Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Blake Geoffrion

His article went through AFD a few years back and was deleted. He is now a senior caption at Wisconsin, he led the WCHA in goals scored, and he is a member of the Hobey Hat-trick. Do you all think I could safely re-create the article without risk of AFD? In other words, would those accomplishments put him on the level of all-time top ten career scorer, league or playoff MVP, first team all-star, or All-American according to WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would probably go on the side of delete if he were recreated. Mostly because generally we seem to go on the having to win the actual Hobey, not just be nominated for it like the the players who are part of the hat trick. Personally I would wait till September/October when he is likely to make a pro appearance, but I tend to be more patient than some to create an article. That being said a nominee for the Hobey, will likely be named an All-American I would think. Have they been named for 2010 yet? I don't follow US college hockey enough to know. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
He'll be notable in 7 hours ;) --Smashvilletalk 16:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Weird sidebar...as I was getting ready to prep the article in case he won the Hobey, I realized that I was actually the one that nominated it for AfD... --Smashvilletalk 16:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me know and I can give you the source of the deleted version if you want. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Err nevermind I forgot you were an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I forget, too. Ha. --Smashvilletalk 21:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And he won it, so I've recreated the article. --Smashvilletalk 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note there's been a recently created Hobey baker winners template, ignoring the already present succession boxes. Just clearing up succession boxes are the correct way? Triggerbit (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we don't do templates for award winners. WP:NAVBOX I believe it is mentions to use succession boxes or award winners or positions like President etc. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
And on that note I have nominated it for deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player

The subject of adding the subjects name to the top of the players infobox has been brought up again here. Have your say. -DJSasso (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Steven Stamkos

Looks like we might have another Greek nationalist trying to alter his ancestry. Would be ideal if some others watch the article. Resolute 22:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to help keep an eye on it but I've been pretty at work lately so not as much free time as usual. It would help if others were watching too.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I got it as well. It seems like its alright now anyways. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2009–10 in ice hockey

Hey everyone. I created a navbox template in my sandbox to help navigate the world of ice hockey. WP:FOOTY is a much larger WikiProject than this one, and similar navboxes are used there except for the fact that their navboxes are regionalized, Template:2009–10 in European Football (UEFA), for example. However, since the world of ice hockey is more narrow I thought that we could go global. I only included only top-level leagues in any country in order to keep it focused. Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends what pages you are looking to add it on. This project as a general rule tends to frown on navboxes when they aren't used in an useful way and have alot of links which are not directly related to each other. I am not sure if happening in the same year would be enough of a link to be on a navbox. WP:EMBED for example says to only have links that would otherwise already be found on the page the navlist is on. -DJSasso (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea! =) I have many times wanted to zap through the different leagues in a season, but skipped it halfway because it took too long time... Taking it global seems appropriate, since there aren't many leagues around the world. When it comes to WP:EMBED, it only applies to lists. JohnnyPolo talks about a navBOX, which is covered by WP:NAVBOX and is suitable for "providing navigation between related articles". ...and different ice hockey leagues in a season, seems related enough! =) lil2mas (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think something like this would be quite useful, actually. Right now, we don't have one single page or template where you have a link to all of the season articles for all of the leagues, including all of the international tournaments. Obviously we frown upon these at WP:HOCKEY, but this is quite a bit different than what we've deleted in the past. The only other place where something like this could exist would be at 2009 in ice hockey, but clearly that isn't being used very heavily. I certainly support this and feel that it would enhance our project's organization of articles and take us to a level much similar to that of WP:Football. I know I'm always quite impressed with how easy it is to find articles on those leagues' seasons. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It was crazy hard tracking down all of those league season articles. A lot of them weren't tagged in Category:2010 in ice hockey or even in Category:Ice hockey in [insert country]. However, I think that if this template is adopted it well help in the upkeep of article categorization and overall quality. A few of those articles are practically sub-stub quality and/or orphans, but if more eyes find them then they'll probably get more editing. Many of them exist in superior form in other languages too. I also included a few redlinks because they were articles that I believe should exist even though they don't yet, and a few of those leagues with redlinked 2009–10 season articles already have season articles for other prior seasons. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
lil2mas, just for the record. Embed does apply to navboxes as well since navboxes are lists of links, not to mention wp:navbox is only an essay whereas embed is a guideline. That being said, again I just said it depends on what pages you put them on. If you are only putting them on league seasons then cool, but if you start throwing them on every team season page then it starts to get rediculous, wp:navbox backs this up by saying is the user likely to go from Page A to Page B. Someone on the 2007-08 Montreal Canadiens page isn't going to immediately want to go to the 2007-08 Elitserien season for example, they simply aren't related other than happening in the same year in the same sport, however someone might want to go from the NHL season page to the Elitserien season page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't realize that WP:NAVBOX was an essay, but then WP:CLN#Navigation templates is the guideline to follow. For me WP:EMBED is a sub-guideline to WP:CLN#Lists... But maybe I'm wrong! When it comes to which pages the template will be used on, it could easily be derived from his sandbox. ;o) lil2mas (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a template like this should only go on the main season article for each league. Each league/country could have their own navbox for more detailed navigation within that league/country. I hate to over-reference another project, but that is very common in the footy project. For example, the aforementioned European football navbox links to only three different, major competitions in England, but Template:2009–10 in English football links to everything going on in England – leagues, cups, transfer lists, and club season articles. That's why we already have Template:2009–10 NHL season by team for the NHL. I just think that a navbox with a global scope of seasonal top-tier ice hockey leagues is a great place to start. If this goes through then I'd be happy get started on similar navboxes for previous years as well. Also, I've just read WP:NAVBOX and WP:CLN#Navigation templates, and I believe more strongly that this is a useful navbox and that there is nothing wrong with the implementation of this or a similar navbox. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, that was my only concern. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so I've gone through and done a few things to prepare for rolling out this template. I've created Category:2009–10 ice hockey leagues, 2009–10 SM-liiga season, 2009–10 Czech Extraliga season, and 2009–10 Slovak Extraliga. So as of now, the only league on the existing nav temp that doesn't exist is 2009–10 National League A. I think that I can whip up a basic article today. Once that's done will we be ready to roll it out? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The template is still missing Asia League Ice Hockey, which also would need a 2009–10 Asia League Ice Hockey season article created. Other than that, looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's not a league that I know anything about. It's been difficult enough for me to translate from Czech, Slovak, Finnish, and German. I don't know if I can deal with Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. I'd like to nominate anyone-but-me to do that one. I've heard that that guy's really good. :) JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no timelimit, no need to rush on creating such pages. There is one editor who focuses on that league but I can't remember who it is. Crossmr maybe. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this template going to include all of the top-level leagues of the IIHF nations? Otherwise we're stepping into some murky waters as to which nations should be included. – Nurmsook! talk... 15:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any league that is notable enough to have seasonal articles could and should be included. If the article exists then why ignore it? What that criteria for notability would be is a new discussion. I've even found some recent season articles from New Zealand and France. While doing my recent research, I also found that the Netherlands' Eredivisie has season articles on the Dutch WP, nl:Eredivisie ijshockey 2009/10. The Polish Extraliga has articles on the Polish WP, pl:Ekstraliga polska w hokeju na lodzie (2009/2010). The Danish Superisligaen—whose article title should not be based on a gambling company's sponsorship deal (could an admin fix that?)—has season articles on the Danish WP, da:Superisligaen 2009-2010. The German WP even has an article on the 2009–10 Kazakhstani Championship. There's a lot of information out there, but much of it isn't in English, which makes this tough to tackle. Also of interest to me, I scanned all of the interwiki links for the Asia League Ice Hockey and none of them link to season articles, not even the Japanese, Korean, or Chinese WP. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I will help translating/creating the various season articles when I can, and also left a message at User:Crossmr's talk page about the navbox and if he would be willing to work on the Asia League's article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the Danish league article to its new name; AL-Bank Ligaen, according to it's official website. I will try to keep an extra eye on Danish ice hockey articles, as their written language is very close to my Norwegian, or Swedish for that sake. But my main focus will be on Norwegian-related articles, like the 2009–10 GET-ligaen season... lil2mas (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Since there were no objections to the template, I've gone live with it. Template:2009–10 in men's ice hockey. I've also created a mockup for 2008–09 and 2010–11 in my sandbox in order to get an idea of what else is out there and needs to be done. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
All of the leagues in the template now have a 2009–10 season article, and someone even created and added France. Hopefully this will continue to encourage more constuctive editing by casual editors, IPs, or interwiki editors. Happy editing. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Estonia added. I'll see how many more of these European leagues I can get done in the comming weeks. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Would the 2010 IIHF Challenge Cup of Asia qualify to be on this template? Salavat (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

