Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

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 • 46

Coaches in Roster templates

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but I think coaches should be included in the templates used for rosters. Compare Template:Detroit Red Wings roster to Template:Detroit Tigers roster. Or there could be another separate template for the coaches. Hot Stop (c) 14:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the rosters should be limited to players. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Could there be a separate one for coaches then? Hot Stop (c) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not certain. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is something we could contemplate. Personally, I would love to split back to the old format of listing goalies, defencemen and forwards separately, perhaps adding a fourth set for coaches. But if we keep the current layout - which is also quite nice - adding a template for coaches under their own heading could be useful. Resolute 21:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In all actuality there should be an additional heading for all current and notable management and scouting personnel, from assistant coaches all the way up to GM/President. Even owners if you want to get ambitious. juan^less 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Atlanta Thrashers general managers

I was looking at some of the Thrashers pages when I came across this one - List of Atlanta Thrashers general managers. There were only two GMs in the history of the Thrashers. It doesn't make sense to have a "list" that has only two names, so can we change this to a redirect to the Thrashers main page? Note - A section for GMs could be added since it doesn't exist yet. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• It'd only make sense.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Since the team is done yes I would put it in a section on the main page and redirect it. Sort of like how we did the Winnipeg Jets seasons article. Same idea really. If it was an ongoing team I would say no but they are done like dinner. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for move

There is a request for move, which may interest members of this WikiProject, at Talk:Martin Ruzicka. - Darwinek (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And another one here. --Sporti (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Standings on NHL seasons pages

I suggest that we drop the division standings from the NHL seasons pages. They are basically irrelevant. Make a separate 'standings' page for each season, with divisional, conference and league standings? Maybe just at the end of the season? I realize it's a 'fork', but it would reduce the amount of tables on the season page. I've modified the templates for the 2011–12 NHL season page, so that the division appears as a column in the conference standings. Please take a look. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but personally I look at the division standings more during most of the season and only in the last few weeks of the season in the playoff race do I look at the conference standings. But that might just be me. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea in principal is good. However, now that the divisions have been included into the table itself, the rank column could be removed in order to not confuse readers. The all-grey row separating the playoff teams, however, should definitely go as it causes a disruption for the middle divisions when sorting by division. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Since division leaders are ranked 1-2-3, you need a rank column to restore the order after you've sorted the table by points or some other column. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I oppose. The league contains divisions, and the standings are published as such. We do a disservice to readers if we remove the division standings outright simply because some here consider them unimportant. That is one POV position; team's which hang banners based on division titles certainly wouldn't agree with it. The most neutral thing to do is just to include them as they would be found on the NHL website or in a local newspaper. oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't work. At least as far as I can tell; maybe it's something in the template syntax I'm unfamiliar with. I went to remove the grey bars, as mentioned above, and decided to try a test in preview mode. When I manually added random points values for each teamand then sorted the table using the division column, the divisions did not sort to the giving the individual division standings within the table. Instead the teams sorted into alphabetical order within the divisions. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the conference table cannot be used as a substitute for individual division tables. oknazevad (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

All regular season schedules for 2011-12 NHL season: link here

Season schedules for the NHL 2011-12 season were released today, June 23, 2011. They are located at http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=69865 - these should be used for future reference and for season article game logs for each team. EOProductions (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be the Jets...

...at least according to this report at NHL.com. However, don't expect anything official prior to the announcement of pick #7 tonight. In any case, increased surveillance for unwanted edits of the usual articles would be recommended. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Until the pick we won't know for sure so can't change it, however. I wouldn't doubt that it could be a purposefully released misleading info. But I am betting it will end up Jets. But probably Manitoba.-DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we just begin the draft with the #7 pick? I currently have an IP who constantly changes to Winnipeg Jets (2011-present) at 2011 NHL Entry Draft; other team-related articles should experience a similar pattern so far... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Steven Stamkos

Just wondering if an admin could semi-protect Steven Stamkos. There has been a significant amount of activity on that page in the last 24-48 hours identifying him as being re-signed or traded to Philadelphia. Like, insane amounts of vandalism for something that isn't really in the news that much of late. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jets seasons

Someone may want to help out with the construction of the restarted List of Winnipeg Jets seasons. I've done what I can, but the code in the table just confuses me, so I'll let someone more tech savvy handle that. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 02:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Player inclusion in [Team] players categories

