Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive47
 | This is an archive of past discussions on 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. |
File:Nhldefunctteams.png needs to be updated for Winnipeg. The Jets should have "(original)" appended to the label, similar to Ottawa's "original" labelling. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- One of many things that will need to be cleaned up. Almost done fixing links....been through something like 1600....few more hundred to go. -DJSasso (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well I am done for the night..4am is way to late to be on here...anything left linking to the Winnipeg Jets article needs to be gone through manually to fix links because I couldn't do them by awb since some need to link to both new and old team. Others may have accidentally been skipped. -DJSasso (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"city NHL team" links?
I noticed that there is a Winnipeg NHL team bluelink. Should these also exist for all (current, past) NHL cities? (some would end up as disambiguation pages... like NYC or Montreal) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is a blue link because the team page was named that until a few hours ago when we moved it. We couldn't call the article anything else until it was officially named. As for other cities. I don't really think its necessary, but I suppose it couldn't hurt either. -DJSasso (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that there are several cities that have had multiple NHL teams (New York, Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Minnesota, Colorado, Atlanta). While far more people will be searching for the Flyers than the Quakers, it's kind of difficult to have Philadelphia NHL team re-direct to just the Flyers. In addition, I'd say Winnipeg was a unique situation. Winnipeg NHL team was only a placeholder until the move was approved and an official name announced. Patken4 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- A XXX NHL team might be useful as a dab page or search helper page. This would be for folks who know little about hockey, I suppose. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Boisbriand QMJHL
Lost in all the fun that was the Winnipeg Jets news that the Montreal Junior Hockey Club of the Q relocated to Boisbriand. It seems that they still will be called the Montreal Juniors [1], however a French language article says the team name and logo could change [2] Should we just the Montreal Junior page to Boisbriand or start a new article? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Since its just a suburb of Montreal still I would leave it where it is and wait for an announcement of any name change. Its similar to a number of NHL teams that have technically switched suburbs with new arenas but never actually left the Metro area of their namesake. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- That was my thinking too. If it is just a move to a new arena, same article. If the move to Boisbriand is intended to break from the time in Montreal, perhaps a new article. Resolute 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Shea Weber peer review, copyedit request
Hey all. I'm hoping to get Shea Weber to FA before the upcoming season begins, so I've launched a peer review. Ultimately I don't want to send it to FAC until after he signs a new contract (for stability reasons), so I was hoping that one or more of you could give it a copyedit in the meantime. The last time I put an article up at FAC, all it really needed was a good copyedit, so I'm hoping to skip that whole process when I ultimately take it there (however unlikely that may be). Anyways, I appreciate any help you can throw my way. Cheers! – Nurmsook! talk... 23:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Annual post draft fun
Looks like there have been a lot of draftee articles created for players drafted after the first round, including all of the 2nd round and about half the 3rd. Most don't appear to pass NHOCKEY (I haven't checked GNG). Will there be some mass PRODs in the coming days? Is it too many to do one mass AfD? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and prodded them. Some have previously been deleted. Those might be candidates for speedy delete. I don't think you can do a mass AfD on that many. There were 41. ! ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Coaches in Roster templates
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but I think coaches should be included in the templates used for rosters. Compare Template:Detroit Red Wings roster to Template:Detroit Tigers roster. Or there could be another separate template for the coaches. Hot Stop (c) 14:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, the rosters should be limited to players. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Could there be a separate one for coaches then? Hot Stop (c) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not certain. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Could there be a separate one for coaches then? Hot Stop (c) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is something we could contemplate. Personally, I would love to split back to the old format of listing goalies, defencemen and forwards separately, perhaps adding a fourth set for coaches. But if we keep the current layout - which is also quite nice - adding a template for coaches under their own heading could be useful. Resolute 21:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- In all actuality there should be an additional heading for all current and notable management and scouting personnel, from assistant coaches all the way up to GM/President. Even owners if you want to get ambitious. juanless 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Request for move
There is a request for move, which may interest members of this WikiProject, at Talk:Martin Ruzicka. - Darwinek (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- And another one here. --Sporti (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
An idea
Instead of afding and prod draft picks just redirect them to List of Toronto Maple Leafs draft picks (for the team that picked them). This will save time with the PROD and afd process that the post above is talking about too. Plus, if someone searches that player they'll know that they have been drafted by that team. It just makes more sense and a time saver. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you do that for the LA draft picks? I noticed a few like that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- That would be User:Shootmaster 44 he created them as redirects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Creating redirects hides that there is no article, though. Sometimes you want to see that, though, for editing sake. So I prefer that a bit. But that's a minor point. Some of the picks might be argued, so I thought I should make those into prods. The others, well, I'm open to suggestion. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- That would be User:Shootmaster 44 he created them as redirects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly creating player articles just to redirecting them is a stupid idea IMO. It fools the reader into thinking there actually is an article, and by clicking on it you are forced to load a quite large article, not exactly what you want to do if you're surfing on your phone or a 3G network with pay per use. Additionally there's an argument as to where the article should be redirected but I wont go into that. Common sense would be to delete all player articles created as redirects, skipping the bureaucracy. —KRM (Communicate!) 18:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- How is it a stupid idea? How does it fool the reader in thinking there's an article. It's better since you can list the player then make note like MLB does (their current team) this will provide info for the user who's searching for it (remember that's what wikipedia is for). 14 000 bytes is a lot now (lists don't make the article that much bigger); that's 14 kbtes and anyone who isn't using dial up won't have a problem. I have no problem on any articles loading stuff using an iPhone. This system works perfectly for MLB players so there's no reason why it shouldn't for NHL. This is what they do and for the same reason here. A problem with this is the what if the players are traded. An even better solution is using the exalt same system as MLB articles and make a Toronto Blue Jays minor league players (name can be different. This system just works a whole lot better. Anyone who edits and patrols MLB articles and NHL would probably say the same thing. With this system if a players article is created you just redirect it and once they are no longer active the people mandating the article PROD the player. If the player makes it the article is restored. Most users do create articles articles just for redirects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- When I click the link I expect to get to an article about the player, not a draft list of the team selecting him. If you search for a player and an article is non existent you'll get search results showing everywhere the player's name is mentioned, not just one article which one user has deemed to be the most suited one — Why not article of the current team? Or where he was born? Who are you to decide that a draft list of the team drafting him is the best way to fool the reader? You don't make redirects just to get your red links blue. —KRM (Communicate!) 19:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The reason is the once ounce of notability' is that he's a draft pic or a person in the system of a NHL team. You get that? You keep repeating this nonsense of fooling people when I told you the article will have info about the player. Therefore it's not fooling you are just ignoring what I say.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- When I started to expand the Kings' list, I used the Oilers list as a guide. It appeared that players who had been drafted by the Oilers, but had not article were redirected to the list. My thinking behind this is if you are searching for say Nic Dowd (a Kings draft choice from a couple years ago) and there is no article, this is what makes him most notable. Plus, I believe that redlinks mean that a page cannot be promoted to a featured article, so to get the season articles to featured status, we have to remove redlinks. Thus, creating redirects does this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- That the player having been drafted being the most notable thing about him is your subjective opinion. Red links used to be an argument over at FLC several years ago but not last time I checked. And do you really think linking to the article in question just to get rid of red links from said article is better then simply having red links? —KRM (Communicate!) 20:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Let me explain what red ink is for from Wikipedia:Red link. It says that if you red ink something you are saying the topic is notable and an article should be created soon. If not you should get rid of the red link. Simple as that. Articles shouldn't have red links unless the article will be created soon. That's wikipedia guildlines. I urge you to read the link I gave.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at List of Los Angeles Kings draft picks I actually remove the wikilink from the player on the list. What I was referring to is the drive to make the season article a feature article. By putting in a redirect, it does remove the redlink on the season page for that Kings season and doesn't link to the same page. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have always been of the opinion that having a FL/FA icon is less important than making Wikipedia more user (and editor) friendly. The red links requirement is one of the examples I can think of where its not worth an article being labelled as a FL if it takes away good functionality. An article can be a high quality article without officially being recognized as such. That being said its not a huge deal to me. Just that I personally think more can be gained from a red link than redirect. The best example was mentioned by KRM above when you do a search for an term that doesn't have an article you get a list of all pages that subject is listed in. But as soon as you make a redirect you lose all that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- That the player having been drafted being the most notable thing about him is your subjective opinion. Red links used to be an argument over at FLC several years ago but not last time I checked. And do you really think linking to the article in question just to get rid of red links from said article is better then simply having red links? —KRM (Communicate!) 20:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- When I click the link I expect to get to an article about the player, not a draft list of the team selecting him. If you search for a player and an article is non existent you'll get search results showing everywhere the player's name is mentioned, not just one article which one user has deemed to be the most suited one — Why not article of the current team? Or where he was born? Who are you to decide that a draft list of the team drafting him is the best way to fool the reader? You don't make redirects just to get your red links blue. —KRM (Communicate!) 19:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- How is it a stupid idea? How does it fool the reader in thinking there's an article. It's better since you can list the player then make note like MLB does (their current team) this will provide info for the user who's searching for it (remember that's what wikipedia is for). 14 000 bytes is a lot now (lists don't make the article that much bigger); that's 14 kbtes and anyone who isn't using dial up won't have a problem. I have no problem on any articles loading stuff using an iPhone. This system works perfectly for MLB players so there's no reason why it shouldn't for NHL. This is what they do and for the same reason here. A problem with this is the what if the players are traded. An even better solution is using the exalt same system as MLB articles and make a Toronto Blue Jays minor league players (name can be different. This system just works a whole lot better. Anyone who edits and patrols MLB articles and NHL would probably say the same thing. With this system if a players article is created you just redirect it and once they are no longer active the people mandating the article PROD the player. If the player makes it the article is restored. Most users do create articles articles just for redirects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly we should not be creating red links for players below, say, the 4th round on the entry draft articles? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do you one better, we don't need red links from the 3rd round and below- it encourages creation of articles on distant prospects. One thig I don't agree with is a lot of the second round prospects being proded. Many are quite notable and often each draft there are a number of teams without first round draft picks, those teams' top prospects are in the second round and are proded. Also there's always some surprise picks in the first round that drop a few projected first round picks to the second round. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Many have received coverage similar to most first round picks - in some cases more - especially if they were rated as possible first round picks who dropped below expectations, and 2nd rounders who were their team's first pick. In any case, it isn't the round of the draft that makes players notable, it is the level of coverage. For 1st rounders we know there will be adequate coverage and can just skip over the step of searching. Rlendog (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do you one better, we don't need red links from the 3rd round and below- it encourages creation of articles on distant prospects. One thig I don't agree with is a lot of the second round prospects being proded. Many are quite notable and often each draft there are a number of teams without first round draft picks, those teams' top prospects are in the second round and are proded. Also there's always some surprise picks in the first round that drop a few projected first round picks to the second round. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Percy Quinn brothers ?
