Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Archives
Archive index 2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 2007: 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 2008: 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22

Eliteprospects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexei Kovalev & Mike Modano

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

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

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

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

Image of Presidents' Trophy

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

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

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

Trail of the Stanley Cup

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

I think a section in Stanley Cup would probably be more fitting. Unless you can provide enough info and sources to build a whole article. Although, Stanley Cup is already a FA and I would hate to add stuff to it that would effect that. Blackngold29 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Oh, I see. Blackngold29 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

HC CSKA Moscow & Montreal Canadiens

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

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

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

Vandalism at Vancouver Canucks

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

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

New Article: Battle of Ontario

Keeping with my agonizingly slow reorganization of the NHL Rivalries page, I split most of the content from the Battle of Ontario section into its own page, and reformatted it as a full article. I believe it has the potential to be a DYK, but it currently has several citation needed tags. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here can spare a moment to find refs for those statements, so that I can propose it for the Mainpage. Thanks. Random89 07:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

After a review myself, it turns out most of those tags were either easy to source, unecessary add-on info that could be done without, or simple hyperbole someone had tagged instead of outright removing. But please still feel free to take a look and fix it up even more :) Random89 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fr-Tour?!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not in France, actually. Mirroring a similar trip the previous season, the Habs and the North Stars both played four exhibition games against various Soviet clubs: the "Friendship Tour 1990." [1]  RGTraynor  15:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Chris Osgood nickname

I am having a hard time convincing another editor that "Ozzy" (or "Ozzie") does not belong in the infobox for Chris Osgood. As we have discussed here before, the nickname part of the box should only be used for real nicknames (like "Wizard of Oz" in this case) and not for shortened versions of the real name. Could somebody back me up in this spot? -- bmitchelf•T•F 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, for all the grief that field causes, I'd just as soon remove it altogether. Resolute 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a spawning ground for any nickname anyone has ever used in connection with players, no matter how obscure or unnotable.  RGTraynor  14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support removing it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would seem like we could include legit nicknames in one or two sentences in a couple places in an article. Could a bot go through all of the articles and remove the "|nickname" field from the box? -- bmitchelf•T•F 14:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With a request, we could probably have a bot operator make that change easily. I have proposed removing the field at the template's talk page so that others that watch the template, but not this forum, have an opportunity to weigh in. If there is no objection in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and remove it tomorrow. Resolute 15:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can easily do it with AWB. I did it with another thing we previously removed from the infobox. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that the nickname field has been removed from the template but that the real nicknames have not been moved into the articles, as the nickname field has yet to be removed from articles using the infobox. This has caused a problem specifically in the Ray Emery article where references for nicknames were also used later in the article, since these are now non-existent. I have fixed it there, but you should be on the lookout for situations such as this if you have a chance to go through the articles with AWB as you mentioned. -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I am on vacation at the moment, so I am a bit slow on it. But I will see what I can do right now. It will be a lengthy process as we have a few thousand articles using the template. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is too funny. I found four reliable sources for Chris Osgood's "Ozzie" nickname, with Three specifically saying his nickname is Ozzie, and you still whine about it. I'm still not sure how you can use the argument that "Ozzie" is a shortened version of his name, but I can see the cabal here has made up their minds. Asher196 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if he is often called it, it doesn't make it a nickname it makes it a shortname which is something different. -Djsasso (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I see this edit summary [2] where you tell another editor quite plainly to back off because consensus is against him. Is it genuinely the case that the degree to which you believe in consensus is based on whether you agree with it?  RGTraynor  22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe in consensus up to the point that there is consensus that black is white. I think the nickname arguments are a perfect example. I can cite sources, then I'm told that doesn't matter, regardless of what the sources say. The sources don't know what they are talking about, we Wikipedia editors know better. Asher196 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the one on the infobox that this is concerning? Though a few of the supports are in this discussion as well. And if you go back through the archives it has come up before. -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea this argument was taking place, since I usually don't go to project pages, as I think most editors don't. This removal will undoubtedly come as a surprise to many. In the span of five days you've made a decision that affected hundreds of articles, with very little discussion. Asher196 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If this decision will surprise many users, then have them come here and state their case. It's difficult to discuss something that alomost everybody agrees on. Blackngold29 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I came in late but: Thank you, thank you djsasso, for taking the time to implement this. The field was originally meant for real undeniable nicknames (Messier is "The Captain", Gretzky is "the Great One"). Instead, it left the infoboxes plagued with puckbunny web forum crap. ccwaters (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the infobox was a nightmare, particularly for famous players like Crosby who get a new nickname every month. Also pretty much every captain was nickname "Captain _______" during his tenure. That being said, "Pickles" is still the best nickname.-Wafulz (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my take is the same as CC's - people'd barge in demanding equal time for any nickname some bored sportswriter once flung at any player. Remember the Gordie "Power" Howe nonsense?  RGTraynor  13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem CC. Just a note though, with 3800 articles using the box it is going to take a bit to get them all fixed especially since I will be away for 2 weeks starting next Wednesday. So if you see one that has broken references before I get to it feel free to fix it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just remove the field from the infobox syntax? I think if we do that, all 3800 articles using the infobox will just ignore the field as invalid. Oh and the only way you can sway my opinion on this is if I get to give Crosby the nickname "Mike Richards's bitch". Sorry B&G29. ccwaters (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's already been done, the issue is that some of the articles have used the references in the nickname field later on in the article and in those cases a big read error message appears in the references field saying the reference doesn't exist cause it can't see it. It's not that big a deal for the most part, I was just saying it will be a bit before all articles are checked for that issue. Unfortunately its not as easy as I thought it would be to strip out the field because each nickname is different. But it will get done eventually. -Djsasso (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey CC, if you can source it, I'll try to remain NPOV. ;) Blackngold29 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true, Asher, that this change does potentially impact a significant number of articles. I removed the field in the spirit of being WP:BOLD after some brief discussion. As you say, many people don't watch this project's talk page, and fewer still watch the template's talk page. So really, the best way to gauge support for such a change was to simply go ahead and do it. Thus far, it seems consensus strongly favours this change, for the reasons named above. Resolute 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually I advocate building a solid consensus before making a potentially controversial change, but Resolute is right. The only way a large number of editors will find out about a wide-reaching change like this is to go ahead and start making the change. From what I've seen, Djsasso is doing a great job of making the changes without losing information.

