Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment

Swiss/Norwegian league placement

Are we sure about the Swiss National League being ranked where it is? If we are talking about equivalents, it seems strange that we have a group of peers competing at the Spengler Cup (with the Swiss team often winning), but ranking them so low in this somewhat arbitrary tiering of notability. Canada Hky (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, only quibble I would have is to move Swiss league up a level to minor pro and moving Norwegian league down to lower level. Patken4 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both as well. I'd love to revisit the 100 game threshold for minor-pro as well since it is a ridiculously low bar, but that is outside the scope of this proposal. Resolute 22:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I also would agree that the Swiss league is too low. Its at least on par, and arguably better, than the DEL. And if you factor in that many of the players in the league have played in the NHL or were notable in lower leagues, it should be enough to move it up. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking the Swiss league and probably the DEL league should be up a level as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• The placement is entirely my take on things; I expect consensus would move some leagues up or down, and I'm comfy with that. No objection to either change. Ravenswing 03:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, thinking about it some more, I would probably drop the ECHL down to the lower level also. The majority of coverage players are likely to receive at that level will be local/routine in nature. The exceptions will always be able to rely on GNG. Resolute 20:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove categorization of leagues in WP:NHOCKEY?

If consensus is reached to just list the leagues for which notability of its players is presumed to be verifiable, then I suggest that the categorization of leagues in WP:NHOCKEY can be removed (for example, criteria 1 to 3 can be collapsed into one: "Played one or more games in the following leagues: ..."). This will save on arguing about the classification, which is after all just an indirect indicator: the key question is whether or not playing in the league is a reliable predictor of the existence of sufficient significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. isaacl (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sorry, but that's just a backhanded way to disenfranchise any non 'highest level' league, and the consensus hasn't been there for that. There's nothing about the concept of presumptive notability that's fractured by stating that a player in X League is almost certainly notable, a player in Y League is probably notable if he's played enough, and a player in Z League is very unlikely to be notable unless he was an all-time great in that loop. Ravenswing 03:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I should have clarified that categorization can be eliminated where the other criteria are the same. Thus I was mistaken in my example: items 1 and 2 can be combined, while item 3 would continue to have a different requirement on the number of games. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent: I thought you wanted to generate an exhaustive list of leagues for each item. If the list is exhaustive, then I don't see a need to worry about if a league is a top professional league or not; the only thing that matters is that playing for all of the leagues under the "one game" criterion is an accurate predictor of meeting the notability standard, that playing for all of the leagues under the "100 games" criterion is an accurate predictor of meeting the notability standard, and so forth. The descriptions "top professional", "amateur", and "fully professional minor" aren't necessary. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Not really true, we have 3 different levels in NHOCKEY that leagues must meet. There are the leagues that meet the 1 game situation, leagues that meet the 100 game situation, and games that only get major honor players. The descriptions are a bit off, they should probably just be labeled for the criteria they meet. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Looks like its been changed since I had last read so they already do apply more to the level of the criteria they meet. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I didn't enumerate all the levels, as I assumed it was understood the same levels as now would be preserved. I'm not sure where you ended up; do you agree that there can be three items for each of the three levels, as follows:

  1. Played one or more games in one of the following leagues: ...
  2. Played at least 100 games in one of the following leagues: ...
  3. Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in one of the following leagues: ...

  The descriptions just lead to arguments about what leagues should fit them, when the focus should be on evaluating the quality of reliable sources covering the players in the league. isaacl (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Eliminating those arguments is exactly the point of this League Assessment. Ravenswing 13:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Right, so once an exhaustive list of leagues is established, the descriptions are no longer necessary. isaacl (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I would keep the descriptions, and just link to the list in place of the examples. That way the only change to the criteria is that we list the examples differently now and prevents the likelihood of arguing about a league not being professional like Ravenswing mentions below. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I think the descriptions will still lead to superfluous discussion; editors should not be evaluating if a league is fully professional, but whether or not a player who has met the participation level (or other criteria) for a given league is likely to have the degree of coverage required to meet Wikipedia's standard of inclusion. I understand the desire to keep a categorization, so there is an everyday meaning associated with the objective standard of games/level of achievement, but I think it is more trouble than it is worth. (This discussion is an example of how the descriptions are a distraction from the key question of the degree of coverage.) isaacl (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is that people who know nothing about the sport will start questioning why amateur teams are listed with professional teams. On this page we probably don't need to mention if the teams are amateur or professional. But on the NHOCKEY page I think we most definitely need to have a criteria #1 and criteria #2 so that it clearly lays out why those leagues meet the criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  The hockey-specific notability guideline can remind readers that the criteria are based on the presumption of appropriate coverage and not the status of the league. There are currently a few editors who question why players for professional leagues are automatically assumed to meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. By shifting to an exhaustive list of leagues, this objection becomes obsolete, and referring to the professional level of the league is moot. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I understand what you are saying, and in an ideal world that would be great, but we both know that people will still question it over and over. So by leaving it worded as is and then adding in the new list we remove the questions. By simply merging it we add more questioning and thus more wasted time. (ironically like this debate) -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Issacl, the objection to a one-size-fits-all is simple: either you go to a one-game-qualifies standard, in which case you've just (for instance) accorded presumptive notability to anyone who's played a single game for the Pinebridge Bucks or the Flin Flon Bombers -- to which I'm sure damn near everyone would object -- or you have a draconian list which disqualifies the minors, major junior or the collegiate leagues altogether, to which a great many people would object (myself included). In either case, consensus wouldn't be reached. Ravenswing 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  Note my example is not one-size-fits-all; I've explicitly listed the same three criteria levels as currently exists. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ahhh ... I see what you're striking for; my apologies, I'm being slow. You're looking, rather than have a separate page, to have these lists of leagues folded directly into the NHOCKEY criteria.