Hello. I'm french wikipedia user and just made Percy Quinn there but i have a question : here, it's written "He had two brothers Fred and Raphael". But on two books (Deceptions and Doublecross: How the NHL Conquered Hockey and Lords of the rinks: the emergence of the National Hockey League) his brother Emmett Quinn is the NHA president. Who is right ? --Supertoff (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can post that question to the Deceptions author. I did not think Emmett was his brother, though. The cite about two brothers was from Percy's obituary. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Emmett was a brother. He pre-deceased Percy, which I guess is why I've not seen his name mentioned in the Percy Quinn obits I've read. I will update the Quinn articles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tks, i have update the fr version and tried there too. --Supertoff (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Emmett was a brother. He pre-deceased Percy, which I guess is why I've not seen his name mentioned in the Percy Quinn obits I've read. I will update the Quinn articles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Barons/North Stars merger
I think we need an article on the merger between the Cleveland Barons and the Minnesota North Stars in 1978, especially since I believe this is the only time in the NHL that such a merger occurred. I just tried researching it via the available team and season articles, and it's very very hazy for me. Does anyone have any good resources to build a full-fledged article around? Jmj713 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its a very mysterious subject. I don't think there is a lot of clear info out there on it. And a whole lotta legend. Personally I would put all this on the Barons page as opposed to a separate page. But that's mostly because I don't think you will find enough for a full article, not because its not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Google news archive has plenty:
- A few of my history books will have brief coverage as well. I'm willing to bet I could probably put a decent article together in a few days if nobody gets to it first. Resolute 22:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- GNews is getting really good, every time I look they have more than the last time I looked. If anyone can put together something from a little its you. :P Any books I have read have always been very vague on it. Good luck. -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of Western Canadian papers had significant archives added last December. You have no idea how happy I was to see that - I have four binders of printed articles from library archive trips already, and having much of it online now has helped me save a ton of research time. Resolute 23:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- That looks great, I'll gladly help out with such an article, using these and any other sources. This event has always bugged me. Jmj713 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- GNews is getting really good, every time I look they have more than the last time I looked. If anyone can put together something from a little its you. :P Any books I have read have always been very vague on it. Good luck. -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"Signings" at 2011–12 NHL transactions
What are your opinions on 2011–12 NHL transactions#Signings? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Soccer-holic. Thanks for your nice work. I'm fine with keeping or removing my table. I also forgot that we have a team signings page. I thought it would be nice to add re-signings and contract details to the free agency table because I have yet to find any sites that track all the signings (UFAs and RFAs) whether they are significant or not. For example, TSN has a nice UFA tracker, but it doesn't list any of the RFAs. (Suciturb (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC))
- Just curious why we need an entire article on transactions. The team season articles, sure, but I don't see a need for it. And I'm far from a deletionist, but maybe it's just me. Anthony (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I love this. I've always been a fan of getting the full details on signings onto Wikipedia, money and term included. We just need refs for each and it'll be perfect! – Nurmsook! talk... 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are discussing two separate, but connected ideas here. Should we include contractual terms into the table? Yes, we should, provided that we include a reliable source for the details. Should we include re-signings of players by their former teams as well? No, we shouldn't, for two reasons. First of all, the article explicitly states that it deals with team-to-team transactions, i.e. a transfer of something between two teams, so a re-signing would not be in the scope of the article. Then there is the WP:LENGTH question; the article simly would become too big. However, the listing of re-signings might be appropriate at the respective team season articles. Just my EUR 0.02, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with Soccer-holic's suggestion in keeping the contract details, but removing re-signings. I noticed that the dollar amounts on the table are entered in short form ($4M instead of $4,000,000). I personally find the longer form more aesthetically pleasing and easier to read the bigger dollar amounts when you align the numbers to the right. (Suciturb (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC))
- I think we are discussing two separate, but connected ideas here. Should we include contractual terms into the table? Yes, we should, provided that we include a reliable source for the details. Should we include re-signings of players by their former teams as well? No, we shouldn't, for two reasons. First of all, the article explicitly states that it deals with team-to-team transactions, i.e. a transfer of something between two teams, so a re-signing would not be in the scope of the article. Then there is the WP:LENGTH question; the article simly would become too big. However, the listing of re-signings might be appropriate at the respective team season articles. Just my EUR 0.02, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
While we are at it – how about the inclusion of free agent signings from and to non-NHL clubs? The current consensus, as far as I remember, is that such moves (for example, the recent Jagr-to-Flyers signing) should be kept off the transaction lists because these lists are intended for intra-NHL moves only; has that consensus changed in the meantime? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
RfC notification
A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
European standings
What level do the leagues need to be for standings pages to be notable? I know the SM-Liiga, Elitserien, Czech Extraliga etc.. Are notable... But what about some lower level leagues such as Polska Liga Hokejowa, Bulgarian Hockey League, OB I bajnoksag, Kazakhstani Championship etc. Are these considered notable?--Hockeyben (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Anybody?--Hockeyben (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- To put it in simple terms, if the league is the top professional league in that country, it is good. Everything else is debatable. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons discusion involving several Hockey Photos
There is a discussion on on the commons that involves 70 images right now and could have ramifications on many more. Wanted to give everyone a heads up--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, ouch! Hard to argue the delete rationale there - we wouldn't want their imperfect understanding of Creative Commons to impact someone's livelihood, but damn, that is a lot of great photos we're about to lose. Resolute 13:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Totally agree, I just wanted to give everyone a heads up when the commons de-linking bot comes through. If the commons does it's due diligence we will lose over 1,000 images and hundreds of pages will be without pics again.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would start saving the images so they can be put back on en.wiki as fair use images. They might not be allowable on commons but they still would be on en. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- That will never pass. en's non-free content rules pretty much say that if a fair-use image is replaceable, we cannot use it. Living people are virtually always held to that higher standard - a fair use photograph of a living person doing something historic (i.e.: Bobby Orr's SC winning goal) would pass WP:NFCC, but a simple photograph of Orr would not. In all of these cases, we need only someone with a camera and no media restrictions to go to the arena and take pictures. Resolute 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Our image policy is a mess. I think legally we could...but our policy is ridiculously high compared to what the law requires so that it is always contentious. I don't know that the media use restrictions would matter much since all people that go to a game are under the same restrictions per the back of their tickets. But who knows its murky in the image world which is why I stay away from it on wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- That will never pass. en's non-free content rules pretty much say that if a fair-use image is replaceable, we cannot use it. Living people are virtually always held to that higher standard - a fair use photograph of a living person doing something historic (i.e.: Bobby Orr's SC winning goal) would pass WP:NFCC, but a simple photograph of Orr would not. In all of these cases, we need only someone with a camera and no media restrictions to go to the arena and take pictures. Resolute 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Scoring leaders for relocated franchises
This issue has come up in the new Jets article, where some folk are questioning the inclusion of Atlanta Thrashers players in the franchise scoring leader tables. A quick glance shows we're a bit inconsistent in how we do this with relocated franchises. The Phoenix Coyotes article omits leaders from the Winnipeg Jets. By contrast, the Colorado Avalanche, Dallas Stars and Carolina Hurricanes, Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils articles include leaders from the Quebec Nordiques, Minnesota North Stars, Hartford Whalers, Atlanta Flames and Kansas City Scouts/Colorado Rockies respectively.
Certainly we ought to be consistent here, and I believe we should include leaders from previous cities. This is in line with NHL practice, where the Official Guide and Record Book as a matter of course includes the complete records for a franchise. In consequence, unless there are strong objections, the Coyotes records should be rewritten to include Jets' records. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned at the Jets page where this came up, I believe the Jets were written differently because the Coyotes themselves don't acknowledge the previous leaders. However I don't have a copy of the Coyotes media guide to verify. I just recall this being mentioned in many media reports while the debate over the Jets name was going on. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I found a copy and it looks like they do combine them. What they separate out are franchise firsts and coyotes firsts. Must be what they were talking about. Yeah we should rewrite then. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion to add KHL draft to infobox template
See Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#KHL draft parameter? for a suggestion to add parameters for the KHL draft to the Infobox ice hockey player template. HeyMid (contribs) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- It makes sense for Russian/European players, certainly, but also brings up a question on when a draft pick is notable. For instance, I can't see any reason why we would make note of AK Bars Kazan picking Taylor Hall in the fourth round of their 2009 draft in the infobox at his article. Resolute 23:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Minor League hockey task force?
I do most of my hockey-related editing on ECHL teams and have wondered for a time if there was a task force for minor league hockey. I came across this page, created in late 2009. Are there enough individuals interested to develop this into a full-blown task force? Cjmclark (Contact) 23:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we'd ever oppose the creation (or reactivation) of a task force, but for it to be viable, you would probably want a few dedicated editors. For myself, I prefer to simply maintain my on personal miniproject, relying on the fine editors of the main project when the need arises. Whether or not you choose to formalize your work into a task force, however, I wish you happy editing. There certainly is a lot of work to be done on many of our minor league articles. Resolute 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Generally we don't create a task force unless there are at least 5 people or so interested in actively working within it to the point that their discussions would flood this page if they were held here. As you can see by looking at most of our task forces they die almost as soon as they are created and end up only adding more layers of bureaucracy. However, you certainly can try and work that one up into an active one. I just think you will find you will get more answers and discussion here than if you hold it on a sub-page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think there are plenty of people interested in minor league hockey articles, but they are so widespread and their interests so varied that a focused task force (absent individuals who have the time and energy to really drive it, which I am not) is probably not feasible at this point. However, if I'm wrong and one does get up and running, I'd be more than happy to contribute. Until then, back to WikiGnoming! Cjmclark (Contact) 21:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Help Identifying a Photo
There seems to be some debate on the the individual in this photo:
The upholder states that it is former Boston Bruin Stan Jonathan saying in the description "Pugilist Stan Johnathan better known for his fighting ability, than his hockey ability" with the spelling error of Johnathan. the image has been removed from the page with the IP stating it's not the player noted in the description. I was wondering if anyone could confirm if this is or isn't the player in question and if it is not Jonathan if who this is if anyone. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know who the player is, but I don't think that's Stan Jonathan. Based on the images from Google Images, where we know it's him, I would say that this is a different person. They're both short, but the one in the WP picture is stockier. There is a #19 on his left glove, but Jonathan wore #17. Jonathan had a well-defined jaw-line (and obvious Native American features in general), while the guy pictured has a fatter face and he looks White to me. The sticks are different models. Hairstyles seem to be a bit different. Maxim(talk) 02:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Bobby Lalonde wore #19 in Boston for just about the entire 1979–80 season...here's a photo of a trading card from then. He's wearing #7 on the card, but it looks like he had just joined the Bruins and was wearing a Flames jersey in the photo. Thoughts? Cjmclark (Contact) 03:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say based on this photo it's almost certainly not Gregg Sheppard, who wore #19 in Boston from 1972–78. Tom Songin wore it briefly (17 games) during the 1978–79 season...his photo here. The only other two who wore #19 that season wore it for 3 and 1 games respectively. Cjmclark (Contact) 03:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the chin, I'm inclined to believe it is Lalonde. Comparison: [9]. The player seems like he is short too, and Lalonde was even smaller than Fleury. Resolute 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the responses, at least I know it isn't Jonathan. I'm some what inclined to move this pic to the Lalonde page since it is without one, but I think I will hold off on doing so, since we can't be sure.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the chin, I'm inclined to believe it is Lalonde. Comparison: [9]. The player seems like he is short too, and Lalonde was even smaller than Fleury. Resolute 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
That is almost certainly Bobby Lalonde. See here. Pay particular attention to the goofy helmet; he was one of a handful (perhaps the only one) to wear that style of helmet. 93JC (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the responses above, I've renamed the file at Commons, and have added into the appropriate article. I think it's fairly certain it's him, based on height and the goofy lid. Maxim(talk) 02:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention the cheesy mustache and the chin. The world is safe for freedom and democracy once again! Cjmclark (Contact) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Great work guys, thanks for the help, moving the commons photo, and including it in the article. Cheers!--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Request for move
There are requests for move, which may interest members of this WikiProject, at Talk:Marek Bartánus and Talk:Peter Čerešňák. - Darwinek (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see another ones at Talk:Jiří Hunkes, Talk:Miroslav Blaťák and Talk:Toni Kirén. - Darwinek (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I noticed that there is a baseball page called List of countries with their first Major League Baseball player. I think a comparable one for the NHL would be good, but I'm not sure where to find this information. I realize I can comb through NHL rosters from the beginning of the league on hockeydb, but I was hoping there was an easier way to put this together. Any ideas? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if it will help much but for some of the more obscure countries the List of NHL statistical leaders by country can help narrow it down some. Keep in mind it really doesn't take goaltenders into account much (considering how few points they accumulate) for example the list only has Ryan O'Marra (born in Japan) who debuted in 2009-10 for Japan when Yutaka Fukufuji was the first Japanese player debuting in 2006-07. Though there are around 10 goaltenders on the list overall.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Definition would be annoying. Do you go by straight birthplace alone, or nationality? The answer will decide if Brazil and Indonesia, for instance, make the list. Resolute 22:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also, if the sources exist, I think we can make such a list far more useful than the current baseball example. Have the list show the total number of players from each country who have appeared in an NHL game, with a column for who and when the first was. FWIW, Joe Pelletier actually Tweeted on this today (where you got the inspiration, perhaps?) and according to him, 6666 players have played at least one game in the NHL from 44 countries. Canada had the most at around 4100. Resolute 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- No I actually don't use Twitter. I stumbled across the baseball page and wondered if there was a hockey equivalent. As far as definition, I think birth place is the easiest way to go about it, no disputing anything. I also figure I'd follow the roster template flag rule, meaning Anze Kopitar for this list is Yugoslavian and thus does not make the list as Ivan Boldirev beat him to it. The one thing (like the baseball list) is that former countries and their current incarnations will both appear meaning the USSR and Russia or Dominion of Newfoundland and Canada will both be on the list.
