This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
There is no need for an entire table for one player. The tables should be used when there is multiple players/common transactions not every little transaction needs their own table. I don't know if there is such a thing as over tabling a page but this is it IMO. The information about Booth being bought out can be put in the prose. The compliance buy outs/regular buy outs have not been given their own tables in the past I see no reason to start now. Further more when/if Booth signs he will then be also listed in the free agents lost table repeating the information that he is no longer on the team. If we really want to capture this info we might want to consider completely scrapping the current table system and change to one line the Flames page is using were its an addition and subtraction table instead of each transaction (accept trades) havering their own table --Mo Rock...Monstrous(leech44) 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that there is no need for a table containing only one player. Mentioning his buyout in the prose, and then listing his new team under the free agent table should be sufficient.Canuck89(converse with me) 20:28, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
Some articles do use tables like this (Pittsburgh's recent seasons come to mind if my memory serves), but I find it to be an incredibly poor way of doing things. There is really no purpose to using five or six sections to denote what amounts to two types of transactions: Additions, and Subtractions. As such, I would favour the example I've been using for the Calgary articles over the past few seasons. Resolute 22:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have further addressed this issue at Talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey with the hope that a formatting style will be agreed upon which will be consistently used within all 30 such articles for NHL teams. I suggest that we make our arguments there where a larger participation is more likely. Dolovis (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
