Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive10
 | 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. |
An anonymous user has tagged Cory Schneider for deletion, based on "notability." However, I don't really know what to do about it, because it does not seem to be an AFD. I don't really know what to do about this; any help? Skudrafan1 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed it, Schneider is notable. --Krm500 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- A prod tag is a proposed deletion. If it is left intact for five days, an admin may delete it as an uncontroversial deletion. If you disagree with a prod request, you may remove the tag for any, or no, reason. At that point, the user who prodded the article may choose to take it to AfD, or drop the issue. Once a prod tag has been removed from an article, it cannot be readded. Resolute 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys. Skudrafan1 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Schneider is an up-and-coming US goalie. I saw him play in the 2006 World Junior competition (Vancouver, BC). He may not be 'notable' to the general public, but he's definitely one of the hottest up and coming goalie prospects. I think you'll see him in the NHL in the next 3-5 years. Will he be the next Roberto Luongo or Martin Brodeur? I doubt it. But he'll be an NHLer here soon enough. Klinean 01:54, 13 April 2007
Team abbreviations template
I've finally picked my project to chart the various lists of NHL players (see List of NHL players: B - any help anyone wants to offer would be appreciated), and for sake of simplicity in listing and linking team names, I have created the following template: {{NHLteamabbr}}
If anyone else can think of a list or situation where a need to show all 50 current and former team names would exist, or if I missed any teams/have an incorrect abbreviation, it would be appreciated. A decent abbreviation to distinguish the original Senators from the current team currently eludes me. Resolute 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have these abbreviations been used anywhere? I don't recall seeing MNS for example.
Otherwise, this seems to be "original research" and not appropriate for an encyclopedia/Wikipedia.I see what you're doing now. I'm not sure I like the idea of creating non-standard abbreviations. In cases where standard abbreviations could refer to more than one team (Minn for North Stars or Wild, Ott for the two incarnations of the Senators), most often historical time period will differentiate. In ambiguous situations, a footnote would seem better than idiosyncratic abbreviations. Does the NHL or a book on the history of the NHL use an abbreviation, so that they would be in wider use than here? - Cafemusique 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC) revised 12:56- For the most part, the abbreviations are standard abbreviations used presently, or historically, across the league. For current cities with previous teams, I simply added the first letter of the nickname for the previous teams. The Ottawa Senators situation is obviously a challenge. MNS for the Minnesota North Stars was simply the most convienent abbreviation I could come up with. It looked better to me than MinN or MinNS. I had thought of simply letting historical period differentiate, however unless people know of the histories behind the teams, it may be more difficult for them to determine which Min is being referred to. Resolute 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a few notes I'd like to mention: the two Sens incarnations do not overlap, so when referring to a player as being a Senator, it should be unambiguous to which Sens it is (indeed NHL sources do not differentiate the two). Same thing with Pirate and Penguin players, as well as Quakers and Flyers players, Bulldogs and Nordiques players, and Eagles and Blues players (all of which have in common, of course, is that the Original Six era straddled the two teams). There might be minor confusion to as to players who played on both the Rockies and Avalanche, or the North Stars and Wild, or Flames and Thrashers. There are a few other unconventional abbreviations used: the Hartford Whalers used "HFD" in every NHL source I've seen, "CBJ" has been used more than "CLB" for the Columbus Blue Jackets (especially in the media and the team logo), and "CAL" usually refers to the Calgary Flames and not the California Golden Seals (according to NHL sources, which usually used "OAK"). Using "BYK" for the Brooklyn Americans is just esoteric, as even NHL sources used "NYA" or "BRO" during that one year. In a bit of excessiveness, I've also seen "NJD", "WSH", "NSH", and "TBY" used for the Devils, Caps, Preds, and Lightning, repectively. Then there's the aberration that also, in some sources, referred to the Isles as "LI". kelvSYC 02:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Guideline for the offseason?
Is there any guidelines for the current roster section on team pages during the offseason? Should players be on the current roster until they sign with a new team (if they're free agents)? Or should all players without a contract be removed? --Krm500 17:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a guideline for this. The pratice has been at Wikipedia, to leave free agents with last contractual team, until & if they signed with a new team. You could propose a 'free agent' guideline and seek your peers opinons on it. GoodDay 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah usually we just tend to leave them there till the season starts. If they haven't been signed by then we remove them. But there isn't any set guideline. That's just sorta how it happens. --DJSasso 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Okey, thanks. --Krm500 21:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
List of NHL Draft Busts
Well, I finally decided to give the List of NHL Draft Busts article another shot at life on Wikipedia. I decided to delve into more depth as to the definition of a bust, the profile of the busts, and a place to put players that could become busts for whatever reason that you see. This, I feel, is much worthier of a Wikipedia article than the last article I did on the subject.
So if you have some spare time on your hands, critique the article for me. If you do so, thanks for the help. Hossmann 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest removing the section on potential draft busts. That will cause the article to get shot down in a hurry per WP:CRYSTAL. The most important part of this article will have to be sourcing. If there are reliable sources that argue such players are busts, it should be alright. Lacking sources, it will fall afoul of Wikipedia's original research and point of view policies. Resolute 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Hossmann 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
New article: Esso Women's Nationals
I'm surprised that there is no article on the Canadian senior women's ice hockey championships, the Esso Women's Nationals, or its trophy, the Abby Hoffman Cup. I've made an article on the former, but it's way below any real standard. Can someone with better knowledge of Canadian women's hockey add in some details, as well as the teams representing each province? (I can easily tell if an NWHL or WWHL team represents a province, but for the others...)
I also have to point out the articles on the NWHL and WWHL are far too inaccurate: while it's true that the NWHL and WWHL are the top leagues, Wikipedia has it that the WWHL is defunct (which it is not, as the media keep referring to it as being existent, although there is a partial truth to the fact that it was "absorbed" into the NWHL, as the WWHL teams - except the Calgary Oval X-Treme, the defending WWHL champions - are linked from the NWHL website). I also note that the Clarkson Cup has been subsequently awarded, although how it was I'm not too sure (as the last time I checked it did replace the NWHL Champion's Cup). Again, someone with better knowledge of Canadian women's hockey should fill in some details.
