Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive77

Stats leader article, needs message update.

Requesting an administrator to update the Edit message at List of NHL statistical leaders article, from 2019-20 to 2020-21. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Will do once the season starts. As was mentioned last time you requested this. -DJSasso (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Turns out, somebody has just updated it. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 NHL Outdoor Games

There is an FfD for 2021 NHL Outdoor Games at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 NHL Outdoor Games. Please give your opinion there. – Sabbatino (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 1952 Winter Olympics

There are have been a lot of contributions recently to Ice hockey at the 1952 Winter Olympics. Is anyone willing to review for overall encyclopedic tone and relevance? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A similar edit was made at Edmonton Mercurys, in addition to the above. The edits of IP address 1, IP address 2, and IP address 3, seem to pass the WP:DUCKTEST in comparison to User:Max Arosev. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:100 Greatest NHL Players § Toews and Kane

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:100 Greatest NHL Players § Toews and Kane. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Template:NHL

Some IP editor created Draft:Template:NHL, which is exactly the same as Template:NHL and it is not very clear what the editor wants to do with it per Template talk:NHL#Edit request. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's going to change the divisions to the North, West, East, Central setup. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of which can there be a consensus reached for changing the divisions in Template:NHL? I changed the setup to reflect the new realignment's for this season but have got reverted each time by one user, here's the discussion on the talk page Template_talk:NHL#Update_Divisions_to_current_season

Triggerbit (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Federation

A large section of controversy was recently added to International Ice Hockey Federation. My removal of it was contested and second opinions are appreciated. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A similar edit was made to René Fasel including excessive amount of information about the situation in Belarus. I am concerned that both of these article are being used for advocacy of a political cause. Please add both both pages to your watch lists. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The above type of edits are continuing at René Fasel. Has anyone else had time to review the edits? Any thoughts? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with adding well-sourced informations to these articles if they thematize a relevant political controversy around this incident?--KastusK (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The edits made violated both Wikipedia:Neutral and Wikipedia:Advocacy. Multiple comments in the respective edit history of the article mention Wikipedia:Undue concerns. Flibirigit (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Undue might be an argument in this case. But I do not see anything wrong with adding well-sourced information about this incident when dozens of neutral media outlets reported about this controversy. I would agree to shorten my edits but there is no reason to complete delete well-sourced objective facts.--KastusK (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Where they might be well sourced information, whether or not certain pages are appropriate pages for it to be listed on has to be accounted for as well. For example something like this case is a blip on the radar of the IIHF so would not at all belong on the page for the IIHF itself which has existed for a century so including it would be very much undue weight to be there in any amount. It would however be very appropriate to put in on the page of the specific tournament it belongs on. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with those above me. You wrote this entire section, which actually weighted for the IIHF itself could simply be summarized as The International Ice Hockey Federation received international criticism for its plans to hold the 2021 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships in Belarus during the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests and meeting with Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko. The rest is just a deep dive into the various reasons the protests are happening in the first place and problems about Lukashenko, therefore irrelevant to the subject of the IIHF main page. Yosemiter (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much for your response. I have added this sentence to the history section of the IIHF article.--KastusK (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) As I noted on the IIHF talk page, it would be best served on the 2021 IIHF World Championship, where the full details can be noted. The main IIHF page does not need that level of detail, though it would be certainly welcome on the 2021 page, as it is becoming a major story, and likely to only get more coverage as we come up to it. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania#2021 IIHF World Championship appropriate? Lithuania plays in Division I and I suspect this could fall under WP:CANVASS. Am I correct to imply that? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It is logical to conclude that it is canvassing. Flibirigit (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It IS canvassing, and pretty blatant as well. Anyone up for an ANI filing, if Jabbi and KastusK don't leave it at that, drop the stick and walk away? Ravenswing 20:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI might be required. Seeking third opinions is another option. Flibirigit (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversies in Belarus

I notice a continuing trend by editors who seem sympathetic to the Belarus protests to insert excessive information and accusations at International Ice Hockey Federation, René Fasel and now Belarus Ice Hockey Federation. I feel I can only revert so much without violating the three revert rule or owning an article. Any other thoughts?Flibirigit (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I also feel the recent edits as a whole are Wikipedia:Advocacy concerns. Flibirigit (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 IIHF World Championship

The IIHF issued a press release to not host the event in Minsk. Anyone feel like taking on the corresponding updates and ensuring neutrality? Flibirigit (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is going to be exciting to deal with. Obviously should be noted on the IIHF page, but keep the political discussion to the 2021 page. I have both on my watch page as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Made an update at 2021 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships article. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

At least this will put paid to Jabbi's and KantusK's soapboxing, in these articles anyway. Ravenswing 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

2020-21 NHL Divisional Standings

Should there be a grey bar between teams placed fourth and fifth to show which teams are currently in a playoff position? If this has been discussed already and rejected for the current year, please point me to the discussion.Juve2000 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Juve2000: Regarding this suggestion, I'll look into that possibility today. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding some interesting trivia to furstratingly dry and boring articles

(Copied from Talk:Ted Lindsay Award but still relevant) I'm asking for advice here. The NHL and almost everything surrounding it comes of as extremely stiff and puritan. NBA, NFL are great at promoting their players, awards and titles. Heck the semifinals (NFC and AFC) get more attention than the Stanley Cup finals. Also, their awards aren't confusing. Outside some old heads, emphasis on the old, casual viewers and even some regular ones have no idea what going on in the NHL award season. This is to the detriment of the NHL. Becoming an NHL fan turns into a chore and isn't fun. How to make it read easier and more interesting without adding anything new or changing the dry hard to consume format? Belevalo (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Belevalo: You are not supposed to restore to your preferred version per WP:BRD like you did at Ted Lindsay Award. Please stop and wait for anyone to answer here. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding stuff like this breaks WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTSTATS. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

in what way isn't that a well organized sourced list? please explain. Belevalo (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Better yet don't. It's not relevant to discussion. You could've added this to my talk page. But you added it here in bad faith to purposefully derail the conversation before it even starts. Belevalo (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Belevalo, please do not remove another editor's talk page comments. I have restored the above. Flibirigit (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

you also removed mine. Belevalo (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I restored the unintentially removed comment. Flibirigit (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2021–22 NHL standings templates

How soon is too soon to start placing templates for next season? I'm asking because there's no guarantee the normal alignment (modified to have Seattle in the Pacific and Arizona in the Central) and schedule of games will return after this season. I'll have my group of templates in my personal sandbox until I get the go ahead. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Never too soon, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should wait, because there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the next season. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When next season starts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Senators

Having a wee bit of a problem with a 'changing' mobile editor, who keeps adding diacritics to 2020–21 Ottawa Senators season & Template:Ottawa Senators roster. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ottawa is a bilingual city and diacritics should be expected. Flibirigit (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

We have an agreement not to use diacritics on the NHL non-player articles & North American non-player articles overall (with the exception of Quebec leagues). We do use diacritics on players bios & non-North American non-player articles, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps unrelated, but I've noticed that Stützle actually appears to have a diacritic on his jersey name bar, which I'm not sure I've ever seen before in the NHL [1]. It seems to be used throughout the media as well. Connormah (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Lafrenière also has it, and I'm also pretty sure they are the first two to do this. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I was researching this a bit this morning and apparently the Canadiens were the first to do it, back in 2013 [2]. Connormah (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, had no idea they did that, but not surprised at all. Good find. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If WP:HOCKEY chooses to start making such exceptions (i.e move the goalpost), I certainly can re-evaluate my position on Baltic-born players, concerning when those three countries were within (or were they) the Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It also seems like the NHL has made it a point to include diacritics on the official roster page as well, [3], FWIW. Connormah (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Like I said. If WP:HOCKEY sides with the Senators move. I shall have to re-evaluate my position on other hockey-related matters. PS: On a lighter note, Senators are having a crappy season 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? Trying to threaten the project into doing what you want by saying you are going to change your opinion on something else completely unrelated? The idea behind our not using them was that the NHL didn't, should that change we would change as well. We were only ever mimicking what the NHL (and bucking the trend of what the rest of the wiki is doing at that). So trying to threaten the project is a bit childish no? -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The rest of Wikipedia also uses Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia as 1940 to 1991 birthplaces, with the exception of the hockey bios. Shall we also, change that too? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the wiki actually doesn't. A few Baltic editors do keep switching them to that. But policy is clear on that matter. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't stop you or anyone else here, from inserting & enforcing the usage of diacritics on any North American non-player article. I'm not going to get into any edit wars, with WP:HOCKEY members on that topic. Nor can you stop any group of Baltic editors (if they chose) from inserting Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia as birthplaces, instead of the Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually can stop them from doing that, because there are actually guidelines around that. People have been blocked for doing it. But yes, not edit warring with people is good on your part. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If enough of them show up? You can't stop'em. Whether I help to stop them, will depend.... GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

At this point the policy should be enforced as currently written and should not be changed as there is not enough usage in primary and credible secondary sources to warrant a change. If you start reading through game summaries written by the league, they are not using diacritics in these articles. When you read through local english language newspapers in Ottawa and New York you do not find them using these either. TSN and Sportsnet are avoiding this more often than not, and ESPN is doing this with Lafrenière on the print side, but not in their box scores.

