With training camp about to get underway, I would imagine there will be some former Eastern Bloc born players who were born in 1991. Since we show the country of birth as the name when they were born. What are the significant dates? Plus, with the unusual status of some of the countries (like breaking away from the USSR, but not being recognized or being a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States) what is the general rule of thumb? I don't believe there are any Germans that are from the unified country on rosters yet, but that could be an issue as well. I know there won't be any Czechs or Slovaks in the NHL until the 1993s are drafted. That one is easy enough though, I believe formal dissolution of Czechoslovakia occurred at midnight January 1, 1993. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure off the top of my head. But I know all the dates are listed in the archives of this page, should only be back a couple archives because I know it was talked about recently. Or there is the search function at the top up there. -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
While some of us may already know about this here project, the Hockey Mountain, Leech44 has made a list of all HHOf members and other notable players, with the goal of making them all at least GA's. I'd figure we spread the message so if anyone hasn't been made aware, they can be. Its a a rather large undertaking, as by my count there is close to 500 articles under the scope. However with some help, it would be possible to finish this. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Good initiative. I really like the idea of this project. This is the kind of stuff we should be concentrating on. But it really is a mountain of work to get all of them to GA. It's too bad there are so many stubs on the list. As a modest goal, I think I'll look into those. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
IIHF World Championship final standings
Does anyone know where I can find a reliable source for the IIHF World Championship final Standings? The IIHF web site only goes back to 2000, and most of the year articles don't site any references. The 1998 page lists "Archive Switzerland 1998" which goes to SFRP's Hockey Archive and it has the final standings for all years, but I don't know if it's a reliable source. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I always use the French site Hockey Archives which very complete and reliable. The original guy behind it has also published books about ice hockey history. It's mostly in French but standings and player names should be understandable, and in case of trouble you can also ask me or the very good forum on this site. :-) Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Total Hockey also has information on this topic. That's a reliable source. Not as in-depth as the IIHF book, though. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
At $70, it's too rich for me. And I've not seen any used ones for sale. I requested that my library (Toronto) buy a copy. Suggest it to your library, maybe. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Abebooks is a good book seller, I agree. I saw only one copy on Alibris and it was new. I recently bought Total Hockey for about $15 including shipping. That's more within my budget. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I have had my eye out for total hockey. I saw it in the bargain bin at Chapters a couple years ago for like $5 and I never bought it. I should have. I was part of a group of people helping to gather facts for that book way back in the mid 90s....doubt any of the information I ever gathered was put in it though. But you never know. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that cost would be challenging, but finding books on the World Juniors, Canada/World Cups and Olympics is easy. What is most valuable in that book to me is the world championships, which is pretty much entirely in that Google preview. But yeah, I'll be keeping an eye out on getting a physical copy too. Resolute23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
That book really is great, eh? I remember when I found it a few months ago, it was like Christmas. Would have bought a physical copy, but like others have said its bloody expensive. Its just a shame that I haven't been able to use it here, and never have really had a chance to share it here. Even though the online version is missing some pages, its complete enough for somebody here to get some good use out of it; its probably the best source on the World Championships, especially lower level stuff. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
New Jersey Devils future forfeited first round pick
Since New Jersey is free to determine which first-round pick they want to forfeit between 2011 and 2014, should the fact be listed at "Information on conditional draft picks" at the relevant NHL Entry Draft articles? The thought behind the question is that this part of their punishment is technically comparable to a conditional pick involved in a trade (see 2010 third-round pick between CGY and EDM, for example) and thus should probably be treated as such. The respective line would look like this (source omitted for simplicity reasons; also, feel free to clean up any grammar or spelling errors):
New Jersey will have to elect until the day following the day of the last game of the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals if it forfeits its pick in the 2011 Entry Draft.
New Jersey was ordered to forfeit one first-round pick between 2011 and 2014 as part of a penalty sanction due to cap circumvention when signing Ilya Kovalchuk. The penalty also includes a fine of $3 million and the forfeiture of New Jersey's third-round pick in 2011.
I agree. Right now, the Devils own each one of those picks. When they designate one, then we can tag that pick. Why rush years in advance? RGTraynor 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised they are not appealing this. Harsh IMO. Is appealing still possible? Anyway, the information on this could go in the current NHL and Devils season, so the info is available. No sense in confusing people in entry draft articles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
They should just be glad the new amendment changed the fine so that it no longer counts against the salary cap. I have a feeling the Devils knew this was going to happen, and that change was made with this case specifically in mind. And yeah, I'd say to leave it in the Devils and league season articles for now, and once they choose which pick they forfeit, ad it to that draft article. Resolute04:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Some additional eyes on this article might be nice. Thanks to the media playing a game of internet telephone, there were some apparently false reports claiming he had died. Resolute16:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I finally just locked the article for six hours... one IP would edit saying he was dead based on an old report, and another would revert based on a new. rince, repeat. Resolute17:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Ya'll probably know this. But, be on the look-out for the next few days, as IPs are going wild declaring Gionta the new captain. Something that the Habs haven't decided on 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I repeat, we need semi-protection. My revert button is getting worn out & I might be in danger of getting blocked for 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Press box
Does anyone know what the name of the area where the GMs, owners, and other VIPs sit? It's not officially the press box, is it? What about injured and scratched players? Do they watch from the same area? –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 10:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to rewrite or extend of WP:NHOCKEY so that notability is clear for coaches and managers too? Right now it says "played". I think all we need to do is change that to "played/coached/managed". Maybe for owners too, but I am sure there is no issue under general notability for owners. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking Allan Shields and Allan Shields (goaltender) are the same person. Anyone who follows the period they played in know for sure? They both played on the same New York Americans team and the goaltender only played two games. I am thinking its the same defenceman playing part of two games in net. HockeyDB has them split but I think the odds of two people with the same name playing on the same team in the NHL in the same year to be far too unlikely. -DJSasso (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ice Hockey articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Ice Hockey articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
Looking over the list, I think that the project needs to start assessing importance of ice hockey articles. I think it would be helpful. Could we do this with some sort of default importance of low for the existing articles? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember not all of those on the list were choosen specifically because they were ice hockey articles. Alot of them may have been chosen because of other subjects they are in. This list just gives you the list of those articles which have the ice hockey tag on them. That being said I have no problem starting importance tagging. However, I have always found it to be way too subjective, even moreso than just rating the articles. You would need to come up with some framework on what would be at each level, and there is bound to be conflicts, ie NHL teams should be TOP level where as KHL should be HIGH level etc etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a very off the top of my head example
TOP: Hall of Famers, NHL Award Winners, Olympian player pages, NHL Teams, National Teams, "Top" League articles
HIGH: Other "Top" Level team pages, "Top" level league players pages, Minor league League pages.
MID: Minor league team pages, Minor league players pages
LOW: Team season pages, announcers, arenas (other than things like the Montreal Forum), basically all the more trivial attachments.
I like your list, DJ, but I think we ought to be slightly more discriminating. However much of a minor league partisan I am, most minor league teams are relatively ephemeral. I'd rank teams and players with significant impacts High (Springfield Indians, Hershey Bears, Fort Wayne Komets / Guyle Fielder, Willie Marshall, Fred Glover), established teams and players (7-10+ years of existence, top 100 all-time minor league scorer/major award winners) Mid, and the rest Low.