kelvSYC 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that a user has created this new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Hockey League, to cover NHL-related articles. I already thought WikiProject Ice Hockey is already covering it. Or should it stay and be a "Descendant Wikiproject". Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Stupid, we already have an established project with many members that cover NHL articles. --Krm500 13:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Wayne Gretzky's Nationality
This subject is reopening at Talk:Wayne Gretzky. Comments are requested from WikiProject Ice Hockey members. Flibirigit 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Similar to this issue is the issue of Rod Langway. Langway has a category for Taiwanese ice hockey players. He was born in Taiwan, but grew up and learned the game in the US. Should we add a category to his article for American ice hockey players? This same question would apply to several other players as well. Patken4 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the current consensus is to add a category for both the country he was born in and the country they play internationally for if it is different. I don't know if Langway ever played for the American national team so that is why the category is absent. I will look into it and add it if he has.--Djsasso 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have added the cat to Langway. --Djsasso 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the current consensus is to add a category for both the country he was born in and the country they play internationally for if it is different. I don't know if Langway ever played for the American national team so that is why the category is absent. I will look into it and add it if he has.--Djsasso 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes for defunct NHL teams
I noticed most of the articles on defunct NHL teams still use the old infoboxes we user, so I developed a variation of our current team infobox with some of the elements that require the team to be still active (e.g. coach, captain, GM, media affliates, etc.) stripped away. The box can be found at User:NeoChaosX/Infobox DefunctNHLTeam (I'm not moving it to template space just yet), and I've used California Golden Seals to try it out. Just doing this for the sake of consistency, is all. Any thoughts? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. I do like the consistency. I notice the same with defunct arenas. I give the green light. 71.99.83.251 12:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. RGTraynor 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me as well. Though perhaps you could just make those particular fields unmanditory in the main box? Either way is fine. --Djsasso 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking that, too, although that would require a major reworking of the code of the main infobox, something I don't have the time to do right now. If that were possible while still keeping the layout of the current main box intact, I would use it instead. For now, though, this will have to do. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok sounds good to me. I have never tried to code a template here so wasn't sure what was involved. --Djsasso 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking that, too, although that would require a major reworking of the code of the main infobox, something I don't have the time to do right now. If that were possible while still keeping the layout of the current main box intact, I would use it instead. For now, though, this will have to do. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Minnesota North Stars
On the List of MN North Stars players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_North_Stars_players), there is a link on a player called Gary Sargent. But the link leads to a page that is either about a different Gary Sargent or has been vandalized. 24.245.35.74 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nope it links to the right person. --Djsasso 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get Ice Hockey to FA status. I have split a section of the article(lacking a worldwide view) into a separate, bigger article, but I can't write a good lead. Anybody able to do it? The Evil Clown 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you get consensus from other editors to do this? Kevlar67 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, but I took a look at it, and I wasn't myself bothered by it. RGTraynor 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's great and all. But really the other editors of Ice Hockey should sign off on something like this. I'm worried about it turning into a POV fork, or just being plain unnecessary. Practically all important hockey competitions in NA and W Europe have been pro for decades, and the Soviets were only "amateur" by a very generous interpretation. Do other sports divide their coverage on WP this way? I don’t know, but I’d guess not. Kevlar67 00:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, but I took a look at it, and I wasn't myself bothered by it. RGTraynor 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone else thought that list was unnecessary, especially considering that there is a List of NHL players with 500 goals. -- Scorpion 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. I see no problem with turning it into a redirect to List of NHL players with 500 goals. Would anyone have an issue with that? Resolute 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I would recommend making the default sort on the list of NHLers with 500 goals to be number of goals rather than date it was achieved. Resolute 04:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- My main concern is that it would open up the possibility for other similar pages. Why a list for players with 400 goals, 1200 points, etc, etc. As for the default sortability option, it is a list of players who have achieved 500 goals, not the top scorers. -- Scorpion 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the concern of arbitrary figures being introduced. 500 is a number of key importance by the NHL, but anything else would be arbitrary. There is a List of NHL players with 700 goals, which has already been redirected. IMO, that is a good solution for this one too. Good point on the list of scorers, however, I think the date is a very poor default sort option. If not by total number of goals, then alphabetically would be ideal. Resolute 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the sort method should be number of goals. The reason behind that is because with the redirects of other search phrases, such as List of NHL players with 700 goals, at least the researcher who was looking would easily be able to see those players at the top of the list even though all players with 500 goals are also listed. The number of goals scored as the sort is more useful. If the list is to only show those users at 500 goals or more, than alphabetized is best. However, it is more functional to sort by goals scored. Pparazorback 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the concern of arbitrary figures being introduced. 500 is a number of key importance by the NHL, but anything else would be arbitrary. There is a List of NHL players with 700 goals, which has already been redirected. IMO, that is a good solution for this one too. Good point on the list of scorers, however, I think the date is a very poor default sort option. If not by total number of goals, then alphabetically would be ideal. Resolute 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- My main concern is that it would open up the possibility for other similar pages. Why a list for players with 400 goals, 1200 points, etc, etc. As for the default sortability option, it is a list of players who have achieved 500 goals, not the top scorers. -- Scorpion 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- However List of NHL statistical leaders already sorts the 500 goals by number... sorting by date or even alphabetical give the page more identity and distinction... and if you say why don't just redirect to List of NHL statistical leaders, I would say this is more of a magnification of that page. 69.63.57.88 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (a defunct user)
- Why should this be "magnified"? - Cafemusique 23:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well not as much of a magnification as opposed to an extension. It is in more detail then the listing on List of NHL statistical leaders. And I may also add that it is sorted by date because that is how it is in the NHL Official Guide & Record Book, the source material. Mister Stat Master 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- However List of NHL statistical leaders already sorts the 500 goals by number... sorting by date or even alphabetical give the page more identity and distinction... and if you say why don't just redirect to List of NHL statistical leaders, I would say this is more of a magnification of that page. 69.63.57.88 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (a defunct user)
Category organization
I was going to make subcategories of Category:Hockey Hall of Fame for builders, players, and officials. Does anyone have a problem with the naming scheme Category:Builders in the Hockey Hall of Fame, etc? When done, I will also need help sorting the current members of the main category. --Mus Musculus 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we need to chop it down that finely? (I'm not coming down on the notion, per se; I'm just interested in the rationale for doing so.) RGTraynor 20:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the category is fairly large right now and not really browsable for a reader looking for members in a particular HHOF category. There are two lists of HHOF members, but they are alphabetical and chronological, not by category. We have been pursuing a goal of having an article for every HHOF member, so there are quite a few "Builders" and "Officials" in the category at this point. So, rather than having the bulk in one large category, I'd rather present the option of view just Players and so on. --Mus Musculus 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd prefer a list to a category. --Djsasso 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- So something like Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame by category? --Mus Musculus 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Probably something like List of Hockey Hall of Famers in the builders category something like that...though this example is a bit of a mouth full. Or List of Hockey Hall of Fame builders perhaps...unless that would confuse people to its purpose. --Djsasso 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So something like Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame by category? --Mus Musculus 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocker or blocker?
