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 56 57 58

2013-14 conference standings templates

• {{2013–14 NHL Western Conference standings}}
• {{2013–14 NHL Eastern Conference standings}}

I am inclined to nominate these for deletion, as the NHL does not use a conference standing format any longer, but wanted to see if anyone here felt this would be premature. Particularly given "conference standings" are still available on TSN, ESPN, etc., though probably simply because they haven't removed it. Resolute 13:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO, they're still useful for general information purposes, and the NHL still lists the conference standings on their page too ([1]). Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 19:03, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

The standing are relevant for the 4th seed in the play-offs for each division as cross-over/wild card team. Whether they need to be included in each team's season article is of course a different question. CRwikiCA talk 20:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to delete them right now. Does anyone know the definitive playoff procedure? I'm not well versed in it, and ESPN.com's conference standings gives division leaders the 1 and 2 seeds, while NHL.com does not. I'm more inclined to believe the league's website though. In theory, couldn't a team have the 6th most points in the conference, but still miss the playoffs because they aren't one of the two wild cards? Tampabay721 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Under the new division playoff system, there's no reason to seed division leaders as 1 and 2, so I'm assuming that's why the NHL changed how they do their conference standings. As for the wild cards, yes, that could happen if the top three teams in a weak division get so few points that they have less than the top five teams in the other division. But, I don't think that's too likely to happen. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 02:31, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's too likely either. IMO, I'd give the season a few weeks, maybe no more than a month, just to wait for the movements in the standings to settle a little when there aren't teams jumping several positions after one win. Then we'd probably see if they're really that relevant to have. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• NHL.com has added "Wild Card" standings.[2] Those are more useful now, first listing the top 3 teams in each division and then showing all the other teams fighting for the wild card spots. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty neat. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 06:13, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see a day when the NHL had wild card standings like MLB, haha. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Did a rough draft of a test template here, just kicking around ideas. Same col format as the conference standings. –B2Project^(Talk) 07:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

There might be some added value in changing the conference standings into such a 2x top-3 + wild card table. The basic setup is good, it might be good to add some spacing between the 3 tables. In addition, a note below stating something to the effect of "The top 3 teams in each division and the two remaining teams with the best record qualify for the Eastern/Western conference play-offs." Two additional design choices would be to include the division in the table or not and whether or not to include position numbers. The way the position numbers are done on the NHL website, starting from #1 three times, might not be ideal. The only alternative is 1–16 (1–14 in the west), with the possibility that it is confusing. CRwikiCA talk 11:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The terminology bugs me because it isn't a wildcard (a la baseball) so much as a crossover system (a la the CFL). But in this case, we have to work with what they give us.  ;) I would definitely support replacing the conference standing templates with B2project's wild card template. As a thought though - would it make sense to remove the division leaders aspect of that template, given it will always be presented alongside the divisional templates themselves? Seems a little redundant given the way we present the tables. Resolute 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think removing the division leaders from the Wild Card template is a good idea, since all the season pages already have the division standings on them. All we really need is the bottom "Wild Card" portion, with perhaps a note saying how the top two teams qualify as wild cards for the playoffs. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 23:59, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

