Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive51

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.

Template:Infobox Ice hockey player - add IIHF Hall of Fame attribute?

Just a pointer to the discussion: the template's talk page. I think it would be useful. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Article quality

Might be valuable to some, probably meaningless to most, but I compiled the current state of our article quality ranks across several subsets of WP:HOCKEY at User:Resolute/Hockey Statistics. In many respects, we have a looooong way to go... Reso lute 01:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm. While that pie chart looks dauntingly orange, when one gambols over to "Hockey Mountain" to take a peek, I think one problem is that the assessment of many of those articles is quite low. A great many articles rated Stub or Start should be C-class; they're getting improved without being rerated. Ravenswing 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I re-rated many articles when I was looking at the Flames bios. (some down from B to C, since they were nearly unsourced despite having a lot of info). Even accounting for the fact that not all hockey mountain articles have been reassessed, we've actually put a big dent into it since Leetch44 came up with the idea in September 2010:

Group	FA	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	Total
September 2010	9	15	34	22	120	119	319
March 2012	12	27	39	41	120	94	333
HHOF Sept. 2010	6	13	25	16	86	101	247
HHOF Mar. 2012	7	23	29	35	84	73	251

Slowly but surely... Reso lute 14:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright ... I think I'll turn some attention over the next few days to reviewing/rerating the HHOF articles marked Stub or Start. That way we can focus attention on the ones which genuinely merit attention, rather than ones that are already in respectable shape. Ravenswing 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been doing this already. I've been adding infoboxes to all of the HHOF players and I corrected the incorrect induction dates over the past month. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- So far, I've reviewed through the 1964 inductees. Not as grim as all of that, but there are too damn many great players who have Stub- or Start-class articles. Time to get to work, I guess. Ravenswing 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe to go on the ice ...

		The Hockey Barnstar
		Because we ought to have a barnstar of our own, as many other Wikiprojects do! Don't you think? Ravenswing 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Someone gave me one once called the golden puck. But it didn't have a nice icon like this. :) -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Those colors scream hockey...--Львівське (говорити) 14:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If folks approve it, I can ship it to the appropriate Barnstar section ... Ravenswing 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And we are now official! A barnstar of our own! Ravenswing 03:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ice Hockey European Championships

The category name for the IIHF European Men's Ice Hockey Championships is under discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 10

The category was called Category:IIHF Men's European Championships from 2007-2012, when it was renamed to Category:Ice Hockey European Championships. as a speedy rename. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility

Currently, or probably very soon since my edits are being reverted, the templates in Category:National Hockey League teams seasons navigational boxes are deviating from guidelines outlined in WP:Accessibility. The primary two problems are (1) the use of background coloring to indicate the cup winners, and (2) the use of hardcoded bullets. To fix the first issue, I propose using footnotes rather than background colors. To fix the second issue, I propose using hlist as per WP:HLIST, rather than hard coded bullets. one complaint concerning the conversion to hlist is the removal of the hidden whitespace padding, which "destroy that logical alignment, making the template look chaotic". I have checked the current alignment in many different browsers, and the right edit is always ragged, and it also introduces quite a bit of whitespace on more narrow displays which wrap each line. if you really want to ensure alignment, you pretty much have to use something like {{Navbox years}}, but I don't think we should go down that path it's not necessary. Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A lot of smoke, very little light

Yes, I'm all for improving the code, however, I'll quote what I posted on your talk: "The templates for NHL team seasons are structured in such a way as to have the season line up from decade to decade. Your edits destroy that logical alignment, making the template look chaotic". If you compare the versions prior and after your introduced changes, you will notice the seasons no longer line up decade by decade in those cases where a team's first season was not at the beginning of a decade. If you can merge the two styles, I think that would be a nice solution, although I'm perfectly fine with the code as is. As far as footnotes versus highlighting, this goes back to the alignment issue: with footnotes seasons will no longer properly align by decade. One solution would be to not indicate Cup-winning seasons at all, although I feel that is a useful feature. Jmj713 (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The contrast between text and background on, for example, {{Calgary Flames seasons}} has very poor accessibility, fails both MOS:COLOR and international web accessibility guidelines should be removed immediately. class=hlist should be used over hard-coded bullets, per WP:HLIST, but if alignment is essential, a table could be considered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it important that the decades be aligned? The 1993 season (for example) is not related to the 2003 season. Alternatively, {{Toronto Blue Jays}} uses placeholders for the empty years. -- Dianna (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It improves readability and allows the user to have a clear grasp on the chronological overview of a team's season history. Plus it's just neater-looking. Jmj713 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the 1974-75 season has to be directly above the 1984-85 season is the feeblest reason I've yet seen for refusing to make a list accessible. It is simply unacceptable to force blind visitors to listen to "dot ... dot ... dot ..." and so on just because a sighted editor thinks the accessible list looks "chaotic". If Jmj713 can merge the two styles while retaining the accessibility for the visually impaired, that would certainly be a nice solution, but WP:ACCESS enjoys considerable consensus and defines the default. The onus is on those dissenting from that default to provide acceptable alternates. --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can easily get on board with making improvements for accessibility reasons, but let's not forget that the majority of our readers have normal sight. Some respect has to be given to visual styles that are appealing and/or organized to those users. If we can find a way to retain the current organization (preferably something a tad cleaner than the Blue Jays seasons box) while improving accessibility, I am all for it. Andy - on the colours of the infoboxes, I agree in general, but surely the dark blue on light blue style cannot be the only acceptable style. I think we can meet in the middle on that by retaining the primary dark colour for each team with white (or black in the case of the odd team, like the Nashville Predators) text. Reso lute 01:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I ec'd with you. That would be a tyranny of the majority approach. Most of the colouring is “team spirit” (or politics or marketing in further topics).

Navboxes are not part of any one article per se; they appear in other pages that may have yet other navboxes. The result of colouring-up navbox is often a riot of garish colours at the bottom of pages. A better way to view navboxes is as a part of the whole site, and that has a defined look; i.e. the lavender/blue (depending of your platform). When new skins come along these glued-in colours are going to break things; at least hold them back from new things, like the Athena skin that due soon. Alarbus (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we work very hard to maintain a minimum of navboxes, so the problem of garish boxes clashing isn't as prevalent with us as opposed to some other projects (*cough*baseball*cough*). I appreciate your concern, but lets simplify the discussion for a moment. Looking at {{Calgary Flames seasons}}, would a dark red background with white text (or black, for that matter), be acceptable from an accessibility perspective? Lets determine what is possible before we decide what is preferable. Reso lute 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

the default colours are not the only accessible ones, of course. That's not the issue, really. The default look is the site's design and too many people deviate from that. hlist is an accessibility issue, but it's also a structural one; it actually produces html list structures which is useful for tools (Google) accessing the content. No navbox should sport non-site-standard colours. There was some old discussion in the talk navbox archives about cutting the support for passed in colours and that need revisiting. It is really only sports, colleges, politics and pop culture that engage in this frivolous stuff. Alarbus (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually WP:ACCESS is just a style guideline. It isn't actually mandatory across wikipedia and looking through the talk pages there it looks like there is absolutely zero consensus on using hlist. It has come up a number of times and been shot down a number of times. Even the wording on the page suggests it is there and can be used but in no way says it has to be used. I am also not particularly fond of what looks like a canvass attempt to overwhelm this discussion which easily could have been handled. I am certainly willing to get on board with making improvements for accessibility, but as Resolute mentions, the majority of our readers are sighted and thus most consideration does have to be given to them and where it doesn't overly negatively affect the majority of our readers things can certainly be adjusted. -DJSasso (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

links to discussions below; mostly you're making the tyranny of the majority argument, again. Alarbus (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is how wikipedia works. By gaining consensus and working together with people instead of battling. Your edit summaries are not helping the situation. Again I suggest maybe working towards a mutually acceptable solution? Otherwise you aren't much user here to either side of the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You're not helping much here. Who's got the battleground going? Solutions do not have to be "mutually acceptable." That would give everyone a veto and result on gridlock. See here where Sue Gardner says that we have to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus. Alarbus (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually they do, mutually acceptable is known by another name called consensus. Everything has to have it. I didn't say everyone had to agree. I said find a mutually acceptable solution, aka consensus. Not everyone will agree with a consensus solution but they will both accept it. And that is great of Sue Gardiner she is but one persons opinion. No greater or smaller than anyone elses. -DJSasso (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

