Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive60

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

Left wingers who won the Conn Smythe Trophy

The article says Bob Gainey is the only left winger to win the award. The statement in the article is not entirely true and misleading. Mark Messier and Henrik Zetterberg played left wing and won the award. Should centers who primarily play left wing with a specific team count or not? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Playing the odd game at another position doesn't really make you that position. If most of your games are at centre and you have a small portion at another position you are still a centre. -DJSasso (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
What is confusing is that several teams have more than one center on the same line fot the majority of games. How should this be noted? With a footnote? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be noted at all. Its trivia. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

NHL outdoor games

I have started a discussion on the addition of a statistics section to the NHL outdoor games article. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FIle of Dit Clapper

Hello. The commons:File:Dit Clapper.jpg has been listed at Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. I would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

--TaraO (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Listing announced attendance or verified attendance rates?

When noting attendance numbers for games, should we go by the announced attendance (most often the number of tickets sold) or the verified attendance (most often the number of tickets scanned)? For example, the attendance for The Big Chill at the Big House was announced as 113,411, but Guinness revised this number a month later to 104,173 based on the number of tickets scanned. When sorting in tables and in article prose, should we go by the announced attendance or the verified attendance? Heymid (contribs) 12:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could go by the confirmed attendance, but add and end note stating what the announced attendance was? Given that these attendance records are attached to Guinness, we should stick with the certified totals. Resolute 14:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm mainly thinking about the List of ice hockey games with highest attendance and List of outdoor ice hockey games articles. If we're looking at the attendance number for the 2009 NHL Winter Classic game, which didn't break any world records at that time, it was 40,818. Has Guinness been involved in that case, or is there only one known attendance number for that game? In the first two articles I mentioned, we go by the 40,818 number for that game. Does that number cover the amount of tickets sold, or only the amount of tickets scanned? Heymid (contribs) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That number is almost certainly tickets distributed. I suspect Guinness has only been involved in the two 100k+ games. But since the certified attendance is what is truly important for the purposes of the record, that's why I'd use Guinness in those cases with a note explaining why there may be another, higher, figure. Resolute 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The announced included all tickets sold, but for the record, the NHL had to agree to a method for counting attendees with Guinness, which includes scanned tickets and "some league and team officials". So I agree with Resolute's reply: I believe it makes sense to use the figures based on the agreed-upon method, but a note on the announced attendance including all sales may be suitable. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WHA 'Hall of Fame'

Is membership in this [1] notable at all? I simply cannot tell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say a little more notable than I was expecting. I was expecting a fan site. The affiliation with the USHHOF helps. I'd probably go case by case on it. I personally would not call this notable in the case of Gretzky, but a brief mention for some of the guys who made their careers in the WHA would be fair enough, imo. Resolute 14:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I've had the FB page liked for some time, but when all is said and done, it doesn't carry any official standing, however much they're well-organized and supported. It's certainly at least as newsworthy as that Manitoba HHOF that's been jammed into a lot of player articles. Ravenswing 18:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
To be fair the Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame is notable to players in it. As would any other state/province sports hall of fame. Not the level of the major hall of fames of course, but notable in the context of a player article for someone inducted. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates for NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup.

May I suggest that we set up a template for NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup with the names of players and coaches who won the cup in the seasons they won in? We have templates players and coaches who won the Super Bowl, the NBA finals and The World Series, like this one for example. Shall we do that for the teams, players and coaches who the Stanley Cup? BattleshipMan (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been tried, and they have been deleted repeatedly. Personally, I find those templates to be nothing more than unnecessary clutter. A player's teammates in any random season - even a championship one - are no more relevant than their teammates in any other season. My preference is to actually delete the templates in the other sports. Resolute 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This is something that everyone who read these things need to remember in the future in sport articles. It should be set up to know who actually won those trophies, because not many great players get a chance to win Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, World Series and NBA finals. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Those lists are listed on the Stanley Cup Finals articles for the particular year. As well as on the team season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We're are talking about setting up the templates for a team's Stanley Cup winning season and it should be a consensus about that for the future of Wikipedia readers and it's not just ice hockey. They are necessary for some and not exactly clutter, regardless of what others say. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately it hasn't been consensus to do it. They have been deleted repreatedly and a number of wiki guidelines indicate it should not be done for any sport. Unfortunately some sports have chosen not to follow the guidelines. The templates cause clutter in the page and hide the links that are important. Readers if they want to know everyone who was on the team can click on the link to those team/finals pages from the player article they are reading. - DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
These sports templates are not necessary clutters and they don't really hide important links, because they would tell you which players who won the national championship and not just for the player who won it. They should be added in the guidelines, so that why they won't be repeatedly deleted because of that. Consensus should be reach for having templates on teams who won The Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, The World Series and NBA finals, regardless on what others say about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I prefer to let consensus be the guide, regardless of whether an outspoken minority devoutly wishes otherwise. Truth be told, I have an excellent way that people can know who won these trophies: read the relevant articles. Pull up (say) the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals article, and you'll see a nice, handy section with the roster of the team that managed to win the old mug. I don't feel the need to create a heap of clutter just because there are those who don't like to read articles. Ravenswing 20:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There are player articles that need various links to their Stanley Cup victories and that creating the templates of the Stanley Cup winning teams maybe the best one of all. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You can repeat the same thing forever if you like. It won't be more convincing to me, or I think several others here. Resolute 21:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Playing Devil's Advocate here: if we were to create these templates and add them to the team articles, the Canadiens' article would be half templates. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If there are player articles that lack links to times they've played on Stanley Cup winners, then add them. I doubt there are many of them, though. Ravenswing 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
They we should add templates to the seasons where they won the Stanley Cup, with the names of the players and coaches that won that cup, like I said before because they are player articles that can use these templates. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Any suggestions how should add templates for Stanley Cup winning teams with a list of players and coaches or something along those ideas? BattleshipMan (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you many times now, consensus is that we don't use templates for championship teams. Those things are listed on both the Finals page and the team's season page. They don't need to be listed in a template on many articles. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There are player pages that don't have the links to the Stanley championships seasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In the very few player articles that don't mention that they played on Cup-winning teams, that information should be put in. In prose. Those are edits, as it happens, that you can readily make yourself. Beyond that, you've already proposed that such templates be made. Consensus has gone uniformly against you. It's time to drop the subject and move on. Ravenswing 03:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

KHL Junior Draft

In churning through the debris that is Dolovis' article creation list, I've run into this one. While this would normally be a no-brainer AfD, like so many of the others, the player was a first round pick of the KHL Junior Draft. This gives me pause; should this draft be considered on a par with the NHL Entry Draft for terms of presumptive notability under criterion #5? My gut feeling is Not, given that the notability of NHL first rounders comes from the sheer volume of hype the NHL Entry Draft gets, but more voices are needful. Ravenswing 06:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. We had a discussion about this draft two or three months ago and whether it was notable enough to put in the infobox and it was felt it wasn't. So I would say that if it wasn't notable enough for the infobox its probably not notable enough for presumptive notability. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the discussion re: infobox was no consensus. But it was a CfD where a category for first round KHL picks was deleted. That discussion did hold that there was no greater notability for being a KHL first rounder, particularly given the generally limited scope of that draft. This would be another GNG case, imo. Resolute 14:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
My take is that the KHL amateur draft isn't notable enough. The big name notable prospects are for the most part ignored because they know they'll never go to Russia, and other kids who aren't notable but are top in clubs farm systems go in the first because of the protection rule...and all in all, the draft is very low level. Should be on par with the OHL Import Draft IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 15:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:NHL outdoor games

an edit was recently made here to Template:NHL outdoor games and dozens of other navboxes, to allow the coloring to be changed on a per-article basis. this seems to be overkill to me, and contrary to wp:deviations. any one else have any thoughts on this? Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

note that the same editor is also removing the edit links from the navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Removing the edit links from navboxes is not desirable at all. The point of navboxes is uniformity, so changing the colours from one article to the next will become a mess in my opinion. CRwikiCA talk 01:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the edit link should be removed. But I do think the title bar on the boxes linked should be the hockey projects default blue color which looks like what he was doing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
He enables that default to be overwritten. On selected team pages he then gives them the team colours, such that the same bar has a different look for different teams. CRwikiCA talk 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
right, my objection is not to the use of differing colours for different templates, but for changing the colours "on a per article basis". for example, see this edit. the colour of the template should be set by the template, not by the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help establishing notability of local Federation in Puerto Rico

Hi guys,

We need help in establishing the notability of the Puerto Rican Ice Hockey Federation.

The article has been nominated for deletion at:

But we at WP:PUR are completely unfamiliar with this subject.

