Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive4

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


Steve Smith

Two defensemen named Steve Smith were drafted in 1981. The one drafted in the sixth-round had, apart from one unfortunate mishap[1], a very successful career, winning three Stanley Cups with Edmonton and playing in an All Star game in 1991[2]. The other, a first-round pick, was only able to manage 17 NHL games in his career[3].

The reason I bring it up is because this confusion isn't adequately dealt with here on Wikipedia. The first-round pick has his article at Steve Smith (hockey) while the sixth-round pick has his at Steve Smith (hockey player).

How do we fix this? Here are some possibilities:

  • Name each page according to the player's full name. The more successful of the two is named "James Stephen Smith"[4]. However, I am unable to find the full name of the other player, and indeed his full name may possibly be Steve Smith[5]. In that case it would still be confusing to have an article just called "Steve Smith" about the lesser-known player, with the other at a name that is not the one he is most commonly called.
  • Name each page according to the player's nationality. James Stephen Smith was born in Scotland, the other in Canada. However the former obviously moved to Canada in time to play junior hockey in Ontario and depending on how young he was when he moved, it might be inaccurate to refer to him as Scottish.
  • Simply scrap the article about the 17-game guy. I'm a huge opponent of removing potentially useful information from Wikipedia but in this case might it end up causing more confusion than it is worth?

I hope somebody comes up with a better suggestion or the missing information that might help with the first two, as the third is something I'd like to avoid. — GT 23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would keep both articles and disambiguate the lesser known one with his country of birth and disambiguate the better known one with his full name. i.e. Steve Smith (Canadian hockey player) and James Stephen Smith. I generally prefer disambiguating with a full name when possible. -- JamesTeterenko 01:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Right but Steve Smith (Canadian hockey player) could apply to either one. It's an improvement over the current situation but still not optimal. — GT 01:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How about Steve Smith (born 1963, Canada), or something along those lines? If we have the place of birth and year, we no longer need the word hockey to disambiguate. -- JamesTeterenko 15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have switched Steve Smith (hockey player) to James Stephen Smith (along with all incoming links). That was the easy part. What about the other guy at Steve Smith (hockey) who only played 17 games? — GT 08:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, you can't ace the article; the other Steve Smith was a NHL hockey player, and is worthy of inclusion per WP:BIO. That being said, why not have the same italicized header that goes on pages subject to disambiguation? "For the Steve Smith who played for the Edmonton Oilers, Chicago Blackhawks and Calgary Flames, please see James Stephen Smith." And so forth. Ravenswing 13:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should move the reference to the other Steve Smith to the top and italicize it. -- JamesTeterenko 15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
So ... what do we call the other Steve Smith page? Leave it at Steve Smith (hockey)? I have huge problems with having this guy's article at a title that in no way distinguishes him from the other Steve Smith. — GT 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion is Steve Smith (born 1963, Canada). I believe that this uses the least amount of information that is required to disambiguate the article. I am not a fan of leaving it as it stands, since the article title does not disambiguate him from the other more prolific hockey player named Steve Smith. -- JamesTeterenko 17:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with Steve Smith (hockey)(PHI-BUF) myself, two teams for which the Real Steve Smith never played. Ravenswing 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Ravenswing's suggestion as "Real Steve Smith" was also born in 1963 and probably spent the vast majority of his life living in Canada. How about Steve Smith (Philadelphia Flyers/Buffalo Sabres defenseman)? — GT 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have implemented this change as there didn't seem to be any opposition to it. — GT 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

nothing wrong with the old titles

Since the disambig page at Steven Smith clearly defines the difference between the two of them, there is nothing wrong with leaving it at James Stephen Smith and Steve Smith (hockey). The disambig page clearly defines the difference between the two. We don't need a long and "horrible" article title such as Steve Smith (Philadelphia Flyers/Buffalo Sabres defenseman). Anyone looking for info on "Steve Smith" will type "Steve Smith" into the search option. They will then come to the disambig page and then they will see that, oh, there are two of them that played in the NHL. They can then, by reading the short summary on the disambig page, decide which one it is that they are looking for. No one, and i mean no one, is going to type "Steve Smith (Philadelphia Flyers/Buffalo Sabres defenseman)" into the search engine when looking for info on Steve Smith. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. "James Stephen Smith" and "Steve Smith" coupled with an informative disambig page is sufficient, wouldn't you say? Masterhatch 02:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to discuss it. I probably should have made it clearer that I started a discussion on this page about this matter. My main concern is that when you look at the page "Steve Smith (hockey)", for most people, your immediate impression is that you are viewing the page that corresponds with the famous hockey played Steve Smith, when in reality his page is at James Stephen Smith. This other Steve Smith is not known to probably more than 2% of NHL fans. Indeed this was my experience as I was watching the NHL playoffs and I saw a clip of Smith's pass banking off Grant Fuhr and going in the net, and I came on Wikipedia to see what it had to say about the story. I was confused at first when I tried reading the article and it seemed to have nothing to do with the person I was looking for. What I really want is a page title that makes it clear that there are two Steve Smiths and that only one of them is of interest to anyone more than a very specific niche group of hockey fans. — GT 07:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see anything wrong with the titles as they are because the disambig page is so clear about defining the difference between the two. We don't need to over-complicate the matter and sometimes keeping it simple is the best. I am not saying that the current title of Steve Smith (hockey) is the best title, but it is far better than that long one. I still say that there is nothing wrong with it now. If someone wants Steve Smith the hockey player, he will just type "Steve Smith" and will be brought to the disambig page. He can then decided which steve smith he wants by looking at the short description. I have no problem changing the title of Steve Smith (hockey) as long as it A. makes sense and B. is short and simple. Masterhatch 02:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that but not everyone gets there via the disambiguation page. In any event the topic of the page is given by its page name and "Steve Smith (hockey)" describes both players -- and thus in my opinion is not suitable for use for just one of them. However I can't think of any other way to list the other Steve Smith without knowing his full name as well. Do you have any ideas? — GT 16:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone gets there through the disambig page? Well, there are only two ways to get to his article: 1. by typing "Steve Smith" into the search (which takes you to the disambig page) and 2. going there from a link. Any link you click on should take you to the "right" steve smith. If you click on "steve smith" from the list of oilers' players, it will take you to the one that scored off grant's leg. If you click on the "steve smith" on the list of sabres players, it will take you to the one that didn't score off of grant's leg. In either case, you will be going to the desired smith and in both cases, you won't see the "(hockey)" (or the (Philadelphia Flyers/Buffalo Sabres defenseman))" or the "James Stephen Smith" as we are using piped links. Once a reader starts reading the articles, it will be quite evident the differences between the smiths. Since the "ending" is never seen (due to the use of piped links), it doesn't really matter if we use (hockey) or (ice hockey) or (the ugly steve smith) or the (taller steve smith) or (the one that scored off of grant's leg). My point is, that since the ending isn't seen and the disambig page is clear and since we are using piped links, it doesn't really matter what comes after steve smith. While it is true that (hockey) describles both players, it doesn't really matter too much because it becomes quite clear after only seconds of reading with steve is which. Personally, i think the articles are fine the way they are, but if you really want to "fix" them, let's come up with something shorter. RGTranynor had a good short one with (PHI-BUF). Since both smiths were defenceman, adding the word defenceman to the title definately doesn't distiguish the two. Another idea might be (NHL-PHI/BUF). Masterhatch 00:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Because we have two Steve Smith articles on Wikipedia and the one in question is, in most cases, not the one people want, I will never be satisfied with a title that doesn't differentiate between the two. I didn't like "PHI/BUF" because those letters mean nothing to someone who is not a hockey fan and familiar with common city abbreviations. — GT 21:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How about including the country of birth in the disambiguation? -- JamesTeterenko 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't prefer that method either as I think most would assume that "real" Steve Smith was born in Canada as he looks to have spent the majority of his life living there. But it's better than nothing. — GT 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, I don't like it much either. However, it like it better than any other unambiguous suggestion we have. -- JamesTeterenko 15:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit late with this, but what about disambiguation by the # of NHL games played? That would seem to be the most notable thing to tell them apart. ColtsScore 08:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That could be a good way to do it but I'm not sure exactly how. I'm not really crazy about Steve Smith (## NHL games). — GT 10:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Abbreviations article

