Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive29

Should "finals" be capitalized in "Stanley Cup finals"?

I don't think it should be but I don't want to changing tons of them and moving articles just to find out it's wrong. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it could probably go either way. This is similar to the "SC final" or "SC finals" debate, which I believe was simply left alone because there is no real strong argument one way or the other. blackngold29 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, in this form, "Finals" is a proper noun as it is the NHL's official name for the final round of the playoffs. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"finals" should be capitalized as Nurmsook said. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Finals should definately be capitalized as its a proper name. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The NHL has controlled the Cup since 1927. The capitalization is not correct for years prior to that, but I don't know if that is a big deal. I doubt that it was capitalized even after the NHL took over. As for when the NHL started calling it the Finals with capitalization, that probably doesn't matter, the common name nowadays uses the capital F. Calling them the Stanley Cup playoffs since 1927 is also probably incorrect, as it has been the NHL only. A proper -encyclopedic- name would be NHL playoffs, but that's not the common name either and I doubt anybody would agree with me on that change. At any rate, I propose that the articles stay with the capital F, but we always make a redirect with the lower-case F. I do propose that all of the playoff articles, use the lower-case p for playoffs, but always have a redirect with the upper-case P. It may be useful for others (non-hockey fans,editors) to have a second-redirect in the NHL style, e.g. 2008 NHL playoffs. More for its value in the wiki searches than to cover a proper name issue. Alaney2k (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need redirects for upper/lower case letters. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You do for people who type the article address directly into the address bar. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

... who... does... that... ? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done it often when I want to check Wikipedia for an article and its spelling is straightforward. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I do. If I don't already have a Wikipedia tab open, it's easier to type it up there than to load the Wikipedia front page first, then type it in the search box. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Temporary NHL venues

I'm fairly close to CFDing Category:Temporary National Hockey League venues. Somebody is currently populating it with every arena that hosted an exhibition game (pretty much any AHL venue). ccwaters (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't see how that is defining. Resolute 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the category description its for regular season games so the neutral site games that happened a bit in the 90s and then games in Europe etc. For that purpose I support that category. If they are putting in exhibition game sites then they should be removed. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, all of these arenas hold one-off events all the time. What makes an NHL game so notable? I would shudder to think of how many categories an article like Madison Square Garden would have if every one-off event was given a category. Resolute 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see it as much different that listing a team that a player was with for one game. But I do see your point. -Djsasso (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, it falls under the subjects POV. Playing a single game for a team is defining for the player. A single event for an arena? Imagine how that would go... a category for every performer who has a tour stop alone would stretch many older arenas into hundreds, of not thousands, of categories. Resolute 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

True but for situations like that categories like Category:Concert venues exist so that you don't have to list each individual one. For some arenas the fact that they held an NHL game is defining vs an area that couldn't hold one. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/88.102.148.34 ccwaters (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of those arenas have had regular season NHL games. I don't know if all of them have, I would have to look. -Djsasso (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should remain, but only as described in the intro. Include only those NHL neutral site games, both in North America and now Europe. It isn't that many arenas, and hosting a regular season game is significant. It is similar to the Tampa Bay Rays playing at Champion Stadium at Disney. --Mtjaws (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Russian Jr. League

The official name is "Molodezhnaya Hokkeinaya Liga", which is literally translated "Youth Hockey League". I'm leaning towards titling the article "Russian Junior Hockey League" since youth on our side of the pond denotes a level below Major Junior, but this league will be the Russian equivalent to the Canadian MA Jr. leagues. So what say you, "Youth" or "Junior"?--Lvivske (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say "junior"... the meaning of "youth" just seems to be lost in translation... DMighton (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this league mentioned anywhere in any English reliable sources? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just Russian press at the moment. They finally announced the teams and championship info today so I'm going to get the article going now that it's verified to go--Lvivske (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find any English references, use whatever word they use. Otherwise, use your best judgment. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We tend to leave league names in their native language unless there is a clearly more predominant english usage. Just look at the swedish, finish, swiss leagues etc. -Djsasso (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Conference standings in season articles

We currently have very pretty Division standings tables in most season articles, like here, for example. But very few season articles have Conference standings, like this one. Is anyone working, or plans on working on adding these tables to the season articles? I believe it's a very helpful addition to the Division standings, which need work to ascertain how exactly the final standings looked liked for a given season. Jmj713 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We usually have a template for them, atleast we did last year, I didn't notice they were missing this year. -Djsasso (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait you mean for past seasons. I don't know if anyone is working on that. -Djsasso (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, past seasons. I don't have time right now to do this, so I just wanted to call attention to this. Perhaps whoever started with it could continue. Jmj713 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul and Yan Stastny

Why don't these articles have diacritics like Peter, Marian, and Anton? I tried bringing it up at Talk:Paul Stastny, but no one replied, which is weird considering it's an FA. RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

'cause Paul and Yan were born in Canada, where AFAIK is not possible to register diacritics in official documents. So they were born Stastny. It's the same for Joe Sakic. --necronudist (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Paul & Yan are North American players. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a decision of the parents to anglicize the names, but this is just conjecture. You definitely can have diacritics in official Canadian documents. It would be nonsensical if you couldn't have them when French is an official Canadian language. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. Here in Italy is the same: you can have simple accents (see Giovanni De Prà), worldwide-spread, but not complex diactrics usually specific of a certain language. Our registers don't know how to manage them. I've seen a lot of French of Polish descent or French-naturalized Polish with surnames missing Polish diactrics... I repeat, I don't know how it works in Canada, but AFAIK is not possible to record complex diactrics, so they are simply cutted off like for Stastny and Sakic. --necronudist (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What's this BS with "complex diacritics"? You do realize that Sakic's original name simply had an acute accent which happens to be the more common French diacritic? So obviously it's not complex at all. French and Italian diacritics are not any less "complex" or any more "worldwide-spread" than for example Polish "ý" or "ę". They're not registered because they're foreign, not because they're "complex". Similarily Italian "í" is probably not registered in France and French "ç" not registered in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohdan80 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I recommend not trying to figure out diacritics. You will only tear your hair out. The entire wiki can't decide on it. Our wierd solution is probably the only area of the wiki where the constant edit wars over them are on slow burn. -Djsasso (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lewiston MAINEiacs

Could someone move this to Lewiston Maineiacs per WP:MOSTM? RandySavageFTW (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I went to do it as I suspect you did, however it has to be done by an Admin as the page Lewiston Maineiacs already exists as a redirect page. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. What a bad name for a hockey team. It is a shame they are moving after this season though. Resolute 06:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like the name, the way they capitalize it is a different matter. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi related, I posted this on the QMJHL page but it appears to be scarcely read: It would appear to the naked eye that the QMJHL is attempting to move outliers (Lewiston, St John's) into Quebec. If it's not league directed, it's certainly a noticeable phenomenon... is it worthy of inclusion? Essentially I'm asking if this has been noted in the press -- MichiganCharms (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, St. John's happened because they had to fly teams in and it was costing way more money that a junior team could afford. There are way more outlying teams now than there were a few years back. 6 teams (I may have missed one) compared to just halifax a few years back, and even halifax is relatively brand new. -Djsasso (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen any indication that there is any league mandated effort to move teams closer, so to mention this theory without a source would be original research. At any rate, St. Johns was, as Djsasso noted, an issue of cost and distance. The QMJHL's expansion to Atlantic Canada has otherwise been an unmitigated success. I am not certain of Lewiston's reasons for moving, but given they only averaged 2600 last year, and undoubtedly fell again this year, coupled with their travel distance, means the owners are probably losing too much money as well. Resolute 16:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please move MODO Hockey to Modo Hockey due to the same rule. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I moved MODO. Though like some have said, I don't really approve of the move, but whatever, I did it anyway. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And Category:MODO Hockey players, please? Can't link it though, lol. RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't move categories. Have to put it up at cfd. But as I mentioned about the main modo page. (but later removed when I saw kaiser already moved it) was that I think this is a case of WP:IAR, I don't think the encycolopedia is made better by moving these articles. -Djsasso (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So we should just title articles whatever we want then? RandySavageFTW (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If Category:MODO Hockey players is to be moved/replaced, then the Category:AIK IF players should be moved to Category:AIK Hockey players. The reason here however being the main club article has moved three years ago and the category still hasnt. AIK IF is the SIHA notation, rarely used elsewhere. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:NHLTeamSeason

