Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive76

Jesper Fast GAR

Hi all. The article about ice hockey player Jesper Fast, which I worked up to GA status a number of years ago, is currently up for GAR, which is appropriate, because it hasn't been updated since the 2014-15 season. I had indicated on the GAR page that I'd like to try to update the article and preserve its GA status, but I have less and less time for Wikipedia these days due to personal circumstances, so I likely won't be able to update it right now. If it fails GAR, then perhaps some day when I have more time I can work on it again and try to bring it back to GA. But I wanted to post it here in case there's anyone who would be interested in improving upon it before it fails GAR. If so, please by all means do so, and post in the GAR that you're working to improve it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 playoff exhibition games

We should include a separate section on these exhibition games to be played prior to the start of the playoffs. I would include them for the playoffs article, as they're technically part of the playoffs and only playoff teams are participating to prepare them for the tournament. They should also be included as a section in each team's season article under playoffs, in a separate template. Thoughts? Jmj713 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that they need to be in the main article outside of maybe a quick mention as they have no real bearing on the outcome of the playoffs. You are correct in stating that these games should be in each team's season article though. Deadman137 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

They have no bearing on the playoffs, true, but they are part of the process. I think they should be documented. We've never had exhibition games for the playoffs, so this is brand new, but I would still have a quick table with the results, just before the coverage of the actual games. Jmj713 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's just a quick table with results, that would probably be okay. Deadman137 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what I meant, yes. Jmj713 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried adding the exhibition game to the Rangers's season article as a test and it was reversed with a comment it's "irrelevant". It's not being added for relevancy to the playoffs but as a record of games played by the team. Thoughts? Jmj713 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There are preseason games in the article and they carry the same weight as the playoff exhibition game. Deadman137 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A lot of sports season tables have exhibition results. I wouldn't think it was inappropriate. Ravenswing 19:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

TBH, I wouldn't bother including it, as it's not going to be an annual event. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

But these games were part of the season for these 24 teams. We need to record that, I believe. Jmj713 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool, whatever yas want. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Final standings for NHL info boxes, record tables

Some clarification is needed for whether the division and conference standings in the info boxes on teams' 2019–20 articles, season-by-season record tables, should be based on point totals (as they stood on March 12), or based on points percentage. When I added the final standings on May 26, I had them based on points percentage. They were later changed to point totals by another user. Since then, the standings have been changed back to points percentage and then back to point totals. There really has been no agreement on this, as far as I'm aware of. I should mention that NHL.com has the final standings based on points percentage, while other sites like Sportsnet, TSN still have them based on point totals. Yowashi (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Officially final standings for the season are based off of points percentage, any edits contrary to that should be removed. Deadman137 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yowashi: I have gone through and fixed all of the affected articles. For the purposes of final standings we use league sources such as [1] and ignore TSN and Sportsnet. Deadman137 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deadman137: Awesome. Thank you. Yeah for statistical stuff, I always use NHL.com to obtain my information from. I only checked Sportsnet and TSN to see if the standings were consistent with NHL.com. Yowashi (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY should be updated for female leagues

Hello, hockey fans!