RFAs & UFAs

It's that time of year again, where some editors go around the non-playoff teams & insert UFA & RFA on their template-rosters, ignoring the fact that players don't become RFAs & UFAs until July 1. Letting yas all know, so as to keep a look-out. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob Murdoch (ice hockey b. 1947)

Hello. I'm from french WP Icehockey project. While searching informations about this player and coach, i saw here he was born in 1947 (like on hockeydb) but except here and on hockeydb, he was born in 1946 (NHL.com, notrehistoire.canadiens, hockey-reference... I think it should be rename Bob Murdoch (ice hockey b. 1946) ? --Supertoff (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move it and change the date in the article. And if I were you send a note off to hockeydb.com He regularely fixes mistakes when you report them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Rename done. --Supertoff (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All-time NHL series

I'm experimenting with an idea I've had for a while now in my sandbox (please have a look). This came out after I was looking at the most frequent playoff series article, and not finding it very satisfactory for my needs. For one, it didn't list the years when given teams met, etc. I found a nice official historical record and now am trying to base a new article off that. I think it could be extremely useful. But before I spend any more time and work on it, I'd like to find out what you guys think of it. Is there a way to improve this, is anything missing? I'm thinking a second article should be added to cover defunct/relocated teams, although NHL officially counts, for instance, the Whalers series in the Hurricanes' totals, which I don't feel right with. Jmj713 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if this doesn't cross into trivial category. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
How so? We have numerous hockey articles here that enumerate and list things. Jmj713 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact that x team played y team 5 times isn't exactly a notable fact. We tread on a very thin line with alot of our statistics. It goes along with Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. I mean its not something I would battle over. I just think that article is pushing on the trivial side of things. -DJSasso (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive39/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing located at the link you provided (/Unreferenced BLPs), does that mean there aren't any or is it incorrectly linked?--Leech44 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It means the bot hasn't run for the first time yet and created the page, I believe this is a warning for us to opt out if we don't want it. Which I don't see why we wouldn't. If you want to look at a manually generated list for now Resolute created one at User:Resolute/BLPs. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Should I be a dick and tell them that negative option marketing is illegal in Canada? ;) If Dashbot works well, this can be useful. I don't expect, once we get the initial list cleaned up, that there will be a lot of ongoing BLP maintenance except around the draft. At least until the zealots find some other issue to induce panic over. Resolute 13:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the Zealots will always find something to panic over. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
RE: "At least until the zealots find some other issue to induce panic over." LOL resolute, always love your comments. Okip 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive39/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
List is now being updated and currently 220 Unreferenced Ice Hockey BLPs found. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This is down about 30% since this all started. Resolute 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


corporately sponsored league and club names

What, if any, is the official position or corporately sponsored leagues and clubs. I'm extremely opposed to corporately sponsored names, although I realize that it times it could be unavoidable. Ice hockey examples:

The way that it should be:

  • Premier League, which explains its sponsored name, the Barclays Premier League in the intro.
  • La Liga, which explains it actual full name and corporately sponsored names, Liga de Fútbol Profesional and Liga BBVA, respectively, in the intro.

I know there are always exceptions, but I'd really like to see the ice hockey project get away from corporate sponsorships affecting the titles of articles. Those kinds of things typically change on a regular basis, and I think it would be much better if we avoided using them if it's the type of sponsorship or name that is temporarily attached due to sponsorship. Here's a link to the archived disucussion on the footy project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 38#Sponsored names. It didn't really result in anything, but I'd like to see how the hockey project participants feel about this issue. There's just too much inconsistency without a guideline to go by. Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia one is to go by the most common name. We have lots of hockey arenas in north america with 'xxx centre' as their names. Without the corporate xxx, it becomes just 'centre' which doesn't work. And in your example, the Premier League could apply to other places. Are there no other Premier Leagues? If there is a name that is present that is common across changes, then I'd go for that. We do that for NHL Winter Classic, which gets a new sponsor every year. The European hockey and soccer leagues often share common names so there would be some disambiguation involved too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It comes down to WP:COMMONNAME and the official name. It is quite proper to name them with the sponsorship names. -DJSasso (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List of ice hockey players of Asian descent

FYI List of ice hockey players of Asian descent has been prodded for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've lobbied against it before but the issues with it were mostly ignored and it was never cleaned up. Like I stated previously, its entirely un-encyclopedic and its parameters are cherry-picked by the author.--Львівське (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User: HilareiGrabs ..... fake or real?

User:HilareiGrabs has made some recent changes to the Mikhail Grabovski and Sergei Kostytsyn articles, putting in some alleged personal info about Grabovski's sister. Now, either this is actually Grabo's sister self promoting herself (she alleges to be dating Sergei Kostytsyn in his article) or a joke account.

I googled the name Hilarei Grabovski and found a twitter account but with todays fake accounts I have no idea. The twitter was listed as Belarus/Toronto and has MikhailGrabov as a following user and its private, its also linked to a facebook for a Hilarei Lawton...suggestions? Revert or keep or what? It's all unsourced, obviously.--Львівське (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. Real or not...it's unsourced. --Smashvilletalk 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup, if it is contentious, unsourced and involves a BLP article, revert first and ask questions later. Resolute 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, did a bit of research on what this account tells us :
  1. Grabovski's full name is Mikhail Yurievich Grabovski, as it appears in wikis in other languages. His father's name would be Yuri, not Henrik.
  2. The main claim that Grabovski's father was a hockey player for the Berlin Eisbären, then called the SC Dynamo Berlin, can be verified on the team's former rosters which are available here. I did not find any Grabovski or approaching spelling for year 1983/1984 or around.
  3. For that matter, a forum poster with access to the databases of the SIHR found no other player with the last name Grabovski or Grabovsky and first name Henrik or Yuri, or a similar spelling. All he could find is a Vladimir Grabovsky, but he was a Czechoslovak player from the fifties.
  4. In this article, Grabovski says the following: “My father worked in a construction company in the GDR but after the wall came down we moved to Minsk. I have a few memories from my German time. We still have some friends over there and I remember the hospital I was born in.”
  5. In October 2008, this IP, which has an activity quite similar to this account on the Kostitsyn article and could very well be the same person, had written likewise prose, only at that time Hilarei's last name was Laewstoyn.
  6. There is indeed, as said Lvivske, a twitter account for hilareigrabov, following and followed by MikhailGrabov.
Conclusion: pure hoax if you ask me. Place Clichy (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Good investigation! I guess this Hilary Lawton is a bit of a psychopath, lol, first saying shes dating Sergei, now pretending to be Mikhail's sister and still dating him, good grief!--Львівське (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


This is a note to make this project aware that I have nominated List of family relations in the NHL to be removed as a featured list, as it no longer meets the criteria. Interested parties are invited to make improvements to the list or comment at the discussion page. Thank you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You know I often wonder why people don't take the courteous step of warning the project involved prior to making it official so as to save reviewers time. Not necessarily directing this at you, but it happens far to often. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability of athletes

