Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 16 February 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Edit war on player stats 2013-14 updates

Can we please get some extra eyes on Lane MacDermid and Tim Jackman. User:Triggerbit is showing a strong intent to disregard the long standing ice hockey policy that player stats be updated only after the end of the current year. He has now twice thrice added stats for these two players to show their stats through the first few games of the 2013-14 season. Or am I misinformed on how this policy is to be effected? Dolovis (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

the idea of adding stats once a player has been traded and no longer in the organization, has been used for many many seasons dude.. and one revert does not make a edit war.. Triggerbit (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Triggerbit is right, we update players who move teams as soon as they move because the stats no longer update and are finalized. We use the same idea at the end of the regular season on team pages where we put on the regular season results but don't yet update the playoffs until the team is out. This practice has been going on for years. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

three edits (the original bold edit, and two reverts) does make an edit war (see WP:BRD, its not BRRD), but as I have already stated, if I am misinformed about the ice hockey project's policy concerning mid-season updates in the event of trades, then I am happy to be enlightend. Dolovis, aka "dude" (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule, I prefer that all updates wait until the end of the season, but when people have updated stats for mid-season trades, I also let those lie. It is, at least, not as confusing as day to day updates. Resolute 23:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I can see it either way, but personally would prefer to wait for the end of the season. Who knows, maybe some guy gets traded back to his original club. It could happen. Rejectwater (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually I believe there is a rule preventing trades back to the same team during the same season. I remember the Calgary Flames & Colorado Avalanche being penalized for doing it by mistake a few years back causing the Dean McAmmond to have to sit out the rest of the season. So it wouldn't likely happen. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
According to this thread there used to be a rule regarding trades immediately preceding the waiver draft in the older CBA (now gone with the elimination of the waiver draft), and players claimed on waivers have to be waived again before being traded. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Can a player be waived multiple times in the same season? Can a player who was picked up on waivers later be traded to the team that waived him? Unlikely, sure, but I imagine there is some scenario that could result in someone playing for one team in two different stretches of the same season, while playing for some other team in between. Rejectwater (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
As I understand, a player must clear waivers whenever his team wants to change his status and the collective bargaining agreement requires all other teams to waive a claim to him, so this can happen as often as required. Based on the thread I mentioned, there are no restrictions on teams involved in a trade. isaacl (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The practice of mid-season updating of career statistics should be discouraged, regardless of whether a player has moved teams or not. The existence of some articles with mid-season updates only serves to encourage other editors to also perform mid-season updates. Dolovis (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If your concerned about it you might want to keep an eye on the current coaches and GMs. There's an IP that's been adding the current season to them.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, 99.231.151.46 has been hitting them up... Echoedmyron (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Just an additional FYI, I removed the Panthers stats from Kris Versteeg as they have become problematic due to an IPs changing them to Blackhawks or constantly adding a Hawks line. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dmitry/Dmitri Korobov

Could someone please enlighten me on why some reliable sources contradict one another on the spelling of Dmitri Korobov's first name? Is this like how defense/defence are both acceptable spellings? Tampabay721 (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

They are both acceptable spellings. They are just different Latin alphabet interpretations of the Cyrillic spelling of his name. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup. The IIHF, for instance, began an effort to standardize how it transliterates names from foreign alphabets a couple years ago that resulted in quite a few changes to their published names. Resolute 22:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:RUS, I think it should be "Dmitry", see –ый endings. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
What makes this worse is that the IIHF decided in all of their wisdom to make up their own system, instead of following Russia's actual official passport system.--Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Should this policy be used for him? He is not Russian, but Belarusian. Should it be the same or different romanization policy for Belarusian? 108.0.244.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
His name in Belarusian is actually Dzmitry. Bear with me, this goes for Ukrainian players too (so I'm familiar...) but they translated his name from Belarusian to Russian, and then transliterated it from Russian Cyrillic to Latin text. Double conversion, messy stuff. example: Sergei Kostitsyn, name in Belarusian would be "Siarhiej Kaścicyn" --Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
According to BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian, the romanization should be "Dzmitry Korabaw" and Sergei Kostitsyn should be "Syarhyey Kastsitsyn". Why does the NHL and IIHF even use Russian translations when they are Belarusian? It makes these articles harder to correct. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That's the BGN/PCGN guide, which is the US/UK system from 1979. I was using Belarus' system. To answer your question: because they play in Russia and the NHL/IIHF just looks at the Russian language roster sheets; and Russia doesn't accommodate for the other East-Slavic languages and rather converts it to their language (chauvanism?). --Львівське (говорити) 06:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What is acceptable for Wikipedia is what is WP:Verifiable. Original research is not acceptable for inclusion within Wikipedia articles. The verifiable spellings for his name are:

Given that most reliable sources show his name as Dmitry, the article should be moved accordingly. Dolovis (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dolovis that it should at Dmitry Korobov, as it's the most commonly used transliteration of the name. The transliteration of Belarussian is a trainwreck, especially as the Russian version of the name often becomes transliterated to English. To expand on that point, note how the other Wikipedias transliterate the name:
  • German: Dsmitry Korabau
  • French: Dzmitry Korabaw
  • Latvian: Dmitrijs Korobovs (ignoring Latvian naming customs, it's still another way of transliteration)
  • Swedish: Dzmitryj Korabaŭ (looks like Lacinka and not necessarily a transliteration).

