Jump to content

Talk:1997 NHL entry draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:1997 NHL Entry Draft)

Spelling of College/Junior/Club team

[edit]

Each entry in the table includes a College/Junior/Club team, which I gather is the team associated with the player before they were selected for the NHL. A case in point is the player Michael Holmqvist. In the table, he is listed as having a College/Junior/Club team of Djurgårdens IF Hockey.

There has been a recent dispute apparent in the revision history of whether this should be spelled "Djurgardens HC".

The relevant wikipedia policies don't make this completely clear cut. The appropriate guideline is Manual of Style, Foreign terms.

The club here is not an NHL club, so there is no NHL spelling to apply. We simply need to consider what spelling of the foreign club to use in this article of the English wikipedia. I think the most appropriate is the name that appears in the main article for the club, which is Djurgårdens IF Hockey. But that's just my first reaction on looking at this dispute. The views of editors involved in the article should carry more weight. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an NHL spelling per se. When you refer to a document that you cite, use the spellings in the document, and redirect. Then there is no confusion. (There can be towns of the same name in different places) There were spellings that did not match the original verifiable source. I placed a redirect to go to the full-name article of the hockey club. I think the NHL Official Guide and Rule Book is a reliable source, though of course those spellings do not match what you would find on European web sites. It's basically a convention. In WP:HOCKEY, we have a basic convention that North American articles of ice hockey use non-diacritic spellings, except for player articles, because if a player plays in various countries, then you would expect to find diacritics in reliable media sources. That seems reasonable. Djurgarden is what the NHL lists. I added HC to be somewhat pro-active, in case there is a football club too, which I would not know about. I could have used Djurgarden IF, but I generally have used HC in editing hockey articles. I don't think it is a right or wrong issue, but I do think we should follow our sources' spelling, like we do follow our sources' naming, especially in a historical context. Alaney2k (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First an overview of the dispute, and this dispute has two aspects:
  1. The use of diacritics
  2. The modification of club names
(1) Djurgården --> Djurgarden: The first aspect has been an issue in WP:HOCKEY for a loooong time. It has, presumably, been reached a compromise some years ago, to use the correct names of players in all articles, except for in North-American related articles, where names were to be cleared of diacritics, and created in a transliterated version. From the Manual of Style, transliteration should only be used when Romanizing non-Latin alphabets. This compromise has been contested multiple times, but the discussions have always been heated and closed due to the lack of constructive discussion. BTW: The disputed compromise affects only players, not teams.
(2) Djurgårdens IF --> Djurgardens HC: What made my reaction to the changes stronger, were the fact that the official club name was altered as well. Would you change all instances of Detroit Red Wings to Detroit HC or New York Rangers to New York HC?? No, you wouldn't because the clubs have never used those names! Maybe the NHL have, but they are not the clubs governing body. This page is anyway all about hockey, so why would a football player for Djurgårdens IF Fotboll be drafted to National Hockey League? Hence, there is no need to clarify that the club actually is a hockey club.
My take: Although hockey still have a stronghold in the US, it is becoming more and more of a world sport, like association football. This should be respected, so people and teams should have the right to have their name spelled correctly (like they are in football articles). And when Naming Conventions says that the club's article should be Djurgårdens IF Hockey, why shouldn't this be reflected in other articles? Just because Alaney2k is in possession of some book, issued by the NHL, we should apply all its info on Wikipedia? There are numerous English sources stating Djurgårdens IF as the name. Wikipedia is a place where information are gathered and mixed together, to show correct information on a topic.
I agree with Duae Quartunciae; that we should use the name that appears in the main article, according to Naming Conventions. This should apply both to player names and team names. Good Night. =) lil2mas (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming here to talk about this. I don't have an easy solution for you. Mainly I'd remind everyone that there's no vandalism involved here and that you may both assume you are each working in good faith for the best article; even though you may disagree on what that will be. Good luck. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(lil2mas is either up really late or really early) There are lots of cases where names from non-English countries get changed into the English world. This is not new. I don't believe that Wikipedia is the place for activist writing. Indeed, we are supposed to be NPOV. I don't believe that you are editing in that spirit. It seems that you are writing to propagate a view that the spellings within the original country are right and the rest of the world is wrong. It appears that you edit on the English Wikipedia to push that view. And that's why you labelled my edits as vandalism. C'mon, recognize what you are doing!
I have suggested to the WP:HOCKEY group to use the spellings from the sources. Then we have a simple standard to follow. We can match the source with the article. Pro-diacritics and anti-diacritics people seem to both oppose this. But if we follow the sources, and the expectation of what is expected and common (e.g. accents in Quebec, diacritics in Europe and internationally, but no diacritics or accents in English media). Then we can just redirect to the base player or team article, where the original spelling is exposed, and the pronunciation is explained, etc.
In English, we use standards to name clubs. (Name of town)(nickname) or (name of town)(HC). The HC indicates no nickname. Djurgardens has no nickname. If the team has a nickname, but doesn't use the town or city name in its name, we prepend it anyway. If we don't use the nickname, then we are not being clearly specific. We could be saying that the player is from or drafted from that city. Admittedly that is not an issue here. In the draft articles, there is an increasing use of team nicknames. But hap-hazardly. Using HC should be acceptable, although yes it is not the name as it is known in Sweden.
