Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hockey and the Canadian military

Hey folks... it's been kinda dead in here for a couple weeks. I hope everyone is doing well. I found a good article to read about the history of hockey and the Canadian military.

Anyone want to help incorporate this into an article? Flibirigit (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Championship navboxes

Each of the other Big Four leagues has navboxes made for championship teams. Why not make some for the NHL? DaveTheBrave (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@DaveTheBrave: This project takes minimal approach towards navboxes and we do not make them. Please do not make any more navboxes as you did with this Template:2017 Stanley Cup Finals. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Sorry about that. I'll refrain from making these templates in the future. DaveTheBrave (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Adding twenty-four navboxes to the Habs' article ... brrrr. Ravenswing 16:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Someone added twenty-four navboxes to the Montreal Canadiens article? 216.7.252.223 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I think he meant if we did have championship roster navboxes, there would be 24 more navboxes on the Canadiens' article, thus creating footer clutter. Yosemiter (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Though, they wouldn't necessarily have to be on the main Habs article. They'd only be put in the articles in which the team won a Stanley Cup. DaveTheBrave (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@DaveTheBrave: Per WP:NAVBOX, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, and WP:LINKBACK; if such a template were to exist, then it likely could or should be on the main Habs page. But also per NAVBOX, Wikiprojects pick and choose if they are necessary. I believe the footer clutter found at such examples as Derek Jeter#External links and New York Yankees#External links to show how messy it can get for multiple awarded narrow subject navboxes. (If you open show them all, Jeter has 27 and the Yankees have 38 footer navboxes.) Yosemiter (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We already have season articles with all the rosters. We don't need more duplication. I recommend spending more time on prose, and less on decoration. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd even get rid of the Stanley Cup Champions navboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@DaveTheBrave: No need to apologise. As the one who mentioned it to you, I only wanted to show that we've gone through this before, but it's not like everyone knows this. It's just like I mentioned, Henri Richard would have 11 of these, which would take up a lot of space; even Crosby and Malkin now would have three, which is adding a lot that doesn't really contribute to their articles. But don't take it as a reason to not contribute, more work on hockey articles is always welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kaiser matias: Thanks. I'll try and contribute whenever I can. DaveTheBrave (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Good to hear. Collectively the project definitely has its differences (and can be quite vocal about them at times), but overall I'd say we are a pretty good group, and are always willing to help out each other. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a reason we often like to point to as an example of why they are bad. This was Derek Jeter's page at one point. It might be worse now.
As you can see it can get quite crazy. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was thinking of, that Jeter image. Wasn't sure if it was still around, but glad to see it here, as it perfectly showcases what can happen. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Canada men's national ice hockey team and List of Canadian national ice hockey team rosters need updating. I don't have the smarts to accomplish this. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed that Category:Canada men's national ice hockey team, Category:Canada men's national ice hockey team players, and similar categories are very underpopulated. Also, there's no coach corresponding coach category. How do you guys feel about helping populate those? Flibirigit (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well the first one is already populated by the most relevant articles I can think of. The second one, if anyone is missing you can certainly add them as you see fit. Don't forget though that a good percentage of them are already in a subcategory of that one so you wouldn't add them again to the parent. Coaches I would just put in the Category:Canada men's national ice hockey team category until you know there are enough to justify a category. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A hockey bibliography now exists

I brought this up a while ago, then promptly forgot about it. But the link there is a partial bibliography of hockey-related books, which I've now brought to the project pages and linked from the main page. Feel free to use it for sources, or add to it. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User box?

Is there a user box for Wikiproject Hockey? Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Ice Hockey Yosemiter (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
For future reference, if anyone forgets where the user box is, you can reach it from the navigation box on the right of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey page, under "Manual of style" → "Templates". isaacl (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Olympics sufficient for NHOCKEY?

Generally speaking, hockey players who have been chosen to represent their home country at the Winter Olympics meet WP:NHOCKEY through other criteria. However, given that NHL players will not be participating in the 2018 Winter Olympics, several players who would not otherwise pass NHOCKEY appear to be playing. For example, we have college players Ryan Donato, Will Borgen, and Troy Terry playing for the U.S. (as well as Jordan Greenway, who played in the 2017 IIHF World Championship). Note that Donato has previously been nominated for deletion and that the result was delete, although the article still exists. Given that Olympics coverage would seem to generate enough source material for WP:GNG (relative to the material extant on other players who meet criterion 6 of NHOCKEY) and that these players may not end up playing for the U.S. in the 2018 IIHF World Championship, should playing in the Winter Olympics be considered a valid criterion for NHOCKEY? Michael.A.R.Lee (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware they do. Recall that prior to 1998 most Olympic players were non-NHL, and amateurs prior to 1988 (though of course that was defined rather loosely). Those players are all considered notable enough, and have articles for themselves. The idea is that participation in the Olympics is notable enough to warrant an article, and I also believe (though am less certain on this front), that it applies to any Olympic athlete. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, true. I guess that WP:NOLYMPICS would apply here. My bad for not knowing the guidelines better. Michael.A.R.Lee (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No worries, the guidlines are such a mess I don't know what's going on half the time. Only knew this as I just started a long-term project to get all-time Olympic rosters per country built and ideally up to FL), and need to create some articles for some players. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOLYMPICS is the precise reason no such criteria was ever part of NHOCKEY; it'd be redundant. Ravenswing 14:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It was in NHOCKEY at one point, we removed it in one of the very recent changes because of the redundancies. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Red Fisher

Hockey journalist Red Fisher (journalist) died today. If you can, please help out with the article. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Gibson Lake Winter Classic

Anonymous users persistently removing COI, PROD and AFD tags at Gibson Lake Winter Classic. Any suggestons? Flibirigit (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You could either attempt to block the various IPs as they come or request temporary page protection. I am not sure if page protection should be used on a nominated article as it prohibits IPs from actually improving it, but as I looked for sources on the event it seems like it would/should be deleted either way as WP:PROMO and under WP:GEOSCOPE. Yosemiter (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for @Djsasso: to comment, he previously prodded the article.Flibirigit (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yosemiter, appreciated the Afd comments. Flibirigit (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just revert the anonymous users who are removing the AFD notice. I will take a look at the history of it happening. If I have to I will protect the page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ice hockey brands and sponsorships

What is the general consensus for articles on manufacturers having a list of all the players sponsored by a certain brand of equipment? 20:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd think that was a bad idea, would greatly increase the size of those articles without adding encyclopedic content of any worth, and really only serve promotional purposes. I expect most manufacturers have such lists on their own websites, for those interested. Ravenswing 21:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what's happening... the whole list is being cut and paste from the manufacturer's web site. Flibirigit (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Unless the brand and sponsorship with the athlete is something significant, such Nike and Air Jordan, it is likely in violation of WP:PROMO. The athlete just simply appearing in ads and wearing gear/clothing is not significant to the brand or the athlete. Yosemiter (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the lists at Bauer Hockey, CCM (ice hockey), Koho (company), Sher-Wood, and Vaughn Hockey. I had a look at Warrior Sports, and thought the sponsorship section was well-written and should be kept as is. The Reebok article on the other hand... oh my goodness.... players galore with national flags too? I'm sure there's gonna be an edit war changing that one! Flibirigit (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ice hockey equipment

I have notice that the majority of articles in Category:Ice hockey equipment, and Category:Ice hockey brands are stubs and/or tagged for maintenance. Is anyone willing to make a task force to help clean these up? I'm willing to help, but I don't want to do it all myself. Flibirigit (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Season articles

