Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive66

Heads Up

SNIyer12 has reappeared in the last three days. This time they went after a bunch of New Jersey Devils season articles, I've reverted anything that looked suspicious from 1995-96 to present. Deadman137 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to put this at the SPI page for him, so we maybe can valet a range clock for a bit until he gets the clue that he's not welcome here. (Though for some reason I doubt he'll ever get that clue) oknazevad (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I generally play wack a mole with him. I could range block, but I would hate to have collateral damage for him. His edits aren't bad enough that I necessarily want to risk turning away other good editors because of them. But if I have to block many more IPs I will possibly go that route. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

SNIyer12 is very aware that he's not welcomed here. He simply doesn't care about it & continues to go forward. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hockey team colors

Hey, hockey fans. The college sports projects have made a significant effort to get control over the team colors that are imported into the various infoboxes, navboxes and other templates used for college sports teams, coaches, athletes, etc. Over the last several years, we have experienced a series of vandals, sockpuppets and other odd users who were fixated on team colors. As we have tied college team colors into a centralized team colors module with increased requirements for reliable sourcing, we have seen a reduction in problems. That said, I have noticed one or more editors who have been taking an unusual interest in hockey team colors. Are there any experienced and trusted members of WP:HOCKEY who regularly monitor the teams colors used in hockey infoboxes, navboxes and other templates? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

NHL players

I have noticed that in the infoboxes a lot of NHL players only have NHL clubs listed in the "played for" section. Can we please rectify this? I see no reason why NHL > rest of the world, a career in the KHL or Elitserien is just as important as any NHL career.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand what you were saying but the NHL most definitely > the rest of the world and an NHL career is more significant than a career in any other league. 24.137.115.238 (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Or the AHL, or major junior ... Ravenswing 23:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

I had to make a major revert of that article, all the way back to October 7, 2015. Many editors & IPs had been updating it since that time, which is frowned upon during a season-in-progress. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the page may need semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it needs semi-protection for the rest of the regular season & playoffs. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ice hockey or just hockey?

I'm not involved in this project and am not familiar with wiki's various guidelines and whatnot, but I think there's an argument to change the titles/content of all hockey articles from ice hockey to hockey. The term "ice hockey" is only used by people in countries where the sport is not well-known. I will almost guarantee that no hockey fan in North America says ice hockey, and if there are any they came from countries not familiar with the sport. I've been a diehard hockey fan for more than 20 years and I've never, ever seen any person involved in the hockey world, or a fan, use that term. It's simply hockey. I get that the "ice hockey" label is used to avoid confusion with other sports like field hockey (which is an entirely separate sport with little resemblance to hockey and really should be called something else). But in the countries where hockey is popular and there are high-calibre leagues, the term simply is not used. The only significant leagues in North America or Europe that have ice in the name are the EIHL in England, a country where the sport isn't popular and is little-known for most people, and the DEL in Germany (Deutsche Eishockey Liga). Germany is also not a major hockey country. It would be considered a second or third-tier country in terms of hockey popularity, international success, and league quality (behind Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, maybe more). Of the dozens and dozens of leagues in Canada and the US, not a single one has ice in the name. Of the biggest leagues in Europe (KHL, SHL, sm-liiga, Czech Extraliga, Slovak Extraliga, National League A), none have ice in the title. (the DEL and NLA would be considered about on par with each other but the first four listed above are better calibre/more known/more successful)

Yes, the governing body is the International Ice Hockey Federation but that again is used to avoid confusion by non-hockey fans. On their very own website they don't refer to their tournaments as the World Ice Hockey Championship or the World Junior Ice Hockey Championship or whatever.

I understand there is likely a strong desire to keep this label to avoid confusing anyone who doesn't know about hockey, but honestly what is the likelihood of any of those people reading hockey articles? I'm guessing there is a 99.9% chance this proposal will be shot down with very little discussion because, no offence to anyone in particular, but wiki is generally way too anal and literal. I'm just saying in the vast, vast, vast majority of the hockey world, "ice hockey" is never used and most of the people in the hockey world would agree with me on this. 24.137.115.238 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is a similar situation with field hockey in many countries: the term "hockey" is used exclusively when referring to field hockey. Thus it is appropriate to distinguish which one is meant at the start of an article, and sufficient to use the plain term afterwards. isaacl (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What Isaacl said. I never use the term "ice hockey," and I agree that the vast majority of ice hockey fans would find the usage irritating, but that's not the point; the default world-wide usage just isn't that hockey = ice hockey and nothing but. The rest of the world is no more going to rename field hockey to suit North American prejudices than it's going to start calling "football" soccer just because we can't wrap our heads around that we don't own the world linguistically. Ravenswing 06:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say additionally that the governing body does use "ice" in their rules, records, and archives. I am sorry but saying that they don't use it on their own website is disingenuous just look here. Interestingly, the only tournament that drops it from the title on the 2016 menu is the top level of the juniors, and if you take the time to look, that is a recent change.18abruce (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You got me I guess, I didn't see that page. On their separate site for the WJC, the ACTUAL LOGO says "world junior championship". And as I stated, the NHL, AHL, KHL, QMJHL, OHL, WHL, NCAA, SHL, sm-liiga, Czech extraliga, Slovak extraliga and NLA do not use ice anywhere. Key people with the IIHF like Rene Fasel and Szymon Szemberg don't say "ice hockey" in their interviews. etc, etc, etc, etc 24.137.115.238 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't see the index that names all their tournaments? You didn't see the rules that use "ice" in the title of each and every tournament? You didn't read Podnieks (a canadian) most recent report on the Women's U18 (taking place in Canada) where he calls the sport "ice hockey"? How much more do you want? I don't know the history of the logos, but the only tournament that has dropped the "ice" in its title is the men's u20, and that is since 2014. Every other tournament that the IIHF hosts has "ice" plainly displayed in their title so drop this foolishness that, "On their very own website they don't refer to their tournaments as the World Ice Hockey Championship or the World Junior Ice Hockey Championship or whatever," if you wish to be taken seriously. It is plainly obvious that you did not even look around the website at all.18abruce (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written for the North American audience, but the global one. And since "hockey" is an ambiguous term globally, we do have a need to disambiguate. We do, for the sake of consistency, prefer to use "ice hockey" as the standard dismabiguator. Resolute 15:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many versions of wikipedia for other languages. As this is the English version, should it not use the term that the English language uses? The others can go with "hockey" for field and "ice hockey" if those are the terms they use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.115.238 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear; my understanding is that many English-speaking countries use the English word "hockey" exclusively when referring to field hockey. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Britain, Ireland, Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa, pretty much most major English speaking countries outside North America mean field hockey when they use the word "hockey" on its own, or at least consider the term ambiguous. (Of course, field hockey is almost always played on first-generation artificial turf these days, as has been the case for a few decades now, but it's still what a large number of English-speaking people mean when they say "hockey".) The (natural) disambiguation is necessary for article titles and first mentions unless it's a proper noun, like the names of the leagues mentioned above. oknazevad (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Black ice hockey players

There's a couple discussions that just opened up regarding black ice hockey players. The first is: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 24#List of black ice hockey players. It involves Black players in ice hockey. Is it a list? Should it be a list? If anyone has ideas on how to improve or clean-up that article, please do so. The second is sort of related, and it involves the name of List of National Hockey League players of black African descent. I opened up an RM requesting a rename of that article to List of black NHL players. Your feedback is welcome there too. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

National Hockey League vandalism

Might be time to semi-protect for a bit; in the last day or so, the NHL article has been flooded with vandals, most of it seeking to install John Scott as the new commissioner. Ravenswing 03:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully four days is enough. We'll see. oknazevad (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Another Brooklyn/New York dispute

Please see Talk:List of National Hockey League arenas. Thanks, Resolute 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Getting a winnpeg Jets Task Force

I would like to get a Jets task force together. How would I go about setting that up?. --Jbaer50 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

Recommend semi-protection for this article, until the season has concluded. Too many well meaning editors & Ips, keep updating it. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryan O'Reilly disambiguation page

I'm not sure what channel to go down about this, but I feel Ryan O'Reilly should lead directly to the hockey player. It currently leads to a disambiguation page with links to Ryan O'Reilly (ice hockey) and Ryan O'Reilly (wrestler), as well as Ryan O'Reily, a character from the TV show Oz. The wrestler's page is a redirect to the name by which he is more well-known, Conor O'Brian.

The hockey player is certainly the most notable of the three. Even if we want to argue that the WWE wrestler is also notable, the Ryan O'Reilly ringname is one he hasn't used in several years. The Ryan O'Reilly (wrestler) page only has a handful of links leading to it, outside of talk pages.

