Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalry

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Long Island

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Article is very Rangerscentric. It should be collaborated on by both fan bases. Several extremely biased passages have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.172.69 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article name change

Why was this article's name changed with no prior discussion? I feel it should be changed back to Battle of New York (ice hockey), or at least discussed first. ChakaKong^talk 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head-to-Head Record is inaccurate. It is being kept inaccurate on purpose.

The following is a 20 minute read. Skip to below the second set of dashes, a few paragraphs down, to at least shave off about 3 minutes.

When looking at the head-to-head record for the Islanders-Rangers rivalry page, there are two problems.

The first comes from the NHL itself.

For decades, like domestic league soccer, contests were concluded within regulation time. Whether a game ended with a win for one team, a loss for the other, or a tie for both, all regular season contests were decided in regulation. And, just like domestic league soccer (at the time at least), two points were at stake for each and every regular season showdown. These points were distributed in a way that gave both to the winner and none to the loser. The points were split in ties. Not that many North American sport fans, especially w/baseball and hoops as a comparison, seemed to embrace ties.

Beginning with the 1983-84 season, and to lessen the amount of ties, the NHL added a five minute (sudden death) overtime period. This gave each team up to five extra minutes to score a goal, and thus a victory. But aside from the extra allotted time for sudden death overtime, not much else had changed in terms of NHL outcomes. Wins were still worth two points, losses were still worth zero points, while a single point could still be gained from a tie. Over a decade later, and again to lessen the amount of ties, the NHL made another change. This one, however, forever complicated record keeping going forward.

Beginning with the 1999-00 season, the NHL changed the overtime period. To open up the ice and keep overtimes from being overly defensive, each team was limited to four skaters (not counting any penalized player) and a goalie for that final five minute period. So far so good, right? But then came a drastic change. To further keep overtimes from being overly defensive, each team was rewarded a point simply for getting there. Meaning both teams started the OT w/a point already in hand. Even overtime losers would get to keep that point. To document those special type of OT losses, a fourth column was added to the standings. After nearly a century of standings headed by "W-L-T," things were suddenly changed to "W-L-T-OTL."

League standings from this season forward thus featured more points as each and every team could secure a point even while losing. This made head-to-head records particularly more complicated. Even games that didn’t end in ties, even ones with a clear winner and loser, could still reward both teams with at least one point as long as those games were decided in overtime. ——— ——— Beginning with the 2005-06 season this became a more common occurrence as ties were done away with entirely. Instead, contests tied after overtime would go directly to a game-deciding shootout. Meaning every game ended with a winner. Some losers however still weren’t completely penalized since shootout losers, just like overtime ones, were awarded a point simply for getting out of regulation tied. In the process, head-to-head records became even more muddled. No longer was there a single head-to-head record that matched up in a way that both teams could point to.

For instance, in the past if Team A had beaten Team B three out of four times and Team B had beaten Team A only once, their respective records would be easy enough to follow. Team A would have a 3-1-0 record (two games over .500) while Team B would have a 1-3-0 (two games under .500). Today however if Team A gets those three wins in overtime, or via a shootout, and Team B gets its one win in regulation, then Team A’s record would be 3-1-0 (two games over .500) while team B’s record would be 1-0-3 (one game over .500), despite losing three out of four. More to the point, just because Team A’s record is 3-1-0 does not necessarily mean that Team B’s is automatically reversed to 1-3-0. In this respect, the inability to reverse a head-to-head record, makes the NHL unique amongst North America’s “Big Four" team sports.

So, while using the example above, it would be inaccurate to simply list the "Team A/Team B" head-to-head record as "3-1-0 (in Team A’s favor)" because that implies that Team B’s record is 1-3-0, which is not the case in this example. Historically speaking, records become even more complicated as they include ties for teams that were in the league prior to 2005-06 rules. For instance, adding four ties to the series brings an extra column back to the mix as Team A’s record would then be 3-1-4-0 while Team B’s record would then be 1-0-4-3. Of course, that’s just an aside as the ties column has nothing to do with reversible head-to-head records. Reversibility was lost once points were rewarded for OTL’s.

