Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive70

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

Men's national hockey teams

Now that the NHL no longer participates in the Winter Olympics, the rosters on those articles will be undergoing some info expansion. The rosters for the World Cup of Hockey teams & the Olympics teams, will be quite different. Then there's the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • As may be, but I expect we'd handle it all the same. Ravenswing 12:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just like the rosters pre-1996. Really not a lot has changed and we will adapt as usual. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

1st Round Picks discussion

See [1].--TM 17:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Ice_Hockey

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 16:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Canucks alternate captains

We need some help at List of current NHL captains and alternate captains, concerning Bo Horvat's status with the Canucks this season. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

This article should be semi-protected for the entire 2017-18 season. IPs are still trying to update it. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a valid protection reason. That is just a wikiproject rule not a wiki rule to wait till the end of the season. -DJSasso (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with DJSasso. As annoying as the edits might be... the ability to edit a page is why IP address like this site... and was the reason all of us signed up to be a wikipedian.. long long long time ago. Flibirigit (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
One option is to establish it as consensus at Talk:List of NHL statistical leaders (or link to the discussion if it already occurred). Point IPs to the consensus. If it becomes problematic with constantly changing IPs, add an editnotice to the page. If that still fails, semi protection would be warranted if IPs are the one who consistently edit contrary to consensus without discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah we already have an edit notice etc. Since they are generally good faith edits, even if they didn't notice or ignored the notice, probably not completely valid but an argument for could definitely be made. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem protecting, but don't want to override project if it's OK with keeping it open to edits. Feel free to ping me if there's consensus to protect. (As an aside, seems inconsistent to have an editnotice but not want it enforced.)—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I mean if people think I should protect it I can. I have always just taken the notice as being a notice. GoodDay is really the only person who ever seems to care about if they are updated midseason or not. I doubt may of the rest of us even look at the page often. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as I am the only one who's enforcing the notice, then perhaps it's best to remove it & simply allow mid-season updates, no matter how mixed up the article gets. Either that or semi-protect it, for the rest of the season. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll add that I also think waiting until the season is over to add stats is best. Keeps things organized, and even if it means a little work on our end, is just easier to comprehend. Making it clear in the article (which it does) and the edit page (which it definitely does) is good enough. If people aren't going to listen to that, it's really not that difficult to revert. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep I also agree that is the best practice to wait. I don't think that is an issue, that has been pretty much set in stone for all our articles for a long time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm apparently getting little support in fighting back IPs & Mobile editors & there's reluctance to semi-protect the article for the rest of the season? I'm removing the article from my watchlist. Others can deal with it. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Barrie Colts

I have started a discussion at Talk:Barrie Colts. Please read and comment, thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Colts Schedule and Results for three pages. Flibirigit (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Budweiser Gardens

I have started a discussion at Budweiser Gardens, regarding the article's tone and concerns that it has been hijacked by a member of the media for and editorial purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else have expertise in municipal politics and cost side of these arenas? Flibirigit (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you were correct to remove it. I might even suggest removing it from your talk page comment so it doesn't end up indexed by google anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Alerts

I have a couple comments in regards to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Article_alerts section on our project page.

  1. It's great that it's updated by User:AAlertBot/UP
  2. This section seems redundant with the "Candidates for deletion & discussion" right above it.
  3. Is there a way to merge the two sections?
  4. Does anyone else check the updates regularly? Perhaps we could have these notifications posted on the talk page instead for great visibility?

Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would keep the Article Alerts and possibly remove the Candidates section. If the discussions are sorted into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ice hockey (which many AfD gnome editors will do anyways), the alert bot will automatically update the alert section. Yosemiter (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I use both. I use the manual section when I want more eyes on something because it triggers more watch lists. Think of the manual section as a this needs more attention section. Not everything gets posted there, just the stuff that should really be looked at. We don't post to the talk page because it gets too spammy, hence the section on the other page. -DJSasso (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm still catching up on the changes to the wikiproject in my 6-year sabbatical. Flibirigit (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

New article created

FWIW, List of current NHL assistant coaches has been recently created. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, if it doesn't exist elsewhere. Maybe it could be merged into List of current NHL head coaches. Thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
For those who haven't been following along, this is the same user that has been causing some problems at List of current NHL captains and alternate captains that has gone so far as to include an edit warring report, as well as an ArbCom request. More just wanting to point those two out as examples of what anyone might have to endure should they oppose this article. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As I'm sure the positions could all be verified, it might still fail WP:LISTN as an indiscriminate list with no sources discussing the subject as a group or set by independent reliable sources (from LISTN), something that obviously happens with head coaches but not much for assistants. Just my two cents though and I could be wrong about the criteria. Yosemiter (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should determine WP:NHOCKEY before going ahead. Seems like it would pass that test to me, whether or not the article needs more work. Flibirigit (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
NHOCKEY is for individual player/coach notability, not for list criteria. Yosemiter (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say WP:LISTN. Even though the author may be "troublesome" in some other areas, I still think the list has merit, despite poorly constructed at this time. Flibirigit (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with your earlier suggestion that this could be under a single coaches article, if anywhere. I'm not sure that it merits a standalone article. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with a merger too. Btw, what is the precedent for such coaching lists in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc? Flibirigit (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It would probably be fine with a merge. However, I looked into the edit history of the List of head coaches and the editor in question made that addition in Bold fashion and was reverted. However a proper discussion on the talk page never took place in good WP:BRD style (which is what I suggested then). That is likely why the editor decided to go forward with just making a new page. Yosemiter (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: Neither NBA, NFL or MLB have such lists or list them in main pages. Moving on to the subject, the biggest concern is the up-to-date information about assistant coaches. Is it going to be updated or people will just update the head coaches and leave the assistants alone (which I think would be the case)? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin review of racism

Could one of our admins look at this user and leave an appropriate message on the talk page?

Thanks Flibirigit (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. That's not really contributing anything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sam Pollock

Could someone please review the birthdate for Sam Pollock? Please see edits made by anonymous user. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I updated based on a source, but if other information is brought to light, it can be revised accordingly. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ice hockey team roster usage on junior ice hockey teams

What is the general feeling about the usage of template:Ice hockey team roster on junior ice hockey team articles?

The way the template is designed, it will automatically wikilink every player. This is great for the NHL, but it creates a horrible mess of red links on junior team pages. Example:Sarnia Sting

As much as I hate rosters on junior teams, I'm hoping there's a happy medium somewhere to:

1. keep junior hockey fans/wikipedians happy,
2. look aesthetically pleasing
3. wikilink only to notable players

Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being removed, I also don't really have a problem with them being there. Unfortunately as you said the way the team roster templates work now it leaves a mess of redlinks. It used to be possible to leave most of the players unlinked. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Are there any other existing templates which would be better? Perhaps table options instead are better. Flibirigit (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I know of Template:Junior A ice hockey team roster, but it may not work as well for Major Junior due to the college commitment parameter instead of a NHL drafted team parameter. Might be a good place to start for a new template though if there is not already an amateur ice hockey roster template. Yosemiter (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yosemiter, very interesting posibility there. It would be nice to have neat consistent rosters, if fans insist on having them for junior teams. I'm thinking something like template:CHL roster Flibirigit (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You can create new player templates (e.g. player4noarticle, player5noarticle) that are the same as the original templates but leave out linking the player's name. Even better, you can make a helper template where this is an option, and have the player4 and player4noarticle use the helper with the option set correctly. isaacl (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@ isaacl, I may work on this after the trade deadline in January. Hopefully have it ready for the 2018-19 seasons. Flibirigit (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you guys feel about Category:Western Hockey League roster templates as a possibility for all CHL teams? I'm noticing new templates (one for each team) are being created. Flibirigit (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sean Burke