I just think given the notoriety of the NHL player versus these other entities, it would make more sense to have his page be Ryan O'Reilly, with hat notes linking to the wrestler and the TV character. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, the hockey player should have the title Ryan O'Reilly, with the disambiguation page called Ryan O'Reilly (disambiguation). The wrestler can stay at Ryan O'Reilly (wrestler). GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would be OK with this, but I would argue the DAB page isn't even necessary. Hat notes should suffice. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion at 1993–94 New York Rangers season

An anonymous editor is again re-introducing content to 1993–94 New York Rangers season which, by consensus, has been determined to be unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it's SNIyer12, again. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Nationalliga Team

Should Template:Nationalliga Team be used for National League A and National League B teams or it should be considered as obsolete? I intend to change every Swiss teams' infoboxes to Template:Infobox Pro hockey team. However, I need clarification first. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the look of Infobox Pro hockey team personally. Would be nice if we could get someone to customize the code so that we could specify what titles are won by each team, as opposed to generic "league championships". Especially given the promotion/relegation systems in place. Resolute 15:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty Clapton
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Samonov
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Nastasiuk
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David MacDonald (ice hockey)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Baier

Joeykai (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's some recently added players that all fail GNG and NHOCKEY and are at best TOOSOON.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Findlay (ice hockey)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éric Faille
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty Stanton (ice hockey)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Conacher
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Hickmott

Yosemiter (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Same user made another page for recent non-notable NCAA signee.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasimir Kaskisuo

Yosemiter (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I would point out we put these sorts of notices in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Candidates for deletion .26 discussion so as not to spam this page. I know I mentioned it to Joeykai before but you might not have been aware Yosemiter. And for those that like to be alerted, a good page to put on your watchlist is Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Article alerts. It will let you know any time any page tagged with the project tag is up for some sort of discussion when the bot updates it daily. It does miss those that have not yet been tagged though. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

PCHA franchises timeline

I was doing some editing on some of the team pages and there seems to be some contradictions. Its listed that the Spokane Canaries (who were originally the (Victoria Aristocrats) became the Victoria Aristocrats again. But any hockey history book that covers this league always talks about how the Canaries simply folded and it was the Portland Rosebuds that were transferred to Victoria to become the second version of the Aristocrats. So it should be

• Victoria Senators/Victoria Aristocrats/Spokane Canaries
• New Westminster Royals/Portland Rosebuds/Victoria Aristocrats(2)/Victoria Cougars.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

2014, 2015 & 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs

See discussion at 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs, concerning changes made from Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals to First Round & Second Round. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: An Rfc has been opened up at the above linked article, concerning this matter. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Someday I'll feel like this never needs to be done ever again, and be RIGHT ...

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#WP:NHOCKEY_criterion_.234, for your review and vote ... Ravenswing 16:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Stanley Cup Finals vs. Final

I have opened an RFC on the long standing Stanley Cup Finals vs. Final issue at Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals#RFC: Stanley Cup Finals vs. Final. I thought we should discuss this early before this year's series starts next month. There has been a problem during the past few years when the issue was not raised by someone until the series was already underway, and thus too late to do much. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of 2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season

2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Article splitting

IMHO, we need some big time splitting of the following articles Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL), St. John's IceCaps, Maine Mariners and Fort Wayne Komets. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Why so? None of them are egregiously long. Ravenswing 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • See our brief discussion at Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL), but it came down to GoodDay pointing out that since they are all multiple franchises that they should be considered separate entities and the current infobox is confusing to read. The Bulldogs did seem to have separate pages until 2007 when several editors decided to merge because of the confusing shared franchise history and the team celebrating its 10th anniversary even though the franchises split. I suggested on GoodDay's talk page that he should see if there was a new consensus. The last time this was discussed the consensus was a left bit vague at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive64#St. John's IceCaps. I could go either way, I was trying to make the articles consistent. Yosemiter (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on content for "List of (Team Name) records" articles?

Curious if anyone else has any thoughts on forming an agreed upon scope and structure for the various "List of (Team Name) records" articles (such as List of Philadelphia Flyers records).

My ulterior motive is a desire to eventually advance List of Detroit Red Wings records to Featured List, but I'm not sure where to draw the line as to what to include. Some things are obvious (GP, G, A, PTS, W, L, T), but there is no discernible end to what can be logged and recorded as a record (fastest two goals, fastest seven goals, most goals scored on Halloween by a left handed left wing....).

Also, there is the question of structure. For individual records, is it preferable to list only the record holder, as on the Flyers page, or list the top ten players for each stat like on List of Vancouver Canucks records?

Thanks in advance for any and all input, and best regards, Rejectwater (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• As far as individual records go, I prefer the top ten method myself, but I'm uneasy about enshrining it as a capital-S Standard Format. These articles are going to be heavily dependent on the interest level of a handful of editors to maintain, and they ought to be able to work to the standard they can manage. Looking at that Detroit list, by the bye, I hate the career records table; it's far too busy, and tables like that are pains in the neck to maintain. The tables for the single-game records work better, because you're just dealing with one record per row.

  As far as which records to include, I've no objection to the ones already listed. I suppose if we want a guide, we can use the ones in the NHL Media Guides, but they're pretty much the classic ones. I really don't expect "Career Corsi For" columns in the foreseeable future. Ravenswing 17:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been working on this in my sandbox off-and-on. The current version takes in mind the "too busy" critique and gets rid of the separate columns for career and single season. It also includes single game and period records in the table. Here is a simple version I came up with months ago based on List of NHL records (individual). -- I'm not married to anything, but I think the top ten method gets a little tedious after goals, assists, and points. At some point you are just looking at who tops the list and ignoring the rest. --Parkfly20 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• That's a great format. I'm inclined towards using it on the Detroit page as well. I agree that the top ten method seems too tedious. Rejectwater (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Titles of NHL brawls

I noted at this RM that the titles for NHL brawls are inconsistent and unstable. The question is whether or not those articles should use the full team name or just the team nicknames. I thought it'd be best to inform WP:NHL on the matter to give the hockey experts a chance to opine on the matter. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This has turned into quite the topic for discussion recently. My sense, based on what's been said so far, is that the consensus is to use the city names in the article titles, so I've proposed to move Penguins–Islanders brawl back to Pittsburgh Penguins–New York Islanders brawl. Unless I've badly misjudged things I'm hopeful we can put this to rest fairly quickly. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Right now this links to bandy, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. Hockey on ice is ice hockey, and the redirect should justifiably go to that page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference?

What's the difference between this and this? – Sabbatino (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Different organizational committees and building locations (as described in the International Hockey Hall of Fame page). Although it seems that maybe the IIHF Hall of Fame would be better redirected to Hockey Hall of Fame since that is where IIHF inductees are physically listed (as an exhibit) and the page as it is now is a brief description for how this List of members of the IIHF Hall of Fame was made. Yosemiter (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Such a redirect would make good sense, if the IIHF Hall of Fame is nothing more than an exhibit at the HHOF's building. Ravenswing 22:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say it is more than just an exhibit, the HHOF just happens to be where they are currently held. Upo re-reading the IIHF Hall of Fame article, it might be better merged with the List since the List page actually has far more detail and the main page has very little other than a direct to the List page. Just added in the two or three details from IIHF Hall of Fame page to what is right now the List of members page and then have everything under the IIHF Hall of Fame page name might give the most complete page. As it is now, the IIHF Hall of Fame page just seems very empty, but it should be able to pass notability criteria. Yosemiter (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. It should be merged, because it doesn't make any sense in having practically the same stuff in two articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tournament statistics

Hi all. I've looked through the archives to see if we've discussed this in the past, and there's really not a whole lot there. So I figured I'd bring it up here. Wondering if there is any sort of consensus on how to handle tournament statistics (ex: Memorial Cup, Royal Bank Cup, Keystone Cup, etc.) in player statistics tables. For the most part, those statistics are left out of tables, but the reality is that those tournaments are a significant part of some players' playoffs. Take Junior A hockey in Canada for example. If you are a club from British Columbia, you first need to win the BCHL playoffs, then the Western Canada Cup, and finally the Royal Bank Cup in order to become National Champions. I think this is largely a Canadian issue, as there is only one league in each of the top two tiers of junior hockey in the USA, and college hockey accounts for league (Hockey East, Big 10, etc.) playoffs and the national tournament all within the "regular season" (this makes sense, as interleague play happens regularly). However, when you look at a stat line for playoffs for a Canadian junior hockey player, it only includes the league playoffs. So across Wiki, all of these tournament stats are missing. My thoughts are that they don't belong in the same line as the playoff stats, because each tournament is really a new "league" because it's teams that would otherwise not see each other. Roberto Luongo, for instance, has a separate line for Memorial Cup stats. Another FA though in Jarome Iginla however doesn't include the stats anywhere from his Mem Cup experience. I've come across some instances where users have even removed Memorial Cup stats from player stats tables. So the question is, can we get some consistency? What are your thoughts on this? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't cavil to see Memorial Cup stats included on separate lines; a number of prominent websites include the stats, including THN and the HHOF stat blocks. I'd suggest, though, that the Memorial Cup is notable far beyond those other tournaments, and that far fewer fans are looking to see Keystone Cup stats, say. Ravenswing 02:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• When I used to do stat tables I used to put certain events as seperate lines such as the Memorial Cup, but the other two I don't think I ever really did. -DJSasso (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

San Diego Gulls

Hello, maybe someone better at image uploading/formatting than me can take a look at this on Talk:San Diego Gulls#Gulls Team Logo about the current logo for the Gulls? There have been recent edits removing/replacing the current one and I just can't see the difference (maybe I'm missing something?). Yosemiter (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• I can't see a difference either; they're indistinguishable. Ravenswing 22:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The requester finally responded to my query on the difference; the newer logo apparently has a solid orange GULLS vs. the original slightly two-tone orange GULLS. This seems like a really petty difference in why users were removing the logo but if someone does want to add the newer one with a good transparency and resolution, it would be appreciated. (Again, I am no good at image formatting). Yosemiter (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey coach

