Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive5

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


Obviously Missing WP:HOCKEY Articles

As mentioned previously, if enough people contribute to this list maybe it can be moved to the main page.

That's all I can think of for now but I know there's more. I'd like to see the project maintain a working list. (Obviously as well I often create articles that I find that are missing, but the above are all outside my areas of expertise.)

Well, I know for a fact that the Amateur Drafts are easily accessible on the hockeydb website. I'm currently tabulating OHA/ODHA/NHO Jr. B Standings, so I'm a little wrapped up, but if I find the time I will assist. DMighton 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I really think we need to get all of the HHOF members. So, as a start to finishing them off, I just created Cliff Fletcher. -- JamesTeterenko 04:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I just knocked off Mickey Ion. Slowly and surely. Ravenswing 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How about we move this list to the main page? -- JamesTeterenko 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That was my intention in posting them, feel free to. Anyone else can obviously add to the list as well. BoojiBoy 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I just moved it to the front page. -- JamesTeterenko 04:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Current squad

The current squad section on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format needs an update? Look how much better it looks when all the colums are organizied like they are at Frölunda HC current roster section. Anyone agree? It was User:Nehle who fixed this and since then it's been bugging me that the original template looks unorganized.

I thought I would ask here before changing the template. Another suggestion is that it should be smaller, reducing the width too make it look better. I was also thinking (but this shouldn't be done by me) that it would look much better if it looked more like the NFL (or was it NBA?) roster template, that has a thick outline with the teams primary color. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krm500 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you, but I don't know about changing the table width. It's ok this way because it fits the size of the page. As for the team colour, I disagree with that. It unnessary and tacky. Marcus1060talk 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Frolunda page looks better than the template. I'd say go ahead and change the column widths. As for having a border with a team colour, do you have an example page that does that? -- JamesTeterenko 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I change my mind on the outlined border. The one I was thinking about is Template:Portland_Trail_Blazers but it will probably look bad if the area that the border suround is bigger then the area of the NBA rosters. --Krm500 10:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Draft Pages on Each Team's Article

I raise two points about the "first rounders in NHL Entry Draft" section of each team's page:

  1. The sections should link to the individual NHL draft articles. I volunteer to help with this but anyone else who wants to help is welcome to.
  2. We need to make a decision about who is included. As I see it there are two options: we can either have it so that every team's first pick, regardless of round, is included, or we can include ALL first round picks of that team. As it stands right now we have the worst of both worlds - we have only first round picks, but also only the FIRST first round picks. I think that each page should include all the team's picks, i.e. if they had more than one first round pick in a given draft. Thoughts? BoojiBoy 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It should include all first round picks. -- JamesTeterenko 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done Anaheim, Atlanta and Boston Bruins. Let me know what you think. BoojiBoy 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Done up to Columbus. For some reason Chicago doesn't have a first rounders section... someone should consider adding it. BoojiBoy 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Expansion Drafts

I have been surprised to find that there are no pages on the various expansion drafts the NHL has held over the years. I went ahead and created one (1993 NHL Expansion Draft). I'd like to create some more, but I'd like feedback on the layout before I go any further. It can be surprisingly difficult to find information on the results of these drafts, so I think WP pages on them would be beneficial to hockey fans. --Skudrafan1 17:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have created pages for the 1998 NHL Expansion Draft and 1999 NHL Expansion Draft as well, to show how the layout for a one-team draft might look. --Skudrafan1 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: 2000 NHL Expansion Draft. Any feedback: good, bad, or indifferent? --Skudrafan1 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes: I think it's a hell of an effort, very well done and comprehensive. Ravenswing 01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I think I have all the easy ones (1992, 1993, 1998, 1999, 2000) done now. 1991 was already started by another user (1991 NHL Dispersal Draft), so I should be able to do that one shortly as well. Once we get back into the '60s and '70s, though... I might need a little help. :) --Skudrafan1 02:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think you did a great job. -- JamesTeterenko 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Further help wanted, if possible. It is well known that teams make trades for "future considerations" in order to protect some of their unprotected players in the draft. I would like to add these to the draft pages as well. I found a pretty nice list of these deals for the 1998 draft (1998 NHL Expansion Draft#Deals). As for the other drafts, the info I've found has been spotty at best. Any help? Also, any help with 1993 NHL Expansion Draft#Phase II anyone can give would be nice as well. :) --Skudrafan1 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Facts" sections on NHL team pages

As pointed out by a few members previously, the Facts sections of each NHL team's article is pretty cluttered and unorganized. I think a good way to start would be removing facts that are already listed in each team's infobox (such as year founded, team colors, logo description, etc.) - anybody have any objections to it? --NeoChaosX 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Heck, why don't we just scrap the whole section? Looking at, say, Detroit Red Wings, let's consider what is noted in the Facts. Founded (infobox), Formerly known as ("History" in infobox), Arena (infobox, though it doesn't mention former arenas, which could be mentioned in the actual article), Uniform colors ("Team colors" in infobox), Logo design (most of them are pretty darn obvious), Main rivals (eh ... probably the only thing not touched on anywhere which should be kept), Champions (redundancy; can be mentioned in the awards section), Television (infobox), and mention of their Original Six-ness (easily mentioned in the article itself.
I'm sure it might not fly too well to wipe a whole section, but like you said, much of the "facts" are already infobox material, and it does tend to be an unequivocal mess depending on which team you are looking at.--Resident Lune 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Some teams even have stuff that's rather unencyclopedic; do we really need to know a team's former minor league affliates? Plus, removing redundant entries for some less-historic teams (like the Atlanta Thrashers) would whittle the section down to one or two facts. Hell, now I'm convinced that the sections needs to go; most of them are cruft for any trivial information a fan could feel is notable. Still, I'd like to see if any of the other community members would be okay with it and/or have suggestions on what to do with them. --NeoChaosX 04:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And the "Rivals" entry has been a prime target for cruft , as well, so I don't agree that it's worth saving. On the San Jose Sharks page, I've seen it's information fluctuate between the two other California-based teams to somewhere around half the Western Conference. Besides, the truly notable rivalries (instead of teams that just get some fans riled up because of a recent playoff series) are listed at National Hockey League rivalries anyway. Personally, I won't miss it. --NeoChaosX 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I could get behind wiping the whole darned thing. Dunno how many times I've taken out series scores from the Oilers' Stanley Cup wins section. Doogie2K (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd drive it to the airport, happily too get rid of it. --Krm500 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, after seeing several edits to the "Rivals" category in "Facts" in the past couple hours, I finally went ahead and just said to Hell with it all and removed the "Facts" section for the Edmonton Oilers. The only thing I had to do was add the NHL Championship (pre-Presidents Trophy) mention to the awards section, and now everything that was in that section is now in either the infobox or the article.--Resident Lune 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I did the same for San Jose Sharks. Article looks much better. However, I'm still wonder if we should include the listing of division, conference and Stanley Cup championships - the teams from the other major sports league list such achievements in their infobox; anything stopping us from including it in the infobox? Or anybody else got a better idea on what to do with them? --NeoChaosX 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the use of the infobox for mentioning Stanley Cups, Conference, and Division Titles, that was originally in the layout for one of the earlier versions of the infobox. There was two versions of it, too ... the first one [1] (scroll past the Blue Jackets example to find one of the Red Wings) simply had each number linking to the "Facts" section (or wherever the titles might be mentioned in the respective article). The other one [2] instead had each season listed. Generally the response I got was lukewarm to having the titles in the infobox itself, as it added to its length a bit too much (if you think the Red Wings are bad, imagine, for example, the Canadiens).
It isn't so much that I'd be against changing the infobox for the mentioning of the titles of each team, but more that I'd prefer a concrete concensus before doing something like that.--Resident Lune 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Another option is to list the championships and titles into a seperate section, like Arsenal F.C.#Honours. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make note of this, I have begun removing "Facts" sections semi-actively. I'm not exactly going out of my way to do it since it isn't a big deal, but whenever I see someone start shuffling around "Rivals" for no real reason whatsoever on a tem page, I figure it's time to drop in and just remove the section. Just a helpful reminder that if someone is going to remove the sections from other team articles, make sure that everything in their Facts section is already mentioned in other places of the article. For example, most teams do not refer to a team's Division Titles/Championships in their "Awards" section, so be sure to relocate that just in case.--Resident Lune 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the New Jersey Devils

Does this really need its own article? Originally I was going to toss this up for deletion and see what became of it, but apparently this survived an AfD nomination about 3 months ago or so. Regardless of that, I see nothing of value in this sub-article on the Devils. Practically everything save for a few key things (i.e. the controversy over the Devils name last year) is in the main article, which already is a rather detailed history of the team. What I also noticed is that the person who made the article in the first place, FutureNJGov, said that they "[would] expand this article and trim main one to move towards FA status", and yet it's now been four months since it was made and they have yet to return to the article once.

