Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive31

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

Expansion

There is a new article started a few days ago that I feel is a very good and interesting one: Potential National Hockey League expansion. I would like to ask anyone who could help out with details to do so. Also, on a related note, we have only one general article on an NHL expansion (1967 NHL expansion)), but no articles for any subsequent expanstions (save for their drafts). It would be very useful to create those, including the details of which cities submitted bids or were considered at the time. Jmj713 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are possibilities, though perhaps a single article detailing the expansion periods would be useful, but there is some interesting history there. i.e.: The WHA identified many of its initial markets directly as a result of the NHL's rushed 1972 and 1974 expansion cycles, and the very, very common misconception that southern expansion was Bettman's idea. Also, technically, NHL–WHA merger is an article on an "expansion" also. Resolute 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A question

I've been adding some articles about Canadian ice hockey legends of the pre-NHL era to Slovenian Wikipedia and found two expressions: Head Coach and Trainer. Can anyone explain the difference to me? At least what the Trainer does because I know what a Head Coach does as we have the word "Trener" for it. And "Trener" is pretty similar to "Trainer" but in fact it means "Head Coach". So, what does a hockey trainer do? Thanks, Jambornik (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the same position. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the country, in North America a trainer is a medic basically. He is the guy that will do physiotheraphy on players and go help them when they get injured on the ice, he is usually the guy that also takes care of all the equipment and packs everything up etc. when the travel. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Djsasso's explanation is good. A trainer might also train players in specific areas, such as strength, conditioning, or skills development. I think Krm500 might have the same understanding as you—perhaps there is no distinction in Sweden and Slovenia—but since you are talking about Canadian players, you probably want to know what the difference means in "Canadia". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I should mention that in the pre-NHL era, there was not always or usually a person in today's trainer role. In that era, trainer or manager were titles often used for the person who would be called coach nowadays. And I've not seen the use of the title 'head coach' in that era. Manager is still used in baseball. So be careful about the old days. Alaney2k (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is entirely my opinion and thought, but I would figure that the term "head coach" would have came into use after assistant coaches became the norm in the 1970's-1980's. Prior to that, there was only one coach, so there would have been no need to distinguish him as the "head" coach. But this is my opinion, so this should not be taken as true by any means. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well atleast on one of the articles he is working on it talks about the guy being promoted from trainer to coach...so I am thinking in the pre-nhl days it was probably just a guy who helped out and was basically an assistant and probably also did what we call the trainer jobs now. -Djsasso (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally coach / head trainer = head coach, trainer = assistant coach (in north american terms)--Lvivske (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, Head coach is an annoying title. Coach, was descriptive enough. PS: Who was the boob, that began using the HC term? GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks, guys, I think I got the idea. I guess I'll translate it as "Assistant" becuase in this article it can't have been a HC. It is really hard though to translate it because it is just so abstract nowadays. Cheers, Jambornik (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Winger

Should Left Wing and Right Wing be capitalized? We usually capitalize it in the infobox, but not in the article itself. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I rarely see it capitalized in books and articles. I think because it is a position, rather than a thing by itself. Alaney2k (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it usually isn't. Too bad we would have to go around fixing thousands of them, though. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Cunningham

Just to put forward that I am about to work on Bobby Cunningham's article right now. I can see why the page for put up for deletion but I hope to greatly improve it at least to a proper stub. Raphie (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! With big thanks to Twas Now for contributing on the stats. Guess two minds do think alike sometimes. Raphie (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Increased salaries in the NHL because of the WHA

Hello, I am new to Wiki and I really enjoy the information. When I read the article about the World Hockey Association I was shocked by the poor pay for the NHL players. I am just wondering if anyone could provide information as to names, dates, and newly negotiated salaries of NHL players during the 1970's. I can only assume that the NHL caved in and started paying higher salaries to its players in order to keep them from defecting to the WHA. Thank you 70.76.83.234 (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are various sources that will offer you a lot of good information about this timeframe and how the WHA altered the financial landscape of the NHL. An excellent book on the WHA, which will feature this, is The Rebel League by Ed Willes. The Sports Illustrated Vault has a few good articles on the topic, i.e.: [1] and [2]. I cant find it right now, but there was an SI article on how the Rangers payroll skyrocketed between 71-72 and 72-73... something like a 5x increase in salary. Not surprisingly, they were the team least affected by defections. There is a lot of this that I'd like to put into the WHA article, but is still a bit out there on my editing plans. Resolute 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Though it wasn't me who asked for the info, I have to say thanks for providing those two links. I especially like the second one, where it rates the prospects of survival for the WHA teams. Doubting the success of the Nordiques, Jets, Oilers and Aeros is funny in hindsight. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
In the case of the Nords especially, the owners entered that first season with about $1,000 total. If the fans didn't turn out, that team probably wouldn't have completed that first season, let alone continue on today in the form of the Avs. The Jets as well - one of the articles linked was speculating that Hull might have defected back to the NHL if they didn't start paying him. In the case of Edmonton, they were playing in the Edmonton Gardens, which was not a very good arena. The Northlands Coliseum is what made that franchise. Though I do find it somewhat ironic that the man who created the WHL, Bill Hunter, inadvertently killed his own junior team when he brought the WHA to town. The Oil Kings were outright slaughtered at the gate in the Oilers' first two years, leading to the move to Portland (and that is a whole other collection of legal oddities). A second attempt at the Oil Kings (77-78, iirc) saw the team average only 500 fans per game. Oops. Resolute 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The entire history of the WHA is interesting and highly under represented in the modern context of hockey. Its a shame that it is seen as little more than a footnote to the NHL, considering the impact the league had on near everything involved in modern hockey. I just read a short summary on Finnish hockey, and it stated that the advent of the WHA and their inclusion of Europeans kept Finland from becoming a major international power as all the good players were on this side of the Atlantic. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The NHL likes to pretend that no other league has ever challenged it - i.e. the league's ridiculous assertion that the Ducks were the first Pacific Coast team to win the Cup when they were, in fact, the fourth. I've been going through newspaper archives for Calgary Cowboys history, and collecting some good WHA stories at the same time. Better coverage of the WHA timeframe would be of significant value for us. Resolute 19:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug Jarvis's record

It is apparently 964 consecutive games, but that's how many he played, so it must be wrong. He played 25 in 1985–86, so his total is around 800-825, since he played 10 full 80-game seasons prior to 1985–86. Anyone know the exact number? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

He split 1985-86 with the Capitals and Whalers, playing 25 with the Capitals, 57 with the Whalers. Add those and another 82 games after that, it makes the right number. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing it out. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Top playoff goaltenders

See my most recent comment at Talk:2009 Stanley Cup playoffs#Goaltending explosion: "Now that the playoffs are in the later rounds, should we also [like the NHL is doing] set the minimum to 420 minutes [rather than our current 4-game minimum]?" This question applies to other playoff articles as well, not just the 2009 playoffs, so I would like input from those of you who aren't monitoring the 2009 playoffs article. Please reply at the original location, not here. Thanks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say to go with the NHL's values. Resolute 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

American English vs. Canadian English

There has been some debate about the dialect used in this year's draft article. As something that could have wider ranging effects, please feel free to comment at Talk:2009 NHL Entry Draft#NHL vs. Canadian Spelling. Resolute 18:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Team templates on player pages

Should templates be included on player pages if they were captain? (IE Mark Messier has the Vancouver one.) RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO no. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 20:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's pointless considering the captains aren't even in the template, just the link to it. What about coaches, GMs, or retired numbers? RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Not really, I would put a link to those lists in the See Also section instead. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Or succession boxes, which I am slowly working to replace draft pick and coach templates with. A focused discussion on standardizing team templates, in the hopes of eliminating some of these trivialities is something I've started on here but have left off for the moment in favour of other cleanup, and hopefully this week, some serious writing. Resolute 22:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary clutter, in my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

National Hockey League awards

move to List of National Hockey League awards? This is because National Basketball Association awards was recently move to List of National Basketball Association awards. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Just like the seasons articles, they are lists, so they should be moved to have "List of" in the title. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to say I already changed it to the proposed article name. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 03:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

European Junior Ice Hockey Championships

Does anyone know anything about the European Junior Ice Hockey Championship(s)? I've been adding links to it, and you can see at WhatLinksHere: European Junior Ice Hockey Championships that quite a few prominent players have played in the event early in their careers. It seems like a tournament that deserves its own article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Project banner at top of this talk page

What is the point of having the project's banner at the top of this talk page? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It puts the page into certain categories and onto certain automatically created pages which are used by some people like me. There is no reason not to have the banner there, especially since we have it on other project talk pages. We even have a category created specifically for talk pages of project pages and category pages etc. -Djsasso (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Aesthetically it would look better without it, could we hide it in a navbox or integrate it with the new search bar? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the only category it's put into is Category:NA-Class Ice Hockey articles, which can be added in the usual way pages are added to categories. We could also probably insert code into this page to do the automatic updates you mention. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see any reason to do anything with it. Seems fine there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Since the to-do list would still stay there, I don't really think it would be all that more aesthetically pleasing, besides, how often do you actually look at the top of the page as opposed to going straight to the newest talk message. -Djsasso (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you really get down to it, the todo list has even less use than the template... Resolute 03:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Now there's something everybody should agree on. :-) Go Wings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Signs Wikipedia's reliability has come a long way

Check out this diff from when National Hockey League appeared on the main page's On this day... feature on November 26, 2004: [3]. Man, that is embarrassing! lol Resolute 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is how the article looked. Ha! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kamloops Blazers

Does anyone else think the division titles won, Memorial Cups, and all that in the lead is unnecessary. I've seen this on other junior team articles, and it looks somewhat unorganized. I think it belongs in the infobox. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of it is crap I added like three or four years ago, lol. At the time, many pro (even NHL teams) had similar info in the lead like that. And yes, I agree that it should go elsewhere. Resolute 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll just remove it for now and any others I find. If anyone wants to somehow add it to the infobox they can, though. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for a challenge

I've spent the last while working on a drastic change to 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters. The result of this, semi-finished, work is available on my sandbox. I'm hoping to properly cite the list and have it submitted for a FL in the coming days, but before that happens I want to here some opinions that will possibly impede the nomination. Most notably, I have a few concerns that I feel will be the biggest obstacles:

1. The size of the article. As it stands now, the list is 85kb long, which is rather large. Even without the images I have now, it was around 80kb. That may not be a big an issue as some other things, but it could still be a problem.

