Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive64

Nels Stewart

Hello, there. If you go to the talk page of Nels Stewart you'll see my message about when he was inducted in the Hockey Hall of Fame (1952 or 1962). I made a new search on google about that and all the results split half-and-half. I think it may be a confusion with the year Maurice Richard broke his record of 324 goals in 1952. It would be then 1962. And why not take then the source of the Official Site of the Hockey Hall of Fame who says 1962: http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=p196222&type=Player&page=bio&list=. If 1962 his adopted, you also have to change that in the List of members of the hockey Hall of Fame and the photo who's there. Forgive me for my poor english. I'm from wiki in french and I live in Montréal. Thanks for reading me. --Danielvis08 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You see the source for Nels Stewart induction better like that: http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=P196222 --Danielvis08 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it so I don't personally know which is correct, I will have to go and see. However, the legendsofhockey.net site has been full of errors in the past so it is often not considered very reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Alaney2k found HHOF book and Montreal Gazette story confirming 1952 as well as some others that have contradictory dates. I believe the list page now has full citations to look these up.18abruce (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing players articles

If somebody is interested, I have a list of players, which hasn't article here at English Wikipedia. The link is to Russian Wikipedia and the number is iw links. Of course, some of them may not pass notability criteria, bet I think this list would be useful overally. Feel free to remove players from list if article is created or player isn't notable, make some comments there or do whatever you want :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New editor

Would someone like to take Jimmyd7 under their wing? These edits, and in particular, this to a Featured article, need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

NHL and Diacritics

For anyone who's interested in this discussion, an editor has brought up diacritics and NHL players at here. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 22:38, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

NHL team infoboxes

The argument has been made that the off-season is part of the following season. I recommend that we link the (2015 playoff elminated) team infoboxes to the team's respective 2015-16 seasons, even though most or all of those articles haven't been created yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The offseason however, does not begin until the awards have been handed out at which point yes we will link to the next season. Teams not in the playoffs can still make trades and sign players between now and the awards being handed out which fall on the current season page so it is still important we don't switch yet. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As a second proposal. We should link to Off-season, in which it's explained, that period of time does cover 'awards', 'trades', 'signings'. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Except that people are still going to want to see the season articles where those awards, signings etc are listed and linking to the off-season page where they aren't listed doesn't help a reader do that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If you go further down on the Seasons page and look at the Summary it specifically states the season ending after the playoffs in early June, hence, the beginning of the off-season. However I don't think it is that cut-and-dry as I agree that awards, while handed out in what is technically the off-season, should be included in the previous season. But any transaction in the off-season that only affect the upcoming season (trades, signings, draft, etc.) should be included as part of the next season. As for when the infoboxes should be updated, I would think it is logical to change each teams current season when it is fitting to change the League's page current season. (As in if the NHL page says it is in the 2015 Stanley Cup Playoff, part of the 2014–15 season, then why should the Arizona Coyotes page say it is in the 2015–16 season?) Yosemiter (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Draft is considered the first event of the new season if you look at season pages. We treat trades that happen up to the day before the draft as happening in the previous season. You can see examples by looking at our season transaction pages. Its a pretty long standing consensus that has been discussed on this page many times. His beef is mostly that he wants to remove the season pages from the infobox before the season is done for the entire league. He is venting because I reverted him. -DJSasso (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Yosemiter, up until today, nobody mass-reverted my deletions on those infoboxes over these last several weeks. But these last 3+ yrs, have taught me to step back & (begrudgingly) accept that there's nothing I can do, when I get mass-reverted. My status (through fault of my own) is so diminished, that I'm at a disadvantage in any one-on-one situation :( GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it really such a big deal if someone wants to get a jump on updating things. I don't really see harm in it. Also, why is the first day of the new season the draft? Shouldn't it be July 1? GLG GLG (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I would argue getting a "jump on things" is unnecessary since we have all off-season to make updates and also potentially confusing for a casual reader looking for a team's result in the "current" season, playing or not (as I described in my above NHL/Coyotes scenario). July 1 is a good fixed date if we had to choose one since that has been the first day of free agency in the NHL in recent years. However, it seems to me that any action by the team that happens after the team has completed playing should likely be included in the "upcoming" season instead of the "current" season (I guess it seems weird to me to include a post-season trade prior to the draft in the previous season page since it has no effect on it). If in a hypothetical situation, Mike Babcock decides against re-signing as Coach with the Red Wings and instead signs with the Oilers/Sharks/Bruins/etc. on May 25, then would that go on the 2014–15 pages or the 2015–16 pages? Currently such transactions for current empty coaching positions is listed on 2015–16 NHL season and not on 2014–15 NHL season. Yosemiter (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Babcock is under contract with DRW until June 30. Even if he signed with Oilers, etc. he wouldn't become coach until July 1 effective. I would have him becoming coach of the new team as a transaction assigned to July 1 (meaning 2015-16 season). As far as the rest of your post, I think I may have misunderstood what the problem being discussed was. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLG GLG (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enoungh, I was kind of rambling last night. I guess my point was would the edit in the infobox on the respective team pages in the Coach = be made on May 25 or wait until July 1 since it is part of the next season. The longer post mostly came out of my frustration with trying to keep editors from changing AHL affiliations midseason as for the same reason you pointed out they take effect on July 1. I eventually gave up when all their respective post-seasons ended and you will see that Colorado Avalanche, Arizona Coyotes, Florida Panthers, and Columbus Blue Jackets have already been updated for next year's affiliations in the AHL. Yosemiter (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Presidents' Trophy/Playoff Success

I was reading the article on Presidents' Trophy and there's a section 'playoff implications' which comments on the 'apparent lack of success' of teams that have won the trophy. However, I also read a blog today that discussed that Presidents' Trophy winners don't actually fair poorly in the playoffs. I don't know that this blog qualifies as a credible source for wikipedia - but was wondering if the 'playoff implications' section of the wiki article caused an inaccurate perception. Anyway, I didn't try to fix the article or anything. But thought it might be some food for thought. GLG GLG (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Of the 29 President's Trophy winners, only 8 have won the Stanley Cup. Note, we go by seasons, not by franchise. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Using your example, the point I was trying to make that 8 of 29 PT winners winning the SC isn't actually a bad stat. GLG GLG (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you read the first paragraph of that section, it is various media sources that are bringing up this so-called "curse", and the stat about 8 out of 29. The Wikipedia article is only only reporting what reliable sources are saying. Now if you want to add something where people are trying to refute this "curse", I have no objections. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a great statement, though it is one that has been in the media. If "only" 8 in 30 PC winners take the Cup (after the Rangers are eliminated), that is a win rate of 1 in 7.5. Much higher than the 1 in 16 rate if winners were random from all qualifying teams. Resolute 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

New standings table format (possible issue)

I prob should've just included this with the above discussion but didn't want to see it get archived and missed. Is it just me or does having the V-T-E links in the the team column not work and just sort the column? Any chance it can be moved? –B2Project^(Talk) 12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an odd place to have them I must agree. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the team column is sortable it can only be accessed by right clicking. What do you suggest a) not making that column sortable, or b) moving the VTE (and to where such that it is still concisely included?)? CRwikiCA talk 14:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As I have expressed earlier I dont se why a standings table should be sortable, it is standings and teams should be in correct order. QED237 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Because standings tables are more than just the point ranking. People want to know who was first in a given column. To be honest it blows my mind that you don't think that makes sense. I can't say I have ever seen a standings table outside of a newspaper where the standings table isn't sortable at least not for sports in North America, I have seen a soccer one that didn't. Its one of the main things people use such tables for, especially in hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting the VTE inline with the title aligned to the left.–B2Project^(Talk) 15:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup makes sense. VTE is usually off to one side. It just seemed odd to me that it was in one collum instead of left or right justified. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This makes sense when a title is provided, but it might not look good when no title is provided. Any suggestions in those cases? CRwikiCA talk 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

St. John's IceCaps

This article should be split in two, as there is or will be 2 such named franchises. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well the article won't be split since its currently only about the current team. But a new page will be created for the new team as per normal. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the infobox threw me off a bit, with its info on the future St. John's IceCaps. I've since fixed it :) GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it actually "normal" to split the Jets' IceCaps from the Canadiens' IceCaps? The only other evidence I can think of for similar situations where one franchise left but was immediately replaced by another franchise in the same league and kept the name would be the Hamilton Bulldogs and Maine Mariners in the AHL and the Fort Wayne Komets in the ECHL. Those pages have both franchises represented as one team and there appears to have been a discussion about it on Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs some time ago since they celebrated an anniversary based on the original teams first season. (Although I suppose Hamilton is somewhat of a special case since both franchises were merged for one full season before the RoadRunners were formed and were a continuation of the Oilers-owned franchise). Of course all of these were pre-wikipedia history but I thought I would point out that there doesn't appear to be much of a case for normal. For the average reader/hockey fan wondering about the IceCaps they probably wouldn't really care about franchises, but they might care about the first couple of seasons. Also I would default to what the IceCaps themselves say next year in their about section and if they use the same website or not. Yosemiter (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant normal in terms of all teams that move get new pages, but yeah we could keep them as the same page, I usually find separate articles allow for more detail. I would note generally we disregard what the team claims as team history for "promotional" reasons. We have had a pretty strong consensus for example that the current Senators are not the old Senators like they were trying to claim for a long while. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yosemiter -- our practice with different franchise/different affiliation/same team name has been for single articles unless we're talking about a number of years of difference, such as with the San Diego Gulls or the Quad City Mallards, or dramatic changes such as pro teams being replaced by junior teams (as with the Muskegon Lumberjacks). It might be a good idea for one of us with nothing else to do of an afternoon to take a spin through to see what minor pro articles do get which treatment. Ravenswing 05:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Though not my first choice, perhaps the Minnesota Fighting Saints article's content style could be a guideline. It's virtually two articles in one. GoodDay (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Minor leagues are really hard to base things on, because they are all a mess because they don't get as much attention, and various people go through making sweeping changes to many but not all articles and so we get a mix of ways of handling things. We also had a sockpuppeteer who had been merging all teams who had been in one franchise whether they moved or not so there may be some of their mess out there still too. At least we are not as bad as baseball who have sooooo many teams it was hard to undo everything that guy was doing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