And Russian and Ukraine use their own version of the names Dmitri and Nikolai... Maxim(talk) 15:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton Bulldogs and Lake Erie Monsters

The other day I went to the game at the Copps Coliseum... I took my camera with me and I've uploaded 27 images from that game that could be of use to people who specialize in player articles (ie User:Dolovis):

File:Trevor Cheek.jpg, File:Russ Sinkewich.jpg, File:Morgan Ellis.jpg, File:Joonas Nattinen.jpg, File:Mikael Tam.jpg, File:Martin St. Pierre Hamilton.jpg, File:Christian Thomas.jpg, File:Mike Blunden.jpg, File:Stephan MacAulay.jpg, File:Gabriel Desjardins.jpg, File:Guillaume Desbiens Lake Erie.jpg, File:JT Wyman.jpg, File:Matt Hunwick Lake Erie.jpg, File:Markus Lauridsen.jpg, File:Jarred Tinordi Hamilton 2013.jpg, File:David van der Gulik.jpg, File:Drew Schiestel.jpg , File:Mark Olver.jpg, File:Jordan Owens.jpg, File:Daniel Maggio.jpg, File:Gabriel Dumont.jpg, File:Joey Hishon Lake Erie.jpg, File:Stefan Elliott.jpg, File:Maxime Macenauer.jpg, File:Sami Aittokallio Lake Erie 2013.jpg, File:Calvin Pickard Lake Erie 2013.jpg, and File:Dustin Tokarski Hamilton 2013.jpg.

I also have some images of an ECHL game from 2012 between Toledo and Kalamazoo that I'll comb through for viable images... DMighton (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be easier if you could upload your photos to the Commons, rather than directly to Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

They are on commons... DMighton (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your uploads[1]. You take very good photos, and I look forward to seeing more of your work. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you... I am mostly focused on CIS, Jr. B, Jr. C, and PWHL... but every once in a while I get out to a pro game... no prob. DMighton (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And as promised my pics from the Toldeo/Kalamazoo game:

File:Petr Mrazek Toledo 2012.jpg, File:Joel Martin Kalamazoo 2012.jpg, File:Brett Lysak.jpg, File:Cody Lampl.jpg, File:Darren Archibald Kalamazoo 2012.JPG, File:Joey Ryan.JPG, File:Elgin Reid.JPG, File:Nick Sirota.JPG , File:Phil Oreskovic.jpg, File:Phil Rauch.jpg, File:Prab Rai.JPG, File:Randy Rowe.JPG, File:Sam Ftorek.JPG, File:Travis Novak.JPG, File:Wes O'Neill.jpg, File:Willie Coetzee.JPG. DMighton (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ducks alternate captains while Saku Koivu is injured

I noticed by watching games that the Ducks are using Corey Perry as an interim alternate captain while Koivu is injured. Should I add an "A" to the roster template for him until Koivu returns? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The roles of team Captain and Alternates are given to the players by management, and are not usually taken away just because of an injury. The official team website at NHL.com[2] still lists Koivu with the "A"; so do not change the roster template just because the "A" has been sewn to Perry's sweater for a few games. Dolovis (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
NHL.com seems hypocritical. NHL.com[3] has an "A" for Mike Richards as an alternate captain even though he is only serving as an interim alternate captain while Matt Greene is out. NHL.com rosters seem to be inconsistent when interim alternate captains are appointed. Why not keep the "A" on the template until the regular one returns or never have an "A" even when NHL.com has one? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Koivu returned last night. Hwy43 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2013
I saw that and removed the "A". I never took the "A" away from Koivu on the template. I left it there and temporarily also put an "A" next to Perry's name. What should be done with the Kings template with Mike Richards then? Should an extra letter be put next to Richards on the template or not? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:Verifiability, follow what is listed at NHL.com, which can be considered a reliable source. Dolovis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
NHL.com is not consistent when listing interim captains and alternate captains with the team sites. Is it better to use the same standards for the same type of circumstances, or is it better to be incosistent with the articles like NHL.com is? Is citing pictures and articles from NHL.com a reliable method instead of using NHL.com team site rosters? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between wearing the alternate 'A' for a game and being officially named a team alternate. If the article is about the game, then who wore the 'A' is noteworthy. But if the article is about the team or a listing of alternates, then merely wearing the 'A' for certain games is unimportant trivia. For this case follow the official team references, if they take the effort to officially name a replacement alternate then he's a team alternate, if they don't then he's not. 76.64.216.136 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
NHL.com[4] doesn't list an "A" next to Scottie Upshall, yet their new coach named him an official team alternate. What should be done about this on the Panthers roster template? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
To repeat what has been mentioned to you numerous times on numerous topics. You need a reference. If the team website isn't listing him as an official A then he probably isn't one yet. You always need a source. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I do have a reliable source. It is here[5]. The NHL.com rosters are inconsistent. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Note that link confirms he was wearing an 'A', it doesn't indicate that he has been named an official team alternate. Please see my earlier comment. There's no need for them to officially replace Jovanovski. 76.64.216.136 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is replacing Jovanovski. Jovanovski is still the captain. It is just that Upshall is now a third alternate captain, along with Campbell and Goc, with Jovanovski as captain. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes Upshall is wearing the alternate captain 'A' in games, however you haven't provided evidence that he has been officially named an alternate captain of the team. 76.64.216.136 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed NHL.com has since updated the roster. He is now listed with an 'A'. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Dave" from Dave Taylor (ice hockey)‎ article