I noticed there are two pages for a goalie's blocker. This one has more links to it, but this one seems more complete. Merge? Just thought I'd point it out! --Schmackity 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge it but use the name Blocker (hockey) because goalies in both field and ice hockey use blockers I do believe. Of course you will have to put that up for nom to do it tho. --Djsasso 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the proposed merge tags as suggested. ColtsScore 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
WP Munich- Sports Task Force Invitation
I'm wondering if anyone in here would like to join WikiProject Munich and help out with the hockey section for the Sports Task Force. Kingjeff 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know much about hockey in Germany. What kind of help is it that you are looking for? --Krm500 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just so there isn't any confusion between the two, I've labeled Bill Stewart, who played in the NHL in 80's and later coached the Islaners, as Bill Stewart (ice hockey player) and Bill Stewart who was an ice hockey and baseball offical as well as coach of the Blackhawks as Bill Stewart (sports). The Bill Stewart in the US Hockey Hall of Fame is the sports Bill Stewart. Patken4 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- We need to change the one to Bill Stewart (ice hockey) because if you use the word player in there it is too specific since he was a coach as well. Or (ice hockey b. xxxx) for whatever year he was born in cause using the word player makes it too specific since he was a coach as well. --Djsasso 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I'll also did a dablink from Bill Stewart (ice hockey) to Bill Stewart (sports). Patken4 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I found a duplicate article. If you know much about these guys you might want to merge whats necessary and put it up for deletion. Bill Stewart (hockey coach). --Djsasso 23:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Both Pat Kelly (skater) and Red Kelly have real names Leonard Patrick Kelly. Is this correct? —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-04 12:29Z
- That definately is Red Kelly's name. And I have no reason to think its not the speed skaters name as well. --Djsasso 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hockey vandal
Please help me keep an eye on 68.39.163.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He has been blocked three times for vandalizing hockey articles, and he is at it again. I have asked the blocking admin to re-block him, and I have undone all of his edits. His MO appears to be either removing text or changing statistics like weight and height. --Mus Musculus 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:Carolina Hurricanes 2006 Stanley Cup Team
Came across this today: Template:Carolina Hurricanes 2006 Stanley Cup Team, which strikes me both as a bad idea, and as an end-run around a similar category which was deleted in CfD a while ago. Imagine such a template for anyone who played on any dynasty of the past? I am personally inclined to list it for deletion at TfD, but wanted to see if anyone here had any objections first. Resolute 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No objections. --Krm500 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Definately think it should be ditched. --Djsasso 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- As one of the resident Hurricanes Editors, no objections here either. I also noticed another template that should also be included as a deletion candidate, Template:Tampa Bay Lightning 2004 Stanley Cup Team. The user Rickyharder has created both. He was busy last night adding that template for Tampa to several of the Lightning players from the 2004 championship team. Both templates should nominated for TfD. Pparazorback 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear on the topic; The best way would probably be to create a Championship Team template that could be placed at the season page of the winning team. A template simular to the Current Roster template. --Krm500 11:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really think there needs to be a template at all. You could just do that with a table on the season page. --Djsasso 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, of course, I ment to use the same code as the Current Roster does. --Krm500 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I don't see how this template is bad, particularly if it's added onto the bottom of biographical articles like the awards succession boxes. Maybe if they had a [show]/[hide] feature? --Wafulz 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- For the most part, it is indiscriminate. Templates are typically used to tie closely related topics together, or to create easy navigation. IMO, simply being members of a championship team are not a close enough relationship to form a useful template, and I don't see the navigational benifits either. As mentioned, a player who appears on multiple Stanley Cup teams will see an article flooded with these things. Imgaine the Wayne Gretzky article if his four cups were listed, along with his international team championships? That article is already bad enough with the succession boxes. Resolute 04:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I don't see how this template is bad, particularly if it's added onto the bottom of biographical articles like the awards succession boxes. Maybe if they had a [show]/[hide] feature? --Wafulz 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, of course, I ment to use the same code as the Current Roster does. --Krm500 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really think there needs to be a template at all. You could just do that with a table on the season page. --Djsasso 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- They have been nominated here. Resolute 05:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also added Template:Colorado Avalanche 2001 Stanley Cup Team to the nomination as well. --Pparazorback 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, these templates have got to go. Imagine what the Montreal Canadiens (24 Stanley Cup titles), Toronto Maple Leafs (13 Stanley Cup titles) and Henri Richard (11 Stanley Cup titles), would look like with such templates? GoodDay 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also added Template:Colorado Avalanche 2001 Stanley Cup Team to the nomination as well. --Pparazorback 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the use of a navigation template is inappropriate for this situation. I can think of two better alternatives: expand List of Stanley Cup champions (or create a sub-article) to include the roster of each winning team (i.e. the names actually engraved on the Cup), or create a new list (List of Stanley Cup winning hockey players??) that has a sortable table to find multiple-Cup winners, sort by team or by year, etc. Andrwsc 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know the best place for these templates. Example: The 2006 Carolina Hurricanes Stanley Cup Team, could be placed at the bottom of 2005-06 Carolina Hurricanes season (when that article is created). GoodDay 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Spurious "retired numbers"
A recurring battle for over a year has been in the Hartford Whalers topic, where a few editors insist that the honoring of three players by the AHL minor league team nine years after the Whalers left town be reflected in the Whalers' Retired Numbers section. One of them has jumped back into the fray and says he's just going to revert to his own edit every day. Comments welcome on the various talk pages, because after a year of it I'm inclined to take it to mediation at the least. RGTraynor 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The consensus continues to be (list only- Ley, Howe & McKenzie). What's troubling to me? The editor who 'promises' to revert daily (against consensus). There's no need for such behaviour (by the editor in question). I'd suggest, not going to 'mediation' (for now), as it's currently only 'one' compative editor. The compative editor, must learn to respect 'consensus (perhaps, an Administrator's block is the answer). GoodDay 20:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Correcting SMALL tags....