There's been an anonymous user continually removing a cited piece of the Sean Burke personal life section related to his charges with domestic abuse for some time now. It's a topic that's pretty well sourced (though not necessarily in the article), but I'm just wondering if someone else can take a look and make sure I'm not out of line reverting the removals. I'm not super familiar with WP:BLPCRIME. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the history shows a curious pattern of it being different IP addresses performing the same revert. Flibirigit (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I recommend posting on the talk page there too. Flibirigit (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nurmsook and Flibirigit: Just want to let you both know that I asked for this page to be protected. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Sabbatino, much appreciated. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens' titles

Why do we list the Canadiens with 25 titles in the National Hockey League page, and with 24 titles in the Montreal Canadiens page? There should be some consistency, because now it is confusing. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It is an issue for the definition of the template parameter name. The NHL team infobox has a Stanley Cup parameter, but no League Champion parameter. Prior to 1927, the Stanley Cup was not the NHL title. The Canadiens won the NHL title in 1925, but lost the Stanley Cup Finals. So in reality, there should also be a note on the Canadiens' page/infobox as they were the league champions 25 times (as well as any other league champions pre-1927 such as Ottawa Senators (original) for 1915). Yosemiter (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Plus the Habs' 1917 Cup was won as representative champions of the NHA, not NHL, which formed during that off-season to replace the NHA. The other unaccounted for NHL title is 1919 when the Stanley Cup Finals against the Seattle Metropolitans were cancelled while tied because of the Spanish flu epidemic. It's appropriate for the league article to list league champions. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I knew about the situation of the Canadiens–Metropolitans. I also saw that the Canadiens won in 1925. Guess I should have taken a better look at Template:Infobox NHL team before asking here. However, we should include a note at the Canadiens' page, which would clarify why we list 24 instead of 25. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It's because the two boxes are listing two different things. One is listing Stanley Cups and the other is listing League Titles. A note could easily be added indicating the missing title if what we wanted to do was indicate that. That being said consistency isn't always necessary as I think for most people on the Canadiens page, the number of Stanley Cups is the important information. On the NHL page we already have a note indicating why it is different than what people expect. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a note to the Canadiens' page. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I corrected a bit about the note as the Canadiens have actually won 27 total league titles. It almost seems like there should be another template parameter for "league_champions" with a clarification note that the parameter is for teams that existed prior to the Stanley Cup also being the league championship. On another note, what is our feelings on the infobox listing championship/Stanley Cups for year vs. season naming (ie, the Canadiens list is "1915–16, 1923–24, 1929–30..." when really they won the Cup in "1916, 1924, 1930..." as noted by the link titles themselves)? Using only the year where the Stanley Cup was played for would certainly save room and they did not play for the Cup in 1915, just after the 1915–16 season was done. Yosemiter (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting it. In addition, I would support listing the year of Stanley Cup (2017) instead of 2016–17 in the infobox. NBA pages use this approach and it is better. They also do the same for conference and division titles. While the team played during the 2016–17 season, they certainly claimed all the titles in 2017. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the season as that is what is listed on the actual banners for teams. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
More importantly, it's what's actually engraved on the Cup itself. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Good point. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Trevor Sherban

Hi everyone - can you please have a quick look at Trevor Sherban? His main claim to notability appears to be a first team all-star selection in the West Coast Hockey League, but if I have read Wikipedia:NHOCKEY and related info correctly, he doesn't meet the notability bar. Your opinions, please?! Thanks in advance, PKT(alk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Your presumption is correct; he doesn't. Ravenswing 23:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Player tenure with team

A recent edit modified Patrick Roy's tenure with the Montreal Canadiens to end in 1996. In a situation where a player is traded in the year when a season begins, should the player's tenure be shown to end in the year when the trade took place, or the year in which the season ends? isaacl (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think for tenure you would use the year they left the team not the season. Because tenure is an attempt to show length of time, and doing it to end of season would make the tenure seem longer than it was. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that using the actual year in which they left the team is ideal, I'm just thinking of how challenging that would be for articles such as all the "List of team name players", where right now they pretty much universally just cover the range of seasons, not years, that the player was on the team for. You'd literally need to look at game logs for each player to have ever played to clarify what calendar year their first and last game was in for that team. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We need clarification for sure. I followed the example of Guy Lafleur & Ken Drydren's entries, which shows 1971–1985 & 1970–1979 respectively. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ice hockey article