I just updated the talk page for Alex Poznikoff, a female player from Alberta who's in the PWHPA, and I realized that the notability standard doesn't currently consider women's leagues/organizations. It should be updated accordingly. Cheers, PKT(alk) 13:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The last conversation I recall, agreed that female players are judged by whether they meet WP:NHOCKEY #6, WP:NOLYMPICS or WP:GNG instead of any league. Flibirigit (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• This has been a subject extensively and exhaustively debated over the years, and you can look at the archives if you'd like to see the various arguments. The ongoing consensus is that women's play does not now, and never has had, the sustained coverage in reliable sources necessary to gain presumptive notability for every player. Ravenswing 14:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Pretty much what the other two said. As it stands for female players its #6 or GNG. The lack of listing a league isn't because its not giving consideration to other leagues, it is that those other leagues can't guarantee that a player who played a single shift in one game would likely meet GNG for example. The coverage of female players unfortunately is just not there. A lot of discussion and research into this has gone on over the years. -DJSasso (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• The discussion here, at AfD Morgan Beikirch and recent discussions on the Women's ice hockey task force talk page demonstrate that there’s a schism regarding how women’s ice hockey notability is regulated on Wikipedia. It would be best for us to be address these differences in perspective before the situation deteriorates.
  First, the suggestion that there is no significant coverage of women’s ice hockey in North America appears to be several years out of date and is easily disproven with a quick google. Women’s ice hockey has turned a corner in North America, particularly since the NWHL began streaming on Twitch in 2019, and the league’s expansion to Toronto has only ramped up interest. At a certain point, removing articles about women’s ice hockey for not being notable is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the information gleaned from Wikipedia is used by news organizations to determine who and what to write about. We can’t expect every journalist to be familiar with the subject and the dearth of information about women’s ice hockey on Wikipedia may be actively limiting the amount of journalistic coverage it recieves.
  Second, there appears to be a total disregard for women’s ice hockey occurring outside of North America, which has remarkably good coverage in several countries. Most notable is the coverage of the SDHL in Sweden, which is quite good and articles regularly appear in the Aftonbladet, Dalarnas Tidningar, and the Göteborgs-Posten, among others. The SDHL also holds the distinction of having the most internationally-varied rosters, with players joining from the top leagues around the world, including the NCAA, Naisten Liiga, ZhHL, DFEL, SWHL A, etc. The league’s coverage must be close to that of several of the leagues listed in the third tier of NHOCKEY (looking at you Beneliga and Belarusian Extraleague).
  We can all appreciate the time and effort that has gone into NHOCKEY over the years but historical consensus is hardly a reason to limit current and future discourse.
  I hope that, through further discussion, we will be able to find common ground and better understanding. Active and invested members of WP:WHOCKEY are tagged and their input regarding this topic is highly valued: @Hmlarson: @PMCH2: @Bill McKenna: @NHCLS: – Spitzmauskc (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Spitzmauskc: Have you ever read WP:ADVOCACY? We have repeatedly addressed this and every time that we test it, the only female players that pass are those that have played in a world championship or Olympics. The reality is that not many people care about women's hockey. While that is sad, we cannot change WP:NHOCKEY just to placate a few editors when the evidence is not there to support their claim. Deadman137 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Spitzmauskc: Mm, perhaps you're either misunderstanding or not really reading the argument. No one has said "women's hockey gets no coverage." What we are in fact saying is that women's hockey does not have the sustained coverage in reliable sources necessary to gain presumptive notability for every player. Heck, I'll quote myself:

At the hockey Wikiproject, we've done extensive examinations -- because this question's been coming up time and time again -- of individual key players, and over and over again, the media just doesn't care. I live in one of the hockey hotbeds of the world (as well as perhaps THE hotbed of women's hockey), and even though the local team won the Clarkson Cup last year, there was no coverage in the Boston Globe -- I only found out about the victory reading The Hockey News online. And that right there is enough. Without so much as routine match coverage in the local media, an argument can't be sustained that there's enough coverage to make a presumptive notability argument for every player in the league. The Hilary Knights, Brianna Deckers and Florence Schellings are going to get their coverage, but it's just not there for third-liners. It sucks, it's unfortunate, but there are no grounds beyond the ideological to make any changes here.

Ravenswing 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that the last time the Boston Blades won the Clarkson Cup was in 2015 and the last time the Boston Pride won the Isobel Cup was in 2016 NHCLS (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deadman137: @Ravenswing: Coverage of women’s ice hockey has demonstrably changed in the past year. Ravenswing, you mention the Boston Globe to underscore your point but the Boston Globe covered the Boston Pride and the 2020 NWHL playoffs, even though the finals weren’t able to be played as a result of COVID-19. That your point was made in reference to the CWHL further underscores that this issue has not been discussed recently – that league folded well over a year ago and serves very little value as a measure of current coverage. As I mentioned previously, I respect the amount of time and effort that has been paid to this issue over the years, however, the fact that this keeps coming up should be an indication that it needs to be regularly re-assessed rather than dismissed. You’ll note that I suggested the NWHL or SDHL be considered for inclusion in the third tier of NHOCKEY, which grants notability if a player “achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or First Team All-Star),” so I’m not sure why the notability of third-liners was brought up at all. I’m not so deluded as to rank women’s leagues on par with the NHL but if you honestly think there is better coverage of the Belarusian Extraliga than the SDHL, your idealogical motivations may need to be reviewed. I’d appreciate a response to what I have actually written rather than the assumption that anyone who might raise the point is excessively ideological. My points are quite tame and I haven’t made demands of any kind, only asked that the discussion be revisited. – Spitzmauskc (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Spitzmauskc: If you had bothered to read our last discussion on this you would find that we determined that all elite female players in both professional leagues at the time would already qualify under criterion #6 and/or as an Olympian. So we decided not to build a redundancy into the system as it would not affect any players. If you have a problem with being called out about what your perceived agenda is then don't make it so obvious. Deadman137 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the Globe had that article: a six-sentence bullet point which if it were about nothing but a single player -- instead of a generic "season's over" -- still wouldn't be enough to be considered significant coverage sufficient for the GNG. I would not consider coverage to have much changed at all.