• Made some changes and added an explanation with a source. I think leaving the division leaders may be beneficial in the sense that we can add a ^{(SEED #)} to generate the seeds for all 8 teams like the MLB divisional templates do. –B2Project^(Talk) 03:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks good. The amount of text in the note is maybe a bit on the long side, but there is a lot of necessary information in there. I didn't know that both #4 in each division could be switched based on point total going into the play-off. This does make it more of a wild-card thing rather than a cross-over situation, where only a #5 would switch to a different divisional play-off bracket. In relation to some of the other comments, would it be possible to collapse the top-3's? CRwikiCA talk 11:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it may be better to just link to Stanley Cup playoffs#2013 realignment for an explanation of the playoff format, rather than duplicate the information on every page. If there is interest, I could make a template similar to Template:MLB standings that could be used to generate the standings tables. If there is interest, I would investigate designing the template so the results for all thirty teams could be placed in one season standings template, and then a parameter to the template would be used to specify which standings table to generate: divisional, conference, division leaders, or wild card. This could, however, discourage editors from updating the results if they had to update all thirty results at once rather than, say, a single division, so I'm not sure if this consolidation would be a net benefit. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Should a wild card rank be added to {{Infobox NHL team season}}? Tampabay721 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We could, but I don't really think it is that important, myself. It seems to me that a parameter for playoff results is missing entirely though, and adding that would take care of it. Resolute 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the right forum to introduce my first attempt at transforming the Eastern Conference Standings into something that is more useful to the user. The format is modelled after the format used by Major League Baseball in the 2013 season. Please note that this is a first attempt and further edits need to be made.

Top-3 Atlantic Division

R		Div	GP	W	L	OTL	ROW	GF	GA	Pts
1	Toronto Maple Leafs	AT	7	6	1	0	5	27	16	12
2	Detroit Red Wings	AT	7	5	2	0	5	18	16	10
3	Montreal Canadiens	AT	6	4	2	0	4	20	10	8

Top-3 Metropolitan Division

R		Div	GP	W	L	OTL	ROW	GF	GA	Pts
1	Pittsburgh Penguins	ME	6	5	1	0	5	23	15	10
2	Carolina Hurricanes	ME	7	2	2	3	2	15	21	7
3	New York Islanders	ME	6	2	2	2	1	19	17	6

Wild Card Teams

R		Div	GP	W	L	OTL	ROW	GF	GA	Pts
1	Tampa Bay Lightning	AT	6	4	2	0	3	23	15	8
2	Boston Bruins	AT	5	3	2	0	3	12	8	6
3	Ottawa Senators	AT	6	2	2	2	2	15	19	6
4	Columbus Blue Jackets	ME	5	2	3	0	1	12	12	4
5	Washington Capitals	ME	6	2	4	0	1	17	22	4
6	Florida Panthers	AT	7	2	5	0	2	16	28	4
7	New Jersey Devils	ME	6	0	3	3	0	11	21	3
8	Buffalo Sabres	AT	8	1	6	1	0	11	21	3
9	New York Rangers	ME	5	1	4	0	1	9	25	2
10	Philadelphia Flyers	ME	7	1	6	0	1	10	20	2