Could you guys please lend a hand?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Come to that, the article creator's created a bunch of "ice hockey federation" articles that seem ephemeral at best and spurious at worst. Ravenswing 22:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes to NHOCKEY

Ravenswing has suggested some changes to WP:NHOCKEY. Feel free to give your input for these changes here. Patken4 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ducks retired number template

I thought about creating a retired number template for the Ducks. The article about Teemu Selanne says he will be the first to have his number retired by the Ducks upon his retirement. Does this mean his number will be retired during the 2014-15 season? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We generally put retired numbers on the team template as opposed to making a separate template. Especially when there are few numbers retired on the team. So in this case Template:Anaheim Ducks will get a retired number section. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
173.51 - Most likely, unless Selanne chooses to play one last season for like the eighth year in a row. Personally, I disagree with adding retired numbers to the team template, at least in the format other sports do it. Linking a simple number offers no real information and can only confuse the reader - there's no navigational value if you don't know what you are clicking on. What most people don't get is that those templates are meant to be navigational aids. A Ducks retired number template would navigate absolutely nothing since it would have only the one link. It would be deleted fairly quick if created. Resolute 15:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
What I meant was a table in the Ducks article. Every NHL team that has retired a number has one. Should it be created just after he retires? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, gotcha. And no, it should be created when the Ducks retire his number, or at the very least, when they announce it will be retired. Resolute 21:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Cup engraving requirements

Under the current requirements since 1976, a player who plays in at least half of the regular season games generally qualifies. If a player meets those 2 requirements but is sent to the minors and not later recalled to the final roster, does he still automatically get his name on the cup? The article doesn't mention anything about this. Does anyone know? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The article does mention it. "a player must have played at least half of the regular season games (usually 41 in current league format) for the championship team (provided the player remains with the team when they win the Cup) or played in at least one game of the Stanley Cup Finals." (emphasis mine). So as long as they are on the roster of the team they get on the cup. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. But what happens if a player plays in at least 41 regular season games, is sent to the minors, and remains in the minors (for the same NHL organization respectively) the rest of the season? Does this mean that such a player would not qualify? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Most likely. That situation would probably be covered by teams making special requests that a player be added. Resolute 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup I am guessing that would require a special request. That being said I can't see any team making such a request because if you spent 41 games of the regular season on the roster then they probably thought you were important enough to put you on the roster for the playoffs and if they didn't its probably because they didn't consider you important enough to be on the team/cup. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you're correct. Ken Priestlay played in 49 regular season games for Pittsburgh in the 1991-92 season and was sent to the minors, but was recalled late during the playoffs as a black ace probably because they felt that someone who plays in that many regular season games should be later recalled during the playoffs and remain on the roster for the rest of the season. He had his name engraved because he qualified. thank you for answering my question. 173.51.123.97 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Move of Barry Beck

Someone just moved Barry Beck to "Barry Beck (Athlete)" [2], citing that multiple people with name should be distinguished. There's only one other person. Thinking that a hat note would have sufficed, and the rename isn't ideal anyway. Anyone want to jump in with opinions here? Echoedmyron (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any other "Barry Beck" articles, only a Barry Beckett, which could be handled via a "not to be confused with..." template if need be. Regardless (Athlete) is the wrong disambiguator anyway. Resolute 15:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, now I see it: Barry Beck (Entreprenuer) That's a recent move, apparently. It didn't show up on the internal search for me. Resolute 15:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Same here. The original title for that article used his middle name. The hat note is probably the best way to handle it. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I did suggest to the other user to come here if they think the hat note is insufficient. I suggested the hockey player is primary topic, but not overly concerned if we do move to Barry Beck (ice hockey) and create a disambig page. Anyone else have a view? Resolute 15:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The hockey player is plainly, and by far, the most common usage of the name. As far as this "entreprenuer" goes -- whoever hired the creating SPA, whose sole Wikipedia activity is plumping up this company and the Becks, should get a refund -- take a good look at the article. The first reference is to the company and the guy's wife, the second ref is a stat block, the third ref is his alumni magazine, and the fellow doesn't seem to have notability independent from his company; it's AfD-worthy. Ravenswing 20:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And, as to that, I've just AfDed it. Ravenswing 20:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
And now it has been deleted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

'Host' Parameter in NHL Draft Infobox

I brought it up on the talk page of the template, but that page is not exactly high-traffic, and a change like this would require multi-page edits (though simple edits), so I figured I would bring it here.

Similar to "Location" should we include a "Host" parameter?

ie. 2014 NHL Draft

Host: Philadelphia Flyers
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
First Selection: TBD

Or do we think the "Location" parameter is thorough enough?

Teams very much take pride in hosting these events, and put a lot into it as a host.

Uncleben85 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Personally I think location pretty much says who the host is. So I would see it as redundant. And technically its not the team that is hosting it, it is the city, since it's a league event. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
In none of the last 3 years the team from the host city is mentioned in the article outside of the draft selections. The attention is mostly focused on the city rather than the team. Would you have any sources that mention team involvement in hosting it? Because from memory I can't really recall that being an area of discussion. CRwikiCA talk 20:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
In the recent announcements of the 2015 NHL Entry Draft, prominent mention is made that the Florida Panthers are hosting the event: Link. Canada Hky (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
From an array of sources, and years:
Panthers To Host 2015 NHL Draft via CBS
Philadelphia Flyers, Wells Fargo Center To Host 2014 NHL Draft via SB Nation
Devils ready to host 2013 NHL Draft via NHL
Pittsburgh Penguins to Host 2012 NHL Draft... and further, Penguins Draft Party, ...Fan Activities at 2012 NHL Draft to highlight team hosted events, both via Pittsburgh Penguins
Uncleben85 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That does proof me wrong then! What would happen though if it would be hosted in an city with multiple team? CRwikiCA talk 22:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
As of now, only the Los Angeles and New York areas host multiple teams, so it wouldn't be something that would happen too often. Also, every team in the league has their own arena, so I would assume the host team would be whichever team is associated with that arena. That is, if the draft were to be held in New York City, we could say Rangers as the host if it was held at MSG, or Islanders as host if it was held at Nassau/Barclays. Canuck89 (talk to me) 02:58, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
Does it matter that before 1980, while the draft was repeatedly held in Montreal, it was held by the league and not the Habs? It would appear that ever since the 80s there have been team affiliations, and for the most part at team venues, but in the 60s and 70s it was at league offices or hotels. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I think having sities with multiple teams is only a better reason to specify the host. Say the NHL decided they wanted to have the 2016 NHL Draft in New York. They would select a host team, be it the Islanders or Rangers, and create a logo in that teams image, and it the event would be held at that team's facilities. (EDIT: I thought you said "doesn't" prove you wrong)Uncleben85 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well technically in the case of New York you would list the Islanders as Brooklyn, New York and the Rangers as New York City, New York and New Jersey would be Newark, New Jersey. And LA would Los Angeles, California and Anaheim, California. None of them are actually in the same city. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All of this discussion about theoreticals is nice, but none of it changes the fact that the NHL explicitly names a host team for the draft, this is reliably covered in multiple news sources, and would be a perfectly valid addition to the infobox for each draft. I think it should be added in. Canada Hky (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Still find it redundant and it causes problems for the many years where there was no host team. Being a league event I don't think its necessary. The location field easily covers the aspect of where the draft was. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It is clear now that a host is named. The fact remained that before this discussion started this host was never mentioned in the articles, so that questions the importance of the information. With regard to DJSasso's point, the parameter can always remain empty for years before a team was named as host. I would offer a weak support for including it at this point. CRwikiCA talk 14:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
By that logic - would you be happy if we changed "location" to "host"? Canada Hky (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Except that switching wouldn't work for the seasons that don't have a host. I just think its introducing complexity into something that doesn't need it. There are very few people that wouldn't understand the link between location and host. I mean I will go with whatever consensus wants of course. I just think its unnecessary clutter in the infobox when the information is already very clearly there, just listed slightly differently. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There are three fields in the infobox for the 2010 draft right now. I don't think we are at the stage where clutter or complexity are a concern. Canada Hky (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Having two lines that say essentially the same thing is always a concern. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Datsyuk biography

Is it notable enough to mention in the article about him that he is an Eastern Orthodox Christian? He claimed he is in an interview. 173.51.123.97 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Many articles have "Personal life" sections. I don't think a sourced reference to his faith is any more out of line than the names of (say) his spouse, his children, the secondary school he may have attended, and suchlike. Ravenswing 18:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 1936 Winter Olympics

Looking for assistance in establishing how many points Hugh Farquharson actually scored. An occasional user claiming to be from SIHR made an unsourced change that states that he had 10 goals and 10 assists. Passionhockey.com (what is currently sourced on our page) has him at 11 goals and 8 assists, IIHF encyclopedia has him at 10 goals and 5 assists, and the official games report from la84.org credits him with 10 goals but lists no assists.18abruce (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • My vote would be to go with the IIHF citation, that being the official governing body of the sport at the time of the '36 Olympics. Ravenswing 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would go with the 10 goals. This type of argument has come up many times. International hockey did not record assists officially at the time of those olympics so adding them to the total would be original research or at the very least misleading. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    See also the question that was raised at Talk:Teemu Selanne about Harry Watson's supposed nine assists in 1924. As I have argued elsewhere in the past: you can't credit someone for something that did not exist. And at those times, assists did not exist in international hockey. Resolute 14:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators team name, revisited

I have re-opened a discussion on including the French name of the Ottawa Senators in the lead sentence of the article. Any comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nikolaj Ehlers