- Also, if the sources exist, I think we can make such a list far more useful than the current baseball example. Have the list show the total number of players from each country who have appeared in an NHL game, with a column for who and when the first was. FWIW, Joe Pelletier actually Tweeted on this today (where you got the inspiration, perhaps?) and according to him, 6666 players have played at least one game in the NHL from 44 countries. Canada had the most at around 4100. Resolute 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- My problem for Canada, is I can't find a reference to the box score for the first NHL game in 1917. I believe all the players are Canadian that appeared in that game and I'd need a reference to the entire game to show it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Calgary Herald. The story on the Toronto-Wanderers game is two columns to the right. Both include the rosters for all teams involved. Resolute 02:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- My problem for Canada, is I can't find a reference to the box score for the first NHL game in 1917. I believe all the players are Canadian that appeared in that game and I'd need a reference to the entire game to show it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think historical countries should be used. We should follow the same rules as in the List of NHL statistical leaders by country and as officially used by the NHL. Although Anze Kopitar appears in the Template:Los Angeles Kings roster as born in Yugoslavia, the flag shown is that of Slovenia. In addition none of the official NHL.com pages for the Kings, Kopitar and Boldirev mention Yugoslavia. There's even less dispute about the current country than the country at time of birth as the dates of some changes are not very well defined e.g. USSR->CIS->Russia. Also Newfoundland was never an independent country. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I also recently tried to start a very similar discussion in Talk:List of NHL statistical leaders#Flags again but received no responses 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed on NFLD. It was a colony, not a country. As far as Kopitar goes, nationality and birthplace are not necessarily the same thing, and we introduce temporal errors if we start correcting histry over political changes. Kopitar was born in Yugoslavia, as Slovenia did not exist as a country. However, his nationality is Slovenian. One field speaks to the past, the other to the present. Resolute 04:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree a player's nationality should be irrelevant, that is very hard to verify and can change on a whim; countries are not created every week (this week being an anomaly). Kopitar was born in what what was Yugoslavia and what is now Slovenia, absolutely no debate there. Why perpetuate the problems of the past and introduce unnecessary edits? The NHL views Kopitar as being born in Slovenia. The NHL should be the being the official reference for NHL lists. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed on NFLD. It was a colony, not a country. As far as Kopitar goes, nationality and birthplace are not necessarily the same thing, and we introduce temporal errors if we start correcting histry over political changes. Kopitar was born in Yugoslavia, as Slovenia did not exist as a country. However, his nationality is Slovenian. One field speaks to the past, the other to the present. Resolute 04:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I also recently tried to start a very similar discussion in Talk:List of NHL statistical leaders#Flags again but received no responses 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually from 1907 until 1934 the Dominion of Newfoundland was sovereign nation in the same way Canada was. So players born in this time period were actually from the "country" of Newfoundland. This is why Foster Hewitt used to begin his radio broadcasts with the phrase "Hello hockey fans in Canada, the United States and Newfoundland." That said, we may not have an issue with Newfoundland, I haven't done enough digging to view whether or not anyone from Newfoundland played in the NHL between 1917 and 1934.
- Very interesting information about Newfoundland, I didn't know that it ever had independence. However reading the Dominion of Newfoundland page, it was only independent for a little over 2 years, from December 11, 1931 to February 16, 1934. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not to debate Newfoundland history, but they were independent from 1907 until 1934. The 1931 Statute of Westminster moved the Constitutions of the country from Great Britain to their Dominions. In theory, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were not truly independent nations until this time either. However, in practice Canada was founded in 1867, Australia in 1901 and Newfoundland in 1907. So for practical reasons, Newfoundland would appear for anyone born between 1907 and 1934. I'm quite certain there was one born then that played in the NHL. So when I find him, I will include it. At any rate, before I move this from my userspace to the mainspace I will have everyone interested to take a look and see what they think. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Very interesting information about Newfoundland, I didn't know that it ever had independence. However reading the Dominion of Newfoundland page, it was only independent for a little over 2 years, from December 11, 1931 to February 16, 1934. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- As for the Nationality versus birthplace debate, the reason I feel place of birth is best is that it is indisputable. Thus, Kopitar being Yugoslavian is the easiest way to do it. Yes after 1993s start entering the NHL we could have problems. I was also following the template that the baseball list set, it contains Austria-Hungary and the Kingdom of Hawaii on the list. I figure this is notable to note which citizens of defunct countries were the first from there. The only issue I've run across so far pulling the info together is that of Ireland. The people of the Republic (and some in the North) consider themselves to be Irish. However, all the "Irishmen" I can find on Hockeydb.com were born in Belfast. This means that they are technically not part of Ireland but rather the United Kingdom. I can forsee a few issues with this possibly. Plus, by going with place of birth you do ensure that the problem of multiple citizenships don't arise. Some of the first players I've run across from some European countries were born there and moved to the US as children.
- As mentioned above, I agree with the choice to use birthplace. However Kopitar being Slovenian is by far the easiest way to go using the current political landscape as you suggest below. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think historical countries should be used. We should follow the same rules as in the List of NHL statistical leaders by country and as officially used by the NHL. Although Anze Kopitar appears in the Template:Los Angeles Kings roster as born in Yugoslavia, the flag shown is that of Slovenia. In addition none of the official NHL.com pages for the Kings, Kopitar and Boldirev mention Yugoslavia. There's even less dispute about the current country than the country at time of birth as the dates of some changes are not very well defined e.g. USSR->CIS->Russia. Also Newfoundland was never an independent country. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another compromise is that we go with the current political landscape in one list. There could be a second list below of defunct countries listing the first Yugoslavian, who would also appear as the first Serbian. The only issue is what countries fall into a defunct category. The first Russian player I found, was actually born in the Russian Empire which predates the founding of the Soviet Union. The first German was also born before East and West Germany was formed. So does the reunited Germany supercede the pre-split Germany?
- The current reunited Germany is the current country so yes it supersedes both the pre-split as well as both the split countries. All players born in current borders of Germany are German and should be treated equally. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another compromise is that we go with the current political landscape in one list. There could be a second list below of defunct countries listing the first Yugoslavian, who would also appear as the first Serbian. The only issue is what countries fall into a defunct category. The first Russian player I found, was actually born in the Russian Empire which predates the founding of the Soviet Union. The first German was also born before East and West Germany was formed. So does the reunited Germany supercede the pre-split Germany?
- The other way of going about this is to show the first Yugoslavian and then also show the first players from the constituent nations that once made it up. The only problem this would create is if we do that, then we might get people wanting the first from each province and state. Also, in the Soviet case, the first player came to the NHL in 1982 (played for the LA Kings). Thus, it is likely he never did return to post-Soviet Russia, so listing him as the first from Russia (not the Russian Empire) might be a misnomer. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, Sweeney Schriner was the first Russian-born player in NHL history. But that does pose a problem, as really, the Russian Empire, Russian SFSR and Russian Federation are essentially the same country, just renamed over time. You could get around both that, and the Belfast, problem by separating the USSR and UK by their constituent countries. Also, does Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic count as two different countries, and if so, why? I suspect you will have problems with nationalistic arguments relating to the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and, it seems, Yugoslavia. Resolute 01:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, Vic Hoffinger is the first Russian born player. He played in '26-'27 before Sweeney Schriner did, but I digress. The problem with him and Sweeney Schriner is that the Russian Empire is not the same country as the Russian SFSR and Russian Federation. If I remember my Russian history class correctly, it actually was more similar in make-up to the entire USSR than to what the current country of Russia is. But in either case, I wouldn't call these players the first Soviets in the NHL. From my digging so far (and it hasn't been too deep), there aren't too many of these players from "empires" to deal with. I think this might be the only case as nobody born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire ever played in the NHL. The one option is to separate Vic Hoffinger as the first from the Russian Empire and having whomever is the first "Russian" as listed as Russia. Perhaps the easiest way is unlike the baseball list, we could wikilink the countries and that should reduce the problems inherent in this list.
- Yup, Sweeney Schriner was the first Russian-born player in NHL history. But that does pose a problem, as really, the Russian Empire, Russian SFSR and Russian Federation are essentially the same country, just renamed over time. You could get around both that, and the Belfast, problem by separating the USSR and UK by their constituent countries. Also, does Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic count as two different countries, and if so, why? I suspect you will have problems with nationalistic arguments relating to the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and, it seems, Yugoslavia. Resolute 01:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The other way of going about this is to show the first Yugoslavian and then also show the first players from the constituent nations that once made it up. The only problem this would create is if we do that, then we might get people wanting the first from each province and state. Also, in the Soviet case, the first player came to the NHL in 1982 (played for the LA Kings). Thus, it is likely he never did return to post-Soviet Russia, so listing him as the first from Russia (not the Russian Empire) might be a misnomer. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with splitting the UK into their constituent countries is that some haven't existed as a country in any sense of the word since 1066. So having England or Wales on there contradicts not having the Russian Empire or the Dominion of Newfoundland on the list. Plus, I doubt there are any Welsh who have played in the NHL. But my digging hasn't gotten that far yet
- For the Czech examples, I would say yes they are separate countries. The way I understood the history, Czechoslovakia did not simply see Slovakia cede from the country, but an actual dissolution of the entire country. The two nations split apart into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I realize this all my Political Science background coming out. But when a countries borders significantly change, the name changes and the government is overthrown, that nation is born. This is why I don't consider Anze Kopitar to belong on the list. In fact no Slovenes would appear on the list until players born in that political entity start playing in the NHL. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Also, does Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic count as two different countries, and if so, why? " I don't know who it was, but if the first player from Czechoslovakia was from what is now Slovakia rather than from what is now the Czech Republic, that may be an issue. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- As of right now and my digging hasn't gone that deep yet (which is why the page is still in my userspace) the first Czechoslovakian I can find is Stan Makita and he was actually born in Slovakia. I'm sure when I dig a little deeper I will find an older player who started before him. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can add Stan Makita to the list of players that introduce problems. Was he born in Czechoslovakia or Slovakia or the Slovak Republic (1939–1945)? 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Argh! Then looking at the history, Stan Makita isn't Czechoslovakian. Rather he was born in the Slovak Republic (a country I didn't know existed until now). So then this further complicates things. If a player was born in the Sudetenland, is he then German? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
<outdent> I think I have figured it out. The easiest way to show it is by showing players born in the constituent countries of today by indenting them on the chart and listing them beneath the country of birth. What I mean is I will show it like
USSR
This will work until players start showing up from Russia that are Russian born. This will likely be in the next season or so. At that point it will take some footnotes to show this.