See Talk:2006 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships. I suppose it would be useful having an article explaining all the expressions that appear in the hockey articles to the people that are not so familiar with the topic. What do you think? --Tone 14:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A mere glossary might not pass the AfD hawks, but a section in the main Ice Hockey article might pass muster. Alternately, you could write up a glossary under the heading "Ice Hockey Statistics" with an explanation of what statistics are kept and why. Ravenswing 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A list exists Category:Ice hockey terminology ColtsScore 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NHL seasons

Question about the Template. Currently, the template adds each season-by-season article to (YEAR) in sports. Should the template instead add it to (YEAR) in ice hockey? It would make more sense to have the NHL season articles archived in with the rest of hockey instead of just under sports. BoojiBoy 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that category has been largely ignored entirely until now. I see that you have been adding the junior hockey pages to the categories, but there are a ton of pages that should be added: NHL seasons, Memorial Cup pages, Royal Bank Cup, WHC's, WJHC's. Resolute 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
good idea. I assumed that no one would object, so i made the change. Masterhatch 05:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It will take time to create appropriate subcats, but once we have them dating back far enough the YEAR in sports should be removed entirely to avoid repetition. BoojiBoy 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not do that as you (we) add more pages to these categories? There is no reason for a page that is now pointing to x in ice hockey to also point to x in sports, as x in ice hockey is already a sub to x in sports. Also, I like the idea of pages like 1980 in ice hockey for each year as well, though a little more developed than that one is. I think I will start 2006 in ice hockey. Perhaps we can turn it into a good template for other seasons and backfill. Resolute 01:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've populated a lot of the categories as best I can; if anyone finds any year-specific articles that aren't in the appropriate year in hockey category please add them. BoojiBoy 13:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NHL Statistical Leaders

Would it be possible for someone with the NHL guide and record book to expand this list to include Russians, Swedes, Slovaks, etc.? I don't have a copy now. I also think it should be moved to NHL Statistical Leaders by country too. BoojiBoy 13:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do the Finns get a top ten list where everyone else gets five? Also, why are some PPG numbers bolded? Resolute 03:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I would like to see each countries' top ten. I would also like to see other countries added. Masterhatch 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format needs a new example

Billy Boucher is listed at the top of this page as an example of a good article for a player that was a bit less notable (whereas Gretsky was very notable). Unfortunately, most of the Boucher article appears to have been copied from the Hockey Hall of Fame "Legends of Hockey" site. It's now a candidate for deletion. I've started a new stub to replace the old article, but it needs to be fleshed out, OR a different example of a good article needs to be put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format page.

    • No one seemed to jump on this, or express an opinion, so I took matters into my own hands. I changed the Billy Boucher link to point to the Sheldon Keefe article instead. He's not my favourite player, but I thought the article was an ok example. Then again, I wrote it, so maybe I'm biased. Feel free to suggest an alternative ... I won't mind. ColtsScore 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the article on Jan Erixon? I just created the article today but I think it covers everything that is needed for a not-very notable player. --Sven Erixon 10:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Convention for division & conference champions

What is the agreed upon convention for claiming division and conference champions? Under the current playoff format, I would expect that the regular season determines a division champion but the playoffs determine the conference champion. However, the playoff format from the mid-80s to the mid-90s had four divisional playoffs for the first two rounds. Certainly there were several occasions where the regular season division leader did not win the division in the playoffs. I seem to recall situations where some teams would put up a division champion banner in their arena after the regular season but others would put them up after the playoffs. Does anybody know if there are still "conflicts" like this? Also, which team should now be considered the division champion for those years -- regular season or playoffs? Did the NHL make any "official" statement on this or retroactively make a decision to use the regular season (for consistency with the current format)? Andrwsc 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up comment to my own post, I noticed on the Detroit Red Wings page that they are shown as winning conference championships and division championships from the Original Six days (when there were no divisions or conferences). This seems awfully misleading to me. Is that just an over-zealous Wings fan making that edit, or is that really the convention observed by the NHL? It would be nice to have some common conventions here. My suggestions (unless trumped by official usage from the NHL) would be to list for each team:
1. Stanley Cup wins
2. League Champions (includes all the teams we list on the President's Trophy page
3. Conference Champions (includes ONLY the winners of the Prince of Wales Trophy and Clarence S. Campbell Bowl from 1967 onwards, even though these trophies changed meaning from regular season to playoff champion during this time)
4. Division Champions (only includes regular season champions from 1974-75 NHL season onwards, with the introduction of four or more divisions)
I would explicitly exclude double-counting of division/conference/league champions from the two division or one division eras. Does this make sense to all? Andrwsc 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think from the early 80s-1994, the NHL recognized the playoff division champion only, and not the regular season division champion. Prior to that, and since 1994, the regular season division champion is the one the NHL recognizes. Teams during that time that raised regular season division title banners did so of their own accord, and were not recognized by the league as official.
  • I would agree on the Red Wings page that it is an over-zealous editor. One cannot win a division or conference championship that does not exist. As far as your suggestions go, from 1967-68 until 1973-74, there were no conferences, only divisions. Thus, there should be no listed conference titles prior to 1974, and no listed division titles from 1939-1967. Resolute 04:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New to the project

I'd love to help if I could. Anything specific need doing that a newbie could help with? If it helps, I've got a book called Hockey Chronicle thats a year-by-year history of the NHL from its prehistory (1900) up until 2003. Its pretty much just a huge timeline.--YGagarin 03:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tips

This is how a sentence reads on the Phil Esposito article......"His #7 jersey was retired by the Boston Bruins in an emotional ceremony where the current wearer, superstar defensemen Ray Bourque, surrendered the number in Esposito's honor." First of all, "the current wearer" is not Ray Bourque, "surrendered" is past tense, "currently" implies he plays for the Bruins now and is still wearing #77. Secondly, find out the dates for specific events and use the proper tense. People who read these articles to try and learn about the history of hockey and the people involved with shaping it, would probably appreciate accuracy instead of having to read poorly structured paragraphs.