  We can't. FOOTY's league listing is an essay, not an official guideline, and I think that's what we need to have here. The NSPORTS criteria generally are pretty subjective, but this list is quite subjective, and an essay is about the level we can get away with declaring. Ravenswing 12:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not the key aspect of my proposal; the criteria could still point to another page for the list of leagues. For example, they could be written something like this:

  1. Meets one of the following criteria, where category A, B, and C leagues are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment:
     1. Played one or more games in a category A league;
     2. Played at least 100 games in a category B league;
     3. Achieved pre-eminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a category C league;

  The descriptions aren't needed anymore, since a complete list of leagues is being provided for each standard, and I think having them will result in editors continuing (as they do today) to argue about whether or not a league is fully professional, rather than discussing if players in a given league have sufficient notable coverage, regardless of the professional status of the league.

  Regarding achieving an overall consensus for the lists of leagues, as you probably have already seen, WikiProject Baseball is discussing a list of eligible leagues on WT:NSPORTS. I think it should be quite manageable for WikiProject Ice Hockey to do the same. isaacl (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is that this list will never be more than an essay. As such the criteria itself has to be understandable on its own as if this list didn't exist. Without the descriptions you lose that. The soccer one for example clearly indicates it needs to be fully professional to pass. Thier list is just an essay on what some believe fully professional to mean. -DJSasso (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  I do agree that Criteria #1 and #2 describe the same level, but when originally drafting them, I split them out because of the traditional standard of NSPORTS: that of playing in a "fully professional" league. Hockey, by contrast, has a history of amateur leagues that nonetheless were the highest level of competition available for major hockey powers -- the AHA, the Soviet League, the ECAHA, the Czechoslovak league -- and I didn't want those loops to get whacked with huffy "Well, they weren't fully professional comments. Ravenswing 13:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrapping up ...

I've done a little tweaking based on some of the comments. One of the things I didn't do was add the Ukrainian league, which is only a couple years old and is marred by considerable instability: having several teams fold from last year, including the league champions, doesn't bode well. The question I have now is whether we can sign off on this and add the link to NHOCKEY?

