Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for comment

Multiple editors disagree as to whether country of origin should be included in players' birthplace for those players from USA or Canada (see previous discussion). The existent standard is City, State/Province for those born in the USA or Canada, and City, Country for those born elsewhere. Two alternate standards have been suggested: City, Region, Country for all players, or the addition of Country to those players born in the USA or Canada.20:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• (copied from above, with changes) I made this change to the Chicago Blackhawks page in order to stave off an edit war. The page was initially set up as City, State/Province in the case of USA/Canadian players, but as City, Country in the case of other players. A minor disagreement over a Ukraine vs. U.S.S.R. birthplace changed into a disagreement over birthplace format as a whole -- retaining the original format vs. an overall City, Country format. The last obviously does not give enough information for those players from the USA or Canada, while I believe the first violates the Anglo-American bias part of NPOV, so I suggested and implemented a City, Region, Country format, which was reverted. Since then, I've been convinced that the Anglo-American bias can be removed simply by the addition of USA or Canada to the birthplace of players from those two nations. I stand by my opinion that the current format violates NPOV. Jpers36 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has established a Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format." In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. The National Hockey League (NHL Enterprises) is a North American organziation. The current format reflects what is used by the NHL and their teams and affliates (including minor leagues such as the AHL) on their official websites, and media guides, as well as what is used by the majority of press covering the sport - both American and Canadian. The current consensus format reflects easy reading within the template and follows a format consistant with the official entities of the subjects being discussed while informing readers about the nationality and hometown of the subject in a fashion they are already familiar with. And, should the reader attempt to verify the information will find it written the same way by sources considered verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Yankees76 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose. That the nomenclature used by a North American-based organization has a North American bias is plain and expected. RGTraynor 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It would be stupid to add region for swedish players since it isn't used in Sweden when talking about birth place.--Krm500 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Krm500, I am no longer advocating the adding of regions to non-North American birthplaces -- I am advocating the adding of country to North American birthplaces. Jpers36 13:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would advocate adding the country of birth to all players. This seems to be the most convenient and consistent thing to do.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're talking about a Canadian/American league, Canadian and American players, covered mostly by Canadian and American press, and generally followed by Canadian and American fans, being read in English -- we should use American and Canadian English place naming conventions: City, state/province, and add country for non-US/CDN players. Place names are linked anyway -- any question can be resolved easily by following the link. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons already laid out above. --Djsasso 17:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics

I've checked over many NHL team official websites, checked over NHL jerseys. Checked over my collection of past NHL guide books. No where, have I seen any diacritics on non-English names. Why are these diacritics being FORCED on the NHL team pages. As an English reader, it's frustrating not being able to read certain names on the team articles of the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. These annoying/pushy diacritics, should be auto-reverted from th 30 NHL team pages (alow them on IIHF tournament teams). Forgive the rantings of a frustrated English speaking Canadian, who expected only English words on the English Wikipedia. GoodDay 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And again, this fits in well with my point regarding birthplaces, if it's not used by the league these players play (by their employers) or the verifiable sources that much of the info is sourced from, why are they here in Wikipedia? Yankees76 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Because there are a handful of European edit warriors who really do think their version of reality should prevail world-wide. With only a couple of exceptions, the only times we ever see them around here is to pack each other's votes and to put diacriticals in. RGTraynor 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Under Wiki rules - Could we conduct a consensus on diacritics in NHL team pages? With a provision, barring editors who don't give a 'bleep' about NHL team articles, only caring about adding their diacritics? GoodDay 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Å, Ä and Ö are not A and O with diacritics, they are seperate letters. Now I can agree on the issue regarding all the Czech and Slovak players since they are diacritics but please respect the names like Selänne and Lidström are correctly spelled. --Krm500 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct spelling for the Finnish & Swedish Wikipedias NOT the English Wikipedia. If you can show us these diacritics on Lidstrom's Red Wings jersey & Selanne's Ducks jersey, you'd have a legitimate agrument. How would you like it, if English spellings were added to the Finnish & Swedish Wikipedias? How about adding Japanese spellings to the Finnish & Swedish Wikipedia? GoodDay 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Looked up the 'Detroit Red Wings' page on the Finnish Wikipedia. I'll admit the North American names have no diacritics there, however the mention of the Red Wings, Boston Bruins & New York Rangers were printed in Finnish. What's with that? GoodDay 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Krm500, how about asking all 30 NHL teams (through their official websites), to add diacritics to their European players jerseys. How about getting, in contact with the NHL front office, asks them to add diacritics to their European players jerseys? Personally, I've no problem with diacritics on the Players bio-pages. However the 30 NHL team articles should follow the NHL teams choice (not to add diacritics). Why won't you pro-diacritics compromise, when it comes to NHL team articles? You've got the Players bio-articles. GoodDay 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack GoodDay, but you got it all wrong, I'm not pro-diacritics, I'm pro-encyclopedia and how encyclopedic is it to miss spell names? And what did you expect to find at the Swedish wikipedia, Joe Sakic spelled Jöe Säkic? Joe Sakic is spelled and pronounce Joe Sakic in both Finland and Sweden. Swedish and English are two very simular languages, why can't you respect that in Sweden and Finland we use å, ä and ö in our alphabet? --Krm500 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An extensive discussion has alrady taken place on this topic. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). That says to only use diacritics in the title if it is most common in English to use the diacritics. Also review the WP:HOCKEY policy (specifically use of diacritics and non-English), as well as the main article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey). Further discussion on the subject can be found here.[1] Yankees76 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We do respect that Sweden and Finland use different letters in their alphabets. Why can't you respect that English (which happens to be the language of this Wikipedia) doesn't? Why should the English language Wikipedia be forced to use European typographical conventions, yet the European language Wikipedias are not compelled to use ours? RGTraynor 14:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The english language does have diacritics, native english speakers are probably just to lazy and ignorant to use them. --Krm500 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That remark is totally uncalled for (especially since the use of diacritics in English is a relative rarity and tend to be words borrowed from other languages). You've just lost any respect I may have had for you with regards to this discussion. Yankees76 16:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Krm500, I wasn't attacking you, however if you think I was, then I'm sorry (didn't mean to offend you). My suggestions of you contacting the NHL & NHL websites, was to get you to see that those cites don't have diacritics & so the NHL team articles should reflect this. GoodDay 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, have any of the European-born players in the NHL complained about their names being translated into English (on their NHL jerseys)? If those guys have consented to the anglonization of their names, why can't pro-diacritics & their supporters do the same (here on the NHL team pages)? GoodDay 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And even more interesting is the fact that in some tournaments Finland, Czech Republic, Russia and Sweden did not even bother putting them on their own uniforms [2], [3]. It feels kind of pointless arguing about including diacritics to a name like "Jágr" when his own country doesn't feel the need to when he represents them. Yankees76 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great point. All the more reason, to remove the diacritics from the NHL team pages. GoodDay 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to take back my last comment in this discussion and apologize, since the comment was exaggerated and way beyond the line. My intention wasn't to offend anyone here, nor was it directed at anyone here from my point, but in reflection I can understand if someone was offended. I'm sorry and ashamed that I was negligent when choosing my words.--Krm500 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