As far as the auto-generated list goes, it needs some serious revision. I've no objection to people pushing articles for their favorite players to FA status, but the notion that the 163 most important hockey articles Wikipedia has include Eric Brewer, Luc Bourdon, Ray Emery, the "Triple Gold Club," John Tavares, the Calgary Hitmen, Markus Naslund, Ryan Kesler and so on is laughable. Short of the greatest of today's stars - Brodeur, Ovechkin, Crosby, Lidstrom - every player on the list should be a Hall of Famer, or in the Sakic/Hasek/Jagr camp of one guaranteed to be so. I can sure think of a couple hundred articles I'd rather see on the 1.0 release than the O'Brien Trophy, the Asian hockey league or the 2010 IIHF worlds. RGTraynor 16:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh I agree. I was just trying to think quickly of a way to easily lay out the idea. Most projects that use importance have a short little chart with blurbs next to each level which explains what goes there and then give an example of such articles so I was looking for a very general sense of where things go. There is always leeway for articles. As far as what goes on each level, that is completely open for debate. As for your comment on the autogenerated list, I think this is where the idea of starting to do importance comes in, for projects that importance is used, the "points" used to determine what articles to include come from both quality and importance. Since we don't use importance the articles were more heavily biased towards better quality articles. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Then let's start with a proposal:
Proposal:Importance criteria for wp:hockey articles
And here comes the subjectivity problem: I would not consider all HHOFers to be "top" priority articles. Many I wouldn't even consider high. Gretzky, Richard and Vezina? Sure. Lemieux, Orr and Howe, ok. After that? No. Top should be restricted to only the most important articles. I would even say to set a hard cap: Say 50 articles total. If you want to add one, you have to remove another. Hello arguments. Same with high. College teams are regional interest at best. I wouldn't put them above mid. Award winners and players who have had long NHL careers I would not automatically assume as high either. Like top, I think High should be smallish. Most articles should fall in the low to mid category, but this is something we could debate forever. Resolute17:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This basically sums up why I have been hesitant in the past about Importance ratings. There are so many points of view on it that it becomes crazy. Atleast with quality assement you can have atleast a somewhat stable guide. But there are far too many variables when it comes to importance. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You get around subjectivity by using some 'achievement' criteria. That's why I used championships to elevate a team in a category. I'm not sure how to separate hall of famers. Greater than X times named an all-star? It does not have to be your opinion, it's a framework for the Wiki 1.0 folks. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but where the opinion comes in is choosing the number that X represents. But yes I will think more on this. The other example I gave I only thought about in like 3 or 4 minutes. Maybe tonight I will have a more thought out idea. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is, by definition, a subjective list. There is no cut off that won't be arbitrary, so if we are going to go down this path, then lets first accept that it will constitute the subjective opinion of the projects editors. IMO, a top down approach would be valuable here. I guess the first question is whether there is support for my idea that the Top level should constitute only a defined limit on the number of articles. I like 50 myself. If there is support for that, then lets define those 50 and see what's next, perhaps? Resolute17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
While we should define the criteria to keep the 'top' number low, I don't want to start by naming the top 50 articles, which is what I think you're suggesting. That will for sure inspire arguments. If we define the criteria to be tough, that would be enough, no? I suggest starting by figuring out how to split out HHOF players. What about non-NHL and NHL to start? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't like an arbitrary cutoff based on number of articles, because there's no reasoning behind it, not even a lack of space rationale. I suggest breaking the problem down into smaller, more manageable bits: what are the major areas that are important to the ice hockey domain, and what are the key topics that must be covered in order to tell the history of these areas? Isaac Lin (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We can split up HHOFers based on number of awards won. It could be HHOF and >10 or >20 award wins, something like that. That makes it less subjective, but should fit common sense. And move 'lesser' HHOF members to 'High'. Because after all HHOF members is over a hundred. It seems to be stretching it to extend 'top' status to all players. Certainly, only a small percentage of them are of 'top' importance. I will try to develop an estimate of the effect of various criteria on the HHOF players. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, in truth, I don't think there are 50 "top importance" articles in the first place. IMO, that ranking would be only for key articles related to the sport. All I can think of off hand are Ice hockey, History of ice hockey, National Hockey League and International Ice Hockey Federation. Everything else will branch off of one of those into a lower spot. From a biography POV, Gretzky, Tretiak, Orr, but not many else there either. Overall, I have a very good idea of how I would branch articles, but it is vastly different than alaney's ideas. And even in my own personal criteria, there are a lot of articles that I'm not sure if they are high, mid or low. Resolute20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The criteria in the table above seem very top-heavy. I'm not sure I would have any players in the "Top" category, saving that for the most basic of basic information about the game and its history. For me Gretzky, Howe, etc would be "High", other HOFers and current stars would be "Mid" and pretty much everyone else would be low. Rankings of importance also lean very heavily towards recentism. So, basically - just another opinion that adds weight to the argument that rankings of importance are very subjective.Canada Hky (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's subjective. And the comment is repetitive! :-) However, remember this is for ranking in importance for Wiki 1.0. Even if we move things up or down a category, the relative ranking is what is most important. It's a way to give some indication from this group of the relative ranking. I think we can achieve consensus on this if we keep this in mind. But it seems cumbersome to revise the table and repost it. Is there a better way to do it? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I still think top down is appropriate. So, forgetting any caps, lets just look at what we consider the top articles first. Hypothetically, what articles would a release version of Wikipedia include? I think the four I listed above. Maybe the Original Six NHL teams. I get Canada Hky's point about biographies not being considered top, but there's little doubt in my mind that guys like Gretzky, Orr and Richard had lasting effects on the sport. KHL/Elitserien/sm-Liiga? Resolute22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Gretzky won over 20 trophies and 15 all-star teams etc. Orr 17, all-star teams 9. Richard only won one trophy, but was named to the all-star team 14 times. So it would seem that there is a criteria there if we have add trophy wins and all-star teams > 10, we should get only top players. Gordie Howe, Ray Bourque, Joe Sakic, etc. Which is okay because you want top players from more than one era.
