Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Archives
Archive index 2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 2007: 16 • 17 2008: 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 2008: 25 • 26 2009: 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 2009: 34 • 35 • 36 2010: 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 2011: 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 2012: 50

Rick Nash

TSN reported to day that the Blue Jackets are listening to offers for Nash. A few more eyes on the page would be appreciated since I have a feeling this is going to turn into the vandal fest Bobby Ryan had earlier in the year when the Ducks were contemplating trading him. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ice hockey = Sledge hockey??

On the List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career article, an IP user is insistent on including Matt Cook, an amateur sledge hockey player. Does sledge hockey qualify for this ice hockey list?--Львівське (говорити) 03:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As the only differences between ice hockey and ice sledge hockey are those necessitated to allow for the use of the sledges, I wouldn't see why not. The vast majority of rules are the same and the game is played in a functionally similar manner. Wheelchair basketball is still basketball, and ice sledge hockey is still ice hockey, in my opinion.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 04:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, that the Wikipedia article is called "Ice sledge hockey" is a good indication that it's a form of ice hockey. Secondly, as I pointed out in the edit summary, in Canada ice sledge hockey is governed by Hockey Canada, so they count it as a form of ice hockey. 99.192.58.22 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While the article is called "ice sledge hockey" the common use of the name is really sledge or sled hockey, without the 'ice' prefix. Hockey Canada refers to their team as the national "sledge hockey team". The history of the sport, per Hockey Canada, is also referred to sans-ice.1 I'd like to move that the ice sledge hockey article be properly renamed.--Львівське (говорити) 04:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, renaming the ice sledge hockey article won't solve anything. Hockey Canada also refers to ice hockey sans-ice because in Canada "hockey" just means ice hockey. The qualifier "field", however, is needed for "field hockey". In other countries (like India) "hockey" means field hockey and the "ice" is needed as a qualifier for "ice hockey". So keeping the "ice" in "ice sledge hockey" helps make it clear whatever country one is reading the article. 99.192.58.22 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That it's played on a sled kind of implies it's not field hockey. Just sayin'--Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sledge hockey is played on ice and inline, so regardless you need the 'ice' in ice sledge hockey to distinguish it from inline sledge hockey, the same way you would say ice hockey or inline hockey or field hockey. They all mean something different, as the user above stated. How we colloquially refer to it in Canada is irrelevant, in the same way that we don't call it hockey in an encyclopedia, we call it ice hockey. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather think we need to draw the line somewhere. No doubt we'll get people trying to put in every teenager who died in a pond hockey match - something which is, after all, undisputably "hockey," and for which no doubt reliable sources can be found. Ravenswing 04:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of teenage pond-hockey, does Koposov count? He's recently been added.link --Львівське (говорити) 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lvivske, youy might want to check a discussion I had with an editor called "Canada Hky" on Talk:List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career in August 2010. It's in a section called "Inclusion criteria". In short, I'm not sure that this boy was more than just a recreational hockey player, and thus should not be included. I think his comments in that discussion (specifically mentioning notability of the league) would suggest he agrees. But I can't speak for him. 142.68.45.162 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC) (= 99.192.69.56. Yep, me again)

Ravenswing, you raise an important, but very different issue. The question of whether a player is notable enough to count is a different question from whether ice sledge hockey counts as hockey. Perhaps you are responding to Lvivske's comment that Matt Cook was an "amateur" ice sledge hockey player. But Cook was no random amateur. He won a bronze medal at the 2009 World Championships. So if the question is notability, then Cook clearly qualifies. 99.192.58.22 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is you're saying the list should include everyone who played hockey on ice, and I'm saying it should only include those who played actual ice hockey. Then the subquestion is, is sled hockey hockey, or a spin off on its own (that it has its own article leans me towards the latter)--Львівське (говорити) 05:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, sledge hockey would fit into our project scope. It is just ice hockey for disabled people. The main article does not require the "ice" in front because there is no need to disambiguate sledge hockey - there is no confusion over what sport is referred to. As to the original question, I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Cook on this list because he was a competitor at a higher level. I wouldn't the inclusion of a pond sledge hockey player any more than I would a pond hockey player. Resolute 05:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

They have been tagged as part of our project in the past because we are a natural home for the articles. It is however a different sport from ice hockey just like field hockey is a different sport from ice hockey so I wouldn't put him on that list. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeh the simple fact is that he was a "ice sledge hockey player" and never an "ice hockey player" and so doesn't belong on the list. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(Please do your homework :-) ) He did play junior ice hockey. He lost a leg to cancer, and took up sledge hockey. The cancer recurred and he died. I would include him on the list. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't however during his hockey career that he died which is what this list is for. The question really comes down to do we consider sledge hockey and ice hockey to be the exact same sport? If we do we need to start adding sledge hockey players to all ice hockey lists which I think is quite obviously ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So where does this leave us?