Can I suggest that an Infobox ice hockey coach template be created? There is an Infobox NHL coach, but there is a need for a general-purpose one, and the NHL coach one needs work. It needs to be embeddable. If no-one gets around to it soon, I will probably take it on myself. But I think it might make a good 'to-do' for this project. Alaney2k (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If anything you should just generalize the NHL one instead, just like the player one is generalized. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace abbreviation in player infobox

The past while I've noticed that (I think just) one user has been going around truncating player's birth locations so it is abbreviated (example being Toronto, Ontario, Canada changed to Toronto, ON, CAN). This is cited as being part of the standard template we have established for the infobox. I don't know when this was implemented, or even if it was discussed at all, but I've come to realize I hate it and am advocating for its change. I just find it unnecessary, and in cases of the USSR (which is URS) and Czechoslovakia (CS), being based on French and/or other means, it looks rather odd and just adds nothing (though I got nothing against whomever makes the change; it is the current standard after all, for some reason). So I'm coming here to gauge the project's opinion on the matter, and am looking to change the standard to list the full names of the location, rather than an abbreviation. Of course if I'm alone in this, I'll drop the matter and go with it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is for a global audience, personally I believe having the full location name is preferable. isaacl (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, as English Wikipedia is for english language readers. BTW, I can understand abbreviations for those places using 3 or more names - like Edmonton, Alberta, Canada or Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom or Austin, Texas, United States, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Blame the creators of ice hockey's infobox for setting this example. Many players already had Toronto, ON, CAN (or anything else) in their infoboxes and it was only a correction to keep it consistent through all articles. Furthermore, NHL website also has this kind of practice so I believe that's where this example came from. Moreover, IOC use/used these codes and they can be found here, while ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 slightly differ. While URS was directly taken from IOC code list, CS is for some reason just an abbreviation of CzechoSlovakia when the official abbreviation was TCH. We either reach a consensus for Toronto, Ontario (or anything else) or leave it in its current state. I also find it amazing that this issue was raised just now, because Anže Kopitar article was nominated for GA and birth place is still listed as Jesenice, SR Slovenia, YUG. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We could list Kopitar's birthplace as Jesenice, SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia (since that's what it existed as at the time of his birth). Of course, the downside is, the expanded Yugoslavia takes up more room in the infobox.

In my opinion, no changes should be made until a consensus is reached. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• My preference would be for full name, and if that takes up another line in the infobox, then it does. That being said, we absolutely should NOT be using the IOC-standard abbreviations, but those commonly used in the English language, per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't expect that one English speaker in twenty would have any notion what "URS" or "TCH" were. Ravenswing 17:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yeah I prefer full name. Previous discussions I believe lead to a standard of only Canada and the US being shortened due to using the provinces/states, but I don't think it is totally necessary. The example on the template page probably just never got adjusted whenever that was discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Then we need to adjust the Template:Infobox ice hockey player so it would be clear, because now there is no mention that only Canada and the United States should be abbreviated. Furthermore, these two countries aren't the only ones in the world that use provinces/states. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No but they were up until recently the only ones we agreed to use them for in the infobox because the media often talks about the states/provinces these players come from as opposed to countries. That isn't usually the case for players from other countries. It wasn't until the debates over the status of the Baltic countries did we really start listing sub-national entities for other countries. Heck we didn't even list the country for Canadians or Americans for a long time, only the province/state. (not that I think doing that is correct, just an observation) -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It depends on which country's media you are talking about. If English-speaking, then yes – most of them will say Chicago, Illinois. If for European media — many countries' media would just say Chicago and that would be all. As for listing Canada/US, in my opinion, there's no need to list them (this is the practice on NBA/NFL/MLB articles) if a person was born and died in the same country (remember that this is Canada/US specific). P.s. I left two messages on your talk. I hope you don't mind that. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• I would agree that the full name, of both country and sub-national unit (where appropriate) so Ontario and Michigan, but not Sverdlovsk Oblast or something; I would say that for USSR and Yugoslavia, it would be best to include the actual state (Ukrainian SSR, SR Slovenia) because they became independent states (and some sources simply put Ukraine and Slovenia as place of birth in anachronistic fashion). Kaiser matias (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• In general I think spelling out the country names is preferable, although abbreviations could be used for a handful of well-known countries that are typically referred to by those abbreviations (I'm thinking USA, UK, and USSR, although there could be others. I'd never heard of URS before this conversation). My two cents for now is that states and provinces should never be abbreviated. Rejectwater (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah that makes sense to me as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oh except it should be US because WP:NOTUSA. Rejectwater (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I am ok with this as long as the auto=yes parameter is set on the box when the banner is done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That is included, yes. ~ Rob^Talk 19:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically it's set to "inherit" rather than "yes", as "inherit" is the appropriate parameter to indicate that the class was inherited from another project's template. Same difference. ~ Rob^Talk 19:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Even better. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Sounds like a good idea. Rejectwater (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• After a few days, there appears to be some support and no opposition to opting in. You may want to consider listing this project at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess to opt-in. I'm unfollowing this project page, so please ping me if anyone has any questions that require the bot operator's response. ~ Rob^Talk 17:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah if no one objects by tomorrow I will list it there. That way there was a full 7 days notice on this page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Ok I have posted it there. And just for history sake we have 2,870 unassessed articles prior to this being done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we already have something like this once? Or was this yet another task that died with the toolserver and a new replacement is just coming online now? Resolute 18:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any previous task that routinely auto-assessed all articles. There may have been tasks that other bot operators ran that auto-assessed articles on demand, but I'm not familiar with any. It's more typical for articles that are automatically tagged (i.e. in an "Ice Hockey" related category tree) to also be auto-assessed. ~ Rob^Talk 20:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There was a task that auto-assessed stubs but not other levels. -DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sports table module

I was curious how everyone felt about the possibility of altering the Module:Sports table/WL OTL tiebreak to add the feature to hide the tiebreak col if it is not needed. When trying to update standings with the current module that do not have a tiebreak criteria for that season it becomes difficult and editors revert to full table code. I did a sandbox version here just to see how the function would work. The only changes I altered from the WL OTL tiebreak module was the function to hide the tiebreak col. Let me know what you guys think and if this would be a good change.

Side note

I understand that the Module:Sports table/WDL would suite this need but the status is not geared to hockey and would not fit for the substitute.–B2Project^(Talk) 12:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Fighting in ice hockey for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

2015 World Junior Ice Hockey Championship

This article should be moved to 2015 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships, so it matches with all the others. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone skilled at vector conversion want to take a shot at the Leafs' and Panthers' new logos?

Wiki SOP is, of course, that sports logos should be uploaded as SVGs. My skills when it comes to SVGs are near-nonexistent, so does someone want to convert the two logos? --Kevin W. - Talk 04:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Las Vegas NHL team

Should this be deleted or redirected here? This is just purely speculative article as there's no team name and all these sources are not official until NHL says so. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to the mentioned article until further notice. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Redirected. Talk about WP:TOOSOON. Nothing is form until the BoG vote in the 22nd, and there's some real doubt as to whether the vote is going to be in favor. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the day is here, and it looks like Bettman is set to make an announcement this afternoon. Well have to see what happens.Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 10:03, June 22, 2016 (UTC)

• It's official now NHL has made the announcement, and Vegas has its NHL team. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 20:35, June 22, 2016 (UTC)

2009-10 NHL Hat tricks

Out of interest, do articles like this one exist in general or should they be treated with the usual methods for undesired content? Thanks in advance! – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This one sentence can't even be treated as an article. Clear test-edit which should be removed immediately. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Ice_hockey_leagues_notability

Discussion you might want to peek in on ... Ravenswing 02:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

National Hockey League awards topic

Hello. I just learned that there have now been ten recipients for the Mark Messier Leadership Award, which I believe is enough for the list page to become a Featured List. This is important as the topic will have a retention period until three months from now. When the three months have ended the topic will be taken for review and be decided whether it would lose its status as a Featured Topic. Thank you for your time reading this. GamerPro64 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

CHL Import Draft

Would it be worth me creating a page for the 2015-16 CHL Import Draft, similar to the pages for the respective years NHL drafts? I'm more than happy to do so, i'm just unsure if it is too 'niche' an idea for an article? Mark49s (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Lowry Johnson

This article's a mess. The one reference doesn't mention him. When I Google him it seems from this source that he is notable, but claims in our article are actually about his brother. I know nothing about ice hockey. Can one of you take a look? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm almost minded to prod it. There's no evidence this guy comes within a country mile of the GNG, and none that he meets NHOCKEY either. At this remove, it's unlikely that significant coverage will materialize. Ravenswing 04:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ravenswing. The source I found isn't promising enough for you? Go ahead and prod. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Per Ravenswing's reasoning this should be removed. Google search doesn't give any other source either. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Prodding now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted as expired PROD. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Country links

