Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive22

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Infobox needed for Stanley Cup Finals

I think an infobox needs to be created for the Stanley Cup Finals pages. Looking at all the code at the start of the articles makes my eyes bleed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like too difficult of a venture, and I am pretty willing to go about and do it, but I'm probably going to need about a week before I can get around to it as I don't quite have much time currently. If there are any ideas about possible features of a universal infobox, they would be greatly appreciated. I will most likely be able to deliver a usable product on the 12th of June at the earliest. Thanks. —Sukh17 ^Talk 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Only a couple of things. We have to make many of the fields optional to make it usable for the older finals for which the information is not going to be readily available. No logos, definitely. What I think I'll do is start the template and use it on some of the older Finals pages and then you could add more features for the newer finals? Alaney2k (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll check out some of the older articles to see what is up with them. Also, I'll probably make most all of the fields optional to maximize the usability of box across the older articles, and perhaps other uses as well as I have done for the NHL Playoffs template. Leave me a note if you come up with a template, and I'll be sure to work off of that. One of my ideas was perhaps simplification of the score summary box. The solution would be where the user simply enters the score for each game, and the whole box is automatically generated, and automatically formats for series finishing in either 4, 5, 6 or 7 games. If you have any other ideas that would eliminate clutter, let me know as you go along. Thanks. —Sukh17 ^Talk 16:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started it at {{Infobox Stanley Cup Final}} and tested it with the 1920 Stanley Cup Final as a demo. I've made most fields optional. I've added several parameters as the format of the finals earlier on was best-of-five or less. I am going to document what I've done. I like the idea of entering the score directly. I am not knowledgable enough with the template coding language to try that. This is only my second template I've written. Specificially, I'd like to change the output using a field to indicate the series winner. Alaney2k (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A seven-game series uses it at 1965 Stanley Cup Final. I did that page because it was a seven-game series and it had an MVP. Alaney2k (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's excellent work! I've corrected the page layout a little because of ugly whitespace by using {fixHTML|begin} and {fixHTML|end} to envelop the infobox, plus floating the TOC. Jmj713 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think the whitespace looks better than the mashed up look that is there now. You have to remember whitespace is very heavily dependant on your own monitors settings. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but if you take a took at the 2007 article prior, you'll see oodles of whitespace. The entire viewable area as the article loads is taken up by the infobox on the right with nothing on the left. Perhaps we can rework the TOC placement and/or appearance. Jmj713 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I fixed that. It was because of where someone placed the wikinews template, once that was moved it was fixed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, much easier than my way :) Perhaps you can work on a TOC that's not so long? Maybe Template:TOCnestright? Jmj713 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Common, irritating mistake in sports articles

I wanted to let everyone know that there's a very common mistake in pretty much every non-featured hockey article:

Incorrect: Ottawa would respond 11 minutes later with a goal by Chris Neil.
Correct: Ottawa responded 11 minutes later with a goal by Chris Neil.
Incorrect: On October 18, 2006, young Russian superstar Evgeni Malkin scored a goal in his first NHL game, and went on to set the modern NHL record with a goal in each of his first six games.
Correct: On October 18, 2006, young Russian superstar Evgeni Malkin scored a goal in his first NHL game, and set the modern NHL record with a goal in each of his first six games.

I usually fix it whenever I see it, but it's pretty much everywhere. Try to keep this in mind if you're reading/writing an article.-Wafulz (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For the second example, the way it is written makes it sound like Malkin set the record on October 18, even though that obviously can't be the case. Maybe add the date that he set the record to make it clear, if that is a real case. I definitely understand what you're trying to say, and I probably make the mistake myself sometimes because it's more of the way to write an engaging story rather than encyclopedic. What verb tense is that anyway? Conditional? -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was a bit off in the second one, but the point is the tense. I'm not sure what its name is.-Wafulz (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "mistake" - it's a stylistic preference. A "mistake" would be incorrect grammar. My own preference is for more direct phrasings (my editors would not have been pleased with "Boston can be described as being ..." rather than "Boston is ..."), but that doesn't make the tense poor English. Heck, if you want to go after something that is a widespread mistake, let's eliminate all the "Teemu Selanne won the Stanley Cup ..." phrases out there. No, Selanne did not win a Stanley Cup; he played on the 2007 Anaheim Ducks, which did. RGTraynor 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we're aiming for direct phrasing wherever possible. I've seen it brought up at FAC a few times.-Wafulz (talk)

My impression of the FAC crowd is that they have a positive thirst to find some way or another to tell people that their articles don't measure up for some reason or another. One would think, for one, that if direct phrasing was a goal of the encyclopedia the Manual of Style would say so. It's silent on the subject. RGTraynor 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate seeing that, too, Wafulz. The first example leaves one asking: "they would respond but what?" The word 'would' implies a certain conditionality (see counterfactual conditional), but there is nothing conditional about an event that has certainly already happened. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

'Would' in the example used is not conditional. There is a context not represented in Wafulz's snippets of text. Really, what is being debated here is the use of 'active voice' vs. 'passive voice' styles of writing. The 'responded' is using active voice. Active voice is generally considered to be better from what I recall at college. However, both examples are ok when it comes to grammar. I think 'replied' is better than 'responded' in any case. Alaney2k (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a doctor in the house??

Since we're on the subject of the Stanley Cup Finals (congrads to the Red Wings). I'm throwing in the towel, where hiding diacritics are concerned. They're popping up everywhere on the NHL related articles (most recently on the Stanley Cup Final articles). Call it exhaustion, or just plain going banannas - I just can't cope anymore. PS- recommend Elrith take over, for me. GöödDáy (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You were told before that you were going to be fighting a losing battle cause there are millions of editors out there that have nothing to do with this project and could care less about our compromise. As was said change them when you see them and don't get to upset about it as it will happen. Just like the opposite will happen. -Djsasso (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it, oh boy do I know it. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FA article traffic - May

Little update on FA traffic for last month, as compared to April. With the season wrapping up, most articles saw big declines in traffic. The two notable exceptions were the two articles that appeared on the main page last month. Two new FA's in the last month as well: Trevor Linden and Calgary Hitmen. Incidentally, we've had at least one article promoted to FA status each calendar month since November. Who's gonna get one up in July? Reso lute 02:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article	April 2008	May 2008	Difference
Stanley Cup	106,907	165,808	+58,901†
Wayne Gretzky	101,790	114,176	+12,386‡
New Jersey Devils	34,265	22,997	-11,268
Calgary Flames	42,223	22,820	-19,403
Martin Brodeur	29,938	16,187	-13,751
Joe Sakic	23,373	16,026	-7,347
Dominik Hašek	13,867	13,150	-717
Hockey Hall of Fame	10,964	12,286	+1,322
Fighting in ice hockey	13,318	12,197	-1,121
Trevor Linden*	18,513	6,886	-11,627
Jacques Plante	7,252	6,072	-1,180
Ray Emery	13,054	5,287	-7,767
Paul Stastny	5,075	3,387	-1,688
Calgary Hitmen*	3,129	2,817	-312
Nottingham Panthers	1,873	2,008	+135

† On main page as Today's Featured Article on May 25 (39k views)

‡ On main page as Today's Featured Image on May 24 (16.7k views)

* Promoted to FA status during the last month

Eric Brewer (ice hockey)

I've gone ahead and nominated Eric Brewer (ice hockey) for FA. I've been working on it for quite some time now and hopefully I can get your guys' support! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey). Thanks! – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SC Finals rosters

If you take a look at a finals rosters as we currently have them, there is entirely too much wasted space in the tables. First of all, the columns could use a reduction in width (the Place of Birth column is obscenely and needlessly wide). Secondly, I propose we add an additional column, Finals appearance, where we would list how many times a particular player's been to the Finals at that particular time. If it's his first, it could just say 1st, but for repeat appearances, we could also list the years, for instance: 3rd (2008, 2009, 2010).