It seems that discussion has slowed down a bit here and there is no clear resolution. So far, eight different people have commented in this section. Three (Cjmclark, Resolute, and me) have said that ice sledge hockey is a form of ice hockey and three (Lvivske, DJSasso, and Salavat) have said that it is not. The two other people who have made comments (Nurmsook and Ravenswing) have not specifically offered an opinion on the main question. I guess we need more input from more people in the hope that it tilts the balance clearly in one direction or the other, but I'm not really sure. Any thoughts? 99.192.50.176 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.58.22)

It is a form of ice hockey but it is not ice hockey there is a difference. This list is specifically about ice hockey, not all forms of it. Based on the above there is what we call no-consensus which means we default to the original situation which would have been not adding them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it might be a good idea to wait to see if anyone new has something to contribute to the discussion. Secondly, you said that with a "no-consensus" that "we default to the original situation". Well, Matt Cook was added to the list on April 8, 2010 - four days after he died. His name has been on that list for almost two years now until Lvivske removed it a few days ago. So if we are to default to the original situation, that would be to leave him on the list. 142.68.42.73 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.50.176 and 99.192.58.22)

Addendum to the previous: I just checked Wikipedia:Consensus which says, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." So would seem that regardless of what the original situation is that unless a consensus to remove Cook is reached that he should remain on the list. 142.68.42.73 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.50.176 and 99.192.58.22)

This isn't a deletion discussion. Either way I think its pretty clear there is no consensus to add him to the list. -DJSasso (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, the question is not "should he be added?" He was added two years ago right after he died and has been on the page since then. The current question is "should he be removed?" So if there is no consensus and that means that the default is to not change the page, then he should be left on the list. 142.68.45.78 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC) (=142.68.42.73 etc.)

The fact he was added and not noticed doesn't really matter. The question is do people think he should be added. He was removed and you reverted Lvivske to add him back. Now we have to decide if he should have been added back or not. I am sure he would have been removed years ago had someone noticed. The default in this case would be no we don't add sledge hockey players to ice hockey lists. We never have, that one addition someone snuck in and was not noticed until now doesn't change that. What you are really proposing is that we completely change how we handle all ice hockey lists. So if there is no-consensus we stick to what we have been doing which is not adding sledge hockey players to ice hockey lists and keep them separate. -DJSasso (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You're misreading the policy. It states: "In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article." So the policy is saying that if an addition results in a discussion that leads to no consensus, don't add. But if a deletion results in a discussion that leads to no consensus, don't remove. Cook was on the list for two years. It was the removal of his name that led to the discussion. So with no consensus the result is don't remove. That should be pretty clear. 142.68.45.78 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no time limit. The bold move here was the addition of him in 2010 which was actually reverted when it was added. (based on geolocation i am guessing it was you who added and reverted back then). The overriding standard for all our lists has been that we don't add sledge hockey players to ice hockey lists. So the default position would be that we don't add him if we don't have consensus to add him because the actual change here would be the addition of sledge hockey players to ice hockey lists which we haven't done in the past. The overall default for hockey lists would be that we don't list them currently which would override the results on a single page which was likely the result of someone not noticing the addition. -DJSasso (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well firstly, if there is no time limit, then the policy is impossible to interpret. If some information is on a page for ten years and then a removal results in a discussion someone could say "there is no time limit" and so the issue is whether to add information that has already been on a page for a decade. That makes no sense. The policy seems pretty clear and two years on a page seems pretty well established as the default.

Secondly, the worry that this decision would set a precedent that would ripple through all the hockey lists strikes me as odd. I can't think of a single list page that would face any changes by recognizing that sledge ice hockey is ice hockey. I know of no slegde ice hockey players who are not on other list pages right now because of this. Do you?

Thirdly, other hockey pages already recognize sledge ice hockey as ice hockey. For example, the page List of ice hockey leagues includes an entire section of "Disabled hockey leagues," including amputee hockey, hearing impaired hockey, and sledge hockey. So if anything, sledge hockey has already been recognized by Wikipedia as ice hockey and this is a move to change that. 142.68.45.78 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, well, if we're to make our POV clear ... I do not believe that sledge hockey = "ice hockey" for the purposes of this list or any other "ice hockey" list, nor do I believe that Cook belongs on it, nor do I believe that sledge hockey competitions qualify under WP:NHOCKEY; sledge hockey players must look to the GNG for notability. Ravenswing 17:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  And as requested to do same, I must admit to holding the opposite opinion. To me, this is primarily a question of semantics, and this is just a specialized form of ice hockey. As to the debate, I do have to agree with the anon. If the name was part of the list for two years, a no consensus on removal today should default to the position the article held for the last two years. Resolute 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  Then I am assuming we should also include roller hockey deaths? It is after all ice hockey minus the ice and is as close to ice hockey as sledge hockey is. Personally I think the most appropriate place for him would be on List of sportspeople who died during their careers in a section specifically for sledge hockey players. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If this question were put to a vote, I'd say that roller hockey is not a form of ice hockey, so no, it should not be included. But you know, lawn tennis and clay court tennis are considered the same sport, so some might disagree. 142.68.45.162 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)(= 99.192.69.56. Yep, me again)

Well just like sledge hockey, roller hockey was modeled after ice hockey and has all the same rules as ice hockey. The only difference is the ice or lack thereof. In some ways its closer to ice hockey than sledge hockey in that it uses all the same equipment except for wheels on the skates. -DJSasso (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the current default consensus, I agree that something present in an article for two years should be considered as, by default, having consensus to be included. Otherwise, any no-consensus discussion (even one that just failed to attract enough attention, for whatever reason) can be used to justify the removal of any addition at any time, no matter how long, after the fact. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  That would then also allow incorrect information to be slipped into an article that failed to be noticed to stay in an article if people couldn't agree on how to deal with it when it was noticed years later. But I would note its addition has been removed a couple times over the past year and a half that its been in there with this user reinserting it each time its removed. That indicates there has been no consensus established fo it to be in the article. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no policy that can protect Wikipedia from sometimes having incorrect information. So if something were incorrectly added, went unnoticed for a long time, then a discussion about removing it resulted in no-consensus, then it would stay. But the same is true if incorrect information were added and a majority of editors who happened to participate in a discussion said it should stay. Or for that matter, correct information could be kept out of an article if an accurate addition were contested and editors reached a no consensus. Policy about what to do with any edits cannot guarantee accuracy, unfortunately. 142.68.45.162 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)(= 99.192.69.56. Yep, me again)