That being said, if you'd want better coverage here of the women's game, team and league articles are sorely lacking. Looking at the SDHL page, it lists one more team than the league's website holds is in the competition. Of the ten teams, only three have their own Stub-level pages (two others are mentioned fleetingly on the pages of the men's teams with which they're associated). The league's own website only gives team stats going back four seasons (it's existed for 13), and doesn't list All-Stars or all-time leaders. If you've the energy and time, that'd be a good start. Ravenswing 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the last discussion on women's hockey notability guidelines too place in October 2018 - 2 years ago. And it's been two years where a lot has happened in the sport and coverage has significantly increased, so re-examining the question doesn't seem inappropriate. There's an increasingly large amount of non-Olympic players who are receiving enough media attention to have multiple independent sources (and not just North American ones - as Spitzmauskc points out, coverage of the SDHL is pretty good in Sweden and non-English are still acceptable sources), and so the idea of having more specific notability guidelines for women's hockey is becoming increasingly relevant. To dismiss this discussion as "ideological" is assuming a level of bad faith that doesn't at all fit with the reality of the growth of the game. And, I mean, when you say "perceived agenda", what exactly do you mean? What agenda are you assuming here? NHCLS (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

More recently than that: [2]. Indeed, there's been a fair bit happening in women's hockey: one of the two NA leagues foundered, and the other's gasping for breath with the withdrawal of many of its players and what little NHL support it had. As far as coverage "significantly increasing" though, may I ask upon what basis you make that assertion, and what evidence you have to support it? It's rather difficult to claim that the game growing is a "reality" when it's shrinking. Ravenswing 13:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Women's ice hockey should not be limited simply to professional leagues. At the Olympic level, women's ice hockey is growing. Both in numbers of teams and caliber of play. Also growing at national an local level globally. [3] [4] Regardless, the fact that NHOCKEY doesn't have ANY mention of women's ice hockey at all is problematic. If a consensus has been reached, then include that in the guidelines. To disregard the existence of the sport in its entirety shows a bias against the sport. A truly neutral point of view would include mention of women's hockey and state what the current consensus is. Editors shouldn't have to guess or go back to discussions held in previous years.

Perhaps NHOCKEY #6 could be rewritten to say, "Played on a senior national team for the men's or women's World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year". That way it would make it unambiguously obvious that it includes the World Championship for both men and women, and would eliminate the tired argument that NHOCKEY doesn't specifically include women anywhere in the guideline. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in doing that because we intentionally left it the way it is to include both as the current wording is more succinct. Honestly if someone is not able to interpret this on their own that's really more their problem than ours. Deadman137 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It may be more succinct, but the fact that people consistently have had trouble interpreting it tends to lead me to believe that it may be a bit ambiguous. I suggest that adding these three words, "men's or women's" would remove any ambiguity from the guideline and make it crystal clear that #6 includes both men and women. Just a thought, as these arguments seem to keep on coming up over and over again. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, three people agreed to this change last time it was discussed two years ago, and no one disagreed. (Everyone understood then too that it won't be a cure-all.) I agree with the proposal to make this small change. isaacl (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I too have though for awhile we need to make that change to make it unavoidably clear. -DJSasso (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm genuinely not sure how you can say the NWHL is "gasping for breath" when it has within the last season both signed its first ever broadcast deal and expanded to add its first ever Canadian team. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that NHL support has been withdrawn when the NHL doubled the amount it gave to the NWHL (from 50 000$ to 100 000$). And the CWHL collapsing doesn't mean the game is shrinking - the PWHPA gotten a lot of coverage and has arguably focused more attention on women's hockey than the CWHL was managing. And that's just North America - the SDHL's just renewed their agreement with the SHL to include a substantial increase in investment and had started a historic TV deal with C-More and SVT with the 2019-20 season, and from what I've heard the KHL's been doing a lot with the ZHL. (and the "more recently than that" discussion you linked to also seems to be from October 2018?) Like, I don't think anyone's arguing that a random fourth-liner who's played a couple of minutes in one NWHL game once should be deemed notable, but something like the guidelines the Belarussian or Belelux league gets - if you've acheived pre-eminent honours (in the handful of top leagues like the NWHL, the SDHL, and the ZHL). NHCLS (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Since league notability is not the issue under discussion, I suggest focusing on whether or not any new player criteria can be established that has a high correspondence with the existence of appropriate sources meeting the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem you run into is that any new criteria have to apply to all players. So it can't just apply to those players since "coverage changed" in the last year or so. It has to apply to women who played a larger number of years ago as well. And previous discussions turned up that not even the scoring leaders or MVPs of leagues consistently had coverage of them. I like you would really really like that to change. But Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: then we'd need to change the current guidelines for men's hockey leagues downwards though - if I look at someone like Charles Pletsch, who qualifies after having played one NHL game back in 1920, I can't find any signficant coverage of him from a quick internet search (the Wikipedia article doesn't even cite any sources outside of databases). NHCLS (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really, because a 1920's player is not likely to have many sources online. Part of why the SNGs exist is to protect subjects from over zealous deletion where getting sources will require going to physical archives to get the sources because their notability came from the pre-internet era. But I would point out, male players that meet NHOCKEY have been deleted on numerous occasions, as NSPORTS says, meeting anything on that page is not a guarantee of getting an article, they are just rules of thumb to help when determining if GNG can be met. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Since it has been mentioned here in this discussion, I would like to point out that the Boston Globe does in fact cover women's ice hockey extensively. This is particularly true for the regional women's NCAA college games. [5] [6] [7] As is the Women's Beanpot, including the most recent 2020 game. [8]. Here is a recent article about Meghan Duggan. [9]. Here is an article on the pay gap between men and women's pro players. [10]. Here are Globe article on Women's Olympics [11] [12] [13] [14][15] EVERY 2018 Olympic game that the US women's team played was covered by the Globe.

