User talk:Deadman137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: Cond 7th round pick[edit]


a short digging revealed nothing for the Jaffray-McMillan trade. It would probably be the best to just put the trade into the table twice (once for each team) and hope that others add in any conditions.

Speaking of conditions, the condition from the Christensen trade should be ressolved as the player has signed with KHL club Lev Praha. The pick should therefore now belong to the Rangers. If you add in the two rows for Anaheim and Calgary, could you transfer this pick to "mainspace" as well? Thanks, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird iron man streak rule[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you reverted the ending of the iorn man streak for the NHL player. If you have some information to provide that explains the different definitions (by sport) as to what constitutes an iron man streak, the info could be helpful to people who read the article. It would be great if you could add something to the article to that effect. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 NHL transactions VS 2014 NHL transactions[edit]

I've been holding off to starting the 2013–14 NHL transactions page until the contract turn-over, starting July 5 (effectively July 1). As it stands these pages are fairly arbitrary for when they start, but I was hoping to structure it now and for the future such that they run from July 1 to June 30 of the next year and are book-ended by the turn-over of player contracts. Just bringing it up to you, as I noticed you were the one that moved my New York/Minnesota trade to the new page.

Having the NHL Entry Draft as the turn-over also makes sense, except then there may be multiple "June" sections on each season's thread - like we have this year already.

RE 2013 NHL transactions VS 2014 NHL transactions[edit]

No worries! No real right or wrong way to do this! Uncleben85 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

2014 NHL Entry Draft/Arizona Coyotes[edit]

Sorry Deadman! I hadn't noticed the piece in the Talk page when I edited the Draft page. I'll defer to your judgement on that; I know the name change is the tentative plan, however I'm curious if you've seen anywhere that says the name change is 100% in effect yet? Last I read was back in August, after the sale. At that time Anthony LeBlanc said they would "eventually" become the Arizona Coyotes.

“(The name change) will not happen until, at minimum, the 2014-15 season,”(Team's Name Will Eventually Become 'Arizona Coyotes'

Again, the plan is for 2014-15, but is that something we should leave until finalized?

WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment[edit]

As an active member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, you should be aware that there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment concerning how NHOCKEY will be interpreted. Dolovis (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporal home for traded picks from 2016 and 2017[edit]

As New Jersey just traded a conditional third-round pick in 2017 to Carolina, and this article will not be created before next year's trade deadline at the very least, we could utilize User:Soccer-holic/Draft picks as a temporary home for saving the information (as well as anything for the 2016 Draft) until there is enough information available for creating proper articles, if you like. That userspace page was created a couple of years ago for that exact purpose, so feel free to add. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

NHL Draft Order[edit]

FYI, it looks like the NHL will be using the same draft order as last year, per a press release they just put out here, so I have updated the draft page accordingly. Canuck89 (what's up?) 08:50, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

2014 NHL Draft Edits[edit]

Not a big deal, but I noticed you changed my edits of "the Montreal Canadiens" and "the Edmonton Oilers" to just "Montreal" and "Edmonton", respectively. I'm mostly just curious why you did this. The standard to me seemed like, 'for each trade, link each team involved, the first time their name appears'. Uncleben85 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am little confused, because, yes they were previously traded picks, but even taking into account the previous transaction - let's look at the 7th round Panthers pick for example,
  1. The Florida Panthers’ seventh-round pick was re-acquired as the result of a trade on July 5, 2013 that sent George Parros to Montreal in exchange for Philippe Lefebvre and this pick.
         Montreal previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on June 30, 2013 that sent a seventh-round pick in 2013 to Florida in exchange for this pick.
nowhere there is Montreal linked or referenced by nickname - not in the most recent transaction nor in the previous one. -Uncleben85 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Thanks for clearing that up. -Uncleben85 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm proposing a lot of changes to a fairly conservative hockey community, but I vote we continue to separate each round-table from the the round-notes. It creates a jump link in the contents table, making the page more navigable. Thoughts against it? -Uncleben85 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Future considerations past[edit]