There is another discussion on the rules governing notability for athletes currently running at WT:BIO. Resolute 20:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its the routine every 6 month go around. Which has pretty much gotten to the point it always does of clearly no consensus. The best shot to clear the mess up is to devolve each sport to its own guidelines, but that will never happen as seen in one of the previous debates. -DJSasso (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think a lot of projects would take that into WP:OWN territory. In terms of this specific debate, I really don't care, as our guidelines pretty much already require that WP:GNG has to be met. My only concern is if they try to make WP:ATHLETE exlcusionary rather than inclusionary. Resolute 22:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I would agree. I've always felt that the goal of this site is to try and gradually increase our scope of articles, not try to limit it. And like DJSasso said, these discussions tend to change nothing, and just waste peoples time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree they probably would do that Resolute. Baseball pretty much already does, they take the wording of WP:ATHLETE in a way most other people don't and successfully have anyone who plays in the minor leagues deleted regularly due to their interpretation of "fully professional". So I am sure they would have a field day with it if they had the chance. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Most of those minor leaguer articles are in very poor shape with no sourcing though. I'm reminded of our debate over Tyler Seguin. An article with sources is unlikely to be deleted. Personally, I'm glad that we never had that stupid little war over how professional one has to be to be professional like WP:MLB did. Then again, that project does a lot of silly things. Resolute 00:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
As long as we keep up our policy of requiring decent sourcing/awards/general notability for minor/junior/other players, I think hockey articles should be all right. As it stands I don't believe that we have many minor league player articles anyways, so its not really a problem for us. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they are turning their heads towards trying to go the way of individual sports guidelines again. WP:NSPORT was the attempt the last time this was proposed and it looks like they are likely going to try and develop this into a guideline to replace WP:ATHLETE. The section for ice hockey already contains our current wording for player notability so we don't really have to update anything. But people might want to watch it for interest. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RQ Move: Daniil Markov -> Danny Markov

Can an admin move this page? His common use name throughout his career was Danny Markov, which was also his official name in the NHL and in the record books --Львівське (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

All taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Stastny, lead nationality

Since we've had a few reverts in the last week I thought we should discuss on how to handle this.

options:

IMO, the first two make the most sense. For SA, he is both American, and notable for being of the widely famous Slovak Stastny family. Since the family connection, and their nationality relevant, I figured SA would be a proper definition for Paul.

As well, since he's a US player, grew up in the States, has only played hockey EVER in the States, and plays for the US national team, simply stating "American" would also be sufficient.

I'm against "Canadian American" simply because I find his Canadian natural-birth citizenship to be irrelevant to his bio. He was born there when his dad was playing in Quebec, but didn't grow up there, and has never played hockey in Canada. His bio is that of a hockey player, and in that regard his dual citizenship is more something for the body since it's trivial and doesn't define him as a person or hockey player in any way. On the Canadian American article, it defines it as "The term is particularly apt when applied or self-applied to people with strong ties to Canada, such as those who have lived a significant portion of their lives in, or were educated in, Canada," and therefore he does not meet this criteria at all.

Input? --Львівське (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, stick with the obvious. I think "American" is best. I'm only a fan of hypenated nationalities when it literally involves that you are legally of two nationalities (ie: Canadian-American), but that's just me. I'm all for kissing it American. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I would agree. For the lead, Stastny is simply American. His Slovakian ancestry and being born Canadian belong in his early history. Resolute 14:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
At first glance I thought Slovak-American would be the right term. But I support Nurmsook statement about Canadian-American being more correct, because of the legal aspect. He must have grown up in Canada. Why else would he have a Canadian citizenship? I see that his father started playing for NJ in 1990, which means he spent 5 years of his life in Canada. So like it or not, he is somewhat a little Canadian. But I have lately been watching CfD/Speedy lately, and seen a lot of hyphenated nationalities been converted from Slovak-Americans to Americans of Slovak descent. This seems more appropriate and correct for Paul Stastny. I would suggest something like: Paul Stastny is an American professional ice hockey center of Slovak descent, born in Canada. This should satisfy everyone... lil2mas (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
American, is discriptive enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think lil2mas's option is the best option. As the fact he was born in Canada to a Slovak parent and then became American is something that is often talked about in news articles making it something he is well known for which means it belongs in the lead and isn't trivia. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the "born in" line is going to be in parenthesis anyway, I find the fact that he spent kindergarten in Quebec thus defining him as a a "Canadian American" to be trivial. Yes, he was born there, but that he has dual citizenship doesn't really affect his bio in any way. If he played some hockey while in Canada, sure, but he was born abroad due to his parent's job.--Львівське (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The born in line shouldn't be in parenthesis. Its against the MOS. It is supposed to be a separate sentence. Chances are being 5 when he left he probably did play some hockey in Canada as is common for many kids in Canada. Timbits hockey is started younger than that. The fact that it is often talked about when he is mentioned on TV or in the papers, means its a notable defining fact about him which is why it belongs in the lead. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard him mentioned as such....an guessing he played Timbits hockey in quebec in the 80s is a bit of a stretch. You're right about the parenthesis, how did I get that mixed up, I spend so much time reverting that out of Marc87's edits...lol. Anyway, if we're going to write "of slovak descent" why not just make it Slovak American? It's more succinct.--Львівське (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

team rosters

Could someone do the 'subst' on the team rosters of the non-playoff teams? I see that some team season articles (Anaheim) have been made for next season. Maybe that's too early, but nevertheless ... ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