I have went from Anaheim through Chicago alphabetically on the NHL Teams list and made numerous corrections to the SMALL tags that are used. Previously it seemed that when the < SMALL > tag was used, text would revert to normal size on the next line. That is apparently no longer the case. If you fail to use the < /SMALL > tag to close it, then all normal text below will also be small. This is found in several places on the NHL Team pages usually beginning at the end of the "seasons" table, and goes through the Rosters (Where players have been indicated as being injured, etc...) and awards. What needs to happen is that all of these < SMALL > tags need to be closed with < /SMALL > to correct the page's text size. I have done through Chicago as I said but do not have the time to do more right now. As I get a chance, I will do more if anyone else does not take on the project to correct this. Any help would be appreciated. (hagerbot is quick, came back here to sign) Pparazorback 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've completed the corrections (you've started). Article text have been restored. GoodDay 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- You would be surprised how many small tags were missed. I even went through the ones I did previously and found several. I did a search for "small>" in my browswer and found every instance of the small tag being used in all the NHL articles and have closed ALL of them. For the future, we will have to be carefull to make sure that we close all smalls that are opened otherwise text problems will occur. --Pparazorback 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Will do. GoodDay 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- You would be surprised how many small tags were missed. I even went through the ones I did previously and found several. I did a search for "small>" in my browswer and found every instance of the small tag being used in all the NHL articles and have closed ALL of them. For the future, we will have to be carefull to make sure that we close all smalls that are opened otherwise text problems will occur. --Pparazorback 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Super Eight discussion
I am looking for some other opinions on the discussion I just started at Talk:Super Eight. Please feel free to add to the discussion. Thanks! Stoneice02 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It just occured to me that someone decided to move the Joe Sakic page to Joe Šakić, which just leads to the issues that we are all so familiar with. Now I am not to sure how to move it back, but if one of you would be so generous to do so, that would be super. Kaiser matias 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I have reverted the move. All you have to do is press the move link right next to "edit this page". --Krm500 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Should have looked around myself before that, but it gets the job done. Kaiser matias 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, how do you think I learned it ;) --Krm500 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sakic on Peer Review
I have spent some time fixing up the Joe Sakic article, and am now going for either a GA or FA nomination in the forseeable future. However, it's lacking something, so I'm asking for the help of my fellow hockey project members to see what this is and fix it. We need more high quality articles, and so lets get them going. The discussion page can be found here. Kaiser matias 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article has been completely rewritten now. I would like to nominate it for GA in the next few days, but would like some more input on it first. Kaiser matias 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks great to me. I'm certain Burnaby Joe, would be flattered. GoodDay 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but it still isn't good enough to what I want it to be. I'm just to limited in what I have available. I need more print sources about him that I know exist, stuff about his time in Quebec and the like. Kaiser matias 20:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Entry Draft article content
In reference to discussions on Talk:1993 NHL Entry Draft and User_talk:24.23.139.245#1993_NHL_Entry_Draft, I wanted to pass this along to the WikiProject for feedback. Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- QUESTION: Should NHL Draft articles be a complete list or some subset (criteria TBD) of the players drafted?
The obvious answer would be to include every player drafted. Remember this is an encyclopedia, and including the entire draft is highly encyclopedic. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not paper. Kaiser matias 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Complete list without a doubt. Even if a majority of the players never make the NHL, they were drafted, and an article about the draft should aim for completeness, not a POV based opinion of who deserves to be listed and who doesnt. Resolute 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- All players drafted should be listed. --Krm500 10:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Concur. While players who fail the terribly loose athletic standards of WP:BIO don't (nor should) merit articles, this is a no-brainer; an entry purporting to be the list of any given draft year must certainly be the complete list of that given draft year. RGTraynor 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, all players should be listed. GoodDay 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, but I agree that all players should be listed. Why not have a comprehensive list of all draftees? Skudrafan1 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would most certainly prefer to see the entrie draft list. DMighton 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I think its pretty much unanimous that it stay all players. It would be rediculous to not have all players listed.--Djsasso 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not to be a loan voice of dissent...but I actually like the way the 1995 NHL Entry Draft is currently. It gives the full names of the first 2 (and most prominent rounds)...and then it lists all of the *significant* NHL contributors. Why do I like it this way? Because I can *quickly* see the important names that made it to the NHL. For example, I can quickly see that Miikka Kiprusoff went No. 116 and Marc Savard went No. 91....without having to scroll through a long list of no-name scrubs that never amounted to anything in the NHL. If I want a full list of everyone, just post a link at the bottom to the Hockey Data Base for them to get that information. Klinean 02:02, 13 April 2007
- Yes however there are names of prominent people that did not make an impact as a player in the NHL. Examples such as referees, executives and such., as well as people who are notable outside of hockey. I mean how many people know that future Hall-of-Famer baseball pitcher Tom Glavine was drafted AHEAD of Luc Robitaille by the LA Kings in the 1984 NHL Entry Draft. Every name could serve some purpose and that is why every name should be listed. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have a good point, Klinean. Is there some way WP could do both? I'm thinking some kind of show/hide which would go from the complete and total listing to just the highlight listing. Hmm, have to put on the old thinking helmet for that one. Go Wings! — MrDolomite • Talk 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really see the use in doing both. Because again where do you draw the line. --Djsasso 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree ... beyond which, like several other project editors, I'm strongly oriented towards the minor leagues. Players like Bruce Boudreau, Michel Picard, Jody Gage, Don Biggs and Lonnie Loach might be scrubs to the NHL-only watchers, but to me they were great players whom I saw play. Heck, the only professional players who outscored Guyle Fielder were named Gretzky and Howe, come to that, and Fielder played all of nine NHL games. RGTraynor 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not to be a loan voice of dissent...but I actually like the way the 1995 NHL Entry Draft is currently. It gives the full names of the first 2 (and most prominent rounds)...and then it lists all of the *significant* NHL contributors. Why do I like it this way? Because I can *quickly* see the important names that made it to the NHL. For example, I can quickly see that Miikka Kiprusoff went No. 116 and Marc Savard went No. 91....without having to scroll through a long list of no-name scrubs that never amounted to anything in the NHL. If I want a full list of everyone, just post a link at the bottom to the Hockey Data Base for them to get that information. Klinean 02:02, 13 April 2007
- Yes, all players should be listed. GoodDay 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah good point Traynor. Those "too-good for the minors, but never made it regularly in the NHL" players are numerous and noteworthy, so you can't really take players off the list without some sort of POV. I mean more guys like Jock Callander, Steve Maltais and Kevin Kerr too are legends in their respective leagues, plus all those North American players who were dominant in the German and Swiss leagues but none of them ever played significant time in the NHL, and I'm inclined to think the common user is unable to make this distinction so I can just envision all kinds of edit wars. My personal favourites watching were Mark Kolesar, Lonny Bohonos and Paul Healey, but that also reveals my obvious Leafs bias. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Challenge Cup
There is a discussion about whether the Rugby League Challenge Cup should be moved to Challenge Cup. I am notifying you since "Challenge Cup" is or has been used as part of the name of various ice hockey tournaments notably the Stanley Cup. Those with an opinion see Talk:Rugby League Challenge Cup.GordyB 09:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Fighting in ice hockey on peer review
Hey everyone, just letting you know that I have been putting extensive work in the Fighting in ice hockey article and I'd like to get it to FA status. I have placed it for peer review here. I'm hoping for suggestions on things to add, etc.
