Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive8

Template for your user pages

Hey, I just made this. Feel free to edit it if you guys think it needs changes.

Sportskido8 08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

looks good to me! Just H 05:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

American Hockey League seasons

I have started the ball rolling on the List of AHL seasons article. Hopefully as a project we can fill in all those red links soon enough.

I have made a stub for the 2006-07 AHL season article with the standings on it.

I am working on a template at User:Flibirigit/AHL season template to be used to all AHL season articles. Please provide comments here on its talk page.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Flibirigit 13:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First article complete

The 2005-06 AHL season article is complete. Anyone want to help with the first 69 seasons? Flibirigit 11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And so it begins, thus, I started at the beginning: 1936-37 AHL season. Resolute 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2004-05 AHL season article created, but there are some blanks (goalie leaders, playoff bracket, etc.) which need filled in.Skudrafan1 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Flibirigit 20

32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found that when doing the standings tables, adding the NHL affiliates tends to unbalance the chart if the width of the team column is left at 30%. 35% seems to work well, except for the 2006-07 AHL season, where the Oilers three dozen affiliation agreements unbalances the column for Wilkes-Barrie/Scranton. Resolute 06:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be interested to see if the Edmonton Oilers will ever resurrect their dormant Edmonton Road Runners farm team franchise. Flibirigit 19:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They certantly will. The Oilers really dropped the ball on their affiliates this past offseason as they were too busy securing their Western Hockey League team. Having three or four players per team spread across five teams is a developmental disaster that I would think they will correct fairly soon. Resolute 17:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict at International Hockey Hall of Fame

Me and User:HockeyHistorian have been butting heads at the International Hockey Hall of Fame page because he keeps adding a company infobox with a slogan that I did a google search for but couldn't find anywhere on the website. It is not a company, its a Hall of Fame and museum and every time I remove it, he accuses me of vandalism. I figured neither of us will back down so I might as well get some outside opinions on this. Go here for talk: User talk:HockeyHistorian. -- Scorpion0422 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Update: Never mind, it's been solved.

Heh, an indef block has a way of solving such problems, doesnt it? Resolute 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because then he just makes a sockpuppet that's pissed off. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Just H 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I never asked for him to be blocked. I just wanted an outside party to solve the conflict. I had no idea he was a sock puppet. -- Scorpion0422 06:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Golly Gee... caught ourselves a sock puppet. DMighton 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that blocked him. He has had many incarnations. He is mostly involved in Vaughan, Ontario political topics, but does dabble in hockey related topics, usually related to the IHHOF. Some of you may remember him as JohnnyCanuck from a number of disputes. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/VaughanWatch for some of the abuse history. -- JamesTeterenko 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had strong suspicions that "Hockey Historian" was a sockpuppet of Johnny Canuck's (just a comparison of the edit histories at the time were informative), but even were I an admin, I expect that getting all administrative over disputes in which you're a party is a clear conflict of interest ... RGTraynor 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict at 1966-67 NHL season

And in the butting heads column ... we've all seen the works of the indefatigable Corey Bryant on the various NHL season articles. Most of his edits aren't objectionable, if a bit heavy on the sportswriterese, but I peeked in on the 1966-67 NHL season article, and found heavy edits that are not only unencyclopedic (who gives a rat's ass about the likes of Matt Ravlich breaking a leg?) but word-for-word copyvios from Trail of the Stanley Cup. It's verging on an edit war, and his recent post to my talk page ("I will use whatever source I feel is available to use as a reference! You are not to interfere! I attempt to give the reading public the best and most complete source in which to reference from. Do not interfere with my attempts to do so!") indicates how much credit he gives to WP:COPYVIO. I'd appreciate it if a few calmer heads took a peek and weighed in. RGTraynor 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• The only edit of his that would be noteworthy to me is Mikita was the first to win the Art Ross, Hart, and Lady Byng in the same year. Nothing else is worth it. Patken4 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And the edit war continues, if people would like to take a peek ... RGTraynor 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Super Series, Soviet clubs vs. NHL

Someone started an article on the Super Series between the Soviet and NHL teams, but they didn't get far. Please help, especially with 1975-76 USSR Red Army ice hockey tour of North America, which involved the famous Red Army - Canadiens match-up. Thanks. Kevlar67 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

NHLPA image problem

I'm having a problem with using NHLPA mugshots in hockey player articles because it seems that they are deemed "replaceable fair use". However if I understand correctly, the NHLPA freely distributes these images anyways. One example is the Derek Roy article which i had added an image to almost a year ago. I just got this warning on my talk page today that it breaks the first rule of fair use for which it "illustrates a topic where a free image could easily be used", which I have disputed. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the topic could enlighten me or handle it themselves. Thanks Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A witchhunt is what it is. --Krm500 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But the NHLPA doesn't distribute the pictures freely. The following is from their web site:

All materials published or otherwise accessible through the NHLPA Homepage (www.nhlpa.com), including, but not limited to, news articles, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video clips, software and other materials (the "Content") are protected by copyright, and are owned or controlled by the National Hockey League Players' Association ("NHLPA"), and others who may own copyright or the party credited as the provider of the Content. All visitors shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information and restrictions contained in any Content accessed through this Homepage. This Homepage is protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to Canadian copyright laws, international conventions, and other copyright laws. Any reproduction, modification, publication, transmission, transfer, sale, distribution, performance, display or exploitation of any of the Content or of this Homepage, whether in whole or in part, without the express written permission of the NHLPA is prohibited. NHLPA, National Hockey League Players' Association, Be A Player and logos of the NHLPA and Be A Player are trademarks of the NHLPA. Notwithstanding the above, visitors may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on this Homepage for personal use only, provided that visitors maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such Content.