I'm not against having this conversation again in the future if the usage becomes more common and is used for more than two players. Deadman137 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's likely a more recent change, as the Senators Media Guide also gives "Stuetzle". But more recent official game summaries are using the diacritic. Sportsnet has been using the diacritic in their TV coverage recently as well. Connormah (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This much I know, if we allow the addition of diacritics onto the Senators 2020-21 season & current roster? It will open a flood gate to such additions across the entire North American non-player articles, such as the NHL Entry Drafts, the Stanley Cup playoffs & finals articles, the rest of the NHL/AHL etc team & team season articles, etc etc. You're not going to be able to explain to most editors, selective usage within a group of articles (like team articles). GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes it likely would mean allowing them everywhere. Our current "compromise" in the years since it was created has gone from being ahead of the times where we were one of the first areas on the wiki to standardize using them to behind the times because we also say not to use them when the wiki now says to use them. Since we created it the wiki itself has made guidelines that indicate using diacritics for proper names is the correct way to go. So we are technically against guidelines now with our compromise, at the very least we contradict them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's no secret which side of this topic you & I are on. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• As you regulars all know, I've been a staunch anti-diacritic fellow from Day One. But my opposition to it was always on COMMONNAME, and a good bit of the backing was that the league didn't use them, and the media didn't use them, and diacritical marks weren't on the backs of the jerseys. If those elements are changing, the grounds for opposing them weaken. Ravenswing 00:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sabbatino Deleting usefull information

Relevant to previous section. I get it, a lot of WikiProject Ice Hockey are puritan old heads that know everything about hockey. Great! But not everyone has the time or interest to be on your level. I'm making it easier for the casuals to navigate the NHL wiki pages. Most people don't care about Art Ross, Hart, Ted, or others and you can see this by looking up wiki traffic to those articles. It's non existent. They just want to know who's the MVP, best scorer, etc.

Given that, i've been adding information, explaining what each award means in the simplest manner possible. The problem is User:Sabbatino keeps erasing everything i (and a few others) have added giving the reason that "not needed". The problem is it is needed. Not everyone visiting an athletes page is a walking ice hockey encyclopedia and having to look up every hard to remember name is a chore. People who come to ice hockey wiki pages don't come here to have to do Ice Hockey history homework about athletes they don't give a piece of french toast about. So please, stop erasing the minimum info added to understand what's going on withouth having to go down the dry boring hisotry rabbit hole. Belevalo (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The tables are supposed to be as small as possible. The award pages (Hart Memorial Trophy, Art Ross Trophy, etc.) exist for a reason and the reader is supposed to click on the link. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

because adding a 2- 3 word explanation (like Playoff MVP, Most Outstanding PLayer) that makes it far easier to consume for the average viewer makes it imposibly long and destroys the whole section, right? Jesus Christ... Belevalo (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The explanation of the award is already noted within the article itself, so the table is just a short summary of what they won. There is no need to include a second description there, especially as the awards themselves have links that do that job. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep as Kaiser says there is no need to include it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 NHL playoffs

Are my math skills decreasing? Over at 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs, it says the Dallas Stars set a 'new' record by playing 27 games. I'm counting only 24 games played by Dallas, which doesn't break the '26' record. AFAIK, the 'round robin seeding', was a part of the 'regular season' stats. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

From the article in question: "On May 28, the NHL stated that both the Round-robin and the Qualifying Round were to be counted under playoff records..." isaacl (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sabbatino again deleting information

Leon Draisaitl has achieved a thing that hasn't been achieved before by any german. He won MVP and scoring titles, therefore this should be mentioned in the league. Other athlete pages highlight first and rarities when it comes to their race or nationality (Example Cam Newton, Nikola Jokic, etc), but apparently highlighting that is WP:Battleground or disruptive editing by User:Sabbatino, who keeps following me round and reverting my sourced edits. another side example was reverting the list of highest contracts, withouth even looking up the facts for it.

and example of what he calls disruptive editing; In 2020, Draisaitl became the first German player to win the Art Ross Trophy (NHL leader in points scored) the Hart Memorial Trophy (League's Most Valuable Player) and the Ted Lindsay Award (NHL PA's Most Outstanding Player).

Belevalo (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove this. You unnecessarily changed it from this (initial version with improvements done by me) to this (your preferred version by removing my improvements). You have been told that the source is already included in the prose. In addition, your behavior is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE since you are treating Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND and make personal attacks towards me. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND is you following me around and deleting my edits. Example the updates on Patrick Mahomes and Mike Trout pages after it was revealed Messi had signed a larger contract. Even after it was proven right, you had to make change to have the last edit. That' toxic behavior. Belevalo (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Things are done differently with ice hockey articles, compared to those of football & baseball. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

maybe that's why they're less visited. Less interesting information. only dry minimalistic homework looking stuff. Belevalo (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This project takes minimalistic approach towards certain things. If you do not like it then find other subjects for editing. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Already did. The project most likely lost of lot of good editors to appease oldheads. Average age of hockey fans is over 50. Can't imagine why, when anyhing interesting (example highlighting the first german MVP) gets supressed as not needed by minimalist puritans. Belevalo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Surprise, Belevalo -- this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. No one here should be in this for crowd-pleasing prose, nor are our edits immune from correction, changing, removal, reversal or supercession down the line. Beyond that, I've lost count over the years of the number of fly-by-nighters with a handful of edits whining over how following Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices will surely doom the project. 20 years and a billion edits later, Wikipedia is still one of the most visited sites on the Internet. Ravenswing 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Surprise, User:Ravenswing, the fact the Darsiatl is the first german to win MVP is not tabloid news. It's fact. Aslo information doens't have to be tabloid gossip (i assume that's what you meant when you said taloid newspaper) to be interesting. There are a myriad of interesting facts. Example, from the ones deleted by Sabbatino. Hasek and Jagr were the oldest to win MVP, Crosby was the youngest. THere was only one defender who won the MVP, Patrick Kane is the only american born and bread player to win MVP, etc. All interesting trivia all supported by sources. Not tabloid. And a lot more interesting to read and easier to consume than some boring blob of textbook looking info Belevalo (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) Without getting into the user dispute or snide remarks, I would agree it would be worth noting Draisaitl being the first German to win the awards in the lead. We have similar mentions for the first player of various countries to play in the NHL, so I see no reason not to mention award winners. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: But that is already noted! The editor made an implication that I removed it. Please check the history of Draisaitl's page. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I'm getting lost in here with the arguments, so missed that. If it's there then I'm good. I don't want to get into the larger debate here, though. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the edit he's called disruptive and started edit warring over: In 2020, Draisaitl became the first German player to win the Art Ross Trophy (NHL leader in points scored) the Hart Memorial Trophy (League's Most Valuable Player) and the Ted Lindsay Award (NHL PA's Most Outstanding Player). The fact the explains what trophy signifies what - example Hart Memorial (MVP) - triggers him. Belevalo (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You have already been told in the discussion above (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#User:Sabbatino Deleting usefull information) that explanations are not needed. If someone really wants to see for what some trophy is awarded then he/she can click on that trophy's link and read there. Why is it so hard to understand such a simple thing? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You told me your opinion, abandoned the discussion and reverted my edits. No concensus was reached. Explanations are importat for casual viewers. Right now reading NHL wiki pages are like reading a code sequence. Unless you're thoroughly educated on what's going on, it's all gibberish and a chore to read and look up. I just made a simple edit so casual viewers can understand what's going on. And you had a fit over it. Belevalo (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We neither find the prose as generally prevails "gibberish," nor -- given, for instance, that Draisaitl's page alone averages a thousand views per day -- do the vast majority of readers. Casual viewer or otherwise, someone who can't wrap his head around clicking on an obvious hyperlink for more information (never mind reading the damn article) is too limited to be using a computer, let alone read Wikipedia. Ravenswing 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't be so elitist. It's not that they can't, most probably won't stick around. I can read War and Peace, that doesn't mean i will nor want to. It's annoying to have to read another dry article just to understand what means what, when you could explaine by a 3-5 word explanation sometimes a 3 letter explanation. Leon Ds page averages 1,200 views a day. Many probably new and casuals, who are looking for something interesting so they can identify with the player. Of course a single line won't make or break the page, but it helps. Interesting, sourced, factual trivia, like the one deleted on the Ted Lindsay Award page also helps. Majority of NHL fans and viewers are oldheads over 50. Mostly because the presentation of the league, players, achievements are so stiff and dry. Belevalo (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, your argument is basically the same with the reason for the changing of the NHL Conferences & Division names starting in 1993–94. The NHL changed them, due to possible misunderstanding of Campbell, Wales, Norris, Smythe, Adams & Norris, among less familiar hockey fans. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If you find Wikipedia that annoying, no one forces you to patronize it. Ravenswing 01:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

again the elitism and stuck in the mud attitude. no one is forcing us to make wiki stiff and boring. Belevalo (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the one-sentence version is better than having two sentences, as it expresses that the player is the first German to win any of these awards and is more concise. I know it's heresy to say, but I also like having a non-parenthetical explanation of each award, to better accommodate readers unfamiliar with the National Hockey League. I know they can follow the links, but it seems reasonable in the lead to provide a short explanation. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Explaining it would somewhat defeat the purpose of a wiki and would be bloat especially in the lead. The best feature about wikis is the ability to link so you don't have to explain every little thing on a page, you can just link to it so they can get more information if they need to. -DJSasso (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary to add an explanatory note right beside a link, per Djsasso above. Connormah (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, I know there are links, and I'm a pretty big proponent of letting people follow them. For this specific case, thinking of the lead as a brief summary for a general-purpose "Who's who" index, I feel there is some value in including a brief standalone explanation of some of the distinguishing characteristics of a person. (It's not something I feel strongly about, though.) isaacl (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: @Belevalo: has been making changes in player bios, to flesh out descriptions of awards. What's the project's views on that? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If anything i made it consistent. Most nhl starts have small descriptions regarding their awards in the lead. Belevalo (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Certainly my view is that Belevalo needs to start seeking consensus for his sweeping changes, and failing that, drop the damn stick. I'm rather with DJ and Connormah: just follow the bloody link if you want to know what it means. Ravenswing 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: It looks like Belevalo is simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT, which implies a case of WP:NOTHERE. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with NCAA bracket