To illustrate:

#	Player	Catches	Acquired	Place of Birth		Finals appearance
30	Chris Osgood	L	2005		Peace River, Alberta	3rd (1997, 1998, 2008)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmj713 (talk • contribs)

First; this discussion should probably take place elsewhere. Anyhow, The only problem I see with the current table is that the 'Place of Birth' column is too wide, as you said. This can probably be reduced, and I think the idea of adding the new 'Finals appearance' idea is good, if we don't mind adding more information to the table. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I proposed this idea here, since it pertains to all Finals articles. I was using the 2008 one as an example. Jmj713 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very common table formatting problem, and it drives me nuts. Editors like to use style="width:5%", for example, but that really makes it ugly when you look at the table on a widescreen (8:5) display, with far, far too much whitespace. I think editors think that percentages are better than hardcoded pixel widths, but the truly better solution is to use em spaces. For example, style="width:3em". This solution is vastly superior because the user can change their font size (browser setting) and the table will scale accordingly. For example, look at the following table with different font sizes to compare with the table above to see what I mean. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

#	Player	Catches	Acquired	Place of Birth		Finals appearance
30	Chris Osgood	L	2005		Peace River, Alberta	3rd (1997, 1998, 2008)

This does look a lot better, it's excellent! I hope we can implement this as soon as possible. I'll do this for the 2008 Finals as a demo, if nobody minds. Jmj713 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, they're be re-newed edit struggles over countries. Czechoslovakia & the USSR (for example). GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't. You should stop worrying about other people's petty edit wars and just do your own thing (no offense meant). As for the table, do we even credit the players who did not play, or list them on the roster at all, especially if they do not get their name on the Cup? Also, it might be a good idea to use the idea of putting the flag next to the birthplace in the roster tables in each team article. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The roster is not the same thing as the Cup listing. The Cup listing includes non-players. The roster should match the roster during the series. The Cup listing sometimes has players who did not play at all in the playoffs, etc. The Cup listing is an official list from the team and NHL. It may not include somebody who was on the Finals roster. User:Alaney2k 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that "it may not include somebody who was on the Finals roster" or that "it may include somebody who was not on the Finals roster"? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he means was not. Chelios for example was not on the finals roster but will be on the Cup due to the number of games he played in the regular season and earlier in the playoffs. -Djsasso (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hockey at Tropicana Field

Hi!
I'm doing some research for the German Wiki and have got a question regarding Tropicana Field. Has the ice rink at the stadium been discarded after the Lightening moved to Ice Palace? Or is there still the possibility to play hockey at Tropicana Field? As far as I know, the Tropicana-Lightning relationship has only been a temporary solution. Perhaps you are able to help me. thx, --Eintracht4ever (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Thunderdome" was always just a temporary solution while St. Pete Times Forum was being built. I would presume that they could reinsert an ice plant if the need ever arose, but it seems very unlikely. Reso lute 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Team rosters

Which style of team roster should be used? The Penguins use this one on the team page (including birth place, year aquired), but the Template for the regular season. Now, it doesn't make much sense to have both or have a template that is only on the current season's page; so I think they should be combined. But which style should be used, "Current roster" or "Template"? Thanks! Black ngold29 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The standard is the first one, the reason for the template, is that there is an article that lists all the current rosters on it. And to make it easy to maintain we use templates so that the rosters don't have to be changed in alot of places. However, as mentioned on the main team page we use the one you link to fist because it looks much better. -Djsasso (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've never seen a use for the roster template myself, since the team article uses a far, far superior table already, and the season articles should list the full roster as part of the player stats sections. But, there are those that like the List of NHL team rosters article, and they maintain the templates. Reso lute 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am good either way, the table on the team page is definately far superior. I was just explaining why we have both, I have no problem combining. Could a template of the table we use on the team pages be created? I doubt it, but I don't make alot of templates so I am not sure. -Djsasso (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking we could just replace the current template with the table on the team page. This could easily be done (copy and paste) for all teams and then they would all match. Thoughts? Black ngold29 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just tested it and it appears that would work so I am cool with that. I didn't think table code worked properly in templates for some reason, guess I was wrong. But yeah lets see what others think. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'm sold on the idea. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for combining the two. it stinks having to update the article and the template everytime there's minor movement. So if we migrate all of the table codes to the templates, I assume the templates will then be used on team articles? IrisKawling (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the template would be included in the team page as well. That way the roster would only have to be updated once. Black ngold29 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Made the change and all looks fine on the team page. Some of the current seasons pages may need to be revamped, but the main team page looks good for the Pittsburgh Penguins and Calgary Flames. If anyone wants to help convert the others that would rock. Just have to make sure that any season pages for 2007-08 are changed from the current roster template to an individual table for that page showing the final roster. -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things. Aren't there too many alternate captains on the Penguins' roster? The template you are removing was good for separating who is on the IR from the active players. Could we consider that for the template you guys like? A list on the bottom? It's not a big deal, but it made it quick to see who was on IR. Alaney2k (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We place IR tags next to the players who are on the IR on the table when it was just on the team page. Not sure why it wouldn't be done the same on a templatized version. Or did you want them listed completely seperately? If you mean that no one on the penguins roster is listed on the IR right now its because the season is over IR players are not listed on the IR at the moment per previous concensus the last few off seasons. -Djsasso (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Though now that I look at it one player on the Penguins still is listed on the IR. I have not removed it so you can see what it looks like to have players listed on the IR. -Djsasso (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

During the season, players who are on IR are noted on the detailed roster. GoodDay removed the IR tags from most team rosters once their season ended, as with no season, there is no IR. The new templates will be updated when a player is placed on IR once the new season begins. Reso lute 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that since we agree that the one style is better than the other, some have been moved. I will finish up the remaining ones tonight. Black ngold29 21:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody unlock the Penguins 'current roster' section, so I can fix it up? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not locked. You just have to go edit the template. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Make sure when you do any of the other teams you leave permanent versions on the 2007-08 season pages. Because the template is now being used on 2008-09 season pages and obviously if you left the template on the 2007-08 season pages it would be the wrong players. -Djsasso (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure whatcha mean. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This reply was for Blackngold. The one for you was above. If you want to edit the penguins roster its at Template:Pittsburgh Penguins roster. -Djsasso (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Djasso, I probably would've forgot that. Will do. Black ngold29 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(res to Djsasso) Ok, I've got it. PS- Are all the Team articles gonna get their 'current roster' section changed to Templates? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup thats what this discussion was about. There was no point having both versions. And then having to edit both the old template and the team page. This way you will only have to make one edit to the template and it will be reflected in all 3 places. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, very efficent & down right smart. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It might make sense to add the syntax for the little (v d e) box to appear so that the newer users and IPs who frequently update these rosters have easy access. Some might become confused as how to edit the template is not immediately accessable to a newer user. Reso lute 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I, however, am not sure how to do that. -Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to my plate of things that need to be done then, heh. Reso lute 22:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea Resolute, I'll keep working on the merges and you can follow behind me when you have time. Black ngold29 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I managed to do it on Los Angeles Kings. Does that look ok? There is probably a better way to do it. Basically just ripped the code out of the old template. -Djsasso (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Black ngold29 22:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The East is done. Moving to the West now. I would like to give a shout out to the guy who invented the Copy/Paste feature...Genius. Black ngold29 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use something less ugly, large and bulky such as what the NBA uses on their pages? We can even include all the current information on it, so it looks something like this [1]. Thricecube (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It may just be personal preference, but I much prefer the way we do it to the way the NBA does it. I think the tables we use look far more professional and encyclopedic than the NBA ones. I have never liked those flashy boxed rosters they use. That being said if it was possible to make the example you showed stretch to the size of the screen (and I am sure it is) then I wouldn't have as big a problem with it. I mostly just dislike how the tables are only half the size of the screen on their articles. -Djsasso (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree that ours are more "encyclopedic", we have pretty much all the same information as the NBA's anyway. Irregardless, if we ever want to change anything in the future, it'll be easier now that they're all on their own templates. Black ngold29 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Templates should be Team_roster, with a lowercase "r" because that is the standard for page titles. I'll change the ones that I can, but some might have redirects over which it cannot be changed. Personally, I do not like the "v d e" box on templates that are in the middle of a page for the way it looks, especially since we do not have a solid border or top line background on which to place them. -- bmitchelf•T•F 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, only Template:Carolina Hurricanes Roster has to be moved to Template:Carolina Hurricanes roster by an admin. Thanks! -- bmitchelf•T•F 00:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and future suggestion

The whole league is complete. Just wanted to thank everyone involved as there are many WP's that I'm in that have hardly any activity, and I come here and suggest an idea: Less than two days later, the idea is agreed upon, expanded on, further discussed, and put into effect league-wide. Awesome work by everyone. Now for the future:

Djasso brought up finalizing last year's rosters before moving on. As I went through there were about ten different teams that hadn't been done (I took care of them all). In future seasons we'll have to remember to do that at the end of the season, because if we would not have been putting the new roster templates in, a few would probably have been forgotten about with the current templates in place.