Just don't add the UFA, RFA stuff until July 1, 2010. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I subst'ed Anaheim. What's the state of the others? Maybe some clean-up is needed first. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd actually vote to remove them entirely. It is not historically relevant to know who was on the roster of each team on April 10. The player statistics section lists every player who was on the roster throughout the year already. Resolute 21:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. After a 10-11 season article is created, I guess. Which we normally do after the playoffs. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Some alredy exist... 2010–11 Anaheim Ducks season. I could probably easily create one for Calgary, as there is already plenty to say about the outdoor game and our lack of draft picks (sigh). Resolute 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the free agents already because I noticed that they were added before July 1 last season, right or wrong. Do we have an opinion on this? -- bmitchelf•T•F 00:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with adding them once the team is eliminated, but GoodDay is pretty vocal about waiting. I don't care enough to bother adding them lol. -DJSasso (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, does it matter to have -pending- free agents before July 1 added to articles here? There are web sites for that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ya's may aswell re-add the RFA, UFA stuff, even though it would be inaccurate. If you guys don't re-add them, somebody else will (before July 1st). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It does make more sense to leave them off until July 1. I don't really see the need for them at all, but it's just for clarity. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Feature creep, I guess. I'd vote as well to leave them off till July 01, given we can't predict the future and several players will either sign or agree to arbitration before that date. Resolute 21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still unnerved that WP:HOCKEY is the only major sport that contravenes WP:NBFILL. Category:Sports champion navigational boxes would be improved by the participation of this project. I still think stuff like the Vezina should be linking articles just like other sports use boxes such as {{NBA MVPs}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that policy? I think we do use navboxes, just some are 'over the top' that we don't go for. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
You guys should have templates for every Stanley Cup Champion and every major award like all other sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. it is not policy. But all other sports use them. Readers are use to looking at the bottom for links to similar athletes. Successful players should be linked to each other. Look at athletes from other sports like Evan Turner or Kobe Bryant from basketball, Charles Woodson or Desmond Howard from football, or Mike Schmidt or Barry Bonds from baseball. Hockey players should be similarly linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The Stanley Cup one, that would go back to 1893 and that is a team trophy. How would a navbox for that one work? I personally don't have any objection to individual player ones for a trophy, as long as they are collapsed and minimal when expanded. We have a box template to minimize them even further. Template Navboxes, I think it is called. What we've seen done are ones like 'members of the xxx year champions' which seems like over-kill and sours us on the concept. I do have to wonder about your comment about 'major sport' though. What does that mean, North America? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
See Category:Sports champion navigational boxes. I would like to see Stanley Cup team boxes just like World Series or Super Bowl. Also, note that hockey is not collapsing succession boxes. See Barry Bonds. Both Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux are a mess in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The succession boxes for Wayne Gretzky are within the large Links to other articles navbox, which is collapsed. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I mean. I have just collapsed (maybe a better word is merged) the succession boxes for Gordie Howe, Stan Mikita, Phil Esposito, Bobby Orr, Marcel Dionne, Mike Bossy, Mark Messier, Wayne Gretzky, and Mario Lemieux.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just now looked at Gordie Howe. That was a definite improvement. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Then be productive/'bold' and change it.93JC (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I had talked about making a Vezina template, but people spoke out against it. I will probably try to create one and fix up those two succession box messes. However, your project needs to come to a realization that all other sports use navboxes to link athletes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We are well aware that other projects use other navboxes. You need to come to the realization that we choose not to clutter articles with low value templates. Resolute 20:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have already made a template for Stanley Cup champions, but it is not specific for a certain year. See each Stanley Cup Final article. I would rather that instead of just being bold, that we start working on a defined set of templates. I think the single year Cup champions one would not fly. But navbox templates for each of the major trophies is probably acceptable. We need to think about being innovative and helpful and not just creating navboxes for the sake of them. That is probably the #1 complaint about navboxes around here. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we already have a multitude of mostly unnecessary templates and navboxes that clutter up otherwise clear and cogent articles. I don't think adding more is productive, but it's not up to me to decide unilaterally. I do think "Tony The Tiger" needs to come to the realization that he has poor tact, and that "every other sports wikiproject does X" is not a particularly compelling discussion point. 93JC (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear you want to pick a fight rather than help the project. I have shown you how to clean up your succession box messes above. In terms of the debate about my tact, it is not relevant. What is relevant, is that it is common convention to have championship templates. It is ridiculous for Hockey to be the only sport that doesn't. It makes it hard to navigate across teams without clicking through a lot of extra pages that we hope exist. Yes you can easily pick a fight and tell everyone to agree because all you hockey guys like to do stuff differently. Championship templates should be created for the hockey teams like other sports. The use of succession boxes is limiting. It only allows linkage to consecutive winners. If I want to go from Hasek to Dryden to whomever, I should be able to click on the Navbox of the greatest goalies. It is what the reader is use to for all other sports. The fact that all other sports do it is probably actually a compelling reason to conform to wikipedia style.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, my suggestion is to work on something that is useful and innovative. I don't think that creating individual year championship navboxes is that, or maybe I have to see an example that is. I'd rather work to an example in a sandbox. I think with the 'plethora' of them, we might find one that is acceptable. There are a whole lot of navboxes out there. Sometimes they exist for a while before being deleted. You don't want to start doing that. It would start a huge edit war and set of deletion nominations. But a Stanley Cup is a major award. The question is, when on a player page, what would be a relevant link to put on their page, that is related to the championship team of a particular championship. And not just do it because others do it. Should it be a simple list of other teammates? I think the consensus around here is no. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FTR, Tony. If you start creating those navboxes, I will G4 delete them. Resolute 21:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is slightly more interesting way to pick a fight. However, the point is templates like {{Super Bowl XXXI}}, {{Los Angeles Lakers 2001–02 NBA champions}}, and {{1988 Los Angeles Dodgers}}. I am not looking for something useful and innovative. I am suggesting to do what is convetional with other sports. Since the Buffalo Sabres have never won a cup, I am not so enthused about making up an example. Look on these three templates and think about why they are useful. Regardless of whether they are conventional or innovative, they are what the reader is use to. If I am reading Mark Messier, I might want to recall who was on the team without navigating away and hoping the 1993–94 New York Rangers season article has a roster. If you must see one, I can cobble together a template for that team, but you clearly should understand the point is that championship teams should have templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
O.K. I mustered up the energy to create one. here is what it would look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We know what they look like... we delete them every year. Oh and I would note we are not the only sports project that doesn't use them. They have been getting routinely deleted at tfd for other sports as well. There is a growing movement to remove them from all sports. -DJSasso (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Championship teams have articles. Every NHL championship team has an article. You are confusing the team with the individual, and frankly, the teammates a player had in any given year is no more notable than any other. We've been through these TfDs a dozen times already, and this discussion shows pretty clearly that consensus has not changed. Resolute 23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have never seen a Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Champion, NCAA Football Champion, NCAA basketball Champion team TFDed. What sports are you talking about? mudwrestling? P.S. Although all the teams have articles. I am not confident they all have complete rosters and even if they do, this is not how the user wants to navigate to the other players.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to waste my time by being obtuse, I'm going to go find something better to do. You are smart enough to understand which templates I am referring to. I would also note that you do not speak for "the user". Resolute 00:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Obtuse!!!!! I honestly think you are fibbing that you feel a major championship template has recently been TFDed. Yes minor sports, but all majors have been kept to my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Soccer regularly deletes them. Probably the biggest sport in the world... -DJSasso (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You are no doubt aware that every time an NHL infobox along these lines is created, it gets TfDed, and deleted. As I noted, the consensus from this discussion continues to mirror the consensus from those discussions. Resolute 02:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
O.K. The two sports most American's don't understand agree to confound English wikipedia. All the major American sports have them on English wikipedia. Go figure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
So, basically, you are saying Americans do dumb things? Resolute 14:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In what universe does anyone but the hockey mafia delete these templates. I just did some checking and am now certain you are fibbing that major championships other than hockey are deleted. See {{Brazil Squad 1999 Copa América}}, {{Brazil Squad 2002 World Cup}}, {{Italy Squad 2006 World Cup}}, {{MLS top scorers}}, {{MLS Cup MVP}}. I really don't like arguing with people who debate by fibbing. And of course, I continue to await some explanation on how succession boxes convey more information to the reader than navboxes. Don't try to pretend the soccer guys have beaten the common sense out of each other too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Go search through the tfd archives. Soccer ones get deleted regularly but also get recreated regularly because generally someone comes along such as yourself and creates them all kicking off another debate. The NBA ones recently fell at tfd as well, however, in the delete decision the admin said that all the playoff articles had to be created before he would remove the templates so as to not lose peoples work which of course hasn't seemed to have happened. -DJSasso (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Hockey mafia"? Seriously Tony, if you can't behave in a civil manner, it's time for you to walk away from this issue. Resolute 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are telling me {{Brazil Squad 1999 Copa América}}, {{Brazil Squad 2002 World Cup}}, {{Italy Squad 2006 World Cup}}, {{MLS top scorers}}, {{MLS Cup MVP}} should get G4ed. I don't believe it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No but I wouldn't hesitate to put them up for tfd again because clearly its a fluctuating consensus. Anyways I am done debating this since its clear consensus is completely against you. -DJSasso (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Trophy Navboxes proposal