They are a mess and that is exactly why I have being trying to fix some of the lower level minor league and junior hockey pages. Overall, I can't say I have a set opinion either way as I just separated the Kalamazoo Wings/Kalamazoo Wings (1974–2000) pages as those are unrelated teams/different leagues. I was just trying to point out that same name/same league/consecutive years situation as readers/editors seem to like one page and they don't care about the business side of things. Yosemiter (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I understand what you are getting at, my only concern was that you (in the general sense not you specifically) have to remember we don't only write these pages for fans. Because we are an encyclopedia we are also interested in the business side of things, not just the sport. The key thing to remember about any article on Wikipedia is we don't write for the people who know about the subject, we write for people who don't know about the subject. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be the consensus with the split vs. non split on the IceCaps? If it is to split we should do that sooner rather than later as their season is ended and editors are changing team affiliations and such on the page. Yosemiter (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Since no one responded to this question; Split or not? Unregistered editors have been editing as it will the same page for the franchise taking it's name next year. They are apparently using all the same websites as the True North team and selling tickets for next year with Canadiens' colours but the website itself hasn't updated for the Montreal ownership. Yosemiter (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article should either be split in the 2 seperate franchises, or set up like the WHA's Minnesota Fighting Saints article. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The bigger question now is do we merge the two Manitoba Moose teams since they are the same franchise, but left town for a number of years and came back. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a discussion. Like you said, it's the same franchise and ownership group that existed from 1996 to 2011. Like a skater coming in on a breakaway to an empty net, the two Moose teams should be merged. Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 03:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I say there should be two St. John's Icecaps articles since they are 2 different franchises and I say to merge the Manitoba Moose articles since they are the same franchise and name Debdeb18 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If there was a gap of one season or more, then I could see where you're coming from...but again, there will be a team using this identity in the same league in consecutive seasons (despite the franchise swap). If we split the IceCaps' page, let's also split the Bulldogs' AHL one. Tom Danson (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so have we reached a consensus? Tom Danson (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That is good news, I don't know what the consensus is as the article is still confused (it has both franchise histories listed in the infobox but the first paragraph states "The St. John's IceCaps were a professional ice team"). I don't care either way but it is in poor condition right now and needs to be decided soon. If I had a vote I would say one page written like the Bulldogs page is currently where both franchises are described in with separate sections (it might be worth considering that since most rumors hint at the Canadiens moving the franchise to Laval in two years it would make their stay there as half the length of time of the Jets). The biggest complication might be the Team records section since almost all those players will continue elsewhere and whether or not we want to consider new team records for the Canadiens' IceCaps (the Bulldogs have mixed franchises on listed on their team records section). Yosemiter (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would we need to split the Bulldogs one? Debdeb18 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If we are to make two pages for the two separate franchises called the St. John's IceCaps then we should do the same for the Bulldogs since a similar situation happened to there in 2002–03. Yosemiter (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Marcel Bonin

If someone wants to really improve Marcel Bonin and correct the year of his birth you just have to go to: http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Marcel-Bonin Thank you. --Danielvis08 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And to correct the birth year of Bob Fillion: http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Bob-Fillion Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2015 (Montreal time)

The Society for International Hockey Research actually has the same date as what is on our pages. I would tend to go based on those dates rather than the Canadiens team website, however would need to look for more sources that indicate one way or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Greater Los Angeles Sports by year navboxes

FYI

Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1946 and similiar templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Greater_Los_Angeles_Sports_by_year_navboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Level of detail for playoff articles

Can someone have a look at this edit to the 1994 Stanley Cup playoffs article? My personal editorial style leans towards a more minimalistic description, but I recognize that others feel differently, so I would appreciate the views of others. (In spite of similarities with this particular edit, I don't believe there is a connection to previous attempts at inserting this type of information in this article.) isaacl (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ehh. I can see expanding the prose due to the fact that that was one of the most memorable individual moments in that year's playoffs. But honestly, who the hell cares if Matteau an the play by play guy recognize each other? Resolute 13:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Eeesh ... that's enormous detail, far out of necessary proportion. That might be overwhelmingly memorable to Rangers' fans, and perhaps that ought to go in the Rangers' season article. Ravenswing 15:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Almost positive that is probably another sock of SNyler. He has probably gotten wise to the fact I can pick off his IPs with ease at this point. Although looking at his edit history maybe not since he has a lot of non-sport edits which is unlike SNyler. -DJSasso (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of deny recognition, I wasn't going to mention the name... The latest registered sock (and the earlier ones I can recall) were obvious variants of the original user name. The rest of the edits of this particular editor just don't match the edit history of the other socks, so while it's possible a more evolved behaviour is occurring (and if that's leading to more productive edits, great!), I have my doubts. isaacl (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, going further back in the edit history, I see more edits which are characteristic of the editor in question. The user name of this editor seems vaguely familiar, so I may have noted this similarity before. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Medal Tables infobox

Sure its already been raised but is there a preference for the medal table to remain in the International play section instead of the infobox?? eg. Matt Duchene.. I was under the assumption that the infobox medal table was used only if there wasn't a sufficient international play section?

If the Infobox is preferred is there a way to make it hidden by default to avoid the busy look? and there's also an issue of having the same country flags twice in the infobox...

Any insight is appreciated, thanks Triggerbit (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It should only be in the infobox if there is no international play section or awards section. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

cheers thanks Triggerbit (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the double flag just remove the medal country row and it won't show it twice (ie like here). That line is redundant in our infobox so not necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this while browsing. I think that medals should be used in the infobox only as there is the medaltemplates parameter and the whole box gives a good overview. The international play section does not need a whole new "box". And thanks for removing the flag, i tried that other kind of sports but sometimes editors said that it should stay. Kante4 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the parameter was added by an editor outside the hockey project without discussion if I remember correctly, added for sledge hockey players if I remember correctly since they have shoehorned the template to use on their articles as well. Then when someone started mass moving the boxes into the infobox a discussion was held and it was determined to only use it when it would otherwise over whelm the article to have two boxes (ie a stub). And our layout standard is to put it in the International play section if available, otherwise in the Awards or next to the international stats. -DJSasso (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, disagree with that as it gives a better overview than having two boxes but ok. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks Task Force?

Is anyone interested in creating a task force for the Chicago Blackhawks? We would need a few willing members to help build the page and make articles for it. If you are interested or know someone who would be please tell me so we can get a task force created for the Hawks. Also I have some templates already created for it. I already have most of the page planned out on my sandbox if anyone wants to check it out. Thanks!!! Da Drewster (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, you aren't likely to find many takers. Task forces have all sort of flopped in this project. Lot of gung-ho plans to start them and then they immediately fizzle because there really aren't enough editors for a given team to support a whole task force. Most talk for hockey articles just occurs on this centralized page. -DJSasso (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about that Djasso. Its pretty disappointing to hear that pages have failed like that. On the long run i'll see if I can find a good amount of members that will be willing to stay long enough to get the project going. Da Drewster (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Like Djsasso said. An NHL team task force, has as much chance of taking off here, as the Global Hockey League & second World Hockey Association had, in the hockey world :( GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright then I though it may have a chance sense it is such a successful and popular franchise more so than teams like San Jose who do have a Task Force. Anyways thanks guys. Pretty bummed out about it though :'( Da Drewster (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you take a look at those task forces such as San Jose, they haven't had more than one or two messages on them since they were created. And haven't been touched in 5 or more years. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Check out the status San Jose Sharks task force, but watch out for the tumble weeds. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do feel free to proceed with any organized lists of tasks and so forth that you wish to accomplish regarding the Blackhawks, and discuss them on this talk page; a formal task force isn't needed to get people interested in working together. I think for now everyone benefits from being able to see all ice hockey-related discussions in one place; if at some point this project talk page gets swamped with threads that are very narrowly-focused on the Blackhawks, then it may be worthwhile to start a separate discussion page for that topic area. Happy editing! isaacl (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point the Sharks task force has been extremely inactive in the past. Thanks for all the feedback guys I will continue to edit and create articles about Blackhawks players for the Ice Hockey Wiki Project. Da Drewster (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do! And we're always available here for assistance when requested. But yeah, sometimes, we end up being one-person task forces. Cheers! Resolute 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Question re International Play

I was wondering if I could get clarification re what tournaments qualify for international play for players (specifically, at the jr level). I ask b/c it doesn't seem consistent across the board prior to the U20 level. It seems clear that IIHF U20 is included in players' international play. But what about IIHF U18 and Ivan Hlinka (which isn't an IIHF sanctioned tournament, but is the the U18 tournament that Canada sends its top players to). And what about U17 World Challenge? For example, the pages for Jonathan Drouin and Nathan MacKinnon include their stats from U17. The pages for Stamkos, Tavares, and McDavid don't. Crosby's page includes his Hlinka stats; Taylor Hall's doesn't. McDavid's page doesn't include his stats from IIHFU18 (although Hall's does). You get the picture.