Having a bit of a dispute with User:Bhockey10 at Talk:J. T. Miller#College and am hoping to get a wider community input. The issue is the use of Category:North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's ice hockey players. J. T. Miller has committed to played at UND for the upcoming season, so naturally has yet to play in a game for the team. Bhockey10 is of the belief that because he is a member of the team (or will be shortly), he belongs in this category. However, I am of the belief that we here at WP:HOCKEY do not add players to players categories until they have played in at least one game for the team. Bhockey10 is arguing that while this is correct for NHL and junior players, college ice hockey is different because there aren't trades, etc. and once a player commits to a team, it means he'll play for the team. In my opinion, until Miller actually plays in a game for the Fighting Sioux, this is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL because anything can happen. Bhockey10 is arguing that if anything were to happen between now and then, he could be removed from the category. Can I get a wider opinion on this. I thought for sure there was already an established usage of these categories. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't add players unless they play a game. These categories are for players who have played a game. Alot can happen between now and September. Even in college, god forbid a player can get in an accident and not be able to play. They can decide they no longer want to play period. All sorts of things still can happen. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically my argument is that under NCAA guidelines they're members of the team, unlike pro and junior hockey college teams don't have the ability to call up, send down, trade players- There's one active roster. To illustrate the issue better Tyler Biggs and Connor Murphy are on the current/active roster for the upcoming Miami Redhawks season. If they're actively members of the team they should be in the associated category. In pro hockey we often equate this to playing a game on an NHL team, college is a bit different since players report well ahead of the first game, unlike a prospect which is years away from an NHL team. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Playing in a game means the same thing no matter what level of hockey you play in. And that's what these categories are for; players who have played in a game. Not players who are on a roster. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference really, he may be on their roster, but until he plays a game he wasn't a player for the team in that he never played. That is what the word player means. In order to be a player you have to actually play. So it would be inaccurate to call him a player of a team before he has played. He might be on the roster but that doesn't mean he is a player. Not to mention alot can happen before they play that game. Numerous college players or would be college players at the last minute have switched their mind and jumped to the CHL. The odd one to the pros. -DJSasso (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I told Nurmsook, it doesn't bother me either, way I do see your point with college hockey there's a lot less movement than pro and junior hockey. With the college season starting in a cpl months and being on the active roster I saw no reason not to place the category. There's a few things that could happen but that's the case with a lot of players. and other stuff on Wikipedia. WP:Crystal is for unverifiable speculation. Such as earlier and the Jets situation, it was only speculation until very close to that 7th overall draft pick. But this isn't speculation, these kids are rostered on that team, and without ability to trade, send down/call up players if you're on a roster for college you're going to play. I don't see much of a difference btwn adding the category now, in about a week when the 2011-12 academic year begins, or in a cpl months when the first game is played. If a player has an accident or dies removing a category tag is the least we have to worry about. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think one prime example can be Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger. If you saw the film, you'll remember that Rudy was a member of the team, but it wasn't "official" unless he was on the field for at least one play. Had he never played in that final game, he would have had no stats, and wouldn't have been officially recognized as a Notre Dame football player. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's way differnt, these players are "official" members of the team on the official roster, i.e. players. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rudy was on the official roster all season as well (albeit for the scout team). But he couldn't be a player until he actually stepped onto the field. I would note that just being on the roster doesn't make you a player. Playing does. You could sit on the bench all year dressed up. But if your skates don't hit the ice during game time you aren't a player. You were just a guy who dressed up too much for games. -DJSasso (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Backup goalies are another prime example. They could be on the game-day roster all year long, but unless they actually step on the ice, they aren't in the players category. Basically, if you have stats, you're a player. If you don't have stats, you're not a player. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe the issue you are having is that you consider "Team member" and "Player" the same thing when really they are two different things. Being on the roster makes you a team member. But only playing in a game makes you a player. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Think that's the issue, it's a wording thing. In the case of college hockey- what the NCAA defines as a player/team member/student-athlete is broader than the specific player definition used for the categories here. The person becomes a student-athlete/member of the team prior to participation in the intercollegiate athletic program. I'll just add the category additions to my to-do list and add it in late Sept/early Oct. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

image:Nhldefunctteams.png

File:Nhldefunctteams.png needs to be updated for Winnipeg. The Jets should have "(original)" appended to the label, similar to Ottawa's "original" labelling. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

One of many things that will need to be cleaned up. Almost done fixing links....been through something like 1600....few more hundred to go. -DJSasso (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I am done for the night..4am is way to late to be on here...anything left linking to the Winnipeg Jets article needs to be gone through manually to fix links because I couldn't do them by awb since some need to link to both new and old team. Others may have accidentally been skipped. -DJSasso (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"city NHL team" links?