There are editors who have interpreted WP:OLINK to mean don't link countries in articles, because they believe that coutnries are "major geographical features". Maybe the instructions to template:Infobox ice hockey player should be changed or maybe this should be disputed. At any rate, these two things seem to be in conflict. See this discussion. Alaney2k (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of quotes sections from Stanley Cup Final articles

isaacl has been removing the quotes from all of the Stanley Cup Final articles in accordance with a very short discussion here. I feel like the decision to remove the quotes across the board was extremely hasty considering a discussion between three members is nowhere near a consensus on the matter. I feel like it requires further discussion. Maybe not all of the quote sections are notable, but removing something like Gary Thorne's call of Bourque raising the Cup in 2001, which is extremely notable, shouldn't be done so flippantly. --Kevin W. - Talk 04:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For reference, here is the section for the earlier discussion, which took place in September 2015, so I don't believe any haste was involved. As I mentioned in that discussion, if a given quote is notable, then I believe it should be integrated into the description for the corresponding game, which would provide relevant context. I agree the conversation did not involve a lot of people; unfortunately, participation in any given discussion can be highly variable. More input is always welcome! isaacl (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I just went over several of those removals, including the one Kevin expressly mentioned, and I can't see where they're notable at all, let alone "extremely notable." "Notable," in Wikipedia terms, means that the quote itself is widely cited and memorable, above and beyond the action it depicts. Very few sports quotes can be held to be iconic, and I can think of only a handful that apply to hockey: we're talking Al Michaels/Foster Hewitt country, with a couple others such as "May Day" (grr) and "My two Cup rings are plugging up my ears." What Joe Sakic did on the ice that night is notable and memorable -- quite aside from yet more evidence that Sakic was one of the classiest players ever to lace skates. The turns of phrase the various media flacks and announcers used to burble about it have not proven to be. Ravenswing 12:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion, what constitutes notability in this case? --Kevin W. - Talk 00:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just gave examples, above: quotes so famous that they are themselves talked about in reliable media sources. If you can find quotes as renowned as "Do you believe in miracles?" or "He shoots, he scores!" -- and can demonstrate that they are -- then those are worth separate sections in the pertinent articles. Ravenswing 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe that Gary Thorne's call of Ray Bourque raising the Cup passes that test? It is, of course, not as notable as the two you mentioned, but it's my opinion that that quote is one of the most famous in hockey history. It was notable enough to have at least one commercial made about that moment. --Kevin W. - Talk 17:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not remotely, obviously. I think we'd want rather more than a YouTube clip including five words of Thorne's call to support an assertion that it is, indeed, generally regarded as one of the most famous in hockey history. Ravenswing 17:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The NHL made a commercial about Lanny McDonald too, and I wouldn't even suggest adding "You did it, Lanny. You finally did it" to the 1989 Stanley Cup Final article. Now, that being said, Issac already suggested to you a solution. If Thorne's quote really is "notable", then just integrate it into the paragraph that actually discusses Bourque. There is no need for a separate section. Resolute 18:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between memorable to those who heard it and having enduring fame. For a quote to be one of the most famous in hockey history, it must be essential to relating the history of hockey. I do not believe this to be the case for the quote in question. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Note as the "Quotes" section was re-introduced at 2000 Stanley Cup Finals, I have linked to this discussion from Talk:2000 Stanley Cup Finals#Quotes section. isaacl (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Note I have also linked to this discussion from Talk:1996 Stanley Cup Finals#Quotes section and Talk:2010 Stanley Cup Finals#Quotes section. isaacl (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Kevin W.'s. Strong Notable. They should be there. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@ACMEWikiNet: I recently re-removed the quotes from the 1996 page. Please provide evidence that quotes such as "What an incredible hockey game!" and "It's a tough one to lose. What a show the Panthers put on." are somehow Strong Notable. I would call that standard play-calling and those types of quotes make up about 90% of what was removed overall. Yosemiter (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yosemiter here. Those quotes are all standard play-calling. There is nothing overly notable about them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

TfD about hockey infoboxes

A discussion about whether more specific infoboxes like {{Infobox KHL team}} should be merged into {{Infobox hockey team}} is currently at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 9#Template:Infobox KHL team. Input would be appreciated. Thank you. —PC-XT+ 20:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

2016-17 Odense Bulldogs season

Could some admin move 2016-17 Odense Bulldogs season to 2016–17 Odense Bulldogs season? The latter seems to have been created manually and thus is currently not capable of accepting a move. Thanks in advance! –– Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Update List of AHL captains

I hope this is the right talk page to put this in. If not, I apologize. I want to work on updating the List of current AHL captains, as I believe it is outdated. Case in point, Matt Ellis was listed as the Rochester Americans captain, despite the fact that Cal O'Reilly has been captaining the Amerks. I thought to update this list (and add references) once new captains are announced for the 2016–17 AHL season.

Also, I was wondering what people thought of adding alternate captains to that page, similar to List of current NHL captains and alternate captains. I figured I'd discuss it here first before tackling it. I know the list of captains and alternate captains in the AHL changes frequently with players being called up. --My Pants Metal (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So long as you can source it, go right ahead. IMO. Resolute 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's my plan! Obtain sources for the article and try to get it as neat as the "List of current NHL captains and alternate captains" article. As soon as captains are announced for the upcoming season, I will make changes. --My Pants Metal (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:2014–15 AHL season by team

With the exception of the Charlotte Checkers and Grand Rapids Griffins articles, the articles in this category are all stubs. The Adirondack Flames article is how most of them appear - a one or two sentence intro, an incomplete infobox, a blank off-season section, and an out-of-date roster. Should these stubs be deleted? --Parkfly20 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bit of a catch-22 here. "Is a stub" isn't really a valid argument to delete, but these are utterly worthless since they are just another example of Dolovis' "Do the absolute minimum and expect someone else to fix it" strategy of article creation spamming. You could try PRODing a couple to see if they go that way, otherwise, AFD is worth a shot. Resolute 16:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

For a few years it seems some fans would actually update those pages. This year I changed all the Current season lines to just direct to 2016–17 AHL season with the summary that no users had interest in updating minor league team season articles. No one said anything. If anything actually still links to those pages, I would recommend simply redirecting to the appropriate AHL season pages instead of going through the deletion processes. Yosemiter (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That is what I usually do as well when I see season articles for minor teams that aren't worked on and are way out of date. -DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I went for the "bold" move and redirected most of them. The bigger issue that I now see is what to do with all the halfway finished articles in Category:2013–14 AHL season by team. Yosemiter (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I would do the same thing. There was a time we didn't do season articles for individual teams below the NHL for this reason, sorta wish we could go back to that but I know we can't. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Going through them, there are six 2013–14 stubs like the ones that were just redirected (Lake Erie, Rochester, San Antonio, Texas, Toronto, Utica). There are five with completed game logs and player stats sections (Abbotsford, Charlotte, Grand Rapids, St. John's, WBS Penguins). Three more have completed game logs but out-of-date player stats sections (Hershey, Oklahoma, Rockford). -- The creator of those articles (sans the six stubs) put a lot of work into them through November 2013. If most are redirected, anyone wanting to go back and work on one of those will have a good place to start from. --Parkfly20 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected all but the eight you listed because those are mostly complete. Although I am inclined to redirect all of them as descriptions do abruptly end two months into the season and it is unlikely anyone would miss them. Or just delete the overly descriptive Regular season sections (because its minor league and most regular season events could be summarized into one paragraph). I also deleted the usage of any incomplete division standing templates on the eight surviving pages. I don't often nominate things for deletion, do unused templates get autodetected and deleted or do they need to nominated somewhere? Yosemiter (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think those need to be listed, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. --Parkfly20 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Pat Hickey

FYI, there's a big red and pink cleanup notice at Pat Hickey -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone fixed it -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Israel at the IIHF World Championship

Wondering what others thought of this page, it's template and all the individual pages attached. I believe it to be duplication of existing material for no reason, and the individual pages to be entirely non-notable but did not wish to pursue it without some input first.18abruce (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The individual pages are probably not notable (not done for the FIFA World Cup, for example), however this particular article might be, as there are equivalents for other sports (e.g. Canada at the FIFA World Cup). -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Always wanted to do something similar to that for al participating nations. Similar to overall Olympic participation articles. There is no easy way to see a country's WC stats on an annual basis. _Jmj713 (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the national team page would seem logical then. However making an individual page for every year without adding content from the main world championship seems a complete waste. Particularly since it is about a country whose results are not notable at all except for the year they made Division I, or the Roger Nielsen camps.18abruce (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried doing that for starters with Serbia national ice hockey team, but the initiative and format weren't picked up by other users and I don't have easy access to the data. Jmj713 (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a few comments since I created the pages.

• Firstly, I have created many similar pages and the AfD was to keep.
• Second, there is a ton of information on these pages not included elsewhere. If you look at a number of the earlier years especially you will see that a ton of information has been added not found anywhere else on WP. If you at 2004 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships#Group A 3 the only mention of Israel is the standings. If you look at Israel at the 2004 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships you will see details about their games and the roster. That is a lot more information than you'll find anywhere else.
• Thirdly, per WP:SPORTSEVENT they are notable.