If no one has any qualms, I would call for a speedy deletion. If anything, this sets a bad precedent as the Devils are 24 years old (excluding the Scouts/Rockies era) and yet they have a "History of the ..." article while other, more storied teams do not (i.e. every Original Six team lacks one).--Resident Lune 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt its a speedy candidate (?), but I say go ahead with another AFD. It got KEEPs on the the assumption that it was a work in progress. Nothing has been done with it since. ccwaters 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally my fault for the misuse of "speedy", I forgot that was a reference to a type of deletion method for certain articles. I'll go ahead and nominate it, then. The AfD page is here if anyone wants to put their input in.--Resident Lune 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stanley Cup Final(s)"

I just noticed this died during the refactoring before it got noticed, so I'll repost. Something I don't get: Stanley Cup Playoffs redirects to Season structure of the NHL, but Stanley Cup Playoff redirects to Stanley Cup. Shouldn't it really be one or the other? Doogie2K (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Playoff-singular to Season structure.  RasputinAXP  c 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

page moves

There is currently a survey about moving article page names here Talk:Marián Gáborík and here Talk:Teemu Selänne. Feel free to come voice your opinions. Masterhatch 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other player articles with diacritics in their name? Perhaps we could move those, too. --NeoChaosX 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are some I found during a quick search: Daniel Brière, José Théodore, François Beauchemin, Steve Bégin, Antero Niittymäki, Joni Pitkänen, Jean-Sébastien Giguère, Mathias Tjärnqvist, Ossi Väänänen (that's a fun one!), Ján Lašák... will keep looking! --Skudrafan1 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
...Dominik Hašek, Jörgen Jönsson, Stéphan Lebeau, Niclas Hävelid, Milan Hnilička, Pascal Rhéaume, Joé Juneau, Jonas Höglund, Tomi Mäki, Ulf Dahlén, Stéphane Quintal, Jiří Fischer, Johan Franzén, Marc-André Bergeron, Dick Tärnström, Jörgen Pettersson (hockey player), Mattias Norström, Ľubomir Višňovský (another fun one!), Tomáš Žižka, Jean-Philippe Côté, Georges Vézina, Mats Näslund, Kenny Jönsson, Christian Dubé, Miloslav Hořava, Tomas Sandström, Simon Gagné, Markus Näslund, Réjean Houle, Manon Rhéaume, Jean-Sébastien Aubin, Börje Salming, Patrik Sundström, Håkan Loob, Bengt-Åke Gustafsson, Roman Hamrlík. I created this list by browsing through the category "National Hockey League players by team". Hope it helps. --Skudrafan1 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And here are some which have just been moved to diacritic titles today: Jaromír Jágr, František Kaberle, Tomáš Kaberle, Aleš Kotalík, Stanislav Neckář, Milan Michálek, Andrej Meszároš, Zdeno Chára, Milan Jurčina, Martin Štrbák, Milan Bartovič, Martin Cibák, Tomáš Surový, Marián Hossa, Michal Handzuš, Branko Radivojevič, Miroslav Šatan, Jozef Stümpel, Marek Svatoš, Richard Zedník, Ľubomír Sekeráš... for more, just check out the category "Slovak ice hockey players". --Skudrafan1 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved back Satan, and about to do the same for Jagr. Looks like people need to be notified about all this. --NeoChaosX 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
...and I have now notified the person who made all those moves to this discussion and the Gaborik discussion. Hope he reads his talk page. --NeoChaosX 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, how about players like Peter Nordström or Tony Mårtensson who have played briefly in North America, but spent the majority of their careers playing in Sweden, where that spelling is the accepted one? Should that be a factor? --Skudrafan1 02:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it doesn't matter where they played. What matters is the most common spelling in English. If the majority of reputable english publications use diacritics for a specific player, they we on wikipedia should too. If not, then we shouldn't either. Masterhatch 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost inclined to bring in some sort of mediation on this. We have a few people who have dug in intractably in the face of majority support for using diacritics only to demonstrate native spelling, rather than as the only spelling. Unless we want to keep moving and reverting until the end of time, we need to get someone with the authority to lay down the law one way or the other. Doogie2K (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

World Hockey Association (proposed)

Im trying to download a picture for the World Hockey Association (proposed) but I am having problems the web site is http://www.wha.goalline.ca/ and the picture is in the upper right hand corner. Thanks John R G 18:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have it fixed. John R G 06:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


To Captain, or not to Captain?

I keep ping-ponging back and forth when it comes to whether or not Captains and Alternate Captains should be placed in the new NHL Team Infobox. I'd really like to hear from some other people here on whether or not it really has any use in the box, or if it's better off being kept to just noting those players with a letter or some other kind of acknowledgement in the team rosters. Examples are at the New Jersey Devils and Columbus Blue Jackets articles.-Resident Lune 16:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the captain of a team is notable. Teams with no captains (or with the rotating scheme Minnesota uses) ought not be cited, nor should the alternates. Ravenswing 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan, thanks. Because of the code for the team infobox, I can't really have a "Captain" box being optional, like how some sections can be optional in the Ice Hockey Player infobox. I guess something like 'Rotating' or 'Vacant' would work fine if a team has one of those situations. Most don't, anyway, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.-Resident Lune 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Waste of space. We already list all captains in franchise history under subsection 4.4 - Team Captains. Current captains and alternate captains are noted in 4.1 - Current Squad. --93JC 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Show the Captain, the alternate's needn't be shown. The captaincy is a more stable position on the team, with the alternates changing often (via trades or injuries). GoodDay 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

player article up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Andrascik this article was just put up for deletion today. Come have your say. Masterhatch 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of deletion, do we really need an article about Conkkanen now that Ty's been traded? It seems like recentism to me. I'll AFD it barring objections. BoojiBoy 01:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd just PROD it. Matter of fact, I'll do so now.  RasputinAXP  c 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I have now created a section for deletion discussions on the main page and included a link to some categories that are currently up for debate. -- JamesTeterenko 05:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Season-by-season record box format

Well, while going through and changing the team info boxes, I noticed that there's somewhere around 2-3 season-by-season record formats. What I want to know is if we can come to any sort of concensus to what looks the best, both on its own and when considering the articles and how they look combined with other templates on the article (i.e. team info boxes). The majority used one looks to be the one used on the Boston Bruin's article for example, with "invisible" lines between each column and row. The second example (I prefer this one) can be seen on the New York Ranger's article, where there are visible lines instead.

There's also a variation on the second one, where there's a section that specifically states what numbers make up an NHL total (example at the Ottawa Senator's article).

Which one would most people here prefer to see? Also, in terms of minor things, does a centered top text (GP, W, L, etc. row) or left-aligned text look better? Does "3rd, American" sound better than "3rd in American" for the "Finish" section, and does writing "Lost in Conference Semifinals" seem like a better or worse idea than "Lost in CSF"?--Resident Lune 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the season by season format used in the Rangers article, centered top text, "3rd, American", and "Lost in Conference Semis" better.  RasputinAXP  c 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There is also a third option. See all the teams in the Canadian Hockey League. Teams have a sections called Yearly Results, with sub-sections of Regular season and Playoffs results. For example.. see Windsor Spitfires. Flibirigit 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added such sections to pages in other CHL leagues when info has been available too (I don't have other league's media guides) - see Moncton Wildcats or Spokane Chiefs. BoojiBoy 14:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the CHL examples, I'm concerned about how much the "Pct.%" category is needed (and while I know the average hockey fan would immediately know what it refers to, non-hockey or sports fans might be confused as to what it stands for since it lacks a definition in the legend above the statistics box). I'm also confused about why Shootout Loses are put in the same column as Ties, and not Overtime Losses ... is that so that the column doesn't become unused now that ties no longer happen? Lastly, the list of playoff results probably would be detrimental to an NHL team's article. Take the Canadiens or any other Original Six team for example, with a long loong list of playoff results. Placing the playoff results in a list like that would probably double the article length alone.--Resident Lune 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I hate the "Pct" column as it is a misnomer. Most people call it "winning percentage" when it is actually "point percentage". I have never included it on the pages I have created tables for, ie: Calgary Hitmen or Calgary Canucks. My vote would be to remove the pct/win% column entirely......The SOL/OTL/T thing is a bit of a nuisance. On the Hitmen article, I simply rolled SOL into the same column as OTL, however I am currently reconsidering that decision, as the official standings differentiate between OTL and SOL. In this case, putting it in the tie column works as the two are mutually exclusive. Perhaps with a new heading row beginning the year the T was dropped in favour of the SOL. As far as playoff results go, for teams with long histories, they can be broken off into their own articles. Otherwise, I prefer simply having the column show how far the team got each season. Resolute 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just completed the season by season record for the Detroit Red Wings and was also looking at the OTL and SOL. I rolled them both into OTL and went with that. I was using the Chicago Blackhawks template as most of the links were filled in as well as the divisions. Should we make a standard for SOL, OTL, T and the such? Also, any good site for finding out playoff results, i.e. who they lost to and what the series record was? Thanks. --Schmackity 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a screenshot to commemorate the event here. We did it! WOO!  RasputinAXP  c 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Though I have to say, that article is a glaring example of one of my greatest pet peeves with sports articles on Wikipedia: the massive overuse of succession boxes. In the case of awards, I'm not sure that they are even useful or needed. Resolute 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. There's a long list of succession boxes we don't need on that article.  RasputinAXP  c 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It's great and all, but I've always disliked how the only guy in the NHL that anyone in the world knew was Gretzky. I think it would have been a bigger accomplishment to have Roy, or Messier, or Mike Bossy or something. All in all though, I was damn excited when I first saw it on the main page. I think it is a good first step... we should attempt to build up another article of another player, team, or award and try and get it up there now. DMighton 03:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
That's my next plan. How about Messier?  RasputinAXP  c 14:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally think Lemieux is a better choice. The framework that the article already has would make it a little easier to do and a little less time consuming in my opinion. Plus Lemieux is pretty close to Gretzky in skill and achievements. Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 05:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not try for a legend like Gordie Howe. John R G 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Howe would be a terrific choice. Bad news: the article is a mess. It's unsourced, full of supposition (is there genuine proof Howe never got a "Gordie Howe hat trick?"), repeatedly makes the erroneous presumption that "professional" = major league, is really rather scanty given Howe's accomplishments, and has some outright inaccuracies -- I just caught the one where the article claimed Howe had played in more decades than any pro athlete ever, which is untrue. It's far short of featured quality, and deserves better. Ravenswing 10:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I just did some browsing. I'm sure this is already known, but I sure as heck did not know: [3]. I did not know we had a featured article before Gretzky's. DMighton 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but it has since been removed off of featured article status. So really Gretzky is our only one. Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess we should work on getting something like that back up to standards.... It is still listed as former featured article, so I thought I'd bring it up. :) DMighton 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

What article should we concentrate on getting to Featured Status?