Divisions: AT – Atlantic, ME – Metropolitan
After games of October 15, 2013

Juve2000 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, though per the discussion above, I don't think we really need the "top three" part of the table. The full division standings will be close by. Also, unless the NHL itself uses the "d" and "w" notation, I would simply leave the abbreviations as they have been in the past... x, y and z. Otherwise, I would definitely support this modification! Resolute 00:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Keep in mind if we leave out the top 3 standings we will not see the top 3 from the other division in the conference in the individual team pages.Juve2000 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I like what's being done with this, but one thing that bothers me is that it's kind of misleading: the three teams with the most points (as the season progresses) are not necessarily the three best-positioned teams, given that scheduling results in some teams having played more games than others. Could we rank them not on points, but rather points-per-game? Kind of like how baseball does with the percentage, but adapted to fit the NHL. -- Irn (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is, in fact, how the NHL does rank teams, though a winning percentage field is not typically used in hockey. But per the league's tiebreakers, fewest games played is the first. That is simply an error in updating on our tables. Resolute 01:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think one of us is misunderstanding the other, and I'm not sure who that is. According to the nhl.com rankings, right now, Detroit is in third place in the Atlantic with 13 points over 11 games and Tampa is in fourth with 10 points over 8 games. That gives Detroit 1.18 points per game and Tampa 1.25, which should put Tampa ahead of Detroit. -- Irn (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We, as Wikipedia users, don't have a say in the matter of how teams are ranked. Points per game is not a factor in the NHL standings, so we can't place a team above another just because they have been more productive. Tampa Bay will have their chance to catch/pass Detroit by earning points in the games they haven't played yet. Regardless, those two particular teams will have played the same amount of games by the end of games played on 10/29, so their productivity won't really matter then. One team will either have more points than the other or they will have the same amount and their placement will be based on total non-shootout victories, and if that is equal, their difference in total goals scored and goals against. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of: we just have to follow the sources, even when the sources use a stupid method of ranking because the NHL ranking is the ranking. But what are the criteria for columns? Do we have to follow the NHL on that as well, or could we at least add a column for points-per-game? It could be made so that it just calculates automatically, like the average in the MLB standings templates. -- Irn (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You could certainly suggest it. Wikipedia is all about consensus though (see: Wikipedia:Consensus), so based on the opinions of others, it may or may not end up being included. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I could? Is this not the place for that? -- Irn (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I did misunderstand you. But yes, the NHL ranks by points first and foremost. And in my personal opinion, while we could put a points percentage field into the tables, I don't see any great reason to. It will all wash out by the end of the season. Resolute 13:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't say there's any "great reason" to include it, but I would really like to see it. And you're right that once the season ends, it won't matter. But these templates often get updated at the end of every game day during the regular season, and since points-per-game is much more meaningful than mere points and is only a simple computation, I think it would be really useful to include it. -- Irn (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say if its not in the generally published tables that various sources use then we shouldn't use it. We follow the trends of reliable sources, we don't interpret and make the trends. Really points only is all that maters until season is over anyways. There is a difference between a standings table and a playoff position table. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"points only is all that maters until season is over" - This is where I disagree, and why I want to see points per game. During the season, points are misleading. (I can explain this more if you don't see why.) Once the season is over, points are all that matter (unless you need a tie-breaker). However, I understand that we follow the sources, and no one seems to agree with me, anyway, so I see no real point in pursuing this further.-- Irn (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we dropping the idea of presenting the conference standings differently? What are the rules for the current presentation? Do the division leaders get the top two spots or will we go strictly in points order, no matter the division. This would mean six teams from one division could be in the top eight in our classification. I just wish to reiterate that we should change the format.Juve2000 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say to go ahead and WP:BEBOLD and change the two templates to match your proposed format. They are certainly more informative than the current style given the new seeding procedures. Resolute 00:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the format. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 03:25, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

The only major problem I see with this that I didn't think about until now is that you can no longer sort any of the columns for the entire conference which takes away a major purpose of the table. For example I can see a ranking of entire conference in Goals For etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I liked being able to sort the entire conference by goals for, goals against, etc... as well. The main purpose of the table is to indicate playoff teams (but those would have been marked as such at the end of the season, like in previous years). Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 00:23, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

True, but given the tables have only 14 or 16 entries, I don't see sorting to be more important than disseminating information about the standings. Most people can sort such a small table internally. Resolute 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A simple hat note next to the playoff teams would probably solve the issue would it not? -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

United States Olympic FLC

Just a heads up that the United States Olympic ice hockey players FLC could use some more sets of eyes, if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Anthony (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Still looking for more editors to review this FLC - it's one of the oldest ones still going. Thanks, Anthony (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Miscapitalizations in team season pages in ice hockey and other sports

Hello.

There seems to be a somewhat widespread habit of making certain types of miscapitalizations over several team season pages, notably for teams in the 2013–14 NHL season, but apparently not limited to ice hockey pages. I recently copyedited two such pages, those of Anaheim and Calgary, and was going to continue checking the other teams' pages, had I not been reverted by User:Canuckian89 (twice in the Anaheim case). In order to avoid disruption, I'm now initiating this discussion.

I'm pretty sure that expressions like

• Pre-Season
• Game Log
• Regular Season
• Lost via Waivers
• Club Team

violate the WP:MOSCAPS guideline.