Although I am not a member, I wouldn't call WikiProject Fair use a witch hunt. It is important that content on Wikipedia follow the copyrights policy. Yes, it is harder to get high quality free pictures than it is to find copyrighted ones. But it also isn't completely impossible, especially for active players. Just take a camera to a game. If your seats aren't that great, you can always get some decent pictures in a pre-game skate if you move up close. If every member of this project just took a handful of pictures, we would have quite a few decent pictures that are not encumbered by a restrictive copyright. -- JamesTeterenko 16:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the NHLPA distributing their pictures freely doesn't mean we're legally able to do so ourselves, and historically the NHLPA has defended their copyrights to an outright anal degree. RGTraynor 18:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright fair enough, and no i don't agree that fair use is a witchhunt either... This is why for the most part I have stayed out of the whole image editing thing. Its just a little too legal for me. And unfortunately me personally would not be able to contribute to taking pictures at games, at least for the time being... because the closest NHL rink to me is Toronto and I would prefer not to have to go to a loanshark in order to see the game live. I'll just have to stick to good old TV hockey and the odd Kitchener Rangers game here and there. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 19:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want a picture of a specific NHL player and they are playing in Calgary, just let me know. I don't take my camera every game, but I do take it a couple of times a year. I was relatively happy with how they turned out at the Flames/Red Wings game. It is clear that they are not pro shots, but they are usable. (e.g. see Josh Langfeld, Brett Lebda, Nicklas Lidstrom) -- JamesTeterenko 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow you must have prime seats. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I happened to land a pair of tickets two rows behind the bench. It was neat to see a game from there, but I prefer being a bit farther back to see the whole game (the near corners were difficult to see). It was a great place to take pictures, but most of the good ones were actually in the warm-up. A few were during the game after a shift, such as the one of Robyn Regehr. So, we can go early almost anytime to get some pictures; especially if it is a later game or on the weekend. -- JamesTeterenko 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Active Users

I removed a lot of the users on the active list who are now either semi or non-active, seeing as how they fall away from Wikipedia they don't come back and say they are semi-active or non-active... So weeding out the sick and the dying (sorry bad joke), we have been bumped down from 42 active users to 21, one half. Although it seems we have more Super Genetically-Enhanced hockey editors on the list then we used to. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AHL Awards

I have looked over the American Hockey League awards. They are quite a mess.

• Some articles do list all the winners of the award.
• One article is in the opposite chronological order (blame myself).
• More importantly, thirteen (13) articles are missing! See here!

Sources

• AHL Hall of Fame
• hockeydb.com

I am currently doing articles for List of AHL seasons. Could any help cleanup the awards articles? THANKS ! Flibirigit 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I did articles on a bunch of them. There are now only three left without articles. Patken4 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of NHL Coaches

I've officialy finished cleaning up the list of NHL coaches article, and it's looking pretty swell, why don't you go check it out youself?Griffin Murphy 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you really have to get rid of the links to the lists of individual teams' coaches? I do question if all that information is really needed, though. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Nah, I just finished off the stats and junk, but guess what?, I also reformatted Tracy Pratt!Griffin Murphy 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like it, though I agree that the each team's list belongs there. I reinserted that into the chart you made. The new list does help you tell at a glance how long each coach has been around. Good job! Resolute 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was thinking it would take too long so I didn't bother. That way is way better though.Griffin Murphy 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review for Calgary Hitmen

I've added a request for a peer review for the Calgary Hitmen article in hopes of raising it to GA or FA status. Any suggestions anyone has are appreciated here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Calgary Hitmen. Thanks. Resolute 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2000 NHL Entry Draft

I don't know where else to put this: rounds 2 to 9 of the 2000 NHL Entry Draft are currently a barely wikified textdump. They probably need to be edited in the same way as round 1. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hersheypark Arena

Could somebody please clean up Hersheypark Arena. It is a candidate for speedy deletion for being written like an advertisement. Thanks~ Flibirigit 11:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up to make it read less like a marketing campaign. Make any changes you feel are necessary. Patken4 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've worked it over again. I think it needs a photo now. Flibirigit 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will work on something for this in the next week or two. (I wrote the extensive illustrated history[1] of the Arena for the special program published for the last regular season AHL game played there on April 7, 2002, as well as created the cover illustration.[2]) I will also add some images. Centpacrr 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. We always need plenty of free license images for WikiProject Ice Hockey. Flibirigit 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Category