“mutually acceptable” and “consensus” are not the same thing. hlist has hundreds of thousands of uses; *that's* consensus. Alarbus (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, hlist is not negotiable. That's a core accessibility issue. Similarly, the background colour on cup wins is inappropriate from an accessibility perspective, so that's got to go. The argument that footnotes break an emergent columnar effect has a bit of validity which is solved by listing the cup wins in another row; this would be a bit duplicative, but is tolerable. The indenting with visible:hidden is not on as it is introducing fake data (seasons never played) that may not be visible but may still be spoken and still be scrapped off the page by Google and others. This stuff seems to have only been introduced by Jmj713 in January, so there're no legs to this and it's just one editor seeking to control a block of templates. The lurid colours in the title bars and elsewhere have to go, too; stick a flag-like swatch next to the title if ya want. Alarbus (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, "not negotiable"? Everything is negotiable. Also you're wrong about "stuff" I introduced. It was over a year ago, and I did mention this change on the project talk, if I'm not mistaken before going ahead with it. I was doing it out of accessibility and readability standpoints, and this structure was accepted and unchallenged for over a year. Again, I'm all for making the code better, but going by your logic, we can simply make everything plain text and be done with it. What about presenting information in an easily understood fashion? By the way, Alarbus, why are you going forward with the hlist versions while the discussion is ongoing and there is no consensus on how to proceed? Jmj713 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@Resolute: I'm sorry, but I'm unwilling to accept the argument that 'visually-impaired visitors are a small minority' as a reason not to ensure that we provide material in an accessible manner. No other major website would dream of making such a suggestion. We should be starting from the premise that our content must be as accessible as possible, and working from there to make things look pretty for sighted visitors, not the other way round. I had hoped we'd moved some way from the tyranny of the majority and a "devil-take-the-hindmost" philosophy. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RexxS, if you look at the discussion so far, I'm just about the only one being open minded to your POV. You might want to consider that before continuing down your "tyranny of the majority" bullshit line of argument. Walking in here with attitudes that things are "not negotiable" or that things "must be removed" is only going to set everyone against you and queue up a long argument that gets us nowhere and only wastes everybody's time. Myself, I would much rather be writing articles than go down that road. I have also been active enough in the featured list process to know how important accessibility is to many editors. I realize you are here in a good faith bid to improve the 'pedia, but if you want to convince everyone of that, I suggest (all of) you stop demanding and dictating, and start discussing.

Now, that aside, your reply is a false dichotomy. I never said that the fact that accessibility concerns impact only a small percentage of readers is a reason not to provide accessible material. I said we should be looking at satisfying both groups. I am open to discussion and suggestions on how to make that happen. Are you? Reso lute 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss any suggestions on how best to present this template, and I do appreciate your willingness to consider the views presented. However, this is not a personal issue of how editors feel about each other, it is a fundamental issue about opening up our content to all, not just those fortunate enough to have good vision. I'm sorry if I appear to be taking a hard line or talking bullshit, but I feel strongly that we shouldn't provide a poor experience for disadvantaged visitors. I simply can't see how anyone can equate 'seasons 10 years apart not lining up' with 'forcing blind users to hear large blocks of text interspersed with "dot", instead of a list of individual elements'. In fact, I'll make you an offer: if you can persuade Graham87 that he finds Jmj713's version of the template as acceptable as Frietjes' version, I'll remove my objection and withdraw from this discussion. --RexxS (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright then lets work together to find the best possible solution instead of just talking past each other and demanding each other do this or that. This discussion could have been over in minutes had people not come flying in here waving banners and shouting how people had to do what they wanted. In fact I think we would already have a solution by now if that hadn't been the case. -DJSasso (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Many other website would actually do things this way, it is very very rare that a website designs itself for the minority and then tries to make it better for the majority. That just isn't how the world works. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's simply wrong. Good website design includes accessibility considerations from the start. Nobody would last five minutes in the business if they were designing inaccessible sites. Djsasso, you need to self-revert. Guidelines enjoy consensus just as much as policies do, and editors need to be careful when deliberately flouting them for no better reason than they don't like it. That fits our definition of disruptive editing. Accessibility is fundamental to our mission of providing a high-quality encyclopedia to all, and I really hope you don't think that catering for the needs of blind visitors is somehow "optional". --RexxS (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is optional. But I do think there are ways to make things better in both situations. You don't affect the experience of the majority of your users negatively just to help a few people. Instead you find the best possible solution to the issue for all involved and then you implement that. -DJSasso (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Consider the millions of curb cuts for wheelchairs, the requirements for elevators and grip bars and extra space in public restrooms. Ramps everywhere. Designated parking spaces. Society spends a lot of money on things that impact the majority to help minorities. Alarbus (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And none of them do so negatively and are usually the best solution I mentioned. Are you really going to keep battling instead of finding a way to fix the infoboxes so they are both accessible and still well done for people who can see them? -DJSasso (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I reject that I'm "battling". What you are doing is poisoning the well against views from outside your wikiproject. You reverted fixes per the MoS and I've not flipped them back despite them being improper. I addressed the issues of what's wrong with the local approach to navboxes in my first post here. The versions you've restored are not serving anyone well; they are *not* “well done”. Those real-world accessibility features cost billions; that's a negative impact on the majority. Alarbus (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But that's not what this debate is about though, be that as it may. I'll reiterate once again that I'm perfectly willing to collaborate on improving the code of this project's templates, but your side has to come forward too and help us achieve mutually beneficial results. Jmj713 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

See my first post to this thread; hlist, no hidden, swatch of colour as a wikt:gewgaw. Alarbus (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jmj713. hlist has site-wide consensus and is being deployed to 1.6 million articles. See WP:CONLIMITED. Maybe some this goes back further than two months; it was only add two months ago to one I looked at. Whatever local consensus there was falls in the face of site wide consensus and see WP:CCC. Alarbus (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect, if your goal is to improve accessibility, then lets focus on that rather than arguing over whether the handful of editors who elevated something to guideline status has a wider consensus than a handful of editors who would like to retain some useful visual styles. I think I can speak for most project members when I say I am willing to work with you if you are willing to work with us. Reso lute 02:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When you can show me the discussion of the wider community that indicates there is a wide community consensus then certainly conlimited comes into play. But looking at that page it was added by a user without any discussion i can find. So right now you seem to be arguing against a limited consensus by using a limited consensus. How about we do something more productive and work towards a solution? -DJSasso (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@Alarbus Actually it is negotiable since HLIST is a guideline, not a policy. And please stop edit warring. The discussion is clearly ongoing. Jmj713 invoked WP:BRD on Frietjes's original edit. Thus we now discuss, we don't keep reverting. As such I have again returned the templates to their original version pending a decision on how to proceed. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that the background color to identify information has "got to go." The cup winners should be noted with a method other than color, but it doesn't mean that color can't also be used to identify them. I've seen this approach in basketball articles, where colors and symbols highlight active players or hall of fame members. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:HLIST is Manual of Style and enjoys's broad consensus. I've made the usual argument above. This wikiProject does not get to opt-out of this. Your reverts are unhelpful. Alarbus (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to show me to the discussion where this broad consensus was created. I just see most of the wording there being added by a user without any discussion whatsoever. Doesn't seem like much consensus. How about instead of telling people what they have to do we work together on a solution to move forward. -DJSasso (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

HLIST is widely used: User:WOSlinker/wrapping and was mentioned in the signpost:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class

There was considerable discussion on Template talk:Navbox#How to implement flatlist?. The discussion goes back about four years; Andy has the links and the signpost links has them, I think. Alarbus (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So how do we apply hlist to our project's accepted standards, if hlist is so essential? Jmj713 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project's "accepted standards" are not essential; WP:CONLIMITED. WikiProjects don't own anything. Alarbus (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And unless you can show me a specific discussion where there is a bigger consensus than the one that may be here, then this isn't a case of conlimited because there is no larger consensus to override the projects. Looking in the archives of the guideline (and I stress again, a guideline) I see no such consensus gathering discussions. Either way, why are you so hesitant to find a mutually agreeable solution? Do you actually want to find a workable solution or are you just trolling? -DJSasso (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I find your whole approach to be bad faith. This is about improving the project at a meta level. The proper outcome here is not accommodating every little whim of random editors or wikiprojects. Don't expect much respect when you and resolute fling personal attacks so easily. Appalling in admins, really. Alarbus (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, then lets improve the project instead of throwing around bad faith like you have done since you arrived here making accusations and demands when all the other users from the beginning said lets discuss how to fix this. You came in guns blazing before anyone else said anything about anyone. Frankly your behavior here has been some of the worst I have seen in a long time on wikipedia and that is saying a lot. And yes wikipedia is all about working with all editors and wikiprojects to find the best consensus for everyone. If you aren't able to discuss situations in a civil manor you probably shouldn't be here. -DJSasso (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Being widely used does not indicate consensus to use it everywhere. If anything that is a result of Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI. The discussion you point out is again just a discussion among a small number of editors. In order to claim there is a big site wide consensus you need to show a discussion with a large number of editors. Otherwise you are guilty of a limited consensus just as much as the one you claim can't overrule that one. -DJSasso (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm totally open for any code improvements. That said, does hlist provide a way to keep the season alignment we've had on these templates for at least fourteen months. Jmj713 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And now Alarbus and Frietjes are involved in mass meatpuppetry, nice. Jmj713 (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup if it wasn't a case of canvassing before, it certainly is now. -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