Also, expressions within parentheses should not be capitalized (unless they are a full sentence, or proper nouns). (This is an example of a full sentence, as such ending with a period.) Please note the difference in capitalizing for the two parenthetical expressions.

Another thing Canuckian89 reverted was the spacing before semi-colon. As fas as I'm aware, no punctuation is preceded by a space, whether they are periods, commas, colons or semi-colons.

Thus, it's "(home: 0–0–0; road: 0–0–0)", not "(Home: 0–0–0 ; Road: 0–0–0)".

Yet another thing Canuckian removed with his revert was the closing comma in date expressions per WP:Copyedit, section Common mistakes to fix, bullet point 2 under "Punctuation".

This might be minor copyedit details, but I think the issue needs to be addressed.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The bulleted issues you mention, and the colon spacing I am rather indifferent towards. However, "Home" and "Road" in my opinion should remain capitalized, as they always have been, as they are in effect stand-alone sentences. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 10:34, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that "Home" is not a sentence. It's merely a word, and not even a proper noun. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't opposed to most of the changes and copyedits you were doing, just the Home/Road capitalization. It was just easier to undo a single edit than weed through lines of code and manually edit the page. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 10:39, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

And, as you mention, the capitalization issue affects other leagues. Also, every previous NHL season page I have checked so far has capitalized "Home" and "Road". Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 10:41, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's see what people think about that then. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Home and road I would definitely capitalize because they are headers (even if they are linear headers) and the first word in a header should be capitalized. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: in my view, "home:" – or "Home:" – is a prompt rather than a heading. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A prompt is a type of heading. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but when it does not stand alone, normal capitalization rules apply. There is another prompt just nearby: the month name. Month names are capitalized in English, but it could have been something else, let's say "Total". In this case, "Total" would have been capitalized, even though it's not a proper noun, because it's at the beginning of an stand-alone expression. That which is inside the parentheses are not stand-alone expressions, it's part of one. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that all of the items you mention are in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style. isaacl (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to have an agreement on everything but the home/road thing. Those who disagree on that, and I mean Canuckian and DJSasso, do you still maintain your views, or do you accept lower-case on "home" and "road" when it's within parentheses?

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully, I prefer Home and Road be capitalized in that context as well. If for no other reason than it simply looks better to me. Resolute 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute. Lowercase home/road doesn't look right. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 00:20, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Team article moves

I've notice several relatively recent page moves such as:

• Kenora Thistles (1926–1940) moved to Kenora Thistles (1926–40)
• Windsor Spitfires (1946–1953) moved to Windsor Spitfires (1946–53)
• Winnipeg Rangers (1956–1967) moved to Winnipeg Rangers (1956–67)

to name just three such moves made within the past few months. I am curious to know if the ice hockey project has established a standardized format for titles such as these, and if so, what that standard is. Dolovis (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidance on the formatting of years is applicable. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not something we've discussed as a project that I can recall, but I also can't think of a good reason to ignore the MOS either. It seems the moves took the pages to their technically correct format, not unlike previously existing disambigs like Winnipeg Jets (1972–96). Resolute 23:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to follow WP:YEAR and think it is safe to assume that to be the project standard. Rejectwater (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a big RfC on it I do believe for all articles on the wiki. Those moves were just part of implementing the result of it. I don't recall where the discussion was. Personally I prefer the 4 digit years but I see no reason to ignore the MOS. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Shinny and Pond hockey

The pages Shinny and Pond hockey each describe an informal variation of ice hockey, and each page allows that its title is a synonym for the other. If these are two different things, the differences should be made clear in each article. If they are two different names for the same thing, the pages should be merged. Cnilep (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they are separate entities, in the sense that I can't think of an umbrella term for both of them, unless they go in the main ice hockey article. Shinny can be played on a pond, but also anywhere else. Pond hockey can be a formal game (not really shinny) played outside. I think they are variations on a theme, rather than strict synonyms, in the sense that I wouldn't ever use the terms interchangeably. Canada Hky (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Flames honored number program