You can check out the whole league on List of current NHL team rosters. Thanks again! Black ngold29 23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bracket Redesign

Annually, there is substantial debate about how to handle the NHL Playoff bracket at each year's Stanley Cup Playoffs page. For example, editors sometimes try to re-arrange the order that the Conference Quarterfinals are listed in so that they match the eventual matchups that appeared in the Conference Semifinals (in tension with the consensus that has been reached to list the QFs 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5, irrespective of the eventual SF matchups). In order to try and address this, as well as better-communicate in a general, visual fashion to the uninformed reader the nature of the NHL's re-seeding system, I have proposed a redesign of the NHL Playoffs template. A discussion that brings up the merits of the proposed redesign already exists at Template_talk:NHLBracket, and I will avoid going into an extended discussion of its merits here since they are probably more appropriately discussed there. Amongst the people who were participating in the discussion at the 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs page, there seems to be consensus that this redesign is a good one. However, before moving forward, we wanted to make sure that the Hockey project was alerted to this proposal and had an opportunity to comment. Now that the playoffs are over, I would like to nail down this reform so that we can begin the work of "fixing" past seasons' brackets and so that we have a cleaner and less confusing design in the future. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

International teams infobox?

Hi i posted this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Templates but didnt no if that part is very active so ill post here too.

Is there a template made for the international teams? If not could someone make one, because at the moment the international teams templates seem to differ from country to country. I like the Finland national men's ice hockey teams infobox. Id write one myself but have absolutly no idea how they are written. If any can help that would be good. Salavat (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Minnesota Wild head coaches

Seems an NBA editor is hell bent on merging this article into the main team article. He has reverted me 3 times when I have tried to get him to discuss the matter on the talk page first. If anyone wants to revert it back to the original so an actual discussion can take place that would be great. I will hit 3RR if I do it. He has even stooped to calling my edits vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also edits on Minnesota Wild and that would need to be reverted if you do. -Djsasso (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. Gee wheez; first an NBA executive takes over as NHL commissioner? and now this? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

NHL series split?

Does anyone else think that the NHL series article should be split? FogDevil 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. At least in a few generations. But especially recent games (07, 08, 09) should definitely have their own articles. IrisKawling (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the main article should simply discuss the series as a whole, and the major changes it went through over the years. Sections for every iteration produced is massive overkill. The popular culture section is trivia, and I can't find any information on sales, reception, praise or criticism. All things I would expect to see. Reso lute 00:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, per Resolute. I also think it should be re-named something along the lines of "EA NHL series", as ESPN (aka 2K sports) has NHL games as well. You might also ask suggestions of Video game WP. I can't be of too much help on the subject, the game I played the most in that series was "NHL Hockey" (Though I might have a copy of '03 somewhere). Black ngold29 05:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)

The first history article is written, and I have it up for Peer Review here. I would be most appreciative if a few people here would look it over and offer suggestions. Especially on any important topics I may have missed. Thanks! Reso lute 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look through it tomorrow or Tuesday.-Wafulz (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic article. One thing at the end of the "Folley" section concerning the hit between Bailey and Shore. In one sentence you say that "While neurosurgeons were able to save Bailey's life" and then in the next you say, "the hit, though it was known that had Bailey died...". The second would appear incorrect, as they did shake hands afterwords. I was also kind of thrown off by the "...league allowed the use of the forward pass in all zones beginning in 1929." Maybe you could expand on that a little bit, I guess the game was more different then than I thought. I guess the most important part is that I learned quite a bit. Good job. Black ngold29 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You should make your comments on the peer review page.-Wafulz (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The intention of the statement was that while Shore only served 16 games (imagine if that had happened now, especially in light of Bertuzzi), he would have been charged by Boston police if doctors were not able to save Bailey's life. I'll look to reword it a little for clarity. Reso lute 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll put my comments over on the peer review page too, but it looks like they've already been fixed. Black ngold29 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The league DID allow forward passing in all three zones going into 1929, which is how come offense in the league catapulted. Teams would just permanently park a player in front of the enemy net and wait for a puck carrier to cross the blue line, which is how Cooney Weiland and Nels Stewart's scoring totals exploded. The league was sufficiently alarmed to change the rules midseason in late December to cut things back to the offsides rule in place today. RGTraynor 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA, that was one of the quickest reviews I've ever seen. Black ngold29 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was impressed with the speed of the GAR as well. Now to let the PR wrap up, and aim for a star. Reso lute 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fresh perspective needed :)

We've been working to get Columbus Blue Jackets up to GA status (and beyond!), but our reviewer recommends that a fresh pair of eyes take a look at the general language of the article, to make some tweaks for clarity. It would be great if some folks could take two minutes to see where they can help or offer advice. You can see the reviewer's comments for reference. Thanks in advance!! Macduffman (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just went over the whole article and made many stylistic changes for clarity and WP:MOS standards. It was interesting to read about a franchise that I knew little about, besides being the impetus for the netting behind the goals. I will probably go back and convert citations into templates and look over the article again. I hope it helps another hockey article reach GA or featured status! -- bmitchelf•T•F 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's better now, thanks! Macduffman (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I left my comments on the talk page. The article is a solid base to go from, but still has some issues that need worked out. Black ngold29 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

So I just went through every article under Category:Ice hockey players and all its subcats over the last week or so and tagged all the articles that were missing the WP:Hockey tag. So basically we now have about 1500 unassessed hockey articles that had previously slipped through the cracks. Anyone that wants to help just take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Assessment for guidelines on the levels of assessment and look in Category:Unassessed Ice Hockey articles for articles to assess. -Djsasso (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good god... 13,000 hockey related articles? Reso lute 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, if we get an article up to GA every two weeks, it'll take 500 years to complete them all. Black ngold29 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well ... consider just this much: we probably have articles now for every player who's ever played in the NHL. How many articles is that right there, five thousand? Ten thousand? Then you have articles on just about every pro team in most pro leagues, a whole whopping number of amateur teams, collegiate teams, and then you have the European pro players ... Honestly, I'm not surprised. RGTraynor 03:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There were about 8,000 articles just on players after I removed duplicates from the list. Mind you this is only players who were categorized as there are probably a number out there that have never been categorized. I am about to start going through the ice hockey teams category and sub cats so I will probably find a huge number of articles there. Assessing them isn't all that hard if anyone wants to do it. You just have to decide if they are stub, start, or b articles. The vast majority are probably stub. -Djsasso (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait until we get started on creating articles on every European pro.-Wafulz (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I went through and started with the 'A's. There are lots of guys named 'Alex' or some variant. I'll keep picking away at the list. Mostly stubs, but a few surprises in there with some solid articles. Leafschik1967 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I try to create one every now and then but it's not fun creating stubs. --Krm500 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha I don't think anyone was asking us to create stubs. :) I think he just meant the number of articles will blow up sky high when people start creating euro players. Which is probably already starting to happen, I noticed someone working steadily on Finnish player articles the other day. -Djsasso (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be good to advice all user to add new players to the New articles section here at the project. --Krm500 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I just watch Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ice Hockey articles by quality log for new articles, of course this assumes that the person tagged the talk page with the project tag. Ussually the list of new articles isn't quite as long, but because of all the tagging I have done it is pretty long at the moment. -Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Many users don't tag the talk pages. --Krm500 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. Which is why I am doing this and will probably do it every six months to catch the pages that have slipped through the cracks. -Djsasso (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

At the "centre" of my attention

So it seems that User:RGTraynor has a problem with anyone addressing mistakes he made using AWB. On June 18, he made a series of edits using AWB to hockey-related articles, changing the word "center" to "centre". This is not a problem. However, he accidentally changed code that contained "center" (for centering text, e.g. in table cells), and the word "centre" is not recognized as equivalent code to "center", so this caused a whole bunch of players' statistics tables to be left-aligned (the default alignment). I tried to address this mistake so he could correct it, but all he did in response was remove my comment on his talk page; User:IrisKawling also mentioned it to him, but RGTraynor removed that comment as well; finally, I mentioned it again, but again he took it down.

