Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive56

Ideal team

FYI

There is a new article, Ideal team, that deals with virtual teams of top players like the NHL All-Star Team. You are invited to discuss at Talk:Ideal team how best to handle this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

1988-89 Smythe Division regular season stats error

Accoding to my math - the Edmonton Oilers had 84 pts, not 83. Would somebody correct the error, as I don't know how to edit Templates which lack VHD (View-History-Discuss)? GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

j. bob kelly

no argument about how he is listed or diambig., however in the life of his article notation of him being referred to as j bob kelly was removed twice by the same user citing the lack of references referring to him as that. Each and every hockey card of him distributed by Opeechee named him j bob kelly, so what the hell? Twice they picture the wrong bob kelly, but it seems he must have been known somewhat as that. How can that be referenced to avoid removal again?18abruce (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Players, this player did use his first initial to distinguish himself from the other Bob Kelly, who played at the same time. In fact, his entry in the book is titled "Kelly, J. Bob (Battleship)". Quite the nickname! Resolute 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

pretty funny actually that the editor says, "removed sentence about being known as "J.-Bob Kelly"; other than hockeydb.com I can find no reference stating this was true" when hockeydb.com is the only cited source for the article. I am going to add it back in, but I would appreciate some guidance on how I could reference the hockey cards usage of his name and the accidental use of the wrong bob kelly by opeechee and/or topps.18abruce (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the citation for him going by J. Bob. Can't help with the trading card question though, as I'm not sure where to look for that. Card companies have been using the wrong photos for years though. Not surprising they'd get confused by two people with the same name. Resolute 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rene Bourque

A couple editors make a good case here that the diacritic should be dropped from Bourque's first name. I'm not sure we necessarily need a RM, but given how controversial this area is (and given we have people topic banned, therefore should refrain from commenting), I thought I'd see here if there are any objections to making the proposed move. Resolute 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I say remove it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

List of countries with their first National Hockey League player

Seeking input here, concerning possible misunderstanding of section. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion. --Львівське (говорити) 07:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding NHOCKEY

Just a quick one. Does a player who has played over 100 games in the Southern Professional Hockey League and Federal Hockey League qualify under Item #3 of NHOCKEY, or is Item #3 limited to only top ranked minor pro leagues? Salavat (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• #3 is plainly limited to top ranked minor pro leagues, as witness #4, which clearly addresses lower level minor leagues; indeed, outfits like the Federal Hockey League would have to pick up their game considerably to challenge the CHL. Ravenswing 11:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Thought that would be the case. Salavat (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When the answer is unsure, I would default to sources. If there are no sources to describe such minor leaguers in detail, then I wouldn't bother with an article, even if they technically meet a requirement. Resolute 17:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a hypothetical, if say a player has 99 games of American Hockey League experience and 1 game of Southern Professional Hockey League play, would he then qualify? I know the line has to be drawn somewhere, but with the callups that some FHL and SPHL players experience to the ECHL, it would seem that creating a page would likely be limited to these types of players. I doubt that too many purely SPHL players (that wouldn't qualify under the general notability clause) would be attempted to be created. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You would be wrong in assuming that. Lots of players with only SPHL experience (and lower leagues than that even) get created fairly regularly. Although not as many now that we have these standards in place. It used to be a single pro game got you an article so there were people creating articles for every player in the SPHL. A number still get created but not like they used to. However, as recently as a year ago Dolovis was going crazy on SPHL and similar league players which led to a number of prods or afds. -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

List of NHL players (A), B, C, D...

Looking at these lists, they have all been long abandoned - new players have not been added in five or six years in most cases. Consequently, these lists appear to offer little value. Is there any reason to think they can be salvaged, or should I just nominate them at AFD? Resolute 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I find these lists a little pointless myself but I'll eat my skates if you can get them deleted at AfD. The article traffic statistics seem to show that they do get some traffic so I suppose it would be a bit of a loss for some readers. That alone will let it survive AfD. These lists are impossible to maintain manually and in an ideal world, they would be maintained by a bot. But actually, there may already be a bot able to figure out which articles in category:WhateverXYZ fail to appear in a given list or set of lists. This would allow a sort of semi-automated maintenance that would be somewhat manageable. (And to be clear, I am not volunteering to do this!) Pichpich (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely not nominate them for deletion. These are very useful pages if updated. And I doubt they would pass AfD either way. We just need someone with one of the recent books with the players lists to have a go over them. Heck if I had a recent source I would go over them myself. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how incomplete these lists so maybe this is silly. But if you're interested, even without these external lists, I think it would be relatively straightforward to get a list of names that appear in the subtree Category:National Hockey League players or in the team-specific lists (like List of Anaheim Ducks players) yet do not appear in the full list of NHL players. That would be a start. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The lists are 5-6 years out of date. I guess my question is whether this is a better way to search for players than the alternatives, including categories and team-specific lists. Because not only do they need massive updating, but they also need continual maintenance. Resolute 17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they all complement each other. Personally I use the overall list all the time and rarely use the team lists. But that is because I am usually searching for player info by name instead of through team. I think they need to stay. Different people need different methods. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

They only need to be updated after each season no? —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 22:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation for biographies

Hello everyone. Recently I moved two articles about hockey players named Jim Johnson born in 1942 and 1962 respectively. In the hockey world, everybody calls them Jim Johnson. Hockeydb calls them Jim Johnson [1] [2], Legends of Hockey calls them Jim Johnson [3] [4], the NHL calls them Jim Johnson [5], the hockey cards call them Jim Johnson [6], reference works call them Jim Johnson [7], the media at the time called them Jim Johnson. Yet these articles are not to be found at Jim Johnson (ice hockey b. 1942) and Jim Johnson (ice hockey b. 1962). Instead, they redirect to Norman James Johnson and James Erik Johnson, names that almost nobody has ever used to refer to them. This, I am told [8], is apparently the way to handle hockey player disambiguation. This needs to change for a number of reasons.

1. First and foremost, this hinders the reader's ability to find what he's looking for. Of course, thanks to search completions, it does not make it very hard but from a reader's perspective, I see no advantage in using middle names that nobody has ever heard about. And practices that make life more complicated for our readers should be dropped. A similar issue is that according to the MoS disambiguation pages must list the obscure name but the reader still needs to know who that person is so we have no choice but to write something clunky like "Norman James Johnson, better known as Jim Johnson, ice hockey player born in 1942 who played in the WHA and NHL". It's clear to me that this is not as helpful as "Jim Johnson (ice hockey b. 1942), NHL and WHA player."
2. It's not even clear that the middle names we're using are correct. I can find no reference to confirm that Jim Johnson (b. 1942) is really named Norman James Johnson and in fact Legends of hockey calls him Jim James Johnson. Strictly speaking, I would need to add the {{citation needed}} to the title! Using obscure middle names leads us to absurd outcomes. A few months ago, I made a similar case for disambiguating a bunch of Sean Collins and the middle initial solution was dropped into a more explicit disambiguation.
3. Using this convention can lead to strange renaming in the future. For instance suppose some 20 year old kid named Andrei Markov gets to the NHL this year. Instead of moving Andrei Markov (ice hockey) to Andrei Markov (ice hockey, b. 1978) we would move it to Andrei Viktorovich Markov. This makes no sense.
4. The convention adopted by the Ice Hockey Project is non standard and as far as I know, other sports biographies are disambiguated using the year of birth if needed. So we have Jesús Sánchez (pitcher, born 1974) instead of Jesús Paulino Sánchez and uniformity is good for readers. To a certain extent, the hockey project can go its own way but only if this has some hockey-specific benefit. I don't see it.

Pichpich (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To your point number one you would have to write that anyway to explain why the article title doesn't match the full name in the lead. Even if it was titled the way you prefer. And as to your fourth one. It isn't unique to the hockey project, there are a number of other projects I have seen who do similar because birth dates are not supposed to be in disambiguation parenthesis if they can be avoided, they are a last ditch resort. Considering now that the search box also shows you redirects when it auto completes for you there is no actual inconvenience to the reader because both options show up. As to disambiguation pages, they aren't an issue either because on them you can include a small sentence describing the person which is a much bigger help than the parenthesis anyway. Now I don't have super strong feelings on this and can easily be convinced otherwise. I reverted because its how we have been doing it for the last seven years I have been on the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it though? I always thought the Steve Smith problem was a near one-off, simply because we had two players with the same common name who played the same sport and were born the same year. I've always considered (ice hockey, b. 19xx) as the primary disambiguation format when we had two players with the same name. Resolute 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In point 1, I'm not claiming that the gain for the reader is immense. It is small but it exists and I see no adverse effects of disambiguating by year. Maybe I'm wrong and am also open to be convinced otherwise but I really don't see the advantage of the current practice. Moreover, point 2 is also an important issue: resolving an ambiguity by using a title that nobody can recognize is no more helpful than calling these articles Jim Johnson (first hockey player) and Jim Johnson (second hockey player). Pichpich (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute. No we use middle names on lots of articles. I believe it is codified on a project page somewhere about naming conventions. And if you look in the archives there is at least one discussion about it where it is mentioned that while we prefer middle names that people shouldn't waste time going to look for them just to get rid of the parenthesis. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey)#Players, but this section also points to the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating, and to be honest, since no additional disambiguation options are being provided in the ice hockey-specific guidelines (as is done in the baseball-specific guidelines, for example), I don't see any reason not to just follow the general guidelines. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The irony about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey)#Players is that it uses Greg "Gus" Adams and Greg C. Adams as examples of recommended titles but these were respectively moved to Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1963) and Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1960) more than three years ago. (I should note that on Talk:Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1963), one editor complained in 2007 that he'd never heard of the "Gus" nickname.) In any case, it seems like the guideline doesn't faithfully describe current practice (Sean Collins is another example) so it makes sense to revisit this. Pichpich (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it also occurred to me that readers browsing categories have absolutely no reason to believe that the Norman James Johnson they see listed (and that they had never heard about) is actually the Jim Johnson they are looking for. That's a common search method and using unknown middle names is really detrimental in that case. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey)

Can I bump this thread? :-) I'd like to propose the following change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey). The disambiguation section currently reads

In the event that a player shares the same name as another notable person, use one of the following options:

• Use (ice hockey) following the players name, such as John Adams (ice hockey).
• Use middle, or nicknames, for the article title, such as Greg "Gus" Adams, Greg C. Adams, and Tiger Williams.