Has anyone noticed the persistent reverting of vandalism and non-constructive edits at the ice hockey article? Flibirigit (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me it might be a candidate for indefinite semi-protection. oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There've just been a couple of clear vandalism edits over the last three weeks; I wouldn't think this at all the level of disruption necessary for even temporary semi-protection. Ravenswing 17:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • We could use a few folks watching the article. I noticed that it is classified as high priority, but only a "B" grade. I hope it doesn't fall through the cracks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up articles with maintenance tags

What is the best way to find out which hockey articles have maintenance tags on them? For example, is there a Category:Unreferenced articles or similar means to identify them quickly? Flibirigit (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There isn't an easy way. You would have to compare a list of hockey articles vs. those articles in the maintenance category. When I do stuff like that I use some tools built into AWB to compare lists. Closest thing you could do without going through that much trouble is just look at Category:Ice hockey stubs or Category:Stub-Class Ice Hockey articles as if any articles are likely to be tagged its those. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The best thing I can find so far is Category:Articles lacking sources but they are not cross-referenced to ice hockey categories. Where would be the best place to suggest a cross-referenced category? Flibirigit (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I guess what I was trying to say is there is no cross-referenced categories. You have to come up with a list yourself manually through other tools like AWB. The only "issue" related categories that are specific to ice hockey are the stub and various other class categories. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You can try using the meta:PetScan tool to find pages that are contained in multiple categories. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed that maintenance tags are hidden categories. Flibirigit (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Nice I didn't realize there was a web tool that could compare categories like that now. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently MediaWiki search has supported searching for multiple categories since 2008 (but without subcategory searching). In one of the discussions on categorization (diffusing categories vs non-diffusing) someone brought up the CatScan tool as a way forward in future to avoid all of these intersecting categories ("Lilliputian ice hockey players"), which has now become the PetScan tool. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@isaacl, I will admit that I am pretty technologically challenged. My browser seems to be too old for those tools. Flibirigit (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@DJSasso, @isaacl would either of you be able to run the results and post them to the project? Also, is there a way that AAlertBot could alert us when an ice hockey article is tagged for maintenance? I spent the afternoon cleaning up Guelph Royals (ice hockey), now I need to go shovel the snow! Flibirigit (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I just discovered this handy broom box on the project page... seems the answer was right in front of me the whole time! Flibirigit (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I totally forgot that bot even existed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
We learn -- or relearn -- new things every day ! Flibirigit (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Worst Canucks coach ever?

Hey Vancouver Canucks fans... I have rewritten the article for the Bill LaForge. I'm interested in your thoughts on its talk page. @Nurmsook: and others, thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Curious why scores are presented as they are - convention in North America is typically to always put higher score first, regardless of winner, and my saying "2-7 loss" that already indicates in the context of sentence who wins or loses. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
That's how I wrote it. I'm open to changes at Talk:Bill LaForge. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Currently" does not belong on Wikipedia

All of us routinely come across articles that state a certain player "currently" plays for a team, club, or school. Articles within the scope of this project are some of the worst offenders; it is rare (or at least seems that way) that I come across a new article on a hockey player that does not state that he or she "currently plays" for some team.

What does "currently" mean? The statement does not age well; it may be overtaken by events very quickly, or slowly, but will be anachronistic at some time. There is guidance at MOS:CURRENT, which gives alternatives to the use of "currently" or "today".

Here's another one: Instead of writing that a hockey player "currently plays" for a team, write instead that the player was drafted; added to the roster; made the team, etc. on a certain date (listing that date). That way, if no one ever touches the article again, and it becomes outdated, at least it will still be true.