I noticed that there is a Winnipeg NHL team bluelink. Should these also exist for all (current, past) NHL cities? (some would end up as disambiguation pages... like NYC or Montreal) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a blue link because the team page was named that until a few hours ago when we moved it. We couldn't call the article anything else until it was officially named. As for other cities. I don't really think its necessary, but I suppose it couldn't hurt either. -DJSasso (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that there are several cities that have had multiple NHL teams (New York, Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Minnesota, Colorado, Atlanta). While far more people will be searching for the Flyers than the Quakers, it's kind of difficult to have Philadelphia NHL team re-direct to just the Flyers. In addition, I'd say Winnipeg was a unique situation. Winnipeg NHL team was only a placeholder until the move was approved and an official name announced. Patken4 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A XXX NHL team might be useful as a dab page or search helper page. This would be for folks who know little about hockey, I suppose. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Boisbriand QMJHL

Lost in all the fun that was the Winnipeg Jets news that the Montreal Junior Hockey Club of the Q relocated to Boisbriand. It seems that they still will be called the Montreal Juniors [1], however a French language article says the team name and logo could change [2] Should we just the Montreal Junior page to Boisbriand or start a new article? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since its just a suburb of Montreal still I would leave it where it is and wait for an announcement of any name change. Its similar to a number of NHL teams that have technically switched suburbs with new arenas but never actually left the Metro area of their namesake. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my thinking too. If it is just a move to a new arena, same article. If the move to Boisbriand is intended to break from the time in Montreal, perhaps a new article. Resolute 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Shea Weber peer review, copyedit request

Hey all. I'm hoping to get Shea Weber to FA before the upcoming season begins, so I've launched a peer review. Ultimately I don't want to send it to FAC until after he signs a new contract (for stability reasons), so I was hoping that one or more of you could give it a copyedit in the meantime. The last time I put an article up at FAC, all it really needed was a good copyedit, so I'm hoping to skip that whole process when I ultimately take it there (however unlikely that may be). Anyways, I appreciate any help you can throw my way. Cheers! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Annual post draft fun

Looks like there have been a lot of draftee articles created for players drafted after the first round, including all of the 2nd round and about half the 3rd. Most don't appear to pass NHOCKEY (I haven't checked GNG). Will there be some mass PRODs in the coming days? Is it too many to do one mass AfD? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and prodded them. Some have previously been deleted. Those might be candidates for speedy delete. I don't think you can do a mass AfD on that many. There were 41. ! ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

An idea

Instead of afding and prod draft picks just redirect them to List of Toronto Maple Leafs draft picks (for the team that picked them). This will save time with the PROD and afd process that the post above is talking about too. Plus, if someone searches that player they'll know that they have been drafted by that team. It just makes more sense and a time saver. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you do that for the LA draft picks? I noticed a few like that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be User:Shootmaster 44 he created them as redirects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Creating redirects hides that there is no article, though. Sometimes you want to see that, though, for editing sake. So I prefer that a bit. But that's a minor point. Some of the picks might be argued, so I thought I should make those into prods. The others, well, I'm open to suggestion. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly creating player articles just to redirecting them is a stupid idea IMO. It fools the reader into thinking there actually is an article, and by clicking on it you are forced to load a quite large article, not exactly what you want to do if you're surfing on your phone or a 3G network with pay per use. Additionally there's an argument as to where the article should be redirected but I wont go into that. Common sense would be to delete all player articles created as redirects, skipping the bureaucracy. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 18:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it a stupid idea? How does it fool the reader in thinking there's an article. It's better since you can list the player then make note like MLB does (their current team) this will provide info for the user who's searching for it (remember that's what wikipedia is for). 14 000 bytes is a lot now (lists don't make the article that much bigger); that's 14 kbtes and anyone who isn't using dial up won't have a problem. I have no problem on any articles loading stuff using an iPhone. This system works perfectly for MLB players so there's no reason why it shouldn't for NHL. This is what they do and for the same reason here. A problem with this is the what if the players are traded. An even better solution is using the exalt same system as MLB articles and make a Toronto Blue Jays minor league players (name can be different. This system just works a whole lot better. Anyone who edits and patrols MLB articles and NHL would probably say the same thing. With this system if a players article is created you just redirect it and once they are no longer active the people mandating the article PROD the player. If the player makes it the article is restored. Most users do create articles articles just for redirects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

