Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Severely out of date articles

List of team payrolls in the NHL sorely needs some love, to the point where I almost question it's usefulness and value in keeping it (though it does get daily pageviews). The edit history shows no actual update to the page in years and the annual breakdowns for each team stop at 2007-08(!). The League table hasn't been touched since 2021-22 and is incomplete dating back to 2012-13, and Seattle isn't present anywhere in the article... I'll make some preliminary tweaks, but is this worth trying to setup as a project or just it just be WP:AFD?

List of player salaries in the NHL is also a little questionable, like the opening table that is described as covering between "1989–90 season and the 2020–21 season", but then titled as from "1989–90 to 2007–08" and includes dates to "– present" (implying the current 2023–24 season at time of writing this), but I can update this player salary table, and others seem to already be on top of the year-by-year section. National Hockey League all-time results will be getting a refresh too.

–uncleben85 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I too question the value of both those lists. A quick search shows that the other major sports don't seem to have similar lists. Masterhatch (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Seconding Masterhatch. Wracking ^talk! 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The creators of those pages, User:Centpacrr and User:Twas Now, haven't been active for some time. Masterhatch (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest nominating both for AFD. Flibirigit (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If List of player salaries in the NHL were moved to List of highest-paid NHL players, it would be in line with the baseball and basketball lists. Only the "Sample salaries from earlier seasons" section would have to be removed. --NHL04 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Second this move. It more accurately reflects the content of the article. I see no reason to remove the sample salaries section though. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"Sample salaries" are truly decontextualized indiscriminate information and should be removed, unless some sort of criteria is formed (e.g., list of historic league minimums or list of historic highest salaries). The footnotes on the list only mark its lack of rigor: it includes money that Ronnie Rowe wasn't actually paid and it includes Bobbly Hull's WHA salary.

Due to the lack of sources (only a couple dozen players are listed per decade), information related to historical salaries may be better represented in prose, if at all, in this article.

HockeyZonePlus seems probably reliable, though they only cite the publisher, not specific articles or dates. The original newspaper articles would be preferable. Wracking ^talk! 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support That's a reasonable solution–uncleben85 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support NHL04's proposal Wracking ^talk! 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Fourthed. Though the payrolls article should be placed into AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support this. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 1#List of team payrolls in the NHL @Masterhatch, Wracking, Flibirigit, NHL04, Wheatzilopochtli, Conyo14, and The Kip:

Importance parameter

I know I talked about this a few days ago, but I didn't get an exact answer—why don't we have an |importance parameter on the Ice Hockey template? All the other sports Wiki projects have them. We could come up with a system for how articles should be organized by importance. I'm just saying an importance parameter would help a lot. XR228 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it's entirely subjective, and riddled with recentism and homerism into the bargain. What exactly does it add? Ravenswing 07:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The importance parameter seems useless to me. I concur that it is very subjective. Flibirigit (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it we could make it work. Top importance would be level-4 vital article players (Gretzky, Howe), level-5 vital article teams (Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada men's national team, Ak Bars Kazan), and we can also add the NHL and the IIHF. I think we could figure out a system like this for other articles. XR228 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the ice hockey project wants to delegate an importance rating to the vital articles projects. The key question is if this is just going to be a time sink in arguing about whether something is top, high, mid, low, or bottom importance, versus spending a similar amount of effort on, say, creating new lists akin to User:Ravenswing/Hockey Mountain? isaacl (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Hockey Mountain and other lists is a great use of our time, but adding an importance rating could show us what very important articles really need work. Speaking of Hockey Mountain, we could instead base our importance rating on Hall of Famers. I think figuring out what articles get what importance won't be too much of a hassle. XR228 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wasting time on an unnecessary parameter does not reduce the work needed to climb Hockey Mountain. Flibirigit (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I know that. I'm saying categorizing articles with an importance parameter could help us come up with lists like Hockey Mountain for other important articles. XR228 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The simpler solution would be just to ask us what needs to be worked on. Flibirigit (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that could work. We could add stuff to our to-do list. XR228 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Importance parameter? I'll need a visual example. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? XR228 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree that importance parameter isn't needed and is likely to require more work than it's worth. Lists like Hockey Mountain can better fulfill the Project's needs. Wracking ^talk! 23:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have come to that realization. In fact, I have been working on something like that for the Boston Bruins. I think making lists can be good for this project. XR228 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also, I appreciate the work you've done on the main wikiproject page. It doesn't go unnoticed! Wracking ^talk! 23:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I've noticed that the WikiProject seems to be stuck in 2008, so I hope to make it less outdated. XR228 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to use edit summaries when working in the main space or project space. It helps everyone understand the rationale for a change. Flibirigit (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. XR228 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Hear me out. This may sound a bit insane, but just listen… What if we created a series of Good topics, all related to the NHL. The first topic can be the NHL and its teams and the second topic can be the timeline of the NHL. For the next four, we can use Hockey Mountain to help us. The third good topic can be a list of Hockey Hall of Famers, the fourth can be NHL players with 1,000 career games played, the fifth can be NHL players with 1,000 career points, and the sixth can be NHL players with 500 career goals. I know this sounds absurd, but it is possible. XR228 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree anything is possible. Maybe some editors could help you. My primary interests are outside of the NHL. Flibirigit (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good topics are basically just lists of related articles, so sure, you can start them if you plan to work your way through those articles to bring them to at least Good Article status (with, of course, anyone else interested free to contribute). If you don't have any plans to do so, then personally I'd suggest waiting until you do. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I just want to see who's willing to contribute. I think it would be nice if multiple people from the project could come together and work on this. I can definitely work on it. If anyone else wants to contribute, just say so below. XR228 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