I also wanted to ask for specific advice here about a passage I expect will attract frequent edits, which is the list of "examples" of well-known fighters. I thought a lot about who to include, and I eventually decided that it wasn't for me to decide and so I just included a sourced list from the Allen book. I anticipate that lots of anons and other editors will drive by and add their favorite fighter, but I think it's better as a short and well-sourced list. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Impressive work! I can contribute with possibly two images in the article to replace the images taken from the seating area. --Krm500 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, that would be helpful. I wanted to limit the images to creative commons or public domain so it has a better chance of making FA. --Mus Musculus (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I refuse to release my images to the public domain. Wikipedia's image policy is a real joke and will hurt this encyclopedia since some great photographers will disappear sooner or later. I'll upload the image to Flickr under the same license as the lead image. I want my images to be used for educational purpose, not commercial. --Krm500 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, that would be helpful. I wanted to limit the images to creative commons or public domain so it has a better chance of making FA. --Mus Musculus (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the image, Image:Frölunda Västerås U18 Fight.jpg. --Krm500 01:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is a terrific image, thank you for uploading it.--Mus Musculus (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but now that I see it in the article I think I should crop it so that the two players fighting are more visible? --Krm500 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I would agree with that. Users with larger resolutions will not see much unless they click the thumbnail. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but now that I see it in the article I think I should crop it so that the two players fighting are more visible? --Krm500 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Create More Articles Week!
Just for laughs, I've been filling in the holes on my redlinks, and I've created a new hockey article every day this week: Connie Madigan, Bruce Landon, Gregg Sheppard and Dennis Kearns, so far. (I'm narked that Reggie Fleming, the Portland Buckaroos and Harold Snepts (!) are likewise redlinked, and they're next on my hit parade.)
Why not go for it yourself? Hit the various Lists of players from Team X, pick out your favorite redlinks, and have at it! RGTraynor 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you looking for Reg Fleming and Harold Snepsts? I've been trying to create articles on all players who have played in an All-Star game myself. I think I have created one for each player who has played in one since 1968 (the year they stopped using the defending champion against the "best of the rest"). The ones left are only those who played a year or two with a champion. The only game I can't find who played is the 1994 game at MSG. The Complete Hockey Encyclopedia I have only has the rosters through 1992, and there is an article here for every game since except 1994. Looking around the net hasn't brought me much luck either. I would be very surprised if a player who played in 94 game didn't have an article, however. Patken4 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa, whoa, whoa people, I INVENTED this game, pick a section in the List of NHL players and just make articles. Traynor you thief! lol. I think one time awhile back I just thought, "hey I'm gonna create a page for each player who has scored 500 career points in the NHL". I can't really prove it anymore, cuz I deleted my Creations page a while back, but trust me, it was very very long. Ok, now that my shameless self-promotion is done, I'll just say that overall in the last year by everyone in the wikiproject there have been tons of hockey articles done, and it just takes too much effort these days to find a worthy red-link that needs to be created, but keep up the good work Traynor and Patken! Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Shameless self promotion alert!)A few weeks ago, I wrote a bunch of articles on players from the 70's and 80's. The only players I was really surprised we didn't already have articles for were Mario Marois and Lou Nanne. Hopefully, I got most of the "known" players from these decades. The only ones who wouldn't have one now are those where the link from the team pages links only to a disambigution page or someone with that name already has an article. I didn't check any of those.
- Also, a big thanks should go out to Skudrafan1 for doing an article on all the remaining Sabres players! Patken4 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the shout-out. I just couldn't stand all those red links on List of Buffalo Sabres players. But I'm all new-articled out, for awhile at least, after that escapade. :) Skudrafan1 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally what I think we should do is instead of creating articles for all the one-game NHLers, we should work on the content of what we have. I have been going through the list of unassessed articles, and have found that there is thousands of stub-class articles, and very few that are of any quality. We only have four FA-status articles (including a FA-status list) and another two being nominated, and four GA-status articles, out of 7500 hockey articles. We can do a lot better, and should be working to making more articles reaching FA-status and the like, not adding hundreds of articles that will only contain a few sentences. Kaiser matias 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah but Kaiser, something is better than nothing, hence the reason we have stubs in Wikipedia. Personally I don't think the goal should be GA's or FA's, but how many articles are factual and cover the content well, and I think we have many of those. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Protection for Chris Neil
Can we do something for the ridiculous amount of vandalism going on at the Chris Neil article? DMighton 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- 3 vandalism in 1 week is small beans. Employ "Revert, Block, Ignore". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was just passing by it, thought it worse than it was... just left a heads up. DMighton 05:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Urgent request - Article verification needed
A relative of Pat Quinn is quite upset over his article. Upset enough to raise a complaint over at the WP:OTRS. According to this person the statistics are way off. Since I know nothing about hockey I would like to request that everyone here spend some time verifying/correcting the statistics and adding citations where appropriate. Any kind of article improvement would be appreciated.
Thanks everyone... I'm sure at the end of this endeavor we will have another happy "customer". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- What statistics are in dispute? The only statistics that are listed are his coaching records which appear to be 100% factual, so I do not see what the dispute may be about. I added an external link to his bio on hockeydb.com so show that the listed stats appear to be correct.--Pparazorback 05:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure. The complaint didn't say. But if you've checked it out against a reliable source and it turned out accurate, thats what I needed to know. It's very possible this person saw it just after some vandalism. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- And, for my part, I'd rather like to see some proof that this was indeed a "relative" of Quinn's, and even if so, what standing he had to insist on much of anything. I had someone who claimed to be Al Hamilton's nephew jump all over me and insist that Wayne Gretzky succeeded Hamilton as captain of the Oilers (which of course he didn't) and being his nephew, he should know. RGTraynor 04:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to ask anyone on the OTRS team to verify that Ticket#: 2007040210013748 came from a Mr. Quinn and that the domain the email came from is a business associated with hockey. I'm fairly confident that this person is a relative of Pat. For the record, this person hasn't claimed to be related, I am just drawing conclusions.
