Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69

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

Nashville Dixie Flyers

Should this page go up for deletion? There are no sources used at all and the tag has been there since December 2009. Someone want to take a look? LordAtlas (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • It's scarcely as if it's unsourceable, a requirement of WP:BEFORE: [1] Ravenswing 08:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Nah it is easily sourceable. I removed the tag because I put a source on. But it isn't one that does notability. But there are definitely sources out there for a pro team that lasted that long. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Final vs. Finals

How many times will we see something like this happen? Where it's titled Final but the link says Finals, just answer.Z.I. Barbour (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess the logo makes it pretty clear the title of that article is not correct. Resolute 20:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Per this RfC, the plural was decided to be the more common name and consistent usage per editor consensus. It appears the Special:Contributions/172.191.7.117 was the culprit for the most recent changes and I was able to fix it (with some labour). Yosemiter (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yup those names are common use names as opposed to offical names. Has been discussed many times and has been an RfC as linked in the previous comment. I think we discuss it just about every finals. -DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
NHL's website uses both variations. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It took a little while, but i got all those Stanley Cup Finals articles intros corrected. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

AIHL

Is the Australian Ice Hockey League, which is Australia's top level ice hockey league, considered to be a lower level league team under WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Although it is an amateur league, it is a national competition and it's players are selected to represent the country at an international level. The reason I am asking for clarification is that an editor is currently AfDing a number of player related articles on the basis that they do not satisfy WP:NHOCKEY, so therefore a ruling on whether the AIHL satisfies WP:NHOCKEY/LA is important. Dan arndt (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: Ravenswing probably can answer this better than me, but it all comes down to WP:GNG. If you actually read NHOCKEY, it is very clear in the phrasing with the words that are used and not used (as in it never says "in a nation"). NHOCKEY was created as a streamlined version of the basic criteria for a player that 99% of the time will pass GNG. The League Assessment was written in order to make a definitive list of leagues where each set of criteria applies (because all leagues do not achieve the necessary coverage to meet GNG and having all those leagues listed in the NSPORTS article would be very long). Being a "top-level league in a country" has nothing to do with notable coverage as hockey in Egypt is not covered the same as hockey in Canada. The fact that the AIHL isn't listed at all should tell you it falls somewhere towards Egypt in known coverage, or that no automatically assumed notability criteria that passes GNG can be determined based on the coverage given to said league. If you think that list is incorrect, I suggest you start by providing ample non-routine coverage in the AfDs as the beginnings of creating a basis for inclusion. (Just because a person fails NHOCKEY, does not mean the automatically fail GNG, hence the providing of sources.) Yosemiter (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Yosemiter: appreciate the feedback. It should be noted that Australia play in Group A of the IIHF World Championship Division II and are certainly a higher level of competition than Egypt (who don't even play ice hockey). In Division II they compete against national teams from Netherlands, Belgium, Romania and Iceland. They have competed three times in IIHF World Championship Division I (coming fifth in 1962) and whilst they currently haven't been promoted back to Division I they are not far of achieving that. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: Again read NHOCKEY, only players in teams at the top level of the World Championships (as in playing for the actual world championship overall) have presumed notability. Yosemiter (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you need a "ruling" on whether the AIHL meets NHOCKEY, it plainly does not. It is not a question of level of play or talent, but of level of coverage. If in the cases of the nominated players it was demonstrated that they meet GNG, then it would likely change the project's stance on the league.18abruce (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yosemiter and 18abruce put forth my own sentiments. Most criticisms of NHOCKEY/LA revolve around WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments: that suchandsuch league is the highest level of competition in that country, and so players in that league should receive presumptive notability. But as Yosemiter correctly states, that's not how NHOCKEY (nor, indeed, any subordinate notability criteria) works. Were the AIHL to be on the lowest rung -- Criterion #4 -- it would have to be demonstrated that every player throughout the league's history that's been their equivalent of a First Team All-Star and every player on the top ten all-time scorers' list could meet the GNG. Ice hockey being a little-regarded team sport in Australia (far behind Aussie rules football, soccer, rugby, cricket and basketball, and indeed its only mention in the Sport in Australia article is a single sentence about the first recorded hockey game played in the country), I don't believe it could pass that bar. Ravenswing 04:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Vegas Golden Knights "Background" and "Franchise history" sections

I think that these sections need to be trimmed down (particularly the "Background" section) and moved to History of the Vegas Golden Knights page. There are just too much detail, which would be better represented in a different place, while the main article would just mention the key points. Agree or disagree? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There isn't remotely a need for a History of article for a franchise that hasn't played a game yet. We generally don't split off to one of those until we have to. As the franchise gets older some of the detail gets cut out as new stuff is added. Its pretty normal for us to cover all the major history on the main page until we no longer can. That article as it is, is still quite short. We have teams that have been around decades that we haven't deemed necessary to create a History of page yet. Remember that too much detail is relative. If we had this much detail about the first pre-season of the franchise 10 years from now it would be too much detail, but being that the only thing that has happened to this franchise at the moment is this stuff then it is not too much detail. -DJSasso (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. In many ways, the fact that we have so much detail is a result of people putting in every newspaper story on the team. We don't need to split the article, we need to trim out the excessive details per WP:NOTNEWS. oknazevad (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned it a few months back, but I agree there is too much weight on the establishment of the team. The past NHL events could probably be removed entirely (because that is more about LV itself and not about the Golden Knights), the Development section probably could be done in one or two paragraphs (likely focusing on Foley and his ticket drive to demonstrate the interest and the bid itself), combine that with the Approval section, and move the naming section out to a new section (such as "Team information" where it talks about branding, logos, jerseys, etc. see Arizona Coyotes#Team information as an example). But that is just my two cents. Yosemiter (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:NHL team abbreviations

What is the purpose of Template:NHL team abbreviations? It currently links to a couple of user pages and this project's talk page archive. Could this be considered an obsolete template? – Sabbatino (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that is definitely obsolete, and incorrect regarding abbreviations. No reason for it to exist. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It was used on a few letters of List of NHL players back in like 2008 when a couple editors tried to make an effort to turn that list into a table. It's long since been reverted, so I don't see a need for it anymore. Feel free to TfD it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It used to be used on the list of NHL players but as Tavix mentions it appears to have been removed from them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) renaming

There's a discussion (sort of) at the article talk page regarding renaming the article and moving on to the next article, which is probably of interest to some here. To summarize briefly, previous articles go in 25 year installments, which are fairly logical (1942, 1967 are start and end of Original Six, 1992 is start of modern expansion), so 2017 would be the next break if that were to be followed. However my view is thats rather arbitrary, and suggest we go for 2004–05, to line up with the lockout then, as that is arguably a more definitive break in the league's history. So any other thoughts on this? Kaiser matias (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to do the cut at the lockout. Atleast for now, there is no reason in the future if hind site shows us a better split to adjust where they split. That being said this season is another expansion year so its not totally unreasonable to use it as the split as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No, I completely agree, run it to the lockout. That's a critical event in league history; Just Another (single team) Expansion is far from it. Ravenswing 15:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It sounds pretty reasonable as the introduction of the salary cap was a major point in league history. Deadman137 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Competition infobox venue

2016 World Cup of Hockey
2016 Coupe du monde de hockey sur glace
Tournament details
Host country Canada
Venue(s)1 (in 1 host city)
DatesSeptember 17–29, 2016
Teams8
2016 World Cup of Hockey
2016 Coupe du monde de hockey sur glace
Tournament details
Host country Canada
Venue(s)Air Canada Centre
DatesSeptember 17–29, 2016
Teams8

When there is only one venue, which is better, the number or the name?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Name probably makes sense when its only one venue. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Since it looks like no one else is going to comment, I'll add a note to the template's documentation that using the venue's name is an option.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My image editing and uploading skills are limited and a request has been made to update the Chicago Wolves logo from its 2006 version found at File:Chicago_Wolves_Logo.svg to the more detailed one they currently use. Any one like to oblige with a new .svg file? Yosemiter (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

checkY Done. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on Kevin Shattenkirk

I have protected the page but it looks like this article has been the object of some heavy vandalism. It may need someone with knowledge of the subject to clean it up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitals–Penguins rivalry

The current name of the article is wrong and is against MOS:CAPS. However, I can not move it for some reason and I proposed that Capitals–Penguins Rivalry would be moved to Capitals–Penguins rivalry, and started a discussion here. Please give your input. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Golden Knights' practice facility

There is currently a conversation on Talk:Vegas Golden Knights#Vegas Golden Knights practice facility about its inclusion and its notability to the history of the team. Same user keeps adding a general statement then it gets removed. I was the third editor to remove it and have probably hit my 3RR with it. Looking for another editor or two to intervene, incorporate it better (such as in the Team info section that also need some clean up), or comment on the discussion. On similar note, does City National Arena meet WP:GNG? Yosemiter (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So here we go again. Damn it.

