Talk:Ice hockey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Delete Heritage Classic? / Split[edit]

I propose that the subsection on the Heritage Classic be deleted from the "Attendance Records" section of the article.

Reasons:

1) It's not the largest attended hockey game (the Michigan-Michigan State game is)
2) It's no longer the largest-attended NHL game (having been surpassed by the Sabres-Penguins Winter Classic)
3) It was not the first outdoor NHL game (the exhibition game between in the Kings and Rangers in 1991 in Las Vegas was[1])
4) The information about largest television audience is either flat-out wrong or out of date. The Red Wings-Blackhawks Winter Classic had a television audience of 4.4 million people on NBC[2], far surpassing the 2.7 million cited for the Heritage Classic

The Heritage Classic may be a notable and memorable game, but there have been many notable and memorable games in hockey history. However, the Heritage Classic is no longer a record-setting game of any sort, so it shouldn't be in the Attendance Records section.140.251.125.50 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Matt

I would note that it is the first outdoor NHL regular season game which is what makes it a history making game. -DJSasso (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There have been many history making games in the NHL. Should we include them all? That section of the article is titled "Attendance Records," but unlike the other games listed there (like the Cold War game and the 2008 Winter Classic), the Heritage Classic does not hold an attendance record of any sort. It just seems like it doesn't really belong there.140.251.125.50 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Matt
Like what? -- ISLANDERS27 15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Instead split the attentendence section off and merge it with List of ice hockey games with highest attendance.
  • Support split - only retain a link in the 'See also' section. Keep all text, but put it in the List article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Split. There have been plenty of games with hundreds of thousands of attendees, including many which are notable mainly for the sheer amount of people who atteneded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sourced material is in List of ice hockey games with highest attendance, and a summary placed in this article, with a link to List of ice hockey games with highest attendance. SilkTork *YES! 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Five players, including one goaltender"[edit]

This might be understood to mean that goaltender is one of the five players. Should it be rephrased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.129.111 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased it a bit. I think it's better now.--Asher196 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Origins[edit]

There is a conflict between this article and the one on Hockey - here the earliest reference to 'hockey' is cited as 1799, but in the hockey article as 1363: somewhat different! DickyP (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing on the Hockey article was suspect, and I've hidden that content. In fact, I would say it was outright wrong. See Football_(word)#Etymology; Oxford English Dictionary would be a very reliable source. That quote, as a result, should not have had the term 'football', since it was recorded in 1424 (as opposed to 1363 or earlier). The SIHR is itself a very source for ice hockey, and the date 1799 seems much more reasonable to me than 1363. Thanks for pointing it out. Maxim(talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Never actually though about which one might be correct, so I went and looked at 'hockey' in the Oxford and it gives 1527 as first known usage. Given their standards of proof required for an entry in that reference I think the whole subject probably needs more work. DickyP (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Its one of the biggest debates in hockey. There likely are sources for all the different time periods. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of the connection between Hockey and the Scottish game of Shinty. Given the fact that it was started in Nova Scotia, an area with a huge Scottish population and given the fact that to this day, pickup or informal hockey games are referred to as "shinny" or "shinty", this theory of origin should at least be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.101.98 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that the theory should be acknowledged, hockey is hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudaheather (talkcontribs) 22:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

THE NAME OF THE GAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the field hockey page, the page starts with "Field hockey, or hockey, is a sport..." Perhaps the "ice hockey" page should start the same way, given that in places where "ice" hockey is played, the game is known simply as "hockey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

from field hockey wiki: the word 'hockey' was recorded in 1363 when Edward III of England issued the proclamation: "[M]oreover we ordain that you prohibit under penalty of imprisonment all and sundry from such stone, wood and iron throwing; handball, football, or hockey; coursing and cock-fighting, or other such idle games."[3] this citation is A LOT older than the uses in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.214.149 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The sport's name[edit]

In Canada, where the game was invented, the game is know as "hockey", not "ice hockey". In the "field hockey" article, the article stars with "field hocky, or hockey, is a tem sport.. This article ought ot at least start eh same way. For instance check this national newpaper's headings on the sport http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Section's Order[edit]

I think that the section's order should be changed, so to explain basic vocabulary before using it. I, for example, could not understand what checking was until I got to the Tactics Section.Frohfroh (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested modification to the first para to make it clearer to people unfamiliar with the game[edit]

Ice hockey is a team sport played on ice, in which skaters use L-shaped sticks to shoot a single hard rubber puck into their opponent's net. In regions where it is popular, the game is often referred to simply as hockey. Five members of each 20-man team skate up and down the ice trying to take the puck and score a goal against the opposing team. Each team has a goaltender who tries to stop the puck from going into the goal or "net". Each game includes three 20-minute periods, but professional games often take two hours to play because of stoppages and infractions. The game is popular in northern countries and noted for its speed and aggression: players must be well-padded to avoid injury from the puck, and collisions.