I removed the PROD which had been placed on Nikolaj Ehlers as I believe -- in spite of the fact that the subject fails the NHOCKEY guideline -- there has been sufficient coverage of the player equating to a GNG pass. Here are the sources I dug up: A lengthy piece on RDS.ca, a short article discussing his high mid-term draft ranking, an article of decent length on nhl.com his and a few other players' draft status, a Yahoo! Sports Canada article complete with an interview of Ehlers, another in-depth Yahoo! article, a short local piece talking about Ehlers and Timo Meier, as well as a Danish article on him. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 22:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The blog pieces and local/routine pieces don't confer notability, but do well to supplement the pieces that do - and the RDS and second Yahoo story might. Since Dolovis never actually responds to requests for sources, it seems he is happy enough to create garbage and abandon it. If you care more about article such as this, I sincerely hope you will apply these sources to the article. Thanks! Resolute 23:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Might take a day or two, but I'll easily be able to transform this into a decent-sized article. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 02:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Expansion has been completed.--Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 01:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Resolute 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a specific Kharlamov ref

I am working on rewriting Valeri Kharlamov, if you are so inclined, you can check my progress out here if you like. I am pretty well situated for sources, but I am having a heck off a time tracking down a source for #17 being "retired" for the Russian national team, except if Alexander Kharlamov wants it. All I can find sources for is the Red Army jersey #. If anyone has one, or can point me in the right direction, it would be appreciated. I believe I have officially entered the "tragic Russian" stage of my Wikipedia editing career. Canada Hky (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

All I can find is confirmation that his jersey number was retired. Nothing off hand about his son being allowed to use it. Resolute 01:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That should work actually. I have other sources about Tikhonov insisting Alexander wear it for CSKA, but didn't have anything about the national team. Since he never made it to the senior national level and is now retired, that point is essentially moot and we can ignore it. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox hockey team

I notice that according to Template:Infobox hockey team, it is suggested (or even standard) to use flags next to the owner, GM and coach of any hockey team. However, according to the guideline WP:INFOBOXFLAG, "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text", granting that "Examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions". However not every hockey league is an international competition, so flags should not be present as a rule in this infobox. Thoughts? Thanks, C679 07:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Has been discussed repeatedly and WP:INFOBOXFLAG allows for flags in infoboxes that convey the sporting nationality of sportsperson. You can't use them to represent a nationality but you can use them to represent a sporting nationality. Also you quote "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" which if you look at those infoboxes the flag is indicating information that isn't there in text so it meets that requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the sporting nationality of the owner, GM, and coach isn't one of the key characteristics for a concise summary of a hockey team, and so isn't necessary to display within the team's infobox. isaacl (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, in sport one of the most highly talked about characteristics of a team/coach is the nationality of their administration. Examples would be Ron Wilson when he coached Toronto, you would constantly hear about how he was American. Or Brian Burke as GM of Toronto/Vancouver/Kinda Calgary. Or George Gillett when he owned the Canadiens. It is a fairly defining characteristic of a team. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
NHL is an international league, though. I am specifically talking about non-international competitions, such as national leagues. C679 15:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I'm not sure how the sporting nationality for an owner can be determined (unless I suppose they had competed themselves internationally, but even in this case I don't think it's that relevant). For a GM, is it only international GM-experience that is being indicated, or also on-ice participation? I don't believe the Canadiens were defined by having an American owner, or Toronto by having an American coach. Talked about? Sure, and so discussion may be warranted within the text, but I don't see it as an essential characteristic to include in a concise summary, and so placing it in the infobox gives it undue weight. isaacl (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
In most cases sporting nationality overlaps nationality if they aren't a dual citizen so it has never been that hard to determine. Its only in cases where they have dual that it becomes a problem. As far as undue weight goes I look at it the opposite way. Putting it in the infobox gives the information in the shortest way possible thus giving less weight to it then it would if you had to take up sentences in the prose discussing it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that sporting nationality for athletes indicates they have actually represented a specific country in an international competition. I'm not clear what it means for an owner: the owner has owned a team that participated in an international competition? Typically international competitions are held between national teams and so there aren't there many private owners for teams in international competitions. (Sure, the Canadiens have played, for example, Dynamo Moscow, but does this really mean that Molsons now has a Canadian sporting nationality based on an exhibition game that wasn't really a competition between countries? I don't think Mats Naslund has now acquired a Canadian sporting nationality by virtue of his participation?) Regarding prominence, generally anything in the infobox has greater prominence than what is in text, and an icon will have greater prominence than an accompanying adjective within prose denoting nationality. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, infoboxflag is a guideline and infobox hockey team is made up by a handful of users at this WikiProject. Your answers typify the response of someone whose viewpoint addresses only the NHL. Your example that a Canadian team having an American owner/coach may be a good example, however, does the nationality command any attention if it is a native of the particular country? I don't think so. The "American coach" isn't representing his country when coaching a Canadian team, so why give undue weight at the team page? Surely this material is of significance to the biography only. C679 15:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your point above that the NHL is an international league: while the teams are from multiple countries, they do not represent their countries in competition, and so I don't believe sporting nationality can be determined from NHL play. Namely, just because Gretzky played for U.S.-based teams, he hasn't acquired an American sporting nationality. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Many coaches and managers have themselves been players when they were younger, some having played for their national team. Therefore, I think this is interesting information for coaches and managers too. Andrew S. Knight (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It may be "interesting" but the players' nationality is not their defining characteristic, particularly not for club competitions. C679 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There are definitely differing opinions on the subject which is why the infobox flag page changes back and forth fairly often. I can certainly see where your point of view comes from, I just don't agree with it. But one thing to definitely remember is that it is just a guideline, it isn't a policy so it can be deviated from should there be consensus to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A guideline, of course, still holding more weight than a convention originating from a small intersection of WikiProject members. It is interesting there is only one user in support of keeping these flags in infoboxes. As for the "changes back and forth fairly often", I don't recall any recent changes to put the flags in the infoboxes, rather that it's been done because "it is convention". C679 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually two users in this discussion have said they should be there. And even with that being said this has only been posted a couple of hours so that isn't exactly surprising. And this discussion itself has come up in the project countless times. Has actually been brought to the infoboxflag guideline page as well in the past and had a few go arounds there. As the page explaining guidelines says, anyone can override a guideline if there is a consensus and a reason. A guideline is just that something to consider when you are doing something, not a rule that you have to. Anytime you decrease information, as your suggestion does, it hurts the wiki period. It isn't about convention its about removal of information being bad. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course it would be appreciated if you wouldn't revert my removal of flagicons while this discussion is in progress Djsasso. Do they benefit that article in any way? Is it important to say that Moutfield HK are coached by a CZECH guy and their general manager is the CZECH Aleš Kmoníček? I very much doubt it. C679 22:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is important, because it gives you a view on from where the teams get their managers, how different national manager styles may affect different teams and how much international exchange there is in the top teams not just when it comes to players. Andrew S. Knight (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
In line with Wikipedia's guidance on infoboxes (in particular, guidance on their purpose), I think a primary consideration should be whether or not a given piece of information is essential to a concise summary of a subject's key characteristics. I agree that there are differing views on what meets this criterion, and so I think it is overly broad to just say that removing information is bad (this after all can be used to justify keeping any information, in the infobox or in the text). isaacl (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
One also has to remember that many of those lines in WP:INFOBOXFLAG such as "they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many" were not done by consensus or discussion. They were inserted by one or two editors with no discussion and not noticed for awhile. When attempts were made to change them back those same editors would say that you snoozed, you lose. So yes, they are guidelines, but as guidelines I'd take 'em with a grain of salt. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if you meant to reply to someone else, as I did not refer to WP:INFOBOXFLAG. My view on the relative importance of sporting nationality for the owner, GM, and coach is not dependent on how the information is displayed. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I hit one colon too many. It should have been in concurrence with DJ. Sorry, Fixed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I checked a few NHL teams' pages Dallas Stars, Florida Panthers – and of course I had to visit Toronto Maple Leafs – and none of them actually display flags in the infobox. The only Featured Articles of NHL teams, New Jersey Devils and Calgary Flames have no infobox flags either. No "snooze you lose" about that. It would therefore follow that the editors of these articles have decided that such prominence is not necessary. Why then battle here that these flags should be included? Seems to me like a double standard. So I ask once more. Should infobox flags really be a standard for hockey teams? C679 06:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you genuinely proffering an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? That being said, you've already asked the question, and consensus is running against you; it rather seems you define a "battle" as being that people disagree with you, and you object to that. No doubt you do, but that doesn't obviate the consensus. Ravenswing 06:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The consensus by common practice seems to not include the flags, I don't know what "consensus" you refer to, is it the three users here who say they should be displayed? Or is there a real consensus somewhere else? Certainly, people responsible for not having flags at Calgary Flames are not in agreement or disagreement with me, it is an issue for the article pages. Now you mention "Other Stuff Exists", I think it's relevant to mention "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I am only advocating consistency and conformity with the guideline. C679 09:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Why? The very nature of this Wikipedia is to be different than the old book style cookie-cutter paper encyclopedias of the past. While some unanimity is great it is also great to let articles be different in approach. I'm not advocating flags in the infoboxes of Hockey articles like is done for all tennis player articles; that's up to the editors of the Hockey Project if they want them in their guidelines. Those icons are neither banned nor forced upon us by any wiki policy that I know of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Including the flag templates in the infobox (or just about anywhere else) seems like mere decoration to me. If one is curious about the nationality of the GM or Head Coach they can click on that person's article and find the answer in the very first sentence. I think it looks fine with just the name, but if the fields are to contain something else besides a name, adding how long they've held that position in parenthesis ("since 2006" or something like that) would be much more pertinent. --Parkfly3 (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Bandy

I have proposed to create a WikiProject for bandy. Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Bandy. Andrew S. Knight (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Russian Hockey Hall of Fame

Per the IIHF, they inducted their (very large) inaugural class yesterday during the Olympics. I added this info to the expanded bio I am working on for Kharlamov. Just a heads up, in case you see it being added to these players articles, it is a legitimate endeavour, and that article could be used as a source for these players. I redlinked it on Kharlamov, but I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about creating a standalone article. There are probably plenty of sources. Canada Hky (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Andrei Trefilov? Really? And they said the North American version was merely a "Hall of pretty good". Resolute 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Triple Gold Club

Hi folks, my euphoria over the women's hockey gold has been ruined by a dispute over the Triple Gold Club page. Essentially, an IP user learned that Hooley Smith won all three in his career but isn't recognized by the IIHF. This is presumably because the pre-'30s Olympics are retroactively recognized by the IIHF as the Worlds as well. So players like Hooley Smith won just two components, but now are technically considered to have three (I can't say for sure, there isn't a single mention of this on the IIHF website). So the IP insists on having a huge section about Smith, referring to him as "the forgotten first". [3] The problem is that this is wrong. Frank Frederickson won all "three" first, and there are 3 others to do this. It is worth a mention, so I added it [4]. This isn't enough for the IP, who re-added the section, which includes peacock terms, POV and inaccuracies.