So please, please, lose the uses of "currently". Not only will it be inaccurate, it's poor writing. Kablammo (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

X person plays for Y team, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I wonder why I haven't heard this yet in twelve years of editing? Maybe we should have weekly MOS tips posted? Flibirigit (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I used to remove "currently", but there are certain people that keep reinstating it and then I decided to leave it alone. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"X plays for Y" is an improvement. "When in doubt, leave it out": there is no difference in meaning between "X currently plays for Y" and "X plays for Y", so the latter is to be preferred.
But "X plays for Y" is still in the present tense, and will become outdated. Kablammo (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Basketball pages use "Person X (born December 19, 2017) is an American basketball player for the Team Y of the League ABC.", which make it netural. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"X plays for Y" is no different than a description for any living person and stating such in the lead implies their notability in the simplest terms. You could state that any BLP present tense will eventually be outdated including the fact that the subject is alive. (I do agree that the use of "currently" is more problematic.) When you have BLP infoboxes that include parameters such as current team, there will inevitably have outdated info on lower levels of coverage, in all sports for that matter, while higher level of players typically remain updated. I tend to see far more out of date info for lower level basketball, association football, and American football athletes as this project usually chooses to delete the lower level player pages. Yosemiter (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This project is not the only one where "currently" is routinely used. It is a problem on many biographies, and other areas as well (I recently came across a claim that used "currently", citing it to a 20-year old source.) But we still do not use the present tense. The text of this version of Andy Welinski avoids that; it can be added to in the future (and the infobox will have to be updated), but its present text will still be true even if no longer complete. Kablammo (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course "it avoids that", because you changed it. Consider waiting until the discussion is over. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Check the timing, friend. I did edit it, then came here to discuss, as it is a common problem. I have restored my version (and removed the "currently"), so that my link above goes to a version which avoids that. Kablammo (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
As an editor has chosen to alter the version of the Andy Welinski article linked above (reverting to insert "currently"), I have provided a direct link to that version. Kablammo (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I can see why it can be a problem with some of the lesser maintained articles, however, not stating what the current team is in the lead leaves out one of the most important facts on a player. To use your example of Andy Welinski, I read that article and see he was drafted by Anaheim but I immediately asked but who does he play for. The draft team is very often not the team he is playing for. As a reader I would be immediately put off. We have many articles that are featured that have present tense in them, it is not banned, there are in fact times when it is needed. In the infobox we actually have a prospect team field that is intended to show all the time so that it is always correct and doesn't need to be changed each time a player is called up or sent down. Not sure why it was commented out in the case of this article as it was designed to avoid this very problem. Typically with prospects that are still bouncing up and down it is more appropriate to state they are playing in the system of the team than for the actual team so that the lead remains current through ups and downs as well. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course we should include the most current information. But we should not do so in such a fashion that it will become outdated if the article is not maintained. Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with certain information is that if you don't write it in present tense, you imply that it is no longer current. Even using past tense can be outdated "X joined the team on X date." will still be outdated when he joins another team or retires etc. It would be no more correct then using currently. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, Djasso. Using past tense will always be correct, even if outdated, while using currently will be incorrect whenever a change occurs, and will always end up being outdated. We are not writing a blog here, but an article which should be durable. Kablammo (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Failing to indicate a change is still failing to indicate a change whether you used past tense in the article or not. Either way you still didn't indicate the newest information and the article is thus wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
So let's not compound the wrong, OK? And if I did not include the most recent information, that is readily remedied without the use of "currently". Kablammo (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Then that is problem for every project in respect to BLPs. For example, if using your style of edit for Welinski, how would your edit Teddy Purcell? It would just say "Edward Purcell (born September 8, 1985) is a Canadian professional ice hockey right winger" in the lead with absolutely nothing else of value as no other of his individual contributions are more notable than another. He has won no major awards, no major championships, was undrafted, and has played for many teams, including his current one. It could be changed to "Edward Purcell (born September 8, 1985) is a Canadian professional ice hockey right winger and signed with Avangard Omsk of the Kontinental Hockey League on 26 October 2017", but as DJSasso points out, that too will eventually be irrelevant when and if he ends up on another team. Yes, there will inherently be issues with currented-ness of sports articles, but as I stated that is why these projects exist. Things do sometimes slip through the cracks, but that is always an issue for living people. Yosemiter (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I would say that he has played for that team since [whatever year] but would not use "currently". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kablammo (talk • contribs)
Which is of course present tense. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition to WP:CURRENT, WP:PRECISELANG and MOS:REALTIME bear on this issue. Kablammo (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

