Talk:Triple Gold Club/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Suggestion More detailed years
- FWIW, the years of each championship win should be added to each players name in the list, like in the IIF PDF in the external links. Then they could be wikilinked to the apropriate article. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Mario Lemieux?
Why is he not on the list? He won the Stanley cup, the Olympic gold medal, the the world championship gold. according to his wikipedia profile he is a member of the triple gold club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.164.164 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- He didn't actually win the World Championships. He won the Canada Cup and again when it was name the World Cup of Hockey. But he never won the IIHF's World Championship, his only attempt being in 1985. His article is in error and I will go correct it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Detroit Red Wings
If Red Wings win the Stanley Cup this year, there will be three new players to the list: Niklas Kronwall, Mikael Samuelsson and Henrik Zetterberg who all won 2006 Olympic gold and World Championship. Note it here beforehand because I'm not sure how well it's mentioned if it happens. Looks like there is no players in World Championship who have chance. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Canada Cup / Swedish championships
The Canada Cup is not part of the Triple Gold Club. The same is true of a lot of other international tournaments, for example the Istvetia tournament, Sweden Hockey Games and the Junior World Championships. The same is true of national championships liek the Russian or Swedish championship.
I don't see the point of including a discussion of which tournaments (for example the Swedish Championship) outside of the Triple Gold Club the members have won. The Triple Gold Club is very precise. The place to discuss the acchievements of individual players is on each player's page.
I'm removing the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.184.123 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Double?
Ok, I'll bite, what is a "double", in the "Membership gained" column? There is no reference to it on the IIHF page and it doesn't quite make sense. Just having 2 Olympic gold medals? Or 2 Cups? Or 2 of everything? Wouldn't that be a Sextuple Gold Club? Seems like this could be WP:OR. Please comment and/or cite. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Was WP:BOLD and removed the "double" references after 6 days. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Future members
How keep an eye on the 'close-tos', those who have two out of three under their belt? An idea, anyone? LarRan (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Switch to first year only?
I've decided to start working on improving this page, and I wanted to switch the table so that it only listed the first year that the player won whatever accolade (and a second table would be added for double winners). I tried it out and I think it looks great, but I figured that some might not like it, so here is the chance for opinions. Here is the table:
-- Scorpion0422 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate to list the double members twice in the same table (with a colour code or italics for the second memberships) instead of having two tables?
Player Membership gained Olympic Gold World Championship Stanley Cup 
Peter Forsberg
10 June 1996 Sweden 1994
Sweden 1992
Colorado Avalanche 1996 
Viacheslav Fetisov
7 June 1997 
USSR 1984
USSR 1978
Detroit Red Wings 1997 Igor Larionov
7 June 1997 USSR 1984
USSR 1982
Detroit Red Wings 1997 Viacheslav Fetisov
16 June 1998 USSR 1988
USSR 1981
Detroit Red Wings 1998 Igor Larionov
16 June 1998 USSR 1988
USSR 1983
Detroit Red Wings 1998 Peter Forsberg
26 February 2006 Sweden 2006
Sweden 1998
Colorado Avalanche 2001
- The benefit of this would be more chronology, while the downside might be that it deviates more from the official list. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- My humble opinion is that it is relevant information if a player has won a championship more than once. These "additional" championships could be marked in another way, maybe by italics, maybe by adding "(additionally in year1, year2, etc)". I don't think it should be left out.
- The idea of double entries in the table, well, maybe. One could take a look at the list of NHL players with more than 1000 points. Wayne Gretzky, with 2,857 (I believe), has two entries, but the second one looks different from other entries. But I also like it the way it is, mentioned in the lead section. LarRan (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Youngest/oldest player to gain membership
Could user Scorpion0422 please elaborate on why the youngest/oldest player to gain membership is "trivia", while making the club in the shortest/longest time span from the first title is relevant? To me, it seems to be the same kind of information, and in both cases relevant in this kind of articles.
"Russians Viacheslav Fetisov and Igor Larionov and Swede Peter Forsberg are the only players to have won each of the three championships more than once." is also an unsourced statement, although anyone who can read is able to verify it. Does it take a journalist to write about an obvious fact to make it sourced? And why isn't this "trivia"?
LarRan (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The bit about double winners is sourced, even if there is no citation. It is proven by the table, which itself is sourced. Their ages when they won, however, is not sourced at all which is partially why I removed it. It is also trivia and if we include age, why not other statistics? With the case of the NHL with the most members and quickest to join, those bits at least directly affect a players membership. -- Scorpion0422 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Youngest/oldest player to achieve this or that, fastest three goals, etc, etc, are statistics that interest a lot of people. Recently, Sergei Fedorov became the oldest player to score a game winning goal in the NHL playoffs. That has been noted in the wikipedia. I find this type of statistics relevant and interesting, and so does probably a whole lot of other people too - and this is an encyclopedia. I haven't checked, but I supect that wikipedia has info, not only on who has won the Wimbledon most number of times, but also on who was youngest and oldest doing it - and that is relevant info in an encyclopedia, right?