My problem now is that if I try to indent like you would on here the colon shows up. How can I indent in a chart? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- A second problem is does anyone know where you can find a game by game breakdown for players. I just looked at Ukraine on Hockeydb and three players all started in the 1990-91 National Hockey League season (Peter Bondra, Dmitri Khristich and Alexander Godynyuk), so I need to find out who played first. I realize that they may have all played the same day, in which case I will have to list all three as the first. However, someone had to play first and if this listing would have faceoff times I could figure it out easily. This tasks is become alot more daunting than I thought it would be when I set out. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of those 3, unofficially it looks like Peter Bondra played the first game on 1990-10-05 before Dmitri Khristich on 1990-12-19 or Alexander Godynyuk on 1991-02-06. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Lets complicate things further! Above, I claimed Schriner as the first Russian in NHL history, and I have a reference that will support that. So your claim of Vic Hoffinger intrigued me. It looks like there is no town of Seltz in Russia (it is actually on the French-German border). But there was a Selz, which is now known as Lymans'ke - and it is in Ukraine! That would explain the cite I have for Schriner. But, now there is a legitimate argument that Hoffinger is actually the first Ukrainian... except that Ukraine was not independent at that time. Resolute 04:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like Schriner was the first player from modern day Russia. Above you argued against modern boundaries as being nationality. Russian Empire could be sub-divided similar to some of the other countries, however it doesn't appear that there were such subdivisions. We'd be imposing current boundaries on historical countries. Sorry to be repetitive, but I'd prefer to only see current boundaries. It reflects what I think user's would most likely want to see. (I'm also 99.246.179.122). It also throws a wrinkle in my claim that the NHL uses current country. They use the modern country for players born in the USSR, Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but they didn't go back further. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- So Vic Hoffinger is the first player from the Russian Empire and the Ukraine, but Schriner becomes the first Russian player. This would have been so much easier if like baseball, hockey hadn't taken root in Eastern Europe. I'm trying to be as inclusive as possible with this list, but in a couple years, I would guess the NHL will start calling a 1992 as the first Russian born player in the NHL and this will get complicated. The other problem I am finding doing this, is since Yutaka Fukufuji and Schreiner (though I haven't looked that closely at the article yet) are the only players who I can cite them being the first player from their respective countries, this whole list might fall under WP:OR. As long as it stays in my userspace, it makes no difference, but the point was to move it out of there into the main space.
- For consistency, I disagree with Hoffinger being listed from Ukraine or Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, he was born prior to either of their creation. In a list of modern countries, I agree he should be listed as the first player from Ukraine. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do agree that consistency is a good thing. My small problem is still what to do with Germany. My first German is Walt Tkaczuk, who was born in 1947, post-Nazi Germany and pre-East/West Germany. However, my first Czech is Jaroslav Jirik who was born in 1939 in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, which was a Nazi Germany protectorate. So is Tkaczuk the first German and Jirik the first Czech? Conversely, should Jirik be the first German and I'll need to find a new Czech? The last option is do I show the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia as a separate country and find a new Czech? The article on the Protectorate doesn't clearly indicate whether it was truly independent (like say France is today), a dependency of Nazi Germany (like Guam is to the US) or a constituent part of Germany (like Bavaria is). If it is one of the last two, technically he is German by birth. However, that confuses things, but the annexation of the Czech territory was internationally recognized, so it isn't like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. When I started out doing this, I thought my biggest problem would be the USSR, Yugoslavia and possibly the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Who knew Germany and Czechoslovakia would be the biggest problems? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did a bit more researching and it looks like if we are getting technical, Finland was a grand duchy of the Russian Empire until 1917. So my first Finn Albert Pudas was actually born in the Grand Duchy of Finland. So does he now become the first Russian Empire player in the NHL or since the Grand Duchy was arms length from Moscow is he simply the first Finn? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I've been pushing for using current borders. Working backwards from current borders is easier and much less contentious than trying to determine what defined an obsolete country. e.g. first person born in the current borders of Finland, first since formation of Finland in 1917. It most closely follows nationality which is what I believe most want to see, but with none of its contentious issues. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given the choice, I would then prefer that Pudas be listed as the first from the Russian Empire. It does look like the Grand Duchy of Finland was a recognized subdivision so the Russian Empire could be subdivided like others. Problem is what to call the main part of the empire where Hoffinger was first? I disagree with arbitrarily subdividing a historical country along current boundaries, but it would allow both Hoffinger and Schriner to be listed. Would that require a second level of indentation? 174.119.19.211 (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did a bit more researching and it looks like if we are getting technical, Finland was a grand duchy of the Russian Empire until 1917. So my first Finn Albert Pudas was actually born in the Grand Duchy of Finland. So does he now become the first Russian Empire player in the NHL or since the Grand Duchy was arms length from Moscow is he simply the first Finn? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do agree that consistency is a good thing. My small problem is still what to do with Germany. My first German is Walt Tkaczuk, who was born in 1947, post-Nazi Germany and pre-East/West Germany. However, my first Czech is Jaroslav Jirik who was born in 1939 in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, which was a Nazi Germany protectorate. So is Tkaczuk the first German and Jirik the first Czech? Conversely, should Jirik be the first German and I'll need to find a new Czech? The last option is do I show the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia as a separate country and find a new Czech? The article on the Protectorate doesn't clearly indicate whether it was truly independent (like say France is today), a dependency of Nazi Germany (like Guam is to the US) or a constituent part of Germany (like Bavaria is). If it is one of the last two, technically he is German by birth. However, that confuses things, but the annexation of the Czech territory was internationally recognized, so it isn't like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. When I started out doing this, I thought my biggest problem would be the USSR, Yugoslavia and possibly the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Who knew Germany and Czechoslovakia would be the biggest problems? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- For consistency, I disagree with Hoffinger being listed from Ukraine or Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, he was born prior to either of their creation. In a list of modern countries, I agree he should be listed as the first player from Ukraine. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The other thing I am pondering doing is showing first draft pick from each country, NHL.com has a historical list of players, including draft picks so that isn't too difficult to add. The only issue this causes is since many countries have players who debuted before the draft existed, it could cause confusion to the reader. Any thoughts? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The reference about the Taro pick seems relevant to this proposed column and not to first player to play a game. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- So Vic Hoffinger is the first player from the Russian Empire and the Ukraine, but Schriner becomes the first Russian player. This would have been so much easier if like baseball, hockey hadn't taken root in Eastern Europe. I'm trying to be as inclusive as possible with this list, but in a couple years, I would guess the NHL will start calling a 1992 as the first Russian born player in the NHL and this will get complicated. The other problem I am finding doing this, is since Yutaka Fukufuji and Schreiner (though I haven't looked that closely at the article yet) are the only players who I can cite them being the first player from their respective countries, this whole list might fall under WP:OR. As long as it stays in my userspace, it makes no difference, but the point was to move it out of there into the main space.
- It looks like Schriner was the first player from modern day Russia. Above you argued against modern boundaries as being nationality. Russian Empire could be sub-divided similar to some of the other countries, however it doesn't appear that there were such subdivisions. We'd be imposing current boundaries on historical countries. Sorry to be repetitive, but I'd prefer to only see current boundaries. It reflects what I think user's would most likely want to see. (I'm also 99.246.179.122). It also throws a wrinkle in my claim that the NHL uses current country. They use the modern country for players born in the USSR, Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but they didn't go back further. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Lets complicate things further! Above, I claimed Schriner as the first Russian in NHL history, and I have a reference that will support that. So your claim of Vic Hoffinger intrigued me. It looks like there is no town of Seltz in Russia (it is actually on the French-German border). But there was a Selz, which is now known as Lymans'ke - and it is in Ukraine! That would explain the cite I have for Schriner. But, now there is a legitimate argument that Hoffinger is actually the first Ukrainian... except that Ukraine was not independent at that time. Resolute 04:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of those 3, unofficially it looks like Peter Bondra played the first game on 1990-10-05 before Dmitri Khristich on 1990-12-19 or Alexander Godynyuk on 1991-02-06. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
By the by in case anyone is curious what I've got so far, the page is here User:Shootmaster 44/List of countries with their first National Hockey League player Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a new problem, the first player from Czech territory is Jaroslav Jiřík, however when he was born he lived in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, thus sort of part of Nazi Germany. Does he qualify as the first Czechoslovakian player or should he be considered German by birth or is the Protectorate in a sense a separate country and should be listed like the Russian Empire and Slovak Republic (1939-1945)? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another question I have is perhaps the scope of this list should be expanded to include the "other divisions" of the NHL. What I mean by that is since the PCHA and the WCHL both participated in the NHL playoffs in a sense perhaps they qualify? I only ask because Tommy Dunderdale played solely in the PCHA and WCHL, but was born in Australia so he would make the list. My guess is he would be the only player from those leagues to make it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The PCHA and WCHL did not participate in NHL playoffs. The Stanley Cup was an inter-league trophy at that time, akin to the Memorial Cup today. I think for all of the questions we have raised above, the best solution for many of these countries might be to note the first player of the modern entity, but add footnotes mentioning the previous players who began prior to said country's independence? Resolute 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Dunderdale did play in the National Hockey Association which was the immediate predecessor to the NHL. Valid arguments could be made that the two leagues should be treated as the same and that the NHA games should be included, however officially the NHL views the NHA as a completely separate league. As a result other references and Wikipedia pages also view them as separate. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unless a nationality is blindingly obvious (read: uncontroversial), editors should find a reference. Don't guess on nationality, look it up. Whatever the sources say (regardless of whether or not you agree with them) is what we should say. If multiple nationalities are given, either in the same or in different sources, then that's what we should do as well (implementation wise this is easy to do. Simply list each wikilinked nationality in the same table cell with a <br /> between them).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- The thing with this is that nationality is not the issue. Being an ethnic Swede is inconsequential if the player was born in Peru. The issue with all this was the political status of the country at the time of birth. Being born in a particular country is definitive and non-controversial. Where the confusion lies is that some countries change over time. Lots of countries are easy, 1776 the United States was born, 1867 Canada, 1901 Australia etc. Eastern Europe on the other hand causes problems. Geographically, depending on the map and time of birth could be born in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (which is a dependency of Nazi Germany), Czechoslovakia or Czech Republic. What the issue boils down to sometimes in these situations is the confusion between geography, politics, ethnicity and citizenship. The way I am looking at this list is strictly from a geographic and political stance, where a player's nationality (i.e. ethnicity) and/or citizenship doesn't matter. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unless a nationality is blindingly obvious (read: uncontroversial), editors should find a reference. Don't guess on nationality, look it up. Whatever the sources say (regardless of whether or not you agree with them) is what we should say. If multiple nationalities are given, either in the same or in different sources, then that's what we should do as well (implementation wise this is easy to do. Simply list each wikilinked nationality in the same table cell with a <br /> between them).