Basically, I just want these mistakes fixed. Every page changed by this automated edit was not affected aversely, but many were. I changed a few back at random (e.g. Glen Metropolit, Joe Nieuwendyk), but I am not up to the task of checking the few hundred pages he edited, and correcting the ones where the mistake was made.

Comments please. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, these edits also affected references/external links of some articles, so keep that in mind for anyone who might be doing some reverts. I agree with you completely, obviously mistakes happen, that's not a huge problem as long as RG can go about fixing these mistakes. Clearly a large number will be fixed by various editors, I personally had a few articles affected from my watchlist, but there will be some otherwise left unreverted. – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there not an easier way to just revert all of them back and then change the correct ones? Also, I do believe there is some policy about taking down messeges off your talk page, but hopefully he gets the point and won't do it again. If he does do it again however, I would think an admin should be told, because it's obviously effecting a large number of articles. Black ngold29 05:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious that they all need to be fixed; and he should be courteous enough to fix them himself. However, if he chooses not to, I guess we'll have to revert his edits. Actually, there is no reason to change anything from centre to center, or the other way around. People, depending on where they live, will change them back and forth all day long. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

After I left him another note (which he just removed), he fixed the spelling. Looks like problem solved. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

junior players

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but please don't make me go through the archives to find it. ;) What's the consensus on articles for junior players? Just going through this year's draft, and see someone has created an article for Maxime Sauvé. Just seems like a random article for a random player. Bigdottawa (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability standards for ice hockey players. --Krm500 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed, every player selected in the 2008 NHL Draft's 1st round has gotten an article of himself. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well according to Notability standards for ice hockey players, all first round draft picks are notable enough for an article of their own. As for Sauve, he's not notable per any standards. – Nurmsook! (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sport templates

{{future sport}}

Just so you all know, there is now an image we can use instead of the soccer ball. It is Image:Hockey current event.png. I think we should specify the sport in these templates on season pages. See 2008–09 Detroit Red Wings season for an example. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A long time ago, we had discussed and agreed on using Image:Icehockeylayout.svg instead of hockey pucks, as it was more recognizable. I'd suggest the same for this template. Flibirigit (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do what you'd like. I prefer the hockey puck, and have been doing it on the articles that I work on. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

List idea

I've been putting together a list of Canada's national junior team alumni for some other projects I have ongoing, and I was thinking it would make a good supplement to the Canada national junior hockey team article. i wasn't sure if there was any protocol or anything for starting lists, or if I should just go ahead, so I figured I'd post here to see what people think. Any reason I shouldn't do it (been done before and deleted, etc...)? Thanks for any input. leafschik1967 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any notable alumni? :) Sounds good to me.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the alumni have NHL careers and already have articles on Wikipedia, I just thought for a very popular tournament, that a list might be useful. Thanks for the response. leafschik1967 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, I know they have, I was just teasing. Wikipedia just isn't a good forum for humor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just horrible at picking up on it. :) Sorry about that. leafschik1967 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I started out the A's in my sandbox. Anyone care to take a look and comment? leafschik1967 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Article upkeep for the upcoming season

Hey guys, I was thinking maybe we could do something like the Baseball WP does with season articles. It's pretty self-explanitory. Basically, all the teams are put in a list, and whichever team you plan on updating, you add your name beside. This could help articles where muliple users collaborate to get a feel for the other people they're working with, but also show which team's aren't reciving regular updates so random people could fill in for them. Thoughts? Comments? Questions? Additional genius ideas to blow the collective project's mind? Black ngold29 06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I know there are certain team articles I edit a fair bit, and others I don't much touch. If there are 100 editors going over the Bruins or the Habs, and five editors looking over the Thrashers, that's a huge imbalance. RGTraynor 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For some articles it is very easy to tell just be looking at the history. I don't know that an actual list would be beneficial, and we don't want to put out the impression of ownership (I know that isn't your intention, but ... ). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As a Pirates fan I know what you mean, lol. We could include a messege on the page that it in no way implies ownership like the {{maintained}} template. I was thinking that it would help us identify the articles that do not have regular contributers, so we could collectively keep them in decent shape. Black ngold29 04:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea, not so much for people claiming 'ownership' of heavily edited articles, but maybe more so for somewhat neglected teams that editors might not otherwise pay attention to. Just to draw attention to what might need to be updated, etc. leafschik1967 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Try putting a sign-up list at WP:HOCKEY then? Alaney2k (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a model, anyone is welcome to add to it. Check it out. Black ngold29 06:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think its all that necessary, I am a firm believer in the less structure for these sorts of things the better. -Djsasso (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Zack Smith

Proposed deletion of Zack Smith hockey player. SriMesh | talk 03:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Head coach terms

I was planning on getting the List of Pittsburgh Penguins head coaches up to FL status. I did the same thing to the Steelers football team, which only goes by seasons for each term, where hockey tends to go by dates. The FL standards seem to grow more difficult to pass over time, and they like to have as many sources as they can, which brings me to my question: Is there a source where I can verify these dates? I actually found two coaches to be in the wrong order on the list, perhaps it was just a typo by whoever put it together, but it would help to have some way to verify them. If not, is there opposition to simply using the seasons (which can easily be found on Hockey database? Thanks! Black ngold29 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be fine, except what will you do for coaches who are replaced mid-season? There should be a date for when they were replaced. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the bigger concern how many games they actually coached? I could make some note that they were replaced mid-season. Black ngold29 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

List of first overall NHL draft choices and possible related articles

In the FLC, an editor brought up the fact the see also sections has a link to List of NHL second overall draft choices. Would it make sense to create that article? Would it make sense to add more such articles (3rd, 4th, 5th overall et cetera)? Thanks! Maxim_(talk) 23:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope; 'cause where would it end? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that article was deleted wasn't it? Either way, no I don't think we should create that list for the reason goodday mentions. -Djsasso (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the article was deleted. Yesterday. Maxim_(talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It would end at the twelfth round, which is the most draft rounds that have occurred. Anyway, the first round drafts are statistically more likely to be notable than any deeper round. This should give them reason to have an article, but not others. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Discerning between Reg. Season & Playoff stats

I have made an edit to both Sidney Crosby and Peter Forsberg that makes it easier (for editors) to determine which numbers are for the regular season, and which are for the playoffs. Most articles have the stats stretched out vertically, which makes it difficult to tell—without counting directly—which stats are which. In particular, it is difficult to know, at a glance, which is the last stat of the regular season, or the first stat of the playoffs. The way I have done it, there are now two horizontal lines: one for the regular season, and one for the playoffs. I think we should make this standard practice, as it helps editors out a lot (that's us!). There wouldn't need to be any immediate action on this, maybe just change the career stats at the sample article format page, and then people can change individual articles as they see fit. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see any difference between the old and the new format in the article. Or are you just referring to the formatting for making it easier when editing? --Krm500 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, it is for editors. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So people don't have to check those links, I will show the basic changes, using the same two years of Peter Forsberg's stats as an example. The old standard:

|-
| [[1995–96 NHL season|1995–96]]
| [[Colorado Avalanche]]
| NHL
| 82
| 30
| 86
| 116
| +26
| 47
| 22
| 10
| 11
| 21
| +10
| 18
|- bgcolor="#f0f0f0"
| [[1996–97 NHL season|1996–97]]
| Colorado Avalanche
| NHL
| 65
| 28
| 58
| 86
| +31
| 73
| 14
| 5
| 12
| 17
| –6
| 10
|-

compared to the standard I propose:

|-
| [[1995–96 NHL season|1995–96]]
| [[Colorado Avalanche]]
| NHL
| 82 || 30 || 86 || 116 || +26 || 47
| 22 || 10 || 11 ||  21 || +10 || 18
|- bgcolor="#f0f0f0"
| [[1996–97 NHL season|1996–97]]
| Colorado Avalanche
| NHL
| 65 || 28 || 58 || 86 || +31 || 73
| 14 ||  5 || 12 || 17 ||  –6 || 10
|-