So, what's the consensus about what tournaments qualify? I'm not (on a personal level) fussed either way - but whatever the consensus is, I would like to do a summer project of trying to make things consistent (all are welcome to participate!) GLG GLG (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say just IIHF tournaments (OG, WC, U20, U18), so no Ivan Hlinka, Sprengler Cup and Challenge(s). But not sure what was discussed earlier. Kante4 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• GLG GLG, if you're talking about notability (for the purposes of meeting NHOCKEY), the answer is basic: if you play in the Olympics or the senior World Championships, you qualify. No other tournament, at any level, does, and that includes the World Juniors, the Memorial Cup, the Hlinka or the Sprengler, nothing.

  If you're talking inclusion in a stat block, there's no set standard. My own preference would be to include the WJC and the Memorial Cup in a "Playoffs" block, and omit other tournaments. Ravenswing 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking stats, they all do, if you are talking for notability purposes only the Olympics and World Championships. For stat sections we use what ever stats we can reliably source, for some players that includes their AAA stats before they even moved on to major junior. For international stats specifically, if they are missing its usually because someone hasn't taken the time to go get them. They aren't always as readily available on every stat listing site as the big 3 (OLY, WC, WJC) so non-regular editors updating and even regular editors I suppose don't often take the effort to go get them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim Rutherford

A new editor has added an overly-sourced "criticism" section to Jim Rutherford's article which focuses on the reaction to a single trade and now comprises roughly 50% of the article. I haven't seen anything quite like this before, it's rather breathtaking in its audacity. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

lol it was pretty funny GLG GLG (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been discussing it with him at my talk page. Just a new editor finding his way around, I think. Resolute 03:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That trade will be his epitaph. But yeah, 50% is too much. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Knee hockey article nominated for deletion

Hi, FYI, the article on Knee hockey has been nominated for deletion as it had no references. Although it's not technically ice hockey, I'm hoping someone here might know enough to contribute to the discussion on whether the article should be deleted, kept, or merged with the hockey article. You can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knee hockey. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Bakersfield Condors

Would like to propose the move for the Bakersfield Condors (AHL) to drop the Brackets and the former ECHL team to move to Bakersfield Condors (ECHL). That's simple enough but i was just wondering if there is a bot or someone with the ability who could change all the ECHL Condors players categories to include the (ECHL) addition without having to do each individually?? Triggerbit (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that move is uncontroversial, so moving the categories would likely be similar. You would have to list them at WP:CFDS where, if there is no objection, a bot would be sent to move everything over. Resolute 20:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of Bakersfield Condors (ECHL) it might be best to call them Bakersfield Condors (1995–2015), similar to the old San Diego Gulls (1995–2006) as they played in both the ECHL and the WCHL. Yosemiter (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well we have handled this in the past with the Charlotte team for example that the new team has the disambiguation for awhile until the number of sources make it the primary topic. I think it was one season we had it that way. But I don't have particularly strong opinions on it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky 99 Award

What is the difference between "Wayne Gretzky 99 Award" and "Wayne Gretzky Award"?

Wayne Gretzky 99 Award

References for "Wayne Gretzky 99 Award"

Ref-1, Ref-2, Ref-3, Ref-4

Wayne Gretzky Award

References for "Wayne Gretzky Award"

Ref-1, Ref-2, Ref-3

I think the above will help you for the comparison.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC

They're completely different awards - the Wayne Gretzky 99 Award is for the OHL playoff MVP while the Wayne Gretzky Award is for youth hockey players GLG GLG (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox

A heads up: the featured article review team is going through unreviewed FAs promoted in 2010 or before: a list is at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox. Most of the project's FAs are from 2010 or before and only a couple have been through FAR. Right now, I believe the FAR team is at a stage where they're reviewing what articles may need further review at FAR, so it would perhaps be useful to check up on any hockey FAs (especially if the main editor is inactive, or like for me, kind of active but not really and really wishes he had more time to devote to Wikipedia...), to perhaps avoid them hitting the FAR stage. Maxim_(talk) 17:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

World U-17 Hockey Challenge

I think I previously raised this one when I (naively) thought I'd have more time on my hands - but then got busy this past year - and I don't think anyone else got too interested in the topic. This tournament has been changed from its previous format. It used to be held over the Xmas break. Starting this past year it was moved to the fall/November and the structure of the Canadian team changed. Where, before, the Canadian teams were based on geographic region, they've now been condensed into three teams where they players are randomly(?) - or at least not through geographic area - placed. As a result World U-17 Hockey Challenge needs to be updated. Also, unless I've completely missed it, there's not page for the November U17 challenge (it's a bit confusing, because technically there are 2 2014 U17s - the one that ended in Jan/14 - using the old format - and the one from November 2014 (and that's the one i don't see a page for). I don't go back to uni until Septembe (although i'm working), so I can try to work on it over the summer if no one else is into it. GLG GLG (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The november tournament details are found here, and an explanation (of sorts) for the three Canadian entries is found here. It appears to be a selection camp like the world juniors but they build three teams trying to make them as equal to each other as possible.18abruce (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Playoff results in career statistics

I thought it would be a good idea to add one more column to our usual career statistics table, and list the player's result after each playoffs. This is already done for coaches and international play, so this seems logical and honestly would add a lot to the dry stats, giving a quick way to gauge the player's playoff succes. Jmj713 (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was actually about to suggest removing that from players international statistics since its often already mentioned in the medal box and if it wasn't a medal its not particularly pertinent to the player as its a team result not a player result. A coach is slightly different as they are judged on how the team does. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, I would be interested in seeing how well a player did on a particular team in a particular season, while glancing at the overall stats. As of now the statistics don't really tell that story. The international stats do usually have the Results column and that's very useful for a quick glance to see exactly how the player and the team performed and how far in the playoffs or the tournament it went. Jmj713 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I definitely get what you are saying, I just think a playoff result is more a team result than a players individual result and I would click the link for the season and go to the team season page for that information. It is for that sort of information that we link the team season page on that line. But yeah lets see what others think. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that would just add clutter, myself. Resolute 14:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeing the example below has only increased my agreement with Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Any specifics as to why? Looks okay to me and pretty informative, no? It would take clicking on each season link (if available), finding the playoffs section, looking how the player's team did then. Way too much work. Jmj713 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For me personally, that is not what I am looking for in a stats table. I want to see the player's stats. Why is the team result relevant there? Also, why just playoff results then? Why aren't we including where said player's team finished in the regular season? Because neither is relevant to the player's individual statistics. Scope creep is a bad thing, as the list of teams table in the main NHL article amply demonstrates. Resolute 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a sample of what it could look like, using Marian Hossa as an example: Jmj713 (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

				Regular season						Playoffs
Season	Team	League		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM	Result
1995–96	HC Dukla Trenčín Jr.	SVK-Jr.		53	42	49	91	26		—	—	—	—	—	—
1996–97	HC Dukla Trenčín	SVK		46	25	19	44	33		7	5	5	10	—	Won Championship
1997–98	Portland Winter Hawks	WHL		53	45	40	85	50		16	13	6	19	6	Won Championship
1997–98	Ottawa Senators	NHL		7	0	1	1	0		—	—	—	—	—	—
1998–99	Ottawa Senators	NHL		60	15	15	30	37		4	0	2	2	4	Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
1999–00	Ottawa Senators	NHL		78	29	27	56	32		6	0	0	0	2	Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
2000–01	Ottawa Senators	NHL		81	32	43	75	44		4	1	1	2	4	Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
2001–02	HC Dukla Trenčín	SVK		8	3	4	7	16		—	—	—	—	—	—
2001–02	Ottawa Senators	NHL		80	31	35	66	50		12	4	6	10	2	Lost in Conference Semifinals
2002–03	Ottawa Senators	NHL		80	45	35	80	34		18	5	11	16	6	Lost in Conference Finals
2003–04	Ottawa Senators	NHL		81	36	46	82	46		7	3	1	4	0	Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
2004–05	Mora IK	SEL		24	18	14	32	22		—	—	—	—	—	—
2004–05	HC Dukla Trenčín	SVK		25	22	20	42	38		5	4	5	9	14	Lost in Semifinals
2005–06	Atlanta Thrashers	NHL		80	39	53	92	67		—	—	—	—	—	—
2006–07	Atlanta Thrashers	NHL		82	43	57	100	49		4	0	1	1	6	Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
2007–08	Atlanta Thrashers	NHL		60	26	30	56	30		—	—	—	—	—	—
2007–08	Pittsburgh Penguins	NHL		12	3	7	10	6		20	12	14	26	12	Lost in Stanley Cup Finals
2008–09	Detroit Red Wings	NHL		74	40	31	71	63		23	6	9	15	10	Lost in Stanley Cup Finals
2009–10	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL		57	24	27	51	18		22	3	12	15	25	Won Stanley Cup
2010–11	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL		65	25	32	57	32		7	2	4	6	2	Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
2011–12	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL		81	29	48	77	20		3	0	0	0	0	Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
2012–13	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL		40	17	14	31	16		22	7	9	16	2	Won Stanley Cup
2013–14	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL		72	30	30	60	20		19	2	12	14	8	Lost in Conference Finals
2014–15	Chicago Blackhawks	NHL		82	22	39	61	32		7	0	6	8	—	TBD
NHL totals				1 172	486	570	1 056	596		171	45	82	127	83	2 Stanley Cups