When I click the link I expect to get to an article about the player, not a draft list of the team selecting him. If you search for a player and an article is non existent you'll get search results showing everywhere the player's name is mentioned, not just one article which one user has deemed to be the most suited one — Why not article of the current team? Or where he was born? Who are you to decide that a draft list of the team drafting him is the best way to fool the reader? You don't make redirects just to get your red links blue. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 19:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason is the once ounce of notability' is that he's a draft pic or a person in the system of a NHL team. You get that? You keep repeating this nonsense of fooling people when I told you the article will have info about the player. Therefore it's not fooling you are just ignoring what I say.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I started to expand the Kings' list, I used the Oilers list as a guide. It appeared that players who had been drafted by the Oilers, but had not article were redirected to the list. My thinking behind this is if you are searching for say Nic Dowd (a Kings draft choice from a couple years ago) and there is no article, this is what makes him most notable. Plus, I believe that redlinks mean that a page cannot be promoted to a featured article, so to get the season articles to featured status, we have to remove redlinks. Thus, creating redirects does this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That the player having been drafted being the most notable thing about him is your subjective opinion. Red links used to be an argument over at FLC several years ago but not last time I checked. And do you really think linking to the article in question just to get rid of red links from said article is better then simply having red links? —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 20:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain what red ink is for from Wikipedia:Red link. It says that if you red ink something you are saying the topic is notable and an article should be created soon. If not you should get rid of the red link. Simple as that. Articles shouldn't have red links unless the article will be created soon. That's wikipedia guildlines. I urge you to read the link I gave.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at List of Los Angeles Kings draft picks I actually remove the wikilink from the player on the list. What I was referring to is the drive to make the season article a feature article. By putting in a redirect, it does remove the redlink on the season page for that Kings season and doesn't link to the same page. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have always been of the opinion that having a FL/FA icon is less important than making Wikipedia more user (and editor) friendly. The red links requirement is one of the examples I can think of where its not worth an article being labelled as a FL if it takes away good functionality. An article can be a high quality article without officially being recognized as such. That being said its not a huge deal to me. Just that I personally think more can be gained from a red link than redirect. The best example was mentioned by KRM above when you do a search for an term that doesn't have an article you get a list of all pages that subject is listed in. But as soon as you make a redirect you lose all that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly we should not be creating red links for players below, say, the 4th round on the entry draft articles? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll do you one better, we don't need red links from the 3rd round and below- it encourages creation of articles on distant prospects. One thig I don't agree with is a lot of the second round prospects being proded. Many are quite notable and often each draft there are a number of teams without first round draft picks, those teams' top prospects are in the second round and are proded. Also there's always some surprise picks in the first round that drop a few projected first round picks to the second round. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Many have received coverage similar to most first round picks - in some cases more - especially if they were rated as possible first round picks who dropped below expectations, and 2nd rounders who were their team's first pick. In any case, it isn't the round of the draft that makes players notable, it is the level of coverage. For 1st rounders we know there will be adequate coverage and can just skip over the step of searching. Rlendog (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Percy Quinn brothers ?

Hello. I'm french wikipedia user and just made Percy Quinn there but i have a question : here, it's written "He had two brothers Fred and Raphael". But on two books (Deceptions and Doublecross: How the NHL Conquered Hockey and Lords of the rinks: the emergence of the National Hockey League) his brother Emmett Quinn is the NHA president. Who is right ? --Supertoff (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I can post that question to the Deceptions author. I did not think Emmett was his brother, though. The cite about two brothers was from Percy's obituary. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Emmett was a brother. He pre-deceased Percy, which I guess is why I've not seen his name mentioned in the Percy Quinn obits I've read. I will update the Quinn articles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Tks, i have update the fr version and tried there too. --Supertoff (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Barons/North Stars merger

I think we need an article on the merger between the Cleveland Barons and the Minnesota North Stars in 1978, especially since I believe this is the only time in the NHL that such a merger occurred. I just tried researching it via the available team and season articles, and it's very very hazy for me. Does anyone have any good resources to build a full-fledged article around? Jmj713 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a very mysterious subject. I don't think there is a lot of clear info out there on it. And a whole lotta legend. Personally I would put all this on the Barons page as opposed to a separate page. But that's mostly because I don't think you will find enough for a full article, not because its not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Google news archive has plenty:

• Merger: [3], [4], [5]
• Lead-up: [6], [7], [8]

A few of my history books will have brief coverage as well. I'm willing to bet I could probably put a decent article together in a few days if nobody gets to it first. Resolute 22:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GNews is getting really good, every time I look they have more than the last time I looked. If anyone can put together something from a little its you. :P Any books I have read have always been very vague on it. Good luck. -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of Western Canadian papers had significant archives added last December. You have no idea how happy I was to see that - I have four binders of printed articles from library archive trips already, and having much of it online now has helped me save a ton of research time. Resolute 23:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks great, I'll gladly help out with such an article, using these and any other sources. This event has always bugged me. Jmj713 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Signings" at 2011–12 NHL transactions

What are your opinions on 2011–12 NHL transactions#Signings? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Soccer-holic. Thanks for your nice work. I'm fine with keeping or removing my table. I also forgot that we have a team signings page. I thought it would be nice to add re-signings and contract details to the free agency table because I have yet to find any sites that track all the signings (UFAs and RFAs) whether they are significant or not. For example, TSN has a nice UFA tracker, but it doesn't list any of the RFAs. (Suciturb (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

