Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.246.179.122 (talk) at 05:30, 29 April 2011 (→Template:Detroit Red Wings roster). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcuts
WikiProject iconIce Hockey NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archive

Archives

Archive index
2004-06:1 • 2
2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8
2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13
2007: 14 • 15 • 16 • 17
2008: 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22
2008: 23 • 24 • 25 • 26
2009: 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31
2009: 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36
2010: 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41
2010: 42 • 43
2011: 44 • 45

Article names

Hello. Is there any WPP Hockey convention regarding the article names, mainly the use of diacritics? Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current convention is to use diacritics in appropriate player articles. They're not used in any article on or pertaining to an English-speaking league, but may be used in articles on leagues where the dominant language does use them - the European leagues or the LNAH, for instance.  Ravenswing  15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand it correctly, that e.g. Czech, Latvian, Slovak or Swedish player articles should have diacritics only if these players appear in the non-English speaking leagues? - Darwinek (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Player articles get them if their name includes them no matter what. As long as their name actually includes them, you will need a source showing their name with diacritics. Team/League articles only get them if that league is not a primarily english league. So for example the QMJHL, LNAH in Quebec or any of a number of European leagues such as those you mention. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso assertion is incorrect. Policy concerning the naming of articles is found at Wikipedia:Article titles: The policy (WP:UE) is clear and specific “In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.” Dolovis (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which applies great to translations. Adding or removing diactrics is not a translation. And has been shown in the past, diacritics are used in english. So use english wouldn't apply to this situation because words with diacritics are already english language words. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't support the use of diacritics in general when there is an English spelling, but we've discussed this many times and agreed within the project to treat it as if it was an ENGVAR issue. For North America specific articles, we hide diacritics, but show them for European. We also use them on player articles. Resolute 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here for the exact wording this project uses. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:HOCKEY has settled this long ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The commonly used form of name should be used for article names. The use of Diacritics for article names should only be used if it can be demonstrated, by reliable and verifiable sources, that such form of name is the commonly used form. Such reliable sources would include the hockey-related websites eliteprospects.com, hockeydb.com, legendsofhockey.net, nhl.com, tsn.ca, eurohockey.net. You will notice that I have shown that North American and European websites can be used to verify the commonly used name, however, per WP:NONENG, because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. Dolovis (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the arguement before and why the consensus we have came to be is that the name with and without diacritics was considered by some to be the same commonly used name since they are spelled the same. We didn't come to a clear consensus that having them or lack of having them constituded a change in one being the common name and one not being the common name. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been demonstrated many times, a consensus is not set in stone, and may change over time. It should also be remembered that it is not within the scope of the ice hockey project to over-ride community consensus on this issue. Per WP:CONLIMITED: “Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.” Dolovis (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, if it were up to me? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say a we are overriding a policy. A group of editors can come to a consensus on how to interpret a policy/guideline. Which is what our consensus is. An interpretation of a policy. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis, the "community consensus" is to use diacritics in article titles, and it is done that way throughout Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinek, the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles (which represents a community consensus) is specific, clear, and on-point. This discussion should properly be a wiki-wide discussion, especially if you want to change or challenge policy. Dolovis (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If you want to challenge the current policy and usage, you should start a wiki-wide discussion. Till that time, diacritics will be used in article names, as they currently are. Just look around the Wikipedia and you will understand. - Darwinek (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the conclusion of this ANI discussion. Dolovis (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANI does not make a policy, the last time I checked. And diacritics are used, I would be very surprised if there was a single Polish sportsmen, for example, whose name didn't have them (unless he emigrated and his name is habitually written without them, but those are rare exceptions). Please note that any discussion about the use of diacritics (or rather, a suggestion not to use them) needs to involve country-wikiprojects; for example WikiProject Poland would certainly not welcome a unilateral decision by a WikiProject Basketball to de-diacriticize Polish basketball players. As far as Ice Hockey, I am pretty sure all Polish ice hockey players have diacritics in their names, and I see no reason why any other nationality should be an exception. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHL team season articles: Agreement and question

It seems an agreement has been reached on using the term "season of play" to describe all seasons where scheduled games were contested (therefore the numbering of seasons of play will exclude 2004–2005). Although the latest discussion was between two editors, I believe the earlier statements of others indicate they too would agree to this consensus (if this is not the case, please respond). Thanks very much to everyone for their input!