List of WHA broadcasters

Just so everyone knows, List of WHA broadcasters has been nominated for deletion. Masterhatch (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dead subpages

So, as I've been combing through the many subpages of WikiProject Ice Hockey, I've noticed that these pages are either really outdated or simply not used (e.g. the article improvement, requested articles, and requested images pages to name a few). I've also noticed that nobody is using any task forces. I think it would be better if we all started using these pages again. If we don't, we may as well repurpose them or get rid of them. XR228 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Project members tend to bring concerns to this page for discussion. Task forces are disused since membership has decreased from the boom in the late 2000s. There is value is keeping these pages for historical reference and archival information. Please note that Wikipedia is not paper. The same concept applies to our WikiProjects. We don't throw out older discussions, we archive them. Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to echo Flibirigit’s statement in that I don’t think deletion is a good route to go, at least for archival purposes - they’re records of the project from its early days.

That said, I think this talk page mostly covers the requested articles page’s scope at this point, and task forces are mostly a one-person show at this point (ex. XR’s maintenance of Bruins pages, and my own maintenance of VGK ones). I think requested images and article improvement could still have use, though. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Making people use these pages will be hard. I have too much time on my hands, so I guess I'll just get these pages up to date. XR228 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm quoting you on task forces now being "one-person shows." XR228 (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

2023 IIHF World Championship Division II

The issue of the Georgian National Team's relegation has arisen again. Still zero reliable information available, but some input on the page might be helpful as a rather casual editor has decided they know what happened.18abruce (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are the hockey infoboxes so empty of substance compared to other sports?

When you look at a page for an NBA, MLB or NFL player, you're given a list of all the teams they played for and the years they were on those teams, all of their championships, all of their accolades, and records they may have. When you look at the page for an NHL player, you see the teams they played for and the years of their career (though not the years they played for each team). Why is this? Somarain (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussions: [1], [2], [3] Conyo14 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And aside from everything else, a infobox is supposed to be a brief precis of the subject. If you want to find out information in depth ... read the article. Ravenswing 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Supposed to be brief according to whom? As I stated below, that opinion is not in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and it's certainly not the MO for pages for politicians, NFL players, colleges or countries. In addition, there are multiple things wrong with your second sentence. First, you shouldn't have to read an entire article to get basic knowledge. THAT is what the infobox is for. And second, in my brief look at Wayne Gretzky's page, basic information isn't covered in the rest of the article either. I was curious how many all star games he's played in. I couldn't get this from the infobox as you know. But it's not listed in the rest of the article either as far as I can tell. And this is supposedly a featured article. Look at the page for any NFL, MLB or NBA player and you could determine how many all star / pro bowls they played in in seconds, because their infoboxes list basic information. Somarain (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding years, unlike some sports, hockey player articles tend to include stats tables spanning a player's career, which can clearly show the reader the years spent with each team in a quick to locate format. But yes otherwise, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a guideline and keeping the infobox brief and pertinent rules the day. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I see the word brief only once in that link and it's not referring to the length of the infobox. Even if there was a rule in that link about briefness, it's ignored almost everywhere. Joe Biden, Tom Brady, Harvard University, Chile, all of these infoboxes are far larger and more informative than those of NHL players. From where exactly comes this "brief infobox" thing? Somarain (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To your other comment, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Echoedmyron (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the NHL infoboxes don't even contain many key facts, so they're not meeting the threshold of that guide at all. To your other comment, WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Somarain (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree the hockey infoboxes are pretty sparse and could be improved. Maybe there is a reason why people keep bringing this up. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like sports WikiProjects are slowly becoming "fan sites" and reflecting sports databases, rather than remaining encyclopedic entries. Infoboxes are becoming too bloated at the expense of quality prose. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are separated from the prose. They also get facts across much faster than prose (obviously the facts should be listed in both sections). Somarain (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The one thing the hockey template has over the others is it's limited to the basic info. There are sections in the articles listing all those other things. The lone issue I have with the hockey template is its appearance compared to the other sports. I particularly like the way the baseball template looks for retired players. --NHL04 (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly argue it does not cover basic info. Nor do the sections in other articles. How many all star games did Wayne Gretzky appear in? You could not figure that out from his "featured" article, as far as I can tell. Not in the infobox and not in the rest of the page. Somarain (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All-star game appearances are typically listed in the awards and honors section Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's scarcely "basic" info. Now if you're concerned that the Gretzky article lacks an all-star game count, what prevented you from adding it? Ravenswing 22:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