Is the Flames program to honor numbers intended to be done instead of retiring them, Like in Toronto; or is it a two tier system, like in St. Louis, where some of their great players have their numbers honored, and the most elite have them retired? This program seems unclear to me. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear to everyone, really, until they start adding more players and we get a better sense of things. The team stated at the time that The "Forever a Flame" program has replaced the retiring of numbers entirely. It is the top honour going forward. That does not affect the official retirement of McDonald and Vernon's numbers. Nor, likely, will it affect the unofficial retirement of 12 and 14. The Flames organization has also transferred the idea to the other teams they own - Kaleb Toth is the first member of the "Forever a Roughneck" program, for instance. Resolute 22:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So the Blues are the only team that has an honored number program that also retires numbers for the most elite? This would be good to mention in the article List of NHL retired numbers. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is an article or publication that makes that statement, absolutely! Resolute 14:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TV and radio broadcasts of Nordiques games in English

Did the Nordiques have TV and radio broadcasts of their games in English in Quebec City? The article says that there has only been one privately-owned English local TV station and no privately-owned English radio stations, but it doesn't say whether games were aired locally in English or not. XEWW AM 690, a Spanish news/talk radio station, airs local broadcasts of USC football games in English when there is a conflict with a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game on KSPN AM 710. Does anyone know if there were broadcasts of Nordiques games in English on French stations in Quebec City? This would give the article more detail. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Through most of the 80's and 90's CFAP was the rights holder, and they are French only. My understanding is that the only English games were CBC Saturday games from Montreal received by cable subscribers. Not sure if that is helpful at all.18abruce (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

NHL outdoor games

Following a long running (albeit lightly commented) split discussion at Talk:NHL Winter Classic, I've completed a split of this article into NHL outdoor games that can feature as an overview on all three of the NHL's outdoor series. I'll pick up NHL Heritage Classic and move it past stub status, but this new article, and the Winter Classic article can both use some cleanup and assistance from interested editors. Resolute 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured content nominations in need of your review and input

The following articles are currently up for Featured status nomination:

• Paul Henderson - Featured Article nominee, discussion open since 19 October. nominator: @Resolute:
• List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States - Featured List nominee, discussion open since 1 October.. nominator: @FutureNJGov:
• List of Detroit Red Wings award winners - Featured List nominee, discussion open since 12 November. nominator: Rejectwater

Your review and input in these discussions would be greatly appreciated. Also, if there are other articles up for review, please list them here as well. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Henderson and List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States have both been promoted. Good jobs by @Resolute: and @FutureNJGov:. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The US Olympic list hasn't been promoted yet, but I appreciate the support nonetheless haha. Anthony (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was moved to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log at 16:23, 22 November 2013‎ and listed at Wikipedia:Featured lists a few minutes later. The bot that usually archives the discussion, updates the article talk page, and adds the star to the article is broken, so those things haven't happened yet, but it has been promoted. Once again, congratulations, and good work. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In case you have any lingering doubts, it's also listed in the closure log as promoted at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. I went ahead and updated the article and talk pages manually due to the bot issues. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Pro hockey team

Would someone please expand the “Championships” section of Template:Pro hockey team to include a field for the Adams Cup as CPHL/CHL champions. Dolovis (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

does this work? Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As a work-a-round it works fine. Thank you. But I would still like to see the field added to the template if possible. Dolovis (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might make more sense to go the other way and remove the trophy specific fields in favour of the customizable ones. Allows us to custom configure for any future scenario. That said, I do say this knowing it would be a fair bit of work and that I am personally unlikely to perform much of it, so feel free to disregard my comment. Resolute 23:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on player stats 2013-14 updates