I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.179.185 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New Head Shot Rules[edit]

The section discussing head injuries has been somewhat overtaken by recent events. It mentions growing concerns about head hits but doesn't mention the rule changes in 2010 to address those concerns.

Proposed addition as follows:

At many levels[1], including the NHL, new rules[2] have been brought into force with the intention of protecting players from head hits[3].

Cleanup[edit]

The History section is confused, disorganized, and in some places, repetitious. It really should be redone completely, so that the history comes either in some kind of time order, or in some kind of "origin" order, since Ice Hockey's origins are in dispute or undecided. Hires an editor (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Have at it. :) -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The percentage of American players has the decimal point in the wrong position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.169 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No that is actually the correct position. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Women's ice hockey and body checking[edit]

Wouldn't body size in other countries be true for men as well?

"After the 1990 Women's World Championship, body checking was eliminated because female players in many countries do not have the size and mass seen in North American players."Editfromwithout (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Coloured Hockey League[edit]

Under the "Foundation of modern ice hockey" subsection, I wonder if someone is willing to incorporate a mention of the Coloured Hockey League existence from 1894-1930. I would but the article is semi'd. Rgrds. --64.85.221.4 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename article to hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.154.167 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Commonly known as hockey" in the lead[edit]

We have a new IP editor, 76.64.228.218 who wants to say the above in the very first sentence. It makes no sense on it's own. The statement is true where the game is the more popular form of hockey, and untrue where field hockey is more popular.

I have welcomed the IP editor, and tried to have a constructive discussion on the matter, to no avail. I won't go any further because of 3RR (our new friend has already breached it), so I'm seeking help to sort this out.

The IP editor geolocates to Toronto, Canada, so has possibly never seen a game of field hockey in his life, but this is no excuse to ignore reality.

So, more eyes please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is now fair. Mentions everything. And yes I have seen a field hockey game before (actually was on my school's field hockey team :). BTW please don't punish me I don't know any rules 76.64.228.218 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, no, it's inaccurate as it is now. To say "commonly known as hockey" is simply wrong for probably the majority of countries in the world. You say "hockey" here in Australia, and field hockey is what people think of. That's why I qualified it to "commonly known as hockey in those countries where it is the most popular sport". I can see what you're trying to say, and it's obviously true for Canada and the US, but let's make the statement true for the whole world. HiLo48 (talk)
Well said, and true. Also the IP user's edit summary would indicate that he/she is well informed on what the rules are.18abruce (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I added Europe as well because the majority of the continent calls it hockey (Scandinavia, Germany, Eastern Europe, the Alps). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.228.218 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there no variation due to the fact that English is not the native language in those places? HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In Germany, for example, it is known as eishockey, my rudimentary German tells me this is 'ice hockey'..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Most countries on Europe speak multiple languages. Not just one. When using English in those countries it is often referred to as hockey. Removing the fact that more than just the US and Canada that use that term is creating a falsehood. That isn't even mentioning that it is often called hockey in England which /is/ an English speaking country. I should note that I am not saying it should be referred to as "commonly known as hockey", I am only indicating that it should be clear that more than just people in Canada and the US call it such. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be interested in seeing evidence for that. Two of the leading (field) hockey nations in the world are Holland and Germany. I am aware that they also play ice hockey. Did you know that they played field hockey very well too? I wonder what they call that? Oh, and have you noticed the name of the global federation in the Infobox? HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I've also just noticed that you have again reverted the article text, in defiance of this section. That is arrogant vandalism. Have you heard of discussion? Read the final line in this section! HiLo48 (talk)
This section is talking about adding a line "commonly known as" it has nothing to do with what I added. What I added was making sure it is known that using the word hockey to mean ice hockey isn't limited to only people in Canada and the US. I am not even remotely claiming it is commonly used which is what this section is about. You also need to learn the difference between vandalism and good faith editing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any proof? Or are you just arrogantly ignoring everything others say? HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well the most glaringly obvious one is that the highest level hockey league in sweden just changed its name to the Swedish Hockey League. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's one. Any more? What do the Dutch and Germans call it? And why are North Americans so obsessed with proving that their abbreviation is more common than it really is? One part of the problem is that so many don't even realise that most of the world DOESN'T call it hockey. HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The KHL is not the KIHL for example. I don't see why saying it is beyond North America where it is called hockey rather than ice hockey. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I repeat I am not saying it is the most common way to say it. I am actually one of the people who helped established that we use the standard "ice hockey" across the wiki. So don't try playing that I am just trying to proove its common because that is ridiculous. I am just indicating that it isn't just limited to those two countries. Why are you so obsessed with trying to say its only a North American thing. And yes Dbrodbeck mentions another example the #2 hockey league in the world is called the Kontinental Hockey League which has teams in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Croatia. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Then there is the Finish top league which is called the Finnish National Hockey League in English on their official site. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And since you wanted German here is a German newspaper in English that uses hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As a German I was surprised to see Germany being there as an example. I cannot remember anyone calling Ice Hockey simply Hockey, when you say Hockey everyone will think of field hockey, which might also be seen from the German Wikipedia articles for both games: Hockey and Eishockey 08:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoleia (talkcontribs)
The fact that the governing body (IIHF) uses Ice Hockey in the name, while the governing body for field hockey (FIH) does not specify, should be a clue to what the more prominent usage is in Europe.18abruce (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo here. Those who feel otherwise should discuss the issue here before making further changes to the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013[edit]