I started a category today Category:National Hockey League players who died during their careers, because I thought it was a fairly notable topic, and I've already compiled 17 names already into the category. I think I have gotten most of the obvious ones, and even some of the more older ones such as Joe Hall, Howie Morenz or Babe Siebert. However I was just working off the top of my head with these, so any help on this topic would be greatly appreciated. There also were others who do not have their own article such as Jonathan Delisle, B.J. Young (one gamer), Jeff Batters, Don Ashby and Scott Garland that I can't add until they have one. As well I'm kind of split whether a player such as Barry Ashbee should be included in the category, because he died of leukemia three years after he retired, however he retired young because of an eye injury and he was an assistant coach afterwards too. Also do you think it would do better as a list as opposed to a category? Any input you have on this whole topic in general would be greatly appreciated. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added John Kordic. DMighton 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Lyashenko added. Skudrafan1 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ... B.J. Young page created and added. Skudrafan1 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mm, it's potentially fuzzy in general, the Ashbee bit being indicative -- as you say, he died a few years after he retired and from a cause wholly unrelated to his retirement. RGTraynor 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

John Kordic, Lyashenko, forgot about those two, thanks guys. As well I just remembered another one, Red Garrett was an NHLer who played 23 games in the 40's, and was traded to the Rangers for Babe Pratt (his most notable moment I guess), and he was killed in WWII. He kept on playing until he enlisted and even played for the Toronto Navy in 1943-44 before being killed in November, 1944. I would think a player like that could also be considered acceptable in this category as well. Oh and Wayne Maki who was invovled with Ted Green in that ugly stick-swinging accident in 1969, died after retiring because of brain cancer in 1974 (he retired December 14/72) Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this one had been bugging me for awhile because I couldn't remember it. Former Nordiques player Stephane Morin, added him. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually a more apt case than Barry Ashbee is Bryan Fogarty, he died only one year after retiring, but the category is what it is. Wow three players from that 1991-92 Nordiques team were dead within 10 years, Fogarty, Morin, and John Kordic. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The General Manager's pages

I would just like to draw the attention of this group to the article on Dave Nonis, the GM of the Canucks. As you will notice, there is a large chart there. This has begun to create a conflict between me and the user who posted it. What really irks me about it is the short summary. I feel it has a biased, non-encyclopediac feel to it, and have tried to get it removed. So, I am asking the other participants of this project for their input. If you all feel it is worthwile, I'll shut up and leave it. If not, then an alternative should be done. Just feel that there should be a consensus amongst Wikipedians. Kaiser matias 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've inputted my two cents and removed the table myself. The summary section alone is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:NOT a sopabox; listing each and every transaction a GM has done would also fall into a collection of indiscriminate information, where WP:NOT would also apply. The table's unencyclopedic and doesn't belong here at all. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 10:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I had said when I removed it the first time. Evidently, some people don't understand the policies of Wikipedia. Kaiser matias 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you noticed what I said, I actually wrote that while I think the idea of having a page about people who hate Keenan, as I certainly do, it would not work for Wikipedia. It isn't a place to have opinions, which is why I shot down the Keenan page idea. Kaiser matias 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A table is created to track a general managers moves, and you guys get all bent out of shape about it. Then I come here and see a guy wants to create a hate page on a nother person "mike keenan" and it gets the comment of "I would love to see such an article but..." . Wow. Here is a pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one. --Bangabalunga 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, no, since you are comparing apples and oranges. Afterall, nobody is suggesting of writting an entire (and very lengthy) section on Keenan's article, but looking at a separate article for it. Resolute 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike Keenan

Hey I was just running through some articles, and I was wondering if anybody wanted to start an article List of people who hate Mike Keenan. It is a fairly notable topic and will have plenty of subject matter. Anybody? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While I would love to see such an article, and know it would be very in depth, I can't see it happening. It is a little subjective, and would be biased against Keenan, even if he does deserve it. Kaiser matias 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how an article with that title would conform with the policy on neutral point of view. Can you think of another example, in another field that has an article in Wikipedia? -- JamesTeterenko 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Major WP:POV concerns with that one. I dont think you could adequately define "hate" well enough for such an article to fly. I would also question the necessity of it. It borders on fancruft, imo. Resolute 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way I wasn't being very serious, a little tongue-in-cheek. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, except for some Rangers fans, I think you would have a lot of support for creating it. He has managed to screw over the Canucks, Panthers, Blues, and Blackhawks, among others. Kaiser matias 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah I completely agree with you, Brett Hull, Todd Bergen, Roberto Luongo, I could go on all day. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Kristian Huselius! --Krm500 09:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating Career Statistics Mid-Season