Could someone please change Plus/Minus to Plus/minus? We don't usually capitalize it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We should capitalize it shouldn't we? -Djsasso (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see why. We don't capitalize other stats like Goals against average and Save percentage. And the article itself isn't. RandySavageFTW (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Resolute 17:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

While on the topic of capitalisation; RandySavageFTW, why did you change MODO to Modo? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

#Lewiston MAINEiacs RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM says that it is supposed to be Modo instead of MODO, so he was correct in changing that. As long as it is pronounced Modo instead of saying the letters M O D O, then the policy says it is supposed to be written as Modo. Example of the latter would be WWIVnet where the W W I V are said as letters, or IBM. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples from Swedish ice hockey include AIK Hockey (a-i-k) and HV71 (h-v). Only the letters sound different in English, and they probably lack predominant use in English so they stay the way they are. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have always felt that part of MOSTM to be a rule that does not help wikipedia so I personally apply WP:IAR to it. But I don't change it back if others change names to match MOSTM. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Vezina Cup

Simple question. Does this trophy, and an under-17 American Hockey League, exist? According to User:American Hockey League at Vezina Cup, they do, starting in 1990. Now I have never heard anything, and a quick Google seach showed nothing. Does anyone have anything here regarding this? Personaly, I would have to lean towards the league either not existing or being a localised one, probably the former. If the league exists and we couldn't create an article for it by now, well we aren't doing good enough. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Prodded. A U-17 player making $400,000? I was half tempted to simply delete it as nonsense. Resolute 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.....-Wafulz (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And the only other mentions of the cup go back to board (blog?) postings from Redwingsconnect at NHL.com: [1] [2]. I'm one step from deleting it as a blatant hoax myself. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its nonsense. Are hoaxes speedy material? ccwaters (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD G1-patent nonsense specifically excludes hoaxes. Thinking about it though, I'm just going to WP:IAR speedy it. Its garbage, and letting it sit for four days before deletion does not help the encyclopedia. Gone. Resolute 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Brodeur on the front page?

Hi all. I was thinking that since Marty is going to break the career wins total this year, and since his article has been featured for almost 2 years already, that it'd be a good idea to nominate him for the front page featured article on May 6 (his birthday). Looks like there hasn't been a hockey article on there since the Calgary Flames in September, so I think there's a good chance it'll pass. --Sportskido8 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Joe Sakic in November is our most recent for what its worth. -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Luc Bourdon is going up on March 6, actually. I don't think it'll affect the Brodeur article too much though. Sportskido8 (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: A possible problem that may arise here is that because he is on the verge of setting major records, it's not going to be particularly stable, and the quality of the article may deteriorate sharply if there are tons of IP and new editors editing it in a short period of time; there's a damn good chance that with Marty, the Devils will still be in the playoffs. Another point is that the article get a healthy amount of points with WP:TFA/R; two points for two-year-old FA, one point for your first TFA (Sportskido8's), and a point for date relevance. I'd personally consider it better to talk with Raul654 and schedule it after the Stanley Cup or the other NHL trophies have been awarded. Maxim_(talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I think I lose the point for nominating my first TFA though because if I remember correctly, I nominated the Devils a while back. --Sportskido8 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games‎ and Ice Hockey World Championships

I tried a FTC for the Triple Gold Club with just the lists and, as I thought, it's not going well. So, I've decided to start working on Ice hockey at the Olympic Games‎. I have most of the history section done (I just need 1984-1994) and it's got a basic overview, but it's still missing some of the more minor details. I also think it mentions Canada a bit too much (although that is kind of unavoidable) and strays a bit too far into IIHF/Worlds territory at times (again, kind of unavoidable if you want a full history). If anyone could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Also, the Ice Hockey World Championships will need to be done. I don't suppose anyone would be interested in working on that one? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Olympic games one is very Canada-centric, and I suspect that would be a big problem at GAN/FAC. I especially question the relevance of Don Cherry's comments regarding the Canadian team in the last games. Also, one thing that jumps out at me immediately is the medal table... does that include the womens events? If not, we should create a second one for the women. AS far as the WHC's go, I might try to add some info where I can, but my time is a bit stretched. Resolute 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm that worried about it, after all, the Canadians did dominate the event until 1952 and were still very prominant afterwards. Besides, the later portions give just as much attention to the Soviet and American teams. Admittedly though, I would like to try to squeeze in more mentions of the Czechs, Swedes and Finns. The mention of Don Cherry is replaceable. Basically, I needed to say that people were accusing the Canadians of running the score and believed that the event's Olympic future was questionable. I thought it would be best to attribute it to someone, so I picked Cherry. And yes, the medal table includes the women's event. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've put together a sample infobox. You can view and comment on it here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now done with the major history expansion. The page could easily be split into sections like "Rule changes", "tournament formats" and "status of professionals", but I thought it would be best to start off with everything in the history section. Does anyone think such sections would be needed and could some project members please read it over? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics gradually proping up, on NHL team articles

I've begun doing another house cleaning of the NHL team articles. It appears diacritics have gradually crept back on some articles. I'll try & complete the task tomorrow. PS: I'm still mystified by the Selanne diacritics fetish. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

lol you know you don't have to announce everytime you are going to removes some diacritics. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes! Maybe consensus is starting to change... ;) —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, as this is the English Wikipedia. Anyways, house cleaning in progress. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mission completed. I must admit, it wasn't as bad as I suspected. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Trade Deadline

Seeing how the deadline is in a couple days, and if it's anything like the last few years, there will be a flurry of activity until 3pm EST on Tuesday (8pm UTC). It would probably be a good idea if at least a couple users kept up on the trades and monitored the relevent pages, and keeping away all the speculation and rumours that are ever to common on such a crazy day. I'll be around on here until the deadline has passed, but I probably won't be able to do that on my own. I would assume that several of us are going to be keeping an eye out on the deadline in regards to their favourite teams, and seeing if the Canucks can get themselves the top 6 forward they need. Or at least I will be. So in conclusion, if a couple of us can keep watch on trades and properly change relevent pages, while keeping away rumours, that would probably be a good idea. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have an eye on it. http://www.nhl.com/ice/newsindex.htm?location=/deadline/2009&navid=NHL%7CHomeTradeCountdown http://www.tsn.ca/tradecentre/ Any other recommended sites? ccwaters (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First trade is between Ottawa and Columbus. And so it begins.... ccwaters (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

i think i might just wait until after the deadline to fix some pages. kind of pointless now.. im pretty sure the random IP addresses will die down then! (Triggerbit (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm just verifying edits I see. Cite a reference in the edit comment if you add something please! ccwaters (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

I created an editnotice for the List of NHL statistical leaders. Any time someone goes to edit that page, they will get the edit notice. Hopefully this will curb some of the random drive-by edits that we revert on an almost daily basis. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It will probably be ignored since every section has an edit notice in the code. And there is a notice on the top of the page as well. And they are all ignored. I just revert when I see a change, its alot less lately than usual. Except for Brodeur, all year people have been updating him. -Djsasso (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That being said I really like how that shows up when you hit edit, I had no idea you could do that. -Djsasso (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried nominating it for semi protection again after my 2nd or 3rd revert in the last 24 hours and the admin denying the request pointed out the editnotice possibility so I looked into it. I clicked on one of the edit notices I found and saw the big red letters and thought Hey, that might work... So I went with it. And yes, most of the edits have been Brodeur so I used him as the example in the edit notice. Hopefully it will be successful. We will see. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The text below the 'Goalies' heading and the 'Coaches' heading on that page would imply that the stats do not include the 07-08 season for those sections. I have no idea if that is correct or not. ??? The page has no sources/refs. I think that's a serious problem considering the type of page it is. Alaney2k (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that the stats are definately through 08, so I changed the text there. I think that was an oversight previously, as it was not until well after the 08 season began that the top also said through the 2007-08 season. -Pparazorback (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave up on trying to uphold that articles don't update during the season criteria. Cutting the lawn with a pair of scissors was easier for me. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is much easier than dealing with diacritics :) -Pparazorback (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:-D Sure, dealing with diacritics is useless... they are fully part of a letter, and can change the meaning of a word, so they are needed. The problem is all of the ones that go mad seeing an accent... ;-) --necronudist (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was not meant to accidently start a diacritic debate. Please do not make it as such. -Pparazorback (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahahahah, it became a nightmare for many users... :-D --necronudist (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's actually quite a good analogy! Very nice. Now if only you would see your diacritic reversions in the same light... — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Never, the dios must be purged. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On another note, the page has now been protected until April 4th. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous... the notice is so glaringly obvious. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been protected, I'm saying that whoever continued to make changes after seeing that notice was almost certainly doing so knowing it was an unproductive edit—"in bad faith", you might say. Or "being a dick", you might also say. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the edits were by drive-by IP addresses that we may never see again! Very annoying. If I could have figured out some way to set the notice to shock the fingers of anyone trying to change Marty Brodeurs stats before April 12th, I would have done it. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fools

