Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive75

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


help with using the right playoff bracket

The IIHF now reseeds for the semi-finals so I am looking for how to provide the right bracket here. Is there an existing 8-team bracket, or can the used one be modified somehow?18abruce (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I got it. Someone who is better at this stuff could check that there isn't a better way though.18abruce (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Ahah. Beginning with the 2020 edition, they're doing crossovers from the quarter-finals to the semi-finals. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The press release from last May did not indicate the juniors as well but the IIHF is saying so. The official schedule disagrees but it could be just a template being used that was not updated.18abruce (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Pardon me. Not crossovers, but rather re-seeding :) GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Rfc for a navigation boxes for Stanley Cup winning NHL teams

For the purpose of gaining WikiProject consensus, I set up a discussion here regarding a proposal about whatever or not we should have navigation boxes for NHL teams that won the Stanley Cup with the list of players and coaches who won the championship in their respective seasons. We got navboxes for Super Bowl winning NFL teams, NBA teams who won the NBA Finals and MLB teams who won the World Series. Plus, we got a navbox for the hockey players who won the Triple Gold Club. For those reasons, it is possible to have navigation boxes for NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:National Hockey League#Article issues for anyone interested. Otr500 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of quotes from Russia men's national ice hockey team

I want to avoid violating WP:3RR on Russia men's national ice hockey team. Could I get a second opinion, or watchlist help? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Yosemiter perhaps? Flibirigit (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ugh, I am not a fan of the battleground on that page but I put my two cents in. If the problem is with the quote, then I don't see its removal as a problem. However, the source itself looks good and is just one example given as an internal explanation of the post-Soviet struggles of the program. If rewritten, I think During the drought in 1994, Russian journalist Vsevolod Kukushkin reported the Russian team was struggling with finances to support training, no funding was received from the national level, and professional teams in Russia were struggling to stay afloat. He also reported that the Russian people were upset at losing the nation's best players to the National Hockey League, and not playing on the Russian national team. All of the above is pretty well known. I would also look into if the IPs are User:Max Arosev. Yosemiter (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with the rewording. Flibirigit (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information being added on at 2019–20 Ottawa Senators season

This IP user has been adding incorrect information in the statistics tables over on the Senators page. From what I have noticed since I started monitoring their edits last week, some of the players' plus/minus was incorrect, goalies' TOI was completely different from the stats page from NHL.com. I reverted one of their edits last week due to it having numerous errors and made my own revision later on with the correct information. I believe that the user in question is not using any sources because they update the stats nearly 10-15 minutes after every Senators game. NHL.com does not have the stats updated until 30-40 minutes after a game is over. The user has been editing the Senators pages for the last two NHL seasons from what I've noticed since I started editing full time last year. Perhaps a page protection will be required? Any opinions from anybody else? Yowashi (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I really think that the page needs to be protected at this point. The user has continued to add incorrect content which I have been reverting. Should an edit block on the user be considered since their contributions list only has articles related to the Senators? I can assume that the same issues will occur in future NHL seasons. Yowashi (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yowashi: You can ask for the page to be protected at WP:RFPP. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot. My only concern was that I was worried that my request wouldn't be taken seriously. Yowashi (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yowashi: There are no request that are not taken seriously. The moderators look at all cases and the either protect the page or do not. On a side note, I first thought that it was NicholasHui (talk · contribs) evading his topic ban, but the IP address points to a completely different part of Canada. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The page got pending-changes protected until the end of the regular season. Yowashi (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

TSN

TSN needs updating, as it's just signed a 'new' contract with Hockey Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been updated. Now, if only somebody with the know how, would update it's 'football' section, per the new agreement with the CFL ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Sabbatino (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Order of league-conference-division in lead

Currently, the lead paragraphs of the NHL team articles use the standard language of "They are members of the [DIVISION] of the [CONFERENCE] of the National Hockey League (NHL)" in the second sentence. To me, the league in which the team plays is too vital a detail to wait until the end of the second sentence to mention. It's probably something that could even be mentioned in the first sentence, but I digress. For a reader unfamiliar with who these teams are or what the NHL is, why would we first want to tell them the division to which a team is assigned without first mentioning the league in which that division exists? I think the sentences would be substantially improved by mentioning the level of competition first, then the league's organizational structures. My suggested revision is: "They compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) as members of the [CONFERENCE]'s [DIVISION]." The league in which the team plays is obviously the most important detail for a casual reader to know, which is borne out by the fact that the short descriptions for the articles say "National Hockey League franchise in [CITY]". So why not mention the league, conference, and division in descending order of importance? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that parsing possessives is a bit more tricky cognitively, particularly for readers not familiar with a division-conference-league structure. Thus if a rewording were deemed desirable, I would suggest ending with "...as members of the [DIVISION] of the [CONFERENCE]". Listing the top-level organization first is what is done in the NFL, NBA, and MLB team articles I spot-checked; they vary on how they list the division and conference. (Some of them turn the conference into an adjectival noun phrase modifying the division—MLB being an obvious case where this is deeply engrained. I don't recommend that for the NHL.) isaacl (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd support placing the league at the first part of the sentence (immediacy of info, consistency with other sports teams). And while I would prefer it as [Division] of [Conference] format, I sorta did a check of the other sports and how they did it when Y2K tried to first implement his proposal last night (admittingly though, I didn't do the best check), and for the most part, it seems to be the standard is [League] of [Conference]'s [Division].
Also just want to quickly point out that the structure of the NHL team leads is also used in the leads for KHL teams (and probably a few other ice hockey teams that used the NHL teams as templates), so we should probably remember to do those as well if we move ahead with whatever proposal we decide on. Leventio (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The articles I checked either used [CONFERENCE] [DIVISION] without a possessive (particularly for East, West, and Central divisions), or [DIVISION] of [CONFERENCE]—see New York Knicks or Brooklyn Nets. isaacl (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Placed the possessive there by mistake, my bad. I meant it just as [CON] [DIV]. Leventio (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ibagree we should put the league first, as its the most important aspect. They are memebers of the league first and foremost. Conferences and divisions are secondary, and can and do change while league membership so rarely does (and in fact hasn't at all for NHL teams since the NHL–WHA merger, which was literally my entire lifetime ago). oknazevad (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with listing the league first. Flibirigit (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
As would I. Something like "They are members of the NHL, and play in the Division of the Western/Eastern Conference", which I see has already been suggested. Give the most important information (the league) first, while keeping it orderly and logical. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't have an opinion one way or the other so just going to play devils advocate. While the league is definitely the most important. The build up for from smallest to largest entity is the more typical way to explain something like this, just like we go city, state, country etc. It flows much better when reading it in that order and its not like the league is buried a few sentences deep, its just at the end of the same sentence. If we are going to change it though I do feel strongly it should be in the form of "in the [division] of the [conference]" and not "[conferences]'s [division]". The second reads extremely awkward and divisions are typically more important than conference. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's how I find it too. Logically it would go league/conference/division, but wording it like you said (the conference's division) sounds weird, especially for the lead. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Vote?

People seem receptive to the idea of a change, so I am listing some possible phrasings and thought we could put it to a vote:

  1. They compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) (as / and are) members of the Eastern Conference's Metropolitan Division.
  2. They compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) (as / and are) members of the Eastern Conference Metropolitan Division.
  3. They compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) (as / and are) members of the Metropolitan Division (of / in / within) the Eastern Conference.
  4. They compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) in the Eastern Conference's Metropolitan Division.
  5. They compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) in the Eastern Conference Metropolitan Division.
  6. They compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) in the Metropolitan Division (of / in / within) the Eastern Conference.