 RasputinAXP  c 13:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I vote for either Stanley Cup or Gordie Howe. I'd prefer us to do an older hockey player to avoid recentism. That said, I tend to avoid editing higher-profile articles so I probably won't be much help. BoojiBoy 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup. It's just so recognizable. Even people who don't like ice hockey or the NHL know what it is, and it's disputedly the most well-known trophy in major sports. It practically symbolizes hockey more than any single player does. That, and just going by my personal opinion, I think it would also be the easiest to find concrete references and notes on to input into the article.--Resident Lune 14:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup and Gordie Howe. We have plenty of active editors, and I agree strongly with both BoojiBoy and Lune on the merits. As far as Howe goes, I also prefer him over Lemieux and Messier on the grounds that while the latter two have attracted a lot of "greatest player ever" support, for a few decades, Howe was the consensus greatest player ever. Ravenswing 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup per RG. It is one of the most identifiable marks with North American hockey as exists. I would also suggest that we help get the NHL page to featured status as well. Resolute 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup, per previous votes. A trophy that's known even to non-followers as Lune pointed out, plus has a good base to start off of and wouldn't need as much work to get to FA status as Howe would. --NeoChaosX 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup, per previous votes. Lemieux would be my second choice. I think the Cup is the most recognized sports trophy in North America. Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 03:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup but if listed I would have said Patrick Roy. DMighton 03:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup simply because we just did a player. After we get the Cup featured, maybe we can do another player (Howe perhaps) or a different hockey article such as the all star game or something. Masterhatch 07:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stanley Cup But I agree it needs work done on it, but I'm not the one to do it. Marcus1060talk 08:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The Stanley Cup is as identifiable with hockey as anything possibly can be. As the only major-pro trophy that seems to supercede the league and championship it represents, it seems like an ideal candidate to represent the sport. Doogie2K (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So I guess we've decided on Stanley Cup], huh? :P Alright ramblers...let's get ramblin'.  RasputinAXP  c 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sources, Sources, Sources! DMighton 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me putting this on the article? BoojiBoy 14:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the current WikiProject: Ice Hockey Article Improvement Drive collaboration!

NHL head coaches pages

First off, would anybody mind if I (or someone else) move List of Pittsburgh Penguins head coaches to Head Coaches of the Pittsburgh Penguins, to fit with the other NHL head coach lists? Is there anybody who would miss that article title?

Second, I'm looking at the Penguins coaches article, and I am a bit fond of how it lays out each coach, their records, when they were hired, and so on. I copied the table for Head Coaches of the San Jose Sharks, but I'm disappointed that the 28 other coach pages are just listing what seasons each person coached. So, would anybody mind using the table from the Penguins coach page on the other team coach pages? I'm more than willing to do it if nobody has any problems with it. NeoChaosX 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just move the Penguins article. I doubt anyone would object to bringing the article in line with the rest. Also, I agree with the way the Sharks/Penguins page is layed out. Much more productive list than what most others are. I'll have to get the Flames list updated whenever I find my Flames Media Guide. Resolute 05:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, did a few more lists in the style of the Sharks/Penguins page:
I've also got Head Coaches of the Anaheim Ducks done for the most part; however, hockeydb.com doesn't list the individual coaching records for the Ducks in 2000-01, so it's partially incomplete; any Ducks fans got that information? Additionally, can I assume you haven't found your Flames media guide, Resolute? I've also noticed the coach lists for the Flyers and the Maple Leafs already have a smaller table similar to the Sharks/Penguins article; just needs games coaches and records information. --NeoChaosX 01:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Head Coaches of the Boston Bruins is done; just need to wikify the dates to the seasons they refer to. --NeoChaosX 04:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Head Coaches of the Detroit Red Wings is done, also needs some wiki work with the dates to the seasons. There wasn't any great reference for this information as it took alot of time to compare pages on the offical team website. Alot of work, but worth it. Also, thanks for the help NeoChaosX! --Schmackity 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

List of NHL players who have scored 8 points in one game

Does anyone else feel that this is complete listcruft? It isn't the NHL record for points in a game, nor is it any single-game scoring number - such as a hat trick - for which there's any wide perception in the hockey world besides, undoubtedly, "that's a lot!" I'm minded to AfD it. Ravenswing 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just put an uncat tag on it; it needs categories at a minimum. If you wanted to AFD it I would support the nom. BoojiBoy 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with an AFD. Listcruft, and not at all notable. NeoChaosX 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD's been filed, if anyone wants to chime in with their opinions. Ravenswing 05:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You think a consensus has been reached yet? Doogie2K (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Just let it run its course. What is it, 5/7 days for an AFD? ccwaters 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Five days, so it should get the boot on the 24th. Doogie2K had a good idea about moving it to something like National Hockey League records (or something of the like). Is there enough other interesting unofficial records or trivia that could be added to make a workable article under that topic? Resolute 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Um...Huh?

Where, exactly, did the Colorado Rockies (NHL) article go? It's referenced everywhere, but has mysteriously disappeared. It's like someone AfD'd it, and forgot to tell the rest of the world. Doogie2K (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the deleting admin's page... most weird. BoojiBoy 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Deletion review#Colorado Rockies (NHL). Hopefully we can get this back quick. BoojiBoy 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Where the hell's the original AfD, is my question. Surely, some indication of what was so bad about the page would be useful in determining why it suddenly went poof for no apparent reason. (And surely, there's such a thing as a reversion.) Doogie2K (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The admin obviously didn't check the page history before deleting, which is a mistake on his/her part. Hopefully within an hour it will all be forgotten. Rasputin? Care to undelete this? BoojiBoy 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, it still needs to be brought up. If the admin did simply ignore his/her obvious first recourse, then he/she needs to re-evaluate why he/she is an admin in the first place. Doogie2K (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody vandalized the article and he didn't check the article history. I've taken care of it.  RasputinAXP  c 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Rasputin. Doogie2K (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No prob, s'myjob ;)  RasputinAXP  c 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Drafts

I have been surprised to find that there are no pages on the various expansion drafts the NHL has held over the years. I went ahead and created one (1993 NHL Expansion Draft). I'd like to create some more, but I'd like feedback on the layout before I go any further. It can be surprisingly difficult to find information on the results of these drafts, so I think WP pages on them would be beneficial to hockey fans. --Skudrafan1 17:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have created pages for the 1998 NHL Expansion Draft and 1999 NHL Expansion Draft as well, to show how the layout for a one-team draft might look. --Skudrafan1 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: 2000 NHL Expansion Draft. Any feedback: good, bad, or indifferent? --Skudrafan1 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes: I think it's a hell of an effort, very well done and comprehensive. Ravenswing 01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I think I have all the easy ones (1992, 1993, 1998, 1999, 2000) done now. 1991 was already started by another user (1991 NHL Dispersal Draft), so I should be able to do that one shortly as well. Once we get back into the '60s and '70s, though... I might need a little help. :) --Skudrafan1 02:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think you did a great job. -- JamesTeterenko 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Further help wanted, if possible. It is well known that teams make trades for "future considerations" in order to protect some of their unprotected players in the draft. I would like to add these to the draft pages as well. I found a pretty nice list of these deals for the 1998 draft (1998 NHL Expansion Draft#Deals). As for the other drafts, the info I've found has been spotty at best. Any help? Also, any help with 1993 NHL Expansion Draft#Phase II anyone can give would be nice as well. :) --Skudrafan1 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Facts" sections on NHL team pages