Are there any ideas for April Fools-related ice hockey articles? Although this is a bit late to ask, it's not too late, and if it can be featured prior to April 1, it can be put on the page on that day. Maxim_(talk) 02:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Taro Tsujimoto, perhaps? Might be a little short on info, but it's a thought. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's better than Taro, but Brett Leonhardt is another option. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Brett Leonhardt really isn't an April Fools related incident. He actually existed, was a real person, and who knows -- may have actually played if a perfect storm of injuries had of occurred near the beginning of the game. An oddity perhaps, but an April Fools joke, no. Now Taro, on the other hand, is a very good candidate indeed! -Pparazorback (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Taro is that the article's only eight lines long, which would make it pretty difficult to pass FAC, and then featured as "Wikipedia's best work"; previous choices for April Fools, George Washington (inventor) (2007) and Ima Hogg (2008), are much bigger. I was thinking at first of Taro or Leonhardt, but to pass FA a healthy-sized article is needed. Maxim_(talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but isn't there more to the April Fools Day front page than just the TFA? Aren't the DYKs all jokes too? And I think Leonhardt still applies, because they aren't just "joke articles," but articles whose descriptions might sound like a joke. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And on that assumption, another possibility: Macon Whoopee. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of them too. We're probably too late to do a hockey TFA for april fools this year, since we would have less than a week to build it to FA quality then let the nomination procedure pass, then hope that Raul hasn't already chosen something else. However, given how small the Macon Whoopee article is, there is no reason at all why we can't do a 5x expansion and get it on as part of DYK. Resolute 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Did you know... ...that between 1996 and 2002, ice hockey fans in the US State of Georgia were Macon Whoopee?" Resolute 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Modifying Resolute's suggestion: "Did you know... ...that because there were not enough (or too many) hockey fans Macon Whoopee between 1996 and 2002, at least one hockey team was forced to go bankrupt." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Other suggestion for a DYK; Steve Buzinski's nickname. Patken4 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 was on the main page under DYK on April Fools Day in 2007. It's much shorter than the Taro or Leonhardt articles. Skudrafan1 (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a TFA actually. It's possible to write an FA in a week—that's how it was done in '07 and '08. Maxim_(talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We could do a mascot? iMatthew // talk // 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got the time right now. Lets pick a topic and see what we can do. Resolute 00:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A mascot :) iMatthew // talk // 00:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be tough... I think Youpee! is the only one with enough history to write a FA about. Though I am partial to Harvey the Hound. ;) I think a team is a better shot, and macon is the best choice. Resolute 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be an FA: I think the ITN and DYK are both turned into April Fools jokes as well. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am aware of that, but what Maxim was talking about is getting an article to FA. Resolute 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should limit ourselves to FA ideas just because it was the only idea the topic starter suggested. It'd be much easier to get a DYK or On This Date mention rather than an FA, as I'm sure there are editors on other articles and projects who may be pushing to get their funny article as the daily FA on the 1st. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be too much to make some lighthearted BLP violations, such as claiming Gretzky destroys any vinyl record he sees just to add one more "broken record" to his collection? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gretzky? the NHL's white elephant for 20 years (1979-99)? GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the TFA proposals for April Fool's Day. There are already a couple dozen proposals in the works, but a lot of them aren't FAs yet. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Barnes (ice hockey)

Could someone move this to Ryan Barnes? There's no other page titled Ryan Barnes, dab isn't needed. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Maxim_(talk) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Waivers

Waivers disambig lists the NBA, NFL and MLB waivers procedures. Perhaps someone can start an article on the NHL waiver policies to include? Grsz¹¹ 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations on roster templates

What is the reasoning behind the change in the citations on these templates? None of them seem to be working for me anymore and I can't find why they were changed. Jc121383 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What change? I didn't notice a change. Do you have an example? -Djsasso (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see how it is now. What I meant was on the actual template (view) page. Before, I used to be able to access the link. But I see now how it works better in the articles the templates are including. Is there any way for them to work both ways? Jc121383 (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oilers scoring leader Navbox

I've noticed this Navbox on a few Oilers (and former Oilers) player articles. I believe it should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Have no fear, ya'll. I've deleted them from the articles-in-question (at least, I think I got'em all). GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Help on conditional draft picks needed

Can somebody help in finding trustable and citable sources for the following conditional picks in the 2009 NHL Entry Draft?

• 1st round, Calgary to Colorado (trade was Jokinen and 3rd to CGY for Lombardi, Prust and cond 1st)
• 4th round, Anaheim to Chicago (trade was Wisnewski and Stephenson to ANA for Pahlsson, Kontiola and cond 4th)
• unknown round, NY Rangers to Toronto (trade was Antropov to NYR for 2nd in '09 and cond)

Especially the last one would be interesting to know, as there are various rumors buzzing around reaching from "the pick is from 2010" over "the pick depends on the Rangers' playoff performance" to "the pick depends on a contract extension by Antropov with NYR". Help will be greatly appreciated... --Soccer-holic (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just look on tsn.ca/nhl for the first one. Its condition is that Calgary gets to decide if its this years draft or next years. I am sure the others can probably be sourced there as well.-Djsasso (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As for CGY/COL - this pick has already been added by JHuhn as I'm writing this. Nothing on tsn.ca on the condition in the Chicago and Toronto picks though.

Especially the information on the Toronto pick is very contradicting, to say the least, anyway. TSN claims that the pick is from 2010 while the Maple Leafs own page reports it to be from this year. At least one of those sources must be wrong, but who is it? --Soccer-holic (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - according to the Toronto Star, the conditional pick in the Antropov trade is a 4th rounder in 2010 and will be triggered if the Rangers advance to the 2008 Conference Finals, so Chicago's 4th rounder is the only one left in the dark (if you exclude that pair of 7th rounders from the list, of course)... --Soccer-holic (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Player salaries

User:DIEXEL has been adding them to the stats tables on articles like Pavel Bure. Does anyone else think this should go? I don't think it's that notable... RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep I think it should go, looks likes its a veiled advert for their own website as a source. Salaries are very hard to reliably source, and most nhl salary sites say all of their numbers are estimated as official numbers aren't really ever released. -Djsasso (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Any salary/contract-related information can be put in the prose. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 05:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted his edits that added the salary info as his source even conceded that the information may not be correct. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in a National Hockey League game

All of the NHL lists now have NHL instead of National Hockey League in their title except for the article List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in a National Hockey League game. I am hesitant to change it without bringing it up here because this article is currently a featured list. All of the other articles that are closely related abbreviate National Hockey League, including List of players with eight or more points in an NHL game, List of players with five or more goals in an NHL game, and List of players who played only one game in the NHL. So, shouldn't List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in a National Hockey League game be renamed to List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game?