IMHO, adding the playoffs column & stats, is too cluttery. However, if the playoff stats were placed 'below' the regular season stats, instead beside them. Then that would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who took the time to enter accurate data into the persondata templates of hockey players and other biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve such data. Here are two examples of Wikidata for notable notable hockey players: Wayne Gretzky and Bobby Orr. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about nomenclature

Why are the articles titled "[Year] Stanley Cup Finals" and not "[Year] Stanley Cup Final"? The logos on each page make it pretty clear what the official title is. --Kevin W. - Talk 22:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, my guess is a simple matter of inertia. I'd have no opposition to changing to the more proper name, personally. Resolute 13:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There have been many actual consensus discussions on this (essentially every year). It is because the preponderance of sources on this still use Finals and the NHL itself up until recently did as well. It is a WP:COMMONNAME thing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think it be better to treat it in a similar manner as the season numbering issue (I beg everyone, please don't use this as an opportunity to discuss this again!) or an arena renaming: Wikipedia articles should take their cue from the organization in charge of naming the entity, and align accordingly, even if there are many sources using an older name or an inaccurate one. An example from another field: even if most sources use "daylight savings time", the official name "daylight saving time" is still used in the corresponding article. isaacl (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately commonname is a policy so it has to be followed. Until the version without the s is a clear majority of sources then the version with the s needs to continue to be used. Just doing a very quick google search about the time example you used. Daylight saving time without the s is the clear majority with double the sources using it, which is why its at that name. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles on arenas, for example, are moved to their new name even when the old name remains the common name—typically there will be a period of time when many sources are still using the old name. Wikipedia policy does give precedence to using an accurate name over a commonly used one. isaacl (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And we probably shouldn't move the arenas in those cases but we usually do because we know there will be many non-regular editors continually doing it so its easier to go with the flow than fight the tide of continually reverting. That isn't really the case here. A common name is an accurate name unless the common name causes confusion, and Wikipedia policy give precedence to the common name. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the policy for using commonly recognizable names, inaccurate names are "often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." That being said, for this particular situation, the inaccuracy is not a big deal, so I appreciate editors may wish to retain the existing name. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that in this case it is not actually inaccurate. They mean the same thing, its actually an engvar issue if I remember correctly. Canadian English considers the final series as a plural set of games. American English considers it as a singular series of games. Along the same lines of British and Canadian/American english concerning the plurality of a team. One uses "The Montreal Canadiens are a team" and the other uses "The Montreal Canadiens is a team". I forget if it was last year or a couple of years ago, someone suggested we should just change the capital F to a lower case one to make it obvious we were using the generic term finals instead of the trademark name. Whether or not that is a good idea I don't know. We don't capitalize P for example on the playoffs articles. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

True enough, a capital letter means a title is being used, as otherwise article title policy requires a lowercase letter. I suppose we should just be happy that a word like "colour" isn't included in the series name. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Goals For and Goals Against

Hello. Can someone know why in Regular season of 1923-24 PCHA season the total for GF (Goals For), 84+87+78=249 is not the same for GA (Goals Against), 99+80+103=282 ? Thank you. --Danielvis08 (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the PCHA played an interlocking schedule with the Western Canada Hockey League, and generally got destroyed. All three teams had records below .500. There is a note below the table that notes "Standings include results of games played against WCHL opponents.", but that could probably be improved to make the context more clear. Resolute 13:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. I'll have sources at home that I can use to cite the interlocking schedule. If I forget to look them up, feel free to ping me about it in a couple days. Cheers! Resolute 13:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Veleno

He was the 1st overall draft pick in the QMJHL. Last week he was granted exceptional status by Hockey Canada, which allowed him to enter to the draft. He is the first player from outside Ontario to be granted exceptional status by Hockey Canada. Does he qualify as notable for the purposes of a new article? There are articles on Sean Day, Aaron Ekblad, and Connor McDavid (all of which have existed for a while). GLG GLG (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm militantly, completely and implacably against carving out exceptions or exemptions to the notability guidelines on grounds that this event or that is somehow unique; if they're as unique as all of that, then they'll have the press coverage to meet the GNG, and whether or not they meet NHOCKEY is a moot point. The Ekblads and McDavids of the world qualify early under the GNG. I'm comfy with that. Ravenswing 05:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

sorry, i'm embarrassed to say this but i wasn't familiar with GNG - i always looked at notability under specific 'umbrellas' (e.g. 'hockey'). Thanks for informing me about that one (genuine, not sarcastic). So does Veleno pass the test then? I would think he does. But not so sure. I'm not protective over the issue or anything - if he doesn't qualify i don't really care. It's just if he does, I would take a stab at writing an article, that's all. GLG GLG (talk)

Honestly, I'd look at the GNG first and foremost, because that's the fundamental underpinning of all subordinate notability criteria like NHOCKEY and the other individual sports criteria: the premise is that a subject who meets one or more of those criteria is likely to be able to meet the GNG. As far as Veleno goes, your best bet as with creating ANY article is to do the legwork: research to see if you can find substantive media sources that don't butt heads with WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 11:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

New Record

Tonight a record was made: with the victory from Chicago 2-1 over Tampa Bay, it's the first time in the history of the Stanley Cup Finals (1893 to date) that the first 4 matches were decided by 1 goal each in regular time. The last time there was the 1st 3 final matches decided all by 1 goal in regular time was in 1976. Note: there has been 4 first final matches decided by 1 goal in 1968 and even 5 first final matches decided by 1 goal each in 1951 but in the 2 cases there were matches who went in overtime (even all the 5 matches went in overtime in '51). --Danielvis08 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

First round draft picks

with the NHL draft creeping up i guess now is good time to ask, what's with those succession boxes of players who are first round draft picks in regards to the header.. some have sporting achievement (A), others have sporting position (B) and others have nothing at all (C).. figured once the consensus is reached i could make it streamlined across the board..

Just in case you have no idea what im talking about..

Triggerbit (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Really I don't see a point to having titles for the different types of boxes. I think the content is explanation enough. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Plus/Minus Statistic

I tried looking in the archive to see if this has been brought up, but couldn't find anything. If this has previously been discussed I apologize.

This would be a pretty big task but I think it would be helpful. I think we should start including the plus/minus in the statistic template of players. It is a useful stat especially regarding defensemen. It certainly seems to warrant a place above PIM. What do you guys think? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you would have to start with sources that indicate that what you are saying is true. Like maybe indicate who the stat is useful to, and who covering the game views it as having more of a place statistically above PIM.18abruce (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Has been covered in the past, but couldn't find it in the archives either though.. pretty sure it went along the lines that Wiki isn't about covering all the stats, more of a general view and that people interested in that kind of depth would look at NHL.com, TSN etc.. Triggerbit (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

With the advent of advanced statistics it's possible we might even see the plus/minus statistic abandoned in a few years. I don't think it's worth including if its continued existence is in doubt. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:2014 Stanley Cup playoffs & Template:2015 Stanley Cup playoffs

FWIW, when did Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals get relegated to the garbage bin? TSN still uses those terms. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion started on Talk:2015 Stanley Cup playoffs#Round names, where some users began to cite other sources using the other terms. This apparently was a continuation of the discussion held last year when some sources were saying one thing while others were saying something else. As mentioned in last year's discussion, the NHL had been inconsistent in the naming of the playoff rounds of the now-two year old divisional playoff system. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are 30 pages in the 2015 NHL Guide and Record book (I missed one page in my last response on the 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs talk page) that state the change was made with the current realignment. So far this post-season only the Canadian Press has been consistently using the old standard, that's what you saw on TSN GoodDay. The league itself has been very consistent this year with their usage of first and second round as the proper round names. Deadman137 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you scroll down to the "Parise, Dubynk help Wild advance into second round" section of this link and read the first bullet point you can clearly see the changes that the league has made. [1] Deadman137 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

First, second, third, etc. round is nothing new. These names have always been used. I'm not sure why the league decided on this, but as I ment earlier, they refer to the Finals in the singular while many sources still customarily refer to it in the plural. Same here. And even some league sources continue to use QF and SF names. I don't see any reason to use First/Second Round. Just because the league does it, other sources still do not and its not consistent with previous years. Jmj713 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You're so right Jmj713 the league has no history of changing the names of the playoff rounds after they realign the league, it certainly didn't happen after the league changed the playoff structure in 1981 and 1993 did it? You should go on to nhl.com and actually read an article there and you will see that a change has been made.

