Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive52

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

IIHF World Championship & Men's World Ice Hockey Championships articles

When I went to check up on the 2013 IIHF World Championship article, I found that it was re-directed to the 2013 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships article. IMHO, the redirect should be removed & 2013 IIHF World Championship article deleted. Why? because it's confusing, when you move from the 2012 IIHF World Championship article to the 2013 counterpart. It must be even more confusing for less familiar readers. PS: I was about to 'remove' the re-direct & recommend an AfD, but then I checked the article's edit history & wisely chose a less dramatic path. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it should be a disambiguation page. There will be IIHF world championships for men, women, U-20 men, U-18 men and U-18 women. But you are right about the inconsistency. Should we consider moving the previous years tournaments to match this, and create 2012 IIHF World Championship and previous as dab pages? Reso lute 20:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be content with any solution, that will bring consistency to these tournament articles, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the iihf homepage the official name of the tournament is 2012 IIHF (Ice Hockey) World Championship. It's much like the FIFA World Cup were the simplest form refers to the top mens competition and all other competitions (women's, u-20s) use some sort of disambiguation. (though since that isn't a yearly tournament and it is staggered with many of the other similiarly named tournaments it isn't completely the same) I think its important that we keep the official name. A possible solution would be to create a hat note to a 2012 IIHF World Championship (disambiguation) page which could then list all the other tournies. Ravendrop 09:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And such making the "Men's World Ice Hockey Championships" articles redundant? I have never liked them as to me they always seemed like made up articles that never had any official name, somewhat like an extra fancy disambiguation page (but thats my opinion). There is also the fact that all our articles for the under-20 WC use junior instead of U20. Shouldn't the articles use the official names? And one more point, I see that the tournament as a whole is for example "IIHF World U18 Championships", with the "s" attached which is then split into the "IIHF World U18 Championship", "IIHF World U18 Championship Division I Group A', ect. Currently all lower divisions follow after the championship creating a somewhat confusing structure with the main infobox only referring to the Championship and not the lower division. Any thoughts on fixing our structure across these articles would be great. Salavat (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Howabout, I make stubs of the 'future' IIHF World Championship articles. Atleast that would be a start in the consistency direction. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I changed the following: 2013 IIHF World Championship, 2014 IIHF World Championship, 2015 IIHF World Championship & 2016 IIHF World Championship from re-directs to article stubs. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that I got those re-directs changed to stubs, we've gotta get rid of these other re-directs: 2013 IIHF World Championships, 2014 IIHF World Championships & 2015 IIHF World Championships. Shall I prod them? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

List nomination

Wondering if this list (List of HC Donbass seasons) is good enough for nomination quality criteria? --Львівське (говорити) 17:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm no FA/FL expert but I am thinking that that list is probably too small to qualify for featured status. Being that its only a couple years long and a bunch of those years were not played. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking it there isn't a GA equivalent for List-based articles?--Львівське (говорити) 17:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No its FL or nothing when it comes to lists. You could still try. I am just sure someone will mention how short the list is. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

When we did the NHL trophies FT, it was noted that a list with less than ten entries generally didn't qualify as it was too short. For a team with what looks like eight seasons under its belt, I am thinking that might not pass for this reason. I would ask at WT:FLC to see what the regulars think. They should give you a definitive response on whether it is worthwhile to nominate. Reso lute 19:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, I'll just apply it in a few years once they're a bit longer in tooth, and try to get the main article GA quality in the meantime. thx guys --Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

numerical milestone categories

I have nominated Category:National Hockey League players with 50 goal seasons and Category:National Hockey League players with 100 point seasons for deletion here. We don't typically have single-season numerical accomplishment categories. Note that I am not at all nominating the lists List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons and List of NHL players with 100-point seasons, as these provide more context and numerical precision.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to update our infoboxes...

I believe MLB started the trend, followed by the NFL. For the longest time both the NBA and NHL had bland infoboxes that had no distinguishing features to reference the current team of a certain player. The NBA just started to do this I believe a year ago?

Basically the goal I have is to redesign all the NHL templates so that a team's primary/secondary colors are used in certain headers of the NHL sportsperson infobox.

Some examples to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_NFL_player http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_basketball_biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_MLB_player

And here's a quick shortcut to the current Ice Hockey template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_ice_hockey_player

I believe this shouldn't be a long project at all. Obviously there are currently more important matters to be addressed but for those with any spare time we could work to make this work. Ideally this could get done in less than a month? At least a rough draft?

I'd like to help as well but I'm a bit confused on how colors work with the above templates. Once I figure that out I think it can be done rather quickly.

--Yankeefan4477 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been talked about before, but personally, I think the baseball and football infoboxes are obnoxious and ugly. I am very much opposed to adopting such a scheme. Reso lute 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Resolute here. Those infoboxes are eyesores and very much would benefit from being converted to a style more like ours. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As discussed in this thread a better option to maintain accessibility is to keep the header with high contrast colours and to add a thick border with appropriate colours. isaacl (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I do think the hockey player infobox should be redesigned. Looking at a few football player's infoboxes, assuming you remove the "Career highlights and awards" and "Career stats" sections (these things should be in the article somewhere and not the infobox), it would be an improvement if a hypothetical hockey player infobox redesign looked like that. I like how similar info is grouped in the football player infobox, i.e. DoB, PoB and Hgt & Wgt are grouped under Personal Information, things like College and Draft are grouped under Career Information. In the current hockey player infobox, there are dividing lines where it doesn't seem necessary. Why do Born and Ht & Wgt have to be divided? Position and Shoots? National team is in no man's land. There is one instance where a dividing line is actually needed, between NHL Team and Former teams, and it isn't there. This leads to editors listing the former teams in the opposite order, putting the most recent team first and the least recent last. The football player infobox is far superior for the way it lists teams the player played for. -- The areas I consider the football player infobox inferior or weak is the heading that lists the number and team and the player's position under that. There has to be a better way to do that. It looks especially bad for retired players, listing just the number(s) in the header with the position below it. Your main point regarding the color coding I disagree with as I consider it unnecessary. Another minor gripe I've always had with the current hockey player infobox is that the font size is too small. --70.15.124.143 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Organization and font are definitely worthy of discussion. In general, how would you propose ordering the various parameters? Reso lute 23:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's something I came up with. Just ignore the bullet points and the indentations.

Chris Pronger

image

divider__________________________ (most important/relevant info for a hockey player first: who does he currently play for, what position does he play, and is he a left or right shot/glovehand?)

NHL team: Philadelphia Flyers (since field disappears for retired players, maybe stick "Hockey Hall of Fame inductee, [year]" somewhere in this section; perhaps stanley cup championships as well [there is an easy solution to the Pocket Rocket problem])
Position: Defence Shoots: Left (may need to give Shoots separate line due to players who play multiple positions)

divider or heading - Personal information

Date of birth: October 10, 1974 (age 37)
Place of birth: Dryden, Ontario, Canada [end abbr.]
Height: 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) Weight: 220 lb (100 kg) [why is Stones listed in the current infobox?]

divider or heading - Career information

Amateur team: Peterborough Petes (field not absolutely necessary due to players w/numerous amateur teams)
NHL Draft: 1993 / Round: 1 / Pick: 2 (or Round 1, 2nd overall pick, 1993)
Draft team: Hartford Whalers

divider_____________________________

Years active - 1993–present
- Hartford Whalers (1993–1995) [use actual bullet points for teams, listing years not absolutely necessary]
- St. Louis Blues (1995–2004)
- Edmonton Oilers (2005–2006)
- Anaheim Ducks (2006–2009)
- Philadelphia Flyers (2009–present)

divider_____________________________
- National team: Canada (if no Int career section, move National Team to below Amateur Team or Draft Team)
  - Olympics Games (1998, 2002, 2006, 2010)

--70.15.124.143 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you actually look at the information on the infobox it is grouping like information together. The lines make sense once you realize why they are there I suppose. Born is sperated from height and weight because the born and died info is one section about where they are from. The height/weight section is together because it is the physical characteristics section. The current team and former teams should definitely not have a line between them because they are a group of teams the player played for. The national team is down in a group of general career info (ie when they played and if they are in the hall of fame). The only ones I would probably adjust is moving the shots and position info into the same section as the physical characteristics. (I would note that in the former teams section you are supposed to put the most recent team first per previous discussions)-DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but we can consider if it is possible to make it clearer. And it might be worth discussing moving things around, e.g.: putting team info right at the top. Reso lute 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I have no problem adjusting them if we can find a decent way to do it. I wouldn't put the teams right at the top though, I would still list birth and physical info at the top as that is how you generally find most "info" boxes on sports pages or hockey cards or similar situations so it is likely how readers are conditioned to see that information and to expect it. I don't mind most of the suggested changes above, but I wouldn't put the amateur team in. I also wouldn't put the years of each team in because that is over crowding the box and would be better left to the prose in the article. I also wouldn't put each international appearance in the infobox as the international play template already does that. Generally the other sports especially baseball crowd far too much information into their infobox. So the closer we can keep it to the minimal we currently have the better. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What previous discussions? Please point to them. Most hockey player articles I come across list them the logical way to list teams - in chronological order. -- Was this reverse order consensus arrived at last week or something? Template:Infobox ice hockey player makes no reference to putting former teams in reverse order. Featured article Ray Emery isn't listed like that. Ditto Roberto Luongo. And is this also the case for retired players? For instance, Wayne Gretzky isn't listed like that. Ditto Dominik Hasek and Theoren Fleury. -- I've never interpreted both (League) team and Former teams as one continuous list. Sure, the design may be faulty, but Former teams always seemed like a new list for listing the player's former teams and I've edited articles accordingly. -- I don't think I've changed the order of teams too often and I've never noticed such edits being reverted. I switched featured article Trevor Linden a few months ago with a clear as day edit description "corrected order of teams in infobox"[1], and it hasn't been reverted. Just how widely accepted is this consensus? --70.15.124.143 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I will have to look through the archives to find them, that has been the method we have been using for a few years so the discussion is from quite awhile ago but it did only apply to current players I believe. Retired players I believe are in chronological order because they aren't counting back from their current team like in the current player infoboxes. Most of your examples except Emery & Luongo are retired players. And in saying that the featured process doesn't look for things like that prior to featuring an article. There isn't criteria that they conform to every other article and I would bet most people aren't that anal about making sure to fix them when they see them wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Although Template:Infobox ice hockey player doesn't specifically indicate "reverse order" for former teams, it does indicate "most recent team first", which means the same thing. This needs to be updated based on the following discussion. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Order of former teams in infobox

