would not use and inferior image just because the other option is branded. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, obviously we don't want a low-quality image. But here's what the logo really looks like for 2015. Jmj713 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Phantoms

I don't know what the policy is, but do we need in club's article schedule? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not standard practice for those types of articles, so i don't see why it's necessary. GLG GLG (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping the author: @FRANKDK2. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary on the team article, but there is a (currently useless) 2014–15 Lehigh Valley Phantoms season article that it could be moved to. Those AHL season articles were created by a serial (and now blocked) time waster, but if someone were willing to put the effort into expanding the page for their team, I'd think that would provide the better solution for all. Resolute 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TSN profiles changed, article updates needed

So I've updated the TSN-NHL profile template as TSN.ca revamped their site, including new urls to player profiles. Thus any player page utilizing the template should be updated, with the old numeric ID being swapped out for the players name with a hyphen. eg "sidney-crosby". I'm not as active on wiki anymore so I don't have that old mass-editing program else I'd do it myself, but I'm hoping somebody here might IrisKawling (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe request a bot task? That shouldn't be too hard if TSN was consistent in using player names in the URLs. Resolute 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On a related note: Template:Eurohockey and Template:Eurohockey 2 need to be merged since eurohockey.net now redirects to eurohockey.com. 1388 articles will need to be updated. --208.123.190.37 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Phantoms

I don't know what the policy is, but do we need in club's article schedule? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not standard practice for those types of articles, so i don't see why it's necessary. GLG GLG (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping the author: @FRANKDK2. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary on the team article, but there is a (currently useless) 2014–15 Lehigh Valley Phantoms season article that it could be moved to. Those AHL season articles were created by a serial (and now blocked) time waster, but if someone were willing to put the effort into expanding the page for their team, I'd think that would provide the better solution for all. Resolute 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TSN profiles changed, article updates needed

So I've updated the TSN-NHL profile template as TSN.ca revamped their site, including new urls to player profiles. Thus any player page utilizing the template should be updated, with the old numeric ID being swapped out for the players name with a hyphen. eg "sidney-crosby". I'm not as active on wiki anymore so I don't have that old mass-editing program else I'd do it myself, but I'm hoping somebody here might IrisKawling (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe request a bot task? That shouldn't be too hard if TSN was consistent in using player names in the URLs. Resolute 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On a related note: Template:Eurohockey and Template:Eurohockey 2 need to be merged since eurohockey.net now redirects to eurohockey.com. 1388 articles will need to be updated. --208.123.190.37 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Phantoms

I don't know what the policy is, but do we need in club's article schedule? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not standard practice for those types of articles, so i don't see why it's necessary. GLG GLG (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping the author: @FRANKDK2. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary on the team article, but there is a (currently useless) 2014–15 Lehigh Valley Phantoms season article that it could be moved to. Those AHL season articles were created by a serial (and now blocked) time waster, but if someone were willing to put the effort into expanding the page for their team, I'd think that would provide the better solution for all. Resolute 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TSN profiles changed, article updates needed

So I've updated the TSN-NHL profile template as TSN.ca revamped their site, including new urls to player profiles. Thus any player page utilizing the template should be updated, with the old numeric ID being swapped out for the players name with a hyphen. eg "sidney-crosby". I'm not as active on wiki anymore so I don't have that old mass-editing program else I'd do it myself, but I'm hoping somebody here might IrisKawling (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe request a bot task? That shouldn't be too hard if TSN was consistent in using player names in the URLs. Resolute 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On a related note: Template:Eurohockey and Template:Eurohockey 2 need to be merged since eurohockey.net now redirects to eurohockey.com. 1388 articles will need to be updated. --208.123.190.37 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Phantoms

I don't know what the policy is, but do we need in club's article schedule? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not standard practice for those types of articles, so i don't see why it's necessary. GLG GLG (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping the author: @FRANKDK2. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary on the team article, but there is a (currently useless) 2014–15 Lehigh Valley Phantoms season article that it could be moved to. Those AHL season articles were created by a serial (and now blocked) time waster, but if someone were willing to put the effort into expanding the page for their team, I'd think that would provide the better solution for all. Resolute 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