Can someone with formatting skills help make a bracket for the 2021 Hockey East Men's Ice Hockey Tournament? It needs an 11-team bracket, and I found Template:11TeamBracket but the format doesn't use the connecting lines in the first two rounds as teams get reseeded. Template:11TeamBracket-Hockey East would work but the 2nd round has a best-of-three, and it needs to be single elimination. Tried editing it myself in the sandbox but didn't have much luck. Thanks in advance. Mushh94 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Was able to figure it out myself Mushh94 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

NHL Bracket

I've looked into using a standard 16 team bracket this year, but with the divisional playoff winners being re-seeded 1–4, I need to figure out whether to keep this or go a different direction (i.e. no connecting lines between rounds 2 and 3). –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 00:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Piranha249: Maybe try Template:16TeamBracket-Two-Reseeds? It may not be perfect since there are no lines between the first and second rounds, but using the subgroupX=Division name parameter would probably be enough to define the groups. Yosemiter (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps a new one, like Template:16TeamBracket-FinalsReseed, essentially a non-three box final version of Template:16TeamBracket-Finals3reseed. Yosemiter (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ask for Template:16TeamBracket-FinalsReseed and yee shall receive. (Disclaimer, I just self-taught myself how to format these brackets for my section above, so hopefully everything works as intended) Mushh94 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains & alternate captains

Anyone else know what @CarolinaHurricane20: is trying to accomplish at List of current NHL captains and alternate captains? His changes of the alternate captains, appears to be original research & doesn't line up with the team rosters. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Estonian editors are at it again

Estonian editors are once again changing ice hockey personnel birth places from "Soviet Union" to "Estonia". Pages affected are Siim Liivik, Lauri Lahesalu, Toivo Suursoo and Dmitri Suur. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it just happens every couple months when they think no one is watching. Just revert when you see it. I have most of them watch listed to catch it when they do.-DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, considering what was discussed in the previous section. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Do they currently include the Soviet Republic of Estonia as part of their birthplace? Would that satisfy the Estonian editors, to add the "province" in addition to USSR? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"National Hockey League" at Wiktionary

FYI wikt:en:National Hockey League has been nominated for deletion -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Season results

I know the season's not over yet, but how do we recognize the non-use of the Atlantic, Metropolitan, and Pacific divisions on their respective season results sections? My idea is somewhat similar to how the 2004–05 lockout was acknowledged:

Season	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th
2020–21	Division suspended for season; temporary realignment

I also considered using a ref label for the Central Division, similar to that of the 1994–95 and 2012–13 lockouts, as well as the shortened 2019–20 season. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That looks fine. Ravenswing 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Stanley Cup champions

Hello Hockey fans! I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_18#Category:Super_Bowl_champions, which was deleted along with Category:Grey Cup champions and Category:American Football League champions, because they're considered over-categorization per WP:PERFCAT. Category:World Series champions was deleted some years ago on a similar basis. It's safe to assume that the days of Category:Stanley Cup champions are numbered. Stanley Cup winning players also exists, though it needs updating for the 2020 winners. Somebody in your project might want to update Stanley Cup winning players and possibly compare to the Category to see if any names are missing from the List. Regards, PKT(alk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Just reading the discussion linked here, a valid point was made by @Krazytea:: WP:PERFCAT details "performers" but makes no mention of athletes, which is clearly a different discussion. And considering that unlike the Super Bowl of World Series, all Stanley Cup-winning players have their name engraved on the trophy, I would be strongly opposed to such a move, and would want to see some clarification to this policy relating to athletes (under this argument all Olympic medalist categories should be deleted, which is equally ridiculous). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah these were poor deletions. If anything one of the most defining characteristics of a pro athlete is if they won the big championship or not. It is often the first thing mentioned about a player in biographies and obituaries. I can think of no more defining category for a player. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding @Djsasso:'s point, if the Stanley Cup champions category is deleted along with the other sports championship categories (Super Bowl, World Series, etc...), there's always Deletion Review to bring up how it is a defining category for athletes in the big North American sports leagues.Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 23:49, February 19, 2021 (UTC)

The result of the discussion did end up being "delete".Canuck^{89 (Chat with me)} 05:20, February 25, 2021 (UTC)

Re-rating?

Could someone advise the best way to 'apply' to get an article re-rated? I recently overhauled the HK Mogo article, which means that it is hopefully(!) no longer a Start-class article. I'm not familiar with the behind-the-scenes aspect of Wiki, nor is it something I feel comfortable doing myself. Over the last few months I've been trying to update some of the more obscure leagues/teams so that they are atleast somewhat current. Thanks Mark49s (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'll go take a look myself. Ravenswing 16:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I also go through the unassessed articles from time to time, so if you want to blank the rating of anything you want re-assessed, I'll get to it that way at one point. Have noticed you've been updating the Latvian teams recently, by the way, which is good to see, as those types of articles definitely don't get a lot of frequent attention. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both! I'd originally blanked the rating but it was reverted; I probably should've left an edit summary. One more Latvian side to do then all the Baltic top flight teams are up to date. Next stop Denmark. Mark49s (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lightning alternate captains

A bit of a dispute. Stamkos is the captain of the Lightning, but who are the alternate captains? GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, Well ElitePropsects says: Victor Hedman, Alex Killorn, and Ryan McDonagh. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We should note, Killhorn wore the "A" last season, due to Captain Stamkos' absence via injury. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Stats section on team season articles causing problems...again

Can someone help Eh_Oh_Canada understand that the stats sections on the 2020–21 NHL articles are not meant to be updated after every game? I tried to tell them not to do that since it results in errors (which has been the case with this situation), and they reverted my comment on their talk page when I directed them to a discussion that I started. It's an indication that they are going to be disobedient and that they are just going to keep doing what they're doing. With what happened two years ago with the whole NicholasHui situation that happened, in my honest opinion, we need to scrap the stats section entirely and just have the links to NHL.com take its place, or have it in the infobox. It has created too many disputes in the last two years that shouldn't have happened since people can't seem to follow the protocol as to how/when it should be updated. It would also prevent mistakes from happening altogether. Yowashi (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• ... and it would remove an important section readers want. Yes, it sucks that people keep barging in to edit stat sections we tag with "DON'T EDIT THIS MID-SEASON" -- I've probably done reversions on the list of 1000 NHL games players a dozen times alone since the season started. But that's the price of doing business. Ravenswing 23:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Yowashi: We cannot remove the statistics sections since we remove the roster template after the season ends so readers would not be able to see who played and how they did it in that season. Such editors come and go so I think that the best thing would be to report such editors if they fail/do not want to understand how things are done here. Meanwhile, I update such sections once a week, which is usually on Monday. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