nope; Edokter implemented the css and js that is hlist and WOSlinker has dine tens of thousands of hlist conversion on navboxes. Alarbus (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, people known to support what you believe. Textbook definition of canvassing someone. -DJSasso (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Go read the archives and old discussions; lots of consensus, and it is appropriate to get the input of the key people in an initiative. Alarbus (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No actually it isn't. You don't notify people of one side of an issue. That is the very definition of canvassing and very much frowned on. Canvass actually goes to great lengths to tell you not to get people that are key to your "initiative" and instead post a simple link in a neutral way in a neutral location which the talk pages of specific people definitely is not. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been being deployed for months with little objection; hundreds of thousands of templates. Most of those objecting have been random IP's trolling. If there's an anti-accessibility wikiproject, they should be notified (that they're blocked, really). Alarbus (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm with DJ - exactly how is it that a handful of editors, none of whom to my knowledge have prior hockey-related edits, suddenly show up on this talk page to argue in favor of these template changes, all within a day? Would you like to claim that this is just some bizarre coincidence? Ravenswing 04:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So it's your way or the highway? That's not very productive, not very conductive to a consensus, which is how Wikipedia works. I see Alarbus only joined Wikipedia about four months ago, so I can see how he may not be aware how consensus and discussions happen here. Jmj713 (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

My way?

wmf:Resolution:Openness
“We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by”
- “Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that improve usability and accessibility”

other points, too; see link. Alarbus (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on the colours, obviously. But re Rexx's comment near the top of this section, the hard-coded bullets in this version of {{Anaheim Ducks seasons}} are read as "bullet" with a screen reader, which is exactly the same way that they'd be read if they were part of a structured HTML list. So the only differences between the structured and unstructured versions, strictly from my point of view as a JAWS user, are that the structured version is noted to be a list of 7 items (and I can navigate between the items with I/shift+I which is a trivial feature in this case), and there's no bullet before the first item in the unstructured list. Just my two cents. Graham87 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree this should be cleaned up, but we're just asking people to look into ways to retain visible styles while also cleaning the templates up for those using screen readers. Nobody is saying "don't touch our templates". We're asking the accessibility experts to work with us. Reso lute 05:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, chalk me up as an editor opposed to any such change being shoved down any project's throats and doubly-opposed to the peremptory demands being made. Perhaps the newcomers are unaware that "guideline" ≠ "mandatory" on Wikipedia. Would any of you care to start over from scratch and come up with proposals for which you'll then seek consensus, rather than this Our Way Or Else! behavior? Ravenswing 04:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I don't understand why the use of color is all of a sudden admonished. Color is used widely throughout Wikipedia to highlight and annotate certain facts. Here's are some well-known good examples: List of Presidents of the United States, Arab Spring. Jmj713 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hlist

One reason for changing the templates is to improve accessibility for visually impaired users using a screen reader. Whenever a screen reader encounters a dot, it calls out the word "dot". The material presents as a lot of tiny disjointed paragraphs rather than a list. With the new mark-up, the screen reader will announce that a list is coming, and then will proceed to read out the items on the list. Application of the hlist class is about presenting the material as actual lists, which helps not just people with vision issues, but those viewing the site using phones and other non-traditional devices. Search engines also will read lists better.

The use of the dots is now deprecated, and have been since August. Each dot requires the application of a template, and templates are expensive, as they increase server load. There are limits as to how many templates can be placed on a page. Application of the latest method, using listclasses and bodyclasses to create the lists, results in a reduction in post-expand include size of 84.5% and a reduction in template argument size of 88% on the {{Disney}} template, for example. This is a substantial improvement that will lead to quicker load times for pages and a better experience for our viewing audience. Rolling it out site-wide will have the impact of actually reducing the size of the encyclopedia and reducing the load on the servers. Pages such as Ketamine and Barack Obama are no longer failing to build, in large part because of the changes to the navboxes at the bottom of these pages. Extensive discussion of this change was undertaken among the top technical people on the site at template talk:Navbox, and the decision was taken to roll out the change site-wide. -- Dianna (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the explanation of the rationale, I don't think anyone is arguing against this change, per se. We're just looking for ways to retain the visual style as best we can while implementing these changes. this change to {{Montreal Canadiens seasons}} makes for an awful template for sighted users. I would like to believe that we can align this template in a way that retains a decent visual alignment while using the code changes you suggest. Let me play with some things for a bit... Reso lute 15:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Data vertically, data horizontally, everything needs to be in a particular place: what is needed is a table. Perhaps there is some way to encase a table in a navbox? --Dianna (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this: {{User:Resolute/sandbox}} Three views: First is the default hlist with the [c] note. Not acceptable in my view. Second places a hidden [c] to retain alignment. Does span style="visibility:hidden" render the text within invisible to screen readers? Third simply omits any notation of a championship season. Reso lute 15:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the middle one best assuming the span style is invisible to screen readers. Failing that I would opt for the 3rd option next. The first option just isn't workable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What would a decade look like, if a team started playing in the middle of a given decade? Jmj713 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is the next question. Something like the seasons sub-template at {{Toronto Blue Jays}} could work, though I'd personally prefer t find a way to hide the dots visibly. Another alternative is to change the templates away from calendar-based decades and instead have ten entries per row starting with each team's first season. So the first row for Montreal is 1909-1918, then 1919-1928, 1929-1938, etc. Reso lute 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the second option, how about instead of a superscripted indicator, a vertically-centred indicator be used instead (such as an inline asterisk)? This would make the rows appear more symmetrical. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for either (a) simply removing the "cup" indicator, (b) replacing it with something which is not superscripted, (c) indicating the years the cup was won in a list in the below section, or (d) indicating the years the cup was won in its own section. however I don't think the current background colour option is viable. the excessive spacing for the years in which no cup was won is also bad. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Options c and d introduce far too much redundancy. People would immediately add division and conference titles, and you'll start to see the same link four times in the same template. That only hinders the navigational value in my view. Honestly, I personally would rather just drop all indication of championships entirely than go that route. Reso lute 19:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a desire to right-align the lists, but I personally don't think this is necessary

(a) Current format not using hlist

(b) Direct conversion to hlist, without worrying about right alignment

(c) Direct conversion to hlist, using center alignment

(d) A more convoluted method to achieve right alignment

I would personally prefer either (b) or (c). The problem with (d) is that it will be browser dependent, and not work on narrow displays. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(e) Direct conversion to hlist, with a silent div to pad the left indent of the first row

This will give approximately accurate lining up, but requires CSS that may not always render identically on different browsers. It obviously also needs a different amount of left-padding for different starting years within the initial decade, making it rather less easy for editors to use. The following is a made-up version that starts a season earlier:

On Firefox, each season occupies about 4.5em of spacing, but I can't guarantee that without looking at it in other browsers. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Addendum: As I suspected, the alignment is different between IE9 in standards mode (same as FF and other browsers), and IE9 in "compatibility mode". And guess which one IE9 picks by default for Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

None is really looking aligned correctly to me, unfortunately. Jmj713 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I managed to used hlist and decades alignment on NBA teams templates. I used the code <table width="100%" cellpadding="0"> along with {{NavboxYears}} to achieve the alignment. Maybe this method can be used here as well. See User:Martin tamb/Sandbox for the examples. Another method is to use hidden/invisible years and bullets to achieve the correct alignment, see Template:NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans for the example. — MT (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take on the Los Angeles Kings season examples above, using the table and NavboxYears template:

The difference is that there is no bullet between the years and the entries are divided into a table of 10 columns depending on the browser size.

Here's my take on the Los Angeles Kings season examples above, using the hidden years and bullets:

I'm not sure where these two examples stand on the WP:ACCESS and WP:HLIST issue, but this is the best I can get on the alignments. Anyway, sorry if this has been discussed before, I haven't had the chance to read all the posts above. Hope this two examples helps. Cheers! — MT (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That latter example looks perfect to me. Combine that with the colour bars for the header suggested below, and I would say we have a solution that satisfies everyone. Reso lute 14:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that looks exactly what we're looking for from an hlist template. If this is okay, we should be good to go as far as format. The highlighting issue still remains. I think it's perfectly workable to leave highlighting as is and add a color key with text as is done for the Presidents article, explaining the highlight. Jmj713 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of "visibility:hidden" and faked data is inappropriate; I said so in the collapsed thread. It's also using {{,}} on the fake data which is part of what WP:HLIST is about getting away from. And, it looks terrible when viewed on a wide display; *huge* expanses of whitespace; on narrow displays, it wraps strangely with some dropping down and then baulks and causes a horizontal scrollbar (it's the long hidden list-item causing it). Way to design specifically for 13" laptops, kids. Alarbus (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there an accessibility reason to avoid visibility:hidden, or is it just a case of your not liking it? Reso lute 15:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Try viewing it with CSS disabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't try and make this personal; it's not about what I like or don't like, it's about what's right or wrong for the project. WP:Deviations says to not embed markup like this. Common sense says don't put fake data in there where under some circumstances it will show or be read by bot such as Google. This is not just about accessibility, it's about usability, maintainability, and good sense.