How is not basic info? Remove Gretzky's name from the infobox and I have no idea that I'm looking at someone who was considered rather good at the game. All Star appearances tell that story quickly. But if you think an all star is too trivial, surely you don't think the same thing about Hart Trophies? For your last question, my time is best spent here. The worst thing about the article, and all NHL player articles, is the bare infobox. It would take minutes to find out from the player articles information you could find in seconds from any NBA, MLB, or NFL player article. I'm focusing my efforts where I could potentially make the greatest change. Somarain (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is very clear on Gretzky's hallmark achievements. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Brantford 99ers

Please have a look at the page history for the Brantford 99ers, with respect to the team relocating. Several well-meaning IP addresses and a new editor have improperly overwritten the article with the new team name, but nobody cited sources. We should either move the page in question, or start a new article and preserve the previous team incarnation. Does anyone have time to play with this? Flibirigit (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war at Britta Curl

An IP user keeps deleting the section of her article about her social media controversy. Given her recent media attention, at what point is protection warranted? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Has any attempt been made to correct the behavior? i.e. going to their talk page? Conyo14 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just left them a talk page message. It slipped my mind that that's an option for IP users. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise

We have previously discussed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#Draft:List of NHL players with most games played by franchise in May 2024. But now the same editor has copied everything from Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise to List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise. In addition, the creator has admitted in this edit summary that it is a WP:CFORK of List of NHL players with 1,000 games played and the page has no sources. Should it be WP:PRODed or go straight to WP:AFD? – sbaio 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You could give PRODing a shot. It might work. That being said though, I don't expect this article to last for failing WP:LISTN Conyo14 (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio: Wouldn't this be fairly easy to source to Hockey-Reference.com? This shows Henri Richard with 1,258 as the leader for the Canadiens and this shows George Armstrong as the leader for the Leafs. Though I do usually agree with @Conyo14, I could actually see it passing WP:LISTN personally. My caveat is that I'd think this may work best JUST listing the leader per franchise as opposed to the top 10 or so. I think it's a subject that is talked about often enough, x player played the most games for x franchise, but my experience is mostly American football related, so our coverage of different stats and aspects may be different than yours. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if given more sources I think it passes LISTN in its current form. It's been expanded drastically beyond being a CFORK of the 1,000-gamers article. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Footnote formatting on entry draft articles

Hi all, seeking an additional opinion at Talk:2024 NHL entry draft#Footnote formatting. Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 18:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2024)

Field hockey stick and ball Hello, WikiProject Ice Hockey. The article for improvement of the week is: Sports equipment Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: National economy (Turkey) • State of emergency Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: Wracking talk! 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) on behalf of AFI •

Utah HC plural or singular

This should be discussed again. Discussion can be found at Talk:Utah Hockey Club#"Utah NHL team" as singular v. plural. – sbaio 05:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Iginla kids' nationalities