Alternate word choices are in parentheses. If I am casting a vote, it would be for #3 with "as" and "in". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Although it may come down to a vote, can we first try a discussion? I suggest "The [team] competes in the National Hockey League (NHL) as a member of the [division] of the [conference]." isaacl (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC) amended with missing word isaacl (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with further discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep that is my preference for wording. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 NHL team season articles lacking content

Would anyone be interested in filling in the transactions section or anything else that would be included on an individual team's article? I find that the 2019–20 articles are lacking so much content right now. I would do it, but I am already taking care of the general stuff like the infobox, game log, and player statistics sections on most of the articles. Those three sections take a lot of time out of my day already, and if I contributed even more, I just feel like I would never get a break from editing. Is anyone willing to add or expand the transactions section on articles that are lacking content? Yowashi (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I used to do the transactions' sections but due to lack of time I could not do it for all teams. I can take a shot at them, but I cannot promise anything. It would be good to get them done before the trade deadline. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
You are unfortunately running into what is the problem with team season articles. The only time these sorts of articles get expanded are when we have a specific editor who is a fan of a specific team and wants to expand that teams season article. Most more general editors never want to get into the weeds with season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Players born in USA to a Canadian mother

Based on what I've been able to dig up on Canadian citizenship law, the offspring of a mother with Canadian citizenship automatically receives Canadian citizenship. [1]

Has any kind of discussion and consensus ever been reached on this subject? For example, players such as Matthew and Brady Tkachuk were born in the US but their mother was born and raised in Winnipeg, so that should be enough to establish their dual citizenship, should it not? SolarFlashLet's talk about it 02:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Bob Crawford

I noticed that the hockey player article at Bob Crawford has been moved three times today. Please see page history This seems like unnecessary disambiguation, and could likely be moved back. Any other thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary moves and the page should be moved back. However, it is always best to ask the editor who made the moves. In addition, there are many pages affected by the change as can be seen at the editor's contribution log. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I have asked the question at User_talk:Sol1#Bob_Crawford_(ice_hockey). Waiting now. Flibirigit (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I have undone the move. It was not necessary, the player he appears to be disambiguating for is highly unlikely to be notable so it definitely doesn't need the year. There is an argument to be made about need for (ice hockey) depending on if you think it is the primary topic or not. If it is the primary topic then WP:ONEOTHER would apply and it should remain at the undisambiguated name. If it doesn't it should go to (ice hockey) with the undisambiguated pointing to the disambiguation page. I have reverted to the original so a discussion could be had. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

GMHL again

I am again inviting User:Fridayhockey12 to please discuss their concerns with the content of the Greater Metro Junior A Hockey League (following from their non-responsiveness on their talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive74#GMHL). Additionally, if any other editors would like to review the concerns raised by the editor in question, it would be appreciated. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are valid. I will watch it again. If he gets to edit warring again I will block. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Djsasso, the edits are valid to point out the unsanctioned status. The user's lone cite is the GMHL's marketing page which would not qualify as an independent 3rd party source, and has several factual inaccuracies beyond just the sanctioning section.Bhockey10 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I do think my favorite part of their "sanctioning" page is The governing body which sanctions the GMHL Rule Book, Policies & Procedures is the same governing body which sanctions all of Junior Hockey in Canada followed just two sections later by The GMHL is not apart [sic] of Hockey Canada. Way to be misleading, the rules may be the same/similar, but policies and procedures are certainly different (imports and overagers). It seems to them, junior hockey sanctioning is only the fact they have insurance, which, as far as I am aware, is required by any organized sporting event (typically required to use facilities or by a an organization for liability purposes). Yosemiter (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
If I recall, their policies and rule book were adapted by themselves from the NCAA rule book, not by or from any Canadian source. Honestly though, the GMHL says a lot of things - not all seem to add up. DMighton (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if they're playing rules are modded NCAA or not, but if so that might be new, up until a couple years ago fighting was allowed completely different fighting rules than NCAA. Also some teams used their GMHL team as a farm club for their FHL teams (playing pro even in the FHL would have NCAA eligibility issues). Their marketing page mentions that playing in the G doesn't impact NCAA eligibility but the GMHL also extends an extra year for overage Jr. players. Playing past 21 does cut into college eligibility. To the question posed, I do think Yosemiter (talk · contribs) edits were worthy of inclusion into the article to define the differences between the GMHL and sanctioned Hockey Canada Jr. Leagues.--Bhockey10 (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The NCAA thing was a claim they made in their early seasons... but they always turned a blind eye to the fighting. TBH, there are a lot of things the teams do that could violate NCAA amateur status... the FHL thing is one... but not all the kids pay the same amount, some don't even pay. DMighton (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ken Dryden, award and honous

What is the preferred way to list awards and honours? If anyone has time to clean up Ken Dryden, it would be appreciated. Flibirigit (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Bob Murdoch (ice hockey, born 1946)

Bob Murdoch (ice hockey, born 1946) might have an incorrect birth date. Hockey-reference says 1946, Hockeydb says 1947. Does anyone have other sources? Flibirigit (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SIHR has November 20, 1946. So does NHL. I think you can e-mail hockeydb to correct them. Alaney2k (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Question on this '‡' symbol

I was wondering if this '‡' symbol, which is used in the player statistics tables to indicate players that are no longer with an organization, is only used for players that have been traded during the season? Or does it also apply for players that were claimed off of waivers by another team, or contract terminations? On the legend in the player statistics section, the symbol ‡Denotes player was traded mid-season. I think it should be changed to 'No longer with the organization' or something along those lines. I think that the current meaning for the symbol doesn't work well for players that were claimed off of waivers, or had their contracts terminated. Yowashi (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The "‡" symbol denotes the players who were traded during the season, but that is one-sided. In my opinion, the wording should be changed from "‡Denotes player was traded mid-season." to "‡Denotes player was traded, waived or had his contract terminated during the season." For the players that previously played for other team before joining his current team we use the "†" symbol. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

NHL stats leaders

Wee problem at List of NHL statistical leaders article, with IP. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a mobile IP, so it's possible it doesn't realise its edits are being reverted or that it's being contacted. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW - The IP claims that stats on the article, haven't been updated since 2018. Can anyone here, confirm this? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Be prepared for the Ovechkin's 700th goal IP onslaught. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 1952 Winter Olympics

I want to avoid edit warring, and I am requesting a second opinion at Ice hockey at the 1952 Winter Olympics regarding the addition and deleted of text. I'm also concerned the edit history resembles User:Max_Arosev. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I am hesitant to say its him but it could be, its the same sort of information he tries to remove on the soviet and russian team pages. I have my eye on it. If he continues I will make sure he gets blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be someone who is resuming arguments from the past anyway. The 1952 page is rather mild, it is not like the story can't be found in other places, hard to understand why it matters so much. The content there is worth discussing I suppose, but there seems to be little chance of that. My preference is Flibirigit's version just to be clear.18abruce (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union_national_ice_hockey_team&diff=785257037&oldid=785256374 controversy thing was started by a blocked account, but who cares, right? right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekeperi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Just because an account is blocked doesn't mean the edit is not valid. Removing the controversy of which here are millions of sources supporting would be white washing the article and doing the exact thing you are accusing others of doing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It actually had been in the article since the beginning (as seen here in 2005) and slowly whittled away in 2012 and 2013. I find it odd it took so long for anyone to re-add it since the Soviet team basically caused Canadian team to boycott the Worlds for several years, even though it is not explicitly stated in Canada men's national ice hockey team. It does not matter much anyways as much of the Eastern Bloc teams began using similar methods to the Soviet team for training (but its not like the Western countries are entirely innocent either when it comes to trying to skirt the rules). Yosemiter (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

ban me I don't care. I easily exposed your BS in ten minutes. another proof that wikipedia editors are low life losers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekeperi (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to whitewash an article so it only shows one side of a situation. You are doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll let you all figure this out, as I'm not familiar with the topic at hand. But @Gekeperi:, your attitude is unacceptable. Stop with the personal attacks, please. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It appears I missed a lot of discussion while I was offline today. Flibirigit (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there any consensus as to when it's best to use a navbox or successbox in the footer of an article? I feel that using both in the same article would be frowned up. Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You can use both. But succession boxes are better suited for titles, awards, job positions. I believe there is a page that talks about it. Maybe WP:NAVBOX. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships and Olympic hockey