The remaining question is regarding the term "NHL season". What do people think about using this term to denote a year of a team's participation in the NHL, as counted from the team's first NHL game? The numbering sequence for this would include the lockout year, and so starting in 2005–2006 would be equal to 1 + the number of seasons of play. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure there's no skipping of numbering involved, which at the moment is the case 'concerning' Dolovis' edits. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The clear consensus of this discussion is that the NHL Seasons started with the 1917–18 NHL season which was the first NHL season, and has continued through to the 2010–11 NHL season which is the 94th NHL season. Dolovis (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider 2004-05 to the NHL's 88th season. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the Post-lock NHL season articles changes you've made, "Nth season NHL season"? GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be hasty in declaring a clear consensus before others who have previously argued against counting 2004-05 as a season have had a chance to consider the specific question regarding the use of the term "NHL season" and comment. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term NHL season is as Isaacl describes. But I don't think that that is the real dispute. It's the numbering used in the leads of the articles. And I disagree that there is a consensus. The Guide is an official document and if editors consider the information to be important, then it should not be banned. But it's got problems as described above. It does not count seasons of play. I suggest that the primary numbering be the seasons of play, with any other relevant numbering added. E.g. seasons in the NHL, WHA, in Quebec or Phoenix or whatever. As in "The 2010-11 Ottawa Senators season is the 18th season of play of the Ottawa Senators NHL team. It is the 19th NHL season of the franchise." The lockout article for the Senators could omit the season of play though, I suppose. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which editor do you believe has objected to using the term "season of play" as I have described above, which aligns with your sample sentence? As I recall, Dolovis hasn't made a statement either way, but everyone else has at one point supported the term "season of play", just as you describe. isaacl (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolute did above, he believes that even the cancelled season had a season of play, but that the season of play was cancelled. I do sort of believe this as well but got tired of arguing around and around in the circles with Jmj. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overlooked that Resolute did agree at one point with the idea of a difference between the two, but disagreed with putting it in the lead. Perhaps in the interest of breaking the stalemate, we can reach an agreement to include the number of seasons of play, as I believe this is a notable fact that readers are interested in when calculating statistics about a team? isaacl (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Dolovis' solution at the post-lockout NHL season articles, which I tweaked a little. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats what we have been asking for basically the whole time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll implement this solution into the post-lockout NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following compromise has now been incorporated into the post-lockout NHL Season articles: The 2010–11 NHL season 94th season of operation (93rd season of play) of the National Hockey League. I trust this meeets with most everyone's acceptance. I do not see the same consensus among in this discussion that this compromise should follow for the individual teams. Dolovis (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the post-lockout NHL team season article intros, for example we'd have "20th season of operation (19th season of play)" within the 2011-12 Ottawa Senators season intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose putting that wordy phrase in all of the indivdual NHL teams articles. We have a solid and verifiable source that explicitly states that it is the 'Ottawa Senators 20th NHL season". That is something that we did not yet find for the NHL Seasons articles. Additionally, some teams have moved, which seems to require clarification of play, and it just gets too wordy. Dolovis (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem would then remain, as you've still got inconsistancy in the Post-lockout NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no problem for you because there is no inconsistency. Just follow the verifiable source (such as the Official NHL Guide and Record Book) and count the 2004-05 season as a season for each of the individual teams. That is what the NHL does, and that is what the vast majority of this discussion has agreed is the proper thing to do. Some may still maintain that the lockout season was not a season, however such logic flies in the face of the reliable sources. Dolovis (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to get back to this, but which reliable sources? I've provided dozens of reliable sources disproving your position of counting the lockout as a season, yet you just cling to a single source and somehow that outweights it. As yet another example, the 2010-11 Washington Capitals Official Media Guide omits any mention of the 2004-05 "season" whatsoever. Jmj713 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well tonight or tommorrow, I'm gonna start fixing the numbering on those articles, so that they'll add up to your 2011-12 totals. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that the lockout was not a season. Thus, the season of play number must come first in the lead. The lockout was just a period of time the league existed, but essential league business (playing games) was put on hold. Here is a real-life example: the WPHL. There were only nine seasons played in that league, but its existence spanned 13 years. Does that mean it had 13 seasons? No, it had nine. Jmj713 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the WPHL existed while the IPHL was in existence. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WPHL actually ceased its operations for three (not four) years. They shut down after the 1903-04 season, and then the league was revived for the 1907-08 season. There were no operations at all in the between time, thus there were no seasons. That is very different from the NHL's lockout year where the league was busy with on-going operational issues, including labour negotiations, drafting, scouting, marketing, merchandising, staffing, farm teams, ect.
Yes, it's not an identical situation, yet the gist is that still both leagues did not play consecutive seasons, regardless of the circumstances. Any next season, be it a year later or four years later, will still just be the next season not +1 or +4. Jmj713 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have made your opinion very clear, and you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to change from your position. You should be pleased that your opinion has been taken into consideration for the compromise that was reached for the NHL Seasons, but you must now also understand and accept that the consensus of the discussion for the individual team's seasons in the NHL has sided conclusively that the 'Official NHL Guide and Record Book' is to be taken as a verifiable source when it comes to the issue of numbering the NHL Seasons for the individual teams. Dolovis (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have reached that conclusion all by yourself. You still haven't answered my question why you feel the Guide outweighs other sources including the NHL's and the teams'? I'm fully willing to compromise and reach a solid consensus, yet you don't appear to want to listen to reason and countless verifiable pieces of evidence and cling to your single source as your only argument. Jmj713 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season (sport) is an important statistic, not a "title", which the NHL season is. We should treat it in that manner, and have it in all articles describing actual seasons of play. I would rather use 20th NHL season (19th season of play) as a small modification of what GoodDay has proposed. We should probably make a redirect of NHL season to the appropriate article, where it will be explained. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been changing the numbering of the Post-lockout team season articles, so that they add up to Dolovis' total on the 2011-12 articles. I do this 'not' because I support that 2004-05 is a season, but because I'm annoyed with the articles-in-question being out of sync. It'll take me awhile, as there's games on my TV. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it have been easier to just change the 2011-12 articles instead? Jmj713 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that a couple of days ago & Dolovis reverted me. Thus I came here (WP:HOCKEY) for clarification & here we are. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team season articles