Can we please get some extra eyes on Lane MacDermid and Tim Jackman. User:Triggerbit is showing a strong intent to disregard the long standing ice hockey policy that player stats be updated only after the end of the current year. He has now twice thrice added stats for these two players to show their stats through the first few games of the 2013-14 season. Or am I misinformed on how this policy is to be effected? Dolovis (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

the idea of adding stats once a player has been traded and no longer in the organization, has been used for many many seasons dude.. and one revert does not make a edit war.. Triggerbit (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Triggerbit is right, we update players who move teams as soon as they move because the stats no longer update and are finalized. We use the same idea at the end of the regular season on team pages where we put on the regular season results but don't yet update the playoffs until the team is out. This practice has been going on for years. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

three edits (the original bold edit, and two reverts) does make an edit war (see WP:BRD, its not BRRD), but as I have already stated, if I am misinformed about the ice hockey project's policy concerning mid-season updates in the event of trades, then I am happy to be enlightend. Dolovis, aka "dude" (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, I prefer that all updates wait until the end of the season, but when people have updated stats for mid-season trades, I also let those lie. It is, at least, not as confusing as day to day updates. Resolute 23:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see it either way, but personally would prefer to wait for the end of the season. Who knows, maybe some guy gets traded back to his original club. It could happen. Rejectwater (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I believe there is a rule preventing trades back to the same team during the same season. I remember the Calgary Flames & Colorado Avalanche being penalized for doing it by mistake a few years back causing the Dean McAmmond to have to sit out the rest of the season. So it wouldn't likely happen. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this thread there used to be a rule regarding trades immediately preceding the waiver draft in the older CBA (now gone with the elimination of the waiver draft), and players claimed on waivers have to be waived again before being traded. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Can a player be waived multiple times in the same season? Can a player who was picked up on waivers later be traded to the team that waived him? Unlikely, sure, but I imagine there is some scenario that could result in someone playing for one team in two different stretches of the same season, while playing for some other team in between. Rejectwater (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I understand, a player must clear waivers whenever his team wants to change his status and the collective bargaining agreement requires all other teams to waive a claim to him, so this can happen as often as required. Based on the thread I mentioned, there are no restrictions on teams involved in a trade. isaacl (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The practice of mid-season updating of career statistics should be discouraged, regardless of whether a player has moved teams or not. The existence of some articles with mid-season updates only serves to encourage other editors to also perform mid-season updates. Dolovis (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If your concerned about it you might want to keep an eye on the current coaches and GMs. There's an IP that's been adding the current season to them.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, 99.231.151.46 has been hitting them up... Echoedmyron (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Just an additional FYI, I removed the Panthers stats from Kris Versteeg as they have become problematic due to an IPs changing them to Blackhawks or constantly adding a Hawks line. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ducks alternate captains while Saku Koivu is injured

I noticed by watching games that the Ducks are using Corey Perry as an interim alternate captain while Koivu is injured. Should I add an "A" to the roster template for him until Koivu returns? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The roles of team Captain and Alternates are given to the players by management, and are not usually taken away just because of an injury. The official team website at NHL.com[3] still lists Koivu with the "A"; so do not change the roster template just because the "A" has been sewn to Perry's sweater for a few games. Dolovis (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

NHL.com seems hypocritical. NHL.com[4] has an "A" for Mike Richards as an alternate captain even though he is only serving as an interim alternate captain while Matt Greene is out. NHL.com rosters seem to be inconsistent when interim alternate captains are appointed. Why not keep the "A" on the template until the regular one returns or never have an "A" even when NHL.com has one? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Koivu returned last night. Hwy43 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2013

I saw that and removed the "A". I never took the "A" away from Koivu on the template. I left it there and temporarily also put an "A" next to Perry's name. What should be done with the Kings template with Mike Richards then? Should an extra letter be put next to Richards on the template or not? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiability, follow what is listed at NHL.com, which can be considered a reliable source. Dolovis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