2. The massive amounts of red links. This is what will probably be the biggest problem, as it just looks tacky. This is especially true for the teams that have few player articles (France, Italy, Slovenia). I've created a few articles, but with the lack of information in English regarding players from these countries, its difficult to write anything of substance.

3. Like the players, there are a few red links for teams, notably for the Belarusian and Italian-based teams. There is a little more information about these teams, but not much.

4. This may be an issue, or me just being concerned about nothing, but the flags used beside the teams. I know that there is a lot of opposition to using flags for stuff on Wikipedia articles, so this may come up. In defence of the flag usage, it shows where the players played in, which is important for player registration. Either way, an opinion of whether to keep them or not would be good to here.

5. The wording of the lead. This may be more of a personal issue, as I wrote it, but I think it could be done better. If anyone would care to see if they can better it, that would probably help.

6. Again, probably more of a personal issue, but the contents bar is rather bad looking, as it goes on for a considerable length. I am aware that there is some type of way to make it horizontal rather than vertical, and if someone knows how to do this, that might be a better thing to do.

Now if anyone has taken the time to read through this massive amount of text and ventured a look at the list, good on you. I really would appreciate any questions or comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  • 1. The size doesn't really matter too much. If that much space is required to make it as good as possible, then sobeit.
  • 2. The bit about redlinks was recently removed from the Featured list criteria. In terms of redlinks, it's no worse than the current FLC List of members of the IIHF.
  • 3. "" ""
  • 4. I think they look fine, but someone may object.
  • 5. Per WP:LEAD, in most cases, bolding in the lead is not necessary in lists. Perhaps you could just start out with an introduction to the 2008 championships.
  • 6. Agreed. I'll see what I can do.
  • Some other comments: Perhaps this image would be more suitable for the lead. Also, perhaps you should lose the coloured table headers. They are rather distracting. -- Scorpion0422 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, but I have some suggestions to cut down the size. First, I see no compelling reason at all to use the odd colour for the table headers. What's wrong with standard wikitable colours? Removing style="background: #E13A3E;" | from all those table cells reduces the article size by about 9000 bytes alone. Second, I don't like the use of flags to represent the location of each player's pro team. I think it is much more helpful to put "NHL", "KHL", etc. in another table column for the league instead of using the USA or CAN flags for NHL teams, etc. Third, you should use {{sortname}} instead of {{sort}}. For example, {{sort|Heatley, Dany|[[Dany Heatley]]}} should be replaced by {{sortname|Dany|Heatley}}. That will likely result in another reduction of 8K, perhaps. Hope this helps, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
On the flags, MOS:FLAG actually says that national flags should never be used to describe sub-national entities. They have to go if you have any hope of passing an FLC. Resolute 05:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I reworked the TOC, how does it look now? I agree with Andrwsc. The team's league is more relevant than the country where the team is located. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen the abbreviation "GK" referring to goaltenders before. Thricecube (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, "goal keeper" is a soccer thing...I think G should be used--Lvivske (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The IIHF calls them "goalkeepers" ([4]) and abbreviates them as "GK" ([5]). We should follow that practice. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows that I haven't totally ignored everything posted here, I'll just say that I'm quite impressed with the quick and thorough responses already given. I'm not going to be available to do anything until sometime on the 24th (Vancouver time), due to real life commitments, so don't think that I am just ignoring everything written here. Again, thanks everyone, and I'll get on with this shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Junikev Deplinkov

Can anyone please explain how this article for Junikev Deplinkov escaped speedly deletion two years ago? He appears to be hoax. He's not listed on hockeydb.com nor eurohockey.net. Raphie (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What the hell "Hockey fans, be sure to look for cameos by hockey legends Basil McRae, Mike Modano, Wayne Gretzky, Luc Robitaille, Chris Chelios, Junikev Deplinkov, Cam Neely and Paul Kariya"[6][7] —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, found that too, now I haven't seen the Mighty Ducks movies in years but I surely don't recall a Junikev Deplinkov in them and if he were in them he would be listed on IMDB. But he isn't, what a surprise! Raphie (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You guys seriously haven't heard of Junikev? --Lvivske (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I haven't personally, I was just looking at European Hockey players lacking an infobox and came across this page. I searched for more information in regards to improving and expanding the article but didn't find anything relating to hockey, except for information taken directly from Wikipedia. If you are stating he is a real-life hockey player and not a hoax I'd like to see a reliable source. Raphie (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No, just some good ol' fashioned sarcasm. FYI: "действительно немой человек" (the translit on the page) translates in Russian to "really dumb people", so yeah, DELETE already! --Lvivske (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I honestly thought you meant it. Nevermind, looks like this page isn't gonna last much longer. Raphie (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Category: Players of X descent....all should be deleted, right?

If these kinds of cats should be deleted, why is Category:Ice_hockey_players_of_Black_African_descent still up? --Lvivske (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe this one wasn't part of the CFD because it is about ethnicity and not nationality like the others were. -Djsasso (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be about race and not ethnicity, since "black africans" aren't an ethnic group. Heck, the term redirects to the "black people" racial page on here.--Lvivske (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title help

I've been working on an article which lists all the clubs that have played in the 'top flight' of British ice hockey but I haven't got the foggiest clue of what I should call it. There have been four separate leagues which have been in the highest leagues in a UK-wide structure - the British National League (1954–60), the British Hockey League Premier Divison (1983–96), the Ice Hockey Superleague (1996–2003) and the Elite Ice Hockey League (2003–present). There is seen to be continuity between these leagues, but I can't think of how best to title the article. Any suggestions? KimThePanther (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

List of top-level professional ice hockey teams in the United Kingdom, maybe? Seems a bit long. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_Ice_Hockey_Player#Remove_nickname_field

I have been trying to review a decision that removed the nick name field from this infobox. I personnaly do not agree that only a few players have nicknames, and feel that this field should be available for use, Vandalism happens regardless of their being a paramater in an infobox, and we all watch articles, and have to remove it as it is, so we would be watching the same articles, and removing the same vandalism, just in a different location. Take Chris Osgood for example, one who is lower on the vandal watch, it still gets IMHO vandalised at least twice a week, and I (with many others) go and correct, and make sure references are added for info that is contested, So I would like to see the paramater re-introduced. There are plenty of media sources, even team publications, that can backup hockey player nicknames. Thanks.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why the nickname can't be in the prose (technically it belongs in the lead if it is a notable nickname). The nickname field was a cause of way to much POV editing and unsourced information. The infobox is only supposed to be a summary of what is in the prose and not the main source of any information, as such its better to encourage the information to be in the proper place which is the lead rather than in the infobox. And unlike vandalism which you can remove right away, a good faith addition of what someone thinks is a nickname would if you follow general courtesy be tagged with the fact tag and then removed after a couple months if the fact is not sourced. -Djsasso (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
After looking at your comment on the Osgood page, I think you actually prove the point of why we removed it. You mention that Ozzie is a nickname and you post links to articles that use it, and no one disagrees that Ozzie is often used to refer to him. However Ozzie is what is referred to as a short name, which if you take a look at the nickname article is not the same thing. We had far to many people adding things like Ozzie and Jonesy and Staalsy into the nickname field when they aren't nicknames. -Djsasso (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing, a short name is a nickname, Wikipedia is not a primary source, If you look up nickname in a dictionary it has multiple definitions, one of them is a familiar or shortened version of a proper name, like Ozzie, for Osgood. --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that at some point in time a every single player has been called a shortened version of their name by a writer or a player in an interview for convienience. The issue is that is the nickname actually something they go by or is it a one off phrase and is it notable. Because if we open the floodgates then we are going to have to go add Mikey for example to every player named Michael. Readers don't really need to be told that at some point in time someone called the subject by a shorter version of their name. -Djsasso (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Some, not all, definitions for you:
No we do not need to put every person named Michael, Mike or Mickey etc... but Every Hockey player has a nickname, that they are called by their team mates, the media, the press, and are documented. A one time occurence of "Nick" for someone named (Nicholas/Nicklas/Nikolai/Any other variation) is not their nickname, but a name that a player who is refered to on a regular basis like Ozzie, for example, is a nickname. Stevie Y, was a nickname for Steve Yzerman, it's listed in the wikipedia article list of ice hockey nicknames. We can't have double standards. I say the paramater should be used, as one of you stated, the info box is supposed to contain a quick view of the info in the prose, and the nickname should be in the prose.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The infobox is supposed to summarize the prose, but not literally every aspect of the prose. This all seems rather trivial to me. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank yo for your opinion. IMHO, hockey nicknames are an integral part of the culture and the game. I do not have the article right here, but there is even an anecdotal story where the Head Coach (or was it the GM) of the Wings was introducing the players to his wife at a get together, and had to as one of the players, using his nickname, what is your real name by the way? This is a guy who works very closely with these men and it shows that nicknames are very important to the game. We are not talking about baseball, or basketball (Or other sports) where the players are not in constant communication on the (field), but hockey, a fast paced game, that requires the players to quickly get things done. Nicknames are wide spread, and yes a "short name" is a nickname so I do not see a reason to not include this info in the "Infobox".--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Twas Now: "Ozzie" and the like are trivial. Yes, it's true Chris Osgood has been referred to as Ozzie by his teammates, media and fans. Is it in and of itself notable? No. Many players are referred to by shortened versions of their given name or family. Many people (in general) are. I hope you can appreciate the difference between "The Great One", "The Golden Jet", "Mr. Hockey", "The Pocket Rocket", etc. and "Ozzie", "Kovy", "Iggy", "Nasher", etc. 93JC (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat agree, and understand, in general every player has been refered to by shortened versions of their name, but you have to understand that when that shortened name becomes the main "name" used for that individual, in the media, by the fans, and in the press, it is very notable. Chris is the shortened version of Osgoods first name, but we wouldn't see that usage as a nickname, but Ozzie is a well documented nickname. Anyway the discussion is getting away from the point, there is no good reason to have removed the paramater, as long as the nickname is well documented, regardless of being a "short name" or other type of nickname. I would like to have the paramater re-instated. --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how else I can articulate how trivial I think "Ozzie" as a nickname is. It only exists by virtue of his name. It's really no different than Mike Vernon. His name is Michael Vernon, but we all call him Mike. Is Mike his nickname? No, it's just a shortened version of his given name, it's no different than Rogie (Rogatien) Vachon, Rosie (Rosaire) Paiement or Reggie (Rejean) Lemelin. In the case of Osgood "Ozzie" is a shortened adaptation of his family name rather than his given name, but it's fundamentally the same thing. "Ozzie" isn't relevant to Chris Osgood in the same way "Alex" isn't relevant to Alexander Mogilny. "Alex" is no more Mogilny's nickname than it is Alexander Ovechkin's or Alexandre Daigle's. Is Chris Osgood's nickname "Ozzie" any more than it is Mark Osborne's?
There are two definitions of nickname at dictionary.com:
1: a name added to or substituted for the proper name of a person, place, etc., as in affection, ridicule, or familiarity; and,
2: a familiar form of a proper name, as Jim for James and Peg for Margaret.
What I'm trying to say is I don't think nicknames falling under the second definition are relevant or notable because they're universal: any Marcus could go by Mark, any Katherine by Kate. Similarly any Osgood or Osborne could go by Ozzie. Keith Gretzky was as much "Gretz" as his brothers Brent and Wayne ever were. 93JC (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
What I am saying is that to a certain extent I do agree with the principal, but some nicknames of the second definition, and most often when it is family names, are notable. When you say Gretz, no one thinks of anyone but Wayne. The same thing goes for Ozzie, yes technically anyone with an Os (Oz) starting last name could be called this, but the first person that comes to mind when the nickname is used is Chris (current NHL 3 time stanley cup winning Goalie). (Chris by the way is also a nickname and I am not arguing that it should be listed?). I do not know how more clarity I can bring to this, but a well documented nickname regardless of the type has a place. --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
To avoid these "nickname" dual definition problems, maybe we should think of it as something else. A field called "also known as" comes to mind, but I fear that could be interpreted the same way. What about "pseudonym" or "alias"? What I'm looking for is (of course) a field that cannot include shortnames. While English isnt my first language, I'm not sure. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
For reference, here is the discussion that led to the infobox field's removal. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:NHLSeasonTOC