===Compromise on Diacritics in NHL team articles=== I've decided to offer a compromise, for all 30 English Wikipedia NHL team articles. 1- Where diacritics don't belong: Top Infobox (lists owners, gms, coaches, captain etc), Current Roster and Team captains sections. 2- Where diacritics belong? in sections not listed above. I offer this compromise, to end constant editing conflicts on the NHL team pages (concerning Euro & French-Canadian names). I Hope pro-Diacritic & pro-English editors, will consider this compromise (by a pro-English editor). This compromise concerns only the NHL team article at English Wikipedia, NOT English Wikipedia as a whole. After all, above all else we're Wikipedians. GoodDay 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) :Recommend Compromise Vote last 10-days. GoodDay 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

===Compromise to a vote=== Support. In order to end continous bickering of diacritics. We must come to agreement. It's the Wikipedia way. GoodDay 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to lack of feedback, I've scrapt the compromise idea. GoodDay 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In the last few months there seems to have been an understanding of sorts, concerning diacriticals on NHL team pages & NHL player pages. The understanding being: No diacriticals for NHL team pages, Yes diacriticals for NHL players pages. Hopefully, this trend of understanding will continue. GoodDay 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Won't be a complaint from me. This is always how I felt it should be. --Djsasso 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Flags in NHL team infoboxes

What do guys/gals think of the Flag additions, to the NHL team pages infoboxes? GoodDay 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is for a quick overlook of the information, so why not? --Krm500 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They're fine by me provided the information is verifiable. Yankees76 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They're neat & informative, I like them too. GoodDay 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame section

The guideline for this section continues to be ignored. Editors are still adding 'names' that don't belong on respective teams HHOF sections. Perhaps these editors should be given a 'block' warning. GoodDay 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

These editors are using WP:HOCKEY (which has no guideline on the HHOF sections), as their reason for re-stuffing the sections. GoodDay 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

HHOF section, too argumentive I suggest the section, be removed from the 30 NHL team articles. HHOF career, is based more on the 'individual' less on the 'team'. GoodDay 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No NO and NO. That is a bad way of working on Wikipedia : oh it's too argumentive, let's just drop it.. We would lose a heck of a lot good material. I think that, like in the case of the Ottawa Senators article, Coaches CAN be added to the Hall of Fame section.. since they are still staff of the team, so they are related to it (but need to be specified as so). --Deenoe 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's why I didn't like your edits. I like the fact to see who was a Hall of Famer who might have passed through a particular team. As an example, Luc Robitaille is most definitely a Hall of Famer, and he's always going to be known as a King. BUT, he won a Cup in Detroit. I think he had two stints in Detroit. So does he get mentioned in the Detroit section? You and I might say he does, but someone may not. What gives the right for any of us to make that decision. So if we get rid of the HHOF who played on teams, that's probably the best way to remain neutral. If, however, you keep it, then it's got to be totally inclusive--my idea of a Kings Hall of Famer is going to be different than yours. But more than that, how can we make that judgement on any player. Wikipedia subscribes to Neutral Point of View, so we either dump the category, or keep it, being completely all inclusive. Orangemarlin 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way I agree with Deenoe. This category is not only interesting trivia, but is useful information. Borque won a cup with Colorado. But he's really a Bruin. Most of his career had nothing to do with the Avs, but 10 years from now, it will be interesting to know that about the Avs. I think that GoodDay is being a one-man police department, and we're missing consensus. Orangemarlin 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The guideline on this page backs my edits. Question is, should the guideline be appealed? We need a 'consensus vote' on this. If the guideline is going to be ignored, what's the point of having this WikiProject page? GoodDay 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure who wrote the guideline, but implementing it was rather sudden. I was reviewing the Kings page (I watch it, so that's how I know you made a change), and the HHOF players were added a long time ago. Why would you go on a sudden edit rampage, when things seem to have been status quo for so long? It's like you want to "purify" the hockey team pages. I think there should be some sort of consensus. If a vote is required, let's do it. Whatever the consensus, I'll agree, but if we keep the players, then you have a lot of work unreverting (not really a word)!!! Let's get a group consensus. Orangemarlin 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I'm not personally against the HHOF section existing on the 30 NHL team pages. I'm not personally against -all- HHOFers being on team pages they've barely played for. What stuck the thorn in my side? It's the fact that there's a HHOF guideline (which I didn't author), that's not being respected. The Big Question is - Shall we keep that guideline Or remove it? Should a guideline be respected OR not. GoodDay 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus building discussion

Shall we keep this guideline? GoodDay 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• No - based on the text of the guideline listed below

Note: Hall of Famer players must have played several seasons for the team in question, and those seasons have a material impact on their selection as Hall of Famers