I re-worked the Espo page considerably only to find out that some people don't appreciate the effort. As an example I read a sentence on the Espo article that read....."He moved on to found the NHL’s Tampa Bay Lightning" ......so I politely added a more detailed sentence using existing words that someone spent time on and I wrote ......"Esposito would move on from the Rangers as he took his reputation and force of personality with him and with his brother Tony Esposito, they helped launch a bid for an expansion franchise in Tampa Bay, Florida." only to have it reverted back to the older version. that whole "reputation and force of personality" part wasn't mine but I left it in to be considerate to previous authors.....I think some people need to show the same respect to other contributors-Rainman71 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Respect starts at home, I find; the edits you are making are to phrases and articles with which other editors felt comfortable. As you are unilaterally changing their wording, others can change yours, and give you as much notice and prior consultation over those changes as you are giving others ... which is, after all, zero. As it happened, for example, Bourque was the current wearer of #7 at the time of that ceremony. For another, while I note you are concerned about grammar, you should take a look at WP:STYLE; for instance, in the Esposito article, you (and erroneously) capitalize "Professional," "Left Winger," "Captain" and other words that are more properly rendered in lower case. Ravenswing 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
A) I recently discovered the WP:STYLE and I am in the process of correcting those capitalization errors I made. B) I am arbitrarily editing phrases in articles because accuracy and grammatical correctness should take precident over 8th grade writing skills and a feeble security blanket, "wah wah" comfort level for poor writing. This is not individualistic writing and blatent errors need to be corrected for the enjoyment and research of everyone. There is nothing comforting (or benefiical) about reading a sentence and trying to figure out simultaneously if you are living in the present day or if you have time warped 40 years into the past. The purpose in these articles is to expand them and provide the most in-depth information about the subject as possible. Read this and tell me if it makes sense to you "He retired in 1981, then only second to Gordie Howe in career goals and total points, and subsequently becoming a broadcaster." "then only second" ???.......wrong tense.... should say "He retired in 1981 second behind Gordie Howe on the all-time list in career goals and total points. The broadcaster thing at the end is (for lack of a better word) retarded because it is not relative to the sentence whatsoever and furthermore... the author mentions the exact same thing 3 sentences later in the next heading. Redundant material, in an attempt to make articles appear longer and more thorough should be removed. The entire article reads like some high-school kid was trying to reach a 1000 word quota on an English paper. I find these errors rampant on tons of player articles and I am only using Espo as an example. As for the "current wearer' debate, "current" is the wrong word period. What you said above "the current wearer of #7 at the time" is correct. Also, you put "was" the current wearer but no where in that sentence on Espo's page does it say "was" in reference to Bourque wearing the number. It says "his #7 jersey was retired" in reference to Espo.. The whole Esposito article isn't even formatted properly and the headings aren't editable. "Career highlights" should be under the Awards & achievements heading and "Retirement", the last I checked, isn't even listed as a heading that conforms to the standards. Under "Career highlights" there is a point that reads "Still holds the record for shots on goal in a single season with 550 in 1971. (over a hundred more than the second highest total)" Why is there a mention of how many shots he is over from the next player and not bother to mention the other player? ... thats just clutter. Another... under the same "Career highlights and facts" heading, (now keep in mind it is Phil Esposito's career highlights and career facts) it says "Esposito's younger brother Tony is also an Honoured Member of the Hockey Hall of Fame" and "Esposito's son-in-law is former NHL'er Alexander Selivanov" The fact that his brother Tony is an Honoured Member and Selivanov is his son-in-law are Phil Esposito career facts? or are they just facts?. You tell me. Rationale - I am changing the wording in instances where sentences were constructed backwards and fixing the ones that don't even make sense to a layman. For the most part I am keeping the existing words and putting them into the proper order to improve the ease of reading the sentences. I can't understand how that is detrimental to the collective effort of this project. I would expect those types of efforts to be more appreciated then criticized. For the capitalization of job titles they should appear in upper case no matter how long they are. Jack Adams was President and General Manager of the Detroit Red Wings.... An NHL'er has a job title as well... "Professional Left Winger, Professional Goaltender"... that is their title.... Yzerman is Team Captain or Captain. Why is that such a pressing issue? What's next?, we'll be forced to type lower case "E's" and "S's" backwards in order to remain consistent with the level of writing? Just trying to help and make use of my knowledge of the game-Rainman71 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility - We're all contributing here. If your strengths are in grammatical correctness, then we appreciate your help. Others have great skills in getting things started, or giving an article a coherent overall structure. ColtsScore 12:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. In a number of cases, Rainman, your grammar assertions are either inaccurate, incorrect or outright inventions (for example, your "job title" assertion). In others, they are simply stylistic differences. In any event, it is incivil to demand "respect" for your own unilateral changes and to castigate people for taking issue with your edits while calling the work of others "retarded" and throwing other insults around. There are people who like your changes no better than you like the work of others, and who have as much right to edit your work to their liking as you have to edit theirs. Ravenswing 16:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It says on every Wikipedia edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." BoojiBoy 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus that civility should be kept as much as possible. As well, I do agree with Rainman that many of our player articles are very poorly written and some do look like a ten-year old's research paper. But we have to remain civil here, or else we are just going to waste our time with arguments and edit wars instead of actually contributing to this encyclopedia. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What the Canuck said. Take a deep breath, folks.  RasputinAXP  c 03:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Bisons (AHL)

I just recently discovered this project (and the Wiki Projects itself) recently. I have decided to help by expanding Defunct Hockey team pages and I've started this with the Buffalo Bisons. I have just added a "season-by-season" record chart and will be expanding other parts of this article. -Electricbolt 01:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can the {{ice hockey}} tag be used to make big category "Ice Hockey articles"?

Having a category of "Articles about ice hockey" would let us all scroll through an overall list. It would make spotting duplicates a lot easier, and also help us add better wiki-link connections in the articles we write. (It's always good to know what's out there). I know that some tags (like ones that make userboxes) also add the page they are on into a category. Could we have our wiki-project tag do the same? I think this would be useful ... how about everyone else? ColtsScore 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Ice hockey

I just found this. FYI. ColtsScore 09:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

List of every NHL player up for deletion~!