<outdent>I may have solved all our problems. I found this Lists of sovereign states by year. I say it should be our guide to what countries are what based on the player's year of birth. Thus, that would determine where he would be listed. For the actual geographic territory, I would list that player in a footnote. Meaning that Jaroslav Jirik would be the first German player, but that Walt Tkaczuk would be listed as the first German born in the current geographical region of Germany. This way when a Slovenian born (i.e. born in Slovenia), they would replace Anze Kopitar in the list and Kopitar would move to a footnote showing that he was the first player born in the geographic region now known as Slovenia. This seem like a reasonable compromise? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- A minor point, I don't think we should be removing first players. If players are not to be considered and will eventually become a footnote, they should be a footnote now. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem for me becomes sovereignty. The way I would do it wouldn't have any indentations and strictly based on where the player was considered born the day he was born. But I am trying to keep this as uncontroversial as possible. But it is going to become an issue when say Player X debuts in the NHL and is from the sovereign country of Slovenia. In the strictest sense of the word, Player X would be the first Slovene born player in the NHL. Anze Kopitar was born in Yugoslavia. So he should be moved to a footnote to denote this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since Stan Mikita was born in Slovak Republic (1939–1945) which is considered a German puppet state rather than a sovereign state, should he not be the first player from Germany?
- The way I read that article, the Slovak Republic was a puppet state, but it was independent, meaning there was a government running the country. It was akin to Czechoslovakia in it's relationship with the Soviet Union. Coversely, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was a dependency of Germany more akin to the Turks and Caicos is to the UK. So Stan Makita was Slovakian, the reason I split it out was the baseball article showed the Kingdom of Hawaii as separate from the United States. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since Walt Tkaczuk was born in Allied-occupied Germany which is considered an occupied state rather than a sovereign state, what country was he born in? Since Emsdetten was part of the British Zone of Occupation would he be considered born to the United Kingdom? Or in a No man's land?
- What I'd like to see is the current Slovakia listed with Stan Mikita as the first player born within the current borders of the country. Then optionally subdivide it or using foot notes, indicate that the Stastnys were the first players born during its time as Czechoslovakia and in a few years a player born in the current current country can be added.
- Similarly the current Germany would list with Walt Tkaczuk as its first player. Then optionally add Udo Kiessling from East Germany, Willie Huber from West Germany.
- From Czech Republic, Jaroslav Jirik would be the first with Miroslav Frycer first from its Czechoslovakia era. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- This solution would work. However, for the Czech situation, I do think a footnote is necessary next to Slovakia to indicate that it includes players born in the Slovak Republic (1939-1945). I also think that Jirik should be footnoted next to Germany to explain the status of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. In Walt Tkaczuk's case, I do think a note explaining the situation might be useful. The other way to fix this is to split the list into current countries and former countries. It would duplicate some of the information, but some of the players would be different. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just don't make things up that aren't said outside of Wikipedia. We're not supposed to be authoring original research here, which is what the above is sounding quite a lot like. Find a book or magazine, or something, and repeat what they say. Also, you can give multiple people from similar areas. Wikipedia articles are freeform after all, so list the Stastny's and Mikita, and whoever else, and then provide explanations as either footnotes or paragraphs somewhere.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- Nothing is being made up, Shootmaster 44 has done an excellent job. Every player has a reference to NHL years and birthplace. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wha? The page is still a redlink...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)- Yes, it is still in my userspace right now. I wanted to develop it first before I move it into the mainspace. It is here User:Shootmaster 44/List of countries with their first National Hockey League player Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks for the note. I have a calculus test to take in the morning, so I don't have time to dig deep into it, but... at first glance, that looks great! What you have there is more than adequate as an article, I'd say. There are much worse articles, after all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks for the note. I have a calculus test to take in the morning, so I don't have time to dig deep into it, but... at first glance, that looks great! What you have there is more than adequate as an article, I'd say. There are much worse articles, after all.
- Yes, it is still in my userspace right now. I wanted to develop it first before I move it into the mainspace. It is here User:Shootmaster 44/List of countries with their first National Hockey League player Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wha? The page is still a redlink...
- Nothing is being made up, Shootmaster 44 has done an excellent job. Every player has a reference to NHL years and birthplace. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just don't make things up that aren't said outside of Wikipedia. We're not supposed to be authoring original research here, which is what the above is sounding quite a lot like. Find a book or magazine, or something, and repeat what they say. Also, you can give multiple people from similar areas. Wikipedia articles are freeform after all, so list the Stastny's and Mikita, and whoever else, and then provide explanations as either footnotes or paragraphs somewhere.
- This solution would work. However, for the Czech situation, I do think a footnote is necessary next to Slovakia to indicate that it includes players born in the Slovak Republic (1939-1945). I also think that Jirik should be footnoted next to Germany to explain the status of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. In Walt Tkaczuk's case, I do think a note explaining the situation might be useful. The other way to fix this is to split the list into current countries and former countries. It would duplicate some of the information, but some of the players would be different. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
As a complete side note, someone was looking for the only player born in Newfoundland while it was an independent country. That player is Alex Faulkner. Patken4 (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- In 1936, Newfoundland was directly governed by the UK. So technically, nobody from the Dominion of Newfoundland played in the NHL. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since we are including Northern Ireland on the list, I included Faulkner as Newfoundland wasn't a Canadian province until 1949. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need to eliminate Northern Ireland all together as the list doesn't differentiate between Wales, Scotland, and England. Northern Ireland didn't exist until May 3, 1921. Without going into a history lesson, there were several dominions and states before that. If you are going to add Wales/Scotland/England, then Bobby Kirk was the first born while it was known as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as was Jack Riley and Sammy McManus. Jim McFadden was born under the Irish Republic, but that was an unrecognized state. Sid Finney then was the first born in Northern Ireland. No player was born in the Republic of Ireland. Patken4 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but only because the reference given: Sammy McManus doesn't support using "Norther Ireland", as it lists the player's birthplace as "Belfast, United Kingdom". If it said "Belfast, Northern Ireland" then it'd be a different story.
However, now that the article is in the mainspace, these sorts of discussions should really take place there. I'm going to copy this whole section to the talk page and then archive this section here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but only because the reference given: Sammy McManus doesn't support using "Norther Ireland", as it lists the player's birthplace as "Belfast, United Kingdom". If it said "Belfast, Northern Ireland" then it'd be a different story.
- I think we need to eliminate Northern Ireland all together as the list doesn't differentiate between Wales, Scotland, and England. Northern Ireland didn't exist until May 3, 1921. Without going into a history lesson, there were several dominions and states before that. If you are going to add Wales/Scotland/England, then Bobby Kirk was the first born while it was known as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as was Jack Riley and Sammy McManus. Jim McFadden was born under the Irish Republic, but that was an unrecognized state. Sid Finney then was the first born in Northern Ireland. No player was born in the Republic of Ireland. Patken4 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since we are including Northern Ireland on the list, I included Faulkner as Newfoundland wasn't a Canadian province until 1949. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
<outdent>I think the page is ready to be moved into the mainspace. So take a look and if it looks good and all, I will move it there. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, I've moved it into the mainspace. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nicklas Jensen
The infobox for Nicklas Jensen was edited to indicate that Jensen was a member of the Denmark men's national ice hockey team, but this is not true so the edit was removed. User:Kaiser matias restored the edit with the edit summary “U20 team is also used in addition to senior team”. I have never heard of such a consensus, so I am bringing this issue to the ice hockey project to be discussed. Dolovis (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have never included U20 teams. We don't consider playing in an U20 tournament evidence of notability, it isn't equivalent to the senior national team, and it just kind of muddies the water. If it were to be included, I woud suggest a second parameter, that would be removed after a player plays at the senior level. But preferably, just leave the U20 team out of the infobox. Canada Hky (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion about it in the archives of this page. I forget what the outcome was. When I changed the parameter on the infobox I had intended it only for senior teams, however I think the community may have decided U20 should be in there as well. I will look for the discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could only find a reference by someone else when this came up before that we had decided that but I can't seem to find the original discussion my search-foo isn't working. But the infobox page itself does still indicate senior teams only. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was wondering this recently as well and went through the discussion archives. There were, on multiple occasions, discussions initiated regarding this topic with arguments for and against. Each time though it seemed like the discussions just died and no solid consensus was ever really gained. Maybe now is that time? – Nurmsook! talk... 13:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that those discussions agreed that senior and U20 national teams counted, but nothing lower. After all, national team links appear on most players who have only appeared in the WJC, so I have followed suit in regards to that. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was wondering this recently as well and went through the discussion archives. There were, on multiple occasions, discussions initiated regarding this topic with arguments for and against. Each time though it seemed like the discussions just died and no solid consensus was ever really gained. Maybe now is that time? – Nurmsook! talk... 13:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could only find a reference by someone else when this came up before that we had decided that but I can't seem to find the original discussion my search-foo isn't working. But the infobox page itself does still indicate senior teams only. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion about it in the archives of this page. I forget what the outcome was. When I changed the parameter on the infobox I had intended it only for senior teams, however I think the community may have decided U20 should be in there as well. I will look for the discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Proposal for a consensus
Proposal: The National Team parameter in the Template:Infobox ice hockey player is to be used only for those players who have played at least one game in an international tournament as a member of his country's senior men's national ice hockey team. This parameter must be left blank for players who have only played in non-international tournaments or with his country's junior team. Dolovis (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- What are the parameters for North American ice hockey tournaments? Whatever they are, use international equivalents. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose With the rise of popularity and importance of the U20 tournament I think that this should be included. The tournament receives a lot of coverage in in Canada and over the last few years has been televised in the United States. It has become a big stage for players going into the draft as the tournament can make or break a player's draft status. The tournament if fully international and regulated by the IIHF.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 23:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- If anything, I would weakly lean towards support. Overall, I don't mind denoting u20 teams, but the other fields are limited to senior teams, so it is hard to justify making an exception here unless we intend to add fields for junior teams, which has been suggested in the past. And the problem there is that junior teams don't follow a player around like college does for a football or basketball player. Resolute 04:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I oppose this, not because I don't think junior players should be included in the current formatting of the parameter, but because I think we need to add a separate parameter that links to the junior team pages. Ultimately, perhaps the "national team" parameter could include U18 as well. Really, I believe this parameter should be used to distinguish the highest level of IIHF international hockey the given player has played at (be that senior, U20, or U18). The whole purpose of this parameter was almost like a trade-off so we could get rid of the nationality parameter, but keep a nice looking flag in the infobox. – Nurmsook! talk... 05:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I concur with Nurmsook, and I think U18, Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament, and other such tournaments should count too. —KRM (Communicate!) 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever agreement we come to, the Ivan Hlinka Tournament should not be included. It is not an official IIHF event, and thus a player can still switch countries easily after playing in it. Canada Hky (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I concur with Nurmsook in this case. I think any notable international tournaments should be included. HeyMid (contribs) 15:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - If the parameter is to now be used for both junior and senior national team members then the link will need to be changed. Currently the parameter wikilinks to the article for the country's men's national team, which would be inaccurate for a junior team player. Dolovis (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Link could just as easily link to the governing body. —KRM (Communicate!) 22:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Proposal 2 for a consensus