I think it is an unnecessary make-work item to have a different order for the former teams of active players versus inactive players. Given that in most lists, Wikipedia editors generally favour chronological order, I support the proposal that the order of the former teams in the infobox be in chronological order for all players. (That being said, I realize that aligning all articles is another make-work job (albeit one-time), though I'd guess there are some editors like GoodDay (if he were to return to editing hockey articles) who would take on a good gnoming task such as this one.) isaacl (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I've always listed the former teams in chronological order, though limited to teams at the top-level (so NHL, KHL and Elitserien, but not AHL, Allsvensken, etc). I think most articles are already in that format as well, though not necessarily all. And like DJ above, I would rather not list years played with each team in the infobox. I find it adds clutter more than anything. We'd probably want to widen the infobox a bit if we were to decide to use things like that. Reso lute 14:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal to me which way we use, but it isn't really a make work project since we have to move the teams from the former teams parameter to the played for parameter for retired players anyways. So usually it would get done at the same time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Flipping the list around is one more thing to remember to do... Regarding just including top-level teams, here are the some previous conversations on this (none very in-depth):

For those who have played significant time in a top-level league, with the caveat that the discussion participants were limited, there seems to be a preference to limiting the list to top-level league teams. For those who have spent no or little time in a top-level league, listing lower-level teams seems desired; the exact line for "little time" has been left to editorial judgment. isaacl (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Give me the green light & I'll gnome those former teams into chronological order. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say "green light" myself, as it makes the most sense. Unless anyone else has a concern? ... Speaking of gnomish tasks, we have about 2400 bios that are missing the "persondata short description parameter". It represents just under 30% of the templated problems with articles in our scope. All that would need to fix is to add "Canadian (or whatever nationality) ice hockey player" added to the hidden template at the bottom of each article. I've done a few from my little Flames project, but I'm no gnome, so don't have the patience for it at all! Reso lute 19:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll continue with chronological order stuff & then I'll tackle the nationality thing. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of them like Wayne Huizenga will need something different ;-) isaacl (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahem... yes, you are right. I'm guilty of oversimplifying there! Reso lute 20:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the situation with Marty Turco's contract? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a one-year deal, so he's a Bruin until July 1. Reso lute 22:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the chronological order for the active players, currently with the Ducks & Bruins. Will do 2 teams per day, less I get 'click wrist'. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, concerning the active players, there should be some spacing between the current & former teams. Such a spacing would make the appearance less confusing for less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Completed are the list of chronological former teams in the infoboxes of active NHL players. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

<outdent>I've got an idea to add to the template. I follow the WNBA and I noticed that Template:Infobox WNBA player has the medal table built into their template. For the sake of example take a look at Lauren Jackson allowing the medal table to be integrated into the infobox makes it look much smoother than the haphazard way it is added to players now. Sometimes it follows the infobox, other times it is under international play etc. But adding the small switch they have in there, you can move the medal box into the infobox and voila it reduces the clutter on the pages. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Edmonton Oilers draft picks

I am working on bringing this list up to FL standards based on the (soon to be promoted) List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks, but am looking for some opinions on a couple of things. Firstly, how should the WHA-era draft picks be treated. Personally, I think that they should be included, as the main Edmonton Oilers article also includes the history of the WHA era. The question then arises as to besides the draftees, years and number, what stats should be included. Currently it is number of NHL regular season and playoff games played, but other options include WHA stats or NHL stats. Secondly, should the Oilers supplemental draft picks (currently not included) be listed; and if so, should they be in a separate table or included at the end of the entry draft years with some sort of notation showing that they were a supplemental draft pick? Note that the page is a work in progress and I have been concentrating on the formatting (rowscopes take for freakin' ever) so things like prose and images are still to come. Any other opinions of things to include/not include are welcome. Thanks. Another question: Would a table summarizing the number of players drafted by position and one summarizing the players by nationality be overkill? Ravendrop 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I included Supplemental Draft picks in the main table on the Flames list, using "S" in place of a round number. The WHA draft does present an issue though. I think it would work best to do it in two tables. One for the WHA draft using WHA statistics, and the other for the NHL draft using NHL statistics. That might be your cleanest solution. Reso lute 20:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Makes the most sense. A format question: Since no goalie Edmonton ever drafted ever played a WHA game would it be reasonable to exclude the goaltender (W/L/T/OT/GAA) stats columns instead of having 5 solid columns of nothing but en dashes? Ravendrop 06:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The WHA format its a tough call IMO, while it seems a little pointless to add the columns there is something to be said about table consistency. I looked at the page and it doesn't look bad the way you have it, but it wouldn't surprise me if a question was raised at a potential FLC. I probably would have added the stats columns even though there is no numerical value to it, but that's probably just personal preference.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll keep it the way it is (my personal preference) but add them in if its raised at the FLC, as really its not a big issue one way or the other. I am a little bit concerned about its size though, currently at around 130k, and that is before I put in pictures. Ravendrop 05:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I might suggest splitting the page into one for the WHA and one for the NHL since the page is already at 133k which is double the recommended size of a page and the page is only going to get bigger each year that 7 or so players are added. With the names being something like List of Edmonton Oilers NHL draft picks and List of Edmonton Oilers WHA draft picks. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

list of NHL goalies

There was a request for this article to be made, I have the details, but would need help with formatting. Left a note at the requests page, but thought it would get more attention here. If this is something that is actually worthwile I would do it, but not going to put up that much information just to see it deleted. I have starters backups, backups backups, who was in the minors, for every team for most of the history of the NHL.18abruce (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that would be a needless fork of the List of NHL players pages personally. Because if you did it for goalies you would also have to do it for every other position and at that point it would get messy for people who played multiple positions. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Philadelphia championships

Did you know that a main reason why Philadephia did not have a championship for 25 years was that its teams only vied for championship titles during U.S. Presidential inauguration years? To wit, A and B happened, so a main reason for the outcome of A is A and B. Any ideas on how to ward off another few months/years of watching this concept spread itself throughout various articles? isaacl (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's odd. 1976, 1980, 1987, 2010 weren't US presidential inauguration years, concerning the Flyers. 1980, 1983 & 2008 weren't inauguration years, concerning the Phillies. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted SNyer's additions, per above reasoning. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor is concerned with the period from 1983 to 2008 (non-inclusive). Regardless, just because A and B happen to coincide doesn't mean there is any relationship between them. isaacl (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor-in-question, has been making these types of additions for quite some time, on the sports articles. He's shown no inclination to stop. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm as if watching for his obsessive 1994 Stanley Cup additions wasn't annoying enough! Reso lute 15:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping the caps would knock out his rangers because I didn't want him to have another year to obsess about. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Do either Los Angeles or Phoenix count as a Cindarella run to the Finals? That would be especially bad if his Rangers make it back to the Finals. Its quite comical almost, were it not so tedious and repetitive to revert all the time. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Kings win the Cup, I imagine it would be along the lines of "Los Angeles now becomes the first US city to have a team or school win a Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Championship, Stanley Cup, NCAA men's basketball national championship, and BCS national championship." Crap, did I just give him an idea? Patken4 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

IIHF World Championship & Men's World Ice Hockey Championships articles, part II

I've noticed the pre-1998 IIHF World Championship articles, are re-directs to their respective Men's World Ice Hockey Championships articles. Was the pre-1998 tournaments arranged differantly? GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers

This is a North American based article, which is using a 'non-diacritics' source. Therefore, why are my attempts to impliment the required edit meeting resistance? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Because you are defeating the whole purpose of the sentence....to show his native spelling. Just like we show the native spelling in the lead of articles. That being said that part of the sentence after the comma probably doesn't belong on the Hartford Whalers page and would be more suitable for his own bio if he had one. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a 1-on-1 discussion with Djsasso, per our history on this topic. I'll let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't going to discuss then maybe you shouldn't get involved in the topic. Disagreeing with someone and then refusing to discuss with them the situation is disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Jacques Ysaye has been deleted from the article by Djsasso (a deletion that I'm in agreement with), this discussion is rendered moot. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is now mooted, but I did see the little edit... discussion, and in that case, the spelling with diacritics was correct. Notwithstanding the general agreement to not use diacritics in North American articles, context is always key. Since the sentence was intending to reflect the native spelling of his name, that would have been impossible without the diacritic. (But, said passage was also pointless on the Whalers' article, so the removal was the best solution, imnsho). Think of it as something similar to using a direct quote. Even if you are writing an article in Canadian English, if a direct quote is written in American or British English, it is not proper to change the quote to reflect Canadian spellings. Reso lute 15:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories on NHL team list of players