None of those actually prohibit present tense, they say things like where possible, when not redundant, and should not must. Rigid adherence isn't always the best solution. The specific word currently probably doesn't need to be used, but present tense itself in the case of teams that players are playing for is important in many cases. There are obviously times when it can be worked around, but that isn't always the case. Your example above for example would make for a horrible lead for an athlete bio in that it left out the piece of information a reader is most likely looking for. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
See my comments above. Kablammo (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Djsasso, this is about currently and similar terms, and has nothing to do with present (or other) verb tense. "The Fooian Bars are a Canadian ice hockey team based in Snorkelville, Saskatchewan" is present tense, has no "currently", and is how we write articles for anything that still exists (Xerxes II is largely in past tense because he's long dead and so his empire). Anyone unclear on linguistic terminology like present tense should probably steer clear of arguing about language see Dunning–Kruger effect, and just let those with a background in it proceed to apply the MoS in the way it says in plain English to apply it. PPS: When three guidelines indicate not to use "currently"-style wording (actually four – see also MOS:W2W), plus we have templates for flagging it as a cleanup problem, plus it's been discussed many, many times before with the same "don't do it" result, then it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Even one guideline was enough for you not to pursue this "give me my style or else" tactic. It's impossible for guidelines to "prohibit" anything, so "doesn't actually prohibit" is a non-argument. You need a defensible WP:IAR reason to ignore guidelines, and you don't have one. PS: You can even use "currently" in past tense ("She was currently working at Google, when I asked last week, but was looking for another job, so who knows?"), just not in encyclopedic writing. It's not a "tense" matter at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read the whole conversation, above when a number of alternatives were suggested Kablammo rejected them as still being present tense, which is why I have commented as I did. I am not even arguing to use the word currently, I believe I specifically said that as well. Maybe you need to step back and assume a little good faith instead of your typical attacking people methods. Seems to me that maybe it's someone else that needs to read up on the Dunning–Kruger effect. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: The discussion certainly started out being about the use of "currently" but definitely veered into Kablammo's removing of present tense as they stated in this response and this one. Kablammo cited their edit of turning Andrew Philip Welinski (born April 27, 1993) is an American professional ice hockey defenseman currently playing for the Anaheim Ducks of the National Hockey League (NHL). He was selected by the Ducks in the 2011 NHL Draft (3rd round, 83rd overall). into Andrew Philip Welinski (born April 27, 1993) is an American professional ice hockey defenseman. He was selected by the Anaheim Ducks of the National Hockey League in the 2011 NHL Draft (3rd round, 83rd overall). as better because it will never become outdated. Kablammo is 100% in that would not be out of date, but most likely is omitting/neglecting the second most import reason the subject is notable by removing Welinski's present team. I think you could agree the fact that a player is still playing, and where they are, to be more important than a more arbitrary draft position, which often has very little importance to a player's later career. Yosemiter (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Pointless hairsplitting. The case for using "play for X team" seems to be a clarity one, but the alternative isn't unclear at all. If he is (not "was") a player and was selected on X date for that team and hasn't left it, then he's playing for that team. No one isn't going to understand that unless their English skills are too poor to make much use of en.wp in the first place, I would think.

