Jump to content

Talk:2009 NHL entry draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2009 NHL Entry Draft)

bid

[edit]

The article linked to in this page makes reference to the fact that Montreal BID on the Entry Draft, but there is no evidence supporting that they WILL host it. It has not been announced yet, or if it was, I never seen anything about it.

Was vandalized by some retard, who put buttocks-related humour into the cells. AlexRochon (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting eligible players

[edit]

Do not post any eligible players unless there are official lists out there (e.g. by Central Scouting).

John Tavares MIGHT be the top prospect, but until this fact is not confirmed in an official scouting list, do not add him (and/or any other prospects) to the article. Hockey-holic (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the hockey news that a lot of scouts now have Victor Hedman or Sweden going first. Thricecube (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why was the ISS TOP 30 from January taken off? Its official and updated, http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/10881/iss_top302009_prospects_january/

Easy answer - have a look on the bottom of the site you posted:
Copyright 2009 Hockey’s Future. Do not reprint or otherwise duplicate without permission of the editorial staff.
Reprinting also includes Wikipedia. --Soccer-holic (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about picks dealt between teams

[edit]

Post questions about dealt draft picks here. Hockey-holic (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Leafs pick, Round 4

[edit]

Does "forfeit" mean that the pick goes straight back to Tampa Bay or that Round 4 will only have 29 picks? In any case, could someone please clean up the respective note (Note 2)? Unfortunately, I currently have no time to do this myself. Thx in advance! --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that there will be 29 picks in that round. That's a guess though. ccwaters (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are going to be only 29 (my guess as well), the table should be adjusted up as well, and the numbers on all subsequent tables will have to be adjusted. 192.104.67.122 (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when it is confirmed, they will be adjusted. ccwaters (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juraj Holly

[edit]

Maybe the author hasn´t noticed it, but the 3rd European Goalie Juraj Holly is actually Slovak by nationality, only plays for the Czech team Chomutov. Therefore a change would be necessary. 62.168.125.19 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It's been corrected. Resolute 14:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Picks Discrepancy

[edit]

Due to the Rangers added pick in the 2nd round, this will be a 211 pick draft, instead of the usual 210, as it's listed now. The numbers get misaligned in the 4th round, which only has 29 picks. Can someone with more experience in Wiki's tables please fix this error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.72.63.204 (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not an error. The Maple Leafs were forced to forfeit their fourth round pick (see also the respective note in the article), thus the number is down to 210 again. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PHI-BOS Alberts conditional

[edit]

Boston gets a higher Flyers pick if Alberts becomes a free agent, but that might not won't be known until a few days after the draft. That doesn't make sense. Oh, and which 3rd round Flyers pick would it be? Can anyone clarify? ccwaters (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that Calgary's pick was involved in the deal since it was the only third-rounder the Flyers were holding in October 2008. San Jose's pick was not owned by Philadelphia before November 2008. But then again, this is only an assumption. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SJS 1st Round Pick

[edit]

The NHL rules for draft order dictate the 30th pick for the cup champion, 29th for the cup loser, 28th and 27th for conference final losers, and 26th to X for regular season division winners by standings (X is a variable depending on how many division winners make it to the conference finals and beyond). Since San Jose had the number one seed in the standings, they will be the 26th pick. Somebody had incorrectly placed San Jose in the 22nd spot (would be true if division winners were not situated directly above conference finalists), and I moved them to the 26th. They've since been taken out altogether. I'm adding them back in as 26th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.72.63.204 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I added San Jose picks to the other rounds, except round 4 which is dependent on whether Carolina makes it to the conf finals (That would by the pick that Toronto forfeits and could shift the numbering by one). ccwaters (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NHL vs. Canadian Spelling

[edit]

What's the deal with the constant reversion to the Canadian spelling of the Defenseman and Center positions? The NHL does not use the Canadian spelling. If this is an article about the NHL draft it should reflect the correct NHL spelling. 24.45.199.136 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:ENGVAR there is no reason to change from the dialect used by the article creator without good reason. Given that there are six Canadian teams, and the majority of the players in the league, and selected in the draft, are Canadian, there is no great reason to change it to EN-US. That said, this is a really, really WP:LAME thing to fight over, so I'd say to just leave it in whatever format it is presently. Resolute 16:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Really, really lame" seems to better describe a person who signs up to edit an online encyclopedia, yet doesn't care enough to get it right.
2) Are you Canadian?

