Talk:United Hockey League

Table of champions

I am making tables for the Champions of particular leagues and I have a question. Is it ok to put a championship table for the Rockford IceHogs that includes the championships that the Thunder Bay Senators and the Thunder Bay Thunder Cats won. It shows under defunct teams that all three of these teams are the same team just that they moved around or renamed their team? Thank you. John R G 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not generally the case for minor league teams, no. The Peoria Rivermen page doesn't display the Springfield Indians Calder Cups, for one. Ravenswing 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Detroit Falcons

The Detroit Falcons became the Port Huron Border Cats in 1996

Rockford Icehogs

The Rockford Icehogs are not actually moving to the AHL, rather, the Rockford MetroCentre will purchase the rights to the name and logo, and transfer them to the previously defunct Cincinnati AHL team, which the MetroCentre is purchasing. How should this be written on the front page? Bigsnake 19 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably just as gone defunct.  Ravenswing  13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Rockford to join AHL in 2007-08, gives more details that might be helpful.--Ando por Fe 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uhlnew.jpg

Image:Uhlnew.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Alleged "National Hockey League" experience.

Of the 199 players who suited up for UHL Eastern Division teams last season, exactly ten of those had played in so much as a single NHL game, and only three had played in more than ten NHL games. (No doubt the percentages hold true in the Western Division as well, but there are only so many hockeydb.com entries my eyes will take) Five percent does not constitute "Many of the current IHL players have ... National Hockey League ... experience" under any circumstances whatsoever. I strongly suggest that any other speculative assertions come with verified sources to avoid their swift removal.  Ravenswing  20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(2007-)

Instead of "(2007-)" maybe we should put something like "(current)". To me, it sounds better, looks better, and makes more sense. Anyone agree/disagree? Bsroiaadn^Talk 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How about just make it "International Hockey League" and have this...

Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything, the IHL that shouldn't have dates is the 1945-1996 version, which lasted a great deal longer and had a great deal more prominence than the rebranded UHL will likely have.  Ravenswing  12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger betweem IHL (1945-2007) and IHL (2007-)

Out of curiosity, why was there remove my most recent edit? According to the IHL website, they have not only changed the league name, but now award the old IHL trophies. The link I provided discusses states "The combination of the old and new league will leave open the possibility of naming other awards after people who have made a significant impact in the International Hockey League" and it appears the league it trying to combine the old and new league (hense term merge). If what I wrote was confusing, somewhat inaccurate, poorly strcutreed, etc. that is fine. But I am wondering why there was a flat out removal. Nothing was un-true and a cite was placed on the mereger talks and trophy absorbtion. I am not trying to be nasty (sorry it comes across this way), but I am curious as to why there was a flat out removed merger material that has not only been cited, but produced by the leauge itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonSigPi (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How can they "merge" with something that no longer exists? They bought a name. That's all. In particular, your hypothesis that "it appears the league is attempting to merge with the IHL" has no place in the article. Write facts, not your thoughts on those facts. ccwaters 19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the official website again "The combination of the old and new league..." (FACT)

From "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merger" Merger = any combination of two or more business enterprises into a single enterprise. (FACT)

Because the league no longer plays does not mean it no longer exists. If the intellectual property rights are still held by an organizaiton, an organization retains rights in a business structure, etc., then it can merge. I dont know the situation, but language used by the league suggest a merger.

I do not belive I added 'opinion' and stand by my assertion. Language from the league suggests merger (see above). If you changed what I had, then I undertand. However, completely deleting FACT seems questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonSigPi (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, "it appears the league is attempting to merge with the IHL" is your own extrapolation of the situation. The rest of your edit seemed to be a continuation of the same thought. Don't be confused by the language of a press release. ccwaters 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The IHL website's History page traces the history of the current league back to the original IHL in 1945. The UHL folded and ceased to exist (reference). IHL Chairman of the Board Michael Franke clarified that the IHL is not the UHL (source). The IHL is not the UHL with a new name.