Proposal 2: The National Team parameter in the Template:Infobox ice hockey player is to be used only for those players who have played at least one game in an international tournament as a member of his country's senior men's national ice hockey team, and a that second parameter to be created to be used for players who have competed for their countries in international junior competitions. Dolovis (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per previous discussion. —KRM (Communicate!) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Since this is probably due to the link destination it sounds like a good since a quick look seems to indicate that most countries have both a page for the national team and national junior team. However, having two parameters for basically the same thing seems a bit redundant and could be problematic. Users would fill out all the available parameters and players who have played for both the junior and adult teams would have seemingly redundant feilds and the debate could come up that both are important so both should stay in the info box. As such it might make info boxes look something like this:
Zach Parise
Born: July 28, 1984 (age 26)
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
Height: 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m)
Weight: 195 lb (88 kg; 13 st 13 lb)
Position: Left wing
Shoots: Left
NHL team: New Jersey Devils
National team: 
United States
National junior team: United States
NHL Draft: 17th overall, 2003
- New Jersey Devils
- New Jersey Devils
Playing career: 2005–present
It could get a bit annoying.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the junior team parameter should be removed from the player article when the player in question has played at least one game for his senior national team (if the player already has played for his junior national team). HeyMid (contribs) 18:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like that. Have a junior national team field, and then remove it once (if) they play for the senior national team. If they don't ever play for the senior national team, leave the junior field in. It gives a quick way to see what level they have reached in their careers. Canada Hky (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could probably do that in one parameter, but yes, displaying only the highest level international would make the most sense. Resolute 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You guys could add an error parameter, so that if both the national and the junior parameters are given a warning is displayed (and a hidden cat added, for tracking). Alternately, you could use parameters such as national1, national2, national3, etc... and provide instructions that editors ought to provide something like "junior" as part of the parameter value.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- With the MediaWiki software I don't think it's possible to include the senior and junior links in a single parameter, because I think it would require a lot of code-adding. Otherwise I think we would be required to write down all possible countries after "junior", because I don't think the MediaWiki software can look for a certain part of a specified value in a parameter. Creating a separate parameter for junior national teams probably requires less space. HeyMid (contribs) 09:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can do a switch and if a 2nd parameter had the word junior in it then it would take the link to the juniors. For example we create a 2nd param that says ntl_level = junior and then ntl_team = Canada. Then we use a switch to create the wiki link to the specific article we want to use so that visually nothing changes but under the hood the link has changed. Or the easiest way as others have mentioned is just to link straight to the organizing body for that countries teams and from there if the person wants they can go to the junior or senior teams. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- But if I understood correctly, the users who oppose this motion suggest that we should not make another parameter simply to add junior teams? Otherwise I understand you. HeyMid (contribs) 11:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I may be misinterpreting. But I think they mean a 2nd visual parameter. In other words listing both the junior team and the senior team. What I am suggesting would just be a parameter that doesn't visually change the infobox it just changes the destination of the link. -DJSasso (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that the objection was to (near) duplicate visual parameters, as well. I just had another thought, though. What if the year or years of play for the national team were added as well? Then any possible multiple parameters wouldn't be duplicates at all...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)- My concern was having two visual parameters that were essentially the same. If we also have a consensus that we remove the junior listing when a player plays international for a senior team than I have no issues with having two separate parameters. On a side note having two different sections could help to differentiate the rare players who played for one junior national team and a different senior national team, due to something like countries breaking up and and new ones forming (which I think is one of the few ways the IIHF allows for change of national teams). Also I'd prefer not to include years since it's not like being on a Pro team were you play from 20xx - 20yy, a player may represent their receptive countries at various time depending on how well their NHL team does and if they are in the playoffs. So years would have to be listed individually which could add more clutter than clarification in the info box.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've actually always been a big fan of how the WP:FOOTY manages international squads in their infobox. Could be something to consider for us. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- My concern was having two visual parameters that were essentially the same. If we also have a consensus that we remove the junior listing when a player plays international for a senior team than I have no issues with having two separate parameters. On a side note having two different sections could help to differentiate the rare players who played for one junior national team and a different senior national team, due to something like countries breaking up and and new ones forming (which I think is one of the few ways the IIHF allows for change of national teams). Also I'd prefer not to include years since it's not like being on a Pro team were you play from 20xx - 20yy, a player may represent their receptive countries at various time depending on how well their NHL team does and if they are in the playoffs. So years would have to be listed individually which could add more clutter than clarification in the info box.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that the objection was to (near) duplicate visual parameters, as well. I just had another thought, though. What if the year or years of play for the national team were added as well? Then any possible multiple parameters wouldn't be duplicates at all...
- I may be misinterpreting. But I think they mean a 2nd visual parameter. In other words listing both the junior team and the senior team. What I am suggesting would just be a parameter that doesn't visually change the infobox it just changes the destination of the link. -DJSasso (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- But if I understood correctly, the users who oppose this motion suggest that we should not make another parameter simply to add junior teams? Otherwise I understand you. HeyMid (contribs) 11:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can do a switch and if a 2nd parameter had the word junior in it then it would take the link to the juniors. For example we create a 2nd param that says ntl_level = junior and then ntl_team = Canada. Then we use a switch to create the wiki link to the specific article we want to use so that visually nothing changes but under the hood the link has changed. Or the easiest way as others have mentioned is just to link straight to the organizing body for that countries teams and from there if the person wants they can go to the junior or senior teams. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- With the MediaWiki software I don't think it's possible to include the senior and junior links in a single parameter, because I think it would require a lot of code-adding. Otherwise I think we would be required to write down all possible countries after "junior", because I don't think the MediaWiki software can look for a certain part of a specified value in a parameter. Creating a separate parameter for junior national teams probably requires less space. HeyMid (contribs) 09:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- You guys could add an error parameter, so that if both the national and the junior parameters are given a warning is displayed (and a hidden cat added, for tracking). Alternately, you could use parameters such as national1, national2, national3, etc... and provide instructions that editors ought to provide something like "junior" as part of the parameter value.
- Could probably do that in one parameter, but yes, displaying only the highest level international would make the most sense. Resolute 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like that. Have a junior national team field, and then remove it once (if) they play for the senior national team. If they don't ever play for the senior national team, leave the junior field in. It gives a quick way to see what level they have reached in their careers. Canada Hky (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
KHL Junior Draft request
See Talk:KHL Junior Draft#Drafting order? for a request to add information pertaining to the KHL drafting order. HeyMid (contribs) 21:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Atlanta free agents
Here's a somewhat interesting question. For players who were on the Thrashers last season but were signed by a different team (...or traded?) this summer, what should be listed as the player's "former team"?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- We list former teams as what they were called when the player actually played in games for them. An example is players on Anaheim whose team changed names a few times. If the player played on both name versions of the team we list both of them. But for Atlanta players who are free agents now, they only actually played on the team when it was the Atlanta Thrashers. So basically it comes down to actual games played as. Other examples of this are players who have been traded to a team and then traded immediately to another team so never actually played for the team in between the two teams. They don't get the team in between listed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's similar to Shane Doan's page listing former team of Winnipeg Jets and Joe Sakic having the Quebec Nordiques in his info box despite both players only playing for one franchise throughout their career.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I figured as well, but... could there be any reason to use the Jets? There was some slight confusion about this, so it might be worth thinking about, if there is a legitimate rational to using the Jets.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- In the infobox I can't think of any. In prose you could list that the Jets had his rights. But even then I would just put something like "signed to a X team prior to playing any games for the team after they moved to Winnipeg" or however you would want to say it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I figured as well, but... could there be any reason to use the Jets? There was some slight confusion about this, so it might be worth thinking about, if there is a legitimate rational to using the Jets.
- It's similar to Shane Doan's page listing former team of Winnipeg Jets and Joe Sakic having the Quebec Nordiques in his info box despite both players only playing for one franchise throughout their career.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think I would treat it the same as a pending free agent who was traded after the season for a pick, then signed elsewhere. i.e.: Theoren Fleury was dealt to San Jose, but never signed, and never played with them. As such, the Sharks are not listed in his former teams section. There will naturally be confusion while these players remain unsigned as excited fans want to convert all Atlanta links to Winnipeg, but we can sort those out once they sign. Resolute 15:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another example, John Vanbiesbrouck of the Vancouver Canucks. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think I would treat it the same as a pending free agent who was traded after the season for a pick, then signed elsewhere. i.e.: Theoren Fleury was dealt to San Jose, but never signed, and never played with them. As such, the Sharks are not listed in his former teams section. There will naturally be confusion while these players remain unsigned as excited fans want to convert all Atlanta links to Winnipeg, but we can sort those out once they sign. Resolute 15:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Shoo-In for Deletion??