I propose to replace this with

In the event that a player shares the same name as another notable person, use one of the following options:

• Use (ice hockey) following the players name, such as John Adams (ice hockey).
• Use middle, or nicknames, for the article title, provided that the nickname or the middle name is sufficiently common and used frequently in sources. For instance Tiger Williams.
• When two or more ice hockey players share a common name, use the players' year of birth. For instance Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1963) and Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1960).
• When two or more ice hockey players share a common name, use the players' position. For instance Sean Collins (ice hockey defenceman), Sean Collins (ice hockey forward b. 1983) and Sean Collins (ice hockey b. 1988).

I think it's fairly common sense to stay away from unknown and often hard to even verify middle names and nicknames. But it's also a better reflection of actual practice as the Greg Adams example shows. Pichpich (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. Resolute 17:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How about more simply:

Follow Wikipedia's guidance on disambiguating biographies, using "(ice hockey)" as the disambiguation tag if necessary.

After this, if desired, a list of examples could be given. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That could also work and I wouldn't mind but I was under the impression that the project rather liked having a little bit of extra control on this issue. Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked the last point regarding the player's position. As far as I could tell, the rest lined up with the general guidance and so I didn't see a need to draw up a separate set of guidelines (and the last case is sufficiently rare that codifying might not be necessary). However, I can see how editors would appreciate having a checklist they can just go through. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now made the change. In the coming weeks, I'll try to find cases where the middle name or nickname used for disambiguation is pretty obscure and needs to be changed. Pichpich (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Conference championships in team infobox

Periodically we have issues with this field as editors try to add years a team finished first in the regular season, though the field was always intended to represent winners of the Wales or Campbell trophies. This also creates issues with the period of 1975-81 when the trophies were awarded as regular season awards instead of playoffs. And if the proposed realignment goes through, who knows how this will change? I am wondering if there is a better way to render this. We might simply create fields for the Campbell and Wales trophies - though that creates some issues with redundancy to division championships (1968-74) or Montreal's case where they've won the Wales Trophy for many different reasons, including as league champion. Or we could consider a field called "Campbell/Wales Trophy (since 1975)" to specify what we intend the field to mean. Or perhaps a different way entirely. Thoughts? Resolute 16:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would wait to see what the new realignment brings and then change it based on that. I don't think its so big an issue that it needs to be changed immediately only to have to change it again possibly depending on what the future brings. That being said the last option is probably the best. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of the infobox, where I think the key bit of information readers are looking for is the playoff result and not the regular season outcome, how about cutting to the chase and just listing something like "Stanley Cup Finalist" or "NHL Championship Finalist"? The division championships can be replaced with "Stanley Cup Semi-finalist" or "NHL Championship Semi-finalist". isaacl (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree. I look to it for regular season and playoff result. Semi-finalist I wouldn't think would matter to most people compared to a divisional championship which is won in the regular season. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The NHL's constant changing of criteria for these 2 trophies, makes the winners difficult to organize. Isaacl's proposal seems workable. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is the NHL complete disregard for any form of constancy or logic. There seems to be two different situations grout together from above, Division Championships and Conference Championships. Because I don't think they shouldn't both be handed in the same way I will address them separately.

1. For the Conference Championship I was originally leaning more towards changing it to the trophy names, because it is something tangible that was awarded, despite the fact that it has only been awarded to playoff conference champs since 1981. The trophy page can inform of the situation of why is was won and is easily referenced. I have no issues with Isaacl's proposal for the conference (it probably handles the expectation better), thought it will probably need to be changed to Stanley Cup Runner-up or similar. Finalist by definition would be both teams so would probably lead to duplication for the champions.

Whatever the case is it should probably be changed to something consistent since the concept of conferences seems to hold no weight in the NHL history. For the 1977–78 NHL season the Islanders finished with the best record in the Clarence Campbell Conference, but were given the 3rd seed in the playoffs.

2. More fun with Divisions. Unlike conference champions where the expectation is that they played for the Cup. I think the expectation is not where a team finished in the post season, but finishing the regular season with the top record in your division (I know there is a problem given the years of playoff division titles which is always confusing). Division championships do hold some weight within franchises and fan-basses with their celebration and banner hung to honor them. For example there was a minor stir for the Panthers and Coyotes for winning their first division championships last season. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

How about separating the regular season results from the playoff results:

• fields for regular season: Division leader, Conference leader
• fields for playoffs: NHL championship runner-up
• fields for trophies: Prince of Wales / Campbell trophy recipient

The last one would follow the byzantine NHL rules for awarding the trophies, and the first two would be a straightforward tally of the team's results. (On a side note, Habs fans have no idea what a "dee-vih-zhun-null" (is that how you say it?) championship is :-) isaacl (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Red Wings Marquette Prison game

Just saw this great video, which reminded me about this really unique and amazing event in NHL history. There's a brief mention of this game at the NHL Winter Classic article, but I think this could be a full-fledged article in its own right. Are there sources we could use? They show a lot of newspaper articles and photos of the game in this short video, so there has to be some information out there about it. Jmj713 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1924-25 Canadiens logo.png

file:1924-25 Canadiens logo.png has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalist moves

Hate to narc on one of my own but this guy has been moving all the Ukrainian hockey player articles from common use name to Ukrainian translit' versions (Mykola Zherdev and Oleksiy Ponikarovskiy, for example). Not in the mood to revert 50 edits at the moment, so documenting it here in case I forget. Also, not sure he's done his warpath yet. --Львівське (говорити) 05:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also by looking at his talk page, he appears to be a sock account, He has Pasko 3, and presumably Pashko 1 and who knows, more?--Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Go put a request in at WP:SPI if you think he is a sock. Beyond that I probably going to steer clear. Not in the mood for another diacritics/sovereignty situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

dont care enough to do it so long as hockey articles don't get renamed en-masse again. he was blocked for the time being.--Львівське (говорити) 04:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I had it fixed on Vandalism reasons. The user had been warned previously not to do this. I believe one of the Admins have straightened out the moves. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sasso, need you to move the zherdev article, admin accidentally renamed it 'Nicolay Zherdev'--Львівське (говорити) 04:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sergei Fedorov Quote By Author and Journalist

Hey everyone, on the Sergei Fedorov article page - 2 connected users are upset and removing a quote without a reason, except "they don't like it" and "It's irrelevant". There are quotes on basically every page and this insight provides us with critical detail, which is important to the integrity of Wikipedia.

"when he was on, his game was as close to perfection as you could get on the ice. On separate occasions, Yzerman and Wayne Gretzky told me that Fedorov is the most talented player they’ve ever seen."

This is from an article by Fox Sports columnist, Author, and Detroit radio-host Art Regner http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/08/06/12/Sergei-deserves-warm-welcome-home-/landing_redwings.html?blockID=771773&feedID=3701

Not trying to start anything just think it's valid and accepted. It follows everything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations. They just simply delete it because they don't like what is says. HonestopL 15:49, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking what it says. But a random quote thrown in the middle of a section about his time in the KHL that doesn't say anything about his time in the KHL is trivial and just an attempt to puff up your favourite player. Just like throwing in every trivial award and record like you did in the past. We are an encyclopedia not a fan site. We aren't here to puff up players. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You just made no sense and completely ignored what facts I brought up.

" random quote thrown in the middle of a section about his time in the KHL that doesn't say anything about his time in the KHL is trivial" = Answer: Then why don't you move it to an appropriate section of the article?

I think as a admin, you're abusing powers selectively it feels.HonestopL 16:11, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

What part don't you understand? That in the middle of a section about his playing time in the KHL you added a quote that isn't talking about his playing time in the KHL. That is also just a random quote that isn't accompanied by any analytical discussion about his playing so doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Quotations which suggests quotes must be placed in context. Accusing people of trolling just because they don't agree with you is a little bit much. Please read WP:AGF. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Which admin powers has he abused, HonestopL? Disagreeing with you is not admin abuse. Resolute 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You can just says it's a random quote - doesn't make sense. Now you're changing your answers to fit your own POV. Re-read the Wiki: Quotations section if you need clarification on what a quote entails. You're playing a double game without any facts. You can't prove it so you're resorting to making up random stuff with facts. You're a abusing powers selectively. As a good admin, can you show me where I can open up a complaint about this somewhere else for articles instead of Ice-Hockey?

Give me prove it's not appropriate for the article - you're still just saying fluff and again answer please :why don't you move it to an appropriate section of the article? HonestopL 16:27, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a random quote. All you did was quote the author. It isn't in the middle of a nice paragraph that analytically talks about his skills which is what needs to be done with quotes. Not to mention you cut off the first part of the quote which mentions Fedorov is not perfect. So you are completely taking the quote out of the context it was written in to suit your POV. As for why I didn't move it, because there isn't anything in the article currently that it would be appropriate with. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, but that quote doesn't represent a fact. It represents the opinion of three guys. It's the sort of quote that sportswriters generate for articles all the time, and has no place in a factual encyclopedia. I bet, given about five minutes' search, that I could come up with a half-dozen quotes (other than from Don Cherry, who was no Fedorov fan on his best day) dissing the man. Shall I include a few ... for balance's sake? Ravenswing 19:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Show me where is says "analytical discussion" ON quotations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations

"Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. This page sets out guidelines for such use in Wikipedia articles." HonestopL 16:27, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

(1)Show me wikipedia's defintion for "It is a random quote."