• Support: as creator. Ravenswing 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support and thanks for undertaking. Hwy43 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though I still prefer to drop the ECHL down. It is out of place among the level 2 leagues as the rest of the American leagues in that section were unquestionably the highest level of minor professional hockey. The ECHL is not. Resolute 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, I missed that. The ECHL is the minors of the minors and is therefore not the highest level of minor pro hockey. I agree and would like to see it dropped down too. Hwy43 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• My only two cents to throw in here would be regarding the distinction between "fully professional" and "lower minor" - while the ECHL and the Central Hockey League certainly are not the same caliber of play (or coverage) as the AHL, they are in fact "fully professional" - all three leagues are represented by the PHPA, and their players are full-time professional hockey players. I would view the "minors of the minors" as the SPHL and possibly the FHL. Is there a better way to distinguish the "high minors" (maybe "top-level minor league") in a way that doesn't create an erroneous distinction?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, Ukraine is on stabler footing now that the ill-fated Professional Hockey League has met its demise and the championship has been placed back under the auspices of the national federation. I will however support this (albeit grudgingly) if the Eishockey-Bundesliga and DDR-Oberliga are moved up a level from where they're currently ranked. Their positions are blatantly low as it stands now. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Were they? Remember, these criteria do not define notability. If sufficient reliable sources cannot be found to presume that most players in those leagues meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the articles should be deleted, and frankly, the leagues would be placed to high here. Resolute 16:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. One change that could be made is move the Austrian league up a level since it looks like it will have teams in the 2014–15 Champions Hockey League. Other than that possible change, I'm happy with it. Patken4 (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Most tweaks made, with the exception of this one; I'm not yet sold that the Champions League makeup is a definitive sign of league quality, as opposed to politics -- one would think, for instance, that the inclusion of the top Slovakian clubs would be a no-brainer. Any notion why we're not seeing Russian clubs? Ravenswing 16:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine for Austria. To be honest, I was surprised Austria was included in the new league but Slovakia wasn't. Patken4 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support now that desired changes have been implemented. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Sorry to be coming in so late, but I only just found this curious little discussion after it was raised at WP:NSPORTS. Resolute's Ravenswing's essay containing a list of ice hockey leagues sorted by level of play is incomplete and subjective. While I agree that a list of ice hockey league's could be useful for the purpose of establishing a presumption pf notability (I suggested the idea about three years ago, only to be rebuffed by the Ice Hockey Project), the purpose of Resolute's essay has not been fully discussed. Now that the five of you have worked out a framework, it might be time to bring Resolute's essay out of the closet so it can be fully discussed, for both purpose and content, by all interested editors. Dolovis (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolute's essay? Also, this began at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, where you are quite active. Hwy43 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn't start this dude. But I am not remotely surprised that you are crying about it since it has the benefit of forcing you to put more effort into your editing. Also, Ravenswing did bring it up at WT:HOCKEY, so you really have no excuse for not having seen it before. Resolute 02:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if the seven people who participated on this talk page over the past 10 days collectively hold the expert knowledge necessary to create the definitive ranking of all current and defunct ice hockey leagues throughout all-time, it is nonetheless woefully incomplete (see List of ice hockey leagues which in-itself is incomplete), and completely subjective based on nothing more than personal opinion and original research. Dolovis (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an article, so your attempted wikilaywering doesn't count for anything. The good news for you, Dolovis, is that you remain perfectly free to create articles on players in unlisted leagues if they meet GNG. Resolute 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So what is it, Dolovis? On the one hand, you want a horde of editors to come in before you'll sign off on it? On the other, you screech about people not having the "expert knowledge" to pull this off? I'd invite you to make up your mind, but that presumes we need your approval to go forward, which we do not. Honestly, I can see how it is you've earned permanent topic bans and page move bans; you really display marked contempt for any policy, guideline or consensus with which you disagree.

The funny thing is that since you're knowledgeable in European hockey, you'd have been one of the ones whose unbiased input would have been useful ... but at this point, I just don't feel your good faith can be assumed. Ravenswing 08:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be some discussion of the available sources covering the players in each league, in order to demonstrate that meeting the criterion in each case is a reliable predictor of meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, if you are trying to start a definitive list which ranks the World's hockey leagues, it is important to start by establishing objective criteria on which the list will be based. NHOCKEY uses the terms “top professional league” (existing or defunct), “highest level of competition extant”, “fully professional minor league”, and “lower minor league”; and it is those terms which need to be objectively defined before we start to build a list.

This list is intended to be inclusive of all the existing and defunct hockey leagues world-wide, which is quite an undertaking, which is why NHOCKEY chose to use the words “such as” followed by examples. Ravenwing's list hopes to add to such examples, but to do so we must first form a consensus to define what those NHOCKEY terms mean, and then form a consensus as to what leagues meet those definitions.

The independent source HockeyDB[1] has categorized pro hockey leagues in North America as “Major League”, “Minor Professional” and “Semi-Professional”, and hockey leagues in Europe as “European Elite” or “European Non-Elite”, with amateur categories being “Senior Amateur”, “Major Junior”, “College/University”, and other junior leagues. There may be other sources we can look at to verify these distinctions. One might simply follow the standards set by HockeyDB (Major League and European Elite = “top professional league”; Minor Professional = "fully professional minor league"; and European Non-Elite, Senior Amateur, Major Junior, and College/University = "lower minor league". I understand that such a solution is too simplistic, and I am using it as an example only to demonstrate that objective sources exist, with my point being that we need to establish an objective and verifiable starting point towards creating our definitive list.

Whether or not you agree with HockeyDB is not the issue. My point is that HockeyDB's list is independent and can be utilized objectively. There are other independent sources that might also be used to build the NHOCKEY list (such as hockey leagues by average salary or by attendance levels, as I am confident that such information would be available from independent sources). IIHF qualifies nations for world championships, which may provide an objective standard for top hockey playing countries (i.e. top leagues”), however using IIHF standings as a guide will see nations come and go as top competitors depending on the years being considered (and how wide the net is thrown); on the other hand, it has been often argued that “top league” refers to the top league within a given country. This understanding of the term is given more weight when one looks at Criteria #2 which reads “Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant”. If such is the understanding of the term (and I am not saying I am an adherent of such a view) then all nations with an organized hockey program, professional or not, would qualify to have a “top league”.

