Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive28

St. Louis Blues seasons

On the infobox for the articles, it links to St. Louis Blues and not St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)... I'm not sure how to fix it. Does anyone know? Use 1995–96 St. Louis Blues season as an example. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template code must be tweaked, which only admins can do. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I'd do it but I would probably break something. ;-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All that needs to be done is a line of code added that says if team=St. Louis Blues then team=St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)|St. Louis Blues. I just don't know enough about wikicode to do that. I tried to see if just typing St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)|St. Louis Blues would work in the team field but it ignores everything after the | . That being said it links properly...but looks ugly. -Djsasso (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I also tried it, which works but you get the [[]] around the link. Again I must press the issue of having separate infoboxes, we change it here but it won't get changed elsewhere. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The pipe character is used by template syntax, so you have to "escape" it with Template:! to pass through for use with link syntax. For example, Team=St. Louis Blues (ice hockey){{!}}St. Louis Blues. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for fixing them all. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now actually been hardcoded into template via filling out the teamlink= parameter. I just noticed someone changing the code and adding the parameter so I thought I would make note here. -Djsasso (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Joe Sakic's last name

I'm currently having a dispute with an editor regarding Joe Sakic's last name. He's claiming that the pronunciation is incorrect and that the source given is not legit (despite the fact that it's USA Today). He also claims that he's somehow spoken to Sakic's family and uses that as a means to justify what he considers the correct pronunciation. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, with possible 3RR-based warnings/blocks being issued; so, I'm hoping there's other people who can help monitor the article and/or join in on the discussion there. Thanks. -- Luke4545 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a sockpuppetor who was arguing this sort of thing before on other pages of a russian/slavic relation. I am wondering if this isn't the same guy. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentions the alternative Croatian pronunciation (Šakić = IPA: [ˈʃakiʨ]) in the "Early life" section. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Children at it again

Looks like there was an organized campaign by Red Wings fans to vandalize the Colorado Avalanche article again. I've protected the article, but keep an eye out in case they move to related articles. Resolute 16:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I had no part in this. ;-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They've hit Colorado's roster template a couple times now. I don't know how pleased Joe Sakic will be to find out he has a new teammate...Snow Blower. Yikes! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to start blocking on site if they don't give up... Resolute 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Tony Piroski

Players name is Tony Piroski, played 8 season in the IHL as a goalie -- all but 1 as a back-up. Head coach one year in the IHL and is now a Jr. C coach. I PROD'd this article as I thought you had to have played a game in the NHL, WHA, top tier International, or had to be an exceptional semi-pro player... and it was contested by User:Grsz11. Should this be an AfD candidate? Or does it fit our current direction as a project notability-wise? DMighton (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Project guidelines don't trump WP:ATHLETE. Piroski played in the IHL, which is a professionally league, therefore he is sufficiently notable in Wikipedia's eyes. Grsz¹¹ 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

International Hockey League (1945–2001) was minor pro. If that is the way it is... I have plenty of old hockey buddies that would love to have wikipedia pages who play at about that level. Sounds like a great idea. DMighton (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh darn! That says "fully professional"... way to misrepresent that guideline. DMighton (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We have articles on AHL players today. Same level, same notability. Grsz¹¹ 05:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists comes into play. In reality I don't care if it stays or goes... but IHL has never been considered on par with the AHL and I doubt this article is in the spirit of the WP:Athlete guidline. DMighton (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

6 IHL teams merged into the AHL. It was the NHL's WHA essentially. Regardless, players in that league were fully professional. There's a difference between semi-pro and minor-pro. Minor pro is still fully professional. The article meets WP:ATHLETE. It even meets our own notability standards as he played 5 or more seasons and 100 games in the IHL. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good I guess. :) DMighton (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, he met our notability guidelines. He played at least 5 seasons and 100 games in the IHL, even if he was a back-up. Didn't notice Nurmsook already said this. Patken4 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

SuperSkills competition

Should there be a separate article for the NHL All-Star Game SuperSkills competition history? This website has a history up until 2007 and this lists the 2008 winners. I know the NBA has a page for the slam dunk and three point shootout winners. If so, should it just be named NHL All-Star Game SuperSkills Competition? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Care to create one? :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to make changes as you see fit. Patken4 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with the Thunder Bay Twins

There is a team competing for the Allan Cup this year called the Thunder Bay Twins... I currently have them under the name Thunder Bay Bombers. This year they changed their name to the twins, which is frustrating, because there was another team called the Thunder Bay Twins. Any advice on what these two teams should be renamed to? DMighton (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Bay Bombers should become Thunder Bay Twins (2008–) until they become more notable than the other twins who were a very notable senior team for a number of years. Perhaps I am biased being from Thunder Bay originally... -Djsasso (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not... one of the big things I'm doing right now on IHW is attempting to microfilm the Chronicle-Journal to get old TBJHL standings. I've only got about 5 years so far...

5 Allan Cups vs. 1... lol... big difference eh... But the current Twins have been in existence since 2003... and were originally called the Twins... would Thunder Bay Twins (2003–) be inappropriate? DMighton (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a tough one, 2003– would probably be appropriate as long as you put in the apropriate info about a name change in the article. Haven't run into this situation before I don't think. Although maybe not, they have only been called the twins since 2008. I don't know...I am going back and forth. Maybe someone else has an opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Twins from 03-04... Bombers from 04-06... took 1 year hiatus.... Hawks from 07-08... and now Twins again... DMighton (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh right forgot about 03-04. I don't live there anymore so I only really hear about them if they make it far in the allan cup playoffs. In that case I would go with (2003–). -Djsasso (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability on referees

What is the notability criteria for referees, same as for players (ie one game at professional level)? Reason for asking is that I am currently working on one article (Marcus Vinnerborg), he is one of only two professional referees in Elitserien, but some of the non-professional referees are a little harder to judge notability on. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a professional in a top league myself, though lacking any criteria that has support of the wider community, the default notability criteria would become the standard. Resolute 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but since we don't have any criteria maybe it would be a good idea to establish it for referees, coaches, etc. Also could be a good idea to change the format of the ice hockey player template so it could be used on referees and coaches. I'm using the person infobox for Vinnerborg, which works fine but as you all probably know I prefer having a uniform look for all ice hockey related articles and the ice hockey player infobox could be used for referees and coaches if height and weight wasn't mandatory. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if someone familiar with template creation could make one for the non-players associated with hockey, or just change the one we have now, so it can be used and have the relevent information. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the height/weight fields aren't mandatory. As long as they're empty they become hidden. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, unfortunately not. First Swedish referee article just created! The honour went to Vinnerborg :) —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 07:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if you look through the talk page archive index that we discussed this before, I don't for the life of me remember what the outcome was, but I vaguely recall something about being added into a hall of fame. But that is probably a bit NHL-centric. -Djsasso (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive17#Notability_of_Referees.2FLinemen Here it is. -Djsasso (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute that referees in top-level professional leagues are notable. However, I would also include referees who have officiated a top-level international competition (although I have doubts that anyone has done this who wasn't a top-level pro ref). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Martin (ice hockey)

This was moved to its current title. I think it should be moved back, there are Richard Martins but not any Ricks. Thoughts? And I would move it, but I can't... RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's moved back. He didn't even change the Rick Martin page into a dab or anything like that, it just redirects to the (ice hockey) version. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of 100 greatest hockey players by The Hockey News

On the list, it says current players are in italics. I noticed Jagr is italicized, but he's not playing in the NHL now. He's still playing in Russia though, so should be italicized? Lead says 100 best NHL players. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be curious what the actual article says, if the article specifically says NHL then I would unitalicize him. But if its just hockey players like the title indicates I would leave him italicized. -Djsasso (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked the book, it's called "The Top 100 NHL Players of All Time," I unitalicized it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should be deleted, as it's not NPOV. It's THN's PoV. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you notice the title of the article it doesn't claim to be the best ice hockey players. It claims to be the best hockey players according to THN. Which makes it NPOV. It's a fact that they published that list. -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to spend time digging, but I'm not sure if this list is kosher from a copyright POV. I believe I have seen similar lists deleted at AfD before. Bare list or not, I'm not certain this sufficiently differentiates itself from THN's copyrighted works. Resolute 04:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything though, wouldn't this list (if fixed up of course) meet notability standards for books as a book article? I think of this article as pretty encyclopedic. There's aren't really any other top-100 lists that have gone through so much scrutiny. If this is considered POV, then so could the FIFA 100 or NCAA sports polls. The article clearly states that it is the top-100 in the opinion of THN, so I don't really see what the big issue is. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The article should be deleted for blasphemy, as Bobby Orr is #1. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He's number 2? RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant, Orr should be #1 (giggle). GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If this article doesn't get deleted (for whatever reason), shouldn't the title get changed to included the word "NHL"? For example: List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News On a side note about the list, for the most part, I think the Hockey News did a reasonable job compiling the list except for one glaring error. Lindros should either be deleted from the list or at the very least moved to the bottom 1/4. Masterhatch (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but atleast Lindros was allowed to get hit (oh boy, did he ever get hit). GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 54 seems a bit too high. He was an excellent player before the concussion, but above Stastny, Brett, Sakic, and Yzerman is a bit much. Maybe if it was made after he retired. And yes, it should be moved to top 100 NHL. Any arguements or can I just move it? RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If the list remains, the title should be close to whatever The Hockey News called it at the time. At least by the introductory paragraph, it may have been called The top 100 National Hockey League players of all-time. That is different from the actual article name of List of 100 greatest hockey players. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