- I guess you're worried that a lot of irrelevant stats would cramp the article. It's not like I added their mother's age when giving birth to them, or something like that. There is a limited number of stats types relevant to the subject that could be added, you know. So it can't really grow much.
- I'll invite a couple of guys here, and see what they think of it. Then we'll have a vote.
- LarRan (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not work by voting, and I haven't even seen you try to address the fact that it's unsourced. -- Scorpion0422 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- You mean it doesn't work by autocracy? Ever heard of consensus? LarRan (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It does work by consensus. However, you specifically said "Then we'll have a vote", Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even if you found a dozen users who agree with you, it doesn't change the fact that it's unsourced. -- Scorpion0422 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You mean it doesn't work by autocracy? Ever heard of consensus? LarRan (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not work by voting, and I haven't even seen you try to address the fact that it's unsourced. -- Scorpion0422 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I re-added youngest/oldest player bit. It's as useful and interesting as the breakdown of positions for instance. While it is not directly cited, it's not a reason to exclude it since it is easy to verify, and since it is not a potentially contentious/controversial fact, the lack of inline citation is the not the end of the world. As for the argument if age is included, why not other statistics, age is a defining characteristic of a winner: someone was good enough to help win three major trophies early in his career, or only later; a team is only as good as its players. For other statistics, it don't see why not to add it if it's relevant; in this case, age is relevant. Maxim(talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is a FL, so everything that gets added should have a citation before being added. How is it easy to verify? Without a specific citation, one would have to look up the ages of all players, then compare their ages on the dates they joined. If that's easy, then I don't know what's hard. I'd just like to try to keep the statistics to a minimum and try to keep it to summarizing what is stated in the table. -- Scorpion0422 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hockey's exclusive company–Triple Gold Club. It's simple arithmetic from there: the basic info is all there. I'll stop reverting now (hmm... on second thought: I may have shot with the third revert and only now ask the question... :/ but I honestly think the source is fine and the problem's fixed.) Maxim(talk) 21:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, you took the laziest route you could, way to put in an effort. And it's not really simple, because anyone wanting to confirm would have to do it all themselves. Couldn't you find a source that just stated it? The only reason I'm not going to revert is because I don't feel like edit warring with you. I still disagree because it really is trivia and not really relating to the list. Notice how neither List of Stanley Cup champions, List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey or List of IIHF World Championship medalists contain such statistics? Hell, why not list players who joined the club playing in three different countries? The venue does effect things, after all. Or, why not players who won a championship in three different decades? -- Scorpion0422 21:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hockey's exclusive company–Triple Gold Club. It's simple arithmetic from there: the basic info is all there. I'll stop reverting now (hmm... on second thought: I may have shot with the third revert and only now ask the question... :/ but I honestly think the source is fine and the problem's fixed.) Maxim(talk) 21:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2009
World Championships didn't give any new ones to the club. I looked at the rosters of the remaining teams and I found two players with chance to join the club with Stanley Cup: Mattias Öhlund and Mats Sundin. Both won Olympic gold medal in 2006 and World Championship in 1998, Sundin also in 1991 and 1992. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- With Canucks knocked out there won't be new members this year. Next option is in Olympics 2010 with quite a lot of players, I will put list after rosters are announced in December or January.BleuDXXXIV (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Double Triple Gold?
Is there any name for someone who has collected all the pieces multiple times? I ask because I see Forsberg, Fetisov, and Larionov all have at least 2 of each component, and that seems like a pretty exclusive club worth mentioning if it has a name. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course now I see I missed that in the lead. So nevermind, I suppose. Still interested if it has a name tho. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
New members?
Does anobody know if there could be any new members after the Olympics, now that most squads have been announced? LarRan (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This really isn't the place for such speculation, but, off the top of my head:
- Canada - Eric Staal
- Czech Republic - None (that I can think of, though Petr Sykora and Vaclav Prospal would have been possiblilities had they been named to the team)
- Finland - Jere Lehtinen
- Russia - Ilya Bryzgalov (could become the first goalie to join the club), Sergei Fedorov
- Slovakia - Miroslav Satan
- Sweden - None (because most of the Cup-winning players on the team were part of the 06 team).
- USA - Nobody (because they haven't won the World Championships since 1960)
There are probably others. Though, no matter which of the big six wins, it will open the floodgates for a lot of possible members, like Canada winning in 2002 and Sweden in 2006 did. -- Scorpion0422 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, all rosters are provisional until February 15 (they have only been mandatorily announced). Exact speculation (forecast of possibilities) is not possible until the rosters are final. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)