If this encyclopedia was started today and someone went to go write about the 2014 Stanley Cup playoffs and they used the same reference book that I am citing, they would use first and second round for that article because that is what the book states and based on the standards of this project that would be acceptable. So why is there any further need for discussion on this because a few editors chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore fact when it was presented to them? Based on the evidence we all screwed up as a group last year and now we can fix our mistake and move on. Deadman137 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For those of you who would want this clearly spelled out for you, I will provide a brief synopsis of pages 27, 43, 71 and 95 of the 2015 NHL Guide and Record book. These particular pages contain the all-time franchise records of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and the NY Rangers, these teams were selected because each of them advanced past the opening round of the playoffs in both 2013 and 2014. If you look to the lower half of each page you will find a table that contains detailed playoff records (similar to the List of NHL playoff series that we have here) broken down by team, on the far right hand side of this table you will see two headings that cover the year and round (with round name abbreviations) in which the teams last met in the playoffs. I will be primarily using the all-time playoff record table for this discussion, though in cases where teams played each other in both 2013 and 2014 I will use the smaller table (to the immediate right of the all-time playoff record table) that covers the team's record (with the same round abbreviations as the other table) for the previous five post seasons.

The following list will only cover the playoff opponents of the four teams listed above for the 2013 and 2014 Stanley Cup playoffs as this covers the time period where the changes to the round names occurred. Only the abbreviated round name from the 2015 NHL Guide and Record book will be listed in brackets behind the opponents city name:

Boston

• 2013: Toronto (CQF), NY Rangers (CSF), Pittsburgh (CF), Chicago (F)
• 2014: Detroit (FR), Montreal (SR)

Chicago

• 2013: Minnesota (CQF), Detroit (CSF), Los Angeles (CF), Boston (F)
• 2014: St. Louis (FR), Minnesota (SR), Los Angeles (CF)

Los Angeles

• 2013: St. Louis (CQF), San Jose (CSF), Chicago (CF)
• 2014: San Jose (FR), Anaheim (SR), Chicago (CF), NY Rangers (F)

NY Rangers

• 2013: Washington (CQF), Boston (CSF)
• 2014: Philadelphia (FR), Pittsburgh (SR), Montreal (CF), Los Angeles (F)

The 2016 edition of the NHL Guide and Record book will have an additional 14 pages that confirm this change (44 in total) and of the 16 teams that made this year's playoffs only one team (the Washington Capitals) was still using conference quarterfinals and semifinals in articles on their main website. The only other dissenting team was the New York Rangers who were using Division Semifinal and Final for their coverage.

So unless someone can find a more credible and reliable source than what I have presented in the next few days I will be re-adding these correct changes to the affected articles. Deadman137 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated numerous times, it doesn't matter that the NHL is going this way (god knows why). They've been calling the Finals the Final since 2006 and yet we still continue using Finals, because a) many media sources do too, and b) it's tradition and many people in conversation say that. Same here. Please revert your unilateral edits. Jmj713 (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it does matter what the league does as the articles in question are about the league itself. Your argument is pointless because you are a talking about the usage of a noun and it's plural form, that is not what this conversation has been about. In addition, acting unilaterally is completely acceptable by project standards and the last time I checked Wikipedia was not a democracy. Now if we look at the issues that were brought forward during this discussion we come across the following:

1) The league has been very inconsistent with the names that they have used for this two year old playoff system. This is verifiably false, the only inconsistencies that I could find from reading game summaries written by the league (which are considered an acceptable source for verification) were in the Montreal-Boston second-round series last year where the article writer used Eastern Conference First Round series instead of Second Round for two of the games, despite this minor error this still proves the point that I have been arguing.

2) Many league sources are still using the old system, you know as well as I do Jmj that this statement is complete crap. Only one team was using the old standard and that was Washington, fourteen of the other fifteen teams were using the same standard as the league does.

Also the only verified source that you could come up with was Larry Brooks and he is hardly a subject expert, a beat writer sure, but no expert on this issue. The only other organizations that wrote anything contradictory to my point were the Associated and Canadian Press, but they were all over the map when it came to consistency and in this case most of them are just beat writers as well and most of the time we don't even know the author's name so we can't assess if they have much expertise in the subject matter they are reporting on. Now based on the standards set out in some ice hockey AFDs we are allowed to assess the credibility of a verified source and what you have presented is not more credible than an almanac/guide book that has been published annually since the 1930s and is widely recognized as the most accurate source of information regarding the statistics and history of the NHL. Also Jmj you didn't object back in October of last year when I used this book as a reference to fix errors on the list of NHL playoff series.

3) We should stick with the original names because of WP:COMMONNAME. Well if you actually read this policy it clearly states the following: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."

So at this point Jmj your argument is now basically reduced down to "I don't like this, change it back." We all know that this is not an acceptable argument anywhere in this project. So no, I will not revert myself, you have had nearly six weeks to prove a point and you have continually failed to do so. Deadman137 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you please get a consensus for what you want, before making such changes. PS: I've reverted you changes at the articles-in-question, until you get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, we probably could use a few more opinions from people who have not been involved with the discussion so far anyways. Deadman137 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on the list of NHL playoff series and elsewhere, but you seem to be the only one wanting to do this. And this is technically just semantics. If the NHL is using "Conference Finals" for the third round, then it's clear that the preceding so-called "Second Round" is actually the "Semifinals", and the "First Round" before that is the "Quarterfinals". I do not see any sense in changing the long-standing wording, unless you can explain how a round preceding the third round which is being called "Conferences Finals" is not "Semifinals". Jmj713 (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is all semantics, but by your argument why don't we continue to use the term Stanley Cup Quarterfinals and Semifinals for the second and third rounds then?

Is this yet another case of the league moving to the lowest common denominator again, absolutely. Every time the league has changed the name of a playoff round we have made the same change. Ultimately the league is going to continue down this path and it is our duty to follow wherever the verified information leads us, even if it sounds a little stupid. Deadman137 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Current season in team infoboxes.

Most teams had their's changed to 2015-16 & so I completed the rest. But now, I've been challenged at the Devils, Rangers & Islanders pages. What happens now? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. The 2015-16 has not started, but the 2014-15 season is over. We're in the offseason now. Was there a consensus reached in previous years to flip the articles after a specific point in time? Sabbatino's argument is that not all the awards have been presented. I believe the only one outstanding is the Lester Patrick Award. Picking a point in time in the offseason to flip the current season is somewhat arbitrary, and Sabbatino's perspective is one reasonable suggestion. When do you think it should be switched and why? -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the team articles already had their seasons changed to '15-'16, so I followed those changes per consistency. It's my understanding that the NHL Draft and/or NHL Awards was the divider. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, GoodDay is already aware since we had talked about it very recently reaffirming that the flip happens once the awards are handed out as the draft is considered the first event of the new season. I think the disconnect with Sabbatino is that he is being very literal when we actially just mean the awards show although I am not sure which ones he thinks haven't been handed out. -DJSasso (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You challenged me GoodDay. But taking jokes aside, Lester Patrick Trophy award hasn't been handed to anyone yet. On the other hand, the winner of this award is announced at any date from May to October... So pretty much I can agree the we change the current season dates to 2015–16. Or as suggested above by DJSasso, we can wait till the first draft of the season if published on NHL's website. Either way I'll support this as long as there is no bad blood between the editors. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Want to reply to DJSasso about some things he said about me. I think the disconnect with Sabbatino is that he is being very literal when we actially just mean the awards show although I am not sure which ones he thinks haven't been handed out. – well yeah, I took that very literal, because I didn't really knew what people meant with after all awards are handed out (ALL awards or ALL awards excluding Lester Patrick Trophy). But as I said above, I'll support any decision on the current season situation as long as there is no bad blood between the editors. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

First day of the new season is draft day. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 07:35, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. My head isn't working in the morning. Then there's no further discussion needed. Current season in the infobox for all teams should be 2015–16. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean there was any bad faith at all. :) I just meant that is what I thought the confusion between the two of you was. No worries. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, no offense was taken from my side. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey player

Anyone know what's going on with the centring of the HHOF parameter? Connormah (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is probably not actually in the infobox template but in a template or css that it uses. I will look to see if I can see why. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought as much. Thanks for looking into it. Connormah (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Has something changed with the infoboxes layout from somone trying to fix the hhof thing?? ..Just looks different, can't put my finger on it! Triggerbit (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It was also converted the other day from custom code to the standard infobox template. There isn't really anything different between the two except some spacing (it uses the standard infobox width when we used to use a custom one). You can see the differences at Template:Infobox ice hockey player/testcases. The original code is the first sandbox version. -DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Although in looking I did notice one border is missing between two values so I asked the person who did the conversion to see why its missing. -DJSasso (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. That explains it! Triggerbit (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Hall of Fame honorees

With yesterday's announcement as to who will be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame this year, the team articles of players who are on that list have already been updated. They tend to show that the player has already been inducted, however the induction ceremony isn't until November. My experience with Major League Baseball HOF honorees has been not to do that update until after the ceremony, or at least use the caveat that the player is scheduled to be inducted. I reverted a couple of those updates but they were in turn reversed (one example here: [2]) with the reasoning that it's been done this way before. Thought I should double-check best practice here. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I have ever thought about it that I can remember. But I would think they probably wouldn't be added to team pages until they are actually in the Hall of Fame which is in November. I know they aren't added to the list of Hall of Fame members article except in a separate table indicating they are inductees and not actual members yet. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