2005 Team Affiliation Question

I haven't checked any of the other ones, so this may simply be a one entry question. Anyway, I was looking at List of Canadian national hockey team rosters and noticed under 2005 all the players are listed with the NHL clubs. I realize that is the way most people identify these players, but in 2005 a good many of them played elsewhere. What is the standard for this? Do we list based on their NHL clubs or does their European (or minor pro) clubs supercede this? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's standard to show their pro team, but it should be the pro team at that time. On that page though, some of the rosters have them and some don't. I'd wait for others to respond to see what they think about your original question and the consistency. Grsz¹¹ 13:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. These players were still under contract with their NHL teams, but then again, many World Junior players are under NHL contract but we list their CHL team as that is who they are playing for at the time of the tournament. For that reason, I'd say we should list them under team with which they played during the lockout. Even though they were still under contract, that wasn't their physical team that year. This is a tough one. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Province/state/oblast/whatever flag icons for team rosters

What is the project consensus with respect to using flagicons for player birth locations on team roster lists? It seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:MOSFLAG, but at least on Russia men's national ice hockey team, one editor claims this is the way it's done for Canadian roster lists. In any of these articles, I would say that "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance" applies, and perhaps "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death" (even though the guideline just focuses on infobox usage). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we use provincial flags for such things. We use national flags in some instances but they would be irrelevant on a national team roster as they would all be the same. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're quite guilty at List of Canadian national hockey team rosters. I've never been a fan of sub-national flags. Especially when you get US state flags, could be any one of 50 different colour combos...these kinds of lists make me want to gouge my eyes out. What is it with state/provincial flags and having so many random colours and shapes! Anyways, I'm all for removing them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no great opinion on the provincial/oblast flag usage, but the national flags attached to the teams has to go, that is a pretty major violation of WP:MOSFLAG. Resolute 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's for the national team, so it only makes sense to show sub-national flags (though I guess you could make a stronger case for a federal state's roster than a unitary state).--Lvivske (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories like Category:Ice hockey players of Ukrainian descent

I'm concerned about the use and accuracy of categories like these. For example, Nick Tarnasky, with a name like that could be one of any Slavic groups. Is he more one than another? I suggest that we move to require some sort of cite for inclusion in these groups. I know that in general Wikipedia is going to be more strict on biographical articles and I support that. Either we work to make these categories 'acceptable' and enforce accuracy, or we propose them for deletion. Alaney2k (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fought with the creator of these categories for well over a year now. He has outright said he just guesses based on last names for most of them. So unless an article specifically mentions their descent I remove the cats. -Djsasso (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should CfD these as non-defining? I would think that Category:Ukrainian ice hockey players would be the only defining category type. Once we start getting into descent, we're stretching the bounds of reason. i.e.: if I were a player, I'd then have categories for Ukrainian, Belarussian and English descent. Imagine if I married a girl with German/French descent and our kids made the NHL? It's a silly path to go down. Resolute 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would definately vote to delete if the whole tree of ice hockey players by descent were put up. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominated. The entire tree consists only of cats for Ukrainian and Macedonian players, so at least it's easy to tag. I wonder if I would be failing to AGF if I speculated that the creator of these cats has Ukranian and Macedonian ancestry... Resolute 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Good idea. Alaney2k (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just realized these are different new categories. I was thinking of Category:Canadians of British descent etc. But I have the same issues with these ones. Though it was Mayumashu who was guessing and not Lvivske. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let this one run its course, then use it as a precedent to target the others, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)

I just wanted it clear I didn't mean Lvivske. -Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Those other categories are outside of the WP:Hockey project, and the debate probably belongs at WP:Canada. They might be quite valid considering that Canada is basically made up of immigrants. I don't mean that I agree with them, just that they might be valid in Wikipedia. If they don't have a reference though, I think we should remove them from the articles. Alaney2k (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is any more defining, besides, it creates a back door entry to recreate this category - instead of ice hockey players of foo descent, they get replaced with Canadians of foo descent. If I felt the need to CfD those as well, I would engage WP:CANADA first, however. Resolute 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While I don't approve of the ice hockey players of select country descent category, I do support, and use the Canadians/Americans of select country descent, so long as it is referenced in the article itself. In some cases, it can be defining of the player, for example Joe Sakic being notable for being of Croatian descent, and Zack Bogosian being the first Armenian NHLer. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it guys. I was trying to keep reference and then research further and delete / add names from there but I haven't had time. List IS inaccurate. That said, I agree with Kaiser matias, it's not entirely a bad category and could be point of interest to many. --Lvivske (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete AFD

What should be done with incomplete AFD's, such as the one for Dan Dorion? For the subject AFD, there is no rationale. Should they go through the process? Should the AFD be closed? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Close it, as you said it is incomplete and the subject clearly meets criteria. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I closed it. In the future, if someone templates an article but doesn't actually create the AfD nom, I'd say to just remove the template, and leave the nominator a note asking them to complete the nom if they do wish to list an article for deletion. Resolute 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC on use of sports team logos

I'm sure many of you got talk page messages regarding this, but seeing as how it concerns our project (although we basically do things the proposed way anyways), feel free to take a look at the discussion regarding sports team logos. It looks like they're about to reach a final consensus over there, so feel free to voice your opinion on the matter. Cheers! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

John Tavares (ice hockey)

There's a discussion going on at Talk:John Tavares (ice hockey) on whether or not the page should be moved to John Tavares. Flibirigit (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Should Mats Sundin be listed as a Vancouver Canucks player?

See Talk:List_of_NHL_statistical_leaders_by_country#Updating_players.27_new_teams. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks

An IP is vandalising, I reverted twice already. Could someone please help revert? Thanks. RandySavageFTW (talk)

Template:NHL Coach

This was created the other day. It's being used at Cory Clouston, John Stevens (ice hockey), and Dave Tippett. Is it something that the project members here like, or can we possibly integrate something into the player infobox to include coaches? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Specialty"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Otherwise, the only real clash I picture is with coaches who were formerly players, and with people who were formerly both coaches and players, but now neither. I'm not a fan of multiple infoboxes on one article, though that can be warranted at times. Otherwise, not a bad template. Resolute 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they just copied the NFL infobox for coaches, so specialty would be defensive co-ordinator, etc. Personally I absolutly detest multiple infoboxes on articles. It's not a horrible infobox, but its one I don't find absolutely necessary. -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would prefer if our player infobox was expanded to allow use for coaches too. This one doesn't look bad but I prefer a uniform style. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the player infobox looks too bad under a section header, as it's small enough to fit well. Grsz¹¹_Review 17:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added it to Clouston and Tippett. It was already at Stevens, and I added it to the infobox category for ice hockey. It is definitely copied from the NFL Coach. And it is not a great looking template, and it uses different text styles than what the player one does. If you look at the NFL Player Coach template, it is big. I don't think folks would like it. Clouston did not play in the NHL, but Stevens and Tippett did. What I was thinking of was possibly some sort of infobox to hold the infoboxes, like the 'Links to other articles' you see. If you look at Tippett, he also has international medals. It might look good to get an infobox holder to hold all three, with open/collapse? I notice the three infoboxes have different widths. I suggest standardizing those as well as the text. Alaney2k (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think our infoboxes could use an overhaul and be less generic like the NFL and MLB ones. Plus we could then integrate player/coaches or just coaches into it along with just a retired player's template. Jc121383 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know alot of us dislike the NFL and MLB ones and find them too specific. Generally we have been trying to make our infoboxes as generic as possible so they can be used for any league. The NFL and MLB ones are huge eyesores. -Djsasso (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Count me in the group that despises the MLB and NFL templates. I'm not opposed to discussing modifications, but I would oppose any gaudy template with all the colours of the rainbow that only draw attention away from the article. Also, we should revise this template to fit a similar style to the player infobox, then adjust both if we decide on any layout changes. Resolute 20:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying use the MLB and NFL templates. I mean come up with one unique for hockey. It's overly generic and can be compared to anything from a band to an actor to a cricket player. I think a happy medium can be found between what we have now and the "too specific" MLB and NFL versions. I have a few ideas I'd be happy to share. I'm no good with template code so I can't really put to lif my thoughts as visual examples. Jc121383 (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Alaney2k; Regarding the medal box, that is not "our" projects template, it is a wiki wide template for any international sports competition. But I have also been thinking about a show/hide function with the medal box and the ice hockey player infobox, it could be used for short articles such as Tippet who yet has no international section. But for longer articles with such a section the medal box of course would be placed there. Template:Infobox Actor has such a function with awards won. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would definately be all for implementing the pulldown box for medals like you see at Template:Infobox Swimmer. Can you imagine if Michael Phelps has just a normal medal table? And looking at the script in that template, it wouldn't be difficult at all to put it into our template. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Template logo