I was just looking at a few articles about NHL teams' current seasons and I noticed that every single one of them makes some special mention of the date when each franchise was founded. Can anyone explain the reason for this to me? It seems like a totally irrelevant fact considering the context of those articles. – PeeJay 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's to indicate what season of the franchise the season it is (ie 50th) which is totally relevant to season articles as season articles are about a given season and one of the defining aspects of a season is which one it is. Now if you mean the exact date, then that might not be super important, but some people probably like it to verify the season that it is. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I just went looking through some, and that definitely isn't the norm for the specific date. It looks like someone started adding them to only the last 5 seasons as when i went back we don't typically have them before 2013 on the teams I looked at. Though admittedly I didn't look at more than a couple teams. The Calgary Flames season articles only have the day going back 2 years for example. I am guessing it was just one editors idea. I would be ok with removing them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that noting how many seasons the team has played is relevant, but I certainly don't find the exact date of their founding to be at all germane to an article about a specific season. I don't even find the year particularly relevant, as you can find out what year a team was formed from the generic article about that team. Surely all that needs saying is that this is the Nth season that the team has participated in the league? – PeeJay 18:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
So the dates can be removed, yes? – PeeJay 17:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I've no objection to the founding dates being removed from intro, since they're already in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
There's inconsistencies in this matter, throughout all the NHL team season articles, current & past. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable contribution. – PeeJay 18:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey made the main page of Wikipedia

Hey, we're on the main page today! Flibirigit (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

On 28 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doug McMurdy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Doug McMurdy was the inaugural winner of the Red Tilson Trophy, given to the most outstanding player in the Ontario Hockey League each season? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doug McMurdy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Doug McMurdy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of bold in introduction to season articles

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID to change the use of "bold" lettering in the introduction to season articles. As this affects a protocol that has been in use by the Ice Hockey project and other professional sports projects, please feel free to add your view at the discussion so that a consensus can hopefully be reached one way or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tim Horton

Could one of our admins please look at Tim Horton? It may be time to semi-protect the article for persistent vandalism. Flibirigit (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism is not really at a level where protection would be used. Usually that would be several differents IPs/accounts in a day. When it's spaced over several weeks, the best practice tends to be leave an article open for editing by anyone. Maxim(talk) 16:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Geeze...there is a name I haven't seen in our project in quite awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Who, me? :D Maxim(talk) 00:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Haha yeah. First Flibirigit shows back up again a couple months back and then you comment. Must be reunion time. -DJSasso (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Nice to see some old names show up again. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If you could add to your watchlist, that would help! Flibirigit (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The edits from non-autoconfirmed users has generally been unconstructive for a while, but does not occur regularly. The best of both worlds seems to be pending changes protection, which I have placed for 3 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:PCPP, I have noticed on the Don Cherry article that I can revert unconstructive edits, but cannot approve good edits. Anyone have further details? Flibirigit (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: I've given you WP:RPC rights, which should solve your issue.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Appreciated, thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I see we are being inundated by NHL trophy navboxes now. I know we as a project declined championship team navboxes. How do we feel about about trophies? I think it's a bit much! Flibirigit (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have the Trophies removed from the navboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I just message them and said we've long been against it, and reverted them all. Also mentioned to bring it up here if they feel like it, but considering we just had this discussion a few weeks ago, I doubt anything has changed. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is it that some folks seems to forget about the functions of categories and lists, as opposed to navboxes? Flibirigit (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I redirected the award navboxes to awards' main pages. Did not realize that those templates were created in 2016. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Redirects generally do not go from one namespace to another, like the recent change to redirect Template:Hart Memorial Trophy to the article Hart Memorial Trophy. If templates are not wanted, they should be WP:TFDed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, all navboxes in this project are usually redirected to the subject's main page. There are currently 3 navboxes for Stanley Cup champions (2009, 2016 and 2017) and 4 navboxes for awards (Ted Lindsay Award, James Norris Memorial Trophy, Conn Smythe Trophy and Hart Memorial Trophy). There was also a navboxe for 2009 Stanley Cup champions, but it was deleted long ago. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Template:2009 Stanley Cup Champions Pittsburgh Penguins and Template:2016 Stanley Cup Champions Pittsburgh Penguins both redirect to another template, Template:Pittsburgh Penguins, not another article. Template:2017 Stanley Cup Finals used to briefly redirected to Template:Pittsburgh Penguins but was reverted a few days ago with edit summary of "a redirect does not make sense. Take it to WP:TFD if you think it should be deleted."—Bagumba (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Redirects to appropriate templates are questionable, but usable, in my opinion. I noticed the Template:2017 Stanley Cup Finals redirect was reverted by Tavix and told it should be taken to TfD, which I am also not sure is necessary as there seems to be a fairly consistent consensus in this project against such things. If it were to be deleted via TfD, is there any way to WP:SALT the template, and any others as they arise, from being recreated again? Yosemiter (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I redirected it back, we have been doing it this way for years, ever since the first bunch were deleted by TFD repeatedly. If he complains again I will take it to TFD as it will be deleted just like all the others have and will get it salted as they tend to be recreated repeatedly. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Unlike the Stanley Cup champions rosters which can easily and be redirected to another template since it is not across namespaces. The Trophy ones will need to go to TFD to be deleted. We use succession boxes for trophy winners as is suggested on I think WP:NAVBOX but I might be misremembering which guideline it is that says to use succession boxes over navboxes for positions or awards because the only players that meet the criteria of being applicable on a given players page are the ones who won it before them or after them for context. But someone who won 40 years earlier doesn't meet that standard. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should also get rid of the excessive succession boxes. Flibirigit (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies on the recent edits. Saw that those templates weren't linked to their respective articles and rather jumped the gun. Probably best to put them up for TFD. APM (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Fisher: retired or unretired

I assume most of you saw that Mike Fisher decided to make a comeback. As most times, edit wars cannot be avoided as can be seen here. He specifically said that he hopes to sign a contract before February 26 and as of now he will only practice with the Predators. How this situation should be treated? – Sabbatino (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say wait until he actually un-retires. Until then it is just talk, which can be noted inside the article, but clarify that he plans (or planned, if it doesn't happen) to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts Please discuss the matter here instead of blindly reverting as your edits could be viewed as disruptive. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is to not remove Fisher until he signs a contract, fine. That’s not what my revert was in regards to. I wasn’t aware that they were being discussed here either. I’m just baffled as to how winning a Stanley Cup isn’t in the criteria and would like to know why. It’s not an accomplishment everyone achieves and players on the winning teams are referred to as Stanley cup winners/champions. And it’s also not an everyday instance where one can win a Cup twice or more. Rusted AutoParts 15:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The idea of that section is to get only the very small number of players that were light years ahead of others in importance to the game. I vaguely feel like we were striving for less than 10 people at the most. Whereas about 25 people win the cup every year, meaning we could potentially end up with massive numbers with very minor players that just happened to be on a team one year and did nothing else in the list. These sections were meant for the Wayne Gretzkys, Ray Bourques, Patrick Roys. Those players that had massive impact during their careers. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
What DJ said. Beyond that, especially from the discussion that was over a year ago now, you are quite aware that there is a set of criteria for this section, you are quite aware that consensus is necessary to set that criteria aside or add to them, you were quite aware that you're editing against those criteria, it shouldn't be a surprise to you to see those edits reverted (especially since this isn't the first time this has happened), and edit summaries like "How does winning two Stanley cups not meet criteria?" are disingenuous. Ravenswing 17:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's disingenuous. Having not refrshed myself on the criteria in the year since, I was under the impression Stanley Cups were included, but I was incorrect. Think I'll just cease contributing to the section to avoid any further conflicts. Rusted AutoParts 17:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Sabbatino next time you should let me know it’s being discussed. I was only made aware when you reverted back and you mentioned the discussion. No one asked me to take part but I have a feeling you wouldn’t have wanted me to anyway. Rusted AutoParts 15:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this discussion is related to "First" and "Last" games there is a question regarding the format of those sections. Should tables be converted back to lists? I saw that lists were changed to tables in autumn 2016, but it is still inconsistent as "First games" sections were left as lists, while "Last games" sections" were converted into tables. What do we do with this? – Sabbatino (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I'll reiterate my stance from the discussion over a year ago: if one wants to find out the vita curriculae of a player, he or she can click on the link. Tables are unnecessary, and we should go back to lists. Ravenswing 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes, less is more. For example: some of the 'team captains', 'head coaches', 'general managers' sections on the NHL team articles, have gotten too fancy. The simple listing, sufficed. New Jersey Devils is great, while Edmonton Oilers is too much. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