Here is a sample navbox. It is for the Hart Trophy, but I propose we implement it for all of the major NHL trophies. I suggest it as an aid to navigation of Wikipedia. If you are reading an article on a player who has won the trophy, you can click on this template and see others who have won. While you can do this by clicking on the category link, that takes you away from the page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll/comments
(don't be too rough please)
  • Support It can't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It can hurt. Per WP:NAVBOX awards or positions should be in succession boxes. And per WP:EMBED navboxes should only contain links that already would otherwise already exist on a completed version of the article that the box is on. The 1932 winner of a given trophy would not normally be found on the page of the 2007 winner. This just creates a large number of useless links on the bottom of a page that overwhelms the reader (yes even when you still collapse them because they then have to uncollapse them to see whats there) -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Where do you get this "navboxes should only contain links that already would otherwise already exist on a completed version of the article". The guide says "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Quote "Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article." -DJSasso (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Djsasso, and that it clutters the articles. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know how you use WP, but if I am reading Hasek a link to Dryden is not useless. Something that links Gretzky and Howe is not useless. If the links in succession boxes are useful, what makes the links in templates not?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The person who won the award before and after a person are their contemporaries and help define who the player was. Links of every player who won the award over 70 years do not do this because someone who won in 1937 is not the same type of player who would have won it in 2007. By having 70 links you force the reader to sift through many links to find the truly relevant ones, thus making the whole navbox useless as its supposed to quickly show the reader the most relevant links to that article. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Well. I disagree with Hockey and Soccer on this issue. You can tell by the templates I have created in many sports this is considered a useful navigation aid. Suppose Ryan Miller (ice hockey) were to win a Vezina. The first thing I would do as a Buffalo Sabres fan would be to compare him to Dominek Hasek, not his contemporaries. I imagine people compare Patrick Roy as much to Ken Dryden as they do to Hasek and Martin Brodeur.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
          • P.S. I don't watch enough soccer to know, but do soccer moms let their kids play a sport where the kids beat on each others heads until one them collapses to the ground like hockey moms do. I am certain that people who do this type of thing may feel that linking Roy to Dryden or Pele to Ronaldo is useless. We Americans with who have not had the common sense beaten out of us know that these are useful linkages and preserve them in our sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Remember we write these articles for people who know zero about the subject. If someone reads in a bio that Hasek won the Vezina. The next place they are going to want to go is not Dryden's page to compare them but to the Vezina page to get more information on what that is. You make the mistake of forgetting that pages are supposed to be written for people who know nothing about the subject. Once the person is at the Vezina page then that is where they would make the call if they want to compare the person to another who won it. By throwing hundreds of links (which happens for people who won multiple awards) on the bottom of a page. A reader who knows zero about the subject is going to be lost on what the next most relevant page is. We don't write these articles for sports fans, they are written for people who don't know the subject. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
              • I am not familiar with that argument. Don't we name pages assuming the reader actually knows the subject he is researching. Can you mesh these thoughts for me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
                • No we name them with the most common name they go by so that people who don't know anything about them are more likely to find them with what little information they do know as opposed to naming them with their proper name which someone is less likely to know. And in cases where we have to disambiguate we try and use the terms that are the most likely that a person with little information would know such as the field they are involved in. (ie ice hockey). -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
How other sports do it. Certainly aids navigation, eh?
  • Oppose, but commend the effort. The reason why I dislike these templates really coalesced for me when I nominated the Olympic Oath and Hockey Canada templates a couple days ago: These aren't navboxes. They are lists, and article content does not belong in template namespace. This is why I much prefer succession boxes. They give me exactly what is relevant to the subject of the article: what he won. From there, I can go to the article on the award itself, which includes not only the same list but also history of the award. It takes the same number of clicks to navigate to the Hart Trophy article as it does to expand these proposed templates, but with greater reward. Resolute 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per what Resolute said. Trophy winners already have links to the trophy in the succession box, which provides the same information as this navbox (if not more); chamionship winners (in theory, and generally true) link to articles detailing the chamionship series/game/event, and those have a winning roster (again in theory, though most do contain this information). Kaiser matias (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well Tony, I think you can see the project's most prolific editors are against them. I would say that most of the comments about the navbox are from an expert's point of view. I think I would like to hear about what people think about it from a usability viewpoint and maybe a less expert user of Wikipedia. As I said at the start, yes you can navigate away from the page instead of seeing the information on the player page. I've not heard any argument that navigating away from the page is better, but the consensus is against adding this design of navbox. I'm going to read up on the various wp links mentioned, it's hard to discuss that stuff without reading up first. I must say that, again, it's a bit of an 'expert point of view' that's been expressed. I'm not certain why succession boxes are better. I hope to get more viewpoints. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • All I can say to all you hockey folks is that they need to ban fighting in the sport because you have all been hit in the head one too many times. I want to compare Roy to Dryden as much as I want to compare Brett Favre to Bart Starr, Peyton Manning to Johnny Unitas. Barry Bonds to his godfather, Willie Mays. Etc. That is why these templates exist. Anyone who says linking Dryden to Roy is a useless linkage has a fundamental misunderstanding of the term useless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Right and the non-sports fan who doesn't know anything about the subject is not going to want to do any of those things until they go to the trophy page itself. Which is where the fact that the succession box is more useful than the navbox comes in. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Seriously Tony? You aren't getting your way, so you are just going to throw out ridiculous arguments that implies Americans are superior to others, and whining that people who disagree with you "were hit in the head one too many times"? Dude, grow up. Resolute 14:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I can not mesh the dichotomy of soccer/hockey not wanting these templates and football, baseball and basketball wanting them. It makes no sense to me. America does rule however when it comes to sports. We even have the world's hottest hockey mom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Further thoughts. In addition to contravening broad conventions at Category:Sports champion navigational boxes, Hockey's isolated decision not to help the reader navigate at Category:Olympic champions templates is conspicuous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've already made it more than clear that you don't like the fact we've chosen not to fall in line with an incredibly poor templating scheme. Argumentum ad nauseam. Resolute 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Gotta love the irony. There are two navboxes on the bottom of the Ad nauseamarticle. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

I'm not particularly partial to the inclusion of many navigation boxes on a single page; my initial preference is to keep any useful navigation box on the same page as its primary subject, rather than propagating it to all related topics. I recognize, though, that this may just be a personal bias rather than objectively preferable to other ways. Showing all of the navigation boxes on a page expanded out is like showing all menus for an application expanded; it doesn't reflect how a user would actually navigate through the page. The nested navigation box approach essentially simulates a cascaded menu system. It offers responsiveness advantages by avoiding full page loads to navigate down to a more detailed level. However, determining an appropriate scope of this system is needed, in order to keep the navigation and its maintenance manageable. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you look at it. You or I might only open one navbox because we know alot about the subject to find what we are looking for. But say for example you have Henri Richard who would have 11 stanley cup boxes on him. And you know he played with such and such a player but you have no clue which of the 11 cup teams they were both on....you end up having to search through 100s of links (11*23 or whatever the roster limit is/was then) still. In the end I think most (not all) navboxes actually hinder navagation rather than help it. Its as if there is a race on to try and include entire subjects on single pages by listing every remotely related link on the bottom of a page. This defeats the whole idea of wikilinking where the important topics are linked inline. And you trace your way through web of links or if you know exactly what you are looking for. Say you want to find Hasek after reading Ryan Miller as mentioned above, you just type it in the search box which is infinitely more helpful than searching through the multiple navboxes to find the specific link you want. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The two systems can co-exist though, and offer different strengths to appeal to different scenarios and users. To be honest, the example of trying to find a particular teammate of Henri Richard whose name you vaguely remember so you need to look at it visually favours having all of Richard's teammates in one location, which is an argument for putting more info on Richard's page. If you know you want to visit a certain page, of course you just jump right to it; showing other related topics is a way to prompt people to find similar subjects of interest. Though I am happy with having a list of topics and following through, based on watching people surf the web, I know there are many who like having a more comprehensive list to search through, rather than having to sniff out a trail from page to page to page. I have seen a number of topic area navigation boxes that are quite useful, and I am willing to see how a well-designed cascading menu system could aid browsing through related topics. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh I know, there are definitely situations where some navboxes are helpful. I realize some people enjoy having the large number of links on the bottom of pages. But the tendancy to add too much to templates often ends up negating the usefullness. As I have mentioned in the past. I wouldn't mind if the entire wiki scrapped the current way of doing navboxes and worked together to find a more efficient way of acheiving the same goals starting from scratch. But the current system is completely broken. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Unless some crazy voting happens sometime in the near future it seems as if the Hockey WikiProject has clearly objected to the use of these templates. In order to avoid the same debate in the future, you may want to state this conclusion clearly on your project page so people don't run afoul of this in the future. Just a thought. Remember (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Cup roster navigation

  • Question - Since we have lists of the trophy winners, making navboxes unnecessary for those, should we consider having lists of Stanley Cup championship rosters? Or how should we direct someone from the player page who wants to find out the player's teammates on a championship roster? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well if the person won the Stanley cup chances are there is a link on their page to the championship season page and/or the playoffs page for that particular year. As both of those pages normally contain the championship roster. If either are missing they are valid candidates for the See Also section because they pass the EMBED test of already likely to be found in a completed version of the player's page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 2008-09 Pittsburgh Penguins season, 2009 Stanley Cup Finals. Lists with championship rosters already exist. Resolute 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I would not call either of those articles 'lists'. Would it be non-Wikipedia to have those lists inserted in one list article? Seems too big tho. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of succession boxes

I wonder why the editors here think that succession boxes are -superior- to nav boxes? Is it not a valid argument to point out that many other sports articles use navboxes while the hockey ones do not? Is it because we've put work into succession boxes? A curious mind would like to know. Some points to discuss: ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

    • A succession box lists only the before and after recipients of an award, etc. A navbox links you to any other recipient of the award. So a succession box, even with the list article, makes it harder to navigate around related articles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The succession boxes are not collapsible, while navboxes are. Put a few succession boxes together and that takes a lot more vertical space on a page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Navboxes don't necessarily mean an expanding amount of 'chrome' on articles. Succession boxes are 'chrome' too. Is it misplaced to object to navboxes when what is really objected to are the proliferation of 'useless' navboxes? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just allow the captains to keep their succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From my POV, there are several reasons:

  1. Article content does not belong in template namespace, and a list of award winners/teammates/captains/coaches, etc, is article content.
  2. Minimal relevance. Ebbie Goodfellow, Bobby Hull, Wayne Gretzky and Joe Thornton don't really have anything in common aside from the fact they all happened to win the same trophy. The important link is Hart Trophy.
  3. Clutter. See the image I posted above. That's the collection of infoboxes for Derek Jeter. Good luck finding the needle in that haystack. (Incidentally, {{New York Yankees}} is the worst template on Wikipedia.)
  4. Succession boxes bring high value links to the forefront. It takes one click on a succession box to go to an article that not only contains the entire list of winners/players at that position, but also the history of the award/position. On these templates, it takes one click just to reveal the list, and another to go to an article that may or may not represent what you are looking for since a multitude of low value links buries other content.