Various users keep editing Tij Iginla and now Jade Iginla, changing "Canadian-American" to "Canadian." Elite prospects (which is currently having technical difficulties) has them listed as both so I've been reverting the edits, and although they both lived, played, and attended school in the States throughout their childhoods I haven't seen another source explicitly say that they have American citizenship. Can anyone confirm that they they are or are not also American? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the users making the edits provided sources to contradict EP, I should add. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Elite Prospects should be used with caution, since some if its contents are user-generated with editorial oversight. Please see the about page for details. Flibirigit (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that on the about page, am I missing something? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can sign up for an account with Elite Prospects, then edit and create players. Flibirigit (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I would take any assertion that they were "American" with an enormous grain of salt. They are teenagers who were born in Canada to Canadian parents, and have played internationally for Canada. It is vanishingly rare for people of their ages to seek to become naturalized American citizens, and I'd like to see some very solid sourcing for anything of the sort ... and Eliteprospects just isn't that solid. Ravenswing 10:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetical Good Topic

Let's say I got List of Boston Bruins players to FL status, and I wanted to create a Good Topic around it. Would they allow me to only add players who have achieved some milestone with the team (e.g. 300 games, 500 games, 10 seasons with the team, etc.) to the Good Topic, because getting each of the Bruins' hundreds of players is just not feasible. XR228 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind guys, I think I found an answer. I could create an overview topic. XR228 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

ECHL team rosters

Was curious of peoples thoughts on if there's a benefit of keeping player rosters on ECHL team pages? For the most part 95% of players don't meet notability guidelines and the transactional movement in the league is on the high end. It's a fairly laborious work load with most rosters not kept up to date. Would like to see if there's a consensus either way, thanks! Triggerbit (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If they're not maintained I wouldn't keep them. The only reason I would think to keep them is occasionally there are players under contract with an NHL team sent down. If someone is actively maintaining a certain team I would leave it, but if a team has nobody regularly doing the work I'd remove them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I typically try to maintain the VGK ones, but I don't particularly care about the others. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You've been doing a ton of work on minor league rosters generally, and certainly deserve applause for it. But if you just stuck with AHL articles that'd be above the call of duty, honestly. Ravenswing 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to show consistency and remove the rosters league wide. After updating them for many years, I'm fairly aware that the overwhelming majority of teams aren't maintained, and really it adds no value to the article. The NHL contracted players assigned to the ECHL are mostly first year pros without notability so i think just hiding them on the AHL roster while updating their bio page if on the occasion they are notable is sufficient. Triggerbit (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel that rosters are little use for low-level professional teams in ECHL, and junior ice hockey teams in the Western Hockey League and United States Hockey League. The overwhelming majority of players are not notable at those levels, there is no added value in having this trivial information, and Wikipedia is simply replicating what can be found on databases. Any players who are notable, can be listed in the prose, or other sections such as award winners or NHL alumni. Furthermore, any time spent on maintaing rosters can be diverted to other pressing issues such as Hockey Mountain, or the thousands of citation needed tags on hockey articles. Flibirigit (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Gender in medal tables

Should gender be included in the sport parameter of medal tables? I have been reverted both ways by different users so I think we should come to some kind of consensus. Personally, I am pro-gender for a few reasons:

1. Men's and women's ice hockey are two different classes of competition
2. A female or transgender athlete could medal in both categories
3. The medal table template uses gendered sports in its example

CC @Triggerbit @DetroitFan7 @Spitzmauskc Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you link to an example? Wracking ^talk! 17:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Berkly Catton has a gendered medal table, Lenni Hämeenaho does not. The template in question is Template:MedalTableTop Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be very opposed to any such inclusion. All that would do would be to inject a wave of disputes over gender politics as to whether any given player does (or does not) present as one gender or another or neither, and over a distinction that has never yet come into play. That a female or trans athlete could medal in both categories is as may be, but none yet ever has. (I don't think there's yet been a case where one ever has competed in both sides at the national or Olympic level.) Should that ever do happen, it's much better addressed in prose in the individual's article. Ravenswing 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the gender of the athlete, it is just specifying the class of competition in which they medaled. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm slightly in favor of including gender of the sport per #1. The gender of the sport is in no way a statement about the gender of the athlete (though, of course, it's often correlated). I don't think this would pose an issue with MOS:GID, because this is related to the class of competition. I do not anticipate major disputes being raised. See, for example, Harrison Browne—as far as I can tell, there has been no major discussion or dispute over the characterization of this (transgender male) athlete's classification within women's hockey.