As for the WP:HOCKEY agreement, it doesn't mean it covers everything. You've taken it to mean diacritics are ok where the compromise doesn't mention it. Others mean it to mean no diacritics except were specifically allowed. I'd rather just follow our source documents. And for the NHL articles, this is the NHL books and media, not the media in Sweden. Alaney2k (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have made a suggestion and both sides oppose it, then you are better not to edit. The consensus is more important than following the conventions in the source documents. The sources are for information; and consensus is for how it is expressed in wikipedia. The spelling of the club as Djurgårdens IF has been in place in this document since 2005, with various minor changes that have continued to leave the home club spelling unchanged. Given that this is evidently a subject that has cropped up in other hockey articles, I think you need the consensus before making a change to some other convention. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. None of the edits here are marked as "vandalism", and if that word was used inappropriately elsewhere, let's put it behind us and not bring up bad feeling here. Similarly, remember that every editor has has their conception of what is best for the encyclopedia. That's not what is meant by POV. There's no need to speculate on motives, and there's no POV issue involved in this matter that I can see. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, thanks for getting involved and researching. I was not expecting the reaction I got. I based my comments on the actions of the editor. That's the first time anyone has accused me of vandalism. I think that is a clear indication of a lack of respect for others. There is no need to defend that action, it's inappropriate. As for WP:HOCKEY, I don't know if it is appropriate to call it a consensus, more a lack of consensus and we are muddling through by using some tolerance. Mostly we are sick of it. My suggestions have gotten some traction; but there are people on the far ends of the spectrum, so we've not moved forward on policy, but maybe on tolerance. Alaney2k (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like poorly chosen template in notifying you about the edit war. Technically, you are both at fault for not proceeding to the talk page as soon as it was clear that there was no consensus on the change; but hey. It's no big deal.
I just want to add that on looking around this matter to see if there is an easy solution, I failed to find one. Sorry. But I did find out that you both have a long and productive history of good work on wikipedia, with all kinds of very useful and wide ranging input. This difference is one of those things that crops up from time to time between good editors. Tolerance all around will go a long way. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the hockey project of this discussion as it has the implications of affecting numerous pages. We have many editors who will probably be on both sides of the issue, but you never know, we have come to agreements in the past. I personally in this situation see both sides of the arguement, but am not sure I want to wade into another argument about something that is clearly just a cultural difference. -DJSasso (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaney2k, maybe you should look up what IF stands for before you go and dishonour a 118 year old association. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 06:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh! Look that up. Alaney2k (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate the compromise on diacritics as it stands, we've generally agreed that diacritics are to be hidden on North America specific articles (which this clearly would fall under), and show them on European specific and player articles. Effectively, this is based around WP:ENGVAR, and since diacritics are very rarely used in North American English, I believe this compromise is supported by the Wikipedia manual of style. As such, the proper spelling on this article would be Djurgardens. As to the rest of the name, if Djurgardens IF is more common than HC, as is indicated by Krm500's comment, then that is what should be displayed. Resolute Lest We Forget 14:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not touching the diacritics side of things, I personally would use whatever the title of the article is. I don't like having links be different than that article title if it can be avoided. I think there is even a guideline somewhere around that says something like that, but I am not positive. Something about not surprising the user. But this probably doesn't count as a surprise as they both sort of mean the same. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be encyclopedic! I think it is important to have both a city and nickname for all listings, not just nicknames for some. For example, Jokerit should be 'Jokerit Helsinki'. Yes I know that is not the same as the article, and they don't legally name themselve that. But if we don't do that then this listing is open to errors where you don't know if it is a town or a nickname if you just use one. You do that for consistency, long-term thinking, etc. You see this in almanacs, record books, etc. It's up in the air whether to list 'Helsinki Jokers', which is a valid english translation. For teams without a nickname, we indicate this in some way. The convention is to use HC, but that seems to be offensive to hot-blooded Scandinavians. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the drafted player names aren't diacritized, I'm not concerned with how their pre-NHL teams are spelt, etc. This has something to do with players birthplaces. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Alaney, you are saying we should list for example like this; Sodertalje SK Södertälje? Oh no wait, I'm sorry, you would obviously like it like this; Sodertalje HC Södertälje. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you editing in English? You obviously don't like the language... What I mean is what is wrong, in your opinion, with putting things into an English format/convention? I am trying to work that out. Alaney2k (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'd rather not leave it like that) Anyway, I see that Sodertalje's team is Sodertalje SK. SK for sports club. So it would not be possible for another to exist. So, Sodertalje SK should be ok. (Unless there were two clubs in that city using the same name, as in a dispute. But they would probably work out a differentiation protocol. Another team would be Sodertalje 'something-else', not just the 'something-else' and not just Sodertalje ) It's got the indicator, let's call it of SK. That's enough, I think. So Swedish puts the SK after, but Finnish puts the team nickname/indicator before? Alaney2k (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what they do in Finland. But I don't understand the reasoning behind changing team names to something they never been called. Is that encyclopedic? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out some of the lists of winners. They have both placename and team name. That's what I mean by encyclopedic. You never see a university name with its location in normal use. But you list it in a list with its location. Sometimes, but not guaranteed there are identical names elsewhere. But the draft articles are a mix and match, which I think is a bit of a mess. Alaney2k (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which lists are you referring to? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I think the discussion is pointless since the current agreement has been to hide diacritics from players name on NHL related pages, not birthplaces. And the team names fall under that category, since they are names of places without any existing english translation. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 13:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. It was to hide diacritics in general. Resolute Lest We Forget 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have allowed place names to be diacriticized in the rosters and player articles, where there is no known common English translation. I think we do have common English translation, e.g. the NHL and various almanacs, but that is objected to by some as not qualifying. Alaney2k (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

[edit]

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1997_NHL_entry_draft&oldid=1219878597"