When drafting the original NHOCKEY criteria, I'd expected a great deal more common sense on the part of editors than has proven to be the case. I didn't want to spell out a list of leagues, because after all leagues change, and I didn't want to tweak the criteria any more than had to happen. Unfortunately, I completely misjudged the degree to which some editors would go to distort or mislead about the criteria, and we've had to tweak anyway over the years. In some recent deletion discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylan Anlar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gunn (ice hockey)) the nonsense just keeps on rolling. I would, therefore, like to propose the following changes to NHOCKEY and see if we can put this to bed:

  1. Played one or more games in the National Hockey League, Czech Extraliga, Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League or the Swedish Hockey League;
  2. Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in the Mestis, Deutsche Eishockey Liga, Slovak Extraliga, HockeyAllsvenskan, National League A or the American Hockey League;
  3. Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star) in the Eishockey Liga, Belarusian Extraleague, 2nd Bundesliga, GET-ligaen, Elite Ice Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Western Hockey League or the Beneliga;
  4. Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American) in the men's play versions of the Atlantic Hockey, Big Ten Conference, ECAC Hockey, Hockey East, National Collegiate Hockey Conference, Western Collegiate Hockey Association;

Criteria #5 and #6 are unchanged. At the end, the following should be added: "For defunct leagues considered to satisfy any of the criteria above, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. No league not mentioned meets any of the criteria." Obviously NHOCKEY/LA should be changed to suit.

It's a pain in the ass, I know, but it seems there'll always be editors who can't be reached any other way. Ravenswing 12:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I would change #4 to "(all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American) in men's ice hockey as NCAA Division I". It reads right now as if a top-10 career scorer in the Big 10 would satisfy the criteria (and I am not sure that is correct as it has only been around since 2013) or that an all-conference selection could be misinterpreted. Otherwise this is probably fine (except that maybe add the ECHL to #3). I think we are always going to have problems with people interpreting anything, especially against more popular sports criteria like NFOOTY where being in top league in a country probably does count. As with any list, editors will likely complain "that the list it is incomplete" no matter how it is written because WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. A lot of folks also seem dislike the fact that any appendix to the SNG is an "essay" and that could still cause them to disagree with it. Yosemiter (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I am not fully in agreement with the status of some of the european leagues, however I really don't care...I would rather editors provide a history of GNG passes first anyway. It appears simplified, or over simplified wording, is the only way to prevent abject foolishness or blatant disregard for GNG. I would like to see the 200 games threshold maintained particularly for german and swiss leagues where the expectation is for average attendance in the 6k range per game. I mean that if these leagues consistently outdraw the swedish, finnish, and czech leagues, it is likely the players receive significant attention as well.18abruce (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not in agreement because I don't think we can drop the accounting for historical players, the whole purpose of NSPORTS is to protect those players who likely have/had sources but are pre-internet. I realize you have a throw away line at the bottom to try and cover that, but I think it needs to be front and centre in the criteria. If its a choice between this proposal and what we have now I think what we have now is better, people are always going to try and argue around it. We can't keep changing it, just have better arguments against those people in AfD discussions. Only thing that I do think we should adopt from this proposal is the brackets about goaltenders and 90 games. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • That's easily handled by specifying qualifying leagues in NHockey/LA. Resolute 00:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      • That is my point, that is how he plans to handle it above. I don't think it should be, because NHockey/LA is just an essay. I think it needs to be right in the guideline. We already see arguments at Rfd that nhockey/la carries no weight. This would only make those stronger. -DJSasso (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thinking about it some more this morning, all I think that needs to happen is have #2 spell out better that it means leagues that pre-date professional and maybe even give a year. And then call out the communist leagues specifically either in the same point or in another bullet. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I've no objection to that. Something along the lines of "Played one or more games in either a top level Canadian amateur league before 1909," that being the date the ECHA folded, "the Soviet Championship League or the Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League." Ravenswing 17:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • After seeing some of the comments referring to existing criteria 1 and 2, it could be improved by being more explicit with the phrasing while still keeping the NHOCKEY/LA. #1 could be Played one or more games in one of the existing or defunct top professional leagues in the world; #2 could be Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of access to a top professional league, the highest level of competition extant; (changes in Bold) Yosemiter (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh yes I like that wording, it fixes both. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • That is good wording, but the reason I think we need to put the leagues explicitly in the criteria is that nothing else is going to deter the cementheads who'll claim that (say) the Australian league is one of the Best In The World. NHOCKEY/LA is a tool, after all, and it's less important to preserve that than to secure NHOCKEY itself. Ravenswing 17:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Would anyone be opposed to my proposed phrasing here? Or at least until we settle on whether or not to explicitly list all leagues in NHOCKEY itself? Seems like numbers one and two are still creating some issues for those reviewing all the current Turkish nominations. Yosemiter (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and made the small changes because I am tired of this and this. Yosemiter (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright. We're seeing AfD after AfD where outside editors are coming in, looking at the revised Criterion #2, and just not caring as to what we claim it's supposed to mean. So I'd like to go back to my original proposal, changing it Criterion #1 as such:

    # Played one or more games in the National Hockey League, Czech Extraliga, Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League or the Swedish Hockey League, a top level Canadian amateur league prior to 1909, the Soviet Championship League, the Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League or the World Hockey Association;

    Could I have a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on this? There just is no other way around it: we need to spell out these leagues. We have several years worth of proof that nothing else will get through to the cementheads. Ravenswing 19:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

    • Agreed, it seems to cover #1 and #2 well enough. Some of these Turkish player AfDs are a bit ridiculous. Yosemiter (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed, at this point we cannot say it any clearer. Deadman137 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment. Why are the Swiss and German leagues omitted from here? They are no less important than all the mentioned leagues. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Reply: The German leagues ARE in there, but I left out the Swiss league, which I've just put back into the second tier (new Criterion #2); good catch. Ravenswing 22:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Missed the German league somehow, but thanks for pointing that out. However, I am curious on why the Czech league is in criterion #1, while the Swiss league is in #2. What is the basis for such grouping? And I also want to point out that the Swiss league changed its name to National League. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
          • The Czech Republic is a traditional hockey power, supplying many NHL players, that's never missed an Olympiad or the Worlds in over half a century, with over fifty medals in international competition and a dozen World and Olympic championships. The Swiss have made the podium only ten times (and only once in almost seventy years), and their domestic league is full of ex-AHLers and major junior players. It would be very difficult, I think, to make a case for presumptive notability for every player in the Swiss league. Ravenswing 09:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Good point. I am going to support these changes. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree after some clarifications above. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Hi WikiProject Ice Hockey, You are invited to Talk:Canada West University Hockey Awards#Merger Discussion to discuss merging CWUAA Outstanding Player of the Year, Mervyn “Red” Dutton Trophy, Dave "Sweeney" Schriner Scoring Trophy, CWUAA Goaltender of the Year, Adam Kryczka Memorial Trophy, University of Alberta Hockey Alumni Trophy, UBC Alumni Trophy, CWUAA Student Athlete Community Service Award, CWUAA Coach of the Year, and Fair Play Trophy into Canada West University Hockey Awards. Thanks, menaechmi (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Pond hockey, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Notification of CfD

Just in light of recent discussions, I thought I would inform the project that another hockey CfDs is active here and some recently closed ones are here. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I should really get on tagging our categories so they show up on our automated listings. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley_Cup#TFA_rerun

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Undrafted National Hockey League players

Did you folks realize this category was deleted? Are you ok with it or do you plan to dispute it? The same thing happened to the similar NBA category, and neither project was notified of the discussion. I am not sure if we will contest or not, but it seems like the two projects could ask together and make a consistent case. Rikster2 (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah not really cool with that, it is a pretty defining for an undrafted player to make the NHL. It is something you almost always find in articles that go in depth on a player who wasn't drafted. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
That is indeed silly. Just because the same category for the NFL was deleted in August 2017, that does not mean that the same should be applied to other leagues. And the reason for deleting these 4 templates is also absurd. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
If you guys are game I'd join in an effort to get these undeleted. Very few editors took part in the discussion and I am pretty sure we could demonstrate that not being drafted shows up in articles/obits routinely (aka - is defining). Rikster2 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there was a discussion specifically for NHL players back in 2010 (and NBA and NFL along that), and the arguments then still largely hold up. I also would support retaining it, though it should be clarified somehow for post-1963/69 players, as obviously earlier ones couldn't be drafted. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I see it is the same nominator taking a second swing. He nominated undrafted NFL players first, then the others when that one went through. The difference, of course is that unlike hockey and basketball the NFL doesn't have draft team categories so the "undrafted" category was kind of out on its own. Like I said, if people want to argue this I will take part. Rikster2 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not taking a stand one way or another at the moment but recreating the category isn't the way to go. WP:DRV is what you will have to do.
On a side note, a IP vandal has been hitting this page in the last 24 hours. I restored right afterwards. This talk page is on my watchlist. The same IP did the same at WikiProject Food and Drink last month. Is he going to do just WikiProject Talk pages I have on watchlist? Watchout Chess, Beauty Pageants, Boxing, and Florida (among others) then....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Bagumba has asked the closing admin to consider reopening the categories (NBA and NHL) for more discussion. I will make sure this project knows if/when that occurs. Out of curiosity, does any one know who created the undrafted NHL player category? I am curious if the nominator informed the creator of the category or not when he put it up for CfD. Rikster2 (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
A glance at the deletion logs suggests it was made (under a different name) by @Thricecube: back in 2006. I've notified him of this discussion, so at least this time he will know. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It sure would have been nice if Namiba (talk · contribs) had shown some basic courtesy and informed the projects. Though when it comes to the deletionists that live at XfD, they don't like it when outsiders find out about things. Makes it so much harder to get what they want. Resolute 17:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I created it years and years ago before I knew or cared about Wikipedia politics. To me, it was just a notable category - no different than the categories for the drafted players. Thricecube (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