Is there a way to edit those categories, as they're contradicting WP:HOCKEY's guideline on diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

NHL team rosters, review

I believe we should be allowed to hide the diacritics on the birthplaces of the players in the NHL rosters. Those are NHL rosters & their sources (NHL & NHLPA) don't use the dios. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told the that entire wiki has a guideline that place names keep their diacritics unless there is an English translation like Munich and that we as a wikiproject can't overrule the entire wiki. You have been told this over and over, by people that even agree with you about diacritics in other places. But I suppose this is normal pot stirring. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Others have weighed in, the last 20 or so times you have brought this up. Your RfC was clear that you were not supposed to do this sort of thing anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that you have your beliefs. :-> But there needs to be a new compelling reason beyond that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasons: 1) They're NHL rosters 2) the League sources don't use the dios and 3) the Player's Association don't use dios. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you just want to sample editor opinion once again, can I suggest, in the interest of saving everyone from rehashing previously-made arguments, that you create a FAQ page summing up the different points of view from past discussions and solicit input on updating the FAQ? isaacl (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

An easier solution would be to hide the dios in those 30 templates. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I assumed by bringing up this topic, you were interested in evaluating the current consensus. I realize the difficulties in doing so, and so understand if this isn't something you'd like to undertake. Unfortunately, just raising your opinion again and starting the conversation from scratch is unlikely to move things forward; it would be more beneficial to try to pick up where the discussion left off last time. I suggest that it may be best to wait until someone does try to summarize past points of view and then raise new points, at which time, you can also contribute your new thoughts and analysis. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Those are city names, and the NHL/NHLPA has no jurisdiction on that. Given/Surnames? Sure, the NHL has guidelines...but cities? Sorry man--Львівське (говорити) 00:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The NHL does use diacritics for the birth place of some players. They're just not very consistent even when referring to the same city via different players I don't know how they decide which players get the correct spelling while others get the "Americanized" version. The one instance where the NHL does use an accent consistently is when referring to the Montréal Canadiens. I think for consistency you should propose that all Canadiens pages be renamed to reflect the official usage by the team and the league. Feel free to regard (or disregard) that last sentence as serious, sarcastic smart-ass or unnecessary, however you see fit. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is about roster birthplaces, not the cities in team names...--Львівське (говорити) 02:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

HC Lev

Basically, with HC Lev the original team (2010-12) folded and a new team is now in prague called HC Lev, too. Normally this would mean split articles and in the case of same name, doing it like the jets HC Lev (2010-12) and the current one, just HC Lev. Wild8oar is being very bold, reverting and moving and all sorts of craziness. Just looking for some input so that this can be put to rest along our usual guidelines, and not invent fake team names like Lev Prague, as the article is now called for some reason. --Львівське (говорити) 20:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be 2 articles HC Lev (2010–12) & the current team HC Lev. We've a similiar situation with the Minnesota Fighting Saints, which should be 2 articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'd move them but I don't want to get into a move/edit war over this. --Львівське (говорити) 21:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I endorse GoodDay's solution. It's perfectly consistent with what we've done before, even recently. Two words: Winnipeg Jets. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment requested - 2012 IIHF World Championship

Should 2012 IIHF World Championship Final merge to 2012 IIHF World Championship? Please comment at Talk:2012 IIHF World Championship#Merge 2012 IIHF World Championship Final into 2012 IIHF World Championship. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota North Stars

I think this was brought up a long time ago, but we really should have an article on the extremely convoluted history surrounding the whole Cleveland Barons/Minnesota North Stars/San Jose Sharks/Dallas Stars ordeal, perhaps modeled after the article covering the Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City. I know very little about this process, and I only bring this up because I'm very curious about it, and it's mentioned here and there on various articles, but not discussed in any depth, supported by sources, and not concentrated in any one place. If someone has a good grasp on the details, maybe they can start a skeleton and I'll be glad to help out in the process. Jmj713 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, while it is an interesting story and should be noted on the pages that it is currently noted on. It's not a notable event in and of itself for its own article. The reason the Seattle one is, is that many many articles and books and even a documentary I just watched the other day have been made about it which make the history of it notable. I don't know that the same can be said about Stars situation so there would be very little to go on to make an article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. While it may not be on the same level, it's still a notable event, covered in the press at the time, and probably since. Here's one good contemporary article. Jmj713 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that it never really was covered much. That is why there is great debate over whether the Sharks were a demerger from the Stars or if they were separate etc. It was all very cloaked in secrecy and not covered in the news really. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Then all the more reason to go ahead, to shed light on the subject once and for all, to have a definitive answer would be a good thing. Jmj713 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree also. Over the past three years, I've been working on Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy, and no-one has AfDed it. The alternative would have been to split the text across three club season and three league season articles. As for the notability, I think recent events are much more heavily covered, and therefore may appear to be more notable, but I don't think that alone makes them so. I think you can find enough documentation in various sources to write such an article, and I do believe it would be an interesting addition to Wikipedia. There is an article in the SIHR Journal that covers at least part of it, so the editors there thought it was noteworthy. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

The Coyotes is a different situation, it is heavily covered in the press. I am not saying its not an interesting aspect, but that by Wikipedia definition of notable it doesn't really cross the line. Very little was in the papers about it, it was hidden very much in the shadows and no one can really agree on what happened. I definitely think it would be a great article to have, I just don't agree that it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. That being said, this is exactly the sort of information that should be in season pages. Our season pages are so bare of prose as to be embarrassing, and this is exactly the sort of thing that should be found in them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of this stuff is already in various team and season articles pertaining to the Barons, the Sharks, and the North Stars. However, it's fragmented, and a comprehensive article would tie it all together chronologically and contextually, and then we can have the season and team articles link to it for readers wanting more clear information. Jmj713 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We are certain of one thing, the Sharks did participate in a disperal draft with 'only' the Minnesota North Stars. An unusual draft, for an expansion team. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it pays to just write the article without asking. How do you think several thousand season articles in many sports happened? ;o) Reso lute 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would and maybe I will, but like I said, I'm not very familiar with the circumstances, even after reading up a bit, and it seems others here are. It's been a longstanding interest of mine, so perhaps one day I'll get to writing such an article, if nobody does. Jmj713 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the Minnesota North Stars had planned to call themselves the Minnesota Stars at the start of the 1991-92 season, but apparently changed their minds. I've been looking for sources on this little bit of info, but can't find any. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they changed their logo (to the one Dallas later adopted), which just said STARS without North anywhere. I did read about this too, but Minnesota always seems to be referred to as the North Stars up to the relocation. Jmj713 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the sweaters were changed in 1991 - which retrospectively, hinted towards a future move to Texas. My old hockey book issues of the summer 1991, had used the team's proposed name change Minnesota Stars, but once the 1991-92 season began, the issues went back to using Minnesota North Stars. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Stan Fischler has written about the Gunds failed efforts to move the North Stars team, and the deal they struck to sell and start new in San Jose. He does not write about it as if there was any secrecy involved in splitting the team and having both the Sharks and the North Stars participate in an expansion draft. I am not sure that it deserves its own article though, if the NHL encyclopedia only allots a couple of paragraphs to the issue.18abruce (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Another question is how to title such an article. It's not that simple, because it technically involves four teams. Jmj713 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like From Oakland to San Jose: The emergence of the San Jose Sharks. It started in Oakland, moved to Cleveland, moved to Minnesota and back to San Jose. The SIHR researchers just love the story. I attended a speech recently from a former member of the Seals (Gene Ubriaco) who became the Penguins coach. I'm surprised it hasn't been captured in one book by now. The Gunds are not that well documented, I think. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Emergence of the San Jose Sharks sounds good, I think. Jmj713 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny. I prefer the "From Oakland to San Jose" part to the "emergence" part of the suggested title. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So, there's 2 co-exsiting successors to the 1978-91 Minnesota North Stars. The San Jose Sharks & the 1991-present, Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. The Sharks were split from the North Stars, but that does not make them a successor. The only successor of the North Stars is the Dallas Stars. The Sharks are irrelevant to the North Stars beyond the expansion and dispersal draft of 1991. Reso lute 15:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You can trace the Gunds from Oakland to San Jose. That's what I'd follow. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That is what the big debate I mention above is. There is debate that the Sharks are a successor to the Barons and the Stars are the successor to the North Stars. Another view is that the Sharks are a brand new franchise that are successor to no one. The league has never really commented on it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Gunds' share of the NHL progresses from Oakland to Cleveland to Minnesota to San Jose. That's the story. It's a whole franchise, whole franchise, half-franchise and then whole-franchise again. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Alaney's suggestion is great for an essay, but not so much an encyclopedic article. Perhaps: Merger of the Cleveland Barons and Minnesota North Stars? Reso lute 15:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But that leaves out the de-merger and the Sharks. I'm not sure what a suitable title might be. Jmj713 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be a very short article and only cover one aspect. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Another consideration is the scope. To be truly comprehensive you'd need to cover a rather wide time period, from the foundation of the Seals, their relocation to Cleveland, their merger with the North Stars, the foundation of the Sharks and the dispersal draft, and the relocation of the North Stars to Dallas. Jmj713 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you're only covering the linkages, and only the business-side really. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Sharks were expansion 'only' in 1991 & not a branched off-successor to the North Stars (pre-'91), why was there a disperal draft with the North Stars? GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Imagine two pieces of string that start separate, come twisted in the middle, then branch off again later. They are still just two pieces of string. Players were exchanged in the expansion and dispersal draft, but the North Stars franchise runs in a continuous, linear line. The problem is how, or if, the Seals/Barons franchise and Sharks franchises interrelate to each other. Reso lute 17:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Sharks are the linear successor to the Seals/Barons/North Stars, while the Stars are the linear successor to the North Stars; aleast, that's how I view it.GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The orgin of the Sharks seems to be dealt with satifactorially at 1991 NHL Dispersal and Expansion Drafts article. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Background section is a good start of what the gist of this discussion is about. However, it's too brief and cursory and not cited. Jmj713 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How about Overview of NHL franchise ownership by the Gund brothers or similar for a title? Somewhat clumsy, yes, but I think neutral and encyclopedic enough. Jmj713 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not The orgin of the San Jose Sharks? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps just "NHL franchise ownership by the Gund brothers"? Since they are the one clear point of continuity, it would seem like an appropriate name for a centralized topic. isaacl (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From Oakland to San Jose: The Gunds and the NHL The Gunds always wanted a franchise in Northern California. That's their base. So the San Jose Sharks franchise is the final completion of that vision. (This is why I like the Oakland to San Jose angle) The actual legalities of the 1991 transaction was to satisfy the NHL's conditions. They got what they wanted and so did the NHL. The NHL had to preserve franchise values for the upcoming round of expansion. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Terribly unencyclopedic title, sorry to say. Fantastic for a book or magazine article on the subject, but clearly outside what WP:TITLE calls for. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I do understand though, how the Sharks wouldn't be seen as a continuation of the Seals/Barons/North Stars & the North Stars as a continuation of the Seals/Barons. It's like the 3 glasses example: Pour water out of 2 glasses into 1 glass & then reverse. You end up 'again' with 2 glasses of water, but not exactly the same as before. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A good analogy, if it can truly be shown that it was a de-merger. The fact that neither the NHL or the Sharks themselves have ever, to my knowledge, actually described it as such puts a damper on the idea a bit, though. Frankly, I'm not sure exactly how to explain the expansion draft setup in that regard, other than to speculate that the other owners didn't want to force their long-time colleagues, the Gunds, to start from complete scratch, while also preventing them from taking the North Star's entire roster with them and leaving that franchise to start from scratch (which they probably could have figured out some way to accomplish.) Of course, I'm still trying to figure out why the North Stars didn't just move into the Target Center with the T-Wolves. "Minnesota Wild" still doesn't sound right to me. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