(2)"It isn't in the middle of a nice paragraph that analytically talks about his skills which is what needs to be done with quotes. Not to mention you cut off the first part of the quote which mentions Fedorov is not perfect."

Then why don't YOU/WE re-write it then?

(3)"So you are completely taking the quote out of the context it was written in to suit your POV."

No but if you see a problem Then why don't you WE re-write it then instead you just deleting it - doesn't make sense.

(4) "As for why I didn't move it, because there isn't anything in the article currently that it would be appropriate with."

That doesn't make sense- we can fit in there- let 's re-work it together then now.

HonestopL 16:40, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW - You are now deleting all references of quotations and information off wikiepdia Sergei Fedorov article - okay. Not dealing with you anymore. I see your agenda, will take my complaints somewhere else his continue to edit away. HonestopL 16:44, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

No I simply moved around some information to make it fit the player page style guide. When you are ready to rationally discuss this again feel free to come to the Fedorov talk page and perhaps we all can work something out. That is how wikipedia works, on consensus. There is no need to have a freak out over something that is not that big a deal and can easily be resolved if people talk together with a little decency. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In the middle of your filibuster about the Quotations guideline, you seem to have left out one key quote: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Once again, your quote has introduced no facts. It is an opinion about a subjective, unmeasurable value. Ravenswing 19:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I absolutely love using quote boxes. I think they are a great way to add flavour to an article. So as a personal preference, I have no issue with using this quote. However, it needs to be used in proper context so that it isn't just a random piece of trivia thrown in a random spot on the article. In this case, I think that it would be a decent anchor to a section on Fedorov's playing style, particularly if it discusses Fedorov being viewed as a skill player.

I will add, however, that if you choose to turn this into another edit war like you did last September HonestopL, I will have no problem with blocking you again. If there is no objection to my suggestion of adding the quote to a new playing style section, feel free to construct one. Otherwise, please discuss on the talk page and try to build consensus for your position. Resolute 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

honestopl: When you gripe about the "2 connected users" who are not allowing you to have your way, I assume you are referring to myself and djsasso. Am I correct? I'm curious why you think we're connected somehow. Just because multiple users disagree with your edits doesn't mean there's a conspiracy against you. For the record, I am against re-adding this quote. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a puff piece from some reporter I've never heard of and it does nothing to improve the article. ChakaKong^talk 02:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think its that great a quote and that better quotes about his playing skill could likely be found. But like I said above if someone were to create a decent section that talked about his playing style then it could certainly be added back as mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

HonestopL, if you want to add it? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As Ravenswing mentioned earlier, the general guidelines on quotations are very clear about not using rhetorical language in place of a more neutral, dispassionate tone. Is there any trace of a neutral tone in a statement that includes such bombast as "his game was as close to perfection as you could get on the ice" and "Fedorov is the most talented player they’ve ever seen"? I honestly don't see how anyone could answer "yes" to that question. I think that alone is enough to prevent this particular quotation from being reintroduced into the article. Yes, Fedorov was a good player, but this quotation gives the impression that he was the best player ever to grace an NHL lineup. We all know that is very much not the case. ChakaKong^talk 18:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not connected to anyone here but I don't find the quote particularly useful. The first part of it is a bombastic and subjective assessment from a writer who can reasonably be labeled a Red Wings fan and a Fedorov fan. The second part consists of second-hand quotes which are provided without their context. That's a poor source for an article. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Dave Dziurzynski fight - knockout - concussion

A discussion has been opened on the David Dziurzynski talk page as to the appropriateness of inclusion of information regarding his fight, knockout, and concussion in the article. Participation from editors interested in NHL related content would be most helpful and appreciated. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Boulerice

This is interesting... check out what I just stumbled upon and reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Boulerice&diff=542960325&oldid=540087130 TerminalPreppie (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Someone is trying to clean up Boulerice's image, eh? ChakaKong^talk 19:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Connor McDavid and the issue of notability

An IP, User:198.84.241.55, has argued that Connor McDavid does not fall under the guidlines of notability. Furthermore when I tried to improve the article, he went ahead and removed it, stating that he is not notable. I'd like some opinions on this. I've argued that since he was granted exceptional status to play in the OHL at 15, and is currently ranked number one for the 2015 draft, it should be fine, especially as we usually have top rated prospect articles created early. He however is adament that McDavid is not notable. So some extra views would be most appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The only part of the guidelines that would definitively support this player's notability is: "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league". Has he done that? Regardless, I wouldn't support the deletion of the article. ChakaKong^talk 19:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he was selected first overall in the OHL draft may be enough to clear up any questions of notability. Being selected first overall may qualify as a "preeminent honour". ChakaKong^talk 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It does not. There are three elements that go into "preeminent honors" and three alone: First Team All-Star, All-American, top ten career scorer. We've a long history of "honors creep" where people argue that This and That should make someone notable, and we were very explicit for that very reason. There are any number of long-forgotten players who were considered Can't Miss Superstars at age 15 who never made the pros, an order of magnitude different from the cases of 18-year-old consensus top ten picks entering the next month's Entry Draft. Ravenswing 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ravenswing is correct, we specifically list 3 exact honours that meet the requirement. Those aren't examples, those are the only options. That being said if you can find enough GNG sources it doesn't matter. But in the past we have deleted players who were drafted first in a CHL league and were projected picks for 1st overall in a future draft. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Simply being taken first overall in a junior draft is not necessarily an indicator of notability. In McDavid's case, however, these are: [9], [10], [11], [12]. He passes the GNG pretty easily. Resolute 13:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention the feature piece in the New York Times that is cited in the article content I restored. Resolute 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As Resolute and Djsasso note, he is definitely notable under WP:GNG even if he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

East Germany national ice hockey team

I am trying to find evidence (that is not a reproduction of our own articles) that shows the East Germany was credited as receiving the european bronze in 1966. For it to be true, the european standings would have had to been adjusted to exclude games against canada and USA, but two primary sources used (passionhockey.com and duplacey's total hockey) state that this practise did not begin until 1971. Since it is indicated that this is a notable event for their hockey team, it would help to have evidence of it, which I can't find.18abruce (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Automatic Reverts

In the Queen's Golden Gaels page, there is a minor error with the hockey section. The title of the section has been simply left as "}}" and cannot be fixed to being called "Hockey" because of the automatic reverts. Would anyone be able to bypass this and quickly fix the section? Not a big deal, just wondering. CalBears99 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content from players' articles

I'm not sure whether this is a case of an anti-gay bias or simply someone interpreting the rules, but 206.45.61.151 is going through hockey player's bios and removing the mention of off-ice appearances by NHL players in You Can Play videos. I know this may not be the best venue to ask this, but I couldn't find a board that would be appropriate. Is the IP right in that the sections they are removing is advertising and that it should be removed? If not these edits should be reverted. I wasn't going to be bold on this and get into what appears to be a quagmire of potential 3RR battles, if this content should not be on players' pages or if this is simply a case of anti-gay bias. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is this significantly more noteworthy than players' appearances in any other PSA? Several Boston Bruins players, for example - Zdeno Chara, Brad Marchand, Andrew Ference - feature prominently in anti-bullying commercials aired in New England. Should that be mentioned in their articles? I wouldn't say so. Ravenswing 02:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My only concern about this is that other endorsements were left on the articles and seemed to be a systematic removal of being pro-gay. The rationale the IP was using is that this was advertising. In an effort to understand what constitutes advertising would this be it, if anything I figured it could be construed as WP:TRIVIA. I guess my concern was that the IP didn't do this on a single page, they sought out all the pages this was mentioned. I would hate to see an anti-gay bias creeping into the hockey world on Wikipedia. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with the IP's removal. Looking at what was removed, all that was added to those articles was "foo appeared in a PSA for Right To Play" and a YouTube link. As Ravenswing says, there isn't much there to make this more notable than any other PSA/commerical a player might appear in. I would agree that the inclusion was more to promote the YouTube videos than anything else. I would think differently of any addition cited to secondary sources, but this is all primary source coverage. Resolute 02:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fair. Quite honestly, I guess if the IP had removed say Pepsi commercials, I'd likely have not even blinked. When it comes to things like gender, religion, race and sexual orientation I always question the motives considering there are plenty of people who are ignorant towards people unlike themselves. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Baltic no-shows