DRV I've opened a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_September_10#Category:Undrafted_National_Basketball_Association_players.—Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The categories have been relisted so they can get more input. Please leave yours at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_16#Category:Undrafted_National_Basketball_Association_players -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Will Colbert

I have a question about the article on Will Colbert (and others I assume that are similarly situated). Basically, the result of a deletion discussion was keep because he was the top defenseman in the Eredivisie and therefore met criterion 4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Colbert). I find it odd the same criterion remains for the Beneliga, but no longer for the historical Eredivisie. Was that intentional or an oversight? When looking at the discussion to change WP:NHOCKEY I didn't see the Eredivisie mentioned at all. I didn't know if this was an oversight and the Eredivisie should be added to WP:NHOCKEY/LA or if it should not and only the Beneliga is all that is considered. Not part of this project so I have no dog in the fight, but it is noticeable that Eredivisie was removed and the Beneliga kept without any direct discussion. Anyways, this was something I noticed and wanted to bring it to the project's attention. RonSigPi (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I do remember when the listing was updated to reflect the league change, I don't think the intent was to dismiss the standing of the Eredivisie in NHOCKEY. I think it is simply an oversight during an effort to simplify the criteria. I believe it should be added to the list of defunct teams in the WP:NHOCKEY/LA under no.3.18abruce (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Ugg, this is one of the reasons I was against putting the leagues right in the criteria, because one was always going to be missed. Or there would be disagreement on if one should or shouldn't be there. But yes it should be included under the defunct leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Heck, *I* was against putting the leagues in the criteria, and only proposed doing so because nothing else would shut the boneheads up ... Ravenswing 18:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we are seeing in some current Afd discussions that people will disagree no matter what we put. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Two-way contract

Is anyone else opposed to the taking over of the Two-way contract page by NBA people? It is good that NBA is mentioned, but that table with NBA players who signed two-way contracts is a bit too much. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it, was clearly too much detail for a page about the general concept. Especially considering how many people are likely to get one every year. -DJSasso (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, how many hockey players get a two-way contract each season? Is it as few as a couple hundred? Come to that, don't most baseball players get paid a lot less in the minors? Ravenswing 22:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 NHL Expansion Draft

When the 2017 NHL Expansion Draft happened, the article was expanded to include the full lists of protected players. I noted at the time on the talk page that this seemed excessive, and that who couldn't be drafted was not perhaps pertinent. Two editors did express agreement, but I left it as is, pending further commentary. Figured I would ask here, since I didn't see any of the more active folks from this WikiProject weigh in. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I think it just needs the players drafted. I haven't looked at the other expansion articles but I am sure they just list the drafted players. -DJSasso (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it should stay. Reliable sources gave it a lot of coverage. I think we should give some context as to what was or wasn't available for Vegas to select. A list of who could have been drafted might be more pertinent. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hundreds of player could have been drafted. Seems like overkill for our purposes. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I would lean towards keeping the protected list. There were several articles and local team coverage prior to the draft about who teams either had to protect, would like to protect, choosing who to leave open, etc. While the list may not be necessary, it seems it would be the conclusion of such discussions and certainly affected who Vegas could pick from. Although, if deleted I do not think it would be that terrible of a loss, especially since many of the teams that were forced to leave players vulnerable to the draft ended up making deals with Vegas instead. Yosemiter (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that whose projections do you use, it starts becoming POV because you can't use everyone's and the minute you choose anyone's boom you stray into POV territory. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the articles for other NHL expansion drafts, only the 1967 and 1972 editions include protected lists, but I suppose this could be more about either available archival information, or even the attention to detail paid. I do note that there's no consistency to the formats of any of these articles, with tables, lists and bullet points employed in different ways at different times. All this to say I will leave it for now, as it seems there's a wide variety of thoughts about it. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about using any projections (it is all POV before the list was released). I just meant that the subject of the protected list itself was frequent in the months leading up to the release. Since the subject was discussed in general it just seems likely that the conclusion might be relevant. The rules themselves are well discussed in the article so it is probably sufficient with or without the actual list. Yosemiter (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Eh, I'm with Yosemiter; the hockey press was feverishly boiling over those protected lists, for a couple months solid, enough so I bet a case could be made for a standalone article on the lists alone. Certainly including them in the Draft article is the way to go. Ravenswing 21:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

NHL stats leaders

We need some extras eyes on the List of NHL statistical leaders article. You guessed it, I'm busy fighting back season-in-progress updates. PS - Editing Notification needs to be updated, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism to underwater ice hockey article

The Underwater ice hockey article has been subject to some persistent vandalism from an IP lately ( Special:Contributions/71.233.164.158 ) lately, from what I can tell by the history. The editor has been changing the names of people in the article and sports they played, as well as years. I'm still new here, and I don't know how to revert the article to its last accurate version. Would anyone here be able to do that, given that if falls under the realm of this Wikiproject? Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions in NHL articles again

User:Dogah pointed out that WP:NCIH only explicitly mentions players in the guideline. The user was changing mentions of Jarmo Kekäläinen in the NHL and Blue Jackets pages. Per the NHL, personnel pages also use only the English alphabet. Should this be made explicit in NCIH? Yosemiter (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

NHL's or its teams' articles should use the American spelling – Jarmo Kekalainen. Personal pages of players, coaches and other people should use the original version – Jarmo Kekäläinen. This has been the case as far as I remember. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I meant should the phrasing in NCIH be changed to include NHL personnel as well as players on team and league pages. NCIH makes no mention of any naming conventions outside of players' names. Yosemiter (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We leave out the diacritics, in the case of the article National Hockey League & the NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
So you agree the NCIH should be updated? Yosemiter (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
If you mean clarification of no diacritics for all personnel on North American based hockey league articles? then yes. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Not quite all: the QMJHL and the LNAH are still exempt. Ravenswing 20:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I know, we make exceptions for those. But yet, we don't make exceptions the other way for the World Cup of Hockey articles, which are NHL backed :( GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am suggesting changing Bullet #2 in Article names from "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics..." to "All North American hockey pages should have names without diacritics..." or something of that sort. The end of that sentence already clarifies the QJMHL and LNAH. Yosemiter (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem with that change, since it's been the practice for years. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest we are getting pretty close to the point (not suggesting we do it now) where we might need to consider that that guidance is not relevant anymore, since we came to that compromise the rest of the wiki has gone a long way towards becoming accepting of diacritics, where we once were the vanguard of using them in some places and not in others, we are now behind what most of the wiki is doing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with using diacritics, I only brought it up because there seemed to be an implicit use of the rule. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh I understand, I was mostly just commenting on it since I had been thinking about it awhile back. I mostly hate discussing the topic as it has in the past eaten up probably hundreds of hours of project members time. In the past a couple editors used to war about them quite frequently with other users and IPs. The compromise was created to stop the edit warring until one position or the other emerged as the route the wiki itself took because at the time there was no solid consensus one way or the other at the wiki-wide level. Was just noting that in the last few years things have changed a lot to the point where diacritics are almost the normal way of doing things, though not completely. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's best to leave the compromise in place. Why risk stirring up a lot of sh-t. PS - We also have a Baltics compromise in place, concerning hockey personnel born between 1940 & 1991 in Soviet era Estonia, Lativa & Lithuania. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

NHL Roster Layout

I see a problem in listing the current age of the player in the "ROSTER" template for NHL Teams. I am looking at older Roster lists (like the Toronto Maple Leafs 2013-2014 roster) and it appears most players were in their 30s because that is their age now and not their age in that particular year when they played. Eventually players on that roster will be in their 40s, 50s etc, or even dead, and still the age will roll forward. One can argue that you could just to the math and subtract the numbers of years that have passed from the player's current age to determine the player's age in that season when he actually played. I have two possible solutions, one, list the year of birth instead of the age, or better still in my opinion, the player's age at the start of that particular NHL season (or some other fixed point in time). If this has already been discussed I apologize.AntropovNikki (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent edit for Template:Player5 and the problem appears to be fixed. --SP17 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that. It looks like once the season is over, the roster that is just a reference to the roster template needs to be replaced by a static roster as of season end date. I see that has yet to be done for the Toronto Maple Leaf 2016-17 season (thus all 2017-18 changes are on that roster), and the roster for 2014-15 was simply removed.AntropovNikki (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead and take a look at the 2016–17 Toronto Maple Leafs season roster now, the Player5 template and using the roster parameters should work now. Yosemiter (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Stan Butler

Hey folks, I just created the article for Stan Butler (ice hockey). Please have a look and make improvements as needed.

