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 16 17 2008 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2009 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 2010 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 2011 44 45 46 47 48 49 2012 50 51 52 53 54 2013 55

Disambiguation for biographies

Hello everyone. Recently I moved two articles about hockey players named Jim Johnson born in 1942 and 1962 respectively. In the hockey world, everybody calls them Jim Johnson. Hockeydb calls them Jim Johnson [1] [2], Legends of Hockey calls them Jim Johnson [3] [4], the NHL calls them Jim Johnson [5], the hockey cards call them Jim Johnson [6], reference works call them Jim Johnson [7], the media at the time called them Jim Johnson. Yet these articles are not to be found at Jim Johnson (ice hockey b. 1942) and Jim Johnson (ice hockey b. 1962). Instead, they redirect to Norman James Johnson and James Erik Johnson, names that almost nobody has ever used to refer to them. This, I am told [8], is apparently the way to handle hockey player disambiguation. This needs to change for a number of reasons.

1. First and foremost, this hinders the reader's ability to find what he's looking for. Of course, thanks to search completions, it does not make it very hard but from a reader's perspective, I see no advantage in using middle names that nobody has ever heard about. And practices that make life more complicated for our readers should be dropped. A similar issue is that according to the MoS disambiguation pages must list the obscure name but the reader still needs to know who that person is so we have no choice but to write something clunky like "Norman James Johnson, better known as Jim Johnson, ice hockey player born in 1942 who played in the WHA and NHL". It's clear to me that this is not as helpful as "Jim Johnson (ice hockey b. 1942), NHL and WHA player."
2. It's not even clear that the middle names we're using are correct. I can find no reference to confirm that Jim Johnson (b. 1942) is really named Norman James Johnson and in fact Legends of hockey calls him Jim James Johnson. Strictly speaking, I would need to add the {{citation needed}} to the title! Using obscure middle names leads us to absurd outcomes. A few months ago, I made a similar case for disambiguating a bunch of Sean Collins and the middle initial solution was dropped into a more explicit disambiguation.
3. Using this convention can lead to strange renaming in the future. For instance suppose some 20 year old kid named Andrei Markov gets to the NHL this year. Instead of moving Andrei Markov (ice hockey) to Andrei Markov (ice hockey, b. 1978) we would move it to Andrei Viktorovich Markov. This makes no sense.
4. The convention adopted by the Ice Hockey Project is non standard and as far as I know, other sports biographies are disambiguated using the year of birth if needed. So we have Jesús Sánchez (pitcher, born 1974) instead of Jesús Paulino Sánchez and uniformity is good for readers. To a certain extent, the hockey project can go its own way but only if this has some hockey-specific benefit. I don't see it.

Pichpich (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To your point number one you would have to write that anyway to explain why the article title doesn't match the full name in the lead. Even if it was titled the way you prefer. And as to your fourth one. It isn't unique to the hockey project, there are a number of other projects I have seen who do similar because birth dates are not supposed to be in disambiguation parenthesis if they can be avoided, they are a last ditch resort. Considering now that the search box also shows you redirects when it auto completes for you there is no actual inconvenience to the reader because both options show up. As to disambiguation pages, they aren't an issue either because on them you can include a small sentence describing the person which is a much bigger help than the parenthesis anyway. Now I don't have super strong feelings on this and can easily be convinced otherwise. I reverted because its how we have been doing it for the last seven years I have been on the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it though? I always thought the Steve Smith problem was a near one-off, simply because we had two players with the same common name who played the same sport and were born the same year. I've always considered (ice hockey, b. 19xx) as the primary disambiguation format when we had two players with the same name. Resolute 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In point 1, I'm not claiming that the gain for the reader is immense. It is small but it exists and I see no adverse effects of disambiguating by year. Maybe I'm wrong and am also open to be convinced otherwise but I really don't see the advantage of the current practice. Moreover, point 2 is also an important issue: resolving an ambiguity by using a title that nobody can recognize is no more helpful than calling these articles Jim Johnson (first hockey player) and Jim Johnson (second hockey player). Pichpich (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute. No we use middle names on lots of articles. I believe it is codified on a project page somewhere about naming conventions. And if you look in the archives there is at least one discussion about it where it is mentioned that while we prefer middle names that people shouldn't waste time going to look for them just to get rid of the parenthesis. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey)#Players, but this section also points to the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating, and to be honest, since no additional disambiguation options are being provided in the ice hockey-specific guidelines (as is done in the baseball-specific guidelines, for example), I don't see any reason not to just follow the general guidelines. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The irony about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey)#Players is that it uses Greg "Gus" Adams and Greg C. Adams as examples of recommended titles but these were respectively moved to Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1963) and Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1960) more than three years ago. (I should note that on Talk:Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1963), one editor complained in 2007 that he'd never heard of the "Gus" nickname.) In any case, it seems like the guideline doesn't faithfully describe current practice (Sean Collins is another example) so it makes sense to revisit this. Pichpich (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it also occurred to me that readers browsing categories have absolutely no reason to believe that the Norman James Johnson they see listed (and that they had never heard about) is actually the Jim Johnson they are looking for. That's a common search method and using unknown middle names is really detrimental in that case. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey)