National Hockey League coach infobox, part 2

I raised this in October 2019, but as far as I know nothing was changed at the time; I personally still think that the fields infobox make it much too cluttered (in particular, not sure of the need for four separate "years as" fields, multiple "teams"/"previous teams" fields, and "specialty"). Does anyone have any further thoughts on this, or ideas to improve the template? Connormah (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that we should make it look more like player's infobox. The parameters for "General manager", "Years as an NHL coach" and "Years with current team", along with "Specialty" and "Stanley Cup wins" should be eliminated. Or we could somehow combine the Template:Infobox National Hockey League coach with Template:Infobox ice hockey player. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I also had thought similarly, though I think some concerns were raised last discussion about the boxes becoming too long, in particular if we were to list the years of each coaching position, like other sports do. If it could be done in a way that keeps it compact (perhaps adding a few fields that would list a "coaching career" section), though, I think it would be a good idea. Template:Infobox baseball biography and Template:Infobox NFL biography both do it with a general section listing teams, and then there is Template:Infobox college coach which creates separate sections for each. Connormah (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox basketball biography also has a similar arrangement. For example, Steve Kerr, Doc Rivers or Phil Jackson. In my opinion, Joel Quenneville's infobox does not look too bad except for those unneeded parameters that I previously named. But this example has three infoboxes combined into one, which is obviously too long and is not what I would have in mind. But that would probably be a good example when deciding what to do next. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely seems that in most instances (except for Cooper, Hynes, Ward, Blashill) the template is being used as a module in conjunction with the player infobox and infobox person, which doesn't seem to be ideal when considering length. The separate "Coaching career"/"Ice hockey career" also seem to be redundant/unnecessary in the current module setup. Perhaps the Stanley Cup wins (or championships) field could also be useful in player infoboxes, but maybe that is a different discussion to be had. Connormah (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose another consideration if we were to merge into one all-encompassing infobox (Ice hockey/NHL biography) may be to accommodate for general managers as well, as it seems to be a mix of Infobox person/Infobox ice hockey player/modules including both at the moment. Connormah (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Like before I think it should stay as close to the player box as we can. I would probably put in optional parameters into the player box (which we would rename) for teams they coached for in the same we we have the current team pararmeter, and a coach equivalent to the formerteams parameter. Beyond that is there really any other different information you want for a coach? Really current team and former teams are really the only important ones I can think of. And I suppose you could do years active but because coaches don't necessarily coach consecutively through their career that might be a bit unnecessary for the infobox. Adding couple fields to the player box would be rather easy. I wouldn't however, want to copy any of the other major sports. All of their infoboxes are horrible clutter and are really dumpster fires. -DJSasso (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much all the other fields in the coach box are cruft that are likely only there to expand the size of the infobox. We wouldn't put Cup wins in a player infobox so we shouldn't for a coach. We don't say years as a minor leaguer vs NHLer so we shouldn't for a coach either etc. Even specialty is a bit vague and hard to source so I would toss it as well. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Djsasso, I think that is a workable solution. The only other useful field I can see possibly also transferring over is "current position", perhaps to create a distinction between assistant coaches (unless we denote HC unless noted by alt text for the new fields). I agree with tossing specialty, as that really isn't a common distinction made for hockey coaches (or at least varies very widely as you said). Do you think an executive field might also be useful for GMs? Connormah (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have any more thoughts on this? If not I will likely create a request to merge these templates in the next little while. Connormah (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Combining medal templates and infoboxes

Moka Mo (talk · contribs) has been combining medal templates into player's infoboxes for some time. Do editors of the project approve of such practice or not? In my opinion, such actions unnecessarily lengthen the infobox and it should not be done. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps if I make it collapseable? Moka Mo (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally we have separated them when there is an international section or international stats section for the medal templates to go in. If there is no international section putting them in the infobox is fine. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League team presidents

Do we really need Draft:List of National Hockey League team presidents? The editor has already created List of National Basketball Association team presidents, which is in a horrendous state and will probably be nominated for deletion. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Teams have twisted the titles/duties of those positions, in the last few years. Dropping "president" in favour of "president of hockey operations". GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds pretty damn trivial to me, especially when (a) team "president' ≠ owner, and (b) team "president' ≠ chief executive. Ravenswing 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Quotes at 2010 Stanley Cup Finals

In accordance with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive64#Quotation sections, should the quotes at 2010 Stanley Cup Finals also be removed? There was some extra media attention surrounding the goal because of the confusion leading up to it. Heymid (contribs) 10:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed them for now. Nothing in the text or the references indicates notability. Heymid (contribs) 18:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 WHL season page move?

Thought about listing the 2021 WHL season article at the technical page move request page, but maybe it's controversial enough to warrant discussion. It seems to me that the article should be at 2020–21 WHL season even though games are only being played in 2021. Similar to the OHL, QMJHL, and other leagues like the NHL, there is more to a season than the year in which games are being played. The Bantam draft, trades, etc...they all occurred in the 2020 part of the season. At any rate, I'd move the article myself per BRD but there's already a disambiguation page at 2020–21 WHL season. Can one of the admins move the page, or do others think this warrants more discussion? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nurmsook: Based on reliable sources as seen in this search and primary sources like the league standings, I would say both the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYNAME is 2020–21 WHL season. WP:TITLECON is a plus too. Yosemiter (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I will move it as it follows commonname as per Yosemiter and past precedence of 1994–95 NHL season. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree to keep it like the other seasons. While games may only be played in 2021, the season still "started" in 2020. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Player names

For those with access to The Athletic, here's an article on spelling player names and how it's changing in the NHL. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't see behind the paywall but I have read a few articles on it in other places. Apparently Lafrenière demanded it when he was drafted as it was very important to his family. The league then changed the rules causing Ottawa to ask Stützle if he wanted to and then fans demanded the Canucks fix Höglander's. I suspect by next year it will be on most jerseys, will be interesting to see. -DJSasso (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur. And if that is the way the NHL, and by association most sources, go then I have no issue adapting it here. Also the first I heard that Hoglander is modifying his name, but makes sense. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I guess the Canucks were about to make one of their mid-season jersey switches and they asked if he would rather have the ö than the o and he said he would very much like that because they are completely different letters. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at American Hockey League

I have hit my 3RR (as has the other editor) on American Hockey League, but Zastoi is not responding at all why they are randomly splitting the Checkers' Founding/Joining date when every other team listed has the same format. Secondary editors and input are appreciated. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

They are at their fourth revert, any help would be appreciated now. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted and protected the page for a couple days. Hopefully this gives them a chance to explain themselves. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Czuczman

I'm a bit confused here with the picture used in this article. It shows Czuczman in a Penguins uniform when it appears he has never actually played with them at the NHL level. Is he being confused for someone else? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

He was called up a few times in 2017–18, but never played during a game so maybe the caption is wrong. Maybe the uploader Pens Through My Lens would know. Yosemiter (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure in the past Pens Through My Lens took a lot of their photos during training camp. So it is likely a photo from a pre-season game although now that I look it says it was from a game in December which wouldn't be training camp. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

He was called up to Pittsburgh on the date in question but did not record any ice time. Probably was a pre-game warmup pic, not during the game like the caption says. Yosemiter (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep that likely is it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

DJSasso, thanks. I would've asked Pens Through My Lens but they haven't edited since 2019. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Djsasso, fix ping. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain its from the Dec. 9 pre-game warm-ups. There is another image of Czuczman also dated from that time that has a Leafs player in the bg and they did play them that night (File:Kevin Czuczman 2017-12-09 2.jpg) Leventio (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a shot from warm-ups. I've updated the description to say he was not in the line-up for the game. Sorry for the confusion.Pens Through My Lens (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Roaming editor who answers to no one

Can anybody figure out @Roje Vala:? he makes un-needed edits & never answers for them & sometimes returns to re-make them. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

He is indeed a problematic editor. In addition, he continues adding diacritics (already reverted) to pages, templates, etc. I also issued a warning to the editor, but I guess it will again be ignored. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair on the example you link to, that player now has tonnes of reliable sources with that spelling in NHL related news articles. It isn't something I would go reverting at this point, personally because there is no longer a leg to stand on when it comes to that particular player in regards to not using them since reliable sources now do. I wouldn't go out of my way to add them myself yet, but I also wouldn't get into revert wars over removing them. Especially since the point of NCIH was to stop edit warring over them in ice hockey articles. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Stützle is almost universally written this way, so we'll have to adapt to doing the same. Still to be determined about other players (Nils Höglander was mentioned earlier, but I've still seen it written "Hoglander" quite a bit). Kaiser matias (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We should follow the diacritics rule until we abolish the diacritic part at WP:NCIH. And I have not seen anything that would indicate the change at this point. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

NCIH was literally created just to stop GoodDay from edit warring with IPs. Prior to it existing we usually followed a leave it as you found it suggestion sort of like ENGVAR. NCIH also includes wording that says to use them where customary, if the NHL is using them now (and reliable sources are following along) then NCIH already allows for it. Though we will eventually have to discuss fixing the wording probably by next season. -DJSasso (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Paul Stastny

I have nominated Paul Stastny for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Stanley Cup champions at CfD

Some people here may be interested in the discussion to have Category:Stanley Cup champions deleted. The discussion is here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Hockey Hall of Fame members

Just want to let everyone know that some editor created Template:Hockey Hall of Fame members. But I have no time to make a deletion nomination. Could anybody else do it? – Sabbatino (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, has there been a previous TFD for this template? If so, it can be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and all instances delinked. Maxim_(talk) 15:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the Template, has been adding it to all the HHOF members' bios pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking through it, they have not only done this with Stanley Cup winners before, but do it with other sports consistently. I think @Maxim: is right though, we can speedily delete this. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Creator blanked it anyway so valid for speedy due to only editor blanking. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

All cleaned up now. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Gilles Lupien

Former player and agent Gilles Lupien died today. Does anyone have time to clean up his article? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mastergerwe97 making premature edits and engaging in edit wars