NHL.com is not consistent when listing interim captains and alternate captains with the team sites. Is it better to use the same standards for the same type of circumstances, or is it better to be incosistent with the articles like NHL.com is? Is citing pictures and articles from NHL.com a reliable method instead of using NHL.com team site rosters? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between wearing the alternate 'A' for a game and being officially named a team alternate. If the article is about the game, then who wore the 'A' is noteworthy. But if the article is about the team or a listing of alternates, then merely wearing the 'A' for certain games is unimportant trivia. For this case follow the official team references, if they take the effort to officially name a replacement alternate then he's a team alternate, if they don't then he's not. 76.64.216.136 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

NHL.com[5] doesn't list an "A" next to Scottie Upshall, yet their new coach named him an official team alternate. What should be done about this on the Panthers roster template? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please contribute to a discussion on amending MOS language with respect to date formats

Hello - there is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date range redux to come to a final resolution the way dates for club tenure in infoboxs are displayed (e.g. - with a club from 2001–2007 or 2001–07). If you have an opinion one way or the other, please take part. The value in coming to a final resolution (either having language added to allow 8 digit date spans for this purpose or expressly forbidding it) is that it would provide certainty to these cases and stop needless reverting of this format one way or the other. If you do take part, please be sure to ground your arguments/opinions in fact, Wikipedia precedent and real world examples as opposed to preference only as this will help the project make the right call. There are thousands of articles (touched by thousands of editors) that use summary club tenure information in infoboxes, so there is clearly an advantage to settling it in a clear manner so all can comply. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Russian Olympic peer review

Hey guys, I've started a PR for List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Russia here. Any and all comments are welcome before I submit it to FLC - the plan is to get the Big Seven done before Sochi :) Anthony (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible issues regarding NHL lawsuit

As some of you may have heard, 10 former NHL player filed a lawsuit against the league today regarding concussions. In the interests of those 10 players and BLP concerns, I think it may be important we keep an eye on their pages. I don't anticipate any issues, but who knows how some people may act. As I understand, the 10 players are:

• Brad Aitken
• Darren Banks
• Curt Bennett
• Richard Dunn
• Warren Holmes
• Gary Leeman
• Bob Manno
• Blair Stewart
• Morris Titanic
• Rick Vaive

Like I said, I don't think there should be any problems; most of these guys are not what I'd call notable; however it could be an issue, and I don't think any of us want to deal with that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dmitry/Dmitri Korobov

Could someone please enlighten me on why some reliable sources contradict one another on the spelling of Dmitri Korobov's first name? Is this like how defense/defence are both acceptable spellings? Tampabay721 (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

They are both acceptable spellings. They are just different Latin alphabet interpretations of the Cyrillic spelling of his name. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. The IIHF, for instance, began an effort to standardize how it transliterates names from foreign alphabets a couple years ago that resulted in quite a few changes to their published names. Resolute 22:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RUS, I think it should be "Dmitry", see –ый endings. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What makes this worse is that the IIHF decided in all of their wisdom to make up their own system, instead of following Russia's actual official passport system.--Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Should this policy be used for him? He is not Russian, but Belarusian. Should it be the same or different romanization policy for Belarusian? 108.0.244.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

His name in Belarusian is actually Dzmitry. Bear with me, this goes for Ukrainian players too (so I'm familiar...) but they translated his name from Belarusian to Russian, and then transliterated it from Russian Cyrillic to Latin text. Double conversion, messy stuff. example: Sergei Kostitsyn, name in Belarusian would be "Siarhiej Kaścicyn" --Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

According to BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian, the romanization should be "Dzmitry Korabaw" and Sergei Kostitsyn should be "Syarhyey Kastsitsyn". Why does the NHL and IIHF even use Russian translations when they are Belarusian? It makes these articles harder to correct. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the BGN/PCGN guide, which is the US/UK system from 1979. I was using Belarus' system. To answer your question: because they play in Russia and the NHL/IIHF just looks at the Russian language roster sheets; and Russia doesn't accommodate for the other East-Slavic languages and rather converts it to their language (chauvanism?). --Львівське (говорити) 06:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What is acceptable for Wikipedia is what is WP:Verifiable. Original research is not acceptable for inclusion within Wikipedia articles. The verifiable spellings for his name are:

• Dmitry Korobov - Official KHL profile, Official NHL profile, and eliteprospects.com.
• Dmitri Korobov - hockeydb.com.