24.45.199.136 (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am, and if you want to go that route, I'd add that "really, really lame" includes people arrogant enough to think that their way is automatically "right". Nonetheless, you have yet to overcome the WP:ENGVAR guideline and the fact that there is no overbearing reason why the dialect of English used should be changed. Especially given the fact that the majority of our NHL related articles that do not deal specifically with American subjects are in EN-CA as well. Resolute 04:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to jump in here and add my two cents. WP:ENGVAR specifically states, "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using the following four guidelines. (The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section.)" That's fine if you're using words that are not specifically linked via their spelling to an entity or if that entity were not utilizing a specific spelling. However, in this case there is no argument that the NHL (an international corporation with franchises in both the U.S. and Canada) has made a conscious decision to use the American spelling of the defense and center positions. A simple perusal of any page referring to these positions on the NHL website clearly shows this. To say, "Well, I'd rather use another spelling just because I prefer it", doesn't make sense. That's like saying, "I know the name of the food company is Kraft, but I would rather use the normal spelling c-r-a-f-t". It just doesn't cut it in a world such as Wikipedia where accurate research and facts are of utmost importance. Since the article is about the NHL, we have to go by the organization's brand name usage.SUNY Boy (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL does not own a brand on a specific spelling of various words, so I have no idea what point you are getting at. Nor are we an extension of the NHL's marketing and web department. I could easily post hundreds, if not thousands, of links talking about the draft that uses EN-CA, just as we could do the same with EN-US. As I said, there is no overriding reason to change dialects, so the dialect of the article creator should take precedence. Resolute 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks at the top of this talk page, they'd see that this article falls under the Canada portal. Given that it is considered an article about something specifically Canadian and that a majority of NHL pages use Canadian Spelling. It should be in Canadian English. Bmcnamee (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what BMCnamee says, hockey is not "specifically Canadian". But something that is, The Hockey News - a Canadian publication located in T.O. - uses the correct NHL usage of the Defense and Center positions. In fact they take it a step further and utilize Defenseman, which is the true name for that particular position. Bottom line, if you have zero interest in academic integrity continue using your preference. However, if you want to truly participate as a reliable contributor then you'll make the change. Personally, I don't get it. Where academics are concerned nothing is considered too small when it comes to accuracy, and attempts to do so are never characterized as "lame".SUNY Boy (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic ingegrity" and "truly participate as a reliable contributor"? God, spare me that incredibly arrogant bullshit. There is no "true name" for either position, simply a Canadian/British spelling and an American spelling. You still have yet to overcome the problem of WP:ENGVAR pointing out that dealects shouldn't change without good reason. All this blathering about the "superiority" of American spelling is beside the point. Resolute 20:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hah! Thanks to SUNYBoy and especially Resolute for exposing what this was all about in the first place - the Canadian Little Brother Syndrome. No one ever mentioned "superiority" until you wrote about it, Resolute.24.45.199.136 (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of exposing people, I find it interesting that SUNY has a 3rr block in his history from his using an IP address on the same network as you are on, Mr IP. Really makes me wonder if I am debating two people here, or simply one? I might assume good faith on that odd coincedence, but you still have yet to overcome the ENGVAR argument. Resolute 05:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of you guys bickering back and forth are truly amazing. And just plain naked misguided patriotism on the part of “Resolute”. Even kids in Atom hockey know how the defense and center positions are spelt. It’s just different than the English-Canadian spelling. Why go ‘round