Apparantly I missed the discussion months ago about the logo on Template:Ice hockey, but what's with the two maple leaves? Grsz¹¹_Review 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No one agreed to this change. I will see what happened. -Djsasso (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the original author uploaded a new version which of course changed all the templates. I have reverted to the agreed upon image. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I must say it looked quite good, Hucz could you do one without the maple leafs and perhaps the star on the jersey? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so I removed the maple leaf, the American star, and the star on the jersey. Let me know what you think with the new version. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks alright but not in the template. The non-text no-colour version (from months ago) works/worked better in terms of rescalability. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point about the "visual" aspect of the former logo. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks for the input. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the goalie would be clearer if the background was all white. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree this is good work, I prefer the plain black outline version we had becaues it clearly shows an ice hockey player and doesn't use words. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go back to the original "player" logo. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe one of those alternate logos could be used on top of our project mainpage, for decoration? Or the original player and one alternate? May look nice if we can agree. There's only text there now (besides the standard project symbol). Or is there a guideline about wikiproject mainpages? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, maybe we can incorporate the alt. logo on the ice hockey portal (you know, somewhere where it can be scaled at a larger resolution) to attract editors to the portal/project. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 IIHF World Championship

2011 IIHF World Championship, 2012 IIHF World Championship, 2013 IIHF World Championship, 2014 IIHF World Championship have been nominated for deletion . 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player

Does anyone else think the year should link to the season, if it could be done? Like career start = 1985 would link to 1984–85 NHL season. I have no idea how to do it though, lol. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That would link to 1985-86 NHL season, unless the player's career began in the 'new year' of the previous season. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to set it automatically, as not everyone started in the NHL. However, it's very simpe to do manually. I've done it in a few articles in the past, but have started to stray away from it since the MOS change for liking dates. It's still like that at Eric Brewer (ice hockey) though. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do it automatically sometimes, but it would be easier if this template could work. GoodDay, that was my mistake, I meant 85-86. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Connell

Can someone help with his stats? The totals are like screwed. It's hard to edit due to the strage format. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinions wanted: Triple Gold Club

Hi, I've decided to start work on this article, and I think I'm almost done, so I need opinions. Unfortunately, there isn't as much about it out there as I hoped there would be, so there isn't much for history. As far as I can tell, the term entered popular use in 2002, the earliest use I could find in NewsBank, Google or ProQuest was a December 2001 article. Also, which version of the table is preferable, the current, which lists every Cup and medal the player has one, or this version, which only lists the first time that person won the championship (if this version is used, a second table for "double winners" would be added). Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1969–70 Oakland Seals season

This was the Seals' last season as the Oakland Seals, next season they were the California Golden Seals but the links at the bottom of the infobox won't work since the article's name is different... RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple fix. Make 1970-71 Oakland Seals season a redirect to the proper season name. -Djsasso (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So I did it to make sure it worked. And it works. You just have to make the 1970-71 Oakland Seals season redirect to 1970-71 California Golden Seals season. Then you have to make the 1969-70 California Golden Seals season redirect to the 1969-70 Oakland Seals season page. This will have to be done for all the teams that have changed their names. -Djsasso (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done Minnesota/Dallas and Colorado/New Jersey but I'm not sure if it worked, it still hasn't show up in the infobox for me. Grsz¹¹ 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be a case of the job queue and just have to wait. Looks like you did the same thing I did. -Djsasso (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks

OK, so they changed their name from Black Hawks to Blackhawks before the start of the '86-7 season. So we usually use Black Hawks for the previous seasons, like 1970–71 Chicago Black Hawks season, and Blackhawks for the ones after like 2008–09 Chicago Blackhawks season. So what do we do in the infobox if they played for the team with both names, like Denis Savard? RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we use the most recent name. After all, its the same team? But does this mean that Lennart Svedberg only should be listed with Timrå IK despite he played with other teams while they changed their name? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It could be Chicago Black Hawks/Blackhawks... Let's just see what others say. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In cases like Savard, I'd go with Blackhawks. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? I was thinking whatever name was used the most during the player's time with them, but there's gonna be players with the same amount of time, lol. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

'Cause Blackhawks is the current name. Same with players in Anaheim, for Scott Niedermayer, I'd use Anaheim Ducks. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me, though I'm leaning toward Black Hawks as that was their name during the season that the article pretains to. Early baseball articles are like that (i.e. 1882 Pittsburg Alleghenys season who are now the Pittsburgh Pirates, has different city and nickname spelling because that's how it was at that time) Although I can understand the Blackhawks side because the article is supposed to be titled per the most commonly used reference, which would probably be with one word (not that one could really judge that though). blackngold29 01:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't about the season articles themselves. Its about in the infobox of a player who played for the team under both names. Which name do we use or do we use both. Personally I would use the most recent name. -Djsasso (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I would agree, use the most recent. blackngold29 02:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Canadian national hockey team rosters

I've seen it brought up a few times questions about things in this article--from provincial flags to team affiliations. My question is, what criteria is used to determine what teams get included there? So far, it seems to be mostly championship teams at major competitions, which is a fair criterium, in my opinion. But there are a few exceptions, especially recently. The 2006 Olympic team is included, and there are others. Should only championship teams be listed? Also, nobody has attempted to add the championship teams of 1961 and before, and I suppose that will be a difficult task. Djob (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically the article was created by stripping the rosters off other pages that used to exist and making a single page, so as far as I know the only criteria is that they be a national team at a major competition. They don't have to win. -Djsasso (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it's very far from complete and, if it ever is completed, it will be an enormous page.Djob (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Most lists on here are incomplete, this particular list pretty much exists so the information wasn't lost when it was stripped from other articles that it didn't belong on. If people do expand it, what will likely happen is that it will eventually get split into lists by decade or something like that and the main list will just be a disambiguator list. -Djsasso (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC on use of sports team logos in season/game articles

This one has been open for a while, and not very well publicized, aside from the college football project, it seems. It does affect us as well, so if anyone has comments to add... Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. Resolute 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I know this wasn't mentioned in the discussion, however I feel it is relevant to ice hockey season articles. Let's say we're dealing with the 1995–96 New York Islanders season article. That season, the franchise redesigned their team logo to the "Fisherman" logo. In my opinion, this holds some value that was relevant to that very season. In conclusion, I feel that adding the Fisherman logo to the infobox on the 1995–96 season article would be an improvement. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like this to not have to be archived, so I'm just commenting for that purpose until there is a response. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The islanders logo change would go in a season page but it wouldn't go in the infobox, it would go with the section of text talking about the logo change, which is where it currently is. -Djsasso (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 09:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, nothing really. To the "fair use" image nazis the difference is everything, a picture should be near the text that it is describing in order to meet all the possible fair use parameters. In this case the text isn't the overall article, its just the small section talking about the logo change. Image policy is a swamp of conditions...which I often try to avoid. -Djsasso (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, the infobox does not support an image. Resolute 16:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proper use of Category linking

Hi, just want to get clarification on proper form. A user on the page HC Energie Karlovy Vary is inserting a link to the category (Karlovy Vary players) that is already linked, obviously, in the categories at the bottom under a separate "See Also" section. Is this proper or not? We've been going back and forth on it. Thanks for any input on this matter --Lvivske (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be under See Also. If it was a list he was linking to then it would be ok, but not a category. But the category shouldn't be on the team page either. -Djsasso (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a shame. It would be difficult for a user to find this information. --Voletyvole (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am just one user and one opinion. Wait for others to comment. I have been known to be on the opposite sides of opinions. At the very least it shouldn't be listed as a normal category for the team cause the team isn't a player. The See Also is up for debate. -Djsasso (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the team, but we often link to the list of players for a team. I don't know what syntax to use to link to the page for a category listing, but I don't see why that can't be used if there is not a 'List of' page. Otherwise, you've got to create a 'List of' page, no? Alaney2k (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/National Hockey League awards

I'm sorry to say I've nominated the NHL featured topic for removal, because I think it's missing a number of articles. Please see the removal candidacy - rst20xx (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Spare us the false sympathy. Try discussing first next time. Resolute 18:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this like the second time its been up for removal in like the last couple months? I seem to remember it being put up recently and then getting rejected. -Djsasso (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

American pro hockey tier

I'm trying to compile a table of the North American tier at User:Grsz11/Sandbox/Hockey. Please take a look, and edit/add if you see fit. It's sometimes hard to get everything accurate they way they change affiliations like crazy. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Should templates have diacritics hidden?

WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject notice says diacritics are to be hidden on NA pages but shown on all player and non-NA pages. What about templates? Most templates are on both NA and player pages. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I prefer hiding the diacritics on all the Templates. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I'd judge off the function of the template. An NHL team roster, or a Dallas Stars draft picks template are both referring to the NHL, thus the North American spelling convention should follow. A template regarding Frolunda HC players, however, should use the European convention. IMNSHO. Resolute 20:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And just to represent the other side. I think they should be on all Templates but I agree with Resolute. -Djsasso (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for showing them on player pages? RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

They are proper nouns and are correctly placed on them. Though you will find alot of people arguing why they aren't correct but to be honest the arguements come across as xenophobic as twas mentions below. To spell a name without them is to incorrectly spell someones name. -Djsasso (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think diacritics should be shown on every article. However, if the project wants to stick by this (xenophobic) rule, then I think that diacritics should be shown on all templates unless the template only appears on NHL/AHL articles (or whatever set of articles are supposed to exclude diacritics). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. If you want to change how we spell names in English, you will have to change how virtually every North American, and many European, publications spell names. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGVAR. This has nothing to do with xenophobia, and everything to do with the language we are writing in. Resolute 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This "rule" has nothing to do with being xenophobic. It is all about "most common spelling in English". And the most common spelling in English, in the vast majority of cases, does not include diacrtics. At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), the first paragraph states: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." And further down the page, "Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does." Now, it also says there is no rule about whether to use diacritics or not. So, basically, it is not spelt "wrong" or "xenophobic" to omit diacritics, it is just following the most common usage in English. Masterhatch (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

First, don't get me wrong: I'm only using xenophobic in a mild sense. I'm aware that the WP naming convention is the justification. However, that doesn't mean that the WP guideline itself is not xenophobic. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the guideline? It all depends on one's PoV. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the guide line supports most common usage in English, so to say that the guide line is xenophobic, that is to say the English language is xenophobic. So, that begs the question, is the English language xenophobic? If so, does it really matter? Masterhatch (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Guideline is xenophobic → English language is xenophobic"? — That really doesn't make sense. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hockey editor up at Rfa

A self described hockey editor is up at Rfa. Figured since the claim is that he mostly edits hockey articles that hockey editors would be best to weigh in on the editor. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IMatthew 2 -Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed Supreme League to Major League

I decided that "Major League" was a more correct translation than (Russian or Ukrainian) "Supreme League" or "High League", it's also what google translator has been showing me lately. Also sounds more North American.

Can someone run a bot to replace [[Russian Supreme League]] with [[Russian Major League]]? Same goes for [[Vysshaya Liga (ice hockey)|Russian Supreme League]]. Gonna save me loads of time fixing the links on the league history for KHL teams--Lvivske (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Itech

Itech has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1926–27 Chicago Black Hawks season

On the previous and next season thing, how do I get rid of previous (this was their first season). I know how to add both (|year=x), but I'm not sure now. It works fine on 1972–73 Atlanta Flames season. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's something to do with the template coding. Chicago has their own infobox template, whereas Atlanta uses the generic infobox template. You might want to look there to see any differences. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The easy solution is to replace it with {{NHLTeamSeason}} and TfD the Blackhawks specific one. There is absolutely no need for a bunch of team specific templates. Resolute 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine now. Thanks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NP. Alaney wrote it, and one for the Canadiens. I've asked him for input on what he was intending to do so that we might incorporate it into the NHL template. I'd rather not see a proliferation of templates for each team, as it makes maintenance difficult. Resolute 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the parameters use the same names you could probably just redirect the templates to the nhlteamseason template. -Djsasso (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They are identical, save header colours. A redirect could work though. Resolute 02:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It was fine to remove the Chicago one. We do have some work to do on team season templates. The template coding is complicated. I added the Canadiens one because the team played in the NHA as well as the NHL. I think of it as a test base for colouring of the infobox to match the other templates we find on the team pages. I used it to develop the previous and next season coding. I've no objection to a hierarchy where we have a ProHockeyTeamseason template, an nhl one (or other league) and a team one below that, each using the features of the previous. I use that sort of organization daily with program coding at work. Yes, there could be many (include nhl/wha nordiques, international teams, etc.) team templates, but having everything going through one template is not good with the coding syntax in place. We could have a standard across all leagues, and use colouring, which is a minor part of the scheme of things, no? Alaney2k (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Retired players

In the infobox of retired players i've noticed its become more common with the adding of years played to each certain team. (eg. Matthew Barnaby) Just wondering what the consensus is to this?

Personally, im not a huge fan of this as it gets away from the generic theme of the infobox. It also doesnt look the best! I can also see the problem of players who have played with the same team twice.(eg. Krzysztof Oliwa, Joel Bouchard)

Another somewhat related question, Is it really necessary to list every semi-pro/pro team a retired player has ever played for in the infobox? or is it just meant to list the teams that a player was with at their highest level. cheers, (Triggerbit (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Beast from da East I believe is the only user who adds the years with the franchise to the infobox. He's been a pretty huge advocate of infobox change, and while I don't think many here are a fan of the years in the infobox, it doesn't seem to bother people enough to stop it. I'm obviously with you on it, as I feel it completely unnecessary, but what can ya do. As for your second note, I'm split. It's misleading to not include all pro clubs as that's exactly what the field states, but sometimes it just looks ugly. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 05:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like including the years the player was with the club; ideally that would be in the article. And when creating an infobox for a player, I do include every pro club (NHL, WHA, Europe, minor pro, etc) for a player, and only exclude junior teams (CHL, junior European clubs, NCAA, etc). My rational is that the infobox states what years the player was professional, so why no include the years they were professional, even if it wasn't in a top tier league. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kaiser and Nurmsook. Beast from da East is the only one who does it and I got tired of reverting him long ago so I think its mostly just tollerated when it comes to dates. Teams I don't really have a problem with as long as they are pro. -Djsasso (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dallas Stars

Check the infobox. Do the Stars really have that many affiliation agreements, or is there some shenanigans going on here? Resolute 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. None of those AHL clubs, are afiliated with the Stars. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just dug around. As far as I can tell, by looking at all of their websites, none of them are affiliated with the Stars (and I don't believe the stars currently have agreements with any club). Here's a good chart I found. Hamilton is with the Canadiens, the Griffins with Detroit, Aeros with Minnesota, Iowa Chops with Anaheim, Rivermen with the Blues and the Moose with Vancouver. I'd remove all of the ones listed on the Dallas infobox. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead & removed them all. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Looking at the Stars website, their affiliate is in suspended operations right now, as the Texas Stars will begin play next season when the Cedar Park arena is opened. Chances are they have an affiliate sharing agreement somewhere though. Chances are they have agreements to add a player or two to several teams, thus this proliferation. Grsz's page mentioned above suggests they don't even have an ECHL affiliate. Resolute 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

and per that Texas Stars article, there is a cited mention of agreements to place players with four different teams. Do we list them as affiliates or not? Resolute 01:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well for one, the Idaho Steelheads of the ECHL should be listed, as well as the Texas Stars (perhaps with a note?). I don't think it's that necessary to list the AHL teams that have agreements with Dallas, because with you're looking at like a quarter of the AHL's teams (Manitoba, Peoria, Houston, Grand Rapids, Hamilton, Chicago, and Iowa per [1]). – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah they are in the same situation Edmonton was a few years ago. They have players in many AHL teams, in some instances like Iowa only a single player. Listened to an interview with someone from Dallas on XM radio talking about it. Some teams like Manitoba asked to only have top 2 lines players, other teams didn't care who they got. So certain teams have Dallas's better players and other teams have their "junk". -Djsasso (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that but all entered in all those teams that they do indeed have agreements with. It was a judgement call when I did it, so I'm fine if they go. Certainly don't but the Texas Stars yet, they don't even have an AHL franchise, Its just a name, an arena, a few people the Stars employ for marketing. ccwaters (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with the stars org, but a quick scan of http://stars.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=TeamPlayers&type=prospect produces 3 in Manitoba, 2 in Peoria, 2 in Grand Rapids, 1 in houston, 1 in hamilton, 1 in iowa, and 1 in bridgeport. Most of the euros seem to be on loan over the pond. Oh, and 1 in Hartford if you count Avery who is still under contract with the stars. ccwaters (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Timo Pielmeier