• It really is. Yes, the league's management has gone through a surprisingly strident effort to rewrite history, but despite their unsupported claims, the facts remain.  Ravenswing  18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When the UHL changed into the IHL, the league specifically wrote to me asking that the "new IHL" be shown separately from the UHL on hockeydb.com. They were attempting to brand themselves as the continuation of the old IHL, assuming their trophies and records. I think they created a legal entity separate from the UHL's legal entity, they even had a new commissioner (though many league employees remained the same) so I created the league as a new IHL, but I did not merge this new league with the old IHL's history since it was obviously just a ploy - I'm not sure they even bought any rights from anyone, they just used the name since it was no longer being used. I think its preferable to keep the new IHL as a free-standing entity away from the UHL Ralph Slate (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New Record

The Fort Wayne Komets set the all time North American home win streak on March 28, 2008 with 23 against the Kalamazoo Wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.201.188 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Low level or Mid level minor league

The current introduction of this article states "It was originally formed in 1991 as the Colonial Hockey League, a low-level minor league." We need to review this league's status as mid or low level, or completely rewrite to say that, the IHL is a low level minor pro league. If you look at the history of Template:Professional Hockey you can see many editors feel the league should be higher up. We need some conclusive wording in this article. Flibirigit (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should list as Low-Mid-High at all. But if we are going to do so it is most definately a low level league as some of its teams are farm teams for ECHL teams. -Djsasso (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we reword the introduction to say it "is" a low-level minor league, as opposed to it was founded as a low-level league? Flibirigit (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would make a great deal more sense to say that it is one than it was "founded" as one, granted; the latter implies intent by the founders we shouldn't impugn. As far as whether it is one or not, yes, it's obvious that the concept ticks off the UHL/IHL fans who want to believe that the league is a major player in the minors, but their opinion doesn't trump the numerous cited reliable sources to the contrary.  Ravenswing  04:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Based on comments by Djsasso and Ravenswing, I have rearranged the introduction. Flibirigit (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso, what teams in the IHL are "farm teams" for the ECHL? I don't know of a single IHL team which has an afiliation agreement with an ECHL team. Port Huron and Flint have agreements with Grand Rapids of the AHL, but no team has an affiliation with an ECHL team. Ravenswing, where are these sources you are talking about? Source #1 on the main page is a dead link, source #2 says nothing about the IHL being a lower league than the ECHL, only lower than the AHL, source #3 is a dead link, source #4 refers to the UHL as "Low Double A" which implies (in my reading,) that they are still above the SPHL and other single A leagues, source #5 makes no mention of the UHL/IHL being above or below any of the other AA leagues and source #6 says the UHL was under the ECHL in 2000, not now, in 2000.

The IHL has a $13,000 weekly salary cap where the ECHL only has a $11,200/week cap, as there are no "Letter Grades (AA, AAA)" given to leagues officialy and these teams don't play against eachother, I think players salaries are the only way to determine high, mid and low level in minor league hockey. Acronjsmith (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize you like the premise no more than the UHL/IHL fans ever have, but ... first off, the point of the sources was not to compare and contrast whether the UHL was "higher" or "lower" than any other league, but to highlight whether it was generally regarded in the hockey world as a "low-level" league, which it is. Whether its quality of play, the salaries it pays its players or any other such consideration actually justifies the appellation isn't at all the point, because we have no authority to set a standard for deciding; Wikipedia is about verifiability. Feel free to remove any dead links, but if a half-dozen in-line citations don't suffice, I'm happy to make it a round dozen.  Ravenswing  22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that I'm being biased toward the IHL, I just feel that what wiki is stating is incorrect. What I was saying is that the sources provided were either horribly outdated for putting a class on this league or said nothing about the league's ranking in any way. The reasoning I am following is listed here on Wikipedia [1].

IHL players do not get promoted to the ECHL or the CHL, if they are getting promoted they go to the AHL.  : [2] If we are going to have a ranking system then it needs to be similar to established ranking systems out there.

[3] - Intotheboards.net lumps the ECHL, CHL and IHL in to Low Minor League teams (AA as it lists the SPHL as "lowest minors") Acronjsmith (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Given the lack of official rankings, as there is in baseball, and that there is some disagreement, it may be best to avoid mentioning the level at all. I realize that makes it hard to properly contextualize the level of play, but we might have to resort to using more words rather than trying to encapsulate the intricacies as just "low-mid-high".