and ‘round on this topic? As far as overcoming the WP:ENGVAR it seems to me that was done awhile ago. These flimsy counterarguments are a pitiful grasping at straws. Go with what we all know to be the right NHL spelling. Done. Over.70.19.93.200 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no "misguided patriotism" on my part. If this article was created using EN-US, I wouldn't be changing it or arguing a change either. In cases where there is a clear tie to a nationality, we use the dialect of that clear tie. i.e.: American teams and American born players tend to use EN-US, while Canadian teams and Canadian born players use EN-CA. Articles, such as this one, that have no strong tie to either nation is left with the dialect used by the article creator. If this article was created using EN-US and editors chose to edit war over changing it to the Canadian dialect, my argument would be exactly the same: leave it as it was created, as there is no reason to change. Resolute 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, since we do not have a consensus between all of you above, Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should not be changed until a consensus has been established. This would mean that the article has to keep the Canadian spelling until both parties have settled their dispute. Further, since the issue seems to affect hundreds of hockey articles, I suggest to take the whole discussion over to WP:HOCKEY and probably involve a mediator (see Wikipedia:Mediation) or an arbitrator (see Wikipedia:Arbitration as well since a solution is currently not in sight. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've invited other members of WP:HOCKEY to comment. Resolute 18:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as stated above spelling should be left as is. Trying to claim the NHL uses one spelling or the other is also misleading as in some documents they use one spelling in another they use a different spelling. Their website is created for them by an American organization so it stands to reason their American employees will use what they are used to using. But as mentioned depending on which official NHL documents you use you will get a different spelling. As such, as mentioned by Resolute, the hockey project has taken the stance that American players/teams get American spelling and Canadian players/teams get Canadian spelling (along with most other english speaking nations) and articles that have no strong tie either way use what the creator of the article used. The reasoning for this consensus was to avoid this exact arguement. -Djsasso (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the issue is not about hockey per se, it's about NHL hockey. That's the difference. If the article is about hockey as a sport in general as it stretches across international boundaries, spell it any way you want. But the NHL which is an international organization has a specific spelling for the positions. This spelling is even recognized by the leading hockey publication, The Hockey News (a Canadian journal out of Toronto). To further solidify the point, on the website of the OHL -- definitely a Canadian organization -- the NHL spellings are also used.SUNY Boy (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious. How do you think this article would be improved by changing the dialect? Are people confused by the words "defence" and "centre"? Does it aid readability? Honestly, what is the benefit of changing the spelling on these articles? More to the point, you still have yet to actually justify your position beyond the fact that you prefer American spellings over Canadian. Each publication is free to choose how they spell such words, and given the fact that both are correct, you've yet to justify the need to make a relatively pointless change. Resolute 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation proposal: since the conflict is mainly about the spelling of the positions - how about changing them to single capital letters with links to the correspondent wiki articles? Otherwise this quarrel will be going on forever...--Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an excellent solution to the current problem. Resolute 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this today, and am surprised by how ridiculous you are. I think you're the one who needs own up to the fact that you want it in a Canadian spelling and no other. You're the one who has yet to overcome the WP:ENGVAR guideline. I'm with the others, make the change to the NHL spelling.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.162.34 (talk • contribs)
Actually engvar says to leave it in the original spelling... -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of spellings

