Talk:National Hockey League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article National Hockey League was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Canada / Sport (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sports (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

French Translations[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I feel that having french translations on page for the National Hockey League and the Stanley Cup might be a little excessive. As of the time I am writing this (06/16/12) we have 30 NHL teams in this past season, only one of which are from a French speaking locale (Montreal Canadians from Quebec). The 2011 population of Quebec represents 2.276% of the combined population of the United States and Canada. Additionally French and English are both official languages of Quebec. My final point, if I want to know about the National Hockey League or the Stanley Cup in French then I would be using the the French Wikipedia Site to look at the French Wikipedia pages for the NHL and the French French Wikipedia pages for the Stanley Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The NHL, like Canada, is officially bilingual. The NHL is an organization that is officially known by two names, the NHL, and the LNH. They are both official designations. The NHL had its historical roots in Quebec, as the league was founded in Montreal. In addition to the Canadiens, the Ottawa Senators also use both languages (if you watched the Rangers-Senators playoff series this season, one side of the rink at Scotiabank Place had the French version of the Stanley Cup playoffs logo while the other side had the English version). After all, the Ottawa area is located along the Quebec-Ontario border. The NHL has also had other teams such as the Quebec Nordiques, the Montreal Wanderers, and a few others. Just because a majority of NHL teams are now in English-speaking areas, or in areas that have higher populations, or in the US instead of Canada, should not make the official French names "less important" from a historical point of view. Furthermore, just because there are articles about the same subject in the other language editions of Wikipedia is not an excuse to remove the foreign names in the first sentence here on the English Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Though of the course the Wanderers and the Maroons were both meant to appeal to the English speaking audience as opposed to the French. Jntg4Games (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

New playoff bracket for next year's realignment[edit]

I've been experimenting with playoff bracket designs for next year's playoffs, since the NHL is switching to a hybrid division-wild card playoff format. My new bracket is currently at User:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket, with an example at User:Canuckian89/Sandbox. If anyone is interested in commenting, please feel free to do so at User talk:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket. Canuck89 (chat with me) 01:55, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Believe the first and second rounds are called the Division Semifinals and the Division Finals. Jntg4Games (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Flags in infobox[edit]

To echo what I said in a previous thread (though, at that time, for different flags), since the country names do not indicate representatives of the country, or persons/teams competing on behalf of a country, I don't believe the flags in the infobox fall under any of the appropriate uses for flags under Wikipedia guidelines. Accordingly, I believe the flag icons can be dispensed with. I haven't found any related discussion threads in the archives for this talk page, other than the discussion related to the TV broadcasters; I don't know if there were any discussions on other talk pages. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
AgreeJOJ Hutton 18:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The same thing appears to be going on at the NBA article. I'm not watching that article, so I won't revert there to avoid the appearence of stalking. I have been watchlisting the MLB article for some time, so I'll remove the flags there if they are added. Perhaps this needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons for clarification. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This came about because "I" am the one who edited the article yesterday and removed the flags inserted just a few days prior. My name showing up in the edit summery of the article is an apparent red flag (no pun intended), for Djsasso. He seems to always be checking up on my edits from time to time on this article. Notice he reverted my removal of the flags at NBA as well. He didn't just simply remove them, he literally went back in the edit history and "undid" my edit, as if to make a specific point I feel. JOJ Hutton 18:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted here because I mainly edit ice hockey articles and its one of my most highly watched pages so when I saw them removed I reverted regardless of who did it. Not because it had anything to do with you personally. You just happen to be a person who has removed them on this page a few times. As for the NBA no I didn't do them to make a specific point, I just know then when someone removes them from this page they tend to go and remove them from the other pages as well (and the undo was only because its quicker to hit undo then to parse the page looking for the specific text to remove). -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would have removed them here had I noticed their recent addition, but I missed it. As to his undoing the revert, it might well have been easier for him to just undo the edit, to assume good faith. He has regularly edited both articles for many years, to my knowledge. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Always willing to assume good faith, as long as a pattern of stalking doesn't arise. JOJ Hutton 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't believe using the "undo" function signifies anything special—not only is it more convenient, it leaves an entry in the history log specifying exactly what edits were reverted, which is handy for those perusing the log and trying to figure out what was changed. I always use the "undo" function where possible, for these reasons. isaacl (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags_in_sports_league.27s_infobox that you are invited to.—Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


Noticed there's a whole paragraph specifically dicussing Wayne Gretzky in the expansion section... while it's definitely important, there's no introduction to it and no other comparable discussion of a single player. Could maybe use some editing Importemps (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to National Ice Hockey league[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. No way this proposal is ever carried out. It's prima facia ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

This is to not confuse with field hockey.