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this is pretty much something that each editor does differently, I tend to do like your second example but put it all on one line, because thats what my conversion script converts it to from hockeydb.com. I tend not to use the first example unless a previous editor used it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong your idea, I will start using it since it saves lots of space in the edit box. But when I first read it I though you were thinking about removing the playoff column and add playoff stats directly under regular season stats, that how it's done in Sweden but I have never seen it elsewhere. --Krm500 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fort Wayne Komets players

I'll admit, I haven't been as diligent lately in watching the players-by-team categorization. I just noticed this tonight -- if I missed a discussion about this, I apologize. Category:Fort Wayne Komets (1952-89) players and Category:Fort Wayne Komets (1990–99) players, which were both for players in the old IHL, have been upmerged into Category:Fort Wayne Komets players, which was strictly for players in the United Hockey League/new IHL. These are all different franchises (at least to my understanding), which is why the players were separated into three different categories. Should this be undone, or should all the players from all the incarnations of the Fort Wayne Komets be lumped together? Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep it. The Komets have an uninterrupted team and civic identity, as do a number of other minor league teams, that transcend the various franchise shifts. Heck, if we're going to be technical, the current team claiming to be the "Boston Celtics" are in reality the Buffalo Braves. RGTraynor 07:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. If a team remains intact while the leagues experience upheaval, the team should be considered as one. (And it is the LA Clippers who were the Buffalo Braves.) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Especially since as it happens, there was continuity of ownership between pre-2007 and post-2007 Komets. IMHO, there's no reason to break up minor-league articles into teensy chunks when franchises trades, renaming and the like all get dizzying. RGTraynor 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Something to watch as players change teams

Editors have been adding players categories of "XXXX players" as soon as they are acquired by the new team (for example, Erik Cole was immediately added to Category:Edmonton Oilers players after today's trade). These categories are only for players who have actually appeared in a regular-season or playoff game with the team. Cole (to continue that example) could be traded again, could suffer an injury which results in him never actually playing for the Oilers, etc. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point; afterall we don't have Mark Messier in the Sharks category (remember he was Sharks property for 1-day). GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Champion Template

I don't know if this has been discussed, or created before, but I've noticed that with the NBA and the NFL, there is a champion template that is created in honor of each championship team. I thought it would be great to do it for the Stanley Cup champions as well. I've done it in this format, but please feel free to open up suggestions or criticisms.

Thanks! PlatypusToby (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It has, we have deleted them via afd numerious times. And I believe there is about to be a centralized discussion on removing them from all the other sports. The reason being is that navboxes are only supposed to have links that otherwise would already be featured on the page and are defining of that article. The fact a player played with some other random player one year is not defining of either player. It is defining of the team but not of the individual players. -Djsasso (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo Djsasso as well. Personally, I find no use for adding the random teammates of a player in a random year as part of an article. My personal preference is to link to the team article for that year as part of the player's page. The team article would contain the complete roster. Reso lute 17:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While I respect your arguments, I have to disagree. The concept of these players being associated with another "random" player is incorrect. These are individuals, who by working together were able to achieve the pinnacle of their sport, something they would have been unable to do on their own. And the team itself being the medium through which their achievement was possible. Creating a template where a researcher can easily navigate to related articles concerning players and executives of a championship team, in my opinion, is certainly notable. 170.20.11.116 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You actually proved my point, the fact they worked together is defining of the team. Not of the players themselves. For example, some guy you worked with for one month 10 years ago is hardly defining of who you are as a person, just as the fact a player played with someone for a few games doesn't define who they are. It only defines who the team as a whole was. Also by having templates full of links at the bottom of pages leads to researchers having a harder time finding the links that are actually relevant amoungst the barely connected links. For example Henri Richard would have 11 different templates with numerous players on them. Nevermind the other relevant templates that might be on his page. This leads to hundreds of links that are better served by going to the season pages or the stanley cup playoffs pages for that particular year. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but if you want to look up which players were on the same team you can simply go to the teams season article. --Krm500 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Krm has a good point. Each season page has (or should have) a final roster. This roster should also be inlcuded on the "championship article" whether it be the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals or Super Bowl X. For NFL players, each players infobox contains a "Career Highlights and Awards" section under which Super Bowl victories are included. I would have no problem adding this to the NHL players infobox, although it would take a while to fill them all in. Even if it isn't added, the prose of the article should no doubt state that the player won the Stanley Cup in X year. Black ngold29 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup that is pretty much what we do. -Djsasso (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, like Djasso stated earlier, that there should be a discussion about this which applies to all major league sports. Would Sports WP be the place for this? Black ngold29 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually being put together at the moment. Just be patient. It happened because the NBA templates that I nominated and had deleted via TFD were then overturned at DRV because they felt there wasn't enough concensus and that a more overall discussion should take place since some sports delete them...hockey and soccer for example and others keep them like basketball. Just trying to write up a good arguement at the moment. -Djsasso (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Great sounds good. Black ngold29 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is different in the case of the NHL. The names of the players and personnel are actually engraved on the trophy they won. I do think however, that a navbox is the wrong place for this listing. Jc121383 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The list of engraved personnel is on the various finals pages once they are announced. Like the 2007 Stanley Cup Finals for example. -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Six

Now that I have History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) up at FAC, I'll be starting on the second article, History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) soon, though it will proceed more slowly as I have two other projects on the go at the same time. However, as this new article will chronicle the Original Six era, a simple question: Should Original Six be moved and redirected to the history article, or can it still stand as its own article without being duplicative? Personally, I'm leaning towards the former. Opinions? Reso lute 15:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the move and redirect would be the best option (as long as we refer to it as the Original Six era at some point in the lead).-Wafulz (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am good with that idea, however, maybe the Original Six article should be changed from a history article to more of an article about the term, like what it means and where it came from. -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That might make it more of a dicdef, though I can see where it would stand as well. I might move it for now, and depending on how large the history article becomes, determine then whether I can incorporate the history of the term into the article, or if it should then stand alone. And I agree, Wafulz. I'm likely going to open the article with "The Original Six era of the National Hockey League..." Reso lute 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the latter. "Original Six" is a notable term in its own right, with its own etymology and enduring usage. A good bit of the history in the section can be moved into the new history article, of course. RGTraynor 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What if you write the 1942-1967 article and see exactly how much info concerns the Ori 6? I'm sure it will be a large part of the article, but the first part (1917-42) was as much about the league as teams themselves, which is how it should be. The Ori 6 article should concentrate more on the teams than the league. It would be cool if someone could overhaul the Ori 6 article while the 42-67 one is being done, and then if they're too close it could be redirected, although if this is the case whoever did the Ori 6 article would have just wasted a lot of time. Black ngold29 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1044 of the articles assigned to this project, or 7.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 NHL Entry Draft player articles