I have noticed a recent increase in activity on articles related to international hockey. Some of it is a recurring battleground related to the Soviet Union or Russia (see Ice hockey at the 1952 Winter Olympics, Russia men's national ice hockey team and Soviet Union national ice hockey team). I have also noticed deletion of material without an explanation such as here and here. There are appears to be more interest at Ice hockey at the 1976 Winter Olympics. Some of this may all be coincidence, but I also think it is an opportunity for us a project to revisit the series of articles on Ice Hockey World Championships, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, and national ice hockey teams. Flibirigit (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah any international articles do tend to attract some bias into editing, removing stuff that is notable that might not look the best to a given team, trying to hide stuff deeper down on a less obvious page, removing summaries on a broader umbrella page so that the only place it shows up is a more specific page etc. There are all kinds of things that you will notice happen. The usual fix is just to undo and move on. Just have to be careful and make sure the change isn't a good one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I reverted that first deletion, but he did it again with an edit summary: "This minor issue (only discussed in the press) can be read about at Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament, where it more properly belongs." and moved it there. Do you think the allegation of Sweden intentionally losing that game is significant enough to to be in Ice hockey at the Olympic Games?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I would say its probably notable enough to be in the section that covers the time frame it occurred in. It could maybe be pared down in length a bit, but it is certainly relevant there and was definitely big news at the time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
In the scope of Olympic hockey as a whole, I think the passage gives undue weight, and should be shortened. The more detailed discussion is better suited for the 2006 event. Courtesy ping to @FrinkMan:. Hopefully there is a reasonable consensus forthcoming. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah like I said it can be pared down a bit, but in a section describing that time frame, definitely mention worthy. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

How to categorize when a hockey team is inducted into a Hall of Fame

When a specific season of a team is inducted into a Hall of Fame, should the corresponding category of inductees be placed on the team's page, the individual team members' pages, or all of the above?

Examples include

List of NHL players who have signed offer sheets

Should List of NHL players who have signed offer sheets be nominated for deletion? I doubt that very few players signed offer sheets as shown in the page and this list is not really notable. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It is definitely a notable topic. Comes up in hockey coverage, in Canada at least, all the time. Are you questing the players on the list? Your second sentence is hard to understand. If that is the case, I believe the list is accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
NHL offer sheets are, indeed, rarely offered and rarely signed and not matched. It's speculated that they're rarely offered as essentially a gentleman's agreement between general managers, to avoid forcing rivals to spend more cap space and risk being countertargetted. Rarely signed and not matched is probably because in a cap world, GMs have similar salary ranges in mind, so the original team may as well match as long as they don't mind holding the player for a year. isaacl (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
My concern was that this list might be incomplete. It is hard to believe than there are only 36 players on the list. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
You can use your favourite search engine and find many articles discussing how rarely offer sheets are signed. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
As Isaacl mentions they almost never get offered. Any time one is offered it is mentioned how long ago its been since the last one. It simply costs too much to offer them most of the time so its big news any time one happens. And they have gotten even more rare since the Cap was instituted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
If your looking for a source that states "only 36 have actually signed," I did find an NBC Sports article that echos that number (well... 35 as it was published before the Aho signing). Leventio (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Major milestones

The major milestones section of NHL season articles, are too long. We should be setting a inclusion criteria for them. 500 goals, 1,000 points, 1,000 games seems reasonable, for example. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wrote at Talk:2019–20 NHL season after seeing you fix the WP:NCIH issues. But since probably nobody will discuss there, I assume it is best to keep the discussion here. The NHL recognizes these milestones] – "400 goals, 600 assists, 1,000 points and 1,000 games (skaters); 500 games and 40 shutouts (goaltenders); and 750 games (head coaches)". I think we should go by what the NHL uses. Here are the links to the 2017–18 and 2019–20 seasons. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I recommend raising the bar. The goaltenders criteria can be upped to at least 50 shutouts, at least 500 games played & skaters to at least 500 goals, at least 1,000 pts, at least 1,000 games played for examples. 750 games for coaches suffices. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay. What the NHL likes for publicity purposes and what's best for our articles (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind) are two different things. Ravenswing 21:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Well yes, I initially intended to propose that we raise the bar and would not have any objection regarding it. On a different note, what should be done when a player reaches two milestones in one game (for example, 500th goal and 200th assist)? Should we leave as it is or remove the statistic that does not meet the criteria? – Sabbatino (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
200th assist isn't a major milestone, so would leave that out. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't disagree with the basic premise of the proposal, but some of the numbers being used as the cutoff seem a bit too high. If the goals standard is lowered to even 300 you're still only looking at just over 200 players all-time; assists at 500, less than 150 players; points at 750 just over 200 players. I don't disagree with the 1,000 games played for skaters as that one does appear to be reasonable.

If the goaltender games played was lowered to 400 games, even Ken Dryden would not be over this threshold, at 300 games you're looking at 160 players; as for shutouts just getting to 25 in a career puts you in the top 100, getting to 30, top 70. Even at these relative numbers it would still clear out most of these sections. Deadman137 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The criteria for skaters that you proposed would not solve the problem, because the list would still be excessive. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
There are currently about 180 things listed there; my proposal would cut the section to around 34, an 81% reduction. The other proposal will still leave about 25 items (86% reduction), so the question is, would nine additional items really be too much? Deadman137 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. I think Deadman137's suggestions are more reasonable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Deadman137: Not sure where I looked at first but the list appeared bigger for me when I first tried your proposal. However, I am also not sure where you looked at but I get 44 people based on your proposal. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
500 goals, 1000 points, 1000 assists, 1000 games played are reasonable regular season entry criteria, for the skaters. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Can't say I agree. Deadman brings up a compelling reason for why those numbers are not at all good. At 750 points only 200 players all time would meet that criteria for example. That divided out over the lifetime of the NHL is only around 2 per season. It also heavily biases for more current players than players who played in earlier years when getting to any of those milestones never happened period due to less games per season and in a career. We either need a lower bar or a flexible bar to be honest. It is why we have never really settled on a bar, because some of these arbitrary numbers end up being NPOV biased towards recent players. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The main concern is shortening the list of milestones, which are currently bloated on the NHL season articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I realize that, however shortening them at the expense of bias is a worse situation. So careful thought in how we do it needs to happen rather than just throwing out random numbers. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I assume the discussion has ended without agreeing to anything? Because the IP has started adding sources in the section, which is good, but still does not solve the problem. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Later today, I'm going to start cutting down these milestones on each NHL season article, with the criteria I've mentioned. If anyone objects? then fine, I'll leave them alone. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No objections, because it must be trimmed down. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'v trimmed them down :) GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 NHL transactions

Is there anyway to stop an un-registered user from making continuously incorrect edits to a page? Over at 2019–20 NHL transactions we have one unregistered continuously making edits about NHL teams not being able to make trades after the deadline. I have tried to explain that, yes, by NHL By-laws (12.4) they can, but the players involved cannot play in the regular season or playoffs (and I am even willing to admit that my previous understanding was wrong, where I thought the restriction was just playoffs). The By-law does not limit players on active NHL rosters from being traded, only their playing status after. I have even tried coming from it from a different angle, arguing that the current phrasing is still accurate to their understanding, and much more simple and easy-to-understand for readers, as opposed to their bloated alternative (and again I am willing to admit that I previously had a bloated version trying to explain the intricacies posted, before it was pointed out that it would be better to be simplified). Anyway, it's turning into an edit-war of sorts, but I do not know the recourse, as they cannot be reached on a user page...–uncleben85 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I moved the above discussion to this page from the project page. Flibirigit (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
NHL salary cap should probably be restructured to focus on the salary cap, the rest of it moved to NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the trade deadline information under NHL salary cap § Contracts and contract limits and Trade (sports)#NHL 2 combined into a section under the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement article. Then the trade deadline article can link to this section for the nitty-gritty details. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding discussion, it can be held on the article talk page as usual, or you can put a pointer to this discussion. If you want to draw the non-registered editor's attention to the discussion, you can try posting a note on the IP address's talk page. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Russian accusations again at Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