The participants on this talk page are huge fans of hockey, and would welcome more coverage of players that meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. If anyone can propose a rule of thumb that predicts with high certitude that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage of a player meeting the rule is available from multiple reliable sources, then by all means, please propose the criteria, and demonstrate how accurate they are. If it's an excellent predictor, then adding it will be straightforward. isaacl (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I pay very little attention to women's ice hockey, so there's nothing really for me to add. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• To address Ejgreen77's proposal, sure: once someone demonstrates that 95%+ of the players on those teams meet the GNG. That's significant coverage that isn't namedrops, casual mentions or routine sports coverage for every rostered player (for instance) on the Japanese, French and German teams last year, from the Chinese and Japanese teams in 2004, from the Kazakh and Chinese teams in 2006 ... Ravenswing 00:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you saying that NHOCKEY #6 doesn't already include the women's teams? This is exactly why I think clarification of this would be a good idea. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It is consensus that it does apply to women, Ravenswing, often makes the argument it does not. That is an argument that many people make in regards to all sports in NOLYMPICS (men's or women's) especially when it comes to team sports so he isn't completely out on his own. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems we are discussing two separate things. One is, to Ejgreen77's point, the existing WP:NHOCKEY standards need to be updated to explicitly include mention of the women's ice hockey leagues, regardless of whether the consensus is that they confer notability. The fact that they are MISSING entirely needs to be addressed. You have classified 34 current leagues, and another whole set of defunct leagues, and yet there is no mention at all of any women's league. They exist, they have fan bases, they get media coverage, and people who are editing Wikipedia are looking for guidelines. I don't like how the classification has been decided to date, as I think it underestimates coverage of women's hockey in the press. But regardless, if women's hockey leagues have been discussed and decided that they are not notable, then that should be explicitly stated in the guidelines. The leagues deserve at least that much respect, and it would be helpful to editors, which I believe, is the point of having guidelines. PMCH2 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Only the leagues that have been agreed upon to form part of the ice hockey player notability criteria are listed, and all other leagues are described as not forming part of the criteria, which is a reasonable approach. As I said previously, if you can illustrate how some new proposed criteria is a highly accurate predictor that the standards of inclusion for the corresponding players are met, there will be lots of people happy to adopt these criteria. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned by Isaacl, it does technically mention it. It specifically says "Those leagues not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability to players, coaches, officials or executives, and articles about the same must explicitly demonstrate notability under the provisions of WP:GNG, WP:BIO or other valid notability criteria." We only list leagues which do, if we were to list every league that doesn't there would be many many many more to list. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Something that I want to point out, which I don't think has been mentioned in this discussion, are the BLP concerns that could arise from the greater inclusion of stand-alone articles on marginally notable individuals. The whole section the presumption in favor of privacy is broadly applicable. The ethical concerns are two-fold: first, we would collect and make considerable information on an otherwise private individual easily accessible; second, there is the perennial issue that low-traffic pages are more prone to the insertion and prolonged retention of inaccurate information. We have an article for every NHLer who played at least one game, and a casual perusal of the list suggests that most articles are about men who had their moment of glory in the NHL, and were otherwise career minor-leaguers at best; I would further argue that there likely is no significant coverage of their lives outside of appearing on stat sheets. Broadly expanding NHOCKEY for women (or other men's leagues) risks adding more articles that are potential BLP landmines, and it seems we have plenty such landmines with the articles we have already would probably present greater BLP issues than already exist with men. Maxim_(talk) 14:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Presuming that some level of general notability for women's leagues reached consensus, why would that be? You're surely not suggesting that a greater standard of care should exist for BLP articles, or that a more stringent privacy standard should apply, on women than for men? I can imagine of no justification for that beyond the paternalistic. Ravenswing 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to speak for him, but I think he just means it would get worse if we added more articles in that situation simply because that is already a problem with low traffic BLP articles, so adding more low traffic BLP articles would make a bad situation worse just based on numbers not genders. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