He also insists on putting Smith in the main table. I completely disagree with that, since the IIHF doesn't recognize them. But I'll throw it to others. Should the first five be included in the table? -- Scorpion0422 02:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How can you have triple gold when you only have two gold medals? Mentioning this shortly should suffice as with your edit. CRwikiCA talk 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
A brief mention is sufficient. The additions (now being made by a named editor) are both WP:UNDUE and rely on original research by synthesis. There is no difficulty sourcing the fact that these five old-timey players are not members of the Triple Gold Club. The additions are anachronistic and inaccurate. Resolute 15:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of flags with lists of draft picks

A discussion concerning the use of flag templates has been raised at Talk:List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks. The input of interested editors would be welcome. Dolovis (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Skinner

Dear hockey experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. It's rather promotional, but I am willing to tone it down if this is indeed a notable hockey coach. Should the draft be improved or let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything suggesting that he'd meet WP:NHOCKEY's notability requirements, and nothing suggesting he'd meet the GNG. His CV certainly looks fulsome, and I freely concede he's a tireless and thorough self-promoter, but claims that he's worked with all these organizations are devoid of any mention of actual titled positions. A Google search shows a towering heap of personal websites, YouTube links, Linkedin/Twitter/FB and other social media pages, video sales pages, but a dearth of reliable, independent sources attesting to his notability. Given that that the AfC submission represents the only Wikipedia activity of User talk:Sskinnercrew (and nearly two and a half years ago now), this was just more COI self-promotion. I would let the draft go. Ravenswing 11:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ravenswing, I will do just that. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Help needed to download Flickr images

Help is needed to download photos from Flickr to the Commons. A collective effort is needed as it would be too much worl for a single editor to take on (unless there is an automated uploading system that I am unaware of).

Photographer Sarah Connors has uploaded to Flickr a large collection of high quality Creative Commons 3.0 photographs of mostly Bruins and American Hockey Leaue players (her sets can be found here). Most of these players have Wikipedia articles which could use these images, and it would be very helpful to the ice hockey project if we could collectively upload her photos to Wikimedia Commons. If you are able to help, then please pick one of her sets to upload, and then leave a message here to say what you have done, so we can get all of her photos uploaded without duplicating the work of others. Dolovis (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask a few favors if these are going to be continued to be uploaded?

  1. Please change the names to something that reflects the actual image. Names like: ERI 3065 (5361032650).jpg and St. Louis Blues ERI 4819 (5475290953).jpg aren't particularly useful, especially when you've spent the time to ID the individuals in the image as Matt Dalton and Roman Polák respectively.
  2. Watch the categories. It might be part auto generated but extra categories need to be removed.
  3. If you tag something as Providence Bruins players don't also tag it as Providence Bruins, the first is a sub category of the second and should not be included.
  4. Just because an image is from a game of two teams it shouldn't be tag with both of them. If no Blackhawks are in the image don't use the category Chicago Blackhawk players.
  5. Make sure the player category being tagged is actually the person in question. Thomas Hickey's category is for the painter not the ice hockey player.
  6. Make sure the categories apply, there's no reason to have a St. Louis Blues image in the category Blues.
  7. If you using a player category it should already have the team he's playing for in it so it shouldn't be tagged on the image since its doubling up on a category.
  8. Don't use the league category, the team X players category is a sub category of team X which is a sub category of League y its over categorization
  9. Don't use the Hockey category, it's not the correct one it would be ice hockey. But don't use that one either I'm sure the teams/leagues are all subs to it in some way.
  10. The majority of these images have a watermark which isn't ideal for WP usage. If you could flag these with the {{watermark}} template (perhaps in the other information information area). Hopefully anyone wanting to use the image can digitally alter it to remove the mark and upload it as a derivative of the original.

Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Documentation box in Infobox for Ice Hockey Games

There is a documentation box being generated for individual games. The box is forcing all of the prose below the infobox leaving large white space. It seems like it is attached to the infobox, but I have no ideal how to fix it. Would some one with template experience be able to look at it? Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone just put it outside the noinclude tags instead of inside them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thank you. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Team season leaders

What's the standard here for a traded player who had been a team's leader in a given statistic? The Lightning have replaced St. Louis as the points leader with Filppula, for example. Should the same go for 2013–14 Tampa Bay Lightning season? Tampabay721 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would think that despite being traded mid-season, St. Louis should still be the points leader. The NHL still notes his games played and points with the Lightning on their stats page. Canuck89 (what's up?) 05:22, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
Teams are funny that way though. In the Flames' media guides, there is a "traded players" entry on the year-by-year statistics that lumps all such departed players together. So for 1998-99, Jarome Iginla is listed as the goal leader with 28, even though Theo Fleury had 30 before being dealt. OTOH, players who were acquired via trade are listed with their full season totals, so players can be listed as team leaders even if most of their offence came with someone else. Resolute 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoever is the person who (say) scored the most goals for a team in any given season is the goal scoring leader; that's a no-brainer. If Ignatz Bartoziak scored 25 goals for the Yellowknife Spider Goats before he was traded to Anytown, and no one on the Goats scored more than 24, Iggy's the scoring leader nonetheless. Ravenswing 16:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Filatov

Would any interested parties mind taking a look at Nikita Filatov? It is currently an FA, and I am having some difficulties with another editor adding questionable sources (I removed a Reddit link, Yahoo blogs were discouraged during the FA review, and I am not sure "SenatorsXtra" would pass FA review). The editor has posed the possibility of an FA review based on age, which I am not opposed to - however I am not a fan of someone adding poor quality sources, removing material that has already passed FA, and then claiming it needs a review. Outside opinions are appreciated. Canada Hky (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career

IP edit just broke the table, and don't want to mess things up further - can anyone fix ? Connormah (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixe the table but it is still unreferenced. Salavat (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

General Manager Records

I have been noticing that the NHL general manager pages have a record table similar to a coaches stats table, I though at one point this was brought up and consensus was to remove them. However, I can't find any discussion on it. Before I start removing theses I thought it would be best to gain a consensus on this. I don't believe GMs are every really attributed a record like coaches I get that how many playoff appearances and how deep of a run they made are often used as evidence of how well a particular GM is. Should these be removed or kept thoughts? --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the utility (nor do I know of anyone who tracks this as a stat), unless they served in a dual coach / GM role. Canada Hky (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
In like fashion, while I'm sure it'd be possible to compile such a table (no doubt you could also do so for head trainers, assistant GMs and the like), it's certainly not noteworthy, and nothing either the league or media outlets track. Ravenswing 03:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
What they said. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH, basically. GMs do not have records tracked the way coaches do. Resolute 13:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
That was my take on it as well. Since it had the potential to effect numerous pages wanted to get some thoughts before I removed them. I removed the tables from the current NHL GM pages and I'll try looking though the GM history and see if those need clean-up in the next few days. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox height and the metric system

Hi. I'm just trying to gather consensus for an improvement at Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_player#Conversion_output. I'm not aware of a single English-speaking country that uses metres to express human height metrically and centimetres are predominant in reliable sources. I think the infobox was just carelessly set up, because it uses metres. Trying to get it fixed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. this is not intended to have any effect whatsoever on ft/in, just metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Australia actually uses meters but it is a rare exception. Generally speaking centimeters are the standard way of measuring human height. I agree that the infobox should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talteori (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Player height and weights

This editor: [5] is rampaging through all the Swedish player articles, and changing the heights and weights to metric, because "I could say Swedish is the primary language of hockey because 98% of the information on NHL I get is in Swedish. Just look at the swedish language articles about hockey players. We get all our information about the NHL in metric" - [6]. Anyone care to offer an opinion on this? Echoedmyron (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Swedish athletes always use metric all across Wikipedia. Wikipedia manual of style says that non US specific articles should be in metric unless there is a strong reason otherwise. We are talking about people who are born in Sweden, played professionally in Sweden and compete for Sweden both in the Olympics and the world championships. These are hardly US specific articles. Some of these players have never lived or worked in North America at any point in their life. I do not see any reason why KHL, SHL or Bundesliga players should have stats listed in united states customary units. If the rule is that we use the system of units used by the country where the player is currently playing that means that North American KHL/SHL players should have their stats in metric.
The argument about where I get my news was just a turn around when another user said I get most of my sources in united states customary units therefore wiki should be in united states customary units.
We should use the system of units that the international ice hockey federation, the players and most of the fans use.Talteori (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Players playing in North America should definitely have their stats primarily in feet and inches because that is what the vast majority of their references will be in because they are playing in North America. That being said, we use the convert template to show both. So Talteori's concerns are more than covered anyways. I am not sure why such a drive on making these changes other than some sort of nationalistic push. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
So North American players in the KHL should have the metric infobox since united states customary units are more or less non existant in Russia? Changing the infobox when a player crosses a boarder is just complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talteori (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of references will not be in non metric units only. This argument isn't very water tight when all you have to do is check the eliteprospects link in the external links section and get their metric statistics. It is very easy to find out how tall and heavy the players are. The page isn't Peter Forsbergs career in NHL but about Peter Forsberg. He played in Sweden, in the world championships and the Olympics. Had he only been an NHL player it would be a different issue. The majority of wikipedia readers use metric, the players use metric, the IIHF uses metric and the main argument against it seems to be that your newspaper isn't.