-- bold emphasis added by User:MrDolomite

Unless WP editors get to vote on HHoF ballots, we should not try to read the minds of those who induct them. Yes, I know Borque played for Boston for a long time, but the number of Stanley Cups he won with the Bruins is still zero. To help distinguish this, list the years the player played for that team (or possibly the number of games, if you really want to show the "impact"), and the year he was inducted into the HHoF. Oh, and be sure to check out the Detroit Redwings official website list here. They list Paul Coffey, but according to the guideline, he would only be an Oiler. If a method of inclusion is not put down clear, quantifiable terms, then grab your WP:WHEEL, cuz each editor is going to bring their own interpretation. And all that is going to do is decrease the quality of these hockey articles. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• NO - because it (current guideline) isn't being respected by all editors & leaves room for dispute. It's either 'delete' the guideline or respect it. It hasn't been respected. GoodDay 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• No - but I will add that I think it's ridiculous to list HOF players for the Winnipeg Jets on the Phoenix Coyotes article, when those players never wore a Coyotes jersey. It's irrelevant that the Jets became the Coyotes. --Mus Musculus 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The only reason the team is the Coyotes is because they moved from Winnipeg. It's still the same franchise. Even the Phoenix media guide officially recognizes their "team history" going all the way back to their days in Winnipeg. Gmatsuda 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See the Dallas Stars, they've handled that situation well. GoodDay 03:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• No - Only because it is subject to a POV as to which team a HHOF player built his HOF career. Gretzky will cause infinite arguments between Kings and Oilers fans. Just put all players who played for the team and are in the HHOF irrespective of whether it was one game, or most of their career. As for teams that changed locations, I believe that the team owns all of the honors and records of that team, but that might be subject to a debate. Orangemarlin 07:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemarlin, I love the Hall of Fame section and it should not be deleted just because of 1 rampaging editor named GoodDay who deletes everything he doesn't like. Don't you see GoodDay, everyone wants every HHOF listed except you. Listing every Hall of Famer will end disputes instead of causing them. Whether it be 1 game or 20 seasons, everyone should be listed. I don't want to see any messages regarding the HHOF anymore from you, RGTraynor or Bmitchelf because that guideline does not exist any more. Payne2thamax 27 January 2007

Gee...could you be anymore immature? Let's face facts...you and others brought about this movement towards change, but you did it the wrong way by starting an edit war instead of trying to build consensus by starting a discussion about it as GoodDay has. So please spare us the attitude, personal attacks and childish behavior. Gmatsuda 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

When will we close this 'consensus building discussion'? Currently the No's lead 5-0. How about closing it (after 1-week) on 1:38 February 2, 2007 (UTC) ?. Surely 1-week is long enough. GoodDay 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One week sounds good to me. It sounds like consensus is we dump the guideline. Orangemarlin 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• No - dump the guideline. --Deenoe 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The HHOF players for each team should be retained in each team article. They are a part of the history of each franchise. Regarding the debate about which inductees to list under what team, as I've stated elsewhere, I can go either way. I would prefer that all inductees be listed for all the teams they were involved with because that's how the HHOF does it. But I can live with the current guidelines as well. That may be wishy-washy, but that's how I feel about it. Gmatsuda 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Im gonna go with No because it the right thing to do and we gotta give the peeps what they need. Say goodbye to the guideline GoodDay. As for Gmatsuda, thanks for the advice, just be sure to add Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr, Terry Sawchuk and other deserving greats to your LA Kings HHOF section in one week. Payne2thamax

I've voted 'No' (see above) like you did. Why are you pestering me about the growing consensus to remove the quideline in question? GoodDay 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

==Who's the 'original' rampager?== Payne2thamax, you were rampaging too (Team articles 'history' proves it). You ignored this guideline. You had no consensus at WPH to add ALL HHoFers. You should have brought your 'argument' to this talk page OR this talk page before making your edits. So please, don't call me a 'rampager', unless you include yourself in that definiton. PS- please add your vote (Yes or No to this consensus. GoodDay 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the guideline (as consensus for removing it is quite clear: 6 to 0). GoodDay 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the 'restrictive guideline', as I'm not a member of this WikiProject (Ice Hockey). My previous actions may have been in error. GoodDay 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you are the leader of the rebellion, GoodDay, you have no choice to take this matter to one of the members of the the WikiProject (Ice Hockey) to get the guidline removed. Payne2thamax

The 'restrictive guideline' has been a thorn in your side for months, you or anyone can contact a Member. Here's a list of members to contact Ccwaters, RGTraynor and Pparazorback, it's up to you. PS- There's still edit battles over the 'HHOF sections', they may yet be removed from the 30 NHL team pages. GoodDay 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Guess (in a way) I am a Member (just don't have the badge, yet). I'll remove the 'restrictive guideline' again. GoodDay 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• No - If I want to know what hall of famers played on a certain team. I want to know ALL the hall of famers that played for that team. Not just some POV opinion on who had a big contribution to the team. --Djsasso 05:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It alright, the 'restriction' has been lifted, ALL HOFmers for teams are included. GoodDay 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils

The Devils article, has a 'Famous Players' section (which has helped the article get an 'FA'). However in the months since, ONLY this article has the section (thus giving the impression -I think- of a Devils fansite). A similar 'Famous Players' section was at Philadelphia Flyers (but has since been deleted). Furthemore there's no 'Famous Players' guideline at this WikiProject page. According to this WikiProject page, the Devils 'new section' should be deleted (like the Flyers). What should be done about the Devils article? All other 28 NHL team article, don't have the 'Famous Players' section. GoodDay 05:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See below, consensus to add 'Famous Players' renamed 'Honored Members' as a guideline, is currently getting majority support 4 to 2. GoodDay 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Devils section 'Famous Players' has been accepted, with the new title 'Honored Members'. GoodDay 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommending new guideline