From a strict technical point of view, I think the question is whether the NHL considered the Gunds' franchise right to be transferred from Minnesota to San Jose, and a new franchise right issued to the new North Stars owners; in this case, the San Jose team could be considered a continuation of the same franchise right owned to the Gunds. However, since the NHL has labelled San Jose as the expansion franchise, I assume it doesn't see things this way. In practice, whatever label is technically correct doesn't really matter: Once the ingredients were mixed together to bake the combined cake in Minnesota, there isn't really any meaningful way to say that a later cake (with its personnel turned over) can be unmixed to split out the Seals/Barons team. (From a big picture standpoint, it is true enough that the net effect of the merger was undone: the Gunds started with a team in the Bay Area, and ended with a team there (albeit with a change from minority to majority owners).) isaacl (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So any fresh thoughts on this topic, anyone? Jmj713 (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to go with the NHL's view on this one. They don't consider the Sharks as having any connections to the Seals, Barons, North Stars or Stars. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

International medal table discussion

For the most part, player bio articles that utilise the international tournament medal table tend to list the host nation (some use city, but, at least I think, nation is preferable). Now with the just-completed 2012 World Championships being held in two countries, and next years being held in those same two countries (as well as the likely future of mulitple-nations hosting the tournament) does anyone have any suggestions on how to sort this out for the medal table? I'd think the obvious choice would be to list the two countries, with the main host being first; thus this year would say: "2012 Finland-Sweden" or something of the like. Thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That would work, imo. 2012 Finland/Sweden and 2013 Sweden/Finland? Reso lute 02:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with Resolute, the slash would be better then the hyphen. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing flags that indicate birth place

As written above WP:HOCKEY can't overrule the entire wiki. The wiki has the WP:FLAGBIO guideline "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death". Therefore the List of NHL statistical leaders should not use flags to indicate the birthplace. If this information is needed it must be indicated in text only. However for me where a player was born is completely irrelevant trivia that is not needed on such a page. What may be relevant information is the player's nationality, this is a better indication of the player's training and is a sign of how the player regards himself. This information is available in the first line of the player's page. Using a flag to indicate nationality is the correct and appropriate use of a flag. In summary there are only three valid options: remove the birthplace flags; replace the birthplace flags with birthplace text; or replace the birthplace flags with nationality flags. An added bonus of this change is that this will eliminate a lot of reverts of the page when editors try to use the correct nationality flag as per wiki guidelines despite the page consensus. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

For proper disclosure (no sockpuppetry), I've recommended and endorsed similar changes in Talk:List of NHL statistical leaders, in Flags again as 174.119.19.211, in Slovakia as 99.246.133.31 and in Flags again 2 as 174.119.23.115. I've added a link back here at the bottom of that page. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I never really liked how that page was set up with its mess of flags. I'd be fine with removing them completely, as they serve no real purpose within the page. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with what's being said, about the flags not being important for general POB...on the list of stat leaders, the flags are only used for non-Canadians, and in those cases the flags are a very important indicator of the minority of players who were (in 99% of cases) born, trained, and nationals for. --Львівське (говорити) 03:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no huge preference one way or another. But I do want to point out that for 99% of NHLers their nationality is the same as their birthplace. There are a few players who play for a different country than that of their birth, but that is few and far between. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry a point I forgot to add was that showing a flag for the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia doesn't provide useful information, it just jumbles it up. In my opinion the vast majority of these players have never thought of themselves using these obsolete Cold War political nationalities. Some players even risked their lives to defect away from these entities. They, the NHL, the HHoF and the editors use their current nationalities like Russian, Ukrainian, Czech or Slovak. It is flag edits for these players that are the cause of many reverts. It seems to especially annoy Slovaks to show Slovak players with the Czech flag (indistinguishable from the flag of Czechoslovakia) 99.246.116.118 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I figured those were the flags you were getting at. A related though less hectic situation occurs with thoses countries on the NHL roster templates. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Even of those, many probably played fr the Soviet/CS national teams, and for those who are too young, developed in those respective hockey schools/systems--Львівське (говорити) 05:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - Gotta agree. Drop the flags. Clearly against flagbio. Beyond that, it seems to be there to highlight non-Canadians, which does not seem to be an encyclopedic purpose. For decades, the league, which of course originated in Canada has had a majority of Canadians. So, the flags only indicate that there is a higher proportion of non-Canadians than before, which is not the topic of the list. If it was not against flagbio, I could agree to the first-place person in each category having a flag, (like the NHL does) but that's about it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - as having the flags are more bother then they're worth. The NHL is 'country/nation' blind, unlike the IIHF. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm supportive as well. In most of those lists, the flags are really just decoration. Reso lute 02:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - I thought this was done long ago. Can you show me in example? TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders, especially everyone mentioned in the Notes section. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I thought the flags already indicate nationality. For example, in Template:New York Rangers roster, Tim Erixon was born in the US, but has a Swedish flag. And Ruslan Fedotenko and Artem Anisimov were born in the USSR but show the Ukrainian and Russian flags, respectively. So I am not sure what the proposal is. If there are individual cases where the flag is used to depict a birth place that is different from nationality, that can just be fixed. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By current consensus the flags in List of NHL statistical leaders indicate birthplace rather than nationality which I'd like to fix through a new consensus. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Would anybody mind, if I began deleting all flags from the article-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, thanks. I was going to bring it back up this weekend to finalize the discussion/proposal. It's been 15 days since I brought it up and about 11 days since the last comment. By my interpretation of the above comments, I count 5 votes in favour of eliminating the birthplace flags; 1 non-objection to their removal but preference for current usage; 1 non-preference; 1 vote in a misunderstanding for showing nationality flags instead. Finally although my slight preference would be to show nationality flags, elimination of flags is almost as good. In summary, 9 commenters and no objection to their removal. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all flags from that article. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1993–94 NHL season

I have started a discussion at Talk:1993–94 NHL season#Foreshadowing of future on the inclusion of information regarding the next time a Canadian team appeared in the Stanley Cup Finals. Any contributions are welcome. isaacl (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

P.K. Subban

Is there a project preference as to how initials should be used? Specifically I think the article should be P.K. Subban, without a space between the initials, as used by all references. Please address all responses into Talk:P. K. Subban#Space between initials. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's how it's generally done, see K. C. Irving, J. P. Parise & J. J. Daigneault for examples. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor Hockey League — how to disambig?