I am getting sick and tired of this constant updating of players' stats midseason. It is growing on bordler-line frustration. Player pages like Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Alexander Ovechkin, Jaromir Jagr and Jarome Iginla, high profile ones, are just being cluttered with stats (usually incorrect in some way) and it also clutters up to the history pages as well as being uncyclopedic since all the player articles will never have uniform updated statistics. I suggest that we consider it vandalism and revert it as we see it, as well as putting on a sterner-than-before disclaimer such as "Please Do Not Update Career Statistics Mid-Season, It is considered vandalism and WILL be reverted". Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I sympathize with your frustrations, Wikipedia wants as many contributors as possible, and telling people not to update pages is against that policy. Flibirigit 12:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest taking this to WP:RFC, and I suspect there would be a consensus FOR updating statistics in mid-season. Why not start adding rants to the pages of every TV show demanding that episode lists not be updated mid-season as well? Geoffrey Spear 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just another of the crosses we have to bear, unfortunately. There seems to be a perception out there that the Wiki Foundation awards gold stars for the editors who are The! Very! First! to make a particular edit. Heck, the updating team records after every damn game drives me crazy too. RGTraynor 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating statistics and updating every TV show are two completely different things, Spear, because once a show happens it has happened, and the list shows the indidivudual show, whereas with the statistics its not like there is a game-by-game listing, which perhaps would be more beneficial except that it is not good to put into an encyclopedia. And very good point, Traynor. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been fighting daily updates over at the 500 Goals page for a while and I was considering updating the statistics for everyone during the all-star break, since the page deals with players who have achieved a certain statistic. Does anyone object to that? -- Scorpion 00:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I update Nicklas Bäckström's stats now and then since those might not be as easy for english speaking hockey fans to look up. But I'm against the constant daily updates on NHL players that makes my watchlist five pages long. --Krm500 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, who would argue that a player in the 5th or 6th best league in the world isn't more interesting than Crosby or Malkin? The very fact that his stats aren't "as easy to look up" is a pretty good indication that they're not notable, whereas there is a wide international interest in Crosby's stats. Geoffrey Spear 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah both the 500 goals page and 1000 points page have gotten abused like that by users with itchy trigger fingers, I had a large problem last year at the 1000 points page. I'd say sure do what you will, but amazingly enough since I deleted the 06-07 row on Crosby's page it hasn't been put back, and its been a day. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

...And my removal of the 2006/07 stats from Nicklas Bäckström was reverted quickly. Sure, let's keep game by game stats on Peewee players too, and not on the world's best player. Ridiculous. Geoffrey Spear 13:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

":Well, who would argue that a player in the 5th or 6th best league in the world isn't more interesting than Crosby or Malkin? The very fact that his stats aren't "as easy to look up" is a pretty good indication that they're not notable, whereas there is a wide international interest in Crosby's stats. Geoffrey Spear 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)" 5th or 6th?! Try 2nd or 3rd. His stats are not as easy to look up since the stats page is on a swedish website. But all my updates were in good will and since peers consenses has been reached I will not do it any more. --Krm500 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1966-67 NHL season redux

As Mr. Bryant's still restoring his NN edits in the face of unanimous consensus, I've put this up for RfC, if anyone wishes to poke his head in and comment. RGTraynor 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are all his edits copyvios or NN? Just looking at the 1971-72 NHL season, it looks like they are NN. Does anyone really care if Gilles Meloche recorded four shutouts for the Golden Seals, let alone giving up 9 goals in a game against the Rangers? I don't have a copy of Trail of the Stanley Cup, so I can't tell if it is a copyvio.Patken4 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

List of drafted Frölunda HC players

I don't know if anyone here has noticed but I recently created this article. I was doing the List of Frölunda HC players and thought that it would be a good idea with a list of drafted players to. I think that this is a very good idea for all notable european teams and junior and collage leagues in N.A. It gives you a qiuck look of what talant a team has produced and what has happend to their players. What do you all think?--Krm500 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, anyone know how Lars-Erik Sjöberg and Thommie Bergman came to the WHA? I can't find that they were drafted but they would fit the article since they both are "Frölunda products".--Krm500 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sjoberg came to the WHA when he signed with the Winnipeg Jets on May 23/1974. Bergman actually came over from Sweden to the Detroit Red Wings by signing as a free agent on August 31/1972, and then he was traded to Winnipeg of the WHA in December 1974 for cash. But if the list dictates that it is a List of Drafted Frolunda HC players, it would have to include only drafted players... otherwise I'd suggest renaming the article to something along the lines of List of Frolunda HC players who played in the NHL or something. Hope this helps. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, because I just can't see the notability of a list which includes wildly speculative 9th rounders. RGTraynor 05:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no renaming needed, I just wanted to clarify that they were never drafted. --Krm500 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Uniformity in Game Logs for Team Season Articles

Before too many of the team season articles get created, can we agree on some uniformity in the game logs? There are already three different colour schemes for W/L/OTL (Buffalo, Los Angeles and Vancouver are examples of each). Also, a couple of the articles have links to the goaltenders (Columbus, for example) while the rest do not. A vote for uniformity, please? Skudrafan1 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my intention when I created the first article. Personally, I'm more concerned about the format than the colouring, but a completely uniform set of articles would be nice. Resolute 04:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Uniformity isn't that important, but can we please have green for wins and red for losses, anything else make absolutly no sense at all --T-rex 08:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating NHL Amateur Draft Years

We need to update the draft results for each year. Example: 1974 NHL Amateur Draft is missing a number of players who achieved NHL status. I can add the players, but I am not familiar with the code for producing tables. -RiverHockey 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free mention here whatever articles you need help with. We will gladly help. Flibirigit 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on User:Samuel Calles Alarcón

User:Samuel Calles Alarcón has been trying to upload an image of Sergei Fedorov and I have left serveral messages on his talk page but he wont stop. Please add the Sergei Fedorov article to your watchlist. --Krm500 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving a message for him in Spanish. It appears by his name, that he would speak the language. Flibirigit 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating Career Stats Mid-Season Update