Thank you for keeping the NHL Entry Draft articles, including all trades and conditional trades, in impeccable shape. With appreciation for your expertise in this area, do you have any information on what “future considerations” were involved in the January 21, 2013 trade which saw Jean-Francois Jacques traded from the Florida Panthers to the Tampa Bay Lightning for future considerations? Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

NHL Transactions[edit]

Personally, I would prefer to keep all the transactions on the current page until July 1, but consensus doesn't seem to be there still, hahaha. So for now I'm putting them on the current page until 1) the draft starts or 2) somebody moves them over to the new page, and we go from there, but I'm holding off on initiating it! :P

With that being said, the Coyotes website is using Arizona, but they said the change would be done at the draft (other releases from them do just say "draft day"). Is it worth having "Phoenix Coyotes" and "Arizona Coyotes" on the same page, or should we just wait until the new one opens up? (If we move all of today's transactions over to the new page it would make sense to start it as "Arizona"). -Uncleben85 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Draftees based on league[edit]

I want to propose adding a "draftees based on league" table. I imagine readers would be equally interested in an aggregation of which leagues future NHL players are coming from as much as which countries they are coming from. A table of the top 5 leagues would probably suffice. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb34 (talkcontribs) 17:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

All other NHL draft articles[edit]

All other NHL draft articles that you had no part of format it the way I did. So what are we going to do, change all articles pre 2012 to the formatting you like or just change the last couple of years. I'll leave it to you to see if you want to follow your own advice of following the convention.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me of uncivil behaviour when all I said is you aren't following the advice you are giving is in itself uncivil because it's a false accusation. Not to mention you ignored Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith completely. I will not be going any further about this as my goal isn't to start a fight and just trying to improve Wikipedia. I said pre 2012 that means 2011 and 2010. My question is still why didn't you change it to the way 2010 and 2011 when you were editing the 2012 page? From the advice you gave me you should have. Next yours or my preferences don't matter in this case. The only thing that matters is we follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style that adheres to all wikipedia pages (not just NHL draft pages) where I'm currently asking for on the correct style that should be used in articles. All examples for in the Manual of Style for lists do it the way I do; However, I'm still asking for clarification.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have asked Wikipedia: Manual of Style and all seem to agree that this is the proper way to do it. as it'll count the numbers for you (something mine didn't do) and it's clear. If you don't mind I can handle the formatting change.
  1. The Minnesota Wild's second-round pick will go to the Montreal Canadiens as the result of a trade on July 1, 2014 that sent Josh Gorges to Buffalo in exchange for this pick.
    Buffalo previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on March 5, 2014 that sent Matt Moulson and Cody McCormick to Minnesota in exchange for Torrey Mitchell, Winnipeg's second-round pick in 2014 and this pick.

-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I also realize I was kind of being a smart ass too. So sorry about that.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When should Draft articles be created?[edit]

I know you're the one who usually does a lot of work on these draft pages, so I started a discussion on when the creation of draft articles would be appropriate, so hopefully we won't have to go through another 2016 mess again. The thread is on the hockey talk page. Canuck89 (converse with me) 01:51, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Apologies on the Entry Draft nonsense[edit]

I'd like to apologize for that disturbance on the 2015 draft page. I had read that it was the Blues, and the Sportsnet article was just a misunderstanding on my part. I had forgetting the Islanders became good LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spilia4 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies as well - specifically regarding the conditional picks table. Putting in a new reference link was just oversight on my part, and as for reference formatting, I was using the one from the transactions page; I didn't think it'd be an issue. I would say that the reference should, however, be changed from the TSN article to the official NHL release. TSN is valid, but if we have an official statement why not use it. Also, you also took issue with my sorting, which I don't agree with. It's been done for a while that the picks are (obviously) sorted by draft round and then if there are multiple picks in the same round, they have been sorted by date of original trade. The current two first rounders in the table are done that way, but the 3rd round and 7th round duplicates are not. I will be resorting those to at least keep the table consistent. -Uncleben85 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Re: Apologies on the Entry Draft nonsense[edit]