I have reverted the recent changes to the medal tables at Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. Please see the changes and accusations here. The medal tables have separate listings for Germany, West Germany East Germany, Soviet Union, Russia, Unified Team et cetera. I understand it is consensus to keep these separate instead of being merged. I welcome any discussion. Flibirigit (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's not anti-Russian, but the other language wikipedias do include the soviet union, unified team and russia together. Like the IIHF does. Since this is international, this makes the english wikipedia stick out. I do agree that the Soviets and Unified teams did include players of other nationalities/states, but it certainly looks POV to not go along with the IIHF. Not that there are any POVs in THIS project. Nope, none of those ... :-) Alaney2k (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This is how the medal tables are done for all Olympic articles in the English Wikipedia. The IIHF's POV seems to be in the minority. The Hockey Hall of Fame and Hockey-Reference.com, for example, don't combine the totals.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, keep living in your bubble, weirdos! Russian don't care, they know that their athletes won the Olympics 9 times, plus 2 silvers and 2 bronzes. Quertomescope (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
You might want to check the profile of the Russian team on the website of the Russian Hockey Federation. It clearly states that the team won the World Championships 27 times (that is acknowledged on English Wikipedia) and the Olympics 9 times (that is not acknowledged because of the anti-Russian sentiment). Check it out, don't even need to translate: https://fhr.ru/teams/?season=14&team=1&tournament=872 Quertomescope (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
You're becoming a pain. The USSR ceased to exist in 1991. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Your attitude is a pain. Keep it to the case in point. Alaney2k (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Turns out Quertomescope is someone's sock. So, no apologies from me, concerning my March 13th response. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with anti- or pro-Russian or anyone. Russian Federation does nor equal Soviet Union, this is a fact. The USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Jmj713 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The international tournaments are run by the the IIHF, and each team is a rep of a hockey association affiliated with the IIHF, not a country/state per se. (of course it is more complicated than that) If the IIHF states that a hockey association is the successor of a defunct one, it's their call to do so. That should be respected. Maybe we have to create a note for this in the article. Would that be acceptable? Alaney2k (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I have added a note at the top of the medal table. Please take a look. Alaney2k (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A quick note to say I blocked a quite sizable sockfarm. That should probably stop the ongoing issue if it's one individual. Let me know if there are more issue in terms of possible sockpuppets. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I am puzzled why we are stating that the IIHF believes that the Russian Federation and the USSR teams are the same, they do not, check their encyclopedia. That note on the Olympic page should be removed. Some of the writers group the medals, but the IIHF does not officially do so.18abruce (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
We have a compromise through discussion for the World Championship tables, but the Olympic totals are different. Can we please source why we believe the IIHFs position is to group these medals as stated earlier? It does not make sense since they do not, but some of their writers may do so.18abruce (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the Ice hockey at the Olympic Games note discussion should include WikiProject Olympics. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Height and weight in imperial or metric units

To my knowledge, the general consensus is that North American players use imperial measurements for height and weight, and Europe and the rest of the world prefer metric measurements. Comments are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. While the medical profession in Canada does use metric it is not widely practised when height and weight are provided. Hockey sources typically use imperial as well.18abruce (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with a template

I am looking for some help to correctly display the playoff structure for the 1977–78 WHA season. I could not find a template that matches what the league did that year. There were three quarter-final series with a bye to the finals and one semi-final series. I found something close that I could attach a note to, but I was hopeful that there was a better way of displaying it. Any help would be appreciated.18abruce (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Not able to edit there at all right now either, some sort of database error.18abruce (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
It's happening at other pages too. Best to wait it out. Flibirigit (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm also getting errors, but I made one at 2014–15 SPHL season that does what you are asking. It is just not as pretty. Yosemiter (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nottingham Panthers Featured article review

I have nominated Nottingham Panthers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK: nationality in bio lead sentence

FYI

You are invited to join a discussion related to this project at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § MOS:OVERLINK: nationality in bio lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Just want to inform everybody in the project that delinking has been started in ice hockey BLPs based on the aforementioned discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Colby Cave at 2019–20 NHL transactions

While it's been some time since a current NHL player has died - and thus little recent precedent to call upon in NHL transaction articles - I'm having a hard time understanding exactly how Colby Cave's death qualifies as a "transaction", and listing him under "Retirement" seems needlessly crass. Is there any need to include his death on the transactions article at all, and if so, how? Echoedmyron (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no transactions article for 1951 or 1952, so I can't see how Bill Barilko was handled. He is listed in the 1950-51 season article under last appearances.
Cave is relevant here from the standpoint of his contract ending (i.e., he's not on a roster any more); maybe rather than put him in the retirement table, add a prose paragraph below the table? —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Was going to suggest look at how we handled it for Luc Bourdon in 2008, but he isn't listed there at all either. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I looked up Bourdon's case first. The season-by-season format only goes back about 20 years, and even in Bourdon's time it didn't have as many sections as the most current season article does. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Was looking to see how we handled Boogaard, and at least for the 2010–11 NHL season, there is a dedicated death section in the milestones/last game sec (though it includes both active and former NHL player deaths). Leventio (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That year was also an aberration as Boogaard was far from the only active player to die that year, so it would make sense to have a section like it does there. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Cave should not be listed at 2019–20 NHL transactions since he did not retire due to an injury, age or some other thing, which could be controlled by him. He simply died, which is not a retirement. A mention at 2019–20 NHL season would be sufficient. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Sabbatino's assessment, that this would better be placed at 2019–20 NHL season. As Kaiser matias notes, 2011 required a full table - partially due to the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash, and that table was expanded to include involved players who had NHL experience, even though they were not current NHL players. Without jinxing anything, assuming that Cave is the only NHL player in this category for this season, do we need a separate table for deaths, or just include him in the last games table (for which he meets the the inclusion standard - third-last point)? Happy to relocate this entry as appropriate. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree here with C.Fred. His contract has come to an end, and we would be put players who retire due to injury on their. It does not make sense to create a whole new table on the transaction page, so I think that is the most appropriate place for the (involuntary) cessation of his contract.–uncleben85 (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) I would think it appropriate to put him in the last games table, (hopefully) assuming a repeat of 2011 doesn't happen. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I would put him in the last games table. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've started the Last games table at 2019–20 NHL season as suggested; I kept the description brief, and if anyone sees fit to tweak it, have it at. I've linked to this discussion in the edit summary. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for NHL teams Player stats

A couple of questions

Can NHL Recap stats be used for adding stats on to current stats?

[NHL] usually updates its stat section every 30-40 minutes. But its best to wait at least a day until its stats after a game is finalized since some get reevaluated. Adding stats from current recap game stats to previous stats works too. But its still best to at least check the stats from NHL.com that all of the information is correct.

Examples this works whenever a game concludes by adding/calculating the information. For save percentage just to say to get the actual save percentage if NHL has not update the stats. The goals against per goaltenders and shots against total should be accurate first before the save percentage is accurate just to say 828-60 = 768/828 = .9275 rounded up to .928. Here is another example where some information is fixed because of the calculation I did before. Maple Leafs December 12, 2018.

If NHL stats on Wikipedia has not been updated, its best to use NHL.com to update the stats since its the most reliable source than recap game stats.

Is their consensus on using NHL Recap stats be used for adding stats on to current stats? NicholasHui (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I asked myself similar to that when I wondered myself if there was another source to use to update NHL stats on Wikipedia rather than just having to waste time manually calculating all the numbers from recap game only stats. I got what I expected to know that NHL source itself is the most reliable source to use since it beats having to calculate all the numbers from recap game stats. NicholasHui (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I just saw that on List of NHL statistical leaders it has GAA using 4 digits, rather than the conventional 3. I started a discussion on the talk page there, but will note it here for visibility. I really don't see why it does that, aside from copying Hockey-Reference, which is the only source I've ever seen do that. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

On a somewhat other related note, the OP is currently topic-banned from updating sports statistics, and the appeal of this ban is ongoing and still open. Granted, the concerns about up-to-the-minute stats updates are currently moot given the COVID-19 suspension of sports, but it seems odd to request a TBAN be lifted in order to work with stats, well before coming here and asking how to work with stats.