If we go by the rule the players will have the stats in the units commonly used in the country that they are playing in that means that KHL/SHL/Bundesliga etc players (including those born in countries that primarily use united states customary units) should be listed in metric. Also many players are retired and have played several seasons outside of North America. Saying that they are North American players and should have north american units is a stretch. We should do use what most of the fans, the IIHF, the players themselves and their national teams use. This is obviously not only for the Swedish players but also Russian, Finnish, German etc.

Those who want to use units specific to their country can check the conversion in the parenthesis.Talteori (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As noted by Djsasso: "That being said, we use the convert template to show both." So what is the point of these countless edits, other than trying to take ownernship of Swedish-player articles? You're just leaving your name all over wikipedia for no reason. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an international website that is used by people all over the world. The main audience is metric. The players use metric, the IIHF uses metric, the fans use metric. Why should we not use metric just because some of the editors live in one of the few countries that haven't converted yet? Those who want to use units that are different from the standard units used by over 200 countries can use the units in the parenthesis. Using the units that most of the readers use makes the most sense. Also wikipedia uses metric unless it is a united states specific article. The only reason against using metric seems to be American nationalism saying that my newspaper is in united states customary units so therefore all the Russians/Czech/Latvians should read about their players in united states customary units as well.Talteori (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You do realize you have no idea where I am from right? So your argument that it is American nationalism is thrown right out the window. Sources carry the day, its how wikipedia works. If someone is written about more in one version than another then that is the one that gets used on wikipedia. That goes for everything, not just measurements. But Resolute below is correct, statistics do show that the vast majority of readers on Wikipedia do come from the US, Canada, and the UK which use feet and inches for height. So if your argument also is that we should help the readers...it would make sense to cater to what the majority read and those that aren't the majority have the value in the brackets that they can read. And then there is the editors as someone else mentioned on your talk page, having all the articles using the same basic underlying stats helps for maintenance and upkeep of those pages. Allows for mistakes to be caught faster and easier and allows readers to compare two players easier. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume not Switzerland. The idea that there are no sources in metric is simply not true. [[7]] provides metric units. There are lots of cases on wikipedia where sources have been converted to metric because Wikipedia is a predominantly metric website. Wikipedia runs on metric unless there is specific reason to do otherwise.[[8]], the majority of page hit come from outside the countries that use united states customary units.Talteori (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I never said no sources. Secondly you did a search on wikipedia.org which includes traffic to all the language versions of wikipedia. I was speaking about English Wikipedia. Not to mention the US isn't the only country to use feet and inches for height. As for your last comment you have been given specific reasons. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Tricky situation. I would lean toward treating this like we do varieties of English. We don't convert Canadian athlete bios to EN-US if their careers were spent primarily in the US, or vice versa. So for that reason, I am in agreement with Talteori regarding the "they play in North America" argument. Under that philosophy, we'd be swapping back and forth all the time when players transfer between North America and parts of Europe and that is the worst solution in my mind. That said, I would absolutely disagree with Talteori on one point though - the majority of English Wikipedia readers come from the US, Canada and the UK, all of which represent height in feet and inches primarily - though the Brits modify weight measurements slightly. However, the existence of the conversion template inside the infobox cuts both ways. Regardless of whichever unit of measurement is given as primary, the alternate is still presented. So the only real question to me is whether it is worthwhile to break consistency here. I would just as soon leave it alone, primarily because it is consistent and because it is what I am used to, but going back to my point about engvar, I can't really oppose a change either. Certainly looking around at other sports, Swedish athletes tend to have their height and weight listed in cm/kg - except in North American sports. I can't really say that the hockey project's standard is more worthy than the Sweden project's standard. This is all a long-winded way of saying that I don't oppose the change. Resolute 16:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Check the other sports such as soccer, skiing etc. They use the measurements used in the players country of birth. Even many of the Canadian athletes have their stats in metric. There is nothing special about Sweden. The same goes for Norwegian, Czech, Slovakian, Russian players etc. Looking through the hocket articles even the articles about Russian players who played there entire career in the KHL are in united states customary units. Same goes for Germans in the Bundesliga and Swedes in the SHL. I see no reason why a Russian player playing in Russia should have his stats in united states customary units. What should we do about American players in the KHL? I say we go with the system that is most inline with the manual of style, the players themselves and most other sports on wikipedia. It would also mean that a lot of other groups such as Latvian olympic athletes can follow the style guide used there.Talteori (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to reply to every individual post, especially when one largely supports your position. And I would note that any Canadian listed in metres first is as incorrect as you claim the listing for Swedish players in feet are. Resolute 18:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely support the right of the various national Wikipedias to list height and weight using the measurement standard prevalent in those countries. This is, however, the English Wikipedia, not the Swedish Wikipedia, and in the same way that our articles are written in English and not in Swedish, our articles should use the measurement standard used by the overwhelming number of readers of the English Wikipedia. That would be Imperial units. Ravenswing 06:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of misunderstandings in the discussion above. Fortunately WP:MOSNUM presents some simple guidance to clear up this subject. Firstly, we do not use source-based units in any circumstances. Typically, reference publications will have style manuals which inform editors about which units the publication prefers. For us on the English Wikipedia, that's most often SI units and units accepted for use with the SI (or simply put, the metric system). It is obligatory to provide conversions between metric and imperial/USC units in most instances; the only difference is the order in which the units are typically presented.

There is some nuance in the guidelines, with the largest exception being that articles about the USA generally present measurements in the format "USC (metric)", whereas in articles about any other country (with a few exceptions for the UK) it's typically "metric (imperial/USC)". This is intended to observe the principle of least astonishment and to provide information to our readers in the most helpful and natural way. Contrary to Resolute, the metric-first style is the normal style that should be used in articles about Canada.