That is quite fair. I was under the impression they had previously been secondary sorted by date, but your way does make sense with the rest of the article, and changing the whole article is pointless. It works as is. I will do it that way on there from now on. -Uncleben85 (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template 2014 & 2015 NHL playoffs[edit]

I've opened a discussion at WP:HOCKEY. Also, I've reverted my changes, per WP:BRD. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Kessel Trade (2016 picks)[edit]

Hey, I noticed you added that the 2nd round pick in the Kessel trade Toronto gave up was conditional. All the articles I've read state it is not conditional, and is simply a reaquiring. I've added it to the second round already, but if it's wrong please remove. Spilia4 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The league just released the report, all of the picks from Toronto are their own picks. Deadman137 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

NHL Head-to-Head[edit]

When do we start a discussion on NHL all-time head-to-head team matchups from 1917–18 to 2014–15? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to do that any time that you want to. It would probably be best to begin the discussion here. Deadman137 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

NHL Seasons[edit]

Allow me to add the games played section back to the articles. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSportsGuy (talkcontribs) 02:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

NHL Seasons[edit]

I added the league section because it is required by some teams and I aim to standardize the format for the season lists between all NHL teams, rather than make the list one way for one team, and another way for a different team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSportsGuy (talkcontribs) 01:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of primary sources on 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs article[edit]

I'm sorry if what I'm doing goes against the guidelines of whichever Wikiproject oversees the hockey articles, but – and forgive me for templating a regular – Wikipedia clearly states that articles must not rely largely on primary sources. It's fine if you use a few, but 50 percent of the sources must come from outside If you wish to reply to this, I won't be able to reply back until tomorrow morning.--Nascar king 02:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, take your time in responding. There is no hard percentage of where citations need to come from, especially when the league usually provides better quality information than what can normally be found from secondary sources. I agree that more effort should be made to use non-league sources when writing series recaps however we don't need replace all of the citations when the information contained in the citations is verified. Most NHL articles normally rely largely on primary sources (the 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs article has 80% of its citations from the league). There is no set policy from the WikiProject on which is more acceptable to use so it has generally been left up to the discretion of the original editor. Deadman137 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Why undo edit on 2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs?[edit]

I think I understand some of the cases where you undid my edits on different Stanley Cup Playoffs pages. They are not relevant enough to the article. But why isn't the New Jersey Devils missing the Stanley Cup Playoffs after becoming runner-up to the Stanley Cup relevant? 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That one is better suited to a team season article, rather than the main section of the yearly playoff article. The losing Stanley Cup finalists not making the playoffs the following year is a much more common event. Deadman137 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Stanley Cup playoffs: Special distinction, Dallas Stars vs Minnesota North Stars[edit]

Why is there no special distinction? Readers should know that the team from Dallas has/have not faced the Blues thirteen times prior. Conyo14 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

See that's the thing, that section of the article relates to the total franchise history (including any relocations), not the specific municipality's involvement with the franchise, unless they last met when one of the teams was in a different market. As this is not the case in this circumstance we can just focus on the franchise history. Plus mentioning the specific Dallas based history would be inconsistent with the information in the list of NHL playoff series, which is based on the official guide and record book.
We will sometimes make exceptions like we did in the first round with Winnipeg last year and the Stars/Wild series this year, unless it is a first time/rare occurrence we usually ignore it because we shouldn't cover every single thing in great detail. Deadman137 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case then I understand, but then the List of NHL playoff series for the Dallas Stars should also include playoffs series from the Oakland/California Golden Seals as the NHL Official Guide and Record Book says.Conyo14 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw that too, though given how long it has taken just to get the round names correct, I don't know if I want to open that can of worms. Plus they only just added it into this year's edition. Deadman137 (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which, only 10 days left in the RfC. I'm confident that the round names will finally be changed.
Regarding the Stars thing, I'll open a talk section on the page after the playoffs are done.Conyo14 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to get more eyes on the Stars thing bring it up at the WikiProject. I don't know if anything will come from that conversation but it might be worth having. Deadman137 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Right now this links to bandy, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. Hockey on ice is ice hockey, and the redirect should justifiably go to that page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Staff Compensation[edit]