I'm undecided on the issue and would like to see some more debate. I think we should end the debate here and move it to the template's talk page.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

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

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

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

I think it should be included in the intro that "During the off-season, captains from the previous season remain until the next season's rosters are announced" or something along those lines. And including a source for each team would probably help, because unsourced speculation (like the above mentioned Sakic and Sundin) could be quickly removed. Blackngold29 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If anyone wants to work on a new intro to the article, you are free to use my sandbox. I think we should state the season, go into a breif history of captains and assisstants, and name a few notable current captains (Crosby is the youngest, whoever is the longest tenured, etc.) The better we can use the intro to desribe what we're trying to list, the better quality the list will become. Blackngold29 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Active Users

So its been almost two years since Croat Canuck last weeded out the participant list for the project. So I basically went through it again and shuffled some people around that have long since disappeared or said they were active and have since become semi-active or inactive etc. We went from 97 active editors down to 53 active editors, that being said as Croat mentioned last time he did this we are getting more and more heavy duty editors every year. Last time he culled the lot we only had 21 active editors so in two years we are more than double what we were. And of course if you feel you should be in a different group than you are go ahead and move yourself and if you haven't even joined up, what the heck are you waiting for. -Djsasso (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not weeding me out. ;) Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For future "weedings" I think a Roll Call would probably be the quickest and easiest solution. We no doubt have more involvment than some unions, but 53 still seems high to me. Maybe I have high standards, but with that many people having a new GA every week and one FA each month or two doesn't seem out of the question. Blackngold29 03:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we are going at a rate quite near that. We have had a FA passed in each of the last 8 months, sometimes 2. Add in a large number of FL's, GA's, and DYK?'s, we are probably one of the more active projects around. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could easily boost our FLs. We have coaches, players (an insane task for some of the older teams), seasons and draft picks for each team; in addition to some for defunct teams. That's probably about 150 lists. Just a thought. Also, we only have 14 GAs out of 14000 articles within the project. FAs do seem good, how we have more FAs than GAs is beyond me; but a good thing! Blackngold29 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you define active. We have more than a few registered editors, and many anons, who's participation is restricted to roster updates, posting scores, and other routine maintenance that help keep articles up to date. The heavy duty writing is performed by a much smaller group. Personally, I'm glad for the active members that do the routine work. They help free my time for the research projects that I much prefer.  :)