So Ravenswing is quite wrong to say that Wikipedia should prefer the imperial system (actually it would probably be the US Customary units if it came down to a poll, but that's largely irrelevant). There are countries in the Anglophone world that use the metric units near-exclusively, like Australia, and in countries like the UK and Canada there are certainly many contexts in which body measurements are given in metric (compare a Canadian driving licence and a USA one). Saying that we "should use the measurement standard used by the overwhelming number of readers of the English Wikipedia" boils down to "we should do whatever American editors want" even if this means giving distances in an article on France in miles, or temperatures in Russia in degrees Fahrenheit. This is an international collaboration, and we don't work that way. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually in Canada, body measurements are given in imperial not metric in most cases. I couldn't even tell you what my height was in cm if I wanted to, ironically they aren't even on the drivers license, at least not in my province. I also don't think anyone is arguing about giving temperatures in Russia in Fahenheit, or distances in miles so that is a complete strawman. This is strictly about body measurements, and as you mentioned principle of lease astonishment. A lot of hockey publications even in countries that aren't imperial give the heights in weights in feet/pounds (or both imperial/metric) so to do otherwise would lead to more astonishment. The reasoning for this is that it makes comparing players easier to do if they are all listed the same. Fortunately MOSNUM is a guideline and throughout it uses the words generally so that it can account for cases like this where we don't have to follow it strictly. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Uhh, yeah, no. The Government may use heights and weights in metric, but common usage in Canada continues to be imperial. "Metric first" is absolutely not the normal style in use in Canada. Resolute 13:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Metric-first is the general Wikipedia style, and per the current MOSNUM version it should be used for all Canada-related articles, unless there is local talk-page consensus to the contrary. Believe me, I've been round the block on this issue many times (most specifically relating to UK metrication, which is a perennial and toxic issue). Generally MOSNUM shouldn't be taken as a series of suggestions which can be overridden by personal preference or "can is not must" style arguments (this is not by any means just my position, by the way).
It's not at all far-fetched to talk about "miles in France"; there are many editors on Wikipedia who are inconsiderate enough to fill such articles with feet, miles, gallons, Fahrenheit and other crap (even foot-pounds and BTU), which penalises everyone who isn't American, and I have taken care to fix them to the correct MOSNUM style, or as near as possible. "Miles in France" stems from one particular article I found on a French town which gave distances in miles only, with not even a nod of the head to the idea that France doesn't use American units. My own particular interest is in STEM-related articles, in which imperial units are at best an irritation and at worst a threat to the intelligibility of measurements.
Lest I be accused of making up the driving licence thing: I looked at things like this. Private individuals are free to use whatever units they please (for what it's worth, I'm British, but I would always prefer to use the metric system in my personal life, have never measured myself in inches and couldn't care less) but in general Wikipedia should lean towards more official usage. If the sporting body in question weighs its athletes in pounds, fair enough, follow their usage. My point is that best practice on an encyclopedia isn't normally decided by a vote, and "popular usage" isn't necessarily the best criterion to go on. Anyway, that's my third opinion done. Make of it what you will. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
With regards to Canadian usage, you are flat. out. wrong. Certainly for distance, temperature and general measurements, Canada is very much metric first. But common usage for height and weight measurement is a very notable, extremely critical exception that simply cannot be ignored. Resolute 14:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd go as far to say if you asked 100 people their height all 100 would answer in feet/inches. Probably go further to say if you asked them what their height in cm were that all 100 wouldn't know. Oh and as for the drivers license thing, don't worry I assumed another province did list it, I was just amused that mine didn't when I went to look. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it is extraordinary in Ontario to find someone who knows what their height is in cm, even with medical records and drivers liscences using it. In general practise height is understood in imperial so it makes more sense to list imperial first.18abruce (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Technically this might constitute WP:OR, but I just want to say that in Canadian NHL broadcasts, players heights and weights are always given in feet/pounds as well, if not solely. So readers from the US and Canada might be expected to look for this information in US customary units on Wikipedia. Permafrost46 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does however use metric for Canadian articles. [[9]], [[10]]. Wikipedia tends to go with the official and international, not the informal. Remeber that the majority of English speakers live in India and the majority of english speakers in the world don't come from an english speaking country. Metric is the lingua franca of measurements so it is preferred to use metric. In Scandinavia and in French media NHL stats are provided in metric, the IIHF uses metric. This isn't a North American encyclopedia but a global one. Also European hockey fans are accustomed to using metric. This would mean that we would have to use metric for North American players playing in Europe.Talteori (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of discussion, I will reproduce a paragraph I posted on Talteori's talk page. This discussion is not about which system of units is the most widely used worldwide. It's not even about which system is official or informal in Canada (which uses both systems). It is about what system of units is used for convenience on the English Wikipedia for Ice Hockey related articles. Like Zzyzx11 wrote, "having a consistent format across all biographies on NHL players makes it easier for editors to maintain, and allows readers to more easily compare their statistics, when an NHL season is in progress". From what I understand, sometimes this carries over to non-NHL player pages since a lot of editors work on pages of non-NHL players as well. In the light of this, I see no reason to switch every hockey article to metric (regardless of the nationality of the player) since the metric info is there anyway (because of the convert template). My opinion is that this change would just make life harder on editors with very little (near-zero) gain in terms of information. Permafrost46 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is competing project norms. We can't remain consistent within the hockey project without forcing inconsistency on the Swedish project, and vice versa. Resolute 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, until Talteori started changing them, there has never been an objection from any other projects. The Swedish one for example. I realized there is bias on my part perhaps to say it, but one would think its more important that all hockey player for example would be consistent for the reasons Permafrost mentions. As opposed to a hockey player and a gymnast whose body sizes would likely never be compared against each other. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I also view this in the lens of the old Montreal Expos page location wars. I can't well argue for overruling a local project consensus there on the basis of national importance and do the opposite here. Resolute 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't just a national issue. All of Europe uses the metric system. We run into the issue of players who have played in several leauges. What about someone who has played both in KHL and NHL? What about an American who has played his career in KHL or a Russian who played 5 seasons in KHL and one in NHL. Is that a KHL or an NHL player? The other sports manage this by using the system of measurements used in the country where the person was born. That is also inline with the manual of style.Talteori (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

Quick question about rosters & injuries

I think I know the answer to this but I'm just dropping by to make sure... does a player have to be on IR in order for us to change "inj = no" to "inj = yes" on the rosters? Or should it also be changed if a player is day-to-day or just not placed on IR? Gloss • talk 12:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've only ever changed that flag if a player was on the IR. Particularly since the NHL rosters only reflect the same. Resolute 13:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah only if they are officially put on the IR. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both! Gloss • talk 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Current season statistics

I want to make sure I'm not off base with this. We don't update seasonal statistics on player or team pages mid-season, correct? I've reverted such an addition twice (here and here) at Las Vegas Wranglers, citing this WikiProject's guidelines, but the IP that initially added the stats keeps re-adding the information (here and here). They haven't used an edit summary for any of those edits and have not responded to my explanation of the removal on their talk page. I don't want to violate 3RR by reverting again, and I wanted to double-check and make sure that I've got the guideline right. Regards.  Cjmclark (Contact) 21:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In my reading of the guidelines you are correct. The more pressing problem is that the editor seems to break the table lay-out which messes up the whole page... CRwikiCA talk 22:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The previous comment was before I checked his user history, he seems to vandalize multiple pages. CRwikiCA talk 22:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I only looked at the first link, but I don't think they were meaning to vandalize the table. They just don't know the syntax well. And yes, we do try not to update tables like that mid-season. It creates confusion because not every team or player gets updated at the same time, and you end up with an incoherent mess of stats that may or may not be accurate. For the teams though, people like to update at the end of the regular season, and that is often something I'll leave alone since it is a logical point. It might be beneficial to explain to this user how the tables work, and also why we generally wait for the end of the season. If I do engage these users when they are editing NHL articles, I often point them to the team season articles as a good place to update. Resolute 23:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I typically do not see breaking table lay-outs as bad faith edits. When users also blank pages, my opinion about them changes though. CRwikiCA talk 23:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Gaudreau at redirects for discussion

It has been suggested that greater input from members of this project weigh in at this RFD. Thanks, Resolute 14:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of nationality flags

Help is needed to deal with User:Parkfly3 who is edit warring at List of Philadelphia Flyers draft picks to remove nationality flags, against the consensus for such use reached at Talk:List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks. A seperate discussion on this issue should not be required for each and every NHL team, and even if it so, the restoration of the flags should not have been reverted, since WP:BRD says pages should be reverted back to the last stable version until a new consensus is reached. Dolovis (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Edit warring has now escalated to include List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks. More eyes please. Dolovis (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we now have a hypocritical edit warrior trying to enforce their own personal POV with a completely ass-backwards view of how the consensus building process works. If someone would like to restore the status quo ante, it would be appreciated. Resolute 22:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a "personal POV", it's consensus. If you want to resolve this, the best way to do that would be to see if consensus has changed by starting an RfC at WP:MOSFLAG's talk page, but asking others to edit-war on your behalf is not the correct way to handle that, and is more likely to get you and the person edit-warring for you blocked than serve any productive purpose. If you are so sure that this consensus is plain-as-day, then open the RfC and change the actual documented consensus; if you're right that's fine and I'll respect the consensus, but please don't pretend one doesn't exist to justify edit-warring in lieu of actual discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
How do you expect anyone to take that seriously when you are edit warring in lieu of actual discussion yourself? Every essay you've produced argues against your own position. If you want to debate whether MOS:FLAG is being improperly applied in this case, that is your right. But you do not get to edit war the article into your preferred vesrion - the one that stands counter to both WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD - while that discussion happens. It is your responsibility to make your case for the change. Resolute 23:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I started both discussions on the talk page, so on top of the request for others to edit-war so that you don't have to, you're digging yourself deeper and deeper. Given how often you deign to accuse me of "hypocrisy", saying that I "do not get to edit war the article into [my] preferred version" should probably give you pause, since that's precisely what you're doing. That you think you're right is no excuse, I also think I'm right, so if that doesn't come across as hypocritical to you, I don't see how you're going to be able to discuss anything. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Adorning these articles with little flag pictures, in this way, fails WP:MOSICON. Why should this wikiproject be exempt from WP:MOSICON? bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that it doesn't. MOSICON allows for flags to be used to represent sporting nationalities. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This is pretty clear:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

I'm less familiar with ice hockey, but my understanding is that List of Philadelphia Flyers draft picks is supposed to be a list of draft picks for the Philadelphia Flyers, instead of being a list of players on national teams, or a list of other cases where nationality is particularly relevant on the ice. If somebody could explain how I'm wrong on that last point, then I'd happily concede that the table should put heavy emphasis on nationalities and little flag pictures. bobrayner (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The flags represent their sporting nationality (which is explained in a whole section on MOSFLAG). In many sports especially ones like hockey where players come from many countries one of the number one things sources and media talk about is the nationalities of players. In hockey players from different countries play very different styles often and as such the nationality make up of a team is considered to be a big indicator of the type of team they are. It is something that fans/readers of articles would be often looking to find. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
For draft picks, I think the country under whose system the player was developed is probably what most readers are interested in. For the vast majority of players who have not represented a country in international play, eligibility for sporting nationality is being used as a stand-in for country of development. Perhaps it would better to cut to the chase, and seek a consensus agreement for representing the country of development on lists of drafted players (for any sport that draws from a worldwide pool of participants). isaacl (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

English title for "Direktkval till SHL"