Note the ambiguity that the phrasing quoted above ("a low-level minor league") causes: the AHL, for example, is a mid-level hockey league but a high-level (highest, actually) minor league. The current wording leaves out "minor" but I think that might be a good replacement for "low-level". Something like: "The International Hockey League is a minor-league professional ice hockey league...". The details of where it falls relative to the AHL and other minor leagues can be clarified later in the article.

I hope this helps clarify the dispute.

-- Powers ^T 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fort Wayne

To correct my comment in the last edit summary, of course Fort Wayne is in north Indiana. Boy, I feel stupid on that one, but my point still stands. -- SonicAD (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point, the old IHL does not need to be gone for the CoHL to have been replacing it. It just has to be less there than it was before. The IHL used to be hugely filled with teams from Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin etc. and they were disappearing when the CoHL was beginning. I will find an article to back it up, but the original comish did say they were starting the league to serve the markets that the IHL had been leaving behind. (ie the smaller communities) -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem; I'll pull out my old saved THNs. The Colonial League positioned itself that way from the start. By the time it was founded, the old IHL was down to three cities of its small-market Great Lakes roots, and the next season the 'Jacks relocated to Cleveland. The IHL's intentions of going upmarket were loudly trumpeted.  Ravenswing  05:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

League level debate continued...

Two issues with the regurgitation of this fallacy. First, not a single one of the new references are independent; they all come from the league or the league's teams, and the purported new "independent" source has "Press Release From The Quad City Mallards" across the top.