"In North America," the National Hockey League (NHL) is the highest level for men, and the most popular. --------> "In North America" should be deleted, as this imply that the NHL is only the best hockey league in north America. There is absolutely no doubt that the NHL is in fact the best hockey league in the world. Thus the sentence should be written as: the National Hockey League (NHL) is the highest level for men (worldwide), and the most popular. 24.200.93.100 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That comment isn't about being the best, its about being the highest level. ie the top of the pyramid. In other countries other leagues are the highest level in their countries pyramid. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Differences Between Men and Women's Hockey[edit]

Coppercurls (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC) The major difference between men and women’s hockey is that checking is not allowed in women’s games. [4] Between athletes, coaches, and crowds, there are differing views on whether this is a good or bad thing. Many people feel that without formal checking there is the potential for the game to be based more on skill. [4] However, there is a certain lack of primal excitement for a crowd watching a game with no checking. Men’s sports are viewed as an acceptable outlet for violence and aggression both for the athletes, and the crowd. [5] Women are not expected to have the same need to express aggression and are viewed as more fragile, so checking does not seem appropriate for women’s hockey. Unfortunately, without checking the game is perceived by many as less exciting and more feminine, despite the incredible skill demonstrated by the athletes.

Hockey – like most sports or career paths idolized by our society – has long been male dominated. As a result, male hockey players are paid more and are able to shape culture through their sport. [6] This perpetuates discriminatory gender norms and is part of the overall patriarchal organization of our society that ensures male privilege. Women who showcase their physical strength, such as the strength required for hockey, are considered to be unfeminine and following the wrong path. [5] In order for a female hockey player to acquire real power, “she must resolve a contradiction between her culturally based identity as a woman, on the one hand, and the male-identified position that she occupies on the other”. [6] The dramatic increase in women’s hockey in recent years is thus viewed as a challenge to the dominance of men’s hockey. Finally, the way media portrays women’s sports is another key way that women’s hockey is consistently under-valued. Studies have found that 92% of TV sport coverage is of men’s sports, and in four top-selling newspapers in America, stories on women’s sports were outnumbered 23-to-1. [5] Without increased equality in the media portrayal of women’s hockey and the creation of professional women’s hockey leagues, it will be difficult for women’s hockey to reach the current levels of adoration reserved for men’s hockey. Coppercurls (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Do you want this included? Please read WP:TALK it will help you understand what talk pages are for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You might want to check out WP:OR as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to keep repeating "ice hockey"[edit]

I don't want to argue about the "commonly known as hockey" bit. The lead of course needs to point out that some places call the sport ice hockey and some just hockey, but I don't care about the details of how that is done.