Honored Personnel
Players who's jersey's are retired. Players who've been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Coaches who've been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame are included in this section's content. These sections are currently at New Jersey Devils & Philadelphia Flyers. GoodDay 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This new guideline would replace- Notable Players, Hall of Famers and Retired Numbers guidelines. GoodDay 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Personnel? Members is a far better word to use IMO. --Krm500 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Members is a better word. GoodDay 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us not forgot the other sections the Devils page introduced. --207.69.138.144 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Note sure if this is the right spot for this, but before I vote on this, what about the format that is used for NFL teams, which is basically Hall of Famers, Retired Numbers, Notable Alumni (just a table of names, so it limits length)...I think the notable alumni who are not in the hall of fame, nor have numbers retired is an important part of an "encyclapedia article on a given NHL team. Bjewiki 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One guideline at a time. *Accept: This new guideline concerns me in one area though. Team pages like Montreal Canadiens, New York Rangers, Chicago Blackhawks (old franchise) will have large content (will make those team pages longer). GoodDay 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Blue Jackets will have next to nothing which differs little from the present format. Columbus and Montreal will be on opposite ends of the spectrum, just as it is with franchise history. Every other team will fall between those two. --207.69.138.144 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:::You guys have convinced me. I'm no longer concerned about article length on older team pages (Mtl, NYR, Chi etc). GoodDay 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Accept - Honored Personnel is a good compromise. As for teams that would have a large list, it can be formatted into columns. Teams with no or few names will just need to get cracking! ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. It's not an issue that some teams will have longer articles; uniformity in length has never been a requirement. If a team's section of Honored Members gets too long, it can be split into a separate article using summary style. --Mus Musculus 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This consensus building discussion, should last 1-week [end on 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]. That should be enough time to get a consensus. Does anyone agree? GoodDay 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reject. I've thought it over & over, about this 'Honored Personnel/Honored Members' proposed guideline (which ironicly, I prosposed). I'm afraid my orginal concerns over the older team pages has returned. The current style of the other 28 NHL teams are easier to read. The Devils & Flyers pages should be reverted to match. Therefore I'm reversing my opinon from 'accept' to 'reject'. Sorry guys, I've been giving this some heavy thinking. GoodDay 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think I clearly understand your concern here. The older teams pages are going to be longer because they simply have more history. I agree that each team page should follow the same "outline", but what do you mean by format? --Mus Musculus 12:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. I still think it's all right. I think it's great to read about what players played on the early teams (thankfully only 6, unless you include the really really really old, but no longer with us teams). Poor Good Day. You're having a bad day.  :) Orangemarlin 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:Poor GoodDay, you're having a bad day? What's with these personal jabbings, anyway? First Payne2thamax in the 'HHOF guideline discussion' (above) and now Orangemarlin at this discussion? GoodDay 18:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mine was purely nice. I was reading how you went back and forth on this, and I felt bad for you. It's just hockey, not something serious, like the crazy trolls at the Creationist article. Orangemarlin 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my misinterpretation. I'm being too paranoid. Removing my complaint. GoodDay 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reject. I still think a notable alumni (like the NFL team pages have) or notable players section is of good value. Bjewiki 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I would be okay with this, if it was standard for each team page to link to a another page that has a list of players, like: [List of Philadelphia Flyers players], however not all of the NHL team pages have this. Bjewiki 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment; Why is it so bad that 2 articles has a higher standard then the other 28 teams? If you look at the 12 teams in the swedish Elitserien there is huge diffrent in quality of the articles? Should sections be removed from, for example Frölunda HC since Mora IK doesn't have them? The Devils article is rated FA, it sets the standards and therefor editors of the 28 other articles should take a look at the FA article and follow it. Not propose deletion/change of content in the FA article since other team article doesn't have the same content. So my vote goes to follow the FA --Krm500 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a better question, should this WikiProject page have any authority of the 30 NHL team pages? If not, what's the purpose of this WikiProject page existing? GoodDay 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just read your input on the Devils talk page. Yes it would have been a good idea to maybe ask before adding a new section or renaming it. But the user who worked the Devils article to FA probably changed this section in good faith. Afterwards there was a discussion, I think on this talk page, regarding consensus on team articles. The result was then to follow the Devils page. --Krm500 10:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'Honored Members' section & content (Devils version) is being accepted now. The conflict is over. GoodDay 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'Honored Members' guideline has been added to this WikiProject page. The majority view is to use the 'Devils' version. GoodDay 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Applying new guidelines

I've added the 'Honored Members' section & other New Jersey Devils features to the Anaheim Ducks, Atlanta Thrashers, Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres pages. Hopefully other editors will do the same for the rest of the NHL team articles. GoodDay 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Honored Members' section & other Devils related features. As I've discovered there's a Membership at the WikiProject Ice Hockey (which I'm not a part of), my pro-Notable Members edits may be erroneous & invalid. GoodDay 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy matey - look up! You've been posting on a subpage of WikiProject Ice Hockey this whole time. So this entire discussion has been had in full view of anyone who cares enough to look. If there were objections from anyone in the WikiProject, they have been addressed by now. And, welcome aboard. --Mus Musculus 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Just the same, I'm going to stay away from this 'Honored Members' thing & the 'restrictive' HHoF guideline (which I've restored, due to my uncertainties). It's entirely up to you and others from here on, as to how you wish to proceed. Goodluck, from a spectator. GoodDay 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm removing the 'restrictive guideline' & re-adding the 'Honored Members' guideline. GoodDay 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Season by Season Records - Split off?

I was wondering if I should split the Canadiens' seasonal records table off into another article because it is so big. I could make this section in paragraph form if I did that. Sportskido8 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO it depends on how the paragraph would look like. How do you summerise all those seasons? --Krm500 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You ought to, because it isn't the Leafs, who have nothing to split off, because they haven't done anything in 40 years. Orangemarlin 02:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of splitting the season by season record off, and going with something along the lines of Chicago Bears seasons. For the parent article, I might suggest retaining the five most recent seasons, with a {{main|Montreal Canadiens Seasons}} tag. Ultimately, I think this should be done for all 30 teams, even the Wild. Resolute 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, however, it'd be good to have a subsection for recent years or something like that if any tables are on the front page. Spinach Monster (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I think this ship has passed, this was a 2 year old conversation. :) -Djsasso (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, my bad. My apologies. I should have paid closer attention :) Spinach Monster (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, you can still bring up the topic. I just thought it was funny. Do you mean you want to change the header for the section? -Djsasso (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A Captain, is a captain, is a captain

It's been recommended at Talk: Philadelphia Flyers, and now being recommended here for all NHL team pages. Should we remove the 'interim' tags from players who've been listed as captains of their teams, even though they were filling in for a captain who was injured long-term. Examples in 2005-06 NHL season - Lapointe filling in for Aucoin in Chicago & Hatcher filling in for Primeau in Philadelphia. GoodDay 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not unless it was during preseason. If they dressed for a game with the captains "C", then they were a captain. As long as it's verifiable of course. Yankees76 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing the 'interim' tags seems a correct move. B.Murray, Mogilny, Lapointe & D.Hatcher (for example), have worn their teams 'C' for at least half-a-season, while the captain was injured. Also the Flyers website had declared D.Hatcher as the Flyers 14th team captain (yet oddly, Forsberg was later declared to have succeeded Primeau as captain). I'd say we should remove the 'interim' tags (Gee, at one time, I didn't want to list 'interim captains' at all, go figure). GoodDay 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I obviously agree that we should strip the "interim" tags too, considering that I was the one who originally proposed taking it off of Hatcher's designation on the Flyers page. If the team considers a player to be part of their "official" captain history, then we should acturately reflect that. Bjewiki 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "interim" captains should be listed at all beyond a temporary citation in the infobox for current interim captains only. I feel strongly that there are only two official, authoritative sources for captaincies: the official team websites and the captains' listings given in the NHL Official Record Book and Media Guide. Someone not significant enough to make either verifiable, permanent source isn't significant enough to be listed here. RGTraynor 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's tricky, some teams have chosen to list their 'long-term' interim captains as captains (example: Mogilny in Buffalo '93-94, Robitaille in LA '92-93 and Bob Murray in Chicago '85-86). So do we A)remove those guys from the captains list, B)leave them on the list & remove the (interim) tags, or C)leave the captains list in its current form. PS- This is why, I originally opposed listing long termed 'interim captains' (even though their team sites had listed them). GoodDay 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a definitive source? (I lean to this) Is it the team's website? Is there an official NHL repository of this captain data? Just like everything else, we should be able to verify it Bjewiki 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It ought to be the team's website. GoodDay 21:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it really should be the team's media guide and/or the NHL Official Guide and Record Book. Gmatsuda 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are equally good. Though I'm in favour of removing the 'interim tags', those tags do help the less familiar readers. GoodDay 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