Ends up that in Ukraine they will start their own Minor Hockey League ("MXL") - so identical name and acronym and purpose. How should we disambiguate this? Call them "Ukrainian Minor League" and "Russian Minor League" as we do with Major Hockey League = Russian Major League; Ukrainian Major League; Kazakhstan Major League, etc? What do you guys suggest? --Львівське (говорити) 22:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would go with Minor Hockey League (Ukraine) and Minor Hockey League (Russia), if they are confined to national borders. Adding the country name in front makes it seem like part of the official name, instead of just clarifying which one we are talking about. Canada Hky (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This should result in "Minor Hockey League" becoming a disambiguation page. The hatnote is pretty large already. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Canada Hky's view. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor Hockey League (Russia) does not work, as it is an international league. I would go with what Lvivske suggested (if I understood correctly), Minor Hockey League for the existing, Russian-based league, and Ukrainian Minor Hockey League for the Ukrainian one. Wild8oar (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't matter as the league is mainly based out of Russia. Remember disambiguation isn't about being exact, its about using the shortest number of words possible to lead a reader to the article they want. This version would do that. Doing Ukrainian Minor Hockey League would on the other hand imply that that is the official name of the league which we would need to avoid. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point about it being international...hmm...--Львівське (говорити) 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

List of ice hockey teams in Saskatchewan at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of ice hockey teams in Saskatchewan for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm attempting to take this on and improve it to keep its FL status. However, I am encountering a few problems. The most major one is with the lead as it is a little short. Does anyone have any ideas on how to expand it. The two things that I was thinking of, but can't find an WP:RS for, are the first organized team and the first Saskatchewan-wide league. Additionally, I need help on a few sources. Specificially these are numbers 7,8 and 9 (in the current version - hockeyleaguehistory.com and geocities.com (archived)) that cover the years played and titles won for teams in the original professional Western Canada Hockey League and the minor pro Western Hockey League (1952–1974). I'm hoping someone has some offline sources that lists these. I also need help referencing the Saskatchewan Prairie Ice's existence. Finally, anyone know anything about the supposed proposal for Edmonton and Saskatoon to swap AHL/NHL teams that is mentioned (but not referenced) on both Edmonton Roadrunners and Sport in Saskatchewan#Ice hockey? Any help is appreciated. (Also note that the similar List of ice hockey teams in Alberta has the same problems and I will attempt to tackle it next, so some of the same issues may apply). Ravendrop 04:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple books that might be helpful with the lead, | Guts and Go; | Guts and Go Overtime; | Dogs on Ice. I am almost certain there is a more general history of hockey in Saskatchewan that I have seen on the shelf at one of the libraries, but I can't bring the name to mind right now. Maybe try to search the Regina or Saskatchewan catalogs online to see what is there. I'd check it out myself, but I am out of the country. Canada Hky (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And for the Alberta list, both Alberta on Ice and Battle of Alberta: A Century of Hockey's Greatest Rivalry are available at my library... though it'll probably be the weekend before I am able to get downtown to pick up the former. Reso lute 13:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 1948 Winter Olympics

This article has a problem with how it presents team USA. Both official sources (IIHF and IOC) list them as fourth place, but many sources list them as disqualified. Wondering what the wikipedia article should say, or if interested parties could begin a new discussion on the talk page there.18abruce (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since really its up to the IOC and the IIHF what position teams are in then really we need to go by them. Do you have examples of sources that list them differently? -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the official table should reflect the IOC's tally, but it'd seem that there was an incident worth reporting in the article. Ravenswing 19:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Older encyclopedias like Duplacey's Total Hockey Findling and Pelle's Encyclopedia of the Modern Movement, and Wallechinsky's Complete Book of the Olympics all either list the americans as disqualified or don't list them at all. Passionhockey.com states that they were disqualified from the olympics, but still placed fourth for the worlds. I had never seen them listed as fourth until the IIHF Media and Record Book came out in 2011, and then I found this. Because neither record offers any commentary or explanation I remain cautious as to how we should interpret what the official sources believe, and I think some consensus is wise because we are disagreeing with people who publish books on the Olympics.18abruce (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the IIHF published this page which states that they "could not qualify for a medal and all statistics from games against the Americans would not count." It does not cite who the author is, and it seems puzzling that their own encyclopedia would not make note of this.18abruce (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two possibilities that come to mind: First, that the IIHF retroactively restored their placing in the Olympic standings. Seems we could find support for that if true though. The second is that the IIHF Record Book was compiled in error/with laziness. The 2012 guide lists the US as fourth in the 1948 Olympics, BUT, it does not list the 1948 World Championship at all - It shows the 1947 tournament as the 14th world championship, and the 1949 tournament as the 16th, noting that the '48 Olympics was the 15th. So it is possible that they just took the world championship standings and fit it into the Olympic Games section. What is curious is that Andrew Podnieks was the editor of this year's guide. In another of his books, Canada's Olympic Hockey History: 1920-2010, he states "Then, on February 7th, a compromise was reached whereby only the U.S. entry would be considered unofficial by the IOC. The team - the AHA team - would play all opponents and be placed in the standings, and other teams' results versus the U.S. would be count, but the Americans could not qualify for a medal." I would suggest that that is how we should reflect the article - not that the Americans were disqualified, but that they were ineligible for a medal. That would neatly explain all of the various arguments surrounding this event. Reso lute 22:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In Gordon MacDonald's A Colossal Embroglio, it is said the AHA team was allowed to participate but their results would not count in the standings (p.51). In the Olympic review of march 1948 (p.19), the US team does not appear on the table but its games are still taken in account for the ranking. The review contains parts of the St. Moritz session (p.7-16) and a justification of the IOC's stand (p.30) which confirm MacDonald's paper. Like Resolute said the team was not disqualified but they also could not appear on the table. As for the world championship, I can only guess the IIHF maintained the team's 4th place. --Tiouic (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd that the "Olympic review" omits the USA, but the "Rapport General" leaves them in fourth, can only guess at the IOC's reasons for leaving them in the full report. I think all things considered, passionhockey.com probably summarizes it correctly when they say the that the american's could not win a medal but had not violated any IIHF rules so remain in the world championship standings.18abruce (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Help

I need some of you guys to look at these two articles: WHA Junior Hockey League and World Hockey Association (proposed). The situation is this, a guy named Ricky Smith tried to run a pay-to-play league in British Columbia. It lasted two seasons. Neither season came close to the guaranteed number of games to be played... and the playoffs were rushed and short. Many bills were left unpaid and resulted in lawsuits against the WHA and Smith and yada, yada, yada... ... ... now someone is posting anonymously, claiming to know the Smiths, and claiming that these two articles are biased and misleading.

Could someone give suggestions as to how to clean up this article if need be? Or give it a couple tweaks? DMighton (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Finals rosters

I'm looking for help out there from those of you who are good at making templates. I've long wanted to tackle this project, which would be rather time-consuming but I believe worth it for encyclopedic purposes. Right now most of our SCF articles lack participant rosters. Only the last several contain full rosters. I just now started converting the 2012 rosters to the more compact and informative version used in 2008 and a few other articles, but what I'd like to do is have a template created that would be easier to implement and allow us to display not just the basic information about a player, but also mix in their stats for the Finals (games played, goals, assists, at the minimum). This way, at a glace, a reader and researcher will easily see who exactly participated in the given Final and what their participation consisted of. Players that were injured or scratched but were on the roster for the Finals should also be noted, but either left off the main table or obviously noted with zeros for the stats. In other words, the complete roster for any team in the Finals is not necessary for several reasons: one, it's available at the team's season article; two, the Finals are a special contest, and only a select few get to participate in it, so that fact should not be diluted. In our articles for the Winter Classic (a much less special event), we already employ a similar approach, listing the rosters only for the players that saw ice time during the game. This same method should apply to our Finals rosters. So, it'd be great if somebody could help me out by creating a roster template, taking the more compact version as the base and adding the stats and wherever else that may be essential. I think it will be a marked improvement, and the task then would just be populating our SCF articles with it, which, admittedly will take some serious time. Jmj713 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to create Template rosters, but I've a darn good memory when it comes to the captains, alternate captains & sweater numbers. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good help. I have found a great resource (though I'm not sure how reliable it is) for complete Stanley Cup playoff boxscores going back to 1935. No rosters, however. Jmj713 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Less eyes on the compromise

After today, I'll no longer be 'deleting' or 'hiding' diacritics on North American-based hockey articles. I put my trust in this WikiProject's members, that they'll (to the best of their ability) see to it that the compromise continues to be implimented. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota Fighting Saints

I don't know who's got the guts to do it, but this article has gotta be split into 2 team articles - Minnesota Fighting Saints (1972–76) and Minnesota Fighting Saints (1976–77). GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to be legalistic about it. Why have two articles when one will do? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

They're 2 different franchises. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it the second was essentially the same franchise as the Cleveland Crusaders, why not just tweak the two existing articles to explain that. Why have a third page?18abruce (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tim Thomas

How shall we treat Thomas' inclusion on the Awards & Stats articles? He isn't retiring, but he won't be playing any games in 2012-13. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably wait until he announces his retirment sometime during the upcoming season. Until then, just leave his name off it. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So we should keep showing him as active, as though he were injured all of 2012-13. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I'd suggest. I have the feeling that he will announce his retirment sometime during the season, when he realises nobody will want to take a chance on a 38-year-old goalie who took a year off without giving any actual reason. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see him retiring. He'll be back after next year, if this current thing isn't just posturing due to a dispute with ownership. Even if it is, he'll be back. --Львівське (говорити) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is only if someone takes him back. At his age, if he took a year off he can kiss is career goodbye. You just have to look at the list of goalies forced to retire after the last lockout because of taking that year off to see what will happen. But I do think its just posturing and expect him to play in the upcoming season. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox NHL team season

Could someone that known how add an image parameter to Template:Infobox NHL team season, please? This would be very useful for adding images such as the team's anniversary logos in the infobox, such as the inaugural patch of the Jets in 2011–12 Winnipeg Jets season that I just added, and it's sort of hanging there. It would look much better as the Finals logo does in the infobox, since normally teams play all season with these types of patches on their jerseys. I'd really like to get as many of them as possible for all teams and all seasons. Jmj713 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have an image parameter because fair use doesn't allow team logos to be used on season pages. In order for team logos to comply on season pages you have to have the picture in a section that is talking specifically about the logo as opposed to being disconnected up in an infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And it wouldn't be for the team logo, but that particular season's whatever anniversary patch, identifying that season specifically. Jmj713 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really change anything...its not that it is a logo that is the issue, but that it is a copyrighted image. In order to comply with fair use you would need to have it next to text talking about the image. Team pages get away with having the logo in the infobox because it is an image that represents the subject. I don't think you could really make that claim about a patch. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1994 Stanley Cup Finals: Next appearance of Canadian team in the finals