Well WP:VERIFY would actually protect against it since anything that is not verifiable can be removed consensus or not. It wasn't an avenue I was going to go down because I thought it would be pretty obvious that he wouldn't be included on a page about ice hockey players. So in order to meet WP:VERIFY do we have sources calling him an ice hockey player at the time he was killed? Because most sources I find call him a sledge hockey player. That being said I think my proposal to add him instead to List of sportspeople who died during their careers should be considered since that would allow him to be listed as a sledge hockey player and would avoid the inaccuracy of calling him an ice hockey player at the time of his death when he was actually a sledge hockey player at the time of his death. -DJSasso (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the interest of conciseness, I did not elaborate on all the caveats: naturally Wikipedia's guidance on verifiability and so forth must be met. For better or worse, Wikipedia's standard mode of operation is that once an addition has been made that has been present for some time (where "some time" is subject to interpretation, but from my experience, the bar used by editors is pretty low), a new consensus has been formed, and so its removal would initiate a new bold, revert, discuss cycle. (Unfortunately this makes it easy for articles to get locked into a certain state unless sufficient editors can be roused to comment and form a definite consensus; that's one of the prices of Wikipedia's current collaborative editing model. On the positive side, this approach promotes article stability, dampening down edit warring.) isaacl (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IP Socking?

There seems to be some serious WP:OWN going on with this single-use IP user, who seems to be fairly knowledgeable on wiki policy, yet doesn't have an account. Should we be looking into socking here if these reverts are going to continue? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] --Львівське (говорити) 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's only socking if one person is trying to create the illusion of being many different people. You will note above that as my IP address changed above that each time I indicated that I was the same person at the end of the signature with a parenthetical note. My IP address changed because that's just the way my ISP does it. It sometimes even changes on me in mid-session online. You should look up the "IP address assignment" section here: IP address.

Well, you're obviously more up on the definition of socking than me ;) --Львівське (говорити) 19:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So you accused me of socking without knowing what it means? That's rather odd behaviour. Perhaps you should know what you are accusing someone of doing before making accusations. 99.192.69.56 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And about the edit in question, there is a no consensus situation and I have been discussing with DJSasso what that means. If you would like to engage in the discussion again that is welcome, but just reverting without being involved is not very constructive. 99.192.69.56 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC) (=142.68.45.78, etc.)

Addendum: There is no reason to assert that there is a WP:OWN issue here. I have been simply trying to implement the proper "no consensus" result as wikipedia policy dictates. That someone disagrees with you about an edit does not make it a WP:OWN situation. Perhaps it would help if you address the substantive issue and step back on imputing improper motives to other editors. 99.192.69.56 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's OWN because each time someone removes it, you revert. And now you are reverting against the discussion here.--Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I reverted your removal because I thought it was wrong, just as you removed it because you thought including him was wrong. So if you thin I have an OWN issue you must think you do as well. I think neither. And the discussion here was not "should we ADD him to the page". He was already on the page, so that could not possibly be the question. The question was "should he be REMOVED from the page". So a "no consensus" result means "no change". The words of the policy are "no change". They are not "remove content". the policy specifically is worded to allow for the possibility that a "no consensus" means that content that was on the page stays on the page. that should be quite clear. Perhaps we now need to refer the question to another Wikipedia meta page for an interpretation from someone not party to this discussion, but I think the answer is clear here. No consensus = no change = no removal of existing content. You might disagree, but that does not mean you have an OWN problem any more than my disagreement means I do. So relax on the personal attacks, ok? 99.192.69.56 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A) You've attempted to revert on a single point for 2 years now, I've only chimed in over the last few months. B) The discussion question posted here was should he be included, not removed. Just because you inserted him again prior to this discussion doesn't mean we only have to debate his removal. We're discussing if he, or sledge players at all qualify. And there isn't consensus to make such a move so far.--Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)There is clearly no consensus for it to be on the page. I think you have your answer. Continued edit warring is just going to get you blocked. If you feel you need to keep discussing that is ok as well. But reverting each other isn't going to help. From the time you originally added cook there was clearly no consensus to add him since the minute you added him he was removed. You should not have reverted the original revert by Krm500, instead you should have discussed here (And looking back its been removed by people consistently since then with you reverting them each time so there clearly has been no consensus from the beginning that he be added). That the discussion was delayed to this point hasn't changed anything as your edit was objected to as soon as it was added originally. That it took this long to discuss it is a shame but it is what it is. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We agree that there is no clear consensus about what to do. What we disagree about is what that means the result should be for the page. I have just posted the question on Wikipedia talk:Consensus hoping for some further input as to what that should be. You can comment there if you like, but I do think I have fairly laid out the two views. 99.192.69.56 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't agree that there is a no clear consensus about what to do. I said there was no-consensus to add. I think there is enough of a consensus at this point since 4 people have said no they wouldn't add it. 2 said they would add it. And 1 said they wouldn't object to adding it but also didn't say he would add it. And 1 wasn't clear one way or the other. Currently I think its pretty clear the way to go. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You should re-read what you wrote above. When I first asked what we should do next you said: "Based on the above there is what we call no-consensus which means we default to the original situation". You did not say no-consensus to add. You just said "no-consensus". Besides, the policy is worded as their either being a consenus to change or no consensus to change. It does not speak about "no consensus to add" or "no consensus to remove" 99.192.69.56 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes and then RGTraynor made it clear he did not support adding it. Which swung the number of people from 3-2 to 4-2 which in these sorts of discussions is about as clear as anything ever gets. Twice as many. No-consensus to add or No-consensus to remove is one of the common wordings for the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that it was not 4-4 is very strange. Couly you please let me know which two are the ones you count as voting for inclusion? I know I am one of the two. Who is the other? 99.192.69.56 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Cjmclark was who I counted because you had listed him when you commented who was for and against above, but looking at his comment even his is not an equivocal statement that he should be added to the list. So one could argue that it was 4 against 1 support 2 OK with but haven't said he should be and 1 who haven't said anything one way or the other. -DJSasso (talk)