Most of my objections to the templates flows from these four main points. Resolute 15:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that I do not find it a valid argument that other sports do something, therefore we should too. Other sport projects also trivialize and bury the history of previous incarnations of teams and use gaudy, obnoxious infoboxes that distract the reader from article content. I don't believe we should be blindly following the lead of others just because they do things a certain way. Perpetuating poor formatting does not improve the encyclopedia. Resolute 15:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You have not addressed my question though. Why do you think a succession box is -superior-? The navbox has the same link to the list article. Why is the previous winner and the next winner a 'good' link, and a list of links 'bad' links? Why would that flow any better out of the content of the page. Why have a succession box at all? That would seem to be the end goal of your comments. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My fourth point addresses your comment directly - A succession box pulls the important link right to the forefront. Yes, a Navbox will typically have the same link, but it will also have dozens of irrelevant links. The preceding and succeeding winners aren't of great value either, I agree, but are at least of minimally greater contextual relevance to a bio than the winner from 40 years previous is. IMO, the succession boxes at the end are like the infobox at the beginning - they highlight the key aspects of a player's career that you would also see in prose. And while the awards have their own section, things like being a first round pick and captain of a team don't, so there is benefit to having them all grouped at the end. Resolute 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think then you might support dropping succession boxes for which there are list articles, and just having a link in the 'See also'? For links which are not captured in a list, then a navbox is suitable and maybe we should drop existing succession boxes, if any? Would that be a policy which you support? This is something we could raise at WP:SPORT. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Throwing links to trophy articles a player won into see also would be counter to the MOS, as those articles are already linked in the article body. I could get behind dumping succession boxes as well, but they do appear a decent compromise between no such links and the clutter of templates. Resolute 16:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Then how could the succession boxes not be counter to the MOS too? I see the succession boxes as a way to navigate chronologically, not much more than that. But would you want to be limited to listening to a music disc in succession only? I like being able to see all of the MVPs for a decade. The 80s were Gretzky's decade and the succession box, even collapsed is pretty ugly. Where I like the succession boxes is when you are following a chronological thread, like the stanley cup winners in the first decade of the 1900s. When the leagues changed, and the next year the winner could be in a different league. But not so much when it's a league trophy. I rarely use those. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to mention something about your point #1. About objecting to article content in a template. A list of links would be a lame article, and if there is nothing more to it in the list article, then the list article would be deleted under Wiki policy. You could make the point that the content of any template is article content, really. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For awards and championships, where there is no real line of succession, I don't think a succession box really provides a high-value link; it would seem to give undue weight to certain recipients over others. And with its current implementation, a succession box can take up more valuable space than a navigation box. I think those who are disinclined to have navigation boxes (such as me) need to consider that there is clearly a need for some readers that is being addressed, given the spread of navigation boxes, and it is worthwhile spending some time to think about how to improve matters, even if this means having to adopt new models of navigating (and thus, on paper, contradicting some current guidelines). Isaac Lin (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A need and a want are different things, people like navboxes because they got used to them. For a long time they weren't used at all. And then suddenly there was a rush to outdo each others navboxes and to think of more ways to have more different groups to put in navboxes. Frankly I think the wiki for the most part would be better off wiping out navboxes completely. There are very few situations where they are needed that can't be accomplished more efficiently by the See Also section and categories. Navboxes got popular I think because people don't like to search through the categories at the bottom of a page for the exact same info. Clicking the link on the Vezina Trophy winners category gives you the same information in the same number of clicks as expanding the Vezina Trophy navbox. The only need navboxes serve is laziness. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As I suggested to Resolute, you are another who seems to object to navboxes because of the -popularity- of them. I think a lot of your points against them can be equally applied to succession boxes, though. Were the succession boxes fashionable at one time? If you are really concerned about chrome, then let's dump the succession boxes too. Is the succession box better than simply putting a link in 'See also'? No. But the navbox shows you more links, which is useful, instead of going to the list page or the category page to navigate amongst trophy winners. That does a full page download, whereas the template is already downloaded, so you can go from trophy winner to another trophy winner. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with them being popular, it has everything to do with them making it harder on people who know nothing about the subject to figure out what the important links are among all the flotsam. I would love the succession boxes gone as well. However they are what is known as a compromise between those who would like nothing and those who want navboxes. A navbox does give you more links, you are right. And that is the very problem. It gives you too many links that are not relevant directly to the article which they are supposed to be per EMBED. They should be links that would already be found on the page, and every winner of a trophy would not show up on the page of every other winner. It makes it harder for non-fans to find the important information. Not easier. For people who know what they are looking for clicking the category is not really any different than expanding the navbox. The benefits of not having them far outweigh the benefits of having them. -DJSasso (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
For better or worse, the community nature of Wikipedia allows each contributor to provide input on improving a page's design and layout, and we can't unilaterally declare these views to be invalid, or make any character judgments. Of course, any specific criteria or rationale can be questioned and weighed against alternatives. If the presentation of the categories is not conducive to searching, then perhaps that should be addressed. Plain lists are not necessarily better than a well-designed table of links. Greater density of links can make skimming for information easier, provided care is taken to keep the links legible (typically through intelligent use of white space, grid alignment, and other visual cues to aid with tracking). There is no need for navigation boxes to become overly-inclusive; they can be winnowed down to the most relevant links. I don't believe navigation boxes should be dismissed in general; there are many good uses of them in Wikipedia. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Alaney: I certainly wouldn't mind dropping the succession boxes too. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

List of NHL overtime playoff games

Does anyone think a list of NHL overtime playoff games is needed or would pass notability? The NHL has a list of them broken out by decade. Even though the heading for 2000-2008 says 2008, it really goes thru 2009. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is probably trivial personally. There are sites such as the NHL site that are better suited for this sort of thing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I added a link to the NHL list to overtime article then. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about it further a list of games that went into 2 or more overtime periods might be notable. That being said I believe we already have a list of the longest games. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we have the longest 20 overtime games, which is close to all games with 50 or more minutes of overtime. Should we extend that to all games over 50 minutes or that go into three overtimes? All games into three overtimes would add about 25 entries. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with choosing that is it then becomes rather arbitrary. I think just keeping a list of top 10 or 20 is fine, but setting the cut off at 50 minutes is rather strange. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
40 minutes makes more sense, as that would argue any game on the list went to 3 or more overtimes, which is quite rare. It remains an arbitrary standard, however. Resolute 21:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm content with whatever's decided. PS- nobody mention overtime to Dan Boyle. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of notability requirements...

I'm looking at some Ukrainian league player bios, just wondering what level of competition is required to warrant a bio? --Львівське (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently to pass WP:ATHLETE the league just has to be professional. That is it. If the league isn't professional then it falls to WP:GNG which requires them to have multiple sources. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Does the Ukrainian Hockey League count as pro? IMO it's Semi pro, some teams are, others aren't.--Львівське (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would say go by their specific team then. But that is just my thoughts. I don't deal alot with eastern euro players. I would say that league is rather unique. The fully professional clause is mean to weed out semi-pro leagues were you get a stipend to play put you also pay some of the expenses. Doesn't really happen in hockey much if at all as far as I know but happens in the US with football a fair bit. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As a shorthand rule, I'd say that its hardly worth the effort to create an article on a player unless you believe you can get it past a stub. There's always a great deal of warring caused by exclusionists and BLP zealots who pretty much demand complete articles from the start, and one runs the risk of having a lot of work lost if either of these factions becomes convinced it has the right to start tearing the encyclopedia apart. Resolute 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Resolute; don't create any uncited, one sentence articles. This type of issue has come up before in WP:FOOTY. The discussion can get quite lengthy (for example, a discussion about the "mostly" pro Finnish league). I would worry more about being able to pass GNG than anything else. All new articles should have a least some type of citation or reference. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal apology

