User talk:Hydra88

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

Re: Bruins Stat Box[edit]

Sorry, the term I'd intended to use was "deprecation". I hadn't noticed my mistake until now. You might have noticed that the right side of the table isn't uniform with the rest of the border -- that is, the right hand side of the frame has a white background and a section of frame missing in the top corner. This wasn't previously the case (I know this for certain, since I coded the template originally for the 2008–09 season). It wasn't until a recent Wikipedia site update that the code I'd previously used became deprecated. After I noticed it I decided to adopt the layout currently used by most other NHL team season pages. I hope that clarifies things. Don't hesitate to message me again with further questions. Alrin (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC 2014 NCAA Division I Women's Ice Hockey Tournament was accepted[edit]

2014 NCAA Division I Women's Ice Hockey Tournament, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


I see that you changed Noon to 12:00 p.m. on the 2014 Penn State Nittany Lions football team page. Per WP:TIME, Noon is the proper representation of this time of the day.
Thanks! BenYes? 20:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

red links[edit]

WP:REDLINK is quite clear; red links to topics that might conceivably have articles should remain. Articles like 2011 NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey Tournament, 2014 CHA Women's Ice Hockey Tournament, Scott McDonald (ice hockey), etc., certainly qualify; others may be less certain but the redlinks do no harm. Powers T 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will agree with you on the Division III tournament possibly being deserving of an article. Currently women's ice hockey conference tournaments do not have Wikipedia pages. As for players, the only women's ice hockey players normally considered notable enough to have their own articles are those that either are, have, or will be playing for their country's senior national teams. If you think it would be a good idea to have these articles exist, why don't you create them? For the tournaments you can probably copy formats from the National Collegiate tournaments page (especially the 2014 and 2015 tournaments). It might, however, be a good idea to run at least one article of each type (Division III NCAA tournament, conference tournament, and players/coaches) through the article creation system to ensure they are notable enough. Regardless of what happens, I would ask that you manually add back in the links rather than reverting my edit, as I also made some formatting changes and factual corrections (such as removing the part about having no losing seasons as this year will almost certainly be one). Please let me know what you decide. Hydra88 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Several yearly CHA tournament articles already exist, such as 2011 CHA Women's Ice Hockey Tournament, as well as articles for almost every recent men's conference tournament; I think there's a clear precedent there. I admit I don't have the patience to systematically create multiple articles in a sequence, complete with appropriate references, but removing red links is pointless; it only makes it harder to properly link an article once it does get created.
Unfortunately, I must object to your request that I manually undo your destruction of these links. That's a lot of extra work that never should have been needed in the first place. I would, rather, request that you re-do your edits without removing the red links; as the guideline page says, "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."
-- Powers T 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have restored some of the redlinks. I did not restore all of them as I am confident some of them were not notable enough for Wikipedia. My reason is as follows: I closely follow the women's hockey team at Clarkson University, and, even though they won the national championship last year, I would not consider any but a few of them for more than a second as being notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. I understand if you disagree, but I am trying to be as reasonable as possible here. I agree that the national tournaments are deserving of pages, as are the coach and one or two players (see my edit summary for why I did not restore the conference tournament links).
Additionally, not every individual redlink for topics that have been restored has been restored, as linking to the same topic five times a in a single section is probably unnecessary. Hydra88 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring some redlinks.
I'm afraid I don't understand what Boston College's page has to do with anything. There isn't a lot of consistency among ice hockey articles; compare, for example Miami RedHawks men's ice hockey. I'll concede that conference tournaments aren't usually linked in the infoboxes, though I have no idea why; the national tournaments usually are. And in either case, it's downright weird to link some national tournaments (as you did with 2007) but not others (2011, 2012).
Out of curiosity, in the event that articles are eventually written for any of these topics you've delinked, how do you expect the links to be re-established?
On a separate topic, why did you expand the recent-seasons table to 100% pagewidth? That seems far too wide. Powers T 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, some interfaces (like mobile and tablet) get squashed when the table is how it was. Maybe in should be a bit narrower than 100%, but it needed to be a little bigger in my opinion. I linked to each tournament once in each infobox at the highest level achieved, (thus 2012 is in national championships, 2011 in Frozen Four, and 2007 in appearances). As for re-linking the articles, I do not see them being created, but if they are, someone will have to relink them. I have noticed on occasion in the past something has an article but for which there is no link, and I normally add the link. My guess would still be that if those articles were created, they would be challenged on account of lack of notability. Hydra88 (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)