Also, what about another featured list article National Hockey League awards, should this be named what it is called, or List of NHL awards, or List of National Hockey League awards? It is the only NHL List article without the words List of in the title. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I believe that the List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in a National Hockey League game article should be named to the suggested one, per what was said by Pparazorback. For the National Hockey League awards article, I believe it should be kept that way, as there are other NHL abbreviations, and and may also award awards. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the goalie list, and I also found another list that was created before, (although it's just a simple list--no prose nor refs), and merged the history. Maxim_(talk) 15:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that National Hockey League awards is probably better, but figured to bring it up since that was the only list that was not named List of.... -Pparazorback (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian National Team

Can anyone shed light on what league the Canadian National Team played in and who they played against? Im a little short on knowledge here and see in players like Brian Savage and Adrian Aucoin played full seasons with the National Team mainly prior to their NHL careers. I cant find much info but just wondering if this is similar to the USNTDP playing in the NAHL and USHL?

cheers(Triggerbit (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)}

They didn't play in leagues. The Canadian national team plays in international tournaments, like the Olympics or the World Cup/Canada Cup or the World Juniors. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the 1998 Olympics the National Team would play a succession of exhibition games against other national teams, minor pro clubs and university teams in preparation for the Olympics (the so-called 'Programme of Excellence'). That's why for instance Brian Savage's stats show him playing 50-something games in 1993 and '94 for the National Team; exhibition games. -93JC (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers 93JC thats what i was looking for. Triggerbit (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player

Not a big mistake, but could someone change NHL Team to NHL team? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Resolute 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And could someone also please change General Manager to General manager on Template:NHLTeamSeason? I hate not being able to edit these. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be correct as is, given that it is a proper title, would it not? Resolute 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a proper title so its correct. -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be either a proper noun or a common one: "The general manager of the Montreal Canadiens is Bob Gainey". I agree with RandySavageFTW, that it would be better to have it spelled as "General manager". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But in the infobox its listing the specific title as opposed to being used in the common noun sense, which is why I think it should be capitalized. -Djsasso (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be "General Manager". GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, it could go either way. But since there seems to be more support for keeping it, that's cool. No problem with me. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it'll stay if everyone likes it like that then. But another cap error I noticed on the player one is the WHA draft isn't capitalized to WHA Draft. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WHA Draft might not have been a trademarked proper name like NHL Draft is. -Djsasso (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is, we usually capitalize it anyway - WHA Amateur Draft and 1973 WHA Amateur Draft. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool I shall make the adjustment.-Djsasso (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

John Tavares

I was just thinking... it might be interesting to try and get John Tavares (ice hockey) up to FA status, and perhaps campaign for the article to appear on the main page on the day of the NHL Entry draft. It already has a good base for his junior playing career, and I am sure that his personal history could be found fairly easily. I might take a run at it myself as a bit of a shot across the bow of the "junior players are never notable" people.  ;) Resolute 03:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll try to work some on the Victor Hedman article. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships

I've been working on the page and I now need opinions on it. Most of the major expansion is done, although I still have some minor things to add plus some references and a lead. It's still a tad rough, so feel free to make any necessary changes. My main concerns are that, like the Olympic one, it's a tad Canada-centric (at least 60 uses of the word Canada/Canadian/Canada's, etc), and that the history section is a bit too long (I would almost say that it could be split off into its own page, ie. History of the Ice Hockey World Championships). I'm also not entirely sure about the format of the page. Can anyone think of anything that could be added? Maybe a section on how teams qualify? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would do everything you said. Especially the part about how countries qualify. I know that when I read Japan automatically earned a berth until 2001 as a means to make hockey popular in Asia jumped out the first time I read it. Definetly would be good to mention. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The history section doesn't seem too long to me. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find mention of the "Far East Qualifier" in any sources that actually mention anything useable. I have found proof of its existance: [3], [4] and that it was dropped in 2005, but no actual articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with expansion now. There wasn't as much about qualification as I had thought (I should have known though, the process is fairly straightforward), so I just left it in the format section. I rearranged the article and had the history section go first. I'm still not sure if it's a permnanent change, but I do think the flow of the article works better with the rules, format and divisions sections all grouped together. And before anyone suggests it, I am not moving the divisions section above history. Nothing disrupts flow and looks worse than several huge tables in the middle of an article. Anyway, the article is still rough, so feel free to make any necessary changes, and all opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I might have something about Japan. I'll take a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Game Log Templates

I noticed that the Game Log tables for the college hockey articles are done free hand. I started working on a few templates (found here), but to be honest I haven't done much template writing and I don't really know what makes a template useful. If someone could take a look at it and give me some feedback on how to make it useful it would be much appreciated. Also, if anyone wants to just go for it and edit them yourself that would be ok too, but just make sure you tell me what you did and why so I can learn from it. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh man... It would take so much work to redo every season article with this...  ;) (not necessary, obviously) Two things jump out at me: "OT" is not a yes/no answer. In the regular season, there could either be OT or a SO, and in the playoffs, OT, 2OT, 3OT, etc. Given my personal opposition to the "result" field and the linkfarm that creates on NHL articles, I would like to see that made an optional column. Resolute 01:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the season is winding down; I made them looking forward for next year. Just so I'm clear, you would like OT to be a strait-up input so you would put in whatever kind of OT ended the game? Not really sure what you mean by your second point. Linking on the result field is optional, I was just testing that the field worked. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a straight input would be preferable for the OT column. On the recap link, I would like to see it set up such that the entire recap column can disappear entirely if not used. i.e.: 2008–09 Calgary Flames season does not use recaps at all, as they are redundant to the general reference at the bottom. Personally, I find one external link to be far superior to as many as 100 external links. Resolute

As I stated on your talk page, my biggest concern with this template is that is seems to take more space that just using hard-code. Hard code is simply a bunch of pipes (vertical bars) with data in between them, while in this template, it is required to spell out all the fields for every game, taking much more space than pipes do. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had thought of that as well, however as I am undecided on whether the extra code is worth the versitility in being able to update all articles using the code at once I hadn't yet mentioned it. Resolute 03:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I could removed the recap section unless I merge the game and month templates, which may well be beyond me. Nurmsook as to your point, what if I get rid of the game template and make it look something like this:
{{Month Template
...
|game1 = date || home || score || away || ...
|game2 = date || home || score || away || ...
...
|gameN = date || home || score || away || ...
}}
This way you don't have all the extra text for games and entry would just be like it is now from game to game. I think I could also address Resolute's linking concern if it done this way as well. Let me know what you all think, and thanks for the feedback so far! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I definately like that a lot better. The less the text, the better...IMO anyways. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to work on that. Thanks again for the input! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)While we're on this, I might as well throw this out: As I wrote the game log for the 2009 Pirates I got to wondering why hockey game logs have a column for both home and away when one of the two teams is always central to the article? As you can see in the baseball style, if the game is away then it states @Devils in the Opponent column; if the game is home then it says Devils. I think most people get it and it eliminates text, time, and space. Perhaps that could be part of the template. blackngold29 17:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on that point too. I think all the hockey logs just repeated last year's log, so no one dared make a change. Even now, a few hockey teams (ex. Nashville) use odd formatting, featuring the unneeded "Location" column and an extra wide "Date" number column. I update the FL Panthers one, and based it on the Penguins and Redwings, which I like best. I'm fine with the current format (used by FL, PIT, etc), but would like every team to use it, with Recap column optional. As for the sandbox ideas above, I like how each area is labeled, but once the current boxes are learned, one can enter the info in the right spot. I am glad we're talking about this though, so we can get all the teams the same for next year. --Mtjaws (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what ever the consensus comes to on this one. Just a note, I made these templates for College Hockey, and they are not really built for general hockey use right now. If that is what's wanted let me know what fields need to be changes and I'll go at it. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest ensuring that the templates, if used, are usable for any hockey league. Since they all have pretty much the same info, that isn't really a problem. Anyway, to Blackngold's point, the format we use is one that I created when I first started writing the articles. By the time that point had been considered, everyone had been writing their team articles using that format. Certainly open to changing it. Resolute 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think we need the templates, honestly. Not seeing a big benefit. Might look a little cleaner but it will take time for people (especially newer users) to figure out the parameters, etc. Tables are hard enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with this. I think templates are much easier for new users to figure out (I know they were for me) verses tables. Not to mention that these tables are embedded in other tables (blah)... I just think that "scare factor" is really really high with tables. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I am over my head on this one. Could somebody take a look at these (this and this) and tell me how to get them to work? Thanks for any help in advance! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for anyone with images from the Hockey Hall of Fame

Does anyone have any images of medals, jerseys, trophies or other related items from the IIHF World Championships or Olympics? Anything anyone has would be great (although I would really like something from the 77-87 tournaments). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a set of Olympic medals from the 88 games on display at the Saddledome. I could get some pictures of that next week if it would help. Resolute 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, there is even a perfect open spot for such an image in the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:15, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Yup we already have it on our main page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Team season stat leaders and trades

