Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive81

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

2021 Stanley Cup Finals attendance

Every now and then someone makes an unsourced edit to 2020–21 Tampa Bay Lightning season‎ to change the attendance to 7,669 and 7,456 for Games 3 and 4 of the Finals, respectively. I revert them because the NHL game reports ([1], [2]) state 3,500 for each, as well as ESPN ([3], [4]). As far as I was aware, the Canadiens were denied their request to open the games up to more fans. Am I missing something? What's the official attendance for these games? Tampabay721 (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The game reports at NHL.com trump any source -- no matter how contradictory -- as to official game attendance; those are the "official" game attendances! Ravenswing 03:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Rogers Monday Night Hockey

There is a discussion opened at Talk:Rogers Monday Night Hockey#Level of detail that might be of interest to you, and I would invite your comments. Regards, PKT(alk) 16:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody correct these infobox titles?

I've come across Saint Mary's Huskies women's ice hockey and St. Francis Xavier women's ice hockey today, and the infobox for each shows "{{{sex}}} ice hockey" on the second line of the title bar in their infoboxes. They both use Infobox college ice hockey team. I can't determine what is causing this weird display. Can somebody please fix them, or is there a better infobox to use in these instances? Thanks,......PKT(alk) 23:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The cause for that weird display is a series of edits to Template:Infobox college ice hockey team by PensRule11385. When making such edits to a template, one has to go through all transclusions to fix any broken pages. PensRule11385: is there any reason why you didn't implement the change for Canadian teams? It seems to have generally been done for American teams, e.g. Special:Diff/1125574517. The options here are either to go through all the transclusions and do an edit similar to the previous one, or to revert the edits to the template. Fixing affected pages should be straightforward, but I think it'd be better to get a clarification about Canadian teams first. Maxim(talk) 23:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot to go through them. One thing I realized as I'm trying to edit the pages, however, is that essentially none of the school colors are in the university color module so I'll need to make a workaround. PensRule11385 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the two issues I wrote about yesterday, PensRule11385. If I find any others, I will let you know. Cheers, PKT(alk) 16:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
If we're going to use that template for Canadian University teams, we should be able to change the spelling of colour like we can in the regular hockey infobox.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I've rolled back the |sex= changes and made the template just pull from the pagename; this should satisfy everyone and still give all of the pertinent information. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bruins alternate captains (again)

@Aria1561: is the latest editor to argue that the Bruins have 'more' then two alternate captains. Recommend we just include Pastranak & McAvoy. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I am not arguing anything. The rosters for the 2023 Winter Classic had Pastrnak and Marchand as alternate captains. The roster template used on that article is meant to represent the players who actually took part in the game and not just the general active roster for the team; notice how I haven't altered the alternate captains for Template:Boston Bruins roster. Note that players such as Kris Letang (who is typically an alternate captain for Pittsburgh) and A. J. Greer are not included in the roster template for the Winter Classic article – this is because that template, once again, is meant to represent the players who took part in the game and not the general active roster including scratched players, and that should in turn reflect who was an alternate captain for just that game. This is what I am trying to say, and evidently you are making a case for something completely different. Aria1561 (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Was Krejci in the lineup or not? We've had editors this season, telling us the Bruins have 'four' alternate captains. Krejci, Marchand, McAvoy & Pastrnak. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Are you still not understanding my point? Pastrnak was given the A for this game despite Krejci being part of the roster. The roster template is meant to reflect the rosters for just the one single Winter Classic game and whoever actually participated in it. I frankly do not care for the discourse surrounding who is listed as the Bruins alternate captains on the general active roster, it is completely irrelevant to the roster template used for the Winter Classic's article. The procedure for Winter Classic articles (and any other articles for single games) is to have roster templates reflect just the one game the article covers which includes the alternate captains for just that game and not the alternate captains who are listed for the general roster. I would prefer it if you choose to start understanding my point now because this is getting rather ridiculous. Aria1561 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Since Krejci was in the game & wasn't wearing the letter. Then it's obvious, the Bruins have more then two alternate captains. GoodDay (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Again, that is not what I am attempting to discuss. I do not wish to participate in the discourse regarding the Bruins' alternate captains for the general active roster. As long as you agree that the roster template for the 2023 Winter Classic's page is correct, I have no reason to continue this discussion. Aria1561 (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I have this page on my watchlist. You don't have to keep pinging me. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it is NOT obvious. There is a big difference -- and you shouldn't need educating on this score, given how focused you are on captaincy -- between who a team appoints as permanent assistant captains, and the guys they stick with an "A" for certain games due to injuries, other roster maneuvers, or simple "Hey, Pasta's playing well lately, let's give him a 'gimmie' for the special game" stunts. Aria's points are clear and comprehensively stated, and you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Ravenswing 09:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, we can't all be perfect like you, Ravenswing. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Links above infoboxes

I am looking for thoughts from this project on the links in {{Infobox NCAA ice hockey season}}. Currently, both NCAA and (if called for) Division I/II/III are linked at the top of the infobox. Normally, that would not be a huge issue, but PensRule11385 is quite insistent that the option for colouration (which was not in the template until earlier this week) be included in the header. Colouring the headers means that one also has to account for the colouration of the links, otherwise you could end up with (for example) a blue background with blue wikilinks.

My question(s): do we need to link to the NCAA and the division the team plays for? And/or, should the headers even have a colour option? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Although these are not section headings, I feel the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Section headings should nonetheless apply, and headings shouldn't have links. (This is a long-standing best practice for web content.) If there are links in a heading, they should have visible formatting indicating that they are links, so that readers will know. Thus the colour of the link text shouldn't be changed to match the colour of the surrounding text. Regarding using a background colour: to better support accessibility, the ice hockey wikiproject has agreed on using colour borders around headings instead. I appreciate, though, that other relevant wikiprojects may have different views on using background colours. isaacl (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, since the template is in the purview of this project... ;-) Glad to know there's a standard here. Will wait for other opinions but that might be the way to go forward. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
My apologies; that was just shorthand for "interested editors from other applicable topic areas", since this wikiproject has no special claim to enact a local consensus. Looking at the equivalent generic league example, {{Infobox ice hockey team season}} just uses a grey background in the heading (and, contrary to my viewpoint, does use links in the heading). isaacl (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I suppose the equivalent being used for, say, NHL seasons is {{Infobox sports season}}. On NHL season pages, it's also used with just a grey background for the heading, but no links. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I dislike the use of colour coding. Colours are for images or the team's logo. Simple black and white is sufficient for text. Flibirigit (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional input requested

A discussion at this template could use some extra input from this project. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Page merger

Kiekko-Espoo and Espoo Blues should be merged in my opinion.

Discussion: talk:Kiekko-Espoo#Merger with Espoo Blues?

--Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 15:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Bruins & Coyotes

@206.47.249.246: & @206.172.0.204: (likely the same individual) is requesting updates to the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains, concerning the Bruins & Coyotes. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dead links

Please go to the 2007 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships article and replace all those references with the Wayback Machine versions. I think it could be done. It's about half an hour of work, but I don't feel like it. Thanks. Maiō T. (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel like it either, as it happens. Ravenswing 17:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done. I did it by myself. Maiō T. (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Bruce Boudreau firing

Bruce Boudreau was fired by the Canucks. Since this is a in-season firing, would it be accurate if it was mentioned in the 2022–23 NHL season article? Thanks and regards. The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup - there's a table for that, and the coaching change has been added......PKT(alk) 20:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Dominik Hašek
  2. Joe Sakic
  3. Martin Brodeur
  4. Stanley Cup

Good article reassessment for Ice Hockey World Championships

Ice Hockey World Championships has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've contributed a bit to that page, in the last year or so. But, some of the more knowledgeable ice hockey editors, have gradually moved on from Wikipedia. Kinda unofficial retirements or semi-retirements. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

NHL rosters & flags

Earlier today, an IP made a change at the Seattle Kraken's roster. Giving an Austrian born player, a Swedish flag. This was due to the player living & (I assume) having played for Sweden in international tournaments. If it were up to me? I'd have all flags removed from the NHL rosters, as it's the NHL & not the IIHF. But since the flags are there, which should we use? Birth country flag? or (if not the same country) residency flag. Note - This isn't about players whose birth countries ceased to exist during their lifetimes. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

All flags should be deleted in rosters of professional sports teams. It violates MOS:FLAG when the person is representing a professional team, instead of their nation. Flibirigit (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, we list the flag of the country for which a player has played. – sbaio 15:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Flags are shown for national teams, but the trigger is the "ntl_team" parameter in the infobox. PKT(alk) 15:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to split an article into two, but i don't know if I can do that

Hello! I think that the "History" section of Porin Ässät (men's ice hockey) should be in a seperate article, since that section is pretty long. The problem is that i don't know if i can do that. --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 21:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You absolutely can; a number of the NHL team articles do exactly that. See History of the Detroit Red Wings, for example. You just want to leave a hatnote on the history section of the original article, but hiving history off is fairly straightforward. Ravenswing 11:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Still haven't done it (laziness), but i will do it during my usual "staying up late so I can read/write Wikipedia at 3AM" session. Now, I'd love to have your overall opinion on the article. I'm 100% sure there are like a million grammar mistakes but my Finnish brain just cannot find them XD --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 19:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've gone over the History article and done some tweaking, but I've a few extra comments:

* First off, it's citation-light; I could have "citation needed" templated it to death, but I'll leave it up to you to work it out.

* You mention the Rosenlew company in passing, but if this was the firm that founded the team, that needs to be stated up front, and preferably in more detail.

* "The problem for the Karhut was the economic downturn ..." What economic downturn?