Question: What to do with the redirect at Stan Butler? Do we make it into a disambiguation page instead, or something else?

Flibirigit (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Article takes precedent over redirect. And nothing linked to the redirect anyway except the actor who played the character, but the target of the redirect was already linked in the sentence anyway so no need to link to the same place twice in the same sentence. Anyway I moved the article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the page move. Should we put something at the top of the page such as... This is article is about the hockey coach, for the fictional character, see...? I know there's a template but I can't remember where to find it. Flibirigit (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably not necessary because its probably self evident. But if someone wants to that would be fine as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Heads up...

Ukrainian Hockey League is in the NPR queue and I'm thinking the best solution would be a 3-in-1 merge. The first article was titled Ukrainian Hockey Championship which focused on the award before a team was formally organized. The first team was known as Ukrainian Hockey Extra League but they recently changed their name to Ukrainian Hockey League which is the one in the queue. I don't think we need 3 separate articles as it may prove confusing to our readers. My suggestion is to merge-delete-redirect into a main article - Ukrainian Hockey League - and in the history section explain the other names. Atsme📞📧 16:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Had a hard time trying to figure out what you are saying, but atleast one of these things isn't the same as the others. Ukrainian Hockey Championship is an award, and is not about the league at all. The award has just gone to teams from multiple leagues over the years. The other two from what I can tell are two separate leagues, and if they are two different leagues then they need to remain separate in order to not confuse readers into thinking they are the same thing. I am investigating right now, one of them was a redirect until today. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
In looking into it the two leagues do appear to be separate leagues that are similarly named. And as mentioned the championship article is just an award that is handed out by the Ukrainian ice hockey federation independent of a league. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Players vs. Coaches statistics

Has anyone else noticed the differences in style between the players and coaches statistics? Players have all seasons/leagues in one chart, with a subtotal for each league at the bottom. Whereas coaches have NHL stats separated from all other leagues, with only NHL totals listed. Shouldn't we be using the same format for both? Flibirigit (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Women's hockey

I have mostly tried to stay out that entire scene because of some of the "women need to be recognized" arguments (some are substantiated and others are unsubstantiated). However, there does seem to be enough evidence that, at least in the case of the NWHL, that the league could be included into WP:NHOCKEY#3 if it were to be slightly rephrased as the league does not have First Team. They do award MVP, top scorer, top defense, and top goaltender, which could be viewed as a First Team as those winners would also usually be named to one if it were to exist. It is possible that CWHL also fits if anyone wants to look into it. It appears almost all NWHL players that would qualify for #3 already have pages, even if they have not played on National Team. Rephrasing to match "First Team or Top League Honours at their position" of some sort would also clarify situations such as this issue with the WHL only awarding Conference First Teams. Thoughts? Yosemiter (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Hmlarson (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The NWHL is a fully professional hockey league, just like the NHL, KHL, Swedish league or any other men's league. There is no reason that any player who has ever played in an NWHL game shouldn't be notable. Also, since the CWHL is now professional and paying it's players for the first time this season (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cwhl-wage-canadiennes-women-hockey-1.4344424), CWHL players who have played in a game should also be considered notable. Also, if both leagues being fully professional is not enough to qualify for notability, both the NWHL and CWHL have all-star games, all-rookie teams and a bunch of other awards that could be used to qualify individual players for notability. Jith12 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Jith12 There are lots of fully pro leagues out there and they are not covered equally in the media. This discussion is in regards to media coverage of a league's players and the NWHL or CWHL are nowhere near the leagues you mentioned (as an example: when the Boston Bruins won the championship, it made the front page of every Boston newspaper; when the Boston Pride won the championship, it barely got mentioned in a few Boston paper's sports sections). This is based on my observations that NWHL players get about as much coverage as AHL players, who are listed in #2, however, since the NWHL is a long ways from 200 total games, #3 seems appropriate. (Also worth noting: you claim they are "fully" professional, but this is still unfortunately not the case. I hope one day it is, but right now they do not quite get paid enough to make a living. There are several articles about what the players do when they are not playing to back that up and the NWHL has cut their salaries in half since then.) Yosemiter (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've not yet seen any evidence to support the notion that the NWHL gets enough coverage to warrant a change; some editors are advocating it from an WP:ITSIMPORTANT standpoint, blissfully free of any genuine proof. That being said, in response to Jith12, that NWHL players receive paychecks is immaterial: our standards for inclusion are a great deal higher than that. Players in the Federal Hockey League get paychecks. Players in the LNAH get paychecks. Players in minor leagues sports-wide get paychecks, and they don't automatically qualify for articles. I'll give you the same challenge I've tossed out to other editors (and which no one's ever taken up): demonstrate that twenty random NWHL players (who don't otherwise qualify by way of being Olympians or playing in the Worlds) can meet the GNG, and I'll be happy to get on board. Ravenswing 04:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I would be willing to go along with pre-eminent honours categories for both the NWHL and CWHL. Looking over the list of award winners (I did not check all of them) suggests that these are players who we would deem notable. Some sort of career mark for the CWHL might also be relevant based on the amount of coverage from the montreal gazette and radio canada, but I don't know what that would be and there have not been enough seasons for all time top ten scorers to be part of the criteria.18abruce (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am currently going through the award winners to see how many actually meet the GNG without already meeting NHOCKEY through Olympics or World Championships so I won't comment one way or the other just yet. However, the problem I do have with #3 is that we count top-10 career scorer as one of the criteria and I am not as sold that that would fit with these leagues. It might be a good idea to have a separate but similar criteria for these leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Significant organization and addition to NHOCKEY would be of assistance to non-experts who assess articles. As always, SNGs assist GNG, but listing organizations helps evaluate the significance of sources found. Montanabw(talk) 06:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Montanabw: The organization is not question, just the coverage of the players. Yes, SNGs are helpful towards GNG, but only if the SNG proves to be verifiable 99.9% of the time for its players. (Hence why I wanted this documented.) Feel free to help on the list below. Yosemiter (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: TBH, I've never heard of the NWHL, until reading this entire discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

For those who vote support (specifically Hmlarson and Jith12, 18abruce used a reason based on coverage and had proper questioning), we do need GNG to back up as this was not meant as vote, it is a suggestion. This is more of a case study for GNG based on league participation. The list of players that would be identified for presumed notability for the NWHL are as follows:

  • Already meet an NSPORT criterion:
    • Brianna Decker – NWHL:2x MVP, 16-17 Scoring champ, Top-10 scorer (#1); qualifies under NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6 for Nat. Team appearances
    • Hilary Knight – NWHL: 15-16 Scoring Champ, Top-10 scorer (#2); qualifies under NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6
    • Gigi Marvin – NWHL: 15-16 Defensive champ; NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6
    • Megan Bozek – NWHL: 16-17 Defensive champ; NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6
    • Kelli Stack – NWHL: Top-10 scorer (#3); NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6
    • Meghan Duggan – NWHL: Top-10 scorer (#4); NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6
    • Kelley Steadman – NWHL: Top-10 scorer (#7); NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6
    • Jillian Dempsey – NWHL: Top-10 scorer (#8); NHOCKEY#6
    • Alexandra Carpenter – NWHL: Top-10 scorer (#9); NOLYMPIC and NHOCKEY#6
  • Have not met a current criterion:

The goal is to see if the last five meet GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Analyzing Brittany Ott

Alright, here goes. First up is Brittany Ott, and I can find the following reliable sources that mention her:

[2] quotes Ott about last spring’s potential boycott of the Worlds, among quotes from several other players.

[3] likewise is just a quote, and about the same issue.

[4] namedrops Ott’s name.

[5] Ott is mentioned in a photo caption, and is otherwise not in the article.

[6] mentions Ott in a match report from last spring’s Isobel Cup final

[7] photo caption in a match report

[8] is a piece on the league’s four first round draft picks last year, and mentions Ott by way of the goalie Boston drafted who they thought might replace her in net.

[9] fluff piece on the last all-star game, where Ott’s mentioned (I am not making this up) by way of another player hitting her in the face with a pie.

[10] cited among a number of other UMaine athletes as winning university athletic awards.

[11] mentions Ott among several other Pride players who attended a festival at Gillette Stadium

Those are the only reliable sources in the first fifty G-News cites (all the rest are blogsites, school papers and league sites). Not a single one provides Ott the "significant coverage" the GNG requires, and scarcely says anything about her at all. Based on that, I’d certainly vote to delete were an AfD filed on Ott. Not a good start for declaring that the NWHL can meet any criterion of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 05:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I found the same with Ott already, I had tried to prod her and was going to file an Afd on her shortly but this discussion came up so I have held off. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
ECHL comparison: Josh Robinson (ice hockey) 2015–16 Goaltender champ – 383 G-News hits vs. 261 for Ott. Not sure how reliable The Hockey Writers are, but they did publish this rather in depth piece on her after her third re-signing (which is in the realm of routine, just seems more in depth than what I normally see for signings). Yosemiter (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
[12] Gives a non-trivial treatment of Ott; several other players in the article, but Ott has an entire section. Bill McKenna (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Analyzing Katie Fitzgerald

Let’s take on Fitzgerald next.