National team results versus other teams

Currently at Georgia men's national ice hockey team, I've been in conflict about what constitutes an international match. So rather than argue there, I want to bring the discussion here, as I know other team pages have an assortment of matches listed. For simplicity (and to make it easier to update), I feel we should set some parameters, namely that only IIHF-level matches should be included (so Olympics, World Championship, Challenge Cup of Asia, and I guess World Cup). Is there any thoughts towards this? Kaiser matias (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Really as long as two national teams are playing its an international match. Anything else would be POV. -DJSasso (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Aye; much though they yearn to be, the IIHF isn't the arbiter of everything ice hockey. An international friendly is an international match all the same. Ravenswing 02:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments for the most part, however neither address what is happening at the Georgia article in any way. I think "history" sections are appropriate for documenting games against club teams, or provinces, or dependent republics, but it is not appropriate to list these games among "head-to-head" records or in the infobox as "first international" etc.18abruce (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Games between Soviet republics were internal and were not considered international since all of them took place within the Soviet Union. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what I was more looking at. The idea of just limiting it to IIHF games was a means to create some uniform standard, though some good points were made against it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Post 2004-05 lockout team season articles.

Should we add "(?th season of play)" to the intros of all NHL team season articles post 2004-05? This is tricky, as some teams count the lockout as a team season, while others don't. Note, we do have this addition in the intros of the post 2004-05 NHL season articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The good question would be which teams count/do not count the lockout as a team season. I did not manage to find any sources about some teams omitting the 2004–05 from their history. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I feel like we decided on this the last time you brought it up... -DJSasso (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't remember. Anyways, if it were up to me, I'd just remove the "..xth season of play" from the post 2004-05 NHL season articles. Bring'em in line with the team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Fronticla

Has anyone else noticed a large swath of edits by User:Fronticla? The user is editing many introductions to remove what he/she feels is POV, but it well sourced in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • He does have a habit, I think, of defining "NPOV" as "phrasing I don't like," but not many of his edits are out of line, and he's correcting a lot of euphemisms/slang in leads. Ravenswing 00:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A quick look at a few of his edits shows nothing terribly out of line, just more formal wording and the like. I'm also of the opinion of a very concise lead, as I feel that is more in line with what WP:LEAD is about. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with most of his edits, however he does not engage in conversation on talk pages where there is a difference of opinion. That behaviour is not becoming of Wikipedia, and makes it difficult to work together.Flibirigit (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking ahead, I believe the editor-in-question will be eventually getting him/herself into block trouble. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

List of NHL coaches

As a follow up to this conversation a few months ago, a possible merger discussion stagnated. It was closed, probably prematurely as looking back it may have been listed incorrectly, so I took the article to AfD. Afterwards, it was merged into List of current NHL head coaches without further discussion while the AfD was still in progress. Per WP:LISTN, the article of assistants certainly has no legs to stand on for GNG. As this page gets more views than the talk page of the List article, I am posting here as whether to have either a merger discussion here or just to participate in the AfD as a merge or delete (or keep as stand-alone if you so choose). Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it would be good if you explained why you moved the List of current NHL head coaches if AfD is not closed? Secondly, I already cast my vote and my position does not change from the last discussion. Assistant coaches change frequently and most of the time the teams do not announce it, which is troublesome if someone would want to keep it updated. It also does not belong in the NHL head coaches' page, which was specifically created for them. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I moved it because it is easy to move back, but I will also freely admit that I am not the best of keeping track of the more procedural comings and goings of wikipedia. As I stated, in the AfD, "List of current NHL coaches" is more than logical search term for that page anyways. I believe your ire should be directed towards the premature move merge rather than page name. (And by the way, I do not disagree with you about the coverage on assistants, there is probably only about 10 in the league at any given time that get consistent and sustained coverage while in the position.) Yosemiter (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't remember when or why the NHL invented the term "head coach", but I always disliked the term. Anyways, are you suggesting that List of current NHL coaches be merged with List of current NHL assistant coaches? Just wondering, because I nominated both articles for a merger, last December. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I nominated the List of current NHL assistant coaches for deletion entirely. The merger proposal would be the same you suggested, but the creator of the assistant coaches list took it upon themselves to close as a "no consensus". I believe the proposed merger tag may have been placed incorrectly for that discussion, which may have caused the low participation. (If I remember my procedural tags correctly, the merge discussion tag should have been placed in the article space at the top of the main pages with the discussion to take place on the intended merge to target. The tags seem to have been only place on the talk pages, hence the possible low participation, although I doubt either page is viewed very frequently.) The AfD should sort it out with higher visibility. Yosemiter (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, an AfD would be best. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@GoodDay: You might have missed it, but there is an AfD here. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Got it :) GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

List was deemed a delete, although it was about 50/50 with delete or merge with only WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments for merge/keep. As a result, I moved the current coaches page back to the original head coaches-only title (as I said, it was easy to do). Yosemiter (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves the Olympics

Hello! The Winter Olympic Games 2018 started today and we have organized a wiki contest to improve the articles related with the Winter Olympic and the Paralympic Games. This is a multilingual project and is on Meta. You can participate till March 25. The link to the meta page is m:Wiki Loves the Olympics 2018. And don't forget that like Coubertin said "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part". Thanks. --Millars (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ontario Mining Cup

Hello - this morning, I tripped over 2017 Ontario Mining Cup, and its parent article Ontario Mining Cup, which is apparently an annual hockey tournament in Northern Ontario for people in the mining industry. Please have a look at these. I'm not sure about the notability of Ontario Mining Cup, and even if that's deemed to be notable I don't believe any year-by-year tournaments should qualify for articles. Opinions, please? PKT(alk) 12:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG for the parent article, but not for the individual events. The parent article needs a rewrite with more third party news sources. Flibirigit (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I recommend a merge dicussion, or AFD for the "season" articles. Flibirigit (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Analysis please

Found List of ice hockey clubs playing in the league of another country today and it seems to have been created recently. In my opinion, it seems very much like original research, especially in regards to WP:SYNTH. The creator seems to extrapolate leagues' membership as a "primary" country and "another" country. Prime example is the NHL itself. I am not positive many people or references would consider it a primarily American league, it is a North American league based in Canada and the United States (with lots of emphasis in Canada). Multinational European leagues also seem to complicate it further. Seems to run afoul of WP:LISTN per has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and as "List of X of Y". It also sort of goes against most beliefs here that a ice hockey league specifically belongs to that of a country when that has not really been the case. Thoughts? Yosemiter (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: It seems to have been split out from List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country. Not sure what to make of that either. Yosemiter (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead with an AFD for the hockey list. Flibirigit (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

NHL All-Star Game names

Recently an editor moved all NHL All-Star Game pages from "xx st/nd/rd/th National Hockey League All-Star Game" to "YYYY National Hockey League All-Star Game". For example, 1994 National Hockey League All-Star Game. Do these moves need a consensus or were they correct? No valid reason apart from "nhl all star naming convention changed in 1994; renaming affected articles" was given. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like the changes, but I think the Xth is the official designation of those games. I'm content with either version, as long as it's consistent across all those articles. Right now, he's only changed the 45th up to the present, which isn't acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have to differ from GoodDay, what he has done is acceptable, as the name of them from 1994 forward is to use the year, however the names for the previous were not. So it would be correct to use the XX st etc naming prior to 94 and the year after 94. It would actually be incorrect to use either option for all of them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone just came and moved both 1960 and 1961 pages to 1960 National Hockey League All-Star Game and 1961 National Hockey League All-Star Game without giving any reason. I have since moved them back to where they belong. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template "ihw"

Hello. Could you help me with Wikipedia:Help desk#Template link? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I have been working with it, the way it is currently is the same way we have treated it for past teams such as the Unified team in 1992. I think the actual solution to the current Korea situation is to merge the two pages as they probably shouldn't be separate anyway since it is the only sport they are competing together in. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
That being said it works now for your use case but breaks it again for its original intended use in infoboxes. I will have to try and figure out a work around in our infoboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And fixed the infobox now, so they both should be good. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your works. --Garam (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Canada women's national ice hockey team

Could one of our admins please look at Canada women's national ice hockey team and see if it qualifies for some level of temporary protection for persistent vandalism from anonymous users? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need it. Worst case only 24 hours or so because it will fall off vandals minds by tomorrow since new olympic events today will catch peoples attention. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing my best to revert the nonsense :-) Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency with team logo usage on articles.