Right now there is a vote for deletion of the player lists for the nhl at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A. I can't believe that with all the useless lists on wikipedia that they are even considering deleting this usefull list. As far as i know, the hockey list of players is the most complete list of any sports on wikipedia and they want it gone. Having a complete list of players helps disambiguate them, prevent duplicate articles, and keeps out vanity articles. Let's stop this list from being deleted. Masterhatch 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, doesnt seem like the articles are in any danger of being deleted anymore, however, perhaps they can be expanded upon to include more information on each player, like years played, position, teams? ie: Jarome Iginla, 1996- , Right Wing, Cgy? Might make it a more useful resource for people looking up specific players? Resolute 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, having more information and maybe adding a * beside active player names or something more descriptive may help the article. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 12:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at creating a better list, starting with NHL players Z. I believe that a page like this will help make these lists more valuable. Not looking forward to how much work it will take to do all 25 letters currently used. Anyone have any suggestions of anything else that can be added before I/we go off doing the rest? Resolute 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, i must say that you have started a very impressive task. I think you have covered all the basics for info and have done an excellent job. I personally wouldn't have added a table format, but it looks great! Masterhatch 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasnt planning on a table, but if you look at my first edit, a non tabled format looked like crap. Besides, it isnt any more work, as commas are replaced with pipes, nothing more. I certantly hope there are people willing to help out with this, otherwise chances are the lists will come up on AfD again due to the time it would take me to complete. Someone else can deal with the S's ;o) Resolute 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As i get time after work over the next few days, i will definately help out. As for it going up for AfD again, i highly doubt that would happen because it would mean deleting all the baseball, basketball, and football players too. Imagine the shit that would hit the fan if tags were put on those lists. Anyways, the original reason for the deletion, the links to hockeydb.com, is now gone. Masterhatch 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to help, if I can get my internet issues resolved. I've been gone the last five days or so because of it, and just have heard about this for the first time. I'll just pick a random letter and get going from there. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the ice hockey bio stubs

I've proposed that the very-oversized ice hockey biography stubs by split by country, initially the US and Canada. I imagine that both of these will themselves be very large, so if anyone has any ideas for additional or alternative criteria to split on (league? era? position?), now would be a good time to chime in. Alai 15:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. BoojiBoy 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That what's unnecessary, exactly? Alai 15:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Your proposal. Football is obviously too huge, which is why it was split, but I don't think that it's necessary to split up the ice hockey stubs. BoojiBoy 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Not splitting them at all isn't really an option: there's over 1800 of them, and stub categories are considered oversized at 800. The only question is how. Alai 15:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I would think that the Canadian category would be by far the largest (there certantly would not be 800 US hockey player stubs), so splitting by region or province would be the best option. I think simply splitting Canada in half would be enough. Four groups: Western Canadian, Eastern Canadian, American, European. Resolute 16:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Resolute on the four groups --Electricbolt 16:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ideas

I have a few ideas to improve the Wikiproject:

Any more ideas? Can we get some of these off the ground? BoojiBoy 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I like all your ideas, and would be willing to help to get them flying. Making this WikiProject more useful as always been something I've wanted to do, and I raised it up a few months back (the only thing that really came out of that was the re-listing of members into Active, Semi-Active, and Non-Active headings). Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing Amateur Draft Pages

I have started the 1978 NHL Amateur Draft page, I've managed to put up the first 3 rounds of draft picks and have decided to stop there for now. --Electricbolt 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I added templates, categories and the succession box. Hopefully we can get the last four done soon. BoojiBoy 21:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to continue to work on this one, then I might move on to the others just to get them done. --Electricbolt 23:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed those were missing the other day..since I'm like new here..and because of this damn site I keep getting sidetracked and trapping myself into doing other things...subsequently pissing people off apparently. :-D -Rainman71 22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have completed adding the 22 rounds of selections a few minutes ago, now its time to check the links to make sure they lead where they are supposed to lol. -Electricbolt 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Number two draft picks

I don't know how many of you have noticed but I've been renaming a number of hockey-related categories and sorting many of them as well. I've moved the USHL category to Category:United States Hockey League, for example, and moved a lot of articles from generic categories to specific ones. Anyway, I came across the above category and I don't really see much of a point for it existing. I put the information into this list, and I would like to nominate the category for deletion unless there's a large number of people who object. Obviously Category:Number one draft picks is useful, but I don't think number two is. Bear in mind as well that I doubt that this could pass CFR standards without being deleted, and it really should be moved to National Hockey League second overall draft picks (and I have nominated the number one category to be similarly moved). BoojiBoy 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's been a week... if there are still no objections by tomorrow I'm going to list the category at WP:CFD. BoojiBoy 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Objections anyone?

Does anyone have an objection to me listing the teams and arenas on each season article as a quick and easy reference close to the top of the page? I put them in for the 1917-18 season..... so if you don't like it let me know and I'll remove it... consensus first perhaps? -Rainman71 22:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection, but it would help if you would include wikilinks to the buildings; most have their own pages. BoojiBoy 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any objections either, and I agree with BoojiBoy about the links Electricbolt 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Arena and teams is a better idea then listing the teams twice. ... okay-Rainman71 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually maybe it should be Teams and arenas since they are listed in that order. -Rainman71 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just list the arena on the team's article? I'm not a big fan of information centralized on the league article when it has more to do with the team. Just my opinion... thought I'd throw it out there. DMighton 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I object, completely agreeing with DMighton. Arena info belongs on the individual team pages, and is wholly unnecessary on the season pages. In fact, I see no point to the entire section. One read through the regular season section should make it quite clear as to the teams involved. If that's not clear enough, one peek at the regular season standings answers any and all questions as to who played that year. --93JC 02:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a weak objection as well, based on the above two arguments. Croat Canuck Go Croatia Go 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the arenas belong on the team pages, not the season pages. But I am not overly fussy, as long as it doen't look tacky. Masterhatch 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thunder Bay Northern Hawks

Alright guys, I am a little busy writing histories and stats for the OHA Junior leagues... but I need some help. I got a couple guys who want to know why Junior hockey stubs are nessecary. Can anyone help me avoid a speedy delete.