Marc87 has removed the name, "Dave" from Dave Taylor (ice hockey), despite the fact it is the name the subject of this article is best known as, both as an NHL player and now, as an NHL executive. Unless there's a reason or Wikipedia policy that I'm not aware of, this edit should be reverted. However, since my next reversion would cause a 3RR violation, I am unable to do so. I am wondering what the justification is for removal of "Dave" from this article, since the editor has provided no justfication for doing so. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally in the first line of the article we list the full name. Because Dave is just a short form of David its not usual that we list it like David "Dave" Taylor like we would Maurice "The Rocket" Richard. So he was probably correct in removing it from the full name listing in the article. But I have no strong opinion on it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Marc87's edit warring on Dave Taylor (ice hockey) appears to be a clear violation of The three-revert rule, and he should be appropriately warned that he may be subject to sanctions if this is brought to the attention of WP:ANI. I urge Gmatsuda to not continue this edit war because you may also be subject to the same sanctions. The proper procedure to follow is BOLD, revert, discuss, and I strongly suggest that if you continue to feel strongly about this issue that you open a discussion at the article's talk page. Dolovis (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but as I mentioned above, I'm already aware of the 3RR rule. Also, I'm step ahead of you in opening a discussion on the article's talk page. So far, he hasn't responded. As for DjSasso's reply above...but if the article title uses "Dave," why wouldn't you use it in the first line of the article? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
In answer to your question I refer you to WP:MOSBIO, and specifically to the section Names, where it explains that while the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph – followed by several examples, including the example for Bill Clinton of “William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton”. I think that the example can be differentiated from your concern about Dave Taylor because there is no confusion for the reader that “Dave” is a short for of “David”, while it may not be as clear to all readers that “Bill” is a short form of “William”. Dolovis (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Dolovis and DJSasso here. There is no need to list "Dave" as if it was a nickname as it is patently obvious that "Dave" is just the shortened form of David. Resolute 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It may not be so obvious for non-native speakers. And making sure to include it it a simple way to make clear that he goes by the short form and the article is at the correct title. It seems to me that it is perfectly analogous to the Bill Clinton example cited in the guideline. Yes, "Bill" isn't quite as obvious of a nickname for "William" as "Dave" is for "David" ("Dave" is more analogous to "Will"), but it's still the same deal. So, I say we should include it. And as my name is David, I speak from experience. oknazevad (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

MHL article naming

A user has renamed 2013–14 MHL season to 2013–14 Maritime Junior A Hockey League season presumably to make room for a seasonal article for the Russian MHL... The Maritimers were calling their league the MJAHL up until a season and a half ago I think... would it be better to just go with 2013–14 MJAHL season? Looking for ideas here... DMighton (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thank ye. DMighton (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Two way forward article

The article two-way forward states that the Selke trophy is that the league awards it to the best two way forward. But the trophy is awarded to the player determined to be the top defensive forward. A stay at home forward, who is not a two way player, could potentally win the trophy. Should that section of the article be reworded? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely right, and yes, it should. (Heck, that article is a bit of a mess in any event.) The Selke hasn't, for quite a bunch of years, been for the "best defensive forward," of course -- it's really for a notable defensively-skilled forward who scores a good bit. It hasn't been awarded to someone scoring fewer than 20 goals in over twenty years, and it's never been awarded to a player who hasn't scored 20 goals at some point in his career. Ravenswing 10:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    To clarify, when you say the Selke hasn't been for the best defensive forward, I assume you mean in practice voters in the past 20 years have taken offense into account as well as defense. (The official definition remains unchanged.) isaacl (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    Even then its not really true. The last few have been fairly high scoring players but you only have to go back to Kris Drapper in 03-04 to see one that wasn't, and Jere Lehtinen and John Madden a right before him. Although it really comes down to what you consider a high scorer so yeah the NHL should probably word it to the best two way player. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    Is scoring goals is used for consideration for the award? Could a stay at home forward potentially win this award or not? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    As you stated, and Ravenswing and I both confirmed, the trophy is awarded to the player determined to be the top defensive forward. No further direction is given, so it's up to the voters to decide how to determine this. If you haven't looked at them already, the references in the corresponding article may help answer your questions. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    Officially? As Isaacl says, there isn't an official guideline for what considerations voters ought to take into account. But it's perfectly obvious that the voters will never pick a Gregory Campbell or a Joe Vitale; in order to be considered for the award, you need to be able to score. Ravenswing 09:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Division articles

An IP has been repeatedly messing with the Division articles, adding all sorts of minutiae about what divisions "used to be", what they are now, etc, often with dubious accuracy and adding a bunch of clutter. (for example: [6]) Extra eyes for cleanup may be a good idea. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Former retired numbers