Can I bump this thread? :-) I'd like to propose the following change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey). The disambiguation section currently reads

In the event that a player shares the same name as another notable person, use one of the following options:

• Use (ice hockey) following the players name, such as John Adams (ice hockey).
• Use middle, or nicknames, for the article title, such as Greg "Gus" Adams, Greg C. Adams, and Tiger Williams.

I propose to replace this with

In the event that a player shares the same name as another notable person, use one of the following options:

• Use (ice hockey) following the players name, such as John Adams (ice hockey).
• Use middle, or nicknames, for the article title, provided that the nickname or the middle name is sufficiently common and used frequently in sources. For instance Tiger Williams.
• When two or more ice hockey players share a common name, use the players' year of birth. For instance Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1963) and Greg Adams (ice hockey b. 1960).
• When two or more ice hockey players share a common name, use the players' position. For instance Sean Collins (ice hockey defenceman), Sean Collins (ice hockey forward b. 1983) and Sean Collins (ice hockey b. 1988).

I think it's fairly common sense to stay away from unknown and often hard to even verify middle names and nicknames. But it's also a better reflection of actual practice as the Greg Adams example shows. Pichpich (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. Resolute 17:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How about more simply:

Follow Wikipedia's guidance on disambiguating biographies, using "(ice hockey)" as the disambiguation tag if necessary.

After this, if desired, a list of examples could be given. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That could also work and I wouldn't mind but I was under the impression that the project rather liked having a little bit of extra control on this issue. Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked the last point regarding the player's position. As far as I could tell, the rest lined up with the general guidance and so I didn't see a need to draw up a separate set of guidelines (and the last case is sufficiently rare that codifying might not be necessary). However, I can see how editors would appreciate having a checklist they can just go through. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now made the change. In the coming weeks, I'll try to find cases where the middle name or nickname used for disambiguation is pretty obscure and needs to be changed. Pichpich (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

List of NHL players (A), B, C, D...

Looking at these lists, they have all been long abandoned - new players have not been added in five or six years in most cases. Consequently, these lists appear to offer little value. Is there any reason to think they can be salvaged, or should I just nominate them at AFD? Resolute 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I find these lists a little pointless myself but I'll eat my skates if you can get them deleted at AfD. The article traffic statistics seem to show that they do get some traffic so I suppose it would be a bit of a loss for some readers. That alone will let it survive AfD. These lists are impossible to maintain manually and in an ideal world, they would be maintained by a bot. But actually, there may already be a bot able to figure out which articles in category:WhateverXYZ fail to appear in a given list or set of lists. This would allow a sort of semi-automated maintenance that would be somewhat manageable. (And to be clear, I am not volunteering to do this!) Pichpich (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely not nominate them for deletion. These are very useful pages if updated. And I doubt they would pass AfD either way. We just need someone with one of the recent books with the players lists to have a go over them. Heck if I had a recent source I would go over them myself. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how incomplete these lists so maybe this is silly. But if you're interested, even without these external lists, I think it would be relatively straightforward to get a list of names that appear in the subtree Category:National Hockey League players or in the team-specific lists (like List of Anaheim Ducks players) yet do not appear in the full list of NHL players. That would be a start. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The lists are 5-6 years out of date. I guess my question is whether this is a better way to search for players than the alternatives, including categories and team-specific lists. Because not only do they need massive updating, but they also need continual maintenance. Resolute 17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they all complement each other. Personally I use the overall list all the time and rarely use the team lists. But that is because I am usually searching for player info by name instead of through team. I think they need to stay. Different people need different methods. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