Alright ... I've done a little work, but I also have the new History of the Boston Bruins article to revise (heavily), but at least it's a start. Ravenswing 20:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! It is really hard to find sources for this, since really the only sources are books that my local library doesn't have, but I'll try my best. --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 23:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Connor McDavid

An editor has added Connor McDavid to Category: Canadian expatriate ice hockey players in the United States, with which I disagree. Please let us know what you think. Thank you, PKT(alk) 02:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  • What I think is that the category is badly overstuffed. I'm very far with agreeing with Crowsus' nonsensical "these categories refer to any time in their career" -- not when there's any actual formal definition of the cat -- and believe the category should only be used for the Espositos, Orrs, Parks and Berensons of the sport: the ones with a documented history of permanently settling in the United States in their post-playing careers. It should absolutely not be used for players who as a teenager happened to play a handful of seasons for a US-based junior league team. Ravenswing 05:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with PKT and Ravenswing, there needs to be some element of qualification applied here. For now, the only one I reverted was this edit at Marian Stastny, as the article content does not support adding him to any categories as a Canadian. (But if it did, that's even more dubious - 27 games at the end of his career in Switzerland.) Echoedmyron (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I too agree with Ravenswing and PKT. Masterhatch (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm honestly of the opinion that categories like this are not really defining, and don't really see the use of having them at all. Though by the wording of them it would seem that McDavid would technically fall under the purpose of them, but I'm not strongly for or against it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

RM at NHL Conference Finals page

An RM has been opened, concerning capitalisation. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

LA Kings third jersey

I’m not familiar with the jersey template of NHL teams, but there is a jersey on the Kings page that is now out of date (from 2021) and needs to be replaced. Any way to change this? Marino13 (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the image. User:Silent Wind of Doom no longer updates the NHL jersey images, so you can either be bold and update it yourself, or just remove the image from the article if you feel it's inaccurate. 162 etc. (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Module:Sports roster

Just want to let everyone know that Module:Sports roster/NBA has been created back in December 2022 and its creator thought (without any consensus) that it could be implemented for ice hockey rosters (for example, Template:Boston Bruins roster/sandbox). The attempt was made at TKH Toruń, which I reverted. – sbaio 09:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

List of NHL records (individual)

Hello everyone! The template at the top of List of NHL records (individual) when trying to edit says "PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE STATISTICS FROM THE 2017–18 NHL SEASON. THEY WILL BE REVERTED." I would like that to be updated to reflect the current season but, alas, I do not have the required permissions. Can an admin or a template editor take care of that for me? Masterhatch (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I found out how to change it - I assume 2017-18 should be changed to 2022-23, correct? It seems like a stupid question but I'm good at asking them  :) PKT(alk) 16:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I believe it can only be done by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Ahh - dang, so close! I put in a request to have it updated. PKT(alk) 16:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This has now been taken care of, thanks to Masterhatch sorry, that should be Paine Ellsworth........... PKT(alk) 20:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • That's great! Maybe I should apply for template editor so I can take care of stuff like without needing help. Masterhatch (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: tables versus lists for first and last games

@Ravenswing has recently begun changing the first/last game tables on season articles, shifting from tables listing the player, their final team, and their notability, to simple bullet-point lists of the players and their last team. I've been reverting the edits for now as they go against the implicit consensus of season pages - i.e., no other editors have attempted to remove the tables in recent memory and they've been around as long as I've been editing them (approx. the 2017-18 season). However, I understand an implicit consensus is inherently unclear, and can change over time, so I'd like to open up a debate in order to establish a more explicit guideline/practice on what we should be doing with regard to this topic. In short:

  • Option 1: Retain the tables, listing the player, their final team, and notability.
  • Option 2: Switch over to the bullet-point lists, listing the player and their final team.
  • Option 3: Switch over to a bullet-point list of the players and their accomplishments, omitting final teams. This is how retirements are typically handled for notable players on NFL and NBA season pages, per BattleshipMan.

The Kip (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Added option 3. The Kip (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Inviting @Sbaio, @Ho-ju-96, @Zzyzx11, @BattleshipMan, @Ralphierce @GoodDay, @Xolkan to comment as semi-frequent to frequent season-page editors. The Kip (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for me, personally, due to both aesthetics and context within the article. Aesthetically, as silly as it may sound, the tables look more refined/formatted when reading through the article, as opposed to a stacked bullet-pointed list. More importantly, though, they provide context; with a list, we're giving readers simply a list of "notable" players, without clarifying to the reader why anyone listed is notable. The tables accomplish this via a short blurb listing off said players' accomplishments. The Kip (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I've never been a fan of the table form for lists of names, fwiw. PS - This includes lists of general managers, coaches & captains in NHL team pages, where a few of the teams use it. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1: It is useful, due to the fact that the players who played first and last games have notability like high number of games played, All-Stars, Stanley Cup champions, winners of certain trophies and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, because first/last games sections were always bulleted lists until someone came and changed it without any consensus. – sbaio 07:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1: I prefer the option to explain and give context as to why those players are notable. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Exactly, that's kind of how I see it. The bulleted list may have been around, but's old and it's no longer useful. It's time to explain readers why these players are notable. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, I don't really mind either of the ways we do this but I would vote for a bulleted list. Xolkan (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: obviously. The bulleted lists have been around since the sections started, they still comprise the great majority of the season sections in question, and there is a very easy way for readers to find out why these players are notable: click on the links and read the articles. Those lists converted to tables were changed without seeking any consensus to do so, and there was a discussion at the time demonstrating a consensus against the action. I understand how a relative project newcomer like The Kip might not be aware of this, but that's scarcely an excuse. Ravenswing 15:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    • No, it's not an excuse. Clicking the links doesn't make it easier as you think. The bulleted list is outdated and it's not convenient as you think. It never reveals why players listed are notables on the NHL season articles, which is why the tables are there for. There's no reason to remove that in NHL season articles for the players' notability. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    • The issue with having the users simply click and read the articles if they desire to find notability is twofold, however.
    First off, these articles aren't exactly concise on notability either; one will either have to read quite a lot of prose, or scroll all the way to the Honors and Awards table, which some articles do not have.
    Second, going by WP:USE:
    Users (new and old) will not sit quietly and slowly read a webpage from start to finish. - They will quickly scan for words/phrases or colorful icons/buttons that catch the eye. Wikipedia is a little different in that the user may be expecting a lot of information and may read longer, but they will still get bored easily. Users don't want to have to figure things out for themselves.
    and also by the spirit of WP:RF.
    Notability qualifications within the table quite simply increase ease of reading for article viewers, not all of whom may be familiar with these players; although we may inherently know why said player is notable, many won't off the top of their head. Simply put, it's on us to make the article readable, not on readers to do their own research, as you suggest. The Kip (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I can see the argument for a table, but it looks a bit heavy when compared to the preceding subsection where a bulleted list is appropriate. Deadman137 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Problem is though it's doesn't make a convenient for users to click on links to those players played their first and last seasons to learn of their notability, which is why having a table about their notability makes it easier. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    I suppose it could look heavy, but it's also for a fundamentally different purpose than the preceding section; we also don't want the article to become a pile of lists. The Kip (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 The problem I find with the table is that the team listed undermines the team they spent most of their career with. Such as Duncan Keith with Edmonton, Mikko Koivu with Columbus, etc. I personally like how the NFL and NBA wikis handle their retirements section. Also, this section should be listed as "Retirements," not "Last games." Just as a side, players who died during the regular season maybe should not be on the "Last games" section. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    As for your first point, it's unfortunately just how it is. It's even worse sometimes with the transactions page; as least Henrik Lundqvist and Corey Crawford's last games are listed as Rangers/Blackhawks, instead of Capitals/Devils due to their contracts.
    Retirements and last games are separated by notability in effect, transactions pages are where we list all retirements while last games is only of players meeting notability qualifications.
    Death is perhaps morbid, but it's listed as a notability qualification. The Kip (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I was pinged to this conversation. I looked at the diffs for the last few seasons and I see no need for the tables but at the same time, they don't hurt either. I did notice that the milestones section below the first and last games (Major milestones reached) was not put into a table. I think aesthetics plays a big part in all this and so as long as there's some degree of consistency with all the NHL season pages, either tables or no tables should be ok. That's my two bits, for what its worth. Masterhatch (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    I suppose the milestones section is that way because that content (simply "On X day, Y player does Z") is more legible in prose, rather than attempting to list off one's accomplishments. Tables work better for the latter. The Kip (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative for a compromise

I have an alternative for a compromise if the discussion of options continue on. The NFL season articles has a bulleted list of players who retired that lists notable achievements to their careers, like Pro Bowls, how many Super Bowls they won and notable trophies they won. We may use that for the first and last games. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal, but I'd argue that'd be the worst option of the three - it's clustered and not well-formatted. The Kip (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
It's actually a little better than you think. The bulleted list without any list of notability is outdated and doesn't provide necessary things that the tables do have. Also, Conyo14 somewhat agrees with the idea I thought of with some tweaks to it and agrees on how the NFL and NBA handles those things. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm striking my prior comment, going by my own above usage of WP:USE and WP:RF, as well as the way retirements are formatted on both NFL and NBA season pages. I still prefer the tables, but it's a better solution than "let the readers figure it out." The Kip (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I still prefer the tables too. But with the way the vote is going, we may have to use that option. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Mass draftification proposal on Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions

I've started a discussion that could use this project's input at the idea lab village pump. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators

IPs trying to push that the Ottawa Senators are a continuation of the original Senators. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  • The spiritual successors, honoring the original Ottawa Hockey Club, yes. Winners of 11 Stanley Cups, no. I think there is some reverence towards the original team. They wear the original logos in reverence and for marketing. Ottawa is proud of their hockey history, and connecting with the original is good marketing. (And also, lots of people dislike the current logo) But, they are sloppy about it. One of the current team logos, on the jerseys, claims a 1894 establishment, which is rubbish. It's worthy of being mentioned in the marketing of the current team, but it is important to note that the clubs are distinct legally. I would support a temporary block of editing. Alaney2k (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    The IPs smell of socks. Semi-protect the article. BilCat (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah ... one wonders whether this is UrbanNerd, back to his own socking tricks. Ravenswing 22:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The Wild pay homage to the North Stars, the Avalanche pay homage to the Rockies, the Jets pay homage to the original Jets. Nothing special, about the Senators homage, to the original Senators. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
You have misrepresented my position. I do not believe that the Senators are a continuation of the old team, as you say in your post above. I am asking you to provide a reliable source for your assertion that the Senators do not claim to be a continuation of the old team. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
And I'm asking you to read over WP:BRD, three times you've made unsourced changes to the Senators page. You need a consensus for the change you want to make. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I have not made unsourced changes to the Senators page. I have removed your unsourced changes. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources certifying that this is a new franchise have already been proffered, and have been proffered for the better part of twenty bloody years. If you want to change that, produce reliable sources to the contrary. If, instead, you're actually demanding that we produce a source certifying that the team has made no claim to be the original franchise, you can't prove a negative, and frankly you're being disruptive with this inane edit war. Ravenswing 22:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I am not arguing that this is not a new franchise. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Mr. IP, the simplest test of whether the new is a continuation of the old is to look at the official records kept. How are the Ottawa Senators listed in the list of Stanley Cup Champions? 0-1, or 4-2? Zaathras (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, you are misrepresenting my positon. I am not arguing that the new is a continuation of the old. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
No-one is misrepresenting you. You changed the founding date to 1883 here. So, you're lying then, and lying now. Zaathras (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry. That was a mistake. I was trying to revert GoodDay's edit that added the explanation (some of it based on false information) about not changing the founding date. It was not my intention to change the founding date at all. If you look at my original edits, you will see what I was intending to do. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok then, we're talking about your continued insistence on this edit, but there's no basis in reality for that either. Teams at times show appreciation or do some kind of tribute for a defunct or departed team that used to be in the same city, but that does not equate to a continuation. What you're suggesting here something that has rarely happened in American or Canadian pro sports. The expansion Cleveland Browns acquired the franchise records of the old Cleveland Browns, when that team relocated and became the Baltimore Ravens. Since then, similar situations of varying comparability have popped up, but the Senators are not counted among them. Zaathras (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

IP 186.4.1.34 is at it again. Only way to stop him, is to have him blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who insists on inserting unsourced information. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Let me spell this out in very simple words: the information has been sourced. Many times. For many years. It is not remotely in dispute, and you don't even dispute it, do you? -- you're just being disruptive for the sake of disruption. Any further interaction with you seems to be just feeding the trolls. If the only way out of this is for your address to be blocked for edit warring, fair enough. Ravenswing 03:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

BilCat & Ravenswing are likely correct. The IP is probably a signed-out block evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the information that I am disputing is not the founding date. It was a mistake that I changed that when I reverted too many edits. I am disputing GoodDay's assertion that the new Sens have never pretended to be the old Sens, an assertion that has not bee sourced. Not many times. Not for many years. I am not a block-evading editor. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you create an account. Masterhatch (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
You cannot prove a negative. Find reliable sources claiming that they have. Ravenswing 02:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

List of international games?

I wrote a list of international matches (kinda like they do in football/soccer articles) for this page. I never asked if that is acceptable in hockey articles, so i'll just ask it now. Is it okay? --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources for the games, then it should be good. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Properly cited it is acceptable as a list on the team's article. I doubt it would be notable for a standalone list. See WP:NLIST for a detailed explanation. Flibirigit (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I have cited Jatkoaika and Urheilu Pori. Is that good enough? --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 09:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge: NHL on Versus into NHL on NBC; dated: February 2023. Proposer's Rationale: Both networks were owned by the same company and there were many similarities in their coverage. They might as well be one and the same. ~100.7.44.80. Discussion input welcome.GenQuest "scribble" 14:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Curtis Joseph

Curtis Joseph has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship of Tkachuk brothers

Do Brady Tkachuk and Matthew Tkachuk have Canadian citizenship? Because there is an NHL source that says their mother is from Winnipeg, and the Government of Canada quite clearly say that you receive the citizenship if at least one parent is a Canadian citizen. Meanwhile, two editors (registered and an IP) seem to be edit warring over it. In addition, the registered editor seems to change its opinion when looked at the edit histories of both pages so that does not help either. – sbaio 16:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The government of Canada source isn't actually clear on that. The phrasing "you’re likely a Canadian citizen" makes room for exceptions. While I don't think the Tkachuks would have something that would make them the exception, that's not something we can verify as fact (not to mention this also doesn't negate the potential fact he could have renounced the citizenship privately if he ever held it...). Without a source that explicitly states they have Canadian citizenship, this is nothing more than conjecture and synthesis of two differing sources (which amounts to WP:OR). Leventio (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding Woman league on the NHL infobox

I tried to add The Woman league Affiliate teams to the Minnesota Wild and Boston Bruins infoboxs and I could only add the league on the minor-league affiliate it is a part of the NHL. like the NBA WNBA. is there a way to Woman league Affiliate on the infobox in its own spot? FYE31 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "affiliate" when it comes to teams in the hockey world has one meaning: either a farm team affiliated with its major league club, or a major league club referring to its farm teams. No team in the PHF has farm teams. Whatever the formal relations may (or may not) be between the Bruins/Wild and the Pride/Whitecaps, it is not an "affiliation" in the hockey sense. If there is anything to any partnership the teams purportedly have beyond that the Bruins and the Wild let the PHF teams use their practice arenas, it has not made it into the respective articles. Perhaps you can start with that ... but do be aware that despite your unsourced assertions on Good Day's user talk page that the PHF is "part of the NHL!", nothing could be further from the case. Ravenswing 21:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The Pride and the Bruins are "promotional partners" (Forbes). It is not an affiliate relationship. I don't think this is infobox-worthy, but could be included somewhere in the article body. of both articles. Zaathras (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Mm, but in practice, what has it amounted to? The number of "partnerships" sports teams enter with various entities (one another included) could go ten thousand deep. Damn near every sports team in the Boston area from the baseball Braves on forward have "partnered" with the Jimmy Fund charity or Boston Children's Hospital over the years, for instance. Ravenswing 21:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok is it still possible to add the partnerships team still? FYE31 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
No. Why? Can you name a single, significant, tangible product of these "partnerships?" Ravenswing 07:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see this as comparable to the Jimmy Fund, that an agreement between a franchise and a charity. This is franchise to franchise, they have formed these in order to give the new women's league a leg up and save on operational costs. Zaathras (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason to list a promotional partnership in the infobox, unless we're just deciding to list off ALL promotional partners of the team (like Coca-Cola, etc, which is a promotional partner/corporate sponsor as well). In saying that, I would think whatever promotional relationship the NHL shares with the PHF (thats sourced), could be expanded at National Hockey League#Corporate sponsors. Leventio (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced ice hockey BLPs

There are currently 100 ice hockey players listed at Category:All unreferenced BLPs. I highly encourage everyone to fix some of them if you get the chance, as unreferenced BLPs are a high priority issue. An always up to date Petscan list can be found here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff! Ravenswing 01:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The total of unreferenced ice hockey biographies is likely much higher. Too many editors created such stubs and never returned to improve said stubs. Flibirigit (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal at Template:Infobox ice hockey biography

There is a proposal at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography#Add Infobox Fields to add additional fields to the infobox. Please give your opinion there. – sbaio 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Page assessment

Hi
I'm fairly new to this, what is the process for having articles assessed to determine their class. Mitch Love is an article I expanded significantly upon, to the point I no longer believe it classifies as a stub. Jérémie Poirier is an article I wrote myself. Both likely rank as mid importance.
Sorry for asking if this isn't the right place. IceBergYYC (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone is able to update the assessment. If you are uncomfortable doing so, please wait for another user to do it. Please see Wikipedia:Content assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Assessment for details.Flibirigit (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: tables versus lists for first and last games

I'm bringing this discussion back to help because I disagree with the bullet-point lists which means nothing without notability. I honestly prefer tables that lists players, their first/final team, and notability. I disagree with both Ravenswing and Sbaio stances on the bullet-point lists on that because notability would mean something of those articles and they and others for voted for bullet-point lists don't see it that way. So I going to have a plan of change of consensus that will have player's notability and accomplishment lists on them with whatever lists we can do (I prefer tables to be honest with you). So these are two options. Either way, there is no way we're not leaving each player's notability unlisted in these season pages.