Secondly, it's just plain wrong: hockey does not have any such classification system. The NHL hasn't imposed one. The Hockey Hall of Fame hasn't imposed one. The IIHF hasn't imposed one. There's no such umbrella organization in hockey governing the minor leagues as Minor League Baseball. This is a whole-cloth invention of the ECHL marketing department which the UHL/IHL demonstrably took up.  Ravenswing  07:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not nonsense when it is referenced by an independent source. A league or team press release is a source that is verifiable. The fact that you can't find a league structure that identifies what level all the other leagues are is not the issue for this article. This league identifies it self as AA+ level. Just like the ECHL identifies it self as the premiere AA league. It should also be clear by now that this is a mid level league. Above the low level SPHL AAHL,and MWHL, but below the high level AHL. I have updated the references to show the current status of this league. I respectfully request that this article be left as is. Braddaman1 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the King of Upper Crosschecklandia and my declaration of such has just as much authority as the IHL. ccwaters (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A league or team press release is not an independent source, as is required. I can see by your contribution list that you're an inexperienced editor and may not be familiar with WP:V and WP:RS; perhaps you should review them before continuing with this discussion. As far as the fact that no league identifying structure exists, it's quite pertinent; I freely concede that the ECHL and the IHL describe themselves as being "AA," but that doesn't make it so, any more than me describing myself as being a former pro hockey goalie makes me one. As far as the "low" vs. "mid" level discussion, there've been dozens of cites going back years describing the CoHL/UHL/IHL as "low" level, and that's the case; the ECHL is the mid-level league here. As I said in the discussion above last year, "it's obvious that the concept ticks off the UHL/IHL fans who want to believe that the league is a major player in the minors, but their opinion doesn't trump the numerous cited reliable sources to the contrary."  Ravenswing  18:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is all the references that cite this league as a low level league are old references. This league has evolved over the years. My argument is the references that state this is a low level league are old references to the UHL days. If you take the time to read the references, you will see that the level of play has improved and is widely regarded as equal to the play in the ECHL. The only difference is the IHL is not it self affiliated with the NHL or the hockey players union. The IHL salary cap is higher than the ECHL. My argument remains that if the IHL doesn't state in it's own press releases what level of play it is how can any other media outlet report on it? I will continue to find current references and I guess the edit war will continue. I feel I am basing my editing on creditable sources, however yours seems to be somewhat based on old information or personal opinion. Braddaman1 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We have repeatingly asked you to supply Reliable third party sources to support this AA+ claim. Its a fundamental wikipedia requirement. There's really nothing to discuss until you do. ccwaters (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just added two current, independent, creditable references to support that fact that IHL is a mid level AA league. I am sure someone will some how discredit these...guess I will wait and see. Braddaman1 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with what you added was that none of them are from governing bodies that classify the skill level of leagues like USA Hockey. The problem you are going to run into with this is that USA Hockey specifically does not rank pro leagues other than to declare them pro or semi-pro. The only other governing bodies that might do such are the IIHF, NCAA, or NHL. What a news article calls them is not all that relevant as they are just using the marketing that the league uses. -22:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the IHL itself is not affiliated with or governed by any of these organizations. The IHL has it's own board of directors that sets the structure of the league. I guess the only other edit I can think to do is to use the references that support that this is a mid level league and then list in the article that the league identifies itself as a AA league. (following the structure of the ECHL article) I think I have made clear through creditable references that the IHL is in fact a mid level league regardless of anyone's personal opinion to the contrary. The fact is IHL teams that are affiliated with low level leagues such as the SPHL or AAHL, have called up players from these leagues. The AHL has then called up 44 IHL players in the last two seasons to play in their league. Any reasonable person would then associate that the IHL is in fact an AA level league because it is clear that IHL players are two steps away from the NHL. Just like they are in the ECHL. The fact that there is no governing body doesn't matter for this purpose. Using this logic would be like arguing that the Statue of Liberty isn't 151 feet high because it hasn't been officially measured by the New York Department of Weights and Measures or there is no official monument measuring agency. I have a supplied independent references to support my edits. I disagree that the news article isn't a good reference. These references were not paid advertisements by the team or league. Like I said before how can the media know what level the league is if the league doesn't say so in the first place? Braddaman1 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrific; upon what measurements do you rely to make this assertion? If we were to accept the premise that the AHL calling up 20-someodd IHL players a season as significant, then that your average AHL team makes more than that many callups from the ECHL a year would be far more so. Of course, WP:SYN requires that we draw no such conclusions. We can only go with fact, and the fact remains that no letter-grading structure for hockey exists. Your implied question is how do we figure out the letter grade of a hockey league without one? The answer is surprisingly simple: we don't.  Ravenswing  08:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I clearly explained (and cited references) the measurements to justify this. The fact that the AHL has called up 44 players over the last 2 seasons is a fact. See here...http://www.ihl-hockey.com/transactions/callups/ What do I have to provide you to at least accept the fact that the IHL is in fact a mid-level league? The references I have listed clearly state this. If you want to call this league a low level league then do the proper editing and find the proper references. At one time The CHL or UHL may have been a low level league. The current IHL is a mid level league. I am also aware that more ECHL players are called up to the AHL. How does that fact make the ECHL with it's lower salary cap more high and mighty than the IHL? Braddaman1 (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is also worth mentioning again that I think you are making your claims on a personal opinion about this league and not referenced facts. Braddaman1 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no letter grade system set up for hockey leagues. There is a regulated letter system for baseball which is where you are getting your two steps away from the big league idea. However hockey does not work like that. Sure you can make an arguement that some players have been called up to the AHL from the league but many more have been called up from the ECHL which means the ECHL is a higher level league than the IHL. Some ECHL teams even have minor affiliates with IHL teams. How can an IHL team be on the same level of the ECHL if the ECHL uses some teams in the IHL as a farm team? The arguments you make actually work against saying the IHL is as good a league as you claim. Salary cap doesn't even enter into it. It just means that the league has agree to pay more for their players as a whole.-DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And, as far as references go, I came up with quite a few more supporting "low" level than "mid" level, and none of them league or team press releases, which was likewise the case two years ago. Once again, I urge you to read some of the policy and guideline links supplied to you. Our task here at Wikipedia is not to believe something and then try to dig for anything that might support your pre-determined conclusion, only to flip your position - such as claiming that AHL teams calling up IHL players is significant until it was pointed out that many more ECHL players are called up - if new, inconvenient facts show up. It's to post the facts, regardless as to whether we like the results. You persist in claiming that there's a letter-grade system for minor league hockey, and that the hockey world views the IHL on a tier with the ECHL. Provably, neither is the case, nor does wishful thinking make it so.  Ravenswing  14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