With the Baseball Hall of Fame, it's been a philosophical argument: some people argue that something could change and the selection withdrawn. However, since this is true as well post-induction, it comes down to whether or not the articles in question should show only post-induction players or everyone post-selection. Personally I'd favour post-selection—the ceremony is for publicity purposes and if something prevents it from being held, or if sadly the person passes away, he/she has still passed the requirements to be a member of the Hall, but I appreciate why some prefer post-induction. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Isaac1. Selection is the critial hurdle at which people think of think of them as Hall-of-Famers and reliable sources start referring to them as Hall-of-Famers. Holding off until the ceremnony just creates confusion. I don't have a problem with using an alternate template that notes "pending induction" or something along those lines (perhaps "Elected to Hall of Fame" rather than simply "Hall of Fame") but ignoring the fact that they have already been elected does not make sense. Rlendog (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this is coming up again; it seems to come up most years. Since there's never been a case of a HHOF Honoured Member disinvited between the public announcement and the induction ceremony (something I'd wager was also the case with Cooperstown), we've determined in years past that this wasn't something we were going to worry over. Rlendog's reasoning is sound: selection, not whenever the institutions schedule induction ceremonies, is when the general public and the media think of them as Hall of Famers. Ravenswing 19:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

All good points, thanks all. I guess I was stuck on the use of the past tense inducted when the actual induction hasn't yet taken place, but I agree it's unlikely to not happen, so in that case this isn't something to worry about. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) I've always thought of someone becoming a 'Hall of Famer' once they've been inducted. Having said that, I haven't really picked up on the issue when reading articles, so can understand if ppl want it to be reflected when the honorees are announced. I guess another way of dealing with it is, b/w the date the honorees are announced & the date of the ceremony is saying "X was named to/selected for the HHOF on (date) and will be inducted on (date)' or course - the downside is then you have to go back and re-edit all the articles. But in any event, as has been pointed out there doesn't seem to be anyone who was named as an honoree and then had that revoked. GLG GLG (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Salvador

It's my understanding that we here (WP:HOCKEY) tend to keep captains in the team infoboxes & their incumbency in the captain sections until they're stripped of the role, retired, traded or signed with another team. If I'm incorrect (see New Jersey Devils), then please point it out. GoodDay (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Players can't captain teams they are not members of. Bryce Salvador is an unrestricted free agent, and is thus not a member of any NHL team at the current moment. See the roster on the Devils' website. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 03:11, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I see the logic of removing people as captains if it's *obvious* they're not returning to their teams (although "obvious" is subjective). The one concern I would have is come July 1, people are racing to delete players who may well end up re-signing with a team just because they're officially UFAs. So, that's my thought on it - but I'm fine w/ whatever ppl want. GLG GLG (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

For my own part, there are a few too many instances already where people jump the gun before anything becomes official. UFAs have wound up signing with their old teams before and will do so again; when there's an official announcement either from the Devils confirming that he won't be resigned (as the Bruins did with Daniel Paille and Gregory Campbell, for example), from Salvador, or by way of his signing with a new team, that'll be the time to make the change. Ravenswing 05:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I too, believe we should wait, until we're absolutely sure he won't be re-signing with the Devils. However, getting into any edit spat, wouldn't be a wise course for me. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Hockey sur glace"

Hockey sur glace has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Heights/Weights

I feel like we've been through this multiple times. But I'll be That Guy and raise it again. Is there any "best practice" when it comes to the recorded heights and weights (i guess in infoboxes) of players? Is there a particular source (nhl.com; eliteprospects.com; etc) that is a wiki standard? i've noticed recently there are a lot of changes being made (and i don't mean the dumb ones that are vandalism). GLG GLG (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

They are always going to be changed by people that use x source instead of y source, its one of those things you mostly have to live with. Generally my rule of thumb is leave it as you found it unless it is wildly off what you have listed where you are looking. For NHL players though looking at the NHL site is probably the most official and what I would use if I was going to put a height/weight down. But I don't think any of the sites are wildly accurate considering I have read that players can lose 5+ pounds a game so their weight shifts up and down a lot. And some sites list height including skates and some list without skates etc. -DJSasso (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

k that's fine. i figured as much. usually i just leave well enough alone (unless someone is being stupid). but just wanted to make sure. GLG GLG (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, beyond that, even the official sources just plain lie. I remember vividly a team appreciation event in Springfield where I was face-to-face with (among others) Rob DiMaio and Marc Bergevin. I'm 5'10", but looked Bergevin (listed at 6') square in the eyes, and was a fair bit taller than DiMaio, listed at 5'10". Ravenswing 05:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

yes, it's true they do. nhl.com lists patrick kane as 5'11. i've stood about a foot away from him pretty recently. i'm 6'0 - and he's not an inch shorter than me. he's more like 5'9. Martin St Louis is listed as 5'8 - but again, having stood close to him within the last year or so, he's got to be about 5'6 - he was a bit taller than my mom - who was in flat shoes at the time and is 5'5 on a good day. In any event, my original question was more out of curiosity. I wasn't being an idiot and reverting minor changes or anything like that. GLG GLG (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alon Eizenman

If there are any editors willing to weigh in on the discussion currently going on in this AfD, it would be greatly appreciated. Deadman137 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox NHL coach

I think this template might need a rewrite- IMO, the field names are way too long - for example, "Years as an NHL coach" could be condensed into "Coaching career", "Previous team(s)" as "former teams", and so on. Maybe something closer to the fields in the ice hockey player infobox or Template:Infobox NFL coach? The current iteration seems to be a bit cluttered in appearance when used (the length of the titles on the left often force linebreaks in the right columns which IMO adds to a cluttered appearance). Connormah (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The ice hockey player infobox style, would be great. But, whichever you think would be best, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not template savvy, so I was hoping that someone else here could help in that aspect. I don't think it should look identical to the player infobox, but a bit similar with the field names (in that they aren't unnecessarily long and such). Hoping for a bit more input here... Connormah (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

nitpicky questions

I've tried to read through as much wiki ice hockey stuff as i could so sorry if i missed the answers to these questions -

I've noticed recently minor changes to hockey-related articles (all of which i've left alone) but was wondering whether there were any best practices relating to them:

1. re countries/states/provinces in info boxes - is there a best practice re 'full words' vs abbreviations - i.e I've always thought that re info boxes it's abbreviations (i.e. 'Canada' is 'CAN'; 'United States' is US; 'British Columbia' is 'BC' and so on (I ask b/c I've noticed changes where abbreviations where turned into full words - and wasn't sure whether I should revert).

2. Is there a best practice when it comes to the spelling of words like 'offense'/'offence'; 'defense'/'defence; "defenceman", etc. (sadly, this is where I confess my ignorance and admit that after being alarmed at people editing articles to introduce 'incorrect' spelling I figured out that 'our American friends' had different spellings.

3. Is there a best practice when it comes to player positions - I'm mainly referring to players who are wingers. I've noticed in articles players being shifted from RW to LW (and vice versa) - particularly in info boxes. Is there a standard for that?

GLG GLG (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

eta - sorry - i think 'consensus' was the appropriate wikipedia word, not 'best practice' GLG GLG (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I prefer "Calgary, AB, CAN" style myself, but I have encountered resistance to that when having articles reviewed for featured status. That might merit a wider discussion on simply expanding the abbreviations. On question 2, we follow WP:STRONGNAT wherever appropriate. So an article on an American player or team would use defenseman, center, etc. On an article about a Canadian, British or other Commonwealth athlete, use defenceman, centre, etc. On articles where there is no strong tie to a specific flavour of English and usage is inconsistent, use whatever variant was used first when the article was created. i.e.: National Hockey League uses Canadian English for this reason though the league is binational. For question 3, I don't think we have any set practice on that. Personally, I will often use Forward (ice hockey) if a player routinely plays two positions. Otherwise, probably just try to keep it accurate as we can in reflecting the player's current state. Resolute 16:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• For starters, the language issue. The determining factor is the nationality of the subject: a Canadian hockey player's article is written in Canadian English, an American hockey team in American English. Things get touchier where that's a mixed bag: an American-born player with Canadian citizenship, say, or a subject like the NHL's article (where the league's been majority American for nearly ninety years and the league offices have been in NYC for nearly half a century). In the case of an either-way subject, the Manual of Style suggests that the version of English conform to the article as originally written. In the case of a player with multiple citizenships, we look to where the player played internationally (thus, Mark Howe, who played for the US in the Canada Cup and the Olympics, is written in American English), and we've also used reliable sources citing the player's own public statements as a guide. Ravenswing 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• #3's a perpetual problem, and there'll never be a solution satisfactory to all. The bottom line is that infoboxes are poorly suited to information as variable as what position a player plays. Ravenswing 16:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• #1 - In the case of your first point, IMHO we should just use city-soverign state. But, I suppose that would be difficult to adopt, seeing as there's a tendency to use Canadian provinces/territories, American states & British constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

For #1... I tend to use the "Calgary, AB, CAN" style for player articles that use the ice hockey player infobox, and the full names for coaches/GMs/other personalities using other infoboxes. Connormah (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think avoiding abbreviations is preferable, to make the text more accessible to an international audience. In particular, within an infobox space is not at such a high premium. (I would be more sympathetic to space considerations within a table with many columns.) isaacl (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The new coding for the infobox player seems to be a bit better in that regard that we could start including full names. The MOS discourages abbreviations, but I've always just followed the norm here for players' infoboxes. Connormah (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I guess the other question I go back to is when ppl start making these minor changes is it just better to leave well enough alone (which I've been doing - b/c tbh i feel like a jerk reverting over minor spelling changes (unless it's an obvious misspelling or something). The "defenseman"/"defenceman" thing is actually kind of funny to me just b/c I initially didn't appreciate their was a US/CAN difference on that spelling and thought it was so weird people would "randomly" want to change things :) GLG GLG (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Spelling I will always correct. As you noted, a lot of people don't realize there is a difference. For the others, I tend to only revert if it is in error. Resolute 20:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Good edits?