HHOF

This sub-section of 'Honoured Members' has got to go. I'd hoped, the conflicting edits would have stop (they haven't). Seeking again to have the HHOF thing abolished, it invites too much PoV's. Even, I've been involved in disputes of 'additions' to the section(s). It's got to go. GoodDay 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We had a sensible consensus going for over a year, overturned by the kneejerk inclusionists. Hey, why not have Bobby Orr and Gerry Cheevers listed as Hartford Whalers HHOFers? They were both employed by the team as consultants at one point, that should count, right? Vlad Tretiak's been a consultant for the Blackhawks for quite a few years, add him in. Fern Flaman and Marcel Pronovost have been scouts for New Jersey for a few years, Grant Fuhr's the Phoenix goalie coach. Wasn't Mike Bossy the color commentator for the Nordiques for a few years? Hell, there's no end to it. RGTraynor 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed also. --Mus Musculus 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. They are a part of a team's history, regardless of what we think. And I resent being referring to as a "kneejerk inclusionist." While I would've settled for the previous inclusion policy, I supported the current one because it follows what the HHOF is doing. The examples that RGTraynor mentions above are ridiculous. I agree those should not be included. I don't think the HHOF does that, either. Gmatsuda 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I too disagree. RGTraynors examples are rediculous and anyone with common sense knows those wouldn't be included. But players who have actually played a game with the team definately should be. They were a member of that team whether you like it or not. --Djsasso 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Djsasso 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, then get rid of Hull's Rangers' entry, since he was never a signed member of the team nor played in any regular season game. Get rid of all the entries where a HHOF member (often times after his induction) is listed with a team ... notably coaches and executives but in a few cases (Howe/Hartford, Lafleur/Quebec come to mind) players as well. Furthermore, you make the completely erroneous supposition that we are (and other editors will feel themselves) bound by the HHOF's POV. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy; we're no more bound to slavishly follow a single private organization's POV than any other -- certainly the political Wikipedia editors would laugh themselves giddy at the premise that the only facts to be found in the George Bush or Tony Blair articles are those released by the administrations themselves. "Common sense?" Mm, no, the notion that Billy Smith is a "Kings" HHOFer, Paul Coffey a "Bruins" HHOFer or Grant Fuhr a "Flames" HHOFer doesn't have much to do with "common sense," and I wish you folks the very best of luck in defending the notion against all those who'll push the envelope that Hall of Fame members associated with NHL teams aren't really associated with them. RGTraynor 16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again your example does not fit this situation. Of course you should be bound by the HHOF's POV on who is a Hall of Fame member. Because it is THEM who decide that. It is not even remotely like George Bush's administration writing the article. And its not like MLB where a player decides what team he is entering the Hall for. The HHOF purposefully does not tie a player to any single team. There is no such thing as a "Bruins" HHOFer or a "Flames" HHOFer. There is just an HHOFer who played for the Flames or the Bruins or whoever. If you would have left it as Hall of Famers and just allowed players who played with the team you would not have nearly as many issues. But going back to honoured members is going to be rediculously POV. --Djsasso 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We alreday have 2 articles (at Wikipedia) listing the members of the HHOF. Therefore, what's the purpose of having HHOF sections on the 30 NHL team pages? GoodDay 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To see what players who eventually went on to enter the hall of fame played for that team. --Djsasso 18:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the teams listed in the HHOF players bio pages? GoodDay 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But then you would already have to know what players were on the team. --Djsasso 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate isn't going anywhere, do what you guys/gals want. Bobby Hull? a NY Ranger?, smelling salts anyone? I'm out of here. GoodDay 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he did play a couple games for the Rangers team in a tournament so he was a Ranger. Just remember the HHOF is not just for NHL players/teams. And the tournament was high profile at the time. --Djsasso 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Hull did not play for the Rangers in an NHL regular season or playoff game, so I would think that he shouldnot be listed as an HHOF member under the Rangers--he was not officially a member of the Rangers. HOWEVER, the HHOF has him listed under the Rangers, so if the HHOF is doing it, that's the official word, as far as I'm concerned. Gmatsuda 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find this as an extreme at all. An extreme would be listing a former player who is in the hall of fame now who is a scout for the Rangers. Bobby Hull however did play games for the Rangers and the HHOF is NOT only for NHL players so it does not matter if it was regular season, exhibition or playoffs so that is completely irrelevant in this case. --Djsasso 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow the team pages format

At the Calgary Flames article, changing the list form to prose form (as is preferred in the team pages format) seems to have met with a positive reaction, and defused two edit wars. I would suggest that the same be done for all teams. In the case of teams like the Rangers and Canadiens, it would necessatate a child article be created, i.e. Hall of Famers of the New York Rangers, but an article of prose allows one to describe what impact a given individual has had with the named team. i.e.: Brian Kilrea's entry into the hall had absolutely nothing to do with his play with the Los Angeles Kings, so including him in a list form is misleading. But stating that he played for the Kings, and later going onto a Hall of Fame junior coaching career allows him to be mentioned, while allowing for the proper context. Resolute 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My broken faith in the 'Honored Members/HHOF section' may be restored afterall. I most certainly support this idea. GoodDay 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a list with footnotes for players/coaches/builders who didn't have a lot to do with a particular team, even though they were part of that team? That could work in pretty much the same fashion as what Resolute mentions above. Gmatsuda 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it will end the disputes, go for it. GoodDay 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK...I made the edits to the LA Kings article. What do you all think? Gmatsuda 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it, perhaps this will satisfy all disputing parties. GoodDay 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I considered including the footnote right next to the player's name in the list, but I thought it would look cluttered. Gmatsuda 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend you begin a new 'Rfc' to put this new guideline in the 'Team pages format' GoodDay 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't learned all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet...how do I do that? Gmatsuda 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Try Rfc. PS- you don't have to go that route, if you don't want to. GoodDay 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what kind of response we get here. If it's not sufficient, we can go that route, I guess. Gmatsuda 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a combination of your's & Resolute's plans could work aswell. GoodDay 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)\