Clarify: Why is it ok to use the Devils & Flyers official team logo in the infoboxs at New Jersey Devils & Philadelphia Flyers, yet not ok to use them at the Devils–Flyers rivalry's and ok to use the Devils logo at New Jersey Devils infobox, yet not at Devils–Rangers rivalry's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCCP – File:New Jersey Devils logo.svg and File:Philadelphia Flyers.svg cannot be used anywhere else except for the main pages of the teams. If these files would be moved to Wikimedia Commons then you could use them in as many pages as you like. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Marchjuly: to this discussion as he understands these things better. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Been going through the other rivalry articles & seen that 'team logos' are mostly barred from the rest of'em, as well. I just never heard of this limited usage, before now. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Non-free content use is not something considered automatic so just because a particular non-free file is being used in one article does not mean it should automatically be used in another article as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. The general consensus regarding the use of sports team logos is that non-free use is usually considered acceptable per WP:NFCC when the logo is being used for primary identification purposes at the top or in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the teams themselves, but much harder to justify when used in other articles, such as rivalry articles. Generally, it is assumed that some discussion of the team's branding, etc. or logo evolution is likely to be found in the main team article or can be more easily added to such an article, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is likely to be provided. The same, however, is not automatically assumed for other articles which means it can be much harder to justify. If a specific non-free logo for the rivalry exists (I believe there are examples of this found in other sports, but not sure about hockey), then that logo may be used per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI; on the other hand, the automatic default is not to use the main team logos when such a "rivalry" logo does not exist. In such cases, a freely licensed or PD eqiuvalent is considered acceptable for indentification purposes per WP:FREER.
A consensus can change over time, however; so, if you feel that rivalry articles in general should be allowed to have the main non-free team logos used in them, then you can start a discussion at WT:NFC if you like to see what others think. If you just would like to use this particular logo in this particular rivalry article, then you're going to need to provide a seperate, specific non-free use rationale which clearly shows how/why you feel the file's non-free use in the article satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria in WP:NFCCP. No rationale for the particular use means that it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. Just understand that a rationale in and of itself does not mean compliance per WP:JUSTONE, so it might be a good idea to ask for feedback at WT:NFC, WP:MCQ or even WP:FFD first just to see if there's going to be a consensus for this particular use of the file. Sorry, if I posted a little too much. Just trying to give you as much information as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for a well-written explanation. I hope other users will see this and understand why logos are not used everywhere else but in main page. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

2014 Russian women

So did the IIHF in actual fact disqualify the Russian women in 2014? The official new rankings say no, since the 2014 worlds score for the olympians are duplications of the 2014 winter olympics, and it remained unchanged. I believe three of the players lost their CAS cases, but I was wondering if anyone say any further statement about the hockey team since many of the other russian cases were overturned.18abruce (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a quote from them saying they did [1]. My guess is the website just hasn't been updated or they are choosing to still use the placing for rankings since it would be less accurate if they got a 0 for rankings because the team didn't suddenly get worse because they were DQ'd for one olympics. If they gave a 0 it would affect the rankings in a major way for a number of years making the rankings essentially useless. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
From what I read it was the IIHF that put up a stink and insisted that the Russians in some way still get to go to the games as something like the OAR. So I wouldn't put it past them to ignore the fact they were DQ'd in every way they possibly can except for the official results. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Well even if DQ'd they wouldn't get a 0, precedent says they would get an 8th place ranking, which is 1000. They have updated the website today, and it shows the same values as their 6th place finish still, but I don't know that it actually means anything. And technically that olympic result is zeroed out of the rankings now so they can leave it as ambiguous for now without offending the IOC by making any kind of statement. The source you gave is from two months age, before the CAS hearings, I was wondering if anyone had any updated information from after that. And, like other sources, it says the IIHF is "requested" to modify their results, but to date they have not.18abruce (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I doubt things would have changed after the CAS hearings because there were still some hockey players who were not overturned which is why I used a source from two months ago. It only takes one for a DQ. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah for sure, I wasn't trying to argue or be critical, despite how it may have come across. Just very odd that a very minor change could have been made to confirm the DQ with the updated rankings, and it didn't happen. And I was hoping there was some kind recent quote from Fasel about how he views the CAS cases. Well this is the IIHF, so maybe ambiguous and unclear is not odd at all. I would say waiting for the updated encyclopedia would help, but they go out of their way to make the 1992 junior and olympic results ambiguous there.18abruce (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio help

I stumbled upon Raul Fernandez (entrepreneur) because of its maintenance tag. When I started searching I found that the article very closely remembles this web site. It appears most of the information was added by a single user on December 5, 2017, who has edited no other articles. Is there someone who is well versed in copyvio to help out? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Russia men's national ice hockey team

Since OAR won the gold medal people started edit warring whether this medal should be credited to Russia or not. Please refer to the discussion at Talk:Russia men's national ice hockey team#2018 in establishing an understanding. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Somehow, I knew this was going to occur. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Participation at Talk:Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach)#Requested move 4 March 2018

The nomination proposes to move Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach) → Paul Thompson (ice hockey, born 1968), but the counter-argument is that the qualifier "(ice hockey coach)" or even simply "(coach)" is more precise and that the qualifier "(ice hockey, born XXXX)" refers solely to players. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

NHOCKEY questions

Hey, in looking through WP:NHOCKEY recently, I noticed what I thought were several updates and omissions that I think would be worth updating or clarifying. I present them here in no particular order.

1.) Under WP:NHOCKEY Criterion #3, one of the leagues listed there is 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey). This league has been defunct since 2013. 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey) should be moved to the defunct leagues under WP:NHOCKEY/LA Criterion #3, and should be replaced in WP:NHOCKEY Criterion #3 by the DEL2, the current second-tier level of German ice hockey.

2.) Under WP:NHOCKEY Criterion #3, one of the leagues listed there is the Elite.A. According to it's Wikipedia article, this league has been defunct since 2017.

3.) WP:NHOCKEY/LA Criterion #3 appears to be the place for defunct college ice hockey leagues. One of them, the Central Collegiate Hockey Association, is listed there. However, there are several other defunct NCAA Division I ice hockey leagues that are not listed there. The Great West Hockey Conference, Tri-State League (ice hockey), Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, and the men's play version of College Hockey America all would appear to have an argument to be made to be listed as defunct ice hockey leagues under WP:NHOCKEY/LA Criterion #3.

4.) Several leagues appear to be using outdated names in WP:NHOCKEY. The Swiss and Slovak leagues appear to have both recently renamed themselves, yet WP:NHOCKEY is still linking to the old name (which, of course, redirects to the new name for both leagues). Not a huge issue, but could possibly be confusing to someone not familiar with the subject area moving forward.