I should probably already know this, but cannot find definitive word.. should mid-season player acquisitions' points be counted towards their current team when updating the team leaders fields on season articles? Example, Nik Antropov just became the Rangers leading goal scorer with 23, however 20 of those goals came with Toronto. IrisKawling (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the footnotes of the "Player stats" section at 2008–09 New York Rangers season, the players who left the Rangers mid-season only have their points with the Rangers showing; players acquired from other teams mid-season show the season totals. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Although looking at others, e.g. 2008–09 Columbus Blue Jackets season, they only show the stats after the player has been acquired. Personally, I prefer the way the NY Rangers handles this situation. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I had been thinking of this in the past, and since the tables aren't sortable (and with no great reason to be made sortable), something like this could work:

			Regular season							Playoffs
Player	#		GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PIM		GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PIM
Jarome Iginla	12		69	31	50	81		31		-	-	-	-	-	-
Olli Jokinen			63	29	23	52		55		-	-	-	-	-	-
With Phoenix	12		57	21	21	42		49		-	-	-	-	-	-
With Calgary	21		6	8	2	10		6		-	-	-	-	-	-
Daymond Langkow	22		60	19	24	43		16		-	-	-	-	-	-

Thoughts? Resolute 20:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have specified I was asking specifically about the infobox "team leaders" section. IrisKawling (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this. If you're feeling ambitious enough to implement this, you have my full support! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh... heh. I think the league officially considers Antropov the team leader, so the infobox should state that he is the leader at 23. We can then use the charts to explain how that came about. Resolute 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if it were up to me, Antropov's statistics at the Rangers page would reflect what he accumulated as a Ranger, and the Maple Leafs page would reflect what he accumulated as a Maple Leaf. The fact that he scored 20 goals with the Maple Leafs this season is not pertinent to the Rangers. I know the NHL tends to include the previous team's statistics in the current team's player stats, but we're not bound to do what the NHL does. We have a transactions section in every team season article for the expressed purpose of explaining why, for example, Olli Jokinen will only have played 57 games and scored 21 goals and 21 assists with the Coyotes this season. Conversely the Flames '08-'09 article will reflect the points he accumulates as a Flame; the fact that he scored 42 points for the Coyotes is not particularly important in the Flames article.

For what it's worth I think your table looks great, Resolute, even though I don't think it's needed. 93JC (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your statement in principle, however we can't be rewriting history to suit ourselves. If the NHL considers Antropov the leading scorer, that does need to be reflected, though we certainly need to asterisk it and add a note. As far as my table idea goes, I'm not even going to consider implementing it until after the regular season. There are a lot of IP editors keeping the stats up to date, and doing a great job at it, but I suspect I'll be spending time fixing the table if I introduce complications. Best leave it until the season ends and we can settle it into a "final version", imo. Resolute 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games (once again)

I would like some input on the article because my goal is to take it to FAC soon and have it as the TFA at some point during the 2010 Olympics (preferably the opening day so that stability won't be as large of a concern). These are my concerns right now:

1. What does anyone think of the formatting of the page? It used to be with info on the format of the two events, then a huge history section ([5]). However, I felt there was a lot of repetition in there because many of the things were related. So the current version merged everything together and split it by Events > men's/women's tournaments > [various games] (I also added a rules section).
2. Should anything be added to the rules section? (perhaps a small section on doping rules?)
3. Should a "status of professional players" section be added? I almost added one, but I felt that it worked better in history because some of the other statements are supported by it.
4. Is there enough on the rules and actual running of the tournaments?
5. Is it too focused on Canada? It's true that Canada did dominate the tournament for a long time, but some may claim there is a bias towards Canada in the article. (although I think I have devoted just as much time to the Svoiets and US during their years. I'm not as sure about Sweden, the Czechs or Finland)
6. Does the article at some points tread too far from the Olympics and more into IIHF/World Championship territory?
7. Should more info on the women's tournament be added?
8. Have there been any hockey related doping issues that should be mentioned? I think José Théodore ran into problems in 2006, and Dick Pound is always running his mouth about how drug filled the NHL is, but should these be mentioned? Perhaps a small section on doping could be added to "rules"?

So any and all comments and opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the way it is currently organizaed, but I think a small section on doping would be benefitial, as it becoming quite inherent to the Olympics. You could discuss the Jose Theodore situation, as well as the Bryan Berard situation. There isn't a ton of other situations however, so it could be a pretty bleak section. Overall the article looks very good, quite impressive really given how quickly it was expanded. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be taking a good look at the article for you... just not sure when. Resolute 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin Brodeur

Just a heads up that there is (and will likely continue to be) a plethora of vandalism on the page as people continue to update his stats and records despite the fact that the season is not over yet. Please put the page on your watchlist, and if all else fails, revert to my edit - the last good edit to reference the tie in the body, but does not include any stat updates. Anthony Hit me up... 23:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just before seeing this I added a link to his NHL.com profile for up to date stats, hopefully that will eliminate some of it. But maybe an editnotice would also be a good idea to implement? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am shocked that there has not been one edit to Brodeur's stats on the List of NHL statistical leaders in going on a week now, especially with the tie. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Shh... don't disturb the IP vandals, or you'll jinx it lol. Anthony Hit me up... 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... but that is not a problem. The article is semi-protected until the first week of April, so no IP vandals can hit it. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2008–09 stats

Should these be added to player articles if the player's season with the team is done? I've seen it on Nik Antropov and Sean Avery. I don't think it should because it's just going to influence people to add stats for their current team. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I added the stats to Antropov and Avery, and IMO since the stats wont change there is no problem with having them, also note the "Season in progress" which usually stops many IP updates. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to myself, as it helps confuse the career totals if an editor should be updating manually and fail to realize that partial stats were already added. Resolute 02:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Some players have two teams (one on loan/assignment) past the trade deadline. When both teams are done with their seasons, the player article can be updated with a single edit. This way I wouldnt add the stats for Tom Wandell until Dallas Stars (NHL) are done playing, even though Timrå IK (Elitserien) already are. If I were to add the Swedish league stats but not the NHL, the NHL ones could be forgotten unless he appear in more NHL games. Players not on loan (or on call) from NHL teams, like David Printz, can be updated before the end of the NHL season. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, for the reason Krm500 stated. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Defenceman (ice hockey)

I suggested a move to Defenceman once, answer was no with reason being there will be Defenceman articles in the future but that was 4 months ago and there still isn't any. Should it just be moved now? RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did you suggest the move? Was it a formal discussion? I wouldn't see any problem with moving it, to be honest, assuming the last time you suggested it wasn't a real debate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The future could be 4 years from now, I believe they main jist of that if we switched to using defenceman when and if we got more articles on the topic then we would have to disambiguate all the defenceman articles back to defenceman (ice hockey). To be honest I am not sure why we don't have any because there is a position in lacrosse that is called defenceman. My guess is that they are all linking to the incorrect ice hockey article. -Djsasso (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New York Rangers

The infobox is blocking the word "(most)"... Anyone know what to do here? RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure in this particular case would have to look more. But usually stuff like that is based on how you have your own screen set up so for some people it will do that others it won't. -Djsasso (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good for me? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed for Women's hockey pages

Since the Clarkson Cup has been awarded, a little help would be needed to improve a lot of the women's hockey articles. In particular, articles for top-level teams in CWHL/WWHL would be nice, as well as a rewrite of the Esso Women's Nationals and Clarkson Cup articles. Furthermore, articles should be created for the National Canadian Women's Hockey Championship, the Abby Hoffman Trophy, and the Esso Cup. kelvSYC (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Calgary Oval X-treme article is on my list of things to do, but really far out into the future. The WWHL article would naturally tag along for the ride. It would be good to expand on the history of women's hockey though. Resolute 04:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Latvians in the NHL