Either way, we should try to be consistent and avoid male-as-norm bias (see also Wikipedia:Writing about women#Male is not the default). Wracking ^talk! 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion it's unnecessary and second Ravenswing thoughts. Triggerbit (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Concur. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with each of your points and feel including competition class leads to greater consistency in competition nomenclature overall, i.e. 'women's ice hockey/men's ice hockey' and 'world championship' rather than 'ice hockey' and 'women's world championship/men's world championship' (Wracking's note re:Male is not the norm is quite relevant here). The men's and women's world championship tournaments are not literally the same events and we would be leaving the reader to interpret competition class from a player's gender if we were to present both competition classes as 'ice hockey' and 'world championship.' Spitzmauskc (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur. If the player medaled in a women's world championship tournament, we should state that. If it was a men's world championship tournament, we should state that. There is zero reason to present less information. Who does that benefit? And it is very much important that we do not presumptively treat men as the default. Men are not the default setting of humanity. Period. oknazevad (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

® and ™ in logos

Hello there. All NHL teams seem to have ® or ™ in their logos used on their respective websites, their respective Facebook pages and their respective Instagram pages. NHL also uses the logos with the marks on its website, see for example https://www.nhl.com/info/teams/. Therefore I argue that we should use this version as well. Sbaio however argues that there is no need for that, that referring to the addition of the marks. They argues that the logos without the marks are the versions used on the teams' uniforms and therfore we should use that version. I would argue that the one on the uniform is a printed version and the one used elsewhere is the digital version, and Wikipedia is a digital platform, hence the digital version should be used. What do you think? Jonteemil (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jonteemil - according to MOS:TMRULES, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." Regards, PKT(alk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that TMRULES applies to images, and WP:LOGO doesn't mention trademark icons Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I wouldn't say that logos would be article text nor citations. Jonteemil (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're only talking about logo images, I guess that if one of those symbols is in the image that's uploaded, there's not much that can be done - it's there. However, it seems to me that MOS:TMRULES tells us that they are not desired, unless it's unavoidable. I still agree with @Sbaio: that there is no need for the symbols. PKT(alk) 19:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Trademark symbols are not part of the trademark. Trademark owners optionally place them to let others know that the mark in question is trademarked. The trademark owner has the responsibility of enforcing its trademark rights; others are not obligated to indicate that a given mark is trademarked (as required by trademark law, they cannot use the trademark in a way that causes confusion about the origin of a product). isaacl (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Logos are proprietary and should not be altered or have elements edited out. Buffalkill (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Should I escalate this to WP:RFC? When thinking about it, not only ice hockey logos use these marks so there should be a Wikipedia-wide policy on this matter, whether it be ice hockey logos or fast food restaurant logos. Jonteemil (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If you do, take it to either WP:VILLAGEPUMP or the talk page of MOS:TMRULES, so you can get a larger range of opinions. Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Good advice........ PKT(alk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that's needed. Again, trademark symbols are not part of the logo. You can see, for example, the trademark registration for the Montreal Canadiens logo. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Stanley Cup winners in NHL season pages

Each NHL season pages should include Stanley Cup winners on players that played their first and last seasons who made significant contributions in their careers. If it frustrating that we don't list Stanley Cup winners on those players and we need a new consensus about it. That consensus not listing Stanley Cup winners on those players is not good and it gets frustrating having to click their links to see if any of them won the cup. So we should talk about a new consensus about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

[4] last discussion about 11 months ago. [5] original discussion on this section for NHL season pages.

My thoughts on this haven't changed. Sorry man, there's gotta be a bit more support for this. I just really don't care if Jordan Nolan or Devante Smith-Pelly played their final NHL games. Perhaps someone else can chime in? via myself from the last discussion. Conyo14 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonna second this. I wouldn’t mind adding to blurbs of guys who’ve already met notability requirements, but simply winning the Cup is not enough by itself. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it should. Stanley Cup is the biggest championship in NHL and is part of the Triple Gold Club. So therefore, it should be there. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just like months ago, your logic is recursive and boils down to “it should because it is.” The Kip ^(contribs) 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a suggestion to overload pages with more trivial facts. No thanks. We need more quality prose and fewer lists of facts. Flibirigit (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is frustrating to having not seeing Stanley Cup winners on those players. I know we can't list all players who won the Stanley Cup in first and last games. Just the ones who made massive contributions like winning certain trophies, played over 1,000 games and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm more okay with listing that for those who already met the notability requirement. Though like Flibirigit, quality prose should go above lists of trivial facts. Conyo14 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)