OK, I see a few proposals for wording at the start of each team article. Here a few examples, with minor alterations from some of the above examples to avoid repetition while improving the grammar. [Note: a few more proposals have been added based on further discussion.]

  1. "The 2010–11 season is the 93rd season of play (94th NHL season) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
  2. "The 2010–11 season is the 94th NHL season (93rd season of play) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
  3. "The 2010–11 season is the 93rd season of play for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
  4. "The 2010–11 season is the 94th NHL season for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
  5. "The 2010–11 season is the 93rd season of play (94th year in the NHL) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
  6. "The 2010–11 season is the 94th year in the NHL (93rd season of play) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."

We seem to have a split of opinion, so perhaps interested editors can list all the options they are willing to live with, in the spirit of compromise, and hopefully there is one that can achieve consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been able to find a source to verify that this is the "93rd season of play for the Montreal Canadiens"? Without a verifiable source that statement violates Wikipedia:No original research. On the other hand, the fact that it is the "Montreal Canadiens 94th NHL Season" is verified with a source. If we just agree to follow policy then there is no further debate. Dolovis (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source for math? Jmj713 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem to have agreed that it is the 93rd season in which the NHL has contested games, I'm not sure why you don't agree it is the 93rd season in which the Canadiens NHL franchise has contested games. As the previous discussion agreed upon the meaning of season of play, all we need to do is count the number of seasons of play. Reliable sources are not required for routine calculations. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source. It talks about the 2010-11 NHL season as the NHL's (and thus, according to Dolovis) Montreal's 93rd season. Jmj713 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a source from the NHL stating that 2007-08 is the 90th season. The 88th season would thus be the 2005-06. There would have been no 2004-05 season, as there wasn't. I cannot make this any clearer. Jmj713 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the 2002–03 season was the Montreal Canadiens 94th season of play. The 2010-11 season was the Montreal Canadiens 94th NHL Season. Dolovis (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the phrase "season of play" within the source. Jmj713 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the sample sentences are discussing the seasons of play of the Montreal Canadiens NHL franchise. isaacl (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death, the sources are verified, and the matter has been settled by consensus. These are the verified facts: The 2010-11 season is the NHL's 94th season, the Ducks' 18th NHL Season, the Thrashers' 12th NHL Season, the Bruins 87th NHL Season, the Sabres' 41stNHL Season, the Flames' 39th NHL Season, the Hurricanes' 32nd NHL Season, the Blackhawks' 85th NHL Season, the Avalanche's 32nd NHL Season, the Blue Jackets' 11th NHL Season, the Stars' 44th NHL Season, the Red Wings' 85th NHL Season, the Oilers' 32nd NHL Season, the Panthers' 18th NHL Season, the Kings' 44th NHL Season, the Wild's 11th NHL Season, the Canadiens' 94th NHL Season, the Predators' 13th NHL Season, the Devils' 37th NHL Season, the Islanders' 39th NHL Season, the Rangers' 85th NHL Season, the Senators' 19th NHL Season, the Flyers 44th NHL Season, the Coyotes' 32nd NHL Season, the Penguins' 44th NHL Season, the Blues' 44th NHL Season, the Sharks' 20th NHL Season, the Lightning's 19th NHL Season, the Maple Leafs' 94th NHL Season, the Canucks' 41st NHL Season, and the Capitals 37th NHL season - all of which is verified by the annual publications of the Official NHL Guide and Record Book - which has been in print for every year since 1932 (79 years). You may not agree with the Official Records, but that does not change them. To quote Wikipedia's most central policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” Dolovis (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, out of all the available sources, you have selected just one that conforms to your POV? The Guide fails verifiability because so many other reliable sources contradict it. Jmj713 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delve deeper into Wikipedia:Verifiability, not just skim the top, it also says the following: 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources [...]. Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. The Guide book is a primary source. Jmj713 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with either 1 or 2. (Montreal is not a good example, as they played for several seasons in the NHA prior to the NHL) The season of play is easily found from hockeydb.com, which is considered a reliable source. For the NHL season, we use the NHL guide. I don't subscribe to the 'contradict relentlessly' method of debate, but I do think that season of play is essential for a statistics almanac. Whereas NHL season is a title. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need to see examples on the hard cases, too. The current proposals list the seasons of play for the NHL franchise. If someone would like to suggest some more options, please feel free to do so. (And I appreciate your restraint in discussion!) isaacl (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to use #3. Second choice would be #1, however imperfect, because it will be very confusing to a user, if they're unaware of the consequences of the lockout, why did a team in a single season have its 19th and 20th season at the same time? They won't ponder the delineation of the phrases "season of play" and "NHL season". These are all crutches. The only logical and viable solution is for all post-lockout articles is to simply use the phrase "season of play". That eliminates any ambiguities and crude wording, and the numbering sans lockout is supported by numerous reliable sources (even though, as Isaacl has pointed out, simple math does not need to be cited anyway). Jmj713 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I've completed the changes to the NHL team season articles Post-lockout. I implemented the majority opinon, that the teams count 2004-05 as a season. All I'm requesting is that if any further changes are made to those articles, please do implement to all of them. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#4 is the only choice for the team's seasons that is allowed by WP:V, and choice #2 was the compromise agreed to for the NHL's seasons. The other two choices fail WP:V and WP:ORIGINAL. Dolovis (talk)
You are clearly ignoring valid arguments against and are just trying to ram through your POV. Jmj713 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the same could be said about you, if not more so. You completely wish to ignore that the NHL officially calls it a season. If that isn't ignoring a valid argument and trying to push your POV.... -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I have demonstrated that the Guide is a flawed and unreliable source with countless reliable sources. Jmj713 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#4 is incomplete for the purpose. There are cases like Montreal, which predate the NHL, Edmonton, which played in another league, along with Quebec/Colorado. #2 is better and more complete. I don't see how it violates wp:original which states that the collection and organization of data is essential. Plus, using -only- the Guide violates wp:primary. It would be preferable to use season only to refer to season (sport), which is supported by secondary source, although the NHL Season is important to indicate what the NHL official description is. Consensus is inclusive, not exclusive. It seems that with the prevailing counter-logic, that we should create 90-91 and 91-92 ottawa senators season articles, but only state 'season of operation.' ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Number 4 is clearly the best choice as that is what the primary source says. And contrary to what Alaney has said wp:primary allows for clear statement of fact from primary sources. However, as I said before I am willing to compromise with #2. The other two are just no good at all. #4 isn't really incomplete because it says its the "Nth NHL season". For the season pages before they joined the NHL I would put "Nth WHA season" or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given its similarity, would #1 be suitable, as it reflects a count of NHL seasons, plus a count of seasons of play for readers to quickly understand the context in which the team's on-ice records should be considered? isaacl (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, official name should come before a sub-set number of played seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the team articles, it's not a question of the official season name, but a count of the number of NHL seasons during which the franchise has been active. What is the advantage in having this count stated before the count of seasons in which a team has contested games? Which count will readers be more interested in? Does it really make a substantive difference either way? isaacl (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe readers will be more interested in the larger of the two numbers. I know I would be, and I think most people would want to know that number more than how many seasons were actually played. Either way its him you should be asking that question of. The only one objecting to using option #2 is him. Even Alaney2k agreed with #2 and he was the only other one objecting to the generic use of season. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Readers will be interested in the facts. The facts is a team has played a certain amount of seasons, and has existed for an additional year. The lockout was not a season in any way shape or form. If you re-read the entire debate and look at every piece of evidence I have presented this will be evident. Jmj713 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's yet another (I've lost count) reliable source. Look at the number of years in the table provided. None of the numbers include the lockout. The Wild, for instance, correctly have 10 seasons, not 11. Can't you see that counting the lockout as a season is just wrong? The Guide book, which is apparently the only source on the planet that does, is wrong, plain and simple. None of the myriad other sources support that. As a statistical example, what if a user would like to calculate the percentage of time the Wild have made the playoffs? They've made the playoffs three times in their history. The user will take 11 seasons you're giving them and get 27.3%. However, the correct percentage would be 30%. Jmj713 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my changes to the post-lockout team season articles, I noticed some of the 2011-12 articles were numbered to include 2004-05 as their season, while others excluded 2004-05. If these were all done via the NHL source? then that source would seem un-reliable. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found any post-lockout team season articles that are numbered to omit the 2004-05 season, then those articles were not done via the Official NHL Guide, which has been always been consistent to recognized the 2004-05 season of operation. Dolovis (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unreliable because it contradicts every other source available. When a user will see that as of 2010-11 the Wild have had 11 seasons, that user will not find confirmation of that fact anywhere else, will be confused and decide Wikipedia is wrong. Jmj713 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The over-statements you use to push your POV only serves to emphasize a lack of credibility on this subject. Dolovis (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Except a single unreliable primary source you have no evidence to back your claim. I have provided innumerable reliable sources to disprove it. Jmj713 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone through this discussion (these last few days), I'm forced to conclude that the NHL source which Dolovis' is using, is flawed. There was no season in 2004-05 & the NHL Guide appears to be retroactively denying that fact. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by your (unsourced/original research/personal opinion) logic there was no 2004-05 NHL season, then during exactly what NHL season did the 2004 NHL Entry Draft take place? Dolovis (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's plenty sourced. The draft took place during the off-season. The lockout began on September 16, 2004. Jmj713 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your very own NHL Guide source seems inconsistant, unless you made mistakes on some of the 2011-12 team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat again which has been said over and over, those papers and the guide book are talking about two different things. The papers are talking about total season played. The guidebooks is talking about season title's. It's comparing apples and oranges. One is a total of season played while the other is giving a name. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are inferring that distinction. All sources stated only "season". No "season of play"; no "seasons played" - "season. The Guide has been irrevocably proven to be factually false.Jmj713 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't been proven factually false. Again a league can name its season whatever it wants. A primary source is 100% reliable and verifiable when it comes to such things. As for inferring that distinction, pretty much every article you mention is talking about a new playing season beginning. It is clear as day that that is what the articles are talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to accept primary sources, then the NHL's own official site NHL.com is one, and it contains numerous contradictions to the Guide book. Moreover, official team media guides, also primary sources, contradict the Guide as well. As I've said, at best the Guide is unreliable and should not be used when an overwhelming majority of sources invalidate it. Jmj713 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere on the nhl's site is a statement from the league contradicting the league. All you have shown on the leagues site is news articles written by people not part of the league office. So there is no contradiction. Either way, consensus is clearly against you. You can either try to work with us to find a middle ground or you can keep arguing to yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL Draft occurs within the off season. There were no exhibition (i.e. pre-season) games in September 2004 & no NHL playoffs (i.e. post-season) games in 2005. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the centre of the argument GoodDay, one camp believe season only means when games are being played. The other camp believes the season is the 12 month period from when the last season ended to the season after begins. In other words a business season. The definition of season supports the second option. The 2004 draft would have happened during the business season, but not the season of play. Jmj refuses to acknowledge that teams are businesses and thus we must only go by if games were played. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL teams aren't helping matters by mixing up their cellabrations. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Guide book also talks about seasons played. The season begins when teams play their first game. The season ends when they play the last game. The inbetween time is the off-season. Jmj713 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is the off season for the team. But its still the season for the franchise. This is what we are getting at. A business season is broken up into two parts. The Off-Season and the Season of play......In the year where they cancelled the season of play, there was only one part of the business season, the off season. This is what it seems like you are having trouble connecting with. You are talking about the season of the team, and we are talking about the season of the franchise. The team is only one part of the franchise. -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a source for this definition of a sports season. Jmj713 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your own link has it. Remember a team is also a business....so your one definition on that page isn't the only appropriate definition. Its just an example of one meaning. #4 and #7 also apply to this situation. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear points