I noticed this list tonight. Am I wrong or was there not at one point any similar list articles that existed by country that were deleted by afd? I am not 100% sure so I figured I would bring it up here as I am too tired to do searching tonight. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I am pretty sure it was Latvia that was deleted too, though the article had a different name that I can't remember. -Djsasso (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is this: AfD: Active NHL players by nationality. If you are going to propose deletion, include this as well: List of Slovaks in the NHL. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if we should keep NHL players in KHL either. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mind the nationality lists (though I pity the fool who undertakes creating one for Canadian players...), but the league-to-league lists seem a bit pointless. It's nothing more than category intersection, and there is nothing remarkable about playing in more than one league. I would guess that most professional players have done so, especially in the European markets. The nationality lists, on the other hand, show how the player ranks statistically alongside his countrymen. If we make similar league-to-league comparisons for five other national top pro leagues (for example, Sweden's, Finland's, the UK's, Switzerland's, and Germany's), then we have seven leagues and 21 possible lists. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gretzky family

Gretzky family seems like an odd page. Not all of the individuals are notable. I figured I'd bring it here first, as it seems to have a substantial edit history. Why not redirect Gretzky to Wayne Gretzky as the common use, and create Gretzky (disambiguation) for those on the list that are notable, plus Gretzky (album)? Grsz¹¹ 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree...there are a lot of non-notables on that list. I would ahve no problem with creating a disambig page for the notable ones and redirecting "Gretzky" to "Wayne Gretzky". Masterhatch (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Paulina Gretzky is an article which should've been deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Jack Adams

There is a discussion going on about moving the dominant Jack Adams to Jack Adams at Talk:Jack Adams. -Djsasso (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

John Tavares (ice hockey)

Nurmsook and I have been working on this article in the hopes that we can get it to FA status in time for the draft. (at the very least, I'd like to get it on as an ITN entry if that should not prove feasable). I've nominated it as a potential good article, and we would definitely appreciate any comments or additions people can make prior to a PR and FAC run. The playing style section especially is fairly thin, so if anyone has any good off-line references that can fill this up, that would be greatly appreciated.

In the long run, this is also going to become one of the more difficult articles for us as a project to maintain at a high standard. Especially when Tavares is drafted, and when he plays his first games. Hopefully we as a project can maintain the quality of this article over what will undoubtedly be a high number of changes (and this would be my greatest concern about its ability to pass FAC). Resolute 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I started thinking that I would recommend waiting until after the draft to go for the FA nom, but then again when you wait that long why not wait for his first game, rookie season, and it snowballs from there. That's why I like dead people... Anyway, good job with the article and I'm sure there will be a lot more coverage of him in the future. Keep in mind that there's really no rush, but if you're gonna go for it, you might as well go for it! blackngold29 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless Tavares is killed on draft day, the article is unlikely to warrant an ITN mention. But good luck achieving GA! I hope it does. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCSP

I need assistance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Ice hockey for someone who knows the naming conventions for ice hockey inside and out to create a list for that proposal (kind of like the one we have for baseball and gridiron football). This would be much appreciated as I take additional steps to get this draft proposal up to official status. Tavix (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We already do have an official WP:HOCKEY one. It's listed in our format pages. I can't believe people are tinkering with the proposal still which should just be outright killed. -Djsasso (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I've been tinkering with it for the past couple months just in case. Thank you for the imput. Tavix (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New list (Yay!)

Continuing with my recent Olympic hockey kick, List of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada.

I'd like to take it to FLC in the next few days, but there are some problems. The lead kind of lacks focus and I ran into some problems with the 1948 team because the IOC database includes all of the players from that team (even the five reserve players who didn't play) as medal winners but sports-reference and a book I'm using do not include the reserves amongst the medal winners. (To complicate matters, the IOC database doesn't include the reserve players on the 1936 team). Anyway, all feedback and opinions are more than welcome. I have no plans of doing this for every Olympic team. This was very time-consuming and I doubt I'd easily be able to find a book with complete roster information about any other team. It should be noted that I was originally going to include the women's teams, but I decided against it for now. I think it works best with just the mens team. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: The women have been added and the page has been moved back to List of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada. This is going to be somewhat hippocritical coming from me after the recent issue I've made over forking in FLs, but I almost think that the men's and women's lists should be split. It's two seperate teams in seperate events with completely different teams. The text about women was shoved in and the lead really reflects that. A split would ensure that both teams are given the proper amount of attention. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Template: Western Conference and Eastern Conference

I noticed that the two templates, Template:Western Conference (NHL) and Template:Eastern Conference (NHL) were created. I was going to nominated them for deletion, but felt I'd gauge the opinion of others first. I see them as redundent, and don't really add anything important that isn't covered in Template:NHL. Thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant. I'd support deletion. blackngold29 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Redundant. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to do it as well. Go ahead and put them up, all that info is in the NHL template for the most part. -Djsasso (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind I see they are already posted here. -Djsasso (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Herb Clarke

Does anyone have any information on Herb Clarke? He played for the Cobalt Silver Kings in 1910 and finished sixth in the NHA in scoring that same year. This website is the most I can find on the guy. Did he play for any other clubs? Does anyone have any biographical information on him? Thanks in advance! Patken4 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It might help to also search for "Herb Clark" as that is what seems to be printed on that old cigarette card. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Patrick O'Sullivan - Changes being made by his father? Need help!

On the Patrick O'Sullivan (ice hockey) article there have been some questionable changes over the past few weeks. Originally it was an IP user so I dismissed the changes as vandalism/good faith, but now the user has registered. Low and behold, my suspicions are getting stronger, as the user name is SullyJ (re: John O'Sullivan)

Here are the changes I'm having problems with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_O%27Sullivan_(ice_hockey)&oldid=280971247

1. He's changing the part about his father playing in Winston-Salem (which is relevant to the article, as it was Patrick's hometown) to read "University of Toronto Varsity Blues; the 83-84 CIAU champions, coached by the Calgary Flames Mike Keenan". Here he is using the article to promote his own career. Mike Keenan, the UofT team, or any of that is irrelevant to the article at all.

2. Adding " The restraining order was dropped by Patrick in June 2005". We have no way of confirming this one way or the other...how do we proceed? Take John's word for it?

3. Changing "issues with his father" to "with his coaches and father". Do we have documented evidence of problems with coaches?

4. NHL.com lists him as 5"11 190lbs. Like any hockeydad, he is making him an inch taller and 15lbs of more mass (lol!). Since it's unofficial info, keep reverting this?

5. Birthplace: NHL.com says Toronto. "SullyJ" keeps saying Toronto. HockeyDB and TSN also say Carolina as POB.

The CBC article (cited in issue #6) reads: "O' Sullivan met and married a local girl, Cathie Martin. Before long, they had their first child, Patrick." "To find Patrick better competition, the family left North Carolina for his father's hometown, Toronto"

Which means he was born in Winston-Salem. Period. Toronto may be hometown in this regard, but if it's "Toronto" then that makes a huge gap in his bio and how he was born there, if his mom was from Carolina and his dad was playing there.

6. He keeps deleting the CBC article on O'Sullivan that is cited and relevant, probably because it speaks poorly to John. No reason to delete the reference at all. (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/whoselifeisit/story.html) Actually, what "John" is doing is replacing the link with the name "John O'Sullivan". What the heck....

Hopefully one of you guys can help out on this one. --Lvivske (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It definately violates WP:COI if it is him. I have watchlisted the page. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Unofficial information" is not acceptable, so even if this is his father, we can't take his word for it. I'd revert most of this (especially the irrelevant puff piece about his father's career, and the unsourced BLP stuff about problems with his coaches), and ask him if he can provide reliable sources for this, i.e.: if he has any newspaper articles that would support it. If he really is O'Sullivan's father, he may have such a scrapbook, which would make sourcing much easier. Resolute 13:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets remember that COI is a guideline, not a policy, and does not in any way prohibit editing if you have a conflict of interest. Only undo their edits if there is something wrong with them (i.e.: unsourced claims and unverifiable information). You probably know this but many don't and act foolishly in these kinds of situations. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If this goes on any futher you may what to bring it up at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. ccwaters (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Should List of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada be split?