It has been made clear to me that I may have offended some folks with my recent debate and then subsequent User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue creation. I would like to issue the following apologies:

  1. I have expressed an opinion that I felt an editor was fibbing about soccer deleting all major templates too. It seems many templates do not exist. I do not believe the arguments were fibs.
  2. I have expressed a believe that all of you hockey folk have been beaten until you lost your common sense. I have no proof that this is true.
  3. I have objectified America's national hockey mom. Although she probably would think it is funny, I apologize for my objectification.
  4. I have used the term mafia in my page name. I do not mean to cast aspersions on anyone of any ethnic descent who this may offend.
  5. In a related TFD of the Hobey Baker Award, I have made offhanded remarks about loonies. I have nothing against the Canadian currency.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It's alright, no hard feelings from me. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussions can become heated. At least you did better than most on Wikipedia and admitted to it. We are all trying to do the best we can, and views on whats best differ. I have no hard feelings towards anyone about anything. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No probs. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

NHL Lifetime Achievement Award and the awards FT

Hi guys, I notice the NHL Lifetime Achievement Award article was recreated in November, after having been merged in July. It either needs re-merging, or expanding, PRing, and adding to the awards FT by way of a sup nom. Thanks - rst20xx (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly Question

I have been working to get Luke Schenn ready for GA review. One of the things I am having trouble with is endashes, or whatever they are called. How do I get these in the text? Thanks for your help. Canada Hky (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way I find but there are numerous ways, is to hold down ALT and press 0150. I think you can also use the HTML tag &endash but the proper way is to do it the first way as you are supposed to avoid html tags for ease of reading the source code. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks!Canada Hky (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice work with the article. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm trying to see if I can get an image from someone on Flickr right now, hopefully something pans out. Canada Hky (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Haha, yea I also thought it would be nice with some images so I already contacted a couple of photographers on Flickr asking them to change the license. Great minds think alike eh? :D —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
ALT + 0151 if you need the emdash. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The standard editing layout has en- and emdashes right below the "save page" link. You can just click them to insert them to where your cursor is in the text box. Resolute 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks guys! Canada Hky (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd recommend reading up on dash, or in this case en dash. If you write out "&ndash;" in the search tool on the left side of the screen it will automatically be translated to the actual dash, "–", which you can cut and paste. It's also the very first character in the collection of "Wiki markup" below the edit pane. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

United States Hockey League

There is a bit of a debate at United States Hockey League on whether or not the article should be split. Some opinions would be appreciated. Some background info. The league is unique in that from 61-77 it was semi-pro and then from 77-79 it had semi-pro teams and junior level teams and then from 79-now it was junior only. A user thinks the league should be split at the 1979 mark because that is when the last semi-pro teams left the league. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a separate Category for Calgary Cowboy (WHA) players

I have proposed that a separate category for Calgary Cowboy (WHA) players be allowed to stay. The current practice of lumping together the players from three different teams (Philadelphia Blazers, Vancouver Blazers, and Calgary Cowboys) does little to help a person research the players from each city-placed franchise. Please discuss to pros and cons of my proposal at Category talk:Calgary Cowboys (WHA) players. Dolovis (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

lol. I beat you to the punch... look up one section.  ;) Resolute 03:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

We've a problem with a vandalizing 'school' account. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Its been blocked. Not sure if you are familiar with the page but Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism might get you a faster response in the future since people are constantly watching that page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sokil Kyiv for GA?

I've never properly nominated an article before, but what's the correct way of going about this, and is there anything I need to know / need to fix before putting it up?--Львівське (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Make sure it fulfills the criteria. You may want to have a Wikipedia:Peer review before nominating it, to get several fresh eyes looking over it. Have a look at Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, this is exactly what I needed --Львівське (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You will need to dramatically increase the number of citations and references in the article. The lack of inline references would lead to a quick fail of a GA nomination at the present time. You will probably want to tone down the non-free image gallery as well. i.e.: there is no need for three different FU images showing the current logo. Images will require alt text. Hope this helps! Resolute 15:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I'm in trouble with regard to the citations. There used to exist a website with records and history of everything related to the topic, but it's gone now, and it wasn't in English so I dunno how I'll find those resources again...--Львівське (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, there are presently several hockey articles at GA status: Colorado Avalanche, Calgary Tigers, Anyang Halla and Ottawa Senators from which you can draw ideas on what generally constitutes a GA class article. Resolute 15:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for some IIHF stats...

Anyone know where I can get the results of the 1999 World Championships? The wiki page on it is missing the relegation round it seems. Also, I'm looking for 1992-1997 Pool C, and 1998 Pool B. Thanks in advance. --Львівське (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at section above. Probably applies here too. -DJSasso (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This book has the results of seemingly everything about every IIHF tournament until 2005. The 1999 World Championships are on page 139, the other results are somewhere in that vicinity as well. However it is missing some pages, but they come at random so I'm not sure if anything you need is on one of the missing pages. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming

Alright... need some help... the Central Junior A Hockey League has renamed itself the Central Hockey League.... now there is already another Central Hockey League... what do I name this one? I'm thinking Central Hockey League (1961–) or Central Hockey League (junior)... anyone? DMighton (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would go with junior. Since there are two ongoing leagues with that name. If there was only one still operating I would use the dates. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. (junior) is the best and simplest disambiguator for this article. Resolute 20:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give it a shot. DMighton (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

AAA, bantom etc.. stats

Can someone please reassure me that AAA and Bantam stats are not the go? Mr. 99.225.36.115 is doing a good job of screwing around with some pages. cheers Triggerbit (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I always considered the cut off to be anything below college and major junior (CHL, USHL, euro junior teams), but I not sure if we have a guideline. ccwaters (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We do have those stats on a number of players. If you have a reliable source for them they are ok. HockeyDB for example does have this information for a number of players. That being said I wouldn't go out of my way to find that sort of information. But I include it when its already on hockeydb.com. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
hockeydb pretty much has the cut off that we have been using as Ccwaters pointed out. Surely delete when the teams or league's haven't even been created on wiki. eg Greg de Vries Triggerbit (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It actually depends on the player. Many players have AAA stats on hockeydb. The teams don't need to be linked. And generally for the league they are usually linked to the governing body for that location. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have fixed Greg to how its been done in the past in such situations. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
However, lacking a source for these stats I would probably remove them. I just changed them to show you what I was talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat as DJSasso, in that I wouldn't go out of my way to find stats for anything lower than Junior A, but if it's readily available and well-sourced, why not? It's a couple extra lines in a table. If a hockey player becomes notable enough to have an article on wikipedia I don't think it's inappropriate to help describe his development into a professional using some stats from when he was a teenager. In some cases they're actually very notable stats (read: Wayne Gretzky). 93JC (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Got an example of a hockeydb profile with AAA stats? Out of interest. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually now that I go back and look it seems he may have stopped adding that info since the redesign of his site. I know Marty Murray & Wade Redden for example had them because thats where I got the info to build their tables from. But now looking at hockeydb they are gone. He may have recently made a judgement call. Either way that was just one example. As long as they are sourced I am fine with them being on tables bcause as 93JC says they do help one see how they developed into a professional. But I wouldn't go out of my way to find them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You're probably confusing hockeydb w/ TSN stats: [1] ccwaters (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Nah cause I have a program that converts HockeyDB stats into wikitables. So I only get my stats from there. :) That being said I can't think of any recent examples where I have had Junior A or lower stats. So I am guessing the change happened when he went from the old brown background site to the new blue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this your own application? ccwaters (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well its not really a single application i suppose. Basically I copy the table with a highlight copy and paste (using paste special) into excel which then seperates the the stats etc into collums and rows and then I copy that and paste it into a web page form which converts excel to wiki table markup. There is some minor tweaking I have to do after that since the header and footer of the tables don't match what we use. But I find it speeds up the process alot. When I get home I can give you the website I use for the actual convertion. It would work on any stats site probably but I know for sure it works with hockeydb. Someone else had a bot that grabbed information from hockeydb and created the pages here, but I don't know if it did stats. And I don't know that they edit here anymore. It was a long time ago and I can't remember who it was. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I do keep meaning to write a standalone program that does it all for me...but I am generally lazy. Looking through code all day at work tends to have me not feeling like doing it when I get home. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't add them but I don't revert if they're sourced. The only thing that annoys me when people add them is they usually don't fix the bgcolors in the table. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
99.225.36.115 is also adding minor hockey teams to the infobox using a nonexistent parameter "minor hockey", e.g. this diff on Jordan Staal's article:
|minor hockey =[[Thunder Bay Kings (HNO)]]
Annoying. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend to only add whatever NHL.com has. Most players on there actually have midget stats, so I'll add those. But like others have said, I'm not spending my time looking up the stats of a nine-year-old Luongo or Ovechkin. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
yeah annonying, imo all this midget stuff should be reverted as its unreferenced. Wouldn't think its notable anyway even if was referenced, there's a reason why Spengler cup stats aren't included - no one cares.. next ill find maxim afinogenov's pick-up stats included! Triggerbit (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
For what its worth I would add Spengler Cup stats on the international side for sure. Its a closely watched tournament in Canada atleast. Not sure about elsewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For Swedish players I only add J20 SuperElit stats, never J18. Just sayin... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 07:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What are peoples' opinions on Memorial Cup stats? I've seen them on Danny Syvret and Roberto Luongo. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a tough one. I would definitely include them as they are part of the playoffs for these guys. And since the MC is not exclusive to one league I would put it as its own line. But I could see an arguement for just lumping them in the same line with the rest of the playoffs. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
NHL.com has AAA Midget stats for quite a few players, here's Luke Schenn's.[2] Brenden Morrow has bantam stats [3] If it can be sourced, I don't see anything wrong with adding it. Canada Hky (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Major junior