  • No source whatsoever has described the lockout as the NHL's 88th season.
  • Numerous sources including the NHL have described post-lockout NHL seasons by numbers excluding the lockout.
  • No source whatsoever has described the post-lockout NHL seasons by numbers including the lockout.
  • No secondary sources support the "lockout was a season" claim.
  • Overwhelming majority of primary and secondary sources support the fact that the lockout was not a season.
  • Counting the lockout as a season is incorrect, does not pass verifiability, corrupts statistical data, and is simply illogical.

Jmj713 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No NHL source has excluded the lockout. And in no way does counting it corrupt statistical data. Again the difference between a season and a season of play here. When talking about statistical data you talk about the season of play. Its not illogical, the business still operated. That year didn't just disappear. It would be illogical to act like it did. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about number of NHL seasons no source has counted the lockout as a season. Jmj713 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL does...and that is all that matters. Its called self identification. What a entity self identifies as is what we go by even if there are other reports stating differently. This concept was recently used on Wayne Gretzky where numerous sources claimed he had American citizenship, yet a recent interview had him commenting he did not. Now do we go by the one reference that is the source. Or do we go by the hundreds of articles that said he was. This is a concept that is used across wikipedia for things like religion alot and is part of wp:primary sources. A primary sources information is 100% ok these types of judgements. All we are required to do is mention other sources disagree. Which is why we have compromised above. -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the NHL doesn't. Nowhere have I seen the lockout being referred to explicitly as the NHL's 88th season. To do so would certainly qualify as OR. Whereas post-lockout seasons have been exclusively referred to as excluding the lockout, such as 2007-08 being the 90th season and so on. Jmj713 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've changed the intros to the 2004-05 team season articles. Having them say, it's a team season with their games cancelled. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed the numbering of seasons at the List of NHL seasons article, to reflect the 2004-05 was the 88th season. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, that would be clearly OR. Jmj713 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alaney2k, has already reverted me. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of season counts