Just an update since I reverted mid-season statistics updates on five main superstar pages as a general test, (Jagr, Iginla, Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin) five days ago, Only once has someone put them back up when a new user updated the Iginla stats yesterday. I left a friendly message on his user page after reverting it. I see this as a positive sign as perhaps all these lazy, giddy or enthusiastic statistics updaters (the ones who update the season stats but don't update the corresponding career stats) won't update them if there is no 06-07 byline, as either they don't know how or its too much work. And its not like these players didn't play well this week either, Crosby and Ovechkin both had insane weeks and I was surprised no fans updated their stats. I think that cuts our problem down a bunch, and perhaps this can be a winnible fight after all, just reverting it just as its vandalism. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a thought. One can always hope. RGTraynor 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Check Crosby's history. His stats were re-added and deleted again. Geoffrey Spear 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing you can try is to add the 2006-07 year, but put "season in progress" where his stats should be. Might offer a hint. Resolute 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How about creating a WP:Hockey vandalism template? I just reverted the Iginla article after someone updated the stats and changed the "free to use" excisting image to an image without any source. A nice and friendly template that explains the WP:Hockey guidlines.--Krm500 15:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling the addition of accurate current season statistics to a player's article "vandalism" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Geoffrey Spear 16:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think Resolute's idea is a really good one and is somewhat similar to an idea I had a long time ago, however I think Resolute's idea will further help in giving people the hint. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean it in t´hat way, I ment that we, and I quote, -"A nice and friendly template that explains the WP:Hockey guidlines". I'm not calling it vandalism I ment that we make a simular template as the ones being used on Wikipedia:Vandalism, for example {{subst:test|PageName}} ~~~~. Instead of "experimenting with Wikipedia" we could write something like "thanks for updating the stats for Player Name ... but the WP:Hockey's guidelines say that ... If you have any questions please visit the talk page". We could make one template for stats update, one for NHLPA or other images uploads that look suspicious and so on. --Krm500 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. RGTraynor 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Persondata

Don't know if this has been done yet, but I think it would be a good idea to include WP:PDATA info on all the players pages. While I am well aware of the fact that there is a hockey template, this allows for all players to be catagorized in the biography section. Just a thought, and would like to here input. Kaiser matias 08:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Corey Bryant (again?)

It seems the 66-67 season isn't the only page that Mr. Bryant has made additions to. Some of them seem to be fine, such as the 1922-23 NHL season. Some need a little tinkering, but otherwise may be ok, such as the playing style section of Doug Jarrett. But others are similar to the 66-67 edits he made. Pretty much any season page from the 60's is a problem. And as RGTraynor found out today, Eddie Giacomin's page is a mess. Here are his contributions. Looking at the 66-67 Talk page, he doesn't appear to be willing to listen to the consensus nor any sort of comprimise that has been offered to him. So it seems we have two issues; what to do with him and what to do with his edits. Comments? Patken4 02:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We slog through the edits. Most of the NHL seasons are fine, but if the Sixties are a mess, we'll just have to persevere. Bryant himself has gotten to be a problem large enough to be trashing us on other sites, and it's starting to look like some serious conflict resolution has to happen. RGTraynor 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For someone who hasn't been following the debate - what is the problem? --Krm500 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Originally the problem was copyright violation. But since then the problem is POV, notability, and unencyclopedic tone. Flibirigit 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just overhauled the 1965-66 NHL season article, which was jampacked with word-for-word copyvios from Trail of the Stanley Cup. Plainly Mr. Bryant's claim to have put all those entries into his own words must be taken with a large chunk of salt. RGTraynor 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed through all seasons from 44-45 to 79-80. Here are the seasons that seem to ooze NN and potentially copyrighted edits: every season between 1955-56 NHL season and 1964-65 NHL season and 1967-68 NHL season to 1971-72 NHL season. Patken4 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Time for an assesment and AID?