[13] is a good cite; a feature-length article from a large circulation paper.

[14] is one of the non-qualifying cites for Ott, and isn’t any better here; the sum total referencing Fitzgerald is “In front of a full rink, the Riveters won, 3-2, led by goaltender Katie Fitzgerald’s 44 saves. A few months ago, Fitzgerald was playing in a men’s recreational beer league.”

[15] quotes Fitzgerald among several other players concerning the University of North Dakota’s decision to cut women’s hockey.

[16] is about one of the goalies vying to succeed Fitzgerald as the starter for her college team, and I suspect the feature stems from that she just happens to be the younger sister of a certain Pittsburgh player who has some modest renown in the hockey world.

[17] mentions Fitzgerald in passing as having played for the team the previous year.

And that’s it, from sixty cites deep on G-News, most of which are blogsites, league pages and team pages. One valid cite isn’t enough to satisfy the GNG, and now we’re zero-for-two. Ravenswing 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

ECHL comparison: Riley Gill 2016–17 Goaltender champ – 432 G-News hits vs. 229 for Fitzgerald. Unfortunately I did not see anything more than that which Ravenswing already pointed out, just game and preseason analyses. Yosemiter (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Analyzing Kelly Babstock

Next is Kelly Babstock, and frankly this is pathetically scanty. I didn’t go fifty or sixty deep, I went ALL the way through the G-News unique hits (82), and they’re almost all the same blogsites and league sites, leavened by some routine sports coverage from the website of the small-town weekly servicing the town where the Connecticut Whale played the first two years, and from Babstock’s college campus paper. There are only TWO reliable cites:

[18] mentions Babstock only as a caption to a YouTube clip: “Following Engstrom’s suspension, a line brawl took place on Jan. 3 after Madison Packer of the Riveters got tangled up with Kelly Babstock and Brittany Dougherty of the Whale.”

[19] is a piece on the league’s opening match, which mentions Babstock with ““It was awesome. The atmosphere was amazing, because everyone came here excited. We all fed off that,” said forward Kelly Babstock, who scored the Whale’s fourth goal.”

This is absolutely AfD fodder. Zero-for-three, and now I'd like to ask the people supporting such a change to NHOCKEY exactly what their basis is for thinking that these players by and large can meet any NHOCKEY criteria whatsoever? Ravenswing 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Analyzing Janine Weber

Alright, Janine Weber’s turn, and you’d think she’d meet the GNG if any of these players did: she scored an overtime goal to help her Boston team win the Clarkson Cup. She was the first player signed by the NWHL. She’s played for the Austrian women’s national team. And there are some actual reliable sources here. But let’s take a look ...

[20] and [[21] are routine match coverage from the aforementioned Cup-winning game.

[22] quotes Weber, among several other players, in the wake of the threatened US boycott of the women’s worlds.

[23] is about the NWHL mid-season paycut last year, and provides this coverage of Weber: “Riveters forward Janine Weber said everyone understood the risks involved in joining a start-up venture that was bound to encounter setbacks.”

[24] quotes Weber with a couple other players going into the first season.

[25] mentions Weber in passing: “The Riveters also boast some of the league’s most important players from overseas, like Austrian sensation Janine Weber, Russian star Lyudmila Belyakova and Japanese goalie Nana Fujimoto.”

[26] is a 10th anniversary piece for the CWHL, and mentions Weber thus: “There was also the time when Blades rookie Janine Weber had to turn down the Hockey Hall of Fame’s request for her stick, because it was her last one.”

[27] mentions Weber in passing: “Someone like the Austrian star Janine Weber would probably have to obtain a P-1 visa for athletes, which can take one to three months to process and prevents players from taking side jobs.”

[28] is a long feature piece specifically on the difficulties international players find in the NWHL, and you’d think this one would say a lot about Weber if any of these sources did. Herewith the sum total: “The desire to rise to their level has also driven Janine Weber of Austria, who formerly played in the C.W.H.L., and scored the winning goal in last year’s league final, before becoming the first player to sign with the N.W.H.L. Before the season, Weber said she favored the increase in practice and individual training times made available by the Riveters, which would offset her inability to work another job.”

None of this coverage surmounts routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from counting towards notability, and short of someone coming up with coverage in the Austrian press, I’d support an AfD here as well. Zero for four. Ravenswing 13:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I think what's lost here is the idea of what Wikipedia is, and in the bigger picture WP:NHOCKEY is missing the point. I've been saying this for a while and getting replies back about 'no press coverage, poor attendance' and such. The header of WP:Notability states "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." To me, that's a pretty strong refutation of the standards set in WP:NHOCKEY, and a team bio page, or a local news item about a first game played would normally be a reliable source for the verifiabile standard. You may, of course, disagree. Under the guidance of WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT, there have been some reasonable concerns raised. Specifically, is there a group of writers who have decided to take up the feminist cause, thus forcing unwarranted articles into Wikipedia as if on a soapbox? I can only say from my own experience, I have been trying to help fill in a rather large body of knowledge that has not been added. Women's hockey, as unpopular as it may be, is under-supported as a subset of hockey. All of the non-trivial knowledge, such as an athlete playing in the top tier professional league of ANY sport should merit notability. That certainly applies to the NWHL, alas, even if it proves to have a life of 4 years. I would make the same case for the CWHL, and its players. In most sports, notability is inclusive, rather than exclusive. For instance, a badminton player who medals in the Canadian Badminton Gran Prix is notable (WP:NBADMINTON). The most recent of these events was held in Calgary this summer. I looked for attendance data, and couldn't find it. Let's face it. It didn't sell out. Yet, the Badminton standard is more typical of the standard set in WP:NSPORTS, while hockey is easily the outlier. For my money, Badminton et al. have it right. You may disagree, of course, but hockey is in a lonely place. Inclusion of NWHL players (1 GP) is obvious to me. Respectfully yours, Bill McKenna (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC) BTW, am I the only one who is surprised to find an "n" in badminton?