This is getting stranger and stranger. So now you say I am the only one? So when alaney2k wrote "I would include him on the list," you don't count that? Ok. I will just have to ask each of the other three to clarify. 99.192.69.56 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No I actually forgot to count him. However, he didn't clarify if he would still add him since he did not die during his ice hockey career and instead died during his sledge hockey career. But yes (depending on Alaney2k) I would say you are the only one actively fighting to add him with most other people saying either no or they wouldn't have a problem with it but not actually saying it should be added. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, since you say that you are worried about other hockey list pages, do you plan to remove the sledge hockey leagues listed on the List of ice hockey leagues page? If sledge ice hockey is not ice hockey, then it should be removed, right? 99.192.69.56 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I would remove the two sledge hockey leagues and put a see also link to the sledge hockey article or to a list of sledge hockey leagues if there are enough notable ones for a list. The other disabled ones I would leave because they still play ice hockey. I was actually going to remove them the other day but decided to wait to see how this went. -DJSasso (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if sledge hockey leagues can get a "see also" could not Matt Cook get a "see also" on the "List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career"? 99.192.69.56 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘He could. But I might worry that for a single player that would be undue weight. I would have less of an issue with having it as a separate table than included in with ice hockey players since it really isn't the same sport just an offshoot of it like roller hockey is so having him in with the ice hockey players gives a false impression that he was an ice hockey player when he died which he wasn't. Unfortunately (or really fortunately) there aren't other sledge hockey players to cobble together to make their own list which could be in the See Also section. That would solve most of the problem I think. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking at the See Also link that is already there is List of sportspeople who died during their careers which is where I would think he would best fit. Then you could make a sledge hockey section. -DJSasso (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum - Djsasso , you wrote, "From the time you originally added cook...." Not that it should matter, but I did not originally add him. That was done by someone else who's IP address puts him in Kingston Ontario. I did make the edit immediately following it, which added a source and fixed up the entry. But I did not add it. 99.192.69.56 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My appologies must have misread the diff. But irregardless you did revert the first removal that was made almost right away. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I only supported Matt Cook on the list because the same disease that ended his ice hockey career, took his life too. Not on some sledge hockey = ice hockey argument. (And I don't want to add my name to that argument) Sorry if there's some ambiguity. The list includes other junior hockey players who weren't notable in their ice hockey careers, but there's a presumption of it being possible? The league he played in has some NHL alumni. So, I thought he fits on that basis in the list as it's currently constituted. Not on some high standard as the list does not have a high standard. I'd support writing up a better definition of who should be on the list. We should push it to being notable already, playing professional hockey, etc.? Not a grab-bag. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Broader view of impact on categories and lists

I suggest that the broader impact on categories and lists be examined. Would ice sledge players be expected to be listed in other ice hockey player lists and categories? isaacl (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No - would be like adding ball hockey, Field hockey or Underwater hockey players to the cat. Different sportsMoxy (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the argument above that many people are making is that it is the same sport. This is the issue and why they shouldn't be on the list. If its not the same sport then he shouldn't be on the page. This is the arguement half or so the people are making. Can't have it both ways, we either need to start putting them on all the hockey lists and in all the hockey categories or leave the sports separate. -DJSasso (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not the same sport - only the same base principles. Ice Hockey vs Sledge hockey. We cant make guess here only regurgitate what is out there. Sledge hockey is clearly a separate sport played by a different segment of society with its own governing bodies and rules of play. Moxy (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. That is my position as well. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well in the past we have been removing sledge hockey players from ice hockey player categories and putting them in their own sledge hockey categories. But a decision like this would force that to change. It would also force us to add sledge hockey players to all ice hockey player lists such as lists of ice hockey players that have played in the olympics. We would need to start adding them to the various Ice hockey personnel from categories where they are currently separated out to the more generic Sportspeople from categories. It would have a very major impact on how we handle things. And quite honestly it would cause a lot of big inaccuracies. All of which could easily be avoided by just making a sledge hockey section on the sportspeople who died during their career page instead of trying to shoehorn him into the ice hockey list. -DJSasso (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Isaacl, it's a good question. I think the answer is "yes", but I don't see that this would change much of anything at all. As I mentioned before, sledge hockey leagues are already counted on the List of ice hockey leagues, so inclusion is nothing new. I also do not think it would change much at all on most pages. To that point....