Hopefully others chime in. Looking better to me, but I would not consider either Bourque or Sakic as top priority articles - so it goes without saying I am not a huge fan of an arbitrary awards standard. From a historical perspective, the Patrick brothers did far, far more for the game than either of those two, for example. You've got a couple more obvious top importance articles though. (How could I have forgotten the Stanley Cup?)Resolute02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I won't argue that guys like Gretzky et al aren't important to the game of hockey, but I think the game of hockey and its institutions (leagues, international governing bodies, etc) are a level above. If this were the NHL WikiProject, I would have those guys as Top importance, but to include them would to me mean including their contemporaries from other leagues around the world. I would also say that 100 games isn't a long-time player at a given level, its only slightly more than a single season in the NHL. Canada Hky (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have anything against early players. We could add a criteria to elevate players based on them becoming coachs and managers and owners (e.g. Lemieux) in their career. Which might help early players like the Patricks. It's a bit debatable to boost early players. The game was more raw and you get wild out-of-bounds circumstances like Frank McGee scoring 14 goals in Stanley Cup competition (and others scoring over 10 goals) in one game that are not comparable to someone scoring 14 today. Which is impossible, just based on the fact that players don't play 60 minutes per game. All-star games and trophies go back to the 20s and the patricks named all-stars back in the 1910s so we cover stuff pretty well. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It might be best for top- and high-priority candidates to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with the above table as a strong guideline (such as how WP:NHOCKEY is a strong guideline for notability). Influences on the game should be more important than the amount of trophies won, especially as older players had less trophies to win. Also, rather minor, but I'd like to add "Ice hockey in media" to LOW importance, with articles about video games (such as NHL 11) and film (Sudden Death (film) or Score: A Hockey Musical, which I am shamefully kind of excited for), etc. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well the this seems to be gaining traction but just to throw a wrench into the works, has anyone considered the actual logistics of the assessing of all the articles for importance? There are still 1,500+ articles not even assessed for rating and that's after a couple of editors finished assessing 1,400 article before the recent update. However, more to the point what about big events such as Summit Series and Miracle on Ice? Both are big events in their respective nations, even producing movies about the events, but don't carry the same weight internationally. So are they mid where in their respective countries they might be considered high? And what about edit wars over rankings, it sounds ridicules but there was one going on over Ovechkin's weight a couple of months ago mainly due to anon users chaning things as they see fit. It seems like opening a can of worms for the 1.0 roll-out were we'll still end up with a lot of the same articles. IMO--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The cut and dry articles can easily and quickly be done by AWB. It's the borderline ones that might take longer. And of course there is no deadline so if it take a long time it takes a long time. Some being done and others not being done isn't a big deal. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles could default to 'Low' importance and we start from the top and work down. There are fewer top articles. And that's where the priority is, no? The larger list is when we get further down the pyramid. That will take time, for certain. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)
Alaney's revised list looks good to me. And c'mon, Resolute ... from a historical standpoint, there isn't a player in the history of the game - not Gretzky, not Howe, not Hull, not Lalonde, no one - who changed the game as much as the Patrick brothers did. So stipulated. But we're not trying to lock ourselves into a five year plan here or anything graven in stone. We're looking for a working consensus to suggest to the 1.0 project articles worth including and those nowhere remotely close worth including. To some degree, importance should reflect the "reasonable man" premise, and the utility of an encyclopedia that promotes (say) Frank Patrick over preeminent superstars would be seen to be limited. (And come to that, Vezina in your best half-dozen players ever? He isn't even in the top three goalies of his era.) RGTraynor 04:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be a problem with Robert Rompre, according to [1], the "Olympic record" of 4 goals in one game claimed by the article is not a record, as someone had scored 7 goals in one game in an earlier Olympics, for the US (1920), and someone for Canada had scored 13 in a game (1924)... This article showed up at DYK on the Main Page, claiming a record of 4 goals in a game as the Olympic Record for 1952. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Umm, yeah. There is definitely something wrong there. Harry Watson scored 11 goals in a game against the Czechoslovaks and 13 against Switzerland in those 1924 Olympics. The fault here lies with a newspaper (?) that obviously didn't check its facts. Resolute03:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Obviously whoever wrote the obituary article in the paper (link) either doesn't know what they are talking about, or wasn't clear that it was a record for those single games. I would think its the latter, but can't find anything to confirm this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Current Standings
Is there a set format to do hockey standings, certain stats that are looked for (like goal differental?) Should current standings even be used? I know personally it was a big headache for me to take care of the WHL standings for the end of the season last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forret35 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well basically we have templates that have the standard layout for stats and they are on the relevant pages and when we update the template it updates all the pages. -DJSasso (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
So it wouldn't be a problem if I went into the standings and updated the years? Or would you lose the information from last year? Forret35 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well basically we create new ones for the new year that are copies of the old ones but without the stats in them already basically. -DJSasso (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Question on tournament name
Hi, im considering making an article on the former IIHF Asia-Oceania Junior Championships but ive hit a minor problem on what to call the article. Per the IIHF's site they called the last tournament (2002) "IIHF Asian Oceania U18 Championship" but on the same page the logo calls the tournament "IIHF Asia Oceania U18 Championships". It has previously been known as the "Asian Oceanic Junior U18 Championships" in 2000 but i figured that the newest name would superseed the older name. So any ideas on whether i should use "Asia" or "Asian". Thanks. Salavat (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Grammatically, Asian should go with Oceanic and Asia with Oceania. Anyway, was 2002 the most recent event? Regardless, a redirect from the other spelling would be needed once you choose. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the insite, i went with IIHF Asian Oceanic U18 Championships. According to the source i used 2002 is the last tournament as the countries were then absorbed into the World Championship program. Did you know that during the 1998 tournament Thailands loss 92–0 to South Korea. Again thanks. Salavat (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the consideration, but we don't use such templates within the hockey project. From my own POV, I find roster templates on player articles to be little more than clutter. Resolute16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I get a couple more people watching the article on Calgary's arena? Pengrowth's naming rights have expired, and the arena is widely expected (but not yet reported) to be renamed the Scotiabank Saddledome at some point, and people are starting to edit the article to reflect this. Problem is, it hasn't happened yet. Some help reverting the changes as they come would be appreciated. Resolute22:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it works for arenas. It's fine for leagues and stuff where no one actually refers to the name of the sponsor, but people usually call the arena by their sponsor name. It's probably too much effort to request a move, then another move, too, so it's best just to keep the status quo until the inevitable announcement. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 03:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not rename the article "Saddledome"? It's referred to as just "the Saddledome" throughout. It's commonly referred to as simply "Saddledome" in most media. People don't walk around Calgary talking about so-and-so playing a concert "at the Pengrowth Saddledome": it's just "the Saddledome". I argue Saddledome fits WP:COMMONNAME better than Pengrowth Saddledome. 68.145.111.63 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between a nickname and a common name. Witness Shea Stadium, not "William A. Shea Municipal Stadium", or Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, not "Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome". We have articles at Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton), Jimmy Carter (not James Earl Carter Jr.), etc. What's the difference? There are no other "Saddledomes"; it's not as though "Pengrowth" is necessary to distinguish it from other "Saddledomes" (like "Pontiac Silverdome" distinguishes it from other "Silverdomes"). WP:COMMONNAME says: Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. So, again, why not change it? 68.145.111.63 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Because outside of Calgary and even in Calgary in reliable sources it is most commonly called the Pengrowth Saddledome. What the average person on the street calls it is not a reliable source. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yup. "Pengrowth Saddledome" is both the legal name and a common name - easily as common as just "Saddledome". The naming convention is perfectly fine as is. My only concern was with the potential of people attempting to rename the article before the arena itself is renamed. Resolute19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Purely for consistency reasons among NHL arenas, it should be "Pengrowth/Whatever Saddledome". We would not even be having this discussion if it were "Pengrowth Arena" or "Pengrowth Stadium". Also, as an aside, "saddle" implies a valley while "dome" implies a crest, thereby making "Saddledome" an oxymoron. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Those wacky Calgarians and their cowboy image.;-) Anyway, I'm not suggesting a move at this time. But, if after the name rights are resolved, it retains 'Saddledome', then a move request to 'Saddledome' would be the best procedure to follow. Consensus might be that we can just name the article 'Saddledome'. I don't think we have to retain the sponsorship info in the title. We don't for the Winter Classic, which is the 'Bridgestone Winter Classic', etc. etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That would be because those are single events where the sponsor will likely be forgotten after that years game, ie history books etc in the future are likely to only refer to them as the 2010 Winter Classic etc, most already do. The name of an arena is semi-permanent and an ongoing name. I doubt many people without going to the page to look could name the sponsor of the first Winter Classic. -DJSasso (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a difference between Pengrowth and Bridgestone in the parallel you draw, Djsasso. What's the difference? It seems like Saddledome is the permanent part, just like Winter Classic. I think history books will refer to it as the Saddledome, don't you? Other than for consistency, I'm not sure why anyone would be 'attached' to Pengrowth or the future sponsor. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Because you couldn't just name it Saddledome you would have to name it The Saddledome because thats how its used. But that is a very bad way to name an article. This particular arena is from the era of not having sponsorships its whole life so it probably will be just the Saddledome in the future, but during its life it should be named whatever its actual name is for consistency. Once its torn down, then I have no problem reverting back to its original non-sponsorship name, as was just done with the Civic Arena (Pittsburgh). -DJSasso (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh please, you wouldn't have to call it "The Saddledome". It's not like the Colosseum article is at "The Colosseum". I just don't understand why you're so opposed. "For consistency"? "Its actual name"? The only consistent part of that arena's name IS Saddledome. I just don't see how moving the article from Pengrowth Saddledome to Saddledome makes it any less accurate, clear, concise, understandable, consistent... whatever! It fits WP:COMMONNAME, it's consistent, it's what everybody calls the damned thing. Even when it was new and it was officially the "Olympic Saddledome" it was still just Saddledome in common parlance. This issue of moving the article to suit a new corporate sponsor wouldn't even exist if it was at Saddledome in the first place. I can understand not, for instance, having Rexall Place at "Northlands Coliseum", because the corporate sponsor is an integral part of the name of the building. If the Saddledome was called "Olympic Arena", then renamed "Canadian Airlines Centre" and then "Pengrowth Place", fine: I wouldn't argue, 'Pengrowth' would be for all intents and purposes its name. But it's not. It's the Saddledome. In this case Pengrowth is just tacked on: it doesn't clarify which building we're talking about.