TSN profiles changed, article updates needed

So I've updated the TSN-NHL profile template as TSN.ca revamped their site, including new urls to player profiles. Thus any player page utilizing the template should be updated, with the old numeric ID being swapped out for the players name with a hyphen. eg "sidney-crosby". I'm not as active on wiki anymore so I don't have that old mass-editing program else I'd do it myself, but I'm hoping somebody here might IrisKawling (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe request a bot task? That shouldn't be too hard if TSN was consistent in using player names in the URLs. Resolute 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On a related note: Template:Eurohockey and Template:Eurohockey 2 need to be merged since eurohockey.net now redirects to eurohockey.com. 1388 articles will need to be updated. --208.123.190.37 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Phantoms

I don't know what the policy is, but do we need in club's article schedule? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not standard practice for those types of articles, so i don't see why it's necessary. GLG GLG (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping the author: @FRANKDK2. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary on the team article, but there is a (currently useless) 2014–15 Lehigh Valley Phantoms season article that it could be moved to. Those AHL season articles were created by a serial (and now blocked) time waster, but if someone were willing to put the effort into expanding the page for their team, I'd think that would provide the better solution for all. Resolute 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

TSN profiles changed, article updates needed

So I've updated the TSN-NHL profile template as TSN.ca revamped their site, including new urls to player profiles. Thus any player page utilizing the template should be updated, with the old numeric ID being swapped out for the players name with a hyphen. eg "sidney-crosby". I'm not as active on wiki anymore so I don't have that old mass-editing program else I'd do it myself, but I'm hoping somebody here might IrisKawling (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe request a bot task? That shouldn't be too hard if TSN was consistent in using player names in the URLs. Resolute 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On a related note: Template:Eurohockey and Template:Eurohockey 2 need to be merged since eurohockey.net now redirects to eurohockey.com. 1388 articles will need to be updated. --208.123.190.37 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Phantoms

I don't know what the policy is, but do we need in club's article schedule? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it's not standard practice for those types of articles, so i don't see why it's necessary. GLG GLG (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping the author: @FRANKDK2. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary on the team article, but there is a (currently useless) 2014–15 Lehigh Valley Phantoms season article that it could be moved to. Those AHL season articles were created by a serial (and now blocked) time waster, but if someone were willing to put the effort into expanding the page for their team, I'd think that would provide the better solution for all. Resolute 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 World Under-17 Hockey Challenge

This tournament is being held from Nov 2 - 8 in Sarnia & Lambton Shores, Ontario. Typically there is an individual page for the tournament each year. I don't see one have been made yet for this year's edition. Assuming I haven't just missed it, a complication with naming is that Hockey Canada changed the timing of the tournament. It was formerly held over the Xmas break, with the gold medal game being held in Jan. and that year being the year of the tournament. However, it's now been moved to November. The result is that both this and the last U17 tournament are both the "2014 World Under-17 Hockey Challenge". How do you want to handle this re naming & identifying the page for the new tournament. GLG GLG (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

IIHF events that are held in December (lower tier U20 tournaments) are titled 2015, I think it would be consistent and safe to follow suit. There is going to be confusion either way, but titling it as the rest of the current season makes sense I think.18abruce (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's my whole point. It's no longer held in December - it's now been moved to November. It would be odd to refer to it as the '2015 tournament' when it was held the first week of November 2014 (and the name Hockey Canada is using is "2014"). I understand the reality to be that there are now two 2014 tournaments and next November's will be 2015. I'm just not sure how to reflect this in the title and URL in an appropriate way. GLG GLG (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I would just rename last years to the 2013-14 Blah Blah and and then name this one 2014 Blah Blah. It will clear up some of the confusion. And you can make a note in the article of the date change. In doing so of course you would have to go fix everything that links to last years article to link to the new name so it wasn't linked to the wrong tournament by mistake. Looking at the official page of the tournaments they do call both years the 2014 tournament. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You could also disambiguate by putting (January) and (November) at the end of each name. But I think the other way is a bit cleaner. But this way is closer to the official name so might be the way to go. While making the name without the brackets be a disambiguation page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In WP:CURLING we handle the situation by using the month to disambiguate. (E.g. 2010 The National (January) and 2010 The National (December)). Of course, there's the 2015 Canadian Mixed Curling Championship which is being held in that same week in November. (But, the CCA uses 2015, whereas in this case Hockey Canada isn't) -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

maybe the month in brackets is the way to go. i think this problem should only occur this year because they decided to move the month of the tournament (and, i understand, will be sticking to the november date going forward) GLG GLG (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that is the way to go. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)