DJSasso, I asked before what lists would be affected, and I still don't see any. You mention here "lists of ice hockey players that have played in the olympics", but sledge hockey is not an Olympic event. It's in the Paralympics, which is a different event. So sledge players should not be on any lists of Olympic athletes. But further, I just looked at the page and for the master lists. Most of them on a first glance obviously would not apply to sledge players (things like List of Memorial Cup champions or List of Adirondack Phantoms players). Others that might appear to include them - like List of ice hockey players of black African descent - might seem to apply, but when you get to the page you find that only players with NHL experience are included in the list. So again, sledge players do not apply. In short, I could only find one list that would need any changes. That was List of Team Canada captains. Adding captains of the sledge teams from the Paralympics and World Championships here would be a very small change. Did I miss anything? 142.68.45.162 (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC) (= 99.192.69.56)

Sledge hockey players diverse a list of there own. They (we) should not be grouped together with able bodies players because we have different abilities and records to keep track of.Moxy (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@IP Anywhere we list ice hockey players in any form on any page where they aren't restricted by things like team. So city pages where we list ice hockey players from that town, things like the descent pages you mentioned which although have mostly NHL players don't specifically bar them. Alumni pages of universities that list ice hockey players. Anywhere that lists ice hockey players that aren't limited by things like playing for a team. There are hundreds of pages this would affect but the biggest affect would be on categories. You mention the adding the captains would be a small change, but it wouldn't be it would be adding further inaccuracies, that work behind adding them is of course small, but it makes the information less reliable and more inaccurate. Again the simple solution would be to add him on the list of sportspeople who died during their career and put him under a section for sledge hockey. Not sure why this action is so objectionable compared to having to change and re categorize hundreds of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

DJSasso, you wrote: "There are hundreds of pages this would affect". You keep saying this. I looked and only found one (List of Team Canada captains). Can you actually link me to any two of the hundreds of pages you think would be affected? I really don't think they exist. 142.68.41.196 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And that is just sledge hockey players, if we are going to list every player who plays an offshoot of ice hockey we then have to also list all the roller hockey players in those various lists and categories since its well established that roller hockey was an offshoot of ice hockey. And you mention the Paralympics are a different event than the Olympics...but if I follow your own logic of sledge hockey = ice hockey then paralympics = olympics. -DJSasso (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

DJSasso, no one is suggesting that we count ever offshoot of ice hockey as ice hockey. We are just disagreeing about what the scope of the term "ice hockey" is. You an I (and everyone else) agrees that roller hockey is not ice hockey. But the issue of whether sledge ice hockey is ice hockey is what we disagree about. Also, "Olympics" and "Paralympics" are brand names. It's not the Olympics unless the IOC says it is, and anyone trying to say that their event is an Olympics without their approval will get sued. By contrast, "ice hockey" is just a general term in the language. No individual or group can decide by fiat what the extension of that term is. The rules of identity are not the same at all. 142.68.41.196 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that once we count one we have to count all, so yes anyone suggesting we count one is suggesting we count all of them. We have to be consistent if we count one offshoot as being the same thing as ice hockey we need to count all of them as being the same thing as ice hockey. That being said you still haven't provided any reliable sources indicating that either sledge hockey is the equivalent of ice hockey or that Cook was considered an ice hockey player in reliable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You are assuming that you are right that sledge ice hockey is not ice hockey and so including it would open the door to including other similar sports that are not ice hockey. But that's what's called Begging the question. The very issue in dispute is whether or not sledge ice hockey is ice hockey. One can believe that it is and not be committed to adding any offshoots of ice hockey on any lists. No one is saying that.

DJSasso: "you still haven't provided any reliable sources indicating that either sledge hockey is the equivalent of ice hockey or that Cook was considered an ice hockey player in reliable sources." And you have not provided any reliable sources to the contrary. 142.68.41.196 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not required to (especially since you can't prove a negative). The onus is on person(s) wanting to add information to wikipedia to provide sources to back up their claim in order to comply with verifiable requirements. So if you are stating that sledge hockey is ice hockey and that Cook was an ice hockey player you do need sources that describe him as such and/or the sport as such. Otherwise you don't meet the requirements of WP:V. Without sources its just a case of original research. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that both Resolute and Isaacl posted earlier to agree with me that the fact that Cook has been on the page for two years makes retaining him on the list the default possition. It's not a question of whether he should be added. So if you want to remove him, you need to provide a good reason to do so. Showing that he is not an ice hockey player would do that. If you can't show that, then there is no good reason to remove his name. 99.192.78.130 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. Everything on wiki needs a source (especially controversial information), if you can't source it then it can be removed that is the #1 overriding principle of the wiki. The two policies that need to be met in every instance are WP:V and WP:N. For anyone to be on that list they need a source naming them as an ice hockey player and that they died during their career. Default position of him staying or not. Unsourced material can be removed at anytime by anyone. If you read what Isaacl said above his comment was predicated on meeting WP:V. Every single article I pull up calls him a sledge hockey player and not an ice hockey player so I am not sure how you trying to equate ice hockey=sledge hockey is anything other than original research. -DJSasso (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want a source that sledge ice hockey, in general, is ice hockey. Then you need look no further than the Hockey Canada website. I mentioned in one of my first edit summaries before the discussion on this page started that Hockey Canada counts sledge hockey as hockey. They list sledge hockey as one of their programs. They do not count inline hockey or field hockey. So that's a good general source. As for Matt Cook specifically, how about this CTV news story: [7]. They call him a "hockey player" in the headline, the picture caption, and in the body of the article. 99.192.78.130 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hockey Canada as well as the IIHF actually do include inline hockey. As for hockey, yes he is a hockey player. He is a sledge hockey player. Sledge hockey is a form of hockey, just like ice hockey is. They do not call him an ice hockey player. In fact they actually specifically make it clear he switched to sledge hockey. "excelling in the sport of sledge hockey" -DJSasso (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hockey Canada as well as the IIHF actually do include inline hockey." Not true. I just checked the Hockey Canada page (again) and under "programs" they list sledge hockey. Nowhere do they list inline hockey. You are wrong.