Put it this way: if the Civic Arena's sponsorship by Mellon was such that the 'official' name of the facility was "Mellon Rink at Pittsburgh Civic Arena", and everybody still called the place "Civic Arena", would you move "Pittsburgh Civic Arena" to "Mellon Rink at Pittsburgh Civic Arena" or would you change the opening sentence of the article, the infobox and such and leave the article title alone? 68.145.111.63 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
there's no date or scheduled announcement. Merely the fact that "scotiabanksaddledome.com" was registered as a URL by the Calgary Hitmen Hockey Club and insider info. There's been no official announcement at all. At this point it is all speculation Resolute15:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably. He's not a prospect in the traditional sense of the word, but the technicality is close enough that we could use the prospect_team parameter. Resolute02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Should the prospect parameter really be used when the player plays for a professional team? I get it when a draftee still plays junior, but using it for AHL and European teams feel kind of wrong. —KRM(Communicate!)08:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't list it that way, we don't do it for other players who are bouncing back and forth. The Rangers at this point are his former team. He may belong to the Rangers but that doesn't mean he plays for them any longer. There used to be a standard of not using the prospect fields after a player passed x number of games in the NHL or x number of years in the minors, but I can't for the life of me remember what X was. Remember the fields are for teams he played for, not franchises he belonged to. -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. He is no prospect. I think that's clear. His case is not what the infobox tag was designed for. That's for player who you would find on hockeysfuture.com, who've not played in the NHL much or at all. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the Russians were up to, but the Super Series refers specifically to the Soviet clubs that toured NHL teams. The times when NHL teams went to the Soviet Union had other names. The Flames' 1990 tour was the "Friendship Series", IIRC. Resolute19:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Should be, but I guess nobody has really gotten around to it. Oddly enough, the trips Calgary, Washington and some other teams (including Minnesota, iirc) took to the Soviet Union are almost completely forgotten, while the Super Series itself remains well remembered. Resolute20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I've rectified this by finally creating the List of international games played by NHL teams we talked about a year or two ago. I was aiming for a comprehensive overview of all international games featuring NHL teams (not All-Star type matchups, though). I think I've gotten everything, but please do correct or add anything missing. Jmj713 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The IIHF had an article published today that included a complete list of every game featuring an NHL and European team. List is here so if anything is missing, it will be there. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
AHL Roster rehash
Would just like to bring up this previous discussion from bout a month ago. I would like the final thoughts of people, so I don't go through the hassle of making this template for it only to be deleted.
I'm either going to update the AHL rosters soon with the current ice hockey roster template or go with the proposed minor league template. Obviously i think it's beneficial for the extra contract status to be included, but if a number of people don't agree i won't push it and move on..cheers Triggerbit (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I did some cleaning up in the templates categories a week ago, and made Category:American Hockey League roster templates, since there were some roster templates who lacked a suitable parent category. Since then, User:Doh286 has started creating more templates, so that currently 16 out of 30 teams in the AHL now have the same roster template. Since NHL teams have direct connection with AHL teams, I believe these templates are suitable. These rosters will be edited into the team articles anyhow, so the templates will ensure standardization, and an easier overview of the different squads. Adding a contract column is fine with me as long as it will be updated by all users. (Me personally don't know where this information is shown.) lil2mas (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
ottawa civic centre
For the second year in a row, the Ottawa Civic Centre is renamed. This year it is the Rona Centre. Next season, it will likely be a different name because it is a lottery. It seems to me that we should probably just use Civic Centre with redirects from Rona Centre and Urbandale Centre, etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
What do the papers tend to call it most? The only reason I would be hesitant is because Civic Centre is a very common name and would have to be disambiguated anyways. So might as well disambig it with the sponsor name. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The unusual aspect is that it's more of a Ottawa 67's promotional gimmick than an actual renaming of the building, which is owned by the city. (Kind of like a "Mayor of the day" contest.) The city's web site continues to refer to the facility as the Civic Centre Arena. The 67's use the contest winner's name in its promotional material, but I do not believe the city does. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The winner of the lottery only pays $1,000 for the naming for the year. That's why I figure it's not too serious. And if it is going to change year-to-year, just add redirects at most. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Sabrina Harbec vs. Sabrina Hrabec
From what I can gather, the Wikipedia page for Sabrina Harbec is misspelled to say Hrabec. I do not have access to changing the title of the article since I do not use my account as much as is necessary, but someone should look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.11.222 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
So moved. Apparently, it was moved to the incorrect spelling last week, with a cryptic comment about duplication. Don't understand myself, as it clearly was a misspelling.oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it, I doubt it. But if you can find a page that lists its sources and a bibliography like hockeydb.com has. Then you can use it. But I doubt that a site in this condition has something like that. However this IIHF encyclopedia on google books might have what you need. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought as much seen as they have a little box that says "Add an Entry". Unfortunately the IIHF encyclopedia only gives rosters for the winning teams of the top division. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps send an email to the IIHF asking if they have any publications or sources that can be used. They might have something available. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
So i managed to get the rosters i was after from a guy via the International Hockey Forums. He emailed me a list of the players. He also suggested using "Hockey Resource Centre, Toronto, Canada, Final Documentation" as a reference (aka the place where he got the information). Can i reference the Resource Centre? Salavat (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The Resource Centre is part of the Hockey Hall of Fame, which houses the IIHF Hall of Fame. So they are reliable, but the citation doesn't seem right. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I got List of Washington Capitals seasons promoted to WP:FL awhile back, and I just noticed that an IP has recently added the playoff seeds for each of the teams the Capitals played in the table (diff). I'm not really active in this WikiProject, but I figured I should ask you guys-- should they stay? Nomader(Talk)21:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The results section for the 1903 CAHL Season looks incorrect. It appears that the dates are correct and the scorelines, but the fixtures have been carried over from the 1902 season. i.e. the first match on the 1902 season was Victorias v Ottawa and so on down the full list. The total number of goals for the season matches the total in the standings table, but if you look at the fixtures, it would indicate that Ottawa had lost more than two games.
Does anyone have the correct fixture list so this can be amended?