Perhaps. But adding the narrative seems to be overkill, IMHO. Gmatsuda 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the comments I recieved when I sent the Calgary Hitmen article to peer review was that it was list heavy. Anything that can be done in prose form is encouraged, and while the footnotes you added offer some context in how much of an impact that HHOFer had on that team, it is a little "clunky", as you have to click on that note to find out the significance of that player's contributions. Personally, I would suggest going with prose as a better solution. Resolute 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's an issue of what one prefers. IMHO, it's quicker and easier to get the same information from the list, in this particular case. Gmatsuda 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that Resolutes is alot better. Having to click links makes it harder to get the information. --Djsasso 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not my preference, but I'll go along with whatever everyone decides. It's not a big deal to me. :-) Gmatsuda 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also (upon reviewing), this WikiProject page calls for a 'pros' style (concerning the HHOF & Retirement Numbers sections). A consensus had been reached on this, giving it the title 'Honored Members' (see New Jersey Devils) article. PS- Retirement Numbers in pros (as called for by the WikiProject page) might be difficult to implement. GoodDay 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea for combining the two trains of thought, as GoodDay recommended. How about listing the ones who have made major contributions to a particular team, and then explaining in narrative format about the others who did not play a significant role? Gmatsuda 23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the prose style thing (I guess I haven't been keeping up here...sorry). Does this preclude a combination of the two styles? Gmatsuda 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't see why it should? GoodDay 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK...someone care to take a stab at it? I've gotta head over to Staples Center to cover tonight's game. :-) Gmatsuda 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me (concerning 'Honoured Members'). You & Resolute can give it a try. GoodDay 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth Places (II)

Should we list American & Canadian born NHL players 'birth countries': Example 'instead of Calgary, Alberta , it should be Calgary, Canada. GoodDay 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should list Canada & the USA. That would make the 'Current Roster' sections easier to understand for non-North Americans. GoodDay 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried something out at Anaheim Ducks: All I did was 1) add the country (more worldly), I never saw any objections to it during the multiple times I brought it up, so I finally acted on it. 2) broke up City, State into separate wikilinks. Pretty simple enhancement.

Note: Keep the states and province in the US and Canada respectfully. They are needed for disambiguation. DO NOT add them to countries that don't require them. ccwaters 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds cool, I'd recommend however removing the provinces & states. Simply give it the proper wiki-link - My example: London, Canada. Keeping the 'provinces' & 'states', might be confusing to non-North Americans (as we don't list their 'political divisions' -provinces & states). Overall though, adding 'Canada' & the 'USA' is correct. GoodDay 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No way- clicky clicky: Philadelphia, United States. ccwaters 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with ccw: This is a mistake. "City, State/Province" is common usage in North America, precisely for the reason ccw brings up: disambiguation and consistency. Your "London, Canada" case is unambiguous, but users shouldn't need to follow a wikilink to determine which Richmond or which Springfield (to use two very common city names in the USA) a player was born in. Add Canada or USA to the end if you feel you must (though it sacrifices readability in articles that are obviously North America-centric), but st/prov must be displayed in text (not just linked) for accuracy and consistency. Removing them because of some perceived subtle POV bias toward North Americans would make the article unreadable for the sake of political correctness. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see both your points. I'm concerned with how it crowds the sections though (having 3 place names). GoodDay 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, leave the country off for US/Can. Country is the only part of those 3 that can be uniquely determined by one of the other two (since no state and province share a name). VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks so much more complicated now. Why not stick with the old format? town, state/province is the most common way in the US and Canada while town, country is more common in Europe. --Krm500 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. Keep it town, state/province in US & Canada. Bjewiki 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've been a proponent of adding the US or Canada because that is a fairly common complaint in wikipedia. See [4]. ccwaters 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that in prose sections, such as the one you linked, City, Province, Country is the best solution for North American locations, and that is what I do when writing articles. In the roster table, however, I think that City, Province is adequate, especially given formatting concerns. Resolute 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And the presence of a flag... --Krm500 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In respecting the views held at this discuss, I've restored previous edits to Anaheim Ducks, restoring 'City, Province/State' for North American birth places. GoodDay 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This birthplace thing certainly evokes a lot of nationalistic tendencies. Anze Kopitar was born in Slovenia, which when he was a born was a constituent republic of Yugoslavia. Some anonymous Slovenians (easy to see IP addresses) continue to change his birthplace to Slovenia. Boring. Anyways, if I ever become an NHL player, I was born in Tokyo, and I would have been the first Japanese NHL player, but not now. Fukufuji beat me. Oh, wait a minute, I could have been the first Japanese-Jewish-American NHL player. I missed my calling. Orangemarlin 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia vs CSSR

Czechoslovakia should be abrreviated to 'CSSR', the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is written in 'USSR'. GoodDay 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No one ever called Czechoslovakia that. And no one ever says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or "Federal Republic of Germany", or "Republic of China" (that's Taiwan). I can see argument over USSR/Soviet Union or Germany/West Germany. ccwaters 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most common name should be used. USSR is only abbreviated because "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is bulky, and there was no great alternative. Resolute 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't as if we tab hockey players from a certain tiny state as coming from "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," the real name of the state. RGTraynor 09:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I've suggested CSSR, was to help make 'Current Rosters' less cluttered looking, in the 'birth place'. My source was Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. However, Czechoslovakia is the most common usage. Oh well, It was just a thought. GoodDay 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

CSSR is certainly easier to spell, but I don't think it was used very often. Mostly, I think, in the English Wikipedia, we use American or British names for almost every country, and Czechoslovakia is the name used at that time by most English-speaking countries. If someone was using Holland instead of the Netherlands, I'd have to protest. Orangemarlin 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

From a hockey standpoint, CSSR was used officially on the jerseys...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/JesGolbez/zoh_a_ms10afull.jpg food for thought--Lvivske (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