On 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Tournament, NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Tournament, NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Championship pages, user repeatedly made edits to show Massachusett's eventual title victory. When I explained wiki etiquette is to wait until the result is official, user engaged in edit warring. Looking at their contributions and talk page, this is a clear issue for them, repeatedly. Mushh94 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mushh94: The relevant guideline to discuss with them is WP:RSBREAKING. If it has not yet happened to point it can be WP:V in reliable sources, then it should not be added. If they continue, then WP:ANI or WP:ANEW is about the only way to go with them as it sounds behavioral. Yosemiter (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sadly User:Mastergerwe97 has continued on with this behaviour, though they are currently blocked. Deadman137 (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

AHL Scoring Titles

According to the AHL press release "Poturalski has won the the John B. Sollenberger Trophy as the leading point-getter in the AHL, while Marody has captured the Willie Marshall Award as the AHL’s leading goal scorer in 2020-21." But someone seems to be insisting that the leading goal scorer was Poturalski, which is inaccurate. I tried to edit the corrections on the AHL's page, but this other user doesn't seem to want to follow what the AHL itself is saying. https://theahl.com/poturalski-marody-scoring-titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by SectionBreak (talk • contribs)

@SectionBreak: Per the American Hockey League's definition of "Leading Scorer" (and quoted from that exact press release):

"The AHL's leading-scorer trophy was originally named after Wally Kilrea, who held the AHL's single-season scoring record when the award was instituted in 1947-48. That year, Carl Liscombe broke Kilrea's record, and the award was renamed in his honor. In 1955, the AHL Board of Governors voted to name the trophy after John B. Sollenberger, a long-time contributor to the league as manager and president of the Hershey Bears and former Chairman of the AHL Board of Governors."

[4]

So please do not change the parameter to the top goal scorer again (per WP:BRD) instead of the top point-getter; we follow what the AHL chooses to define it as. This also applies to the NHL's Art Ross Trophy, which is also awarded for "Leading Scorer", as opposed to the Rocket Richard Trophy, which is awarded to the "Leading Goal Scorer". This is pretty much universal across the various leagues as defined by the league's themselves. Yosemiter (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Poturalski got the most points in the 2020-21 AHL season & so belongs in the 'top scorer' section of the 2020–21 AHL season infobox. Just like McDavid is listed as 'top scorer' in the 2020–21 NHL season infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yosemiter I know what "most points" means, which is why the AHL labelled the award as such (which I referenced, if that was unclear for you). It's actually really funny and bizarre that you're so obsessed with labelling it as "top scorer" when that's not what the AHL's statement said. If they called him the top point-getter, then why do you insist on calling him "top scorer"? I don't know why you're referencing the NHL when we're clearly talking about the AHL. Re-read the article and what the Condors themselves said if you don't understand. You're the only one changing the parameters here :)

I don't really care if you don't change it and insist on incorrect information (I don't have any personal attachment to a wikipedia entry), the Condors are already aware regardless. You're the only one who seems to be changing the parameters, maybe you know the other player? Or placed a bet on him being the top scorer and that's why you're so insistent? Very interesting either way, have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SectionBreak (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@SectionBreak: Re-read the quote and your source, it quite clearly calls the Sollenberger Trophy the Leading Scorer Award. Even the team's of each player makes the distinction: from the Condors - MARODY WINS MARSHALL AWARD AS AHL'S TOP GOAL SCORER, and from the Gulls - GULLS FORWARD ANDREW POTURALSKI WINS JOHN B. SOLLENBERGER TROPHY AS AHL LEADING SCORER. This usage matches every single season in the NHL (such as McDavid listed at 2020–21 NHL season and not Mathews) and all previous AHL and ECHL seasons. I edit all the seasons in all the leagues and only match existing formats. You seem to be the only one obsessed here with having your player be listed. Yosemiter (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yosemiter:

"Poturalski has won the the John B. Sollenberger Trophy as the leading point-getter in the AHL, while Marody has captured the Willie Marshall Award as the AHL’s leading goal scorer in 2020-21."

Infobox image vandal

Just want to let everyone know that an IP hopper has been running around and changing the size of BLPs' infobox images – 2601:400:8001:E5E0:0:0:0:0/64. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sports editor with a 'bad' attitude

It appears that @1978 Los Angeles Ravagers:, is going to be a problem. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not for very long! Ravenswing 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

NHL skaters as goalies

I may be imagining things, but is there not a list out there of NHL skaters who served as goalies somewhere? I was trying to look for it but can't find it, though I was certain it existed. Does anyone know if it does exist? If not I'll set something up. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem editor

We've got a problem editor Þadius that is making disruptive edits, any available admin that could help out with them would be appreciated. Deadman137 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Luke Henman

Should Luke Henman be nominated for deletion? He does not meet WP:NHOCKEY despite being the first player to get signed by the Kraken. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

He almost definitely meets WP:GNG though because of all the articles written about him being the first player signed. -DJSasso (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Roje Vala

Does anyone else think that Roje Vala (talk · contribs) is WP:NOTHERE? He has been disruptively going against WP:NCIH and WP:MOS for quite some time and I think that the editor does not intend to change the editing pattern since every message on editor's talk page is ignored and edit summaries are not used either. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. He/she's been annoying & somewhat disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also he fails to respond to anybody who contacts him on his talkpage. A possible sign of WP:CIR. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

World Hockey Association trophies and awards

The Howard Baldwin Trophy is currently nominated for deletion. A suggestion was made to merge all Category:World Hockey Association trophies and awards into the parent article at World Hockey Association (WHA). Does anyone have time to look into cleaning up articles related to the WHA? It's a big project which I don't have time to start myself, but I would be grateful if anyone does! Flibirigit (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a better source. If needed the pages correspond for all WHA trophies, so can be used for each page if need be. !Kaiser matias (talk)

Canadian Hockey League

I have noticed that several times in the last few days, that the list of teams at the Canadian Hockey League article has been replaced with a list of teams from the National Hockey League. Any help in reverting unconstructive changes is helpful. Flibirigit (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Watching. It looks like a /64 IP vandal, so if it comes back today or tomorrow, we can request a block. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The /64 is now range blocked for a week. Yosemiter (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully that helps. Flibirigit (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the nonsense edits resumed and the range was blocked for two weeks. Thanks for watching. Flibirigit (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I almost missed it with the bot edit removing the hidden template right after the vandalism. We'll have to see if they continue their antics in two weeks. Yosemiter (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

National team in infobox

Does playing for the senior national team in an exhibition game or Deutschland Cup (and similar tournaments) count as playing for the senior national team? Because Braveattack (talk · contribs) is making such additions to players' infoboxes. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, as long as it is the senior national team and not the junior team. So any exhibitions and tournament are good to go. In some cases countries in the past even had permanent senior national teams, such as Canada, which traveled around playing other international teams and sometimes local teams in exhibitions and both small and large tournaments. We have always added it for them. The only thing we never add to that parameter is junior teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm in the minority, and it's been discussed before, but I still think junior team should count as well. Players who compete in IIHF tournaments as juniors have to fulfill the four-year requirement to change national teams (not the two-years for first-time players), so it's considered equal. Not that I want to start a major argument or anything about it, and am happy to go along with with consensus. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

1. 13 2021 IIHF World Championship rosters 108,644 3,504 Unknown Unknown
2. 64 Ethan Bear 43,027 1,387 Stub Unknown
3. 77 2021 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships 40,384 1,302 Stub Unknown

#87 Kirill Kaprizov 37,328 1,204 Stub Unknown

1. 91 2021 IIHF World U18 Championships 36,281 1,170 Stub Unknown

#99 David Pastrňák 35,330 1,139 Stub Unknown #143 Spencer Knight 28,819 929 Stub Unknown

1. 161 2021 IIHF World Championship Group A 26,491 854 Stub Unknown
2. 168 2021 IIHF World Championship Group B 25,639 827 Stub Unknown

#184 Chris Nilan 24,112 777 Stub Unknown

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well ... let's start with that the article assessments are seriously lagging. Somewhat disbelieving, I checked the Pastrnak and Kaprizov articles. The first is a solid C, the second a solid Start, and I changed the assessments to suit. Likely some of the others are much the same: I'll take a look at the other player articles listed. Ravenswing 14:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've also changed the Knight and Nilan assessments to Start. The Nilan article is damn near devoid of citations, however, and it does need a lot of serious work. The Bear article is pretty much a stub. Ravenswing 14:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone point me to a project MOS or similar?