As pointed out by a few members previously, the Facts sections of each NHL team's article is pretty cluttered and unorganized. I think a good way to start would be removing facts that are already listed in each team's infobox (such as year founded, team colors, logo description, etc.) - anybody have any objections to it? --NeoChaosX 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Heck, why don't we just scrap the whole section? Looking at, say, Detroit Red Wings, let's consider what is noted in the Facts. Founded (infobox), Formerly known as ("History" in infobox), Arena (infobox, though it doesn't mention former arenas, which could be mentioned in the actual article), Uniform colors ("Team colors" in infobox), Logo design (most of them are pretty darn obvious), Main rivals (eh ... probably the only thing not touched on anywhere which should be kept), Champions (redundancy; can be mentioned in the awards section), Television (infobox), and mention of their Original Six-ness (easily mentioned in the article itself.
I'm sure it might not fly too well to wipe a whole section, but like you said, much of the "facts" are already infobox material, and it does tend to be an unequivocal mess depending on which team you are looking at.--Resident Lune 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Some teams even have stuff that's rather unencyclopedic; do we really need to know a team's former minor league affliates? Plus, removing redundant entries for some less-historic teams (like the Atlanta Thrashers) would whittle the section down to one or two facts. Hell, now I'm convinced that the sections needs to go; most of them are cruft for any trivial information a fan could feel is notable. Still, I'd like to see if any of the other community members would be okay with it and/or have suggestions on what to do with them. --NeoChaosX 04:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And the "Rivals" entry has been a prime target for cruft , as well, so I don't agree that it's worth saving. On the San Jose Sharks page, I've seen it's information fluctuate between the two other California-based teams to somewhere around half the Western Conference. Besides, the truly notable rivalries (instead of teams that just get some fans riled up because of a recent playoff series) are listed at National Hockey League rivalries anyway. Personally, I won't miss it. --NeoChaosX 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I could get behind wiping the whole darned thing. Dunno how many times I've taken out series scores from the Oilers' Stanley Cup wins section. Doogie2K (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd drive it to the airport, happily too get rid of it. --Krm500 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, after seeing several edits to the "Rivals" category in "Facts" in the past couple hours, I finally went ahead and just said to Hell with it all and removed the "Facts" section for the Edmonton Oilers. The only thing I had to do was add the NHL Championship (pre-Presidents Trophy) mention to the awards section, and now everything that was in that section is now in either the infobox or the article.--Resident Lune 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I did the same for San Jose Sharks. Article looks much better. However, I'm still wonder if we should include the listing of division, conference and Stanley Cup championships - the teams from the other major sports league list such achievements in their infobox; anything stopping us from including it in the infobox? Or anybody else got a better idea on what to do with them? --NeoChaosX 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the use of the infobox for mentioning Stanley Cups, Conference, and Division Titles, that was originally in the layout for one of the earlier versions of the infobox. There was two versions of it, too ... the first one [4] (scroll past the Blue Jackets example to find one of the Red Wings) simply had each number linking to the "Facts" section (or wherever the titles might be mentioned in the respective article). The other one [5] instead had each season listed. Generally the response I got was lukewarm to having the titles in the infobox itself, as it added to its length a bit too much (if you think the Red Wings are bad, imagine, for example, the Canadiens).
It isn't so much that I'd be against changing the infobox for the mentioning of the titles of each team, but more that I'd prefer a concrete concensus before doing something like that.--Resident Lune 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Another option is to list the championships and titles into a seperate section, like Arsenal F.C.#Honours. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make note of this, I have begun removing "Facts" sections semi-actively. I'm not exactly going out of my way to do it since it isn't a big deal, but whenever I see someone start shuffling around "Rivals" for no real reason whatsoever on a tem page, I figure it's time to drop in and just remove the section. Just a helpful reminder that if someone is going to remove the sections from other team articles, make sure that everything in their Facts section is already mentioned in other places of the article. For example, most teams do not refer to a team's Division Titles/Championships in their "Awards" section, so be sure to relocate that just in case.--Resident Lune 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the New Jersey Devils

Does this really need its own article? Originally I was going to toss this up for deletion and see what became of it, but apparently this survived an AfD nomination about 3 months ago or so. Regardless of that, I see nothing of value in this sub-article on the Devils. Practically everything save for a few key things (i.e. the controversy over the Devils name last year) is in the main article, which already is a rather detailed history of the team. What I also noticed is that the person who made the article in the first place, FutureNJGov, said that they "[would] expand this article and trim main one to move towards FA status", and yet it's now been four months since it was made and they have yet to return to the article once.

If no one has any qualms, I would call for a speedy deletion. If anything, this sets a bad precedent as the Devils are 24 years old (excluding the Scouts/Rockies era) and yet they have a "History of the ..." article while other, more storied teams do not (i.e. every Original Six team lacks one).--Resident Lune 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt its a speedy candidate (?), but I say go ahead with another AFD. It got KEEPs on the the assumption that it was a work in progress. Nothing has been done with it since. ccwaters 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally my fault for the misuse of "speedy", I forgot that was a reference to a type of deletion method for certain articles. I'll go ahead and nominate it, then. The AfD page is here if anyone wants to put their input in.--Resident Lune 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stanley Cup Final(s)"

I just noticed this died during the refactoring before it got noticed, so I'll repost. Something I don't get: Stanley Cup Playoffs redirects to Season structure of the NHL, but Stanley Cup Playoff redirects to Stanley Cup. Shouldn't it really be one or the other? Doogie2K (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Playoff-singular to Season structure.  RasputinAXP  c 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

page moves

There is currently a survey about moving article page names here Talk:Marián Gáborík and here Talk:Teemu Selänne. Feel free to come voice your opinions. Masterhatch 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other player articles with diacritics in their name? Perhaps we could move those, too. --NeoChaosX 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are some I found during a quick search: Daniel Brière, José Théodore, François Beauchemin, Steve Bégin, Antero Niittymäki, Joni Pitkänen, Jean-Sébastien Giguère, Mathias Tjärnqvist, Ossi Väänänen (that's a fun one!), Ján Lašák... will keep looking! --Skudrafan1 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
...Dominik Hašek, Jörgen Jönsson, Stéphan Lebeau, Niclas Hävelid, Milan Hnilička, Pascal Rhéaume, Joé Juneau, Jonas Höglund, Tomi Mäki, Ulf Dahlén, Stéphane Quintal, Jiří Fischer, Johan Franzén, Marc-André Bergeron, Dick Tärnström, Jörgen Pettersson (hockey player), Mattias Norström, Ľubomir Višňovský (another fun one!), Tomáš Žižka, Jean-Philippe Côté, Georges Vézina, Mats Näslund, Kenny Jönsson, Christian Dubé, Miloslav Hořava, Tomas Sandström, Simon Gagné, Markus Näslund, Réjean Houle, Manon Rhéaume, Jean-Sébastien Aubin, Börje Salming, Patrik Sundström, Håkan Loob, Bengt-Åke Gustafsson, Roman Hamrlík. I created this list by browsing through the category "National Hockey League players by team". Hope it helps. --Skudrafan1 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And here are some which have just been moved to diacritic titles today: Jaromír Jágr, František Kaberle, Tomáš Kaberle, Aleš Kotalík, Stanislav Neckář, Milan Michálek, Andrej Meszároš, Zdeno Chára, Milan Jurčina, Martin Štrbák, Milan Bartovič, Martin Cibák, Tomáš Surový, Marián Hossa, Michal Handzuš, Branko Radivojevič, Miroslav Šatan, Jozef Stümpel, Marek Svatoš, Richard Zedník, Ľubomír Sekeráš... for more, just check out the category "Slovak ice hockey players". --Skudrafan1 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved back Satan, and about to do the same for Jagr. Looks like people need to be notified about all this. --NeoChaosX 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
...and I have now notified the person who made all those moves to this discussion and the Gaborik discussion. Hope he reads his talk page. --NeoChaosX 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, how about players like Peter Nordström or Tony Mårtensson who have played briefly in North America, but spent the majority of their careers playing in Sweden, where that spelling is the accepted one? Should that be a factor? --Skudrafan1 02:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it doesn't matter where they played. What matters is the most common spelling in English. If the majority of reputable english publications use diacritics for a specific player, they we on wikipedia should too. If not, then we shouldn't either. Masterhatch 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost inclined to bring in some sort of mediation on this. We have a few people who have dug in intractably in the face of majority support for using diacritics only to demonstrate native spelling, rather than as the only spelling. Unless we want to keep moving and reverting until the end of time, we need to get someone with the authority to lay down the law one way or the other. Doogie2K (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving could be challenging

Judging by the constant reverts to Jaroslav Špaček, it appears some users arent aware of this discussion, or the support towards moving to English names. Resolute 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand diacritic shouldn't be allowed and I agree with this. But why move articles with å, ä, ö, ü and which are letter and therefor changes the whole pronounciation. Selänne is an exelent example, why not use Selänne. If you search for Selanne you still come to the right page, is it really wrong to use the real spelling of a persons name? --Krm500 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that I had undone a mass of moves by Masterhatch because they were noted through the IRC vandalism channel, and the user was doing various unilateral moves even though there appears to be a consensus for the removal of diacritic marks in the titles. If someone looks up any name and they don't use the diacritic marks, they are still redirected to the right article name with the diacritic marks. Ryūlóng 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects don't address the issue I have with diacritics that tangibly reduces the usefulness of Wikipedia for me - as I mentioned on the Gaborik talk page, having them in the titles leads to their use in the article bodies, where they get in the way of me using my browser's Find In Page function or other text search tools because I can't easily type those characters. Plus, there are many instances where the spelling that uses the diacritical marks doesn't even properly reflect the overwhelmingly common pronunciation (let alone spelling) in English, for example "Montréal" and "Béliveau". In neither of those do English speakers pronounce the 'é's the way the accent implies. Aottley 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that this isn't Finnish/Slovak/Czech Wikipedia. We spell things in English on English Wikipedia, excepting demonstrative native spellings (see Yan Stastny). You want things spelled the Finnish/Slovak/Czech way throughout? Use the Finnish/Slovak/Czech Wikipedia. Unless the entire English-speaking world buys a keyboard that readily supports characters with diacritics, they have no business being the dominant form on English Wikipedia. Doogie2K (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed ... quite aside from the fact that the European Wikipedias generally spell English names in accordance with their own rules and regulations. Ravenswing 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but English doesn't have diacritics to begin with. If CS Wikipedia needed diacritics or altered spellings to adequately convey the names to its audience, that would be its prerogative. When you get into different character sets, it's never an issue, so I don't know why it's an issue with diacritics specifically, especially with their users' insistence that they are "separate characters." Doogie2K (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Better example: Is the Russian William Shakespeare article written in Roman characters? No, it's written in Cyrillic, with a Romanization in brackets beside. That's exactly what we want, and I don't see what these people have against it. Doogie2K (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
An even better example would be Virginia Woolfová. Apparently Czech is allowed to spell names any way it wants to, while English has to conform to foreign spelling and grammar rules. BoojiBoy 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Any chance you'd care to wade into the argument? Or is it better if I act as a lightning rod in pissing everyone else off? ;) Doogie2K (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No. I refuse to get involved with any idiot Wiki battles anymore. Good luck though. BoojiBoy 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I usually avoid them myself, but sometimes, I feel an irresistable need to argue with idiots. Can't explain it. Doogie2K (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them idiots (well, at least not all of them), but i will say that they are having trouble removing their own personal POV from the issue. Wikipedia:Naming convention is very clear that the most common form in English is to be used as the article title. What is so hard for people to get about that? It isn't like we are renaming people or places, we are just following the policy of wikipedia. Masterhatch 05:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, not idiots. But definitely blind, selfish fools. What makes them so damned special that they don't have to accept transliteration like the rest of the world does? It's not like we're changing names into "Mark Good" (WTF?) or something dumb like that. We're just accounting for the characters we don't have. Would they also expect us to keep ы or щ because we don't have them in the Latin alphabet? Because that's exactly what they want, and it's really starting to piss me off. Doogie2K (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just... wow