DJSasso has explained it better than I could. Maxim_(talk) 23:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NHL Coach infobox

Can the NHL Coach infobox be used on pages pertaining to non-NHL coaches? There doesn't seem to be one for coaches outside the NHL. Mark49s (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes it can be used for coaches outside the NHL. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Mark49s (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

New wiki-code templates for all 32 NHL ice hockey teams

Hello, all editors involved in WT:NHL, I just thought I would let everyone know that there is now a module which hosts the accurate color codes for all 32 National Hockey League (NHL) ice hockey teams. It's hosted over at Module:Sports color/ice hockey. I have also created Template:Ice hockey color, Template:Ice hockey color cell, and Template:Ice hockey color cell2. With that in mind, I'm seeking input from other editors in this WikiProject as to whether the wiki-code formatting for all 32 teams' templates should be changed from a white background with team colored-borders on top and bottom of the background |titlestyle=, or if it should be changed to reflect templates similar to other teams in other sports leagues. By that, I mean, should there be colored backgrounds with white text and a secondary border color in the |titlestyle=, and then the team's secondary color in the |basestyle= with colored text and borders? Whenever any of you have a moment, I would appreciate comments and feedback. I'm seeking WP:CONSENSUS from all editors interested before I unilaterally make any changes any other editor involved in this WikiProject is uncomfortable with. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive52#Accessibility.2C Round 2 is where consensus was reached to use colour borders and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive53#User accessibility concerns is where there was further discussion on its implementation. This choice was made to improve accessibility and I continue to support it. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I agree that we should continue to use the border colouring, instead of background and text colouring. I have implemented the NHL border colouring in {{Navbox NHL}} and you can see a demonstration in {{Anaheim Ducks/sandbox}}. If you compare the code for the sandbox vs the main template, you can see that (1) you use |teamname= instead of the title and all the style statements, (2) you don't need to explicitly state the hlist class. if the title isn't just a linked version of the team name, you can override that with |title= as before. the colours are obtained from Module:Sports color/ice hockey. this same module could be used to set the colouring in Template:Infobox NHL team and other NHL templates. this way you set the colouring in one place and it will be the same scheme in all the various NHL templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl and Frietjes: So I take it then that I'm in the minority as far as wanting to change the wiki-code formatting for all 63+ NHL team templates from a white background w/border colors to background and text coloring? I mean, I understand the consensus & concept behind it. It's just that I suggested changing it to background and text coloring because my reasoning was that I could preserve contrast guidelines while having background and text coloring. Another part of my reasoning behind wanting to create modules & templates related to NHL team colors is that it's very time consuming to manually go through and edit each team's color codes in the team templates & team season templates, especially when teams change their color codes. What could I/would I/should I need to do, if anything, in order to persuade other editors to change the consensus? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to change the colour coding. We need less decoration, not more. Flibirigit (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: But why, though? Wouldn't it be easier just to hard-code it in the team templates one time? Then, any time a team changes its colors, all an editor would need to do is change the color codes over at Module:Sports color/ice hockey, and then change the color codes only in the infobox after that, as opposed to needing to hard-code change the color codes in all templates. I'm all for making things easier, which is why I support using background and text coloring. However, if I remain in the minority, then I will drop the stick and back away, accepting the clearly established consensus as it currently is. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Centralizing the team colour definitions can still be done with the existing layout using colour borders, as Frietjes has already demonstrated. The border colours are also used in data tables, and so it would be useful to be able to access the colour definitions independently. isaacl (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Centralizing the team colors definitely sounds like a good idea to me. I'd even recommend expand the color module out to include all ice hockey teams, not just the NHL (AHL teams, ECHL teams, European teams, etc.). Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Truth be told, we used to have background/text instead of borders for all those boxes. They were all changed to the current border system -- rather against the consensus of the Project -- under pressure from outsiders, who argued that they made things difficult for the handful of Wikipedia users operating screen readers. Ravenswing 14:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd say numerous editors were persuaded to change the style based on raised concerns, which is in line with true consensus: something everyone can live with. The issue is not so much those using screen readers, since they're relying on the audio, but those who have problems with poorly contrasting colours. And with some team colours, everyone has a problem — there are colours that produce a vibration effect when next to each other. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the Project liked them. I much much much prefer them over what most of the other sports projects use. I wish they would all switch over to the formatting we use. -DJSasso (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the only reason why I have suggested changing the wiki-code formatting over to background/text is because in my opinion, it's a royal pain in the ass to have to not only find out what HTML color codes each team uses (my source is Records.NHL.com), but then hard-code them for the borders in each team-related template, which is really time-consuming. This is especially true whenever a team changes its colors; i.e., for example, the Buffalo Sabres just changed its primary team color from navy blue to royal blue, per Sabres.com. Also, I think it looks a little bland having every NHL team & list of seasons-related template have a white background with black text and team-colored borders. It just looks boring to me. What my point is is this: I think it would be easier and a little less time-consuming if we hard-coded each NHL team & list of seasons template with background/text using color codes derived from Module:Sports color/ice hockey. That way, any time an NHL team announces a change to its color scheme, all any editor would need to do is update the colors at Module:Sports color/ice hockey, and then update the color codes in the infobox of the team's main article. Is there any other editor I may be able to persuade with this argument? If not, and if it becomes painfully obvious to me that I am remaining in the minority in this discussion, then I will cease and desist, and will WP:DROPTHESTICK. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: A similar (or exactly the same) module was deleted last year. And this will also be nominated for deletion since it is also unused and there is no agreement for such module from the project's members. – Sabbatino (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dennis Michelon