Thanks - Galatz^Talk 17:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay I guess, if you want to invest the time go ahead. Reading your third point you are actually arguing against yourself since the direction offered within WP:SPORTSEVENT tells you to expand the existing article first. But take your time and get the details right please, because it is rather unlikely the pages will attrack much attention. And sorry, for the most part it is just duplication.18abruce (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pat Hickey

FYI, there's a big red and pink cleanup notice at Pat Hickey -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone fixed it -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Israel at the IIHF World Championship

Wondering what others thought of this page, it's template and all the individual pages attached. I believe it to be duplication of existing material for no reason, and the individual pages to be entirely non-notable but did not wish to pursue it without some input first.18abruce (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The individual pages are probably not notable (not done for the FIFA World Cup, for example), however this particular article might be, as there are equivalents for other sports (e.g. Canada at the FIFA World Cup). -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Always wanted to do something similar to that for al participating nations. Similar to overall Olympic participation articles. There is no easy way to see a country's WC stats on an annual basis. _Jmj713 (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the national team page would seem logical then. However making an individual page for every year without adding content from the main world championship seems a complete waste. Particularly since it is about a country whose results are not notable at all except for the year they made Division I, or the Roger Nielsen camps.18abruce (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried doing that for starters with Serbia national ice hockey team, but the initiative and format weren't picked up by other users and I don't have easy access to the data. Jmj713 (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a few comments since I created the pages.

• Firstly, I have created many similar pages and the AfD was to keep.
• Second, there is a ton of information on these pages not included elsewhere. If you look at a number of the earlier years especially you will see that a ton of information has been added not found anywhere else on WP. If you at 2004 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships#Group A 3 the only mention of Israel is the standings. If you look at Israel at the 2004 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships you will see details about their games and the roster. That is a lot more information than you'll find anywhere else.
• Thirdly, per WP:SPORTSEVENT they are notable.

Thanks - Galatz^Talk 17:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay I guess, if you want to invest the time go ahead. Reading your third point you are actually arguing against yourself since the direction offered within WP:SPORTSEVENT tells you to expand the existing article first. But take your time and get the details right please, because it is rather unlikely the pages will attrack much attention. And sorry, for the most part it is just duplication.18abruce (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

re List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams

There is a discussion at Talk:List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams#lockout gap and Ducks timeline in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ice hockey team roster & players' infoboxes

Is there any guideline/rule in the project that advises people on how the player's birthplace should be listed in team's roster (Template:Ice hockey team roster)? I recently encountered one user who changed players' birthplaces, for example, from Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and many other places) to just Milwaukee. I'm aware of MOS:OVERLINK, but it shouldn't be blindly applied everywhere? Same goes to Template:Infobox ice hockey player when player's city or country of birth is changed, for example, from Montreal, QC, CAN to Montreal, Quebec, Canada and only Quebec is linked (which is strange). I thought templates have documentations for a reason, but some people just think otherwise... Any thoughts? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I believe you are referring to @Colonies Chris:? And the matter about his de-overlinking in tables and infoboxes has been brought up before on his talk page. In my opinion, uniformity throughout an infobox or table using at least the secondary major geographic location looks better, but it does somewhat contradict MOS:OVERLINK. However, the way I read OVERLINK is that if the location is well known (has only the city as the article title) then the secondary location should not be used in prose (but it states link duplication in lists is permissible in the last lines). But since it does not explicitly state that the duplications should be in lists and Colonies Chris seems to be using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, it is going around and recommending deleting states and provinces from tables, lists, and infoboxes. Yosemiter (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Not only birthplaces were de-linked, but also diacritics have been re-introduced in some articles and WP:NCIH is clear on this – no diacritics in North American ice hockey articles. I also had a discussion with him not long ago and he argued that uniformity is nothing and all the policies should be blindly applied everywhere and it doesn't matter what format it is – prose, table, infobox. Whereas, I said the opposite and think that uniformity should used in tables and infoboxes, because prose is a totally different thing. Same goes to nationalities in tables. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes he should not be removing the secondary major geographic locations in the tables, that is not cool at all. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) I'd like to clarify a few points.

• Diacritics: Once I was made aware of the local agreement on diacritics, I stopped adding them to articles, so this is a non-issue.
• Uniformity: Sabbatino completely misrepresents my views. I argued that our overarching goal is to help our readers understand the subject, and that consistency is a tool that we can use, or chooose not to use, if it helps our readers. It's not an end in itself. However Sabbatino stated unequivocally, more than once, "Consistency is above everything else". He's entitled to his opinion but it's just that, a personal preference, not supported by any MoS guidelines.
• Secondary geographical locations: The guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States recognise that US cities are conventionally specified with the state name, but make an exception for certain major US cities, where the state qualifier is considered neither necessary nor helpful. The guidelines for Canadian place names only require the province where it's an essential disambiguator.
• Links to major cities: The guidelines at WP:OVERLINK state that major geographical locations should not normally be linked. New York City is specifically mentioned as an example belonging to that category.
• Duplication: this has nothing to do with duplication of links in tables; I'm agnostic about that. I haven't made any changes in connection with that.

To summarise: consistency is fine, but it's not an end in itself, it's a tool. Our readers gain more from an article uncluttered by redundant information and valueless links than they lose through a minor reduction in consistency of appearance. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Calder Memorial Trophy

Any kindly admin want to step in on our latest diacritic warrior? I wouldn't technically be in violation of 3RR, but this prime specimen's escalated to obscene edit summaries [1] and childish talk page messages [2]. Ravenswing 16:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the newbie's changes. It's concerning that he/she is threatening to sock, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

World Cup of Hockey 2016 exhibition games

Hi everyone. There is a discussion about these games at the WCH 2016 talk page, it could use some input. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please join discussion at Talk:2016 World Cup of Hockey. Why would we add matches that is not included in tournament? Qed237 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

World Cup of Hockey 2016 exhibition games

Hi everyone. There is a discussion about these games at the WCH 2016 talk page, it could use some input. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please join discussion at Talk:2016 World Cup of Hockey. Why would we add matches that is not included in tournament? Qed237 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

New York Rangers rivalry articles

have been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

2016 World Cup of Hockey navboxes

Someone started creating Category:2016 World Cup of Hockey squad navigational boxes for teams that compete in this tournament and added them to each player's article. If I remember correctly there was a consensus against navboxes in players' articles? Can someone clarify this? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been. If someone took them to TfD, I'd vote delete. Just cluttering junk. Resolute 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find the consensus for this? Or someone else could nominate them. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Look through the archives here. There are a number of TfD's deleting them. I just redirected them, if they undo my redirects I will nominate them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Not those flippin' naxboxes, again :( GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

there's still a bunch of collegiate navboxes too that continually come back to life! Triggerbit (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 World Cup of Hockey navboxes

Someone started creating Category:2016 World Cup of Hockey squad navigational boxes for teams that compete in this tournament and added them to each player's article. If I remember correctly there was a consensus against navboxes in players' articles? Can someone clarify this? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been. If someone took them to TfD, I'd vote delete. Just cluttering junk. Resolute 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find the consensus for this? Or someone else could nominate them. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Look through the archives here. There are a number of TfD's deleting them. I just redirected them, if they undo my redirects I will nominate them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Not those flippin' naxboxes, again :( GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

there's still a bunch of collegiate navboxes too that continually come back to life! Triggerbit (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Echeverri

There is a current deletion discussion where the notion that playing on the Colombian national team satisfies WP:NHOCKEY. Some input and sanity here would be welcome, I am not interested in arguing it any further.18abruce (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Echeverri

There is a current deletion discussion where the notion that playing on the Colombian national team satisfies WP:NHOCKEY. Some input and sanity here would be welcome, I am not interested in arguing it any further.18abruce (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Season articles for Prairie Junior Hockey League

While patrolling for season articles in need of endashes, I stumbled about 2016-17 PJHL Season and subsequently 2015–16 PJHL season. As I don't know the project's stance towards league season articles for junior hockey leagues, are these considered to be notable? –– Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Leagues seasons are probably ok but I could go either way. It is the team season articles that are a big no. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Will move the 2016–17 instance one more time then because of the capital "S" in the current title. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Season articles for Prairie Junior Hockey League

While patrolling for season articles in need of endashes, I stumbled about 2016-17 PJHL Season and subsequently 2015–16 PJHL season. As I don't know the project's stance towards league season articles for junior hockey leagues, are these considered to be notable? –– Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Leagues seasons are probably ok but I could go either way. It is the team season articles that are a big no. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Will move the 2016–17 instance one more time then because of the capital "S" in the current title. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Quad City Mallards

Someone went and moved the Quad City Mallards pages without a consensus and I don't know how to move it back over the disambiguation page. For the former team, the consensus has been to name a team that has played in multiple leagues (or under multiple league names in this case) to be under a time frame disambiguator (since they played in the UHL and when it was the CoHL). For the current team, they don't need disambiguating since they are the current team, in a more prominent league, and far more likely to be the intended target when linking (and also multiple leagues). Anyone want to help me out with this. Yosemiter (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As you know, taken care of. The technical request to revert the undiscussed moves was easy, and the user rightly admonished; he made multiple moves today without discussion, many against guidelines. They have been reverted. oknazevad (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, despite my couple years of editing I still still forget where some of the technical requests should go. So I watch and learn instead. Yosemiter (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Outline of Hockey"

I found this empty draft... Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of hockey ...which you may be interested in. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Joel Quenneville

Could someone take a look at the infobox on Joel Quenneville's article? I see that this edit broke it, but can't find the problem. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the double image by adding a blank image direct in the coaching module (the coaching infobox was looking for the most recent image = command). Was that the fix requested? Yosemiter (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Marc Savard's playing career