When the #7 "We are all Canucks" banner honoring Canucks fans (which was later taken down) was put up, was the number 7 being "retired" or just "honored"? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither. It was just a banner calling the fans the 7th player. It wasn't a number in the sense of a jersey. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What is this being sold on ebay? This lists #7 as a retired number at the time of the 2009-10 season. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly a mistake by the sticker company I am not sure. What you can do is email the team and ask. Or do a search of news archives and team media guides. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody wore #7 when the banner was up from 2008-2010. Was this product is officially licensed by the Canucks or not? Was it a mistake? Does anyone else know? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You need to start doing your own research, instead of asking all of these trivial questions. That isn't what this talk page is for. Based on a very short google search myself I can tell you at the time they didn't say the number was retired. But if you really want to know you are probably going to have to email the team. Most teams reply to questions pretty fast. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If it was in fact retired at one point, I was planning to add it to the article about former retired numbers. There is an article for this. This discussion is about making that article better. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just be aware that even if someone does know the answers to your questions, often they won't know the appropriate reliable source to use off the top of their heads, and so typically you'll have to do your own research to track this information down. You can get helpful advice and pointers here, of course. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The sticker was made by Panini, which is officially licensed by the NHL and its teams. Are licensed companies a reliable source? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Licensed companies (like o-pee-chee) put the wrong person in pictures (Bernie Federko rookie, 1979 Jude Drouin), or head's on other people's bodies, being licensed doesn't make them an authority or even necessarily correct.18abruce (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Does the National Hockey League Official Guide & Record Book of 2009 or 2010 say anything about the Canucks retired numbers? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

New European tournament confirmed - what to do?

The IIHF has officially confirmed there will be a new tournament by the name "Champions Hockey League" in the 2014-15 season, consisting of at least 26 teams.[7] However, according to what I've read here (Swedish source), this tournament will be the follow-up to European Trophy: (translation) "European Trophy will become the European Club Competition and the biggest difference is that the IIHF and the national leagues are financing and sanctioning the tournament – which will be the hockey equivalent to the football Champions League.". We have three choices:

  1. We create an entire new article about this league;
  2. We update the current Champions Hockey League article;
  3. We update the European Trophy article (after this year's playoffs has concluded) and rename the article to "Champions Hockey League".

I'd personally prefer the second option, given that it seems the IIHF plays the biggest part in the tournament. Heymid (contribs) 07:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I would vote for #1. If the earlier one-off could be phrased in a paragraph or two in an article about this new tournament, that'd be one thing, but it's a good-sized article. Ravenswing 10:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
My preference would be to go with the first option and create a new article for this incarnation of the tournament. The IIHF article doesn't offer any indication that the new CHL is in any way related to the one that operated during the 2008-09 season. In fact, according to both the IIHF and aftonbladet.se articles, the tournament has been borne out of the European Trophy, which is in no way related to the original CHL. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 18:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I (Heymid) am open to suggestion #1 too. I think the best way to go about it then is to move the current Champions Hockey League article to Champions Hockey League (2008–09) and write a new article at Champions Hockey League about the new tournament. You're probably right that this new Champions Hockey League should not be considered a relaunch of the former tournament with the same name. Heymid (contribs) 22:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done; The original Champions Hockey League article moved to Champions Hockey League (2008–09) and a new article at Champions Hockey League about the new tournament created. Heymid (contribs) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a merge between Champions Hockey League (2008–09) and its only season 2008–09 Champions Hockey League would be appropriate? Boivie (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This is just my opinion, but I'm not sure about it. The Champions Hockey League (2008–09) article is about the tournament itself and the 2008–09 Champions Hockey League article is about the tournament's only season. Merging those two articles would make a rather long article, I'm afraid. But I'm open to suggestions. Heymid (contribs) 08:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Winter Classic logos

Can we find and substitute logos with Bridgestone branding to ones without? The players on the ice will be wearing non-Bridgestone patches anyway. Here's one for this year's event. Jmj713 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've updated the 2014 logos, but I can't seem to find a good quality logo for the 2010 and 2012 games. I've found a good one for the 2011 game, but not sure what to do with the current one in SVG format. Jmj713 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Since it won't be used on any other articles, mark it for deletion as an unused non-free media and let it be deleted. Resolute 04:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, went ahead with that but not sure how to make something for deletion. I understand it should automatically be flagged sooner or later. I would still greatly appreciate help in locating non-sponsored versions of the 2010 and 2012 games. Jmj713 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:orfud}} will mark such files. After seven days, they will be deleted. Resolute 21:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusing leads in field hockey articles.