Is there really any need for this? The stats part has to be called player stats and it usually isn't, if it's something like "Player statistics" or "Scoring statistics" it won't work. Not to mention there's no section for roster, any different sections aren't on it, etc. RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, should we include the link to the HockeyDB page on the season? It has complete stats which a lot of seasons don't yet they're usually only included on the less popular seasons, stubs, and ones not frequently edited. RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Once 2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season passed GA, I just started using the regular TOC in seasons I look after. I really don't see a need for that template. – Nurmsook! talk... 03:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I also find the TOC limiting. If sections aren't named precisely, the TOC doesn't work. Also, some seasons are going to have unique sections not found in any other season (e.g. relating to a particular notable incident for that team), and these sections won't be picked up by the TOC either. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea behind it was to avoid the horrible white space found when using the default TOC as can be seen in the Penguins template above, thats enough white space to prevent it from getting to the FA level. I believe it was only meant to have the major section headers and not every individual subsection that would be on the page such as inividual events that may have happened to a team, and also each major section should be named exactly the same as every other season page which is why we have a season page template to follow. That being said I am not tied to having it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning for it, but I've never been a fan of using it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds this template utterly useless. In particular "Roster" is completely unnecessary for any past season, and I think the draft picks should be nearer the beginning of the article rather than the end. It makes more sense to me to begin a season article with the off-season rather than end it with it: off-season player acquisitions and front office changes often have profound ramifications on the regular season. It would make more sense to begin with this stuff in order to reference it later in the prose of the regular season section. But then again I guess that's more of a quibble with manual of style than with the template. 93JC (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the season should start with the off-season and end with playoffs/Stanley cup celebrations. But I do not agree that roster of past season is unnecessary. I am unsure about the draft picks location as they occur later in one playing season, but IMHO seem to be more important to the next playing season, as a player rarely starts playing until then. --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have a complete statistics section what do you need the roster for? A good example of this is the 2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season as mentioned above: what does the roster tell you that the stats don't? Position and jersey number, but those could be easily integrated into the stats tables (jersey number often already is in other team season articles). When you get right down to it they're both lists of players. I fail to see the point in having two lists of players on one page.
As for the draft picks they're often VERY pertinent to the season that immediately follows. For example, the fact that the Penguins drafted Angelo Esposito in 2007 was material to the trade for Marian Hossa the following spring, which was central to the team's push for the Stanley Cup. I think it would be easier to explain if the draft picks were near the beginning.
Take a look at 1992–93 Ottawa Senators season. Notice how the article leads off with an "Expansion and Entry drafts" section. That's good, because you want the audience to learn how the team was assembled right off the bat. In the "Regular season" section it becomes much easier to explain why the team did so miserably that year. But where are the lists of picks? Way down at the bottom! That doesn't help. 93JC (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we are saying the same thing about the draft, but the final roster is not always the same as the stats, In most cases yes, but a player who was called up during the season might (And I'm sure somewhere) is listed in the stats for the season, but is not included in the final roster. Not to start anything but what about players that are traded should their stats be in both teams stats listings? They would not show up in the final roster of the former team. Mark Recchi for example on the page you pointed out.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Who cares what the final roster is? Is it any more important than the roster at the beginning of the season? Or the roster at game #41 of the season? This just serves to reinforce my point about how unnecessary the roster template is for past seasons: it often doesn't even list the entire year's roster! I don't think we have ever come to a firm conclusion on what to do with the stats as far as traded players go, but I always include the stats of the players who were traded mid-season, thus every single player who played for that team at any point during the year is in the stats.93JC (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the decision about traded players was that we only show the points in the stats that they earned while with the team. -Djsasso (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I do, but I wasn't sure we ever came to a consensus on that. 93JC (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, but not what I meant. I was referring to the fact that their stats would be shown in the stats section of both teams, but their name would not be on the final roster of the former team. I find the final roster listing helpful. --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be rude, but what use is the final roster? What difference does it make if you have the list of men who played in the last game of the '74-'75 season for the California Golden Seals rather than a list of those who played in the first game of the season? Or any other game of the season? I don't understand why you would find that any more helpful than a complete list of every man who played for the team, including their playing statistics. 93JC (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In an active season, the roster offers value of how the team is presently composed. In a completed season, it is completely redundant to the player stats, and borderline worthless. The roster on the final day the team played is of no more value than the roster on the first day, the roster on December 14 or the roster on the third Monday in March.
As far as the TOC goes, I created it back in the day to eliminate the whitespace. The format has kinda flowed a little away from it since, so it might not hold a ton of value anymore, I agree. I still hate the amount of whitespace, but that might be bypassed by restricting the TOC to level 2 headers only. As far as the draft goes, I personally like it where it is now. It seems to me that the regular season and playoff information is what people would be seeking immediately when looking at a season. Things like the draft would be much lower on their list, so I think its placement is ideal. We're trying to tell the story of a season, and I don't see any reason to force ourselves to use a chronological order. Resolute 01:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Resolute, that the concentration of the article should be on the season itself and it is not necessary to keep it chrnological. Having worked on the Penguins' season this year I think it is the best format for a season I've seen so far (it was based on 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, which is up at FAC right now). I was thinking we could create a template for the outline of the ideal season, based on said Pens' article. As for the TOC, I prefer the normal WP one, if one wants to eliminate whitespace they are collasable. blackngold29 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on this? We could make the Roster part turn off for past seasons. As for draft picks, we are supposed to put the prose at the top of the article and the tables at the bottom, at least in general. So I think that that table should be at the end. I think the main thing is that we should use common headings so that people fill out those sections. I think there is too much emphasis on colours, collapsiblity and other features. Alaney2k (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tended to mention the draft in the lead, where I can, and fill in prose on the draft with the chart. i.e.: 2008–09 Calgary Flames season. Resolute 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the way you did that page. Very complete. I think we should make the Roster link turn off for past seasons. I think that would not be hard. That said, I'm open to any better ideas. Alaney2k (talk) 23:50, 28 May

AHL Players

What is the deal with AHL players, can we create articles for all of them???Pendingthecynic (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Anyone who has played pro meets WP:ATHLETE. WP:HOCKEY however, prefers that you create articles that meet the following standards at Wikipedia:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and not worry about those that don't. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't heed that last suggestion. Just create as many AHL player articles as you want! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember too, keep them free of diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No, don't do that. Create several articles about 1-game AHLers and add plenty of diacritics. Even add diacritics on letters that don't need them. Ľîķé ţĥĩş. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Heavy Metal Umlaut FTW! Resolute 23:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to make stats tables, you should use em dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-). Example, 2004–05 WHL season, not 2004-05 WHL season. Good job making them though. We usually link season, regular season and playoffs as well. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Randy means 'en dashes' (and the example he gave in parentheses was indeed an en dash)... but anyway, I think we've told you enough "rules" already. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, right. I confuse them a lot. Em dash = —. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Any easy way to remember it is that the letter m is longer than the letter n. (And that is, in simplified terms, why they are named the way they are.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Its em dash for US based articles and en dash for Canadian articles. ccwaters (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What, really? What articles have "2008—09 season"? That looks so strange. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Randy, I only think it's you that link season and playoffs! ;) —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The debut sections of NHL season articles

The "debut" sections of many of the pages are unorganized and follow no pattern and in many cases are subject to the POV of editors. Some have some questionable inclusions (ie. Alex Steen and Kyle Wellwood in 2005–06 NHL season) or exclusions (ie. 05/06 which until recently excluded Mike Green, Corey Perry, Mike Richards, Shea Weber, Zach Parise and Duncan Keith). Of particular concern is the 2008-09 season. If the section is for "players of note", how can we possibly determine that after one season? Which is why I think we need a criteria. This is my proposal:

  1. Player is a first-overall draft pick.
  2. Player has played in (or been selected to play) the NHL all-star game.
  3. Player has been nominated for or won an individual NHL trophy/award.
  4. Some other kind of special case (ie. First from a certain nation)

I think that would go a long way with these sections and eliminate some of the user POV. -- Scorpion0422 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There actually is already a standard let me find the link to it, but when it was implemented last year no one went through the back years and fixed up the lists. If you look at the talk page for the 07-08 season we have a notice to check the standards before adding a player. Its a big orange box I believe. -Djsasso (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a big discussion about this last year which resulted in the following standards: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/NHL_season_pages_format#Debuts_and_Last_Games -Djsasso (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah and I seem to recall it being discussed that for recent years, where players cannot have reached these standards for their debuts, we only keep the first overall pick, Calder Trophy finalists, and members of the All-Rookie team. So, for instance, this year's debut section should include Steve Mason and Steven Stamkos (Bobby Ryan and Kris Versteeg would be included in last year's debut section). – Nurmsook! talk... 05:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I do seem to remember that as well. -Djsasso (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don Luce

It has come to my attention that the talk page for Don Luce is different from the article. It reads Don Luce (hockey player) while the article reads just Don Luce. I tried to move the talk page but it wouldn't let me saying the page already exists or is invalid. Raphie (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Maxim(talk) 21:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your time Maxim. Raphie (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reporting vandal user

User:24.34.180.53

Been reviewing his history since he added a fake scottish name to the Dynamo Moscow page....seems he's been making ENTIRELY MADE UP rosters for a whole slew of international teams, leaving a reflink to the french national roster. Guy seems to have a lot of time on his hands or a lot of dope, take your pick. Not sure the reporting process for things like this (ie. non-profane edits) so posting it here.

--Lvivske (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Links to related articles", again

If you recall this discussion, we thought we should leave the main navbox in the team articles outside of the big collapsible "links to related articles" box. Shouldn't this be the case for all hockey articles? I'm thinking it should. One instance, on 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, a user keeps undoing my edit. I did point out to him that we discussed this before (though that discussion was specifically for team articles) and decided that the main navbox should remain outside of the group. Currently, it's hidden, again. What do we think about this? I think the "main" navbox for articles should be outside of those "links to related articles" boxes. They support the article and should be visible. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be left out of the related articles box. I think the overall consensus of that discussion wasn't that the team navbox should be left outside, but rather the most prominent navbox relating the article should be (and in the case of that discussion, the team navbox is the most prominent). I would simply revert the edits. In the past that user has had many WP:OWN-related issues. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was the consensus too but given that we were talking specifically about team articles, I thought I'd bring it up again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it should be left outside. blackngold29 20:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

UFA & RFA on NHL current rosters

Oh no, not again. Somebody has been posting UFA & RFA throughout the 30 NHL team article's current rosters. Free-agency dosen't start until July 1, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is ok, that is the whole point of that field. So that we wouldn't have to deal with people removing and adding the players from the rosters in edit wars like we used to have. -Djsasso (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

David Frost (sports agent) is missing, it used to be a big article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.189.55 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was speedy deleted as an attack page. I'll ask the deleting admin about it before I restore. Either way, however, the references will have to be improved. Resolute 19:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of agents, I had some trouble with various IPs (probably the same person) who have inserted advertisement for Pat Brisson on several articles. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Brisson's article itself is an ad... And that isn't the first time an agent or his representatives have inserted puff pieces to promote themselves. Resolute 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are the IPs I was talking about; [8] and [9]. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 21:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The deleting admin is on a "long wikibreak" as of 2 days ago. DMighton (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Ok. I don't believe in process wonkery, but I did want to give X! a chance to restore the article himself. I do understand why the article would be deleted G10 though, so I'll restore it now if anyone wants to take a crack at expanding and sourcing it. If not, I might do that sometime next week. Resolute 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that it's still missing. 66.203.188.139 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I restored it since speedies that are objected to are supposed to be restored. But someone will probably need to clean the page up. I don't think it was a valid speedy anyways as it wasn't really an attack page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Resurrected) U.S.S.R. vs. USSR vs. Soviet Union

Resurrecting this since it was glossed over last time...

  1. U.S.S.R. is used on roster templates but USSR (sans stops) seems to be the only form used on the rest of wikipedia. It's also listed as a common abbrev. on WP:MOS[10]
  2. On our infoboxes, it's always written USSR (this time, with no stops, goodbye consistency) WP:BIO pages always use Soviet Union, never USSR in the infobox
  3. On the roster template, why are the republics which made up the Union left out? Seems rather ambiguous to say someone was born in such a large collection of states. The Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR even had their own independent representation in the UN, seems rather odd considering to trim it down so much; it's almost like saying someone was born in "Rome, EU", which is over simplied, no? --Lvivske (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 KHL Entry Draft

Seeing how the KHL held their first draft today, it seems fitting that we write an article for it. I've started work on it, but could use some help. I was also thinking that we should add the KHL draft to the player infobox, similar to how the NHL and WHA drafts are there. It is a major professinonal league, and the only other hockey league to have an entry draft, so if someone with the skills needed to add the proper code is up for the task, I think it should be done. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's the article at the moment? I'd like to help out.--Lvivske (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I put up the wrong link in the title. It's all good now, though I can't say the same about the article. My knowledge of the Russian hockey world is limited, and it shows. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess that's where I come in, eh? Actually, it's a little easier, it's all been translated last night by IHF http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?t=8409 --Lvivske (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about adding it to the infobox...considering its obvious they are not trying to draft the best possible players. ie Hedman being drafted in the 4th round and Tavares not even being drafted at all. Its hard to consider it a serious draft, or atleast a draft on the same level as the NHL/WHA drafts. I would put this closer to the level of a Major Junior Drafts. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not for us to say whether the draft is "serious" or not. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My point was that they abviously aren't trying to compete on the same level as the NHL when they aren't drafting the top players and for the most part focused only on Russian players. So they by their own actions show they probably shouldn't be ranked draft wise on the same level as the NHL/WHA which were considered top level leagues. There were other situations that lead to my saying its hard to consider it serious. Like the fact a couple teams who won't be in their league next year still drafted and other teams that are expected to be in their league next year did not draft...so it wasn't even all the teams drafting. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Valid points, but what new league has not had problems at the start. And while the KHL is drafting a majority of Russian players, the same could be argued about the NHL drafting a majority of North American, particularily Canadian, players. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the KHL also have a rule that teams much have X % of home-grown talent? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I wouldn't make that arguement about the NHL drafting a majority of North Americans because NA teams will jump on a European if they are good enough. Looking at their picks its clear that most teams were avoiding any player that would likely go to the NHL. I am more saying they aren't yet aiming at taking on the NHL head to head which is what I would personally want to see for it to be listed along side the other two "Major Leagues" of hockey. I am not saying in the future they won't be competing head to head with the NHL, I just don't think being drafted by a certain KHL team is yet a major aspect of a players bio which would earn it a sport in a summary of the most important info in a bio which is what the infobox basically is. I would put it in the prose however. -Djsasso (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh and when I said head to head I don't mean litteral games against each other. I just mean trying to compete on the same level as the NHL like the WHA attempted to do. -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna agree with DJ on this one. The teams are drafting players primarily from hockey schools, to put into the RJrHL. Though, on the other hand first round is mostly for the pro clubs....in all it's kinda inbetween the NHL and OHL drafts. The best prospects out there, are protected by the teams prior to the draft. On top of it all, who knows how long it will last. MVD boycotted the draft, other teams forfeited 1st round picks to make an example, and the hockey schools (like Mechel, who's in the Russian Major League) are causing a stink over compensation. Come to think of it...this should all go into the article :-p --Lvivske (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have a reference for MVD boycotting the draft, that would be a good addition to the article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, proofs in them passing on every pick. I'll try to dig up an article on it, if covered.--Lvivske (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I started working on the table. Did someone else start? Don't want to overlap, you know --Lvivske (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If everyone else is against adding the KHL draft to the infobox, I'll give in to the majority. Rather than argue about this, lets focus on working on the articles at hand. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Got round 1 done, rest is on a spread sheet...I'll add the rest up later. Gonna need help on the "from" column though.--Lvivske (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
what happens if NHL team also drafts Magnus Pajaarvi-Svennson in NHL Draft but he goes KHL. Will team waste draft pick? Can that be added to article? 121.219.154.228 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not really any different than what happens now with Europeans...some choose to go to the NHL others do not. So teams already "waste" picks. -Djsasso (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, you were getting reverted because you were posting that "Hedman buys the islanders!" crap --Lvivske (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Need consensus on acronym (SDYShOR)

In Russia (and other Euro countries) this acronym for a hockey school is usually СДЮШОР. This translates to "Specialized child-youthful school of an Olympic reserve" and is usually transliterated into the long winded "SDYShOR" (or something similar).

I've also seen acronym shortened in long-form to "Школы Олимпийского резерва (СДЮШОР)" = "Schools of the Olympic reserve"

How should I be writing this? Personally I find that used on translators or small sites (SDYShOR or whatever) to be just a jumble. Should I perpetuate the use of this or should we come up with something a bit more reader friendly? --Lvivske (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We should try not to be coming up with anything. If you can find English sources, use whatever standard appears there. If you can't find anything, use your best judgement—I think you understand Russian better than most of the rest of us, so we might be less helpful than your own judgement. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well a google search for SDYShOR yeilds 500ish hits...SYShOR 142..so the 'standard' as it is right now is an obscure term as it is, outside of a few (unofficial fan pages) that were run through translators or w/e. --Lvivske (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
SDUShOR is yeilding 8k hits, I'll use it and create a disambig page --Lvivske (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Page up: SDUShOR :-) problem solved--Lvivske (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Just make sure you fill out the article explaining what it is and why its notable. At the moment its just a dictionary definition which would be elligable for deletions. -Djsasso (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, shouldn't the article be about the "Specialized Child-Youth School of the Olympic Reserve", not about the acronym? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirected page to Sports school --Lvivske (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Scott Young (ice hockey b. 1967)

Could someone please move this to Scott Young (ice hockey)? It's the only Scott Young article based on ice hockey. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not actually true. There are two, discussed a few weeks ago but no resolution see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive30#Page move request. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
And now its moot as I am creating Scott Young (ice hockey b. 1965) so there are actually 3. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

QMJHL History

Thought I'd share this with everyone who doesn't know. The QMJHL just launched a new part of their website, located here, that extensively details the history of the league, from 1969 to now. Included is every scoresheet of every game, and a whole bunch more things that I actually haven't looked at. I just heard about it, and posted here. But I imagine that this will do a lot to help us improve stuff about the QMJHL, and we can only hope that the other two leagues will eventually put up something as amazing as this. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Moncton Hawks (1987–1994; became Louisville Panthers) ?