Just curious why we need an entire article on transactions. The team season articles, sure, but I don't see a need for it. And I'm far from a deletionist, but maybe it's just me. Anthony (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I love this. I've always been a fan of getting the full details on signings onto Wikipedia, money and term included. We just need refs for each and it'll be perfect! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we are discussing two separate, but connected ideas here. Should we include contractual terms into the table? Yes, we should, provided that we include a reliable source for the details. Should we include re-signings of players by their former teams as well? No, we shouldn't, for two reasons. First of all, the article explicitly states that it deals with team-to-team transactions, i.e. a transfer of something between two teams, so a re-signing would not be in the scope of the article. Then there is the WP:LENGTH question; the article simly would become too big. However, the listing of re-signings might be appropriate at the respective team season articles. Just my EUR 0.02, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with Soccer-holic's suggestion in keeping the contract details, but removing re-signings. I noticed that the dollar amounts on the table are entered in short form ($4M instead of $4,000,000). I personally find the longer form more aesthetically pleasing and easier to read the bigger dollar amounts when you align the numbers to the right. (Suciturb (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

While we are at it – how about the inclusion of free agent signings from and to non-NHL clubs? The current consensus, as far as I remember, is that such moves (for example, the recent Jagr-to-Flyers signing) should be kept off the transaction lists because these lists are intended for intra-NHL moves only; has that consensus changed in the meantime? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

European standings

What level do the leagues need to be for standings pages to be notable? I know the SM-Liiga, Elitserien, Czech Extraliga etc.. Are notable... But what about some lower level leagues such as Polska Liga Hokejowa, Bulgarian Hockey League, OB I bajnoksag, Kazakhstani Championship etc. Are these considered notable?--Hockeyben (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody?--Hockeyben (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To put it in simple terms, if the league is the top professional league in that country, it is good. Everything else is debatable. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons discusion involving several Hockey Photos

There is a discussion on on the commons that involves 70 images right now and could have ramifications on many more. Wanted to give everyone a heads up--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ouch! Hard to argue the delete rationale there - we wouldn't want their imperfect understanding of Creative Commons to impact someone's livelihood, but damn, that is a lot of great photos we're about to lose. Resolute 13:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, I just wanted to give everyone a heads up when the commons de-linking bot comes through. If the commons does it's due diligence we will lose over 1,000 images and hundreds of pages will be without pics again.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would start saving the images so they can be put back on en.wiki as fair use images. They might not be allowable on commons but they still would be on en. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That will never pass. en's non-free content rules pretty much say that if a fair-use image is replaceable, we cannot use it. Living people are virtually always held to that higher standard - a fair use photograph of a living person doing something historic (i.e.: Bobby Orr's SC winning goal) would pass WP:NFCC, but a simple photograph of Orr would not. In all of these cases, we need only someone with a camera and no media restrictions to go to the arena and take pictures. Resolute 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Our image policy is a mess. I think legally we could...but our policy is ridiculously high compared to what the law requires so that it is always contentious. I don't know that the media use restrictions would matter much since all people that go to a game are under the same restrictions per the back of their tickets. But who knows its murky in the image world which is why I stay away from it on wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Scoring leaders for relocated franchises

This issue has come up in the new Jets article, where some folk are questioning the inclusion of Atlanta Thrashers players in the franchise scoring leader tables. A quick glance shows we're a bit inconsistent in how we do this with relocated franchises. The Phoenix Coyotes article omits leaders from the Winnipeg Jets. By contrast, the Colorado Avalanche, Dallas Stars and Carolina Hurricanes, Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils articles include leaders from the Quebec Nordiques, Minnesota North Stars, Hartford Whalers, Atlanta Flames and Kansas City Scouts/Colorado Rockies respectively.

Certainly we ought to be consistent here, and I believe we should include leaders from previous cities. This is in line with NHL practice, where the Official Guide and Record Book as a matter of course includes the complete records for a franchise. In consequence, unless there are strong objections, the Coyotes records should be rewritten to include Jets' records.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the Jets page where this came up, I believe the Jets were written differently because the Coyotes themselves don't acknowledge the previous leaders. However I don't have a copy of the Coyotes media guide to verify. I just recall this being mentioned in many media reports while the debate over the Jets name was going on. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I found a copy and it looks like they do combine them. What they separate out are franchise firsts and coyotes firsts. Must be what they were talking about. Yeah we should rewrite then. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to add KHL draft to infobox template

See Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#KHL draft parameter? for a suggestion to add parameters for the KHL draft to the Infobox ice hockey player template. HeyMid (contribs) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense for Russian/European players, certainly, but also brings up a question on when a draft pick is notable. For instance, I can't see any reason why we would make note of AK Bars Kazan picking Taylor Hall in the fourth round of their 2009 draft in the infobox at his article. Resolute 23:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor League hockey task force?