Just my thoughts in going through this. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We may need to update WP:NHOCKEY/LA, as there were also suggestions made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Thorsell. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Mike Bossy vandalism and possible sockpuppet

Could one of our admins please look at the history of edits to Mike Bossy? Previously User:Live New Yorker was blocked for persistent vandalism and violations of WP:BLP, and now User:Hockey Tawk has picked up exactly where the blocked user left off, using almost verbatim wordings. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Same user also edits Pete Stemkowski. Please add to your watch list if you could please and thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like someone took care of it already. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Mike Fisher

Someone decided to start an edit war on Mike Fisher's page. The IP user's reasoning for reverts is that Fisher did not miss a season so it believes that the playing career parameter should list "1999–present". However, Fisher did not play or have a contract until February 26, 2018, so it would be logical to list his playing career as "1999–2017, 2018–present". Even Template:Infobox ice hockey player says that the playing career parameter is tied to the year and not the season. Opinions regarding this silly edit war would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I read "playing career" as year of first pro game to year of last pro game (as that is all that Template:Infobox ice hockey player says as well). It keeps the clutter in the infobox to a minimum and the half season he missed is easily explained in prose. Players can miss time in their playing career for other reasons other than retire/un-retire reasons such as significant injury -> contract ends-> year off to recover -> new contract in a different year. But I do not have a hard stance one way or the other. Yosemiter (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Simpler is better, just start and end date. Flibirigit (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah its typically used as first year of pro and last year of pro. Its meant to show the span, not the exact years. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hall of Famers in teams' pages

A user started converting "Hall of Famers" sections' lists to tables in teams' pages. I initially thought that it is a no big deal, but then realized that some teams have 30+ or more Hall of Famers (Montreal Canadiens) and tables are huge. Should the "Hall of Famers section be converted back to list format or tables are acceptable? – Sabbatino (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer going with the list form. I noticed too, over these last 2 or so years, the captains, general managers & coaches sections of some of the teams, have also been changed from list form to table form. Un-necessary decorations, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No particular preference for me, although tables can make the format over complicated at times, which could hinder use on particular devices or screens. Lists are definitely easier to maintain. (On a side note, you probably should have pinged @Megacheez: in this discussion as it is not their first time performing these types of bold edits.) Yosemiter (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Lists are fine with me as well; I don't subscribe to the Everything Is Better With Graphics shibboleth. Ravenswing 21:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead & reverted some of the editor-in-question's bold changes. Hopefully, that'll slow him down & get him to take part in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably be more likely to get him to discuss if you leave edit summaries suggesting he do so ... (grins) Ravenswing 23:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I reckon it's alright for us to change all lists back to a list-format. The editor-in-question (who's been making such changes across many sports team pages) seems to not care what we do with the NHL team articles & has moved on. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah in this instance lists are probably better. -DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

NHL stats boxes

Anyone know what's wrong with the NHL stats boxes on the NHL season articles? The View, Talk, Edit portions don't work. You link to them & nothing happens, accept teams get their positions randomly changed in those boxes.
For example: {{2017–18 NHL Eastern Conference standings}}
GoodDay (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It is most likely not our table but the module it is using Module:Sports table based on what I could see. You could post on its talk page and mention the bug. Looks like the whole column header is being used for the sort instead of just the arrow. -DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha, have brought concerns to the Module page-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Research help

Is anybody here a member of SIHR? I could use some research help. Flibirigit (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed category deletion again...

Just a heads up that Category:National Hockey League first round draft picks has been nominated for deletion again.... Please comment as you see fit. Flibirigit (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

HHOF photos

I'm at the Hockey Hall of Fame today. Any photo requests? Flibirigit (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A request.

Can & would somebody fix up the bottom of the List of NHL statistical leaders article. The information is all clumped together & confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed? (column end got deleted in the mass edits) Yosemiter (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@GoodDay:  Done – Sabbatino (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Merci :) GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The IPs have proceeded in the last few weeks to update the article, even though the 2017-18 season is still in progress. I gave up weeks ago, fighting against it. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Phil Kessel

There is a conversation I am trying to start on Talk:Phil Kessel that may interest people who are part of this project, especially those who enjoy copyediting.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Team names in coach stat tables

I've been looking but can't find a reason why team names are spelled out in player stats tables, but in coaching stat tables they are abbreviated. For example at Rick Tocchet#NHL coaching record; since there are fewer columns (because there are fewer stats) in a coaching stats chart, it can't be to save space. Visually it drives me batty, but I'm not looking to change a ton of articles. Maybe there's a reason for this that I am not thinking of? Echoedmyron (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Likely because one person did it that way for a bit, and people tend to just copy what other people did. I don't think its in our ice hockey project style guide to abbreviate like that, in fact I don't think we have ever made a style guide specifically for what coaching pages/sections should even look like so its likely people just copy what the first person did, and waaaaay back in the day we used abbreviations a lot more than we do now. Likely since coaches don't get as much light shone on them as players no one has ever taken the time to fix up coaching tables. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been doing coaches' tables for a while. I did not look through the archives to see if there have been any discussions about the team's name being abbreviated or spelled out in the coaching statistics' table. Therefore, I just follow the abbreviated name format, but I would gladly change it if users of this project decide otherwise. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche

Colorado Avalanche, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What are folks views on Portal:Ice hockey? It doesn't appear to have been maintained or updated since an overhaul by User:Djsasso in August 2012 (almost six years ago). The "Ice hockey news" section includes such non-news items as a report on Game 3 of the 2010 Stanley Cup Finals. Do folks think the ice hockey portal is useful? Did people even know it existed? Even if the broader RfC fails, should Portal:Ice hockey be deleted? Alternatively, would anyone want to volunteer to update and maintain it? Cbl62 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Should probably be junked...even when I touched it no one had been touching it before that in forever. Kind of why I stopped trying to bring it back from the dead. Portals only really work for subjects where there are massive amounts of editors. They really just suck editing time from actual articles. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I feel the same. Forgot it existed until this came up. On the broader topic feel its fine to keep as some projects do update it, but for ones like this that don't, its absence won't be noticed or missed. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Playoff template