I have started a discussion at Talk:1994 Stanley Cup Finals#Next appearance of Canadian team in the finals regarding mentioning the next appearance of a Canadian team in the finals. Contributions are welcome. I'm not strongly opinionated about the matter, but would like to establish a consensus to improve the stability of the article. I realize the topic was previously discussed on the talk page, but I am hoping a few more voices will offer their views. isaacl (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

60th National Hockey League All-Star Game

I've made a note at that article, concerning the fact that the Thrashers/Jets franchise has hosted the All Star Game (2008). GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

But the sentence is talking about teams. Your note is about the franchise. Two different things, you are well aware on articles that the hockey project and most people in the real world treat the two as separate. By adding franchise the way you did you mixed the two making it confusing for readers. Not to mention its far too trivial for the page to point that out. -DJSasso (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I should point out, none of the 4 sources in the article, mention the Winnipeg Jets among the teams which haven't hosted yet. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the sources are dated from before there was a new Winnipeg Jets team. And if you are going to be that ridiculous none of the sources mention franchises, they say teams. -DJSasso (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be noted, that the Thrashers/Jets franchise has hosted the All-Star Game. Input from other editors would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you in search of yet another controversial topic area? My guess is since you got shut down by arbcom on diacritics you are now moving on to try and debate the Franchise/Team issue like you have in the past with the Expos. I'd highly suggest taking other peoples advice and stop getting yourself into one controversy after another and stick to gnoming like you promised to do. -DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'd appreciate the input from other editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop talking past me, its extremely rude. The point of discussion is to discuss, not ignore the person who has disagreed with you. -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you had the same opinion on what to do with the sentence when someone else mentioned it. We could have avoided all this if you would have stopped and talked to me and found out that we both agreed with just removing the sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is that relevant to next season's ASG specifically? If it belongs anywhere I think it wouldNational Hockey League All-Star Game. TerminalPreppie (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. Completely removing it was my preferred option. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am another editor and I think adding what teams have not hosted an All-Star game is useless trivia.

On the note of how to deal with this, I tend to err on the side of either notating franchises or if you mention teams the Jets have not hosted the ASG. As I am someone who is usually involved in the Expos debates on the baseball project, I'd tend to lean toward using teams and not franchises. I guess some of this would be how does the NHL treat this. It seems in most cases the NHL tends to treat franchises who move from one city to the next as a continuation of the franchise in terms of historical seasons, but seem to treat the teams as independent of their former identities. So I'd say we follow the NHL's lead and treat the Jets and Thrasher as independent of each other. I will have to dig out my 2011-12 Jets Media Guide and see what they say as far as the All-Star Game goes, but I'd be fairly certain they don't consider themselves to have hosted it but rather Atlanta hosted it. Another idea is to treat the All-Star Game as an event like the Winter Classic or the Winter Olympics and treat it by city and not franchise/team. Thus, Winnipeg, Manitoba has not hosted the ASG, despite the fact that the Atlanta Thrashers franchise has hosted it, while the Winnipeg Jets team has not.

The other question this begs is at what point did the league stop hosting duties and move to a particular team hosting it? I'm fairly certain that the league hosted the game in the Original Six era. In fact, I think technically the League hosts the game and in a sense rents the home facility of the team hosting it. I believe that all profits go to the league (possibly to the pension fund as well) and not the particular franchise hosting it. I'm thinking the NHL pays the host a set amount and then the rest goes to the league. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

National Hockey League All-Star Game discusses which cities have hosted the All-Star game, which seems like a reasonable approach, particularly in recent years with more events being organized in the host city to celebrate the All-Star game, beyond just activities in the arena itself. isaacl (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals vs. Final

Sure we have this discussion which we refer to whenever the confusion over Finals vs. Final comes around this time of year but I think it's outdated. I think it's high time to at least add a section to explain this in Stanley Cup Finals. Has anyone done any research on this discrepancy? As far as I can remember, the plural was always used, and for whatever reason this changed after the lockout or thereabout. So, for the record, I prefer Finals. I just think a section that describes this phenomenon would be helpful to both the editors, and users as an encyclopedic and historical note. Jmj713 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No objections here. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you are proposing exactly: adding a section to the article explaining that some people use "Final" and others use "Finals"? If so, I don't think this is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. It could warrant an addition to the style advice for the hockey project, though. isaacl (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure this gets discussed every year. This is a matter of engvar. This isn't just a hockey thing it is in other sports as well. Not really something we would put in a hockey article as Isaacl mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I was just curious, and went through some of the old newspapers on Google News. "Stanley Cup Finals" and "Stanley Cup Final" seems to be an interchangeable term going back at least to the early 1920s, from what I can see: Finals vs. Final. Jmj713 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I put the words "or Stanley Cup Final" in the lead. That should be enough. There is ample usage of either form. I don't know if you can definitively show which is the most common. Like Djsasso pointed out, it seems to be an engvar type of issue. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Trophy

We don't yet have an article on the Edinburgh Trophy, which was the Canadian minor professional championship from 1954-1957. I haven't found any good sources for it online. Does anyone have enough newspaper or online references to start an article for the trophy? --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is material in Google news archives ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, would you be interested in creating the article? I don't know much about Canadian minor pro and amateur hockey. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 04:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've created a stub. There is also some material at the ice hockey wikia. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. :) --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename of all WHL alumni cats

All WHL alumni cats are currently up for rename here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 18#Hockey alumni -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Seasons

When exactly does a season end? Example is the Vokoun trade to Pittsburgh does that fall under the 2011-12 season or the 2012-13 season. Which season should this actually fall under since the Finals are still going on but Pittsburgh's 2011-12 season is over? ♣ B2project ♣ 20:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The NHL season runs until the end of the Cup Finals; therefore, the trade falls under the 2011-12 season. Ravenswing 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ♣ B2project ♣ 21:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(That being said, they traded Vokoun - whose season was quite in accordance with his career numbers - for a seventh rounder? Jeez, should they have thrown in a used skate bag while they were at it?) Ravenswing 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

His trade would go in the 2012–13 Pittsburgh Penguins season article. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It could go in either, I suppose, though I would tend to agree with GoodDay. Personally, I would put it in the 2012-13 article. Reso lute 21:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree either way. Personally I feel that since both teams seasons have ended they should go in the 2012-13 seasons but I always want to make sure first before I do anything to avoid confusion. I will make the changes if they haven't been changed already. Thanks again. ♣ B2project ♣ 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the Vokoun trade is listed in the 2012–13 NHL transactions article. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Although the player's and the teams' season's are over, the NHL season is still in progress. Earlier this year, it was written that the NHL season ends after the awards are handed out and that the transactions should follow the same schedule. In case anyone's wondering, yes I'm the same 174.119.23.115 editor that asked the question before. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes as discussed in the past and earlier this year as linked to above. Teams seasons are not actually over until after the awards ceremony, whether they are knocked out of the playoffs or not. Business does still carry on. And for consistency on season we do need to keep trades in one or the other so in this case it would fall in the 2011–12 season. Remember seasons include more than just games. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
In order to make it easier in future for someone to locate the transaction, I believe it is better to choose a delineation point that is independent of the specific teams involved in the trade. Thus personally I think using the end of the Stanley Cup Finals is a reasonable cutoff. isaacl (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Typically, the draft is usually referred to as the last event of the season, and free agency is the start of the new season. That always gives us a date (June 30/July 1) rather than the soft deadline of the awards ceremony. Any date that changes from year to year is going to cause confusion. Canada Hky (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The draft has always been considered the start of the season on wiki because players drafted in it can theoretically begin play that upcoming season. So whatever the start is it has to be before the draft. Including the awards as part of the next season would be silly so it can't be right after the finals either. If we were to change it to free agency start as suggested that would require changing hundreds of team and league season articles as we have been using the awards as the end for years now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I've always heard the draft regarded as the start of the new season. Makes logical sense too, since that is the point where everybody starts looking forward. Point taken on the end of the Finals/the awards ceremony on being a logical break to note the end of the current season, however. Also makes logical sense, since that is the point where everyone is looking back. Reso lute 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I always assumed the unofficial start of a season was July 1. That's when contracts expire and new ones are signed. Jmj713 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, a player's contract for the season expires June 30, introducing an arbitrary date in the middle, and then keeping it because hundreds of articles would have to be changed is nonsensical. However, given who has already chimed in in favour of that proposal here - I'm out. Canada Hky (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with any specific cutoff point; I only believe it should be set for all teams and not differ based on the teams involved in the transaction. However I assume teams making a transaction during the off-season (in terms of the playing season) choose whatever effective date that suits the parties involved, which may or may not correspond to the announcement date. As such, I think choosing a cutoff point that depends on the playing season is the simplest approach, avoiding having to figure out when a transaction actually takes effect. isaacl (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My feelings seems to agree with some already expressed...maybe agree to a specific cut-off point. I would say the end of the Stanley Cup Final would be the official end of the 2011-12 team pages. Any signings/trades should then start going on the 2012-13 pages after that date.Piemann16 (talk)
I agree that the new season starts the day after the end of the Final, too, as the awards don't affect anything. Awards are always handed out after. Anyways, those days following start the "off-season" part of the new season. The "pre-season" starts with training camp, "regular season" with scheduled play, and "post-season" as the playoffs, etc. That's how I would divvy it up. The Vokoun trade is part of the "post-season" for the Penguins. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We've got inconsistancy, between the NHL season articles & team season artices, concerning this issue. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in 1 that I LOVE HOCKEY and 2, the season officially ends when players are allowed to take possession of the Stanley Cup from the Hockey Hall of Fame. Also, players are not paid during the playoffs or offseason. So, in accordance with the most recent ratified CBA teams not in the playoffs can make trades. Good day!keystoneridin! (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Lits of player names on the Stanley Cup

So I have been working on a page for players engraved on the Cup (User:Leech44/List of player names on the Stanley Cup) off and on for awhile and before I get much further down the rabbit hole I had some concerns I was hoping someone might be able to help me with. I have been using the National Hockey League Official Guide & Record Book (when I check it out from the library) and from an online NHL.com page here. My main concern is that neither actually says names on the Cup. I know that the current criteria is 41 regular-season games or 1 in the finals, but I'm not sure how far back that goes not to mention special request names. Going further back I know at one point the players had to pay for their names to be engraved and I don't know if some of them passed on paying for the engraving for any reason.