I do most of my hockey-related editing on ECHL teams and have wondered for a time if there was a task force for minor league hockey. I came across this page, created in late 2009. Are there enough individuals interested to develop this into a full-blown task force?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd ever oppose the creation (or reactivation) of a task force, but for it to be viable, you would probably want a few dedicated editors. For myself, I prefer to simply maintain my on personal miniproject, relying on the fine editors of the main project when the need arises. Whether or not you choose to formalize your work into a task force, however, I wish you happy editing. There certainly is a lot of work to be done on many of our minor league articles. Resolute 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally we don't create a task force unless there are at least 5 people or so interested in actively working within it to the point that their discussions would flood this page if they were held here. As you can see by looking at most of our task forces they die almost as soon as they are created and end up only adding more layers of bureaucracy. However, you certainly can try and work that one up into an active one. I just think you will find you will get more answers and discussion here than if you hold it on a sub-page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of people interested in minor league hockey articles, but they are so widespread and their interests so varied that a focused task force (absent individuals who have the time and energy to really drive it, which I am not) is probably not feasible at this point. However, if I'm wrong and one does get up and running, I'd be more than happy to contribute. Until then, back to WikiGnoming!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Help Identifying a Photo

There seems to be some debate on the the individual in this photo:

The upholder states that it is former Boston Bruin Stan Jonathan saying in the description "Pugilist Stan Johnathan better known for his fighting ability, than his hockey ability" with the spelling error of Johnathan. the image has been removed from the page with the IP stating it's not the player noted in the description. I was wondering if anyone could confirm if this is or isn't the player in question and if it is not Jonathan if who this is if anyone. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who the player is, but I don't think that's Stan Jonathan. Based on the images from Google Images, where we know it's him, I would say that this is a different person. They're both short, but the one in the WP picture is stockier. There is a #19 on his left glove, but Jonathan wore #17. Jonathan had a well-defined jaw-line (and obvious Native American features in general), while the guy pictured has a fatter face and he looks White to me. The sticks are different models. Hairstyles seem to be a bit different. Maxim_(talk) 02:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Lalonde wore #19 in Boston for just about the entire 1979–80 season...here's a photo of a trading card from then. He's wearing #7 on the card, but it looks like he had just joined the Bruins and was wearing a Flames jersey in the photo. Thoughts?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say based on this photo it's almost certainly not Gregg Sheppard, who wore #19 in Boston from 1972–78. Tom Songin wore it briefly (17 games) during the 1978–79 season...his photo here. The only other two who wore #19 that season wore it for 3 and 1 games respectively.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the chin, I'm inclined to believe it is Lalonde. Comparison: [9]. The player seems like he is short too, and Lalonde was even smaller than Fleury. Resolute 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, at least I know it isn't Jonathan. I'm some what inclined to move this pic to the Lalonde page since it is without one, but I think I will hold off on doing so, since we can't be sure.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That is almost certainly Bobby Lalonde. See here. Pay particular attention to the goofy helmet; he was one of a handful (perhaps the only one) to wear that style of helmet. 93JC (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the responses above, I've renamed the file at Commons, and have added into the appropriate article. I think it's fairly certain it's him, based on height and the goofy lid. Maxim_(talk) 02:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the cheesy mustache and the chin. The world is safe for freedom and democracy once again!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work guys, thanks for the help, moving the commons photo, and including it in the article. Cheers!--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for move

There are requests for move, which may interest members of this WikiProject, at Talk:Marek Bartánus and Talk:Peter Čerešňák. - Darwinek (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see another ones at Talk:Jiří Hunkes, Talk:Miroslav Blaťák and Talk:Toni Kirén. - Darwinek (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

List of countries with their first National Hockey League player

I noticed that there is a baseball page called List of countries with their first Major League Baseball player. I think a comparable one for the NHL would be good, but I'm not sure where to find this information. I realize I can comb through NHL rosters from the beginning of the league on hockeydb, but I was hoping there was an easier way to put this together. Any ideas? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it will help much but for some of the more obscure countries the List of NHL statistical leaders by country can help narrow it down some. Keep in mind it really doesn't take goaltenders into account much (considering how few points they accumulate) for example the list only has Ryan O'Marra (born in Japan) who debuted in 2009-10 for Japan when Yutaka Fukufuji was the first Japanese player debuting in 2006-07. Though there are around 10 goaltenders on the list overall.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition would be annoying. Do you go by straight birthplace alone, or nationality? The answer will decide if Brazil and Indonesia, for instance, make the list. Resolute 22:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the sources exist, I think we can make such a list far more useful than the current baseball example. Have the list show the total number of players from each country who have appeared in an NHL game, with a column for who and when the first was. FWIW, Joe Pelletier actually Tweeted on this today (where you got the inspiration, perhaps?) and according to him, 6666 players have played at least one game in the NHL from 44 countries. Canada had the most at around 4100. Resolute 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No I actually don't use Twitter. I stumbled across the baseball page and wondered if there was a hockey equivalent. As far as definition, I think birth place is the easiest way to go about it, no disputing anything. I also figure I'd follow the roster template flag rule, meaning Anze Kopitar for this list is Yugoslavian and thus does not make the list as Ivan Boldirev beat him to it. The one thing (like the baseball list) is that former countries and their current incarnations will both appear meaning the USSR and Russia or Dominion of Newfoundland and Canada will both be on the list.