[edit]

Let's all remember folks, too keep the diacritics off, this & other North American based hockey articles. It's quite annoying, having those 'foreign objects' littering these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that. I see you're doing a good job of replacing them but they keep finding their way back. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dare check, any of the North American minor hockey related articles. They're likely littered. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reasoning behind this, other than your view that it's "annoying"? I know this might be hard for some native English-speakers to understand, but in some languages, those diacritics might be the difference between a compliment and an insult, and at least in the hockey countries Sweden, Finland, Czech and Slovakia, the name is pronounced completely differently depending on the letter - yes, o and ö are different letters in the alphabets of these countries. We are talking about people's names here, and getting the name deliberately wrong is in my opinion disrespectful. Why should Wikipedia try to change the names, even if some computer systems are unable to handle them (the main reason for their lack in NHL, I presume). Jenste (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Wikipedia in the language of those countries, however, so that argument carries little weight, imo. There have been numerous arguments throughout Wikipedia on the use of foreign language marks with the issue largely unresolved. By way of compromise, and in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR, we've agreed within the hockey project to hide diacritics on North America specific articles as they are almost completely unused. In European articles and player articles, we do show them. I've never bought into the "its disrespectful" strawman, as we are merely using the common spelling in the region the article focuses on. Resolute 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:ENGVAR says to use original spelling for proper names, so in the spirit of that, we should show the diacritics. Even so, this is not a matter of language, as names are not translated. Transliterated yes, but since the languages I referred to all use the Latin alphabet, I hardly see a need for that. Common or not, the spelling is still wrong, so again, is there any good reason to not show them? "Annoying" hardly counts as a good reason.Jenste (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also use common names and spellings in articles. i.e. Dwayne Roloson instead of Albert Roloson. Common spelling in North America does not show diacritics. The use of foreign language marks in the English Wikipedia has been a topic of debate as long as I've been on this project. We've reached a compromise based on ENGVAR's concept of using local spellings and I personally do not see a need to upset the apple cart yet again just because. Resolute 18:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using nicknames of people instead of their official names hardly relates to the discussion of spelling, and of course diacritics are not common spelling because names with them are not common, but does this mean they should be spelled wrong? The letter C is not common spelling in the Nordics but it's still used with foreign names without a problem. Could you refer to where this discussion has been going earlier? I would be honestly interested in seeing why some people prefer to show the names without diacritics (and thus incorrect spelling), as I've never really understood this and I haven't seen it as an issue in the other language wikipedias I've read or edited. Jenste (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of the latest ones we've had within the hockey project. And another. And another. Resolute 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other conditional pick

[edit]

http://tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=2441&hubname=nhl The Flyers traded Jussi Timonen to the Dallas Stars for a conditional pick in 2009. The details are unknown to me... ccwaters (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the Stars's 7th: http://stars.nhl.com/team/app?articleid=346090&page=NewsPage&service=page ccwaters (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest - has the condition in said trade kicked in at all? Given that the Stars have (conditionally) traded their seventh-rounder a second time, I would guess not... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the conditions were met, but if its on the plate for Colorado, then I would assume the Flyers are not getting it. ccwaters (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its the other way around: Dallas conditionally acquired Colorado's 7 http://stars.nhl.com/team/app?articleid=365620&page=NewsPage&service=page there's no conflict there. ccwaters (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Chicago.... I'm confused. :) ccwaters (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See? ^^ I guess the trade between Chicago and Dallas wouldn't have been valid if the condition applied to the Timonen trade had been met. On the other hand, there is no proof that it definitely has not been met. So - should the DAL-PHI trade still be listed?
And by the way - any news on that ominous CHI-ANA 4th rounder which is, according to the Chicago GM via tape footage of the press conference on the trade deadline, "dependent on how far the Blackhawks advance in the playoffs"? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dallas could have 2 7s to give out: their own and Colorado: the first for Philly, second for Chicago. I personally agree that its unlikely, but I'd just list them all until status is confirmed. ccwaters (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Updates according to various club pages:

  • Philadelphia will hand their fourth-rounder to Boston as part of the Alberts deal, Alberts has not been re-signed.
  • Chicago will not receive Anaheim's fourth-rounder because of their participation in the WCF.
  • Dallas will keep their own seventh-rounder - the pick from the J. Timonen trade has not been converted (see PHI) and the pick from the Janik trade is, according to their site, from 2010 (see CHI).
  • Colorado will also keep their own seventh-rounder as the condition in the Sertich trade has not been met.
  • Ottawa, according to their Draft Day page, holds Boston's fifth-rounder (would be acquired from PHX, then). Does anybody know why?