[6] Check this out, I know this isn't hockey... but the guy that made this page (as an IP and a vast variety of Sock Puppets) was, seemingly, the guy that the article is about. I just want to know if this is creepy. DMighton 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully we won't bump into him again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo Look familiar? It probably would have be three times as long if he didn't get banned in the middle of it. ccwaters 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If he's found success in life, good for him. I bear him no ill will. It would certainly be nice if he stuck to editing articles within his area of expertise though, rather than AFDing ones well outside it. BoojiBoy 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if it is him. He did have an interest in music, so likely took the name as an homage to the real RobertSteadman. Incidentally, Rob was permanently blocked again for stalking another user (ironically to repeatedly accuse that other user as being a stalker). Resolute 13:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It is him, he asked an admin to remove where he lives from the article, but he was ignored. DMighton 13:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that is just sad then... Resolute 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
So he's permabanned now eh? Good riddance. BoojiBoy 13:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Memorial Cup winners

Category:Memorial Cup winners is currently underpopulated. I've filled it back to 1996, but anyone who wishes can please add the category to player bios who won the Memorial Cup prior to then. BoojiBoy 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

CV Cleanup

Got a new user messing up player articles with plagarized material and poor quality unlicensed images. [7]. He hasn't responded to my attempts to communicate. ccwaters 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

City, Province??, Country

I got a dispute over at Ottawa Senators. A European based IP is changing European places of birth from CITY,COUNTRY to CITY,PROVINCE in response to similar treatment for US/Canadian localities. Granted: the North American info should probably be completed as CITY,STATE/PROVINCE,COUNTRY, but what the accepted style for such things. In the US and Canada: postal addresses include the state/province for disambig reasons (Where is Springfield?). REF:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) ccwaters 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Australia requires province as well. ccwaters 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep up the reversions and refer the IP to WP:NAME. BoojiBoy 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is good too Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) ccwaters 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it says the country should be added. Also the article about Toronto is at Toronto, not Toronto, Ontario (which is a redirect). 83.192.166.32 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

24.79.60.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just as a heads-up, this IP address has been rampaging through the hockey articles in the last couple of weeks. He routinely changes language of US-based team articles to en-ca, throws in a great deal of POV irrelevancies (putting Wayne Gretzky into the 1930s section of the Bruins' article was a stunner), has some whopping bad spelling ("offencive" is a standard of his) and all in all is making quite a mess. A few notices have been left on his talk page with little result. Now I've been backtracking his contributions list, but more sets of eyes would do good. Keep an eye out, please? Ravenswing 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll add him to my watchlist. It might by a good idea to start a RFI on him if he is repeatedly vandalizing pages. Resolute 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ya, I had some fun reverting nearly all the changes he made a couple days ago, including the Wings and Preds pages. References to players who have never been a part of the team, and calling a few things 'ironic' that I just didn't see as ironic, nor would anyone else. I'll continue to watch him as well. scsgoal31 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd call him a "vandal," per se, except in so far as he keeps throwing in references to a spurious (and probably vanity) "Daniel Ballard." He's just like a bull in a china shop, is all, and prolific to boot. Ravenswing 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted his three most recent, full of spelling errors and POV, edits. BoojiBoy 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another heads up ... apparently whoever 24.79.60.31 is either has a dynamic IP or knows how to reset his IP, since a similar "Daniel Ballard" reference popped up in the Vancouver Canucks article. The new IP was 24.207.46.135. There's always the possibility they aren't the same person, but you never know. Resident Lune 19:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the guy is up to his same old tricks, the block being lifted; I just reverted a pile of edits to the Bruins' article. Ravenswing 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

European League Teams

I'd like to contribue to the ice hockey Wikiproject by adding and expanding the European leagues and teams articles from the reference page at List of ice hockey leagues. --AdMajorem 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! DMighton 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim players vs. Category:Anaheim Ducks players

I noticed Zzyzx11 created a category called "Anaheim Ducks players". However, there is already a category for "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim players". The Ducks category only had seven players in it (and none were current Ducks), while the Mighty Ducks category had 117 players in it. Just for posterity, I emptied the Ducks category by moving those pages into the Mighty Ducks category. Now, the question becomes the following: do we rename the old Mighty Ducks category to "Anaheim Ducks players", or do we keep the Mighty Ducks category for players who played there from 1993 through last season, and use the new Ducks category for players who play there from here on out, under the new team name? Sorry if that's not clear... I hope I got my thought across. --Skudrafan1 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I say we move them over to the Ducks category and Speedy Delete the Mighty Ducks category. DMighton 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we already tried this and the CFD didn't pass. BoojiBoy 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Odd, I guess I missed that one. We should try again I think. DMighton 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Found it. Closed as no consensus. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 22#Mighty Ducks. BoojiBoy 02:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
We should put it up for renaming again. I missed that last discussion as well, and would have voted to rename the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
I would also vote to rename the category. The whole Angels thing is ridiculous IMHO. SportingFlyer 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Welcome aboard SportingFlyer -- good work on those KIJHL Jr B articles. Yeah... the Anahiem Ducks thing, I think, will have to be fixed soon. DMighton 22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WHA player categories

What should we do about the four player categories of teams that later joined the NHL? Category:Edmonton Oilers players (WHA) and Category:New England Whalers players are both seriously underpopulated, Category:Winnipeg Jets players (WHA) is empty, and the Nordiques don't have a WHA category. Should we just merge them all together and delete the cats? I have a feeling that a lot of WHA-only players are in the normal "Foo Fooers players" categories. BoojiBoy 14:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think for the WHA/NHL team categories, as with the Ducks category, just merge them, then note Note: this category also includes the New England Whalers (1972-79) or Note: this category also includes WHA years (1972-79). As an aside, I notice that WHA years are treated inconsistently on some team pages. Some teams have their WHA captains/draft picks listed, others don't. Doogie2K (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting.

Check out NHL.com's version of events regarding the formation of the league. A wee bit different than what I see here (and indeed, what I've seen in many books). How did they decide an NHA champion if they suspended league operations for four years? No mention of trying to exclude the Toronto Blueshirts, either. Funny how they sanitised that whole bit. Doogie2K (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that it's from a site trying to explain the game's history to newcomers. BoojiBoy 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like it's the "hockey for idiots" version of events. DMighton 22:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Just seems like it's glossing over an awful lot, and while I get that to some degree, it still seems like a hefty misrepresentation. Doogie2K (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Player article vandalism

Here i go mentioning this again, but I've noticed that this WikiProject has grown in size in the last little while, and I'm just generally wondering how many users we have who regularly patrol hockey player articles for vandalism. I've been checking up on my player article and stub creations in the last while, and although the stubs especially seemed to have grown and prospered, I noticed that there was unreverted vandalism on almost every other one. These are pages I created a number of months ago, so it would seem that there should be people other than me who are watching at least some of them. I noticed some users other than me have done a fair amount of player article work in the past few months since I've taken a little more of a reduced role on Wikipedia. The big question is this, how de we as a project keep tabs on the however thousand player articles there are, and who is willing to keep them up? Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I monitor all the player articles on my watchlist, but that list is over 400 names by now. I swear my vandalism watch is about 80% of the work I do on Wikipedia now, and I really didn't sign on for that. It burns me the articles I could be writing for which I lack the time. Ravenswing 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been taking care of what I could, up to and including sprotecting Petr Sykora and banning the smacked asses involved. That said, if someone sees people in need of spanking, don't hesitate to email me. I'm probably around, just very busy :P  RasputinAXP  c 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
We talked briefly about having a new articles section on the front page. I think this will help get attention any new articles and get it on some people's watchlists. I'll create the section with the recently created requested articles. If anyone writes something, please put it on the list. -- JamesTeterenko 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Just randomly clicking, I saw that Igor Ulanov was fully of IP-added crap. Not even funny WP:BJAODN crap, either, just garden-variety nonsense. Pretty damned annoying. Doogie2K (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor League Hockey

When I look around the Internet I see several minor leagues mainley the AHL, ECHL, CHL, UHL, and SPHL. There are also some like the North Eastern Hockey League, and Canadian Elite Hockey League which some may not think of minor leagues. I have also heard that they are classified by AAA, AA, and A. Could someone tell me what classification these leagues are so I can update it on their pages. Thank you. John R G 06:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The NEHL is Single-A. It is also crap. See my original write-up of the league [8], before it was edited by User:24.150.250.34, who I believe to be the league commissioner himself. It's the only league I know of where the commissioner himself also stepped in and shut down the league's website message board because of flaming. Now if that's not Single-A, I don't know what is. :)
Sorry, just ranting. I was so excited when we finally got a hockey team in Jamestown, and then that's what we got. :P --Skudrafan1 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There are no official classifications in minor league hockey. That's a Minor League Baseball concept. That's Minor League Baseball (with capitals), the umbrella organization that oversees affiliated minor league baseball leagues. Hockey has no such structure or organization and labelling leagues likewise would be erroneous. ccwaters 12:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
(nods to CC) Yeah, we've been fighting this baseball classification nonsense for quite some time. If you want to figure where the minors "rank," though, it's pretty simple. You have the AHL, then the ECHL below that, then the CHL and UHL a cut below that, then the SPHL, and then any number of semi-pro and senior leagues. Ravenswing 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As the others have mentioned, the "AA" classification the ECHL uses is merely a marketing tactic by the league. I guess it helps give American fans an idea of where the league ranks talentwise. Generally, the AHL is "AAA" hockey, though the league has never referred to itself in that way. ECHL bills itself as AA, and therefore any league below tries to bill itself as "A". There is a loose affiliation system between the ECHL, AHL and NHL, however, but it is nowhere near as rigid as the one MiLB employs. Resolute 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey be classified as a minor hockey league?