Pretty sure this a hoax. Elite Prospects has no record of him and his name shows up nowhere on Google. If he played for the CAN U20 team, his name would be around. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If indeed it is a hoax, then Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion should be the correct path to follow. Flibirigit (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I just filed on it. Ravenswing 04:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Dallas Stars 2019-20 alternate captains

Having some trouble at the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains & related articles, concerning the 2019-20 Dallas Stars. There a bit of a disagreement among myself, User:174.94.46.105 (on one side) & User:2601:246:5681:47E0:CDC5:1E81:7F50:9545 (on the other). GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

FYI, wikt:en:Stanley Cup has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Article duplication advice

I was given a list of Slovak ice hockey players to create on my talk page, one of them was Henrich Jaborník. Now the person who requested these creations kindly linked the players complete with their correct Slavic spelling, enabling me to just click on them and start creating. However, upon creation I discovered that Henrich Jabornik already existed. So what do we do about this? Tay87 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything from Henrich Jabornik should be merged/updated into Henrich Jaborník. The Henrich Jabornik article should then be redirected to Henrich Jaborník. Deadman137 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Deadman137: I have done that now. I will make sure further duplicates are not repeated going forward by checking the name in normal text form and should an existing article exist I will redirect to the Slovak spelling. Tay87 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of NHL stat leaders

The 'editing note' needs updating at List of NHL statistical leaders article, now that the 2019-20 season & 2020 playoffs are completed. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Have the stats on the page been updated yet? If not the editing note is still valid. Usually don't update it till the next season begins and the stats have been updated for the previous year. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Won't be updated, if told not to by the current 'note'. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The current note specially says it can once the season is done. The note doesn't prevent it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Cup-winning asterisks in career statistics

I notice that a user, @August-54: has started adding asterisks to the career statistics tables of players denoting Stanley Cup wins. This is not something that has been discussed, so I wanted to mention it here and see what other's thoughts are. I'm against this, and find that it is redundant: Cup wins is mentioned (or should be) in the awards section, and thus it is not necessary to do this, and I am a proponent of keeping the statistics table as simple as can be. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the asterisks are unnecessary. See changes here Flibirigit (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I do too ... even if I wasn't a pedant who maintains that players aren't "Cup winners," but play on Cup-winning teams. Ravenswing 15:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose the addition of an asterisk. We have a separate section for that. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The asterisks were originally in Guy Lafleur's article. But even if asterisks are not used, the Stanley Cups should be mentioned in a separate section (e.g. Awards) and not just in the body text among other things. August-54 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