This is the article: Thunder Bay Northern Hawks. DMighton 15:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • For the record, Jonathan Toews is also up for AFD for some reason, please vote to save the article from AFD. BoojiBoy 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone might want to rewrite Jonathan Toews quickly: I found a possible copyright violation. ccwaters 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, this Rob guy is getting pretty upset over a couple Junior B Hockey Team Stubs... he just exploded on the AFD page. I really wonder why anyone would try so hard to make a couple hockey team stubs disappear. I wonder what Freud would say about this... A lot of wondering this morning. DMighton 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Wow, what a jerk... I'm done talking to him. DMighton 08:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope didn't explode, what an overstatement - just tired of WP being misued by being filled with non-notable entries.If you have evidence of this team having ANY notability that deserves a place in WP please offer it. If not let's start streamlining WP and getting rid of the non-notable junk. Robertsteadman 09:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The page has been renominated. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Bay Northern Hawks (2nd nomination). Be civil and don't feed the troll. BoojiBoy 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please remove your accusation. Otherwise I will report you for personal attacks and abuse. It has been renominated (and I intend to nominate all other Junior teams A, B and C and lower, that do not meet WP notabnility criteria. Robertsteadman 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is a personal attack referring to you as a troll when you have been warned for trolling by an administrator. I have not personally attacked you. BoojiBoy 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please retract otherwise I will report you for abuse and personal attacks. Robertsteadman 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
What personal attack? Please quote what has caused you offense. It is not a personal attack to refer to the fact that you have been warned by an admin for trolling. You have also been blocked in the past for violation of WP:3RR, is my making reference to that a personal attack as well? I unhesitatingly apologize that things have gotten this far, but I have not personally attacked you. Please review WP:NPA#Examples and tell me which one I have violated. BoojiBoy 14:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In the spirit of civility I will make no further comment on this issue. Good day and happy editing. BoojiBoy 14:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I request one final comment from you - a full retraction. Last chance before I report your behaviour. Robertsteadman 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I apologize and retract my comments. Now please leave the Wikiproject alone unless you wish to contribute to it. BoojiBoy 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I am trying to do.... I was invited along and so I came - and then was abused. Thank you fro admitting you were in the wrong and retracting. Now, let's get WP back to being notable by ridding it of the non-notable pointless articles eh?!! Robertsteadman 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If it will maintain the peace and keep things civil, then feel free to go ahead and believe that. BoojiBoy 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Believe what? That WP should only have notable entries? Yep - that's policy. So if you agree to policy you'll agree to rid WP of articles such as this. Robertsteadman 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
While after reading through your talk page I don't even need to speculate on your POV on the subject, it's quite possible to disagree with your interpretations of policy and notability criteria, and even quite possible we just might be right. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia, sensibly enough, works on consensus. Ravenswing 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no policy that an article subject must be notable. The very beginning of Wikipedia:Notability states, "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians but may not have wide support." In the second paragraph, it states, in bold text, "There is no official policy on notability." -- JamesTeterenko 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I found something interesting and that could be very useful: Wikipedia:Notability (athletes)... now I do not believe there should be absolute guidelines on notability... but there should be no harm in including our sports community in this discussion... I might give my 2 cents in a week or two... we'll see. DMighton 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that the debate on this can be closed and there is no need for any of us to continue to flog a dead horse, unless an RFC is opened. BoojiBoy 13:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Big Game

If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, you've been living in a shell. Who will win the big game today? DMighton 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope beyond hope that the Oilers pull it out. I'm still bitter about the Whalers leaving and in my mind even if the franchise wins it they don't deserve it for being unfarily pulled out of Hartford. ... man, I am SO bitter.  RasputinAXP  c 11:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope so too... but I think it will come down to goaltending. DMighton 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I miss the old Whalers too... and the Jets... and the Nordiques... I don't miss the Atlanta Flames though... boo to them... lol DMighton 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Go Oil. I'm not a flag-waving jingo Canadian nationalist, I just hate Peter Karmanos and don't want to see his name on the Cup. BoojiBoy 13:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Damned right. Eff Karmanos.  RasputinAXP  c 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Booji, Ras... is there any way I can your guys e-mail? I need a little help.
I feel bad for Cam Ward though... I am cheering for the Oil... but poor Ward. :( DMighton 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, I have every reason to despise the Canes:
the whole cheerleaders in hockey thing,
Karmanos
the move to NC created a void at the MSG-run Hartford Civic Center that was filled by my hometown AHL team (then known as the Binghamton Rangers) and subjected the area to a few years of UHL purgatory.
etc
But I don't. I guess I'm over it. The Whale is long dead and Carolina has a great exciting hockey team. And I never really had any interest in the Oilers. I'll be cheering on the Canes, but mostly just hoping for a great game 7 no matter who wins ccwaters 13:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess we've got a treat the past few years (well, not last year)... Game 7 in the finals every year is cool :).DMighton 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the personal attacks. Ignore any that follow. Robert has been warned.  RasputinAXP  c 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a revisit of the finals from last year - seventh game between a new southern team and Alberta. I generally have a policy of cheering for the team with the longer drought, and if it was Whalers/Oilers I'd cheer on the Whale, but I just can't cheer for Karmanos or NASCAR country. BoojiBoy 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's already bad enough that Oiler fans only defense against their city's inferiority complex is to trot out arguments like "we've won so many more championships than you in the past 30 years so we are greater today" even though neither the Oilers nor the Flames had done squat in the 15 years prior to 2004. Dealing with these "fans" will become almost impossible if they actually win this thing. I dont care if it is a Southern market that couldnt care less about hockey for the most part. For my own sanity, I hope someone performs the heimlich on the Hurricanes before it is too late. Also, I think it would be an embarrassment to the NHL to have a team that only qualified becuase the league rewards failure and mediocrity via the OTL and SOW win the Cup. Resolute 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Spoken like a true Flames fan. :P BoojiBoy 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
HERE WE GO!!! Hold on to your seat boys! :) DMighton 00:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess that is why that kind of deficit has not been eclipsed since 1942... too bad. But damn was Cam Ward good. DMighton 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm used to that. Ward has made a carreer out of breaking the hearts of Alberta teams in the Dub. Why not do the same in the NHL? Incidentally, I love how fast edits happened when game ended. Like every Hurricane player page within 4 seconds of the game ending. Resolute 03:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I take you wanted to add some stuff?... yeah, I know what you mean. It was like every time I tried to update the BCHL article during the playoffs. DMighton 03:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Longest running active players to not win cup

I'd like to see an article about the longest running active players who have not won the Stanley cup. Marcus1060 07:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd hate to be the one to do the math. DMighton 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the sports media love stats and I'm sure there's an article about it out there if we look for it. Is the accepted measure the number of NHL games played without winning the Cup? --Legalizeit 11:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
We should do both active and retired lists. I know Norm Ullman is the number one in games played who never won the Cup. I'm sure there are copies online of such lists. BoojiBoy 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
According to [6] Glen Wesley held the streak until last night - Wesley, the only remaining member of the team who made the move from Hartford to Greensboro in 1997, had been the active leader among NHL players in games played without a Stanley Cup with 1,311 regular-season and 168 playoff games. So we can look at people with about 1300-1400 games and no Cups.

Well, for one thing, the all-time leader in games played without a Cup isn't Ullman; it's Phil Housley with 1495. Mike Gartner's second with 1432, Harry Howell third with 1411, then Ullman with 1410, and Dale Hunter fifth with 1407. As it happens, Wesley wasn't the leading active one either; it's Scott Mellanby with 1362+132. Luke Richardson's played more regular season games than Wesley, but far fewer playoff games. Ravenswing 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Listify it. BoojiBoy 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Mm, honestly, I wouldn't want to do so. It strikes me as a bit of crufty trivia cool for broadcasts and blogs, but less than encyclopedic. Ravenswing 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with RGT on this one. However perhaps it could be put into List of NHL statistical leaders. Croat Canuck Go Croatia Go 05:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is a prospect?