Nathan MacKinnon: 15-year old kid playing high school hockey with this big of a wiki-article? Or is getting drafted first overall in the Q enough to be considered 'notable'? Captain Courageous (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Getting drafted by the Q isn't a measure of notability at all. That being said, just the references presented in the article constitute a GNG pass. However much I don't consider 15 year old hockey players notable, I'd oppose deletion on that ground. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- 15 yrs old? I'd opt for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- The GNG doesn't have a cutoff debarring 15 year olds. This kid has full-length features in the Toronto Sun and ESPN Magazine; I've read them, and they just plain aren't "routine sports coverage." Done deal on those grounds alone, and I suspect a casual news search would turn up more. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- There was a full column about him on TSN's website today as well. MacKinnon easily passes the GNG. Canada Hky (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's too early for him to have an article IMHO. But, if an AfD is held, I'll abstain. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does get a bit murky but there is actually something that was written into NSPORTS to prevent highschoolers from getting articles, its the one part of NSPORTS that overrides GNG. That being said not sure that his player would or wouldn't qualify as he does have a couple national media mentions. The reason I am unsure is that it says "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage" (emphasis mine) and it later goes on to say that articles in locals papers and most sport specific publications (which is where the espn and tsn articles come in) are not good enough for highschool atheletes. Now this section was created to prevent players in the Little League World Series and things like Highschool All-Americans and the like from getting articles, but I could see an argument being made that it goes father than that.-DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- If there is a discussion to be had to put similar language into NHOCKEY, then let's do it. We probably need to define where the borderline is, better. E.g., under-18 international competitions, tier 2 junior hockey awards and the like. Heck, I would even be happy to discuss not adding players from European leagues that may pass NHOCKEY but have no general notability in English. (How can we possibly advance those articles beyond stubs?) There is Internet coverage out there that seems to be interpreted as RS coverage, when it's obscure itself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- It already exists, NHOCKEY is just a section of NSPORTS so anything in NSPORTS applies to NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- If there is a discussion to be had to put similar language into NHOCKEY, then let's do it. We probably need to define where the borderline is, better. E.g., under-18 international competitions, tier 2 junior hockey awards and the like. Heck, I would even be happy to discuss not adding players from European leagues that may pass NHOCKEY but have no general notability in English. (How can we possibly advance those articles beyond stubs?) There is Internet coverage out there that seems to be interpreted as RS coverage, when it's obscure itself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- There was a full column about him on TSN's website today as well. MacKinnon easily passes the GNG. Canada Hky (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- The GNG doesn't have a cutoff debarring 15 year olds. This kid has full-length features in the Toronto Sun and ESPN Magazine; I've read them, and they just plain aren't "routine sports coverage." Done deal on those grounds alone, and I suspect a casual news search would turn up more. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence here. Being first overall in the QMJHL draft isn't a claim to notability, but there are two significant RS sources there. That a kid from the Maritimes gets such an article written by Gare Joyce for ESPN says something. Resolute 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- It says that Joyce 'might be' putting the cart before the horse. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. It says that scouts are seeing something special in this kid. Resolute 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- It says that Joyce 'might be' putting the cart before the horse. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- To address the original statement, there certainly is nothing wrong with the length of the article considering all of the material is sourced (the article was only a few lines long before I originally expanded it). This guy, despite his age, is a shoe-in keep. The fact that he has had significant and continued coverage, basically since the ESPN The Magazine article was released is more than enough to establish his passing of GNG. I haven't really gone through this article to add further sources since his participation in the U17s in January, but since that time he has had a significant increase in his coverage. And this stuff isn't just routine 1st overall pick stuff. These are significant articles about his life and talent. Sure, it can be a little questionable writing an article about someone so young, but there are bios on the Wiki of far less notable, far younger people. Considering his coverage will only increase from here on out, I would be very strongly opposed to its deletion. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- IIRC, we had an article on Tavares when he was 15 as well. Sometimes kids this young really are notable. Resolute 22:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- We did, but slightly different in that he was extensively covered because of his challenge of the age rules to drafting in the OHL. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- That can't be the only reason - Aaron Ekblad was in a very similar position as Tavares this year, and didn't receive nearly the same amount of coverage (and accordingly doesn't have an article). MacKinnon has received a large amount of coverage because of his refusal (however quiet) to play for the Drakkar, and because there seems to be something very potent in the water of Cole Harbour. To sum it up, in my opinion - most 15 year olds aren't notable, and there is no reason for them to have an article - MacKinnon is an exception, and has an appropriately referenced biography article. Canada Hky (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Tavares was the first to challenge it and be successful so he had sustained news coverage for a long time. Like I said I am on the fence with this guy. I was just making note of why Tavares managed to get an article. They changed the rules just for Tavares. Ekblad on the other hand is just taking advantage of a rule that already exists so its not quite the same situation. -DJSasso (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- That can't be the only reason - Aaron Ekblad was in a very similar position as Tavares this year, and didn't receive nearly the same amount of coverage (and accordingly doesn't have an article). MacKinnon has received a large amount of coverage because of his refusal (however quiet) to play for the Drakkar, and because there seems to be something very potent in the water of Cole Harbour. To sum it up, in my opinion - most 15 year olds aren't notable, and there is no reason for them to have an article - MacKinnon is an exception, and has an appropriately referenced biography article. Canada Hky (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- We did, but slightly different in that he was extensively covered because of his challenge of the age rules to drafting in the OHL. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- IIRC, we had an article on Tavares when he was 15 as well. Sometimes kids this young really are notable. Resolute 22:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- If this was an 18 year old, the Toronto Sun and ESPN articles would be enough for me. For a child, I want more - a 15 year old hockey player can be notable (Gretzky certainly was at that age, Travers apparently was too), but very, very few are. That said, there does seem to be more. Here is a Yahoo Sports story about him [10], which also quotes from a The Globe and Mail story about him which is behind a paywall. There is also a The Sporting News story about him. [11] Plus some less significant (but not insignificant) coverage of him in The Hockey News [12] and Fox News [13]. So overall, I'd have to say he is a rare 15 year old that passes. Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've expanded the article to include coverage of his "NCAA/major junior choice" situation, which only adds more RS's to the article to push him beyond GNG. Even still, the amount of coverage available online on this kid far exceeds what is in the actual article. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I personally don't care either way. I just think it creates a slippery slope with who to include, and I would say it should be deleted just for that fact. Tyler Seguin wasn't able to have an article at 16/17 when numerous articles and coverage were done on him, especially leading up to the draft. Adam Larsson had articles in the Aftonbladet at age nine. Richard Gasquet was on the French cover of Tennis at age nine. Soon articles will be made of kids single digits-years old? MacKinnon will in all likelihood be an NHL star, but this is just putting the cart before the horse. To me its just typical media hype, but I (like many of us) haven't seen him play. Maybe at U17s. Sure there's plenty of reliable sources on the kid, but he's a kid, and if he's included, plenty of other 13, 14, 15, 16-year old kids would deserve their own article. And most of them won't make it. And they'll still have bigger wiki pages than 10 year NHL vets from the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Captain Courageous (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the problem you are having with the article's size. What does that have to do with anything? If you aren't happy with the size of articles for players from the 40s–60s, expand them. Wikipedia's reason for existence is not to give older players longer articles. Obviously it's much easier to cite material for modern players, and therefore they typically have longer articles. But by all means, if you are unhappy with the content of older players' articles, go fix it. WP:BLP has no age restriction. You see tons of articles here on child actors who went on to do nothing in their later lives; they're still notable for what they did achieve, even if they didn't achieve anything later. Regardless of if Nathan MacKinnon goes on and scores 100 goals a year in the NHL, or drowns in the ECHL for the rest of his career, his notability right now has been achieved through far more than one event, unlike, say, Richard Gasquet on a magazine cover, or Adam Larsson having one article written about him. – Nurmsook! talk... 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, I have no problem with the length. I just find it funny that so much work has been done one this article for someone who is a kid and accomplished nothing. I understand that this is 'your' article and you've put a lot of work into it. I appreciate the work you've put into it. I just don't see him as being notable. Richard Gasquet was getting hype all around Europe in his pre-teens, not just France. Adam Larsson was in Aftonbladet a whole hell of a lot more than once. All I'm saying is that information is so wide spread nowadays and it's probably very easy to find tonnes and tonnes of information on some kid that will probably never make it out of Junior B. I'm not criticizing the article, it's a damn good article, mate :) However, that being said, I don't find him notable. As DJSasso says below, will this news coverage stand the test of time? In my opinion, probably not unless he indeed goes and does something in the NHL or otherwise in life. Tavares essentially brought forth a rule change, which is interesting in and of itself. Right now, MacKinnon is just a hyped kid that may or may not stand the test of time. He probably will, but you can't say include him and not throw in tonnes of additional 14, 15, 16 year old prospects who may not even have a single major junior game under their belt. Captain Courageous (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can definitely see the slippery slope argument, no junior players at all were allowed articles until Tavares. And it seems each year since then the bar does get lower and lower. Its why the baseball project for example prohibits all minor league players, to stop the creation of players who likely aren't actually notable despite the news coverage. The question you should ask when creating an article is, based on what they have done now as of this moment would someone be wanting to look them up in 100 years. If the answer is no then they aren't actually notable, even if they have some news coverage. Because notability isn't temporary, if their notable feat isn't something that can stand the test of time they aren't actually a notable and probably fall afoul of NOTNEWS. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding minor league baseball players, it depends on how strictly you are interpreting "prohibit"; from what I understand, it's similar to what you are describing for junior hockey players: minor leaguers are not presumed notable, and general notability beyond a single event and routine news coverage must be shown. isaacl (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Generally they try to remove all minor leagues from having their own pages. And those you mention that have some news coverage get merged onto a "team" page that has small snippets about the notable players on that particular minor league team (eg. Toronto Blue Jays minor league players). Only those who meet GNG get on the combined page. They are quite ruthless about trying to keep even notable minor leaguers from having their own pages, people who pass GNG get on the combined page. There are a few exceptions probably as with everything. (I should note I am not advocating following their method as I don't like how they do it)-DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's the baseball project compromise for players who, for example, got drafted and so got a bit of coverage then. Unlike a number of other sports who funnel players to the majors differently, baseball needs a lot of draftees to fill up the minors so there's enough competition for prospective big-leaguers to face in order to improve; many draftees don't end up as ultimately notable in a general encyclopedic sense. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the baseball project tries to "remove all minor leagues from having their own pages." There are some editors who bring up lots of minor leaguers to AfD, but if they meet GNG and either have too much coverage to fit in the combined page or are no longer in a given organization, my experience is they normally get kept. I would be shocked if there was a minor league baseball player with nearly as much quality coverage as MacKinnon has that has been deleted (or even merged to the team page since I have been involved in the project. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- No there literally was a discussion to remove and stop having individual articles for minor league players at that project. There used to be a quick flood of baseball editors with delete votes that would overwhelm any keeps that might have popped up (probably happened more when baseball was the only sport that had its own official guideline for notability that they used to think trumped the old wp:athlete). That has changed a bit lately since they introduced the "team" pages after a few people pushed them into it. It may have gotten better in the last little while I haven't paid as much attention to it lately, but there was a time when no player that hadn't played in the majors would be kept and if it was kept in afd the article would end up being redirected and merged after it was kept at afd. Anyways getting a bit off track. Was just pointing out the baseball project is pretty well known in the sports world on the wiki for wiping out minor leaguers and are often pointed to as how other sports should follow or not follow depending on your side of the "how notable are athletes really" debate. -DJSasso (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Generally they try to remove all minor leagues from having their own pages. And those you mention that have some news coverage get merged onto a "team" page that has small snippets about the notable players on that particular minor league team (eg. Toronto Blue Jays minor league players). Only those who meet GNG get on the combined page. They are quite ruthless about trying to keep even notable minor leaguers from having their own pages, people who pass GNG get on the combined page. There are a few exceptions probably as with everything. (I should note I am not advocating following their method as I don't like how they do it)-DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding minor league baseball players, it depends on how strictly you are interpreting "prohibit"; from what I understand, it's similar to what you are describing for junior hockey players: minor leaguers are not presumed notable, and general notability beyond a single event and routine news coverage must be shown. isaacl (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the problem you are having with the article's size. What does that have to do with anything? If you aren't happy with the size of articles for players from the 40s–60s, expand them. Wikipedia's reason for existence is not to give older players longer articles. Obviously it's much easier to cite material for modern players, and therefore they typically have longer articles. But by all means, if you are unhappy with the content of older players' articles, go fix it. WP:BLP has no age restriction. You see tons of articles here on child actors who went on to do nothing in their later lives; they're still notable for what they did achieve, even if they didn't achieve anything later. Regardless of if Nathan MacKinnon goes on and scores 100 goals a year in the NHL, or drowns in the ECHL for the rest of his career, his notability right now has been achieved through far more than one event, unlike, say, Richard Gasquet on a magazine cover, or Adam Larsson having one article written about him. – Nurmsook! talk... 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
And for the Holy Crap! moment of the week ...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Bolts Security. No commentary from me here; just take a look and see what you think. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- lol, yea I remember that story, never thought I'd find it on Wikipedia though. —KRM (Communicate!) 10:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- And it dies a quiet (and relatively painless) death. Cjmclark (Contact) 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
European Hockey Task Force
I would like to start a European Hockey Task Force, that as its name suggests, focuses on everything euro hockey. Sign up below if you would like to participate.--Hockeyben ✉ 22:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Participants
- 1 --Hockeyben ✉ 22:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm interested in participating. European hockey is my usual editing area. HeyMid (contribs) 22:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can count on me ! Vicente2782 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the Sweden task force is all but inactive I might personally recommend just renaming/re-purposing it into an over all Euro task force. -DJSasso (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Djsasso. —KRM (Communicate!) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Template?
Hi, I was just wondering... Is there a template for season statistics? If not, how do you go about creating the table to enter them in?