I nominated Timo Pielmeier for deletion citing CSD-G4 based on the former deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wes_Welcher. User:Grsz11 contested the speedy citing that the player played in the Deutsche Eishockey-Liga. Playing in the DEL probably makes the player notable, however the reason I have doubt is the original deletion discussion was from September 2007 and this player played for the DEL club in 2005-2007. I would have thought that there would have been arguments FOR his notability at that point, but there were none. Is this a deletion candidate? -Pparazorback (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As I'm not an admin, I can't see the deleted version. I would assume that since it was a multi-article nomination, editors didn't even bother to look him up, and the article may not have contained that information at that time. Grsz¹¹ 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing with the DEL and many other Euro leagues is that they often have junior teams named the same as the main team and the league is still called the same. I don't know if that is the case with this particular player. -Djsasso (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that is the case, as the player having been born in 1989 would not have been on a pro team at age 156 -Pparazorback (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found a source [2] which shows that Djsasso's speculation is correct. He was with the Junior version of the club. Going to nominate for AfD. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

According to his eurohockey.net profile, he dressed in 26 games with the Kölner Haie, but played in none. So essentially, he was a backup for 26 games in the big league, but didn't get any action. His "true" team during that period was Kölner EC Junghaie of the Deutsche Nachwuchsliga (I'm assuming a junior league). I'm going with non-notable on this one, but toss the image on the St. John's Fog Devils or San Jose Sharks draft picks article...it's a goodie. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification everybody. It's still interesting it wasn't even mentioned in the first AfD. Grsz¹¹ 03:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember the creator of the original article and I think we had about 10 afds going at the same time on articles he created. (He basically did the entire Fog Devils Team). And I think that sort of thing was mentioned in one or more of the other afds at the time. I know its come up for players in the past where we had to show it wasn't the "senior" team. -Djsasso (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The confusion with the names of european teams (from a N.American point of view) is probably because teams are a part of a sports club, which in turn has several junior and youth teams as part of their local organisation (how many teams depends on national leagues, different IIHF world championships, etc). NHL teams have some age requirement, so their major junior teams are instead affiliates (which often play somewhere else). Pielmeier has played for the Kölner Junghaie (Cologne Junior Sharks) but only dressed for the Kölner Haie (Cologne Sharks), both part of the Kölner EC, Kölner Eishockey Club (Cologne Ice hockey Club). --Bamsefar75 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with an article

I'd like to begin working on Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. If anybody wants to help, I'd appreciate it, just let me know. Thanks, iMatthew // talk // 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out WikiProject Event Venues. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you have in mind?--Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stu Grimson

Anyone know why Regular season in career stats is a red link? It redirects to #Regular season. RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question, I retyped it and now it works, but I don't really see any need for the link anyhow. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Montreal Canadiens

Given the relatively frequent vandalism to the Montreal Canadiens page, should it be proposed as a candidate for semi-protection? Most of the vandalism comes from IP addresses, though not all. Based on a quick count, almost 20% of the last 500 edits reverted vandalism. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To be a viable candidate for protection you need a large amount of sustained vandalism over a short period. So like 5+ IPs vandalizing in a single day. Montreal is always going to be a target for vandalism, but its also likely to be a target that draws in new usefull editors so unless it gets out of hand I would be hesitant to protect it. Its on alot of our watchlists so its usually quickly reverted. -Djsasso (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But apparently Maxim feels differently since he just protected it... -Djsasso (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of the delayed edits where stuff doesn't get posted until approved by editors. I know it's -still- up for discussion on bios, but sports teams would likely be a good candidate for this too. It is true that anon ips do contribute to Wikipedia, but it seems often like the anon vandals outnumber them quite a bit. Alaney2k (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I go back and forth on the topic, when it comes to sports I would say IPs do a good portion of keeping stats up to date. So its hard to say. -Djsasso (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well not quite within 24 hours, but 5 IP addreses vandalized the article in just over 27 hours from 16:51, 18 February 2009 to 19:59, 19 February 2009. A small number of valid edits are made by IP addresses, but most valid edits are from signed-in editors. (It's a bit tricky to tell exactly, because the history is just littered with vandalism and reverts.) Isaac Lin (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It can only be semi-protected for short periods of time anyways. It will eventually open back up. All we can really do is just be vigilant and revert as soon as possible. Established articles like this will always have more vandalism than good edits. I do agree somewhat with the flagged revisions which would stop alot of this, or rather it would stop it from being seen by the general public.-Djsasso (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just rumours so far but I'm glad the article is currently semi-protected... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens

Hi, I was wondering if there was an MOS for hockey articles. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. The link is on the project page under "manual of style" in the infobox. Here is a link to the MOS.

Thanks!Spinach Monster (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

the MOS pages may be out of date, however. Your best bet is to look at a featured article as a defacto MOS - New Jersey Devils, Calgary Flames and Nottingham Panthers being three good examples. Resolute 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still grumpy, about the captains getting booted off the Flames & Maple Leafs articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, I'm still upset at the misleading "sports teams founded in 1972" category for the Flames article. :p Resolute 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm cranky that you all are upset. ;P -Djsasso (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We really should go through and create a new standard for team articles. There is quite a bit wrong with several articles. The things already mentioned, and the mentions of the Vancouver Canucks being formed in 1945. It's frustrating enough to keep me away from that article. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I too, belive it should be 1970. But, we've been through all that before. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course not all of us agree that the dates are bad. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about updating the standard for team pages. Are there -any- team pages that follow that format closely? It's very bare-bones. Alaney2k (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The team page format was designed before I even began here in 2006. I tried updating it somewhat about two years ago, but the evolution of each team article into a 7-10 page topic has rendered the page badly outdated. Resolute 00:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article

I'm curious, Spinach Monster, since you titled this section as Montreal Canadiens, are you looking to improve this article? One of my goals for 2009 is to see this article promoted back to FA status in time to appear on the main page for the team's 100th anniversary date in December. If you, or anyone else, is interested in working on this article, perhaps we can get it up to snuff fairly quickly. Actually, since this article has already appeared on the main page once before, I should find out if it will even be eligible. If not, History of the Montreal Canadiens would then become an ideal candidate. Resolute 00:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As it's been on the Main Page, they won't allow it back on again. However, the History article would make a good candidate, or if I may promote my own work a bit, Georges Vézina is an FA and the only Canadiens FA as of now. But in all seriousness, the History of the Canadiens article could easily make it up to FA status, given how much work has already been done on the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he titled it that cause I undid a change he made prior to this post and my edit summary was indicating I was reverting to standard. -Djsasso (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Jacques Plante is an FA, but I foresee a more relevant date later this year, in fact. --Maxim_(talk) 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting the Plante article. I thought we only had one article about a player who achieved fame with the Canadiens. Also forgot that the 50th anniversary of his mask deubt is this November. That said, I'm looking and the 100th anniversary of Vezina playing is only a year and some away, so that should probably wait until then as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I think an article can be today's featured article twice as long as it has been changed dramatically since the last appearance. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, Raul has said he wont do it, but being a centennial, I could see an exception being made, especially since the previous time at TFA will have been 4.5 years prior. Either article works though, I'd just rather see the main article as the feature. Resolute 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be very willing to collaborate on getting both to FA. I think Barack Obama is the only article to get TFA twice, but whatever the case, the Canadiens' article should get back to FA. Most of the prose from the History article could be integrated back into the main article anyways. I think we should go for both on this one. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that would be a good idea. The main article's history really had a hatchet taken to it, so yeah, it will require some work. Resolute 15:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea I remember the discussion regarding Obama, at I think the consensus there was that FA's could be on the main page if they had been completely changed and that a substantial amount of time had passed since the last time. But the best idea might be to contact Raul and ask him what he thinks about it? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they wanted it just to be a one-time thing with Obama, seeing the historical significance of the event. And with the surrounding controversy on Wikipedia about the whole debacle and I don't think that Raul wants to do it again. I don't think an article about a hockey team will garner enough support or significance to bend the rules again. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, but I've asked him anyway. If not, I'll put a focus on the history article. Resolute 17:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

With the split of the history of the Canadiens into a separate page, the main article is pretty cut-and-dried, consisting primarily of lists of people and figures. The interesting aspect of the team is its history. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a poor hatchet job indeed. I am starting to compile a historical timeline at my sandbox, if anyone wishes to add things I have missed, and will begin work on both articles hopefully soon. The History article is in massive need of a rewrite, and the main article needs a much better history section. These two articles are going to require some work. Resolute 00:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the history section in the main article, I have some worries that putting too much information in it will lead to it becoming overly long, with too much duplication from the history article. When I initially created the summary, I stuck pretty much to the single most notable aspect of the Canadiens — their championship record. However, including some of the watershed moments in Canadiens history such as the Richard riot would probably be appropriate, as long as vigilance is exercised to keep the section fairly brief. Alternatively, the history could be merged back into the main article.