It doesn't feel like this project is going anywhere, just a bunch of wikipedia users who do their own edits here and there. There's only two fetured hockey articles and one of them was improved to FA status single handedly by one user. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have an active AID so a few more hockey articles could get fetured. The first thing we need to do if we want to start an assesment is to look which articles that are most imprortant to this project. Maybe a few bios, Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe and some teams and the NHL article, you all get the picture. Anyone intrested? --Krm500 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the colaboration article was to be the Stanley Cup. Unfortunately I don't have much to contribute to that. But I do appreciate all the help with the American Hockey League seasons we just finished. Flibirigit 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now what is an AID? And the Montreal Canadiens article WAS an FA before it got removed. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There's a nice collegial atmosphere which piles onto known problems, AfD debates and other issues known to us. People know which editors have expertise in particular areas and seek them out for questions or concerns. Frankly, when there are only 1500 FA articles representing the entire scope of human endeavor, two of them being ice hockey-related's pretty damn good. And right now, there are SO many articles needing creation, let along serious attention. Why distract the many editors working on those with chasing after gold stars? RGTraynor 04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A good way to get an overview of what is needed to be done. --Krm500 04:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is a completely different animal than chasing after FA status. What's needed is (a) to figure out ways to reduce the amount of time we spend reverting vandals, (b) to bring major articles, such as HHOF Honoured Members, minor-league teams and significant players out of stub, (c) to create such of the above articles that don't already exist. RGTraynor 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am currently tackling the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and its teams. 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that there is any problem with chasing after stars. I've spent a lot of time working on List of ice hockey teams in Alberta, and will likely put it up as a featured list candidate early in the new year. I'm also going to nominate Calgary Hitmen as a good article. Not as an ego thing, but to prove that the time I have spent has paid off. I have spent a lot of time updating articles related to Calgary hockey, and the leagues they participate in. I don't like stub articles, and try to build them up the best they can be. GA or better is what we should be aiming for with all of our articles. Resolute 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of my time adding the career statistics for a lot of players. It is suprising how many of them have nothing at all. Currently, I'm going down the list on List of Vancouver Canucks players, and adding and correcting all the pages. But it would be good to have some FA and GA pages that deal with hockey, as it would potentially bring more people into adding more information. Kaiser matias 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm in complete agreement with everything RGTraynor said. I wouldn't say this project isn't going anywhere, and those of us have been around a little longer know that plenty has gotten done over the last year alone. Since when I started on this WikiProject in around September 2005 or so, I've seen player articles created en masse, so that every single active player and every even obsurely notable retired player has an article, the 2 featured articles (the Gretzky and Devils), a much larger emphasis on statistics and statistical-related articles, and categories for players who have played in the CHL and AHL. I've seen many users undertake huge projects, with much success. Its not a matter of this project not going anywhere, its just many users aren't really noticing or giving recognition when things do get done. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 09:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to take anyting away from the members who has made a huge amount of work. My opinion is just that instead of 1 person taking on a big project it would be a good idea to work together. An active AID would be a start, the assesment is for keeping track of what is being done and what is needed to be done. Plus, you said that much of the work isn't being noticed, what's not better then an assesment so people do take notice when a new article is being created. This is quite a large project but I've seen many smaller and "younger" projects with an assesment which helps them alot. --Krm500 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel many Wikipedians part of this project are too humble for recognition. Flibirigit 19:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's part of the problem when one user takes on a huge project by themselves sometimes, and the awareness isn't there that it is going on. And there have been projects where many people have chipped in. But the AID (still not entirely sure what it is) idea is a pretty good idea methinks though, however I won't say we should use it for the sole purpose of getting articles to FA status. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FA isn't necessary, the purpose is to improve articles and AID stands for Article Improvment Drive. Take a look at the Soccer project and their AID and Assesment. --Krm500 21:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the soccer page, and remembered what AID was, so I'll try and explain here. What AID does is every week, we pick one article. That article is featured for the entire week, and we try and improve it as much as possible within that week. When done right, articles cna improve immensly in a short timeframe. Now that I know what we are talking about, I think its an excellent idea; would help improve lots of the hockey articles, which we all know need a lot of improvement. Kaiser matias 22:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Article Improvement Drive, I guess if I would have used my head I would have gotten that. Way too many abbreviations on Wikipedia. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I nominate the Eddie Giacomin page, as per recent discussions. Flibirigit 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How abouts we start a list of article's that are already considered "good", and then expand from there as to what needs to be done and what articles need to be improved. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I do most of the upkeep for the Football Article Improvement Drive so I could give you a few tips. The first thing to consider is how often it will be updated; the football (soccer) AID is updated weekly, but sometimes the an article will attract little attention in a week, I've been thinking about changing it to a fortnight. In terms of nominations, the most successful collaborations are those which a large number of people will know about and be able to contribute to. Biographies tend not to fare too well as a whole, but all-time greats make great AID subjects. Teams attract a reasonable number of edits, provided they are well-known. Personally, I think well-known but non-obvious subjects make good nominations, things to do with the sport in general like Checking (ice hockey) or the currently unsourced Hockey Hall of Fame. The temptation is often to nominate your pet project, this may not be the best idea. For example my sporadic hockey edits are mainly to articles about British hockey, but those articles would make poor collaboration choices as few others would have much interest in them. Oldelpaso 16:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for updated stats

I just created a template that can be directed at anonymous users who update stats during the season. Any suggestions on how to make the templare better? When adding it to an talk page use {{subst:Hockey|Player Name or team name}} ~~~~. Player Name is not optional.

Here is what it looks like using Sidney Crosby as an example:

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia by updating the statistics for Sidney Crosby. Unfortunately your recent edit(s) has been reverted. This is because the guidelines from the WikiProject on Ice Hockey states that season statistics may only be updated when the season has ended. This is for maintaining a high standard and accuracy on all hockey players articles on Wikipedia. We understand that your edit was in good faith and hope that you understand our objectives. If you have any questions, please visit us at the WikiProject on Ice Hockey's talk page. --Krm500 04:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess this works. I would change "for" in the first sentence to "on", though, because some folks have a tendency to change the franchise scoring leaders tables on team pages as well, and it sounds awkward to say (e.g.) "for San Jose Sharks" in the warning. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "... in the Player/Team name article." --Krm500 04:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds better. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The WHA