- In any case, verifying articles is one of our jobs. Thanks everyone for your work... I'll let this gentleman know we've checked the article out and can't find any errors. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Career statistics - suggestion
What about for player articles, separating the statistics by league, so that each league the player has played on, for example NCAA AHL and then NHL, each had a different column. Its just its so hard to read the statistics the way they are without bolding certain leagues, an example would be the Brandon Bochenski article. Since Wikipedia is not paper, this might be the better option since in most cases we see the normal format it is compressed for space reasons. I propose something like this:
| Regular Season | Playoffs | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season | Team | League | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM | ||
| 2001-02 | University of North Dakota | NCAA | 36 | 17 | 15 | 32 | 34 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2002-03 | University of North Dakota | NCAA | 43 | 35 | 27 | 62 | 42 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2003-04 | University of North Dakota | NCAA | 41 | 27 | 33 | 60 | 40 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Totals | 1 Team | NCAA | 120 | 79 | 75 | 154 | 116 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2004-05 | Binghamton Senators | AHL | 75 | 34 | 36 | 70 | 16 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 2005-06 | Binghamton Senators | AHL | 33 | 22 | 24 | 46 | 36 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2005-06 | Norfolk Admirals | AHL | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
| 2006-07 | Norfolk Admirals | AHL | 29 | 28 | 26 | 54 | 21 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Totals | 2 Teams | AHL | 143 | 89 | 93 | 172 | 83 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | ||
| 2005-06 | Ottawa Senators | NHL | 20 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 14 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2005-06 | Chicago Blackhawks | NHL | 20 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2006-07 | Chicago Blackhawks | NHL | 10 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2006-07 | Boston Bruins | NHL | 31 | 11 | 11 | 22 | 14 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Totals | 2 Teams | NHL | 81 | 21 | 20 | 41 | 38 | - | - | - | - | - | ||
As you can see its much easier to read, however its breaking away from the norm in that chronological order is most important. In this way its League first, Chrono second, and I personally see no problem with that. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like it like that because when it comes to stats I think Chrono is the most important aspect so you can see how a player has developed over time. The call ups the send backs etc. And how their totals grew or fell over time. --Djsasso 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah but part of my point is that without bolding a certain league (most obvious example the NHL), it just looks like a horribly jumbled mess. I agree with you too, I prefer chrono, but since we can't be impartial to league and just bold NHL totals, its much harder to read statistics for the more casual reader. I even have a little difficulty reading it, and I've been a statsfreak since I was born. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I usually just prefer to put the totals for all of them on the bottom of the list in the order in which they were first played in. But I do see your point. --Djsasso 18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah but part of my point is that without bolding a certain league (most obvious example the NHL), it just looks like a horribly jumbled mess. I agree with you too, I prefer chrono, but since we can't be impartial to league and just bold NHL totals, its much harder to read statistics for the more casual reader. I even have a little difficulty reading it, and I've been a statsfreak since I was born. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wish there was some kinda of automatic sorting template-type feature we could use. But it would take forever to implement. Flibirigit 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah obviously we'll never get that. We're always gonna have stats tables of varying styles and appearance, some very nice ones and some horribly mutated. Just more or less finding out if their is vehement opposition to this kind of thing. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Does anything like that already exist here? I would be willing to code one if there is an example to go on. --Mus Musculus (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are templates with the "hide" function. That might help. Flibirigit 05:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Try using class = "wikitable sortable". Also, m:Help:Sorting is a good place to look for help. (I'd also suggest putting style="text-align:center" in the table header after that class statement so you don't have to put align="center" on every line in the table....). HTH, Andrwsc 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-Notable people engraved on the Stanley Cup
Now I realize that winning the cup for a player is a very notable thing. However, maybe its just me but I think its a bit over kill to have every person engraved on the cup listed on wikipedia. That being said I don't mean we should leave off players who won it. I think every player who won it should be on here. Its the "staff" members for lack of a better term that I think is a bit of over kill. The trainers and the physical therapists. A good example and the one that finally put me over the top with thinking I should seek others opinions would be Art Cayford. I mean exactly what kind of info are we going to ever have in an article about the secretary-treasurer of a team? I think it would be fine to have a list of some sort to list these people. But not completely seperate articles. --Djsasso 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. A list of these types of people should be sufficent. However should we have articles in special cases? I submit the name of Eddy Palchak. He was the equipment manager for the Canadiens for 30 odd years. While with the team, he won ten Stanley Cups. He has also been honored by the HHOF in their PHATS wing. I would like to write an article on him, however I can't find any biographical information on him anywhere. Would he deserve a separate article? Patken4 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed; a list should be sufficient. As far as Palchak goes, analyzing a potential article for him through an AfDer's eyes, here's my question: what elements of WP:BIO do you figure he fulfills? RGTraynor 13:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although winning the Stanley Cup in some regard is a considerable life achievement, a list should do just fine as opposed to an article. We already have enough articles to watch out for vandalism and this would just fuel the flames. And as for Palchuk, I'm inclined to think that winning 10 stanley cups and being honoured by the HHOF makes him notable enough. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one before I started nominating these sorts of articles. I do agree there are special cases so I will not go to wild but I do need to clean up some of these one sentence stubs. --Djsasso 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I very much disagree with this! I think they should stay on the list!! My brother Chris Huffine (Video Coach) won the cup last year in 2006 with the Carolina Hurricanes becoming the first North Carolina native to ever win and have his name etched on Lord Stanley's Cup!! I feel this has some NC Sports historical significance, plus, these guys work just as hard as anyone to win the Cup just ask the players, coaches and management! It's definitely a team effort! Can someone tell me how to keep my brother's info. on the Wiki site?? It's due to go off by 4-29-07 if it's not changed?? Thanks!
- As mentioned no one is taking his info off the site, we are just moving it to another location. He does not warrent his own article he will be put onto a article which mentions people in rolls such as his and will also mention that he was the first to win from NC. --Djsasso 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Djsasso - Did you move the above to a different location or delete?? hadone
- If you mean the article you were concerned about. Its been deleted but a new one is being created that will have his information on it. Be patient it will be coming soon. --Djsasso 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! hadone
Category Merger Needed
Oops. I created Category:Sorel Black Hawks alumni and, after I started populating it, I realized that Category:Sorel Eperviers alumni already exists for the exact same team. Can the one I erroneously created be merged into the already-existing correct one? I need someone who knows what he/she is doing to do this for me. Sorry. Thanks! Skudrafan1 01:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, is that all I had to do? Move the four articles from my category into the original one? I guess I could have done that after all. Thanks, User:Pparazorback! I'll try to use... oh, I don't know... common sense from now on, before I come here whining about how I don't know how to do something. :) Skudrafan1 03:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it the proper way of doing it, I do not know. It made sense to me. Perhaps one of the more finely tuned editors can chime in and report that. Regardless, I did those edits and nominated your cat for deletion. Was this the way to do it? --Pparazorback 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Seems logical enough to me. Skudrafan1 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it the proper way of doing it, I do not know. It made sense to me. Perhaps one of the more finely tuned editors can chime in and report that. Regardless, I did those edits and nominated your cat for deletion. Was this the way to do it? --Pparazorback 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if you create a duplicate category by accident, you can just move the articles to the right one. In this case, you could redirect the empty category to the populated one, or {{db-author}} it to request speedy deletion. Resolute 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah the French/English teamnames can really bite you in the butt in the QMJHL, I think, I can't remember totally it was a long time ago, but I think I used the team's french names when I created those categories a while back when, but I can't verify that for sure. I'm pretty sure every team in QMJHL history was accounted for, so if you start a category for a QMJHL, just double-check to make sure one of that same team doesn't already exist under its french or english name. Just mentioning thiss so this kinda thing doesn't happen too often by accident again. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently on this page, there was a header named "Sidney Crosby era". The page consensus was to cut down the section and rename the title, at it wreaked of recentism. However, an IP hopping editor is continually reinserting it, basically playing a joke. We would really appreciate if we could get some extra eyes on this article in order to revert the change. Thanks. Part Deux 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There was a consensus on renaming it? I personally thought it was you that was causing the issues as I believe it should labelled the Sidney Crosby Era because that really is the most acurate description. An era does not have to be a long time hence the saying the dawning of a new era.....that being said I was leaving it to you all to sort it out since I don't edit team pages much. --Djsasso 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say 75%, not including Part Deux, constitutes a consensus.