I've found it odd we have more FAs than GAs as well, but I suspect that is mainly the mindset of our editors. Why stop at GA when it doesn't take much more work to get to FA? Doubly so when we have such a good group of collaborators. A while ago, one person mentioned how disorganized the baseball project was. When you compare their GA/FA numbers to ours, it is easy to see that we do have a very good project here. Resolute 04:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I've always felt that two GAs were as good as one FA, they ususally take roughly the same amount of time and more articles get improved (I'm certainly not against FAs, lol. Many articles deserve the concentration). I think that we could take the Collaboration that this project has achieved to a new level by picking an article from time to time and having as many people as possible work on it up to at least a GA. I've seen it work for many other projects. Blackngold29 04:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We had a CotW at one point, but it wasn't properly maintained. I've several sources handy if you wanted to lead something such as that. There certainly is a long list of critical articles in need of improvement. Off the top of my head, National Hockey League to FA, ice hockey itself to GA+, Maurice Richard. Restoring Montreal Canadiens to featured status would be a good goal for their 100th anniversary season. Resolute 05:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are all good suggestions. Although, with Canadiens being a sports team it has a high ammount of edits, which are often unproductive even if they aren't intended to be so. I find it difficult for any sports team article to remain at a GA for a long time. I find people will concentrate on a shorter article for longer than a long article for whatever reason. All of your suggestions would probably be improved best if someone did them by themselves (like your NHL history articles, which are turning out amazing so far). Where if we got four people to concentrate on the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains mentioned above, it could probably be an FL within two weeks. Now articles are probably more important than lists, but I think any featured content is good. Blackngold29 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well not everyones goal is to make FA's or GA's. Personally I for example avoid the process because I then to find its somewhat like masochism, while I like to see our articles get to that point I don't necessarily partake myself except for the odd correction here and there. And alot of other very active editors just do things like stat updates. For example, I am pretty sure I have the highest edit count of anyone in the project, but I have never pushed an article to FA. It's not up to us to decide how people contribute, I was just looking at at when they last updated and how often it was hockey using the approximate same guidelines that were used the last two times it happened. Roll calls don't work cause people don't necessarily watch this page or are away in the off season. -Djsasso (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, where would we be without the WikiGnomes? ;o) Resolute 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah, I think part of my gnomishness comes from doing a large chunk of my editing from work so I only have a minute here or a minute there to fly through some things...its not enough time to write full out articles. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackngold29 said editors "concentrate on a shorter article for longer than a long article for whatever reason"; I think this reason is that a short article is easy to read over and decide what needs to be added and improved upon. Unless a long article is of personal interest, it can become boring to have to pore over the text. And don't forget there are editors who aren't officially part of the project, but contribute a lot to hockey articles. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sportskido8 left, too bad, he was a very good editor. --Krm500 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. I was wondering why I hadn't seen any edits from him in a while. Resolute 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• My own take on the issue is slightly different. I think there's far too much emphasis on bringing articles to FA/GA, and far too little emphasis on bringing articles from stub to not-stub. This ties in to some other comments here ... a lot of casual editors might feel like sinking 20 minutes of work into sprucing up an article on a favorite player, but not remotely be into laboriously typing in the formatting for twenty inline cites to satisfy the FA wonks. (Truth be told, for every Wikipedia regular who looks at the Wayne Gretzky article and says "Whoa, they got their cites in!" I bet there are five casual readers who see that article and says "Holy crap, this has ten times as many footnotes as a master's thesis does!!!" but that's a battle I'm not destined to win.) Should the focus of our efforts be on trophy hunting, really?  RGTraynor  17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That definately sums up my position. That is exactly how I feel about editing, I would rather get articles from stub to non-stub than to worry about silly stars. But to each their own. -Djsasso (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hey guys, if you need any more editors to help you out let me know. I've been actively editing hockey articles since the start of last season. These days I've been doing a lot of work with Russian hockey.CalBears99 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and sign right up on the participants page! We can always use more. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Another merge proposal