When it comes to listing career totals for the Career Statistics part, it seems to be the norm to only include NHL totals, and disregard junior, minor and international totals. That I agree with, we don't need it having four or five rows of career totals in whatever league. But what about the WHA. I only quickly looked over notable WHAers, such as Gretzky and Messier, and they didn't. The only one that I see with it, of the few I looked at, was Gordie Howe. So, I think that we should include WHA totals with NHL totals, because you look at some guys, say John Arbour, and they didn't do anything in the NHL; they were more in the WHA. Just my thoughts. Kaiser matias 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason why these other subtotals should not be included. Any player I have added stats for has three totals: junior, minor league and NHL. In the case of WHAers, I think that should be included as well, especially since the WHA was a major league. Resolute 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be separate totals for NHL and WHA stats, and that's indeed the common encyclopedic practice. They shouldn't be combined. RGTraynor 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I simply didnt express that very well. Resolute 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit Dispute at 55th NHL All-Star game

Hi, I need some opinions about the 55th National Hockey League All-Star Game‎. I have been involved in a dispute with a poster over Rory Fitzpatrick. I feel that he is notable enough to receive significant mention on the page and thus I added a section to the all-star page that was similar, but considerably smaller, to the one on Fitzpatrick's page. User:Madchester decided he did not like that and continually removed the section, claiming I was a supporter of the campaign and was advertising for it (which I am not. I dislike the campaign). Anyway, I just discovered that he is an administrator and he warned me about breaking the 3RR, so I figured some outside opinions on the matter would be welcome. And yes, the two sections are similar, but that still doesn't mean that Fitzpatrick doesn't deserve mention on the all-star page. -- Scorpion 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one sentence would be sufficient. Your section on Fitzpatrick is more than half the article, placing undue weight on the subject. Flibirigit 02:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think a little more than one sentence is required, as the sentence that exists now badly understates how big a story it has become. However what did exist was excessive. I offered further comments on the talk page for the article. Resolute 02:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course the section will be wittled down once the voting is done and he does or (hopefully) doesn't make the team, but for the time being, I'll try to shorten it. And of course there won't be a lot of other information, the game hasn't been played yet. -- Scorpion 02:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be okay as long as it doesn't sound like an advertisememt. Flibirigit 04:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this thing with Fitzpatrick is a new internet phenomenon, so it should be mentioned - after all it could happen to any player in the NHL in the future. Moreso if Fitzpatrick is voted in (come on, if he wasn't one of the West's starting defensemen, he'd be off the team). In retrospect, if the rules about write-in balloting was restricted as a result of Fitzpatrick making the tream, then it should deserve an even bigger mention. An even bigger mention is if he makes the team and has an ovation (positive or negative) bigger than all other players, or if he suddenly breaks out and becomes game MVP... kelvSYC 06:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