At any rate, as Ravenswing notes above, there is no need to rush in performing updates - again, NOTNEWS. My own two cents is that if you have to make your own calculations then your source is insufficient, and you should wait for a stable source of stats to be available, or even better, leave it be. If people want up-to-the-minute stats, that's what ESPN, TSN, NHL.com etc are there for. It's not what an encyclopedia is for. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Another question is that for player stats, using official player stats for [Thatcher Demko] stats for canucks 2018-19 season is a bit different than the NHL.com stats because for GAA, they sometimes use different calculations in numbers, does it count as no original research? NicholasHui (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You're banned from this topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You mean I am right now!!!??? I am not sure what you are talking about. What I didn't know was what I predicted what your comments would be. Regards NicholasHui (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The evidence above suggests that this is a disingenuous discussion. He knows he is topic banned, he is currently appealing it. He is also asking a question about the official stats, from NHL.com, being different from the NHL.com stats. If it continues shouldn't a more substantial ban be in order?18abruce (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure what a substantial ban in order means for me. First of all, I agreed that I am not edit sports stats articles until I had my appeal settled and establishing consensus about how player stats should be updated. Another thing was that when I started to discuss here about how players stats are to be updated, its hard for me to predict what other users response would be when I make those questions. NicholasHui (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@NicholasHui: It is evident that you are not aware for why you have been topic-banned seeing that the appeal is ongoing and you decided to gain a "consensus" (if we can even name it like that) here. You have been told many times to stop the "manual calculations" but it looks like that you would continue doing that if your topic ban is lifted. We use this (skaters) and this (goaltenders) when updating the statistics. In addition, the stats are not supposed to be updated after every game like other editors noted. Updating the statistics once a week is sufficient. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: I will agree not to continue manual calculations after a year of understand that NHL Official stats are the most reliable source. I just did not mean to cause some contentious among users. I will have to wait to the appeal is concluded. I misunderstood some information. Sorry about that. NicholasHui (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@NicholasHui: I think it's best that you take some more time to reflect on the things that you did wrong last year. From what I'm gathering, it's clear that you haven't learned anything from the past year. We have given you so much advice on how to update the stats properly. But yet you're still asking about what sources to use, talking about manually calculating stuff, updating the stats after every game (which we told you not to do). I'm sorry, but I just don't think that you have put much thought into this topic as much as you think you have. Prove to us that you aren't going to revert to your old/current editing habits. I would suggest that you withdraw your appeal until more thought has been put into the reasoning for your ban. Yowashi (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yowashi: Why should I withdraw from the appeal. I had understood what I had done wrong last year. You know I did not deleted most of the recent information on my talk page related to my topic ban because it was to show I will understand what I need to do better, I understood that NHL official stats are the most reliable source after a year of not editing sports articles. When I started to appeal this topic ban, this topic ban appeal I did was composed over many months and I took as much time as I could to understand what I did not do properly before. Also the problem is that I only started to discuss here about which sources to use for the purpose was mentioned (If you wish to discuss the issue of when player statistics should be updated and what sources can be used for the purpose, you should do so at WT:HOCKEY and establish consensus that is compliant with wikipedia's content policies.) I discuss this here because recap game stats I used to add in before when I started updating NHL stats on Wikipedia since 2016-17 NHL season was proven to exist for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted even if I thought I missed some details about the sources I use, it still would have consensus. NicholasHui (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Before you continue. Please read up on WP:INDENT. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yowashi: Another thing I should remind you of one important thing, some things won't always go your way. Remember when Curtis23 started to respond to your disagreement with his updating stats on Carolina Hurricanes 2019-20 season, he told you to stop criticizing people how stats are being updated. So I am not the only person who has been making complaints with your criticism. NicholasHui (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
My concerns with the way other people edit is not part of this discussion and is none of your business. This is about your disruptive edits on statistics. I suggest you keep it on that subject. – Yowashi (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It appears as though you just breached you topic ban, at the 2016–17 Winnipeg Jets season article. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just was a bit too impatient. Also, I should ask, why would you ask about why I discuss what sources to use here? NicholasHui (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yowashi: Per response on your edit, I was not meaning to be disruptive on sports stats. I was just wanting to help improve the encyclopedia on NHL Hockey. Not being disruptive. I done this for a long time since June 2015. NicholasHui (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like NicholasHui has been breaching his topic ban by editing hockey articles despite his topic ban not being lifted, per his recent string of edits. – Yowashi (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't even have to care about this anymore. Editing NHL Hockey was my choice anyways and I had said so at ANI already. NicholasHui (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

NicholasHui is now editing logged out under this user. – Yowashi (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
He should be indef banned, for his defiance & wilful disruption. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this situation needs an admin's attention. There is nothing that I, or other editors can do to help NicholasHui understand the problem of this situation anymore. At this point, I believe an indefinite block of NicholasHui's account along with his countless IP accounts is needed to prevent further disruption. – Yowashi (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Babe Dye and football

Hey, so I've been collecting a few sources on Babe Dye, who sorta has the claim that he played as a halfback for the Argos (in several sources, and the wiki article). Saying that though, I found a source that sort of refutes the claim as being likely a myth.

Looking at all the other sources (I could find anyways) that do make the claim, they all just state he played halfback for the Argos as a one-off sentence, without expanding on it. I was actually going to edit the article to reflect the fact that its likely a factoid, but then I found a Sportsnet article that actually expanded on that claim (not by a lot, but it does add that he played with them for a season), which sorta made me second guess myself to thinking there might be more to this. Apologies in advance as this isn't exactly ice hockey related, but does anyone know of a way to confirm if this is a myth or not (I tried to find a Argos historic players rosters, but the ones I could find only go as far back as 1945)? Leventio (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be best to just simply note that there are discrepancies in the record, and that some sources say he played for the Argos, while others say he didn't. After all we can only go by what the sources say, and it certainly isn't a bad thing to say we simply don't know for sure. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I would agree with Kaiser on this. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hrm. Dye isn't mentioned on the Argonauts website, which you'd think he'd be. (Then again, I just tested, and Lionel freaking Conacher only got three hits.) You might want to try writing to the Argos' management and asking whether their records show Dye playing for them. Likewise, that's the sort of thing that SIHR may well know. I've had luck in the past writing to teams/SIHR for clarification, so ... Ravenswing 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

New RFC at List of ice hockey line nicknames

Hi everyone, I have started a new discussion at the ice hockey nicknames talk page. This is not the result of a dispute, but a result of apparent apathy. I wanted to publicize this to get as many Wikipedia hockey editors as possible to comment on it. Thanks JimKaatFan (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

North York Rangers

The North York Rangers article has been tagged for split since 2016. I have suggested my solution at Talk:North York Rangers. I hope we can get some closure on this since it's been almost four years of no action. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Final articles' infobox

Which team, captain, coach are we placing first? The Stanley Cup champion or the runner up? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at a number of them, we list them in the same order we list the teams in the score box, lower seed on top and higher seed on bottom. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Will take some time, but I plan on correcting some of them (see 1973 Stanley Cup Finals), with that arrangement. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

NHL playoff results

So I've had this project that I'm getting back to doing that would be similar to NFL playoff results. I want to move it to the page Stanley Cup playoff results and bring on more contributors, but I want you're input. –Piranha249 21:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be compilation of every season's playoff results, which seem completely useless to me. We already have individual season article which cover this information. I fail to see how such a list would even pass WP:LISTN for a standalone list. Flibirigit (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Have to agree with Flibirigit here. -DJSasso (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken references

I'm trying to make a dent in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and a few articles within the hockey sphere have issues that I can't fix on my own (~571 issue as of writing). Basically, some refs linked via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar have missing full citations or have some other problems. You can check these instructions to have error messages enabled (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup).

In particular, the following articles could use some of your attention

The cause is often copy-pasting a short reference from another article without copy-pasting the full reference. If you can find where things were copy-pasted from, you can usually find what the full reference is.

Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. I quickly took a look at a few and it's really just lazy work on referencing. Should be able to get the list cleared up without delay. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Age statistics in Olympic articles.