One would think that the easiest term to define would be “fully professional minor league” (either the league is “fully professional or its not), leaving the remaining minor leagues as the “lower minor leagues”, however even this term, which can/should be determined objectively, is being argued on the basis of subjective opinion.

Given that this is a busy holiday weekend, I simply do not have the time to put together right now (quests have arrived) an alternate proposal of what leagues might fit the definitions of “top professional league”, “highest level of competition extant”, “fully professional minor leagues”, and “lower minor league”. I hope that I will soon be able to put some further words together towards such a proposal. But I want to post this writing now (before I have fully formed my arguments) to bring to the attention of the ice hockey project that there are independent sources that should be utilized to objectively create a definitive list. Dolovis (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste your time, Dolovis. You know as well as anyone else here that most players in lower minor leagues do not have the reliable source coverage to presume notability. The only reason you want more leagues listed at the higher levels is so that you can continue to be lazy and create sub-stubs using the pathetically low "played 100 games" criteria rather than by actually researching to see if such players are notable. The end result is that you litter Wikipedia with crap and the rest of us are forced to waste time and effort cleaning up after you. So count this as a blanket oppose of any proposal you come up with to try and modify these criteria. They are, bluntly, still too loose as it is. Resolute 01:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some sources I located which could prove useful in further evaluating the placement of the European leagues: An IIHF article with information on attendance across the various Euro leagues during the 2012-13 season, The IIHF's ranking of the top 30 leagues prior to the start of the 2008-09 Champions Hockey League season, and A piece done by The Hockey Writers ranking the 10 best leagues worldwide.--Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, notability on Wikipedia is defined by coverage in reliable sources. League rankings mean squat as it relates to coverage of individual players. If you can demonstrate that enough reliable source coverage exists such that we can presume a player who appeared in a certain league (or played a certain number of games at a certain level) will have that coverage, then this discussion can move forward. Resolute 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis, there are no independent sources which rank how much press coverage individual players in individual leagues get. This is the problem. You continually confuse the level of the league (ie quality of play, attendance, salary etc) with the level of coverage its players get in the media. This is only about how likely a player is to get multiple news stories about them in multiple papers in multiple locations. As with all of NHOCKEY, its about 99.999% of players that meet that specific criteria should be able to meet GNG. Which is very clearly not the case with the hundreds of stubs you litter the wiki with. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How about using the player wiki articles to assess the presumed notability the league infers upon its players? If a page is created for a player based upon the current presumed notability criteria and the page is later deleted due to an inability to meet GNG then the league classification needs to be lowered. This would ensure that the resulting league assessment is self correcting and minimize the number of stub articles with little chance of being expanded upon. 69.159.30.166 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, Dolovis, but you've spent so much time wikilawyering and outright lying that pretty much any advocacy you'd deliver is suspect. Claiming that this list is suspect because I created it, while claiming that the NHOCKEY list (which I likewise created) is good and virtuous? Errr ... no: if my judgment (supported by the consensus of the WikiProject) was good several years ago, what's suddenly made it (or that of the other editors) bad now, other than you being willfully disruptive?

Likewise in proclaiming the HockeyDB an "independent" and "objective" list. You know, don't you, that HockeyDB's assessment = Ralph Slate's assessment, right? Now we certainly rely heavily on Ralph's indefatigable work, but when all is said and done, he's a hockey fan from western Massachusetts with time on his hands and no particular special credentials beyond having been a SIHR member ... which come to that describes me as well as him. Ravenswing 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support proposal. This has been needed for some time recently due to far to much wikilawyering and attempts at end runs around the policy by Dolovis. So because some editors can't seem learn to abide by consensus and policy when they disagree with it we thus need to tighten it up to avoid ambiguity and cut the wikilawyering off at the knees. -DJSasso (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Just going back to what was our, I think, original discussion about notability. First, there are still a few of us from the first discussion about this still around from almost seven years ago, so congrats to those still here. Second, it looks like even then we questioned why 100 games/three seasons was being considered as the minimum requirement for the ECHL (and it seems most of us agree with that, both then and now). I know the criteria has evolved a bit since then, but it is similar to what Ravenswing originally proposed. I can't find where we discussed putting criteria to specific leagues as we are now, but I know we have had the discussions many times before. I may even proposed it at some point. Patken4 (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, there are a few of us still active: you, me, Djsasso, Resolute, Kaiser. Not so bad. Ravenswing 16:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support proposal. I'll always support the reduction of ambiguity wherever I can.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)