The listings will be updated in a moment once I solved the Ottawa mystery. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that Ottawa pick seems to come from a trade involving Brian McGrattan on 25 June 2008, being the lowest of Phoenix fifth-rounders. *fixes that as well* --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering

[edit]

I think we are currently off by one in the numbering due to Toronto's forfeited pick. I believe the league is handling that pick as #118 and the next pick (Chicago) will be officially deemed #119 [1]. ccwaters (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast - I think we will have to wait until Friday before receiving a definite word. While the Panthers use a numbering similar to the Flyers, the Canadiens website counts by our current listing. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're right: that would be a tedious edit. ccwaters (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That tedious edit has just been done, in accordance to this official page, along with some minor fixes for the first four rounds. However, there seem to be quite some differences for the remaining rounds; for example, pick #127 (Phoenix) is listed as definitely belonging to the NY Rangers because of that five-player trade between those teams at the '08 deadline although the original trade news spoke either about no pick involved or the pick being conditional. I will check this. #131 is indeed held by Carolina (from Edmonton) as part of that '09 deadline three-way deal and has slipped under the notes radar. The remaining pick differences are subject to converted conditions, so I suggest to add those on Saturday if the unlikely case happens that the one or other condition has been met. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update on pick #127 – there was indeed a conditional pick involved in said five-player trade, with two conditions attached to it. However, the assuned "AND" turned into a simple "OR" as it seems. Unfortunately, this is unconfirmed, so any trustable source for this would be welcome. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pick #7

[edit]

Toronto's first round pick, N. Kadri, has an incorrect position listed. He plays Centre, not Defense. Tjw2007 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinating the editing during the Draft

[edit]

Is it just a free-for-all to see who gets to list the next player picked on the chart? One editor makes the post while all the others try to make the edit only to get that error message. Maybe you guys co-operate....I would like to know.Juve2000 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People love to be first up. Personally, I just let the IPs go at it first, then clean up behind them where necessary (i.e.: on John Tavares (ice hockey)). While it does make articles like this hectic, it does help pull new editors into the game. Hopefully some register and help build the articles related to their teams. Resolute 04:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Resolute, I think it went fairly smoothly today. --Bhockey10 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round 7

[edit]

I'm not a registered user, but I noticed that you don't have round seven up. The information is easily available at NHL.com:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/draftsearch.htm?year=2009&round=7

Hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.212.124 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error: Round 5 Pick 134

[edit]

In the 5th Round with the 134th pick, it says that the Buffalo Sabres picked Mark Adams. That is correct. However it says he played for Catholic Memorial. That is incorrect. Mark currently plays for Malden Catholic High School. Therefore, could this error please be fixed? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangchung729 (talk • contribs) 08:51, June 28, 2009

anyone can fix minor errors, I'm sure there's a few more, no need to bring it up on the talk page.--Bhockey10 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the article is semi-protected, but I have already fixed it. Cheers. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last pick of the draft

[edit]

I fixed this already, but I wanted to point out anyway that the Penguins' 7th round pick this year was sent to Montreal for their 6th round pick in 2010, not their 3rd round pick. I don't know if NHL.com edited the page in question at some point after this was posted or whether it was a simple mistake, but either way it's fixed now. --Jemiller226 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple mistake by me, probable made due to a extensive lack of sleep last Saturday (thanks a lot, Euro timezone!). I won't rule out that there are some more hidden in other notes as well, so a double-check would be welcome. Thanks for fixing! --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vesa Toskala

[edit]

I was reading the the wikipedia article on Vesa Toskala. When San Jose traded him to the Toronto Maple Leafs, the article states that San Jose also acquired Toronto's 2nd round pick from the 2009 draft. There seems to be no mention of this transaction on 2009 NHL Entry Draft page here. Can someone please check this out.Juve2000 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the trade is mentioned in regards to Toronto's 4th round pick. Maybe the Toskala article needs to be corrected.Juve2000 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 NHL Entry Draft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on 2009 NHL Entry Draft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

[edit]

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. All except Wrenn have deleted articles that can be restored. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 11:58, 11 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 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_NHL_entry_draft&oldid=1219878660"