Thanks. Detredwings1139 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what you mean, but if you are talking about stats for individual players whose pages don't have stat tables than, no there is no template. I find the easiest way to set up a new table is to copy an existing table from another players page and paste it to the new page and change the information accordingly. Make sure you use the preview button to make sure not to miss anything (learned that the hard way). If your talking about team statistics for a season than I'm not sure if there is I know there is a standings template for a given season but I don't know about just a team stats template. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not making that clear. I was looking for individual statistics. Thanks for the advice.
Detredwings1139 (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem I can be a little slow from time to time and have misunderstood post before.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Just click edit and copypast the code below. Don't forget to alternate between background colour and no background colour (bgcolor="#e0e0e0")—KRM (Communicate!) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
| Regular season | Playoffs | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season | Team | League | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM | ||
| 2XXX–XX | Team | League | GP | G | A | P | PIM | GP | G | A | P | PIM | ||
| 2XXX–XX | Team | League | GP | G | A | P | PIM | GP | G | A | P | PIM | ||
| League totals | GP | G | A | P | PIM | GP | G | A | P | PIM | ||||
- Wow, thanks a lot. I'm pretty new to all this editing stuff but I have really been able to add some stuff to the Wikipedia sports world. Thanks for the help.
Detredwings1139 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Eddie Giroux
I was looking through to find some pictures for the articles that don't have them. I stumbled upon this team photo on the Commons that includes Eddie Giroux. Do I add this as his main picture or as an embedded file? What do you guys think?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KenoraThistles1907January.jpg
Detredwings1139 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- In this case, I might crop the image down to just a picture of Giroux, and re-upload under a new title (I can do this for you later, if you like). The same could probably be done for several players in that photograph, actually. Resolute 19:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you would be willing to and if you have the time to I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Detredwings1139 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Image cropped, uploaded to Commons and added to the article. Giroux is easy since he was the team's goaltender, but I realized the source photo doesn't indicate the players by name, so I can't verify the arrangement presented in the original image caption is accurate. I haven't done any other crops becuase of that. Resolute 03:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Cyrillic names in infobox?
SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? is on a cyrillic adding spree to infoboxes. Mostly concerning tennis players but also a few hockey players. As far as I know this is not a consensus here nor anywhere else on Wikipedia, but since I been quite inactive recently I thought I'd check here first before starting a major revert of his edits. —KRM (Communicate!) 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Given the editor's comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, the edits seem a bit surprising. Since I think there is consensus on transliteration of Cyrillic names, I believe that using the subject's name alone as spelled in the article title is sufficient for the heading of the infobox. Looking at the example of Template:Infobox person, separate birth_name and native_name parameters could be supported, if desired, to display this information within the text of the infobox. isaacl (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an odd question to be bringing here, but I am going to crosspost it at WP:Baseball. Is Trevor Gretzky notable enough to remove the few lines about his career from Wayne Gretzky and create his own page? When I Google News searched it, it does give 327 articles. But since they are largely about his drafting and signing and likely a portion of them are wire stories, does this pass WP:GNG? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Likely the baseball project would put him up for deletion. They generally delete (though not always) anyone who hasn't played in the majors. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I sorta figured they might. I just wonder about whether the adding of Trevor's baseball career to his dad's page belongs. I suppose once he becomes a minor leaguer, the information about him could be moved to Chicago Cubs minor league players. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the only thing that should be in Wayne's article is "his son Trevor is a professional baseball player in the Chicago Cubs organization." Things like the fact that Trevor signed a letter of intent to play for San Diego State is not relevant to Wayne's bio, and the fact that Trevor is coached by Tony Gwynn is completely pointless. I've no great interest in trying to override the baseball project's SNG, but I might consider pruning the irrelevant info from Wayne's article and building a short one for Trevor. If the baseball project feels he lacks notability, so be it. Resolute 01:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- One thought is that instead of deleting all that info, some of which is outdated now that he's signed with the Cubs instead of going to USD. Is to move it to Chicago Cubs minor league players. This was the baseball project's compromise for players deemed not notable by their standards, but might one day become notable. Since he has signed with the Cubs, I believe this qualifies him as a minor league player. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the only thing that should be in Wayne's article is "his son Trevor is a professional baseball player in the Chicago Cubs organization." Things like the fact that Trevor signed a letter of intent to play for San Diego State is not relevant to Wayne's bio, and the fact that Trevor is coached by Tony Gwynn is completely pointless. I've no great interest in trying to override the baseball project's SNG, but I might consider pruning the irrelevant info from Wayne's article and building a short one for Trevor. If the baseball project feels he lacks notability, so be it. Resolute 01:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I sorta figured they might. I just wonder about whether the adding of Trevor's baseball career to his dad's page belongs. I suppose once he becomes a minor leaguer, the information about him could be moved to Chicago Cubs minor league players. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a version of this template that supports adding team logos? Or do we not want to do that to avoid confusion with team main pages? Cjmclark (Contact) 23:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- None of them do because adding team logos to season pages violates fair use rules. They can only be on the team pages themselves. -DJSasso (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Cjmclark (Contact) 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Draft pick lists
First off I am going through and trying to clean up the draft pick lists and finishing the Boston Bruins one (lots to go). Now to my question, when doing these lists would it be best to leave the uncreated articles redlinked or just as text? Detredwings1139 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would say leave them as text, especially for the older picks. For them if they don't have an article at this point than they probably never will. I would leave the more recent ones as text as well but a red link would allow for immediate linkage if/when the player becomes notable. If anything I would only redlink the last 2-3 drafts otherwise a significant portion of the page will be redlinks.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The way I was doing it for the LA Kings' page was to remove the redlink by making it a redirect to the draft pick page, then I'd remove the wikilink from the page. I noticed this was the way a few teams were written. That pet project of mine had fallen by the wayside recently though. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd either leave redlinks, or plain text. Redirects are annoying to click on (IMO), and discourage eventual creation of the page if the player becomes notable. Canada Hky (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Especially since we should not be surprising the reader. I'd de-link most entries, unless we know they are notable but haven't had an article created yet (i.e.: have played in the Elitserien or SM-liiga, etc.) Resolute 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- My theory on this isn't that it doesn't fall under WP:EGG. By redirecting those players to the draft pick article it likely shows what makes the player slight notable. If you were say on the 1992-93 New York Rangers season page and clicked on one of the draft picks, I'd assume I'd be taken to a list of draft picks if said player wasn't notable. I guess I am in the minority on this one. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Red links are definitely more helpful in this situation than redirects as it will help to spur creation of players that are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Shootmaster, just because a player doesn't have an article on Wikipedia it doesn't mean that it is being drafted is what makes him notable. There were, and still is, many article on European players who were important players in their domestic leagues but haven't have articles created about them, and for the majority of them being drafted was definitely not the pinnacle of their careers. And regarding what Resolute said, not surprising readers is paramount when considering that not all people access Wikipedia via a broadband connection on a computer, you have to think about mobile internet users. Heck some people still use gprs to surf on their mobile phones, imagine having to load a huge draft list under those conditions. —KRM (Communicate!) 08:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, we don't have to think about them. I see no more reason to restrict the information users receive because a few insist on surfing Wikipedia from telephones, any more than we do so because there are still folks on dial-up connections. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- In this case it's not about restricting information, it's about fooling the reader. —KRM (Communicate!) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, we don't have to think about them. I see no more reason to restrict the information users receive because a few insist on surfing Wikipedia from telephones, any more than we do so because there are still folks on dial-up connections. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- My theory on this isn't that it doesn't fall under WP:EGG. By redirecting those players to the draft pick article it likely shows what makes the player slight notable. If you were say on the 1992-93 New York Rangers season page and clicked on one of the draft picks, I'd assume I'd be taken to a list of draft picks if said player wasn't notable. I guess I am in the minority on this one. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Especially since we should not be surprising the reader. I'd de-link most entries, unless we know they are notable but haven't had an article created yet (i.e.: have played in the Elitserien or SM-liiga, etc.) Resolute 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd either leave redlinks, or plain text. Redirects are annoying to click on (IMO), and discourage eventual creation of the page if the player becomes notable. Canada Hky (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I will probably just keep them as normal text unless the player was drafted in the last 3ish years. Luckily I am pretty close to finishing the Boston Bruins draft picks. Been a bit of work considering the only year done when I came upon it was the first year. Detredwings1139 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Be sure to keep out the diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're unbelievable... —KRM (Communicate!) 17:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Be sure to keep out the diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The way I was doing it for the LA Kings' page was to remove the redlink by making it a redirect to the draft pick page, then I'd remove the wikilink from the page. I noticed this was the way a few teams were written. That pet project of mine had fallen by the wayside recently though. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The indiscriminate removal of red links from draft pick list articles should stop. Many of the red links that have been removed served to indicated that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable per WP:NHOCKEY. An editor should only remove a red link from such articles after it has been confirmed that the subject is not verifiably notable. "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Dolovis (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finished Bruins.Detredwings1139 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate if some people would watch this article, particularly anyone with the mop. A few editors have tried to add that he died of an overdose, despite no sources making such a claim. Resolute 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Clubs with short names
Finnish clubs such as "HIFK" and "TPS" have very short names. Therefore, I am wondering: should titles such as "HIFK Helsinki" and "TPS Turku" be used (especially in articles about international competitions)? I'm not sure because 1) the fact where the clubs come from are clarified in the 2011 European Trophy article; 2) the "Helsinki" and "Turku" parts are not included in the respective clubs' official names; and 3) they more seem to be used as a way of clarifying where the clubs come from. HeyMid (contribs) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note that the initial H and T letters represent the Finnish names for Helsinki (Helsingin) and Turku (Turun). 174.119.19.211 (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- HIFK doesn't usually have the Helsinki added to it in North America. But I have noticed that the NHL many times talks about TPS Turku. I would say Wikilinking the HIFK and TPS in the articles should be sufficient. If absolutely necessary one could write HIFK (Helsinki), but I would assume that most people if they are curious where HIFK was located would click on the link and go to their page. The only time I would say that showing the city might be of use is in the case of a team playing that has no page. However, I'd imagine that most tournaments that would have pages here, would also only include teams that have pages here also. A second option is to include a table on the page akin to the table on National Hockey League#List of teams and list both the city/country and the league they are from. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, a list of the teams (including where they come from) has already been created. HeyMid (contribs) 07:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- HIFK doesn't usually have the Helsinki added to it in North America. But I have noticed that the NHL many times talks about TPS Turku. I would say Wikilinking the HIFK and TPS in the articles should be sufficient. If absolutely necessary one could write HIFK (Helsinki), but I would assume that most people if they are curious where HIFK was located would click on the link and go to their page. The only time I would say that showing the city might be of use is in the case of a team playing that has no page. However, I'd imagine that most tournaments that would have pages here, would also only include teams that have pages here also. A second option is to include a table on the page akin to the table on National Hockey League#List of teams and list both the city/country and the league they are from. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The IIHF always lists the cities as well as the club name, including the Finnish and Swedish teams. We should follow this for at least the world championships. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Roster footer template
I have created roster footer templates for the other major North American sports leagues: {{MLB roster footer}}, {{NBA roster list footer}} and {{NFL Roster template list}}, which unify all the team templates that they link too. I know WP:HOCKEY always views template work differently than other projects. Thus, I am going to ask if you would mind if I did the same thing for templates such as Template:Buffalo Sabres roster.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not going to lie. I see absolutely no use or purpose to this other than to create unnecessary clutter. Each team article - for all four of the major leagues - already has a template that links to all other team articles, each of which has a roster. This is simply a duplication of that. Resolute 14:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this would be an unnecessary duplication of the league templates we already use. Thanks for the offer, though. Cjmclark (Contact) 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)