And that’s the first problem with this page. Only one record is listed. Only one team gets to have their overtime and shootout losses separated from the loss column, but not the other. Not representing the full record for both teams is extremely inaccurate. In fact, the only way to have just one singular record out there is by counting all losses as losses. By getting rid of the fourth column that includes overtime and shootout losses and labeling them simply as losses. The same way all wins are labeled as wins. This is how most NHL head-to-head records are tabulated on most other Wikipedia pages.

That would bring accuracy to the inaccurate info box on this page. Unfortunately, the second problem with the head-to-head record on this particular page has to do with two editors.

This can be seen in the Revision History page and, albeit accidentally, is better documented on my personal talk page. Documented there because until just now, I never even realized that Wikipedia articles came with their own talk pages. Never realized it because I never had a reason to know about them. Certainly not to “talk" in them. Until now, never had to deal with two abusive editors, both supporters of biased inaccuracies, either. So that is why I earlier described my problem with these two defenders of misrepresentation on my talk page and not here. But now that I am here… Welp, okay, let’s start with the first upholder of misrepresentations, Sabbatino.

Originally, while using Wikipedia to look up the Islanders-Rangers rivalry, it seemed to me that the head-to-head record was off. I also noticed that record came without any links. As if anyone could have typed out those numbers. So, I double checked with "hockey reference" https://www.hockey-reference.com (a very well known/respected sports website and one that Sabbatino would later call “crap”) and found that the listed record was wrong. Or so I thought… Naturally, I changed it and added the hockey reference link to back up my numbers.

Sabbatino then deleted that record. That’s when I realized I had posted the Islanders version of the head-to-head record and the one I had deleted was a Rangers version of that same all-time series. The numbers were different but in fact, work together to show the entire record. Again, head-to-head records are no longer reversible, so they’re now two sets of head-to-head records for each rivalry. At this point I wasn’t sure if I should have reposted the Islanders record, but next to the Rangers one and with an explanation of the two separate records.

That’s when I did some homework. I checked Wikipedia for the head-to-head records of other NHL rivals. In each case I found these records featured three columns instead of four. In each case the "OTL” column was gone. I also found that in each case these records were reversible. In fact, by simply adding each team’s "OT/SO-L’s" to their own “L" column one singular record could be reached for each and every rivalry. Just as singular as the head-to-head records in every other major North American team sports. So I posted that one singular record to the Islanders-Rangers rivalry page. I also added a link to “mcubed," http://mcubed.net (another respected sports website that deals primarily with stats) to show that I hadn't arbitrarily made up the records myself. I also posted an explanation as to why I was again deleting the Rangers record, but this time doing so in favor of a singular record.

Apologies in advance for the wordiness but this should all understandable, no?

Well, once again Sabbatino deleted that record and once again replaced it with the Rangers record. Not with separate Ranger and Islander records, just the Rangers one. Despite my links Sabbatino then, in an aggressive tone, accused me of "making up numbers” on my talk page. This was despite my explanation too. Sabbatino also flat out lied about my sources being inaccurate. This before making an accusation that I am unfamiliar with the sport and subject (hope all of the above disproves that nonsense). Being that cyber-bullies like Sabbatino make me laugh, I responded with my own harsh words and again deleted the Rangers record in favor of the one singular record.

At this point GoodDay came along to delete the singular record (again, one that came with an explanation from me as well as the link) before also replacing it with the Rangers record. Again, not the Ranger and Islander separate records. Just the Rangers one. Even though I had previously posted the Islanders record, and provided a link for that one as well, GoodDay still chose to only post the Ranger record. After misrepresenting facts, GoodDay then threatened to block me. This despite Sabbatino’s attacks on my talk page and the fact that I had never said boo on Sabbatino’s talk page. Most importantly though, despite the fact that I was painting a complete head-to-head picture while Sabbatino was going out of his way to delete anything that wasn’t the Rangers record and only the Rangers record.