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

Excuse me but I am a hockey editor. I've been a Vancouver Canucks fan for almost 7 years now. I think you shouldnt say that im not a "non-hockey editor". Plus, why not merge them? They are both the same franchise but different names. -- K. Annoyomous24 19:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I withdrawed my nomination of this article. I am in the task force for the Vancouver Canucks and I will sign up to be in this WikiProject right now. Sorry for the fuss. I was just trying to make Wikipeida better. I hope you'll understand -- K. Annoyomous24 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a good point, I think the reason that they stay together is because it is the same team, same city, just different name. Actually, now that I think about it, Nordiques and Avalance are the same franchise, so if they remain seperate lists we are putting city over franchise and I don't see the logic behind that. Hmmm. Blackngold29 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I am the one who merged without permission from this WikiProject, I think it's my turn to talk now. Twas Now does have logic in what he is saying and I don't really think it should be divided just because of its different bases. I actually worked on merging it on my sandbox for approx. 2 hours and I would like to have it back and try to make it a FL. -- K. Annoyomous24 22:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Krm, why not just include Nordiuqes coaches on the "List of Avalance coaches" page? If someone wants to see Toronto St. Patricks coaches, they go to the Maple Leafs page. If they want Nordiques coaches they go to the Aves page, is that really that difficult? After all, if someone wants info on a Nordiques' coach, they're learned enough to know that they are the Aves. Blackngold29 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Toronto Arenas coaches were not Toronto St. Patrick's coaches. St. Patrick's coaches aren't Maple Leafs coaches. But if you split that up and have "List of Toronto Arenas coach", well that's a bad example because one guy isn't a list... if you have a "List of Detroit Cougars coaches" there is very little chance of having a three person list become featured. Blackngold29 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, I can't say I'm fully convinced, but I'm "convinced enough". I still can't figure out why lists like this can't be merged into the defunct team's article. Blackngold29 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I understand that, but the Wild will no doubt have more coaches in the future (technically I don't think we're supposed to anticipate that, but ....) the Pirates on the other hand, will never have another coach. I think it's a good idea to keep all teams formatted the same, but I don't see a problem with treating defunct teams differently than current teams. Blackngold29 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template change

I'm not sure if many people watch Template talk:NHLTeamSeason, but I've started a thread about a change to that template. Any thoughts are appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality on Nik Antropov

I'm having a problem on Nik Antropov's article. User:Lvivske is writing that Antropov is Russian, despite Antropov being born in the Kazakh SSR and representing Kazakhstan internationally. Am I in the wrong here?-Wafulz (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hockey DB says he was born in Russia. TSN backs you up. I don't know what the rules are about competing for another country. You did do the right thing by talking about it instead of getting in a big fight though. Blackngold29 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of him being called Russian. Just a quick glance at the Legends of Hockey page, which covers international stats, shows him playing exclusively for Kazakhstan. The biography of him even states that he's Kazakh. Possibly a case of assuming that since he was born in the USSR, he's automatically Russian, even though he has to actually be from what is now Russia. As for a similar situation, Evegni Nabokov played for Kazakhstan when he was 17 or 18, then became Russian. Missed the 2002 Olympics because the IIHF was arguing he couldn't play for another international team. All sorted out now, with Nabokov not being Kazakh in the eyes of the IIHF. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NHL.com agrees with TSN, and frankly, I'm happier with NHL.com and TSN's fact checking than with hockeydb's. Now he may be, and probably is, an ethnic Russian, but that doesn't much matter.  RGTraynor  05:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From both wiki pages: "Kazakh: are a Turkic people", "Russians: Today largest ethnic Russian diasporas outside of Russia live in former Soviet states such as Kazakhstan (about 4.5 million)". Calling him a 'Kazakh' is misleading as he's just as Russian with Kazakhstani papers. If anything he's a 'Russian Kazakh'User:Lvivske (talk)