  • Option 1: Retain the tables, listing the player, their final team, and notability.
  • Option 2: Switch over to a bullet-point list of the players and their accomplishments, omitting final teams. This is how retirements are typically handled for notable players on NFL and NBA season pages.
Inviting @Ho-ju-96, The Kip, Masterhatch, Zzyzx11, Masterhatch, Ralphierce, GoodDay, Conyo14, Deadman137, Xolkan, Kilaseell, Pavexim, and Mushh94: to comment as semi-frequent to frequent season-page editors. I'm sure Ravenswing and Sbaio will respond to this. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I prefer 2, would also recommend not mentioning any team. Just the player's name would do. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I also prefer this method, but adding in a milestone or NHL record probably doesn't hurt. Conyo14 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 We don't need to list the final team a player played for as we already have the transaction article that covers this. We could link to the relevant retirement table for the season at the top of the section for most of the 21st century seasons. Deadman137 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, because that was used in the past and someone just came over and changed it to tables without any consensus. In addition, the NHL season pages are already rather large (and probably one of the better maintained sports pages) so these extra tables do not really improve it. – sbaio 03:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, I like what the NBA and NFL does, plus adding the final team delegitimizes the accomplishments they had with a specific team. Conyo14 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Or ... we could always do it as we did for many years: bulletpoint, player, final team. Those who want to know the players' accomplishments can click on the links and read their articles. Ravenswing 05:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    That is not an option. You are used to this layout for so many years and it's a time for a change. It will be better to show the player's achievements in first and last games and clicking on links to see those accomplishments is not that convenient. Even Sbaio agrees with Option 2. I still prefer option 1 and several other editors do too. If you want, you can add player's names, final teams and their achievements with the bulletpoints. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    Ahem. What is an option or not is up for editors to decide generally. Neither you nor any one editor gets veto power over the process. Ravenswing 14:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    Because notability would mean something in NHL season pages and clicking on player's links is not very convenient to know their achievements. If editors want a easier way to know each player's accomplishments without clicking links to said players, including notability in each season pages is a way to do that. Even some editors agree with it. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    I only chose "option 2", because there were no other options. Do not make an assumption that I am in full agreement with your proposals. – sbaio 17:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • OPTION 2 I just like it :D -- Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 It's tells you more and such. But we will settle for Option 2 is if it get more votes. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oprtion 4: Delete all the lists and tables as a collection of mostly unsourced WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT violations. Flibirigit (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Who invited you? MLB, NBA, and NFL all do this AND it's all sourced. This also not trivia considering it's the NHL season article. Finally, this is not Fancruft as a large majority of the Wiki readers will enjoy seeing who has officially retired, milestones, first games for high picks, etc. Conyo14 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    That option is out of the question, per Conyo14's explanation to you and that is neither trivial nor fancruft. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Anyone is allowed to comment, and nobody has to be "invited" to a conversation. Flibirigit (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    My comment is meant as satire, mainly because your viewpoint is signifying a larger issue you're trying to resolve. An issue I along with the editors at the NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL don't see. It just seems you're grasping at straws, especially since every milestone, last game, first game, and special contribution is religiously sourced. I can not rule out your option, nor can any other editor, but I also think your basis of it seems unsourced. Conyo14 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Your option is out of the question, Flibirigit. Any notable player who had such achievements like played 1,000 NHL games, trophies, how many Stanley Cup wins, All-Star games and such shouldn't be deleted because of your thoughts on this and it never fits for consensus. Not a lot of people will like your option here. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Conyo, exactly what "larger issue" am I trying to solve here? Please elaborate. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    First off, "delete all the lists and tables as a collection" I'd assume means the retirements section, but then we become inconsistent with the other sports articles. If you see the last games, first games, and milestones section as an issue with it existing, then it becomes a larger issue in consistency with other articles. Conyo14 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    I do not understand why you assumed that I referred only to retirements. I have no clue what is meant by "a larger issue in consistency with other articles". Please clarify. Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    How can I be more clear? You have commented an option to delete all lists and tables. Like 2022 Major League Baseball season#Retirements, 2022 NFL season#Retirements, 2021–22 NBA season#Retirements has the same thing just in a different format. This section refers to first and last games, which we only say last games because what if the player died mid-season. By deleting this we become inconsistent with these articles. Is this what you want? Conyo14 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    I have said nothing about baseball, basketball or football. Why is it so important to you that ice hockey be like other sports? Flibirigit (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think I'm done feeding you here. Deleting makes it inconsistent is all. Conyo14 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Insisting that I am a troll is an unprovoked personal attack. I have said nothing personal about you, and have tried to understand where you are coming from. Flibirigit (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • In the interest of working towards a consensus decision, I urge commenters not to disparage the viewpoints of others or to categorically rule them out as a possible consensus view. Please try to keep the discussion constructive. isaacl (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    It won't be easy, but we'll try our best to keep it that way. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    To list one specific example, I suggest not telling people their opinion is out of the question, as it gives the impression that you are defining what are the valid options. It's not too hard to skip saying this and just start with the substantive portions of your comment. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Isaccl: First of all, I don't agree with Flibirigit's option. That user's suggestion doesn't help improve anything and is not valid. All it will do is cause issues regarding information on which notable players who started first games in season and notable players who retired that season. It will create inconsistency with these NHL season articles. Also, we need some information about the notability of these players who earned achievements, such as playing above 1,000 NHL games, winning specific trophies, number of Stanley Cup wins and how many All-Stars they got. We need a good format for these NHL season articles to have all that, like some season articles in the MLB, NFL and the NBA. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I've read all your earlier comments already; repeating your points is unnecessary. There is of course no problem in disagreeing with others. Just skip over the part where you appear to be personally ruling out another person's view. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the other leagues noted here, and really do not like the setup for both the NBA and NFL. It is very cluttered and confusing, and not helpful at all. If we are going for anything, keep it like what the MLB pages has, short and simple. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I rather not have to click links to see player's accomplishments when they retired in those season pages. It's not very convenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree with that, Battleshipman. It's the whole point of Wikipedia - ie, if you want more info, click on the link. PKT(alk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Names of ice hockey championship articles

I would like to unify article name formats. Some are in plural, some are with dashes... See these three examples:

What do you think it should look like? Maiō T. (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, it should look like what the organizers CALL it. Ravenswing 07:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Good idea, Ravenswing. I searched on the internet and found the following official tournament names:
  • 2008 IIHF World U18 Championship Division II
  • 2017 IIHF Ice Hockey U18 Women's World Championship Division I
  • 2023 IIHF Ice Hockey U20 World Championship Division III
Things start to get complicated. It won't be as easy as I thought. Any idea what to do with it? Maiō T. (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure. If, for instance, the 2023 WJC is labeled as a "Championship" instead of "Championships," go for a page move. Ravenswing 18:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: The 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships article deals with six world championships (or divisions/groups/tournaments) so the plural is practically correct. We could create a new article that discusses only the Top Division; the name could be 2023 IIHF World Junior Championship (official tournament name as used by the IIHF). It already works for senior championships; compare 2023 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships and 2023 IIHF World Championship. What do you think? Maiō T. (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: It's done. Now we have one parent article: 2023 Junior Ice Hockey World Championships and four child articles:
I hope Wikipedia users will like it. Maiō T. (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
No, they don't like it. The 2023 Junior Ice Hockey World Championships article has been renamed twice in the last few days to 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. Maiō T. (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: In 2012, the IIHF slightly changed the name of the championship. So I have to rename all WJHC articles since 2012. The format of article names should look like those four (2023) wikilinks above. Maiō T. (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what's been attempted here, but the WJC pages have been made confusing. Particularly when one clicks to the preceding & succeeding tournament pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

On WP:NHOCKEY

To my eyes WP:NHOCKEY has a couple issues I'd like to discuss.
The first of which is the definition of "preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, First-Team All-Star)". Obviously, other "preeminent" honors exist, so are we saying that strictly a first-team all-star award/all time top 10 satisfy NHOCKEY, or can other honors satisfy this.

Secondly, the line "For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines." leaves a lot to be desired. How can a coach or manager be named a first-team all-star or top 10 scorer? IceBergYYC (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Some leagues name a coach as part of their hypothetical all-star teams. The intended top-ten meaning for coaches would be games won. Please note there is an active discussion earlier on this page about eliminating NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Beyond that, that language was there prior to participation criteria being deprecated. As far as expanding what is meant by "preeminent honors," absolutely bloody not. The whole reason for listing precisely what was meant by it is that editors hellbent on flooding Wikipedia with non-notable hockey bios had ever-ballooning definitions, and attempted to claim that college hockey "Rookie Squad of the Month" or "Academic Forward of the Week" citations qualified as "preemiment." (I do not, unfortunately, cite those examples at random.) Ravenswing 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Well sure, but there is also basically zero differentiation between the 3 tiers of leagues shown in NHOCKEY. A player making first all-star in the AHL is likely more notable than a player making first all-star in the ECHL. Likewise, a player not making first-team in the AHL, but receiving the Dudley "Red" Garrett Memorial Award is likely more notable than someone making first-team in the QMJHL. If you're going to have strict criteria separated into tiers of leagues, you kind of need there to be an actual meaningful difference between the tiers. It should be significantly easier to satisfy NHOCKEY in the AHL than in, say the Beneliga. IceBergYYC (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team

With another World Championships upon us, was just wondering if there's any new push to change the national team name to Czechia? I am aware it's a divisive issue by looking at the Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team and it's surely been previously discussed here, but another year goes on with all media outlets and the IIHF using Czechia..

Is this just a case of the issue being bigger then WP:HOCKEY?? Triggerbit (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this issue needed to be advanced to an RfC. There wasn't anyway to resolve the matter due to canvassing and also a general non-consensus. Personally, this does go beyond WP:HOCKEY, but for ice hockey, I'd say we can go for it. We just need an RfC or RM at the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, that the name should be changed to 'Czechia men's national hockey team'. We've been using Czechia in all the IIHF tournaments of the last three years. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment Notable previous discussions here [5] [6] 162 etc. (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY Criteria

I just noticed that the criteria on WP:NHOCKEY no longer make any mention to top-tier leagues (NHL, KHL, SHL, etc). In the efforts to cut down on notability that is all gone, though references to the Belarusian, Italian, and Belgian leagues (among others) are still noted there. I know there has been quite a pushback against sport bio articles recently, but this is clearly going to cause issues seeing how the guidelines here don't reflect reality in the least. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favor of abolishing it altogether, and leaving hockey articles -- biographical or otherwise -- to stand and fall on the GNG. Ravenswing 04:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I also favour getting rid of NHOCKEY and simply using GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
No argument from on that either; more making sure the broader community was aware. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
How would getting rid of NHOCKEY improve the 'situation"? I find there are biases in media covering all topics. I think I would find it harder to be encyclopedic on a topic if we did not continue to allow more than necessary bio entries. Is it welcoming to new editors to challenge them from the start? Is an NCAA player really that much more notable? It seems much easier to dig up sources on NCAA players in my experience. I feel like some sport-based guideline is important in differentiating the importance of sources, as opposed to very general guidelines. Is there really a big push-back against almanac-like content? Alaney2k (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
If it's covered in the news, then it's notable. If not, then it's not notable. I fail to understand what possible bias your are talking about. Flibirigit (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
News editors obviously choose what to cover. It is not objective in terms of the sport. Their decisions are based on what is expected to be popular and bring readers to their paper/sites, etc. That does not necessarily match up with the importance of the topic/person within the sport. The Olympics are covered, but not necessarily the competitions that lead to qualification, etc. The pressure on traditional news media to compete for advertising only encourages less diverse coverage of sports (and other topics too). Also, there are less reporters available to write biographies on players. So I still believe some objective guidance based on wiki editor experience is still valuable. I'm not saying anything about strictness, I'm talking about players/builders/executives/competitions that may make a significant contribution to the sport, but not necessarily a high news media coverage. Currently there are Wiki articles about the several levels of IIHF competitions, but good luck finding news RS to meet GNG about competitions other than the top level. Alaney2k (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. I would think it far less challenging to new editors to simply meet the GNG, rather than a flurry of criteria that shifts from year to year. (I might also point out that neither NHOCKEY nor NSPORTS criteria generally has any guidance as to which sources are important or not, nor does NHOCKEY cover any hockey-related topic other than biographies.) Ravenswing 11:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
NHOCKEY clearly needs a massive rework. Including clarification for top level players, as well as coaches, teams, leagues, tournaments etc. I think NHOCKEY should exist; there are entire leagues with non-stub pages that likely wouldn't meet GNG, but it definitely needs to be better. IceBergYYC (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion the only value NHOCKEY would have is for articles on subjects that existed before the internet age. It can be very hard to access or search up much of those sources particularly for non-english speaking countries. Combating recentism should have some value, and I believe that NHOCKEY could help with that.18abruce (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Listing temporary arena within Template:Infobox hockey team