GoodDay might be good for a chuckle but I can’t laugh off GoodDay’s choice to join Sabbatino in publishing an inaccurate look at the Islander-Rangers head-to-head record. Like Sabbatino, GoodDay decided to show only part of that story. In the process GoodDay deleted the singular record, the same format used in a long list of other head-to-head NHL rivalry records on different Wikipedia pages. Here's a random list that I had earlier posted on my talk page before realizing this type of article talk page existed:

Looks like a whole lotta other Wikipedia pages have chosen to go with the singular and reversible "W-L-T" format. Still, both GoodDay and Sabbatino chose to use a misrepresentation of the head-to-head Islanders-Rangers record rather than the actual one/s. In fact, while attacking me on my talk page Sabbatino also posted NHL links to both the Islanders record and Rangers one. Between the further accusations and lies that is. There was also some sort of fragment/incomplete sentence that I had to piece together but despite all that, I found it funny that the Islanders record he posted on my talk page was exactly the same as the record I had earlier posted on this article's info box. Not quite as funny was the fact that despite seeing my hockey-reference link, despite Sabbatino’s own NHL link, Sabbatino still chose to only post the Rangers record on the info box.

And after all that, came further comments. One claiming my links were crap. Another claiming no pro-Rangers bias. Unfortunately for Sabbatino, a slew of Ranger-related edits (but not Islander ones) leaves doubt. As does Sabbatino's talk page showing a history of not playing well with others. Especially when compared to my clean page and the fact that the only NHL-related edits I've ever previously made involved the seating capacity at what will soon be the Islander's former home arena.

So there are two problems with regard to the head-to-head rivalry record on this page.

1) The (starting with the 1999-2000) tangled nature of NHL head-to-head records that don’t match up to begin with.

2) The fact that two separate editors have both purposely chosen to misrepresent facts by only posting the Rangers record. Both decided to delete the "W-L-T” record and the link that came with it. Both decided to replace that record with a "W-L-T-OT/SO-L but only for the Rangers and not for the Islanders” record that originally came with no link.

I would like to think that that decision by both editors would be seriously frowned upon by this community. Either way, many thanks ahead of time to any other editor who has made it this far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrideMatters (talk • contribs) 04:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of being a WP:CYBER and "making an attack on your talk page", which I did not, just shows that you do not know what certain terms mean and how Wikipedia works in general. The WP:TPYES section 2 clearly says "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." And no, I am not a pro-Rangers editor. I show what is supposed to be shown in the infobox – the leading record. In addition, I already asked about it at WT:NHL#Islanders–Rangers rivalry, but you did not show any interest to reply there. Other editor in that discussion agreed that the infobox is supposed to show the leading team in the rivalry. I will also add that you have no business deciding what kind of editor I am based on my talk page, because you do not know why the messages are posted there and if the issues were resolved between me and other editors. Moreover, I have made almost 68 thousand edits, while you have not even reached 600 edits so you should just keep it quiet as I have been here for far more longer and have more experience. Consider getting familiar with Wikipedia's policies/guidelines before making any accusations, reports, edits, etc. This whole report is stale, because you are making accusations at me and GoodDay instead of focusing on the content. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, my questions:

Yes, as detailed above, head-to-head records are tricky when it comes to the NHL. Yes, as detailed above, they’re made harder by editors purposely pushing a misrepresentation of facts. Again, purposely. That said, should the Islanders-Rangers rivalry record be a singular "W-L-T" format as seen in most other Wikipedia head-to-head rivalry records? Should two separate “W-L-T-OTL” records (one for the Rangers and one for the Islanders) be listed instead? Or should we just stick with the "W-L-T-OT/SO-L but only for the Rangers and not for the Islanders” disingenuous format being advanced by both Sabbatino and GoodDay? PrideMatters (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the purpose of the value in the infobox is supposed to be the record of the leading team. I think It should be W-L-T-OTL and the pages not using it that way which they should be, should be fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay did not threaten to block you, as he's not an administrator. He merely pointed out that you'd likely end up blocked (by an administrator) if you continued to edit war over the topic. PS - (somewhat off topic), but I wish the NHL had never brought in OTL & Shootouts :( GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation

As for the content dispute here? I recommend that such articles as Islanders-Rangers rivalry have 3 separate listings in the infobox. These separate listings would deal with the pre-1999 (W-L-T), 1999 to 2005 (W-L-T-OTL) & post-2005 (W-L-OT/SOL) stats. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about the "LaFontaine Trophy" section

The section discusses three things--(1) Greg Gilbert's winning a Cup with both teams, (2) Tortorella and Gordon both serving as USA olympic coaches and winning a medal, and (3) a "trophy" that is no longer acknowledged and seems to have only existed for 3-4 years. For some reason, the whole section is named after the trophy. I made a change to the name of the section for obvious reasons. It was reverted with the only explanation being "[i]t was better before," but it really wasn't. If there's a better way to describe this section, or a different edit, great. As it is, this is kind of a catch-all/trivia section and it might merit removal altogether. I'm reverting back to my name for the section. Croctotheface (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two sentences should probably be moved into a new section. I am curious who was so smart to add that to the section about the trophy. – Sabbatino 10:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on whether a trophy that existed for, at most, a few years needs its own section with a few sentences of content? Are you working on reconfiguring the article along the lines you have discussed here, or are you just reverting my change? I will leave your version for now, but I'm confused about why you linked WP:BRD in your comment note. Do you really consider changing a section title from one that doesn't fit the contents of the section to one that does a "bold" change? I think it's a pretty minor and uncontroversial change, and I'm confused about why you felt compelled to revert it twice. Croctotheface (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the same information about the trophy is available at Islanders–Rangers rivalry#Meetings and Islanders–Rangers rivalry#The Pat LaFontaine Trophy. Therefore, the "The Pat LaFontaine Trophy" section should be renamed and the mentioned of the trophy from there should be removed. I thought a quick search on Google would help me in determining when the trophy was last awarded but nothing came up (probably Google filters what search results to show in Europe). I would not be opposed to the renaming if we were to remove the mention of the trophy from this section but I do not think that "Crossover between teams" is the best name for that section. – Sabbatino 17:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally open to basically any other name for that section, as I said already. But naming a section after the trophy that is mostly not about the trophy by word count is silly. I'll hold off on changing to my "Crossover" name for now just out of politeness to avoid a silly revert war, but if the article is the way it is now in a couple of days, I'm going to put my name back because it's fundamentally silly to have a name that doesn't fit the content of the section. Croctotheface (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already indicated in my last reply that section's name should be changed. However, your proposed name is certainly not suitable. The section cannot be named "Common players" either, because we then would have to include every player that played for both teams. – Sabbatino 23:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why you think you get to decide what is "suitable." I'm doubly confused about why you think it's less suitable than a title that is clearly misleading and you agree should be changed. For now, I'll just reiterate that if you have a section title that you like better, change it! If you want to rewrite the article to incorporate the information in a different way, do it! If you think that it's a trivia section (it probably is, honestly) and should be removed entirely, remove it! Any of those are fine with me. You seem to feel a degree of connection with this article, so, as I said, I'll wait a bit of time to see if you want to do any of that. But if you don't, I'm going to make the change. I'm going to trust that you're not going to be so silly as to decline to fix something you acknowledge is a problem and try to deny someone else's attempts to fix that problem through a revert war. Croctotheface (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the section entirely. And for You seem to feel a degree of connection with this article... – all pages on my "Watchlist" are treated equally. – Sabbatino 06:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put a finer point on it, I was alluding to your displaying an inappropriate sense of ownership over the article. I figured you might pick up what I was putting down, but since you want to address the topic, there you go. It's odd for you to revert changes, twice, even when you agree with the basis for the change. It's bizarre that you pretended that an anodyne change to the name of an article section was an exercise in WP:BRD. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You don't have veto power over this article or anything else on your "watchlist." It should not be necessary for me to go through multiple rounds of talk page argument and then to basically defer the change to you, or else you'll simply revert the changes. If this is the way you behave across the project, please reconsider. Croctotheface (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to read WP:TALK, which quite clearly says Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating. In addition, accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP and making other allegations about me is a WP:PERSONALATTACK (also WP:TPNO and WP:RUDE). There is nothing more to discuss on this matter when someone comes and tries to put words in my mouth. – Sabbatino 17:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]