References 1-5 are dead links and reference 6 is from a news story from 2000. How can this show the current direction of this league? Braddaman1 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is this "current direction" of the league you keep mentioning? ccwaters (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you paid attention, Braddaman. After your previous complaint about dead links, I recovered URLs from the Internet Archive for some and came up with several more; that was only three days ago, and since you took the trouble to revert the edit, I presumed you actually looked at it first. Djsasso just reverted to the beginning of the dispute, which will change when the lock is removed. That being said, the "current direction" you claim is unsourced (and probably unsourceable) supposition. Wikipedia's job is not to be a cheerleader for the IHL in any attempt to upgrade its image.  Ravenswing  17:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining about the references when the lock is removed. Despite our not seeing eye to eye on this article, I do appreciate the help you have given to me. My goal is not to be a cheer leader for this league. I am just trying to improve this article and make it current. What I mean by the current direction of the league refers to the efforts the IHL is making to improve itself, it's players, and team owners. I keep finding references that refer to this league (and/or the players in it) as AA. Such as this one: http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=461357 This is why I am opposed to this article referring to the IHL as a low level league. As I stated before, low level leagues are the SPHL, and MMHL. Braddaman1 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RGT I just read the edit you did on 10-04-09 18:15. Is this the version that will go back up once the page is unlocked? If this is the references you refer to 1-4 are from the UHL era. None of the references mentioned that this is a low level or class A league. Prior to this edit I listed references 1-5 that were from press releases. I now understand why they should not be used. Reference 6 was from a news paper article that identified this team as AA and is current. Why was this one removed? On 10-04 I added two more references that continue to support this. Is there a problem with these? I understand that they are not from a governing body for league classifications but the do support that this is a mid level league. Thanks. Braddaman1 (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The eventual article will not necessarily be my 10/04 edit; that's to be determined. As far as your two references, one doesn't mention "mid-level" at all and the second directly contradicts your premise. To quote: "Mullen said he has been in contact with, and has had interest from teams at five different levels of hockey -- the AAA American Hockey League, the AA East Coast, International and Central hockey leagues and the junior United States Hockey League." Plainly that suggests that the IHL is a lower level than the ECHL, which is pretty much what everyone other than you has been saying all along.  Ravenswing  09:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the dead reference links (1-5) and number 6 is from 2000 when the IHL was the UHL. Braddaman1 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Final article destination

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved, Waiting for merge to finalise  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

---

International Hockey League (2007–) → International Hockey League (2007–2010) —

• The league is merging into Central Hockey League, and thus the Colonial/United/International(sic) Hockey League is done at least in regards to this article. What should the final article be named? ccwaters (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If the league is officially having announced its done then yeah just rename it. I don't think this is a controversial move. It should be named as you suggested above as the league ended this year if this is the case. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My question is really that the league has had 3 names, which shall it be? My inclination would be to use the last name with the article being International Hockey League (2007–2010), but I thought others may have different ideas. And yes, both leagues had a press release http://ism3.infinityprosports.com/ismdata/2009062901/std-sitebuilder/sites/200901/www/en/news/index.html?article_id=894 We plan to play under the Central Hockey League, CHL, moniker ccwaters (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We have serperate pages for each incarnation do we not? So this one would be the one you list above. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh actually it looks like we don't anymore. I could have sworn we did. I would name it the name they had the longest. That way you don't have to worry about the other international hockey leagues. So in this case the United Hockey League and then put prominantly in the lead the other two names it went by. In the first sentence. The reasoning behind this is both that it avoids disambiguation by brackets and it goes by the name it would have been the most notable for. It was only the IHL for 3 seasons which isn't really enough to make it notable with that name beyond the fact it was the UHL for 10 years. Many people I know still called it the UHL for example even though it had changed to the IHL a couple years ago. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• My inclination is to hold off for now. This merger has been announced, but far from completed, and all we have so far is "we plan to play under the CHL name." Plans can change.  Ravenswing  17:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold off for now as well, the merger was announced but details are still in the works and articles are vague some CHL positioned articles indicate a full merger of the leagues under the CHL name, others indicate the two leagues will remain seperate but play an interleague schedule (such as baseball) and then the champion of each league will play for an overall champion. We'll know more details after the league meetings later this month. --Bhockey10 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait until the merge actually happens. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Final article destination cont.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