I was wondering what the community thought of additions like this, and this. The source is quant hockey which I don't know much about, and the edits seem entirely trivial to me, but since it is now throughout every Olympic article I thought some form of consensus was desirable. I don't see anything that makes the ages notable, but that is just me.18abruce (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Recognized Content

Would anyone be opposed to changing the Recognized Content section on the main project page so that it is updated by a bot rather than manually? I have something set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Recognized content, and would just move it to the project page, but don't want to without getting some opinions first. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In theory I like it. The only issue I have is that the sections don't collapse like they currently do. That page would be far too long to have open on the main page all the time I would think, though maybe there is a way around that. -DJSasso (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
That's a fair point. To get around it maybe we just keep it on a separate page like it is, and have the link there? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

NHL regular season

Has the regular season been cancelled? I cannot seem to find the direct statement, which would say that, and Moka Mo (talk · contribs) has started updating many players' statistics saying that the regular season is over. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is going to be a press conference today where Bettman is expected to announce, "a 24-team straight-to-playoffs format with the league’s other seven teams having their seasons ended." (from the Washington Post). Changes to articles should have waited until after the press conference in order to better understand how regular season statistics will be handled I would think.18abruce (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. And yes, Moka Mo should have waited until the announcement has been made. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Bettman has announced that the 2019-20 regular season is over. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Division Season results table

Just a quick question, do we want these tables filled out by point totals (like all previous years) or by points percentage for this season? I really don't care either way, no matter what method is chosen it won't change what team winds up finishing first in each division. Deadman137 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would probably say points percentage considering that was how the playoff matchups were determined. I don't think they based anything off of point totals. Not a hundred percent sure how this should be done though. Yowashi (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
And what about the format for standings' table? A new format table has been added to 2019–20 NHL season#Standings and an IP added it to every teams' 2019–20 season page. Should the table be converted into a template? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be easier to make any modifications to the table if it was changed to a template. It would be a waste of time if we had to edit all 31 articles to make changes to it. Yowashi (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Could someone move the new format table to a new template? We could probably name it "2019–20 NHL Eastern/Western Conference percentage standings" I was trying to do it but I am not familiar with it. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Game logs in 2019–20 team's page

What do we do with game logs? Remove the games that did not occur or change it to say "Cancelled"? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Graying them out and saying something like "Cancelled due to coronavirus pandemic" would work IMO. Serves useful as a "historical record" of sorts for the games that would have been played. Canuck89 (Converse with me) 08:17, May 27, 2020 (UTC)
Would not it be better to remove them from the game log? They did not occur and a note in the lead says everything about the situation. Another problem is that the games that did not occur cannot be sourced, because every game from March 12 and beyond was removed from the NHL's and teams' schedules (for example, New Jersey Devils). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I was WP:BOLD and removed the games from the game logs that did not occur. They cannot be sourced as in the above example. The presence of those games will surely be questioned in the future based on WP:OR since there are no sources. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Well to be fair they could be sourced. All sorts of league schedules were published throughout the year. The team pages are not the only source of truth. Remember that sources do not have to be online to be valid (ie all the pocket schedules that every team prints and hands out are valid sources) or directly from a primary sources. I am sure a number of news outlets also published the schedule of the leagues games, and certainly the NHL and team media guides that are created and sent out at the beginning of every season would also have had them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
We can also probably find the official nhl.com schedules in the Internet Archive. Jmj713 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Good point, they are most likely on there. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This might not be universally true for all teams, but I believe most teams have their season's schedules published in their media guides (though it wouldn't factor other PPD' games during that season for ob reasons). Leventio (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the canceled games in the logs or as a separate section for historical purposes.Jmj713 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As would I. I should have mentioned that in my above comment. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think marking the games as cancelled more accurately reflects their disposition, rather than making it appear they were never scheduled. isaacl (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I will restore them and will make a new section in the game logs called "Cancelled games" as it was originally done at 2019–20 Tampa Bay Lightning season#Schedule and results. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Great solution! Jmj713 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done – Sabbatino (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Conference trophies in player pages

Should Prince of Wales Trophy and/or Clarence S. Campbell Bowl be listed in "Awards and honors" sections on players' pages? The same goes to Presidents' Trophy. I have always removed them but an editor who primarily edits Boston Bruins players' biographies keeps reinstating them in the aforementioned section. Has this been discussed at any point? – Sabbatino (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that as well, and find it a little ridiculous. It is a team trophy, and while the same could be said for the Stanley Cup, the latter at least has players' names on it and recognizes individuals; the same is not said for the conference trophies/Presidents Trophy. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The Stanley Cup should be the only team trophy on such a list. The rest is just WP:FANCRUFT and should be removed. Flibirigit (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question at 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs

The current 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs article makes no mention of the currents status of the Canada–United States border being closed to non-essential traffic. How exactly are players getting to these games, and what medical precautions are being taken? These really need to be discussed. Flibirigit (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Once details are announced, I'm confident the article will be updated. isaacl (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 Stanley Cup playoffs

So now that we know the relative format for the playoffs if they resume, there are a few logistical questions that need to be dealt with.

First, how do we classify the round robin games between the top four seeds in each conference, as playoff or regular season games? If they are regular season games do we just add them to each affected team's totals for this season?

Second, do we contemplate making a 24 team bracket for the project's own usage? Now I know that getting a single use template approved is unlikely, but there are some old Calder Cup playoff articles where they had 20 playoff teams where we could also use this. If we decide to go down this path, I have made some conceptual ideas in my sandbox about what the bracket may look like. Admittedly though, they probably need more work to be functional, but I only concerned myself with getting the initial aesthetics somewhat functional. Deadman137 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The regular season is over, therefore those games are part of the playoffs. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if we can do that as these games are being played under regular season rules, but if these games are considered playoff games for record keeping purposes that's where the logistical nightmare begins, because then how do we deal with them in the List of NHL playoff series, as a one game series? Also there would be a potential for some teams to meet each other twice in one playoff year, which would be confusing as hell for some readers not as well versed in the subject matter as we are. Deadman137 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
We do what we do with any information on Wikipedia. We have to wait to see how the rest of the world treats them and then we follow suit. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
But if it was me deciding then yes, it would be part of the playoffs and we would have a section on the 2020 playoffs page explaining it like we would do with anything that would confuse someone. For pages like List of NHL playoff series, since its not a series but is a round robin it wouldn't be on there and I would likely have a note somewhere on that page mentioning it and linking back to the more detailed section that I mentioned creating on the 2020 playoff page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it sounds reasonable to have specific sections on the 2020 playoffs page. Looking at the NHL announcement, it is calling them a "Qualifying Round" for the play-in games and a "Seeding Round Robin ... to determine seeds for the Stanley Cup Playoffs". (The qualifying round will be played using playoff overtime rules and the seeding round robin will be played with regular season rules.) In the longer run I think we will have to see how the league chooses to group the stats: will they put them into the playoff stats, the regular season stats, or its own separate totals? My guess would be they will get tabulated as their own separate thing for playoff record purposes, but possibly still be grouped into career player playoff stats, but we'll see. isaacl (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying one way or another, still too early, but the round-robin could technically be viewed as a "series". I mean, back in the 1920s we had two-game series (total goals). Not a single game, but it's close. As the originator of the NHL playoff series article, the idea was to have a complete matrix of all Stanley Cup games. No one could've anticipated this, and what we're facing now is unique. This round-robin tournament is definitely not regular season as the NHL announced that the 2019-20 regular season has officially concluded. I did see some unofficial rumors that some exhibition games may be played, still to be determined. So this is not the regular season nor the playoffs. Something in between, but closer to regular season. So I imagine we can keep these games separate from fully-fledged playoff games and series. These games will be played during the playoffs but with regular season rules, and cannot end a team's playoff run, only affect their standing, much like regular season games. It's complex and unprecedented to be sure, but also pretty exciting! Jmj713 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Just listened to the 31 thoughts podcast with Elliotte Friedman and they mentioned that the stats for the round robin will be more complicated than people realize because it applies to bonuses and awards etc so there will be an official position on where those stats belong because it affects players pay. Now the podcast was recorded before they announced the scoring trophies etc. And in the podcast they indicated that those trophies if announced would likely indicate the official position. And now they have been so looks like the stats from those games definitely belong to the playoffs. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder the NHLPA said last Tuesday that it was still not decided where the stats would end up... It seems the handling of bonuses is still under discussion (probably prorate any targets, I imagine). According to that article, the stats will count in playoff totals, but the teams in the qualifying round are not considered to be in the playoffs, for the purposes of draft picks in trades that depend on whether or not a team makes the playoffs. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If the stats are considered playoff stats, than it's the playoffs. This should be an easy distinction, once we know for sure. Jmj713 (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
According to [2] this report from the 28th all of them are considered playoff games. I'm guessing we'll probably count the games in the games played totals. Now we'll have to take a wait and see approach about series totals, either way we'll probably need some type of note for the eight affected teams. Deadman137 (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the round-robin seeding tournament is officially considered as playoff games, I'm leaning to including the games as single-game series. It's possible teams can have two series in 2020, but at least that will be accurate to the reality of the situation we're in, and account for all games and teams played. Jmj713 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with that, if that's how the league counts it. If they go down that path I'm planning to add a note to the first listed series if teams meet twice in the playoffs. If they just consider these a single game that doesn't count as a series victory or loss, then we can handle that too. I've already added some hidden infrastructure to the eight affected teams in case it's needed and depending on what happens I'll correct it either way as required. Deadman137 (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Larry Kwong