But I think it's not correct that the article keeps repeating ice hockey at every reference, particularly when the field hockey article does not do that. That is not balanced. That makes it sound as though field hockey is default hockey, and ice hockey is just some variant.

Compare the solution with association football and American football. In both articles, unless they've changed since the last time I looked, each sport is given its full name in the title of the article and at first reference, but thereafter is just called football, except perhaps when making comparisons between them.

That's a correct solution, and that's what we should do at the two hockey articles.

The argument about the international governing bodies is not a good one. The most important ice hockey body in the world is not the IIHF. It's the NHL. I expect there's probably officially some international governing body for American football as well, and it presumably calls it American football, but that doesn't matter; we still use football at second reference in articles about American football. --Trovatore (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's North American centrism at its worst. Sad. Field hockey is known as hockey in far more places than ice hockey is known as hockey. And it came first. It shouldn't have to adapt to the fact that half the North American ice hockey fans don't even know the other form exists, and that it's played in far more places than ice hockey is known as hockey. And it came first. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not North American centrism — I'm calling for a neutral solution. Ice hockey and field hockey both to be called by those names at first reference; thereafter, there is no real chance of confusion because context has been established, and they can both just say "hockey". I would remind you of the fundamental principle of WP:ENGVAR that no English variety is to be considered preferred over the others.
Now, I could also accept the other solution, whereby both articles always use the unambiguous form. It seems unnecessary to me, but it is closer to the current state (there are lots of instances of "field hockey" in the field hockey article). Can we reach a neutral agreement along those lines? If not, then HiLo, given that I intuit (based on admittedly circumstantial evidence) that you are not particularly interested in ice hockey, I think you should leave the ice hockey article alone and permit those who are interested in it to decide how to refer to the sport at second reference. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Calling it 'Ice Hockey' all of the time is simply sloppy writing. It is quite clear when reading the ice hockey article, for example, that the variant that is being discussed is, in fact the kind where you wear skates and what not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am interested in all sports Trovatore. I also know that a lot of North Americans are surprised when they grow up, having been misled over the real name of ice hockey, and then discover that there's another, older, more globally known sport with the name hockey. I didn't. I was aware of both sports from a very young age. You are demanding that North American conventions be applied to articles about what you insist on calling field hockey. And Dbrodbeck, in my country, all discussions about ice hockey use that complete name virtually all the time. It's how the sport is known here. It's not sloppy here. To just say hockey would be sloppy. I don't see why the rest of the world should bend to your countrymen's needs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
HiLo, I am not in fact demanding that North American conventions be applied to articles on field hockey. My preferred solution is that articles on ice hockey should call it hockey at second reference, and symmetrically for articles on field hockey. I would, however, find it acceptable to use the term ice hockey everywhere, provided the symmetrical convention were followed in articles on field hockey.
Your references to the "real name" of ice hockey amount to insisting on your own variety of English, contrary to WP:ENGVAR. There's a banner at the top of this talk page, explaining that this article is written in Canadian English. I think it's pretty hard to dispute that, in Canadian English, the unmodified word hockey refers to ice hockey. --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You keep saying about why the rest of the world shouldn't bend to one countries needs. But if you actually look at the situation the vast majority of readers of the page are likely coming from the places that do just call it just hockey. 73% of the registered hockey players in the world come from two countries. The percentage only gets higher when I start adding in the other countries above that use just hockey. Or since you had been trying to argue that only English speaking countries should count when deciding. If you go by that metric then Australia and New Zealand are the only two fully English countries that don't call it just hockey. You keep trying to indicate people here don't know there is such a thing as field hockey but that is insane considering it is played a lot in North America. But barring all those arguments people are already on a page called Ice Hockey and have already been told in the first sentence that it is ice hockey so using hockey farther down in the article is not confusing because we have already explained what version of hockey we are talking about. I would note that field hockey also started in 1849 if you read its article and ice hockey started in atleast 1810. Making ice hockey the older. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I simply don't accept that final claim. As for who uses just hockey for field hockey, you must include the UK, Holland, Germany, (and here's the killer blow) India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I believe the game is still proclaimed as India's national sport, and that dates from before the separation of those nations. So now we're talking of well over a billion people. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You "simply don't accept" his final claim, so we're just supposed to believe you? Not that it matters even slightly, of course, so the question is of purely intellectual interest. How many people use "hockey" to mean "field hockey", or in how many places, also does not matter even slightly. This is the ice hockey article, written in Canadian English, and here "hockey" means "ice hockey", with no danger of confusion. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
My point about the countries was a reference to your comment that "those countries don't speak English". None of the 6 countries you mention are English speaking nations except the UK which tends to use both. But as Trovatore mentions, this is an article about ice hockey so it isn't going to confuse anyone which form of hockey we are talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
We (in the UK) use Hockey (meaning field) and Ice Hockey. However, since their is so much ambiguity between countries, using full names in the title, then hockey there after, makes sense to all countries, English speaking or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.113.194 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, it's not necessary to frame this discussion as having anything to do with nationalisms or regionalisms. Compare the case of water skiing. I am (in theory, though I haven't actually done it in some time) a (snow) skiier, and to me "skiing", unmodified, means snow skiing. Snow skiing is certainly the older, and I would venture to say that most people, coming across the word "skiing" in a neutral context, will interpret it to mean snow skiing.
But I would never go to the water skiing article and demand that every instance of the word "skiing" be prepended with "water"! That would just be silly. It's the bloody article about water skiing; of course "skiing" in that context is going to mean water skiing.
HiLo, I can't believe you can't see this. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the nickname section have hockey in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talkcontribs) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nickname[edit]