The point of contention isn't about whether Antropov is ethnically Russian or not. Granted, with a name like Antropov, I'd assume he would be. However, the part of the article being discussed is in reference to his nationality. If we went ahead and referred to players by ethnicity, then Joe Sakic would have to be listed as Croatian, Wayne Gretzky as Polish/Belarussian, Trevor Linden as Dutch, Eric Lindros as Swedish, etc. Rather, they are listed by their nationality, same as Antropov. However, if a source can be found that states Antropov is ethnically Russian, then by all means add it to the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite; if I saw a document describing me as an "Irish" anything, I'd balk, because whatever my ethnic background, I'm an American.  RGTraynor  08:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Still find it misleading to just say he's a 'Kazakh', perhaps 'Kazakhstani' if anything. Dictionary.com, "Kazakh - a member of a nomadic Muslim people living mainly in Kazakhstan"; "Kazakhstani - a native or inhabitant of Kazakhstan"User:Lvivske (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider him a Soviet-born Kazkhistani. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would accept Kazakhstani.-Wafulz (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems that Hockeydb, TSN and NHL.com websites dont claim players to be of a certain nationality (they only list where they were born, aka originate). Eurohockey states both birthplace and nationality. Eliteprospects only has nationality. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page FA's

A recent discussion started on the talk page of Trevor Linden about putting the article onto the Main Page this coming hockey season, and that got me thinking. Perhaps we should see about getting one, or possibly even two articles on the Main Page over the course of the season.

As it stands, the last article to make the Main Page was Stanley Cup back in May. We currently have 12 FA's that haven't made the Main Page yet, plus anything that gets nominated and passed over the next while, so there isn't a lack of choice.

Personally, I'm striving to get Trevor Linden up on the night the Canucks retire his jersey. It's an ambitious project, made even more complicated by the fact the team has yet to announce a date. But I believe that it would make a great subject for the day, a unique oppourtunity that will never again come. I also know that Resolute has been striving for some months now to get Calgary Flames for some time now, plus anything more that people have here.

For obvious reasons, it makes sense for us to wait until the hockey season starts again to begin going for Main Page nominations, so it gives us some time to discuss. I wouldn't mind hearing what other users here think about this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had this lying around for a while too.-Wafulz (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jersey retirement night sounds like a great idea for the article to be on the main page. --Krm500 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't a lack of articles we had with the ability to get featured. My only question is, I haven't attempted to get one onto the Main Page before, and am rather lost by the whole process. It also doesn't help that there is a lack of date stated yet. I'm afraid that the Canucks might do something like announce it the day before or day of, rendering this all moot. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah they will give ample notice because they will make a big deal out of it. The schedule itself was only recently released so they probably need time to plan out what they are going to do. You will likely know by the start of the season.-Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if someone could explain the main page process to me I'd be grateful.-Wafulz (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of that myself, but for my part, I plan on trying to get Calgary Flames on for the either the season opener or Calgary's home opener. We'll see though. I wanna improve the lead, and add a bit about the ownership of the Hitmen and Flames Central first. Should do that soon. Also, I really want to get History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) on the front page for December 19, which would be the 91st anniversary of the first NHL games played. Resolute 04:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I really admire your work with the history articles Resolute, I'm just wondering; Will 1967 NHL Expansion be merged with History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992), seems kind of redundant having one history article for just one year. --Krm500 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they'll be merged since one describes an event and the surrounding details and another covers 25 years.-Wafulz (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think they would be merged either. There would probably just be a main article link to it I would think. -Djsasso (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you had any more thoughts about merging Original Six into the 42-67 article? Blackngold29 03:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Me? I would probably still leave it separate. Looking at the info it covers, I don't think that would really go in a history article. -Djsasso (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I was thinking of Resolute, but I obviously value everyone's opinion. I was thinking that Original Six should just be redirected. I mean the 24 seasons (1942–1967) are exclusively about the O6. Although I didn't expect the "Expansion" section to be included until the next stage (67-92), or the 1967 NHL Expansion if it can be cleaned up. I think looking at the big picture I just want the history to be represented in a manor that can be easily accessable to anyone who wants it; so if there are volunteers to clean up Original Six and 1967 NHL Expansion then I have no problem with them remaining. But if they're just going to continue to be at the so-so quality they are currently, I would say get rid of them. Resolute is doing a great job so far, but I don't want to try to put pressure on him to do anything he doesn't want to do. Blackngold29 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the 1967 NHL Expansion article can stand on its own, and do plan on refocussing it at some point. For the history article, I wrote two paragraphs in the 42-67 article detailing the lead up to the expansion, and the background section of the 67-92 article will likewise be two paragraphs about the expansion draft and alignment. I think the topic can sustain more than those four paragraphs. Original Six I remain undecided on. I am now tending to lean towards keeping it. The history article documents the business of the league as a whole, while the Original Six article can be rewritten to focus in greater detail on how a six team league impacted things like rivalries, on the origins of the term, and perhaps go into greater detail on how the Norris family controlled nearly the entire league. Resolute 04:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It came to mind that the O6 article could be like the Dynasty section in the 42-67 article, just giving each team a section and focusing on them; although that might verge on just repeating their own team history articles. Just thought I'd throw that out to chew on. Blackngold29 05:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Information on Vasily Viktorovich Tikhonov