It's also fine to say he plays for that team, even though some day that won't be true. Could also use "has been playing for team X since" wording, which will also need changing some day. We don't care much about it. None of this is changing the article to past tense. That would be "was a professional hockey player". His selection for a team did happen in the past and that statement goes in past tense, and that's fine. It's just not the only way to present the info, just one we won't have to change any time soon. In short, this is WP:LAME.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Except that being selected by that team doesn't mean he is playing for that team. Most draft picks first go to a minor league team. So just stating he was drafted by an organization doesn't indicate who he is playing for. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Though he's the only one arguing his point, I tend to agree with what Djsasso (talk · contribs) is trying to state: it needs to be clear that the various players are currently with their respective teams. I have no strong preference to include "currently" or any iteration of that phrase, just so long as it's quite clear that the player is with that team. The above-mentioned ideas are largely not applicable here, as he's pointed out, and to continue to state that "currently" is unacceptable is not really constructive nor helping reach a solution, nor is coming in here and acting condescending towards users and their ability to use English. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, I'm not opposed to removing the use of "currently", but we need to be able to identify the current team that the individual plays for in a way other than "he signed with this team on this date". There are 5.5 million articles on Wikipedia; if anyone thinks they're always going to be 100% current, they are on the wrong website. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This isn't an English-skills problem so much as "reasoning clouded by heated argument" one. First mistaking "currently" for a tense matter, then use of past tense in one sentence about the past as changing the tense of the article. Now, this temporary inability to understand that if the lead identifies him as a living, playing pro on a particular team since X year, and doesn't then say that he died, retired, or left the team, then he's clearly still on the team. I mean, really, guys. I do not credit for a second the idea that our readers will not understand this, or we'd have to rewrite tens or hundreds of thousands articles to blatantly browbeat people with indications of what's going on right now. E.g., if the lead says "is an American journalist, who became the managing editor at Hoohaw Daily News in 2005, and won a Pulitzer Prize in 2007", without any indication these facts have changed ("She retired from journalism to write a novel in 2016"), then we do not need to state that the person still lives in the US, is still editing that paper, and did not have the award revoked. PS: The infobox and the article body will also state what the current team is. This is a non-issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
To be fair I didn't think this was even a heated discussion until you showed up acting all condescending. The wasn't being confused as a tense situation. The person who brought the complaint here, specifically said we can't use present tense, so they were challenged on that statement. I don't think anyone even said we couldn't use "X was on a team since X year." Quite the opposite, I was indicating that was preferable. What we objected to was completely removing mention of the fact the player was on a team at all. You seem to have missed the whole point of what was being discussed, and I don't mean that as an insult. Perhaps you are mistaking stating that someone was drafted by a team as being the same thing as being on a team, when it isn't. So saying someone was drafted by a team isn't conferring the same information as saying someone is playing on a team. There are thousands of players who are now on teams different than the team they were drafted by. That isn't even bringing into account that drafted players are often on a minor league team before they are on the team that drafted them. This is why their suggestion wasn't a good one. Not because we were trying to brow beat the reader into understanding what is going on right now. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
My !vote bullet below probably makes this moot, but I want to point out that when the most vocal party in the discussion is saying that guidelines don't apply because they're just guidelines and don't prohibit something, and making wiki-political digs like "Rigid adherence isn't always the best solution", etc., then the content is not what's under discussion. That's a WP:CONLEVEL power-struggle matter, especially when WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments like "We have many articles that are featured that have present tense in them, it is not banned" are also being relied on. What you interpret as condescension is WP:P&G-maintainer weariness and wariness about people turning trivial content disputes into "power to the wikiproject" lobbying, with bogus assertions about P&G and language which unravel when examined.