What are your thoughts on listing temporary playoffs arenas within the infobox? For example, a team plays at a different arena in the playoffs when their own rink is not available, or to take avantage of larger capacity for ticket sales. I understand that such temporary venues are not listed. An edit dispute began at Winnipeg Ice from this. I will make no further edits to this team's infobox and let the project decide. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

For Toronto Raptors of the NBA we used this approach when they had to play elsewhere due to COVID-19 pandemic. But this looks like a different situation since they did not start playing in that other venue until the final round of the WHL playoffs. – sbaio 13:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion of Switzerland league's season pages

A move has been proposed regarding season pages of Switzerland's National League (ice hockey) at Talk:2017–18 NL season#Requested move 9 May 2023. Please give your opinions there. – sbaio 14:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

CHL included on "Career statistics" on player pages

I think that the Champions Hockey League (CHL), wich is the top level of European club competitions where only the best of Europe can play, should be included in the "Career statistics" sections of player pages. I don't know if some pages have it, but i haven't seen any yet so i'll assume that it is never included. I really think it should be though, but i just want your thoughts on it first. -- Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 20:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your suggestion, but are there reliable sources for the data you're thinking about adding? PKT(alk) 21:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Champions Hockey League website has the statistics but Elite Prospects has them too. I'm not sure about others. --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 17:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

NHL Division champions

There were five discussions about that in the past:

I noticed that pages at Template:NHL seasons by team and Template:NHL divisions, team season pages, and team infoboxes have quite a number of confusion about division titles. So my question would be – should it be changed to reflect the division titles from 1981–82 to 1992–93 seasons when winners of Division Finals were considered as division champions (I could not find anything about this rule in NHL-related media)? – sbaio 20:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Winning the division title is different from being the division champion. That being said, we should adjust the template boxes to avoid that scrutiny. Conyo14 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Then by your logic winning the Stanley Cup title is different from being a Stanley Cup champion. The 2020–21 Calgary Flames media guide quite clearly says The team has claimed two Smythe Division championships (1985-86, 1988-89), two Clarence Campbell Conference titles (1985-86, 1988-89), three Pacific Division titles (1993-94, 1994-95, 2018-19), two Presidents' Trophies (1987-88, 1988-89), and has advanced to the Stanley Cup Final three times (1986, 1989, 2004). They also for some reason omit the 2005–06 Northwest Division title. – sbaio 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Based on the example you gave me, they claim the Smythe Division championship is different from the Smythe Division title. I don't see anyone claiming the Stanley Cup title. Conyo14 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I suspect from 1981-82 to 1992-93, NHL teams approached this topic inconsistently. Some went with Playoff banners, while others went with Regular season banners. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

After further inspection it looks like the NHL is indeed referring to division winners in those years as being a playoff thing per records.nhl.com – 1981-82: The first four teams in each division earn playoff berths. In each division, the first-place team opposes the fourth-place team and the second-place team opposes the third-place team in a best-of-five Division Semifinal (DSF) series. In each division, the two winners of the DSF meet in a best-of-seven Division Final (DF). The two DF winners in each conference meet in a best-of-seven Conference Final (CF). In the Prince of Wales Conference, the Adams Division winner opposes the Patrick Division winner; in the Clarence Campbell Conference, the Smythe Division winner opposes the Norris Division winner. The two CF winners meet in a best-of-seven Stanley Cup Final. – sbaio 17:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that material establishes anything because of the way they worded it: "The two DF winners in each conference meet in a best-of-seven Conference Final [sic] (CF)." The following sentence depends on that sentence for context when it refers to the division "winners"—it means the winners referred to in the preceding sentence, i.e., the teams that won the division finals. My recollection from the 1980s is that the team that won the division in the regular season was considered the division champion (it was a Big Deal here in 1989 when the Capitals finally hoisted a "Patrick Division Champions" banner after finishing the season in first place—and I note they didn't hoist any sort of banner the following year when they finally advanced to the Wales Conference Finals). I strongly suspect the text from the NHL page is not meant to state a policy on what constitutes a "division champion" and is simply meant to try to explain the playoff format as clearly as possible. Notice also how it refers to the teams that made the Stanley Cup Finals as the "CF winners" and not as the "conference champions" even though it's always been understood that the team that wins the conference playoffs is the conference champion. The fact that they use the word "winners" in that context strongly suggests to me that they're using that word solely to reflect advancing in the playoffs. 1995hoo (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@1995hoo: But the NHL also says In each division, the first-place team opposes the fourth-place team and the second-place team opposes the third-place team in a best-of-five Division Semifinal (DSF) series. So that implies the opposite to what you are saying. I am curious with news articles from those years, but I am not sure if those are available anywhere (and if they are then most of them are probably not accessible to us who live in Europe due to General Data Protection Regulation). – sbaio 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know whether it does imply the opposite or whether the use of "first-place team" is simply because of the juxtaposition with "fourth-place team." Either way, we know the NHL sometimes tries to change history retroactively (such as their use of "Stanley Cup Final" in the quotation above—they didn't start omitting the "s" until 2006 or 2007), so I would be wary of regarding something they say now as definitive as to the way it was then. I think user GoodDay probably has the most sage comment about how there may have been inconsistency among teams—following on that, it's entirely plausible that the league just didn't bother to think about the issue at the time. 1995hoo (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I seem to remember that the Hartford Whalers had a (regular season) Adams Division Champions banner up in the rafters, for the 1986–87 season. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
That is hearsay. I guess we need a source on whether champion means winner via playoffs or by most points in the regular season. Conyo14 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I just want to point out to both of you that the period of this issue is from 1981–82 to 1992–93 seasons (much like with conference trophies being awarded for regular season from 1974–75 to 1980–81). I already quoted what NHL says about division winners. However, after a quick Google search I see that both the Islanders (regular season) and Devils (playoffs) have banners for winning the division in the 1987–88 season, with the addition of other teams who list either regular season or playoffs banners for winning the division. – sbaio 16:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hold on, the banner for New York's playoff champion for 1993 says "Patrick Playoff Champions." Also [7] gives some insight on whether it meant playoffs or regular season. Conyo14 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
You can find a picture of the Capitals' banners here (except the Stanley Cup banner, which hangs at the end of the arena to the left above my seat): [8] It's easy enough to tell it's from this past season because of the videoboard tribute to Ovechkin's father, who died this past February. Interestingly, at one time in the past they had some "regular season conference champion" banners, but they eliminated those when they consolidated the different types of championships onto single banners. (That is, they used to have a separate banner for each division championship.) In terms of the reference to the Islanders, I guess the Caps could have hoisted a Patrick Division playoff championship banner for 1989–90, but they never have. 1995hoo (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Conyo14's comments about the Islanders' banner got me interested in seeing it, as I have not yet made it to an Islanders home game. I found the following article from the New York Times (not paywalled as far as I can tell): [9] The interesting aspect is the following: "In the spring of 1993, the Islanders defeated Washington in the first round of the playoffs and stunned Mario Lemieux and the Penguins in the second to be the conference representative for the division formerly known as the Patrick. To honor the occasion, as many teams did, the franchise ordered a banner. But the N.H.L. did not officially recognize division titles won in the playoffs. In the eyes of the league, only the first-place team from the six-month regular season earned the right to have a banner. The N.H.L. told the Islanders they could keep the banner above the Coliseum ice for one year only." If that's accurate, presumably more information about it ought to exist somewhere. (Where, who knows!) 1995hoo (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Split of 2023 Juniors article

It appears that User:Maiō T. has moved the article 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships to 2023 IIHF World Junior Championship and created a new "parent" article which is now at 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. None of the previous years use this arrangement, and I certainly don't see it as an improvement. Any thoughts before reverting? 162 etc. (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've also requested reverts of other pagemoves recently made by this user. [10] 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Seems like there is a discussion above, though no apparent consensus for any pagemoves. 162 etc. (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
"World Junior Championship" is the official name of the championship. Maiō T. (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@162 etc., GoodDay, and Ravenswing: I'm trying to harmonize senior and junior articles. It should look something like this:

Senior championships Junior championships
Parent article: 2023 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships
Child articles: 2023 IIHF World Championship
2023 IIHF World Championship Division I
2023 IIHF World Championship Division II
2023 IIHF World Championship Division III
2023 IIHF World Championship Division IV		 2023 IIHF World Junior Championship
2023 IIHF U20 World Championship Division I
2023 IIHF U20 World Championship Division II
2023 IIHF U20 World Championship Division III

I'd like to edit also previous seasons in a similar way. Many articles need to be renamed to match the official titles of the championships. Maiō T. (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. 162 etc. (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Neutral - I sometimes get confused about IIHF tournaments. Best to let others work it out. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Support, this appears to be a reasonable plan........PKT(alk) 22:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Neutral for now, I don't hate this idea but I want to hear more opinions before making up my mind. I'm also assuming that if this is adopted on the Men's side that the same would apply to the Women's side. Deadman137 (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact, this discussion was not meant to be a voting. There are other procedures for that. Now what? I think this is the end of the discussion and everything's gonna be reverted. Ravenswing, write something! It was your idea to rename the articles. I just expanded it a bit by creating parent articles.
@Deadman137: Women's championships also use the "parent article / child articles" system. See 2023 Women's Ice Hockey World Championships and four wikilinks to child articles within that article. Maiō T. (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Round names capitalization