The problem is that you are missing the line right at the top of NSPORTS. That meeting NSPORTS does not mean that articles must be kept. NSPORTS is only a rule of thumb as to when articles are likely to meet GNG. Are there sports that are too lose, most definitely, the reason that is often the case is that there aren't enough knowledgeable editors in that sport so the rules were never tightened up to where they are supposed to be. The idea behind NSPORTS that you will see people talk about on that page all the time is that if you meet NSPORTS you should be 99.9999% likely that you will meet GNG. Some sports with lots of editors like hockey, baseball, basketball etc tend to make sure that is the case because there were numerous people to make sure those standards were accurate. Whereas to use badminton as an example I would suspect there are very few editors that are knowledgeable about that subject's coverage in the media. You are right notability doesn't depend on fame, popularity or importance. We determine worthy of note based on how many sources a subject has, sources indicate what society has deemed worthy of note. That is the whole basis behind GNG. From GNG ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Just mentioning that someone played their first game is not significant and is the definition of trivial. Significant on the other hand would be something that went into detail about the player, maybe their upbringing or their career path to that point, an analysis of the type of player they are etc etc that went into significant detail. That badminton players that may not receive coverage have articles is more an argument to make sure we fix those standards than to loosen the hockey ones (which are often brought up on NSPORTS as being too lose as it is.). That being said the badminton requirements basically match our hockey ones, play in the top competition in the world. The World Championships or the Olympics. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think there should be some caution in viewing the NWHL as a top league anyway. For instance, look at the rosters of the past two world championships, and where do the goalies for Canada and the USA play? I think it is far too hasty to attach too much importance to having played there. I personally believe looking more indepth at the CWHL would be beneficial because I think it has had some time to establish itself, and it seems to me there is greater odds currently of the players getting coverage (in Calgary and Montreal anyway). In general pre-eminent honours of some type seem logical to me, all-time scorers from the CWHL might make sense while not so much from the NWHL.18abruce (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." That's the key element right there, Bill McKenna. You state "Women's hockey, as unpopular as it may be, is under-supported as a subset of hockey." Well, yes, it is relatively unsupported because it does not attract the media attention that more popular fields of endeavor do, and without those reliable third-party sources, these players should not have separate articles. Yes, at this point -- much though I loathe the cementheads who scream "SJW! SJW!" any time they encounter an idea they don't like -- I do feel that there is a group of editors pushing an agenda in open defiance of the GNG and Wikipedia notability standards. No other conclusion is possible, given that the Support voters here are unmoved by comprehensive evidence that these players just do not meet the GNG. Ravenswing 21:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I was going to let the commentary here go on without me, as I've fully had my say. Nonetheless, in reply to Ravenswing: You and I have a simple impasse that we're not going to resolve without the broader WP community, at least the portion that pays attention to hockey. That's OK, I understand your point of view, and let's go where the consensus takes us. My perspective is that a player bio on a team's site constitute a third party source that fulfills the requirement of avoiding indiscriminate inclusion. I think that the idea here is that people don't add their sister who won a college track meet. Maybe not, it could be that a higher standard is the way to go, but I really don't think so. When I do a random browse on WP I note the massive amount of articles devoted to moths. I've also noted that possibly every village in Poland is referenced. These aren't indiscriminate, and I think they add to the encyclopedic body of knowledge. Hockey players in the NWHL probably fit this model. They're worth mention, and meet GNG. Again, if a higher standard of inclusion for NWHL players is what we end up with, I can accept that, but I do think inclusion based on NWHL play with some criteria being set is entirely appropriate. CWHL and the European premier leagues would most likely deserve similar criteria, assuming that, for instance Sweden premier league meets criteria for any gender (I hope so). As an aside, there are a small handful (either 2 or 3 if Sarah Nurse is active in the NWHL-can't recall) of NWHL players who should have articles for their social impact, namely Kelsey Koelzer and Harrison Browne. But that's almost beside he point. Also I hope I'm not screaming "SJW! SJW!" I have no idea what the acronym means, but I certainly would prefer not to be a cementhead...I merely want the idea to get a fair hearing. Now I really have had my input, and will read the rest as it comes in. Thanks, Bill McKenna (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll just comment this far: it is longstanding consensus Wikipedia-wide (and not remotely restricted to sports bios) that while a non-independent source can certainly be used to verify biographical details, it cannot be used to support the notability of a subject. A player bio on a team site is no more a "third party source" than an employee bio on a corporate site ... which, after all, a player bio on a team site is. Whether you think such sources ought to count towards satisfying the GNG is as may be, but currently they do not. Ravenswing 02:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this is premature, but it appears that everyone has said their piece, and its been 5 days sans comment. My take on the conversation is that we do use the NWHL as a criterion for WP:NHOCKEY at a pretty high level, in which most of the players that would qualify would already qualify for other criteria. My POV certainly didn't prevail, but I'm OK if there's a consensus to wrap around this issue. The NWHL criteria at the level I'm seeing would perhaps add a small handful of players Brittany Ott and Janine Weber are candidates either now, or soon. At some point, we all should consider the CWHL and the elite European leagues, but I don't know if that's a conversation you editors et al, and myself want to pursue just yet. I'm hoping that you all can take my opinions as an attempt to get things right, and not as an attack on the hockey folks. In fact, you've been bringing me up the learning curve on this stuff, and I'm getting more comfortable with the WP community. Thanks, Bill McKenna (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bill McKenna: I think it is premature to conclude anything. In fact, I would argue the opposite of what you state seems to be the case. This was not a vote, it was case study for the inclusion of the NWHL into NHOCKEY#3 where 99% must meet GNG (in the case of the young two-season old NWHL, it needs 100%). Most from the women's project participants vote "keep" but did not or would not supply the sources here needed for GNG, which appears to only be votes based on WP:ITSIMPORTANT (a sentiment I do share but I cannot fix the attention they fail to get) Based on my research into sources, Ott and Weber are borderline Keeps IMO with Fitzgerald a possible delete but I do like the one source from the Chicago Herald. However, based on the general discussion on routine local coverage I started here, it seems that Babstock and Kunichika would fail GNG for now. So 99% definitely do not pass GNG in my opinion (specifically 85.7% pass just #3 at best), so it is too early to include in NHOCKEY and the players must be taken on case-by-case basis. Yosemiter (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
(As a side note, the entire reason I started this was based on a comment you made on the women's hockey project: "the notability guidelines have completely disregarded Women's Ice Hockey". The purpose here is that we haven't, it is just not at the point that women's leagues get enough consistent coverage on the players themselves to be included in a specific guideline outside of national team participation.) Yosemiter (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Yosemiter:. I understand some of what you're saying, but I am confused about the 87.5% and 99% issue. I'll take it as a given that you know what you're talking about. I also didn't mean to imply that this was a vote, just that we had something of a consensus to conclude that the NWHL issue should not be inclusive on the basis of 1 GP. That said, my sense was that most felt a much higher standard needs to be applied, and as such, a preeminent NWHL honor, still to be defined, should qualify for inclusion in WP:NHOCKEY. I am willing to accept that I may be misreading the commentary. I am not unaware that this becomes nearly moot by the very low number of articles that would be allowed by such a criterion, but by modifying the criteria such that the NWHL is considered it: 1) removes most fair criticism that women's hockey is not addressed in a meaningful way, and 2) strengthens the WP:NHOCKEY rules, so that within the possibility that women's hockey becomes covered at a higher level, rules are already in place to address this. In other words, the guidelines would already be in place, consistently, from now until then when the change will not be moot.
Per my comment that "the notability guidelines have completely disregarded Women's Ice Hockey", I will stand by what I said, but I will modify, rather significantly, what I know about WP:GNG. To wit, that disregard includes what I just alluded to with no pathway to inclusion from the NWHL or any of the premier leagues, except national teams. As I read it, the national teams that afford hockey notability are ones that qualify for the Olympics, meaning that this is an WP:NOLYMPICS qualifier not a hockey one, re: the exclusion of Janine Weber per se. A set of guidelines that set possibly highly qualified premier league performers fixes that. Also, the original issue that sparked that statement was that NHOCKEY guidelines stipulated that notability for NCAA Div I players specifically spoke of preeminent honors in men's play conferences. That particular phrase is gratuitously exclusive.
I have come around to the idea that WP:GNG limits articles about women hockey players to a small cohort, before we talk about NHOCKEY though. Regards, Bill McKenna (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bill McKenna: The percentages are from the standard comment in regards to creating and maintaining SNGs that to qualify almost all who meet the SNG meet GNG and 99% is usually the number people like to use, but it is not a strict rule. The 85.7% is in regards to the 12 of 14 NWHL players that meet the standards of NHOCKEY#3 and also likely meet GNG. (I am a research and development engineer, I like numbers). In reference to women's college hockey, it is something I looked into prior to the initial proposal of the NWHL. I thought we would start with the NWHL, which only has about 100 players total ever, before looking into something more broad. Using the AHCA All-American First and Second Teams, (found here) I saw lots of crossover from the NWHL proposal in the recent years. The hard part might be that would need some sort of time constraint (ie "All-American women after 2000" or similar). It mostly just seems, that in order to include women's hockey, we would need an entire new set of criteria, which could likely get challenged in NSPORTS anyways. Case-by-case (such as this entire discussion, which is sort of an AfD without a nomination) seems to be the best we can do for now in both women's pro and college hockey.
I mostly just wanted participants in AfDs to stop voting and start analyzing. The Barley-Maloney nom was very indicative of voting over using the actual sources (some mentions, one contract signing only covered in local media, no pro games played, and WordPress blogs for her in-depth coverage) and garnered lots of "Keeps"; far more than you would see if we nominated a male player with 2-4 times as many similar references (not that quantity matters, just quality; but usually with high quantity it has a higher probability to have at least one or two more quality refs). That just seems to imply there is a problem somewhere and I am trying to bridge that gap. (The same can be said for AfD voters who walk in and say "Fails NHOCKEY, delete", those also bother me.) Yosemiter (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Yosemiter: for both the clarification and comments. I pretty much agree with what you said, or at least 87.5% of it. I'm a former finance guy, I like numbers I can manipulate, lol. Bill McKenna (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

CWHL

I took a longer look at CWHL award winners. There are ten years of MVP, scoring leader, top defender, top goalie. Seven years of top forward, and six years of 1st team all-stars. Looking at those award winners, and top ten all-time scorers, I found the following possibly problematic athletes:

Some may be GNG passes, these are just the ones that are not obvious passes from Olympic or national team participation. I think it is going to be challenging to build a criteria based on what I found but I did not look into them with any real depth. I personally feel that if we are supporting women's hockey on this site we should perhaps make articles for the numerous olympians who aren't represented first, just my opinion.18abruce (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Delayne Brian has the same lack of press coverage that has been made so much of in this thread, but a couple of articles, notably the Hockey News story about the Clarkson Cup championship here: [29] that prominently mentions her probably get her through. If CWHL superlatives were to be applied on top of that, I'd say she makes the cut. Bill McKenna (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, if that's your example of a GNG-qualifying source? That's nowhere near close. Brian's only mention in that piece is "The Inferno’s big win was thanks in large part to multi-point efforts from Rebecca Johnston, Brianne Jenner and Blayre Turnbull as well as some stellar play from Calgary netminder Delayne Brian. Johnston and Jenner, each with two goals and three points, led the Inferno offensively, but Brian was the main reason the Inferno took home the Cup. Brian’s 38 saves on 41 shots made her the first star of the Cup final and Clarkson Cup MVP, and she kept the Inferno in the contest every time she was challenged. Over the tournament’s three games, Brian posted a .914 SP, 2.67 GAA and victories in all three outings." Even if that piece wasn't obviously routine match coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as counting towards notability, it's far too scanty to represent "significant coverage" of the subject. Ravenswing 01:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Blake Bolden has a fair amount of press in Boston, as a black athlete, someone who was 'snubbed' from an Olympic position (Boston Globe), and her time with the CWHL, the NWHL, and now HC Lugano. Statistically, she's not a pass, but as a Defender, that's always tough. If the sum total of her coverage merits GNG inclusion, and it may, she's a keeper. In terms of hockey achievements, she's a too soon. Bill McKenna (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Noemie Marin gets in for WP:NOLYMPICS as a Softball player in the Beijing games. That aside, she has a rather large body of articles written about her, as a two-sport athlete, a Team Canada U18 assistant coach, and her record breaking point streak. None of her hockey articles demand her WP:GNG pass, but even if she weren't an Olympic athlete in another sport, she would be a probable pass. Bill McKenna (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sommer West was also a 2000 Olympian in softball. Yosemiter (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