Hi, does anyone have any information on this? I don't see any "proof" that this is the case. In looking at the pages that are created for the Moncton Golden Flames as well as the Moncton Hawks, I don't see any reference to the Panthers and that franchise.

Also, it seems that the Moncton Golden Flames and Moncton Hawks are really one franshise with the following time line:

New Brunswick Hawks (1978–1982; became Moncton Alpines) Moncton Alpines (1982–1984; renamed Moncton Golden Flames) Moncton Golden Flames (1984–1987; became Moncton Hawks) Moncton Hawks (1987–1994; Folded)

The Panthers would have this timeline: Louisville Panthers (1999–2001; became Iowa Stars) Iowa Stars (2005-2008; became Iowa Chops) Iowa Chops (2008-Present) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.55.254.106 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of general manager

What is the rule on this? The article doesn't capitalize it but quite a few hockey articles do. I usually uncapitalize it but I wouldn't mind seeing others' thoughts. If it's not, someone should fix it on Template:NHLTeamSeason. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Sports world hasn't started calling the position Head general manager with his co-general managers, associate general managers. That's what happend to the position coach. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...I think it is supposed to be capitalized but I'm not positive. I'll do some searching. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Mapleleafs.com says "General Manager" link, also the General manager article has it capped in the intro --Lvivske (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed awhile back I believe but I forget if it was on this page. Basically I think it came down to when you are talking about the title General Manager you would capitalize it, but when you are talking about it as a position its general manager without the capitals. So if you said "General Manager Darryl Sutter said the Oilers suck." it would be capitals, but if you said "A general manager of the Calgary Flames should not like the Oilers." you would not use capitals. So for an infobox you would capitalize it because you are talking about who holds the title of General Manager. Its the same idea as Prime Minister. When you are talking about Prime Minister Stephen Harper its capitalized but when when you say something like "A prime minister leads the majority party." it is not capitalized. Edit: here is a link that explains it Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles -Djsasso (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
good examples, I guess that seals it --Lvivske (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, capitalize it when you are using it as someone's title: "General Manager Darryl Sutter". On the other hand, it is also correct to have it lowercase when you are referring to someone: "general manager Darryl Sutter". I prefer lowercase and usually use that style. Using uppercase reminds me too much of the Grandiose Writings of the Seventeenth Century (or whenever), placing such Importance on so many Words. In other words, lowercase is correct in pretty much all cases, but uppercase is not. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
By that logic shouldn't head coach be capitalized when it's used as a title? RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes any title should. -Djsasso (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to have it capitalized, but it's not "incorrect". Like I said, lowercase will virtually always be correct, but uppercase will sometimes/oftentimes be incorrect. If you're unsure, opt for lowercase. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The rule of thumb on the link above gives a good way to decide. A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses the, use "Prime Minister". If the sentence uses a, go with "prime minister" But yes, as he says most people won't correct you if you don't use capitals. Atleast I don't think we have anyone picky enough to follow you around changing the capitals on such things. -Djsasso (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Division standings templates

I have been working on the NHL team seasons lately, and part of what I have been doing is linking the team season articles to division standings templates. My goal is to add references to all of the standings information and present the standings in a consistent way. What I'd like to start a discussion on is the format of the actual standings. There seems to be several ways to do it. The most common has been to label the individual team in green and bold the playoff teams.

Here is an example and I'd like people's thoughts. I've made it sortable (this makes the table wider as a side-effect), added a division and conference rank and a greyed out row to indicate the break between playoff and non-playoff. (I'd rather just a bold line between the rows, but I was not able to do it). The table headers have the "title" attribute, so if you mouse-over you get the full description. Maybe a note in small below is needed too.

Pacific Division
# CR   GP W L T GF GA Pts
1 2 Colorado Avalanche 82 39 26 17 231 205 95
2 5 Los Angeles Kings 82 38 33 11 227 225 87
3 7 Edmonton Oilers 82 35 37 10 215 224 80
4 8 San Jose Sharks 82 34 38 10 210 216 78
 
5 10 Calgary Flames 82 26 41 15 217 252 67
6 12 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim 82 26 43 13 205 261 65
7 13 Vancouver Canucks 82 25 43 14 224 273 64


We could still put (x),(y),and (z) after the team name to indicate things, such as President's trophy, however the conference standings are always important and should always be there, and I think, should be in a column, not just after the team name. Because you can get the x,y,z, etc. and it's cluttered.

Another thing to include (or not) is the PIM total for teams. I can find a reference in the NHL media guide for the standings, but not the PIM. If we have the PIM column, we should have a reference Alaney2k (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for getting off track (a little), but we've never fixed up the Division champions from 1982 to 1993 era. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Is that in the infobox that you mean? In that era, that was determined in the playoffs, right? Not in the regular season. Alaney2k (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's difficult to find a source saying, definitively, which one is correct and which one is not. Media from the time can go either way. Teams as well. An official league position on the matter is necessary. 93JC (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Two quick thoughts. The GP column does not need to be sortable. I also don't like the giant space between playoff and non playoff teams, especially given it ends up being sorted. The bold font to denote playoff teams is enough, imo. We also should put a legend at the bottom of the table noting what GP, GF, W, L, etc mean, like we do at team season articles. Otherwise, looks great! Resolute 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll see how you can modify sortable. The bolding is enough. I'll work on the note too. Alaney2k (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


How to center a labeled map?

I added a labeled map to the KHL page, but can't figure out how to center it....help? tips? --Lvivske (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to do it in the template, will see if I can help you after the football game (GO SWEDEN!!) —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Damn Danes... The problem is with Template:Image label begin which doesn't have a center option for float, an admin should be able to fix the problem I think. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Legacy

The article about the proposed ice hockey team is proposed for deletion. The discussion is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toronto_Legacy. Did I create it in error? Is there a better place for the information? Alaney2k (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We generally don't do articles based solely on people putting in expansion bids unless they are granted. --Smashvilletalk 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Especially not when, as the Globe and Mail article I read today said, the bid was unsolicited and without any consultation of the league offices. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it should be merged to Potential National Hockey League expansion for now. This likely is just a brief news blurb. We can always separate it back out if it becomes more. Resolute 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, good catch finding that article. I've changed my !vote in the deletion discussion accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be put in the "potential" list page, and redirected there. --Lvivske (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the comment in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toronto_Legacy that Potential National Hockey League expansion is intended for cases like these: any thoughts on any criteria for inclusion in that article? It's easy for anyone to just announce their intentions to bring a team to a city, such as seems to be the case with Alexander Medvedev; should all such proclamations be treated as notable? Isaac Lin (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There are normal Wikipedia standards for articles. Coverage by sources other than the primary source for one. Medvedev's not done anything other than said he wants to put a team in Quebec city, though. Alaney2k (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea for the article was to focus on all of the expansion talk, given Balsillie has made it a huge story for three years running. Toronto is routinely argued as being able to support a second team, and this article will reflect it. Whether the Legacy end up as a one sentence mention in that section talking about fly by night bids, or something of greater focus, will depend on how serious and persistent they are. Resolute 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Goalie stats

Does anyone else dislike the regular season and playoff stats combined like on Corey Crawford? I like two seperate tables. User:Triggerbit is occasionally combining them, I would ask him to stop but I don't know what anyone else thinks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer them combined, however I also typically use a 22" widescreen display. The issue with the stats may come down to display, and if someone on a 17" screen at 1024x768 has issues displaying properly, then I'd say to separate it. Resolute 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I keep them separated, even though they look fine on my screen. I suspect they get awfully squished (including the "Team" column requiring two rows) on lower resolutions. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On my screen it's like

2007–
08

Moncton
Wildcats

Kinda annoying.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I prefer them together however I have a 17" wide screen so they don't squish like they seem to for you Randy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm on a 13" 1280x800px display and it looks perfect. Personally, I prefer them together.--Lvivske (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got a 15" widescreen display, and its fine as well. I also like keeping them together to keep it similar to the skater stats. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you might have a wierd resolution on your monitor Randy. What resolution are you using? Articles are supposed to aim for 1024 x 768 resolution as that size works for 93% of internet users. Do you have a lower resolution than that? Djsasso (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1280 x 768. Similar to Lvivske's, but still weird. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just set mine to that and it still works. I think you may have your screen resolution set to a ratio not suited for your monitor. Is it a CRT or LCD? --Lvivske (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
(I also just changed the code a bit, making the table 95% rather than 85% of the display width.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to use em width instead of %? And personally I prefer combined, I have a 1280x800px widescreen on my laptop, but I always use wikipedia at 1024x768 with Firefox (firesizer add-on). —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

im on a 15" 1280x800px so looks fine to me. Im no fan of seperating the stat table and would like if the tables were like Tyler Weiman, where as the stats dont cover the whole page but just approach the player infobox. It looks good on my screen but as to other user's i wouldnt know so its confusing. If someone could explain what to use to make the size fits all for everyone that would be good. em or % width is like the chicken or the egg theory for me..