Why is Playing career field showing 1995–2016? Shouldn't it be 2011? I know that he was traded to the Devils and is on their roster, but he hasn't played since January 23, 2011. Or does it correspond to his contract? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• He's never officially retired, and he's been on team rosters throughout. Ravenswing 19:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I know. That's why I'm asking. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

He is still technically playing since he is still being paid. I know, it is confusing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've edited it in, that Savard is still a Canadian professional hockey player. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. Just wanted some clarification regarding his situation. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems like unnecessary semantics. His playing career ended in 2011 and he is not an active professional player, even if he remains on a roster for financial purposes. Resolute 23:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't retired yet, though. It's up to the rest of you, how should we handle this. Chris Pronger is another 'limbo' example. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think in the past in these situations we have left it as present until their contract ran out and then we changed it back to the year of their last game. Because it is technically crystal balling as they could come back during their contract. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in the NHL

There is an RfC about women in the NHL at Talk:National Hockey League#Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL". -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I decided to look at Manon Rhéaume's article and it is stated in the infobox that she played for the Tampa Bay Lightning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we list the team in player's infobox if he/she actually played in the regular season? – Sabbatino (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

She only played in exhibition games for the Lightning. It was a publicity stunt by Phil Esposito. GoodDay (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I know. TBL should be removed from her infobox. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe we leave it on her as an Ignore All Rules situation because of the significance of her situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But it is already stated in the lede "In 1992, Rhéaume signed a contract with the Tampa Bay Lightning of the NHL, appearing in preseason exhibition games in 1992 and 1993." An infobox is supposed to be for teams that a player actually appeared in an official game. We don't list PTO teams in player's infobox, do we? Regardless of her situation it should be equal for every single player. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I put a 'note' next to the Lightning's inclusion in the infobox, pointing out it was only exhibition games. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is ever one size fits all, there are exceptions to every standard. That is the whole reason we have WP:IAR. For situations like this where something is unique and the rule might not apply as well. That being said Women's ice hockey infoboxes deviate drastically from what we do for men's hockey. The notability of a woman playing an exhibition game with an NHL team is in a completely different level than a man doing so, as such it becomes that much more important for the infobox compared to a man's. It is the lack of importance essentially that causes us not to list men's exhibition appearances. The same isn't the case from her. That fact is essentially why she is notable, so to leave it out of the infobox would defeat the purpose of infoboxes which is to summarize the article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace of Auston Matthews

I wrote this on his page a few months ago, but since it got no response, and with the start of the season tonight, figure I'd post it here for some wider exposure, and see what the larger community thinks:

For the last few months now Matthews' birthplace has been listed as San Francisco, based solely on one ESPN article, in contrast to a wealth of other sources that say he's from Scottsdale, Arizona. Discounting the fact that ESPN has a recently poor track record regarding hockey, I don't feel that this should be taken as the definite source seeing how it contradicts nearly every other source on Matthews, and since then no one has come forth to corroborate the San Francisco claim. So I'm suggesting that it be discounted and his birthplace be reverted back to say Scottsdale.

Kaiser matias (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It is kind of silly that this is in dispute, but I can't really find a story that says "was born in place". At least, not right away. NHL.com says Scottsdale, so that I would trust above ESPN, but NHL.com does have a habit of transforming hometown into birthplace, so....Resolute 02:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Story number 2 discusses his move to Arizona from California at two months old, which you can find many other places online. However I can't say for sure if they have just duplicated ESPN's story. Eliteprospects lists his birthplace as San Ramon, which is near San Francisco, while IHDB lists it as Scottsdale. I don't know what is best, but I personally believe the story of the move at two months old to be legit.18abruce (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This should give all the answers – Born in San Ramon, Calif., and raised in Scottsdale, Ari., Matthews... – Sabbatino (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup that matches what I have read in other stories as well. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the consensus here is to go with the California birthplace, I'll leave the issue. Just wanted to get wider confirmation on the matter. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Debuts and last games

Some user made edits such as this and this. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/NHL season pages format#Debuts and Last Games specifically states that Played in Multiple all-star games... or was named to the First or Second Post-Season All-Star team (there are many players who played in one token all-star game (ie. Garth Butcher) who are not notable, if you do it twice that means you must have had some importance) and Was a team captain with the same team for at least five seasons. He also thinks that Olympic/World Championship medals act as justification for player's inclusion in these lists, but guideline doesn't even mention anything about any medals. Any thoughts about this? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The second one is ok because it is talking about multiple all-star games required or individual post-season teams. The first one does not meet the requirements as World Championship medals are not NHL accomplishments. If you notice our list is all about NHL accomplishments. If he wants to change the list we can certainly have a discussion to change the list. But I don't see why we would be adding accomplishments to allow inclusion on the list that occurred outside the NHL to a list of players who had accomplished NHL careers. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Second example can't be ok, because he's removing [[NHL All-Star Team|NHL Second All-Star Team]] as the guideline states that Played in Multiple all-star games... or was named to the First or Second Post-Season All-Star team (there are many players who played in one token all-star game (ie. Garth Butcher) who are not notable, if you do it twice that means you must have had some importance). From this sentence that I bolded it is clear that [[NHL All-Star Team|NHL Second All-Star Team]] should be included in the table, because it's the postseason accomplishment, and listing 1-time All-Star is not enough according to the guideline. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood what it was you were complaining about in the edit. I thought you meant the player shouldn't be on the list. -DJSasso (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion at least a month ago but it went largely ignored. My stance is simple in that accomplishments like All Star appearances, captaincy reigns, Olympic medals, Workd Cup medals, they're not won by everyone and is an honour regardless of how many appearances made or how long they held a title for. It's why I fight for inclusion of 1-time NHL All-Star appearances or captain reigns shorter than five years. It's not something that's just given out. There's reason behind that choice, and I find it unfair to exclude based off the low number. And despite Olympics/World Cups not being NHL related, NHL players are winning the medals and is often highlighted as part of their accolades. That's why I include them too. I understand cut offs so not to have the sections flooded with every player who's played a game but to me it's ridiculous to exclude those who do achieve things like that based off "it's only one appearance" or "they were only captain for a year". Because it's simply not something just anyone accomplishes. It is made by someone clearly doing something to earn it. RAP (talk) 19:17 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have World Cup/World Hockey championships among the inclusion criteria, as they're not NHL. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget the Olympics. All international tournaments shouldn't be included. And captaincy should stay as it is – 5 or more seasons. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the Olympics shouldn't be in the criteria, either. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't international tournaments be included? You're just blindly saying its non NHL when in a way the player is representing both their country and their team. An Olympic medal is a pretty big deal. We can't talk about amending guidelines if you just deem things should stay as is without giving a former reason. Why should we keep the 5 year cap on captaincy? Did you even read what I had written? I don't feel you have. RAP (talk) 21:21 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And I don't feel you can read either. 1 season of captaincy doesn't mean anything. If a player was a captain for 5 seasons then that should mean something, right? We could reduce captaincy to 3 seasons, because less than that could mean that it was a placeholder as team didn't want to be without a captain. And as everybody else stated – we should keep this to NHL-sanctioned career. By your logic we should also list KHL, SHL, Liiga and other major league accomplishments, because those are big leagues in Europe. However, they have nothing to do with NHL. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of not being able to read but whatever, clearly I'm wrong about wanting to add players who've achieved things many NHLers don't but I'll just fuck off like I know you want me to. RAP (talk) 05:40 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think its just a misunderstanding of what the list is meant to be. It is meant to be a list of players who achieved something big in the NHL. It isn't just a list to show good hockey players. There is no doubt those who win medals like that are a big deal, but their winning the medal didn't impact the league directly. There are other articles for players who achieved things in various other locations/leagues/tournatments. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's your problem that you can't be civil. So yeah, you can do what you wrote, but remember that your additions will be reverted, because it's clear that I'm not the only one who disagrees. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You were the one inferring I can't read, whereas I questioned whether or not you read what I said as you seemed to not acknowledge my points. But whatever, I'll just abide by the guidelines that excludes people of note. RAP (talk) 20:19 20 October 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, we should limit it to the NHL. I'm assuming this also means the WHA isn't a part of the inclusion criteria, as well. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

But why though? The player accomplishments, despite being listed in an NHL page, should include their international accomplishments. It's not like the NHL just ignores it, they actively report on the players during said event. It's something they hold in regard. RAP (talk) 21:28 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not the NHL, though. About the only tournament you might be able to argue for, would be the World Cup of Hockey because it's NHL sanctioned. I'm guessing though, that would be a weak argument. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The medals at Olympics are won by NHL players though. As stated its an achievement that the NHL themselves even acknowledge when an Olympic player retires. Despite Olympics not being "NHL sanctioned", it's still an achievement on par with winning a Stanley Cup for many. And seeing as the Olympics does also impact NHL when they have to put the season on hold while players go to participate, I just feel it's incorrect to not include that in their accomplishments. RAP (talk) 21:39 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Then put it in the appropriate player articles. Except, of course, that that information's already there. For my part, the Debut/Last Game lists should go back to where they've been for many years now: as just lists of names and final teams, shorn of any career recap whatsoever. If you want to find out more about the players, then click on the links and read the articles. Certainly, however, I can't see any reason at all to recap ANY awards, honors or information not pertaining to their NHL careers; these are lists attached to NHL recap articles.