All good, and the Lafleur article shouldn't have it either. But you are correct; the standard is to have an "Awards" section, and Cup wins and other things like that (trophies, etc) should be there. See Joe Sakic for an example. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be time to make updates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format, since awards are not well explained. Flibirigit (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope they really are redundant and should be removed. Mentioning of the Stanley Cup should go in the prose and if they have one in the Awards section. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Walker image

Is anyone here familiar with fixing images? The image on Nathan Walker was recently modified, and the link isn't working to the Commons image. I'm trying to figure it out myself, but if anyone else is more familiar with that it would be a big help. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is likely the cache on your browser trying to connect to the old image. Maybe a clear of the cache would help. The edit is correct and links to the image on my browser. Flibirigit (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did that and all good here as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Russian accusations again

It looks like User:Max Arosev has another sock editing the Russia men's national ice hockey team and removing a large section of relevant and cited information in this edit. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Vandals will always be with us, world without end, amen. Revert the edits, block the sock, done. Ravenswing 19:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  As Ravenswing says, revert, block, ignore. Also let me know directly or add a report to the SPI subpage. We find sleepers all the time for this person, and finding a sock based on behaviour helps establish that he's active again (prophylactically sweeping the IP ranges isn't that effective). He had a more established account and interestingly that one was more into Real Madrid and somewhat the Olympics in general but less hockey... so watching Real Madrid pages for new accounts that also add dumb stuff to hockey/Olympics stuff is another good way to find socks. Maxim_(talk) 22:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ugh yeah I am forever watching for them. You would think they would get bored but they never do. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TfD for Module:Sports color/ice hockey

Module:Sports color/ice hockey is discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 22#Module:Sports color/ice hockey. Please state your opinions there. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ice hockey color cell

Template:Ice hockey color cell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 Expansion Draft

I know it's a tad too early (especially since this coming season hasn't even started), but I constructed some tables for the upcoming expansion draft, including protected players list for all teams and draft results. –Piranha249 20:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have since updated the expansion draft page to add the tables and basic headings to the page via hidden comment. I anticipate this page being based on the one from 2017. –Piranha249 22:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiConference North America

Hey all!

I am planning on having a WikiConference North America sports panel December 12 3:00 EST. This is something that has never been done before and there are many sports which are "native" to North America and part of the America identity. What it seems to be is that we (you, me, and other members of WikiSports) will be in a Zoom (or other video conferencing app) to discuss our experiences in editing sports on Wikipedia. These can range from combating vandalism to how to best get permission to use sports photos. The organizers of WikiConference North America (WCNA) created an Etherpad surrounding planning which I will link here. if you Command F "sports" you will find the section. This will be the very first panel WCNA has ever had on sports so not much to go off of here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but video conferences are not for technology dinosaurs like myself. I struggle enough just using my phone and this web site. Best of luck! Flibirigit (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox on the Hockey Canada article

A discussion has been started at Talk:Hockey Canada on whether or not to change the infobox from one template to another. Comments are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Canucks and Brian Burke

A new user has started a discussion Talk:Vancouver Canucks#Brian Burke was fired. They kept emailing me after my advice on WP:BRD and I don't have time right now to educate them on proper sourcing (there are no independent sources that call it a "firing" exactly). If someone has a second to help them, it should hopefully prevent an edit war. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Death of Bill Fitsell, founding president of SIHR

Bill Fitsell died on December 3, 2020. He was the founding president of the Society for International Hockey Research (SIHR). For anyone who is interested in improving his biography, I have started a discussion at Talk:Bill Fitsell. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

NHL Division articles

So now that we know the divisional alignment for the season is it worth it to make a new article for the North Division, while reviving the East and West Divisions and redoing the Central? Deadman137 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Even though they'll be temporary. Sure, create articles for them, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The same Division???