I'm starting to wonder wondering if I should split this page into lists for the men's and women's teams and I need opinions. kind of split on the issue, because having it all in one page is useful since both are for the same sport at the Olympics. However, the two are different disciplines with completely different rosters and no interlap. The List of Toronto Maple Leafs players doesn't include a list of Toronto Marlies players (in fact, I think you could make a better case for combining those two than these two). Because it's two seperate events the text really reflects that and jumps back and forth between them (especially in the the lead, you can tell that the summary of the women's event was just thrown in) and having seperate pages would allow both to have the proper attention they deserve. But like I said, I could go either way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Split them, I don't see a point in having a combined list. Nice work btw! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They should be split, as they are different teams. We have separate articles for the men's and women's teams. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think they should be split. They are two different teams, and it is reflected in the fact that there are two different sections. The men and the women are both from Canada, and the article is not too terribly long, so I really don't see any issue. Tavix :  Chat  02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely split them up. This would keep consistency with other already existing articles that are similar to this one. They are separate teams, yes, and contrary to the above, 85kb is a long article for those who have slower connections. And by the way, very nice job. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would split them up. At 85k the article is slightly bigger than the recommended max size of 60k. So there is the added fact of it being too big of an article. But I think the main reason to split them is to match with the existing split articles. -Djsasso (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the parent articles are split, the child articles should be as well. Also, it allows the women's team to become the focus of an article rather than an afterthought. Resolute 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

NHL office move when Ziegler took over

There is an editor attempting to add sections regarding Ziegler's move of the NHL head office to New York in several articles, which I have challenged. As we seem to be at an impasse, I would appreciate if others would be willing to weigh in on the issue at Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992). Also, if someone has a newspaper or book citation discussing the office move, that would be appreciated, as surely we can compromise once citable information is found. Resolute 00:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Euro clubs with "NHL alumni", how to classify?

Commonly on Euro teams' pages there will be a section about "NHL alumni" or "notable players" and so on. I've been trying to (at least on KHL related pages) narrow this down to NHL alumni only, and to make the list, must have been on the team at the time of the player's NHL draft selection (i.e. the same team that would show up on a draft list) or any team the player was on prior to being both pro and an NHL pick. Is this an accurate way to go about this? Should only the team as-of NHL selection be valid? I'm not sure how to go about this, bearing in mind it is relevant to the history of the club.

The reason this has come to mind is that Pavel Datsyuk is continually added to the Dynamo Moscow page, in spite of him only playing there during the lockout; hardly an "alumni". This is just one example I've dealt with, of course. --Lvivske (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that any team the player was on prior to first joining the NHL could be mentioned, not just the last team they were on. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove any such list IMO (ie "NHL alumni" or "Notable players") from the main article, but if you wish you could create a list of drafted players, such as this one. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll make one of these list pages for future pages I revamp, but do I need to delete the already-made lists from smaller, stub articles on teams? And as far as qualification goes, like that Frolunda list, only those who played when drafted count?--Lvivske (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"F. teams"

Anyone else think this should be changed to "former teams" in Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player? I'm not big on abbreviations and one could not know what it means or think it's something else like farm team. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I support a change. blackngold29 18:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the player infobox, anybody think it should have the name of the player at the top of it, just like every other infobox on the site has the name of whathever it's covering? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've never seen the point of that, but yeah, if we want to be consistent... Also of note, the template's talk page currently has a discussion ongoing over changing or removing the nationality field. Feel free to contribute to that discussion as well. Resolute 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care which it is, but I believe the reasoning behind it was to keep the infobox from getting too wide. As for name at top, I have never been a fan of the name being at the top because I find it redundant. -Djsasso (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We could break it over two lines. Resolute 00:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

On a semi-related note about that template and with no disrespect to Ales Hemsky, we should probably change the example to a player how has played on more than one team so the "former teams" option is exampled. Thricecube (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all opposed to removing an Oiler.  ;) Resolute 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it is to list the teams like they do over at the baseball WikiProject. An example of an infobox of a guy that played for a lot of teams would be at Ron Villone. Is there anything wrong with that format for listing teams? For me, I also see an additional advantage as it leaves room to put the year(s) that he played for that team if necessary. Tavix (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We use that year format on some articles like Matthew Barnaby. Isn't really a consensus, but no one's against it either I believe. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Im no fan of the years added on, i always think infobox's are supposed to be simple and clear. i find the years add clutter and the issue of a player returning to a previous team becomes an eyesore. Triggerbit (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that. The infobox is a quick summary of the player. The information, in a perfect world at least, will be in the article itself. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there ever any consensus on linking career start and end start to the respective season? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people do it some don't. I tend to not do it because some leagues don't have season articles, and may never have season articles. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NHL team templates

And as long as I am in edit wars with others.. {{Calgary Flames}} and its kin. Personally, I oppose the little history headers that have been added (i.e.: this edit). I find them irrelevant, beyond the scope of a template, and article content in a template, which is frowned upon. Since our discussion on a standard style fizzled out without any concrete decisions, I would like to bring up this one point: Should these headers exist or be removed? Resolute 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. They are irrelevant to the content and IMO just add clutter.--Lvivske (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you, they are redundant in the template. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup I agree. -Djsasso (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say remove those parts. I was wondering what happened with the last discussion we had about this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on removal, especially since in the Flames example, the pre-move team's article is a link in the template. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the header from all templates per this discussion. There is still far, far too much variety in the templates, but that is something to tackle when I have more time. Resolute 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Resolute. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Game log script

I'm not sure if this has been discussed anywhere, but I noticed that User:Sajt has converted many of the NHL team game logs to a script that apparently gathers the info. It doesn't look too different, but it does have some differences to the previous styles. This one adds an external link to the game recap on NHL.com, and takes away the bold on the main team's entries in each game. Personally, I feel that one external link to that team's NHL.com schedule/game results page is sufficient, instead of 82+ external links. And, I like how the main team was in bold in each game. That lets the reader quickly see if that team was home or away. I have no idea if edits to the gamelog would be reverted next time this script runs, or what kind of issues it might encounter. It did fill in incomplete game logs of some teams, but hasn't been added to all the teams yet. Anyone have any comments or concerns about it? Thanks again. --Mtjaws (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the external links have been discussed here alot and its been agreed many times that we don't need one for each game. I also pointed the author of the script to this discussion. -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What was annoying me was that every team had its game log in a slightly different format. I based my script on the Vancouver Canucks one, which seemed to me pretty mature and well designed (you'll notice I haven't touched any other 'popular' game logs, I've just been updating the neglected ones so far). Don't worry about changes getting reverted, I run the script manually and check "Show changes" every time I commit something, so if I notice something is different, I'll adapt the script to match it, or just leave it alone.

I'm not sure about bolding the home team. It doesn't seem to me to make it any easier or faster to read. In fact, having bold text in there only confuses my eyes and slows me down. It makes it harder to see the horizontal "lines" making up the table. If you look at 2008–09_Vancouver_Canucks_season (compared to, say, the Florida one), it's not difficult to see which games are home games (for one thing, the home team is not a link.)

As for getting rid of the recap links, I see all the sense in that. I'll change the script today to replace them all with one link to the schedule page. --Sajt (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We should probably reach a consensus for next season that a link to the NHL.com recap should/should not be included. I've always supported it, but it seems I'm in the minority. No big deal, in fact it'll be less work. We should also remove the home/away team columns and just have an opponent column as discussed earlier; actually I'll get right to it. My proposal:

2009–10 Game Log proposal
October: 1–1–0 (Home: 0–1–0 ; Road: 1–0–0) # Date Opponent Score OT Decision Attendance Record Pts 1 October 4 @ Boston Bruins 4–3 SO Fleury 13,699 1–0–0 0 2 October 5 Ottawa Senators 3–5 Fleury 13,699 1–1–0 2