Given that most reliable sources show his name as Dmitry, the article should be moved accordingly. Dolovis (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dolovis that it should at Dmitry Korobov, as it's the most commonly used transliteration of the name. The transliteration of Belarussian is a trainwreck, especially as the Russian version of the name often becomes transliterated to English. To expand on that point, note how the other Wikipedias transliterate the name:

• German: Dsmitry Korabau
• French: Dzmitry Korabaw
• Latvian: Dmitrijs Korobovs (ignoring Latvian naming customs, it's still another way of transliteration)
• Swedish: Dzmitryj Korabaŭ (looks like Lacinka and not necessarily a transliteration).

And Russian and Ukraine use their own version of the names Dmitri and Nikolai... Maxim_(talk) 15:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Help needed to download Flickr images

Help is needed to download photos from Flickr to the Commons. A collective effort is needed as it would be too much worl for a single editor to take on (unless there is an automated uploading system that I am unaware of).

Photographer Sarah Connors has uploaded to Flickr a large collection of high quality Creative Commons 3.0 photographs of mostly Bruins and American Hockey Leaue players (her sets can be found here). Most of these players have Wikipedia articles which could use these images, and it would be very helpful to the ice hockey project if we could collectively upload her photos to Wikimedia Commons. If you are able to help, then please pick one of her sets to upload, and then leave a message here to say what you have done, so we can get all of her photos uploaded without duplicating the work of others. Dolovis (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hartford @ Providence 10/17/10 55 photos
• Bruins morning skate in DC 22 photos  Done Dolovis (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Bruins vs. Caps 27 photos
• Cuts for a Cause 2010 159 photos
• Checkers @ Providence, 12/17/10 24 photos  Done Dolovis (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Falcons @ Providence, 12/19/10 89 photos
• Bruins practice 12/26/10 62 photos
• Bruins Practice 1/05/11 100 photos
• B-Sens @ Providence, 1/9/11 174 photos
• Providence @ Whale, 1/15/11 216 photos
• Bruins Practice 1/7/11 85 photos
• Manchester @ Providence, 1/23/11 98 photos
• Maine @ Northeastern 55 photos
• Sharks @ Providence, 1/16/11 57 photos
• Blues vs. Hawks, 2/21/11 50 photos
• Blues vs. Avs, 2/22/11 86 photos
• Blues @ Caps, 3/3/11 134 photos
• Blues vs. Ducks, 2/19/11 105 photos
• MAINEiacs vs. Remparts, 2/12/11 35 photos
• Providence vs. Bridgeport 3/12/11 96 photos
• Providence @ Worcester, 4/2/11 48 photos
• Portland @ Providence 115 phots
• Providence vs. Whale, 4-1-11 85 photos
• Bruins 2011 Development Camp - Day 3 109 photos
• Bruins 2011 Development Camp - day 2 67 photos
• Bruins Rookie Camp 9/15/11 69 photos
• Blues vs. Lightning Preseason 9/20/11 59 phots
• Blues vs. Wild preseason 9/22/11 90 photos
• Saint John Sea Dogs at Victoriaville Tigres, 10/1/11 67 photos
• Blackhawks @ Blues 12/3/11 59 photos
• Panthers @ Blues 11/18/11 52 photos
• Sharks @ Blues 12/10/11 61 photos
• Rangers @ Blues, 12/15/2011 57 photos
• Oilers @ Blues 1/5/12 50 photos
• Bruins @ Blues 2/22/12 133 photos
• OU Hockey vs. ASU 55 photos