"They do not call him an ice hockey player." Nonsense. I already pointed to these items, but I guess I have to quote them. The headline is "Tribute to local hockey player". They do not say sledge hockey player there. The picture caption calls him, "the late hockey player". Again, not the late sledge hockey player. And the story says, "The hockey player dreamed of becoming a Paralympian after he lost his leg to bone cancer in 2006." They do not say the sledge hockey player or the former hockey player. Three times they call him simply a hockey player. In fact, not only do they not say he "switched" to sledge hockey, as you claim, they say he "continued" his hockey career by playing sledge hockey. You have completely misrepresented the article. 99.192.78.130 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes they say hockey not ice hockey. Hockey does not equal ice hockey. Hockey is the general term that refers to all versions of hockey. As for the IIHF not covering the sport check the link in my comment. It will take you right to the article talking about the World Championships they put on. As for Hockey Canada, the reason its not on their main site is they have a seperate brand for their inline teams which is called the NIHA which if you go to their website will tell you they are sanctioned under Hockey Canada. If the list you were trying to add him on was List of hockey players who died during their career then I would have long ago agreed with you as sledge hockey is one of a number of types of hockey. However the list is specifically about the ice hockey variety. -DJSasso (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is no longer possible to assume you are discussing in good faith. Previously when you said the result was a "no consensus" and then conveniently decided to assert (falsely) that it was actually a 4-1 split it was hard to take you seriously. And your claims about how "hundreds" of lists would be affected by this discussion and your inability to link to any was also suspicious, but this really is absurd. If you know anything about hockey at all, you know that in North America it is almost never called "ice hockey" in the media. The qualifying term "ice" is only used when there is some reason to think that it needs to be distinguished from field hockey, which is almost never. You would be hard pressed to find a news story that calls any current NHLer an "ice hockey player" (and note: the fact that the league is not called the "National Ice Hockey league" does not mean that field hockey teams are welcome). So to find a Canadian story that calls him a "hockey player" is sufficient to show that they regard him as a player of the same sport as other "hockey players", that is "ice hockey players". To insist on the word "ice" in the story is absurd and you know it. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (= the other 99.192 and 142 addresses)

Yes in conventional speaking it is interchangeable with ice hockey in North America when it can be safely assume we are talking about ice hockey, however when an article is talking about multiple "versions" of hockey we have to assume they are using the generic term since they are mentioning more than one version of hockey. When talking about the National Hockey League that isn't necessary because its understood we are talking directly about ice hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Looking at the first three articles that came up in a search there is this one which specifically mentions its a sport like hockey. Then there are this one and this one which both mention how he was a hockey player and then he became a sledge hockey player which also would indicate different sports. Those are just the first three links that literally came up in a google search. I could probably fifty more that mention the switch from ice hockey to sledge hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As for your comment about thinking they are the exact same sport then I am assuming a sledge hockey team could play an ice hockey team no problem right? Same sport so they shouldn't have a problem competing against each other. The different equipment and what not wouldn't make any difference to the game at all? -DJSasso (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just silly. Firstly, since the rules are the same, then yes, they could play each other. But, just as singles tennis players and doubles tennis players are all tennis players, it would be strange to play two-on-one. Also, just as blind people and sighted people both play hockey, it would be pretty odd for a sighted team to play a blind team. The games in all these cases might not be competitive in most cases, but then again a beer league team can play an NHL team and that would not be very competitive either. 99.192.78.130 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh but the rules are not exactly the same. They are similar yes, but a number of rules prohibit things necessary in the other. For example an ice hockey player couldn't strap a sledge to his butt and play because that would be against the rules as only certain equipment is allowed in ice hockey. The difference between your tennis example and hockey is there is no difference in rules and/or equipment. Doubles and singles in tennis is clearly the same sport with the same rules. There is nothing barring a doubles team to only field one player if they wanted to. -DJSasso (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized I forgot a key clarification in my question: would the general Wikipedia reader expect ice sledge hockey players to be listed in other ice hockey player lists and categories? (Those who responded above needn't reply again; I believe your response is understood.) I believe we should do our best to match general expectations. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're only looking at ice-sledge hockey's inclusion as part of ice hockey in general, so ball hockey would be out. But then we run into the issue of ice-sledge hockey being one in the same with ice hockey, and the non-ice version of sledge hockey being a sport on its own - which would be weird.--Львівське (говорити) 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Counting ice sledge hockey and inline sledge hockey as different is no more strange than treating ice hockey and inline hockey as different, which we agree should be treated as different. 142.68.41.196 (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's played on a sled and not skates is a huge enough difference to make it not-hockey.--Львівське (говорити) 02:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We know. You've already told us that. 99.192.78.130 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes the key question is what do reliable sources call these people. Are they called ice hockey players by reliable sources thus leading the general public to expect them to be called ice hockey players. We can't create our own original research that ice hockey and sledge hockey are the same. So we need to find sources that indicate one way or the other if these players are ice hockey players and/or is sledge hockey called ice hockey interchangeably. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sledge hockey is a different sport from ice hockey, just as roller/inline hockey is a different sport from ice hockey. They are similar in many way, but still a different sport. This is confirmed by a search through English-language reliable sources[8] which universally refer to those athletes who play "sledge hockey" as "sledge hockey players".[9] Dolovis (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Or on Hockey Canada's history article, as "the sport of sledge hockey" [10] and per it's governing body, "Ice Sledge Hockey is the Paralympic version of Ice Hockey" and "A direct descendant of Ice Hockey" [11] --Львівське (говорити) 06:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with all of these sources being used as evidence is that finding references to it being called "sledge hockey" or even "the sport of sledge hockey" does not settle the issue of whether or not the use of these phrases is to be understood as more like "water polo" - a qualifier that denotes a different sport from polo - or like "women's hockey" - a qualifier that denotes something about who the players are rather than that it's a different sport. It seems to me that "sledge hockey" is a way of denoting that it is hockey being played by people either without legs or without the ability to use their legs. Just as men are not allowed to play "women's hockey" in the Olympics, people with the use of their legs are not allowed to play "sledge hockey" at the Paralympics. Also, a quick google search shows that you get a huge number of hits for the phrase "the sport of women's hockey". Yet the fact that this phrase is used over and over again is not a reason to think that what women play is a different sport from what men play.