Larry Kwong is recognized as the first non-white player in the NHL, by playing a single shift in 1948. I have started a discussion regarding the length of this single shift, as sources are in dispute as to the length of this shift. Now, this might be splitting hairs - whether it was 45 seconds, 60, 90, etc - and perhaps the most meaningful detail is that it was his only NHL shift (and maybe the exact length isn't required at all?) but given the historical significance of this shift it would be a nice idea to get its presentation right, so input is welcome. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd say that the length of the shift, at level best, is trivial as hell. The historical significance isn't in the shift; it's that Kwong played in the NHL in 1948. Ravenswing 21:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about listing players' tenure with the team in the infobox

There is a discussion about listing the player's years with the team in the infobox. Editors are welcome to give their opinion at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#New discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Zotique Lespérance DYK

If anyone else is boggled by the current DYK that Zotique Lesperance is a HHOF inductee, I just reported it on the Main Page/Error page. People keep falling into the mineshaft of the Ferguson/Hewitt Awards = HHOF Induction, but I would have hoped the editor who signed off on the DYK would've at least checked the sources (one that had nothing to do with the subject and was published a year too soon) or the HHOF website itself. Ravenswing 03:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @HickoryOughtShirt?4:, author of the article. Flibirigit (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Ravenswing The source I used says he was inducted into the "Hall of Fame" although I guess it never specified Hockey. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"retired" vs "former"

I've gone through the archives, and I can't find anything to clarify if there's consensus on using the word "retired" as opposed to "former" in the lead to describe someone who is no longer an active player. As currently at Wayne Gretzky: "Wayne Douglas Gretzky CC (/ˈɡrɛtski/; born January 26, 1961) is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player and former head coach." (emphasis mine)

It's largely semantics; "retired" is generally understood within hockey to mean that a player is retired from playing, but may and usually will have other occupations. In the wider world, "retired" is generally understood to mean that an individual is no longer working in any capacity, as in the hypothetical "Bob Johnson is a retired bus driver." There are frequent situations with people who are noteworthy for playing and coaching, and then you get into someone like Gretzky who is not currently doing either, but we don't define him as "retired" from one or both roles. Or Rick Tocchet, who currently coaches following a playing career, and is described as "a Canadian professional ice hockey coach and former player" - I don't think anyone would intend to describe him as "a Canadian professional ice hockey coach and retired player", but I could be wrong. And then there's the players who don't have a notable role post-playing career, here's where most often I find the retired/former debate to be contentious. For instance, I've come up against an IP editor recently who has been changing usages of "former" to "retired" in a number of article, including Ray Bourque. I've reverted as disruptive where it's shown up on my watchlist (the IP, through a few iterations of their address, has hit a bunch of articles, including baseball player Todd Helton in the same manner, where the IP was overruled and the article protected) but I was searching for a consensus to invoke, and can't find one.

My feeling is that "former" is least controversial, and can be applied in a number of ways, all without issue: "former player", "coach and former player", "former player and former coach". "Retired" feels inaccurate, especially to describe people who are still in their working years in other capacities even if they are not in the sport. It's admittedly a trivial hill, but I thought I should ask. I've seen some editors also default to "former", while others have used "retired" and I'm sure still others don't care, but comments welcome. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think I have a preference, but would lean towards retired I think. However I feel that it was discussed somewhere (perhaps in a larger sports-related discussion elsewhere) to use former, but I may just be misremembering things. I'll also note that I've come across a couple deceased players who still had the "retired/former" description, which is obviously not required at that point. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I am probably of the same mind as Kaiser on not really having a preference but probably leaning towards retired. And like him I feel like there was a discussion on it but yes it was probably in a wider than just hockey context or maybe it was for another sport. I don't recall at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just going to pile in here and point out that I hate the word order of the nationality before "former/retired". It's not proper English. Adjectives in English have a particular order, and age ("former" is a relative age) always comes before national origin. See here. The claim that doing such would read as though were saying they're no longer a Canadian is a blatant failure of reading comprehension by those who cannot distinguish an adjective from a noun. The noun is "player", the nationality is an adjective.
The awkward, improper word order we've had foisted upon us for so long is a big part of the reason that these articles all read so awkwardly and why it never feels right to anyone. oknazevad (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: I totally agree, the wording like that (ex. "Canadian former/retired player" rather than "former/retired Canadian player") is awkward and really distracting. But I'm again recalling that this was discussed somewhere and determined to move forward like this (though I may be recalling things that never happened, too). I would certainly not oppose going to the way you suggest (former/retired Canadian player; in this case retired works even better). Kaiser matias (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Gretzky is not a "former Canadian", though. Saying "former Canadian player", to me, sounds like he has chosen to give up his Canadian citizenship.Canuck89 (What's up?) 08:33, June 14, 2020 (UTC)
It is because of order of adjectives. The former applies to the noun in the sentence which is player, not the other adjective which is Canadian. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
100% behind you on this. I think in one of the discussions about order I even pointed out the adjective order. Might have even linked to a comedian who has a funny bit about it. It should always come before nationality. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Former is inherently independent of age. For example, think of former child actresses. One school of thought is that former is one of a "subset of adjectives called operators" that "fundamentally change the meaning of whatever follows ... the precise idea you want to express determines the order of adjectives."[3] Its order should not be considered interchangeable.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Mm, I'm with Oknazevad. I'm not wedded to either option, but why is it, exactly, that it's so all fired important to use the nationality in that sentence at all? There are many other places to use it, if the nationalists are that fired up over the subject. Ravenswing 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Either will do, just hope which ever is chosen is applied to all former/retired player bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"Retired" has a couple of contractual implications, as far as I know. If the player with an active contract is being placed on the voluntarily retired list, the cap hit is reduced. From a pension perspective, players can start to draw retirement benefits after their 45th birthday, in advance of the normal retirement date which is the first of the month after their 62nd birthday. The pension aspect isn't all that important to highlight. And although I'm sure some people will tie a lot of importance of an adjective in the first sentence to reveal the cap situation, personally I think it's asking too much of an adjective to provide a direct indication. So I'm not strongly opinionated; I think "former" has less connotations of a certain lifestyle (consider what pops into your mind when you hear "retired player" versus "former player"). isaacl (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Last game list, in NHL seasons

Going through the 1990's to the present, it appears the last game lists are getting rather bloated. Not sure what the cut-off criteria is or should be. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/NHL_season_pages_format#Debuts_and_Last_Games. I'll take a look myself, but it stands to reason those lists would get a bit bloated. What with more games, longer career lengths, many more teams, and career goals that heavily favor post-expansion players, it's inevitable. Heck, of the 400g/600a/1000pt/3000pim career bits, or the 50g/100 pt season goals, of the forty years the NHL played prior to the 1968 season, the sum total of the players who made any of those goals pre-expansion are Lindsay, Harvey, Armstrong, Pronovost, Gadsby, Kelly, Howell, Delvecchio, Geoffrion, Hull, Howe and Richard. Ravenswing 06:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've started to trim ... and from the Debut sections as well, which are likewise filling up. (Indeed, some of the choices are pretty clear that they're favorites of some editor or another. Brian Curran, seriously?) I think I'm going to put a warning in directing people to the criteria. Also, we might want to tighten the criteria up some. 1000 games, for instance, just isn't all that big a deal any more, and a bunch of journeymen who otherwise wouldn't come close to any of the criteria have done that much. Ravenswing 07:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the Debut were likewise bloated. A criteria note at the beginning of these lists would certainly help. PS - IMHO, the goal & assist requirements should be raised to 500 goals or 750 assists. :) GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll cc: what I just put on the NHL Season talk page: * Truth be told, we really should be applying era-specific guidelines. Playing in a thousand games these days is something many a journeyman manages; playing in a thousand games pre-expansion was an epic feat only seven Hall of Famers managed. Scoring 300 goals was HHOF-level for a pre-expansion player, a respectable career but no more for someone playing in the 80s and early 90s, and back to being a star in the post-lockout era. Ravenswing 15:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A different criteria for pre/post 1967 seasons, makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
By all means trim out the ones that don't meet the current criteria. But the lists don't seem to be all that long on any of the pages I looked at. Any that might seem long can easily be put into two columns as well. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd already trimmed through the 1990s. Ravenswing 21:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:International Ice Hockey Federation Hall of Fame inductees