Funny joke. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Just in case this is serious, no. Title does not require disambiguation because despite there being field hockey leagues with National Hockey League in the title, the North American ice hockey competition is the primary topic. Hack (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


1185 Avenue of the Americas in Midtown Manhattan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Looking at the articles for the Atlantic Division and the Metropolitan Divisions, I think it's necessary that we change these to make them more accurate. The Atlantic Division after realignment has none of the same teams as the Atlantic pre-realignment, and imo that makes the history sections of the Atlantic Division article very misleading. I propose doing one of two things: 1. create a new Atlantic Division (1993-2013) article or 2. move the pre-2013 parts of the Atlantic Division article to the Metropolitan Division one. What do everyone else think? Insert90 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in Infobox[edit]

The Montreal Candaiens have won 24 Cups, not 25 as the infobox claims. The 1919 Cup Finals were cancelled with no winner due to the 1918 flu pandemic.Canswiss (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Canswiss

The infobox is referring to National Hockey League championships, not Stanley Cup victories. See the footnote and the articles it links to for more details. isaacl (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
On the Canadiens Stanley Cup wins, there's a bit in the brackets at the end of the ref that has me confused. The ref talks about their 25 wins (22 as NHL, 3 pre) but the bracket states: "(The Canadiens have also won a 24th Stanley Cup as a member of the NHA.)". Not entirely sure what that means? (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The Canadiens existed prior to the formation of the NHL. They previous belonged to the National Hockey Association (NHA) from 1909-1917. The NHA was one of the leagues that competed for the Stanley Cup, which was an interleague competition back then. This extra Stanley Cup championship refers to when the NHA champion Canadiens defeated the Pacific Coast Hockey Association champion Portland Rosebuds in 1916. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to reword it a little to improve clarity. Thoughts? Resolute 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, much clearer now, cheers. As someone (relatively) new to Ice Hockey and the NHL, and as a UK-based fan where most of our sports have traditionally only had one "winner" since they started, the early history of the NHL (and many US sports if I'm honest) can be confusing. The rewording clears it up. (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Glad it helped! Resolute 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons in the list of teams tables[edit]

User:KHLrookie restored the flag icons to the list of teams table, which was previously removed a few years ago. As it was then, and it is now, per MOS:ICON, I find it visually distracting since it is dominated by one country. What do other people think? I'm soliciting other opinions here per WP:BRD. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally can't stand them..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on the use of icons, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride, and undue weight is placed on the team's country through the use of a flag icon. Although Canadian fans often show a greater interest in Canadian teams, the NHL is not generally viewed as a competitive league between teams representing nations. Thus I agree with not including the flag icons. Additionally, in its current form, Wikipedia's guidelines on accessibility aren't being met, since the information is only being presented visually. isaacl (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, US based teams dominate. That's why i put up the flags. To make it easier to navigate which are the non US based teams. KHLrookie (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think they are fine. MOSICON allows them because they are being used in a sporting sense to determine where teams are located. And accessability is met by the presence of ALT text on the image which screen readers do read. It is a great misunderstanding that the text has to be literal text, people always seem to forget that alt text meets the criteria for not just being visible. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

For information considered essential and not just decorative, alt text is insufficient, as it is problematic for those who have difficulty with fine motor control or otherwise hovering over an item on the web page. isaacl (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have been in discussions on the topic where it was deemed by consensus to be sufficient. It doesn't take any more motor control to get the alt text than to click a link. wp:Accessability even recommends that method of making an image accessible. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The key is how important is the information and how discoverable it is. Imagine if everyone had to hover over the city link in order to see the flag icon: this would not be readily apparent, and kind of defeats the purpose of having a quick way to see the country associated with a team. For essential information, having a text presentation is preferable for these reasons. isaacl (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really, most people won't need to hover, those who do can, thus accessibility is met as is brevity. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We should avoid flagicons here, as there's only two countries involved. Flagicons are much better suited for IIHF related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I support their use in player list articles because the flag or flag/country combo presents useful information that is often discussed about said players. On this article, the flags are superfluous and unnecessary. They should be left off. Resolute 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeated changes[edit]