But back to Hockey Canada, they count sledge hockey as one of their programs - just as they do men's hockey, women's hockey, and minor hockey - but they do not count inline hockey as one of their programs. There is no separate governing body for sledge hockey other than Hockey Canada, but for inline hockey there is the NIHA - an organization that formed independently of Hockey Canada and now is "recognized" by Hockey Canada, but not a program of Hockey Canada as sledge hockey is.

So it seems rather that you only like the sources (re: Hockey Canada) when the phrasing suits your MO. You use Hockey Canada has a governing agency to prove it's hockey, but when Hockey Canada refers to it as as a separate variant - that's hooey! And the actual governing body of sledge hockey? Oh, "the problem with all these sources..."--Львівське (говорити) 16:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, it does appear that with new participants to the discussion (Moxy and Dolovis) that at present there are 6 editors who do not count (ice) sledge hockey players as (ice) hockey players and 4 who do. I think that's a mistake and hope others will come to the discussion to help correct it. But until then there is probably little more to say on the matter. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (= the other 99.192 and 142 addresses)

Just an interesting note since you mentioned it, many people do consider women's hockey to be a different sport since it has vastly different rules than men's hockey. However that is a much more difficult debate as it would eventually come down to at what point do people consider different rules a different sport. It isn't so clear cut like sledge hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"many people do consider women's hockey to be a different sport" - Yes, and they are wrong. Which just shows that many people can think that two things are separate sports when they actually are not.

"since it has vastly different rules than men's hockey" - Yesterday you argued that (ice) sledge hockey is not the same sport as (ice) hockey because, in your words, "the rules are not exactly the same". Today, you say two things with "vastly different rules" can be the same sport. This sort of contradiction is another reason to make it hard to assume you are discussing the issue in good faith. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No I am saying people could argue that they are the same sport. I personally believe different rules = different sport. There is no contradiction at all. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you. The NHL and international men's ice hockey have different rules. The CHL has, yet again, different rules. NCAA hockey? Again, different rules. You will find that just about every league or country has at least some different rules. So if you really believed that "different rules = different sport" you would have to believe that there is no sport of ice hockey, just many many similar sports such as NHL hockey, CHL hockey, NCAA hockey, Olympic men's hockey, Olympic women's hockey, and, yes, sledge hockey - one of the many. You'd also have to believe that every time the NHL, or any other league, changes a rule that it was now a different sport. So I simply do not believe you. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is where the point of debating what rules being different make a sport different enough to be a different sport comes into play. In sledge hockey using a sledge clearly makes the game play different enough that it no longer is the same as ice hockey. In women's hockey the lack of being allowed to check takes out one of the biggest aspects (in many peoples opinions) of what ice hockey is to use an example of ice hockey. Minor rule changes such as those found between leagues or when a league changes a rule are a different situation, its when the different rules change the major aspects of game play. You are clearly trying to push to the extreme which is a bit of a straw man. Either way this is a tangent, I was just making a comment since you brought women's hockey up. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"You are clearly trying to push to the extreme" - No. I am just point out that, yet again, you are making claims that you do not believe. You are the one who said "different rules = different sport." Now you are backtracking. One more reason you make it hard to read your comments as being in good faith. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I clearly above said it was harder to make that call in some cases because people would have to debate at what point do different rules = different sports. I quote "However that is a much more difficult debate as it would eventually come down to at what point do people consider different rules a different sport." There are exceptions to every rule, one size never fits all which is why I clearly said sledge hockey was clear cut and women's hockey was not. You can continue to assume bad faith all you want though. It certainly helps your case. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who said "I personally believe different rules = different sport." Then when I said I did not believe that you really believe that, pointing out that the NHL and CHL (etc) have different rules, you then replied "Minor rule changes such as those found between leagues or when a league changes a rule are a different situation." So I was right. You did make a claim about your own beliefs that was not true. Q.E.D.. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I believe there is a point where it comes into play does not make what I said untrue. Generally when you state a position you don't state every possible condition of it. I do believe that different rules make different sports, nothing has changed in that. And as I said prior to that there is a line at which that kicks in. Clearly you are no longer interested in debating the issue, you just want to "win". Which I suppose should have been obvious by your attempts to revert anyone who has in the past removed your preferred version and the fact you are hiding behind an IP. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So I think I shall walk away at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User:67.70.147.72 in Centre Étienne Desmarteau

Bonjour at the male hockey players and male supporters [12]

Caution:User talk:67.70.147.72 These 3 computers ( 2 in first floor and one computers in the second floor in the office of direction) are connected in the Centre Étienne Desmarteau at Montreal , Canada: it means that several users can write on these computers. I do not want to be implied and involved with this IP community address. In the pass , I have some very big problems with many people in the same IP im Centre Étienne Desmarteau ( see french wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2 )