HHOFers

I've noticed several edit wars breaking out over the inclusion/exclusion of players that did not spend any reasonable length of time in a HOF career with some teams - Grant Fuhr mostly. A simple question: Is this section even relevent or necessary? Do Hall of Famers even need to be listed on team articles, or is it just superfluous information? Resolute 05:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally see no reason for it, there could be a section somehow with no POV listing the great players of the organization. But for me there really is no reason to include HHOFer's in the article. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is subjective whether or not a player in important in the context of the franchise. The only way to avoid this is to set an arbitrary number of games played. The simplest criteria is just one game. Flibirigit 08:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What we have over on the LA Kings page are people who are either unaware of the inclusion policy (like I was until recently) or are ignoring it. IMHO, the Hall of Famers are an important part of each NHL franchise, so I believe the ones who played a significant role for a particular team should be included. In the case of Grant Fuhr, given the inclusion policy, he certainly doesn't merit inclusion on the LA Kings page. Gmatsuda 10:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the listings, and obviously agree with the inclusion criteria as well as a means to keep the listings genuinely informative; no one looks at Billy Smith or Grant Fuhr and thinks, "Hey, these are Los Angeles Kings Hall of Famers!" The edit tags have reduced a great many of the additions with which we were at one point plagued, but there'll always be people like this Payne2thamax bloke who sees a block saying "DON'T TOUCH THIS" and doesn't give a rat's ass. I recommend we perservere. RGTraynor 14:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright ... I've reverted the rest of Payne's edits and left him a note on his talk page. We'll see. RGTraynor 14:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright but where is the line drawn? When does a HHOF cross the line of notability with one team? Is it 2 seasons? 3 seasons? 3 "productive" seasons? Look at a player like Mike Gartner for example, who played for many different teams over his career, what teams could he be listed as an HHOFer on? Of course the New York Rangers and Washington Capitals, those are easy, but he played a couple productive years each with the Minnesota North Stars, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Phoenix Coyotes as well. I guess what I'm fishing for is a criteria for inclusion. If you can provide that than I'll change my thinking. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gartner played only a single full season for the North Stars and the Maple Leafs (discounting the lockout season), and had only a single good year for the Coyotes. "Several" seasons imply three or more, and the criteria states that they must be reasonably considered to meaningfully contribute to the player's election. Cam Neely was seen as a big disappointment in Vancouver, for instance. Thing is the Mike Gartners of the world are rare; is there any other player in hockey history to have 30+ goals with five different teams? Cam Neelys are rare; how many players suck as a regular for a few years for one team and turn in a HHOF career with another (leaving aside that electing Neely was hugely dropping the ball, but)? RGTraynor 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright that clears things up a little. Yeah, Neely, Gillies, Federko, Duff... seems the HHOF selection committee has been dropping the ball a lot lately (although who's to say Neely couldn't have been a good selection if he didn't have injury problems). Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Federko's not a bad choice, but Neely's a poor one (he would have been a legit HHOFer without the injuries, but he did have the injuries) and Duff/Gillies downright suck. And Mark Howe, Marc Tardif, J.C. Tremblay and Bobby Baun are still looking out. Feh. RGTraynor 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do think Federko is the best of the 4 i mentioned, but is still iffy, he could go either way, he just played on a bad team (almost the opposite of Duff's career), however he did play in an era where defense and goaltending wasn't top notch. Mark Howe should be in and Tremblay should be in, I don't think Tardif or Baun are any more deserving than Duff is though. I'm still shocked Dougie Gilmour wasn't voted in last year. I guess they figure Duff has less years to live to accept the induction than Gilmour does or something like that. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts on this, don't forget Lorne Chabot. Probably one of the most deserving players not in the Hall and with all the new guys in the coming years, he's got a long, long wait ahead of him. Kaiser matias 08:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Rogie Vachon to the list of players who should be in the HHOF but aren't. Gmatsuda 08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also worth noting is Chris Chelios. He was good on Montreal, Chicago and Detroit for about 8 years per, winning the Cup with Montreal and Detroit and going to the finals with Chicago. So I think that if they were with the team, they are worthy of mention. Kaiser matias 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Chelios is still an active player, so he isn't eligible to be in the HHOF yet. Gmatsuda 20:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the above debate, we should mention hall of Famers, no matter how brief because there should be a section of notable players and just having a "notable players" section could lead to POV and edit wars. It's easier if we just list Hall of Fame players. -- Scorpion 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree if a player played for that team he should be mentioned on the team page as a HHOFer. Hockey isn't like baseball where you choose what team you are going in under so I say if they played for the team they belong on the list. --Djsasso 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's both unencyclopedic and uninformative. No one looks at Paul Coffey and thinks, "hey, that's a Boston Bruin Hall of Famer." This way the HHOF team sections actually mean something, instead of being indiscriminate lists of whichever mercenaries were acquired in April before bolting as a UFA. RGTraynor 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think its completely encyclopedic. For example if I am looking at a team page and want to know what hall of famers played for it. I want to know ALL the hall of famers who played for it. Not just who some people think made a difference to that team because by doing that you are inheirently creating POV just by cutting out the people you feel didn't make a big enough inpact to be added to the list. Its not like there are millions of hall of famers out there and the lists need to be kept shot. The hall of fame is still relatively exclusive. --Djsasso 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Scorpion0422 and Djsasso, every hall of famer should be listed on the teams they played for, whether it be Paul Coffey's time in Boston and Chicago, Fuhr's time with the Kings and Flames or Gretzky's time with the Blues. if they played for the team, they should be listed. I've talked with alot of my friends in person who are members of this website, and they want to see every hall of famer that has ever played for teams like the Bruins, Rangers, Blackhawks, etc. And RGTraynor if people don't think of Fuhr as a King, then why does everyone put him as hall of famer? You don't know everyone. Can't you realize that it's what the people want, not what you want? Your not the only fan of hockey.

I actually agree with this. After all, if you look at the NHL's Official Guide and Record Book or the HHOF's own web site, it lists all players, coaches, builders, etc. under all the teams they were involved with. I accept the current guidelines, but personally, I would prefer that all be listed. Sure, Grant Fuhr played in only 14 games for the Los Angeles Kings and was horrid, and of course his greatest impact came while he was with the Edmonton Oilers and that is what got him into the HHOF. I totally understand that. But if the NHL and the HHOF lists them as being HHOF'ers for more than just the team they were playing for when they made their greatest contributions, then I think we should do that as well. Gmatsuda 12:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some editor(s) out there, has/have ignored this consensus and re-added players to all the 30 NHL team pages HHOF sections. GoodDay 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus I speak of is at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. GoodDay 16:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Make that Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. GoodDay 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Junior teams

I'm curious what the policy should be for major junior teams. For example, Darryl Sittler is listed as a Hall of Famer at the London Knights page, even though his time with the Knights had little to do with why he was inducted. Turk Broda was also there at one point because he briefly coached the team (I removed him). VERY few players or coaches are inducted for careers in the major junior leagues, Brian Kilrea being the only exception that I can think of off the top of my head. -- Scorpion 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC

ALL the NHL alumni and HHOF alumni lists for ALL teams in the Canadian Hockey League included any player who played at least ONE game for the junior team and at least ONE game for an NHL team, regardless of "notability". If the person was inducted into the HHOF for any reason other than as a player, it is (or should be if I missed it) duly noted. Flibirigit 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Amateur Hockey Association

Could somebody please clean up the United States Amateur Hockey Association article? It is currently a candidate for deletion. Patken4 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)