Oh not at all! I appreciate it in fact! Thanks for the help. Cheers! -Uncleben85 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

American English to Canadian English[edit]

Um hey. Why are you changing some of the words (i.e. defenseman to defenceman, center to centre) to Canadian English? I know the Stanley Cup Finals articles are mostly written in Canadian English, but since I am American, I put my edits in... well, American English. I see no reason for you to change it seeing as how NHL articles are and can be written in both Canadian English and American English. Also, 2016 Stanley Cup Finals is not specified if it is written in mostly Canadian English. Note: I am not discouraging you from editing in Canadian English. I have no problem with that, nor will I change your edits back to American English. I just want a reason on why your changing it.Conyo14 (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It was only done for consistency with similar articles. Deadman137 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, thank you for letting me know. Conyo14 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

RE Logan Brown[edit]

Logan Brown is not a Canadian player. He was born in the United States and grew up in the United States. He opted to play for Team USA in international play. Here's a source for that.

The NHL is listing him as an American in their draft tracker.

Please change Logan Brown to a United States player in the 2016 NHL Draft page. No other sources including the NHL are listing him as a Canadian player. He's not a Canadian player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Deadman137 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Draftees Based on Nationality[edit]

Thanks for adding that. I was working on it as you published it. With that said, I've already started the Province/State table as well. If you haven't started it, I don't mind doing it to save you time. If you're on a roll though, go ahead! Uncleben85 (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Re: Draftees Based on Nationality[edit]

I had the patience for the table, but not the patience to go searching for those links, currently. Hahaha. Most articles I had found were articles on something different, with a small mention of the trade buried down in the article. -Uncleben85 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, what's your source on the Canada VS. USA numbers? Going through each player individually, reading into each of their profiles and biographies (not just place of birth, else Sean Day for example would be Belgian not Canadian), I counted 86 and 55, yet you reverted it back to 90 and 51... As it stands the two tables contradict each other, and I have no way of knowing which 4 players you are counting differently... -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Deadman! I put the player's names hidden with each state/province in case of something like this. I think it's also a matter of if we want to count where they were drafted from vs where they grew up/developed. Chychrun is one we counted differently, for example, as he trained as an American, but plays internationally as a Canadian ( had him drafted as an American though). I'll defer to your judgement though. -Uncleben85 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! -Uncleben85 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

1991 Stanley Cup playoffs[edit]

Hi Deadman137 - here's why I made those changes.

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

  1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:
  • It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
  • Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
  • Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
  1. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:
  • There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Deadman137 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"Unresolved conditional draft picks" Sorting[edit]

Hey Dead, just to make it simpler for you when I edit the draft pages in the future, when there are multiple picks from the same round pending, how do you sort them? I thought it was by date, oldest at top and more recent as you go down, but I notice you rearranged the 2017 and 2018 pages otherwise. Just curious what your process is! -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Re: "Unresolved conditional draft picks" Sorting Oh jeez! Thanks. It was right there under my nose the whole time, hahaha! Can't believe I never noticed that. thanks, Dead -Uncleben85 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: David Moss[edit]

I have not included him, as he was not an NHL player in 2015-16 and the page tracks contract changes from 2015-16 to 2016-17 or internally within 2016-17. I totally get including retirements of players of old, but sometimes they never make a formal announcement, or it comes years down the road, and trying to keep track of it all would be too tough. Might be worth having a conversation about, but I figure I'll keep the system consistent for now. -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Deadman137. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)