Bonjour aux hockeyeurs masculins et aux supporteurs masculins [13]

Attention: l'adresse IP 67.70.147.72 est une adresse communautaire de 3 ordinateurs. Ces 3 ordinateurs ( 2 sont situés au première étage dans les vestiaires des équipes et un ordinateur est situé au deuxième étage dans le bureau de la coordination de l'aréna) sont reliés au fr:Centre Étienne Desmarteau  : Cela signifie que plusieurs utilisateurs peuvent écrire sur ces ordinateurs. Je ne veux pas être impliquée avec cette adresse communautaire. J'ai eu suffisamment de problèmes dans le Wiki francophone avec l'utilisation communataire d'une même adresse IP du Centre Étienne Desmarteau par plusieurs utilisateurs (Faux-nez http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2). --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

James Chico Hernandez

I've got a situation here, it seems. While doing Blackhawks-related edits, I came across this article, and warning bells sounded off. There were a lot of hockey-related claims that proved to be unsupported by the citations, and so I've started digging. So far, the article is chockfull of many dozens of citations, all of which so far have been scanty to the point of unusability or do not support the statements asserted (such as, for instance, one about Pat Stapleton recommending him for a Black Hawks tryout merely linking to Stapleton's hockeydb.com entry).

The article is the immense work of one Chico 9, who in nearly a thousand edits has worked to establish this fellow on Wikipedia. I certainly suspect COI, and the bullshit detectors are going off in my head. I need to get some sleep now, but if any other editors want to take a poke at this article, go for it. Ravenswing 11:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been wondering about this article myself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Team Canada captains

So I was just looking at the List of Team Canada captains page and there are two problems with it. The more significant one is the title of the page. The title does not indicate what sport the captains are captains of, yet the list is clearly only (ice) hockey captains. I suggest that the page title should be changed to "List of Team Canada ice hockey captains". The more minor problem is the one-line description before the infobox. It reads: "This is a list of captains of various hockey teams which have represented Canada in international play." Since most wikipedia article specify "ice hockey" instead of just "hockey" to avoid the ambiguity with "field hockey" for non-North American readers, I suggest that the word "ice" be inserted in that line. The term "ice hockey" could then also be wiki-linked to the Ice hockey article, as is done in the top line of many (ice) hockey list pages. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the reason the title doesn't mention ice hockey is that Team Canada is the WP:COMMONNAME of the ice hockey team. I haven't heard it applied to any other sport. (but that doesn't mean it hasn't been). Personally I have no problem with a change though I would probably change it to List of Canada national ice hockey team captains to keep it in line with the national team titles. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as we speak the Scotties Tournament of Hearts curling championship is being played. Every year the previous Canadian champion returns to defend their title and are officially called "Team Canada". The term "Team Canada" is pretty generally used for curling champions, such as in this press release headline: Team Canada wins the 2011 Ford World Men’s. Also, your suggestion for a title for the page looks fine to me. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is true I hadn't thought about curling. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, only a couple weeks ago I watched Team Canada get its ass handed to it repeatedly at the West Indies Cricket tournament. Certainly in Canada, hockey might be assumed, but non-Canadians can't make that determination. That said, I agree with the alternate rename. Perhaps a more important question to ask is: does this list actually serve a purpose? Resolute 16:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the list is an important page, but I have no objection to it existing. I notice that it was created in 2005 and has had edits made to it over the years by some pretty active editors on ice hockey pages generally, so my guess is that there are a bunch of people who do think it is a good thing to have. 99.192.84.6 (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved the page to the title suggested by DJSasso. I don't have any comments regarding the existence of the list. Maxim_(talk) 18:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Curse of 1940

A debate about whether or not to add the following information to the page: "The 1994 Stanley Cup Finals also marked the last Finals appearance by a Canadian team until 2004, when the Calgary Flames lost to the Tampa Bay Lightning in seven games." both myself and the other editor are pretty set in our opinions so I would appreciate some other editors input at Talk:Curse of 1940 in order to come to a consensus one way or the other. Thanks.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I also would like an opinion on this statement being included on the 1993-94 New York Rangers season article as well, I feel as if this has nothing to do with the Rangers and shouldn't be included on the page. Thanks! Piemann16 (talk)

I thought we already had consensus on this. He sure is persistent. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a peak a few topics before this one (1994 Stanley Cup Finals) and you'll see where you can find a couple discussions about this already. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it and similar 1994 finals trivial have been something he has been obsessed with for years. It has been a constant thing with him where you have to watch him like a hawk because the community will have a discussion and decide something shouldn't be added or a page should be redirected or whatever. And then he will come back 6 months later and try to sneak it back in quietly. The baseball project had a real problem with him doing some stuff too. They were going to RfC/U him but never did take it that far I think. -DJSasso (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Another discussion has been started on the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals discussion page regarding the inclusion of Keenan not becoming the first coach to lose game 7 with two different teams. Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Palffy

I stumbled upon this one on my watchlist today: genealogical research of Talk:Žigmund Pálffy. TerminalPreppie (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh fun, a debate on nationality involving Eastern Europe. As both a descendent of people from the region and a student of it, my advice would be to stand back and try not to get involved. There's often no solution acceptable to either side, and things like facts and sources don't matter. So take caution. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks

Since the other major sports using the draft were notified I thought I would make sure they all were. Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks has been nominated for deletion. This may be related to this project as it involves first round draft picks of a sports team. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —DJSasso (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Connor Crisp

I was wondering if Connor Crisp qualifies for an article? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why would he? Ravenswing 06:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)