They only need to be updated after each season no? —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 22:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Conference championships in team infobox

Periodically we have issues with this field as editors try to add years a team finished first in the regular season, though the field was always intended to represent winners of the Wales or Campbell trophies. This also creates issues with the period of 1975-81 when the trophies were awarded as regular season awards instead of playoffs. And if the proposed realignment goes through, who knows how this will change? I am wondering if there is a better way to render this. We might simply create fields for the Campbell and Wales trophies - though that creates some issues with redundancy to division championships (1968-74) or Montreal's case where they've won the Wales Trophy for many different reasons, including as league champion. Or we could consider a field called "Campbell/Wales Trophy (since 1975)" to specify what we intend the field to mean. Or perhaps a different way entirely. Thoughts? Resolute 16:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would wait to see what the new realignment brings and then change it based on that. I don't think its so big an issue that it needs to be changed immediately only to have to change it again possibly depending on what the future brings. That being said the last option is probably the best. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of the infobox, where I think the key bit of information readers are looking for is the playoff result and not the regular season outcome, how about cutting to the chase and just listing something like "Stanley Cup Finalist" or "NHL Championship Finalist"? The division championships can be replaced with "Stanley Cup Semi-finalist" or "NHL Championship Semi-finalist". isaacl (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree. I look to it for regular season and playoff result. Semi-finalist I wouldn't think would matter to most people compared to a divisional championship which is won in the regular season. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The NHL's constant changing of criteria for these 2 trophies, makes the winners difficult to organize. Isaacl's proposal seems workable. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is the NHL complete disregard for any form of constancy or logic. There seems to be two different situations grout together from above, Division Championships and Conference Championships. Because I don't think they shouldn't both be handed in the same way I will address them separately.

1. For the Conference Championship I was originally leaning more towards changing it to the trophy names, because it is something tangible that was awarded, despite the fact that it has only been awarded to playoff conference champs since 1981. The trophy page can inform of the situation of why is was won and is easily referenced. I have no issues with Isaacl's proposal for the conference (it probably handles the expectation better), thought it will probably need to be changed to Stanley Cup Runner-up or similar. Finalist by definition would be both teams so would probably lead to duplication for the champions.

Whatever the case is it should probably be changed to something consistent since the concept of conferences seems to hold no weight in the NHL history. For the 1977–78 NHL season the Islanders finished with the best record in the Clarence Campbell Conference, but were given the 3rd seed in the playoffs.

2. More fun with Divisions. Unlike conference champions where the expectation is that they played for the Cup. I think the expectation is not where a team finished in the post season, but finishing the regular season with the top record in your division (I know there is a problem given the years of playoff division titles which is always confusing). Division championships do hold some weight within franchises and fan-basses with their celebration and banner hung to honor them. For example there was a minor stir for the Panthers and Coyotes for winning their first division championships last season. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

How about separating the regular season results from the playoff results:

• fields for regular season: Division leader, Conference leader
• fields for playoffs: NHL championship runner-up
• fields for trophies: Prince of Wales / Campbell trophy recipient

The last one would follow the byzantine NHL rules for awarding the trophies, and the first two would be a straightforward tally of the team's results. (On a side note, Habs fans have no idea what a "dee-vih-zhun-null" (is that how you say it?) championship is :-) isaacl (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Red Wings Marquette Prison game

Just saw this great video, which reminded me about this really unique and amazing event in NHL history. There's a brief mention of this game at the NHL Winter Classic article, but I think this could be a full-fledged article in its own right. Are there sources we could use? They show a lot of newspaper articles and photos of the game in this short video, so there has to be some information out there about it. Jmj713 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1924-25 Canadiens logo.png

file:1924-25 Canadiens logo.png has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalist moves