My problem for Canada, is I can't find a reference to the box score for the first NHL game in 1917. I believe all the players are Canadian that appeared in that game and I'd need a reference to the entire game to show it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Calgary Herald. The story on the Toronto-Wanderers game is two columns to the right. Both include the rosters for all teams involved. Resolute 02:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think historical countries should be used. We should follow the same rules as in the List of NHL statistical leaders by country and as officially used by the NHL. Although Anze Kopitar appears in the Template:Los Angeles Kings roster as born in Yugoslavia, the flag shown is that of Slovenia. In addition none of the official NHL.com pages for the Kings, Kopitar and Boldirev mention Yugoslavia. There's even less dispute about the current country than the country at time of birth as the dates of some changes are not very well defined e.g. USSR->CIS->Russia. Also Newfoundland was never an independent country. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I also recently tried to start a very similar discussion in Talk:List of NHL statistical leaders#Flags again but received no responses 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on NFLD. It was a colony, not a country. As far as Kopitar goes, nationality and birthplace are not necessarily the same thing, and we introduce temporal errors if we start correcting histry over political changes. Kopitar was born in Yugoslavia, as Slovenia did not exist as a country. However, his nationality is Slovenian. One field speaks to the past, the other to the present. Resolute 04:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree a player's nationality should be irrelevant, that is very hard to verify and can change on a whim; countries are not created every week (this week being an anomaly). Kopitar was born in what what was Yugoslavia and what is now Slovenia, absolutely no debate there. Why perpetuate the problems of the past and introduce unnecessary edits? The NHL views Kopitar as being born in Slovenia. The NHL should be the being the official reference for NHL lists. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually from 1907 until 1934 the Dominion of Newfoundland was sovereign nation in the same way Canada was. So players born in this time period were actually from the "country" of Newfoundland. This is why Foster Hewitt used to begin his radio broadcasts with the phrase "Hello hockey fans in Canada, the United States and Newfoundland." That said, we may not have an issue with Newfoundland, I haven't done enough digging to view whether or not anyone from Newfoundland played in the NHL between 1917 and 1934.

Very interesting information about Newfoundland, I didn't know that it ever had independence. However reading the Dominion of Newfoundland page, it was only independent for a little over 2 years, from December 11, 1931 to February 16, 1934. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to debate Newfoundland history, but they were independent from 1907 until 1934. The 1931 Statute of Westminster moved the Constitutions of the country from Great Britain to their Dominions. In theory, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were not truly independent nations until this time either. However, in practice Canada was founded in 1867, Australia in 1901 and Newfoundland in 1907. So for practical reasons, Newfoundland would appear for anyone born between 1907 and 1934. I'm quite certain there was one born then that played in the NHL. So when I find him, I will include it. At any rate, before I move this from my userspace to the mainspace I will have everyone interested to take a look and see what they think. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the Nationality versus birthplace debate, the reason I feel place of birth is best is that it is indisputable. Thus, Kopitar being Yugoslavian is the easiest way to do it. Yes after 1993s start entering the NHL we could have problems. I was also following the template that the baseball list set, it contains Austria-Hungary and the Kingdom of Hawaii on the list. I figure this is notable to note which citizens of defunct countries were the first from there. The only issue I've run across so far pulling the info together is that of Ireland. The people of the Republic (and some in the North) consider themselves to be Irish. However, all the "Irishmen" I can find on Hockeydb.com were born in Belfast. This means that they are technically not part of Ireland but rather the United Kingdom. I can forsee a few issues with this possibly. Plus, by going with place of birth you do ensure that the problem of multiple citizenships don't arise. Some of the first players I've run across from some European countries were born there and moved to the US as children.

As mentioned above, I agree with the choice to use birthplace. However Kopitar being Slovenian is by far the easiest way to go using the current political landscape as you suggest below. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Another compromise is that we go with the current political landscape in one list. There could be a second list below of defunct countries listing the first Yugoslavian, who would also appear as the first Serbian. The only issue is what countries fall into a defunct category. The first Russian player I found, was actually born in the Russian Empire which predates the founding of the Soviet Union. The first German was also born before East and West Germany was formed. So does the reunited Germany supercede the pre-split Germany?