Category:International Ice Hockey Federation Hall of Fame inductees has been nominated for deletion. This discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 18 claims it is a non-defining characteristic for hockey people. Your comments there are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Flag icons in the 1969-present All Star Game articles

I can understand the usage of the flags for the All Star Games with the North American vs World format. But do we need them in the others? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We use them in all roster tables. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Just curious & noting that it would take a big task to remove them. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Amateur Draft redirects

I've just dropped a message at User talk:Atsme about his hundreds of edits changing the capitalization (and thus creating double redirects) of NHL Amateur Draft links. Here's hoping he reverts his edits promptly. Ravenswing 05:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: It appears that someone went through and moved all the Amateur Draft articles to remove the capitalization, which could be a contributing factor. The claim is that sources indicate that it should not be capitalized, which is hard to fathom.18abruce (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing that rather important contributing factor, 18abruce - in fact, I thought it a bit bizarre to fix a miscapitalized redirect that wasn't actually miscapitalized but who am I to question a page move while wikignoming? Ravenswing, I regret that our first encounter was not on better terms but was glad that you brought it up for discussion - that's how things get worked out - but it would have been kinder of you to AGF. Oh, and I go by the pronoun she unless he-she pronouns are no longer applicable on WP like uppercase appears to be in some titles. I was pleasantly surprised to see that wbm1058 has volunteered to straighten things out and extend my sincerest thanks to him for taking on such a tedious task. I just learned a few hours ago that a friend of 40 years just lost his battle with cancer so I'm a bit taken back by it all, but was still prepared to revert my edits if needed. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 23:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: on 5 May 2020, did a mass page move of the NHL Amateur Draft articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@18abruce:,@GoodDay: "Hard to fathom" is pretty generous; I'd go with "arrant bullshit," myself. How do we go about getting those moves reverted, for openers? Ravenswing 14:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves - see semi-subsection Requested to revert undiscussed moves GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I have unfortunately assumed too much good faith from Dicklyon and given him too much rope. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters doesn't give much specific guidance for events, as it's been hard to reach a consensus on the matter. However, just now I see that it does say "Specific titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized: WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Tour de France, Americas Cup." As 1971 NHL Amateur Draft is indeed a specific event it should be capitalized. I've been silently stewing over this matter for some time, and realize it is now time to put my foot down. Some changes relating to this were made by me as well; I will get to work reverting them all. No need to waste your time submitting technical requests. Again, sorry for all the disruption caused by my following Lyon's executive actions without confirming the Style guidance first. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I already put in a tech request a few minutes ago :) GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. That did make the task easier for me. wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not so hard to fathom if you actually look at sources, which mostly use lowercase. Time for an RM discussion then. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Where there is a split among the sources on whether it is capitalized? Does not explain your actions.18abruce (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
And pardon me but I consulted three different encyclopedias from my bookshelf in addition to Hockey News articles from the 70's and 80's.18abruce (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
When sources are split, WP uses lowercase, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS: "lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence". Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
"NHL Amateur Draft" - like the NHL Entry Draft can be both a proper name and used informally at the same time, so it isn't surprising there is a mixture of uses in sources, often depending on context. There was absolutely nothing wrong with titling it here as a proper name, so seriously, thank you for wasting a lot of people's time with such an unthinking and undiscussed mass move. Resolute 23:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Never mind that every official National Hockey League source capitalizes. But sure, I imagine it's easier to go find a handful of sportswriters who drop the capitals than to say "Sorry, I guess I screwed up in a field I don't know much about, I'll go fix it now." Ravenswing 02:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ya should've went the RM route, first. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
In hindsight, sure. But if you look at my edits on those articles it will be plain that they were full of over-capitalization, sugggesting that they had never been looked at for style issues. Since "NHL amateur draft" is seldom capped in general and independent sources, and since these articles were in need of a gnoming pass for caps style, it didn't seem like these moves would be seen as controversial. It's not clear to me why they were reverted, other than hockey fans liking to cap their own stuff (see WP:SSF). But they were, so now it's time to discuss at RM: Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft#Requested move 26 May 2020. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Your justification was a link to a google search which had almost no results. The vast majority of publications dealing with hockey capitalize it when talking about the specific event. The instances of non-capitalization is when they are just reffering to the generic amateur draft (which is what some of the sources are doing in your link). I don't think it is at all clear that that they are seldem capped. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Which somehow does not include the "Entry Draft" which was capped all over the news today, wow.18abruce (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Entry Draft is more often capped in sources, in a majority in some years, so I figured it would have been controversial to lowercase those. Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion and the related move discussion that closed at no consensus to move has lead to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:SPORTCAPS might need revision. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Subject possibly editing article about himself

What do we do when the subject of an article is possibly editing the article about himself? Please see Talk:Ron Berteling for details. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ice hockey venue categories

Hi, as almost all ice hockey venues are indoor, Category:Ice hockey venues and Category:Indoor ice hockey venues seem almost identical. (Similarly Category:Indoor ice hockey venues is an incomplete duplicate of Category:Ice hockey venues by country.) Would it make sense to merge the indoor categories into the main categories and just keep the outdoor subcategories? This could also make it easier to navigate between different wikipedias as 17 have Category:Ice hockey venues, 10 have a Category:Indoor ice hockey venues (including 4 Nordic languages I linked today) and 6 have both. TSventon (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

OHL Affiliates

The following message was posted on my talk page: Example text I'm preoccupied with other things recently, and a bit removed from OHL news. Does anyone have time to help Dominic with this? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't but our resident Junior A/B expert is @DMighton:. He might be able to help. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft articles at Move Review

The Request for Move is up for review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 July#1978 NHL Amateur Draft. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

National team in infobox

Something I've been meaning to bring up here for a bit, but finally got to now: national teams in infoboxes. We had a prior discussion back in 2011 that ended with the decision to only use senior national teams, and if a player only played junior to leave it out. However I would like to bring up including both junior and senior appearances. My rationale is that the IIHF itself considers junior to be equal (see their regulations on switching national teams), and for many players junior appearances are just as important, if not more, than senior. And I'll apologize in advance as it looks like I was the one who instigated the previous discussion, but seeing how it's been 9 years since then I think it would be fair to go over it again. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That would open the door to all kinds of things like the U-17 and whatnot. I would personally prefer it to just do senior teams. And if we do end up doing junior it will take some rewriting of the infobox to allow for that because it currently forces a link to the senior national team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm generally in favor of anything that trims infobox bloat down. (But that being said, I can't see anything wrong with revisiting issues the better part of a decade apart!) Ravenswing 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I am okay with the national junior (under-20) team being listed in the infobox. Flibirigit (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If we allow the change. Does that mean AHL & more so CHL teams will be added to bios infoboxes, in addition to the NHL teams? GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
One would think. Likely more readers would care about a player who spent 5 seasons in the AHL than someone who spent 5 games on Italy's U-20 team. Ravenswing 18:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion would be similar to the guidance for baseball player bios on teams in the infobox (which I wrote): if player has played in the NHL or (perhaps?) the KHL, then only teams in those leagues should be listed, as this becomes one of the defining characteristics of the person. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
That was our guidance previously, however, many people argued that wasn't true for European players and as such we needed to also add theirs, which in turn led to fans of minor league hockey to say the North American minor leagues are just as important as the Europeans leagues etc. So now we have a mish mash. I still prefer the only teams listed being from the highest level achieved. We also used to only list the teams for the current league they were playing in. But that got more confusing when players bounced between leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a short list of career-defining leagues should be used. Once someone makes the NHL, that's what is going into the opening sentences of their bio, not "AHL player". I suppose it could be regionalized, with the player's highest level team(s) in North America and Europe listed. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that the consensus is leaning towards the status quo (senior only), which is understandable. I still think we would be fine including junior-levels, but I'm not that worried about it to make a big thing. And regarding minor league teams in the infobox, that is a whole other thing, and I would be strongly against all but top-level teams. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive75&oldid=1137379987"