Not sure why I was reverted but "ice hockey" is commonly referred to as hockey in parts of the world. Therefore its justified to include it under the nickname section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talkcontribs) 05:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense to me. Americans and Canadians use that name almost exclusively for the game, but it's not the name of this article, and cannot ever be because of the widespread use of "Hockey" to mean other things elsewhere in the world, particulalry Field hockey. "Nickname" fits the bill perfectly. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Likewise the term is ambiguous. Hockey can refer to ice hockey in Europe and North America, like field hockey in other regions. But both sports use hockey as their "nick name" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talkcontribs) 06:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "nickname". That implies it's not the proper name. Both ice hockey and field hockey, in context, are just called "hockey". --Trovatore (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That's obfuscation. It's clearly NOT the proper name. That's "ice hockey". It simply IS a nickname. A very common one, but a nickname all the same. Kinda like "Mitt" Romney. Everyone calls him that, but it's obviously not his proper name. So what do we call it? We call it his nickname! HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Likewise with field hockey. So both should have it under the nickname column instead. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
They're not nicknames. Nicknames are informal things that people make up, that you wouldn't necessarily guess from the name itself. You know, like "rugger" for rugby football or "pigskin" for American football. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I too don't think it is a nickname, really I mean then the NHL, SHL and KHL, for example, would be using a so called nickname in their league names. The game is called hockey, in the proper context. Just as field hockey is called hockey, in the proper context Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
But nor is it the proper or correct name. So how would you describe it? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It is, in fact, the proper correct name. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you know that's not really a helpful response. Although maybe "common name in North America" could work. In far more places field hockey is the more common or only version of hockey played. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It's the real name, period; whether you find that "helpful" or not. The word is ambiguous; it means ice hockey or field hockey depending on circumstance, but that doesn't make it any less the correct name. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Have to agree with Trovatore here. Hockey is it's real name. Ice is just a disambiguator. If anything I would be more likely to consider ice hockey the nickname (though it isn't one) than I would to think hockey was. As Trovatore says its real name depends on the context. -DJSasso (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DJ and Trovatore. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? Moving the article to hockey? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we have an article at Hockey which covers all the versions. As mentioned when we have more than one article with the same name we use disambiguators. Sometimes we have to be creative about what we use. In this case we don't have to because there are natural disambituators which are already in use throughout the world, ice and field respectively. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Germany, "ice hockey" and "hockey"[edit]

In Germany "Hockey" refers to field hockey, and "Eishockey" (= "ice hockey") refers to ice hockey.