I guess the members of this WikiProject have chosen to back away from the Rfc. Very well, let the revionists implement their preferences at Leo Komarov, other Baltic NHL bios & the NHL team rosters. If the readers are to get 'inaccurate' info? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess some of us don't have the same amount of time to spend in battleground mentality as you. Resolute 00:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't matter to me anymore. The readers will have to put up with the inaccuracies, as some editors are more concerned about 'themselves'. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of us are probably willing to accept the compromise that is being discussed. This was never an all or nothing situation GoodDay. The changes you made were actually contrary to what had developed in the RfC. What is currently being discussed is if City, Estonia (then USSR) is acceptable. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Right now, for the sake of peace, agreement at something seems even more important than what is agreed upon. Hence, I suggest DJSasso to follow GoodDay's balanced decision and behaviour and not to whip up strife again.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, and this comment isn't completely intended to whip up strife by targeting a specific user? Compare that with my comment which was suggesting we agree on the compromise? -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And you are one of the other people interested in fighting a war that I want very little to do with, Jaan. So please, stuff your arrogance. Resolute 13:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in fighting this war and that's just what I wrote in my previous post.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Now GoodDay is changing all countries in birthplaces from at the time of birth to current county names despite both the overwhelming consensus here that birthplaces be at time of birth should be used and the Baltics RfC which has had more than 2/3rds of respondents indicating that Soviet Union should be used. I am torn between whether or not he is just trying to be disruptive at this point because the moves are completely against his stated point of view or if he is being completely WP:POINTy at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lvivske, Resolute, -sche have sparcely particpated in the discussions in the past & no longer bother. Dbrodbeck, Shrigley, Anixx1, Herostratus, HueSatLum & Jon C, haven't particpated atall in the discussions. The latter 6 only contributed to the tally. Djsasso is apparently the only vocal oppostition to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Wikipedia isn't a Democracy. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence and consensus#What_does_not_constitute_silence mentions that "one may run into discussions that two editors with a dispute keep repeating [themselves], sometimes because they are afraid that if they stop, their failure to respond is construed as their consensus. This interpretation is based on the false assumption that 'a huge row' is the only antonym of 'silence'. This is not the case." My opinion hasn't changed, so I haven't felt it necessary to incessantly copy and paste it every few days/hours. Changing "USSR" to "Lativa" etc is contrary to the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles and is disruptive. -sche (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is only one hockey article, Leo Komarov, that would be subject to this RFC, so I don't know why GoodDay is changing these other articles not related to the Baltics. WP:EDITCONCENSUS exists in all Estonian articles for "Estonia", this RFC shows there is no consensus has been achieved to change that status quo. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Make changes to Estonian bios, but not Latvian or Lithuanian? Alright, now I know I'm done with this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You can say you didn't hear it all you want, but the consensus reached by the RFC is to use "USSR". -sche (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you are refusing to accept the fact that Template:infobox person requires a place of birth to be state that has sovereignty over the place. You also seem to be ignoring that counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome per WP:RFC and that voting is contrary to wikipedia policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --Nug (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been away from wiki (life) and missed this rfc, was this different from the previous rfc's? is discussion ongoing? I'm mostly tired of stating the same thing over and over, I think everything that could be said, has been said, either here or at one of the other discussion pages. GoodDay/whomever, if you'd like input or something new develops just drop a line on my talk page so I'll get a notification. Otherwise I don't have the time to monitor my watchlist daily at the moment. --Львівське (говорити) 15:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is still ongoing in that an admin hasn't closed it yet. But most discussion except for a couple people shouting back and forth at each other has stalled. You can find it here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as the hockey bio articles & team templates are concerned, it's best to throw in the towels Nug, Jaan. To keep pushing 'Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania' at this point? will likely be viewed as disruptive. It's not worth getting yourselves blocked or topic-banned over, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, the RfC is clearly running to a consensus to use the Soviet Union. Besides which RfCs run for 30 days and then an uninvolved admin can come and close it. If you are done with the discussion you are more than welcome to stop commenting on it. But please just step back and relax a bit and stop trying to jump the gun. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding NHL seasons in player infoboxes

Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years; reverts. This discussion grew out of a feature article review for an NBA basketball player Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions in the NHL player infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've requested appeal

I've requested an appeal of my restriction here -- GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

League status - should it be the league for this season or the confirmed league for next season?

First of all, this is a minor dispute. Sweden uses a promotion and relegation system between the different leagues/divisions: i.e. you can either promote to the higher-tier league, or be relegated to the lower league, or remain in the same league for the next season. Bajen Fans Hockey played this season in Division 2, and has now been promoted to Division 1 by winning their qualifier for the higher division. That means they will play in the higher-tier league Division 1 for the 2013-14 season. My question is: Should the current league status for the team be just addressed as 'The club currently plays in the Division 1' or 'The club will play in the Division 1 for the 2013-14 season'? I believe the former sentence should be used; since they've won their qualifier to Division 1, it is confirmed that they will play in the Division 1 for the 2013-14 season, there's no doubt about it. I changed it to my preferred version but was reverted by Swedishpenguin. As I don't wish to start an edit war, I'm bringing this up here for discussion. I've also informed the user involved. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Might be minor but it's an interesting point actually. When is it practice on Wikipedia to change from future tense to present tense for teams who have clinched promotion/relegation to a different league. (e.g. from "Team X will play the 2013-14 season in Division 1." -> "Team X plays in Division 1.") My suggestion for the earliest possible point would be when the last match of the current season has been played. Which in the case referred to above hasn't happened yet. Till tmrw evening anyway :D — SwedishPenguin | Talk 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how we don't really deal with this that often, I'd suggest looking at how the soccer/football project does it for their articles. It might be best to just copy the way do it, as its obviously a lot more common there. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Assistant coaches sharing head coaching duties

With the Lightning firing head coach Guy Boucher today, the team has Dan Lacroix and Martin Raymond both listed as head coaches. [13] [14] I am curious as to what the precedence is for this when it comes to the team's history of coaches, specifically at List of Tampa Bay Lightning head coaches and Template:Tampa Bay Lightning. Or perhaps it may not even be so necessary because of their interim status? Any help or clarification is appreciated! Tampabay721 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fan clubs

Curious as to the notablilty or guidelines of having NHL fan clubs on wiki? Noticed some member of Eurolanche has taken the time to add one to the Colorado Avalanche. Should it be left as is? .. or should the site just be added to external links and wiki page nominated for deletion? ...I have no idea! cheers Triggerbit (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Default to WP:GNG. Nearly all of the references are not independent, but I haven't taken a look at if the non-primary links are reliable sources properly focused on the subject. The article does seem like a giant puff piece, however. At least they simply left is as a see also link in the Avs article. Which, if the article is allowed to stand, probably seems fair. Resolute 02:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Jarome Iginla

The Flames just announced he will be a healthy scratch, and the little children are already playing on the article. After he was traded to the Bruins, Islanders and Whalers simultaneously, I semi-protected the article. I'll be at the funeral game tonight, so if anything is announced before its conclusion, I'm hoping someone's around to deal with it. Resolute 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's official now: Feaster has annouced that Iginla has been traded to the Penguins. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 05:32, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Calgary gets Ken Agostino, Ben Hanowski, and Pens' 1st round pick in 2013 Draft. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 05:33, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

And a mighty fine fuckup by TSN too. That is exactly why any reported trade should be reverted until the teams announce. Resolute 05:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I've created pages for Kenneth Agostino and Ben Hanowski. They're really bare right now, so I could use some help to expand them with details on their careers and the trade. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 05:54, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Neither is necessarily notable yet, and unless you add references, you can guarantee they will be hit with BLP-PROD tags in a short while. Resolute 05:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, Morrow, Murray and now Iginla? Pittsburgh sure seems to want to go all-in for the Cup this year; sucks for almost every other team though. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 06:49, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing notable about either Agostino or Hanowski; if they're not BLPed, they'll be AfDed. Ravenswing 08:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I will likely AfD both soon. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say give it a couple days. Simply by virtue of who they were traded for, they are going to get huge GNG-loving write-ups in either the Herald or Sun. Hanowski especially could be a pro as soon as Sunday. Not that going to Abbotsford would make him immediately notable, but if they decided to give him a cup of coffee in Calgary first (ala Backlund a few years ago). No real harm at this point in seeing what shakes out over the weekend. That being said, I suddenly have a lot of articles that need cleanup. Oy. Resolute 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(resp to Canuckian89) Thank goodness, they weren't born in a certain part of the Soviet Union, before August 1991. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Baltic Rfc is closed

The Rfc-in-question has been closed as no consensus, which means no rules covering the related articles. I've tried yesterday to bring some Soviet-born hockey bio articles into sync, but 'yet again' Jaan & Nug reverted my changes. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, read WP:NOCONSENSUS. Your WP:BOLD edit was reverted. Now you can either start a discussion on the relevant talk page or leave the articles alone. What you can do is to return the articles changed during the dispute to their last stable versions. I hope this is not too complicated to understand. Otherwise I can seek help from a noticeboard for an admin to explain it to you. Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here we go 'again' at Leo Komarov. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the RFC closed with no concensus, so per WP:CONSENSUS, the article reverts to the last stable version prior to your change, please stop this disruptive behaviour. --Nug (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who changed the article, after its protection expired. Please stop pushing your PoV. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit-warring that's gotten the Leo Komarov article protected 'til April 23, has apprently spread to Toivo Suursoo, Evald Tipner & Jaanus Sorokin, with a new involved (Sander Sade) editor. Perhaps the ANI report was closed prematurely. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons categories

I just noticed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Edmonton_Oilers_players needs cats added for some players and some images moved into cats. Once a player has their own cat then we can use Template:Commons category to link to their cat over there. I just fixed Ladislav Šmíd and over there and added the link in his article here. For 14 million I wonder if he can send some free tickets my way for the effort. I recently went through all the Oilers articles and found flickr images for those that were lacking. Others may wish to pick their favorite teams and do the same. Just use the advanced search in flickr and tick the three CC boxes at the bottom for images we can use on commons. Then upload with http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php to have the bot verify the licence. Once all players have their own cats then we can trade them easier and far cheaper than the teams do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I am currently working over there to sort them out. But in general unless there are a large number of pictures for each player they don't tend to get their own category and instead belong in the general team categories. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I may have time in the next few days to email the NHLPA to see if they want to provide free licence ones to replace some of the bad ones. Their PR deptartment can create a blanket OTRS licence for them I assume. I don't think that is COI at all if they just want to provide decent images. I assume we want shots on ice in games as opposed to barbecue pics with puppies, kids, and beer though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a COI, as many of our images are provided by people related to article subjects. However, I would not expect a positive response from the NHLPA. Like the league, they are most interested in how much money they can get by licensing their likenesses, and aren't likely give anything up for free. Resolute 01:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the NHLPA and the NHL won't be very receptive to giving free licenses. We recently had to delete some 100 flickr sourced images because it was found the press pass the team gave the photographer to take pictures said they can't be used for commercial purposes which all images on commons must be licensed for. It is the biggest reason I don't look for images on Flickr anymore because the vast majority of them aren't actually licensed in a proper manner. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Those shouldn't have been deleted. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography for how it works with 'house rules'. We can host them on commons even though they broke local rules or contracts, they are still the copyright holders. If you can remember which ones were deleted, or when, or by who, then we may be able to discuss it and have them undeleted at commons. I may email the NHLPA and not the league. The players themselves should have an interest in decent photos here even if the league does not. They may discuss it with the league to have at least one good photo for each player as it is in the best interest for all involved. League, players, and readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I forget the exact reason but the wording on the press pass did make it so they were legally bound to not make the photographs a license that was acceptable to commons, therefore she did not have the authority to release them under an acceptable license even as the copyright holder. I believe it was different than house rules. I will have to look it up. It was part of a major AfD on commons and many people took part. In the end all the licenses where changed to the restrictive license anyway so that the photographer wouldn't jeopardize their pass so they couldn't be restored now anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Legally we can undelete them since licenses can't be revoked once on commons. As well as the fact that their press contract cannot violate a copyright law. We may wish to just let it drop though or many photographers may stop licensing images for use here in case they discover fine print somewhere that they are liable, we are not, and theirs is the only butt on the line.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah commons has typically allowed users to revoke the license so as not to harm photographers in such situations. Going back and looking at the specific discussion it appears it was because she did state on her flickr page that the photographs could not be used commercially but then also had a cc license saying they could be. So there was a conflict. So the person that uploaded them to commons went with the license and not the comments on the page. And it was determined that a misunderstanding of creative commons licensing couldn't be held against the photographer. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case the license wasn't revoked so much as the uploader tagged them with a license they had no right to grant. I felt bad for Bridget because she was trying to do us a major service, but her own license to take photographs precluded the ability to commercialize them, putting an NC restriction on their use, therefore making them invalid for Commons. Resolute 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the reasoning now and agree with the deletions. Back to emailing players. Do we prefer images on ice in uniforms as opposed to barbecue pics then? I think if I email the NHLPA with the correct wording then they may send a note to all of their members. "Wikipedia is wondering if you are happy with the images of you. Please check your articles there and contact us or them to arrange better ones that would improve their articles." type thing. I still hope to kick on Daryl Katz's door and see if he wants a better image for his page. If he does answer as opposed to having me shot then he may discuss the issue about his team and other players in the league.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ice Hockey faceoff.jpg