I've been asked to look at this IP's edits to see if they're vandalism. Aside from the possibly accidental blankings, is there cause for concern? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Some of them seem overhasty, although I doubt many of us have a handle on the ins-and-outs of Kontinental Hockey League rosters. Still, such mass changes to roster templates shouldn't be taking place before the season's about to be underway, a few months from now. Of course, as you and a number of other editors have posted to his talk page, he has to start using edit summaries and cite reliable sources, but he's not an obvious vandal. Ravenswing 04:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Per opponent stats in season articles

I came across 1994–95 New Jersey Devils season § Opponents, which illustrates the tension between Wikipedia not being a place for excessive listing of statistics and Wikipedia incorporating features of almanacs. A team's annual sports media guide will typically contain a breakdown of a team's record versus each opponent. Does it seem appropriate to include this information in the Wikipedia season articles? isaacl (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A team's annual media guide will have about 200 pages dedicated to the most recent season. Even with NOT PAPER, we can't do that here. In this case, I don't see huge value in it as anyone who does want to see the head to head stats for the year can pull it from the game logs. Resolute 19:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the head-to-head summary record, individual detailed game logs (such as is included in playoff articles) are being included. Can more people weigh in so we can reach a consensus? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Get rid of it. This hasn't been done in the other Devils season articles, not to mention the other NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed it as it was the work of a certain IP editor from Youngstown, Ohio. Perhaps we should consider protecting the article. Deadman137 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be protecting articles short of persistent vandalism, which this doesn't seem to be. Is there any reason to think that the anon IP is going to keep on adding these despite being informed of our stance? Ravenswing 01:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Check out the talk page history for the 1993–94 New York Rangers season and the multiple edit requests, all of them incomplete. Also see the current sections on the talk page; other than the first one, they're all informing the editor of established consensus. Also see this sequence of edits which re-added the content. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, about five years of one editor hopping IPs. As Issacl notes, the 93-94 Rangers article is pretty much permalocked because of him. Resolute 14:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I went back to find the edits where the "excessive content" was and I actually didn't have that much of a problem with it - in fact, one of the things that I don't love about the season-recap pages is the content often comes off as kinda superficial for a single page. Having said that (1) it seems the consensus is otherwise; and (2) the presentation of the complained-about-edits was just brutal. it would have been better if it had been structured as those expandable boxes. On a slightly different note, I don't think the fact that "we haven't done it in the past" or "other similar pages aren't the same" is, in itself, a justifiable complaint - there are always improvements that can be made. Having said that, sometimes there are very good reasons things haven't yet been done "a certain way" GLG GLG (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been too many opinions expressed, so I'm not clear a consensus has been established yet. Taking the current snapshot of the season page: I can see how some may like to see the summary tables (even though their small sample size makes them unreliable as a measure of relative quality, it's frequently referenced information by the media). However it seems like the wrong place to have individual game breakdowns: if this information were to be included, it would be better to include it in the overall season game log, and then provide categorization tools to sort the data by opponent. This however is where I start feeling that it would be more suitable to let other stat reference sites do the heavy lifting of recording individual game information and providing tools for sorting and summarizing based on different variables (e.g. opponent, home/away, teams with positive goal differentials, and so forth), since they have more flexibility than is available with Wikimedia wikitext. isaacl (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A few of the recent Chicago Blackhawks season articles have tables that break down the team's record against opponents during the season and if we did decide to add these tables then that would probably be the best style to use. A similar table can be found in team articles for MLB franchises. Deadman137 (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

List of NHL players who spent their entire career with one franchise

Came across List of NHL players who spent their entire career with one franchise today. Strikes me as not the most useful of lists; among other things, the relative arbitrariness of using 10 seasons as the cutoff for making such a list or not. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've no particular problems with it. It's a topic people are sometimes curious about (myself included), and the 10 year cutoff is no more arbitrary than a number of other cutoffs and limitations we employ ... not the least on notability criteria. Ravenswing 20:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the article (and I don't always like articles that are trivia-esque). I'd agree with Ravenswing that 'arbitrary cutoffs' are often necessary - but I'd ask Echoedmyron whether s/he doesn't like the "arbitrariness" in general - or whether s/he thinks that there is a more appropriate cutoff that should be used. As an aside, I thought that it was appropriate to include in the lede that Yzerman & Mikita are tied for most seasons w/ one franchise @ 22. After much thought, I wrote "Of players who have spent their career with one franchise, Stan Mikita of the Chicago Blackhawks and Steve Yzerman of the Detroit Red Wings are tied for the record of the greatest number of seasons with twenty-two" - but I really don't like the grammar of my sentence. Please feel free to come up with something better. GLG GLG (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(FWIW, "he".) I guess I was curious about what makes 10 seasons the minimum standard for inclusion. It's a round number, but why not more, or less? Without a metric that means anything beyond crossing an imaginary line, I'd think it's a trivial distinction, but if others don't have an issue with it, I'm not going to contest it, just wanted to bring it up. On the other hand, the list is also of course poorly sourced. One "reference" which reads "Researched through Hockey Reference website (http://www.hockey-reference.com)", and the link just points to HF.com's home page, not anything that directly backs up anything covered in the list. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Hockey Reference web site has a fairly similar page, but it uses games rather than seasons which therefore requires a slightly different and more restrictive arbitrary criteria for inclusion. It's a list of Most NHL Games Played with Single Franchise with 1000 games as the minimum for inclusion. Using this 1000 game criteria would be consistent with the much more comprehensive List of NHL players with 1000 games played article. Would it make sense to change this list? 65.93.36.135 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized the Hockey Reference page doesn't require a player to spend entire career with the team. So the list would become significantly shorter when requiring at least 1000 games with only one franchise. 65.93.36.135 (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this list is that it has to be arbitrary or it is impossible. Tim Ramholt spent his entire NHL career with one franchise. And there are a thousand Tim Ramholts in NHL history. Resolute 23:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it the page would be much more useful if the list was changed into a sortable table. Boivie (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Broadcaster information in season articles

Previously on the 1993–94 New York Rangers season page, I changed the format of the information on the team's broadcasters from a table format to a prose format. When this change was reverted, I started a conversation, which did not attract any comments.

In a similar manner, I changed the format of the the broadcaster information on the 1994–95 New Jersey Devils season from a table format to a prose format. However, an editor has objected to this change. Accordingly, I am seeking a consensus view: should the information be included in prose, or in a table? isaacl (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Prose. It reads better and is more fully informative. oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I realize you are trying to be all co-operative and what not. But when I look at that page and see how much reverting was going on, and the fact that it was a well known blocked user, you should have just warned someone so they could block them. Unfortunately I missed someone asking me for help with them earlier this week because I was on vacation. As for your questions clearly prose is the better option, everything should be in prose that can possibly be in prose. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of admins who watch this page and can follow up however they feel best. (Unfortunately at this point blocks don't appear to matter; revert and deny recognition seem to be the only tools left.) I have no particular desire to co-operate with this editor, but Wikipedia guidelines require that I establish a consensus for my edits if they are reverted: otherwise, someone's going to raise an issue about continued reversion. It's the double-edged sword of using consensus decision-making—unless enough voices weigh in, a conflict can remain deadlocked indefinitely. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

But that isn't really the case, you can revert all edits by block evading editors without need to establish consensus. By bringing up for debate every revert of him you make (or he of you), which is a fair number of times at this point, you actually put more burden onto the community. As you mention revert, block, ignore is all that is left at this point. But each time you bring up obvious things for discussion you are not ignoring, you make his damage that much greater. If admins were notified sooner (it was 4 days between your first revert of him and posting here) then perhaps blocks would work better, but if we aren't told because you just revert then we don't find out he is active again until weeks of damage have been done. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the editor is blocked protects me from being sanctioned for edit warring, but it doesn't change that my edit doesn't have an established consensus, and so the only policy-based option to opening a discussion is to abandon the edit. What's obvious to me isn't necessarily obvious to others: for example, I felt there may be consensus for a season article to contain a brief table summarizing a team's record against each opponent; so far some people agree and some don't. Whether I like it or not, the same rules that protect my edits from being arbitrarily removed protect the edits of others. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Except that WP:BOLD protects your edit. Since his revert of you does not establish that there isn't consensus for your edit since his edit is not valid. So unless someone else objects and reverts there is consensus by silence. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a weakness in English Wikipedia policy: someone is always expected to stop reverting, and open a discussion. This unfortunately gives the advantage to the non-communicative one. Just because someone else violates community expectations doesn't give me the right to do so as well. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Except not in the case of revert, block, ignore. You are expected to revert the edit and act as though it never happened. By starting the discussion your are not doing the ignore part. You don't start a discussion for example just because you reverted a vandal a few times. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, edits that actively damage an article can be reverted repeatedly, as well as incorrect information. For a due weight dispute, though, there are many editors who will object to repeated reversions of accurate information, no matter who introduced the changes. (I could speculate on the motivations of these editors, but the "assume good faith" principle limits how much can be said.) isaacl (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2009-10 Bristol Pitbulls Season