On another note, if anyone has citations for the events in Canadiens history, I suggest you include them as well in Resolute's sandbox. Lack of citations was another important reason why I did not put more key events in the history summary. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, citing will be the key. Fortunately, there are a lot of good books on Montreal's history, and I have three branches of the Calgary Public Library within 20 minutes of me.  ;) I certainly agree on the main Canadiens article. I haven't quite envisioned how I would like it to look, and so far don't have a lot of feedback on what others think will work, but really, I expect it will be very brief compared to the History article. I.e., on the founding, it will simply mention that the team was founded in 1909 as an NHA franchise, while the history article will expand on why the NHA was founded in the first place. There are key points to cover though - the cups, Morenz, Richard, the dynasties, Red Army game of 1975, etc. Resolute 05:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

P. K. Subban

What's the feeling around P. K. Subban? The article has been G4'd A TON of times since he won gold at the world juniors. He has never played pro, has never won a major award, and hasn't played at the highest level of amateur sport. But despite all efforts to keep this article off of Wikipedia, I noticed an admin restored the article at the begining of the month. I don't want to nominate this for an AfD without knowing what you guys think, because honestly, this page has been deleted 5 times since the world juniors and was even protected for over-recreation and I don't even want to go through the hassle if it's just going to be restored again. This was the AfD, btw... – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

G4 no longer applies, as obviously Subban's article will be vastly different than the AfD nomination in 2007. The restoring admin did so claiming WP:IAR. I am going to AfD it tomorrow on procedural grounds. The notability surrounding this player is based around winning gold medals at the world juniors. Now, if that is enough for notability, I'd love to create articles on players like Brett Sonne, who is at a similar level of notability: an NHL draft pick, won gold at the world juniors. A deletion debate might flesh out the notability of junior players who play and/or win at the WJHCs. Resolute 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. That answered a whole lot of nothing, lol Resolute 05:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of word 'round' in articles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is correct to use the phrase 'xx-round pick', for example 'first-round pick', rather than 'first round pick'? The latter sounds wrong out of context, (what is a round pick?). Probably should always use the word draft in front of pick too, or at least in the first mention. When discussing rounds of a playoff then, e.g., 'third round of playoffs', that doesn't use the hyphen? I'm not sure where to look this up, (a sports-writer's manual of style?) but I believe this is correct. Alaney2k (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the sentence. For instance, it doesn't seem right if you're saying "He was drafted in the first-round of the xxxx NHL Entry Draft". It should be "He was drafted in the first round of the xxxx NHL Entry Draft". However, if all you say is "he was a first-round pick", then you need the hypen. But seeing as how you were originally just pointing out "xx-round pick", then yeah, you're dead on! Nice observation. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You will, I believe, find substantial diversity in style guides as to the particulars of hyphenating compound modifiers. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

MIckey Renaud

I have been asked on my talk page if Mickey Renaud is now notable since the OHL has named an award after him. He previously failed afd and was turned into a redirect, but that was before they named an award after him. What do you guys think. -Djsasso (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to stick with no. While his name may now be enshrined on an award, it really doesn't make him any more notable. Trent Kresse, Scott Kruger, Chris Mantyka and Brent Ruff are all red links even though they are imortalized through the top award in the WHL. I don't really think this changes the status quo, but it'll be an interesting debate. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarence "Tubby" Schmalz was a president of the OHA, and the first president of the OHL (then the OMJHL)... and he also is also immortalized by the Clarence Schmalz Cup named after him because of his contributions to Ontario junior hockey, but he has no individual article (his bio is on his Trophy's page)... maybe Renaud's bio should be on the trophy page, just like Schmalz? Just a thought. DMighton (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. -Djsasso (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing, DMighton. The link to Mickey Renaud could redirect to the award page. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Any biographical details we can find could be thrown into the award article.-Wafulz (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright let's do this Catauro (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article has been created at Mickey Renaud Captain's Trophy. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Team templates

There has been some debate over the {{Calgary Flames}} template on what should be included. An editor, Muboshgu, has been updating various templates to a standard layout, which is awesome, but he kinda ran into an objection from me when he edited a template I have watchlisted and modified it to the "other sports" style. Given we had about five different styles going on, I think it would behoove us to create a standard.

For the Flames template, I had it in five columns:

• Key topics: Franchise, players, coaches, GMs, seasons, draft picks, award winners, record holders
• Lore: Previous franchise history, History of (for teams with history articles), Team specific (in this case, Red Mile, Battle of Alberta and Harvey the Hound)
• Affiliates: Farm teams
• Arenas: Self explainatory
• See also: In this case, the Calgary Hitmen (owned by the Flames) and Ice hockey in Calgary

Muboshgu added more columns, notably retired numbers and Cup winning/finals seasons. These I've both objected to, as they are covered in core articles. Both are in the main article, while the retired numbers are also in the awards and honours article, and cup winning seasons is also in the seasons and awards articles, and mentioned in others. I get why he wants to add them, but I personally see no use for many of the additions. Expansion drafts, for instance, have no relevance about three years after a team is founded. Atlanta's 1972 expansion draft really does not matter in 2009. Same with all of the information in the header - Templates are not to be used to replace prose, so while I haven't eliminated it yet, I would strenuously object the inclusion of everything in the yellow header. This is, however, only my opinion, and as always, if everyone disagrees, we'll go with another verion.  ;)

Thus, I have shown both Muboshgu's verion, and my original here: User:Resolute/Templates. Which do we prefer to use as a project standard, is there a another format that would be better? And how can we improve whichever version we go with? Resolute 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We do need to standardize I agree. I personally like Resolute's less gaudy version with less cruft in it. The biggest problem I notice with all the extra info is that the important links get lost in the "clutter". -Djsasso (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this when he changed the {{Detroit Red Wings}} template to a similar format. I personally am neutral on the change. On one hand, they look pretty good with lots of info. On the other hand, all of this information is covered in the main article for the franchises and these now look quite bulky. I can go either way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys are fast, I was typing up a post. In short, I was editing team templates for other sports leagues when I noticed that some templates for NHL teams were woefully plain (see Template:Chicago Blackhawks and Template:Detroit Red Wings for earlier edits than mine, I don't know how to link them), while others were already expansive (see Template:New York Rangers and Template:Toronto Maple Leafs). So, I went about expanding the lighter ones, with the most notable edits coming to Chicago, Detroit and the most recent expansion teams, while making a minor tweak or two at most to some like Edmonton, San Jose, New Jersey and more.

I agree with those five general categories. Most championships and retired numbers included in templates weren't added by me. I am breaking out former teams that have relocated (Quebec, Winnipeg, etc.) but I think expansion drafts are relevant as part of a teams history (for instance, Winnipeg was stripped bare, Edmonton was fortunate to be allowed to keep Gretzky). In terms of more info or less info, I think more is better because these templates are still small (even the biggest ones), and the point is to increase convenience, so that you don't have to click back to the main page to go from one thing to another.--Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider in terms of a template being small is that on many of these articles, the template is not used in isolation. On the Flames article, there are five templates and one succession box. These add up. We hid all of these in a collapsable box because of how big a problem they were getting. I personally would like to avoid continuing that proliferation. Resolute 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They should all have the auto collapse function. I think some do, but the rest should have it inserted. That helps remove the burden of size.--Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