Should this be capitalized? Either way, I don't think the bots need to be changing them. We usually don't capitalize it. And should there be the hyphen? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The bots are changing the links because someone changed the link on junior ice hockey. I've never seen it hyphenated in practical use, though the capitalization of the words tends to vary. I'd probably leave it as "major junior" myself. Resolute 18:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Junior hockey#Major-junior will link to that section even if it's Major-Junior (which it is now). Also, why is the article called junior ice hockey and the lead says junior hockey? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually capitalization affects where it links to. If it is the wrong capitalization the link will take you to the page but it won't take you directly to the section depending on your browser. (IE works but FireFox doesn't work I believe is how it goes which is why they have bots fixing it). Before I changed your change I did check to make sure what I thought the capitalization should be was correct and the first 5 news articles I found had it spelled mid sentence (and not part of a league name) as "Major Junior". I probably should have removed the hypen as I don't think any of the articles had the hyphen but all 5 of the first 5 I checked had them capitalized. Which makes sense because usually you see "Junior A" and "Junior B" etc. etc. I don't have any true care which way it was, but only went the way the first few sources went. I wouldn't have noticed if your change hadn't caused the bots to rechange everything they had just fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never seen a hyphen. Bots could fix that. I checked some articles and they say major junior - Mike Richards, Taylor Hall (ice hockey b. 1991), Tyler Seguin, Kitchener Rangers, Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How to handle a team merger?

Rumors are circulating that Dynamo Moscow and HC MVD in the KHL will merge, and I'm hearing that the new name will be "Dynamo MVD"....if this happens, do both of the team's articles get classified as folded and the new one started? Or does one take all the history/records or what? I'm perplexed as to how to handle this.--Львівське (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say make a new article for the new team. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I would agree. Since they will have a new name it makes it easy in that you can create a new article. If one of the names stayed the same then I would do as we do for the North Stars and continue updating that one and just stop updating the Barons. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Done deal, link gonna be called UHC Dynamo. I guess we just rename HC Dynamo Moscow to this and close the MVD article?--Львівське (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Assuming the merged team will retain Dynamo Moscow's history, etc., then yeah, I'd probably go that way. Resolute 14:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, then there's the question, does it matter from our standpoint if they promote the old history or present it as a new team? I know with Atlant, they dont consider themselves successors of Khimik, even though they are; and the new minor league Khimik does, even though they have no real connection to the historic team.--Львівське (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
edit that, ends up they wont take on the history and will be based in MVD's city, not Moscow. link so its a brand new team, gonna get a brand new page, clean slate. easy.--Львівське (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

UHC Dynamo

Gonna have to create a new article for the new KHL team thats the merger of HC Dynamo Moscow and HC MVD. Question: what acronym do we use? in cyrillic its OXK, which is OKK or OHK if transliterated. the teams name is "United Hockey Club" so I think UHC would make most sense, since we use HC and not HK for other teams. opinions? --Львівське (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any English-language sources that use the acronym? Powers T 15:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing at all yet, I guess the english KHL will eventually put up something official...eventually. I guess we need something until then, because it will inevitably be created soon. --Львівське (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Has it actually been announced how the merger is happening or if its happening? Last news story I heard said it was just rumours but that was a week or so ago. Are they creating a new team or is one just absorbing the other. The reason I ask is because we have a past history of if it is a case of one team is continuing the legacy to keep it as the main page and not create a new page. For example the Minnesota North Stars merged with the Cleveland Barons but we did not create a new page for the new merged entity because the North Stars were considered to be just continuing their history and had absorbed the Barons. Is HC MVD absorbing the Dynamo and maintaining their history or is the new merged team starting fresh with no records, past history etc. Because that is the difference between creating a new article or just renaming the current one. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, its official on the KHL (russian) site. I posted a google translate link up on the 'merger' topic. The team will be called UHC Dynamo, keep MVDs roster and staff, use Dynamos existing hockey school. Play in Megasport Arena. New logo, mascot, colors, hockey tradition. KHL article says they will be legal successor to achievements of BOTH Dynamo and MVD...which is a conflict if you ask me...--Львівське (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the dynamo.ru article above..."to emphasize: we are not the successors to the Dynamo. Yes, "Dinamo" - this is a historic brand, founded in 1946. But today we have created a new structure with a complicated name - Joint hockey club "Dinamo", which, in my opinion, it is logical."....so Dynamo article says they arent successors, but the KHL article says they are successors to the achievements to both. What's your take Sasso?--Львівське (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course they have to make it hard for us. I would say since they are claiming both teams history then that it be a new page. Because you couldn't try to explain that on one page or the other. Technically the KHL can claim whatever it wants and the Dynamo club can claim whatever they want. But to make it easier on readers a brand new page is the way to go and I would make note (atleast till more clarification comes) that there is a dispute on if its a continuation or not. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Also works better for player profiles, that the team they played for was the real dynamo, not the new one thats half dynamo in name only.--Львівське (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Go with a new article IMO. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In terms of an English name, the IIHF refers to the club as "OHK Dynamo Moscow": Link.Kaiser matias (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm....It's just one writer taking a guess. He even calls it "Joint Hockey Club", which is straight from the google translation. No Russian source uses the city name in the name, and if they are going to translit the name, then it should be "Dinamo" as no transliteration system in the world converts "и" to "y". I hope the KHL updates its site soon to resolve this.--Львівське (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, Martin Merk (the writer of the article) is the webmaster of the IIHF website, and I doubt they would put up the wrong name of a site. As for the including the city name, I think that might just be to make it easy for English readers and people unfamiliar with the KHL. Though if you want to wait for the KHL to produce an English source, it is also good. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd wait it out until there are more sources, IIHF are know to go their own way with team names, especially adding city name to the team name. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I've seen the IIHF site mess up plenty of names before. Case in point, the guy goofs up later in the article and calls HC MVD "MVD Balashikha". I don't see why we should add cities to the names to make things easier....read the article and you will know. If we did it as you say, why not rename the Golden State Warriors to the Oakland Warriors, then?Glendale Coyotes, Kanata Senators, Newark Devils...Arsenal FC London --Львівське (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There actually is talk of renaming the Coyotes to the Glendale Coyotes or the Arizona Coyotes as part of the deal they struck recently. Has nothing to do with this discussion but it amused me when I read your comment. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, yeah, I know, came to mind when writing it--Львівське (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I had rather thought "Dynamo" was a translation, not a transliteration. Powers T 11:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It is, but then the Minsk and Riga ones are transliterations.--Львівське (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
UHC Dynamo makes sense to me. In the worst case, that is just a placeholder title until a formal English name is announced. There is no reason why we would be unable to move the article if it became necessary. Resolute 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive39&oldid=1051967114"