I've been working on populating Category:Hockey prospects and I feel we need some explicit guidelines. I wrote something on the category page that defines who is generally there now, but I'm not sure that, for example, Patrick O'Sullivan really qualifies. In my mind a prospect is a junior or college player. Any insights into the definition? BoojiBoy 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think young drafted and signed talent in the minors (mostly AHL, but occasionally a goalie in the ECHL) would be considered a prospect... ccwaters 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that the definition of a prospect differs from person to person. As such, I believe that the category is inherently POV and I would prefer that we not even have this category. I do, however, realize that my point of view will likely not get much agreement and that this category is probably here to stay. With that in mind, I think that the definition given on the category page is reasonable. And given that definition, O'Sullivan is a prospect. I would personally call him a prospect, as he does have potential to be an impact player in the NHL. -- JamesTeterenko 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, just keep in mind that more time is invested in the growth of goalie prospects. May I suggest http://hockeysfuture.com as a resource? ccwaters 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Like James, I question the need for the category. It'd require a heavy amount of maintenance and has a number of insurmountable POV hurdles; anyone think, for instance, we could agree on the definition of "impact player" or obtain verification that a prospect is still "expected" to be one? The concept seems much more suited to baseball (where every player goes through the minors and only marginal players bounce between AAA and the bigs) or football and basketball (where there are no meaningful minor leagues). Ravenswing 05:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can list it for deletion then, I'm not that attached. I just thought it might be useful to have Jonathan Toews and Rob Schremp in the same cat. BoojiBoy 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a very simple definition of a prospect is anyone that has his rights held by an NHL team that is not currently playing for that team (obviously not counting guys on the IR or on conditioning assignments in the AHL). Using this system you could further categorize players by who they are prospects for, so for instance we could have Category:Nashville Predators Prospects which would include, for instance, people like Alexander Radulov, Blake Geoffrion, and Pekka Rinne. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Problem is that flunks most reasonable concepts of notability and certainly any generally accepted standard of "prospect." That would include 7th rounders who've never played pro hockey and never will, never mind guys whose career highlights will be two years with the Rio Grande Valley Killer Bees and a cup of coffee in the "E." Few organizations have more than three or four legitimate prospects, and a number don't have that many. As it happens, the NHL Official Guide lists every player whose reserve rights are held by an NHL team in its Prospect Register. There are over a thousand listed in the 2004-2005 book. Ravenswing 21:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Western States Hockey League

Created a new Site for the Western States Hockey League John R G 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

B-E-A-utiful. That is what I like to see. Maybe you could hotlink the team names with their team websites!? DMighton 05:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I like. Incidentally, that league is a good example of the value and notability of Jr B leagues and teams. Several players from that league have moved up to the Dub (including Curtis Kelner of the Calgary Hitmen), and a couple of them may get drafted. Hockey is growing in that area of the US, and is now showing at the WHL level, and soon, the professional level. Resolute 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:NHL

Hi! While I know that I fudged around with the infobox on my own without posting here first (I'm new at this), I really think that the bottom infobox should be organized somewhat, rather than simply listing all the teams. Personal preference, to be sure, but I think it just looks more professional. --Kermitmorningstar 18:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with organizing it better, which I did mtyself with Template:AJHL. My only problem with how you did it for the NHL template is how big it ends up. Personally, I think that the template is too big as it is. Why do we need or want a link to the ECHL or AHL, for instance? I would rather see the minor leagues dropped from the template, and the awards links broken out into its own template. There isnt much need for the team pages to have direct links to the awards or minor leagues. Resolute 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I too don't have a problem with it being better organised, and i agree with Resolute that a big an bulky template is not the answer. Let's keep it simple and don't put an entire article's worth of stuff in a template. Masterhatch 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Season-by-Season team histories

I've been working on the NBA teams season-by-season, since that information is really difficult to find in one place. Specifically, I want to create a box on each page that includes the teams record and playoff information (including series results). The result would be similar to those found on most NBA pages, using the Template:NBA SBS. I could include GF, GA, and PIM if it's decided that that's necessary, but what I really think is important is to have year-by-year playoff results, and franchise history info (for example, the Whalers seasons should be included on the Hurricanes page, since it's the same franchise, and not being updated on the Whalers page). Thoughts? --Kermitmorningstar 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim name change

As you might know, tonight the official name of the Anaheim team changes from "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" to "Anaheim Ducks". After today we should change the article title and put in a redirect, and just a general reminder to refer to them as the Anaheim Ducks from now on and be careful with the name in articles since as far as I know the team should be referred to as MDoA before 22nd June and AD after. (Confirmation that I'm correct on this would be nice) --Legalizeit 10:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the name change on the main articles (those in the parent category). I also moved the article to its new home. We should get a bot to recategorize the players, too.  RasputinAXP  c 11:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Related categories should also be listed at WP:CFD for speedy renaming. BoojiBoy 12:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Mighty_Ducks. I didn't speedy them, is that possible? ccwaters 12:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
We will find out, I guess. BoojiBoy 13:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim name change and what to do with the categories

Well, the CFD was closed with no consensus. Basically the argument is over how trivial or non trivial the name change is and whether it warrants splitting categories, etc. Hopefully we can come to a decision internally as opposing solutions were proposed by WP:HOCKEY members. I ask you to review the CFD above, and provide your input here.

Curse of 1940

I've never heard to the Rangers' drought being referred to as a curse, and this only returns 199 Google hits. I'm tempted to list this at AFD but since so few of the people there know or care about hockey I'm listing it here first. Anyone know of any reasons why this article shouldn't be deleted? BoojiBoy 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am opposed to deleting it, as it is a rather nice overview of the Rangers playoff futility. I can recall rumblings of a curse being lifted when the Rangers won in 1994, but I doubt it was ever close to the level of the Curse of the Babe, for instance. That said, I do not believe there is any harm in letting the article stay. There was, afterall, considerable fanfare surrounding the Rangers ending that drought. In fact, it remains one of the defining moments of the NHL in the 1990s. Resolute 23:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all that, but it wasn't a curse. BoojiBoy 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me put it another way too - there are less than 200 Google hits about this online, and there have been a TON of fake, stupid curses on Wikipedia lately that have all been zapped. The obvious and verifiable ones (Bambino, Muldoon, etc.) are going to remain, but I guarantee this article will not survive an AFD if nominated. Can we rename it to lessen the "Curse" angle (i.e. have it about the Rangers' playoff failures without the hocus-pocus)? There is no references to the Rangers being cursed in documented sources and like I say, this will not survive an AFD if it is nominated. BoojiBoy 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it needs citations from a reputable source to keep the curse angle. It does have decent information, so I might be worth keeping if the curse aspect is toned down. -- JamesTeterenko 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've heard it referred to as a curse in media stories about them winning back in 1994, and I've got a book which verifies at least the bit about burning the lease. It's called Hockey Stories On And Off The Ice by Dan Diamond, James Duplacey and Eric Zwieg, ISBN 0-7407-1903-3 --Legalizeit 14:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Put that reference in the article then and it'll probably survive. BoojiBoy 14:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The Curse was referred to as such all the way back in at least the mid-80s by Sports Illustrated, no less. Nothing like a late comer to a discussion...  RasputinAXP  c 12:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasters

I decided to follow in the footsteps of the current Carolina Hurricanes entry, and added a "Broadcasters" section to the Columbus Blue Jackets entry as well. I stopped short of entry hopping and adding this section to all current NHL teams that lacked such a section however, and figured it'd be best to get a concensus or opinion. Is it a good idea to add a section which mentions each team's broadcasters, both radio and TV personalities? Personally, I would be for it, if only because they play a key role in the covering of each team, and are usually notable figures to those that watch or listen to NHL games.