Personally i think the whole player stats thing really needs to be fully debated and updated in the structure player page section. There's so many users with all different preferences updating that there really should be something universal. for example User:RandySavageFTW puts the links on reg and playoff seasons or uses emdash instead of -- none of which is suggested in the structure page. (I actually prefer randys) My thing is to group the horizontal lines to signify the years, etc.. it gets really annoying after awhile of the continuous change of the stats, cant we have just one universal table? Triggerbit (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We technically already do, what is on the structure page is the official table. As for linking, I am not sure why that is not in the stucture page but that is part of what has been agree upon. Technically anyone doing things other than what is on the structure page are doing things contrary to consensus. -Djsasso (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a rule about the "--" — WP:MOS#Other dashes. And what's the structure page?RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The "structure" page in question is WP:HOCKEY/PPF ("Player Pages"), part of the main structure page which can be reached from our project page in the submenu "Manual of style". --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Need article name for Russian Championship / Cup of Russia (disambig. issue)

Hi. I'm currently working on a listing/article for the Russian Championship (aka. USSR Championship / Soviet Championship, Championship of Russia) and their trophy, the Cup of Russia (aka. Russian Cup, Soviet Cup/USSR Cup). With all those names, of course, there is a disambiguation issue; with some soccer/rugby tournaments already having the name registered. How should I proceed with the naming of this, so as to not step on the other sports WP's toes?--Lvivske (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See how long the other cups have been around, if they are long running ones then leave the pages where they are and disambiguate with brackets for the new hockey ones. If the hockey ones are the older ones or they are both fairly new/old then make the name a disambiguation page and disambiguate both with brackets. -Djsasso (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Junior teams

User:Mikeorg91 has added tons of empty pointless sections to the Canadian Hockey League teams. Not to mention they're capitalized and they shouldn't be. Example is Rimouski Océanic. Anyone know a quick way to undo all these edits, and also should there be the periods between QMJHL like the team articles have? Never seen it done before. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm going to rollback several of these. We don't need empty, misspelled sections. --Smashvilletalk 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you'll be editing all the Q articles, would you mind changing Q.M.J.H.L to QMJHL? RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Done diddly did it. He messed some of them up pretty badly...I think I fixed the majority of them...if anyone wants to run behind me and double check. --Smashvilletalk 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it was all done in good faith though. That said, Any kind of "logo and uniform" section is likely to be a WP:NFCC nightmare, and most junior teams shouldn't have player rosters because most simply aren't maintained. Resolute 23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm running back through right now and pulling out the rosters. --Smashvilletalk 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Viet3031

Viet3031 (talk · contribs) is making changes like this one to many NHL-team articles—he's not a member of your project, so I wanted to point it out. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Already been reverted. Someone else did this once and I believe concensus was to revert so I have been bold. But if someone else doesn't agree by all means discuss. -Djsasso (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like a bad idea... — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd put them in brackets, personally. MLB team pages note the number beside the years as well.--Lvivske (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I am not stuck on not having them, I do think the box looks worse and more cluttered with them there though but its not a big deal to me. As far as MLB goes, haha I don't like anything about their templates. -Djsasso (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What I might suggest if someone good with template coding can figure out how. Is make the total a seperate parameter so that the total can be put right beside the section name ie "Stanley Cups (4)" instead of in the second collum with the years. That would remove my only minor concern. -Djsasso (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree (and MLB and NHL templates suck, IMO)--Lvivske (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Women's University Hockey

Hi all--I'm interested in writing an article or two about women's hockey at the university level. Right now, I'm trying to write an article modeled after this for the Gopher women's team. As I adapt the existing article, I'm not sure what to do with the "NCAAfrozenfour" category in the template--should I just count up the semifinal appearances for the women's team? I don't know of any women's university hockey articles off of which I could model mine. Thanks for any help you can give! --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does women's university hockey have a final 4? I am guessing not by your comments. I would probably just leave that field blank if they do not have an equivalent, I beleive it will not show up if you do. -Djsasso (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As Djsasso mentioned, none of those championship fields are necessary. They do not appear if you leave them blank. However, the NCAA does indeed hold a women's Frozen Four (and has done so since 2001), so you should have no issues using those fields. I've been doing some work on NCAA ice hockey releated articles recently, so give me a shout on my talk page if you need any more tips or have collaboration ideas. I'd be happy to help in this area that desperately needs some. – Nurmsook! talk... 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Counting "Conference Championships"

So, I'm curious, after seeing some clarifications to the infobox for St. Louis Blues (ice hockey) - from the '67-'74, with the first rounds of expansion, for our articles, how does one classify a team as conference champion? Is (was) it the regular season points leader (aka the first seed in the playoffs)? Or should it be what (I at least) would normally consider it today, the winner of the Eastern/Western conference finals in the playoffs? Thanks, umrguy42 03:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conference champions are determined by who wins in the playoffs. Regular season conference "winner" is not a champion, just gets 1st seed. -Djsasso (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
So, I can go ahead and add in the '67-'68 season to the list of Blues' conference championships, then (it only lists '68-69, and '69-70, when they made it to the Stanley Cup all three seasons...) umrguy42 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually its not as clear as that. Its late here so I was thinking present day.... Look at Campbell Trophy to see how its determined in particular to the Blues. The NHL has changed how conference champions are determined over the years. Back then it was different. -Djsasso (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It's all good (other than EC'ing trying to reply here)... you beat me to a self-revert, but, whatever :) umrguy42 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool. -Djsasso (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There were no conferences from 1967-1974, so there is no conference champion. These years should not be included in the infobox. Resolute 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Final infoboxes

Right now there's no rhyme or reason to the way the two finalists are listed in the Final infobox. It looks pretty haphazardly to me. I think there should be some consensus and guidelines, such as higher seed first, or something to that effect. The previous two year's Final infoboxes list the Penguins above the Red Wings, even though they were the lower seed, yet the 2007 infobox lists Anaheim first, and they were the higher seed. Jmj713 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it was home team (ie higher seed) on bottom but I have never looked that closely before. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It's usually the higher seed, which is placed on the bottom. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. It just needs to be standardized. Jmj713 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the past final series have the winner on the top row. Alaney2k (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm good with either and agree it should be one or the other. -Djsasso (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Since we bold the winner, having the winner always on top is sort of redundant. Jmj713 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been based on seeding for a number of years, but in the past it alternated. I would go with whomever hosted game one on the bottom row, like baseball. Bold the winner, and bold the winning score of each game. Alaney2k (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to make sure the names on those article are correct (as seen by my revert at the 2009 Cup final article). GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Persistence. We must be vigilant. ('300' voice on)We are English!(voice off) :-) Alaney2k (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quebec Nordiques