Is anyone else horrified at the number of new articles being created for players not drafted in the first round of the 2008 NHL Entry Draft? This happens each year, but for some reason it really has me steaming this year. As per the notability standards set by this project, it is only those players that have either played professionally or were drafted in the first round that should have an article. Clearly, there are a few post-first round players that have played professionally (mainly European players), but the sheer amount of junior players getting an article is really starting to get on my nerves. The majority of these articles are poorly written and really just clog up this project and Wikipedia in general. Any chance an administrator here would be willing to speedy delete all of these articles. I'd love to tag them for you to do this, I just really don't want to have to list an AfD for each one of these articles. Grrr! – Nurmsook! (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say wait a couple days to let the initial rush pass, then prod those that should be deleted. We can AfD those that get contested. Reso lute 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, If you'll volunteer to go through them all, you could probably start a list of of them whenever. But it'll probably be a few days before they're all created. Once we have a list, marking them for AfD would probably go pretty quickly, since they're all for the same reason. Black ngold29 01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that waiting a day or two would let the rush past, and make the process go more smoothly. There's probably a few notable Jr guys outside of the first round (Tokarski (Memorial Cup MVP), Deschamps (he must have won the QMJHL Top Draft prospect award)), but those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, as I believe one of the criteria is a major league award. Everyone else is just people clicking on a red link. For the future, might it help to leave the names unlinked for a couple days? Leafschik1967 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you don't prod players who have played at top-level international competitions (in other words, IIHF World Juniors or IIHF U18). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had World Junior guys nuked in the past, has that been changed? Leafschik1967 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE says "competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's generally assumed that refers to sports where there is the absence of professional leagues. Reso lute 03:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that the assumption? The first line seems to cover what you are saying. The following line means what it says: the highest level of amateur sports. If a hockey player played for Canada's hockey team at the 1924 Winter Olympics, but never played in the NHL (or any other professional league), then does that player merit an article? I would say yes; would you? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medalists are generally considered to be notable. I believe the general consensus from the project is that a player would have had to compete in the World Championships to be considered notable, not the World Juniors.

As a side note, I've been adding the ice hockey template to all those new drafted player talk pages, even though I think the majority of them aren't notable yet. This is so we can keep track of them if someone else AfD's or Prod's them. As Leafschik said, there are a few who have either played professionally in Europe or have won notable awards. Those that fall into either category are notable per our guidelines. Patken4 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as long as we're clear that that is the project's consensus, and not the Wikipedia consensus. The WP:ATHLETE guidelines (professional in any degree, or top-level amateur) trump this project's guidelines (top-level professional, or medal-winning amateur). Most of the Canadians and Swedes at the 2008 World Juniors already have articles anyway. I hope these don't get deleted. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, they will only get deleted if someone happens across them who doesn't find then notable. Most people deliberately searching for those players, or the World Juniors, would probably find notability. Security through obscurity, so to speak. ;o) Reso lute 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Which would include me, for one; the World Juniors isn't prima facie notable. Truth be told, if we were completely ignoring our own project's guidelines in exclusive favor of WP:ATHLETE, we'd go after every article of a post-1990 non-pro, whether or not he was an All-American, a Memorial Cup MVP, a first round pick, whatever. RGTraynor 08:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, WP:BIO isn't intended to be policy, but rather a reflection of consensus as it stands. If a couple major junior award winners were to be taken to AfD and kept, then WP:ATHLETE could legitimately be updated to reflect that. Reso lute 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, WP:ATHLETE's proven very resistant to change, and the direction of the majority is to tighten, not loosen, the criteria. RGTraynor 00:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

←Just musing here. But I wonder if family members/agents/entourage members feel that adding a Wikipedia article makes them big time? I'm an old, cantankerous editor with too many Wiki-battles, I guess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that was often the case. That or uber fans of a particular team wanting to beat everyone to creating the article. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think lots of them are created in good faith. For most hockey fans - getting drafted is a big deal, and kind of the first 'notable' thing a player does for a pro career. That doesn't mean I think they should stay, just that I understand why people create them. Heck, I created a few that got nuked. leafschik1967 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A mix of the lot, no doubt, but I'm sure most of them are created in good faith, and heck, a bunch of people claim that being drafted at all makes a player notable by that fact alone. It's no surprise if a SPA thinks the same. RGTraynor 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Definately, good faith was never in doubt. -Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one that should be deleted, I'm kinda busy, If someone would put it up for deletion that'd be great! Thank you. Black ngold29 04:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

UFAs (again)

Just a heads up; UFAs have been getting deleted from some of the NHL team template rosters (like Mats Sundin & Jason Smith). GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

~~:Need input at Template: Philadelphia Flyers roster, concerning Jason Smith. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)~~

Jason Smith situation resolved. Flyers have chosen to not 're-sign' him. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW I upgraded all the categories and the templates to reflect this change a few days ago. -Djsasso (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NHLactive

This new user StarsHockey03 (talk · contribs · logs) has created a new player infobox template, and while it doesn't look too bad, it surely hasn't passed any consensus here to start being used, has it? IrisKawling (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the name "active", I assume the template is intended to be used (by itself or together with the Ice Hockey Player Infobox) until a player leaves the NHL, which could mean any transfer to affiliated teams? I guess this is an attempt to mimic the infoboxes that exist for NHL, Pro, SEL and generic teams respectively? A problem might be that a team usually doesn't transfer to a new league, country or continent over the time of its life, while a player does. Could perhaps the work of the two player templates be merged without damage to either functionality of each infobox? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's way too busy for my liking. RGTraynor 11:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's way to crowded. The reason for an infobox is to get across the most important information. I am being WP:BOLD and redirecting it to the main infobox and letting the author know to come here and talk about a new box if he wants to change something. It appears to be a copy of the NFL infoboxes upon looking closer at it and the numerous other templates they created for the colours. -Djsasso (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks to be a clone of {{Infobox MLB player}}. While it isn't horrible, I really don't see it as an upgrade on the current infobox. Agreed with redirecting. Reso lute 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

UFAs

Seeing as July 1, 2008 is soon upon us; I need a reminder. When a player becomes a UFA, do we remove him from his (expired contract) NHL team roster? GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We tend to mostly leave rosters alone during the summer. Until the season starts and we get official rosters again. Because technically there is no roster during the summer because its the off season. Baring that we go by the roster on the team's webpage. -Djsasso (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We would move a player who's signed with a new club, though (just like we would a traded player). GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, obvious changes we make. But we have in the past left UFAs on the roster until such a time as its obvious they aren't going to be there. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I will be removing Kristian Huselius now. ;o) Reso lute 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Could this be the dawning of the age of Huselius? GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping he would be back, to play on a line permanently on a line with Langkow now that we have a centre for the 1st line, they can go back to being 2nd liners. -Djsasso (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can pre-emptively list Sundin and Marian Hossa under about five rosters apiece.-Wafulz (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So, can I have special permission to delete Dan Cloutier from the Kings' roster. Yeah, I know, he's not officially gone, but I would derive so much pleasure from doing so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can make exceptions for players who were bought out. Has a player ever been bought out and brought back the next season?-Wafulz (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It happens all the time, especially when a team makes it clear that they're unwilling to pay High Salaried Washed Up Vet's tab, but wouldn't mind doing so at a third the price. That being said, nothing prevents us from readding a player to the roster if he's re-signed. RGTraynor 04:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Buy outs count; see Ottawa Senators, I gave Emery the boot. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cloutier hasn't been bought out yet. His buy out was rejected pending doctor's review because you can't be bought out while you are injured. -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry OrangeMarlin; Cloutier is still an LA King. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, two doctors have found Cloutier to be fit to play. Cloutier is seeking a third opinion, hoping the doctor will find him unfit to play so he can earn the full amount of his contract. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think that this should be included in the trades section for Pittsburgh (and TB)'s seasons? They traded the rights to negotiate, not the players like a usual trade. I guess what I really mean is: Are off-season trades noteworthy? Black ngold29 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Roberts & Malone are still Penguins; no it's not a trade. But yes, off-season trades are noteworthy - 1994 Clark/Sundin, 1990 Chelios/Savard etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Roberts has stated multiple times he was going to leave Pit anyway, and it was pretty much assumed Malone would follow; so I don't really think they are Penguins. I guess in two days it'll be official. Black ngold29 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Howabout, lame-duck Penguins. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Let the Free-agency period begin. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But unsigned UFAs stay on their old team's roster, right? Mats Sundin keeps getting removed from Template:Toronto Maple Leafs roster‎ because he's an UFA. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep all UFAs should remain on their 'pevious season' team's roster. Every summer, passers-by tend to remove them. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears Users User:Shelshock15 & User:Nothe8890 have been very buzy 'today', messing up alot of those Template rosters. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really not that big a deal if they stay or get removed. That's why I pretty much don't touch the rosters until the season starts. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense; plus it's difficult to keep correcting 30 templates. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Avalanche question