See the official bodies,

Deutscher Hockey Bund (German Hockey Association) = field hockey Deutscher Eishockey Bund (German Ice Hockey Association) = ice hockey

So the introduction of the wiki article is wrong and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.244.70 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Have to agree with you here, especially as the top level league is the Deutsche Eishockey Liga. I would suggest Finland/Russia (whose top league uses just "hockey" and where field hockey does not seem to be widely played - Russia/USSR has never sent a team to the Hockey World Cup) as a replacement, but am not familiar enough to say for certainty. Or as a second option, the very ambiguous "and some parts of North and Central Europe" Ravendrop 09:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue is, not what they refer to it in German, but what they refer to it in English because as you know we are English Wikipedia. As in the above talk section there are sources from English language German news papers that use just hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Puck[edit]

How much does the puck weigh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.233.37 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talks about it in the Hockey puck#In ice hockey article if you want to take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Category: Sports originating in Canada?[edit]

The recent findings of Swedish sports historians Carl Gidén and Patrick Houda suggest that this Category may not be justified. See: Houda, P. and Gidén, C. (2014), On the Origin of Hockey. Hockey Origin Publishing, ISBN 978-0993799808 [3]. Any views? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an age old debate. The question comes down to when is it hockey and when was it a precursor to hockey. For example the natives in Canada were playing a game with a name that resembled hockey (Hogee) long before white people were even on the continent. Heck forms of it without skates were played in Egypt. At what point do you drawn the line. Most research would indicate the game as we know it today started in Canada while obviously drawing in pieces of other earlier sports. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that one essential for ice hockey would be ice, not that easy to find in Egypt. Is your argument based on the name, deriving from Hogee? But if it's a "debate", that has no clear answer, perhaps there ought to be two Categories - Category: Sports originating in Canada and Category: Sports originating in England? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
My point was more along the lines of at what point do we switch from something being just a precursor to being the actual sport. For example all the rules and game play we know as ice hockey was invented by a university student in Windsor, Nova Scotia and the first organized game was played in Montreal. My argument is that while skating around on the ice with a ball/puck is similar to hockey, without the rules of hockey then it can easily be argued that it isn't yet hockey. Its just a game that resembles hockey. Just like bandy which everyone knows was played in England for a long time is similar to hockey but doesn't have the same rules or game play as hockey so it isn't hockey. I would be more agreeable to both being listed than removing the Canadian one. What I meant about an age old debate was that every few years another place lays claim to being the birthplace. In hockey circles its an ongoing argument about whose area it really started in. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. But the sentence "Hockey on ice as we know it originated in the United Kingdom and migrated to Canada in the early 1800's" was there before I arrived, sorry. It's not every day we have a whole book published "On the Origin of Hockey". But I'd agree that "invention" is a problemtaic term to use when discussing te origin of many team games, which can have divesre precursors and which may have shown a gradual development in the codificatiom of a standard set of rules. I'd see nothing wrong with retaining that sentence and qualifying with "It has recently been suggested that.. " , or whatever. After all, we are not trying to establish "the truth" here, but simply produce a fair report of what researchers have said? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, as I mentioned in my first summary that the info should be mentioned in some fashion, just not stated as definite. If we can reword it in a way that it mentions that recently it has been suggested then that would be I think more beneficial. I admit I obviously haven't read the book yet as it just came out days ago so I don't know how they have worded it in their book and I only see news articles reporting on it which often tend to make books sound much more sensational than what they actually contain. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The book has certainly received a lot of attention on the press. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how investigating the origins of the game affect the history of the sport. The sport has a clear history dating back to the game in Montreal. There is no evidence of any organized indoor ice hockey prior to that. That has been recognized by the IIHF. What there was, was games of stick and ball, played anywhere. Alaney2k (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. Is that what Houda and Gidén say in their 286-page book? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Unless they have dug up something new, which I would have heard about. They are members of SIHR, as am I. Their research is readily available on sihrhockey.org. The book is a compilation of their research. I don't think the contents of this book contradicts anything in this article. Alaney2k (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the (insider) clarification. I was just surprised that a 286-page book could be summarised in 44 words. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised you think that the number of pages in a book has any relation to the quality of the content.--Asher196 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue is really that when Houda and Giden release any findings on the origins is that it is sensationalized by the media. It gets lost that there were games such as shinney and ice polo developed in North America. Somehow, finding evidence of skaters with sticks and balls or bungs is played up as some place or other having "invented" the game. Ice hockey is clearly the amalgam of all sorts of informal games. The modern sport of ice hockey was clearly developed in Montreal from many influences. And I use the word sport deliberately. I sincerely doubt we will ever find an inventor of the ancient games. It is the "grail" of these researchers, it seems. But we do know where the modern sport originated. Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ice hockey is clearly *not* the amalgam of all sorts of informal games. Ice hockey came naturally to field hockey players who played their game on ice, and usually with skates, when there was a frost, which happened at least once nearly every year in England (there are records of skating for at least 98 of the 100 years between 1800 and 1899 in England). You can't say that "the modern sport of ice hockey was clearly developed in Montreal from many influences" when the rules used by the first hockey players in Montreal were in fact a subset of the rules of the Hockey Association (HA, England's association of field hockey) with very few, and mostly minor, changes. There is no reasonable definition of hockey that would include all the games played in Montreal since 1875 and exclude all the games played in England prior to that year (there are games for which we have the score, the duration of the game, the duration of the intermission, the names of the players, the names of the scorers and even the times of the goals). Also, your first statement on this thread mentions "indoor". Since when is hockey played outdoors not hockey? Many Olympic ice hockey tournaments would contradict that. I would also comment on "That has been recognized by the IIHF." What they recognized was in 2008. Research did not stop then. Mpj81 (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually that isn't true about the first rules in used in Montreal. The rules used in the first game in Montreal were known as the "Halifax Rules" which were different than the straight up field hockey rules. Subsequent games in Montreal did use rules similar to field hockey. However, hockey had been played by different rules from field hockey in Halifax-Dartmouth for decades before that. Montreal reverted to field hockey like rules for a short period but overtime began to regain some of the older Halifax rules. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source indicating that the first game in Montreal was played with the Halifax rules? They could have used the earlier Teddington/Surbiton field hockey rules. Note that the Wikipedia entry for the Halifax Rules does not provide any source and gives the year that journalist James Power first started his career rather than the year the Halifax rules were published, which was 1943 (in the Halifax Herald - also note that rules #7 and #8 even contradict one another). See the book On His Own Side of the Puck, by Iain Fyffe, pages 12-17. Mpj81 (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's hope it has big print and lots of pictures. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ice hockey vs bandy[edit]