Resolute, you and DJSasso are administrators of this site; that comes with a responsibility to look to the project's wider interests, not this WikiProject's little obsessions with columnar looks and 'given' that things need to be ten-up, period. On a basic mobile phone, these should appear one-per-line, on a large monitor they may *all* fit on one line. Users seeking too much control over structure, colour, other stuff not coming to mind at the moment, *hurt* the project by making it fit their system, their preconceptions. When new version of things like navbox are deployed, or new skins are deployed, all the deviations from standard practise such as are being toyed around with here are going to break. Or worse, the sum of all the anomalies may serve as a deterrent to deploying new newer things. What I don't like is things that hold the project back. Kindly don't do that. Alarbus (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus, stop being the pot that called the kettle black. You are going out of your way to be combative, i.e.: referring to those who do not agree with you precisely as "kids". As I told you on your talk page - if you can't properly interact with people, you need to just let someone else do it. Dianna, for instance, came in and worked to start a productive conversation that was going places. Now, as to the rest of your rant, I'm sorry that you don't really care too much for visual styles. But frankly, your opinion on this matter means little and less to me because you have shown yourself completely unwilling to work with anyone here.

Andy, I take your response to mean that "yes, there is an issue with such coding", which is all you needed to say. I am open to alternate suggestions on layouts. I suggested above, if we keep the navboxes at a decade per row (or 15 or 20 years), starting with each team's first season. And yes, just a single line with all seasons is also an option. Reso lute 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And you're the ones that have made this personal (&DJSasso). Seems to me that you can't rebut the criticisms of your poor approaches to these issues. All of the examples on offer here are poor. WP:HLIST and WP:Deviations are guidelines that enjoy wide consensus and as admins, you two are charged with encouraging people to follow them. Do you? No, you seek to evade them. Not impressed. Alarbus (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

All we have said from the beginning was lets discuss to get the best possible outcome for everyone. You have repeatedly attacked us for not agreeing with you 100%. HLIST is a guideline for a reason. Guidelines are just that guidelines and are not set in stone. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe through discussion we could actually evolve hlist or navboxes in general into something even better than it currently is and that people would even like even more than what they currently prefer? Discussion is not evil like you keep making it out to be. Guidelines are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. That is a very well known phrase on the wiki. They aren't meant to make anyone do anything but to explain how things are usually done. As admins what we are charged with is the same thing that everyone is charged with.... to discuss things not tell which is what you tried to do coming in here saying what you wanted was non-negotiable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you (especially you, DJSasso) are the ones that have been attacking. See my initial post in the collapsed section, see the one two up; none of my points have enven been much commented on. My thinking is that they cut to the bone and you need to change the subject to me. Try widening the window on most of those examples such that two-thirds of the box is blank; try scrunching it down like a mobile and get poor line wraps and an hscrollbar. The fake-hidden data is *ludicrous*. Then there is the colour of all the jerseys. See my initial comments where I said that naveboxes should be seen as part of the site design, not gewgaws of a wikiproject. Alarbus (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole section below talking about one of your comments (ie the colours). And this whole section is basically about another of your comments (ie hlist). So don't try to act as if people aren't discussing the issues you had. If you want people to discuss with you how about do so in a civil manor and people will likely respond to you likewise. But you came here with a battleground mentality from the start and guess what happened, a discussion that could have been productive got derailed. And now when we are finally having a reasonable discussion and people coming up with reasonable solutions, you again have come here with vitriol and are derailing the discussion again. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not buying it; *you* were the one with the severe battleground approach; *you* were admonished for your bad faith and attacks by HJ Mitchell. You and Resolute are not open to properly fixing these templates. The examples you're calling "reasonable solutions" are not; you only get that by dismissing me (and Andy, and Frietjes). Screen shots tomorrow. Alarbus (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You too were actually admonished by him and told that you should perhaps start discussing the issue instead of bickering. If you don't like the solutions presented then lets find some other alternatives instead of wasting time with this foolishness. Everyone else in this discussion has been able to give some on both sides except you. So if anyone isn't open to change it clearly isn't us. -DJSasso (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Then comment on what I've said above and lay off the bad faith attacks; both of you. Alarbus (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How about I comment? I completely endorse the complaints that you have a profound WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This matter was being productively discussed over the last couple of days, and I don't think it's a coincidence that you hadn't posted here in a couple of days. The "No, YOU'RE wrong" behavior you've displayed is unproductive, unworthy and ineffective, and the implication that the proper way for administrators to act is to agree with your position a fallacy. So HJ Mitchell wagged a finger at them based on your skewed characterizations. Well, I'm waving a finger at you. Does that mean you're supposed to pipe down now? Ravenswing 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

More attacks, all intended to run off someone with ideas you don't like. Comment on my comments above if you want to be taken seriously. Alarbus (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested a viable alternative above, in section which someone deemed fit to censor behind a collapsed section with the frankly offensive title "A lot of smoke, very little light". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I was offended, too. Bullies. Alarbus (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to using a table within a navbox, Andy? If so, do you have an example of that? I am definitely interested in the opinions of people interested in working with us. Reso lute 22:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Colour

Adding colour to templates has an adverse impact on people reading WIkipedia with a screen reader, and poorly chosen color choices will adversely affect people who are colour blind or who need a high amount of contrast to discern the text (see WP:COLOR). WP:Deviations says that styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes. The site-wide CSS in MediaWiki:Common.css has been carefully tested to ensure accessibility, such as adequate colour contrast, and compatibility with a wide range of browsers. What seems readable to you on your computer with your operating system, your browser, etc. will look very different to me, or to someone reading Wikipedia from an i-phone or a cell phone. In general, it is not a good idea to add random colours to templates or other areas of article space, as when the default site-wide classes are overridden, it makes it far more difficult for an individual to choose his/her own theme in their own preferences to accommodate problems such as visual impairments.

The problem is that sports teams, universities, schools, and other organisations that use colour as an identifier. A solution will have to be found for this problem, as many of the templates do not meet the basic "WCAG 2 AA Compliant" guideline, much less the best-practices "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" guideline, and thus will be difficult or impossible for people to read if they have contrast issues or colour blindness issues. In case you do not know, the colour to test it against is 0645AD, the basic unclicked link colour. See Wikipedia:Link color. The standard colours have been tested on a wide variety of computers and on a lot of major browsers for compliance with the contrast and colour guidelines. Here is the recommended website to use for testing colour compliance: http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html

One idea I was mulling over iss to use borders:

--Dianna (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not bad, actually. I wonder, would it look better (and is it possible) to use a white background instead of light blue for the "meat" of the template header. It might look a little better that way. Reso lute 15:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

An example for discussion:

I am off to the gym now; ttyl.-- Dianna (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh I think that is a perfect fix to the colour issue. I do like that. I would definitely choose the version with the white. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Me too; that's not at all bad. Ravenswing 17:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The other issue with colour is when colour (usually background colour) is used to convey a piece of information, as Jmj pointed out in List of Presidents of the United States and Arab Spring. What causes a problem is not the use of a background colour in itself, but when that mechanism is the only one used to present that particular piece of information, and we should provide extra text to allow screen readers to pick up that information as well. For example, in the main table of List of Presidents of the United States colour is used to indicate the political party of each president, but there is also a cell in each row which states "Democrat", "Republican", etc. Similarly for the 'Situation' column in the Arab Spring table. In each case a screen reader would receive the same total information as a sighted viewer. The sighted viewer gets a bonus: the coloured information is available to them at a glance, but that is all the colour is doing. In the case of templates such as Template:Anaheim Ducks seasons, for example, a sighted visitor gets the information that in 2006-7, the Ducks were Stanley Cup champions; whereas a blind visitor hears that "highlighted seasons indicate Stanley Cup championship", but frustratingly cannot get the information which season(s) from the template. I suspect that lack of consideration (if you'll pardon me putting that bluntly) may be worse for a visually-impaired visitor than the actual lack of information. I do hope that you'll accept that some sort of 'key' or textual indicator is essential for relevant seasons to complement any use of colour, if we are to improve the experience for those users who can't distinguish by the colour alone. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We're actually discussing how to implement that in the hlist section above. :) Reso lute 18:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If we would want to keep the championship highlighting, why not simply add a color key-code icon like on the list of presidents or the Arab Spring? Jmj713 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

in the Arab Spring and List of Presidents of the United States articles, the colour is not the only way to get the information, it is also in text, so unless you are going to add a footnote, or other note, this is not any better. from the discussion above, it appears editors don't really like the footnotes. Frietjes (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor question regarding Yuri Alexandrov trade