file:Ice Hockey faceoff.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Face_off probably has better ones. If you upload it to commons then it shouldn't be deleted there. It is public domain so you jut need to source it to the file here and have a trusted user check the licence here before deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Its a pretty crappy fuzzy picture. No real reason to keep it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Milestones

I recently added Sindey Crosby's milestones and a user reverted the edit because it does not match the format Ice Hockey/Player pages format. I was wondering if this would be something that would be beneficial to player pages and possibly getting it added so it doesn't keep getting reverted. - B2Project^(Talk) 01:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Aahhhhh, as a personal opinion, I really don't like a table like that. The real milestones (1st goal/game, 100th goal, 500th point/goal, 1000th, etc) should all be discussed in prose already. I don't see what a table of those, plus very minor milestones, really adds to an article. Resolute 04:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a place for excessive listings of statistics that only serve to puff up the subject. ChakaKong^talk 05:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep like the others mention, those things (but only the truly notable. most in that section are not) should be mentioned in the prose of the article but a table of them would just be an indiscriminate collection of stats with little context. Remember the goal on articles is to use as few tables and lists as possible. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Template: AIHL seasons

The template should be deleted, as the same info is at Template:AIHL. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove that template from the pages its on and then redirect it to Template:AIHL. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Steve Mason

Looking for direction on the right way to disambig. the steve mason who plays for the dutch national team. Both he and the NHL goalie were born in 1988. Not sure of any other details about him that might help.18abruce (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the Dutch player is notable, is he also a goalie? If not, (Ice hockey goaltender) vs. (ice hockey forward) (or whatever) might be a worthwhile direction on this one. Resolute 22:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

He is a forward, and I don't believe him to be notable now, but he does show up in scoring summaries in Division I of the world championships, so I wanted to notate him with as little confusion as possible. I think (ice hockey forward) is preferable to how I saw him detailed (ice hockey born 1988) which still doesn't differentiate between the two.18abruce (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If indeed he turns out be be notable eventually, Steve Mason (ice hockey goaltender) and Steve Mason (ice hockey forward) would probably be the way to go. But, it looks like we don't have enough to create a page for him just yet. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 02:30, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

I do believe our naming convention page does say if we can't go by year to go by position. ie (ice hockey goaltender) -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New playoff bracket for next year's realignment

I've been experimenting with playoff bracket designs for next year's playoffs, since the NHL is going back to the division playoff format. My new bracket is currently at User:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket, with an example at User:Canuckian89/Sandbox. If anyone is interested in commenting, please feel free to do so at User talk:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 22:16, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

We won't really need to create a new bracket for next year because we can go back to using the standard divisional bracket that already exists. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Phase 2 of Wikidata is being deployed on en.wiki (see this RfC). I just want people to be aware of the fact that eventually Wikidata will have a significant on our use of infoboxes (among other things) and I would encourage people from the project to get involved and spend a bit of time working on Wikidata to get a better sense of how it works, what it promises to be, what it currently is, how it can help and how it could create problems. We will soon have discussions (and probably conflicts) over how to incorporate Wikidata in the ice hockey infoboxes and the debates will go more smoothly if everyone has a clear picture of what Wikidata is. Pichpich (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

list of nhl playoff series

I got an article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NHL playoff series. Honestly, I don't know what to think of it. My gut says it derivative trivia. Am I off on this one? TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't decide which is why I have stayed out of the discussion. Its the kind of info I like to see but I can't decide if its worthy of wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I created that list, so I'm biased and so I'm also staying out, but I'd just like to say that this was borne out of my interest of trying to figure out which team played which and when. This is especially handy come playoff time, obviously, and in recent years the playoff articles have always included information of past matchups for the series. As someone who's interested in statistics and hockey history, I felt there was a need for such a list, and I hope it's found to be useful. Jmj713 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason why you should stay out of it. It looks like its staying anyway. Don't take it personally: I find it interesting, but I wasn't just not sure if wikipedia is the place for it. Cheers. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with both sides. It may be a little trivial, but it is also info that I would find useful (not that that is a good keep argument). I !voted keep anyway, after some thought, as I think there is potential. Two things I'd suggest for this article:

• Introductary blurbs for each team. Only a paragraph or so given the size of the article, but note key historical points, teams that are relocated, etc. The point is to win the Stanley Cup, so at least a note of how many championships the team has would be useful in its blurb.
• Denote series played prior to a relocation. I'd suggest italics, and separate total rows for each incarnation of a franchise, plus one for all. (so one row for the Atlanta Flames, one for the Calgary Flames, one for the franchise combined). Resolute 22:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Curtis Joseph

Apparently when a hockey card was made very early in Cujo's career, some personal details (e.g. place of birth) were screwed up. A person connected to him has been fixing some of these errors. Now, they're adding in details of his marriage which I have not found in any reliable source. I don't particularly dispute it; a Google search would suggest it being the case. However, per WP:BLP and the history of erroneous biographical details, I'm insisting on some sort of reliable source -- not Twitter or Facebook. I would imagine an update to his personal website would be enough! I've been reverted a bunch of times already. Can someone else please try and explain why putting in uncited information like that is a bad idea (as someone else could put uncited incorrect information claiming it's correct)? Thanks! Maxim_(talk) 15:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive55#Curtis_Joseph -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I directed an account to OTRS a few months ago Talk:Curtis_Joseph#Curtis_Munroe.3F. I would send that IP to the same place... TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 03:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Double-line issues with Template:IceHockeybox

Often, when putting in information about goal-scorers in Template:IceHockeybox, the information for a particular goal ends up in two lines. This is a big problem because it desyncs the goal information from the corresponding score (1–0, 1–1, 2–1, 3–1 etc). One example from the 2013 IIHF World Championship article: [15] (information about Hollenstein's 1–0 goal spans two lines). Another example, from the 2012 IIHF World Championship article: [16] (information about Sweden's goals spans two lines in all three cases).

It's known that this is dependent on the resolution of the reader's screen, but this happens very often and needs a solution. Can something be done with the template (without breaking it)? Should we change the font size whenever it happens? Or is there some way to adjust the alignment of the information/text so that you can have more characters on the same line? HeyMid (contribs) 19:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

there are basically two ways to fix this, (1) add white-space:nowrap to the style for this row, and (2) split the fields in this row into individual entries so that they can be formatted as individual rows. basically what has been done for {{infobox football biography}} to avoid issues with multiple teams/goals/caps/years not lining up. I, personally, would recommend the second option since that conforms to screen readers which will parse the information linearly (see what happens when you cut-and-paste the contents). Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The other option is to simply omit the assists and only list the goal scorer as is done on the Stanley Cup Playoffs pages. The justification behind it being that anyone interested enough in finding out who had assists on certain goals can easily find them at linked box scores/summaries. Ravendrop 20:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just noted that, if I maximize my browser window size (1366 x 768 is my screen resolution), the issue is not so likely to occur. I don't know what screen/browser resolution should be expected in general, but I tried your first suggestion and added <span style="white-space:nowrap"> to the line/row in question and it actually helped. I'm not sure what it does but it did work! :) Perhaps we can do something more to avoid the issue. HeyMid (contribs) 20:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Without looking it up I believe you are supposed to aim for 1024x768. But as someone mentions above. I wouldn't list the assists personally. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I included assists in articles like 1976 Canada Cup. But lose the first initials. That will save space and might make the difference. Resolute 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle Wildcats

The article for the Newcastle Wildcats is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. The link for the Club's AfD article is here.

It may be that the article came under scrutiny by an admin after a couple of recent changes. The admin in question then deleted large swathes of the article in order to suit their interpretation of policy. When these changes were undone, (subject to a full article review by its authors) the admin issued the AfD and resorted to derogatory terminology 1 in updating some parts of it.

It is my opinion that this article should be kept on to further this project. It should be allowed to grow and be cited and referenced properly.