El Capitan

In regards to NHL team captains, two things that bug me. First, why do we have "No Captain" listed for many teams during the NHL lockout? That seems silly to me - there was no season, so there should jest be a blank space. Second, why do some teams list "rotating captains" and other teams spell out the captains list month by month? Should people who were captains for less than half a season be listed with the other captains? Shouldn't they be listed to the side with interim captains and periods with no captain?--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some teams, notably the Minnesota Wild, trade out their captains on a regular basis. Others have "co-captains" that rotate based around various criteria, like trading off games or choosing a "home" and an "away" captain. As far as the time factor goes, for example, Wayne Gretzky was captain of St. Louis for only 18 games. Yet, in the eyes of the team and the league, he was the official captain of the team for that period of time, and so there are no grounds for not citing him in the list of official captains of the club. RGTraynor 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've listed 'no captain' (lockout) tags, for this reason - The team captains are listed 'by player' Not 'by season'. If they were listed by season, 2004-05 wouldn't be there. Futhermore, if we removed 'no captain (lockout)' then all captains during this time-period would be effected - you'd then have Saku Koivu, 1999-2004, 2005- present or Keith Primeau, 2001-04, 2005-06 - see what I mean? GoodDay 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what he is getting at is the fact that unless the team said those players were no longer captains. That they were actually captains during the time period of the lock out. except maybe for the wild who do it by month instead of indefinate. So there would be no gap in your Koivu example. It would be 1999-Current --Djsasso 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're to omit 2004-05 (where there's no captain), then we should remove all 'no captain' tags. Either we keep ALL 'no captain' tags, or we don't. What's it gonna be? GoodDay 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Howabout, we omit ALL 'no captain' tags in th 30 NHL team pages & defunct team pages. This will make the lists more compact (note - player pages with NHL captain succession boxes, omit 'no captain' tags). GoodDay 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics comment

Just a comment. Congratulations to all Wikipedians for respecting 'No diacritics' at the NHL team pages and 'Yes diacritics' at NHL player pages. The compromise continues to hold, thanks to all of you. Keep up the NPOV work. GoodDay 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Honoured Members

The new guidelines for this section (inspired, by the Devils page style), doesn't seem to be catching on (at the other 29 NHL team pages). Some pages have reverted back to the old style, while others have remained in the old style. That's too bad. GoodDay 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes well it is a shame, the Debbies FA set the standard for hockey team articles and it should be followed. I followed the devils honored memebers section for the team article I'm working on. I've been thinking about changing the coaches list (and maybe captain list) in to prose also. --Krm500 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think its just a matter of having someone go and write up the prose for the rest of them. That's not something I like to do but Resolute did a great job with the Flames one that maybe we can convince him to do that with the others. --Djsasso 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually did write up a prose section for this section in the Anaheim Ducks page at one point, with citations and all, but it was reverted for some unknown reason. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just revert it back. Unless the editor can offer a valid reason for such a revert, it should be treated as vandalism. Resolute 05:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted, reverted here. Also wrote a note to Darthflyer, who got rid of the prose, explaining the revert. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe 'Darthflyer' also removed the pros from the Flyers page. Also, the best way to contact Darthflyer, is at the Flyers talk page. He doesn't respond to posts at his own page (not sure why). GoodDay 17:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Darthflyer's at it again, for the Ducks page. I'm not sure if I should even bother with a prose section now -- what's the point if he's just going to revert it and say I'm wrong because the other pages don't have prose? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't dispair, I'd suggest you reverse his edits (restore 'Honoured Members' with the pros). Then, I'll put Anaheim Ducks on my watchlist and help out in maintaining your edits (against Darthflyers arbitrary will). Since Darthflyer is continuing to go against the consensus at WPT, perhaps he should be reported (to the Administrators). GoodDay 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, could some of you please take a look at the Honored members section in the Frölunda HC article? I'm trying to improve the article and I just wanted to know what you all think about it. There is very much work that needs to be done, mainly in the team history. --Krm500 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Honored Members section looks just fine there; my only complaint about the article itself is that its grammar and spelling are a bit shaky, but I've learned more about an internationally famous team, which is the idea.  RGTraynor  03:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To Hab or not to Hab

Denis Savard (1990-93) & Tony Esposito (1968-69), continue to be excluded from the Montreal Canadiens' Honoured Members section. Under this Project's current guideline, they should be included. GoodDay 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them then. --Djsasso 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, I don't know how. The Habs article has it's HHOF members in tables. GoodDay 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Quebec Nordiques

A debate over this article's Infobox title has started, at talk: Quebec Nordiques. It concerns the (in my opinon) unfair treatment of English & French at the Quebec Nordiques article in English Wikipedia & French Wikipedia. GoodDay 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In view of the consensus at Quebec Nordiques, I've also re-added the French name version at the Infobox of Montreal Canadiens. Since I'd earler (months ago) removed it, without any true consensus. PS- Wasn't able to add any French accents, though. GoodDay 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Added é in the word Montréal for you. --Bamsefar75 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bamsefar75. GoodDay 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Honored Members (again)

The consensus (reached months ago) for the creation of this section in pros style, hasn't been adopted by all 30 NHL team pages (yet). Furthermore, some NHL team pages (like the Philadelphia Flyers & Anaheim Ducks), have had their 'Honored Members' section continously reverted. Perhaps ALL 30 NHL team pages should be reverted back to 'Hall of Famers' & 'Retired Numbers' lists. Perhaps 'Honored Members' isn't worth the hassle? What does everyone think?GoodDay 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What's it gonna be, this WikiProject's (reached consensus) way? Or Darthflyer's way. Any comments? GoodDay 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Written in prose is much better then a list. I'll be changing the list of captains and head coached into prose when I shot for the golden star someday. --Krm500 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we can't just not do it cause its too much of a hassle. That is ridiculous. We just have to keep letting people like darthflyer know what the consensus is. We need to avoid the much more prevalent edit wars that came from the lists. --Djsasso 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, Darthflyer is not easily persuaded. You'll have to contact him at talk:Philadelphia Flyers (he doesn't respond, on his own IP address page). Not sure why. GoodDay 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Darthflyer hasn't responded on the Flyers talk page for quite a while (thus making it more difficult, to contact him), the 'Edit summary' may be the only place 'now'. GoodDay 23:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added 'Honored Members' section (in pros style) to the following pages- Ducks, Thrashers, Blue Jackets, Panthers, Wild, Predators, Senators, Sharks and Lightning. Hopefully, this will discourage 'reverts'. PS- pages like Rangers & Canadiens were too long to convert for my abillities. GoodDay 17:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Season-by-season record