While I'm at it, by the way, who's responsible for calling so many players "NHL All-Stars" when they're not? There's a big difference -- and the league's always kept the wording separate -- between a guy who's played in an All-Star Game and a season-ending league First or Second Team All-Star. The latter are "NHL All-Stars." Ravenswing 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually would agree with Ravenswing, I am not sure when the career recaps started getting added. I think it should probably just go back to the lists of names it originally was. -DJSasso (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Denis Malgin

In April of this year this Swiss player was deleted. He is now playing for the Florida Panthers, is it possible for someone to restore the previous page now?18abruce (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@18abruce: You should ask the admin who deleted it. At least that worked for me multiple times when I asked to reinstate an article or some image. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Contacted the administrator-in-question :) GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, did not realize it was that simple.18abruce (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The NHL Centennial

It's a very big deal, I think, so there really should be an article chronicling the NHL centennial celebrations, much like the Montreal Canadiens centennial (which could use expansion). Preliminary information and dates for the related festivities have already been announced and it should be an exciting and memorable celebration, which has to be chronicled in depth as the momentous occasion that it is. Jmj713 (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games#Game rules

Could someone update major rules considering IIHF tournaments, approved back in 2014? Look at IIHF site. Changes consider:

• Rink dimensions (closer to NHL).
• Introduction of hybrid icing (as it was already used in NHL).
• Blue lines moved towards the red line.
• Prohibition of 360° while approaching penalties.
• Further goaltender equipment discussions.

--Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

links to previous / next championship series

Regarding this edit and similar ones: the articles in question already have succession boxes, though of course they are designed to be at the bottom of the article. Should just one of the navigation mechanisms be kept, or is this a case where redundancy is a good thing? isaacl (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm content to keep both of them. Easier access, if you're starting to read the article or just finishing up reading the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That is technically an infobox. What is happening is that the person adding them hasn't been filling out any of the other information in the infobox. I slowly started moving the logos into the box yesterday, but there are other fields that could be filled out. So technically they aren't really a navigation mechanism, albeit that is the only information in most of them currently. -DJSasso (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Although looking at it they just copy and pasted the football playoff template to make a hockey one. It could use a lot of work making it actually usable for hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that it is a navigation aid within an infobox, as I saw some of the examples with logos in them. The season articles and the Stanley Cup Finals articles, by comparison, do not have succession boxes. All of these articles have navboxes at the bottom listing all of the corresponding articles by season, so perhaps the succession box is not necessary? isaacl (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If I had to choose between what they look like now and succession I would choose succession as the boxes look way better. If we had some sort of full infobox that made sense (looking at the possible parameters in this one it doesn't) then I would go infobox and get rid of succession. So really it comes down to who wants to step up and make a full fledged infobox, if no one does then we should remove it I think. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Naming of the George (or Red) Sullivan article

There was an assertion on his talk page, with three older articles cited, that the article should be renamed with the first name "Red". The hockey hall of fame, and the NHL guide and record book both agree. However in his local media (peterborough examiner) and in private life, he is typically adressed as George. I have no opinion on the matter but thought it should probably have a better consensus one way or the other.18abruce (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say he should be listed as Red Sullivan. That is by far the more common way he was known by, and the local/private examples would have used "George" simply because they needed to be more formal in those situations (well, the paper at least; can't speak for his private life). Never mind that in most cases like this we've used the nickname that effectively served as their first name: King Clancy, Red Kelly, Chico Resch are just a few examples. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming guidelines are clear: an article should be named based on the most common name in English-language sources for the subject. Thus Tiger Williams, not "David Williams;" Bill Clinton, not "William Jefferson Clinton;" Tiger Woods, not "Eldrick Woods." Whatever a subject's friends and family call him is immaterial. Ravenswing 02:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup we use the common name so Red would be the appropriate one. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct wording of words "former" or "retired" in the opening paragraph

There's a discussion regarding the correct usage of these words in the opening paragraph here. Your input would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Islanders', Stars' and Capitals' locations

• I'll start with the New York Islanders. I know that we discussed this in the past and it was decided to list Islanders' location as New York City. However, this is written in NHL's "Official Guide & Record Book/2017":

  New York Islanders
  Executive Office and Practice Facility
  Northwell Health Ice Center
  East Meadow, NY
  Arena
  Barclays Center
  Brooklyn, NY

Islanders' locations per sources: East Meadow, NY (2 teams); Brooklyn, NY (11 teams); East Meadow, NY and Brooklyn, NY (2 teams + NHL); Uniondale, NY (2 teams); Syosset, NY (1 team); 12 teams don't list any location for teams. Looks like Brooklyn, NY should be used as none of the sources base them in New York City. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember, we never determined what should be written there – team's main office or arena's location (I'm aware that parameter is called "City").

• Same applies to the Dallas Stars: Frisco, TX (8 teams + NHL); Dallas, TX (9 teams); Frisco, TX and Dallas, TX (1 team); 12 teams don't list any location for teams. This is tricky as Frisco and Dallas are equally used (9–9).
• Washington Capitals is another team with different locations: Arlington, VA (9 teams + NHL); Washington, D.C. (8 teams); Arlington, VA and Washington, D.C. (1 team); 12 teams don't list any location for teams. Arlington, TX is ahead of Washington, D.C. (10–8)

What should be listed? Or the "City" parameter shouldn't be used anymore, because of differences? – Sabbatino (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Stick with where the arena is. The locations of business offices/practice facilities (which is what those addresses are) is trivial. The islanders play in Brooklyn, but Brooklyn is not a separate city, so leave it as New York City. The islanders do not play in East Meadow, even if their office and practice rink are there. Ditto with Dallas and the Caps. Most teams have their practice rinks in some nearby suburb; I think only two have their practice rinks attached to the main arena (Columbus and the Devils, iirc.) We aren't going to list them, because that is unimportant. Let's keep it simple. oknazevad (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We care about where they play, not where they receive their mail. Resolute 23:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Or we could just rename City parameter to Location. Infobox lacks documentation and it's not clear what should be listed. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the title (City vs. Location), it should definitely list the location of the arena because we typically assume that for 99% of readers looking for the exact location of the team, they care about where they can find them on game night and not where to send mail. (WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES) Yosemiter (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

By renaming I meant that the parameter should be renamed, because calling the parameter City is biased to some degree. For example, Yankees play in the Bronx, Mets play in Flushing (located in Queens), Nets play in Brooklyn and Islanders also play in Brooklyn. Only Rangers and Knicks consider themselves based in New York City. Another examples (sort of) would be Giants/Jets who play in East Rutherford, NJ, despite both teams' names containing New York or Detroit Pistons who play in Auburn Hill, MI. You can't find any source that would say that Barclays Center's location is NYC. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Brooklyn (and the Bronx) are part of New York City, so yes, Barclays Center is is NYC. It says so in the first sentence. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. Not good for you. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No he didn't. I want to know where you get the idea that "only the Knicks and Rangers consider themselves based in New York City". They may be the only ones with a "New York, NY" mailing address, but that's because the postal service has deemed that address as applying only to New York County (aka the Borough of Manhattan), while the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens (the latter further broken down by former town) have distinct mailing addresses. It is not because the Mets, Yankees, Nets and Islanders don't consider themselves based in New York City. oknazevad (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

But he did. So did you. I didn't say that Brooklyn, the Bronx or Queens don't belong to NYC. First of all, I asked about the renaming of parameter from City to Location. This parameter is related to arena's location and that's why I asked for it to be renamed as arena's location should be correctly reflected since infobox is supposed to give correct facts (there's no source, which would state that Barclays Center is located in NYC). Of course I can change it myself without asking, but then most people will start whining and accusing me of doing whatever I want. Although, removing this parameter completely is also not a bad idea and MLB infobox is the best example. Secondly, you just picked the parts that you like or don't like and made a "comment", and doesn't look like you put any effort in actually looking into the whole discussion. Only Yosemiter's comment was logical as he gave his opinion and didn't start bashing like you and the other user. Thirdly, I will show what's written in the Islanders' own media guide (I will keep this to only Islanders-related since that's what the discussion is about):

1. Islanders Owner Charles Wang, Barclays Center Majority Owner and Developer Bruce Ratner, and Onexim Sports and Entertainment announced that the Islanders will move to Barclays Center in Brooklyn, with a 25-year agreement slated to begin in 2015–16.
2. The Islanders hosted the first NHL game in Brooklyn at Barclays Center, falling 3–0 to the New Jersey Debils in a preseason game.
3. The Islanders open their first season in Brooklyn with the first regular-season game at Barclays Center against the Chicago Blackhawks. Artem Anisimov scores the first goal at Barclays Center, John Tavares scores the first Islanders goal at Barclays Center and the Blackhawks defeat the Islanders 3-2 on Patrick Kane’s overtime goal.
4. Barclays Center opened on September 28, 2012 and is a major sports and entertainment venue in the heart of Brooklyn, New York.