Should the accent be on Quebec, like - Québec? That's how it's wrote in french but this is the English Wikipedia. I've seen it on some articles. Thoughts? RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it shouldn't. Nor should those 'accents' be on Montreal Canadiens article (this includes the Infoboxes). GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I took a peek at the Habs & Nords articles on French Wikipedia & they don't use the English versions. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Common use in English excludes the accents. Resolute 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop being silly GoodDay, of course the french spelling should be presented in the article about two teams based in a french speaking region. However it should not be in the title since Quebec Nordiques is the common name in engligh; if that is what you are wondering about Randy. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree Krm500. Let the accents stay where they belong (at the French Wikipedia). Anyways, the article title should remain as is. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
So should I remove München from the Munich article, Göteborg from the Gothenburg article, how about Bilbo from the Bilbao article, or is it only the native names with diacritics that you have an detestation against? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've no interest in the Munich, Bilbao or Gothenborg articles. However, you're free to remove those dios from there (I won't oppose). GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yet you are using the same idiotic argument for Québec-related articles? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
My opinons & your opinons are not idiotic. They are our opinons, which we should both respect. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok strike that, but if you get your wish and your opinion became an wiki-wide policy it would affect those articles and vastly reduce the encyclopedic credibility of Wikipedia. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Believe me. With each passing year, the chances of my wishes/opinons becoming a wiki-wide policy, grows increasingly slim. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your comparison with the various city articles: through their text, the city names used are those commonly used in English, as is appropriate and verifiable through reliable sources. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
And their native names are also presented, which also goes for the Canadiens and Nordiques articles. But GoodDay is pressing for us to remove the native spelling in the Canadiens and Nordiques articles, and if such a policy were in place that would also affect articles of cities and countries. Is that really an encyclopedic approach? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the terms "Montreal" and "Quebec" are currently used throughout the text for the articles on the Canadiens and the Nordiques, as is appropriate. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow... You still don't get it? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand that for this specific example, GoodDay would like the term "Quebec" to be used, and the article in fact uses it. As far as I can tell, you are in agreement. (There are indeed other matters where there is disagreement, but I don't think this is one of them.) Isaac Lin (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but he also wants to remove the mention of the french name (maybe because they happen to have diacritics?), and if hypothetically a policy would state that I gave him an example of how it would affect articles on cities and countries, not just hockey articles, which would debase the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) The usage throughout Quebec Nordiques is consistent both internally and with the Quebec City article. Since the English name of the city is Quebec, use that to refer to the city and the team name. For the French rendering of the name or for a French title, use the French spelling, e.g., Colisée de Québec. —C.Fred (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The other problem is that, using Munich as the example, it's clear when the German usage is in play because the spelling, München, is so distinct from the English. The issue with Quebec is that the French and English spellings differ only by an accent aigu. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, my argument is that this isn't the Canadian Wikipedia. It's the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And my point is that the diacritics are not part of the English spelling, even in Canadian English. Here's a section of—cleverly enough—a hockey article from today's Globe and Mail: "Talks surrounding an eventual sale of the Montreal Canadiens... Two Quebec-based groups have stepped forward to make their interest public: A consortium led by Quebecor Inc. chief executive officer Pierre Karl Péladeau (which includes singer Céline Dion and her impresario husband René Angélil)..."[emphasis added][11] Quebec and Montreal appear without diacritics in the article, but proper French names (of people) appear with diacritics. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It sure is sad to see. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is it sad to see someones name being spelled correctly in a reliable source? Why do you honestly have such a prejudice against them? Would you like it if someone spelled your name wrong? -Djsasso (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to spell my name anyway you wish in French, Spanish, Russian, Swedish, Japanese, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We aren't talking about those languages...We are talking about English, in which proper names do still use diacritics as much as you are loathe to admit it. The versions with diacritics might be the common version as some argue, but they are not the proper version. -Djsasso (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, so just which is the question here? Is it to render the English name with the accent (to which I say no), or is it to remove the French name of the organization, Nordiques de Québec, from the article altogether (to which I also say no)? —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I believe RandySavageFTW is asking if we should use Québec instead of Quebec in the article namespace, to witch the guidelines suggest and clear consensus here has been not to. However GoodDay is also pressing that we remove entirely the presentation of the french names (i.e. Nordiques de Québec and Les Canadiens de Montréal) which I find quite preposterous. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Though there was an assertion regarding the Canadiens infobox, I have not yet seen a desire expressed to remove the sole translation of the franchise names in the lead paragraphs. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What about their arena, Colisée Pepsi?--Lvivske (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is one of those issues where there is no accepted English translation. While "Pepsi Coliseum" would be obvious, even in English, the French name is used. There simply is no translation utilized, as is common with how English speakers treat French place and team names. Resolute 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And this folks is why we try to just leave the diacritics debate alone....and why I never remove or add them to articles if they are already there or not there. I follow what engvar says about canadian/american spellings...leave what is there originally, while engvar isn't really aimed at diacritics I find the theory behind that rule to be applicable. Even though I believe diacritics should be in articles I don't change words to them if they don't already have them because this debate sucks up too much of our editors valuable time. Nevermind that some editors always end up going away upset after. -Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, why not use Québec Nordiques as a redirect to the Quebec Nordiques page? Since in every English language publication they were not referred to with the accented e, it makes sense that in English there is no accent. Conversely since the "Pepsi Coliseum" is not the standard accepted name for the arena, Pepsi Coliseum could be the redirect for Les Colisée.Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's those 'diacritics' that I prefer deleted, above all. Also, Quebec Coliseum is acceptable, as it's an English translation. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways...the whole basis for no-diacritics is WP:COMMONNAME. The common name of the Colisée Pepsi in English is Les Colisée not Quebec Coliseum. -Djsasso (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
My consent isn't required for any of this, in fact you could easily slap an I DON'T LIKE sign on my head & ignore me. I've already explained that my consent is conditional. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Then why are you wasting our time? -Djsasso (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not. I've been standing up for the compromise (I thought) we reached years ago. No diacritics on North American based Ice hockey articles (exspecially NHL). GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Constantly saying I don't like it, without debating any of the merits or lack there of is just wasting peoples time. Any time someone brings up a valid point all you do is counter it by saying I don't like it without any other reason. The page you linked to even says you should avoid arguements like that. That is wasting peoples time . -Djsasso (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The NHLPA official website is a reliable source. It does not use diacritics on the NHL players birthplaces. Something you & others have constantly ignored. Oh yes, when the 'sources' support your argument, it's iron-clad. But, when they don't, you prefer to look for Wiki loop-holes. As I've said before, it's pure 'double standard', where dios are concerned. Very well (again) have your dios without my consent. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry...didn't realize the NHLPA also decided and controlled the rules of the english language. I mistakenly thought they were a players association. But by all means lets ignore what the rest of the wiki (and world) does on 30 templates cause the mighty NHLPA doesn't use them... -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh and I would note the NHL uses diacritics on some players names on their profiles...so I guess that means we should have them on all the articles too right? No I didn't think you would agree with that... -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You run the show, do as you like. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If pointing out that you contradict yourself means I run the show then I guess I do. I am also the King of the World...and am on a boat like Leo. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for acussing you of Ownership, Djsasso. I've retracted my above heated statement. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, the NHLPA is just one example of how common English usage in North America excludes diacritics. In the end, this really is a debate over nothing, and we probably should drop it. The Quebec Nordiques article is consistently named and spelled with common English, and a bracketed statement of the French name in the lead is perfectly valid. Resolute 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Folie à plusieurs, let's get a dénouement and put the coup de grâce to this cause célèbre, and regardless of stand in the war of diacritics let us be friends and follow our ëcumenism of improving ice hockey articles, because when we are not debating diacritics this is an über gemütlich place. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
...you bastard.  ;) Resolute 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Division champions on NHL team season articles

I may have brought this up before. Is there anyway, we can differiantiate these? Example: Canadiens win 'regular season' Adams Divison in 1991-92; Bruins win Adams Divison playoffs title in 1991-92. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: the Stanley Cup final is tonight

That tonight is game seven of the Stanley Cup final, so I'd imagine a lot of pages - bios, teams, stats, the Cup page itself - will come under heavy editing activity and vandalism. This is just a reminder to keep a watchful eye tonight. I'd also like to say that I don't like the Red Wings, but I hate Sidney Crosby, so I'm cheering for the lesser of two evils. Go Red Wings! -- Scorpion0422 18:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Go Red Wings Go, indeed. If Cros & the Pens win, the media coverage will be all about Gretzky & the '84 Oilers. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I am probably alot the same way. I recently moved to Halifax which is essentially Sids home town (cole harbour is now part of halifax). So everyone in this city is all about the Penguins. This city is going to go nuts if they win. -Djsasso (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I live in Southern Ontario, so there's a good mix of Pens and Red Wings fans around. I probably should hate the Red Wings (being a Leafs fan) but I like most of their players (except Chelios) whereas I can't stand Crosby, Malkin, Guerin or Fleury. Either way, I hope it's a good game tonight and not a blowout like we saw last week. -- Scorpion0422 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
IMatthew and I have a bet. If the Penguins win, he gets to put an image of Sidney Crosby on my user page. If I win, Mats Sundin is going on his. -- Scorpion0422 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sundin? Why not Lidstrom? GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Because I'm a Leafs fan first and foremost. -- Scorpion0422 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted Lidstrom, not Sundin!  iMatthew :  Chat  18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Very well. -- Scorpion0422 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry. The Red Wings are going to win. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Crosby is going to win it sooner or later, tonight I want to see Lidström raise the cup one last time. But the notion of Osgood potentially winning the Conn Smythe gives me the heebeegeebees. Anyhow, I'll keep my eyes on my watchlist after the game, even though it's at ~5am over here! —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The Smythe frontrunners are likely Osgood & Malkin. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
While I don't like the Red Wings, even though the Canucks seem to be the only team that can beat them, I will not stand for Crosby to be plastered all over the media for the rest of eternity. So while I won't be able to watch the last part of the game, go Wings. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, if the Pens win, it'll be Gretzky plasted all over the media. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Why gretzky, what's the parallel? ccwaters (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
A Pens win would have the '09 Penguins compared to the '84 Oilers. The media is obsessed with Wayne Gretzky & will take any opportunity to to include him. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Most analysts I have listened to have said its Holmstroms if detroit wins. They figured Osgood killed his chance due to game 3 & 4 and most of the people who vote on these things have short attention spans. I also have a sneaking suspicion that Crosby will never win a cup and that will be whats talked about when his career is done. -Djsasso (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping it's Osgood, but I wouldn't mind Cleary or Holmstrom. -- Scorpion0422 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hope not. I have no love at all for Crosby and the Pens, but I wish the Wings would just go die in a fire. Respect what that franchise has done, but I am sick and tired of hearing about them. Hopefully tonight is the beginning of the end. Resolute 19:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess all you need is a good flame to put them out with......... Okay, that was lame. -- Scorpion0422 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There's also a potential for Red Wings win the Cup & Malkin gets the Smythe. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Malkin should be considered even if Detroit wins. Cleary sound nice but it wont happen, Zetterberg again perhaps? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Lol, do I even have to say who I'm rooting for? Anyway, regardless of the outcome this year's series was superior to last year's. It's been another exciting season, we've come a long way from this. I would generally say, "Let the best team win." But I'm not stupid, hehe. Any off-season project suggestions? If we could I would like to create a template for how each season article should look. blackngold29 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Collaboration of the month? Guys, it's pretty obvious the Red Wings are going to win. :D
P.S. "even though the Canucks seem to be the only team that can beat [the Red Wings]" – Kaiser matias :D. Also, this section look like a blog
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It is blogging, which is forbidden. But, it was fun while it lasted. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's more a threaded discussion than a blog, and while it is generally frowned upon, given that this is about the only time a year we get off the topic of improving articles, I doubt anyone will mind much. Resolute 20:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Only megalomaniac british composers. Go Wings, only because its fun to see Crosby cry. ccwaters (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It has already begun, so keep your eyes open and watchlist updated! Btw I'm impressed by Pittsburgh. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 01:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well both team pages are protected from anons at the moment so it will only come from named accounts on those pages. Its the season and player pages we need to watch closely. -Djsasso (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN

I suggested at ITN that it should mention that Crosby became the youngest captain to win the cup — Agree/Disagree? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree. -Djsasso (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Why? How many goals did he score in these playoffs? Is it ITN material? Should the entire world be aware that Crosby was given a good team at a young age? I don't think so. The Stanley Cup winner is enough, very rarely do individual achievements get put up alongside it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.93.155 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
For the stats record, Crosby lead the Pens & the Playoffs, with 16 goals. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronger to LA rumour

The Score is reporting Pronger for Johnson and the 5th overall pick as a done deal, but not yet confirmed anywhere else. We'll probably see a fair bit of editing on the Jack Johnson (ice hockey) and Chris Pronger articles. Resolute 20:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Scott Niedermayer must be planning on continuing his NHL career. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We'll know in December. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If you go by what Canucks fans are saying, both Scott and Rob are signing with Vancouver on July 1st, as well as Gaborik, Hossa, and every other free agent ou there. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeepers, why can't those guys make up their minds. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now officially denied, link

When is the trade deadline freeze lifted? Tomorrow? ccwaters (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
July 1 or so. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, this would make any trades involving 2009 picks impossible. The freeze is lifted as soon as the final horn has sounded tonight.LETS GO RED WINGS!!! --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes. July 1 is when free agents become available. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Eric Duhatschek, it expires once the season ends. So, a few seconds after someone hoists the Cup. If this rumour is legitimate, we'll probably get the official confirmation tomorrow or so. There's also all kinds of rumours floating out there that this could be a three-way, or that the Kings would flip Pronger to Ottawa for Heatley. Too much nonsense going on with this speculation at the moment. Resolute 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, last month a Russian paper claimed that the Habs won't be re-signing Koivu & will re-sign Kovalev, pluse name him captain. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Any idea where Jay Bouwmeester is going? 05:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.93.155 (talk)
Nope. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Penguins win, and Scorpion0422 has a new userpage!