2013 Men's Hockey Junior World Cup is an article with out field hockey being distinguished in the lead. To me its confusing, but i am unable to do anything. Can someone take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.228.14 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Leave it as is. Field hockey is still hockey. The article still correctly identifies the sport. 173.51.123.97 (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hat trick and Gordie Howe hat trick in the same game

Has anyone ever had a hat trick and a Gordie Howe hat trick in the same game (3 goals, an assist, and a fighting major)? If so, cite it in the Gordie Howe hat trick article. 173.51.123.97 (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Barkov name confusion

After looking through various sources ([8], [9]), Aleksander Barkov, Jr.'s father's name is actually Alexander, not Aleksander, and therefore the Jr. and Sr. is not needed and the father should link to Alexander Barkov, while the son should link to Aleksander Barkov. There has been nothing going on on the redirect for discussion page and I need more input on the situation so that we can settle this sooner than later. Thanks! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexander and Aleksander are the same name. I think you would need a reference proving that his father is actually, legally in Finland known as Alexander - otherwise I think this is just the case of transliterating his father's name from Russian sources to English (and simplifying 'ks' to 'x') and his son coming from a country with latin characters where no translit was needed. I realize this goes against WP:COMMON, but at the same time you're trying to prove that the "Jr." isn't applicable, but on his own official Facebook page it says "Aleksander (Sasha) Barkov Jr."--Львівське (говорити) 20:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Creating standards for leagues

While I was resistant when drafting the NHOCKEY criteria and subsequently, I've come to think -- however reluctantly -- that we need to borrow a march from the NFOOTY folks and define explicitly which leagues match up to which criteria, as they do here. Some of you have seen the growing heap of AfD/RfDs I'm putting out against the mass of non-notable players for whom Dolovis has seen fit to create, in open defiance of all notability criteria and the GNG, but among the recent ones are a bunch of players from the Swiss leagues. I think we can all agree that the Swiss "A" league doesn't satisfy criterion #1, not being a top professional league, but we should say so explicitly ... and where does the Swiss "B" league fall? With criterion #4, for instance?

I know this isn't going to be an easy task, especially complicated by eras: for instance, when's the point at which we transition the original IHL from its semi-pro days (and criterion #4) to its latter days and parity with the AHL (and criterion #3)? Where do the lead German, Dutch, Italian and British pro leagues fall? Unfortunately, I think the time's here when we need to decide. Ravenswing 03:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Here here. A necessary undertaking to hopefully resolve what I've seen as gaming of the NHOCKEY system beyond its original intent. Hwy43 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to say I have been hesitant as well. But seeing the constant gaming of the system by Dolovis it is starting to get pretty ridiculous. When the original criteria were drafted we thought people would use common sense, but as the saying goes common sense isn't so common. But I can see some pretty nasty debates coming up. Originally all top national leagues were intended to meet criteria #1. But with more and more leagues in places like Mexico that clearly isn't a good way to go about it. I'd suggest a page like footy with a listing of exactly what leagues fall into what criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Are we sure about the Swiss National League being ranked where it is? If we are talking about equivalents, it seems strange that we have a group of peers competing at the Spengler Cup (with the Swiss team often winning), but ranking them so low in this somewhat arbitrary tiering of notability. Canada Hky (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, only quibble I would have is to move Swiss league up a level to minor pro and moving Norwegian league down to lower level. Patken4 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on both as well. I'd love to revisit the 100 game threshold for minor-pro as well since it is a ridiculously low bar, but that is outside the scope of this proposal. Resolute 22:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I also would agree that the Swiss league is too low. Its at least on par, and arguably better, than the DEL. And if you factor in that many of the players in the league have played in the NHL or were notable in lower leagues, it should be enough to move it up. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added CanadaHky and my comment to the talk page. Discussions should continue there about league placements and anything else related to this. Also, Resolute and Kaiser matias's comments have been moved. Patken4 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Upon first glance, the assessment of leagues appears to be mostly accurate, and I am in favor of implementing a more specific guideline for which leagues meet NHOCKEY criteria. However, after going over the list in more detail, there are several changes that I would like to propose. First off, the Austrian, British, Dutch, Italian, and Norwegian leagues should all be bumped up a rung to “Fully professional minor leagues” as they all serve as such and ranking them below leagues such as the HockeyAllsvenskan and Mestis is decidedly arbitrary. Ditto for the Eishockey-Bundesliga, especially when taking into account that it is ranked a level lower than the DEL, despite the fact the aforementioned league was actually its direct successor. For the last 20 years of its existence, the DDR-Oberliga consisted only of two teams comprised solely of the best players from East Germany (and even prior to that it was still of a decent level), so it also has a convincing argument to be moved up a level. It also appears arbitrary to have the Slovak Extraliga ranked below its Czech counterpart. The leagues are generally considered to be similar in structure and level, so I’m not sure what the basis for it being ranked a level lower is. Finally, some other Euro leagues such as the Belarusian and Ukrainian ones should be added to the “Lower-level leagues” section, along with a few North American minor leagues (e.g., the SPHL, LNAH). In conclusion: the proposal has promise, but it still needs amending to serve as an accurate assessment of the various leagues around the world. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 14:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It is going to be somewhat arbitrary, that is what these lists are. It isn't about skill, so much as it is about news coverage. If players in these leagues will have the same level of news coverage that goes towards meeting the GNG. To use one of your examples, an Italian league player isn't going to get even remotely the same coverage in the media that a HockeyAllsvenskan player will even though one league is the top league in their country and the other is not. The headings on the page I suppose are somewhat missleading and can still use some tweaking. Either way discussion should continue on the talk page of that page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, show evidence that enough RS coverage exists for the majority of players in those leagues to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, and we can begin that discussion. SNGs are meant to reflect notability requirements, not shortcut them. Resolute 20:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say to bring the discussion to that page. That being said, I agree with Djsasso's assessment: the Allsvenskan and Mestis are important leagues in hockey-mad countries, quite comparable to the AHL. Those other leagues aren't. As far as leagues such as the SPHL and LNAH, those are outright semi-pro. The point of these subordinate notability criteria is that they indicate presumptive notability: that someone who is (say) the all-time career leading scorer for the CHL (that being Joe Burton, who really ought to have a standalone article whenever I get off my duff and write one) probably has received enough non-routine press to meet the GNG. Loops like the LNAH don't generate the same level of press. Ravenswing 07:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Senior AA teams notable?