No, I'm not joking. There indeed was a trade involving Alexandrov today, where he was moved from Boston to the NY Islanders in exchange for future considerations. My question would be where this trade should be listed. There are two possibilities, either 2011–12 NHL transactions or 2012–13 NHL transactions. An argument for 2011–12 would be the time of the trade. Listing it at 2012–13 would also be possible due to the fact that his entry contract will expire on June 30, making the trade comparable to others where the rights to high-profile players had been swapped. So... any preferences? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If he was traded this season, it's a transaction done this season. Ravenswing 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah if he was traded during the season then it was done this season. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Silly question, but when is the season over? The end of the regular season or end of play-offs or later? Sorry if this comes across as smart-ass, what about the award ceremony, the draft and the start of free-agency, what season are they part of? And for the extreme case, the CBA doesn't expire until just before the preseason starts. 174.119.23.115 (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The season ends after the Cup finals are over. Everything else you mentioned is the off-season. Contracts expire on June 30th so July 1st starts free agency for the 12-13 season.--Львівське (говорити) 05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We have always taken the season to end after the NHL Awards are handed out. The next season starts right away with the draft which is usually a few days later. You can see this looking at any of our season articles which include the draft as part of the upcoming season and the awards as part of the season just finished. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I very much prefer the end-of-year as described by DJSasso. Unfortunately the transactions pages use, e.g. the above linked 2011–12 NHL transactions, use a much different end-of-year definition. The first retirements and trades listed for most years occurred while the previous play-offs were still active; as if the season ended with the regular season. Should these pages be corrected? 174.119.23.115 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably would adjust them to match the season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

An adjustment would be the most logical thing to do (that's where my original confusion partially derived from). I would also suggest to include the exact dates (e.g. from 1 June 3333 to 31 May 3334) intot the lead section. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

NHL Records (Individual) needs updating

Under shootout goals it lists Alex Tanguay with 10.

This was not correct to begin with, because both Wojtek Wolski and Jussi Jokinen also have 10 shootout goals in a season.

That won't matter now since Ilya Kovalchuk has 11 shootout goals this season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalooch (talk • contribs) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Marking elimination on NHL standings

This may or may not have come up before. The marking of elimination of teams on the NHL standings templates is in dispute. The Anaheim Ducks cannot make the playoffs, although they can get to 87 points, which is more than the current 8th place team. However, the 8th and 9th place teams will play and the game just by being played will put one team over 87 points. The game is inevitable but has not been played. Mark the Ducks as eliminated or not? Is there a standard or practice to follow? Marking the Ducks as eliminated already could be considered original research, although easily done by examining the upcoming schedules. There is a discussion at the Talk:2011–12 NHL season#Teams_Not_Making_the_Playoffs page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Current roster templates

Just a thought, not sure if this has ever been brought up before: how do you guys feel about making a small template for each team with the entire roster and such? Like how on every football player's page, at the bottom there's a template that has every guy on that team's active roster. It would make it more convenient for somebody who wants to flip through the articles of all the players on a specific team. LAAngels21 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me this has been brought up many times and is always a no. The hockey project takes a minimalistic approach toward templates. The clutter I always see mentioned as an example against templates is Derek Jeter. I personally have no problem with the roster templates, but opening that door would open the door toward championship templates etc. In addition, I do find with the Canadian Football League roster templates nobody updates them or if they do they remain on the dropped player's page. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope this has definitely been shot down on numerous occasions. The consensus is strongly against them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm new here and wasn't sure if this had already been discussed or not. Thanks for the quick reply. LAAngels21 (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Centre line

the use of the title "centre line" is in question, you may be interested. See Talk:Centre line (football), where it is said that the AFL usage is primary. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dit Clapper

Oh my aching head. After spending nearly five hours on the article - as a start of my intermittent crusade to get every article at Hockey Mountain at least to C-class - I'm played out. If anyone would like to take a look at it and see if there's anything I missed, I'd be grateful. Ravenswing 07:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And four hours on the Harry Trihey article, but I think it's a solid C now, anyway. I'd likewise be grateful for extra eyes on it, especially if someone can fix up the scoring table in the article, which I'd like to compress to fit beside the Shamrocks' team photo if at all feasible. Ravenswing 04:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I altered the stats table a little, it now fits next to the pic. I haven't had a chance to read over the article yet, but I'll try to look at it at some point today.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

List of seasons

In our lists of seasons for NHL teams I see a couple of minor issues. First, they're not all standard. Would it be possible to standardize them? And by that I mean bringing them all in line with the format used for Columbus or Vancouver. I think this format is very good. Also, I believe they're missing a good piece of information, namely the team's finish in the Conference. Most if not all lists of seasons currently only list the place in the Division, but that is not very indicative of how a team finished overall in a given season. We would add that to the same column or add a new one. Perhaps, the overall league finish could also be added. Jmj713 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not apposed to adding the conference finish, though if you do add it I would make it a separate column. Standardizing the lists would be a good thing, we do see variations in basically all NHL list related articles, weather it be season, draft picks, players, etc. I would suggest to b bold and make changes to one list and if any format problems or discussions arise. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we may have started something...

So I stumbled on to this from one of the articles on my watch list, looks like Baseball is following our lead in regards to Hall of Famers. Guess we got some competition, we have the early lead 12% (of 325) to 6.3% (of 334). --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Muboshgu brought up the idea of a Baseball HOF task force and I mentioned your list as an example of how we did it. He liked the idea, it seems. ;) It does seem like time to get a few more HOFers done. I've only got one at the GAN queue right now. I am curious to see who gets elected this year. Sakic will be a given, and is already a FA, and there are some other strong candidates. I figure Sundin gets in on the first ballot due to the Toronto notability inflation effect and Shanahan looks like a good bet for a first ballot choice, but I have no idea who they would take as the fourth player, if they choose to do so. It would be kind of nice to have these articles near GA quality when they get elected. Reso lute 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well ... I figure I have my hands full with this notion of getting all the Hockey Mountain articles to C-class at least, if I can - that'll take me from now until Doomsday, I figure. I agree that the Toronto hook (*cough* Pulford *cough* Armstrong *cough* Horner *cough* Watson *cough* Primeau) gets Sundin in first ballot, but I'm not as sold on Shanahan first time out. Eventually, though. Ravenswing 23:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals article formats

For as far back as I care to search, Cup Finals articles include a brief section called "Paths to the Final". In it, the article briefly recaps what the two finalists did to get there. Occasionally, an editor will decide to on their own change this to read "Road to the Final". I see there is no directive on this - which I discovered after this edit [1] happened. I reverted it, as it was without explanation, and the editor changed it back, with the comment that I should check out other years. That editor then changed a number of articles to read "Road" instead of "Paths" - which I have changed them all back, as clearly that editor is changing articles to meet their own argument. I also note that this editor has a number of warnings [2] for having made unilateral changes, which suggests that it's nothing to worry about. But I thought I would raise the question here: is there a guiding format for Stanley Cup Finals articles? As I don't see one in the Wiki Project. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have one, but for myself, I can't say I care too much whether such a section uses "path" or "road". Either works for me. Reso lute 23:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Team season layout format

I posted a couple of ideas in the NHL team season pages format talk page. Let me know any ideas either there or here since that talk page seems to be quiet recently. Thanks.

♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 04:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

On the expanded stats, I wonder if we could fit it and the playoff stats side-by-side as I think it looks cleaner that way. Overall I'm personally not opposed to an expanded stats table, though the current format has the benefit of matching what is widely used and sourced on all sports websites. The one thing I don't much like (though it is used on some articles already) is the four sections for players acquired or lost to free agency or waivers. I am a very big fan of the KISS principle. In this case, I prefer one table each for additions and one for subtractions, such as at 2011-12 Calgary Flames season#Additions and subtractions, though on that one I should look to add a date (and source) for each entry. Reso lute 14:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, the stats as they are now gives a clean look at what I would feel are the most important stat categories...expanding them further (as Resolute said) would take away the clean look of having the regular season and playoff stats side by side. Also, as a key person who keeps up the stats on almost all 30 season pages, expanding would be an editing nightmare. Also, on a personal opinion note, I'd rather see stats originally sorted by points as they are in most places where stats are listed. As for the players acquired/lost, I am in for any changes. Just my 2 cents. Piemann16 (talk)

I am in full agreement with Piemann16. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the standard stat sorting, and except when you beat me to it on the Flames article, I set it as other sites do it. Sort by points, using goals to break ties, then fewest games played, then alpabetical. Reso lute 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I may have went a bit overboard on how many categories I had in there. I also agree that as a fan that I would perfer to see the stats defaulted to points but as an editor I feel that it's going to harder to keep track of than sorting alphabetically. I personally perfer having as a sortable table but understand with the layout it is now I don't think it's possible. The main reason I suggested the stats color is because that is how the majority of the team pages are but not how the format is and was wondering what the feelings were of officially changing it in the layout format. ♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hobey Baker at Peer Review

Now that I'm done university for the summer, I can sort of get back to working at a decent pace here. Thus I put Hobey Baker up at Peer Review, as it needs some copy-editing work before I put it back up for FA. If anyone is interested, it woudl be great. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sidney Crosby help

On the Truro Bearcats article, I have a user alleging that Crosby skated for one or two games with the team when he was 14 as a call up. This is not a rarity in Junior A for hometown kids as they don't require a card... I did the same thing at 14. He is trying very hard to find a source for this event, but says he can't find any copies of the Truro newspaper from that year... do we have any users that might remember this or know where he may look to confirm it? Legends of Hockey doesn't show it, but Maritime Jr. A isn't the most well covered subject. DMighton (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A scan of the Truro Daily News website between 2002 and 2004 for Crosby turns up nothing. A search of the Bearcats' website turns up nothing. Hockeydb for the Bearcats for the appropriate years turns up nothing. A Google News search for "Truro Bearcats" + "Sidney Crosby" turns up nothing. The only places I see this info linked are Wiki mirrors. You would think, with one of the most famous and hyped players on the planet, there wouldn't be zero, but a thousand reliable sources mentioning the connection, right? Sorry ... this is a case, IMHO, of proving the connection before including the info. Ravenswing 14:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying... he has produced a article, posted on a forum in 2003, from the Halifax paper with a local sports editor saying that Crosby is already the youngest player to have played in the MJAHL with the Truro Bearcats at 14 which would have been 2001-02.

"Last year, he was the most scouted 14-year-old in North America and, as a Truro Bearcat, the youngest person to play in Junior A." - Peter MacLaughlin, Halifax Daily News DMighton (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

[3] This is not a source... but a Truro fan on this forum states that he watched Crosby play two games for Truro, had one assist, played minimal ice time, but was one of the best players on the ice. I think this might be findable through microfilm. It would take some legwork... but possible. DMighton (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

SOURCE!! [4] searched "Sydney Crosby Truro Junior A" and got this at the end of the first page. Now I just need to confirm his stats. DMighton (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)The article that was posted on the forum is "First-round choices: Early in his career, hockey phenom Crosby and..." (the title cuts off in my search) BY PETER MCLAUGHLIN in The Daily News (Halifax). March 9, 2003. Problem is this is behind a paywall, and the Halifax Daily News has since gone under, so I can't access it to confirm that the posted article on the forum is in fact what was written. (found via http://archives.cedrom-sni.com/WebPages/SearchResult.aspx with "Peter McLaughlin" in the search field for author; date range of March 9, 2003 to March 10, 2003.) If anyone can, that would be enough to confirm it I think. Ravendrop 14:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone can access that... that will give us two sources... I'd like confirm his stats also... apparently 2 GP and 1 A... then we could probably add it to his stats on his article. DMighton (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I could try the library here in town but I don't think I will be able to get to it very quickly as the ones near my house and work probably don't have the back catalogues for newspapers. I'd have to go downtown. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've found a few more sources to add to the list for someone with access to a hard copy (there is no online version of these available through the ProQuest Canadian Newsstand database):

On Crosby being drafted by the Bearcats

- Reyno, Jim. Bearcats scoop up 13-year-old Crosby: [DAILY Edition]. Daily News [Halifax, N.S] 17 June 2001: 77.
- Fleming, Carl. Rotating Atlantic Bowl was predictable move: [DAILY Edition]. Daily News [Halifax, N.S] 19 June 2001: 47.
- Van Horne, Ryan. Crosby adapting very well: [DAILY Edition]. Daily News [Halifax, N.S] 10 Sep 2001: 32.

On Crosby making his Bearcats debut

- Van Horne, Ryan. Mooseheads unbeaten in six: [DAILY Edition]. Daily News [Halifax, N.S] 17 Oct 2001: 51.
- Capitals' sniper among leaders: [Final Edition]. Guardian [Charlottetown, P.E.I] 24 Oct 2001: B4.

– Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nurmsook!! Djsasso... if you can get to those papers, maybe you can confirm his stats for those two games?! DMighton (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's not likely to be anytime soon but when I can I will since I am in NS our libraries are more likely to have archives on it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2012 Stanley Cup playoffs

Some input to a discussion at Talk:2012 Stanley Cup playoffs. List stats as scoring, or skaters? Like people's input. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Goaltender stats table

I was going to updated a couple of goaltenders whose teams were knocked out of the playoff and was going to make sure the format for the table was correct and then found out there isn't one. I saw further down in the Player pages format thread that there was talk about making a standard but did anything come from it? Are we looking to keep it like the skaters format or different like Roberto Luongo or Tim Thomas who both have 2 seperate tables for regular season then playoffs? Any ideas? I just want to make sure I'm doing it correctly. ♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 06:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally we keep them as two separate tables because goalie stats are too long to fit both on one line. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Playoff section on team pages

Are we not using the Template:NHLPlayoffs for team pages? ♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 04:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, just the regular tables like the regular season. See 2011-12 Vancouver Canucks season, for example. Canuck^{89 (click here!)} 04:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for asking so many questions. I'm just trying to make sure I get things right and don't cause confusion. Is there a set format for the columns because there are some discrepencies from team to team? ♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 05:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally look to any FA or GA articles we have for season pages. I think there are one or two. Those are the gold standard. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

NHL Awards nominees

Should we add nominees to our tables of NHL Award winners? Seems like it should be useful information. Right now, for the 2012 Vezina, it says it's Henrik Lundqvist's fourth nomination, and it would be handy to look up at the table and see just when those other three were. Jmj713 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No I wouldn't add that personally. Its mostly trivial. Who won is really all that matters for an award. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Numbering of Buffalo Sabres post-lockout season articles

There's a dispute occuring at the 2005-06 throught 2011-12 Buffalo Sabres season articles. Input & advice would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we have a huge debate about this a while ago and, if I'm not mistaken, settled on the compromise of "Xth season (Xth-1 season of play)" wording? Jmj713 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion did not reach a conclusion. (Fortunately, no one took up edit-warring immediately afterwards, as far as I know.) isaacl (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the 2005-06 season was a season for all teams. Players were signed, draft picks were made and players were traded. It was simply that games were not played. That said, some teams (such as the Calgary Flames) do make such a distinction in their media guides. In that case, the team history sections said that the Flames were "in their 31st season and 32nd in Calgary". So there certainly is a strong case to be made for the current wording. Either way, I would get rid of the notation of when the Sabres franchise was founded. That the team was founded on May 22, 1970 is completely irrelevant to the 2011-12 season. Reso lute 23:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

req move for Maxim Sushinsky

Request move for Maxim Sushinski to "Maxim Sushinsky" - for whatever reason the article was spelled wrong, and against common use. --Львівське (говорити) 22:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Looks like Sushinski was more common in 2006 when the article was first moved, but both the NHL and en.KHL spell it with a y, so... Reso lute 23:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability?

Noticed that articles are being made for amateur players based solely on being drafted in the KHL draft. Did our guidelines change or should these pages be deleted? [5] --Львівське (говорити) 06:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines didn't, and the articles should. Ravenswing 07:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Alex Galchenyuk and Mikhail Grigorenko have pages that I'm overlooking?--Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Both are top prospects that very easily meet WP:GNG? Reso lute 23:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That and, at least for Alex Galchenyuk, was kept (at PROD level) when the looser guidelines allowed the Jack Ferguson Award to be called a "major award". Ravendrop 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to afd it. I have been cleaning up a bunch of this users creations recently through prod and afd. This player never actually met WP:NHOCKEY but the creator had been mass creating minor award winners stating it met the criteria through winning a major award while most would not consider this award or ones like it "major". So since then that section of NHOCKEY has been removed to clarify things more. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Grigorenko and Galchenyuk are going to be top ten picks next month. AfDing the articles now would simply waste time for no benefit. Reso lute 23:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking

I am the reviewer at Talk:Mike Vernon (ice hockey)/GA1, which has progressed along pretty well except for one remaining issue. I have asked the nominator to consider linking to team season articles rather than general franchise articles. She has pointed out that she feels I am the only editor on wikipedia who does this. I mostly create college football and college basketball articles these days and both of these projects feel I am doing the right thing. E.g., my mot recent article creation was Drake Dunsmore who had notable performances against the 2009 and 2010 Iowa Hawkeyes football teams. The 2009 team lost a half dozen guys in the 2010 NFL Draft and was different than the 2010 team. I encourage linking to specific teams when they are mentioned repeatedly over the course of a career. Nominator Resolute (talk · contribs) is quite adamant that this is not proper linking usage. Although I seem to get favorable responses to keep doing what I am doing for the projects that I work for she says that HOCKEY does not want to do this. The responses in the discussion confound me. Why would you rather link to Winnipeg Jets than 1985–86 Winnipeg Jets season. I want to know what team the article references and the latter tells me it was the Jets during the Dale Hawerchuk. Infering a bit from the scoring leaders you might even say that Hawerchuk led the team although he did not hog the minutes (even the 2nd and 3rd scorers were centers) that year. Looking at the general franchise article I don't know who the article is referring to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:EASTEREGG you should link to the article the reader is most likely going to expect when clicking on the link. So if I click on a link that simply says "Winnipeg Jets" then I should be going to the Winnipeg Jets team article and not a season article. I would be confused if I was sent to a season article instead and frankly probably frustrated that I wasn't taken to the page I was expecting (and being an editor would probably be followed up by changing to link to where it says its linking to). The only time I would expect to go to the season article was if the links said something like "1983–84" or "1983–84 season". -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If it became the HOCKEY convention, the reader might not only get use to being linked to the article with the information about the team being discussed, but also they might like it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think editors might get used to it, but the casual reader who only comes to a Wikipedia page now and then likely wouldn't and that is who we are supposed to try and write for. The casual reader who might not know anything about the subject and might not come to the site all that often. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The last time this topic was discussed by the baseball WikiProject, I wrote the following reasons why a careful judgment needs to be made on choosing to break the general rule of linking to the most obvious target:

A few issues with a link that has non-obvious link text. First, not everyone can hover to see what a link points to, and so it is not discoverable by all users (someone using a screen reader, for example, may have no idea that the link will take them to something other than an explanation of the link text). Second, to take an extreme position for a moment, if all links pointed to subjects that differed (to some degree) from the link text, although it might (big if: if there is a clear choice for an alternate link, which is not always the case) offer some advantage for an individual link, collectively, they would all degrade the usability of Wikipedia. Users would be forced to look closely at every link before clicking to decide if that was the link they wanted to visit. Now of course the extreme position is not being sought here, but there is a line beyond which this degradation becomes significant, and I believe the line hews pretty close to keeping links as obvious as possible. Surfing through from topic to topic works because it's pretty obvious where you're ending up when you follow a link, without having to think to much about it. If you end up at unexpected places a few times, you quickly start to mistrust clicking through.

There was a general consensus on linking to season-specific articles in cases such as List of National League pennant winners, where it is quite clear from the immediately-neighbouring cell that a specific season is in context, as long as there is a legend for the table describing the nature of the link (to make it more accessible). Otherwise, though, no consensus was reached on other situations where the context is sufficiently revealing to warrant a link to a season-specific article. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah cases like the pennant article I can certainly see a case for doing it, but in the middle of general prose I think would confuse more often than help because as you say it would start to force editors to have to check every link before clicking it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I am not sure what is meant by clear. Consider "Following a 9–1 loss to the Hartford Whalers that was Calgary's 11th consecutive defeat, Vernon was given his first regular season start on January 9, 1986, against the Vancouver Canucks." We are obviously talking about the 1985–86 Whalers and Canucks. The articles with the information that says who Calgary played is in those season articles. There you will find out who the teams leaders where that year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the table in the article List of National League pennant winners to understand what I was referring to when I said it was "clear from the immediately-neighbouring cell that a specific season is in context". The table is a list of winners by year, so it is clear that each row refers to a specific year, and the table's key spells out where the link goes to. In the case of prose, it is not immediately obvious that "...Vernon was given his first regular season start on January 9, 1986, against the Vancouver Canucks" establishes a context where casual readers would expect that clicking on "Vancouver Canucks" would take them to a season-specific article. If their expectations are confounded a few times, they will become wary of clicking through links, and the utility of Wikipedia is diminished. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You aren't talking about the whalers or canucks at all. They are just secondary objects and somewhat irrelevant. Calgary lost 11 games before they gave Vernon his first start. I am intrigued by adding season links, but I think we are pretty conditioned to dumb links. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a statement that HOCKEY Readers "are pretty conditioned to dumb links" a reason to keep linking to the general franchise article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the 'tremendous amount of editing work' factor. ;-> Are you volunteering to edit every hockey article? And I wasn't arguing any point. Just an observation. It's inertia/momentum, really. How do you propose balancing your idea with having the first link to a team pointing to the general article? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Linking to the "wrong" link because we have always done it that way and it would take a lot of work to clean up seems wrong. Season articles for college sports probably have only become widespread in the last 4 years. Many college basketball seasons remain unwritten and college hockey is far worse. Even programs with strong histories like Michigan have almost no hockey seasons. Pro seasons are pretty well rounded out however. Hockey would need a template like {{cbb link}} and {{cfb link}}. I don't even know whether the top junior teams have season articles. As Resolute has pointed out, even the majority of FAs and GAs in the sports that are starting to use season articles still have not been converted. The thing to do in my eyes is to encourage new articles as well as articles under review at GA, FA, FL and PR to use season links. Over time articles will sort of get cleaned up. I am not suggesting a relinking drive at all. Just start making new and newly reviewed articles use the season links is a good step.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is a little chaotic, but I just wanted to chime in by saying that I've always thought team names in historical contexts should be linked to the season being discussed. It's logical, that when a user reads a sentence describing something a certain team did in 1980, they'll click on the team name to find out more about the team in 1980. I know I've wanted to do just that numerous times. Also, standings should also link to that season's team article, because it does no good to look at the standings for the 1950-51 season and clicking the link to see how exactly a given team performed then and being transported to the team's general information. Jmj713 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My above point about balancing the season context and introducing a general link to a team applies to your suggestion too. When I made the team season articles a while ago, I put team (season) in the game results sections. When I made the standings templates, I basically just copied over what we were using. Changing those could be automated now. I had to do it by hand. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I link to general article for transactions (drafted by, called up by, traded to, committed to, letter of intent to, etc.) Most accomplishment happen against a particular season's team. The problem is in determining when to link to own team season articles. Policy on that could be reached by consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. for college athlete, I usually start with he is playing/he has completed his freshman/sophomore/junior/senior year for the YYYY-YY team season. This enables the reader to see if the description is current.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As well, when reading a player's stats table, his season stats will usually be linked to the given NHL season, not that team's season. That's another problem. Jmj713 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A few things. First, I am not a "she". Second, I do think your proposal violates both WP:EGG and WP:OVERLINK. But also, your system is both confusing to a reader and unnecessary. The first mention of a team should go to the team article. That is what a reader expects. Except that it now creates inconsistencies with the rest of the article subsequent mentions of the same team would go to different articles. (thus egg and overlink). Or, you make sure ALL links go to the various team articles, thus depriving the reader of the MOST OBVIOUS link they would be expecting. It is also unnecessary, as each new season is linked throughout the article. From each season article, the reader can view the positions of the teams, and continue on to specific season articles if they so choose. Ultimately, I oppose your format because I think it serves only to waste editor time and confuse the readers. Your arguments, both at the GAN and here, are unconvincing, and really boil down to little more than "I like it that way". Resolute 23:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is also the irony in this proposal in that it completely ignores the only season links that are actually relevant to a player bio: the team the player actually played for. Also, when you get right down to it, it really doesn't matter to Vernon's biography who was on the Hartford Whalers team that handed Calgary it's 11th loss in a row, or where they finished. All that matters is that Calgary lost to Hartford, and a consequence of that was that Vernon got the next start, and won. Resolute 23:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  - I continue to disagree with the EGG point. I think the reader would come to get use to it. It would be like editors who know not to look for talk in peoples signatures. Some people are even smart enough to know what to expect when they see lute.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Its funny you use that link as an example because the first thing that came to my mind was why is he linking to lute and when I clicked it I expected to go to the instrument and was surprised when it ended up at Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Personally, I prefer that any links to editors' talk pages be made more obvious, but if they aren't, it only affects interactions with other editors, and not the vast population of readers, to whom Wikipedia's guidance on intuitive link text is addressed. isaacl (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

<outdent>Here's my take on all this. If the team is mentioned it should go to the team article, if it is a date it should be linked to the season article. So if it says "Player A played for the Los Angeles Kings and led them in scoring in 1976-77." This is how I'd wikilink it and assume that most casual readers of Wikipedia would expect it to be linked as well. I assume that adding a date to a sentence won't screw up the syntax. So if you say are talking about a particular season and it says "he played for the Kings and scored 20 goals" you can always add "in 2000-01" if you feel it necessary to link to the season page. The other idea is if you have a section about a particular season on a player's page. What I mean is a section not a sentence or two, you can always add in a hatnote that shows the main page as the season page. However, unless we put a drive on all season pages, the player's page may actually contain more prose than the season page. I fear many of our season pages are basically stat driven and not prose driven. I am as guilty as anyone for this, I appear to be the only editor that tries to keep this year's Los Angeles Kings season page updated. So largely I have been keeping up with the game log and not adding much for prose. Heck, some of the teams seem to even lack a complete game log. So the season pages might not be super useful compared to the prose of the player's page.