Comment As for the argument to keep the article, I would say it is different from the Georgia Tech and Georgia discussions referenced in the original deletion. Pretty much all of the ACHA DIII teams and at most of the ACHA DII teams are more recreational club programs than non-NCAA intercollegiate programs. The line starts to blur with the very top DII teams, such as Grand Valley or Kentucky. ACHA DI team are well organized and usually have high respect on and off campus. The level of play for ACHA DI is generally a notch below NCAA DIII, however the top half could put up respectable numbers in NCAA DIII and top 5-10 could really do some damage in NCAA DIII and put up a challenge against low level NCAA DI teams. (Penn State did beat NCAA DI Robert Morris about 4-5 years ago.) Let's not split hairs and for sake of argument say that ACHA DI is lumped into the same level as NCAA DIII, I don't believe we have any separate articles for NCAA DIII teams? If NCAA DIII teams not notable to have separate articles, certainly ACHA DI teams aren't. If they are-then this definitely calls for more discussion.
An ACHA DI team can have a separate article if: The program is in the process of transitioning to NCAA. (examples mentioned earlier). Or the program was once a member of the NCAA before moving to ACHA DI, ex/ Kent State, Ohio.
A few other things that make an ACHA DI team article notable: Is the program considered Varsity Club level by the university? Iowa State, Liberty Univ., Penn State (pre NCAA announcement), etc are designated as varsity club teams for their attention on and off campus and usually funded by either a sub department of the Athletic department... Another criteria to look at are NAIA schools, (NAIA doesn't sponsor ice hockey since 1980s). Teams like Lindenwood, Davenport, SUNY Canton and some others…include their ACHA teams and fund them as part of their mainstream athletic departments. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
None of the ECAC Division III hockey schools have an independent hockey article. Heck, I couldn't find any with a standalone athletics article. RGTraynor 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find any either. BUT it doesn't mean they're not notable, it could just be because no user has gotten around to it. A few months ago I finished creating articles for the rest of the NCAA DI teams (Lots of stubs left if anyone has info to work on them, they actually should look more like this W&J article btw). The hockey community on Wikipedia is a bit smaller than sports like basketball or football. I've seen NAIA, DIII, DII, and DI articles for those sports (example:WP:CFBTEAMS). If we at WP:HOCKEY find the same/similar levels of notability for collegiate hockey our structure would be articles for NCAA DI, NCAA DII (the few existing NE-10 schools), NCAA DIII, NAIA (a handfull of schools playing ACHA DI), and ACHA DI teams at NCAA schools. I wouldn't go below ACHA DI because then it's more like other club sports, and at some schools its more recreational/intramural. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The thing is unlike say college football which as you say have pages right down to the lowly depths because football is huge in the US. College hockey however is not and its notability drops off really fast. Some D1 teams would barely make the cut, nevermind lower levels. Clearly I am not advocating removing D1 schools but anything below D2 is definitely not notable unless there are special reasons for it, in general US college hockey just doesn't have much notability as a whole beyond D1. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point about what is essentially the sports culture of the US. Part of it may be that NCAA DIII and NAIA football schools still have on average 1,000-5,000 seat stadiums, where some DI teams have around 1,000 seat arenas and NCAA DIII ACHA DI teams generally play in 500-1,000 seat arenas. A large factor in the attendance could be the number of teams concentrated in the Northern parts of the US. There's 6 NCAA DI athletic departments in Mass. but with hockey there's 10. After a quick search I’m finding a number of sources for some NCAA DIII teams, so at the very least WP:HOCKEY’s policy should be similar to that of football: Please note that all NCAA schools are presumed notable, since there will always be reliable independent sources documenting their notability. And even with not the NCAA DIII teams would most likely pass GNG with such sources. Regardless, this article poses the question do we regard ACHA DI teams like other sports projects deal with NAIA teams? Bhockey10 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well ... for one thing, the college football Wikiproject's notion of notability is pretty much insane; I've had battles over their insistence that guys who coached five games at a cow college in 1908 are, and should be, notable by definition. That being said, they're wrong if they think that Div III teams pass GNG as a matter of course. Really? Of the Div III college hockey teams whose games I've attended, UMass-Boston and Wentworth Institute barely merit a weekend-roundup paragraph in Boston papers. Heck, American International College (which plays, nominally, Division I) doesn't get more than that in the Springfield papers. The only substantial coverage concerning the UMB Beacons I've ever seen (and I'm an alum, so I pay attention) was a few years ago when they had a 43 year old defenseman, a fellow who'd gone back for his degree, provoking a human interest story. We're running a ways afield of this AfD, though, and this discussion probably should be ported to WP:HOCKEY. RGTraynor 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it, its not much more than a list of games that had been played. I could email you the source if you want it. Its actually a pretty plausible article if it could be verified. I own atleast one of the books that is used as a reference, but I don't recall it mentioning Mali. -DJSasso (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone pruned the nonsense out of it, so the final version was not the one Schmloof is referring to. At it's peak, the article was the same kind of inane nonsense that uncyclopedia is noted for. Resolute03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
My two things about those pages. From what I can tell the CWHL has scrapped team names. There was an article on the Toronto Star's website the other day (sorry the I don't have the link in front of me) that stated they were in talks with the Bruins, Sabres, Senators, Canadiens and Maple Leafs to sponsor teams. So the Montreal Stars no longer exist technically. The Montreal team is brand new, hence why they held the GTA area draft instead of simply allowing players from the 08-09 season to return. I didn't edit the page as I can't verify that the teams are indeed new. However, I can safely say that the Mississauga team is no longer around. Looking at the schedule the Toronto team's games are going to played in Toronto. If anything it can be said that it is a Heritage Team of the Beatrice Aeros of the NWHL.
Now for the Carabins page. I will add my two cents though it doesn't really belong here. I would say that you should perhaps take my lead on CIS pages. Take a look at Saskatchewan Huskies and 2010 Saskatchewan Huskies football team. That was the idea I would suggest for the Carabin page. Also, I would take the timeline chart on the page and turn it into prose. Lastly, perhaps in Quebec (or Montreal) the Carabin are known for their soccer teams and women's hockey team (which isn't in the CIS as far as I know and is probably not notable as a result). But in the rest of Canada, the Carabin are known for their football team, so the article needs to touch on that beyond the picture of the helmet. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Shootmaster for your contribution. The women sports are more fragile to the financial plan. I do not know the future for the Canadian Women's Hockey League CWHL. I hope that CWHL will not live the same fate with National Women's Hockey League NWHL. What I know for the immediate: the season 2009-2010 of Montreal Stars begins on Saturday, October 23rd against Burlington. And the calendar is made for the season (see http://www.cwhl.ca/schedule.asp ) I have my tickets-pass for season. I have no information on the team of Mississauga. I know this team moved to Toronto http://www.cwhl.ca/ I am going to make the changes this week on the wikipedia page. A wikipedia page can be anxious us to inform for this season 2010–11 CWHL season .
Thank you for the page of Saskatchewan Huskies and 2010 Saskatchewan Huskies football team. The wikipedia pages are really complete for all the teams of the university of Sakatchewan. My problem is that I don't like the football ( american football) and I cannot follow every 15 teams (ski, swimming, golf, volleyball, football, soccer, hockey, etc.) of the université de Montreal particularly the football team (americain football). I am sorry for that but i prefer soccer and hockey teams. Can be the other persons will complete the page for the other teams of the Montreal Carabins merci de votre gentillesse et de votre contribution--Charlesquebec (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as the Stars go, can you verify they are indeed the Montreal Stars? I don't follow the CWHL (or WWHL) that closely, but from what I have read online and in the Hockey News seems to give reason that the CWHL had actually created new teams for this year. The league will control the teams and not the respective minor hockey club teams.