Of course, going off the deep end and mentioning every person from commentator to coordinators to rinkside reporters, or what have you, would be a bit extreme. So how about simply each team's TV and radio color commentator and play-by-play personality?--Resident Lune 03:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

German names

Right now, there is a discussion here Talk:Voss-strasse that may one day affect hockey wikipedia. It is in regards to the use of "ß" in article titles. If interested, come voice your opinions. Masterhatch 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


NHL Team Infobox

I thought I'd bring this up after seeing how pages for specific NBA teams handle their infoboxes. The thing I noticed about their boxes was that they were not as bulky as the ones we currently use for NHL teams. What I was wondering about is ... what is the feasibility of trying to slim down the infoboxes we use as well, for aesthetic reasons as well as giving articles a more streamlined approach. Much like how the new info boxes for players are also slimmed down and not as much of a bulge.

Understandably one of the problems would be in the fact that unlike NBA teams, a majority of NHL teams have an alternate logo, which more or less makes our team info boxes bigger no matter what is done to an extent. But even so, it wouldn't hurt to consider this idea. Any thoughts? I'm a total ignorant when it comes to creating templates or infoboxes, so this is just me throwing the idea out more than anything.--Resident Lune 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your intent. We don't need the alternate logo, coach, GM, owner, captains and alternate captains. Wastes of space. --93JC 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I could definitely see relocating the Captains and Assistant Captains elsewhere on a team's site. Perhaps bolding the C and the A on each team's roster would be sufficient. The alternative logo could also be placed elsewhere, much like how many team pages have previous logos placed at spots throughout the article itself.
Though I think keeping the Coach, GM, and Owner would probably be best. There's two ways you can look at it ... one being an example of MLB team infoboxes, where they're kept very minimal beyond name, logo, ballpark and titles ... or the case of NFL and NBA team infoboxes, where they have both Coach and Owner, but lack the GM. It's really something that should be mulled over, though.--Resident Lune 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the NBA has the most attractive infobox in terms of width and text-size, etc. However, I think we can retain a lot of information. Who cares if it's long, as long as we shrink it. We can definitely lose the alternate logo from the infobox. --Sven Erixon 10:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's probably the biggest concern: working on its width and text size. I know I said I've got a tenuous grasp on template and Wiki coding, but I'll see what I can come up with, unless someone else here can put something together as a possible alternative, barring any objections over a box change. --Resident Lune 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I could put something together, but do we have a consensus on what information we want in the infobox? --Sven Erixon 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the NBA info boxes and roster sections look much better then the hockey templates. Why not try too go for a simular look? And I also think that it would look much better without the alternate logo on all NHL team pages. --Krm500 11:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the NBA roster section. True, it's smaller ... but in the case of the roster, it seems unnecessary, because it is not sharing any space in its own section with other things in the article. The info box is, since it's at the top alongside the short team summary, facts, etc. Their roster also has the Head Coach, which is pretty redundant since in most good articles, a head coach is mentioned in the team info box already. The NHL roster could still be made to look better though, you're right. It's just a matter of thinking about how to tweak it.
Anyway, I have a few variations on a new box, pretty much using their slimmer version of the NBA box while keeping some parts of the current NHL box, such as the alternating section colors from white to gray, as well as our own need for Minor Leage Affiliates and General Managers, since GMs in the NHL are, at least from my perspective, important enough to keep. Here is the link. Feel free to abuse my Sandbox in any way to try and tinker with this if you have any ideas. So far it's pretty much just a hodgepodge of the two boxes.--Resident Lune 15:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just so that there's a general overview of what could possibly be in the infobox, here is a list of items seen in both the current boxes, plus boxes in other leagues ... first, everything in our current box template: Logo, Alternate Logo, Founded, History, Arena, City, Team Colors, Owner, General Manager, Head Coach, Minor League Affiliates, Captain, and Alternate Captains.

Here are things from other sports league boxes that are currently not used in our own (MLB, NBA, NFL): Current Uniform (MLB), Local Radio (NFL), Conference and Division (MLB, NFL, and NBA), Titles (MLB, NFL, and NBA), and Mascot (NFL).

Going by all of this -- and this is just my opinion -- I think we should remove the Alternate Logo (it seems most people agreed), and the Captain and Alternate Captains sections. Those three things can be put elsewhere (C and A in the rosters which is already done, and could be bolded so people do not miss it; alternate logo in its own image box somewhere in each team's article, similar to how older logos are placed in articles).

As for what could possibly be added, I really feel that Conference and Division should be, as it just seems like something that is important for an info box. Current Uniform seems ridiculous, so let's avoid that (it'd be a hassle making or finding something to use for that section anyway). Titles could work, and I say this because if you look at the Detroit Red Wings "facts" section for example, it's this big mess of numbers scrolling all over. By putting them in a box, we could keep the article itself cleaner, and facts sections to a minimal. I actually really like the NFL's way of organizing titles, since their way of handling multiple divisions or conferences for one team looks best (example at Cincinnati Bengals).

The NFL's Local Radio section also interests me, only because many NHL team articles have started placing broadcasting information in the facts (or even their own sections like I did with the Columbus Blue Jackets article after seeing it done at the Carolina Hurricanes one). I could see it being beneficial in the sense that it would alert people reading the article to how to find each team on the radio (and even television if we wanted to take it a step further). But I also would understand if adding that is too much.

And, no. We really do not need to use Mascot, in my honest opinion. That just seems a bit over the top when trying to stuff information into these infoboxes, and it'd probably just do better in the facts section.

Anyway, that's everything and anything that I've been able to think about after checking other box examples and seeing what we already use. Some input would be great, and if you want to try putting something new together, Sven Erixon, I'd definitely want to see what you can cook up.--Resident Lune 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started a second discussion on the actual template's discussion page: Template talk:NHL Team Infobox#Possible overhaul to Infobox. It would be great if some additional discussion can happen there. I've posted newer, revamped versions of the infobox as well that are also linked there there (I really need to remember to sign my name ... ugh).--Resident Lune 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