A WP:ENGVAR edit I recently made to an article was reverted with the broad statement that NHL-related articles must use Canadian spelling, but without any citation to some source to establish consensus for that. I’m sure it’s been the subject of many edit wars over the years, so I looked to see if there is a manual of style or similar for this WikiProject that might support the statement. I can’t find one, and I’m certainly not going to waste Sunday afternoon digging through the talk page archives. Can anyone point me to anything that would demonstrate consensus on that principle? Thanks in advance. 1995hoo (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Links to the various style advice pages are available in the sidebar on the main project page. For the article in question, I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining the existing variety is the apt guidance. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Concur. I don't see how projects have the right to dictate which English variant is used in articles under its scope. Just because the. main NHL article is written in Canadian English does not mean that all articles on the NHL must be written in Canadian English also. The article in question first used American English, and that is what should be retained. BilCat (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Regarding BilCat's comment, one thing that struck me was that the article's talk page has two banners, one of them for WikiProject United States, as noted in my edit summary from a few days ago. I don’t mean to suggest that one necessarily trumps hockey (I think I’d say if there were a consensus for hockey articles, that one would likely trump, given how broad a USA project would be overall), but it’s certainly a factor in favor of US spelling. I will also acknowledge that I might be overly aware of these issues after an incident a few years back where someone told me to use British English in an article about Major League Soccer because "they invented the language." 1995hoo (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that WikiProject banners play a determinative role. Anyone can add any WikiProject banners, since it just indicates they feel the participants in that WikiProject are interested in that page. Personally, I don't think that the 2021 NHL expansion draft article has strong national ties to exclusively one country, and so there is no reason to change the spelling in the article. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Have to agree with Isaacl here, there are no strong national ties in this article so RETAIN should apply. The first visible edit for this page was in Canadian English so that is what it should have stayed at. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the national tie here be to the US, as Seattle is in the US? -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Since the 2021 NHL expansion draft affects all league teams, I don't feel that the national tie is exclusive to the United States. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome as to that particular article, I gather from all of your comments that there is no policy basis for the statement, "All NHL league based articles such as this one are written in Canadian English," correct? 1995hoo (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Not for articles like this one. I would of course for any that are specifically about the NHL in Canada such as Battle of Quebec (ice hockey) or the various teams in Canada. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course. No question there. 1995hoo (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel that we did have a discussion about this long ago, and I'm remembering correctly if the article was about a Canadian person/team/etc Canadian English was used, but if it was American then US English (I think international went to whatever was first). That said, I don't think this was ever codified, but a lot of what we do never is (I'm sure that isn't the correct way to do it, but we have largely been fine as is). Kaiser matias (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Concur. Also, there's nothing stopping the editor in question, or any other user, from raising the issue on the article's talk page and getting a consensus there to use Canadian English. BilCat (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarence S. Campbell Bowl

Does anyone know what the parameter for the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl is, so that it can be added to the infobox on the 2020–21 Montreal Canadiens season page? I saw that the Prince of Wales Trophy was added to the Lightning page, but I don't know how to add the Campbell Bowl. If anyone disagrees about adding it, I think it should be added because it is an accomplishment that the team has achieved this season. Yowashi (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed it, from the 2020-21 Lightning season article. Looks odd to have them, when there was no Conferences this season. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I guess it makes sense to not have it for that reason. Yowashi (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't buy that optics is a reason not to include it. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The NHL could have chosen to award the Wales Trophy to the Canadiens & the Campbell Bowl to the Lightning. Up until earlier this month, the NHL wasn't going to hand out those two awards, at all. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? I agree that this is not a conference championship, but you can't dispute that each trophy was awarded. Tampabay721 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think what Tampabay721 is alluding as "optics" to is seen here and the fact there is not an equivalent for the Campbell Bowl. The PoW parameter exists due its previous uses as the league playoff championship (pre-Stanley) and then as the regular season championship (pre-1967 expansion). The Campbell has never been used for that type of purpose as it was created to parallel the PoW new post-1967 purpose, hence, does not have an existing parameter. Yosemiter (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What I meant by not buying optics being a reason to exclude them was that the reason given for not including them was because to one person said it looked "odd". I wasn't even aware when I made the edit you referenced that there wasn't a similar parameter for the Bowl because the Lightning articles are usually the only one I spend time on. I remember back in 2015 adding the PoW parameter to the Lightning article and someone changed it to ConferenceWin, which I didn't know at that time was possible so it made sense to me not revert because the two were synonymous to me. Having went back and seen some of the articles from the Original Six era or even in the years the Bowl was awarded for regular season records, what strikes me odd is that the neither the PoW nor the Bowl has ever been included in the expansion era and so the PoW trophy must only be found in articles during O-6 years since back then it was essentially the Presidents' Trophy as we know today. This time the Lightning win the PoW and not the conference, which is why I believe it should be reflected as such. Besides the fact that only admins can edit Template:Infobox ice hockey team season it would not be hard to add the Bowl. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mostly because up until this season, both trophies were synonymous with the conference champion parameter post-'67 and it is against MOS:INFOBOX as bloat to list two of the same thing. I have no opinion on whether or not we list the PoW/Campbell on the infobox (yes, it could done by editing the template easily). I guess the question we should be asking is whether or not it is significant enough. We don't list the semifinal winners in the '74 to '81 playoffs in their season pages (see 1976–77 Boston Bruins season and 1978–79 New York Rangers season), regardless of if there were named trophies for the achievement. Yosemiter (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I see your point about it getting bloated and listing what is effectively the same thing twice. When it comes to this year, I'm of the opinion that adding something is better than leaving it blank. Which would mean adding to or adjusting the infobox template to allow for the Bowl to be added for Montreal even though (with respect to WP:CRYSTAL) this should be the only season that this is an issue. Tampabay721 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, this is a pretty straightforward thing. Can anyone point to a press release by the league confirming the award of these trophies? If so, of course they ought to be included in the season infoboxes ... whether or not they fit into the nice neat little slots we like them to be in. If not, of course they can't be. Ravenswing 20:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, hey, look, they both were: [5]. Done deal then, and these awards should go in the infoboxes, whether or not they fulfill the previous criterion of conference championships ... which of course has not been the guiding principle for the entire history of the trophies. Ravenswing 20:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If they're going to be added? A footnote explaining how they were awarded would be helpful. After all, this is the first time the Canadiens were ever awarded the Campbell Bowl. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Every new team that wins it is the first time it's won it, if you think about it ... and a number of those involved changes in the criteria for awarding it, and/or changes of division or conference. Most of the teams that have won it weren't originally eligible to do so. Ravenswing 00:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

With all this repurposing of trophies that has gone on, maybe the team infoboxes should list achievements rather than trophies: regular-season point leader, Stanley Cup finalist (perhaps in an NHL context that should be NHL playoff finalist, but some traditions die hard), and Conference champion. The article text can get into all the specific trophy details and their significance. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Standings templates at TFD

FYI, at TfD, several NHL templates have popped up. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 26

-- 65.93.183.191 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

NHL Entry Draft trades

Why do NHL trade details on Wikipedia have "nth-round pick in [year]" instead of "[year] nth-round pick", unlike those details in the NBA, NFL, MLS? Santiago Claudio (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly because nobody wanted to take the time, changing them. That's a lot of articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We are not required to copy what other WikiProjects do. Plus we've been using that formatting for well over a decade. Deadman137 (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There’s no reason why you can’t change it if you want to, Santiago Claudio, but (as GoodDay notes) you’d be creating an awful lot of work for yourself because it doesn’t make sense to change some articles but not others. 1995hoo (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Never mind this simple question: "what benefit is gained by making such a change?" Ravenswing 23:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Been reading this, and I feel that both have been used in media, so either choice should be fine as long as it's consistent. But if someone wants to go around re-wording, I have not issue with it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, we always were a funny bunch here at hockey-doing things our own way. It'd be a lot of work changing it all. Masterhatch (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils Uniform Set

I created a custom illustration of the team unifoms in high resolution vector format and based on the long standing model that has been in the article since 2017. The newer updated illustration is superior in quality and level of detail and it retains the design forms of the original. Can we include it as part of the article's infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Jersey_Devils_Uniform_Set.svg? Kj1595 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a consistent format used across ice hockey team pages. Therefore, you apply the same format to all other teams or do not change anything at all. In addition, oknazevad (talk · contribs) has already voiced similar concerns like mine with the addition of "Reverse retro" not being a regular jersey. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the retro uniform and reuploading the 2 set home and away uniforms. There are several issues with the existing PNG set. Aside from it being poorly rastered and lacking details, it lacks important elements like the gloves, the hockey stick and the helmet visor. Again, my illustration retains the forms and language of the PNG set. Why can it not be used as the future model for other and all teams to be represented by? Kj1595 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Gloves, sticks, and visors are not "uniform" or part of a team's uniform identity; they are equipment. Players can often choose the brand/sponsorship as long as it is one of the team's approved colors. They do not need to be, and probably should not be, included. Yosemiter (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A heads up

User:Ched has been removing game recap urls under the guise of "General formatting" from several team season articles. Example. --75.89.192.247 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

under the guise of? Nice AGF there, and you could have come and asked me, but whatever. General formatting does this because they are not needed under WP:MOS guidelines. — Ched (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

see: User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral — Ched (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

see also: WP:EL — Ched (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ched: WP:EL does not say anything that would justify your actions. A link to a game recap is helpful so you could at least fill them as references. This format (which you are removing) has been used for a long time so you should have asked here before starting to remove them. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to you restoring them if you're going to format them as refs. And external links should be in a section at the end - and I do notice that where they are setup in a recap column in the table and formatted as such - then they don't get removed. But hey - I'm also fine with not editing any more NHL seasons too. As far as "asking" before editing .. no comment. — Ched (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ched: The links in the "Recap" column in game logs are being changed to references by Alaney2k (talk · contribs) (the editor thinks that WP:EL says to fo that when it is the opposite). I do not have time to go through all teams season pages so I made a simple observation that there is a format to be followed (links are either in "Recap" or "Score" sections). – Sabbatino (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Why do you think WP:EL means use a bag of bare external links instead of references properly formatted as citations? Alaney2k (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW I do think that the recap (as references) are useful and should not be removed. Alaney2k (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the replies and pings. Wasn't my intent to trouble anyone, and I was most certainly not editing in any surreptitious manner ("under the guise of"). I've been, for some time, adding WP:Short descriptions to articles, and while I was going through each team, each year - I thought I'd clean up a bit with "auto ed" and "General formatting" tools I have installed. I've been editing for a while, and perhaps common practice has changed with some things, and some of the guidelines haven't been updated. I also understand that various groups/projects have their own way of doing things - so when first confronted, I did stop editing the NHL articles immediately. As far as the "recaps" - I'll let you folks work that out. (my view is that we should avoid "link farms", but for refs that validate scores, then that's where they should be used. But that's just my view, and I have no intention of pushing that on anyone) If you have any further concerns, feel free to ping me or ask on my talk. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• It is correct to treat those result links as citations. "Convenience links" are well and good, but are not compliant. Spam links are all too common so I configured the formatting script to remove links that are considered WP:LINKSPAM, and I see that AutoEd does the same. I see that it correctly identified the string in question as a spam link, so the removal was above board. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 21:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

NHL returning to previous alignment, in 2021–22?