Of course people edit the pages with what they are interested in. I wasn't suggesting that all teams have a page similar to the Huskies football page. All I meant is that it might be a better idea to create a soccer page for the Carabin along those lines and move the roster off the front page. However, in the interests of this being the Hockey Project and this discussion having little to do with hockey, let's move this conversation to our respective talk pages. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Merci Shootmaster. Thank you for your contribution. Can be that your information is better... I am only a supporter of the Montreal Stars and I have a lot of information. Once the season begun, I shall have the opportunity to discuss with players and I would mean completing the pages for Women's hockey --Charlesquebec (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally I prefer to call the league by its actual name. If people want to know what country it is, thats what the wikilink to the league article is for. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Djsasso. I basically think that if an organization sells its naming rights, then it sells its naming rights. It accepts being called the Erste Bank League. If it's done on a yearly basis, well that's a naming problem for Wikipedia because you don't want to keep changing articles and links. If the sponsorship is for more than one year, then the article and references should be to the Erste Bank league. I noticed two things about the league from its article. 1. That it was sponsored by another bank not that long ago. Will it change again soon? 2. It's not a 'big' league. The arenas are fairly small. The point being that it appears to need the sponsorship and quite willing sold off naming rights. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions its had the name since 2003-04. So I don't think we are too likely to see too many naming changes. Even if we do, thats what redirects are for so it wouldn't be too much of a hassle. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Zagłębie Sosnowiec
So im working on 2010 IIHF World Championship rosters when i came across a little disambiguation issue. Teddy Da Costa of France currently plays for Polish club Zagłębie Sosnowiec, but Zagłębie Sosnowiec redirects to the football team of the same name. So my problem is: what to disambiguate them as.
The IIHF refer to the team simply as "Zagłębie Sosnowiec"
Well their name is probably just Zagłębie Sosnowiec the various letters usually just mean ice hockey. If you are intending to create a page for the team then I would just disambig it at Zagłębie Sosnowiec (ice hockey) to avoid trying to decide on one. But if there is polish expert around they would probably know better. But I don't know if we have any. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Ice Hockey for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I added my answers and encourage everyone else to do the same. Don't know about the rest of you, but I read the Singpost every week, and really enjoy seeing how the different projects operate. Would be nice to let the rest of Wikipedia know how we do things in our ever expanding corner of the site. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I responded as well, but as I have been interviewed previously, it would be nice to see the input of others get primary coverage - especially our often overlooked gnomes. Resolute04:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know a new feature has been added to the ice hockey template that was discussed awhile back. It is the bio= param. At the moment if you set this to yes it will change the category that the needs-photo= param places articles in from the generic ice hockey folder to the ice hockey personnel folder. In the future it could be expanded to other uses but this is all for now. I will run AWB through all the bios tonight to add this parameter so there isn't anything anyone should have to do immediately, this is more a notice for anyone in the future adding the template to new articles that you might want to set it for bios. If you want an example of it in action, I just updated Talk:John Armstrong (ice hockey) with it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting choice. ;-) Looks like John Armstrong doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY. Do we grand-father in players who were notable (in his case, played AHL) according to old wp:athlete ? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I would probably prod him personally, since he doesn't meet the new standards. I just didn't look closely this time. Just chose him because I happened to have come across him when doing this. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose the question is to wonder how much coverage players in the USHL get? Generally, the arguments in NHOCKEY are set at a point where it is assumed that a person has achieved the independent coverage to become notable. A CHL player winning a major award in their league almost always has received significant coverage over a broad region within Canada, if not the entire nation. If USHL players enjoy similar coverage in the US, then yes, I would say it would qualify. Resolute02:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Which it doesn't. That being said, I'm a lot less interested in "neutrality" than in pragmatics. There are currently - and have always been - 1st round picks from American high schools and Tier II leagues, but we don't specify them for automatic passes on notability. Instead, those players notable enough to nose to the front manage on their own ... no doubt those four USHL 1st rounders had articles within a week of selection. I'm comfortable with that. RGTraynor 10:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Then if coverage is the concern here, what is the reason for giving such a criteria in the first place? If Canadian juniors who meet these requirements are expected to have sufficient coverage anyways, the criteria is unneeded. Or, add the top US league. List of USHL award winners gives just a few awards; I don't think we'd have to worry about a flood of these players. Grsz1115:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the presumption is that someone who meets the criteria is likely to have sufficient enough coverage to meet the GNG. That's the whole underpinning of WP:ATHLETE - not that (for instance) someone who's named an Ontario Hockey League First Team All-Star is notable by that fact alone, but because someone who's achieved that level of success in a league of the stature of the OHL will have attracted significant press attention. Major junior is a big deal in Canada. It's not in the United States. The proof of the pudding there is that many USHL players move on to play NCAA hockey. RGTraynor 18:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is a bit of a misconception many people have. WP:ATHLETE/WP:NSPORTS doesn't mean that a player is notable just for meeting it. Those guidelines are just guidelines as to when someone is likely to have enough sources to meet WP:GNG. It says this right at the top of the page. Too many people confuse the two things, which is why ATHLETE was recently expanded to become NSPORTS and much wording was added to try and make that fact clear. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, NHHOCKEY only reflects our experiences on the notability of players. It does not define notability. History has shown us that a CHL player who wins a major award will almost certainly have enough independent coverage to satisfy Wikipedia's policies on notability. The USHL (and any other top level junior league) should be included only if the same can be demonstrated for those leagues. And the truth is, even a CHL award winner could be deleted if they do not otherwise pass policies on verifiability, notability and the like. Resolute18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The current criteria don't reflect that sentiment. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an arbitrary number of games a player much reach before being "notable", ie 100 minor league games. 18:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm not a huge fan of that 100 games note either, but it is not related to the concept of what makes a junior player notable. Personally, outside of the top national pro leagues, I'd never write an article on a player who simply played minor pro for any arbitrary length of time. Resolute19:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, personally I wouldn't write an article on anyone below the NHL or other top level leagues unless I had lots of sources. Most minor pro players are missing these kind of sources. Most american juniors are definitely missing this. The WP:NHOCKEY guidelines are not what define notability, they are just guidelines for looking at a glance as to who is likely to be able to find enough sources. Players at less than a multi year career in the minors are alot less likely than someone who has played in the NHL or many years in the AHL to have sources. The only reason we have minor league players on there at all is to make it clear that some minor leaguers are likely to have sources. Personally I liked the the old 5 year minimum, not sure why it got lowered to 100 games. I would also note, that almost no one in the hockey world would consider the USHL on the same level as the CHL. The USHL is filled with players who couldn't make CHL teams or who decided it was smarter to go to university. The quality level there is much lower than the CHL. In the US the closest equivalent to the CHL is the NCAA Div 1 which is why we list in the guideline CHL or collegiate hockey league. -DJSasso (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose Point #4 of WP:NHOCKEY be edited to read as follows (the only change is the addition of the words 'United States hockey League'): Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, United States Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements).Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that what was proposed at the top of this section and basically shot down? The USHL just doesn't get the media coverage necessary to be able to say that people who win these awards are likely to have articles about them written in multiple independent sources. -DJSasso (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There is not a consensus on this issue. The USHL is of the same level as the Canadian major juniors, so the awards are of equal merit. To state that they do not get the same coverage demonstrates bias against American hockey. The sport is more than just about Canada. Dolovis (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that each of those three listed hockey players have received independent and significant coverage to support an article.Dolovis (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Your search terms are a bit misleading, once you put ushl player of the year in quotes so other people in other leagues aren't included in the results you drop to less than 20 hits, most of which are press releases , preview type pages, stats pages or otherwise non-reliable sources. And to say that the sport doesn't get as much coverage in states is not a bias, its a reality. If you think hockey gets as much coverage in the US, why are fans all over the US complaining all the time that there is no coverage? The USHL is not the same level as the CHL, the USHL is considered the equivalent of Junior A. -DJSasso (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Misleading? The search does include "ushl player of the year". That the USHL is not major junior is an invalid argument. Major junior is a term just referring to the CHL, and can't really be used in reference to the United States. Grsz1103:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