After looking at a few of the list, it appears that the CWHL is comparable to the NWHL. It may be a little better off because of more seasons and a marginally better audience in Canada. It appears that what applies to the NWHL is roughly the same as should be applied to the CWHL. Regards, Bill McKenna (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting discussion that applies to sports projects

There is a discussion going on here that would apply to many of our articles. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Update the list of college men's coaches with over 400 wins

This article is years out of date, and multiple coaches have passed the 400-win threshold since then (incl. Mike Schafer and Frank Serratore, for example), with several on the cusp and likely to do so by the end of the season (see Don Vaughan). Somebody should probably add the most recent names (I haven't gone through and catalogued them, and I don't know whether there are any currently retired coaches who got to 400 wins in the last few years), as well as update the win/loss totals. —Michael.A.R.Lee (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

After looking at the list and searching for references, I don't see why 400 wins is significant per any sources. There are certainly articles about coaches with the most wins so I wouldn't go as far to say that it is WP:LISTCRUFT, but it seems that the number 400 is arbitrarily chosen. It might be why the article has fell by the wayside (as well as only being linked by other similar lists and some of the coaches already on the list). Yosemiter (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, although there is a number of other examples of such lists (see 1, 2, 3, and 4), as well as examples of coaches being listed by win percentage (see 5). Do you think there's a better system of cataloguing the winningest or most decorated coaches in an encyclopedic manner? —Michael.A.R.Lee (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, for starters, how about a simple list of the winningest college coachesm without some arbitrary threshold? We can go on from there to limit it to Division I coaches, because there are guys on there running programs just a cut above jucos. I've been following college hockey for 40 years, and there are programs on there I've never heard of. Ravenswing 05:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 NHL transactions

The 2017–18 NHL transactions page lists Vadim Shipachyov as retired despite the sources clearly indicating that he will sign with a team from the KHL. Do we list the player as retired if he "retires" from the NHL and keeps playing elsewhere? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If Ilya Kovalchuk and the 2013–14 NHL transactions page are to be used as the most media covered example, then yes we list them as retired from the NHL. Perhaps it needs an asterisk though, because unlike someone like Jagr who signed to KHL when he was no longer signed to the NHL, those players had to "retire" in order to sign in the KHL. Just my two cents though. Yosemiter (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Kevin Klein similarly retired from the NHL earlier this year and shortly afterwards signed to play in Switzerland. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah just leaving to sign elsewhere is different that filing paperwork and actually retiring. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
He officially retired from the NHL. Retired doesn't necessarily mean never play again, just means you are done in the NHL though even that can be undone. No different than you can retire from your career and pick up a part time gig after you retired. Doesn't change the fact you are retired. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The current designation at that page indicates that he ended his playing career. That needs to be fixed and a note should be added above that table. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
His playing career in the NHL did end. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any designation defining "retirement" on the transactions page that is wrong as it just states "Players who have retired are also listed", it doesn't say anything about "playing career". Perhaps changed to "Players who have retired from the league are also listed" could be of help? Yosemiter (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving on to the next question – signings/trades of drafted players that were never signed by the team. One of the examples would be Dominic Toninato, who was never signed by the Maple Leafs and the chose to sign with the Avalanche. When do we indicate such signings/trades? When a player is drafted and some specific team has his rights or when he actually sign an entry-level contract? I tried reasoning with one of main contributors there, but he just kept accusing me and I decided to end the discussion without any good arguments from the other side. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

He had it correct on the page before you removed it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Such answer does not help in any way. According to what he is correct? I could not find anything in the CBA that would justify that. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Colorado Eagles

An IP user recently asked whether or not the Colorado Eagles should get a new page for their AHL franchise at my talk page. The AHL franchise is new but the organization seems to be retaining its history while looking to sell its ECHL franchise license. We have examples of separate pages for a single organization (Hampton Roads Admirals and Norfolk Admirals (AHL), Charlotte Checkers (1993–2010) and Charlotte Checkers, as well as possibly the franchise swaps from a few seasons back), as well as merged pages for multiple franchises (Fort Wayne Komets, Maine Mariners, St. John's IceCaps, Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL), off the top of my head). Thoughts on one vs. two pages for the Eagles? Yosemiter (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell is that if one of the franchises is moving either from a city or to a city then we separate them. If one franchise is starting and the other is ending we keep them on the same page. So if they do sell the ECHL franchise and it goes to another city then we would do separate pages. If they just give the franchise back to the league like the Checkers did then we keep them on the same page. As for those with multiple franchises on the same pages, I have always though we should break them up but it would be a mess to do. The Eagles are actually a good example already, because they moved from the CHL to the ECHL and we kept the same page as the CHL franchise didn't move and the ECHL franchise wasn't a relocated franchise. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I go with continuity, especially since this has happened a fair bit in the minors in recent decades. Aside from team name, is there continuity in ownership, front office, (dare I ask?) players? Ravenswing 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Same owners and likely front office, possibly coach (too far ahead to know), and being the AHL, most of next season's players are in San Antonio. Fairly similar situation to the Admirals and Checkers. One of the keys her though might be that the press release from the AHL still talked about the history of the Eagles organization. Yosemiter (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think best practice would be to keep the article as one. It should only be separated if there are significant gaps in history such as the Winnipeg Jets. Flibirigit (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to ask a legitimate question. How come teams are not allowed to move up and down development levels as the same franchise? How come ECHL teams are not allowed to move up to the AHL as the same franchise and how come AHL teams are not allowed to move down to the ECHL as the same franchise?
Yosemiter, explained that a team obtains a franchise. So should I rephrase the question- How come teams are not allowed to move up and down development levels as the same team? How come ECHL teams are not allowed to move up to the AHL as the same team and how come AHL teams are not allowed to move down to the ECHL as the same team?
I would like to here an answer from another editor besides Yosemiter. 71.168.142.170 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Your original question is akin to saying, why can't a Macdonald's restaurant become a Burger King restaurant using the same franchise? Or why can't someone transfer their Sams Club membership to Costco? An organization's membership in one league isn't transferable to another, absent any relegation/promotion agreements between them. Regarding your second question, as I understand it, the AHL and ECHL are development leagues for the NHL, and so their team rosters primarily consist of players on NHL contracts. Thus it's up to the NHL team to decide where the players are assigned. The minor league team can't decide on its own to reassign players signed to the parent NHL team to a different league. isaacl (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, lets go to the basics. Is a sports team and a sports franchise the same thing? Yes, I know a membership in a league isn’t transferrable to another league, however, if the organization is the same, shouldn’t the organization be allowed to continue as the same franchise? 71.168.142.170 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A franchise is a license to operate a team in a league, so no, they are not the same. An organization runs a team using a franchise license to operate in a league. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that. The only question is whether we want the Eagles' page to be about the organization or the use of a franchise license. Yosemiter (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Literally speaking, no; being a member of a league means the league has granted you a franchise right, and so a different franchise right is needed to participate in a different league. If you're using the term "franchise" in an informal sense as a synonym for organization, then in formal terms, a given organization X can obtain a new franchise right in a different league and operate a team to satisfy the terms of the franchise right. If by "franchise" you actually are referring to a specific set of players, than as I said, most/many of the players in the AHL/ECHL are under contract to NHL teams, and so organization X doesn't have the right to decide where they play. If by "franchise" you actually mean team name, that's subject to the terms of the original franchising agreement, which may or may not specify conditions when a franchisee leaves the league, and whatever organization X's marketing department decides is best for the team. isaacl (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Start over with the indenting process- Well for the Eagles article, you have to explain that there were two teams/franchises called Colorado Eagles that were operated by the same organization.

How come sports anchors and reporters use the term franchise to describe a team?

Let’s use baseball for example. The Astros transferred from the NL to the AL. Are the NL Astros and the AL Astros the same franchise? How about Minor League Baseball and independent baseball.