I have introduced a change at Calgary Flames, splitting the season by season history to its own article: Calgary Flames seasons. This is a concept I would like to see applied to all 30 team articles (yes, even the Wild), as it will help reduce the size of many team articles, some of which are excessively big. Moving this info to its own article reduced the Calgary Flames article by about 4kB. Doing the same for the Montreal Canadiens, as an example, will likely cut 15kB of size off of a 74kB article, while helping to compact the Canadiens article. As always, I am looking for suggestions on what can be improved upon. Thanks, Resolute 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I love the idea and had been thinking about it myself. So I am in full support to do this. --Djsasso 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also did Vancouver Canucks seasons in about an hour - including adding their PCHL/WHL history. These pages will be easy to do. We should confirm a standard format before I go off creating a bunch of them though. Resolute 04:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already started working on one when you posted on the main project talk page. I think it's a great idea! --Krm500 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I like how some of the football pages are - for example, see Manchester United F.C.. The main page gives summaries of periods in the team history, each of which has its own article. So the most recent is Manchester United 1999-present, which covers the time period after a significant event in 1999. --Mus Musculus (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Great solution. However, beware of anon-editors who'll try to reverse those edits, like they tried against 'Honored Members' revisions. GoodDay 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Split off the Montreal Canadiens seasons - even found their stats from their NHA days. Took nearly 20kB off the size of the main article. So far, so good. Resolute 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Honoured Members section title

I like the idea of flipping to prose style, but I have a minor concern with the title of the section. "Honoured Members" is how the HHoF refers to its members (see [5]), so I'm not sure a section with that title should include information not related to the Hall. I already did a couple of teams' sections as "Honored players" by accident (I misread the initial discussion), but now that I noticed the difference and thought about it a little, I decided to hold off and get some discussion going first.

I recognize that some teams have a lot of Hall members in the Builders category, so "Honored players" isn't a perfect title either. If we want to roll Hall members and retired/honored numbers together, though, seems to me that we should use a neutral title. Perhaps "Honorees"? VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Honorees looks good, what does everyone think? GoodDay 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to have the 'Retired Numbers' as a seperate non-pros style. Anything is possible. GoodDay 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really matters. Honoured/Honored Members is simply a headline used to describe the section. While the HHOF uses the title, so to do most teams. The Flames "honoured" Mike Vernon when they retired his number, etc. Honourees also works if preferred though. Resolute 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with Honoured Members as many organizations use that term. It's not exclusive to the HHoF. --Djsasso 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How's it spelt Honored or Honoured, just curious. GoodDay 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Honoured as thats what we had in the template unless someone changed it. --Djsasso 23:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS says to use the variation commonly used for where the subject is. ie: the Canadian teams should use honoured, the American teams honored. Or, more simply, use the version consistant with the rest of the article. Resolute 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the name. --Krm500 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

UFAs & RFAs

Should we wait 'til July 1, before adding UFA & RFA tags to NHL team pages (current roster). After all player contracts don't expire 'til then. Dotcanada continues to put these tags at Boston Bruins. What does everyone think? GoodDay 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since player contracts don't expire until July 1, the tags should wait until then. Gmatsuda 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to that time of year when anticipation of next season is greater than the conclusion of the existing season. When UFAs fly away contrary to any CBA, jerseys and logos change, and minor league teams move or rename themselves before their respective leagues' championships are awarded... ccwaters 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dotcanada continues to disagree. PS- His talk page isn't working (posting there are mosting invisiable). GoodDay 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He's got some unclosed tag somewhere. ccwaters 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense to anyone, but I couldn't care less what Dotcanada thinks. Teams hold players' rights until their contracts officially expire. Gmatsuda 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We all seem to be in agreement. Suggest we keep a watch on Boston Bruins (for awhile). GoodDay 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Last year we didn't touch rosters till the season began for this same reason we don't update stats during the season. --Djsasso 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Where do people get the notion that barnstars are handed out for being the first to make an edit?  RGTraynor  20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics at NHL team pages

In keeping with the understanding reached months ago at WTPP, I'm gradually 'hiding' all diacritics on the 30 NHL team pages (will also do same at former NHL pages). I do this for the sake of consistancy on the NHL team pages. The understanding was: Diacritics- NHL Player pages (yes), NHL Team pages (no). GoodDay 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Completed pages Anaheim Ducks to Edmonton Oilers, will continue edits at other pages, tommorow. GoodDay 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

yay!  RGTraynor  20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt part of the original discussion, but I agree completely. Very, very few players use diactrics on the English translation of their names, and given this is the English Wikipedia, it should be obvious that the English spelling is appropriate. Resolute 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Completed all 30 NHL team pages (plus the defunct teams). Feel free to check them over (in case I've missed any diacritics). Now, I've got to re-adjust my eye sight, I'm beginning to see diacritics where there's none. GoodDay 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Should have done this weeks ago, anyway (better late, then never). I've hidden all diacritics at the Players birth places. Now NHL team pages are truly non-diacritized (as is required). GoodDay 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks Stanley Cup Champions succession box

Should a incumbent succession box be used OR a regular succession box. Myself and Darthflyer are in dispute. Here's our examples.

Darthflyer's example:

GoodDay's example:

Seeking peerage opinon (consensus). GoodDay 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care either way. But isn't this sorta the point of the Incumbent succession box? --Djsasso 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A third style has been added by another editor. It combines 'Darthflyers' version with my version. I'll go with it (see below). GoodDay 16:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this third style the best. Bjewiki 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I despise succession boxes in this context. I just fail to see how it is important to note who won before and after you did. In my POV, they add nothing to an article except physical size, while creating a lot of wasted space at the end of the article. Resolute 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I could do without them as well (to be honest), I wouldn't mind having them all (Stanley Cup champion succession boxes) edited out. GoodDay 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Team President

Would it be alright to add the Team President to this WikiProject page and thus the 30 NHL team page infoboxes? We have the 'Owner', 'GM' and 'Coach' yet no President (who's above the GM). What say you all? GoodDay 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I kinda go back and forth on the idea. The Presedent usually mostly just deals with the business aspects of the team and we don't have the positions of many of the business employees listed as opposed to hockey opperations personnel like the GM. But I can see your point so I will happily accept what everyone else decides. I just can't decide myself. --Djsasso 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I see a great need to list the team president. I'd be more inclined to add assistant coaches. Resolute 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And then we'd get the Executive Vice Presidents of Hockey Operations, and the appointed Governors, and very soon the infoboxes would look like Stanley Cup plaques, complete with the assistant equipment manager and every secretary in the front office. Heck no.  RGTraynor  20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, that's too much. Adding subordinates (VPs, assistant coaches, alternate captains [they were correctly removed]) is way too much. GoodDay 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NHL roster (birth places)

Did a cleanup of the 30 team rosters' birth places, there were reoccurances of Slovakia, Czech Republic, Germany and Russia. GoodDay 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)