Hi! I'm trying to write an article on Vasily Viktorovich Tikhonov, an assistant coach for the San Jose Sharks in the mid-90's and the son of former Soviet coach Viktor Vasilevich Tikhonov, for the German Wikipedia. But at the moment I'm stuck on his career in November 2001 when he was fired as head coach of the SCL Tigers, a hockey club from Switzerland. The problem is that I can't find any more informations on his coaching career from then on. All I know is that he was head coach or assistant coach for HC CSKA Moscow, when Nikolai Zherdev signed with the Columbus Blue Jackets. So does anyone have further information on his career from 2002 until now? Thanks, Thomas ^✉ 09:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ESPN wrote an article about Vasily's son Viktor during the draft. The article mainly focuses on Viktor, but has some information about Vasily. Don't know if it provides anything you don't yet know, but it is something. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This article was already on my list ;) --Thomas ^✉ 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Engraving the Inside of the Cup

I would post this on the Stanley Cup talk page, but I figured it was interesting enough and more people would see it here. Apparently Phil Bourque, who won the Cup with the Pens in 1991 and 1992 is the only player to have his name engraved on the inside of the Cup. After the Pens won it, and somebody decided to throw it into Mario's pool, it cracked and Bourque grabbed a screwdriver. Whole article here. I assume this is notable enough to go on the Cup article or atleast Chronology of Stanley Cup engravings. Thoughts? Blackngold29 05:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would probably put it on Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup under the misadventures. -Djsasso (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 Game logs