Ok just a question on what should happen here. The Adelaide Avalanche team has withdrawn due to financial problems. The player's were then picked up by a new team called Adelaide A's. The Adelaide A's were formed by Ice Arena (Adelaide) aquiring a license from the AIHL. Then the Adelaide A's are now playing the remainder of the Avalanches games for the seasons and they also have the Avalanches Championships titles listed under their team name on the AIHL site. A media release of the A's is here

So my question is should the A's have a seperate team page or would they just be classed as a name change in the franchise? Salavat (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would probably consider it a name change and just move the page. But that's just me. -Djsasso (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If the league recognizes this team as the holder of the franchise's championships, AND it is playing out the previous franchise's schedule, that sounds pretty cut and dried to me. RGTraynor 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Salavat (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Chops

Besides being the dumbest team name ever, can some one chime in at Talk:Iowa Chops, regarding splitting the article and separating Iowa Stars. I discussed this with the same editor months ago and it didn't go anywhere. I decided to let it go until the name was announced (today). ccwaters (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends if they claim its the same franchise. That is what the important info is...not the affiliation or owners. If its the same franchise with a new name then it should remain merged like all the similar NHL articles etc. Unless there is a move or a franchise change then it should be the same page. -Djsasso (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just the same team that had an affiliation change, and changed its names and colors to suit, yes? Dallas didn't own the club outright, did they? RGTraynor 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I am trying to figure out, I thought I heard that they moved the franchise to Texas and that this was a new franchise, but I haven't had the chance to go and research it yet today. -Djsasso (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

According to their website and the Des Moines Register reference it is the exact same owner/ownership group. Jc121383 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Same franchise, new name, new affiliation. Dallas plans on fielding a team in Austin called the Texas Stars a few seasons down the road. Not sure where its coming from, Edmonton's AHL franchise? ccwaters (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In that cause it should remain the same page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Kovalev & Mike Modano

Recently, I had to change the 'weight' # in the infoboxes of these 2 articles. 224 ibs in the former & 210 ibs in the latter, disrupted the articles; why? and is there other player articles similarly disrupted? GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is an issue with the weight conversion template that is affecting many articles. It has been mentioned in Template talk:Infobox Ice Hockey Player. Reso lute 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, as Resolute said it was an issue with a template that is used by a template that is used by our template. -Djsasso (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, guys. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Presidents' Trophy

Hi! I think we need image of Presidents' Trophy. Can you find it? There are not free images on Flickr and Commons! Maybe someone will go to the Hockey Hall of Fame and will make a photo? --an-tu 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'll pay my admission. :-) It was at the Draft. I could have taken a photo there, but the lighting was bad. I'll take a photo next time I visit. Alaney2k (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh great! Thank you. I hope, lighting will be OK and your photos will be on top-level! --an-tu 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by An-tu (talk • contribs)

Trail of the Stanley Cup

Is "Trail of the Stanley Cup" notable enough for its own article? It seems essential for hockey history, but I doesn't appear to pass the normal notability guidelines for books (see WP:NB) of awards, courses, books on this book. I suppose I could ask on the SIHR mailing list about the awards, courses, or books discussing 'Trail'. Alaney2k (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a section in Stanley Cup would probably be more fitting. Unless you can provide enough info and sources to build a whole article. Although, Stanley Cup is already a FA and I would hate to add stuff to it that would effect that. Black ngold29 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually its a book that he is talking about, not that actual trail to the Stanley Cup. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Black ngold29 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. It's the fundamental work behind all hockey scholarship, quoted by damn near every hockey scholar, owned by most serious ones, and its importance in hockey history is unchallenged. I've mulled over writing an article myself, but just thought it wasn't widely enough known to pass the notability bar (in the pre-Amazon days of the mid-1980s, I was over the bloody moon to be able to secure a copy of all three volumes), but now I see this:

Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions.

TosSC passes that. RGTraynor 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Eliteprospects

Is there any specific rules on what websites are allowed to have templates such as the eurohockey and hockeydb templates? If we can use just about any website I think Eliteprospects.com would be a very good candidate for a new template, best resource for Swedish players and foreigners playing in Sweden that I know of. --Krm500 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note: what's the limit on templates?? I think {{TSN-NHL-profile}} might be going too far since it the only unique (non hockeydb/NHL.com) information it provides is an injury log.-Wafulz (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of the templates is that so if a webpage address format is changed we only have to change it on the actual template and not on hundreds of articles. So pretty much any page is valid for a template as it saves work when/if pages change the way they address their pages. -Djsasso (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found hockeydb to be the most comprehensive NA hockey stats site (NHL, minors, college, juniors, etc). Any shortcomings that it has in the European area is complemented with eurohockey.net. TSN is great for current NHLers (the info I go there for most often is the game-log link on the right). ccwaters (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to create a template if it shows information in a standardized format and it could be used in more than one page. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Hockeyarenas.net would also be a good candidate? --Krm500 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realize how easy it was creating templates, the Eliteprospects template can be found here. Can an admin please protect it? --Krm500 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be protected automatically? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's protected now. The reason we protect these link type templates are that they see high use. This one is new so it doesn't have high use yet. But can you picture how many pages would be affected if someone vandalized the hockeydb one? -Djsasso (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about who to include on first game and last game lists

There is a discussion going on about who should be put under the first game and last game sections on season pages. The lists have been getting out of hand lately with people adding whomever their favourite teams players are. I see this going the way the old notable players section went on team pages that we eventually removed. Anyways come by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/NHL season pages format#Setting some Parameters to comment. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

HC CSKA Moscow & Montreal Canadiens

We seem to be having problems at those articles, concerning IP accounts. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It'll die down, its only one user. No need to get too worked up. He just has to understand we keep reverting to the original version so that a discussion can take place and then a change. He has it in his head we are just reverting to annoy him and push our POV. -Djsasso (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this needs to be reverted. The IP seems to be correct. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at Vancouver Canucks

There's continuing vandalism at the Canucks page, by an anon editor who's IPs are under 75.xxx.xxx. He continues to edit Ryan Kesler in, as the Canucks captain. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave the latest IP editor an {{uw-bv}} warning; I think they'll stop. I've semi-protected the page for two weeks, as well. Incidentally, GoodDay, are you interested in the rollback feature? If you do, just indicate so, and I'll assign you the user right. Maxim_(talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

New Article: Battle of Ontario

Keeping with my agonizingly slow reorganization of the NHL Rivalries page, I split most of the content from the Battle of Ontario section into its own page, and reformatted it as a full article. I believe it has the potential to be a DYK, but it currently has several citation needed tags. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here can spare a moment to find refs for those statements, so that I can propose it for the Mainpage. Thanks. Random 89 07:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

After a review myself, it turns out most of those tags were either easy to source, unecessary add-on info that could be done without, or simple hyperbole someone had tagged instead of outright removing. But please still feel free to take a look and fix it up even more :) Random 89 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fr-Tour?!?