Digging back over the details: the drafting-team versus playing-team distinction was raised in there, but that's not actually central to the matter. "Was drafted by team X in year A, but joined team Y's roster as an active player in year B" is a valid approach to that distinction. But not required; it would also be valid (though less maintainable) to say "drafted by team X in year A, but playing for team Y since year B", or whatever. Tense adheres to facts within clauses, not to entire sentences much less entire articles.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well you are right it doesn't matter now, but I would indicate my adherence comment wasn't a wiki-political dig, it was a reference to an actual tenet of Wikipedia known as WP:IAR. I could care less about the politics of Wikipedia, which is why you rarely see me on any of the various boards discussing matters. I would also point out WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in deletion, it is not one when it comes to the MOS, because the MOS itself specifically says it isn't intended to guide editors on how to do things, but to describe how they already do them. As such, describing how articles which have been chosen to be among the best on the wiki do things is a very relevant argument. If this was such a trivial matter you shouldn't have come in here with some pretty nasty belittling. You aren't going to win people over to your way of thinking by insinuating they are idiots. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've no objection to deleting the term "currently". GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In the interests of peace: I don't object to going back to some kind of "is playing for team X" wording, as long as nothing like "currently" is present. (It's against various guidelines because a) it's redundant blather, and b) it implies a level of temporal verification/maintenance that WP cannot guarantee.) Our articles use a mishmash of "is/are/-ing" statements that will someday be outdated, and more future-proof ones using "was/were/-ed/had" about events fixed in time. And they always have. I would lean toward the latter for the reason that it requires less updating, but we have no site-wide standard on it, so WP:BRD and WP:STYLEVAR apply: in absence of a consensus to use "was drafted by team X in year A", "joined the roster of team Y in year B", then revert to the status quo ante, because either version is "acceptable".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

David Branch

I did a rewrite of the David Branch article. I am looking for suggestions at Talk:David Branch if you have any ideas. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

NHL helmet rules

I have done a complete rewrite for the George Parsons (ice hockey) and the George Parsons Trophy articles. I learned of Parsons involvement with CCM and helmets with faceguards. I remember as a kid that Craig MacTavish was the last helmetless player. I went searching on National Hockey League rules for a paragraph on equipment, but couldn't find anything. I did find a small blurb on John Ziegler Jr. instead. Does anyone have the expertise to help expand National Hockey League rules? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There's more information at Hockey helmet, but not very well referenced. Flibirigit (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Bower

Johnny Bower has died. If you have a chance please help out his article. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Tom Molyneux

I checked out the Library and Archives Canada website and I come across a very interesting WWI military records of Thomas Molyneux (November 27, 1893 - September 14, 1971). It says he was enlisted to the military on November 1914 in Toronto. Coincidentally, during 1914–15 NHA season, he played 2 NHA career games for the Toronto Shamrocks. So, I was wondering, is it possible that this was the same person? Thanks in advance. Marc87 (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Possible, yes, depending on when he was due to report and where he was mustered for training, but the season didn't start until late December. Do we have reason to believe it's the same Thomas Molyneux? Ravenswing 21:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Check the Veterans Affairs Canada web site. You can search on there, and get more information. Flibirigit (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
According to his WWI military records, page 52, he arrived in England on May 1915, which is about 2 months after the conclusion of 1914–15 NHA season. Marc87 (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but my question lingers: so there's a Tom Molyneux who played two games in 1915 for the Shamrocks. There's a contemporaneous Thomas Molyneux who served in WWI. What's the basis for believing they're the same fellow? Ravenswing 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we're going to need ironclad evidence that it's the same guy. Heck, I personally know a guy named Thom Molyneaux, only a slight spelling difference. So it's not exactly a unique name. oknazevad (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Players that fail NHOCKEY, but people still want articles

This project has set a precedent that if a player fails WP:NHOCKEY, there should be no article. The project has also set a precedent that is there a trophy named after an otherwise unnotable person, that the name should redirect to the trophy. For example, Mickey Renaud--> Mickey Renaud Captain's Trophy and Red Tilson --> Red Tilson Trophy.

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Mahon which is to the contrary of the precedent from this project. Your thoughts are appreciated. Flibirigit (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Lee Odelein

Hi there - can a few of you please have a look at Lee Odelein? I don't see that he meets WP:NHOCKEY, and I'd appreciate confirmation before I propose its deletion. Thanks in advance! ......... PKT(alk) 21:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Any redirect would run afoul of WP:XY, so yeah, looks like a delete to me. Ravenswing 22:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Didn't notice this section here before I removed the prod. His stick swinging incident received some coverage so there are sources out there. It may still be a delete but it definitely wasn't a delete by prod in my view. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive70&oldid=1051966926"