Hate to narc on one of my own but this guy has been moving all the Ukrainian hockey player articles from common use name to Ukrainian translit' versions (Mykola Zherdev and Oleksiy Ponikarovskiy, for example). Not in the mood to revert 50 edits at the moment, so documenting it here in case I forget. Also, not sure he's done his warpath yet. --Львівське (говорити) 05:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also by looking at his talk page, he appears to be a sock account, He has Pasko 3, and presumably Pashko 1 and who knows, more?--Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Go put a request in at WP:SPI if you think he is a sock. Beyond that I probably going to steer clear. Not in the mood for another diacritics/sovereignty situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

dont care enough to do it so long as hockey articles don't get renamed en-masse again. he was blocked for the time being.--Львівське (говорити) 04:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I had it fixed on Vandalism reasons. The user had been warned previously not to do this. I believe one of the Admins have straightened out the moves. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sasso, need you to move the zherdev article, admin accidentally renamed it 'Nicolay Zherdev'--Львівське (говорити) 04:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sergei Fedorov Quote By Author and Journalist

Hey everyone, on the Sergei Fedorov article page - 2 connected users are upset and removing a quote without a reason, except "they don't like it" and "It's irrelevant". There are quotes on basically every page and this insight provides us with critical detail, which is important to the integrity of Wikipedia.

"when he was on, his game was as close to perfection as you could get on the ice. On separate occasions, Yzerman and Wayne Gretzky told me that Fedorov is the most talented player they’ve ever seen."

This is from an article by Fox Sports columnist, Author, and Detroit radio-host Art Regner http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/08/06/12/Sergei-deserves-warm-welcome-home-/landing_redwings.html?blockID=771773&feedID=3701

Not trying to start anything just think it's valid and accepted. It follows everything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations. They just simply delete it because they don't like what is says. HonestopL 15:49, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking what it says. But a random quote thrown in the middle of a section about his time in the KHL that doesn't say anything about his time in the KHL is trivial and just an attempt to puff up your favourite player. Just like throwing in every trivial award and record like you did in the past. We are an encyclopedia not a fan site. We aren't here to puff up players. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You just made no sense and completely ignored what facts I brought up.

" random quote thrown in the middle of a section about his time in the KHL that doesn't say anything about his time in the KHL is trivial" = Answer: Then why don't you move it to an appropriate section of the article?

I think as a admin, you're abusing powers selectively it feels.HonestopL 16:11, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

What part don't you understand? That in the middle of a section about his playing time in the KHL you added a quote that isn't talking about his playing time in the KHL. That is also just a random quote that isn't accompanied by any analytical discussion about his playing so doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Quotations which suggests quotes must be placed in context. Accusing people of trolling just because they don't agree with you is a little bit much. Please read WP:AGF. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Which admin powers has he abused, HonestopL? Disagreeing with you is not admin abuse. Resolute 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You can just says it's a random quote - doesn't make sense. Now you're changing your answers to fit your own POV. Re-read the Wiki: Quotations section if you need clarification on what a quote entails. You're playing a double game without any facts. You can't prove it so you're resorting to making up random stuff with facts. You're a abusing powers selectively. As a good admin, can you show me where I can open up a complaint about this somewhere else for articles instead of Ice-Hockey?

Give me prove it's not appropriate for the article - you're still just saying fluff and again answer please :why don't you move it to an appropriate section of the article? HonestopL 16:27, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a random quote. All you did was quote the author. It isn't in the middle of a nice paragraph that analytically talks about his skills which is what needs to be done with quotes. Not to mention you cut off the first part of the quote which mentions Fedorov is not perfect. So you are completely taking the quote out of the context it was written in to suit your POV. As for why I didn't move it, because there isn't anything in the article currently that it would be appropriate with. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, but that quote doesn't represent a fact. It represents the opinion of three guys. It's the sort of quote that sportswriters generate for articles all the time, and has no place in a factual encyclopedia. I bet, given about five minutes' search, that I could come up with a half-dozen quotes (other than from Don Cherry, who was no Fedorov fan on his best day) dissing the man. Shall I include a few ... for balance's sake? Ravenswing 19:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Show me where is says "analytical discussion" ON quotations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations

"Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. This page sets out guidelines for such use in Wikipedia articles." HonestopL 16:27, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

(1)Show me wikipedia's defintion for "It is a random quote."