The guide book seems to be a representation of who was put on the Cup with it becoming more detailed up to including the team trainers on the Hawks win. My hope was to have the page be as accurate as possible so if dose anyone know if there is a more accurate reference to go by or if these are accurate? Thanks.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How about just looking at the Cup itself? The Hall of Fame has high resolution photos and a 3-D model. isaacl (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

At least in the 1970s and 1980s, the criteria was 25 regular season games or 1 game in the finals. I wasn't aware that changed, or when it changed. Rlendog (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the shifting rules about what names made the Cup or not (certainly fifty years ago, the notion that deputy assistant communications directors and each and every minority owner would qualify would have been seen as farcical), we're far better off going with Isaacl's suggestion and work from the chalice itself, rather than from anyone else's compiled list. Ravenswing 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the program allows you to rotate the cup 360° prior to zooming in, but only allows you to zoom in on one side of the Cup. But that will at least help some. Thanks.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a page where you could see images of every name on the cup. You would type in the name and it would show you a chunk of the cup with a bunch of names on it. Using something like this you could look at enough pictures to see all of the names. But I can't for the life of me remember the site. Someone used to put images from it on a lot of player pages but that was a number of years ago. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

First and last games

If we change the first and last games of the NHL seasons articles to tables, we could add a column where the reason for the addition could be listed:

Player	Team	Notability
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins	Edmonton Oilers	#1 pick in 2011 entry draft
Gabriel Landeskog	Colorado Avalanche	Calder Trophy winner

Then we could possibly get the message across not to just add names to the section? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, much though I like those sections, the "players of note" are chosen subjectively, and it's a fair bit easier to gauge the relative importance of players whose careers have come and gone than contemporaries. Do you have any standards you'd like to proffer? Ravenswing 09:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You've probably fogotten but we have had standards for a number of years now. My guess is he is asking to put them in table format so people will get the hint. As it is now we just put a hidden html comment pointing people to the standards and put a box on the talk page pointing to them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. If we require a note of the notability next to the name, then maybe it's more clear to the drive-by editors that there is a reason for the listing. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea and would also suggest linking to the appropriate list page that meets the standard and shows the player's name, e.g. List of first overall NHL draft picks or Calder Memorial Trophy. My only concern for including the criteria (text or link) is which criteria to indicate if the player has met multiple. The order in the standards is a good starting point. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hockey Best-on-best article and inclusion of the IHWC 2005 in Austria

In my opinion the 2005 IHWC should not be included in the list of "Best-on-best" - historical tournaments where the best players played against the best for their home countries, so that it would be clearly shown who was the best at hockey in that sepecific year... There was no such thing before 1976 since the professional Canadian players from the NHL were not allowed to play at the IHWC... That's why Canada held the Canada Cup for the first time in 1976 and then again in 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991 which was followed by two installments of the World Cup in 1996 and 2004 which then fade away... Since 1998 the IIHF together with the NHL does everything possible, so that the best players from the NHL and Europe can play for their countries at the Olympic Games, The last one took place in Vancouver 2010 when Canada won the gold medals... At the next Olympic Games in Sochi 2014 we should also see the best players from NHL participating at the tournament...

At the 2005 IHWC in Austria there were many elite players missing, especially from the Canadian and the American squad since there was lockout in the NHL and players who didn't play the whole year didn't felt they were able to perform at the top level... From the Canadian team we can mention at least a trio from Tampa Bay Lightning whic led Tampa to the Stanley Cup in 2004 - Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier as well as such stars as Jerome Iginla, Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux and Scott Niedermayer.

What is your opinion?

Here is a link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-on-best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.187.207 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This was originally posted at WP:AN; I've moved it here because it's not a matter for administrator attention. Nyttend (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the above is a perfect example of why articles like this one, which are nothing more than subjective essays, merit only deletion. Ravenswing 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm minded to agree. Unless we have sources with firm lists of what are considered best on best tournaments, the entire list becomes original research by synthesis. Remove that, and really, you could just merge and redirect part of Best-on-best to Canada Cup, since the 1976 Canada Cup is what originated the term. Reso lute 02:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Issues regarding how "best" possible the North American teams were can be dealt with in the prose similar to the '76 and '91 Canada Cups. However if these missing "best" players didn't show up because they weren't in suitable game shape then they really weren't among the best in hockey that specific year. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard of this term "best-on-best" in the context of hockey (and don't think I've heard it anywhere else)—are there reliable sources to indicate that this term is notable and not obscure? I don't think one article from the IIHF site using the term briefly is enough to establish notability. isaacl (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There are enough Google News hits to adequately source the term, but in which case it belongs in Wiktionary, not here. Ravenswing 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm only getting a small number of hits; I'm not sure this is enough to meet the standard of actual notability among fans, rather than just a phrase that some sportswriter chose to use for colour. isaacl (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as FIFA World Cup held every 4 years in hockey that would determine a truly best national team. IHWC is just a second-rate tournament because many players don't come because they are tired/don't have a motivation/still play in the Stanley Cup Playoffs... Before Nagano 1998 Olympics, there was an ambition from all the hockey countries to meet from time to time to determine the best national team. That's why Canada Cup started to take place in 1976. Now, the Canada Cup/World Cup is most probably just a history since the Olympic Games replaced its function.... Simple as that... 78.128.187.207 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments so far have basically suggested eliminating the article; what's your view on this? isaacl (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, it should be kept. It is a relevant article. There is no such thing as FIFA World Cup in hockey. Maybe in 5-10 years the players from the NHL will not be allowed to play at the Olympics anymore and Canada Cup/World Cup will become again the only tournament where the best against the best can play to see who is the best in that year... Another possibility is that they will shift IHWC to August/Septmeber, so that NHLers can participate every year and the Olympic tournament will become what IHWC is now - second-rate tournament.... So, it should be kept also for the future... 78.128.187.207 (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself; rest assured your messages are being read. Are you aware of any evidence of the notability of the specific term, "best-on-best", among the hockey community in general? Any specific reason why the Canada Cup articles, in your view, ought to be supplemented by a separate article? isaacl (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaacl, I am gonna write it again for you because obviously you didn't get it again. Canada Cup/World Cup is not taking place anymore because the Olympic Games replaced its function. Once the players from the NHL will not be allowed to play at the Olympics, maybe some other tournament will be created, so that once per X years best players of the world can meet together and play against each other. That's why there should be one article with the list of Canada Cup/World Cup winners followed by Olympic Games winners, starting with Nagano 1998. Now it's clear? 78.128.187.207 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is determining what competitions are considered "best on best" however? It can't be you, and it can't be me. Your argument is fine from a logical sense, but we have to write articles based on published sources not what we feel is logically accurate. What we need to determine is whether there is enough sourced information to merit keeping a separate article on the term. If we do, we need to cite the list. If not, then we need to find a logical merge target for what information can be supported by references. Reso lute 20:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not that we don't understand what you're saying, 78.128.187.207. It's that we don't 'agree with what you're saying, and neither do the pertinent guidelines concerning notability, synthesis and original research. Whether an article is "relevant" or "useful" isn't a factor. Neither is whether there is a widely recognized "World Cup of Hockey" or not. We can only discuss a concept in so far as reliable, published, third-party sources discuss that concept, by name, and preferably agree on what that represents. That isn't the case here. Ravenswing 20:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility, Round 2

We had this debate come up not too long ago, which ended ambiguously, and now editors are again reverting some NHL team season templates to their preferred format, such as:

The previous discussion had some good ideas, but no consensus was reached on how to compromise and go on, so we ended up with status quo. For the record, I don't mind the conversion to this format, but, such as in the case with the Bruins and the Ducks, I'd like to see a solution that would allow us to keep the hidden years and thus the chronological layout, but get rid of the still visible bullets. Jmj713 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I do believe we came to the consensus to use the format that had the white background for the header/footer with the lines along the top and bottom that were in the team colours. If you know how I would go and implement that. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

something like this? if so, I could make a template to simplify adding it. something where you just enter the two colors and it generates the css style line. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. The bottom portion about the championship could be converted to a silver-colored square to denote the championship season. I believe that also was a problem. Jmj713 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

as for the list markup, I personally prefer something like this (a)

or just get rid of the per decade group labels completely, like this (b)

Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Eliminating the decade labels is a reasonable suggestion; the grouping is evident enough and so it simplifies the look. Although some others earlier expressed the desire to keep the years within the decades aligned, personally I don't have an issue with just centring each horizontal list.