Just noticed that Whitecourt Wild was recently created. It is a senior AA hockey team. Don't recall seeing articles for such level of teams before. Do articles for similar teams exist? Not convinced that this team is notable enough for its own article. Hwy43 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We have only a few articles on senior AAA teams. Senior AA could be notable, but would be dependent on the sources. And the three in that article are not encouraging. Resolute 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the league source fails WP:GNG while the second source is simply WP:ROUTINE. The third source is unrelated and supports information about the coach only. Looks PROD-worthy to me. Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been PRODed. Hwy43 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Estonia

Looks like there are a bunch of edit wars brewing again on the player articles of players from Estonia if people want to keep theirs eyes on some of those articles. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh great! <-- That is what the kids today call 'sarcasm'..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
And a couple others from the last war, including a certain Estonian nationalist, crawled out from under their rocks after a couple others took up the fight too. Facepalm Facepalm . Resolute 16:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
are there certain players in particular or all of them? lovely, just lovely. Just as I'm getting into it with a russian nationalist on another WP, this nightmare comes back to haunt me --Львівське (говорити) 17:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well its on most of them. A number have been placed under protection by another admin already. They were doing it on lesser known players so I didn't catch it until it had been going on for weeks. One guy has already been blocked for switching back to the projects preferred version and another editor was chastised for not knowing it should be Estonia only (in their opinion). They always point to other articles saying see the other articles do it that way. But if you look at the history of those articles, its cause they changed them. Its pretty ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Just remember to note the date. You changed one player who was born in 1993 to say USSR, even though he was born nearly two years after the USSR itself ceased to exist. Other than that, I agree, its ridiculous that they are doing this again. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that was me being blind. I thought it said 1983. My bad. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the ol' "Everybody's doing it" move. Classic. --Львівське (говорити) 20:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1992 WJC - USSR/CIS/or Russia?

For 1992 WJC the article uses a combo of USSR and CIS depending on the date since it took place in the year the Soviet Union collapsed.

IIHF says USSR won, TSN says CIS. Then this story from the IIHF confirms there was a name change, but it also says "the IIHF erased all trace of “CIS” in the record books and credited the gold medal to the new nation, Russia."

Which is the correct answer?--Львівське (говорити) 19:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia is a mess, it says Soviet Union in the medal table, but notated as including CIS in 1992, then on the tournament page it says Russia, but notated as CIS. It is confusing the more I look. I think the comment about erasing the CIS was in reference to the Olympic team as Tikhonovs "last hurrah".18abruce (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait, so the IIHF credits Russia was winning the Olympics when the Unified Team played? How can they do that, they had their own IOC code; the IIHF doesn't trump the IOC...--Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Unsurprising, but we've seen many cases, from the HHOF website to NHL.com to various team pages, where matters run the gamut from merely getting the facts wrong to outright spin doctoring. Ravenswing 08:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris Thorburn's position

The article lists him as a center in the infobox, but I haven't seen any reliable source for that statement. Should that be changed? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed from infobox. This kind of thing is typically someone trying to be helpful, they will see a player playing a position for a couple of games or so and add it to the players page. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Left wingers who won the Conn Smythe Trophy

The article says Bob Gainey is the only left winger to win the award. The statement in the article is not entirely true and misleading. Mark Messier and Henrik Zetterberg played left wing and won the award. Should centers who primarily play left wing with a specific team count or not? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Playing the odd game at another position doesn't really make you that position. If most of your games are at centre and you have a small portion at another position you are still a centre. -DJSasso (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
What is confusing is that several teams have more than one center on the same line fot the majority of games. How should this be noted? With a footnote? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be noted at all. Its trivia. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY changes

FYI

Recent changes were made to WP:NHOCKEY to incorporate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/League_assessment into the notability guideline. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Notable_leagues_maintained_by_WikiProjects.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

NHL outdoor games

I have started a discussion on the addition of a statistics section to the NHL outdoor games article. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FIle of Dit Clapper

Hello. The commons:File:Dit Clapper.jpg has been listed at Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. I would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

--TaraO (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Listing announced attendance or verified attendance rates?