Any opinions on what to do with 2009-10 Bristol Pitbulls Season? (keep, but expand; PROD on grounds of failing WP:NSEASONS; AfD via the same rationale; something else) – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious prod is obvious. If that gets removed, straight to AfD. Ravenswing 22:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Winter Olympics events until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hektor (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

{{1909–10 NHA standings}}

template:1909–10 NHA standings has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Hockey on the ice"

Hockey on ice is up for discussion, see the RfD. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Team article guidance discussion

There has been a little discussion about formatting of team articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format#Ramping up .... Please join in! Resolute 16:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• grr, beat me to it ... Ravenswing 16:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Transactions

What is everyone's opinion on references having their own column in the tables? To me it just adds clutter when for trades it should reference the date occurred and for player signings/free agents/waivers it should reference the player involved. –B2Project^(Talk) 11:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I used to put it next to the date as well, then someone changed it and I just followed in line. User talk:Piemann16 12:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Personally, I favour keeping references in their own column. I find it to be a cleaner look. Resolute 16:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it is much cleaner looking. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Quotation sections

I reverted the addition of a "Quote" section to a Stanley Cup Finals article as the quote did not reveal anything other than who the play-by-play announcer was at the time. But on a more general note, is there any scenario where a "Quote" section is suitable for a season or post-season article? Personally, I feel that any appropriate quotes that provide insight into the subject or are iconic should be integrated into the main sections of an article. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with you -- what's the purpose of a standalone section save for fluffy filler? Ravenswing 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• I like to add quote boxes as side bars for interesting facts (i.e.: Paul Henderson), but a separate section like that is just pure, pointless, trivia. Resolute 22:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • My personal preference is for pull quotes to be, as advertised, pulled from the article, which requires them to be integrated with the main text. Otherwise, they feel disconnected from the article. isaacl (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

List of NHL goaltenders

I just noticed that a List of NHL goaltenders page was created a couple weeks ago by an anon. It is hopelessly incomplete, containing only 40+ goaltenders out of 700+ who have played in the NHL. It would take a massive amount of work to get this page up to standards. Is this something that we should work on or would it be better to WP:TNT it? -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• TNT it. I've started looking over it, and there are also serious inaccuracies: Roger Crozier's listed as playing from 1970-76, with 202 games, when he really played between 64-76, with 518 games. Dave Dryden on that list: 1970-1974, 120 GP. In reality: 1962-1980, 203 games. Phil Myre on that list: 1982-83 (???), 5 GP. In reality: 1963-1983, 439 GP. Al Smith on that list: 1975-77, 21 GP. In reality: 1965-1981, 233 GP. Bob Sauve's numbers on that list reflect just his Sabres' career, and ignores the five seasons and nearly 200 games he didn't play in Buffalo. The same for Don Edwards and the rest of HIS career. I've yet to see an accurate entry.

  And beyond that, there's another curious thing: how many of these goalies are former Sabres? ... hang on. I'm going over the list as I type this, and checking for the ones I didn't immediately recognize. All of these goalies are former Sabres, and all of the stats listed reflect their Buffalo careers only. Maybe we can just rename this List of Buffalo Sabres goaltenders and have done with it? Ravenswing 07:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question states that he began from the sabres list and is going to continue, I think stopping it before they waste more time is wise.18abruce (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article needs to exist. IMO it should be nominated for deletion. GLG GLG (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind and decided to nominate the page for deletion. If you believe it's productive to continue on with a page like that then you can respond accordingly. GLG GLG (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Expansion bid article

Another Quebec expansion bid article has appeared. Can someone determine the appropriate course of action? isaacl (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete it. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I redirected it per previous consensus that unapproved expansion bids go on that page. -DJSasso (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Place of birth of Connor McDavid

Hello all,

Don't anyone think that Connor McDavid is born in Richmond Hill, Ontario instead of Newmarket, Ontario like said in the article? --> http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/player.php?9630 Thank you to have read me. --Danielvis08 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

His prospect profile from NHL.com has his birth place as Richmond Hill (and his hometown as Newmarket): http://www.nhl.com/ice/draftprospectdetail.htm?dpid=86187 I know for a fact he lives in Newmarket now, so his parents probably lived in RH when he was born and then later moved. GLG GLG (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes but in Connor McDavid you say BORN in Newmarket. It is not true. If you put the place he lives now instead of his place of birth, why don't you do it all for all the hockey players (and all who are dead make born the same place of death since at the end he lives in the place of his death). No? --Danielvis08 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it. There is a comment there that even says "do not change to Newmarket" but an unidentified IP changed it anyways. Feel free to fix mistakes like that when you see them. Yosemiter (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Coyotes and Barroway

It seems Barroway isn't the majority owner (owning at least 51% of shares) of the Coyotes anymore, but does still seem to be the principle owner (still owns the most shares) [3]. On the Coyotes and Barroway's pages, should we just get rid of the percentages and say both own the team? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would yes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Question on the notability of women's ice hockey players

With both the CWHL and the new NWHL set to drop the puck within the next couple of weeks, I was wondering if this project has any type of specific notability standards for biography articles of women's ice hockey players. Having looked through both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, I see nothing that applies specifically to women's hockey players, except for participation in the Olympics (which would already be covered under WP:NOLYMPICS, anyways). Am I missing something here, or is there no specific notability standard for women's hockey players outside of WP:GNG? Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• You're not missing anything; we don't. Unlike in some other sports -- basketball, for instance -- the necessary coverage for women's hockey just isn't there to set up a presumptive standard. I live in one of the hockey hotbeds of the world (as well as perhaps THE hotbed of women's hockey), and even though the local team won the Clarkson Cup last year, there was no coverage in the Boston Globe -- I only found out about the victory reading The Hockey News online. And that right there is enough. Without so much as routine match coverage in the local media, an argument can't be sustained that there's enough coverage to make a presumptive notability argument for every player in the league. The Hilary Knights, Brianna Deckers and Florence Schellings are going to get their coverage, but it's just not there for third-liners. Ravenswing 22:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the CWHL receives relatively little coverage (plus, with the CWHL not paying it's players, it's doubtful it could truly be considered a professional league, anyways). It'll be interesting to see what kind of coverage the new NWHL receives once it's up and running. Maybe I'll try to solicit some opinions over at WikiProject Women's sport. At any rate, thanks, I was just making sure I wasn't missing anything here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

yes, you're right..the CWHL doesn't receive much coverage. The players who do get coverage in Canada are those who have had long-term success internationally for Canada. GLG GLG (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just follow GNG. Women's hockey simply doesn't get enough coverage to warrant presumptive notability. Though we'll see if the NWHL can ultimately change that. Resolute 13:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Although, given this ... might we want to amend NHOCKEY to cover the bases? Something like "8) Women players are presumed notable only if they have competed at the Olympic Games or fulfill Criterion #7." (#7 = national/multinational Hall of Fame) Ravenswing 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't most of them already fall under Criterion #4, 6 or 7? Deadman137 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say right now, #4 is debatable, simply because it's not clear whether or not WP:NHOCKEY/LA includes women's conferences. The women's-only College Hockey America is not included among the list of leagues. Others, like Hockey East and the WCHA sponsor both men's and women's hockey, but it is not specifically stated whether their inclusion there includes both genders. On the other hand, the Big Ten isn't listed there, either, so it may just be an oversight, and the list may simply need to be updated. That was my main motivation for coming here, I went to WP:NHOCKEY, and most of the criterions there reference WP:NHOCKEY/LA, so I clicked on WP:NHOCKEY/LA, and saw that there were no women's leagues listed there - not even collegiate ones. So, I came here hoping to get some answers. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And aside from that, one might argue -- and I expect that some will -- that playing in the NWHL constitutes playing in a "top professional league." As far as #4 goes, I'm not sure. Continuing my experience with the Boston media -- and the Boston schools is where women's collegiate hockey began, more or less -- women's award winners barely get a two-paragraph story when they pull down the freaking Kasmeier Award. It'd be tough to make a case that All-Americans, say, meet the GNG presumptively. Ravenswing 00:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that it is an often misunderstood policy that no one has to meet any criteria other than GNG. Specifically the sport guide says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (my italics) It may be, if what you are saying about the lack of RS is difficult, that it would be advantageous to update the "sport" criteria so that a viable "or" option exists for a lower bar. Clearly if there are not sufficient RS to prove GNG there is a problem with inclusion. This is interesting as usually women face the opposite issue. GNG is proven and someone is trying to force a higher standard. SusunW (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As is often the case when that argument is proffered, the very next paragraph is omitted, which starts "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article," as well as the section under FAQ which begins "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." The explicit purpose behind subordinate notability criteria such as the various NSPORTS criteria is not to set up a back door around the GNG, but to serve as an accurate guide to what subjects would meet the GNG.

As likely one of the few hockey editors who's regularly attended women's games -- I was a regular at Northeastern University women's matches, and drove three hours to Glens Falls to see Erin Whitten's game with the Adirondack Red Wings -- I'd be thrilled to see women's hockey get the recognition and coverage that women's basketball has had. But while we can find it for the Ruggieros, Sunoharas, Granatos and Jameses, it doesn't (yet) exist for third-liners and fringe players, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Ravenswing 07:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)