Regarding championships, though, highlighting alone does not address accessibility for those with difficulty seeing the screen. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to just remove the highlighting then. Plenty of articles prominently denote championship seasons. The navbox could be simplified down to just allowing a navigational aid between seasons. Reso lute 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

just removing the highlighting completely sounds like a perfectly acceptable solution. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup I am good with that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure a suitable solution to highlighting can be found, after all lots of articles use highlighting with color keys for various notations. This just aids in the quick navigation between championship seasons. However, I too am not married to that idea. I would like to preserve the chronological alignment somehow. I feel that's an important logical addition to the template. I'm not very good with coding things at all, so unfortunately I can't offer any technical ideas. Basically, what we now have with the Bruins, only tweaked to hide the bullets. Perhaps they're not even needed at all. Jmj713 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't we simply bold championship seasons? —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 19:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bolding is done when the user is on the given page. It looks confusing. Jmj713 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

so, it seems like we have consensus for the change in how the coloring is presented, but need to discuss the highlighting/bullet format more? Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah colours there is a definite consensus I believe between this and last discussion. The rest I think we are leaning towards removing the championship highlighting but its not definite. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes. We'd also be looking at changing the other team templates, e.g.: {{Calgary Flames}}, and I know there are some GM and coach list templates that I simply gave up trying to control. Reso lute 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For the highlighting I propose we use the legend template, such as here: 2011–12 Los Angeles Kings season#Schedule and results. Does a colored square like that work in terms of accessibility? Jmj713 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm betting not. In that case, the shaded background is a visual convenience for the benefit of sighted users. Those on screen readers would know who wins or loses based on the scoreline in the table itself. Reso lute 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, those who are colourblind or can't see at all would be able to tell in that situation based on the actual score being read. Not the case in a navbox. Personally I don't think it even belongs in a navbox, nav boxes are just for navigation. Too many people try to put article content in navboxes. People looking for the championship seasons can just go to the main team page if they need to know. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using a background colour is that those using screen readers (including in essence search engine crawlers) will not be able to make use of this info. Best practice is to have a text symbol explained by a legend/footnote. I'm not sure if it's possible with the current implementation of hlist to do this and keep the years vertically aligned, without adding extra markup to all of the non-championship seasons. Another option is to use a table, which is reasonable since the data is tabular after all, but it would be difficult to have a dot between the years with a table, without again introducing extra markup. I suggest proceeding for now without the championship information (so we can move forward) and continuing to explore implementation options. isaacl (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a convenience, which is why I'm not determined to keep it, but it would be nice. I wonder how it would look if we spaced the entries on each row out a little bit (though not full width of the screen, that would be ugly) and simply added square brackets around the championship season. That might preserve alignment while allowing that visual aid? Otherwise, I agree with removing now, and reinserting later if we can find a somewhat elegant solution. Reso lute 16:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to sound insensitive at all, but if highlighting of any kind is of no use for accessibility purposes, why not simply drop the notation at the bottom completely and keep the highlighting as is. It's obvious enough what it symbolizes for sighted users, and colorblind or blind users won't be confused by that notation regarding highlighting that's of no use to them anyway. Just a thought. Jmj713 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is obvious for sighted users, particularly those not familiar with the history of the team, so I think a legend is needed. Also recall there are degrees of visual impairment, and so high contrast colours should always be used to try to serve as large an audience as possible. Though some people are highly against including any information that is not universally accessible (and I suspect some of them would raise an issue with keeping the highlighting without having a text symbol), personally I'm not against having some information of lesser importance being communicated in ways that are accessible only to some. However in the interest in keeping any infographics relatively straightforward, the amount of lesser importance information ought to be minimized, and perhaps the championship information falls below the threshold. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In theory, a horizontal list template could support specifying a fixed width for each list item, and each item could be horizontally centred within this space. In this case the width would just have to be sufficiently wide to fit the year range and the symbol indicating a championship, and the years should align. However, though I know how to do this in straight HTML/CSS, my experience with Wikipedia templates is limited and I'm not sure if I would be able to implement this in a template. isaacl (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate my previous comment; if this data is to be presented in tabular format, a tablle should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to retract my previous statement on the data being tabular; it is actually just a linear list of seasons. Thus the semantically correct markup is a list containing each season as a list item. To improve accessibility for sighted users, however, it is desirable to layout this list in a grid format. I realize that using tables for layout purposes is discouraged. Suggestions for other practical options are welcome. isaacl (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want a linear list of seasons then you can have that quite simply using a normal navbox and a single homogeneous list:

Whereas if you actually want the data grouped by decade, then you've introduced a second dimension and the list becomes a table with axes of "year within decade" and "decade". It could look something like this:

Los Angeles Kings seasons
							1967–68	1968–69	1969–70
1970–71	1971–72	1972–73	1973–74	1974–75	1975–76	1976–77	1977–78	1979–79	1979–80
1980–81	1981–82	1982–83	1983–84	1984–85	1985–86	1986–87	1987–88	1988–89	1989–90
1990–91	1991–92	1992–93	1993–94	1994–95	1995–96	1996–97	1997–98	1998–99	1999–00
2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04	2004–05	2005–06	2006–07	2007–08	2008–09	2009–10
2010–11	2011–12*	2012–13
* seasons indicate Stanley Cup championship

I've deliberately kept it as simple as I can so that you can modify it if that's what you want. Both of the above are fine from an accessibility viewpoint. I'd suggest that you play around until you get what you want then ask for it to be turned into a template, or preferably use an existing template if possible. There are some other possibilities such as hlists with fixed width, but frankly if you want a "grid" or "tabular" display, then please use a table. That's what it was designed for. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This second version looks nice and clean, only way too wide. If it can be made much more compact, and put into a template setting, that would be the perfect solution, and then we can implement it on the rest. In fact, making it width:50% instead of 100% makes it pretty much spot on, I think. Jmj713 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just copy it and alter it to taste - it's not paper and we had a real good deal on cheap electrons - 'em' is a good way of specifying width as well:

Los Angeles Kings seasons
							1967–68	1968–69	1969–70
1970–71	1971–72	1972–73	1973–74	1974–75	1975–76	1976–77	1977–78	1979–79	1979–80
1980–81	1981–82	1982–83	1983–84	1984–85	1985–86	1986–87	1987–88	1988–89	1989–90
1990–91	1991–92	1992–93	1993–94	1994–95	1995–96	1996–97	1997–98	1998–99	1999–00
2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04	2004–05	2005–06	2006–07	2007–08	2008–09	2009–10
2010–11	2011–12*	2012–13
* seasons indicate Stanley Cup championship

Have fun! --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize that from a presentation point of view, a second dimension and grouping is introduced, but semantically, the grouping is unimportant: a search engine crawler, for example, has no need to understand the presentational layout of the list. However, using a table is of course a practical solution for achieving a grid layout. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So I think that looks good and a good solution overall, unless someone sees a problem? I would go ahead and implement this across the board but I'm not very good with coding things like that. Conversely, here's a similar solution I noticed: Template:NBA Finals. The above way seems more streamlined though. Jmj713 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

College Hockey

Hello all! I am looking to get a good following for a college ice hockey project. I have found that players who are drafted and end up on a major junior team or NCAA team prior to the NHL meet WP:Notability. So essentially, all college level players who are drafted are notable. Any takers?keystoneridin! (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. I refer you to WP:NHOCKEY, the notability guideline governing hockey players. A college hockey player qualifies only if (a) he achieves "preeminent honors" (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a major collegiate program (Division I NCAA); (b) is a first round NHL draft pick; or (c) played in the Olympics or the senior World Championships. A college ice hockey project is a fine idea, and there are people interested in college hockey around, but I don't want you to be in a position to see a number of new articles deleted because they don't pass notability muster. Good fortune! Ravenswing 19:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I just wanted to get a collaborative effort to make College Hockey as up to date as possible. Thanks!keystoneridin! (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is actually a college hockey task force. But he is correct most college hockey players are not notable. But the team pages could use some work if you are up to it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I proposed deletion of Peter Stoykewych for the reasons stated above. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could have followed the procedures for proposed deletion by placing a tag on my talk page as required? Also, maybe you could have looked at the talk page and observed that I was not finished with the article as their is quite a bit more to add.keystoneridin! (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly is he notable? Nothing on the page, nor anything a qucik search turns up, demonstrates any notability. Ravendrop 19:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from adding any references you feel satisfy the GNG or meet NHOCKEY, up until the AfD closes. Ravenswing 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that project Ice Hockey is not for me. Cheers everyone! keystoneridin! (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1)There is no requirement for me to notify you on your talk page. 2)I mentioned it on this page where you were actively in a discussion. 3) there are bots that go around and do those tasks. We welcome you to contribute here. You seem to spend a lot of time deleting articles yourself, I don't understand why you're so offended when we delete hockey players that are obviously not notable. I refrain from creating article for every player from my alma mater who signs a pro contract. I would check out the taskforce noted above. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I will respond to this on your talk page.keystoneridin! (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Color me confused. In the last day alone, you've nominated nearly two dozen articles for deletion. No doubt some - or all - of the article creators made those articles in good faith, felt that they constituted valid articles and believed that they had followed the rules. You have been active on Wikipedia for over three years now, and surely must grasp the concept that your work is just as available for review - and just as liable to deletion if it does not pass policy muster - as anyone else's. Ravenswing 21:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make note that I am not against anyone deleting my articles. If that is what is best for Wikipedia, then it must be done. I just want to be part of something on Wikipedia to which I can say I truly enjoy. With that, I will no longer be responding to this thread. If you would like to further any comments regarding this, please send them to my talk page. Otherwise, good day to you. keystoneridin! (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)