When noting attendance numbers for games, should we go by the announced attendance (most often the number of tickets sold) or the verified attendance (most often the number of tickets scanned)? For example, the attendance for The Big Chill at the Big House was announced as 113,411, but Guinness revised this number a month later to 104,173 based on the number of tickets scanned. When sorting in tables and in article prose, should we go by the announced attendance or the verified attendance? Heymid (contribs) 12:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could go by the confirmed attendance, but add and end note stating what the announced attendance was? Given that these attendance records are attached to Guinness, we should stick with the certified totals. Resolute 14:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm mainly thinking about the List of ice hockey games with highest attendance and List of outdoor ice hockey games articles. If we're looking at the attendance number for the 2009 NHL Winter Classic game, which didn't break any world records at that time, it was 40,818. Has Guinness been involved in that case, or is there only one known attendance number for that game? In the first two articles I mentioned, we go by the 40,818 number for that game. Does that number cover the amount of tickets sold, or only the amount of tickets scanned? Heymid (contribs) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That number is almost certainly tickets distributed. I suspect Guinness has only been involved in the two 100k+ games. But since the certified attendance is what is truly important for the purposes of the record, that's why I'd use Guinness in those cases with a note explaining why there may be another, higher, figure. Resolute 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The announced included all tickets sold, but for the record, the NHL had to agree to a method for counting attendees with Guinness, which includes scanned tickets and "some league and team officials". So I agree with Resolute's reply: I believe it makes sense to use the figures based on the agreed-upon method, but a note on the announced attendance including all sales may be suitable. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WHA 'Hall of Fame'

Is membership in this [10] notable at all? I simply cannot tell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say a little more notable than I was expecting. I was expecting a fan site. The affiliation with the USHHOF helps. I'd probably go case by case on it. I personally would not call this notable in the case of Gretzky, but a brief mention for some of the guys who made their careers in the WHA would be fair enough, imo. Resolute 14:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I've had the FB page liked for some time, but when all is said and done, it doesn't carry any official standing, however much they're well-organized and supported. It's certainly at least as newsworthy as that Manitoba HHOF that's been jammed into a lot of player articles. Ravenswing 18:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
To be fair the Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame is notable to players in it. As would any other state/province sports hall of fame. Not the level of the major hall of fames of course, but notable in the context of a player article for someone inducted. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates for NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup.

May I suggest that we set up a template for NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup with the names of players and coaches who won the cup in the seasons they won in? We have templates players and coaches who won the Super Bowl, the NBA finals and The World Series, like this one for example. Shall we do that for the teams, players and coaches who the Stanley Cup? BattleshipMan (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been tried, and they have been deleted repeatedly. Personally, I find those templates to be nothing more than unnecessary clutter. A player's teammates in any random season - even a championship one - are no more relevant than their teammates in any other season. My preference is to actually delete the templates in the other sports. Resolute 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This is something that everyone who read these things need to remember in the future in sport articles. It should be set up to know who actually won those trophies, because not many great players get a chance to win Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, World Series and NBA finals. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Those lists are listed on the Stanley Cup Finals articles for the particular year. As well as on the team season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We're are talking about setting up the templates for a team's Stanley Cup winning season and it should be a consensus about that for the future of Wikipedia readers and it's not just ice hockey. They are necessary for some and not exactly clutter, regardless of what others say. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately it hasn't been consensus to do it. They have been deleted repreatedly and a number of wiki guidelines indicate it should not be done for any sport. Unfortunately some sports have chosen not to follow the guidelines. The templates cause clutter in the page and hide the links that are important. Readers if they want to know everyone who was on the team can click on the link to those team/finals pages from the player article they are reading. - DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
These sports templates are not necessary clutters and they don't really hide important links, because they would tell you which players who won the national championship and not just for the player who won it. They should be added in the guidelines, so that why they won't be repeatedly deleted because of that. Consensus should be reach for having templates on teams who won The Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, The World Series and NBA finals, regardless on what others say about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I prefer to let consensus be the guide, regardless of whether an outspoken minority devoutly wishes otherwise. Truth be told, I have an excellent way that people can know who won these trophies: read the relevant articles. Pull up (say) the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals article, and you'll see a nice, handy section with the roster of the team that managed to win the old mug. I don't feel the need to create a heap of clutter just because there are those who don't like to read articles. Ravenswing 20:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There are player articles that need various links to their Stanley Cup victories and that creating the templates of the Stanley Cup winning teams maybe the best one of all. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You can repeat the same thing forever if you like. It won't be more convincing to me, or I think several others here. Resolute 21:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Playing Devil's Advocate here: if we were to create these templates and add them to the team articles, the Canadiens' article would be half templates. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If there are player articles that lack links to times they've played on Stanley Cup winners, then add them. I doubt there are many of them, though. Ravenswing 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
They we should add templates to the seasons where they won the Stanley Cup, with the names of the players and coaches that won that cup, like I said before because they are player articles that can use these templates. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Any suggestions how should add templates for Stanley Cup winning teams with a list of players and coaches or something along those ideas? BattleshipMan (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you many times now, consensus is that we don't use templates for championship teams. Those things are listed on both the Finals page and the team's season page. They don't need to be listed in a template on many articles. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There are player pages that don't have the links to the Stanley championships seasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In the very few player articles that don't mention that they played on Cup-winning teams, that information should be put in. In prose. Those are edits, as it happens, that you can readily make yourself. Beyond that, you've already proposed that such templates be made. Consensus has gone uniformly against you. It's time to drop the subject and move on. Ravenswing 03:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