International Hockey League (2007–) → International Hockey League (2007–2010) —

The CHL/IHL merger looks like a done deal with the CHL announcing the new Conference Alignment and other important details. I think it is about time to make the move. --ilamb94 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The IHL's website doesn't seem to think so. The original press release in June had language like "We plan to play under the Central Hockey League, CHL, moniker, with the identity of the IHL being maintained through various aspects that will be announced in the near future" and "The 2010-2011 season will mark the 60th year of professional hockey for the International Hockey League, which was comprised last season of seven Midwestern teams in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois" (however much it pisses me off that they're claiming the original IHL's history as belonging to them). Its most recent press release this past Thursday [4] has the following: "The Komets will continue to be a member of the International Hockey League and participate in the Central Hockey League under the CHL moniker in the Northern Conference. The circuit will consist of 13 CHL teams and five IHL teams for an 18-team coalition." Another post-merger press release has "The IHL is still in discussions which would bring at least one additional team into the League for the 2010-2011 season" for language. It may be doubletalk, but I wouldn't close down a league's article while the league claims to continue to be in operation.  Ravenswing  03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now What a complete mess! (The UHL-IHL claiming original IHL history is upsetting to many hardcore hockey fans btw.) The IHL (press release from today you noted) and the Komets are pretty much the only ones still saying/acting like the IHL exists. Most of the other teams news feeds follow the CHL newsfeed and some like QC don't even have the IHL logo. If you took someone who doesn't follow hockey and asked what league they belong to- after a quick glance of the teams's sites the person would say CHL. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no rush. There is no reason we can't still wait till the beginning of the season for things to be a bit clearer. We don't need to jump on it immediately. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, let's wait until those folks figure it out. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment, please explain to me in what way is the International Hockey League still in operation? Please remember that the only team that says that it is an coalition is the Fort Wayne Komets and they have opposed this merger. The CHL website lists all the old IFL teams and even has news from those teams on their news feed. --ilamb94 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: Because the league claims it is. We're not in the business of imposing our own judgment on events. We're in the business of reporting verifiable facts. As long as the IHL continues to maintain an office, a website, periodic updates and a corporate existence, that's all she wrote.  Ravenswing  02:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Part III

Finally it appears the IHL (2007-) is about as alive as the original IHL. There's not even an IHL website anymore. It all looks like the IHL merging into the CHL. In the previous discussion above, the only thing that kept us from moving the article to International Hockey League (2007–2010) was a few days into the discussion Ravenswing pointed out the IHL through its website still claims they are independent despite all of their teams playing in the CHL (contrasting teams' websites and CHL websites and info that all made it appear to be a merger). Now there's no website or any evidence the IHL still exists. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Also looking at the CHL page the IHL logo(s) and links are now removed from the CHL website. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The old IHL website redirects to the CHL site now. I still don't think merging the pages is the way to go - among other things, it isn't our practice - but changing the name of this page is plainly a good idea. Truth be told, the name should be changed back to United Hockey League, the name of the loop for most of its existence.  Ravenswing  07:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should merge pages just rename at the least to International Hockey League (2007–2010). Does Wikiproject ice hockey or wikipedia in general have any precedent for a situation like this: The league used the UHL for the longest amount of time the league existed, right? Bhockey10 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we generally leave it named as what it was last...but since there were so many International Hockey League's it might be better to call it the United Hockey League to avoid the bracketed disambiguators. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The team went by Colonial for six years, United for ten, International for three.  Ravenswing  17:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.hockeyfights.com/forums/f50/ihl-president-paul-pickard-not-renewing-contract-121723/

  Triggered by \bhockeyfights\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake.

DJSasso is entirely right, Oknazevad: you do not get to claim that your personal opinion overrides seven different reliable sources. Teams shift leagues all the time: no one claims that the ECHL is equal in talent level to the AHL just because, in recent years, a number of franchises have moved from one league to the other (and in some cases, back again). Players got called up from the UHL to the ECHL, not the other way around.

For another, CITEOVERKILL is an essay, and a snarky "Someone needs to read it" edit summary is uncivil -- we don't need pissing matches over how many of the several hundred unofficial essays people have spent their time perusing. As it happens, I broadly agree with the essay, and I think the mania for inline citations has gone well overboard. Obviously, though, some demand that level of citation. This article happened to be one of those cases, and the very next time someone tries to strike that statement because the assertion rubs their amour propre the wrong way, they're all going back in there. Ravenswing 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, DJ is right. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)