The only time I ever wikilink something that goes to a different page than what the text blatantly says is in Canadian football pages. When it is football related, I wikilink Saskatchewan Huskies to Saskatchewan Huskies football. I'm assuming that most people reading a football page are interested in the football team, not the general U of S athletics program.But that isn't really related to this topic Shootmaster 44 (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Climbing Hockey Mountain

Mother of mercy, I just spent six hours bringing Lionel Hitchman from stubhood to B. Something is plainly wrong with me. (Anyone want to see if I screwed anything up?) Ravenswing 10:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of your references (3 and 14, as two examples) are on the wrong side of the comma, and you still need the stats table. But damn... retired number or not, talk about an obscure player. Kudos! Reso lute 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I've always had a sneaking fondness for defensive defensemen; Dallas Smith, Ted Harris, Gary Bergman were among my favorites growing up. Now, sure, these guys get named to All-Star Games once in a while, and every rare once in a while they get a Second All-Star nod, but for the most part, the only time a shutdown defenseman gets serious fame is if he also can score. I did a survey for a hockey site once demonstrating the fact - in the entire pre-expansion era, from the institution of season ending All-Star Teams on forward, only once were neither of the First Team All-Stars among the top three defense scorers. Heck, from when the Norris was first awarded, only three have been awarded to anyone who didn't finish in the top five of defensive scoring (ironically, the first one of those to Bobby Orr), and from 1969 to 1982 the #1 defensive scorer always won.

You can tell I feel strongly on this issue!

Anyway, no one remembers Hitchman now, so I figured he'd be my next Hockey Mountain target. Ravenswing 20:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

One of my Flames jerseys has Robyn Regehr's number on it, so I definitely get that! Sometimes the forgotten players are the best stories too. Reso lute 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Trading off exemptions

Seeing as LNAH & QMJHL related articles, are gonna be given exemption from the 'no diacritics' on North American ice hockey articles. Perhaps we should have a counter-exemption & allow diacritics to be hidden on Canada Cup & World Cup of Hockey articles, which are under NHL control? Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I don't see a need for that, except to make a WP:POINT. The CC and WC articles are fine as is. Reso lute 20:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey Season Articles

In the comment above about diacritics I saw a mention of the LNAH and decided to check out the pages. Anyway, long story short I noticed that each of the season pages has the team names in French. Since I doubt the LNAH gets much coverage in English, should the standings reflect the French name or the Anglicized version (i.e. Laval Chiefs as opposed to Chiefs de Laval)? I decided to simply redirect the French to the English, but thought I'd ask here to see what consensus should be as far as this goes. Since I am not super familiar with the league, especially since RDS stopped showing it, I'm not sure what it should show.

For ease of finding the season articles this is the template for the league:

Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I'd prefer them in english & the diacritics hidden. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New Template??

After looking through a couple of the NHL team season pages I have seen that some articles have different layouts for season stats. Some have them listed side by side and some are in seperate sections. I also noticed that color formatting of the header rows seems popular. So I got bored and started playing around with the idea of a template to build the stats sections kind of like how the team roster is done. Here are a couple examples I came up with:


Player	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM
Sidney Crosby


Player	GP	G	A	Pts	PIM
Claude Giroux

The template is set up so you input the NHL team abbreviation and it auto changes the headers to that team. In the template for the actual stats I have set up to indicate if player is a goaltender/captain/alternate captain/aquired/dropped. I am currently also playing around with on for goaltenders as well. If you want to use the templates just to mess around the code is:

{{User:B2project/Infobox
| team = 
}}
{{User:B2project/Infobox2
| first = 
| last = 
| dab = 
| Goaltender = 
| Traded = 
| Acquired = 
| Cap = 
| Regular GP = 
| Regular G = 
| Regular A = 
| Regular P = 
| Regular PIM = 
| Playoff GP = 
| Playoff G = 
| Playoff A = 
| Playoff P = 
| Playoff PIM = 
}}
|} <!-- end of complete table to be placed only after entering stats for very last player-->

Any suggestions would be appreciated on how to improve or change it. I would like to know also if we get a decent push behind it if we could possibly make this part of the layout for team pages. Just trying to make more of the pages look uniform. ♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 06:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to preserve accessibility, it would be better to keep the header with the same high contrast text and background colours for all teams, and then use a thick border with team-specific colourss, as discussed in this thread. isaacl (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the industriousness of it, but it seems horribly inefficient to me. That is a massive amount of code for a single player entry, as compared to what exists now: |{{sortname|Sidney|Crosby}}|| GP || G || A || Pts || +/-. A fully developed season article will already run 75-90k. These templates will push it over 100k easily, which is problematic. This isn't a spot where I think a template is as useful as one would think. Reso lute 20:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggested the template because there is not one singular team that I found that follows the format that this WikiProject organized. It just would be nice to see some uniformity on things and I figured since all of the NHL team season pages follow the colored headers for pretty much every table within the article I figured having a template would be the easiest way to keep everything uniform. Also I did a sandbox test run with the 2011-12 Pittsburgh Penguins season and it acutally dropped the size down of the page. I'll do it for other teams but I don't think it's going to affect the size drastically. ♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 05:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(stalker of B2project and his template development) Templates have the big advantage that you can change the design/format/whatever only at one page (the template itself) and all pages using the template still have the same new design. Depending on the transclusion count, templates are protected (at least for not confirmed editors) to protect them for vandalism (one page edit, changes e.g. 1000 pages) I like the idea and I'm really impressed by the template code B2project created. mabdul 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it makes it much harder for drive by editors to keep the status up to date and its the drive by editors that do most of our statistical updating. Its fine for regulars to try and figure most of this stuff out. But in general it makes it considerably harder for non-regulars. Also be aware that those format pages are very out of date. As mentioned earlier our "real" format pages are the pages that are already at FA/GA etc. The most recent example and thus the current format standard is 2010–11 Calgary Flames season. Seeing that you are a Pittsburgh fan you could probably try to model after 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season to keep seasons by the same team closer together in appearance. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty would depend on how the template is formatted on page. {{PlayerStats |last=Iginla |first=Jarome |GP=82 |G=35 |A=35 |P=70 |PIM=70 |PM=+7 |PGP=4 |PG=2 |PA=3 |PP=5 |PPIM=8 |PPM=+5}} wouldn't be hard to understand. But simplicity for potentially novice anons would definitely be of importance since they do most of our updates. Reso lute 23:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We/You could add a edit notice to the actual articles (as long as they need to be updated) explaining how to add/update the stats. Edit notices can be created (and edited) by admins and by accountcreators (I am one) but with a trick by placing only a template in it, the project members also can edit the edit notices.

OTOH: did you try to request a Bot for such a task? There is a bot in the process (I doubt that it will get approved), which could then easily modified for your relevant pages. mabdul 07:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Kings seasons
1960s	1967–68 • 1968–69 • 1969–70
1970s	1970–71 • 1971–72 • 1972–73 • 1973–74 • 1974–75 • 1975–76 • 1976–77 • 1977–78 • 1979–79 • 1979–80
...	...
2010s	2010–11 • 2011–12

Los Angeles Kings seasons
1960s	1967–68 1968–69 1969–70
1970s	1970–71 1971–72 1972–73 1973–74 1974–75 1975–76 1976–77 1977–78 1979–79 1979–80
...	...
2010s	2010–11 2011–12

Los Angeles Kings seasons
1960s	1967–68 1968–69 1969–70
1970s	1970–71 1971–72 1972–73 1973–74 1974–75 1975–76 1976–77 1977–78 1979–79 1979–80
...	...
2010s	2010–11 2011–12

Los Angeles Kings seasons
1960s	1967–68 1968–69 1969–70
1970s	1970–71 1971–72 1972–73 1973–74 1974–75 1975–76 1976–77 1977–78 1979–79 1979–80
...	...
2010s	2010–11 2011–12

Los Angeles Kings seasons
1960s	1966–67 1967–68 1968–69 1969–70
1970s	1970–71 1971–72 1972–73 1973–74 1974–75 1975–76 1976–77 1977–78 1979–79 1979–80
...	...
2010s	2010–11 2011–12