RGTraynor 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I just don't see where there was a debate regarding it. I see some comments on it but but nothing where someone asked for a consensus. And the comments I do see I see 3 people saying change it (including Part Deux) and 2 people saying yes it should stay the same. Which to me isn't a consensus, especially if you include me. --Djsasso 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whom are you claiming said to keep it other than Exoterrick? RGTraynor 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any debate either, but "Sidney Crosby Era" seems inherently POV unless you can come up with multiple media sources uniformly calling it that. --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said I will be happy with whatever way people go, however I don't think its any more POV than the section of the article called the Mario Lemieux era. However, I do see the most widely talked about thing to do with the Penguins for the last few years has been Sidney Crosby...even the pending move didn't get as much press as he has, which is why I feel its appropriate. --Djsasso 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do agree that he is the more important thing to happen to that franchise since Lemieux. But my point is that if we don't back it up with sources, it is just original research. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, naming the section 'the Sidney Crosby era' is way too premature. The 'Kid' is yet to turn 20, has just played in 2 NHL seasons. Perhaps (someday), when his Penguins resume is comparable to Mario Lemieux's (assuming he'll be a long-term Penguin), we can change this section title. GoodDay 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with GoodDay wholeheartedly. Gmatsuda 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, naming the section 'the Sidney Crosby era' is way too premature. The 'Kid' is yet to turn 20, has just played in 2 NHL seasons. Perhaps (someday), when his Penguins resume is comparable to Mario Lemieux's (assuming he'll be a long-term Penguin), we can change this section title. GoodDay 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do agree that he is the more important thing to happen to that franchise since Lemieux. But my point is that if we don't back it up with sources, it is just original research. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said I will be happy with whatever way people go, however I don't think its any more POV than the section of the article called the Mario Lemieux era. However, I do see the most widely talked about thing to do with the Penguins for the last few years has been Sidney Crosby...even the pending move didn't get as much press as he has, which is why I feel its appropriate. --Djsasso 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any debate either, but "Sidney Crosby Era" seems inherently POV unless you can come up with multiple media sources uniformly calling it that. --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whom are you claiming said to keep it other than Exoterrick? RGTraynor 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I just don't see where there was a debate regarding it. I see some comments on it but but nothing where someone asked for a consensus. And the comments I do see I see 3 people saying change it (including Part Deux) and 2 people saying yes it should stay the same. Which to me isn't a consensus, especially if you include me. --Djsasso 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I read the article when it had the "Sidney Crosby era" section, and I thought it flowed really nicely with the Mario Lemieux era title. All the media coverage of the Pens is centred on Sidney Crosby. Discussions of the team's future success centres on Sidney Crosby (with Stall and others being thrown in for mention). Crosby is the team captain. All sports commentary and media coverage on the team includes discussion of Crosby. Even if he never plays another game for the Pens, I think it's accurate to describe his tenure with the team as the Sidney Crosby era. ColtsScore 07:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crosby is not the team captain, he's one of three alternate captains (along with Mark Recchi and Sergei Gonchar). The Penguins captaincy has been vacant since Lemieux retired in January 2006. Just thought I'd clarify that. GoodDay 17:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I'd read somewhere that Crosby was the team captain. Thanks for the clarification : ) ColtsScore 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Crosby is not the team captain, he's one of three alternate captains (along with Mark Recchi and Sergei Gonchar). The Penguins captaincy has been vacant since Lemieux retired in January 2006. Just thought I'd clarify that. GoodDay 17:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please support Martin Brodeur
This article has been up for FA-nomination forever now and it needs a few more supports to get it over the edge and into FA-status. If you feel that it is ready for such a promotion, feel free to say so on the nomination page. Sportskido8 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't support. Possibly the anal sourcing of each and every sentence is what the FA jocks want, but I find it stylistically jarring (as well as pointless) to throw in sixty footnotes, especially in cases where facts are part of the easily reviewed statistical record. For instance, is it genuinely needful to specifically source that Brodeur has played his entire career for the Devils, that in his tenure the Devils have won three Cups, to have TWO sources for breaking Parent's single-season wins record, that he played his junior hockey in the Quebec league, and so many more? RGTraynor 09:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. ccwaters 12:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Our featured article criteria specify that only items that are challenged or likely to be challenged require inline citations, so yes, the Brodeur article probably has too many. --Mus Musculus (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with above that the article is indeed oversourced, but I feel that's not a reason to hold up this article, its well written and as with even the best featured article, its not perfect no matter how many times the FAC overlords would like to say otherwise. Its very informative and I think more people in this WikiProject should throw their support behind this article. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Gretzky has 47 sources and Brodeur has 42 so at the time I did not think of it having too many sources. I tried to source all of the statistic stuff, like "he had 3 shutouts in the series" but maybe those kinds of facts don't really need it. Sportskido8 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Gretzky's article contains a number of controversial statements - just the assertion that he is generally considered the greatest player of all time, a view plainly and obviously held by the majority of hockey commentators, was so contentious here that it generated more discussion than every other issue in the history of the WikiProject combined. You'll note that the sources listed are all supporting statements of opinion. RGTraynor 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Gretzky has 47 sources and Brodeur has 42 so at the time I did not think of it having too many sources. I tried to source all of the statistic stuff, like "he had 3 shutouts in the series" but maybe those kinds of facts don't really need it. Sportskido8 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking out the unnecessary sources Traynor. The article is much cleaner now. Sportskido8 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that Gretzky edit war really got nasty, but I don't think we have to worry about that...everyone KNOWS Brodeur is the greatest goalie of all time, hahaha. Personally I don't notice the citations when I'm reading, but that's just me, maybe I'm a little dyslexic or something. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I never thought that there would be any problems with this article gaining FA status. And the reason; Not enough references? Too many IMO. I'll give my support. --Krm500 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Devils alternate captains in 2006-07
Does anyone know for certain, who the Devils 4 alternates are? In my view its Jamie Langenbrunner, John Madden, Jay Pandolfo and Colin White. According to Njdhockey & his 'source' it's Madden, Pandolfo, Brian Rafalski and White. Who's correct? I've watched the Devils games, and what I've seen? backs my facts. Help me folks, help me. GoodDay 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just like that, the dispute has ended over. Langenbrunners is in, Rafalski is out. GoodDay 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I aim to please, GoodDay! It would be soooo much simpler for the teams to list their captains on the team's official website! --Pparazorback 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Fighting in ice hockey at FAC