I think its been labelled as "semi-professional". I'm not exactly what semi-pro means though... ccwaters 10:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Semi-pro is neither completely professional nor completely amateur. Either there are a couple players on each team who get paid, or everyone receives a small amount of money for playing, but not enough to make a living on obviously. SportingFlyer 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(ice hockey) vs. (hockey player)

I noticed over the past few months, editors have been changing (ice hockey) to (hockey player) following players' names. While i have never cared much either way, i think it makes more sense to use (ice hockey) simply because there are other forms of Hockey out there. By ending players' names in (ice hockey), it is clear which sport he/she plays for. Masterhatch 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

this is something that has been discussed various times, I think, and I've heard from users outside the ice hockey realm, that for this the best to use would be (hockey) and/or (ice hockey), since the thing inside the brackets should be kept as brief as possible. Thus (hockey player) does not work, and it won't work, its only in there because users seem to like it the best. Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer having it as (hockey), then only expand to (ice hockey) if and only if you have to disambiguate with another form of hockey. I suspect that the number of name clashes with other forms of hockey will be quite limited. -- JamesTeterenko 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My first player page...

...is Lorne Davis. How did I do? Doogie2K (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it's pretty nice. I fixed the external links since they weren't on separate lines, but otherwise it's fine. --NeoChaosX 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm. I think I also missed the WP:HOCKEY template on the talk page. Odd, since I usually remember that. Thanks for the assist. Doogie2K (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And here comes my first player page! Ronnie Sundin. Please feel free to give suggestions for improvment and I may have some misspellings in the article but I'll blaim that on the fact the the clock is 3.30 am. I used his full name so that there wouldn't be any confusion of another swedish Sundin...

Oh and I'll add his stats tomorrow and some external links--Krm500 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Save percentage

I'm working on save percentage leaders prior to the creation of the Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award. I've managed to find all leaders since, and including, the 1982-83 season. Before that, I can only find the percentages for some goaltenders. Does anyone know what year the stat was first used? J-Roc 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sv% dates back, way back, but was rarely used and thought unimportant. I believe I've seen random Sv% stats back to the 1950s... but never was it in league wide use until the 80s as far as I can tell. Actually... it might be easier to find "shots" or "saves" stats and compared to "Goals Against" stats... work it out. DMighton 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
According the Hockey Compendium from 1987 that I have, save percentage was first recorded as an offical statistic in 1982/83. Actually reading it back again, it states shots were first an offical statistic starting 82/83. From there save percentage evolved. Patken4 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I added it to the want list simply because it didn't seem right to have it not listed before the award was created. However if SOG weren't even recorded before 1982 we obviously can't have Save Pct. leaders before then. I think the article is fine as it now stands; delete the missing years and note why the stats don't go back any further. BoojiBoy 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
WhatIfSports.com has save percentages listed all the way back to the 1917-18 season. Other sites like Goalie Archives and Hockeydb don't have such, so I'm kinda stuck here. Perhaps doing what BoojiBoy said above is the best thing. Thanks for the info guys. J-Roc 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if someone else has done the work already, just plug that information in. BoojiBoy 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that, though, is I kinda wonder how accurate those numbers are. Just listing the leaders since save percentage was first made an official stat would be the best option. J-Roc 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Klein & Reif took a stab at it going back before 1983, but the problem is that records of when in a game goalies were replaced, and how many shots they faced during the game, were sketchy at best for previous seasons. In a number of cases they simply estimated it, which is mediocre methodology. Frankly, I see no reason to try, quite aside that doing so violates WP:NOR. Ravenswing 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
K & R said they could only achieve 90-95% for accuracy for 81/82 in my '87 book by them. Even with the explosion of the internet, there simply is a limit to how accurate information from before the 80's is. The accuracy simply would be less in 1972 than in 1982, and less in 1962 than 1972, and so forth. I agree with above, only go back to 82/83 since it was official starting in that year. Patken4 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NHL Team Roster Page

I have noticed numerous times that people have been adding prospects just to be deleted to teams roster pages. I have an idea, why don't we keep only the teams actual current roster as it is now, and then beneath create a table for prospects/minor league players. Anyone else like the idea? --Thricecube 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

When the season actually starts, it won't be a problem as you know who the "Big Club" roster is. It's just during training camp and offseason where there are a legitimate numbers of players with a shot at making the roster. I think we just ride it out til October 4th, then make all rosters be the official one of only players at the major league. scsgoal31 22:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Its a chore just to maintain the 23-man rosters during the season. Why add another element to it? There's also POV involved (define who a prospect is). I wouldn't really sweat it until the season kicks off though. ccwaters 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think rosters in general are too much maintenance, and don't add much to the article. It is much easier to add an external link to the roster, at sites that are already online, and frequently updated. Flibirigit 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would rather not add prospects to the page. Having this section is just screaming for a fight between the 11 year old fans of a team. I do like having the rosters, because they provide a link to the biographies for all of the active players on the team. The team pages suffer from an issue that many people confuse Wikipedia for a news source instead of an encyclopedia. This will be true no matter what we put on them. I am personally ignoring the edits to the roster for now. -- JamesTeterenko 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are generally a bunch of AHLers/prospects that have a legit shot of playing a significant number of games and/or coming up and down multiple times in a season. For example, with the Oilers, that could include Jean-Francois Jacques, Marc-Antoine Pouliot, Rob Schremp, Brad Winchester, and Ladislav Smid. What about putting them in the table, but then commenting them out (with a big note that says "DO NOT RESTORE THIS ENTRY TO THE TABLE UNLESS THE PLAYER HAS BEEN FORMALLY CALLED UP"), so they can be easily added/subtracted as need be? I grant it exposes us to the same problem of 11-year-olds, but at least it'd be easier on us oldtimers ;). Doogie2K (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. That is the easiest way to manage them through the season. I wouldn't go out of my way to add the prospects in. But if you are cleaning up a page, just comment the player out to make it easy to add back later. -- JamesTeterenko 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Oilers are done. Looks so much cleaner, and best of all, no work required to add people who make it out of TC. Doogie2K (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. I love comment tags for keeping newbies in line. BoojiBoy 17:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there, but what about listing each team's top five or ten prospects below the roster chart? J-Roc 21:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that is coming up with a neutral way to identify which prospects are worth mentioning. There isn't a good reliable source where we could get this information. -- JamesTeterenko 22:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
hockeysfuture.com gives prospect rankings for each team. For example, one could take the Sabres' prospect list and show the top 5 players who are not currently on the Buffalo roster (in this case, 1. Marek Zagrapan, 2. Drew Stafford, 4. Daniel Paille, 5. Andrej Sekera, and 6. Clarke MacArthur, skipping 3. Jason Pominville, who is currently on the big club's roster). Just a thought, if anyone is planning on implementing this idea. --Skudrafan1 01:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
HF is a great resource, but it's still just one site's opinion though. I would keep the prospects out completely. BoojiBoy 02:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

London Lions & NHL Europe

I had removed comments that the NHL tried to start a European league from a couple of articles since all references I could find could not corroborate this. However, an anonymous IP (potentially a VaughanWatch sockpuppet) has restored much of the information. Would someone please check out these articles and put in your thoughts in Talk:History of the National Hockey League#London Lions. Thanks. -- JamesTeterenko 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to your revision. Like you, I could not verify the paragraph as written, thus it does not belong. Resolute 05:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I just listed the archiving in a more efficient manner at the top of the page then had been there previous. However it probably could be dressed up a little bit. I'm not the user for that job, that's not my area, so feel free to try and make it look better. Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I used an example box from Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page to store the archive links in a neat little box. That should be more visually pleasing. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 05:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is much more. Good Job! Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

I have just gone through the entire List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame and corelated it with Category:Hockey Hall of Fame. Needless to say, both the cat and list were a mess, but I think I have it fixed up now. I discovered four more missing HHOF bios which I've added to the list; all four weren't DAB'ed on the list of inductees so they showed up as blue links. However, we have a decision to make:

These people are all media honouorees to the HHOF:

  • John Robson (media honouree)
  • Jacques Beauchamp (media honouree)
  • Jim Burchard (media honouree)
  • Red Burnett (media honouree)
  • Dink Caroll (media honouree)
  • Jim Coleman (media honouree)
  • Fred Cusick (media honouree)
  • Ted Damata (media honouree)
  • Marcel Desjardins (media honouree)
  • Jack Dulmage (media honouree)
  • Milt Dunnell (media honouree)
  • Elmer Ferguson (media honouree)
  • Tom Fitzgerald (media honouree)
  • Trent Frayne (media honouree)
  • Danny Gallivan (media honouree)
  • Foster Hewitt (media honouree)
  • Al Laney (media honouree)
  • Rene Lecavalier (media honouree)
  • Joe Nichols (media honouree)
  • Basil O'Meara (media honouree)
  • Jim Vipond (media honouree)
  • Lewis Walter (media honouree)
  • Charlie Barton (media honouree)
  • George Gross (media honouree)
  • Red Fisher (media honouree)
  • Zotique L'Espereance (media honouree)
  • Budd Lynch (media honouree)
  • Charles Mayer (media honouree)
  • Andy O'Brien (media honouree)
  • Doug Smith (media honouree)
  • Dick Johnston (media honouree)
  • Leo Monohan (media honouree)
  • Tim Moriarty (media honouree)
  • Wes McKnight (media honouree)
  • Lloyd Petit (media honouree)
  • Bill Brennan (media honouree)
  • Rex MacLeod (media honouree)
  • Ben Olan (media honouree)
  • Fran Rosa (media honouree)
  • Bob Wilson (media honouree)
  • Dick Irvin (media honouree)
  • Jim Proudfoot (media honouree)
  • Scott Young (media honouree)
  • Dan Kelly (media honouree)
  • Claude Larochelle (media honouree)
  • Frank Orr (media honouree)
  • Jiggs McDonald (media honouree)
  • Bertrand Raymond (media honouree)
  • Hugh Delano (media honouree)
  • Bruce Martyn (media honouree)
  • Al Shaver (media honouree)
  • Al Strachan (media honouree)
  • Ted Darling (media honouree)
  • Jack Gatecliff (media honouree)
  • Brian McFarlane (media honouree)
  • Gene Hart (media honouree)
  • Ken McKenzie (media honouree)
  • Howie Meeker (media honouree)
  • Yvon Pedneault (media honouree)
  • Russ Conway (media honouree)
  • Richard Garneau (media honouree)
  • Jim Matheson (media honouree)
  • Bob Miller (media honouree)
  • Eric Duhatschek (media honouree)
  • Mike Lange (media honouree)
  • Kevin Dupont (media honouree)
  • Gilles Tremblay (media honouree)
  • Michael Farber (media honouree)
  • Rod Phillips (media honouree)
  • Chuck Kaiton (media honouree)
  • Jim Kelley (media honouree)
  • Helene Elliott (media honouree)
  • Sal Messina (media honouree)

All of the above are media honourees to the HHOF, which means that all of the above are not, technically, inducted members. Yet many of them have their own articles, and a few of them (Cusick, Darling, Elliott, Hart, Kaiton, Lange and Phillips) are in the HHOF category. I think we should make a separate list (or make it an offshoot of the main list) to differentiate, and maybe also a separate subcategory for the media inductees. All of them are worth noting, but they are not on the same plane as, say, Cyclone Taylor. Thoughts? BoojiBoy 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What if we were to create four subcategories of Category:Hockey Hall of Fame, and call them:

That should address the concern and help clean up the existing category. -- JamesTeterenko 22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but we would also need Category:Officials in the Hockey Hall of Fame. BoojiBoy 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot that one. Another potential name for them might be Category:Players inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame to make it explicitly clear that we are talking about people that are inducted, but that is a bit long. -- JamesTeterenko 22:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a good idea. The category is a mess and that would clean it up. As for length, there are longer category names, so "Players Inducted in the Hockey Hall of Fame" isn't a bad title. As for the Elmer Fergusen and Foster Hewitt award winners, I don't think they should be included in the HHOF inductees page (because although they are honoured in the Hall of Fame, they aren't inductees), but a category for them wouldn't hurt. While we're talking about cleaning up the HHOF categories, it probably wouldn't hurt to separate the List sorted alphabetically into Players, Builders and Officials (Keep them on one page but just have seperate categories). -- Scorpion0422 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think as long as the category description makes it clear that Hewitt and Ferguson winners are honourees, not inductees in the traditional sense, they should be fine as subcategories of the HHoF category. Also, I don't know that the longer cat name is really necessary. I think "Players in the Hockey Hall of Fame" pretty well covers it, since...how does a player get in if they aren't inducted? Doogie2K (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! and Hockey Hall of Fame Members (Sorted Chronologically)

Hello, I'm new to the project. Just as a brief introduction, I've done several edits on Player bios, trophies and most notably, the Hockey hall of Fame. I've talked/butted heads with several project members on the HHOF talk page. I'm a Londoner, so I'm a huge Knights and Leafs fan. I also pay a lot of attention to the Olympics, World Cup and World Championships. So, hello and I look forward to working on the project more.

Anyway, I recently created a new page of the members of the Hockey Hall of fame that is sorted chronologically (there have been suggestions about that in the HHOF talk page and I was told that I could create a new page if I wanted). I also moved to old page here: Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame (alphabetical), so if there are any pages that link there, it would be best to fix the links. So I just thought I'd give everyone a heads up about that. If anyone sees anything wrong with the new page, or if they dislike the format, please say so here.

While creating the new page, I fixed most of the names, but the alphabetical page has several naming messes, such as how it lists several players under their lesser known real names and others under unknown nicknames.-- Scorpion0422 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaw hits floor

Has anyone taken a look at this page lately? BoojiBoy 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Impressive, but completely redundant, no? It's basically a category posing as an article. Resolute 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The Anahiem Ducks have one too... annoying eh? DMighton 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Lists are different from categories. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for some info on comparing both. We have that for every team. What is interesting, is that there isn't a single red link on the page. Check out something like the page for the List of Montreal Canadiens players or List of Calgary Flames players, and you will see a number of red links. I have never seen a team with all the articles created. Even something as recent as the Predators has a number of red links. -- JamesTeterenko 05:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Must these players necessarily have played for the team, or only been the team's property? I'm thinking of, for example, Brian Leetch, who was Oilers property for a few days as part of a loophole deal with the Rangers. Doogie2K (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The lists are named "Edmonton Oilers players," not "Edmonton Oilers employees." I'd presume that you need to actually play for a team to be a player. Ravenswing 07:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was that it was impressive that every former Capital now has an article. Whoever did that work should be commended and barnstarred. BoojiBoy 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I too have noticed that about that page. I am quite active in player creation and i had notice the Capitals page and was quite impressed. I watched as over a few weeks as more and more red links were being replaced. I am not sure who did it, but yes, they deserve some sort of recognition. Masterhatch 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it was User:Tallyho70. BoojiBoy 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is something I was thinking about while I was going through the List of Philadelphia Flyers players. It makes me wonder about the purpose of Wikipedia. Is it really a good idea to create every single NHL player that has every played the game? Is it even necessary? That Capitals page is amazing, but when you click on (insert random player name here) you get what amounts to a stub, perhaps even a Wikipedia vanity page. I think you can see where I am going with this, so I'll stop. Adam Oates is a must; Chris Corrinet is quite the opposite, no offense to Mr. Corrinet. --Sparkhurst 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The (overly loose) WP:BIO criteria allows for any sportsperson to have played in a professional league to have an article; technically, not only is a one-game NHL wonder eligible for an article, but a one-game CHL wonder as well. Whether it's a good use of time when there are so many articles of prominent players left unwritten - and considering how many of these articles are created as scanty stubs, which is pointless - is one thing, but I suppose how an editor chooses to spend his time is his or her own affair. Ravenswing 06:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories Gone Wild

Is there really a category for 2006_Carolina_Hurricanes_Stanley_Cup_Championship_Team??? This is just barnacle-like accretion, and unless there's a strong consensus the other way I'm CfDing it. Ravenswing 08:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several in baseball: Category:1993 Toronto Blue Jays World Series Championship Team. I have no problem with it, but it can clutter the categories section. Resolute 08:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering nominating Category:Goaltenders in the Stanley Cup Finals - seems like way overcategorization. What do you guys think? BoojiBoy 18:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with getting rid of the goalie category. That is too much. I am indifferent on the Stanley Cup team category. Seems like a lot of effort, but it is one way to clean up Category:Stanley Cup champions. -- JamesTeterenko 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Since other sports do it, I see no harm in doing it. Though the Pocket Rocket might soon have 11 more categories... Patken4 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've listed the goalie cat for CFD. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 8#Category:Goaltenders in the Stanley Cup Finals. BoojiBoy 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Logo cleanup

2003-04 NHL transactions, 2005-06 NHL transactions and 2006-07 NHL transactions need logo cleanup to satisfy WP:FUP. Looks like we missed this one when we were cleaning up all the rest earlier this year. BoojiBoy 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs article debate

There is a little bit of a debate going on at Talk:2006_Stanley_Cup_Playoffs#Proposed_Merge regarding the attempt to merge Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs into the main 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs page. I and another user are going back and forth, and we each have very different ideas on what needs to be done. If anyone would like to head over there and give his/her two cents, please do. Thanks! --Skudrafan1 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Just a reminder for all of those writing up biographical articles on hockey players that the current naming conventions for Canadian cities require "city, province" at almost all times; at present the only exceptions that are at city alone are Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. I regularly find myself having to clean up hockey player bios that incorrectly link to disambiguation pages or British cities instead of the intended Canadian article. So please remember to link to city, province in all cases except the five cities noted above; if you're not sure what province a city is in, you can check. Bearcat 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Obituaries

If anyone out there is writing bios of players from yesteryear and are looking to find out if those players are alive or dead, try http://losthockey.com/main.cfm which has a number of player obits. BoojiBoy 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks

After making a page for Gilles Villemure, I realized that it was updated with a Category:Vancouver Canucks players added.