they do, and they are all further collapsed into another collapsed box. I do not find that to be a very good reason to expand them beyond reason, however. Resolute 02:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That in itself is not the reason to expand them, but the fact of the matter is some of them in terms of content were bare enough that I wondered if we were talking about some of the most storied franchises in professional sports or an amateur or disbanded team. See this for a representative example. I think we'll agree that they need to be more substantive than that, though we can debate other finer points. For the sake of comparison, this is the Boston Bruins template before my first edit. I gathered from that, and others that were similar, that I should use that as the model template. Should retired numbers and Stanley Cups be removed from all of them? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'll again point out that other professional leagues the NHL is supposedly on par with have more information, rather than less. If you can tell me why the NHL workgroup disagrees with their standard, I'm listening. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We choose to be different because we dislike unnecessary clutter. The Bruins template is a great example of the problems with the other sports' versions. Honestly, who the hell cares who the announcer is, and what station they are on? That information is pretty trivial on the main team article, and is completely worthless on the 1972–73 Boston Bruins season article. I personally feel similar wrt the championship seasons and retired numbers lines. Its trivia, nothing more. I completely agree with you that some of those templates really needed expanding, and hell, I don't blame you at all for choosing to go with what the other sport projects have. You kinda just ran into our own decisions coupled with our lack of a standard on these templates.  ;) Resolute 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that TV/Radio stations etc are trivial. I think Stanley Cup championships are not, that's why they play the game.--Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What you have to ask yourself is, is a championship won in x year relevant to every article this box will be on. Because per WP:EMBED any link in a nav box should normally be expected in the prose of any article the navbox is on, to quote "Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article." Since the nav box is on every team season page is a 1924 stanley cup championship win relevant to the 2009 season for example. -Djsasso (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be. If you're reading about a team, the championships it has won is one of the more likely related topics that could come up. On another note, the Bruins template and some others have all their coaches listed there. There's a separate template for each teams coaches. That's duplicative. I think each main template should just link to the coaches page and remove the grouping of coaches.--Muboshgu (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing with coaches is that its used on all coaches of a team even after they have left a team, the main bruins template is not listed on coaches. That's why some you tend to just see a link to the list article of a teams coaches on team templates. -Djsasso (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following...--Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Resolute's version, for the Templates. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I was wondering why the section "Coaches" isn't called "Head coaches". If the section is "Coaches", then some reader may get confused whether or not if they are Coaches for the current team, or Head coaches for the franchise. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Banners

I am doing a little research project on banners in the NHL. I'm interested in any banner other than a Stanley Cup Champions banner; those are all basically the same, and there isn't much room for variation. I am, instead, interested in every other banner a given team puts up. I'm trying to build a comprehensive resource, at least for myself; if I spot anything that looks interesting, it's the sort of thing that I would add to an appropriate team article. I'm just interested to see what patterns emerge, both in terms of what a team chooses to put up a banner for, and how they choose to word it; if the pattern is strong enough, that suggests it isn't a choice at all, but some kind of league-mandated standard. I know this isn't really the right place to discuss it, but at the same time, the people here are hockey fans, and so some of you may be regulars at this or that NHL arena, or know someone who is. I don't want to be overly disruptive, so if you would be willing to go to my user talk page and post what you know there, that'd be nice. Links to pictures, like on a Flickr account, would be fantastic. I have done some searching with Google, but it is hard to find much, and I have been unable to find a source for any team that is comprehensive. Thanks. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a league-mandated rule and this tastes like spam. Jc121383 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know there's no league-mandated form? Do you work for the league, or a team? If so, please tell me about it on my user page. I have no way to verify the absence of a rule otherwise. It absolutely is not spam; it's just something that interests me. If you look at my contribution log, you'll see that I am a bona fide contributor to Wikipedia. If nothing else, I'd like to figure out what the best practices are league-wide. Examples: do any teams put up banners for winning the O'Brien Trophy? How do teams word their Division Champions banners from the 80s, when the playoffs were organized by division? I don't know, but I'd love to find out. Since this is a group of people who are passionate about hockey, I thought some people would be able to enlighten me about what their team does (if they actually go to the games). Anyway, if you think it sounds suspicious, just ignore me. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you there is no rule in place because the Canadiens for example refuse to raise anything other than a cup banner because in Montreal nothing else matters. -Djsasso (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the answers the question, but the primary "pattern" that emerges is that teams like Montreal and Detroit feel no need to raise banners for something like a division championship, while teams like Calgary do. The reasoning behind this should be fairly obvious. --MichiganCharms (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, having just looked at Djsasso's user page... I picked the Flames because I know they have those banners, didn't mean anything by it, man haha --MichiganCharms (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does not answer the question; the fact that Montreal chooses not to put some things up is not probative of the question whether, if they chose to put something up, it would have to be worded in a particular fashion. Do you know that's the case in Montreal (i.e., have you been to the Bell Centre?), or are you just repeating what you've heard? It would be a shame if that were so; Montreal's rich history would be a way of looking at how banners for all sorts of accomplishments are worded. As for Detroit: in searching on the internet, I can tell MichiganCharms that they are inaccurate, the team apparently has non-Stanley Cup banners at Joe Louis Arena. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't answer the question of how they are worded, but it does answer the other question on what they have to put up. And yes I have seen the rafters at both locations, not personally but on TV. It is a topic that comes up on Hockey Night In Canada all the time when its a Montreal Game they are showing, they will show a shot of the rafters and then will mention how only stanley cup banners are good enough for raising in Montreal. And they made a big deal of it on the special broadcasts for the last game at the forum and first game at the bell centre when they transferred banners from one arena to the other. I have probably read it in one of my Canadiens histories as well but I would have to search through them for a reference. -Djsasso (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you go to Flickr and type in bellcentre with no space there are a number of pictures of the banners in the arena. -Djsasso (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I also found a group on flickr for Hockey Arenas. They might have pictures of other teams banners. Check it out at [3]. -Djsasso (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did run across that, but did not pursue it extensively. The problem is, unless you've been to the arena, it's hard to prove a negative; I can never tell whether a photo set's coverage of the arena is complete, or if there are additional, unphotographed items. In particular, people (understandably) place an emphasis on Stanley Cup banners, which I find less interesting (for what I hope are obvious reasons). The business with Montreal is interesting, though. What I am in need of are "superfans" of teams that have been to the arena, perhaps multiple times, and are passionate about these sorts of esoteric details (which tends to characterize superfans). Of course, I can go out on the internet, to the forums and other communities for each team, but I thought this group might be a good starting place. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Dbrodbeck might be someone to ask. He isn't extremely active lately but I know he focuses on Canadiens articles and I think he said he was originally from the Montreal area. I've always lived a few days drive away so have never had the chance to go live. I only live a days drive away now so I will probably go soon. -Djsasso (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been to the Bell Centre, and the Canadiens organization only hangs Stanley Cup banners and retired jersey numbers; no banners for division or conference championships are hung. However, given that you seem intent on having information directly from the horses' mouths, so to speak, I suggest that you write the league office and the teams to ask them your questions on what standards, if any, they may have. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know some teams, when raising a seasonal banner (be it a Stanley Cup banner, or not) sometimes present the 'represented season' as (for example) 2006-07 or simply 2007. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This, also, is interesting; it would be interesting to know how prevalent one is as opposed to the other. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Retired Jersey Banner. The Avalanche & Hurricanes, choice not to respect the the 'number retirements' from their Nordiques & Whalers days. At least, the Stars & the Coyotes have respected their North Stars & Jets pasts. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would doubt the league has a say in retired numbers but that is just speculation on my part. Because banners for those are wildly different, even within the same team. Lanny's banner and Vernon's banner for the flames for example look nothing alike unless its been changed since I moved away from Calgary a few months ago. -Djsasso (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense that the league would not regulate this; a team can choose to retire its number, or not, as it pleases. But team accomplishments are recognized by the league, so it would be sensible if the league regulated it. Certainly, I would expect someone to balk if Pittsburgh put up a 2008 Stanley Cup Champions banner. An even better example might be that I would expect someone to balk if the Red Wings put up a 2007 NHL Regular Season [Co-?]Champions banner; my expectation would be that the league would say that the tie was broken in favor of Buffalo and that's the end of it. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The President's Trophy article seems to suggest the league sanctions what you can and cannot raise a banner for. --MichiganCharms (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins was recently moved to Wilkes-Barre-Scranton Penguins, moved back, then moved again. The move cited WP:NAMES - that article titles should not have slashes in them. Obviously it's not appropriate to just make up a name for the team to fit WP:MOS as we have articles with lowercase first letters, etc. Feel free to chime in at the talk page. Grsz¹¹ 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not directly prohibit names with forward slashes in them. There is a minor technical issue with these that is talked about here. However, many Wikipedia:Articles_with_slashes_in_title articles exist. Since it is the official name of the team, and Wikipedia policy does not explicitly prohibit the usage, it should be named as originally listed. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability Question re: Captain (ice hockey)

I'm wondering if anyone thinks it would be notable to include Darien Hatcher's status as the only American captain to win the Cup in the article. It currently mentions the long history of European captains with the Cup, and clearly that issue has/had more coverage. --MichiganCharms (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not, as long as it isn't a novel written about it. Because as you mention the other issue was talked about all the time in the media. I don't think I ever knew there was only one american to win it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The door seems to have been opened to note all kinds of "first captain in category Z"; I'm not sure of a unbiased way of drawing the line on notability, though. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dynasties

The NHL HOF recognizes nine dynasties. Shouldn't they have individual articles? --Muboshgu (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? They are discussed in their team articles, and are argued in Dynasty (sports). Resolute 05:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty (sports) doesn't "argue" anything; it's just a list and doesn't explain what criteria the NHL uses to determine what is and is not a dynasty, nor does it talk about those particular dynasties, outside of a mention of how many cups they won. The team pages do talk about them, but it seems to me there is more info out there that is encyclopedic that could be added, at which point it would probably deserve it's own article. Or maybe not. I'm not strongly advocating this, it's just a thought.--Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New potential FT?