Obviously the header's colors would change for each team, but other than that it should be pretty standard. Thoughts? blackngold29 03:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally much prefer the existing format with home and away teams. What is the argument against it? It's not like there's a lack of room, especially after getting rid of the recap link. I guess you like to see all the opponents in a vertical column? That makes sense I guess, but to me, the home/away teams format makes the scores simpler to read, as it's obvious which side of the score belongs to which team. I'll defer to the more passionate debaters on this one, though. --Sajt (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I think the Visitor/Home columns are a lot nicer to have. Readability increases, and personally, I just think it looks better. The score thing is the big issue. Sure the background color clearly defines to whom what score belongs, but just glancing really quickly, or even defining why team who's page this belongs to's score is first. I support blackngold's model, but only if home/away columns are included. Further, I'll go against recap links, as long as a link to a game log is included as a general reference. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The argument against it is that each article is devoted to one team and repeating that team's name 82 times takes up a lot of unnecesarry space, while accomplishing nothing that can't be solved with an @ symbol. With the single opponent colmun, just state the score of the said team first, as I have in the model. blackngold29 03:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is your template applied to the current Vancouver Canucks season. I wasn't sure if the opponents were supposed to be all links, no links, or only links on first mention (I guess first mention would be most consistent, because that's what the goalies use). Anyway, it almost looks like there is too much empty space (on my 1280x1024 resolution)! ... --Sajt (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My vote would be for no links. I have no problem with the empty space (on the same resolution). I don't think we should fill space up for the sake of filling it up. blackngold29 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated the table on that sandbox thing to linkify the first occurrence of each team, just so you can see what it would look like, for when you guys make your decision. I personally don't care. --Sajt (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, I want to say thank you for the script work. 82 games at 30 teams is over 2400 entries we have to maintain, and a script makes it so much easier for the teams that don't have regular editors. As far as style issues go, I personally think that the first mention of each team in the log should be linked (build the web), but not all mentions (don't overlink). As far as the format for listing home and road teams, I'm fine with either. And, as always, I prefer a minimum of external links, thus one general link to a team's game log is fine, in my view. Resolute 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with one link, that's how I did the Pirates this season. Do you think it should be linked to the season or franchise article, that is 2008–09 Buttown Bisions season or just Buttown Bisons? I've seen it done both ways with NFL teams; I could really go either way, but would probably pick the season. The script seems fine with me; how many years does NHL.com go back? and how long after the games are played (for the current season) does it update? blackngold29 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though the goalies link first appearance only, since at most there is like four people, I think each team should always be linked. If someone wants to jump to that teams page, they wouldn't have to hunt thru the list to find that team's link. With 30 teams, finding that link within the log would be harder than just linking them all. Sure the footer template has all the teams, but only linking some team entries of the gamelog doesn't exactly look best to me, especially late in the season where only one newly played team gets a link. As for using "@Boston" or two columns, I can go either way. I like one column as baseball uses, but in the two column version, I like the main team in bold to easily see if they were home or away. Also, I don't like the NHL external link in the title row, but rather down below the color legend. Nice to see discussion going! --Mtjaws (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer one column but I don't use @ since it isn't used in Sweden, instead I list which arena the game was played at. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I don't think we should include links to each games information. This just clutters things, in my opinion. And as far as table format goes, I'm partial to the one I use (see here). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to quickly point to the Bruins format:

2008–09 Game log

October: 5–3–3 (home: 1–1–1; road: 4–2–2) # Date Opponent Score Location OT Game Winner Attendance Record Pts Recap 1 October 9 Avalanche 5 – 4 Pepsi Center David Krejci 18,007 1–0–0 2 [6] 2 October 11 Wild 3 – 4 Xcel Energy Center Marc-Andre Bergeron 18,568 1–1–0 2 [7] 3 October 15 Canadiens 3 – 4 Bell Centre SO Alex Tanguay 21,173 1–1–1 3 [8] Legend:   Win (2 points)   Loss (0 points)   Overtime/Shootout Loss (1 point)

As you can see, the 'Decision' column is replaced by 'Game Winner'. This prevents tedious repetition of one or two names over the course of an entire season. A yellow bg is used for SO/OT decisions in an attempt to make such entries distinct from the whitespace of the main page bg (and I strongly advocate all teams adopting this standard). I don't necessarily support the idea of individual 'Home/Visitor' columns, but I steadfastly oppose the use of the @ symbol. I feel a 'Location' column is a fine compromise. Further, I support the addition of individual game recaps. I like having the info for any individual game just one click away, rather than having to use one link to redirect me to the NHL season page and then from there having to seek out the game I want.

However, since I personally helped refine this format, I'm admittedly biased. This is how I want to view game logs, but it doesn't necessarily make it the best way. Alrin (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I struggle with not including the Goalie column because it repeats one or two names, and yet that's exactly what the Location column will do. We did alter the format slightly for the Penguins playoffs last season, adding goal scorers, perhaps there can be an alternate playoff version as well. blackngold29 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the goalie to the game winner because in my opinion people tend to want to know which goalie was in net more than they want to know who scored the goal that put the team ahead. -Djsasso (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the goalie inclusion. NHL pages list goalies on their list too. Using a separate color for OT/SO rows makes sense, and I've seen a light blue used on some team's page. I don't like the Location column because it still forces the reader to interpret the arena's name to determine location/home team. If "@" isn't wanted (like baseball uses), although I'm not sure why not, then I'm fine with the current two columns for Home/Visitor. I'm biased to my favorite Florida Panthers version, but I copied it from Penguins and other similar teams. --Mtjaws (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I like the Bruins format. If we are going to leave out the season team's name, I would move the score to the second column, and the first count be the season article's team, the second count be the opponent. Because one of the teams is implied. Putting the score after the opponent name means more thinking. I would go with the more typical 'Decision' or 'Goalie' rather than game winner but game-winner is ok. Yes, it repeats but that is not a justification. Goalies have win-loss records, so this backs that up. Game-winner is ok because it does add info to the article. Maybe 'Winning goal' instead. Game-winner is a bit vague, as it could refer to goalie too. Alaney2k (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

2008–09 Game log
October: 5–3–3 (home: 1–1–1; road: 4–2–2) # Date Score Opponent Location OT Decision Game Winner Attendance Record Pts Recap 1 October 9 5 – 4 Avalanche Pepsi Center Thomas David Krejci 18,007 1–0–0 2 [9] Legend:   Win (2 points)   Loss (0 points)   Overtime/Shootout Loss (1 point)

I generally consider GWG a useless stats so I would oppose on having it in the table. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I could take it or leave it. Alaney2k (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea, how about we try to adapt Template:Ice Hockey Game to be used in all season articles and tournament articles together with a Template:Ice hockey game log? It worked well for the rosters with Template:Ice hockey team roster. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've though that through. I think it would make the season articles huge. Alaney2k (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, I was going to comment that I think the playoff page sizes are insanely huge with that templating format, 82 game seasons would be a bit to big using it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking with a hide function so that it looks just like the current format and you could expand it to see goal scorers, recap link, referee, etc. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Soccer/football articles do this (e.g. FC Bayern Munich 2008–09#Bundesliga) and I like it. This would obviously look different in hockey game logs, but you get the idea. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know that but that's what I was thinking of, but obviously with the current layout used with the expandable months and such and without being sortable. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Too big. Way too big. As an example, Calgary Cup uses that template just eight times, and without a lot of prose, the article is 11k in size. 90% of that is the table. Multiply out by up to 100 games, and you are looking at an article that is over 120k for the game logs alone. Then add all the prose, the player stats, draft picks, transactions, etc. and you are probably looking at a 180-200k article. Too bloated and probably too far into the minutae. Resolute 04:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup this is what I meant KRM too big in terms of page size not length of article. -Djsasso (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to. Alaney2k (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Would a template that produced something that looks like the suggested game logs above be reasonable? I don't know the first thing about creating a template, but it seems it could list things like score=, opponent=COL, etc. and it would automatically recognize and list that they opponent is the Colorado Avalance (a column which I don't think should be linked, but we'll get to that later). Then there could be a decision=W and it could automatically make the background green and update the record to reflect that. blackngold29 13:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, done correctly it should save data and make the articles smaller. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be better, but I don't know if it would be good enough over an 82-game schedule to keep the sizes manageable. We need to build a prototype article, I guess, to discuss the idea properly. Alaney2k (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only should that prototype have the game logs it should also include guidelines of other things (prose, stats) and how they should be included. Last year 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season got GA status, so we modeled 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season after it and I think the format is pretty good; we could use that as a starting point. blackngold29 15:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is the Template:CBB Schedule Entry that has automated win/loss colors and builds up to a gamelog, but I'm not sure if it would keep article lengths short. That one requires a start and end template too, for the headers and such. Here is an example. It is possible, but I'm not sure if we need/want that. We just need to agree on what columns to include, get is set for next year, and make all 30 team pages the same. --Mtjaws (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)