Villemure played for the Canucks before they joined the NHL, while they were still a WHL team. However, the Canucks note says that the category is for anyone who has ever played for the Canucks team in the NHL.

Something needs to be done - is it 1) rewrite the Canucks category to umbrella anyone who has ever played in a Canucks uniform or 2) start Category:Vancouver Canucks (WHL) to discriminate against those who played for the Canucks while in the NHL?

SportingFlyer 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would opt for #2 myself. ccwaters 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Minor research. The only players in the list who would also qualify for the WHL list are:
Andy Bathgate
Gilles Villemure
Bryan Hextall Jr
Orland Kurtenbach (+NHL also)
It appears Don Cherry would also qualify for the WHL list. I'm assuming this is the same Don Cherry.
Is this too small to make a new category for? SportingFlyer 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No more so than for any other minor league team, numerous categories of which exist. As it happens, many other players could get tagged with such a category. The following players who already have articles spent significant time with the WHL Canucks: Johnny Bower, Ken Block, Larry Cahan, Billy Dea, Tony Esposito, Pat Egan, Kent Douglas, Lou Fontinato, Emile Francis, Stan Gilbertson, Larry Mavety, Allan Stanley, Don Simmons and Gump Worsley. Ravenswing 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We should create the WHL category so that it exists in the proper parent categories. -- JamesTeterenko 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Created under 'Vancouver Canucks'. SportingFlyer 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated with all the names posted above. Ken Block and Don Simmons are not hockey players and need to be created/added if someone feels like it. SportingFlyer 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Bisons players

As a side note, the Category:Buffalo Bisons players is for the baseball team, not the various hockey teams. For now, Lorne Carr, Floyd Curry, Bob Fillion, Larry Hillman, and Bob Turner (hockey) are all in the wrong category. Patken4 22:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We should make a new category such as Buffalo Bisons hockey players or have the other category renamed to Buffalo Bisons baseball players with appropriate criteria for inlcusion listed on each page. Flibirigit 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a category: Category:Buffalo Bisons (AHL) players --Skudrafan1 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've made cat changes to all the above players; Carr was the only who didn't play for the AHL Bisons. There was a cat for the IHL Bisons at Category:Buffalo Bisons (IHL) players. Patken4 12:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
And there were two hockey teams. See: Buffalo Bisons (disambiguation). I'd name the categories in parrallel withthe article names. ccwaters 02:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there players categories for all seven of those teams listed as the Buffalo Bisons? If so, maybe all seven categories need to be renamed? Flibirigit 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We should aspire to this:

Manchester City F.C. is today's featured article. It's well-written, factual, contains little listcruft and no POV. We should try to bring the Habs article back up to featured standard (although I hate the Habs...) BoojiBoy 01:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see that with the other teams, as well. I was looking over the Kings' article today, and there is no way an article for any Wikipedia subject needs over a hundred footnotes, especially when some items so basic and uncontroversial as a coaching change gets footnoted. IMHO, only controversial, unusual or superlative assertions need footnoting. Ravenswing 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, certainly, sources need to be cited, but the way this was done seems a bit silly. Wouldn't it be better simply to cite the whole book, rather than individual pages? Doing that and clumping all recent transactions into two or three pages, from NHL.com or some other similar source, would heavily reduce the number of citations and distinct sources. Nothing wrong with having over 100 footnotes (see Microsoft), but that's just nuts. Doogie2K (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Texas Wikiproject

Some of you may have noticed that a number of players have been tagged as being part of the Texas Wikiproject. This was a bot tagging all articles in subcategories of Category:Texas. (e.g. Brent Krahn was tagged because he is in Category:San Antonio Rampage players, which is deeply nested under the Texas category). Because of the significant number of irrelevant pages being tagged, I have requested that this bot exclude team player categories. It will exclude Category:Dallas Stars players, Category:San Antonio Rampage players, Category:Houston Aeros players, Category:Houston Aeros (IHL) players and Category:Houston Aeros (WHA) players. If you notice that any categories that should be excluded, please note it on User talk:WatchlistBot. Thanks. -- JamesTeterenko 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get a bot to tag all the missed articles in Category:Ice hockey and all subcats? BoojiBoy 01:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably. Go ahead and ask on the talk page. -- JamesTeterenko 02:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Hockey stick

I've split Ice hockey stick away from Hockey stick, since the original generic article had been overtaken by the Ice version. Hopefully, this will now allow contributors to make the Ice version very specific. Ian Cairns 04:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Elite Ice Hockey League peer review

Elite Ice Hockey League is currently on peer review. Any feedback appreciated. Oldelpaso 17:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ice hockey teams by province

I created List of ice hockey teams in Alberta today, and will begin populating it throughout the Alberta team pages at some point under the "See-also" heading. Ideally, I'd like to create, or see created, a list for each province (probably multiple for Ontario, and possibly one for the maritimes combined). What do you guys think of the format? I chose to leave off defunct Jr A teams (St. Albert Saints) and didnt list any Jr B teams at all (Airdrie Thunder). Any proposed additions, deletions, changes? Resolute 20:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that's some fabulous work. BoojiBoy 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Avco World Trophy

I see that the following teams Carolina Hurricanes, Phoenix Coyotes, and Colorado Avalanche who won championships while in the WHA do not have anything on their pages about the championships that they won while in the WHA. Shouldnt that information be put on thier pages even thought they moved to a different city and switched leagues. John R G 06:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm no authority but the Winnipeg Jets won their WHA title, not the Phoenix Coyotes. While they are the same 'franchise', I bet no one in Phoenix for instance knows they even won the Avco. If it's on the Nordiques, Whalers and Jets page I think we'll be ok...but if I'm wrong let me know. SportingFlyer 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The Hurricanes, Coyotes and Avalanche never won the Avco Cup. The Whalers, Jets and Nordiques did. And that is marked in the articles for those teams. Resolute 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The indefatigable 24.79.60.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm afraid this guy is still flailing away; I just reverted about fifteen edits to team pages, with his usual problems. Is there any way this guy can be blocked until such time as he actually communicates with an admin or anyone else? He just keeps blindly going at it, and doesn't seem to respond to any exhortation. Ravenswing 08:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a report on WP:RFI as suggested by Resolute to see what happens. If that doesn't produce something, we could try reporting him to WP:AN or something. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Team vs. Franchise records

User The dude 2 has been unilaterally changing records tables for moved franchises (Carolina, Phoenix, Colorado) to include only seasons after the move, and moving old records to the articles on the predecessor team. I think it's worth having predecessor-only records on the predecessor team article, but common practice is that records stay with the franchise (in all North American sports, not just hockey -- only the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens have varied from this pattern). So I think the standing records from predecessor franchise players need to come back. Not sure what public opinion is on this, so I wanted to get comment before I go on an rv binge. VT hawkeyetalk to me 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Baltimore Stallions and Montréal Alouettes are considered separate by the Canadian Football League even though they are the same franchise, in a similar vein to the Browns and Ravens. But I digress. Our articles are on individual teams, and sometimes it is left at that. However, the media seems to disagree, by adding qualifiers such as "Since the Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary". Judges? kelvSYC 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not include both? There is always a ton of whitespace to the right of the records section. For such teams, why not list team records and franchise records side by side? Resolute 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Go on a binge. The NHL lists the whole franchise record together in the Official Record Books, regardless of city shifts. Ravenswing 03:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept that as authoritative. Done. VT hawkeyetalk to me 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited roster style

Recently I've been working on the Oilers columns to get them match up. I decided to take another look at the Frolunda roster and saw how well it turned out. I used that as a basis and changed a few things to my liking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Oilers#Current_roster

What do you think? J-Roc 09:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's neat, but what exactly what exactly in the old layout wasn't lining up for you? On the San Jose Sharks' roster, the columns are lining up pretty neatly, and it's using the same layout as the Oilers' old roster was. The only advantage I see to your proposed layout is taking up less horizontal space. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 09:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it, it looks much better and it's easier too read when it's not as wide. --Krm500 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Sharks roster, if someone feels like doing this to any other teams current squad don't forget too change the position and shots column since it looks much better if all the shots/catches columns are in line.--Krm500 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. :) J-Roc 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new format. It wasn't lining up correctly with my browser either, and this new one makes it look more neat and compact. Good job. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured I should point this out. It appears that you only used "defencemen" for all rosters, when it should be "defensemen" for all U.S.-based team articles. Hopefully someone can get on that, and I'll do some quick fixing to that later on when I have some free time if that still is the case for the majority of teams in the U.S. Resident Lune 23:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I fixed it. :) J-Roc 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot

User:WatchlistBot is currently working on tagging all articles in Category:Ice hockey and subcategories with the {{ice hockey}} template. BoojiBoy 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The bot is finished. All articles should now have the tag. We also have a list of our stuff at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Articles. BoojiBoy 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What is nice, is if you look at the related changes on that page (i.e. this link), you get to see any recent changes to all the articles that have been tagged as part of the ice hockey project. It is a decent way to try catch vandalism. -- JamesTeterenko 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive5&oldid=1144445670"