(2)"It isn't in the middle of a nice paragraph that analytically talks about his skills which is what needs to be done with quotes. Not to mention you cut off the first part of the quote which mentions Fedorov is not perfect."

Then why don't YOU/WE re-write it then?

(3)"So you are completely taking the quote out of the context it was written in to suit your POV."

No but if you see a problem Then why don't you WE re-write it then instead you just deleting it - doesn't make sense.

(4) "As for why I didn't move it, because there isn't anything in the article currently that it would be appropriate with."

That doesn't make sense- we can fit in there- let 's re-work it together then now.

HonestopL 16:40, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW - You are now deleting all references of quotations and information off wikiepdia Sergei Fedorov article - okay. Not dealing with you anymore. I see your agenda, will take my complaints somewhere else his continue to edit away. HonestopL 16:44, 07 March 2013 (UTC)

No I simply moved around some information to make it fit the player page style guide. When you are ready to rationally discuss this again feel free to come to the Fedorov talk page and perhaps we all can work something out. That is how wikipedia works, on consensus. There is no need to have a freak out over something that is not that big a deal and can easily be resolved if people talk together with a little decency. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In the middle of your filibuster about the Quotations guideline, you seem to have left out one key quote: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Once again, your quote has introduced no facts. It is an opinion about a subjective, unmeasurable value. Ravenswing 19:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I absolutely love using quote boxes. I think they are a great way to add flavour to an article. So as a personal preference, I have no issue with using this quote. However, it needs to be used in proper context so that it isn't just a random piece of trivia thrown in a random spot on the article. In this case, I think that it would be a decent anchor to a section on Fedorov's playing style, particularly if it discusses Fedorov being viewed as a skill player.

I will add, however, that if you choose to turn this into another edit war like you did last September HonestopL, I will have no problem with blocking you again. If there is no objection to my suggestion of adding the quote to a new playing style section, feel free to construct one. Otherwise, please discuss on the talk page and try to build consensus for your position. Resolute 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

honestopl: When you gripe about the "2 connected users" who are not allowing you to have your way, I assume you are referring to myself and djsasso. Am I correct? I'm curious why you think we're connected somehow. Just because multiple users disagree with your edits doesn't mean there's a conspiracy against you. For the record, I am against re-adding this quote. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a puff piece from some reporter I've never heard of and it does nothing to improve the article. ChakaKong^talk 02:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think its that great a quote and that better quotes about his playing skill could likely be found. But like I said above if someone were to create a decent section that talked about his playing style then it could certainly be added back as mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

HonestopL, if you want to add it? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As Ravenswing mentioned earlier, the general guidelines on quotations are very clear about not using rhetorical language in place of a more neutral, dispassionate tone. Is there any trace of a neutral tone in a statement that includes such bombast as "his game was as close to perfection as you could get on the ice" and "Fedorov is the most talented player they’ve ever seen"? I honestly don't see how anyone could answer "yes" to that question. I think that alone is enough to prevent this particular quotation from being reintroduced into the article. Yes, Fedorov was a good player, but this quotation gives the impression that he was the best player ever to grace an NHL lineup. We all know that is very much not the case. ChakaKong^talk 18:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not connected to anyone here but I don't find the quote particularly useful. The first part of it is a bombastic and subjective assessment from a writer who can reasonably be labeled a Red Wings fan and a Fedorov fan. The second part consists of second-hand quotes which are provided without their context. That's a poor source for an article. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Dave Dziurzynski fight - knockout - concussion

A discussion has been opened on the David Dziurzynski talk page as to the appropriateness of inclusion of information regarding his fight, knockout, and concussion in the article. Participation from editors interested in NHL related content would be most helpful and appreciated. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Boulerice

This is interesting... check out what I just stumbled upon and reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Boulerice&diff=542960325&oldid=540087130 TerminalPreppie (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Someone is trying to clean up Boulerice's image, eh? ChakaKong^talk 19:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Connor McDavid and the issue of notability