I see that the new list of games are pretty much added to every team season pages, but I wonder why they use a significantly different format this time. I can't find a discussion of it anywhere else, so I came here. Last year's hockey season gamelog (here is Toronto's) has all the relevant info (including goalie decision, OT, record, AND Points), but the 08-09 season has a fancy border and different columns (ex. Toronto's 08-09 game log), and is missing some important ones. The Points column has to be on there, and the Location isn't necessary (unless overseas for the handful of games scheduled there. A footnote can take care of those). And info regarding if the game is home or away requires figuring out the location column. A sample baseball gamelog uses one column to take care of home/away and the opponent by using a simple "@" before the opponent's name for away games. That would save lots of column space. Also the score should always stay in the same order with the winning score first, followed by the score of the losing team. (Besides tennis) I've never heard of a team losing 3-6, as last year's gamelogs showed when the main team lost on the road or won at home. Keep the score as Winner-Loser and the row color dictates if the team (whose page it is) won or lost. Hockey requires OT and Points columns instead of pitching columns, and those need to be added too. I hope I'm not the only one who sees the flaws in these new gamelogs, but it should be addressed before the season starts. Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who came up with the Penguins' design (used it last season too), but I like it. Blackngold29 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Different people are using different formats on the articles that they maintain. I'm using one similar to the Penguins format this year (last year it was much different). I've made a couple modifications to it though - feel free to see 2008–09 Detroit Red Wings season. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea was to try and standardize the formats across all seasons, the reasoning for the newer version I believe is so that the tables can be collapsed. The majority of pages used that version last year as well. The Toronto article is actually an exception. We do colour the line as to who won or lost by the way. It's just no games have been played yet so no lines have been coloured. We don't put points on the table because you don't need a running total of points. That is in another section on the page. The idea behind switching the score around to 3-6 for example is it makes it easier to see at a quick glance who got what score. If you keep bouncing it back and force it makes it alot more confusing. You call it keeping it in the same order but its actually making it bounce back and forth. The idea here is that the score is always on the same side as the person who got it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I picked Toronto at random, so I didn't know it was one of the few exceptions. I know there are no colors yet, but when they are added, it does tell me which team scored what. For example, a columnized "Red @Detroit 6-3" means "the team lost 6-3 at Detroit." "Green Boston 2-1" means "the team won at home over Boston 2-1." The color combined with the score gives the info. I know a consensus is important here so I won't go changing every team's gamelog. I just like the consistent order of the baseball gamelogs. As for the running Points column, that is definitely not elsewhere on the page. Yes, the division/conf standings has the current Pts total, but seeing how many points a team has as the season progresses is important. Hockey standings are decided by Pts, so I feel it belongs in the gamelog. --Mtjaws (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What about people who are colour blind and/or using screen readers? How can they tell the difference between "@Detroit 6-3" and "Boston 2-1" being a loss and win, respectively? —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Color blind people could look at the team's running record column. If the wins increase from the last game, it's a win. It takes a little more effort I guess, but we shouldn't have to change anything. Blackngold29 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If we do change to this format, I would suggest that the subject team's score always be listed first. i.e.: a win is @Detroit 6-3 and a loss is @Detroit 3-6. Resolute 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am partial to the way the baseball game logs are done, which is similar to what is being proposed here. Just list the opponent, not the team whose season article it is, and do score (winner first), winning and losing goaltenders (with records), team record and points, and put (OT) or (SO) in small type in the score column. Put a legend at the top for each color for people who aren't familiar; for color blindness, the best thing I could say is that the result would be inferred from the difference in record from the last game. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC) My template suggestion (using the Rangers as the team name):

Legend
Rangers Win	Rangers Loss	Rangers Overtime Loss

The Manual of Style, however, specifies that colour coding alone should not be used. I'd rather get it right the first time, which is why I prefer that the team in focus always has their score listed first. The other way to do it, I suppose, is to list the result as part of the score: "L 6-5", "W 4-3", "OTW 3-2", etc, though even then, I prefer the format of "L 5-6". Resolute 05:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (L 5-6), but I prefer the result to be in a separate column. --Krm500 (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi all, I'm wondering if Ice Hockey teams have an infobox?

I ask this because there is a "Facts" section in Knoxville Cherokees that really should be in one. Could someone help me out? Or better yet, could they sort out that article? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Pro hockey team}} would be the appropriate template. I'll add it to the article. Resolute 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Flyers Task Force

Hello,

I was wondering if there was enough people willing to help with a Philadelphia Flyers Task Force. I have everything set up I just need to know if their is enough people willing to work with me to help make the articles better Jobes23(talk), 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Would I be able to add a Task Force for the Flyers? or should I wait for other people to be interested. I checked a lot of the articles for the Flyers and most of them are either stubs.

--Jobes (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I don't think it makes a difference. If you wish to form a task force in the hopes of attracting others to your project, you are more than welcome. It certainly is not necessary to expand details on Philly's history in hockey, and either way, we're always willing to support other hockey editors at the main project here. Resolute 03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I will edit our template to include your task force when I get a chance. I am on crappy hotel wireless internet at the moment and it took 10 minutes just to load this talk page so it might be a few days. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok so I managed to add it to the template like the other task forces, however I don't have an image for it yet. So if anyone wants to create a "PHI" image like the ones we have for the devils or canucks task forces it can be added as well. -Djsasso (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Antero Niittymaki or Antero Niittymäki

These two articles are exactly the same and maybe one should be deleted. The only different is the ã in the name Niittymaki. It looks like everything on the Antero Niittymaki page is copy and paste from everything on the Antero Niittymäki considering he uses Niittymäki. Jobes23(talk), 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Antero Niittymaki is just a redirect to the Antero Niittymäki article, you can see a small text in parenthesis saying Redirected from Antero Niittymaki when you use the spelling without the diacrtic, and the title of the page is Antero Niittymäki even though you typed Antero Niittymaki. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Redirect. Welcome to the project btw! --Krm500 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess which version I prefer, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't start with me! ;) --Krm500 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Marsh Ryman