In the 2014–15 season, the Kvalserien promotion-and-relegation tournament to qualify for the Swedish Hockey League (SHL) will be replaced by a best-of-seven playoff round, known as "Direktkval till SHL" in Swedish. The winners of the best-of-seven series qualify for the SHL. I'm planning to create an article about this new format, but I don't know what title the article should have. A rough English translation: "Direct qualifier for SHL". Is there a better English translation than that, or should the article title be "Direktkval till SHL"? Heymid (contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would just call it the "SHL qualifiers" or "SHL qualifying playoffs". Describes exactly what it is. "Direct qualifier" doesn't really work in English. But I completely object to creating a separate article about this format. These playoffs belong on the articles for the SHL and HockeyAllsvenskan, just as one does for Fotbollallsvenskan promotion qualifiers, and the Swiss NLA qualifying playoffs. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 20:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that makes the most sense. The Swedish title is borderline nonsensical in English, and there is no direct translation in use in English. I think using a descriptive title is the most useful to readers at this point. Resolute 23:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we create an article about the new format? We have Kvalserien articles for the first, second, and third tiers. Heymid (contribs) 07:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I'd argue that we shouldn't have those articles (with the possible exception of the Kval till SHL article)...but the point is that the format for promotion/relegation doesn't need an article. The format can easily be explained in a paragraph on the SHL and HockeyAllsvenskan articles, as it is part of the format of those leagues, not a league in and of itself. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 10:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I would actually agree with this. I don't think they even need to be separate articles since they aren't leagues unto themselves and are part of process of the actual leagues. They could easily be described on those pages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on use of flag icons in sports articles

A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to pull this out into its own section and highlight it, as the results of this discussion will have wide-ranging impact to not just hockey articles, but those for most sports. I encourage anyone with an opinion to participate! Resolute 14:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Playoffs infobox

I think we should have infoboxes for the Stanley Cup playoffs articles, much like the Finals. Without an infobox the article looks a little off to me. What does everyone think? And what would the infobox contain? Jmj713 (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm among the number who think we don't need infoboxes for the sake of infoboxes. Ravenswing 04:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think infoboxes are helpful here. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two above. Infoboxes are not appropriate for all articles, and in these particular ones offer no benefit. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am having a hard time thinking of what such an infobox would contain. Other than the start and end date, what else could be succinctly conveyed? Resolute 22:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Coyotes player pic deletions

Just needing some help in explaining photo licences after i've had no response to my enquiry on commons? I added a few Phoenix Coyotes player photos off a flickr photostream that were later deleted. Other photos on that same stream were successfully being used and upon reading a few licencing rules, i thought the ones i uploaded were available. As an example of one deleted photos.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/53936799@N05/12183966523/ and its license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Upon later inspection the only difference i can find between the pictures allowed and not allowed, is the non-commercial sign that is shown on the deleted pictures... i didn't think wiki was commercial? if anyone could offer any insight, would be greatly appreciated Triggerbit (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Was there a deletion discussion related to any of the deleted images? If so, it would be helpful to link to them so we can see what was discussed. Rlendog (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is non commercial, but many of our re-users (i.e.: mirror sites) are. So, unfortunately, images with a non-commercial restriction are not considered free for use by Wikimedia. That rules them out entirely on Commons, as it can only accept free use material. It also generally rules the images out on Wikipedia locally, since a "free" equivalent could be produced. In terms of Creative Commons licensing, anything that is CC0, CC-BY, CC-SA or CC-BY-SA is usable. Anything with an NC or ND restriction generally is not. Resolute 14:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Cheers and thanks for clearing that up... shame the photographer tagged only those pictures to be NC, they were good! Triggerbit (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I contacted the photographer at Flickr to ask about the licensing of the Coyotes photos, and he has agreed to change the licensing to allow for use in Wikipedia articles. After checking back at https://www.flickr.com/photos/53936799@N05/12183966523/ it looks like the licensing is now CC-SA, so try uploading them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheb2 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the inclination Sheb, will restore the photos again! Triggerbit (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well that is awesome! Please convey our gratitude if you are still in touch with the photographer, Sheb2. Resolute 17:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. The thread is "Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey". -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1938 Detroit Red Wings – Montreal Canadiens European tour

I'm not sure why, but Frietjes is insisting on removing the infobox from this article, replacing it by a table, which in my opinion looks much worse. Any ideas why? Jmj713 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this version is better than the previous ones. The main problem that I can see with the one that used {{infobox}} directly is that the labels are wrapping over onto two lines. Other than that, the one that uses table syntax directly is also less concise. I also don't think we really need the red coloring. Note that the {{infobox}} template just generates an HTML table, so there is really no substantial difference what is possible in terms of the rendered result. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The more I look at it, I think you can just get rid of the top infobox, or replace it with very simple single line series summary. Listing the score for each game in the top level infobox is redundant, since the scores are given in yet another table later in the article. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
yes, you could use {{infobox sports series}} which just summarises the series, without the per-game scoring. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The infobox was based off the Summit Series article, which is a GA. Jmj713 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Pro hockey team

In Template:Infobox Pro hockey team, why is there a parameter for "media"? If nothing else, this needs to be explained in the template documentation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's for the local radio/tv stations that broadcast the games I do believe. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that would make sense, but it needs to be documented. I first noticed this parameter in Las Vegas Wranglers, where the media parameter is entered as "Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Sun". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Andrei Vasilevski(i)? Spelling

Our article on Andrei Vasilevski (ice hockey, born 1994) has his last name spelled with only 1 final "i", but in the Tampa Bay press release regarding his contract, his name is spelled Andrei Vasilevskii (with 2 "i"'s at the end). I would assume this is some transliteration issue from Russian (maybe he prefers his name to be spelled with 2 "i"'s?) Canuck89 (converse with me) 01:18, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

His name is spelled a million different ways, but that's the first time I've seen two I's. I would presume that is actually a typo. Thanks to disagreement on how to properly transliterate his name, I suspect that we will end up in a debate at some point about Vasilevski, Vasilevsky or Vasilivskiy. The current spelling is most common, however. Resolute 13:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You apparently missed it. There was a bit of a debate on a move request about the spellings just the other week. I would guess that the two i's are indeed typos as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Ice Hockey At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Uniform on player stats?

I was going to bring this discussion forward to the player page talk section, but that seems to be completely abandoned. With the end of the season coming up and many stats to be added to player pages, i was thinking it could be time to finally update all player stat boxes to one uniform, in particular the width of the table?

For years i have been a proponent of updating with 75%, but i have started to have a shift in thinking that it has issues depending on what size screen a reader views the player page article and in the fact that the player infobox that can impede on the 75%, which in turn just leaves the stats table at the bottom of the info box, instead of allow it alongside.

50em is the other used width, although it is not as prominent as 75% . It keeps it shape and seems the likely solution but the only issue i have is it seems too compact and has a lot of negative space to the right.

I'll show examples and also put forward a 60em as a compromise?

75% Width

Regular season Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2009–10 Manitoba Moose AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2009–10 San Antonio Rampage AHL — — — — — — — — — —
AHL totals — — — — — — — — — —

50em Width

Regular season Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2009–10 Manitoba Moose AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2009–10 San Antonio Rampage AHL — — — — — — — — — —
AHL totals — — — — — — — — — —

60em Width

Regular season Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2009–10 Manitoba Moose AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2009–10 San Antonio Rampage AHL — — — — — — — — — —
AHL totals — — — — — — — — — —

Spacing

Whilst i'm at it we could also decide the spacing between team, regular season and playoff season boxes? there are two main versions. The one used as above, OR as follows:

    Regular season   Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2009–10 Manitoba Moose AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2009–10 San Antonio Rampage AHL — — — — — — — — — —
AHL totals — — — — — — — — — —



Input from a multitude of users would be appreciated and hopefully a quick consensus can be reached in which I'm happy to apply to all player articles! cheers Triggerbit (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the larger sizes for the stats table, because I think its less cluttered and cuts down on some of the excessive white space than at the 50. As you stated the 75 is probably too large with how it buts up with the infobox on stub pages. I'd be more inclined to go with something in between. In the above examples it looks like 60e and 75% are about the same size on my screen. Something like 65% seems to be more of an in the middle, though that might just be my screen.
For the spacing I like the smaller gap between the regular season and playoff sections. No real reason just personal preference, I think it makes it look like one joined table, while the larger space seems like its more of two similar tables next to each other. That the way I see it.
As a further addendum to what you have proposed here (and thanks for bringing this up I've thought about it up before) I think we should be making international stats tables the same size as well. So we have a standard table size for all statistics. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Personally I prefer the 75% which I thought was already the standard (other than some articles where people have deviated). 50em is definitely too small and 60em is definitely too large on a smaller monitor (15") with the resolution that accessibility aims for. You could do 55em which would be approximately the same size as 75% when using the resolution we aim to create articles for on a standard 15" monitor. As for spacing I prefer smaller space between but it doesn't matter that much to me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
why not just let it be the size set by the browser? there is no way to know how that width will look on all browsers (or on differing screen sizes like smart phones, laptops, desktops). Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
also, if you put the entire top section in a template, you could keep it consistent, and potentially change it across all articles without having to edit each one individually. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responses, I wasn't aware of the 15" monitor standard. So that could mean stick to the 75% standard or 55em as suggested with smaller spacing i guess... Triggerbit (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I realize I was less than clear. I meant the standard resolution on a 15" monitor. The standard resolution is 1024×768. The monitor size was just me using a small monitor to test it. Its the resolution I was more referring to. See Wikipedia:Accessability#Resolution for more info. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you need to hard-code the width? if you need more padding, then add padding to the cells. Frietjes (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have always gone with 50em whenever I update an article. Personally, I find 75% to be obnoxiously wide and it gets worse as you go up in monitor size and resolution. Also, almost no other stat sites spread the table across the full width of the page. 50em is a sizing that I find looks nice on just about any screen size. I'd have no trouble going up to 60em though. However, I would add that we should ensure all stats tables are uniform - the regular season, international and all star game (if it exists). Each table being different widths is sloppy. Resolute 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
While I can see why you would want each table to be the same size, the international and pro tables should not be as there are no separate playoff stats for international so having them the same size would actually be a bit sloppy due to massive white space in the cells that would end up occurring. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Using a 75% width, absolutely. That is one of the major reasons why I favour 50em. Jarome Iginla#Career statistics looks far more professional than Jonathan Toews#Career statistics does. Resolute 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess its just personal preference but I think the All Star game section of Iginla looks really really bad, pretty massive white space in the cells. The international section has a similar issue but not as bad as the all star game. I think the Jonathan Toews section looks much better because it gets rid of the white space. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Truthfully, I'd be perfectly fine with removing the All-Star Game table entirely. It doesn't really say much. Resolute 17:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Background shading