KHL Junior Draft

In churning through the debris that is Dolovis' article creation list, I've run into this one. While this would normally be a no-brainer AfD, like so many of the others, the player was a first round pick of the KHL Junior Draft. This gives me pause; should this draft be considered on a par with the NHL Entry Draft for terms of presumptive notability under criterion #5? My gut feeling is Not, given that the notability of NHL first rounders comes from the sheer volume of hype the NHL Entry Draft gets, but more voices are needful. Ravenswing 06:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. We had a discussion about this draft two or three months ago and whether it was notable enough to put in the infobox and it was felt it wasn't. So I would say that if it wasn't notable enough for the infobox its probably not notable enough for presumptive notability. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the discussion re: infobox was no consensus. But it was a CfD where a category for first round KHL picks was deleted. That discussion did hold that there was no greater notability for being a KHL first rounder, particularly given the generally limited scope of that draft. This would be another GNG case, imo. Resolute 14:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
My take is that the KHL amateur draft isn't notable enough. The big name notable prospects are for the most part ignored because they know they'll never go to Russia, and other kids who aren't notable but are top in clubs farm systems go in the first because of the protection rule...and all in all, the draft is very low level. Should be on par with the OHL Import Draft IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 15:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:NHL outdoor games

an edit was recently made here to Template:NHL outdoor games and dozens of other navboxes, to allow the coloring to be changed on a per-article basis. this seems to be overkill to me, and contrary to wp:deviations. any one else have any thoughts on this? Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

note that the same editor is also removing the edit links from the navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Removing the edit links from navboxes is not desirable at all. The point of navboxes is uniformity, so changing the colours from one article to the next will become a mess in my opinion. CRwikiCA talk 01:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the edit link should be removed. But I do think the title bar on the boxes linked should be the hockey projects default blue color which looks like what he was doing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
He enables that default to be overwritten. On selected team pages he then gives them the team colours, such that the same bar has a different look for different teams. CRwikiCA talk 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
right, my objection is not to the use of differing colours for different templates, but for changing the colours "on a per article basis". for example, see this edit. the colour of the template should be set by the template, not by the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help establishing notability of local Federation in Puerto Rico

Hi guys,

We need help in establishing the notability of the Puerto Rican Ice Hockey Federation.

The article has been nominated for deletion at:

But we at WP:PUR are completely unfamiliar with this subject.

Could you guys please lend a hand?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes to NHOCKEY

Ravenswing has suggested some changes to WP:NHOCKEY. Feel free to give your input for these changes here. Patken4 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ducks retired number template

I thought about creating a retired number template for the Ducks. The article about Teemu Selanne says he will be the first to have his number retired by the Ducks upon his retirement. Does this mean his number will be retired during the 2014-15 season? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We generally put retired numbers on the team template as opposed to making a separate template. Especially when there are few numbers retired on the team. So in this case Template:Anaheim Ducks will get a retired number section. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
173.51 - Most likely, unless Selanne chooses to play one last season for like the eighth year in a row. Personally, I disagree with adding retired numbers to the team template, at least in the format other sports do it. Linking a simple number offers no real information and can only confuse the reader - there's no navigational value if you don't know what you are clicking on. What most people don't get is that those templates are meant to be navigational aids. A Ducks retired number template would navigate absolutely nothing since it would have only the one link. It would be deleted fairly quick if created. Resolute 15:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
What I meant was a table in the Ducks article. Every NHL team that has retired a number has one. Should it be created just after he retires? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, gotcha. And no, it should be created when the Ducks retire his number, or at the very least, when they announce it will be retired. Resolute 21:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Cup engraving requirements

Under the current requirements since 1976, a player who plays in at least half of the regular season games generally qualifies. If a player meets those 2 requirements but is sent to the minors and not later recalled to the final roster, does he still automatically get his name on the cup? The article doesn't mention anything about this. Does anyone know? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The article does mention it. "a player must have played at least half of the regular season games (usually 41 in current league format) for the championship team (provided the player remains with the team when they win the Cup) or played in at least one game of the Stanley Cup Finals." (emphasis mine). So as long as they are on the roster of the team they get on the cup. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. But what happens if a player plays in at least 41 regular season games, is sent to the minors, and remains in the minors (for the same NHL organization respectively) the rest of the season? Does this mean that such a player would not qualify? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Most likely. That situation would probably be covered by teams making special requests that a player be added. Resolute 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup I am guessing that would require a special request. That being said I can't see any team making such a request because if you spent 41 games of the regular season on the roster then they probably thought you were important enough to put you on the roster for the playoffs and if they didn't its probably because they didn't consider you important enough to be on the team/cup. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you're correct. Ken Priestlay played in 49 regular season games for Pittsburgh in the 1991-92 season and was sent to the minors, but was recalled late during the playoffs as a black ace probably because they felt that someone who plays in that many regular season games should be later recalled during the playoffs and remain on the roster for the rest of the season. He had his name engraved because he qualified. thank you for answering my question. 173.51.123.97 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive59&oldid=595754197"