No your search had it out of quotes which meant it was pulling in any article with the word player in it etc. Yes and no it can still be applied because for example a team like the Thunder Bay Flyers which was a USHL team would compete in the Canadian Junior A championships when the USHL season was done, which would indicate its on par with Junior A in Canada. The equivalent of the CHL in the US is NCAA Div 1 which is why for many players they move on from the USHL to either the CHL or Div 1. -DJSasso (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean ""brackets or [] brackets. Because when I put [ushl player of the year] the hits went into the millions. Grsz1103:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, I am not saying they can't have articles. I am just saying I don't think being a USHL award winner is the guarantee of notability that a CHL award winner is. They can still have an article if they meet the GNG. But a CHL award winner all but has their face plastered on billboards across the country, a USHL award winner is in comparison a tiny blip on the radar. -DJSasso (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It is significant to note that the NHL Guide and Record Book lists, for its prospects, WHL, OHL, QMJHL, USHL and NCAA 'All-Star Team' selections and 'All-Rookie Team' selections, and also notes USHL Player of the Year winners. This book lists only the most significant of achievements, and shows that the NHL considers USHL and NCAA teams to be on par with the Canadian major juniors. Dolovis (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Comparing the coverage of those players to any of the WHL, OHL or QMHJL player of the year does a fine job of showing the disparity in coverage. At this point, I remain of the opinion that winning a USHL award does not create a high enough probability that we can assume they meet WP:GNG, and as such should be treated on a case by case basis. Certainly if a USHL award winner has multiple non-trivial independent sources writing about them, they are notable and should have articles. Resolute06:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the phrase "such as", such as in NHOCKEY note 4, implies "including but not limited to". So even if the USHL had consensus to be considered the same level as the CHL, I wouldn't put it there anyway, lest the passage become even more unwieldly. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Split of Edmonton Oilers
I've made a split of the History section of the Edmonton Oilers article to History of the Edmonton Oilers. It's been long overdue. Any help on the process would be appreciated. I'm first working on cutting down the history section of the main article to a summary as best I can. If any one could work on the History article, please go ahead. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)
AlexanderOvechkinFan has been working on the Oilers article for some time. It might help to touch base with him. He's a new editor that seems to have the desire to bring it to FA and could likely use some guidance and assistance. Resolute17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
IIHF Record Book
For those of you who are interested, which is probably quite a few of us, the IIHF will start selling their first ever Media Guide and Record Book on November 5. At 604 pages, it says it will have info on every player to play in an IIHF tournament ever, plus the Summit Series and Canada/World Cups, as well as records and stuff. Should be useful for the various international articles we have and don't have many/any sources for. Price is $29.95(US?)/€21.50, and I swear that I'm not an employee of the IIHF, I just think this book will be one of the best things to happen to hockey enthusiasts since the publication of Total Hockey a decade ago. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I would also note, that they don't do it in every sport. Its a mixed consensus on them as was talked about in the last discussion. I could also link you to many many many deletion discussions on hockey ones as well as other sports. And you definitely don't want to see our Jeter image. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What the heck. Might as well put up the image. If people can't understand why navboxes are bad just from looking at that picture then I don't know what to say. Navboxes for championship teams are counter to WP:NAVBOX and also to WP:EMBED. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, in short, they are nothing but clutter, do not aid navigation in any way, and simply flood articles with irrelevant links. The image of Jeter's obnoxious collection of navboxes in the discussion Grsz linked is pretty much my argument in its entirety. Navboxes are supposed to provide a link between tightly related subjects. Random teammates in a random season are not tightly related. Resolute13:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
First off, I see no reason to slavishly follow what every other sport does. Should we adopt the insane notability freefall that's the college football project? Should we treat minor league hockey the same way football and basketball handle their minor leagues, and should we accord college hockey the same level of importance as those two sports do their collegiate leagues? Should we consider the NHL on the same relative par vis-a-vis other national leagues as the NFL? How about as MLS? A large part of the reason for the overhaul of WP:ATHLETE was the obvious realization that one set of rules fit poorly over all of sport.
Secondly, the consensus here is that template creep's gone completely insane. Let's take Paul Coffey, for instance. He played with nine separate teams, played for four Stanley Cup winners and made the Hall of Fame. That could be fourteen templates right there, which is absurd. Henri Richard's worth thirteen.
Finally, what does such a template ADD? That a player's been on a Cup winner? It's already in the article. Who his teammates were on that team? Take the four seconds it'll take to surf over to the appropriate team season article. RGTraynor 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It really is in the extremes that this breaks down badly. Consider Wayne Gretzky. Four Stanley Cups, so that's four navboxes (and really, why are teammates notable only in championship seasons anyway?) Thirteen (!) major individual awards, thirteen more navboxes. Five Canada Cup/World Cup teams, and Olympic team as a player and one as an executive, so that's seven more. Could go the baseball route and create a template of the people elected to the Hall of Fame for each year. His number was retired by three teams, so if we use that stupid "retired numbers" line on team templates, that's three more. That is twenty eight navboxes if we went that route. And the question I always ask is: why is it useful to know on Gretzky's article the name of the 4th line centre on the 1985 Oilers, the winner of the Hart Trophy in 1968 or that the LA Kings participated in the 1967 Expansion Draft? Those templates are nothing but irrelevancies. If you want to know the other winners of any major award, go to the award's article. Same with teammates in a given season. Resolute14:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What the other sports do is irrelevant. Besides, the Jeter navboxes are enough to terrify anybody from wanting Stanley Cup Championship templates. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I have looked, but cannot find, the deletion discussion for the above two now-deleted templates. Will someone point me to a link? Dolovis (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is much more I can add that hasn't been said, other than I love that Jeter image. It represents everything that is bad aabout navboxes so well. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This looks quite useful, thanks. I'll add a link to the cleanup listing by category page to our todo list at the top so any interested editors can access and deal with some of this. 350-some orphaned articles... I suspect that if I dug into that too much I'd end up taking on the label of "deletionist". Resolute01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I did another strafing run this morning as several of the team navboxes have been slowly coverted into that horrible baseball style with all kinds of duplicated links, POV entries and a general mishmash of confusion that tries to be a point form collection of lists for various aspects of each team's history rather than a useful navbox. The content I've removed breaks down into three areas:
1. Stanley Cup wins/appearances, division titles, etc. I've removed these all outright as they duplacate the link to each team's list of seasons articles, and the seasons template that each team has. However, since I do like how templates like {{Pittsburgh Penguins}} have integrated the full seasons template into this one, I'm going do that with all teams, lacking any objections. i.e.: changes I just made to {{Calgary Flames}}. Should satisfy both sides while also reducing the number of templates.
2. Rivalries. In most cases, nothing but POV and recentism (i.e.: The Blackhawks as a rival to Vancouver). If there was an actual rivalry article (Battle of Alberta, National Hockey League Atlantic Division rivalries), I moved it to the Lore section. Otherwise, I treated it as POV and an irrelevant link and removed.
3. Easter eggs. {{New York Rangers}} tends to be horrible for this, but if the article target is not relatively obvious based on the linked word, it is useless for navigation.
4. Retired numbers. Again, more of a history list thing that both duplicates the team players lists, and serves as easter eggs. What the hell does 9 mean on the Flames template to anyone who isn't familiar with Lanny McDonald?