For some reason I don't see any mention which would say that the Islanders play in NYC. So yeah, looks like the Islanders consider themselves based in Brooklyn instead of NYC. Moreover, renaming the parameter to Location makes sense since it's about the actual location, which is in fact Brooklyn, and not NYC itself. Even more so, all event listings in many websites give Brooklyn, NY as the location of Barclays Center and that's another proof and justification on why it should be Brooklyn. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research requiring a source to list something located in Brooklyn as in New York City; it's a WP:BLUE situation. Nor is it inaccurate. oknazevad (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, we list based on the city the team plays in, not the neighbourhood. This has been discussed far too many times since the team moved. They play in New York, New York of which Brooklyn is a part of. Also you need to stop comparing what we do to other sports. It is very well understood across Wikipedia that different subjects treat a number of things differently. The teams you list as examples above for baseball were actually like us in the past. When the Islanders moved it triggered a discussion here and a discussion there on what should be used. The two projects decided to treat both situations differently and that is ok. I think it is pretty clear here and in the other discussions you can find in the archives here and on the template, on the NHL page and I think the Islanders page that there is consensus to use New York, New York. I know you are a big fan of saying we should use what the media guides use, but those are primary sources, and we usually don't defer to primary sources unless we absolutely have to. This is not one of those cases. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those old discussions, but sometimes opinion can change. And if I remember correctly this isn't North Korea where everything is censored and you can't have your own opinion. As for the other thing you mentioned, I'm NOT "a big fan of saying we should use what the media guides use". I just stated the facts that are acknowledged and accepted by the society. Why it's OK to list Brooklyn, NY as the birth/death place for some person, but the same can't be used for this? Personally, I don't see any difference between these two things. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Rarely that soon after the last set of discussions is something likely to change, but I am not saying you are censored, you can spout off about whatever you want. I am just pointing out that something that has been discussed ad nauseum is not likely to change. As for my other comment, I only made it because you have pointed to the guide book in two discussions on this page currently as your reasoning when what we show and what the guide book show aren't necessarily the same thing. They are showing a directory type listing (ie a mailing address) where as we are trying to list the identifiable geographic listing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that I'm censored. It was just an expression that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. As for location, not all media guides giving the full address with postal codes or phone numbers. For example, New Jersey Devils' guide mentions that the Islanders play at Barclays Center in Brooklyn. No other info is given regarding the address or other directory-related stuff. And I didn't say that we must go by what those sources list. It was just an idea about what we could do. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yep. For my part, this is an issue that (in the case of the Islanders) I disagree: Brooklyn is in its own right one of the larger cities in North America, with a long and rich internationally-known identity and in the name of major league sports teams, past and present -- using it as a city identifier makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, I was outvoted. It happens. Ravenswing 16:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this discussion stalled and it is clear that this is not going anywhere, I went ahead and added a clarification to template's documentation. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NHL team season

There's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox NHL team season#Template-protected edit request on 4 November 2016. Clearly some people can't read or don't really want to improve anything. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Breaks within icehockeybox

It seems that using the breaks within {{IceHockeybox}} is against WP:ACCESS, as it seems that it is problematic for people using the screen reader. Please see this discussion, and discuss here wether the slash or another format should be used. I am for using slashes because it is simpler and clearer.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for continuing the discussion here. the sandbox version allows for '/' delimiters instead of using <br> tags. see directly below,

February 15, 2006 (2006-02-15) 13:05

Italy

2–7 (0–1, 2–5, 0–1)

Canada

Palasport Olimpico Attendance: 8575

Game reference
	Jason Muzzatti	Goalies	Martin Brodeur	Referee: Thomas Andersson (Sweden)
	0–1 5:33 – Iginla (Bertuzzi, Sakic) Cirone (Scandella) (PP) – 20:43 1–1 1–2 21:55 – Heatley (St. Louis, Lecavalier) 1–3 25:38 – Doan (Pronger, Richards) 1–4 26:04 – Iginla (Sakic) (PP) 1–5 33:53 – St. Louis (Heatley, Lecavalier) 1–6 34:38 – Richards (Doan, Bertuzzi) Parco (Tuzzolino) – 38:08 2–6 2–7 43:39 – Thornton (Gagné) (PP)
	20 min	Penalties	12 min
	20	Shots	50

the current version just converts these slashes into an aligned table instead for better accessibility. another option would be to have |goal1a=, |goal1b=, |goal1c=, but that would require more typing within the articles. or, we could have something like |progression1= / 0–1 / Cirone (Scandella) (PP) – 20:43, etc. and have that parsed by the template. whatever works best. Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If it means that the correct scorer stays on the right line despite the resolution used, then that would be great. I have had some trouble with users putting in seemingly random line breaks because of how they said it appeared to them but I did not understand why.18abruce (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

18abruce, yes, it fixes that problem as well. if you try to cut-and-paste the contents from the two examples in the test cases, you will see that in one case, the information is chronologically ordered when you paste it. in the other case, you get all the goals1 first, followed by the progression, followed by goals2. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

So, no objection. Then we should do that format with slashes.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

USHL recognition

I would be interested in a discussion based on todays standing in the notability of the United States Hockey League. My long held personal opinion is that the USHL should be elevated and recognized alongside the other major junior leagues in the WHL, OHL, QMJHL.

In the 2000's the USHL was accepted as an weakened league, but with the game having embedded and strengthened at the junior level in America, there is no doubt that it is on par or can even be argued to be above another recognized league in the QMJHL. Over the past 5 NHL Entry Drafts, the USHL has consistently placed above the QMJHL in prospects drafted overall and signals to only get stronger with 4 first round picks in the last draft, doubling the QMJHL.

I find it inconsistent that a QMJHL player with first team honors passes notability, where as even the top player of the year in the USHL and top junior player in the United States would not pass notability purely based on the outdated ranking of the USHL as a lower level league. There are numerous sources and independent news outlets that publish results and awards based on the league and players so i think common sense should prevail and it be recognized. Triggerbit (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Triggerbit: First off, I agree that the level of play of the USHL has definitely improved in the last decade (while it has also been mentioned that the Q has possibly declined, but that I cannot personally verify). Unfortunately this subject (as covered in WP:NHOCKEY) has far less to do with level of play than it has to do with media coverage. To prove notability as a person or player, they must pass WP:GNG first. NHOCKEY (and supposedly NSPORTS in general) assumes after experience that any player meeting the requirements of NHOCKEY is 99% likely to meet GNG without just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Junior hockey is just not nearly as well covered by the media in the US as it is in Canada (where you will find articles covering the best players in the Major Junior leagues but only occasionally for the First Team USHL players and even then it is usually because it is just a scouting report as evidenced in 2015–16 USHL season#All-USHL First Team players). So for it to be automatically included in NHOCKEY, there needs to be evidence that all players that make new qualifications also currently meet GNG. This may be the case the for the last few seasons, but can that be said for all seasons? Likely it would need a cut-off date to assume notability such as "Any USHL First Team since 2010" or something to that extent. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with Yosemiter, which is why I left the USHL off the list when it was created. The level of play for major junior in Canada was never the case: it's the coverage it receives in Canada that put it on the list, and that's damn near unique in sport: I sure can't think of any other team sport where U-20 competition is remotely notable. I'll give you some examples. Take a look at the list of all-time career high scorers for the league. Andrew Tortorella's the fifth highest scorer in league history; there's ONE G-News hit for him, a passing reference in a college hockey journal last year about players who'd played for the U Nebraska-Omaha program. Scott Shoffstall's the third highest scorer in league history; there are NO news hits for him, save for his hockeydb page. Chris Fournier's #2, and he has one hit; staggeringly enough, there's a high school player by that name in New Hampshire right now with more hits. Peter Fregoe is the career scoring champion for the league, and he has two hits, both from Providence area media and both passing references (he'd been a four-year starter for the Friars). Exactly two of the top ten have had any media attention ... and those are the two players who made the NHL.

  We cannot, therefore, declare players from the USHL presumptively notable, and certainly not out of any amour propre regarding the league's quality level. Individuals can rise and fall on the GNG. Ravenswing 12:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• (POSTSCRIPT: For the weird trivia of the morning, I just looked at the USHL's all-time penalty minute leaders. #9 is Jeff Finger. #10 is Peter Hand. You can't make these things up.) Ravenswing 12:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with Ravenswing. The presumption of notability must rely on the likelihood of enough sources existing from which to write an article. If we can demonstrate that winning major awards at the USHL generates such coverage, then it should be added. If not, then not. Resolute 18:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yosemiter has pretty much said everything I typically note. Quality of play doesn't factory into any of the NHOCKEY guidelines. The NHOCKEY guidelines are all built upon the amount of media coverage those people are likely to receive. The goal of all the sports guidelines is that someone is going to be 99.99999% likely to meet GNG if they meet any of those guidelines. And that still isn't the case for USHL players. And unfortunately, because any of those guidelines have to also apply to previous people that were in the league and won those awards, its highly unlikely they ever will unless written in a way that it only applied to players after X year. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability question - Ryan Fitzgerald

I closed WP:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey) as redirect to the article about his father; but it has been pointed out to me at User talk:JohnCD#Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey) that he appears in List of Division I AHCA All-American Teams under 2015-16, and from there I find him also in 2015–16 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season. The more I study those pages, the less I understand them. Please advise me whether his appearance there indicates notability under WP:NHOCKEY #4. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

He was named second team all-american as noted here, which appears to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY critereon #4.18abruce (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - that's what I wanted to know. I will restore his article. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I should note, that meeting anything on NHOCKEY doesn't indicate notability, just that notability is likely. You can meet NHOCKEY and still be deleted as per any of the sport SNGs. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)