Has it been confirmed, that the NHL is returning to the Eastern & Western Conferences, the Pacific, Atlantic, Central & Metropolitan Divisions setup, in the 2021–22 NHL season? Because edits are being made in some of those articles, as though it were so. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they announced it last week, and reiterated it yesterday when they stated that the full schedule will be announced tonight. See here. oknazevad (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

...and if the Canadian government does not lift or loosen the border restrictions, by then? GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase author Robert Jordan, "Watch and find out." In other words, why speculate about it when there is to be an announcement tonight? 1995hoo (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Beyond that, there's the very simple principle that's always been followed on Wikipedia. To wit, if conditions and circumstances change, some editor goes in and changes the article. What else? Ravenswing 16:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

True :) GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps then, the North, West, East divisions should also be updated? GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I was always in favor of only having one page on the 2020–21 alignment as they had zero historical connections to the divisions that once used those names in the first place. Yosemiter (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the demise of those three divisions. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorting Trades on the Transactions Page

The new Transactions page just went live, and we've had our first trades. For now, I have begun listing trades as we have in the past: team receiving the most notable piece on the left; players before picks; players listed by notability; picks listed by year/round.
With that said, there is definitely subjectivity involved in that - how much do we weigh draft pedigree, career peak, career decline, etc., what about when players are super close in value and it's not clear who's more notable? - and I am wondering if it is worth restructuring how we sort our trades.
I am partial to the idea of: teams in alphabetical order, left-to-right; sort players alphabetically regardless of who the "centrepiece" is; picks after players, sorted by year/round. –uncleben85 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that I would say is if a trade is a player(s) for just draft pick(s) in return that it should be left as is. Other than that I don't have any other points of issue. Deadman137 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

LIHG Championships

Were the LIHG Championships played in the early 20th Century rather played to bandy rules than ice hockey rules? Please give your comment at Talk:LIHG Championships. Bandy långe (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

New editor creating pages that mostly fail WP:NHOCKEY

Just want to notify that KRANKENWAGEN (talk · contribs) has created multiple BLPs that fail WP:NHOCKEY (already PRODed them) and has also created pages for multiple teams from lower leagues like the Junior Hockey League (Russia) (MHL). He is a new editor on Wikipedia so we should help him out to get a better understanding of how things work here. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Am i that bad KRANKENWAGEN (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Draft and Loans

Curious how much thought we should put into players who played on loans this year, on the draft table. For now, for example, we have Mason McTavish being drafted from Olten of the SL, and Chase Stillman, being drafted from Esbjerg of Denmark U20, which is where they played, but they were on loan, and the official NHL draft board is listing them as drafted from, Peterborough and Sudbury respectively, where they were loaned from. I think there's genuine merit to listing the Club team as, for example Olten, but at the same time, sticking with McTavish as the example, he was registered as a North American player, and his draft rights are being treated accordingly (two year expiry of a major junior player). Just figured I'd throw this out there for discussion.–uncleben85 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hm. I'd just go with the team where they were playing, as has generally been the case. Players on loan, while common in some sports, is an exceptionally rare thing in hockey, other than just this past season when the OHL was on hiatus. The situation probably won't recur, and is best handled in the players' individual articles, and/or a note on the 2021 Entry Draft article. Ravenswing 00:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere: "my thought is to go with their most recent team played. That's what eliteprospects.com uses, and I would consider them a solid source. I haven't checked what NHL.com is saying, but that's only because I find their site to be garbage since their redesign." And I'd agree with above: note in the individual articles that they were out on loan as the case may be. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

NHL.com lists their team as where they were registered (ie. the team that loaned them). This matters to the NHL as, as I am sure you are very much aware!, where you are drafted from effects how long your NHL team retains your rights, so, yes, maybe you played in Switzerland, but you were drafted from an OHL team. I don't think it really matters for our purposes but can see the logic either way, so figured it was worth discussing!–uncleben85 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I figured since it was my original proposal, I should do the research and the work, and I came up with a compromise solution that I feel is subtle, not intrusive, and aligns with the NHL's official draft record (with the players matched with the club they were registered with in the Draft). Let me know if you have any strong feelings about it.–uncleben85 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Gord Miller birth place

I began a discussion at Talk:Gord Miller (sportscaster) regarding his birth place for anyone willing to help. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

May i get help from someone

If you have any knowledge of the finnish elite league (Liiga), could you help me. Many of the pages about Liiga are old and the rosters outdated. I would fix everything if i had the time and motivation. KRANKENWAGEN (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-notable player redirects to different articles

A recent discussion has me thinking: what is the consensus on redirecting non-notable players to different articles? For example Colton Dach currently isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, so the page goes to Kirby Dach, his brother (where the personal life section mentions Colton). There have been other examples, but in a similar style. I was under the impression we've discussed this before, and agreed that we'd leave the links red (I personally don't like redirecting to a different person, and would prefer the link be red, or non-existent). But I can't find anything searching on this, so I may have been mistaken. That all said, it's worth discussing I think. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The Kirby Dach page has reliably sourced information on Colton Dach. So it makes sense for someone who enters Colton Dach into Wikipedia to be redirected to that information. We have this for many other players who are not notable themselves but have information in articles about notable relatives - not just hockey players but other sports as well (and although sports is the primary area of Wikipedia where I deal with biographies, I am pretty sure this is common in other areas). Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Gardiner (ice hockey) birth year

A little help here: @Marc87: has been changing the birth year of Charlie Gardiner (ice hockey), from 1904 to 1903. The reason listed is the grave for Gardiner has 1903 on it, while every other reliable source has 1904. I've already reverted twice, and have tried to message about this, but want further input here. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Err. What's chiseled onto a gravestone is what some family member told the stonecutter to make. I've seen examples of botched results. That shouldn't even be under consideration compared to what the preponderance of reliable sources gives ... never mind that findagrave.com is a user-submitted site and certainly NOT reliable. Ravenswing 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Július Šupler nominated for deletion

The article Július Šupler was nominated for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Július Šupler. (I thought it is worth mentioning here, in case somebody wants to chime in.) --Kompik (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dashes for the un-numbered.

Not a major problem & certainly a temporary one. Can we decide on which size of dash to use for un-numbered players in NHL team roster templates. The small dash (-) or the mid-size dash (–). GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I don't do much with rosters, but per MOS:DASH, it probably should never be a hyphen (-) (which is meant to be used as a word modifier) and should either be a en-dash (–) or em-dash (—). But, yeah, consistency would be even better even if we don't follow MOS. Yosemiter (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been using the end-dash. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I wish @Alaney2k: would stop changing them to hyphens. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Alaney2k will probably say that MOS says to do that like with some other changes that I completely disagree since MOS does not specify them... – Sabbatino (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't overly complain, but not everybody has 20-20 vision. Those hyphens are difficult to make out, compared to an endash. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Gosh sour grapes and whiners !! :-) I was just messing on the rosters with you guys. It was fun to wag the dog. Although I thought the pattern of short and long dashes was attractive. :-) BTW I don't have a key for long dash on my Chromebook. Alaney2k (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I figured after the pattern, you would get the joke. Oh well. Alaney2k (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: Wikipedia:How to make dashes (or, just Ctrl+c Ctrl+v it). Yosemiter (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

David Branch move discussion

There is a move discussion at Talk:David Branch (fighter) which would affect David Branch. Any comments are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Logo sizes within infoboxes

Is there any consensus on the size of a logo used within infoboxes? I cannot find any maximum size mentioned at Wikipedia:Logos or at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Occasionally I see IP address changing the sizes and I feel that too big of any image violates fair use. Please see the most recent IP changes. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Infobox and lead images.--Moxy- 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure on logos, but our recommendation for bio pictures in an infobox is 230px. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Colored Hockey League