All, I have decided to be bold and nominate Fighting in ice hockey for Featured Article status. It has recently been through a peer review and has had some other minor changes resulting from feedback on this Talk page and from side conversations with other editors. The nomination page is here. --Mus Musculus (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow really shooting for the golden starts nowadays. I'll take a gander. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll keep my fingers crossed! And, quickly get started with the cropping of the image, it's 1.40 am here so I'll do it when I get home tomorrow. --Krm500 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The image looks good, thanks for your work on that. BTW, I'm assuming I got the team names right in the image caption? --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Season by season list
I'm working on a season by season list and have stumbled across a problem. What should I do when the post season is played in a regular season format? The playoffs were played like a regualar season in Sweden some years and the winner was the team that finnished first in the standings. Should I add GP, W, L, T, GF, GA, Pts in the post season column or add the post season results under the regular season result? --Krm500 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would still separate them from the actual regular season.--Djsasso 13:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well I just finnished adding all data (phu!), the list is far from done but what do you all think about the look, (User:Krm500/Sandbox3)? The season by season list which I added to the Frölunda HC article a while ago only contained the Elitserien stats so I decided to do things correct and add all information. --Krm500 02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like it. --Djsasso 03:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well I just finnished adding all data (phu!), the list is far from done but what do you all think about the look, (User:Krm500/Sandbox3)? The season by season list which I added to the Frölunda HC article a while ago only contained the Elitserien stats so I decided to do things correct and add all information. --Krm500 02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The duplicate Bob Murrays
Input is needed, concerning the merging of Bob Murray (ice hockey) & Bob Murray (hockey player). The former has the correct title, the latter has the most information. GoodDay 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would seem that the more info should be in the article with the standardized title. RGTraynor 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Still uncertain about how to merge the 2 articles. Is an Administrator needed for such a move? GoodDay 18:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::: Howabout, change the former Bob Murray (ice hockey) to Bob Murray (hockey) then have a AfD. Then rename the latter Bob Murray (hockey player) to Bob Murray (ice hockey)? GoodDay 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::: It won't work: I've 'moved' Bob Murray (ice hockey) to Bob Murray (Blackhawks) (with the idea of nominating it for deletion), but I can't 'move' Bob Murray (hockey player) to Bob Murray (ice hockey)? Perhaps an Administrator is needed, I'm in over my head. GoodDay 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I surrender, these pages may never be merged. This situation is 'way' over my head, big time. GoodDay 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which one is supposed to be correct? Just merge all the content to the correct one, and make the incorrect one a redirect to the correct one. --Mus Musculus (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bob Murray (hockey player) has more information. Oddly enough, both pages were created within 1-day of each other. GoodDay 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's been taken care of, Earl Andrew has successfully merged the pages. GoodDay 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah just a general warning for those creating player articles. The linking on the List of NHL players pages is not very good, and be vary wary if an article appears not to have been created yet. I made the same mistake a few days ago when following a link from NHL players B to create the James Black hockey player article, and found out that the article has already been created. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's been taken care of, Earl Andrew has successfully merged the pages. GoodDay 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bob Murray (hockey player) has more information. Oddly enough, both pages were created within 1-day of each other. GoodDay 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which one is supposed to be correct? Just merge all the content to the correct one, and make the incorrect one a redirect to the correct one. --Mus Musculus (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Recent prods of AHLers
Folks, the notability bar for athletes is "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league," not having played in the NHL. I realize this means that a schlup who plays so much as a single match in the CHL is eligible, and I believe the bar to be too low, but it is what it is, and certainly fourth-year AHLers shouldn't be subjected to prods. RGTraynor 00:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was actually your comments that caused me to put them up in the first place. Elsewhere you said something that indicated otherwise. And other afds I have seen indicated they had to be at a higher level than the minors as baseball player articles are killed all the time for only playing in the minors. I won't put anymore up, but if that's the case I will have to change my vote on a couple of the others cause if they signed a contract there is no point in deleting them cause they will play atleast one game. --Djsasso 01:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Prodded, maybe, but I've certainly never seen one in an AfD. The ones I do see on AfDs are soccer players at levels below the national premierships, which get passed as a matter of course. RGTraynor 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is this taken care of? I'd like to comment on any AFDs. ccwaters 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Prodded, maybe, but I've certainly never seen one in an AfD. The ones I do see on AfDs are soccer players at levels below the national premierships, which get passed as a matter of course. RGTraynor 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Where would be the appropriate venue to discuss notability criteria? I might suggest something like if they have only played in minor professional leagues, they should be subject to other secondary criteria such as being the subject of a news article. --Mus Musculus (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The main notability talk page is here; I've also participated in a recent secondary discussion on athletes in particular, which didn't come remotely close to a consensus on the issue, in part because of factional conflicts between sports with weak or no minor league systems (football, basketball), sports with strong minor league systems (baseball, hockey) and sports where the concept of "minor leagues" don't follow North American models (soccer, for one). RGTraynor 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would probably be WP:BIO, but I have to ask is this really an issue? You'll only find the occasional AHLer article and hardly any for lower leagues. ccwaters 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's an issues if people are proposing deleting of AHL players, isn't it? --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would probably be WP:BIO, but I have to ask is this really an issue? You'll only find the occasional AHLer article and hardly any for lower leagues. ccwaters 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have recently overhauled the page of family relations, and would like to move it to peer review shortly. I wanted the input of WikiProject members before doing so, however. See my comments on the talk page to see the changes made to the article. Anthony Hit me up... 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
At it again
We have a drive-by page move at Jaromír Jágr. I don't know the complete history of the discussions involving diacritics nor do I have time for a lot of reading, so I will let someone who has been with the project longer handle it. --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format, a gentlemens agreement was reached, to allow each NHL player page decide for itself (by majority opinon), to use OR not use a diacriticals title (also it was agreed to keep 'diacriticals' off the NHL team pages 'Current Roster' section). Whenever a page is 'moved' (as Jagr was), it should only occur after a consensus for the movement is reached. Just my opinon. GoodDay 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)