I was looking over the Triple Gold Club today and I suddenly thought "wouldn't it be great if we could make a Featured Topic out of this?" There are some possibilities:

1. A "List of champions" topic with the TGC (current FLC), List of IIHF World Championship medalists (FL), List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey and List of Stanley Cup champions (FL). I think it seems a little forced though, although it might work (after all, the TGC is more a summary of the lists than the articles for the actual awards)
2. Triple Gold Club (FLC), Stanley Cup (FA), Ice Hockey World Championships and either Ice hockey at the Winter Olympics or List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey.
3. All six/seven articles.

From a laziness standpoint, I would prefer #1 because it would be a bit easier (although it should be noted that I have tried finding refs for the List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey list with no luck. I may have to turn to a book.) Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say go with #1 not for laziness, but consistency. If the main article is a list, I like the idea of the three sub-articles being lists as well. Stanley Cup, Ice Hockey World Championships and Ice hockey at the Winter Olympics would be a good secondary set to append to the topic at a later date, imo. Resolute 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start work on the list of Olympic medalists. I still don't have a source for it, so if anyone has any ideas, I would be more than willing to hear them. Also, which format is better: A or B? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with A. The readability on the second...well it hurts the eyes, mine at least :P As for sources, I'm sure you've seen most of these, but this would be good for the lead (did you know that in 1920, they ised 7 men on the ice!?—I sure the heck didn't). I'm not sure about this or this, but if they are deemed "credible", they look pretty complete to me and include every medalist. Aside from that, I know Hockey Canada put out a history book, but that of course would only cover you for Canada's wins. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

...and I just noticed that these sources are already used on the article! Duh...anyways, that IOC database looks pretty swell. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added them after my most recent comment. The IOC database is okay (although it's never actually worked for me), but I prefer stuff that you can link directly to. It's easier to confirm statements. At one point, Slam! had a listing of all Canadian medal winners. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find it recently, and it would only cover Canadian teams. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Two things to add to this:

1. What about adding something regarding the World Junior Championships? While not a senior championship, it does have participants who either played their first, played in the WJC and Olympics/WC in the same year, and is a top level IIHF event (even if it is limited in age). It is made simpler because List of IIHF World Under-20 Championship medalists is already a FL.

2. The IIHF published a book last year in celebration of their 100th anniversary, "World of Hockey: Celebrating a Century of the IIHF" (Amazon.com page). I briefly looked through the book a while back, and saw it included information about past IIHF tournaments (WC, WJC, Olympics, etc). It could have information about the rosters of Olympic medalists. And just looking now, the book is at a branch of my local library, and I'll request it to get a good look through it.

Anyways, sounds like a good idea, go for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So I got the book I was talking about, and it does not have rosters for previous Olympic medal winning teams. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Table format - Opinions needed!

Which potential format for the Olympic medalists page looks better: A, B or C? I prefer C because it makes the entire table more compact and easier to read, but the negatives that ctrl-F can't be used and some people dislike the collapsible tables. Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In the following order. C A B. -Djsasso (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also go C, A, B. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll third C, A, B. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Same here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Piling on, C looks great. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing everyone agrees with C. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of head coaches format

I revised List of Pittsburgh Penguins head coaches using a sortability function for each category based on what I had done previously with List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners. It still meets the FL criteria, and personally I like the ability to sort over not having that option. This has been questioned in the FL review because it isn't consistent with other NHL head coach FLs, so we just wanted to see everyone's thoughts on this as SRE.K.A.L.24 is going for the head coach FT and would like uniformity for the lists. Like I said, I prefer the sortability, but I'll change it if need be. Also I gave HOFers a blue background because that's an original Penguin color and I liked it more than the pink that's generally used. I don't think the FT reviewers will be that picky about stuff, but if you guys think they should match, it's not a difficult change. Thanks! blackngold29 05:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

just a heads up, I will support the community's decision, whatsoever. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As Resolute said at the nom page, anything to improve the project is a good thing. Clearly, as time passes, FLC changes and people become much more picky. I think that's evident in the sheer differences between the first FL coach articles and how this one looks. Heck, our first FL coach article looks nothing like the others. I agree with the sortability 100% and colors aren't really a huge deal. As long as you have a legend, that's all that really matters. Sure consistency is a good thing, but I'll take improvements over consistency any day. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The Devils list, I think, will always be an outlier as not many teams publish a comprehensive list of assistant coaches. Resolute 06:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bad guy', but isn't the article about the head coaches, not just "coaches". Also, the article kind of lacks featured list criteria 1 and 2. Just a heads up. P.S. I'll fix the article after consensus for this can be reached. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Grrr, who ever came up with the term Head Coach anyway? It was better as Coach & Assistant Coaches. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any reason not to have the assistant coaches listed. Never been a fan of the head coach monkier myself. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support it, but it will likely be difficult to find citations for some teams. Maybe we could first get all lists to FLs (and get the FT), then agree on a format and update all of them to match (we could incorporate the assistant coaches into that). blackngold29 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But aren't the articles only about head coaches? If we include assistant coaches onto these lists, then wouldn't all the articles be "List of (team) coaches"? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point, as the team's (today), tend to have 'bout 4 assistant coaches (I'm ignoring the co-coach titles). It would be like listing alternate captains. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get how your comment was related to my comment. May you please clarify? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It would be impossible to figure out who all the assistant coaches are, per each team. Also, Head Coach is a term created during the 1990's. The bench-boss used to be simply called Coach. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I see with this format is that these tables aren't really meant to be sortable because its function does not work properly as a result of the extended row at the bottom. In addition, the "Years" column should not be sortable because some coaches had two terms and the sortability function isn't representative of that. [P.S. I am currently reviewing this list at its FLC.]--TRUCO 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the extended row at the bottom does have to go as that breaks sorting something fierce. However, it is easily replaced with 0's in each column, and a note outside the table that this is Blysma's first season. Resolute 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As it's only temporary, less than 2 months at the most, could we just go back to this style? This would be a one-time only deal just so we can get through the FLC. We could probably develop a system for future mid-season changes. blackngold29 17:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, we can't drop the Head in 'Head Coach'. I'd rather (for example) List of Pittsburgh Penguins coaches. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But why though, most readers usually want to find only the head coaches, not the assistants. Also, the main topic will be List of NHL head coaches (will be made into sections ie. A-F; some time this year), not List of NHL coaches. If we use the List of NHL coaches, then we would have to make lists about both the head coaches and coaches, and it will be nearly impossible to find all the coaches who has coached in the NHL. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that, before the 1990's, Head Coach was called Coach. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But why'd would you want to drop the "head" part? it's now called "head coaches", so it'll be kind of ridiculous removing it. Sorry if I'm not being that civil. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regrettablly, Head Coach is what's used these day. By all means, stick with it. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to care about this topic, and I don't really care anymore, since I do not believe that List of Pittsburgh Penguins head coaches will affect anything on the future FTC. Any other comments from users are welcome. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Old-time hockey

Old-time hockey has been proposed for deletion. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Vancouver Canucks captains

Sorry for creating the article before posting this, but I was wonering if making this kind of list is ok. Thoughts and comments are welcome. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I have a problem with it, as long as they can be comprehensive and sourced. Three questions: Why is it notable that Boudrias was a captain from 1963–1965 if he wasn't on the Canucks during those years (as this is the "List of Canucks captains")? Isn't the whole flag for birth place thing discouraged? How do term, NHL seasons, and Canucks seasons differ? Other than those, it looks pretty close to FL quality already. blackngold29 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a well done list, though personally I find the list to be redundant to the main players list, which mostly notates who the captains were and when. Resolute 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a more brief for the specifics. Also, I'll answer the problem BNG29 commented on. Thanks for replying! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it seems you are well on your way to making this an FL, I should accept what is, and in honour of Good Day, create one for the Flames too.  :) Resolute 17:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)