IanMelb (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

I believe Drmies acted properly with their edits. They removed flag icons that are often considered detrimental to an article and poor external links. Looking at the article as presently constructed, I understand the deletion rationale as well. If you want to save the article, then you will have to add some reliable sources, as the references currently used are all trivial. If you can demonstrate significant coverage of the team, then the article can likely be kept. If you cannot, then I am afraid that Wikipedia policy will necessitate its deletion. Resolute 14:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the Flag icons, but I think the tone was a little high-handed. The o-nly reason that the flags found their way back in to the source is due to the major undo required after Drmies' first edit. We're looking for sources and the like but they're not particularly easy to find, especially for sports as poorly represented in the UK as Ice Hockey. Our only easily identifiable, reliable source is the sport's governing body. We're working to develop the article in to a more encyclopaedic style but I've already had one contributor say "What's the point? They're only going to delete it after we put the effort in".

Bear in mind the ethos behind the article came from this project :"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia." Cheers IanMelb (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

There's another issue with respect to this AfD - it specifically mentions that there are other pages in UK university ice hockey that will also face the same deletion concerns. This doesn't sit well with this project's aims... IanMelb (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

It doesn't, but individual wikiprojects can't trump the overall policies. As one suggestion, you could consider moving the article(s) to the ice hockey Wikia site, where it can incubate for as long as you need to find sources. That would also allow your work to remain, even if deleted here. Resolute 00:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a good suggestion. Mind you, we've managed to locate what we hope are reasonable citations (see below) so we may be in with a chance. IanMelb (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

• Two major broadcasting company references to the club, five regional newspaper articles mentioning it, and an entry in Eurohockey, an online, European Hockey information database. Do you think these might be acceptable?

• Chronicle 25 Nov 2009
• Chronicle 18 Nov 2009
• Journal 22 Oct 2009
• Journal 22 Jan 2009
• Examiner Jan 28 2008
• Eurohockey Club Listing
• Sky TV 27 Feb 2012
• Sky TV 18 Feb 2013

IanMelb (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

Note that simple mentions of a team playing competitive games is considered to be routine coverage and not sufficient to establish notability for the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia's guidance on the determining the notability of organizations for more information). A feature article or other form of in-depth coverage is needed. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidance on the determining the notability of organizations has this section:

• Non-commercial organizations

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

IanMelb (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

See the section "Depth of coverage" (the first subsection in the link I provided) for guidance on sources not considered to be sufficient to establish notability for the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia. In the passage you quoted, the terms "third-party", "independent", and "reliable sources" are linked to further descriptions of the types of sources that are required. It's a lot of information to digest, to be sure; nonetheless, it's necessary reading in order to understand how the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia are interpreted. isaacl (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newcastle_Wildcats . Thanks TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Division Titles between 1982 - 1993

There needs to be a set standard for which team actually won division titles during this time period. At this time there are some seasons during this time period where two teams are listed as division champions. I would say that the argument should be settled by the results of the divisional playoffs from each of the affected seasons. The example that I would cite for this reasoning involves the cases of both the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers during this time period as both teams only claimed division titles in years where they advanced past the second round of the playoffs. Deadman137 (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For a related discussion on conference championships, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive56#Conference championships in team infobox. (Unfortunately, that discussion trailed off before reaching a consensus.) isaacl (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw your note on Talk:Los Angeles Kings. Some teams (*coughh*Vancouver*cough*) have hung division title banners for finishing first in the regular season in those years, while others (like the aforementioned Flames and Oilers) recognize only winning the Smythe Division playoffs. I think that the best solution might ultimately be to add a footnote stating this point. Resolute 13:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox KHL Template

Just a heads up, but it came to my attention after being bombarded with notifications that logos I uploaded were now orphaned, but someone took it upon themselves to drastically alter the khl template without consensus or discussion (its used on majority of east-euro hockey team articles), and subsequent edits on the pages. I did a bunch of reverting...and going to bed now...--Львівське (говорити) 05:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hartford Wolf Pack

The Connecticut Whale have returned to the Wolf Pack identity. I can't rename as the Wolf Pack of course already exists as a redirect. Is there an admin available who can make the necessary magic happen? Thanks.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, and reworked the lead of the article. I left the logo alone pending the release of a new or updated logo from the team. I'll leave changing template links to you, or someone else interested. Resolute 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and swapped the Wolf Pack logo in the article for the Whale logo in the infobox, as the logo appears identical to the one they're currently using on the official website. I'll keep an eye out for any updates.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

2012–13 Boston Bruins season Game Log colours

If we remember all the acessability colour game log discussions that occurred, User:Hydra88 claims that the colours of the game logs for the Bruins are special and don't have to follow the new format. Any thoughts? Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 21:54, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

No, they aren't special. However, we didn't really consider those as part of the discussion. In my view, as long as the current scheme for the game logs meets accessability standards, then it is fine to leave as is if there isn't an apetite for a discussion about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)

That discussion didn't include game logs persay and in the case of Boston, yellow on black is accessible I believe so there is probably no reason to argue over it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally find the combination a bit hard to read, but since the colour pair passes the WCAG 2.0 criteria (though not the 1.0 criteria), it's probably not worth the time to dispute. isaacl (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

World Championship appearance table

I've been looking all over for something like this, and if I'm missing it, would love to be pointed in the right direction, but I don't think we have an overall participation table for the IIHF WC tournament. I would think a table like that would be quite helpful as a separate list article, or as an addition to another. The only trouble is that it seems information about nation participation is strewn around various articles and in various formats, so collating it into a single table appears to be not that simple. Below is a sample, based on Canada's WC participation, and I'd like to see any feedback and whether anyone already attempted such a thing.

Team	Times	Debut	Finals	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total	Best finish (first/last)	Hosted
Canada	67	1920	37	24	13	9	46	1st (1920/2007)	1

Jmj713 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the format you want there are a few tables similar to this in the IIHF Media Guide and Record Book. The trouble there is that the yearly placement chart does not always agree with the yearly summaries in the same book. I would be happy to help, but I am terrible with code and format.18abruce (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can use the above format and just plug in the numbers for the various nations if you have the data available. I'd greatly appreciate that. Jmj713 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That should be simple enough. Couple of questions though, is it designed just for the top level, or participation in general, and is this format different enough from the existing article on the list of medalist to be its own article?18abruce (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at it from a participation point of view, for the top level (at least at the moment; participation tables could probably also be achieved for the lower divisions too), and I'd prefer for this to replace the current medal table as it will be more complete, or else be its own table. I've modified it slightly to look like this:

Team	Times	First	Last	Finals	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total	Best finish (first/last)	Hosted
Canada	67	1920	2013	37	24	13	9	46	1st (1920/2007)	1
Soviet Union	34	1954	1991	29	22	7	5	34	1st (1954/1990)	4
Sweden	72	1920	2013	28	9	19	16	44	1st (1953/2013)	10
Czechoslovakia	52	1920	1992	18	6	12	16	34	1st (1947/1985)	8

Jmj713 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I can work with that, I will develop it in my sandbox soon.18abruce (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've modified a similar table to this format at Ice hockey at the Olympic Games#Medal table and I think it works quite well. Jmj713 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what "Finals" means, there has so many different formats, what does it indicate?18abruce (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it indicates how many times the nation appeared in the championship game. But on that basis, I see no need for it, since gold + silver medals tells the reader the same thing. Resolute 14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hockey goalies catching hand

What is the reason most NHL goalies catch with their left hand? I know a few goalies who catch with their right hand, including Tomas Vokoun. What explanation can be found? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Goaltenders wear the blocker glove on their dominant hand, which is the hand they use to hold their stick. Therefore, the catching glove, or trapper, goes on the non-dominant hand. What you are seeing likely simply reflects the prevalence of right-handed people.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Should a goalies shooting hand be mentioned in articles as well as the catching hand? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Shooting hand isn't really relevant for goaltenders like it is for skaters. I would consider it trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:New Cents.JPG

File:New Cents.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding a "Coached for" parameter for Template:Infobox ice hockey player?

What about adding a "Coached for" parameter for Template:Infobox ice hockey player? I think it'd be a good idea because many former ice hockey players eventually become coaches, and the template is also used for coaches as well. Perhaps we could also add "Coach team" and "Coach league" parameters as well, and/or add "Coach career start" (year) and "Coach career end" parameters? HeyMid (contribs) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely could be done...but I always am a little leary about adding more to the infobox as it is supposed to be a very short summary and adding more info generally makes it cramped. Coaches who haven't played use a different infobox which has this information. But I can see its use for people who have done both. I might suggest having a coached team and coach league parameter for their current team. But then not list all their former teams coached like we do for teams played. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to make whatever changes (if needed; I'm not sure yet) required so that Template:Infobox NHL coach can be embedded within Template:Infobox ice hockey player, or vice versa, as is done with other person infoboxes. isaacl (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think, if a person has had a significant career both as a player and as a coach or manager, then we should put both infoboxes in the article. Regarding the infobox in the John Tortorella article: perhaps we should it replace it with the Infobox NHL coach template? His playing career doesn't seem so exciting, given that he only played in the NCAA, Swedish Division 3 and the ACHL (Virginia Lancers are the only team mentioned in the info box), though he scored alot of points in the latter league. He has much greater merits as a coach. I get your point Djsasso, but I think it's worth noting coached teams in the player infobox if they are significant (such as NHL teams). And that applies to assistant coaches as well. HeyMid (contribs) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd attempt to merge the two infoboxes before I started putting two boxes on. I know that much for sure. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

See William Eckert for an example of how Template:Infobox military person is embedded within Template:Infobox person. Each can be used separately or combined into one infobox, without duplication of code. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That is actually quite interesting, Isaacl! The thing is, in the Infobox person template, that feature has been added to the code of that infobox, and you can actually embed up to six infoboxes in the Infobox person template. We would need to program that feature to the code of the Infobox ice hockey player template (and the Infobox NHL coach template) for it to work, but I don't think this feature is hard to integrate. HeyMid (contribs) 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What are black aces in hockey?