It occurs to me that if we decide to make a change and/or force standardization, I'd like to discuss background shading as well. There is a minority of tables that use shading to alternate by season, which I find monstrously ugly even when someone has played with two teams in a season, let alone three or four. I have always corrected this to alternating by row, and would prefer if we made this change at the same time. Thoughts? Resolute 14:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I believe we did already actually standardize the by row thing in the past. I would have to search the archives to see when but I know it was talked about because I remember someone going through trying to change them all to by season and then it getting brought here to see what consensus was. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It is only a relatively small minority of articles that haven't been dealt with. I just wanted to make note of it because if we decide on something like 60em or a slightly larger gap between the regular season and playoff columns, that may require a bot task to achieve, and at that point, might as well ensure this gets fixed up too. And that doesn't even begin to consider some of the WP:ACCESS hidden code I had to add to Lanny McDonald and Paul Henderson at FAC and (if it actually makes the tables easier for screen readers to understand) should probably be considered for wide implementation as well. Resolute 20:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree on the shading. Also if a bot gets involved to clean-up/add accessibility codes to tables we might want to consider having it correct dashes and removed the superfluous ALIGN="center" on multiple lines like on Miķelis_Rēdlihs#Career_statistics. I don't think there are a lot of pages effected by this, but it seems to be more common in the international stats tables. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Anecdotally, I think the ALIGN="center" issue is wider than we may realize. I routinely come across this when editing articles created in the 2004-06 timeframe, and that is likely still in the hundreds. Resolute 14:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
So at what point can we reach a consensus on the tables? It seems like the 60em for all stat tables, small gaps, and alternating background rows? Just for my understanding, can a bot be involved to make it easier? I have no idea how they work, ha. Triggerbit (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
we would definitely want to request a bot to run the updates, otherwise it would take forever to do a few thousand articles. But there are a goodly number of proposed changes, and I am not sure how fast - or even if - a bot op would be willing to do it. I am personally fine with those settings, but disagreeing with Djsasso above, I would be a hard holdout if the league and international tables were set to different widths. Resolute 16:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's different information and thus has different needs, one size doesn't fit all. Having different size tables isn't exactly odd, it happens in all kinds of news articles or wiki articles. I have no problem with the 60em for the career stats section. But I am very against all the tables being the same size. That Iginla article just looks plain bad as far as tables goes. Very unprofessional looking. (sorry Resolute, the rest of the article was done well). A bot could do it but it would take some major regex to do it. I think it would probably in the end just have to be done by hand unless someone wanted to take the large amount of time it would take to customize some regex to be able to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples

1

Regular season and playoffs
Regular season Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2012–13 Abbotsford Heat AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2012–13 Calgary Flames NHL — — — — — — — — — —
NHL totals — — — — — — — — — —
International
Year Team Event Result GP G A Pts PIM
2009 Canada U17 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
2009 Canada WJC18 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
Junior totals — — — — —
Senior totals — — — — —

2

Regular season and playoffs
Regular season Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2012–13 Abbotsford Heat AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2012–13 Calgary Flames NHL — — — — — — — — — —
NHL totals — — — — — — — — — —
International
Year Team Event Result GP G A Pts PIM
2009 Canada U17 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
2009 Canada WJC18 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
Junior totals — — — — —
Senior totals — — — — —

3

Regular season and playoffs
    Regular season   Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2012–13 Abbotsford Heat AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2012–13 Calgary Flames NHL — — — — — — — — — —
NHL totals — — — — — — — — — —
International
Year Team Event Result   GP G A Pts PIM
2009 Canada U17 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
2009 Canada WJC18 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
Junior totals — — — — —
Senior totals — — — — —

4

Regular season and playoffs
    Regular season   Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
2012–13 Abbotsford Heat AHL — — — — — — — — — —
2012–13 Calgary Flames NHL — — — — — — — — — —
NHL totals — — — — — — — — — —
International
Year Team Event Result   GP G A Pts PIM
2009 Canada U17 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
2009 Canada WJC18 1st place, gold medalist(s) — — — — —
Junior totals — — — — —
Senior totals — — — — —


Just posted this as an potential idea of where we are at?? In my opinion, as long as it's standardized, i really don't mind or have a preference for either one. Once there's a consensus though (hopefully!), i have no problem updating by hand.Triggerbit (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, DJ and I clearly won't agree on the widths, so hopefully others can chime in and help us decide one war or the other! As a small note on this example, I would also remove the "int'l" bit. The contraction is poor from a prose quality standpoint, and the word is redundant anyway since the section itself is marked as international. I just go with "junior totals" and "senior totals". Also, even I cant make up my own mind as to whether I like including the "team result" column. Resolute 14:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point on the international prose, it's been amended. I've typically never included result, but by adding the column it can reduce the spacing issue that DJ was concerned with if we have the same width.. Need some more user responses! Triggerbit (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I really like the result column, that's very useful. Jmj713 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Using ems to specify the width is preferable to page width percentage, since this will better control the key legibility issue: column widths that match the size of the contents within. Unless all tables have content of similar width, I don't see an advantage to keeping them all the same size. I don't think each should have a custom width, either; hopefully two or three selected widths should be able to cover all tables.

Regarding which width: with my browser window set to a comfortable width for viewing Wikipedia web pages, I find 60 em leaves a lot of blank space with my zoom level set to 100%. Usually I read Wikipedia with the zoom level slightly expanded, to make the type a bit larger, and in this case 60 em is wider than my browser window. So personally I prefer 50 em. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think 60em is a good compromise between the two and should be settled as the career stats, but in the fate of the international boxes i'm unsure how to get a consensus between one or the other? maybe just leave the option for both!? ..it continues! Triggerbit (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Still no further interest from contributors? should i just go ahead and start changing the career stats to 60em atleast?! Triggerbit (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Be bold, I suppose? I just changed Ryan Getzlaf to 60em (no change in spacing). Can't see any reason to oppose it based on how the table looks both on my tablet, small laptop and large desktop. Perhaps just do a few (pick a popular team still in the playoffs - Chicago or Montreal perhaps) and change the current players then see if anyone complains or brings up a concern? Resolute 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
For me, while browsing on a tablet, the 60 em table is wider than the page, so I still prefer a narrower width. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking upon the Getzlaf page as a template, i like the use of the smaller headlines of tables and i think the spacing used (which is bigger then what i have shown here) helps even out the international table. Will take the suggestion on. Triggerbit (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't mind the career table, but I really do think that stretched international table just looks bad. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Quickly made some changes to the Chicago Blackhawks current players, using the Getzlaf page. Is there any way to come to a compromise on the international tables? would be good to get it standardized. How is isaacl getting a larger width? zoom set over 100%? Triggerbit (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't believe that is the case on the tablet. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Option 2 looks cleaner in my opinion (different widths) –B2Project(Talk) 17:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


i have changed the examples, and listed the four choices i think it comes down to. I'd have to say i'd probably prefer either examples 2 or 4. Although the size of the international table really doesn't bother me, i think the 40em width looks a bit better, and if standardized it wouldn't look unprofessional.
In trying to think of a compromise between the International box width...what if the international section could basically mirror the career stats column widths, except leaving off the playoffs section? That would look streamlined, the only prob is i have no idea how to put that in practice with the columns width flexibility depending on team names.. Triggerbit (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest, so from what i've gathered ill take that 60em is the width to be used in career stats. I guess the gaps don't really matter either way and i'll just leave size of the international table to what is found but add the results column. Cheers. Triggerbit (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If you don't mind, could you not remove the level 3 headers separating the regular season/playoffs and international sub-sections? I am pretty sure that using the semicolons to create bold, unlinked sections is against the MOS somewhere. I have, in fact, been increasingly dinged for that in FACs. Resolute 04:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ACCESS#Headings has the relevant guidance for headings. For what it's worth, I prefer the smaller gaps between the tables in Example 2 (different sizes of tables being my previously stated preference). isaacl (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Triggerbit (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
;) I suppose I should have been more clear. I meant on articles themselves. On this page it actually made things easier! lol. Resolute 13:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive60&oldid=1189837205"