According to Google Books, bandy was more written about than ice hockey until sometime in the 1970's, see https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bandy%2Chockey+on+the+ice%2Cice+hockey&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbandy%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chockey%20on%20the%20ice%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cice%20hockey%3B%2Cc0 , and I think this ought to be reflected in this encyclopedia, but still, Wikipedia has much more information about ice hockey. How come? Is it just because ice hockey is more popular nowadays and since Wikipedia started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.120.178 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:RECENTISM. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Should there be more coverage of bandy, perhaps, then go work on bandy articles. It is not that big a deal for this article. There should probably be more articles on many other topics as well. The fact that bandy and hockey are similar after a fashion is really a red herring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is sour grapes of a user who was blocked for sock puppeting to push bandy. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/891 mm/Archive#08 May 2014. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The guessed at, hypothetical motives of a questioner does not negate a question. HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It does if it is a question that has been answered for the person time and again and they are posting just to try and make a point.. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
So says the guy who does it all the time. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss the topic, rather than other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I was discussing the topic. ie the nature of the post. It didn't turn to other editors until you decided to be confrontational. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You're doing it again. There is a difference between disagreeing and being confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
There certainly is, but that wasn't the case in this instance. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Simply stating yes and recentism is not helpful and just insults editors. It's hard enough to get and retain editors without sniping. Everyone works on their topic of interest. Related to this topic of increasing content on bandy is a proposal to develop a task force or something being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Bandy. Maybe something will develop out of there. Alaney2k (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I should also note your graph is not accurate either, because in North America, ice hockey isn't called ice hockey, it is called simply hockey. If you type in hockey into your graph it passes bandy in 1905. Admittedly that is also not super accurate as it would end up including other forms of hockey if you did it that way. All in all it goes to show comparing in this manor is pretty useless. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. The term "ice hockey" is relatively recent. For a long time, both forms of hockey (field and ice) were simply called "hockey", either because they were simply seen as two different ways of practicing the same activity (as in England in the 19th century) or because context was sufficient to determine which one was being talked about (in Canada, hockey = ice hockey; in India, hockey = field hockey). By the logic of that graph, you will probably also find that "Snowboard" is more popular than "Downhill ski" or "Alpine ski".Mpj81 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)