That's right! User:Scorpion0422 should put you in a good mood right about now! :D  iMatthew :  Chat  02:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This just hasn't been my day. First, I loose the dios argument & now the Red Wings loose, the Manitoba Moose (AHL) loose, the Blue Jays loose & the Yankess can't beat the Red Sox. Yep, I'm truly having a BadDay. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
PS: Has anyone checked out the eery similiarities between the 2009 & 1971 Finals? GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Price Briere trade + Ray Emery

ESPN has been reporting Carey Price to be traded to Philadelphia for Daniel Briere. Also Ray Emery's article isn't updated much given all his Russian play and now his coming to Philadelphia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.93.155 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob Gainey trade Carey Price? highly unlikely. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Flyers are also rumoured to be after Esche as well. I'd say that someone is throwing every goalie they can think of off the wall and hoping one sticks. Bunch of nonsense rumours right now. Resolute 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok Eklund, this isn't a rumor board. ccwaters (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
And that's no rumour. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kris Draper

Anyone have any idea how to fix his stats? The playoff section has a big space between GP and G. I'm not good with tables and stuff. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Roster Templates

Are we going to reveal all of the hidden players like we did last offseason, or do we plan to keep those players hidden? Thricecube (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Undrafted NHL players

It has come to my attention that there are loads of Undrafed NHL players not listed on the Category - Undrafted National Hockey League players, my most recently edited player Jiří Crha being one of them. Obviously he can be added to the category, but what would the guidelines be for anyone not to be included? Played in the NHL before the draft officially began? No one in the 1960's qualifies? Didn't play at least one game in the NHL? (well duh! Of course!) I want to be able to improve the category but don't want to over-do it by adding players left, right and center who don't qualify for the category. Raphie (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There's several NHL players, who've never been NHL draftees. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you nailed the most important one: NHL players who played in the league before the draft existed should not be included. Any player who played their first NHL game after the first draft but was not drafted should qualify. I don't know of a reason to exclude a player who fits those criteria. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea was to only list those who were undrafted since the draft began. -Djsasso (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what I thought, thanks guys, for now on if I find a playing meeting that criteria without the required category, I'll add it in. Raphie (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you know about this article: List of NHL players who were not drafted? You can go through each player and check if they're in the category. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes I knew about it but honestly never considered looking at it. It certainly isn't a bad idea. I'll look into it now. Thanks. Raphie (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
One more thing, do Supplemental Draft played count? Steve Rucchin comes to mind. Raphie (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
A draft is a draft. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just created and populated Category:National Hockey League supplemental draft picks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks man. Raphie (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

European team names

So as much as it sounds like I'm trying to promote my FL candidate, 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters, that is not the case. What I am concerned about is the proper name of European names. Up until a few days ago, I had the European teams listed using using terms like HC, HK or the local variant of ice hockey/club, where applicable (ex. HC Pardubice, Leksands IF, AaB Ishockey, etc). A few days ago, someone went through and hid all these "extra" prefixes/suffixes. Now, I am not as knowledgable in the workings of European hockey as I should be, so I want to know if the proper name of the teams includes these terms. To add context in either keeping them or dropping them, all the Wikipedia articles, and most websites, use them, while the NHL tends to not. I personally would keep them, as I like having the official name of the teams listed, not just the short version. However, I want the community at large to provide some insight to this, and give a definative answer. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I think using the official names are best, since well, they're official. The HCs, HKs,, IFs, etc. are kind of like soccer's FCs, and I think almost all the soccer team articles have their "FC" on their article name if they have it on their official. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, and this is just how I've been handling things....I use the HC prefix if the article doesn't define the sport, so as to disambiguate. If the article is about hockey, I hide the "HC". For example, look at the british premier league article...the "FC"s are hidden (ie, Arsenal, rather than Arsenal FC). Context is what decides whether to use it or not. Furthermore, for many teams, the "HC" is officially there but when looking at standings or league related pages, they are gone. So yeah, keep in article names but don't always need to use it in the prose/charts/listings. I will ALWAYS leave it in, if the team has no "tean name" and is just "HC City", since putting just the location in the text would be confusing, especially if the city has multiple teams. --Lvivske (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
So if I understand you properly, you would write CSKA Moscow, but HC Pardubice? If so, that is more or less what I would agree with. Kaiser matias (talk)
In Scandinavia and parts of Eastern Europe multi-sport clubs are fairly common. AaB and CSKA Moscow are both examples of this, fielding teams in a number of sports. Some of these have things like HC as part of their hockey team's full official name, for some it is not part of the official name, and is merely a way of distinguishing it from the football or volleyball team. However, if an article is dealing exclusively with hockey, there's no need to put the disambiguator.
I wouldn't put HC in the list at all. In the context it is highly unlikely that someone will confuse it with the city itself. Instances where a city has two teams but only one takes the name of the city happen quite often in football (soccer), such as Liverpool and Everton, or Barcelona and Espanyol. In football articles FC is rarely added even in these cases. For example the featured List of Scottish football champions contains both Dundee F.C. and Dundee United F.C.. In the list they are simply referred to as Dundee and Dundee United. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh in Sweden at least, the FC's, IF's, AIK's, BK's, and etc are what defines the teams. Many times fans chant the abbreviations more then the city/area name. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As it is right now, the KHL table has the names as I think they should be (based on the official usage, minus HC for all but HC MVD). Perhaps we could get all the euro league tables up to date so when needed, we can reference the common usage? If it is the case that swedish teams are heavy on the prefix. --Lvivske (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that all "HK"s be renamed to "HC" to represent proper transliteration of russian/belarusian or whatever language, barring popular usage or english source corroborating, of course. (example: HK Gomel)--Lvivske (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator needed: Blanking an edit notice

Can an administrator please blank Template:Editnotices/Page/List of NHL statistical leaders? We won't need it for another four months. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've updated it for next season. No point really removing it completely just to readd it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems a bit strange to be warning editors over the summertime to not add stats for the 2009–10 season which hasn't even begun. Also, make sure to change the "FROM THE 2009–10 NHL PLAYOFFS" to "FROM THE 2009–10 SEASON" (the "NHL" is implied based on the page the warning appears on). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops forgot that part. But to be honest, how many people will even change that page over the summer? I don't think its really an issue. Another admin is welcome to disagree with me though. :) -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth flags

I just want to point out, since I'm seeing this a lot on articles that use flags for place of birth...no player has been born in a post-soviet state! No Czech or Slovak flags should be used, just Czechoslovakia. Ditto for Kazakhstan...these guys were born in the USSR.

To put the flag of a country that came into existance after they were born, is inaccurate. I'm seeing Ukrainian flags being used for Bondra, a Slovak, because he was born in the Soviet Ukraine. It's misleading to fastforward the clock to 2009, if going by a birthday 30 years prior.

I'll fix what I see, as I go...just want to point this out so it doesn't perpetuate. Ya dig? --Lvivske (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I believe the rule regarding flags usage towards sports is to reflect their international playing team, not their country of origin. So unless the USSR, Czechoslovakia etc. are playing as one team again, using Kazakhstan, Belarus etc. is appropriate in this situation. In fact, most of the other sports' Wikiprojects have eliminated the use of flags entirely. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure which articles you are seeing this on, but our project does not put flags beside birthplaces (although it has been done in the past, and is still done from time-to-time by anons). In fact, it's not even allowed per WP:FLAGBIO. You'll see a flag to represent nationality on bio articles and roster templates, but I've never really seen a lot in the way of putting a flag beside the birthplace of the player. – Nurmsook! talk... 08:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the articles which specifically precipitated this comment were List of NHL statistical leaders and List of Chicago Blackhawks players. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Easily changed... swap "place of birth" with "nationality". That being said, "Russian Empire" on the Blackhawks list? I wasn't aware that any Hawks players were born before 1918 in the Russian Empire... Resolute 15:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Johnny Gottselig is one I know of... not sure if there are others. The Blackhawks have been around since 1926... — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that it should be nationality and not place of birth, but my edits to do so were reverted (see discussion on the hawks list page) so I'm just trying to play by the rules of the WP here. If it's going to be country of birth, then avoid historical revisionism. That's all. --Lvivske (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of historical revisionism, the history major in me has to point out that the Russian Empire was dissolved in 1917. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And the history minor in me would like to point out that Gottselig was born 12 years prior ;) --Lvivske (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to use historical flags, shouldn't all Canadians born prior to 1965 have the Canadian Red Ensign as their flag? The current Canadian flag was not in use until 1965 and beyond. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I do support not determining nationality by place of birth (Robyn Regehr makes for a humorous example of this), but I don't like the fact that the current proposal would more-or-less eliminate Slovakia, Belarus, et al. as these countries have only come into existence in recent years. I simply do not, for example, associate Zdeno Chara or Pavol Demitra with Czechoslovakia and I believe it would be erroneous to do so. Teemu08 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's worse to associate Kolzig, a German who grew up in Canada, so South Africa. May I suggest putting back the countries (ie. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, etc.) but in the Soviet examples, which republic they were from, though Slovakia has no flag in this era...but this is a slippery slope and not really in line with Wikipedia's rules....so nationality might just work better in the end, no?--Lvivske (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In theory, nationality is the best, but how do we discern nationality from a NPOV? While most recent players have played in international tournaments at some point in their playing career, that wasn't the case decades ago. Teemu08 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

David Malander

It appears that the recently removed David Malander has made a return to Wikipedia. Raphie (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Redeleted, salted, and author blocked. Thanks for pointing this out quickly! Maxim(talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Logged on, checked my watchlist and saw his name. I was gonna prod it myself but I figured that since it was already deleted it probably need speedy-deleted so I reported it instead. Raphie (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive31&oldid=1136415090"