Hello all, I know this has been brought up in years past but I am working on creating a new template to replace Template:NHLPlayoffs where the home team defaults to the right side. This would appear to be the traditional appearance on outside pages and right now we are forcing the template to display that way by placing the "home team" in the "team2" parameter and their stadium/arena in the "stadium1" parameter. The change should be simple, but I am hesitant to make the changes directly to the current template since it is used in over 700 pages and I do not have time to fix them all quickly. Since this could be used for any ice hockey playoffs, I thought I might name it Template:Ice hockey playoffs. Thoughts? Yosemiter (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine if you want to make a new template because changing the current one would be a nightmare to fix with just the NHL articles, let alone from all of the other leagues that use it. The only issue that I see, would be from people outside the group wondering why we need a second template when we've already figured how to manipulate our current template to suit our needs. Deadman137 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
So I am not sure exactly what problem you are trying to solve? Seems to me the original template is working as intended. The team 2 parameter is meant to be the home team.... (ie the second team in score listings is generally the home team) -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see what you are saying you think the numbers for the two should line up. While I don't think that is necessarily true that is an easy enough fix to run AWB through and fix them all without a need for a new template. I wouldn't want to do it though until after the playoffs are done. -DJSasso (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I was planning on implementing it for 2018 Kelly Cup playoffs and 2018 Calder Cup playoffs first as they are all with home team on the left currently. (Matching every other season dating back to well before I started editing.) Yosemiter (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Although if someone wanted to run an AWB, that would work too, I have no experience there. Yosemiter (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, per Template:NHLPlayoffs#Sample result, it does specify the home team to be on the left, which then matches the homeX= parameter to the team1/2 parameter instead of the stadium1/2 parameter. The only reason it works right now is because the more experienced editors know the manipulation of the table on the NHL pages. All the other uses of it follow the Sample. Yosemiter (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It specifies that usage because that's how it was set originally in 2008. A year later it was changed to it's current appearance for NHL articles without making any adjustments to the main template. Deadman137 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
True, but it doesn't change the fact that it is used the way the sample is shown on hundreds of other non-NHL articles because when it was added to those pages, the editors followed the example. Hence why I was asking if I should make a more generic one (ice hockey), with the proper format (the NHL one was likely adapted off of the football templates, hence the use of stadium instead of arena), and start to implement in the non-NHL articles first as the change would likely just be a template name change to make it appear properly. Merging the two templates afterwards would then be the likely outcome as the serve the same purpose, and AWB would be very helpful in changing all the parameters in the NHL article so that they stay aligned (team1=stadium1). Yosemiter (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The biggest outstanding problem is that there is no way to merge the two templates without a little bit of pain. The easiest parameter to change in the existing template with regards to the NHL articles would be stadium1 and stadium2 because everything else except for the date, recap and ot sections are dependant on team1 and team2 and it would take way too long to fix. Changing the stadium setup still creates errors but they'd be less time consuming to fix (I'm guessing about 7-10 hours of editing) in order to line up team1=stadium1. Deadman137 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it was the stadium I was thinking to fix and the time you mention is the reason I was going to leave it until after the playoffs so as not to have articles in a broken state while they were being fixed and had a lot of eyes on them that would see the errors. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems fair. I was only suggesting a second generic template to make the transition easier and the fact it is used in more than just the NHL such 2006 Atlantic Hockey Men's Ice Hockey Tournament, 2012–13 Elitserien season, etc. I do not think the argument that it will take a long time is sufficient, as the longer we wait (as in seasons, not days or months) the more pages will be created that use it in the Sample format. There will be lots a format changes though too that would go along with switching the home team to the right on the pages that did not use the NHL editor's oversight of manually modifying the template (the score section would be flipped and the time and scorer as well). I think more than 8 hours. But a second template would at least give us a longer period of time to phase the current one out. And I have edit history merges done before, they didn't seem to be the worst thing in the world. Yosemiter (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah if its used on more than just the NHL we could make a generic one I guess. I was thinking there already was a generic non-nhl one for some reason. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is a desire to rename the parameter anyway, then I think the existing template could be modified to support the new parameter name and give it preference over the stadium1 and stadium2 parameters. There could also be a parameter to specify if the left column should hold team 1 or team 2. In this way support could be phased in. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah as I mentioned above (or atleast I think I did) you can tell the template to have more than one name for a parameter. That isn't really the issue, the issue is more apparently that some pages are doing it the one way and some are not so it will take some sorting to figure out which is which. Really what I would just do if you really want it done this playoffs is keep using the same trick that other editors have been doing, cutting down on how much will have to be changed after the fact when the template has to be changed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with either way and I agree during the playoffs may not be the best time to do it. However, when I asked about changing it last year, I was basically told it was fine and it will break everything. And then it was forgotten. I figured might as well push now to start fixing on the smaller pages while it is still fresh (as I cannot edit the current template am not the greatest template editor, I will need some help) and then implement onto the NHL as time goes on though the offseason when the pages are less viewed. Yosemiter (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, one way or another, it will take a certain amount of time to go through articles using the template, decide if they have swapped use of the stadiumX parameters, and make the appropriate adjustments. Just pointing towards a way that the template changes could be done that would avoid any interim breakage. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorta/kinda already volunteering for the time as I dwell primarily in the realm of the minor league pages (where they have all been used as the template is written). It might take a few weeks to fix the past ones, but it is the reason I have yet to add any data to the 2018 Kelly Cup playoffs. Yosemiter (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Well if you are creating a new template you won't need template editor, if you have changes to make to the other one then feel free to ping me on my talk page and I can always make them for you. You can work on them in Template:NHLPlayoffs/sandbox in the meantime until you are ready to move them. When I get a chance to look at the code I can see if I can fix it too. I just don't have the time at the moment to look. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I think a small kludge (*) of introducing venue1 and venue2 with their uses flipped within the template can be done in a relatively straightforward way. I see the existing template uses {{ #if: {{{stadium1|}}} | {{{stadium1}}} | }} whenever it accesses the value for stadium1, for example. I'm not sure if that offers any advantage over just using {{{stadium1|}}}. Assuming it doesn't, then instead the template could use {{{venue2|{{{stadium1|}}}}}} where stadium1 is needed, and {{{venue1|{{{stadium2|}}}}}} where stadium2 is needed, thereby flipping the meaning and maintaining backwards compatibility. (*) Without looking at the code more closely, not sure if that further complicates things when someone tries to read and understand the template... I think rewriting it Lua might be helpful, but I don't have the time at present to do it. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, the entire template is based around the homeX parameter. When homeX=1, then team1 is left, team2 is right, and venue is stadium1. I have been playing with it in the sandbox and my own. As the template has been manually modified for the NHL pages, but not done on all the others, in order to implement without breaking one or the other it would need an extra parameter. I am not finding an easy way to have an either/or parameter for home team on the left or right. It seems we would need to have another #switch parameter on every single line, essentially duplicating the entire template (it further affects which side all the scoring parameters are listed). This sandbox edit shows each line that would need the #switch parameter for left right for just one game. Yosemiter (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC) (P.S. The linked edit was just one test, I have since found an easier way to change it, but it would still require changing every line as I did there. And to have a left/right parameter would still double each line in length.)
It's why it would be easier in Lua, because values can be assigned to variables... You can simulate variable assignment with templates by having a helper template that is called by the main template. The main template would assign the desired values to the corresponding parameters in the helper template. This way, it should be possible to set up the desired values on the left or right and pass them to the helper template. isaacl (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

First round pick succession box

Have noticed the first round pick succession box on player pages has been used under the headline's of both "awards and achievement's" and "sporting positions". Just wanting people's thoughts as to which heading is more appropriate to use? two examples can be seen in Aaron Ekblad and Jack Eichel.

Triggerbit (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that it's more of an achievement than a sporting position, but that's my opinion. Deadman137 (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, the first round pick succession boxes, should be eliminated. It's not an NHL accomplishment to be drafted by the NHL. It's a pre-NHL accomplishment. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There are no statements that say they must be NHL accomplishments in the succession boxes and it a type of "achievement". However, I agree that I am not sure we really need succession boxes for every team's first round pick. That might be overkill as for some that is their greatest "achievement". Yosemiter (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The succession boxes are not necessary, and should be eliminated. Flibirigit (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree that succession boxes are unnecessary. We do not use navboxes, but use succession boxes, which in my opinion is double standards. We either use both of them or none of them. They both cause template creep. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It is because wiki guidelines say that you should use succession boxes, for titles/positions and awards/acheivements and to not use navboxes for those types of things. So it isn't really a double standard, its following guidelines. It is just that other projects refuse to listen to those guidelines that you see some of the other wikiprojects using navboxes when they should be using succession boxes for some things. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It's an achievement. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok i'll take it as an achievement..for as long as it's still there! Triggerbit (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Quebec Remparts

Has anyone heard whether or not Patrick Roy is returning to the coach and general manager role for the Quebec Remparts? I cannot find anything on the league's or team's web sites in english, or in french. Several IP contributors insist on adding the information without a source. If anyone could help, that would be great.

I am seeing news conferences, but nothing official yet. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It's official now. Announcement is on the Ramparts social media, and most news sites have articles confirming the announcement. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

ask for approval

Hi, I wonder if this project wants to add WikiProject Ice Hockey template to redirects based on what articles that in Category:All WikiProject Ice Hockey articles for example (the example for WikiProject Medicine).--جار الله (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe we generally do put the project template on the appropriate talk page of a redirect, although I am sure many are blank as not many people look at redirects in detail. Flibirigit (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't typically put them on redirects, but I don't know of any discussion to actually prevent it from happening. That being said I have never really seen the point of doing that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The benefit of tagging the redirect is that the associated project is notified for any relevant discussions, such as deletions, requests to move, etc. Flibirigit (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Which is still pretty much a non-benefit as that is pretty rare, and when it does our other methods of catching it notify the project. But like I said, nothing preventing people from doing it. But I do believe we use the simplified rating system in this project so it will just show up as NA (for non-article) instead of Redirect I do believe. -DJSasso (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Now looking at the original posters edit history I see they are trying to get bot approval to do such things. In that case I would be against a bot doing it, bots and wikiproject banners very often cause no end of headaches when mixed together. -DJSasso (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Final roster in team's season page