An IP, User:198.84.241.55, has argued that Connor McDavid does not fall under the guidlines of notability. Furthermore when I tried to improve the article, he went ahead and removed it, stating that he is not notable. I'd like some opinions on this. I've argued that since he was granted exceptional status to play in the OHL at 15, and is currently ranked number one for the 2015 draft, it should be fine, especially as we usually have top rated prospect articles created early. He however is adament that McDavid is not notable. So some extra views would be most appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The only part of the guidelines that would definitively support this player's notability is: "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league". Has he done that? Regardless, I wouldn't support the deletion of the article. ChakaKong^talk 19:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he was selected first overall in the OHL draft may be enough to clear up any questions of notability. Being selected first overall may qualify as a "preeminent honour". ChakaKong^talk 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It does not. There are three elements that go into "preeminent honors" and three alone: First Team All-Star, All-American, top ten career scorer. We've a long history of "honors creep" where people argue that This and That should make someone notable, and we were very explicit for that very reason. There are any number of long-forgotten players who were considered Can't Miss Superstars at age 15 who never made the pros, an order of magnitude different from the cases of 18-year-old consensus top ten picks entering the next month's Entry Draft. Ravenswing 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ravenswing is correct, we specifically list 3 exact honours that meet the requirement. Those aren't examples, those are the only options. That being said if you can find enough GNG sources it doesn't matter. But in the past we have deleted players who were drafted first in a CHL league and were projected picks for 1st overall in a future draft. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Simply being taken first overall in a junior draft is not necessarily an indicator of notability. In McDavid's case, however, these are: [9], [10], [11], [12]. He passes the GNG pretty easily. Resolute 13:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention the feature piece in the New York Times that is cited in the article content I restored. Resolute 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As Resolute and Djsasso note, he is definitely notable under WP:GNG even if he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

East Germany national ice hockey team

I am trying to find evidence (that is not a reproduction of our own articles) that shows the East Germany was credited as receiving the european bronze in 1966. For it to be true, the european standings would have had to been adjusted to exclude games against canada and USA, but two primary sources used (passionhockey.com and duplacey's total hockey) state that this practise did not begin until 1971. Since it is indicated that this is a notable event for their hockey team, it would help to have evidence of it, which I can't find.18abruce (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Baltic no-shows

I guess the members of this WikiProject have chosen to back away from the Rfc. Very well, let the revionists implement their preferences at Leo Komarov, other Baltic NHL bios & the NHL team rosters. If the readers are to get 'inaccurate' info? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess some of us don't have the same amount of time to spend in battleground mentality as you. Resolute 00:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't matter to me anymore. The readers will have to put up with the inaccuracies, as some editors are more concerned about 'themselves'. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of us are probably willing to accept the compromise that is being discussed. This was never an all or nothing situation GoodDay. The changes you made were actually contrary to what had developed in the RfC. What is currently being discussed is if City, Estonia (then USSR) is acceptable. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Right now, for the sake of peace, agreement at something seems even more important than what is agreed upon. Hence, I suggest DJSasso to follow GoodDay's balanced decision and behaviour and not to whip up strife again.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, and this comment isn't completely intended to whip up strife by targeting a specific user? Compare that with my comment which was suggesting we agree on the compromise? -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And you are one of the other people interested in fighting a war that I want very little to do with, Jaan. So please, stuff your arrogance. Resolute 13:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in fighting this war and that's just what I wrote in my previous post.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Now GoodDay is changing all countries in birthplaces from at the time of birth to current county names despite both the overwhelming consensus here that birthplaces be at time of birth should be used and the Baltics RfC which has had more than 2/3rds of respondents indicating that Soviet Union should be used. I am torn between whether or not he is just trying to be disruptive at this point because the moves are completely against his stated point of view or if he is being completely WP:POINTy at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lvivske, Resolute, -sche have sparcely particpated in the discussions in the past & no longer bother. Dbrodbeck, Shrigley, Anixx1, Herostratus, HueSatLum & Jon C, haven't particpated atall in the discussions. The latter 6 only contributed to the tally. Djsasso is apparently the only vocal oppostition to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Wikipedia isn't a Democracy. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence and consensus#What_does_not_constitute_silence mentions that "one may run into discussions that two editors with a dispute keep repeating [themselves], sometimes because they are afraid that if they stop, their failure to respond is construed as their consensus. This interpretation is based on the false assumption that 'a huge row' is the only antonym of 'silence'. This is not the case." My opinion hasn't changed, so I haven't felt it necessary to incessantly copy and paste it every few days/hours. Changing "USSR" to "Lativa" etc is contrary to the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles and is disruptive. -sche (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is only one hockey article, Leo Komarov, that would be subject to this RFC, so I don't know why GoodDay is changing these other articles not related to the Baltics. WP:EDITCONCENSUS exists in all Estonian articles for "Estonia", this RFC shows there is no consensus has been achieved to change that status quo. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Make changes to Estonian bios, but not Latvian or Lithuanian? Alright, now I know I'm done with this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You can say you didn't hear it all you want, but the consensus reached by the RFC is to use "USSR". -sche (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you are refusing to accept the fact that Template:infobox person requires a place of birth to be state that has sovereignty over the place. You also seem to be ignoring that counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome per WP:RFC and that voting is contrary to wikipedia policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --Nug (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been away from wiki (life) and missed this rfc, was this different from the previous rfc's? is discussion ongoing? I'm mostly tired of stating the same thing over and over, I think everything that could be said, has been said, either here or at one of the other discussion pages. GoodDay/whomever, if you'd like input or something new develops just drop a line on my talk page so I'll get a notification. Otherwise I don't have the time to monitor my watchlist daily at the moment. --Львівське (говорити) 15:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is still ongoing in that an admin hasn't closed it yet. But most discussion except for a couple people shouting back and forth at each other has stalled. You can find it here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as the hockey bio articles & team templates are concerned, it's best to throw in the towels Nug, Jaan. To keep pushing 'Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania' at this point? will likely be viewed as disruptive. It's not worth getting yourselves blocked or topic-banned over, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, the RfC is clearly running to a consensus to use the Soviet Union. Besides which RfCs run for 30 days and then an uninvolved admin can come and close it. If you are done with the discussion you are more than welcome to stop commenting on it. But please just step back and relax a bit and stop trying to jump the gun. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Automatic Reverts