The hidden note in the article gets changed so much, as here, that I have trouble remembering what it's supposed to actually say, and it's annoying to have everyone and his brother keep changing it so much. I believe there is a way to add a template that will produce a hidden note. Is there a way we can do that, and perhaps full-protect the resulting template so that the note can't be changed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the text of a template can be substituted into the edit box so it will be visible to editors during editing. When creating a new page or new section, you can specify that Wikipedia prepopulate the edit box with the contents of a preload file, but this doesn't work with existing text (otherwise it would overwrite it). isaacl (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to a notice that is place "above" the edit screen, as I "believe" I've seen on other pages, but I can't remember where. This way it wouldn't be editable beyond removing the template file itself from the page. That at least can be easily reverted by those of us who are "memory challenged". - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The article currently has an edit notice that mentions the Canadiens. Edit notices for non-user pages can only be edited by admins (and I think those with the template editor right; I can't recall at the moment). isaacl (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Doh! Facepalm3.svg Facepalm I forget about that one. We just need to add the details about the numbers to that notice, and remove the hidden-text notice then. That should solve the problem. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
As I recall, the hidden text was added as another attempt to avoid changes to the championship number in the infobox; the edit notice pre-dates it. While personally I don't see a big harm in keeping the hidden text, it may not be terribly effective, either (I confess to being too lazy to go back and count the frequency of changes before and after the text was put in place). isaacl (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
My problem is that the numbers keeps changing, so I can't remember what the correct figures are for the number of championships vs. Stanley Cups. Having the numbers in a box, which only admins can edit, would be helpful. We could just keep a shorter notice in the text, but one without numbers. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Just go back to the version that was previously restored by you, Resolute, Djsasso, Alaney2k, etc... ;-) I think it's fine to put the numbers into the edit notice, but I also think the hidden text needs to have the numbers in order to have any chance of deterring one of these eager-to-make-a-correction editors. isaacl (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
How's this edit? As mentioned, the edit notice was created first, then the hidden text was inserted, but that still does not really deter many people who still think Stanley Cup championships = NHL league titles prior to 1927. Any other suggestions welcome. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
There are always going to be people who don't notice, don't read, or don't care when it comes to this. This is one of those situations where you pretty much just have to revert when you see it. Some things you can't prevent you can only fix. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Couple of proposed trimmings[edit]

Nothing major, but I wonder now that it's been a couple of years, if the realignment section need to be so large. Or even here at all. It's notike we now have two league alignment charts any longer that need to be explained. It would probably be better placed in the background of the 2013–14 season article (which already contains much of the same info). And isn't there an article about changes in NHL structure? Either way, it seems pretty WP:UNDUE for the main article.

Secondly is the chart of number of foreign born players. It is just getting wider, and creates issues for those on lower resolution screens (including especially mobile devices). I think we should limit it to just the past five years. would still provide a broad enough time period to show trends without being too big.

Any thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I would move it to the season article when it happened. As for the numbers of foreign born players I am not even sure we need a chart. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The foreign players chart is kind of interesting, but does need to be thinned. However, since the value is in historic trends, I would keep the data from every three or four years rather than just the last five. Resolute 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Or move to a chart format that focuses on major countries/regions. Resolute 19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the table breakdown for a given season is better placed in the season article, and then perhaps a line graph can show the historical trend in this article, if deemed sufficiently notable for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And a thank you to Resolute, who took care of the Realignment section. Just one of those things where I wasn't sure if I should be bold and do it, considering the small number of respondents here, but it looks better now that it's done.oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How to list GM's/Head Coach's previous experience?[edit]

I did not know where to put this question. Anyway, it seems to me that in coverage of other leagues (e.g NFL) the Head coach's and GM's get their previous jobs listed in their infobox. I feel that this should be done for NHL personnel as well. Yes/NO? If not, what are the reasons that this is not done for the NHL? Mhoppmann (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Just another way to clutter up and bloat infoboxes beyond all recognition. The best way to list the previous experience of ANY biographical subject -- certainly not limited to hockey management -- is to do so in the text of the article. If a majority of the voting editors in the football WikiProject feel otherwise, that's their bailiwick, but I've long been a staunch opponent of All Sports Have To Follow Rigid Conformity. One-size-fits-all suits everyone rather poorly, and if everything were to be ordered in the way a single sport does it, it'd be logical for that sport to be European soccer. Ravenswing 18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • And yet players' careers are summarized in the infobox with the list of teams and dates where they've played. This strikes me as the same thing. It certainly fulfill the infoboxes purpose of summarizing the main article text. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)