I started adding final rosters for teams and I quickly stopped at the Flames. The Flames' roster shown in the website is quite big compared to the Coyotes. Which roster should be used as the final roster in team's season page? The one that is shown in team's website or the one that is shown in game's roster report? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally the final roster we use is any player that played a game for the team during the season. (ie the statistics list). Once the season is done we don't need both a roster section and stats section. As having a roster just as it was during the last day of the season is misleading. Once the season is done as long as there is a season stats list on the page you can just remove the roster section. See one of our GA season articles for example 2008–09 Calgary Flames season. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. However, I already updated all the eliminated teams' 2017–18 season pages which include rosters as can be seen at, for example, the Panthers' website. I would remove them from all the eliminated teams, but I am sure there will be opposition at certain teams' pages so I guess it would be best to keep them for this season. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Likely best to wait until after the 2018 NHL Entry Draft, then delete those rosters from the 2017-18 team articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe that we should update the NHL team season pages format page since it is outdated. The roster section there does not help either as it just says "from the template:xx team roster". – Sabbatino (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that page for some reason is set up as a copy paste type template as opposed to style guide to create the page. It was probably done that way to speed up creation of season articles way back in 2007 when we had very few. It should probably be switched over to an actual style guide type page at this point (or this could be made a subpage of an actual style guidepage.) If someone wants to have a crack at it all you would have to do is take one of our GA season articles and base it off that as that is our cream of the crop. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I can get a shot at this since I am one of the main, if not the main, editors of teams' season pages for the second or third year in a row. Although, all I do is update infoboxes, some prose, game logs (creating them is boring, but someone has to do it) and transactions or draft picks, but that should not be the problem. I tried updating players' statistics in these pages, but decided to stop it since it is not for me. I will look at other GA pages and try to make it. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah can't hurt to leave them until the playoffs are done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Since there are only 5 teams left in the playoffs as of today, should the roster templates stay or be removed from season pages? We do not need to wait until the 2018 NHL Entry Draft as someone suggested since roster templates can be found in every teams' main pages. I also tried making an example of how a team's season page should look as has been discussed about a month ago, but did not have time to finish it for now. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No objections to removing them. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed rosters from all the teams' pages that do not or no longer play in playoffs. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

100 Greatest NHL Players

Just want to point out that 100 Greatest NHL Players was deleted for copyright issues through this request. The project was not notified about this. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Always nice that they just ignore the people who may actually be interested and/or involved in something like this. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Last time we discussed this list, the consensus then was not to have an article, anyway. isaacl (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there any way to improve the new article without running into copyright issues? I still don't see how the table in that article was any different from the table in the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History article (which I based that table on & which has been around since 2009), but whatever. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Playoff articles

I think it's time we should start splitting the playoff sections in most NHL season articles prior to 1978–79 (1979 is the first year where we have a separate article for the Stanley Cup playoffs). –Piranha249 15:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For the vast majority of the early years (thinking the original six) the playoffs are so small there is really no reason to split them out. Splits are only necessary when they can't be contained easily in the main article. That isn't often the case going back that early. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to touch on this a little further, if we added an article for every year that the league had 10 or more playoff series we would only go back four years to 1975. All prior seasons contain seven or fewer series, so they probably don't require a separate article; though I have come across a couple of early years where a separate article has been created, I'm wondering if we should just redirect those to the main articles given how small they are? Deadman137 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we could just start at 1975-1978, and we'll figure things out from there. –Piranha249 17:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Humboldt Crash victims in List of ice hockey players who died during their playing careers

Just curious if there has been any prior discussion alluding to this. After reading up the talk page there does not seem to be any mention of it, nor does there show any history of the victims being added then removed from the list. It's a quite noteworthy incident so I don't feel there would be any reason as to them not being included in the list. Nanerz (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Likely just an oversight, and definitely something that can be added (junior players are already on the list, for example). Kaiser matias (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it is just that no one has taken the time to do it right yet. I am sure it will get done. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Baltic states compromise?

GoodDay mentioned a Baltics compromise in this discussion. What is the Baltics compromise? Up to this point I listed all people born in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania during yhe Soviet period as being born in the Soviet Union, but I am not sure now since I could not find anything about it. Any help would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I recall there being an understanding between us hockey folk & those who edit Baltic bios (after the big dispute at Leo Komarov), that we'd use Soviet Union for hockey player bios. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not really a compromise, wiki guidelines state you list the name at the time they were born. In this case the Soviet Union. There is a very vocal contingent of Baltic-state editors that don't recognize that the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union officially. They state they were just occupied thus it wasn't really the Soviet Union. (most people don't agree). However, to stop the edit warring which got out of hand and spanned many talk pages and many different notice boards etc (Komarov being just one of many, that discussion was basically repeated on most famous players from those countries as well as a number of project pages, would take alot of work to dig out all the links), we agreed to start adding Estonian SSR etc between City and Soviet Union like we do for provinces and states in North America on the actual player pages. I don't think we ever started doing it on roster lists or anything like that. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am myself from one of the Baltic states and other Baltic states' editors are right – the occupation was illegal and many Western powers agree with us. In addition, these three countries had governments in-exile and other organizations. There is even a page for that including many sub-pages in Wikipedia. So do not say "most people don't agree" if you do not really know the real situation. However, this is not the place to share our personal views as I was just curious about what GoodDay had in mind. I always listed "City, Republic SSR/SFSR, Soviet Union" (much to my dislike), but thought there was something about what I did not know. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I do know the real situation, and agree with many things you said, doesn't change the fact that in almost all literature those places were referred to as part of the Soviet Union. What I meant about most people was wikipedia editors. The whole Eastern Europe situation got so bad at one point that it went to ArbCom with some pretty serious sanctions on people. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. And sorry for taking a hostile stance in my last post. It frustrates that most of the times foreigners think they know something better then the people who are actually from that place. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

On a very quick look I think the most official discussion was an RfC here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918? when they tried to create a manual of style page to enshrine using Estonia etc instead of the Soviet Union. But like I said there were many different discussion in many different places. Most of them all boiled down to treating it like North America so that atleast Estonia etc would be part of the place listing, even if only as a sub-national entity. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Will look into it. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Here was a big one we had specifically about Hockey. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive55#Baltic states dispute. I think it is this one that we specifically decided on the format of how we worded it in the consensus section. Its really hard to track the flow of the discussions as it seemed at the time each time consensus would be reached in one location they would move to another location and start again trying to get another outcome. I believe it was the RfC above that finally got them to stop, at least in the hockey sphere. I believe a couple of them did keep going through all the other Baltic bio articles changing them and sometimes would be reverted but they were pretty consistent about undoing whatever other editors did despite the RfC outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I remember that Rfc & how overly frustrated I was. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I need some help convering standings.

I'm currently making an effort to convert the older standings templates to Module:Sports table, but I can't do it alone; so I need someone's help to convert them. Here's the category where these can be found, and here's some helpers to guide us.