Now, there are rows for people on some templates - "Key personnel" which lists the owner, GM, coach and captain that I think fits the same vein, but haven't removed. Mainly, as I am not sure if there is support for this. The first three sets of changes/removals I don't think would be all that controversial here, but what are the opinions here on some other columns and info that has been added to some of these infoboxes? Especially naming key personnel? Resolute23:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I would think there would be support to remove key personnel. After all we loooong ago removed the "notable people" section on team pages and this would be the same idea. Both being pretty POV. -DJSasso (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of the points listed, but... 1) Regarding notable people, what if it were limited to individuals in a team's hall of fame? These are individuals who have been recognized as being important to the team's history by the teams themselves, after all. That isn't POV. (Most teams probably wouldn't have such a section). 2) Would anyone prefer the way the seasons are listed on the {{Philadelphia Flyers}} template to the Penguins template? And shouldn't the Stanley Cup Finals articles also be included? Both teams templates appear on those articles. --24.152.220.10 (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
On the articles themselves, we look for information like that as objective lists of notability to include - thus the use of Hall of Famers and captains. A team oriented HOF or ring of honour would also qualify, imo. I don't like things like that on team navboxes though, because it starts to introduce links that are only tangentally related. i.e.: the team navbox should contain only key articles closely related to the team itself that a reader is likely interested in browsing to next. There are a million different directions the reader could go, but we simply can't accomodate them all, so I prefer a small, tight set that serves as a jumping off point to wherever the reader might go. Sure, a reader might want to see those Flyers HOFers, and the team HOF is a tightly related subject to the franchise. Thus, the link to List of Philadelphia Flyers award winners. To list the players themselves on this navbox would be superfluous. That said, I probably hold one of the most extreme anti-navbox clutter viewpoints in this project, which is already known for being towards an extreme. Resolute03:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The only things I would keep are the basic info found in "Franchise" and maybe AHL/ECHL affiliates. Arenas can be linked to in Franchise, Media especially can be rolled into "List of NYR broadcasters", and I really don't care about anything else. Anyone genuinely interested can easily find most of the other information on the team base page. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 06:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed Resolute's seasons. That's not too bad, considering they're hidden, and they do contain some relevant information. 50-50 on those. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a member here but I have noticed that one of your members removed "Culture and Lore" from team boxes. I don't see any real discussion about the pros/cons of possibly removing "Culture and Lore" however. It is my humble submission to you that I have never met an NHL fan that did NOT talk about tons of culture and gallons of lore not only about his/her own team but about other teams and even rivals as well. Since no sane or reasonable person would give $80-$2,500 to someone to skate on ice except for the fact that it was their belief that seeing it meant something intangibly valuable to them (thus the definition of culture and lore) I find taking that section out of NHL boxes defeats the whole purpose of the NHL articles on wikipedia, the NHL isn't a science or commodity it only lives in the hearts of its fans, kill fandom and you might as well discontinue all the sports wikiprojects IMHO. Please reconsider deleting the culture and lore, its why people buy tickets after all and that's the sole reason wikiprojects that cover sports can match the sciences or commodities for relevance to human need. Thank you for your efforts and considerations. Hholt01 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you misread what he did. He didn't remove the culture and lore section, he removed some duplicate links and some trivial links. -DJSasso (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You will have to provide examples, because so far as I am aware, I deleted nothing from "culture and lore" rows that were not duplicate links. I am certainly happy to consider arguments on specific link types if you like to bring them forward. Resolute23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
My apologies then, however I did check out the Pittsburgh Penguins and Washington Capitals boxes about 18 hours ago and they were both had the C&L completely removed. I did restore the C&L to the Pens box. I appreciate your consideration of the matter, as far as the specific links some of us at the Pittsburgh wikiproject keep up on the Pens box and all those links are from a local perspective quite relevant to understanding the franchise for the uninitiated. I share your sentiment and will be happy (along with some of the other Pgh wiki project members) for discussion on any specific link, but I trust the discussion would precede any deletion. Thank you again for your efforts and clarifications. Hholt01 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I did prune the C&L row on the Pens template, as I don't see any reason for random movies to be included in that infobox. It is just "in popular culture" trivia, and neither aids navigation nor understanding of the franchise. I added the Atlantic Division rivalries article to that section, removing the duplcative (and in some cases POV) rivalries section. Hope that helps! Resolute18:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I do appreciate the clarity, sincerely I do but still don't understand the reason. The films were duplicate links? From the article or the box? I trust you all have seen Sudden Death (1995 film), I admit its not an oscar winner but I know it couldn't have been deleted on grounds of "trivial", same as Zach and Miri, HBO 24/7 and albeit to a lesser degree She's Out. Maybe it's just me but I loath deleting stuff that isn't outright vandalism or insults without a discussion on that page or with the folks who know first. Wiki was built on massive contributions not deletions. I agree with your approach to keep a universal standard and keep things clean but this would be akin to deleting Slapshot from a Johnstown Jets box. If the reason is to clean up all boxes that might make sense but on grounds of duplication or trivial links it just doesn't make sense to me. Then again if the reason is to clean up all boxes what would the point of a Johnstown Jets box be without Slapshot mentioned, we might be getting into territory where lets just do away with all infoboxes, and if theres no need for infoboxes lets just delete . . . oh I have to remind myself this is a place to add not subtract. I understand that you have the task of enforcing the rules and I have the utmost respect for that, but I think like everything in life there is a too fat and and too thin. Thank you for your time and efforts. Hholt01 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've seen the movies (Sudden Death was terrible, btw), but I believe their inclusion in this infobox is trivial. Nobody is suggesting deleting the articles, but I am suggesting that linking them in this infobox only adds low value links of minimal relevance. The author of Get Fuzzy has used both the Bruins and Flames in his comics, but it would be no more appropriate to link this article to those navboxes either. Resolute18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Sudden Death isn't a film without the Penguins, the plot, characters, plot devices, thesis and subplots aren't either. Same with 24/7 and a lot of Zach & Miri, "Sudden Death" itself is a hockey term. Vice versa to understand the franchise and its fans it is far from trivial (some seasons the Pens are more terrible then the film). Get Fuzzy might, might apply to She's Out of my League. Although I can see you are a knowledgeable and reasoned wikipedian it is a dangerous precedent to delete verified accurate information from an online encyclopedia without any discussion on the specific items being considered, especially on that page's discussion tab. Even more dangerous to base it on the justification, as you accurately put it, of "I believe". It is my sincere hope that we can reconsider this deletion and that wikipedia may continue to be a place where verified accurate contributions trump a belief of deletion by a few without any specific consensus. I appreciate the discussion and the consideration and hope both precede deletions of accurate verified information in the future. Thank you. Hholt01 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they happened to use the Penguins as a background team in those movies, but so what? They could have used any other team, or an imaginary team, and the movie doesn't change in the slightest. You don't need to know that Jean Claude Van Damme starred in a movie that had the Penguins as a plot device to understand the NHL franchise any more than you need to know Ben Afleck has a huge love for the Boston Red Sox to understand that franchise. Throwing these movies into the navbox simply adds undue weight to them. Also, "Sudden Death" is a sports term, yes, but we don't put high sticking or cherry picking in the team templates either. Resolute21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
All understandable, however your beliefs does not a consensus build especially on that articles page. You are elaborating on something without citation (your beliefs) not answering my concerns of discussion and consensus on specific deletion of something that has citation on wikipedia. Note deletion not contribution but an erasure of contributions. I appreciate the specific discussion and the consideration and hope both precede deletions of accurate verified information. Thank you. Hholt01 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
We actually edit conflicted on the same point. I am happy to move this discussion to the template's talk page and invite both hockey and Pittsburgh project editors to discuss. Resolute22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