In case it wasn't clear, my previous questions on the viability of proposal #1 versus #2 are open to everyone to discuss. In short, what, in your view, is the substantive difference between the two? Alaney2k has already indicated a willingness to accept either one; can we get some flexibility from the rest, so we can stop re-explaining ourselves, and move on to more productive matters? isaacl (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose listing factually wrong information which is unsubstantiated. The actual number of seasons must be listed. If need be, the number of years a franchise has been in the league can be added. Jmj713 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As both proposals 1 and 2 include both numbers, are you willing to show flexibility and live with either proposal? isaacl (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No because I don't want to propagate falsehoods and compromise on facts. I have demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly why the lockout was not an NHL season. You can see the six points I listed above, there is nothing to disprove those facts. Jmj713 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You previously indicated you could live with proposal 1; can you explain, in your view, what is the substantive difference between proposal 1 and proposal 2? isaacl (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had said I would like to go with #3. Jmj713 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously indicated that proposal 1 was your second choice; can you explain, in your view, what is the substantive difference between proposal 1 and proposal 2? isaacl (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "94th NHL season" being first. I would amend that to "in its 94th year in the NHL". But that gets too wordy and complicated. Which is why #3 is the clearest and more importantly factually correct way, which is supported by sources. Jmj713 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly add new proposals for using "Nth year in the NHL". Can you elaborate how, in your view, the order of the counts makes a substantive difference to the reader? Will it really affect them significantly? isaacl (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is moot anyway, as we have established that the only source for counting team seasons including the lockout is unreliable and fails verifiability completely. Thus, double listing of two different numbers is necessary and will confuse users. Years in the NHL don't even need to be listed unless the team is celebrating an anniversary, such as the Sharks, for example. "The 2010-11 San Jose Sharks season is the team's 19th season of play. The Sharks are celebrating 20 years since starting play in the NHL in 1991." Jmj713 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as "seasons of play" requires no external source, "years in the NHL" does not require one either, as this is also a simple count of (NHL fiscal) years. There are multiple editors who have not agreed that this information is moot, and so in the interest of reaching a compromise, we are exploring how different the various options truly are, in terms of their effect on readers. Regarding team anniversaries, careful explanations are required anyway, thanks to the monkey wrench of the lockout year, and cases where teams celebrate the actual anniversary year, and not the date that marks the end of the anniversary year. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either of the 6 proposals is acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another London Arena

Not certain if it is notable, but there was a London Arena in the 1920s and 1930s, possibly later, in London, Ontario. It was home for professional ice hockey, so it could probably merit an article. Since there is already a London Arena in London, England, then, if I were to create an article about it, how should it be titled? London (Ontario) Arena, London Arena (London, Ontario), Arena (London, Ontario)? I've not finished researching it. It might have a more distinct name, but I've not found it yet. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about London Arena (Ontario) to avoid repetition? Resolute 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's good, just not sure about guidelines for this sort of thing. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a lot of articles on stadiums/arenas. I would agree with Resolute's idea as a good disambigutor, or perhaps London Arena (Canada). Just look at Tiger Stadium or Memorial Stadium for ideas. The current London Arena should stay at London Arena since it is likely more famous. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

It is my feeling: The season 2010-11 Riksserien probably does not merit his own article, and such content as is appropriate should probably be merged into the Women's ice hockey in Sweden article. I invite discussion, --Charlesquebec (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF Record Book DVD

The IIHF is selling its media guide and record book on DVD now worldwide. According to the site here, it's got information on the 102 year history of the IIHF - records, rosters, medals, etc. Not a terribly expensive resource to acquire, and one that would certainly assist us in editing international hockey articles. Just something to consider for any editors out there with disposable income, which excludes me :/ Anthony (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, I might have done it if they just emailed a PDF copy. The price is high enough without having to add an extra $6 for pointless shipping. Resolute 13:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well ive got in book form, which was a pain, due to the four month wait it took for them to ship it from Canada to Australia, only to find it didnt have what I wanted. But yeh if anyone is searching for some information out of it just ask and ill take a look. Salavat (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book as well. Its good, but could be better. It is nice to have everything in one place, rather than having to find tournament stat pages every time. Canada Hky (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also went ahead and got it, to be let down a bit. Most of it is stuff easily available, I was hoping for stats for the lower division teams, which are harder to find. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traverse City Prospects Tournament

Should we have an article on this tournament? I looked all over and it seems a rather notable event. However, I was unable to find much detailed information and stats, aside from the past few years. An article would be nice to have which at least details the games played and final standings. Jmj713 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally haven't heard of it. But I have a vague recollection of deleting something with the name Traverse City in it in the past that was a local league or a tournament or something. But I haven't looked on google for sources so I have no opinion either way. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Detroit Red Wings roster

I can't seem to figure out why Brendan Smith's nationality flag icon is aligned to the right. Any help on this is appreciated. 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

His line was formatted with player7 whereas the rest had player4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey&oldid=426511348"