Good luck! –Piranha249 21:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Since CapFriendly has player contract and salary information for all active and many past NHL players, I would like to start adding them to external link sections. Ice Hockey Stats templates are locked and must be edited by an admin, would that be possible to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBanks6 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been quite a while and no replies, is there anything I need to do to get this kickstarted and moving ahead? Like I said this is new to me so please let me know if there is anything that I can do for this request. -JimmyBanks6 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2018 (EST)
The external links templates seems to include only those sites with biographies and playing statistics. I'm not sure if salaries and contracts fits into that category. The lack of replies may also be because many editors are in summer mode. I suggest to wait and see what the consensus is. Flibirigit (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It is certainly possible, we don't tend to link just any old external site into the template though. Most of them are ones that have bibliographies or other editorial oversight, or are official primary sources (ie nhl.com). Being that I couldn't find anywhere on capfriendly that indicated where they were getting the salaries from I am a bit hesitant to add them. Maybe in a couple years if they remain the main site for such information. As it is they are relatively new to the scene after other older salary site (CapGeek) was shut down. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to pile on too much, but I've been tracking the accuracy of their draft pick coverage (I know, shocking) as well and their current standards are less than ideal. They'll literally use anything as their source material whether it's from a verified source or not. Deadman137 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
CapFriendly has been around for over 3 years now, and other than NHL.com, the majority of the other sites are not official sources (HockeyDB, Elite Prospects, Hockey reference, etc) and do not include bibliographies or editorial oversights either. "but I've been tracking the accuracy of their draft pick coverage" (I know, shocking) as well and their current standards are less than ideal. They'll literally use anything as their source material". This is not true, what are your examples of this? I am one of the site's contributors and we do not use "anything" as a source. We have internal standards on what is an acceptable source, the majority of (draft pick specifically) updates come from verified Twitter accounts of the respective teams when trades are announced. PHWA journalists are also used as a source. The site has it's own internal sources as well. The conditional 2018 4th overall draft pick for the Senators wasn't updated from a Colorado selection until Pierre Dorion confirmed that the Senators would use the pick this year, for example. "Being that I couldn't find anywhere on capfriendly that indicated where they were getting the salaries from I am a bit hesitant to add them": CapFriendly indicates the source of each contract as part of the contract header on every player page, salaries are not public information, so specifying the direct source isn't always possible. Salaries that are sourced as "CapFriendly" were obtained from a non-public source. For example, Carey Price (https://www.capfriendly.com/players/carey-price) has the source CapFriendly, while Antti Niemi is sourced directly to the NHL.com article that provided the contract information: https://www.capfriendly.com/players/antti-niemi. Contracts will have an alert displaying "Unconfirmed" when they have been added as a placeholder (after a signing announcement when salary details aren't included), and include an explanation why it is currently unconfirmed. The alert is removed when the contracts have been internally verified. CapFriendly is used extensively as the main source for contract information throughout online and print journalism, here are a few examples: https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/2018-nhl-off-season-primer-trade-candidates-draft-intrigue/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/columnist/allen/2018/06/18/barry-trotz-resigns-capitals-coach-money-respect/711944002/ https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/rob-blake-optimistic-kings-drew-doughty-will-agree-contract-extension/ https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2018/5/18/17370468/cap-friendly-reveals-toronto-maple-leafs-igor-ozhiganov-contract-details . Are there further concerns that you would like to discuss? JimmyBanks6 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Those sites do actually have bibliographies and editorial oversight and have proven over a long period of time (10+ years) that they have accurate information. Capfriendly on the other hand is new at only 3 years. Being that you are a contributor to the site you are fairly biased on the subject and it then becomes clear what you are hoping for is back links to your site which is exactly why we don't add any old site to the list. We get people fairly often with sites such as yours trying to use wikipedia to drive traffic to their site. We are not here to do that. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"Being that you are a contributor to the site you are fairly biased on the subject and it then becomes clear what you are hoping for is back links" I had a feeling saying that would come back to haunt me. The only reason that was explained is because the other users complaint isn't accurate. The website has strict standards on what is an appropriate source, you can review the draft page for errors (as that was his/her example) if you don't believe that to be the case, as I can assure you we go through it regularly to ensure accuracy. I'd be curious to know what is an appropriate source for the Wikipedia NHL draft pages if PHWA journalists and the NHL teams themselves are not appropriate sources, because when I look at the 2018_NHL_Entry_Draft page that appears to be the exact sources, NHL.com, sportsnet.com, etc. The goal of this request isn't to get back links to the site, I'm well aware of Wikipedias noreferrer and nofollow policy. The reason for this suggestion is that I have seen contract information throughout player articles and thought it would be easier to simply add External Links for those relevant players, same as you see with players in regards to statistics. After 3 years CapFriendly has been referenced by NHL general managers in media scrums, and is used constantly throughout journalism as a source for contract and salary cap information. The site isn't minor or a blog, Alexa rankings have the site comparable with Hockey-Reference.com and much greater than Eurohockey.com, both of which are included in the stats template. I just thought it would be useful for readers on wikipedia, to find salary information in one compiled location. I can understand the optics by a site contributor requesting the template, but shouldn't the site hold the merit on it's own regardless of who asked? If you admins believe the site hasn't yet proven it's merit, then that's completely fine, but I don't think the request should be disregarded due to who is asking. Anyway, it looks like you're the admin of the link templates and disagree, so I assume there will be nothing to change your mind at this point. Enjoy the draft today and free agency next weekend. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns though. Thanks JimmyBanks6 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Cup winning players

I commented on this article on its Talk page a long time ago that it needed an overhaul and recently as a proof of concept did one letter (A). An editor then reverted it with a comment "I put this information on Wikipedia, but some decided to change the format of A Stanley Cup winner, why?. It no longer listed the team(s) the player(s) won with just year, so I changed it back" which sounds like WP:OWN. I had done this after bringing it up at the Talk page, and after this I commented on the editor's Talk page. Since there's been no reply, I thought I'd bring this up to the Project, since this article is linked from the Stanley Cup template (probably several of them), and so is a pretty highly visible article, yet is in a very poor state.

My rationale for removing team names is that it's secondary information. The years are linked to the team season so you can easily see which team the player won the Cup with that year, but it's also neat and clean, and reduces so much clutter. I was hoping other editors would take up the format, as it is a lot of work. But I'm also not looking to start an edit war over it. Jmj713 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the team names are rather important for easy context, yes you can click away and find that information, but I do think from a readers point of view the team name is very necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think team names are necessary but they're nice to have. In general, a reader would want to look up a person and when that person won a Cup. Which team it was with is secondary, in my opinion. And with players winning Cups with multiple teams and multiple times a table can become a bit cumbersome. My proposal was very clean, I thought, but would be happy to see any improvements. For instance, another column could be added for teams the player won with. As it is, plain text list is not very readable. Jmj713 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
IMO, a sortable table is a cleaner look, yes, allowing one to sort by alpha or number of Cups won. I also like the idea of including teams, but a column including multiple team names won't be usefully sortable, nor will a column containing multiple years, but that may not be a big deal. I will note that there's only a single source in the whole article, and traditionally articles that are fundamentally lists are titled "List of ..." and that's not the case here. As an additional aside, my experience with this user is that it's pretty rare to get engagement on talk pages, including their own. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
As I noted years ago on the article's Talk page there was an effort underway for a good article and a table but it was never completed. Jmj713 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh! I like that format - I didn't realize sortable tables could work that way. If the work could be done, I'd advocate for that. (But obviously a ton of work to do that conversion.) Echoedmyron (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You don't forsee a reader looking for all the players on a given team that were on the cup? I think that is a very likely search which is why I think its necessary to have the team names. In fact that is more than likely the way I would use that page if I were coming in not as an editor. If I was looking for a specific year I would probably just go to that years season page. But either way it will be a lot of work to get it cleaned up. I forgot Leech had started working on it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

NHL playoff results

I created a page similar to NFL playoff results where we can map out every series there is (eventually, as I'm starting from 1943 onward).

Eventually, when it's finished, it will be moved onto the mainspace, but for now, it's a subpage/pet project of mine. I hope you can help me to complete it. –Piranha249 20:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised there is an NFL page like that. It very likely runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS since you are just throwing in stats from various seasons all into one page with little context. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Just for context, the conversation that led to this draft can be found here. Deadman137 (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Unused templates or modules

I see there are quite a few ice hockey-related templates or modules that were created in 2017 but were never used. Those include Template:NHL game log start, Template:NHL game log section, Template:NHL game log end, Template:NHL team color, Module:Hockey team color, Module:Sports color/hockey. Should they be deleted? If I remember correctly, this project takes minimal approach towards the visual appearance of infoboxes or tables and I believe there is no need for this kind of templates or modules. Any opinions are welcome. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was just one editor trying to create something that never went anywhere. You can probably nominate them for deletion with no issue. It certainly was never brought up here for discussion to create them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks like one is already scheduled to be deleted, which I can execute now I think. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 28#Module:