We've had this discussion before, concerning the Atlantic Division (NHL) article, which is about two separate Atlantic Divisions. But now, we've the same situation with West Division (NHL) & East Division (NHL). Considering that there's 46 years difference in the latter two cases. We should re-think this. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, though if these remain in one article we'd format them somewhat similarly to the Atlantic article as we have some precedence there. If the group decides to split these articles I'm not really going to get bent out of shape about it. Deadman137 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

IMO, I would probably argue that none of the 2020–21 divisions are the "same" divisions as any previous divisions. The league seems to have made it pretty clear this is supposed to be a one-season temporary alignment, meaning there would be no historical carry-over. I propose simply having a 2020–21 NHL divisions page for all four, if we want one at all. I haven't seen them mentioned since there are no conferences, but it will be interesting to see if/how the Prince of Wales and Campbell gets awarded this season. Yosemiter (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

North & East divisions in the Eastern Conference. West & Central divisions in the Western Conference. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Incorrect, "The four teams that advance from the second round to the Semifinal Round will be seeded by their points total in the regular season (No. 1 vs. No. 4; No. 2 vs. No. 3)" per the NHL; playoffs are not conference based. The league website has yet to add a 2020–21 standing page or update the Teams tab. But that is also one the reasons we should not be assuming any connections. It all sounds like original research on our part. Yosemiter (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool, but the divisions need to be divided up into new articles, including the Atlantic. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Because of precedent? I think we can all agree this season is unprecedented. I don't see how a one-off alignment needs its own division pages when the entire subject is better covered on its own page or simply a section of the season page. Much of it would be a duplicate of the single season in which the alignment was used anyways (alignment configuration and division winners). Yosemiter (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to have separate articles like Atlantic Division (NHL), 1993–2013 or East Division (NHL), 1967–74. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say no to that because we've had this discussion off and on for a few years, most recently last year. [16] Deadman137 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have revisited the topic, if the NHL hadn't decided to use 'East' & 'West' again. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No argument from me about the older divisions and their article names (per WP:PRECISION and WP:DAB), my statement was about this season's divisions. I'd like to see a source that states they are the same as a previously existing division, otherwise it is WP:OR. Yosemiter (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. They're purely geographical descriptive names (it's not like they revived the Patrick, Smythe, Norris, and Adams division names) are only going to be around for one year. I don't think we need separate articles for them. oknazevad (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Except that they've announced the Cup semis are going be reseeded based on regular season records and that there is not a fixed pairing. The Cup semis (not conference finals) could be East vs West and North vs Central if the seeding breaks that way. So you assumption is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC) (Yosemiter beat me to it by seconds!)

PS, I agree wile need to split the Atlantic Division article regardless of these temporary divisions. Why they reused the name for a division of eight teams where only two or three (depending on how you look at Tampa) are actually on the Atlantic Ocean is beyond me, especially when it meant that the division that actually has most teams on said ocean, and which already was using the name, got stuck with a junk name like Metropolitan (it's but all one metro area!) oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the articles of multiple divisions under the same names, so as to help clarify the status of said divisions. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I still disagree that they were "reformed" in 2020. Unless there is a source that states otherwise, it is WP:OR. We can say the names are re-used during the 2020-21 alignment, but we cannot say they were reformed and should not be included in that division's timeline of teams. Pre-1974 NHL divisions are not equal to post-1974 divisions when conferences were added. Yosemiter (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I just changed them in the infoboxes to basically re-founded. Though it causes more problems. For example: Did the East Division in 1974, become the Wales/Eastern Conference, then revert in 2020 (temporarily) to the East Division again? Or is it an entirely 'new' East Division. Doe the Conferences still exist, or have they disappeared only re-appear in 2021-22. What about the Central Division (NHL)? for that matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless a source says otherwise, all divisions this season are entirely new. Hence, why I keep saying their is no historical preceding divisions or continuity. When (if) the 2021-22 season reverts to the 2019-20 alignment, then all divisions would simply point to the single-season alignment article, omit the season in its list of changes/winners, and then continue on (including the Central). No re-formed, re-founded, or disappeared/reappeared in any historical division articles, period. You seem to be simply making up or creating some connection that simply cannot be verified to any primary or secondary sources. Yosemiter (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that these are, effectively, four new divisions. There is no verifiable connection between these temporary divisions and any other divisions. O.N.R. ^(talk) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Likewise. That being said, and rereading the above, look, folks. We do a LOT of process worship here. People feel that they have to do things a certain way because it's always been done that way, or to bring something in conformity with every other remotely similar thing (gods, I want to throttle the people who claim that folks will be "confused" if every sport and every league within a sport doesn't use the same template/style/color scheme), or out of various notions of continuity. For my part, I not only don't give a rink rat's patootie about the makeup of "division articles," but I question whether we need them at all. Ravenswing 15:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I would be of a similar opinion here. While I do see the purpose of having a division article, I don't think it is something to be that overly worried about. People are more than welcome to make a new process for it, as this is a unique situation (like everything the past few months), so there is certainly no requirement to stay the course, not that it ever was a major concern to begin with. I also am not opposed to creating articles, so if that's where this ends up, then go for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)