More on notability

I hesitate to bring the subject of what is notable up in this forum due to the possibility of unwanted input from non-project members, but is it pretty much accepted that junior hockey is notable while midget and below is not? BoojiBoy 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as teams go, I would say yes. I'd stick to WP:BIO (ie professional) for players. Junior and college players shouldn't be included unless there's something unique/promising/whatever about them. I don't think we do much pro below NHL or euro leagues anyway. I just created Jordan Smith because his injury resulted in the first (?) mandatory visor rule in North American pro hockey. ccwaters 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There's an article on Wikipedia now about a midget hockey league I'm tempted to AFD simply because I don't think midget is notable (although I'm not giving the link now because I want a consensus here before nominating it and I don't want it scooped). Would there be any objections to sending it to AFD? BoojiBoy 13:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'd say delete it. ccwaters 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Ravenswing 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless there was something notable about the specific team, I would say it could be deleted. -- JamesTeterenko 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Northeast Midget Hockey League has been nominated. In my opinion Junior is notable, Midget and below is not. BoojiBoy 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I have no problem with the mentioning of sports organizations that contol those leagues or even sports organizations in those leagues -- but a league article on a specific class of minor hockey seems irrelevant. DMighton 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I was thinking about teams, thinking they were not notable. I'm not so sure about leagues. I even created the Alberta Midget Hockey League stub at one point because Jarome Iginla's article referenced the league. So, my personal opinion on notability seems to fall along these lines: any NHL player, team, coach, etc.;any junior league and team; then possibly any other developmental league that eventual NHLers play in. I'll think about it some more before I voice my opinion in the AfD. -- JamesTeterenko 22:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well we have to draw the line somewhere, and probably the best place to draw the line is between junior and midget. If we allow midget leagues that NHLers played in, why not bantam, peewee, atom etc. leagues. I would suggest that junior is about the most we can get away with notability wise, because midget leagues just aren't big enough and are way too common. Croat Canuck Go Jays Go 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Junior is where we should draw the line. Let's say if Jarome played in this league... put HIS history with the league on his article. Like I said before.. I have no problem with league organizations being mentioned... but actual age group leagues -- no. DMighton 03:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll tell you what was going through my head when I created that stub. I was updating Iginla's stats based on the NHL Official Guide & Record Book. They went back to midget for his stats, so that is what I had updated. Whenever I update the stats, I link the league. If the league doesn't exist, I create at least a stub. So, for drawing a line somewhere, at the league level, I think it might make sense to include all of the leagues where the NHL guide includes the stats. They don't include bantam, peewee, etc. -- JamesTeterenko 04:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Another comment: I just looked in the NHL Guide. They don't list stats from the Northeast Midget Hockey League. So, even by the criteria I noted above, it would not warrant an article. -- JamesTeterenko 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On the flip side, the Canadian Midget national championship is nationally televised, and even preempted the first period of an NHL playoff game this year. Personally, I do not believe that Midget AAA teams should get articles, as there isnt enough verifiable information to create a useful article, but I do not believe league pages should be nixed just becuase it is "below Junior". If there is no hope of building past a stub, then yes, the pages should be removed. Resolute 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

World Hockey Association (proposed)

Hello I have had a dispute with World Hockey Association (proposed) for over 2 weeks now and I have had no one challenge me yet so I feel that my point of view is correct and that I gave everyone enough time to voice their opinions. The only response I got was some unregistered person saying some unpleasant things. I feel that my point about the NHL and its labor problems should not be in the World Hockey Association (proposed). I have waited and have had no challenge to my dispute so I feel that it should be resolved in my favor. If you take a look at the talk page for World Hockey Association (proposed) you will see my point of view. Thank you. John R G 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That this is the WHA (proposed) article has nothing to do with anything. The fact of the matter is that the quoted section is accurate and pertinent; few people would have even noticed the new WHA without the impending NHL lockout. The WHA's own website back then had numerous links to articles referencing the NHL's troubles [2], with headlines like "WHA ALREADY TEMPTING SOME NHL PLAYERS" (from the Globe and Mail), "GOODENOW ADAMANT ABOUT NO SALARY CAP" (from NBC.com), "NEW WHA TARGETS NHLERS" (from the Globe and Mail). The league's own press releases had titles like "Roenick's Lockout Plans Include WHA", "NHL Talent Giving New League Big Play" and "Pulford Predicts Lockout in 2004-05". To claim that the NHL labor woes had no impact on the WHA's plans is farcical; the league's entire game plan hinged on it, and the league itself pushed the connection for all it was worth. Ravenswing 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will make this simple the NHL and its labor problems are for the NHL and not the World Hockey Association (proposed). I feel that I am right and I hope you agree with me. John R G 18:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that the WHA was attempting to poach the NHL when the latter was in its lockout, but failed miserably. A simple statement of such is relevent. The details of the lockout are best left to the NHL pages though. Resolute 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Traynor and Resolute. BoojiBoy 18:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

RFC Fury! Somehow it fits in this article... I don't get it. But either way. DMighton 18:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

At least RFC is the last avenue. BoojiBoy 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You think so? He'll go to Arbcom with this if he can. When has any other consensus against his POV mattered? Ravenswing 05:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oakland/California/Cleveland Barons

I am wondering if there is a reason why Cleveland Barons do not have their own page. The Kansas City Scouts (2 years before moving to Denver) have one. alos why is the team listed as the oakland seals instead of California Golden Seals. The where known as the C GS twice as long (6 seasons to 3) also when they left the Bay Area it was as the CGS. Also of course they original started out the 67-68 season as the California Seals. Smith03 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was actually wondering the same thing myself tonight. The article should be split off. BoojiBoy 03:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have split the article in two. The new article is at Cleveland Barons (NHL). BoojiBoy 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for doing that would people object to changing the OS page to the CGS based on my above reasons?17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have separate articles about all three CS/CGS/OS teams; they were all the same team in the same city and same arena. BoojiBoy 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No I was thinking of moving the oakland seals page to california golden seals page for the above reasons Smith03 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Afd nominations

Should we add a section on the front page for hockey related Afd, Cfd, etc. nominations? There seem to be a little more frequent lately. I have one to mention: The Commodore Triplets has been nominated. Please add your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Commodore Triplets. -- JamesTeterenko 05:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! I like that article, however I had to agree with its proposed deletion. Fairly blatant vanity article. I'm not sure if we need an AfD heading yet, as I havent seen very many hockey articles come up for AfD, even when you account for the crusader. Resolute 05:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
On a slightly similar topic, how about a new articles section? This way we can immediately get fresh eyes to copyedit anything new. -- JamesTeterenko 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats not a bad idea. Its always good to get more people editing new articles. Resolute 13:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of us are AfD hawks who keep an eye on deletions, but I agree that one of those front-page category notices would serve some good. Ravenswing 06:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes to both ideas. Most Wikiprojects do likewise. BoojiBoy 13:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly save me from getting spam warnings from friends of the people who start the AfD's. DMighton 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing we could possibly add is a list of articles to watch. ie: Chris Pronger, which has been the victim of frequent vandalism the past couple weeks, which only stopped temporaraly when I requested the page be protected. Resolute 22:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I requested semi protection (no anon IP editting). ccwaters 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stanley Cup Playoff(s)"

Something I don't get: Stanley Cup Playoffs redirects to Season structure of the NHL, but Stanley Cup Playoff redirects to Stanley Cup. Shouldn't it really be one or the other? Doogie2K (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think both should redirect to Stanley Cup Sven Erixon 07:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive4&oldid=1140226729"