Dicklyon (talk · contribs) is once again running around and changing capitalization of playoff round names. This time he targets pages at Template:NHL seasons by team. I thought he was told to back off with these changes? – sbaio 17:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, minor league pages like Jersey Devils are also affected so I assume that this editor will go through every single ice hockey page with his abusive AWB tool. – sbaio 17:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The tool appears to be doing it to athletes of all sports too. We should also watch for it to affect NHL coaches. Conyo14 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe this relates to the discussion taking place at WP:MOS/CAPS. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion has been under way for a few days at WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I already linked to the discussion-in-question, fwiw :) GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon is back at it again. Deadman137 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, still at it, fixing over-capitalization in Wikipedia, with a lot of that being in sports articles in recent months. I expect lots of editors to sample my edits and let me know if they see errors, and revert them if so. If you look at my last few weeks or months of edits, for tag "reverted", you'll see that I've thanked editors who found and reverted mistakes, and I've started discussions, or invited editors to existing discussions, when I didn't agree that what they reverted was a mistake. In the case of the ones you reverted, I've asked for some support for your "proper noun" assertions, but all I got from you was personal attacks. If others here see problems with my edits, or have support in guidelines or source evidence for Deadman's position, I'd like to hear about it. Dicklyon (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Quite a lot of people have problems with your edits, and have sourced evidence for the same. Ravenswing 01:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This is why I have come up with a proposal to end all of this capitalization nonsense that can be found here. Inviting to participate in the discussion. @GoodDay, Oknazevad, Masterhatch, Ravenswing, Conyo14, Old Naval Rooftops, Sbaio, The Kip, Randy Kryn, BilCat, Nemov, Skipple, and Dmoore5556: Deadman137 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add beyond what I commented over at WP:Baseball at the time. Uppercase when referring to a specific event or title, as this would be a proper-noun. Lowercase when speaking in generalities about a position or round. Skipple ☎ 13:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Can we put an end to this behavior? Please? Nemov (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I've advised Dicklyon, to slow down or stop his lower-case train, on a few occasions. But to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
He's on a mission and nothing will stop him. Conyo14 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of what constitutes overcapitalization has been shown multiple times now to hold no consensus. And yet here you are once again tryin to force through your preferences after explicit rejection of them. This is truly approaching something needing to be addressed at ANI. oknazevad (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I support this... this is something that deserves a topic ban. Nemov (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Second the idea of a t-ban. There's been unanimous opposition to his actions and yet he continues anyways. The Kip (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Thirded. Although I'd hesitate to call the opposition "unanimous", he's ignored warnings on the subject multiple times. O.N.R. (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Fourthed. I know I started the RfC to resolve the dispute, but his conduct has been atrocious and also disregards the typical Wiki route of resolving disputes. Not to mention his continuing edits across WP:HOCKEY using his script disregard the ongoing dispute. A t-ban feels necessary. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what was the point of it, but some of us is mentioned at User:Dicklyon/ANI. – sbaio 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Conyo14, @Sbaio, @Oknazevad, @The Kip, @Old Naval Rooftops I have filed an ANI after considering it for a few days. Nemov (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I suppose the questions would have to be asked. Have WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POINT, WP:RGW & on talkpages, WP:BLUDGEON been breached. I reckon that's something for the community to answer. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
He also used Twinkle to re-add his preferred edits while they were in dispute, so we have edit warring too. Deadman137 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis. All our articles got mass-changed and are still being changed. Perhaps there are enough at the hockey project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want this to end please show your support at WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again. Deadman137 (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification had been given several times already. Don't you think you've crossed the line to WP:CANVASSING now? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Dylan Fabre

Could someone take a look at Draft:Dylan Fabre. You can give me some feedback on the draft article and correct possible mistakes with grammar etc. Thanks --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed a few typos, "represented", no "c". Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you!
I'm shocked. I have wrote the word "represent" wrong all this time :(
--Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 04:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I have made some copy edits regarding grammar, punctuation, and capitalization (and forgot an edit summary—my bad!)
I would recommend adding a source to each paragraph (see WP:TSI). I would also recommend adding an "International" section for his international play, as that's how most articles are structured.
Well done on a detailed article! Wracking 💬 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

RM concerning IIHF tournaments, being held

See RM being held here. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion at Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche seasons#Merger_discussion

It has been proposed that the following articles be merged into the respective articles:

Please discuss on the talk page listed. Conyo14 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


Just bumping this up people's watchlists; additional discussion at Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche seasons#Merger Discussion would be much appreciated. CplDHicks2 (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

IIHF Men's & Women's Finals pages moved, bypassing the RM route

FWIW, I've just noticed that back in late April 2023, that the 2000 to 2022 "IIHF World Championship Final" pages, were moved to "IIHF World Championship final" & accompanying categories, without discussion. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That one seems like a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The bold page moves of those multiple pages, have now put them out of sync, with their own intros, links & infobox titles. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe not a proper name, I can see both sides of that one. Just so the lowercase-craze doesn't reach the super bowl, or world series, or the open championship, and leaves lots of other sports things the better for being uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The title is a proper name with the IIHF, but the word "final" is not proper on its own. But that move should not have happened. Conyo14 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the pages should be reverted to their original (uppercase) version. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take a glance at sources before proposing such a retrograde move. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you should actually file a requested move instead of barreling through moves you know will be controversial. Like you were ordered to do by ARBCOM previously. Or did you forget that? oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't do these moves under discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no big hurry, so I'll wait for awhile, to see what others think should be done about the 2000 to 2022 (soon to be created 2023) "IIHF World Championship Final/final" pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Note - Also in April, from 2019 to 2022, the "IIHF Women's World Championship Final" pages, have also been boldly moved to "IIHF Women World's Championship final", creating more inconsistency. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: – Josh moved all those World Championship Final pages to lowercase final. I have not encountered him before that I can recall, but yes we think alike and I would have done the same. But I'm perhaps better at the cleanup edits. I just went through and fixed a bunch of those inconsistencies, but GoodDay reverted me. Is he thinking that the raft of relevant discussions is not enough still? Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I did revert your non-player changes, as it's quite possible the pages-in-question they link to, may end up being restored to their original names. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

What about (for example) 2023 Stanley Cup Finals? I don't think changing it to 2023 Stanley Cup finals, would be a good idea. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither would I. Like the World Series, NBA Finals, and Super Bowl, it's a proper title together and I would fully negate that move. "Finals" on its own could be lowercased though. Conyo14 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody needs such a strawman. There are clearly a few such event names that are consistently capitalized in sources, and which nobody would propose to change. Actually an interest question. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Before we continue. Would you please put your JWB on hold & wait until this matter of Final/final is resolved. I had to undo most of your 'very recent' mass changes to page links. I suggest you undo the rest of your JWB changes, please. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
You had to undo them why? Did I get something wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
We haven't settled the matter, concerning using "Final" or "final" in the IIHF tournaments. PS- I left your changes alone, on the 'player' pages. That way, editors will have a better view of what's being discussed or disputed. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There's not really anything special about "final", and it's been struck from the open RFC, so there's really no reason to fight to keep them inconsistent in the article leads. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I was considering reversing the unilateral pages moves. But, I'll wait a week & if nobody else objects to those page moves? Then I'll leave them alone & so will see no need (any longer) to revert corresponding page links. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
For the moment, I object, as related discussions are currently ongoing. The one directly above isn't directly about page titles, but may affect them. O.N.R. (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The RFC above also says it's not about "finals". These were good moves, and objecting without a good reason would just be disruptive. We don't need yet another discussion about how special hockey is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn't be disruptive at all, objecting to unilateral page moves. Opening up RMs on multiple pages-in-question, would've been the better course to take. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Should page moves be reversed?

I'm considering getting the pages-in-question moves, reverted. But will wait for opinions from others, first. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've undone the page moves-in-question. If any editor believes they should be lower cased? Then, I recommend opening an RM for all the pages-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:2000 IIHF World Championship Final#Requested move 27 May 2023, unopposed so far; not even by GoodDay. And Randy, the reason it "seems like a proper name" is because it's capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That closed with a strong consensus for lowercase. This whole section was nothing but noise. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The RM decision has been rendered & will be respected. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: Though the 2019, 2021 & 2022 IIHF Women's World Championship final pages weren't included in the aforementioned RM? I've moved them also to lower case, per the related-RM decision. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: NHL round names capitalization

CONSENSUS AGAINST CAPITALIZATION
This RFC discussed whether short references to the various non-ultimate rounds of the Stanley Cup playoffs should be capitalized. In other words, in reference to the Stanley Cup Quarterfinals, should a sentence say, "The team lost in the quarterfinals" or "The team lost in the Quarterfinals"? (The RFC initially included "F/finals", but that was withdrawn, with only one objection, on May 14, two days after the RFC opened.)
Context

As Conyo14 helpfully noted, there have previously been discussions on this issue. In February 2023, it was proposed that NHL Conference Finals be moved to "NHL conference finals"; the result of the discussion was no consensus. There was also discussion at MOS:CAPS. I've reviewed that discussion. I also reviewed the above discussion on this page, which appears to have been the main preamble to this RFC.

Relevant policies/guidelines

This is a style issue involving Wikipedia guidelines. Since there was some discussion about this: Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

It seemed relatively agreed that MOS:CAPS and MOS:SPORTSCAPS (a subsection of CAPS) have implications for this subject. As the participants noted, MOS:CAPS generally discourages "unnecessary capitalization" and further notes that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". The references to MOS:SPORTSCAPS usually didn't involve quotations, but I believe those references were chiefly to this segment of the guideline: "Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources".