Hello,

I thought I'd come here for a bit of help, since I'm having trouble categorizing the Marsh Ryman article I just created. I don't usually do much in hockey articles (this article was created because it's a redlink of a basketball article I'm trying to get to GA status), so I'm not sure where to find categories for US national team coaches or hockey referees which would be applicable, so I just thought I'd pop in and ask. matt91486 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such category, but I've added him to other relevant categories based on the information given in the article. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, national team coaches categories might be a good one to create for the future then? Thanks for the help with the other categories though! matt91486 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is Category:Head coaches of Team Norway, but I think that's it. I've just tagged it for discussion, if anyone is interested. Future categories should follow a different naming convention: Category:Norway national men's ice hockey coaches. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple Question

I am fairly new to editing on wikipedia and I have a simple question and would like your input on this. The first section of an article. The body before any topic is given would it be better to give a background summary of past events or would it be better to give a summary of the article and then go into greater detail as the article went on? I am just wondering what my fellow wikipedians prefer.

Jobes (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The second one. Check out WP:LEAD. Blackngold29 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As Blackngold says. A fully developed lead section will serve as a "mini-article" in its own right. It should summarize the body of the article. Take a look over some featured articles for examples of this. Regards, Resolute 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guys that was a big help. Jobes (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ice hockey error?

I've just noticed that the pull-down option on the Ice hockey template (WikiProject template for talk pages) is missing? I looks like possibly the addition of the Flyers task force might have done this, as it is missing from the "related task forces" coding part of the template? Can an admin go in there and try to fix it? Thanks. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems a pipe character ("|") has been removed at the end of the if clause where the taskforces are listed for the existense check (see the history diff). Maybe this is the reason for malfunction. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bob Kelly & Bob Kelly

While taking a gander at 1967 NHL Amateur Draft I noticed the 16th selection is listed as J.-Bob Kelly (b. 1946). "J.-Bob" struck me as a particularly bizarre name, so I did some digging. As far as I can tell his name has never been "J.-Bob", rather he went simply by "Bob". I figured, okay I'll move this to "Bob Kelly". Problem is there is another Bob Kelly (b. 1950). I looked them both up in my copy of Total Hockey, and indeed there are two men who both went by "Bob Kelly". As far as I can tell the only source which names the elder Bob Kelly "J.-Bob" is hockeydb.com, therefore it strikes me as a clerical error on their part. I don't know where to move these two articles. By birth year, i.e. "Bob Kelly (ice hockey b. 1946)" and "Bob Kelly (ice hockey b. 1950)"? By nickname, "Bob 'Battleship' Kelly" (b. 1946) and "Bob 'Houndog' Kelly" (b. 1950)? By full name, "Robert ? Kelly" and "Robert James Kelly"? Your help is very much appreciated. -93JC (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What has happened in this case before is to go by birth date, like you wrote. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that now, after taking a look at John Stewart (ice hockey b. 1950) & John Stewart (ice hockey b. 1954). Thanks. 93JC (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Intra-League Draft & Reverse Draft

Hey guys I was looking at transactions for the 1968–69 Philadelphia Flyers season season and I am revising it but could you guys help me out and please enlighten me on what the Intra-League Draft and the Reverse Draft were.Jobes23 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Intra-League Draft was the precursor to the Waiver Draft. It was created in the 1950s as a way to assist weaker teams and bring parity to the league. Teams would protect a certain number of players from being drafted, and those lest unprotected were eligible to be drafted. Very deep teams would thus leave many players unprotected, in theory allowing the weaker teams to strengthen their rosters. I don't know the exact rules and workings, as they changed many times and I have never seen the full, codified rules.

The Reverse Draft (which may have been referred to as the Inter-League Draft) was, if I remember correctly, intended in much the same manner as the Waiver Draft to help minor league (AHL, CHL, WHL, IHL, etc.) teams strengthen their rosters. The idea was that teams with shallow rosters could bolster them with minor league players who where the property of NHL teams. I don't know the exact workings.

Hopefully someone else knows more. 93JC (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It helped clarify a few things for me.Jobes23 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)