I heard Tanner Pearson was recalled by the Los Angeles Kings during the 2013 Stanley Cup playoffs and is one of the team's "black aces" recalled for their playoff run. What is a black ace in hockey? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's slang for when a team brings in a player from the minors or juniors whose seasons are over, and has them travel and practice with the team, they refer to them as black aces. In this particular case a reserve roster player brought up for the playoffs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How often do black aces play? Pearson played in his first NHL game against the Sharks in the third game of the series in the conference semifinals of the 2013 Stanley Cup playoffs. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Err ... you're wrong there, Fyunck(click). Traditionally, the term applies to those players with a team but chronically not dressing for games generally, not just playoff callups. It dates at least back to Eddie Shore and the Springfield Indians, where the players involved would wear black practice jerseys. Ravenswing 19:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe he had to dress for that game because Jarret Stoll got injured in the previous game. How often has a player called up during the playoffs played in a game who has spent most or all of the regular season in the minors? Do teams often call up players during the playoffs to play in games? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's far from unusual for a player who's played some or all the season in the minors to log significant playoff minutes ... Ken Dryden is the most famous example, winning the Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP in 1971 after having played only six regular season games in his career. Indeed, there are a handful of players who never played in the regular season who did in the playoffs. As far as teams calling up players during the playoffs, this is ubiquitous; usually three or four players will be called up as soon as the minor league team's season ends, or sooner if the big league team looks to be going deep in the playoffs and has had injuries. Ravenswing 04:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Here [17] is where I heard he was a black ace. It was not likely that he would play unless there was an injury to another player. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Aces are quite simply players who are on the roster but are typically healthy scratches game in and game out. Usually players with limited skill who the team keeps around in case their "toughness" is ever required. I would suggest to the original poster that there are more appropriate resources for seeking answers to these types of questions, such as Google and Yahoo Answers. ChakaKong^talk 12:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Pearson was likely to be scratched for the entire playoffs but was needed because of an injury. What do you mean by a player's toughness? An enforcer? Pearson is not an enforcer. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It can be any player who is kept around for any reason but typically doesn't play much. Brian McGrattan is an example that comes to mind; he has very limited skill but has managed to hang around the NHL playing a few games every year. Many of these guys might get lost on waivers if the team tries to send them down to the minors, so instead they keep them around and they practice with the team but usually end up being a healthy scratch most nights. ChakaKong^talk 11:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I remind the user who initiated this particular discussion that this is not the place to be asking questions of this type. In the future you may be able to find an answer at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment but in general, talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles and are not mere general discussion pages. I can absolutely guarantee you that a quick Google search would have answered your question quite satisfactorily. ChakaKong^talk 14:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I made edits and citations as a result of this discussion to improve the article about Tanner Pearson. I did, in fact, ask these questions to improve an article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Cup "appearances"

There's an energetic anon IP who's adding to Stanley Cup Finals articles that players made "Finals appearances" by simple virtue of being on the roster, whether or not they played or even dressed. (One quaint example is listing Aaron Rome as having had his second Finals appearance in 2011, on the strength of being on the Ducks' roster in '07.) We've been having it out on Talk:2011 Stanley Cup Finals, but I see he's adding these columns to other articles as well. I'm already flirting with 3RR, and would appreciate others chiming in. Ravenswing 09:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Appearances" column is an important one, in my opinion, but should be restricted to those players who actually appeared in the Finals. Perhaps game stats could also be added (games played, points, etc.) and those who didn't play are listed in the official Cup-winning roster as engraved anyway. The non-players could also be listed in a separate table maybe. Jmj713 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Our IP is still doing it, and plans to keep doing it, (see my talk page). Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've no problem with an "Appearances" column -- as you say, that's info people would want. Like you, I am firmly in favor of such a column being restricted to players who actually appear. Ravenswing 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry and reverted my edits, made some improvements to articles by noting that they did not make an "appearance", and mentioned that they were on the roster. I never understood the Wikipedia requirement for an "appearance", whether it was by NHL standards or by being on the roster. I did not attempt to vandalize. That wasn't my intention. What is an 'energetic anon IP' anyway? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Anon = Anonymous, IP = you are not a registered user, but are editing anonymously from an IP address, and you seem energetic. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess that I am trying to add several more details. I actually did not make the edit that said it was Rome's second appearance, I just noticed it and got the wrong impression. I just changed that to being his first. I have learned so much from what you have told me. And I will try to be more careful when making edits. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much being careful while making edits, but to gain a greater understanding of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. The links at WP:PILLAR are a good start. Ravenswing 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I will note that they did not qualify to have their name engraved on the cup and did not make any appearance with a footnote; but list them as being on the roster and included in the celebration on the ice; because they were on the roster and in the series winning celebration on the ice. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Cup championship complete rosters

I am trying to get a consensus if I should list players who did not appear in the Finals and cite sources to prove that they were on the roster at the time and include notes that they did not appear, did not have their name engraved, but were in the celebration on the ice after the game that the team won the series. I have been doing research to find the complete rosters. Examples include the 2006 Stanley Cup Finals, with Craig Kowalski, Keith Aucoin, and David Gove on the Hurricanes roster. Another example is the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals with Colby Cohen and Trent Whitfield being on the Bruins roster. Should I add them to the rosters to make the articles' rosters complete and add footnotes that they did not make an appearance or have their name engraved on the cup? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Only players who play in games during the finals are considered to actually be on the roster. Those who don't play are usually considered to be on reserve or are Black Aces to refer to another discussion above. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at several Finals articles, like the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, It mentions for Doug Lidster and Brad Lukowich. The 1989 Stanley Cup Finals lists Sergei Pryakhin. The 1986 Stanley Cup Finals lists Steve Penney. You mean I cannot add these players in 2006 and 2011 with footnotes like the other mentioned articles have, and I cannot list everybody in the picture or celebration? These players were included in the team picture or celebration. There appears to be some double standard with these articles. I just want people to know who these players in the team pictures are. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You aren't seeing a double standard, what you are seeing is Wikipedia. Not every thing gets noticed. People add such things and its up to someone else to notice they got added and fix them. They should be removed from those articles and I will do so when I get a chance to verify if who played what. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why I should not mention Black Aces or reserve players in a Stanley Cup championship picture or celebration on the ice in the articles with footnotes. Several articles do this already, like the 1986 Stanley Cup Finals, 1989 Stanley Cup Finals, and 2009 Stanley Cup Finals. It seems that you don't want me to mention them and want me to only mention players on the cup, just like The New Jersey Devils do; even though most teams include these players. Willie Mitchell was not in the Devils team picture in 2000, but Colby Cohen was in the Bruins picture in 2011, and Steve Penney was in the Canadiens picture in 1986. I am only trying to present facts to articles to mention these players were in the picture improve them. Why can't I mention that they were in the team picture? How will anyone know who they are? Are you some Devils fan wanting others to only mention qualifying players, impose their standard on other teams, and make it seem as if they are not there; even though they have different standards? I can even cite sources to prove my statements. It's true that they were in the team picture. I cannot mention that they were in the picture? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your question has been answered. Read it again. ChakaKong^talk 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What do sources say? I'm sure there has to be a book or something that lists who was on a roster in the context of the Stanley Cup Finals that we can reference. Resolute 19:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There are sources, like [18], with the picture officially coming from the Hurricanes, that mention that these players were in the team celebration. So many Stanley Cup Finals articles mention these players, albeit with a footnote that they did not appear or qualify to have their name engraved on the cup, but did get their championship rings or appeared in the team celebration. In the context of a Stanley Cup Finals roster, there are footnotes that make it easy to identify who qualified; and who didn't, but got to be in the celebration. Why can't I do the same and mention them with a footnote that distinguishes them from the ones who qualify and are officially on the Stanley Cup roster? It seems as if some don't want me to mention these facts as if they are invisible, did not get rings, or appear in the celebration. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be concerned in that example of WP:SYNTH issues. We shouldn't be taking one argument (participated in team celebration) and implying another (on the team roster). Also, I believe the germ of this dispute was arguing certain players appeared in their second (or later) finals, even though they appeared in none previously, but were with a team that did reach it. So I think the question shouldn't be "why cant you do what was done in other articles", but rather, "what should we do in these articles", then go and fix the ones that don't match that answer. And that can be to either add footnotes like you propose, or go back and remove non participants. But to make that call, we need to base our decisions on objective sources. Simply listing names that appeared on the Stanley Cup is one way to do it, but I would be interested in knowing if there are other sources with other methods. Resolute 20:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The dispute is no longer about appearing in the finals, that is resolved now; but rather the complete list of team members, including those in the celebration who did not qualify, to inform people who they are. When I said "on the roster", I meant the entire roster, not just "in the context of the Stanley Cup Finals", as every player participated in the celebration and held the cup. I removed the "actual participants" from several articles and still removing some more, and adding footnotes that they did not appear, and listing only their actual appearances. And I am also adding players who didn't appear, and distinguishing them from appearing with footnotes; just like several of the articles have done. I have even removed "Finals appearance" lists for each non-qualifying player and replaced them with a blank space, noting that they didn't appear. This is another very common method that is much more complete. Is that a fine way to do it? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should start editing articles to add mention of the owner's families and players' children who also take part in these celebrations but did not participate in any games. I mean, if we're going to mention people who had nothing to do with winning the championship but nonetheless participated in team celebration, we might as well be thorough. ChakaKong^talk 21:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is ridiculous. Families of owners, players, and coaches are not even employed by the team, like non-qualifying players are. Resolute said that it is fine, as long as they are actually employed by the team, and on the roster in the sense that they were eligible to dress for games. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the players who were in pictures etc. That much is pretty clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether there is a consensus or not, it is a fact and objective that they were, in fact, rostered players who were eligible to dress and play, but ones who did not appear and were not on the official championship roster on the cup. What is wrong with distinguishing these players who are officially employed by the team with footnotes, and citing official objective sources to back up my statements; just to provide information so people know who these players even are and to know that these people exist? It does not seem that Wikipedia has a policy against this. NHL.com always lists these players on the teams' rosters, whether they appear or not. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As there are many facts that could be included within Wikipedia articles, in order to help readers find the points they are interested in, care must be taken to avoid giving undue weight to a particular fact. I'm not sure what specific types of articles you are proposing to modify with information regarding on-ice celebrations, so I'll take up some different possibilities in turn:

• For articles such as "<year> Stanley Cup Finals" or "<season> <team> season": I believe having a list of every employee who participated in an on-ice celebration would give this aspect undue weight. There are a lot of employees involved and such a list could overwhelm the article. However, beyond just those who actually played, there may be players who contributed significantly to the regular season but were, say, injured and unable to take the ice for the finals, and it may be reasonable to mention them in a prose description of the celebration.
• For a person's article: Again, I think it would not be necessary to mention this for every employee, as the event is not one for which every employee will be remembered—the contributions made to the team's success are more important. If the employee made significant contributions to the team's performance, or there is a significant human interest aspect that is covered by multiple independent, reliable, and notable third-party sources, then it may be reasonable to include this information within the article's text.
• For the description on the Wikipedia page for a photo: I think it is reasonable to list all persons appearing within the photo. (Note, though, for a photo with a lot of subjects, it would be overkill to list them all within the caption of a Wikipedia article making use of the photo.)

isaacl (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, it would give the article undue weight if I mentioned team doctors, nurses, ushers, and ticket sales officials, because that is too many people; but including all the players in the picture isn't too much, as there are generally about only 30 players in these pictures. And I think that it is useful so people can remember the teams' personnel who would otherwise not be remembered, as they got their championship rings; even though they did not qualify to have their name engraved on the cup. Dbrodbeck, I am finally getting a consensus that it is reasonable to include some of these team members with footnotes. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anyone agreeing with your proposal at the moment, so it's a bit premature to announce a consensus in favour of your plan. I apologize if my last example was a bit confusing, as I was not able to find an example directly related to the topic of Stanley Cup champions. What I meant was that on a page such as commons:File:Preston_Rivulettes_team_photo.jpg, I think it is reasonable to include a list of all the persons in the photo within the description on the Wikipedia commons page. However, it would not be necessary to list all of these persons within a Wikipedia article that is displaying this photo. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, Isaacl, but I feel that it is useful just to list these select few players to help people know about them, with reliable cited sources, as there are only about 30 players; not every employee, as there are too many. ChakaKong, that sarcastic comment does seem inaccurate, as comparing team members to their family members is like comparing apples to oranges. I do noy feel that it gives articles undue weight, as it is only a few more players. Resolute says that it is fine because Resolute says that a solution can be to add footnotes as another solution. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You think you are "finally getting a consensus"? Based on this discussion, consensus is clearly against your idea. ChakaKong^talk 02:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess not, but I don't think it would hurt to mention and cite only a few players who got their Stanley Cup rings, and use a footnote that they did not qualify, which are facts and objective. Just like Resolute and isaacl think, I think it is fine to present it that way. I don't think that is against Wikipedia's rules if it is properly cited. Since it is only a few players, I don't think it's undue weight. It seems that you don't think that these few players, who are employed by the team deserve to receive rings or be in the team picture, Just like Lou Lamoriello thinks. Other teams' management, like the Bruins, Kings, Penguins, Flames, Stars, Canadiens, and Hurricanes, obviously don't feel the same as Lamoriello. I honestly don't think a consensus matters as long as these facts are cited from a reliable source. I read Wikipedia's policies and do not see anything that says that it's against the rules. I think that I should just be bold as Wikipedia says, and forget trying to get a consensus. While facts about players are objective, the method of mentioning or not mentioning them, and presenting them in an article is subjective as long as sources are reliable. Maybe ChakaKong and Djsasso don't agree with me, but isaacl and Resolute do. The team pictures only have a few people in them, about 20 people less than the size of a football roster, and not even close to listing everyone in the entire organization, just a few more players than just the ones who qualified. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I don't see anyone agreeing with your proposal at the moment, and that includes me. You had responded with "Correct," so I assumed you were aware of this. To better understand how Wikipedia editing is done via consensus, see Wikipedia's policy on consensus. Also, please rest assured that your comments have been read in full, and so there isn't any need to repeat yourself. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolute said that other methods may be interesting, like one proposed method by adding footnotes. Why does everyone else think these other methods are bad ideas? Several of the articles do this already, and I think that it is more informative. When the Stanley Cup finals take place, NHL.com lists the rosters including ones who will not qualify. the article Category:Stanley Cup Champions is also full of non-qualifying players. It didn't seem like a bad idea when those articles were created, as those articles are still that way. But why does it seem like a bad idea now? Has consensus changed? It's just a few people in the pictures, nowhere near the amount of every team employee. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Simply put the NHL is the envy of other sports projects on wikipedia because we have a very objective criteria on who to list. And that is who ends up on the cup. The other sports projects have to argue over and over if getting a ring makes you a champion etc. Frankly when it comes to hockey we are lucky we have such a nice objective criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mm. Chalk me up as another one who'd prefer that the "rosters" listed reflected only the players who saw ice time. Among the several objections listed above, it would be extremely difficult to verify going back in years -- on-ice pictures with the Cup go back no further than Wayne Gretzky, and "official" team pictures were taken earlier in the season in earlier years. Heck, let's take the 1972 Stanley Cup Finals. Could the Bruins have called up Nick Beverley, having only five defensemen on the roster? Possibly. Could Ross Brooks have been called up to have a third goalie around? Possibly. But we have no idea ... because the team picture was taken well before the playoffs (otherwise, you might think that Reggie Leach and Rick Smith were Cup champions that year), and film doesn't exist for an extended on-ice Cup celebration.

  Moreover, there's a crucial point 108.0.244.168 is missing -- what basis does he have for his assertion that being spotted by a reporter in a post-Cup celebration is proof that a player is on the team roster? That is a leap I'm unwilling to make. Does 108.0.244.168 have access to the team contracts, year after year?

  Beyond that, while 108.0.244.168 has asked "why not?" several times, I'm waiting for the "why should we?" ... which would have to be positively overwhelming to warrant playing fast and loose with verifiable fact and WP:SYNTH. Ravenswing 11:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Here[19] is a picture to prove that Jake Muzzin, Martin Jones, and Marc-Andre Cliche were in the Kings team picture, which was certainly taken during the celebration on the ice after they won their first Stanley cup, not before the playoffs. Look at the link with David Gove when he held the cup for the Hurricanes. Footage for these teams does in fact exist. They are not technically official Stanley Cup champions, but team members who receive rings for being in the organization at the time their team wins the cup. I think that we should list them because they were in the organization at the time and the NHL even allows them get to spend a day with the cup, and use footnotes to tell them apart from the official cup winners to provide "a bigger picture" with more detail about the organization's members. As for Reggie Leach and Rick Smith, did they even get rings? Is there even a picture of the celebration? If so, were Leach and Smith even in the Bruins celebration on the ice? You're not under the impression that only official cup winners get rings, appear in celebrations, or deserve to have rings and be in the celebrations on the ice after the series, are you? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Teams give out rings to all kinds of people. Some teams have even given rings to players who played a single call up game early in the season. A ring doesn't really mean anything. The only notable non-trivial fact are the players whose names go on the cup. No one disagrees that various people celebrate at the end of winning the cup. But the only actual winners are those on the cup. And per wikipedia guidelines those are the only ones we list. Listing anyone else even with a footnote would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the fact they happened to show up in a picture of the team as they were celebrating. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You're conflating two separate issues together; participating in the on-ice celebration is not a prerequisite for obtaining a Stanley Cup ring, or vice versa. Spending a day with the Cup is yet another criterion. None of these are related to the roster list that I believe you are primarily interested in updating, and the previously stated reasoning on not giving undue weight to everyone who meets some set of unrelated criteria continues to hold. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • We already have an objective and verifiable way to do this as has been pointed out. This discussion is getting tiresome. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Why is it undue weight just to mention a select few people? Where can these trivial facts go? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
        • A blog you write, or a website you maintain. Or you could even put them on the Ice Hockey Wikia which isn't concerned with notability. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I will instead post there. Can non-qualifying players who have their name on the cup due to successful petition be listed on the roster? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
            • If they are on the cup they are on the list. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• I just found out Leach and smith were traded before the Bruins won the cup that season. They were not even in the Bruins organization at the time. They didn't get rings and also could not have been in the celebration. Thank you, now I can post those rosters and trivial information on the ice hockey wikia. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't mean they didn't get rings. Teams often give out rings to players no longer with the team. This is why we are saying the only objective way to list players on a stanley cup winning roster is to use the names on the cup. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that teams give out rings to players that are no longer with the team. Do they really? I was specifically referring to players still signed to team, as they appear in the picture taken after the last game. Is it fine to cite these sources in the players' biographies instead of listing them on a roster? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake: the Boston Bruins gave out over five hundred Cup rings after their 2011 victory to damn near anyone remotely associated with the team, down to the ushers at TD Garden (I am not making this up). (And yes, sometimes organizations give championship rings to players who were traded mid-season. I don't know of a hockey example off the top of my head, but the Boston Red Sox gave a World Series ring to Nomar Garciaparra in 2004.) That those who did (or did not) get Cup rings is at all a factor in this conversation is farcical. 108.0.244.168, as far as I can see, consensus is unanimously against your stance, and I can't see how further filibustering would affect that. It's time to lose gracefully. Ravenswing 03:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Case is closed for the discussion on rosters. I have no more time to argue anymore. I never had any idea teams that teams ever gave rings to players who were traded. That does seem very odd to me. I no longer insist that non-qualifying players be listed on these rosters anymore. I have now removed non-qualifying players from several of these rosters as well. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)