In the Queen's Golden Gaels page, there is a minor error with the hockey section. The title of the section has been simply left as "}}" and cannot be fixed to being called "Hockey" because of the automatic reverts. Would anyone be able to bypass this and quickly fix the section? Not a big deal, just wondering. CalBears99 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content from players' articles

I'm not sure whether this is a case of an anti-gay bias or simply someone interpreting the rules, but 206.45.61.151 is going through hockey player's bios and removing the mention of off-ice appearances by NHL players in You Can Play videos. I know this may not be the best venue to ask this, but I couldn't find a board that would be appropriate. Is the IP right in that the sections they are removing is advertising and that it should be removed? If not these edits should be reverted. I wasn't going to be bold on this and get into what appears to be a quagmire of potential 3RR battles, if this content should not be on players' pages or if this is simply a case of anti-gay bias. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is this significantly more noteworthy than players' appearances in any other PSA? Several Boston Bruins players, for example - Zdeno Chara, Brad Marchand, Andrew Ference - feature prominently in anti-bullying commercials aired in New England. Should that be mentioned in their articles? I wouldn't say so. Ravenswing 02:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My only concern about this is that other endorsements were left on the articles and seemed to be a systematic removal of being pro-gay. The rationale the IP was using is that this was advertising. In an effort to understand what constitutes advertising would this be it, if anything I figured it could be construed as WP:TRIVIA. I guess my concern was that the IP didn't do this on a single page, they sought out all the pages this was mentioned. I would hate to see an anti-gay bias creeping into the hockey world on Wikipedia. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with the IP's removal. Looking at what was removed, all that was added to those articles was "foo appeared in a PSA for Right To Play" and a YouTube link. As Ravenswing says, there isn't much there to make this more notable than any other PSA/commerical a player might appear in. I would agree that the inclusion was more to promote the YouTube videos than anything else. I would think differently of any addition cited to secondary sources, but this is all primary source coverage. Resolute 02:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fair. Quite honestly, I guess if the IP had removed say Pepsi commercials, I'd likely have not even blinked. When it comes to things like gender, religion, race and sexual orientation I always question the motives considering there are plenty of people who are ignorant towards people unlike themselves. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding NHL seasons in player infoboxes

Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years; reverts. This discussion grew out of a feature article review for an NBA basketball player Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions in the NHL player infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've requested appeal

I've requested an appeal of my restriction here -- GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)