The article Colored Hockey League could clearly use work. An IP has recently added passages that appear to be blatant promo - claiming the league's legacy is being "built" by a book, and supports this by citing a website that the book's author edits. One of the authors, Darril Fosty, is another of the IP's edit targets, and the IP is getting protective of their efforts: [6]. I could be wrong, but it seems to me the IP is more interested in improving the standing of the authors and their work than being concerned with the league. Before continuing to edit war with this IP over their original research, I wondered if anyone at this WikiProject cared to take a stab at improving the article. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it seems like a novice editor not familiar with encyclopedic neutrality and avoiding promotional tone. Flibirigit (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It also sounds heavily plagiarized, and the editor doesn't seem to pay much attention to grammar and consistency (for example, being inconsistent in whether to capitalize "black" in non-quoted text). I noted the highly confrontational tone of the most recent edit summary that attacked Echoedmyron. I don't know enough about the subject to edit the article's substance, so I won't take it on other than perhaps grammar or style. 1995hoo (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of blatant promotional garbage in there having little to do with the subject. I'm about to trim some branches. Ravenswing 22:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Cut off date for transactions

Can someone explain to me why the cutoff date for transactions seems to be the Draft? I don't see how it makes sense that transactions after all games are played as accounted as occurring in the prior season (i.e. a trade between the final Stanley Cup Final game and the draft). For example, the buy-out window takes place 2 days after the final game, but for some reason this window gets split between 2 seasons which makes no sense. It makes much more sense to have this cutoff start once the season actually completes. That way transactions that actually have an effect on that season become accounted for in the correct season. Nanerz (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The cut-off date is the draft because that is considered the first event of the new season, anything that happened before that happened during the past season. This year is a little messy because of the shift of the schedule and what not due to covid, but typically it is pretty clear cut. For example if we put it on the last day of games, then stuff like the awards ceremony (which didn't happen this year but normally would) would end up on the wrong season pages etc. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally if this stance were to ever change I would suggest just having the cut-off date by whenever x team played their final game of that season. If transactions don't affect that team until the next season I feel like they should included in the next season's page. For example, the Viktor Arvidsson trade. Having the cut-off dates be the Awards ceremony or the Draft seems like a strange and arbitrarily insignificant time to have it be. Nanerz (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to the idea you mention about affecting the season, the season the trade affects is rather inconsequential in a listing of things that happened during a specific season. The players drafted in a given season for example are often not going to affect the team until a season down the road as well and it would be silly to account for that. What does matter is when the trade actually happens, not when its effects are going to be felt, which might not even be that season if it is minor league players traded or picks or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like trades are more of a separate kind of issue. If a trade takes place after the players involved in the trades can play any games I feel like those trades should be involved in the next season rather than the previous. I think the biggest issue for this comes with signings and retirements. For example, Ryan Miller announced his retirement last season which would take effect once the Ducks played their final game. Now I'd argue that this should be noted in the 2021-22 page rather than the 2020-21 page as the team had already had him for the entire year and didn't really lose him until all games were played. Ideally, transactions should be accounted for in pages they actually effect. Another example, the Luke Henman signing by the Seattle Kraken. This signing takes place before any sort of cutoff date would take place and can only be accounted for in the Kraken's 2021-22 page seeing as how this is their first season. The difference this makes however is that this should be how it's accounted for in any sense as the contract only takes effect this season rather than last. These kinds of signings should be noted in the seasons for which they initially take effect. So one last example, when a player signs in Europe prior to the cut-off but their contract has already been fulfilled, that should also be accounted for in the next season's page rather than the previous. In my opinion, there really isn't any need for a set cut-off for all teams to utilize. Just make it whenever the team played their last game OR when some transaction actually takes effect. Nanerz (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe we should continue with the way we've always done it. Just treat what happened between the 2019–20 & 2020–2021, as we've done between all other seasons. The pandemic has made things confusing enough. Let's not reflect that confusion on the NHL articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Kraken is of course an exception to the rule, since they had no previous season I personally would probably still list that one in this seasons page. Those kind of situations are almost never going to happen cause we don't have new teams all the time. As for a set cut-off for all teams, we very much have to have it the same for all teams, so that people can compare between pages and are not surprised by the differences between them, baring a very rare instance like the Kraken one. Retirements on the other hand get listed in the last season they played because they happen at the end of the season not the beginning of the next one. What you would suggest is the equivalent of saying your work day ended when your next day started as opposed to when you stopped going in to work. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Like Djsasso, said. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Change to format of Transactions section in NHL team season pages

So I've created a new transactions section formatting which can be viewed at 2021–22 Columbus Blue Jackets season for an example. I've implemented it across several of the pages that were missing altogether. It should help eliminate whitespace and unnecessary widgets (such as retirements tables for teams without any retirements for that season, as an example) while fixing some readability issues. It should give a sense of uniformity where the 4 tables in this new format should be all that is needed for all transactions. I was looking to expand this format to the remaining team pages that continue to use the previous format, but was hoping to get some insight as to what some sort of consensus should be on this issue. It would be beneficial to have all teams using the same format especially in transferring shared details amongst pages.

Pages that use the previous format:

• 2021–22 Detroit Red Wings season
• 2021–22 New Jersey Devils season
• 2021–22 New York Islanders season
• 2021–22 New York Rangers season
• 2021–22 Ottawa Senators season
• 2021–22 San Jose Sharks season
• 2021–22 Tampa Bay Lightning season
• 2021–22 Vancouver Canucks season

Side issue, in making the new pages I removed the notes from the draft picks section as it seems fairly WP:FANCRUFT and can be found in other mediums. As the section did not reference draft picks belonging the team that were traded away and solely picks that they received from other teams, it seems fairly unimportant. These notes can be found in the draft page for that respective season, in my opinion. Feel free to re-include them if you see fit, looking for some insight here as well. Nanerz (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on the table formats involved, personal preference is the old one, but that is just because I prefer the excess whitespace to be outside the tables and not inside them like in the new tables which seem bloated with whitespace. But it really isn't that big a deal to me. The one area I do have a stronger opinion on is the the removing of the notes about draft picks from the draft pick section. That is key information to be included, the team season pages are intended to be a one stop shop for all information on that team's season, making readers go to the draft pick articles for that key information seems counter productive. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My main issue on the whitespace point is that it could be put to better use within the tables to increase their readability. It also helps to keep uniform sizes among the tables themselves for the same reason. As to the draft pick section, I personally don't have much of an issue with keeping it, it just always seemed odd to simply have notes on acquired picks and not traded picks in the section. Nanerz (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. BTW (little off topic) it's good to see that someone has completed the creation of the 2021–22 NHL team articles :) GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Nanerz is trying to revert to the old format which was changed in this discussion back in 2018. And in that discussion it was indicated by Djsasso that the format should reflect that of 1985–86 Calgary Flames season#Transactions, which has a GA status (I assume that it previously had FA status). However, nobody was against the change so I made the change. So I am against Nanerz's proposition, because the proposed format restore the nonsense that we were trying to get rid of. And I am not really interested to discuss anything with the aforementioned editor, because he/she is very rude and has a hostile attitude towards me. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I had forgotten that discussion, you are correct, we don't want that extra info like the contract type. I was only really looking at the style not so much the information included. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Djsasso: @Sabbatino: This is an entirely misinformed stance as to what is being attempted to be accomplished here. The proposed change has absolutely nothing to do with "reverting" back to the old format. This is a new template that manages to maintain the best of both formats while constricting transactions to simply 4 tables (trades, acquisitions, departures & signings). So be that as it may, I am not sure as to what "nonsense" you are referring to that I want to bring back. Contract details are not coming back, I agree that it's pretty unnecessary. The only information that has been added to this new format upon the previous is the indication of how a player joined/left a team (which would have been noted under the separate table or the previous format) and what kind of signing a signing is (under the signings table; re-signing, extension or entry-level). As to my attitude, I'd appreciate it if we didn't pretend like this is a one way street. You have acted mightily hostile towards me and my stances for quite some time. You seem to believe you have some absolute power as to how these changes should take place, but simply that is not the case. I appreciate your response, however I hope we can come to some sort of consensus on this issue that is not unfaithful and ignorant as to what is being portrayed in this change. I suggest we keep in mind that I am one of the very few (among some teams) and only (for others) that actively maintain the transaction section of these pages. As you can see many team pages omitted having transactions last season for what I can only assume was for lack of attempt. I am willing to continue with these edits, however the differences in formats makes this effort that much more difficult and was hoping this could be settled to make the task easier and allow for a consistent format amongst teams. Nanerz (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll defer to Djsasso & Sabbatino on this one. They're more tuned in, on these things :) GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this seeming "consensus" that Sabbatino continues to reference does not exist. The discussion from 2018 that they linked does mention them working on a new format themselves however if you read the discussion for yourselves you can see that it gets derailed by the veracity of having CapFriendly contract details in the transactions section. Now, I'm not positive as to how Sabbatino received this discussion as there being some sort of consensus that this new format was how things would be moving forward, but nonetheless what they are claiming about my new and implemented format is simply not true if you look for yourself. And the mention that "nobody was against the change so I made the change" is simply false as I was against the change. I also believe they'd be hard pressed to find many people for the change as well. Nanerz (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)