Recap of Arguments

Both supporters and opponents of capitalization generically invoked sources as supporting their preferred stylization, but, as Fyunck(click) pointed out, there were few examples of sources provided. Dicklyon did provide a Google Books Ngram Viewer link, but it was agreed that the comparison—"Cup first round" to "Cup First Round"—was not sufficiently tailored to the Stanley Cup. Dicklyon also provided an article in The Day that lowercased first round. Conyo14, who started this RFC and was ultimately neutral between the options, said "My own search only gives NHL.com as the capitalization standard. Everywhere else is majority lowercase." Of course, reliance on NHL.com would be somewhat questionable, since, as Bagumba emphasized, it is only "independent, reliable sources that are used to determine capitalization.

Conyo14 also made another really interesting point that I think deserves highlighting: the generic "first round of the playoffs" is not necessarily the Stanley Cup First Round; rather, it could be seen as the "preliminary round" or "qualifying round". While really intriguing in theory, however, when Dickylon asked for sources that use the lowercased term "first round" to refer to the Stanley Cup Qualifying Round or Stanley Cup Preliminary Round, none were provided. Given the little attention this point got, and particularly given the lack of follow up, I ultimately don't think it can carry much weight when assessing the overall discussion.

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Consensus is not a vote, but it is worth noting that the discussion here was relatively one sided: By my count, roughly 14 editors opposed capitalization, while 4 editors supported capitalization. (And one editor suggested we follow the sources.)

It was agreed that MOS:CAPS generally discourages capitalization, but there was discussion of whether a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources consistently capitalize these rounds. A few of these comments were merely ipse dixit. Still, because Conyo14 was a "neutral" !voter, I give considerable credit to their comment that they undertook an investigation and found that a majority of sources, outside nhl.com, used lowercase terms. As such, by my assessment, no policy or guideline would seem to warrant discounting the default anti-capitalization stance of MOS:CAPS. More to the point, no point of logic or policy/guideline would seem to warrant disregarding the arguments made by the anti-capitalization participants. Meanwhile, with the exception of a few comments noted above, I found a few of the pro-capitalization comments to be relatively light on substance. In sum, I do find a consensus against capitalization.--Jerome Frank Disciple 02:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

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

Shall the names of rounds, Preliminary Round, Qualifying Round, Semifinals, Quarterfinals, Finals, as a reference to their full names (i.e. Stanley Cup Quarterfinals, Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, Gagarin Cup Semifinals, etc.) be capitalized in Template:NHL seasons by team, Stanley Cup playoffs articles, and any other small reference across all of WP:HOCKEY?

  • Option 1: Maintain status quo
  • Option 2: Lowercase these words in both references and general uses of the words
  • Option 3: ???

A larger discussion about article moves was here, which resulted in no consensus. A similar discussion regarding this particular issue is above and also discussed here.

My opinion is neutral in this (for now), but I don't want the constant fighting between different factions of Wikipedia. Conyo14 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 1 or what I proposed in the one discussion where we use what the originating source uses (they capitalize, we capitalize, they don't, we don't). This one size fits all approach has not worked and it's only causing problems. Deadman137 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Just follow MOS:CAPS (opton 2, pretty much) – The status quo is essentially a mixed/partial hockey exception to the main capitalization guideline expressed there (only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia). Deadman137 has been arguing for "Lost in First Round" and "Lost in Preliminary Round" over "Lost in first round" and "Lost in preliminary round". There's no way to make that compatible with MOS:CAPS without a hockey exception or an agreement to stop improving the text of Wikipedia's agreement with its guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    Would you like to explain then how this [11] reached feature list status in January of 2008 or this [12] one in September of 2013 were both promoted if they were not compliant with WP:MOS at the time? This would also apply to all major North American sports. Deadman137 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    Because various people at the feature list/article processes don't care at all about MoS compliance. And those lists' promotions pre-date the existence of MOS:SPORTCAPS anyway. Old featured content is not "magically immune" to compliance editing to bring it into conformity with later guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    Ah yes MOS:SPORTSCAPS, the fruit of the poisonous tree that you created where all of these problems originate from. In your initial proclamation for this idea you claimed that this passed with "virtually unanimous support", yet in the RfC where this came from you flat out refused to notify any of the affected parties. So how can any user actually take option 2 votes seriously when the foundation of the arguments that they're using are so fatally flawed? MOS:SPORTSCAPS should be temporarily suspended and all interested parties should be brought together so that an actual consensus with input from all of the relevant groups can be determined. Deadman137 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    You're engaging in the WP:Fallacy of the revelation of policy; every word of every policy and guideline was written by someone, and the fact that someone wrote it is not any kind of argument against it. You're welcome to go to WT:MOSCAPS and propose deleting or changing the MOS:SPORTCAPS section. (Good luck with that; the section makes perfect sense and describes site-wide actual practice.) Shaking your fist into the night and wailing that it doesn't suit your preferences is not constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. These are clearly not proper names, in this or any other sport, and are are routinely lower-case in independent reliable source material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, of course. Tony (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Per a MOS:CAPS, which begins:

    Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization

    Capitalizing these does not add any extra meaning or insight to the reader; they are basic English words. Moreover, MOS:CAPS relies on independent source usage (emphasis added):

    Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

    —Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - these should follow MOS:CAPS, and as these terms aren't proper nouns, they should be not capitalised in prose, templates and article titles - so "Stanley Cup quarterfinals" (or quarter-finals, dependent on LANGVAR). This doesn't need to effect references, as references can be written in title case (see WP:5). I don't know why people think this should be changed by topic. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    I took the nom's use of reference to mean Quarterfinals in reference to the full name Stanley Cup Quarterfinals. Not re: citations.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. I thought the text of the reference was what was being referred to. I can understand why something could be a proper noun, but even if the term was a proper noun, just saying quarter-final on its own would not be. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 The usage "preliminary rounds" are common nouns in this case, referring to rounds that are preliminary, and not proper nouns. Should follow MOS, which states "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". --Jayron32 12:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as MOS. I am amazed that this has come to an RfC? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    Sometimes, there's one person who's thinks their idiosyncratic style doesn't have to obey the general rules already laid out. An RFC is a good way to prove that they are wrong. --Jayron32 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    Remember that they are guidelines, not law. Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    Which still means you have to give good reasons for breaching them. Tony (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    Of which good reasons have been given, but they’re being ignored anyways because non-involved editors clearly know better. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    Here are the arguments for Option 1 that I can find:
    • "use what the originating source uses"
    • "Best leave as is, IMHO"
    • "as someone who actively edits WP hockey pages"
    • "status quo. The 'First Round' can be interpreted as a proper noun"
    Is this what you mean by "good reasons have been given", or have I missed what you're referring to?
  • Option 1 - Best leave as is, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    But "as is" is mostly Option 2 already. You prefer to just leave it inconsistent? Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    "Leaving as is" is status quo. But I would also fix up the articles to be consistent if Option 1 is accepted. If Option 2 is accepted then you can let your script do its thing. Just keep in mind this affects playoff articles too. Conyo14 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2-ish Per MOS:CAPS, we avoid unnecessary capitalisation. These are clearly not proper nouns but descriptive of a round of play - perhaps capitalised for emphasis or distinction or in the mistaken perception that capitalising an attributive (the first part of the noun phrase) confers capitalisation on the phrase in full. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't cap for emphasis or distinction. Save allcaps, I tend to think we should follow the capitalisation of the source in a citation of the title, which will often follow title case, the usual form of a title, both on and off Wiki. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    Your thinking would likely be towards option 1 or rather Deadman137's thinking. Conyo14 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as MOS. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Per MOS:SPORTSCAPS, now that Finals has been removed from the nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 as someone who actively edits WP hockey pages, but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods. The Kip (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Maintain the status quo. The "First Round" can be interpreted as a proper noun and this one size fits all approach to the English language is a huge waste of time. This is being driven by a single editor who continues to waste editor's valuable time. Also, the way this RfC has been handled is problematic. Dicklyon attempted to argue a WP:SNOW close yesterday and then asked for[13] a close request after 5 days. This behavior could be interpreted as disruptive. We're nearing the point where a topic ban might be necessary to save the community pointless discussions on capitalization discussion best determined on a case by case basis. Nemov (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    As a reader, how am I expected to interpret "First Round" differently from "first round"? —Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    A very good question you can ask on a case by case basis reviewing the sources. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    A perusal of source stats shows that it's most often lowercase in "* Cup first round". Even for Stanley Cup first round. Do you have any example where sources suggest capitalization? Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    Hold up, that first source you provided is NOT indicative of this sport. Cup first round? That could be any cup! It can be a red solo cup. That is not fair. Also, you are looking at books. News sources are the better inclination of how to determine whether this should be lowercased or uppercased. Conyo14 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    True, they're probably mostly soccer/football; is hockey extra special compared to other sports? It's hard to find "Stanley Cup First Round" in news, but I do find "first round of Stanley Cup playoffs". Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    I mean ice hockey is its own sport, but I just wanted to mention the ngram source you provided cannot (rather should not) be used in debate here. Also, the second source you provided gives us something. However, "the first round of the playoffs" is unfortunately misleading and I'll explain why. From 1975–81, the playoffs had a preliminary round. Playoff stats and records still counted, but the NHL called it that for whatever reason. That was the first round of the playoffs though. Then in 2020 we had a series called the "Qualifying Round" that was paired with a round robin series. It was definitely confusing for the first five days once the NHL considered this to indeed be playoff games. Thus, the Qualifying Round is the first round of the playoffs, but then we had the official First Round, which is actually the second round of the playoffs. Regardless, these terms could still be lowercased. My own search only gives NHL.com as the capitalization standard. Everywhere else is majority lowercase. I will still remain neutral, but case-by-case is not sounding awful. Conyo14 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don't have any fundamental objection to "case-by-case", but I don't see a case where I'd cap "First Round". Like I said, one doesn't find "Stanley Cup First Round" in books or in news, so even if the NHL uses that name, it doesn't seem to be commonname, capped or not. Is it really the case that some sources use "first round" for the preliminary round and "First Round" for the next? Can you show us? Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    Plus, the Deadman137 reverts that led to this RFC were things like "the First Round of the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs", and "the First Round of the playoffs", not the term "Stanly Cup First Round" that nhl.com uses. Also "Won in Preliminary Round". Is there any possible justification for that one? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    What Dicklyon is saying seems very sensible. Tony (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    2020 and the "First Round" not being the actual first round (which was the qualifying round) seems to have been a one-off for COVID-19. If needed, it seems reasonable to consider IAR examples for that year, based on independent sources about 2020. However, I assume(/hope?) in a few years nobody remembers that, and presumably the first round is generally the first series played, thus not needing capitalization of "first round" for the different meaning, which was specific to 2020. —Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 These are not proper nouns, and "we avoid unnecessary capitalization" is a pretty simple brightline. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per policy Alaney2k (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - simply go by sourcing. If most sources capitalize, then so should we. If they don't we lower case it. 00:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)
    We do go by sourcing already. Are you thinking that the threshold of "most sources" would be less controversial, or less argumentative, or easier to evaluate, than what we have now in MOS:CAPS? Would it mean most books? Most News items? Most web sources? And are you thinking it might have led to a different outcome for the "Men's Singles" etc. that you fought so hard for with no support from the tennis project? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
    If we already go by most sourcing here at Ice Hockey then fine... no problem. But that should be what we strive for. As for the rest of your crap go whine somewhere else. I'm allowed my opinion here no matter if you think you own the place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
    I remind users to be civil in their discussion here. Conyo14 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
    MOS:CAPS already relies on sourcing, with the caveat that they be independent source (emphasis added):

    Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

    —Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    If you are saying that those pushing no-caps go by that mantra, I think you are wrong. If I read what you wrote correctly, if 60% of sources like ESPN, or LA Times Sports, or Hockey News, almost always capitalize a certain term, then MOS:CAPS is being followed and those terms will be capitalized here. That's not what happens in practice here. Just look at the two following arguments... they say "not proper nouns." Nothing about what independent sources actually use. It's sheer brute consensus numbers. I'm not saying it's a right or wrong way to do it, but we do not go by what a majority of sources go by.... we go by consensus or our own somewhat arbitrary rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    A couple of points on that: First, there has never been a clear consensus on what numerical threshold corresponds to "a substantial majority", but generally it's taken to be more like 80 or 90 percent; things that are clearly proper names (e.g. name of people, cities or such) show up usually with >95% caps in sources. Secondly, we're looking for use in sentence context; appearances in titles and headings are more often capitalized, but should not be counted. Thirdly, I'm not sure what capitalization arguments you're thinking of; the "preliminary round" and "semi-finals" reverts that provoked this discussion are certainly mostly lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Not proper nouns, so policy dictates the article titles should reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: These are not proper nouns, and I see no convincing argument that they should be capitalized. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll need a visual example of what's being disputed. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Deadman137 provided some examples via his reverts: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] that led to this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This would only be applied locally to the hockey playoffs, and not the baseball, basketball, or football playoffs, right? Or to the Stanley Cup Finals (which is the proper name)? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Just Ice Hockey, though this could set a precedent for the other sports articles. Given how this conversation is going, you'd better watch them closely. The biggest evidence is ngrams and the lack of sports reporters capitalizing proper nouns. Conyo14 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
If y'all believed in precedents we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are plenty of precedents that align with MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY. The editors that once governed this project (WP:HOCKEY) likely didn't care, and you can more-or-less see that considering the articles have greatly improved since its birth. Obviously, MOS:CAPS was created to set a guideline for capitalization across all articles. The only thing is that the ngram, while it's been around a bit, still is not the best indicator of CAPS. The sources you find get mixed with blogs or inconsistent reporters. This is because although sports are greatly covered in their field, the reporters are not formal writers. It makes this argument really stupid. Conyo14 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Dicklyon and Conyo14, still haven't answered my question about the Stanley Cup Finals, which I assume is unaffected by this discussion (or is it hidden in the "Finals" and "etc." wording used in the initial question), and a name that the lowercasers will leave alone, correct? Even though the capping is mixed in n-grams], with uppercasing more prevalent, "Stanley Cup Finals" is the proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Since nobody has yet answered that question I would ask Conyo14 that they remove 'Finals' and 'etc.' from the nomination question. Thanks. Stanley Cup Finals is the hockey equivalent of World Series and Superbowl. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll strike it :) Conyo14 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, the RfC isn't particularly clearly written; however, where it refers to final it is not (as I understand it) referring to a phrase like Stanley Cup Final but to a phrase like advanced to the final which, depending on the context in which it is written, might refer to the Stanley Cup Final or to other competition final. A response like this should have been provided rather than just striking the word from the OP. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate to provide an explanation for the striking (usually in small text immediately following the OP) to explain the striking. A good number of editors have commented on the OP where this was not struck. What are the perceived implications of it being struck? The word final was an explicit part of the discussion leading to this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
No matter what the RFC says, such things are likely to still be settled on a case-by-case basis, per the criterion in MOS:CAPS. Stanley Cup Final(s) are interesting cases, having been overwhelmingly lowercase "final" until very recent years. I suspect this is an example of sources following Wikipedia instead of vice-versa. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Above GoodDay wrote "I would also fix up the articles to be consistent if Option 1 is accepted. If Option 2 is accepted then you can let your script do its thing." It's the same either way. So I'll go ahead and re-do the downcasing of "final" in articles that are already titled as "final". If by some miracle there's a consensus to re-cap those, I'll put them back later. Based on what he says, I'll assume he won't undo that again. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In the interest of collaborative editing, perhaps you can just wait for the outcome of the RfC to be evaluated? I'm certain you won't forget to implement the result. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dicklyon:, I didn't write any of that. It was @Conyo14: who did. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Can confirm. And for clarification, that would mean I capitalize the remaining lowercased sources. Also, please do not mass move an article without going through the request process. Conyo14 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about my mixup there. And this discussion is not about moves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I do wish that changes on ice hockey pages (re-lated to this RFC), would not be made, while the RFC is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Anyone want to take this this to ANI? I've seen enough. I'd do it myself, but I've come into this rather late and don't have a full history. This needs to stop, regardless of this RfC's outcome. Nemov (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
What exactly would you be complaining about? That I've had two reverts of hockey-related edits since the RFC started? Did you even agree with those reverts? Did I do other edits that you think were wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The broader community has already discussed Use of capitals in a shortened title Some of the gist of the rationale to (arguably) support the capping of Final (and similar) in sentences and sentence fragments like Lost in Final is that Final is being used as a shortened form of a full name (eg Stanley Cup Final). The argument would continue, that there is no evidence of the broader community having reached a consensus on this particular matter; therefore, there is a need to arrive at a consensus on this. Please see Use of capitals in a shortened title, where this very matter was discussed. There was clearly consensus against this being a case where capitalisation would be permitted. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Snow close?

The prevailing sentiment is clearly that Hockey is not a exception to MOS:CAPS and WP:SPORTSCAPS and WP:NCCAPS and such, and that we should lowercase such things that are not consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources (that is, we don't take our lead from the NHL, nor decide that reporters using lowercase are lazy slouches who just got it wrong). Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Best to let the RFC go the full month, until the tag expires. We don't want editors showing up later, in an uproar. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree Conyo14 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
How is waiting 3 more weeks likely to be useful? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
You didn't even wait 1 week. Calm down. Some editors take their time to get a response in. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It's been two days since the last comment on this RfC and Dicklyon has asked for a close again.[19]. This behavior is so puzzling. Nemov (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Why are you trying to rush this along? You are moving dangerously close to a ANI visit if you keep up this disruptive behavior. Nemov (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, his one-man crusade for this over the past months despite the opposition of many WP:IH editors has been enough arguably for a t-ban, which makes it all the more insulting the RfC will likely go his way. The Kip (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Just today I realized that Dicklyon was the editor that made undiscussed moves regarding the NHL draft about three years ago (Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft#Requested move 26 May 2020), GoodDay's request at WP:RMT in May 2020, and a discussion at WT:NHL. In addition, looks like his behavior regarding pages moves (at least) has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon and page moves in May 2020, and he is a frequent guest at WP:AN, and has been blocked more than once. It is obvious that this is not the first time that Dicklyon ignores other editors and I think that at least a WP:TBAN (on ice-hockey related content) is a very strong option to stop this editor's disruption. – sbaio 13:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
It should likely include anything to with capitalization as he's still changing things to his preferred version while this RfC is ongoing. As he did at 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs today. Deadman137 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether the RFC is ongoing or not, sources don't capitalize "Preliminary Round" in that context, so why did you revert? I wasn't aiming for hockey there, but a few hockey pages matched the patterns of over-capitalization that I was fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: I am asking you politely, do not capitalize until the RfC has reached clear consensus. You are not an admin, so you don't get to decide whether we reached it. As a belligerent, you also should not make that decision. Failure to comply to this reasonable request could force disciplinary actions. As you apparently are a repeat-offender, I suggest you tread lightly. Conyo14 (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I have indeed been treading pretty lightly. I think Admin is not relevant here; this is a simple content dispute. Are you suggesting that you think Deadman137's revert to the over-capitalized form was reasonable, in light of sources and guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: It is also not for you decide whether an admin is necessary or not. That being said, I've gone around the bin of discussions, and the basic idea is that you maintain status quo until a clear consensus has been reached. You sir, are not doing that. Conyo14 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
And I'd advise you to stick to arguments rooted in policies, guidelines, and sources. It looks to me like the editors advocating for "Option 1" or "status quo" are also advocating to take me to ANI for my position and for a couple of edits while the RFC is open. The clear majority of respondents are in favor of following guidelines, whether that's up to me to decide or not. So stop with the threats and discuss in sensible terms, would you? Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides on this matter, because as I've said, this is a stupid argument. Your conduct is unbecoming in this though, especially as it is not in good faith to edit against status quo during an RfC. If you are confident about the results, you'll wait until June 10th, or whenever 30 days since the start have passed. Conyo14 (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive81&oldid=1163842142"