  1. An MiLB franchise at a different developmental level replaces another MiLB franchise also at a different developmental level and assume the name of the previous MiLB franchise, the same process that occurs in minor pro hockey. Is it possible for an MiLB franchise to move up or down developmental levels or no? It is possible for an MiLB franchise to switch leagues at the same developmental level and continue as the same franchise- referring to the Lake County Captains and the Bowling Green Hot Rods.
  2. Now is an independent baseball franchise allowed to move to the MiLB as the same franchise or no? Let’s use the Gary SouthShore RailCats as an example, are they allowed to move to the MiLB as the same franchise? Independent baseball has seen a number of leagues come and go. The RailCats played in two leagues, the Northern League and the American Association. Are the RailCats of the Northern League and the RailCats of the American Association the same franchise?
  3. Suppose a billionaire owns either an MiLB franchise or an Independent baseball franchise and he wants to join the MLB expansion, are they allowed to move their MiLB franchise or independent baseball franchise to the MLB?
  4. Can you incorporate a sports franchise as a company? If so than if you want to switch leagues, would they continue as the same franchise cause they were incorporated as a company. The NY Giants legal name is New York Football Giants Inc. 71.168.142.170 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of these questions are irrelevant to the issue. We're not here to debate how franchises work across sports or why ESPN anchors use the terminology they do, but consensus practice for minor league hockey articles; I'm sure the baseball project can tend to its own knitting. The last time a minor league team joined the NHL was nearly a half-century ago, and with franchise fees an absurd half a billion dollars we will never see it happen again.

    For here, my vote is that we keep the Eagles on a single page. Yes, indeed, that page should mention the various franchise shifts. As it happens, it already does. Ravenswing 09:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you read this: Professional sports league organization#Structure of North American leagues (Franchise and minor league system). And the baseball project will have to decide how to handle franchise shifts and organization changes. In 2019, the Colorado Springs Sky Sox will become the San Antonio Missions and the Missions will move to Amarillo. Yosemiter (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I did look at that article before and I question how it interprets things71.168.142.170 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem you are having is that you are making a common mistake and equating franchise and team as the same thing. They aren't the same thing. It gets even more complicated when you throw in a third thing which is a company. A company uses a franchise to allow a team to play in a league. A franchise is just a legal document that allows a team to play in a given league. A team is just a bunch of players that play a game. And a company is the business that owns the team and has a franchise to play. The company needs a different franchise to play in every league they play in. They may be the same team but they would be a different franchise if they jump leagues. The problem is that sports writers often write about the two as if they are the same thing, when in reality they are not. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
As Ravenswing alluded to, I believe you are really interested in how to handle the Colorado Eagles article, so I suggest you discuss this issue directly. All the answers to your recent set of questions can be determined from the responses you've been given so far, so if you're actually interested in how the general concept of franchising works, perhaps you can find a friendly person in your local area who can help you in person. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

When a relocation happens, does both the franchise and the team move?71.168.142.170 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much always yes, but it doesn't have to. A sale agreement could be worked out that the franchise was sold to someone else who moves it while the original owner keeps the rights to team's Logo, records etc. and later uses it with a different franchise. This is sort of what has happened with the Seattle Supersonics albeit more complicated and hasn't been reused yet. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I can think of an example that very few Bostonians remember and fewer still want to talk about: when the then-current owners elected to swap the Boston Celtics and the Buffalo Braves in 1978, the technical aspects of the deal had the Buffalo "franchise" move to Boston, while the original Celtics "franchise" moved to San Diego. Ravenswing 13:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I vaguely remembered that one but couldn't remember the teams involved. -DJSasso (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
As has been suggested, it may be useful for you to read up on franchising, or to find someone local who can provide more rapid turn around on your questions. Technically, a franchise right is for a specific territory, so a company who ceases operations in one area and starts operations in another is relinquishing its franchise right in the original location and acquiring a new one in the new territory. But informally people will speak of the franchise moving under these circumstances, as in practice the company is retaining its league membership while moving to a new area. isaacl (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Final message, ref. Sportslogos.net- Okay so would the Quebec Noridques and the Colorado Avalanche be the same franchise, would the Minnesota North Stars and the Dallas Stars be the same franchise, would the first Winnipeg Jets and the Arizona Coyotes be the same franchise, would the Atlanta Thrashers and the second Winnipeg Jets be the same franchise, would the Hartford Whalers and the Carolina Hurricanes be the same franchise, would the Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames be the same franchise? Would the Philadelphia Phantoms, Adirondack Phantoms and LV Phantoms be the same franchise; Lowell Lock Monsters/Devils, Albany Devils, Binghamton Devils be the same franchise; Chicago Wolves IHL and Chicago Wolves AHL be the same franchise; Milwaukee Admirals IHL and Milwaukee Admirals AHL be the same franchise? Wichita Thunder CeHL and Wichita Thunder ECHL be the same franchise; Tulsa Oilers CeHL and Tulsa Oilers ECHL be the same franchise; Elmira Jackals UHL and Elmira Jackals ECHL be the same franchise; Columbus Chill and Reading Royals be the same franchise?71.168.142.170 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Diacritic clarification

Are QMJHL teams exempt from 'no diacritics' agreement? GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NCIH, the QMJHL and LNAH are North American exceptions due to French being the primary language. Yosemiter (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Is this for French diacritics only? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe the spirit of the NCIH compromise is "use whatever diacritics are used by the team/league/jerseys on the team or league page". Any player or team in particular? Yosemiter (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears to be French diacritics only. For example, Zbyněk Michálek appears as Zbynek Michalek on the QMJHL website. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been deleting diacritics on OHL & WHL team articles. Just needed clarify for QMHJL teams. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
We don't differentiate between language diacritics as that would be getting far to detailed for what is only meant to stop people (mainly you and Dolovis) from edit warring with people. As has been suggested by many people you should just leave things as you find them. But as I mentioned a month or so ago we should probably reconsider this compromise now that the greater wiki is accepting of diacritics so that we aren't the only ones that have such a restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on edit-warring on the QMJHL teams. Was just seeking clarification. As for opening up the compromise or repealing it? you'd only be encouraging many editors to edit-war, the very thing you're claiming you don't want. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Not really, since the only ones I have seen consistently war over them are either banned from editing them now or are you. The rest of the wiki now seems to use them so there wouldn't likely be much edit warring now. The compromise was only ever intended to carry us over until the wider wiki started heading in one direction or the other. But I won't argue about it, I only brought it up since you were asking about something you already knew the answer to, as you often do, to try and get us to remove the Quebec leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't certain about the QMJHL part. It was better for me to ask here, then go & make changes. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You have complained about the QMJHL being excluded on many many occasions so that is a little hard to believe. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
After a 1-year vacation (2013-14), I prefer to be extra cautious. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification folks :) GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • My understanding that the compromise involved using diacritics as used by the appropriate regional/national leagues. Do the QMJHL/LNAH render European diacritics for European players? Ravenswing 00:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure & am reluctant to ask. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer just to delete rosters from junior teams. The large majority of names are red links, and anyone who makes the NHL will end up in the alumni list anyhow. Flibirigit (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
They are also usually very out of date. But there are other reasons to have players names: relevant records, top alumni, usage in prose, etc. Yosemiter (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you there. I had to get my roster rant out of the way for today :-) Flibirigit (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Poland men's national ice hockey head to head records

Came across this article and wondering what others think? Far as I know other countries have their records on their respective team pages, which I feel this should be as well. But want some input. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The main article is none so long that the head-to-head results table wouldn't fit. (Those other two match location tables are silly and should be eliminated in the redirect.) Ravenswing 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    • There appears to be an exact copy on the Polish language wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That is what I've realized as well; suspect some Polish user added it based on the Polish version, even though it's best just left to the main article. And as noted, locations isn't terribly important for hockey, so really serves no purpose. Will be moved in the next few days unless someone comes up with some strong reason to keep it, which I don't see happening. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Canadian place names

I'm seeing a lot of formatting changes to Canadian place names in biographies, eg. Edmonton, AB, CAN --> Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Was there a discussion or consensus somewhere that I should look at? Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd expect that the pertinent talk page on MOS would be a good place to inquire. Ravenswing 18:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

List of CHL playoffs series

I just discovered this article: List of CHL playoffs series. A few folks have put a lot of work into the WHL and OHL results, and the QMJHL is still blank. I question what should be done here. Maybe splitting it up by league, or even incorporating it into every team perhaps? Thoughts anyone? Flibirigit (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It must still be under construction; it's missing all of the series between Peterborough and Ottawa for example. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate standings

Template:2016–17 Atlantic Hockey standings and Template:2016–17 Atlantic Hockey standings (men) are duplicated. I'm not sure which is correct, but it seems the second one is more updated. Can an admin delete the other? Thanks Mjs32193 (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

They were both created by the same guy within minutes of each others. I have merged the edit histories of the two. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Arena articles

Is there a general consensus regarding articles on a hockey arena, and the long indiscriminate lists of concerts therein? Flibirigit (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought there was an applicable policy or guideline, but given the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events at T-Mobile Arena and the presence of other list articles such as List of events at Soldier Field and List of events at Wrigley Field, I suspect the best that can be done is to spin out the lists into separate articles, so they don't overwhelm the venue article. isaacl (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of the junior ice hockey and non-NHL stadia. Flibirigit (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Hockey Canada regarding the national logo/crest usage. For anyone interested, please comment over there. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive69&oldid=1083658250"