After watching Todd Richards’ profile at legendsofhockey.net I wondered about the short term Fr-Tour during the 1990–91 season when he played his only two games for the Montréal Canadiens. Does somebody know where the term stands for? I'm not sure but could it be the games played in the so called Super Series against the Soviet teams? But the Canadiens just played one game in 1990 and not two... --Thomas ^✉ 11:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could it stand for friendly tour? Maybe one game against the soviets and another game against some other European team? --Krm500 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I couldn't find anything on the WorldWideWeb with the Canadiens being involded in a "friendly tour" in the pre-season this year. --Thomas ^✉ 14:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Roy also has two games listed for Fr-Tour.-Wafulz (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some other guys as well. --Thomas ^✉ 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Habs play a couple exhibition games in France at some point that season? It could be "French Tour." RGTraynor 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That was my first thought, too. No contemporary witness in here?!?:) --Thomas ^✉ 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not in France, actually. Mirroring a similar trip the previous season, the Habs and the North Stars both played four exhibition games against various Soviet clubs: the "Friendship Tour 1990." [2] RGTraynor 15:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!! --Thomas ^✉ 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

I suppose I'm making too much of a big deal out of this (since it'll be straightened out in Sept/Oct); but there's an anon User at that article - removing (for example) Mats Sundin & Joe Sakic as the Maple Leafs & Avalanche captains respectively. PS- his/her attitude also didn't impress me at the talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said I pretty much ignore rosters until training camp is done because random drive bys will just change it anyways. Either version is correct depending on your point of view. Or neither version if you believe there is no roster in the summer, so I don't bother wasting my time. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. 'Til September, then. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the intro that "During the off-season, captains from the previous season remain until the next season's rosters are announced" or something along those lines. And including a source for each team would probably help, because unsourced speculation (like the above mentioned Sakic and Sundin) could be quickly removed. Black ngold29 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. -Djsasso (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I have developed ownership issues with that page; therefore (again) I'll try and keep away from it 'til September. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to work on a new intro to the article, you are free to use my sandbox. I think we should state the season, go into a breif history of captains and assisstants, and name a few notable current captains (Crosby is the youngest, whoever is the longest tenured, etc.) The better we can use the intro to desribe what we're trying to list, the better quality the list will become. Black ngold29 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Another merge proposal

So another non-hockey editor wants to merge articles that concensus in the past has clearly shown that we keep seperate. Anyways they want to merge List of Colorado Avalanche head coaches with List of Quebec Nordiques head coaches. If you have an opinion either way on the matter please see Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche head coaches and comment there, not here. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but I am a hockey editor. I've been a Vancouver Canucks fan for almost 7 years now. I think you shouldnt say that im not a "non-hockey editor". Plus, why not merge them? They are both the same franchise but different names. -- K. Annoyomous 24 19:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant a non-hockey project editor (as I don't see you signed up to the project). I have no doubt you are a hockey fan and a fine editor. You just appear to be hunting for FLs by quickly trying to turn over small articles. As RGTraynor mentioned at the other discussion, you nominated an article for FL one minute after it was created. That sort of editing just smacks of trophy hunting. As for the lists they are the same franchise, but different incarnations. When teams move locations we use that logical line to split articles. If you take a look we have both a Quebec Nordiques page and a Colorado Avalanche page. To merge both would make for a rediculously large article. List's in turn should follow the main articles. Anyways the place to debate the merge is at the talk page linked above. -Djsasso (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I withdrawed my nomination of this article. I am in the task force for the Vancouver Canucks and I will sign up to be in this WikiProject right now. Sorry for the fuss. I was just trying to make Wikipeida better. I hope you'll understand -- K. Annoyomous 24 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that article's nomination would've failed anyway; it had wrong-link to another article (which I've since corrected) & it wasn't updated (Granato was re-named coach). GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Granato was mentioned in the lead. Wouldn't be in the table until after the season as we don't update stats till end season. -Djsasso (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, I love your enthusiasm. You were just unfamiliar with some of our guidelines, which is totally understandable. When proposing a merge its just a good idea to notify any projects involved because its hard to have every related article watch-listed so people might miss your proposal. That's all I was trying to explain. Definately head over to Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche head coaches and support the merge. You are allowed to disagree with us. Even if RG looks scary he won't bite you I promise. -Djsasso (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not merge them — we have a single page for the franchise's records. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be because the NHL merges those records. That being said, I don't see why we couldn't have a records page for the Nordiques as well. And have what those records were before they were broken by Avalanche players. -Djsasso (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That the NHL merges them was my point. Don't you think they would also merge a list of Avalanche/Nordiques coaches if they were to make one? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference however, articles when they get to certain sizes should be split, coaches lists will continue to grow, record lists will not, there will always be the same number of records. The obvious spot to split the article is when they switched locations. Wikipedia is not paper, I don't know why there is such a push to merge articles all into one. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be split in anticipation of growing overly large, unless they are expected to grow overly large in the near future—I tentatively define the "near future" as six months to a year for this type of article. Right now the lists for Colorado and Quebec coaches are sufficiently small that a merged article wouldn't be long. In the next ten years, the franchise might expect to have (roughly) another three to five coaches, and the article still won't be long.

Should we likewise split the list of Toronto Maple Leafs head coaches into lists for the Toronto Arenas and Toronto St. Patricks? Or Detroit's list into separate Cougars and Falcons lists? If the consensus is NO, the same reasoning should apply equally to Calgary, Carolina, Colorado, Dallas, New Jersey, and Phoenix. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, I think the reason that they stay together is because it is the same team, same city, just different name. Actually, now that I think about it, Nordiques and Avalance are the same franchise, so if they remain seperate lists we are putting city over franchise and I don't see the logic behind that. Hmmm. Black ngold29 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I am the one who merged without permission from this WikiProject, I think it's my turn to talk now. Twas Now does have logic in what he is saying and I don't really think it should be divided just because of its different bases. I actually worked on merging it on my sandbox for approx. 2 hours and I would like to have it back and try to make it a FL. -- K. Annoyomous 24 22:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the last time this came up some people did think cougars and areas etc etc should be split but the concensus was to only split articles if they change locations. A simple name change is not a team change. The Nordiques and the Avalanche are different teams. Yes they are the same franchise but they are not the same team. If someone is looking for Avalanche coaches they are not looking for Nordique coaches and visa versa. And if they do want the other team they click on the link at the bottom to the other page. Secondly especially in this case, you need to remember that the Nordiques played in the WHA as well as the NHL. So you would need to include those coaches with the other nordiques coaches, but it wouldn't be appropriate to have them with the avalanche coaches. And its not about the articles being overly large but you must always split an article if it is covering two unique topics and the nords coaches and avalanche coaches are two seperate topics. For this reason we split the player lists, season lists, main team articles, categories for players, categories for coaches etc etc.-Djsasso (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember the old discussion and I think the most logic way is our current guideline. List of Québec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche coaches just seams awkward to me. --Krm500 (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We must also remember, that some of those re-located franchises have sorta broken with their past; concerning retired numbers (thinking of Rick Ley). GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso, of course Nordiques and Aves are different teams, the 1985 Red Wings are a different team than the 1925 Red Wings. I can't figure out why we put teams over franchises.

Krm, why not just include Nordiuqes coaches on the "List of Avalance coaches" page? If someone wants to see Toronto St. Patricks coaches, they go to the Maple Leafs page. If they want Nordiques coaches they go to the Aves page, is that really that difficult? After all, if someone wants info on a Nordiques' coach, they're learned enough to know that they are the Aves. Black ngold29 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is coaches that were Nordiques coaches were not Avalanche coaches. Rocket Richard for example was not a coach of the Avalanche but he was of the Nordiques. Also we can't assume people are learned enough to know anything, when you write articles you are supposed to assume the reader knows nothing about the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Arenas coaches were not Toronto St. Patrick's coaches. St. Patrick's coaches aren't Maple Leafs coaches. But if you split that up and have "List of Toronto Arenas coach", well that's a bad example because one guy isn't a list... if you have a "List of Detroit Cougars coaches" there is very little chance of having a three person list become featured. Black ngold29 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And thats why a number of people thought those lists should be split, however throughout the different sports on wikipedia, its been general consensus that name changes are not team changes. Whereas a move is a team change. As well, not all lists are going to become featured. That is just how it is, that isn't the fault of the list but the fault of the process. However, a three person list can become featured if you put enough prose at the beginning and change the name from "List of ..." to "xxx coaching" or some such and make it more like an article than a list. This is often done for short lists to get around people's bias towards long. I think that may be why the lists were originally called Head Coaches of XXX. -Djsasso (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I'm fully convinced, but I'm "convinced enough". I still can't figure out why lists like this can't be merged into the defunct team's article. Black ngold29 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While I see your point on that one, there was recently a debate about that one for the Minnesota Wild. It mostly came down to consistency for all team articles. We try to keep all the articles in the same format....not that they ever really are fully... -Djsasso (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but the Wild will no doubt have more coaches in the future (technically I don't think we're supposed to anticipate that, but ....) the Pirates on the other hand, will never have another coach. I think it's a good idea to keep all teams formatted the same, but I don't see a problem with treating defunct teams differently than current teams. Black ngold29 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)