The current reunited Germany is the current country so yes it supersedes both the pre-split as well as both the split countries. All players born in current borders of Germany are German and should be treated equally. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The other way of going about this is to show the first Yugoslavian and then also show the first players from the constituent nations that once made it up. The only problem this would create is if we do that, then we might get people wanting the first from each province and state. Also, in the Soviet case, the first player came to the NHL in 1982 (played for the LA Kings). Thus, it is likely he never did return to post-Soviet Russia, so listing him as the first from Russia (not the Russian Empire) might be a misnomer. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Sweeney Schriner was the first Russian-born player in NHL history. But that does pose a problem, as really, the Russian Empire, Russian SFSR and Russian Federation are essentially the same country, just renamed over time. You could get around both that, and the Belfast, problem by separating the USSR and UK by their constituent countries. Also, does Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic count as two different countries, and if so, why? I suspect you will have problems with nationalistic arguments relating to the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and, it seems, Yugoslavia. Resolute 01:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Vic Hoffinger is the first Russian born player. He played in '26-'27 before Sweeney Schriner did, but I digress. The problem with him and Sweeney Schriner is that the Russian Empire is not the same country as the Russian SFSR and Russian Federation. If I remember my Russian history class correctly, it actually was more similar in make-up to the entire USSR than to what the current country of Russia is. But in either case, I wouldn't call these players the first Soviets in the NHL. From my digging so far (and it hasn't been too deep), there aren't too many of these players from "empires" to deal with. I think this might be the only case as nobody born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire ever played in the NHL. The one option is to separate Vic Hoffinger as the first from the Russian Empire and having whomever is the first "Russian" as listed as Russia. Perhaps the easiest way is unlike the baseball list, we could wikilink the countries and that should reduce the problems inherent in this list.

The problem with splitting the UK into their constituent countries is that some haven't existed as a country in any sense of the word since 1066. So having England or Wales on there contradicts not having the Russian Empire or the Dominion of Newfoundland on the list. Plus, I doubt there are any Welsh who have played in the NHL. But my digging hasn't gotten that far yet

For the Czech examples, I would say yes they are separate countries. The way I understood the history, Czechoslovakia did not simply see Slovakia cede from the country, but an actual dissolution of the entire country. The two nations split apart into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I realize this all my Political Science background coming out. But when a countries borders significantly change, the name changes and the government is overthrown, that nation is born. This is why I don't consider Anze Kopitar to belong on the list. In fact no Slovenes would appear on the list until players born in that political entity start playing in the NHL. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Also, does Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic count as two different countries, and if so, why? " I don't know who it was, but if the first player from Czechoslovakia was from what is now Slovakia rather than from what is now the Czech Republic, that may be an issue. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As of right now and my digging hasn't gone that deep yet (which is why the page is still in my userspace) the first Czechoslovakian I can find is Stan Makita and he was actually born in Slovakia. I'm sure when I dig a little deeper I will find an older player who started before him. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can add Stan Makita to the list of players that introduce problems. Was he born in Czechoslovakia or Slovakia or the Slovak Republic (1939–1945)? 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> I think I have figured it out. The easiest way to show it is by showing players born in the constituent countries of today by indenting them on the chart and listing them beneath the country of birth. What I mean is I will show it like
USSR

Russia

This will work until players start showing up from Russia that are Russian born. This will likely be in the next season or so. At that point it will take some footnotes to show this.

My problem now is that if I try to indent like you would on here the colon shows up. How can I indent in a chart? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicklas Jensen

The infobox for Nicklas Jensen was edited to indicate that Jensen was a member of the Denmark men's national ice hockey team, but this is not true so the edit was removed. User:Kaiser matias restored the edit with the edit summary “U20 team is also used in addition to senior team”. I have never heard of such a consensus, so I am bringing this issue to the ice hockey project to be discussed. Dolovis (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never included U20 teams. We don't consider playing in an U20 tournament evidence of notability, it isn't equivalent to the senior national team, and it just kind of muddies the water. If it were to be included, I woud suggest a second parameter, that would be removed after a player plays at the senior level. But preferably, just leave the U20 team out of the infobox. Canada Hky (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it in the archives of this page. I forget what the outcome was. When I changed the parameter on the infobox I had intended it only for senior teams, however I think the community may have decided U20 should be in there as well. I will look for the discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could only find a reference by someone else when this came up before that we had decided that but I can't seem to find the original discussion my search-foo isn't working. But the infobox page itself does still indicate senior teams only. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering this recently as well and went through the discussion archives. There were, on multiple occasions, discussions initiated regarding this topic with arguments for and against. Each time though it seemed like the discussions just died and no solid consensus was ever really gained. Maybe now is that time? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 13:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that those discussions agreed that senior and U20 national teams counted, but nothing lower. After all, national team links appear on most players who have only appeared in the WJC, so I have followed suit in regards to that. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)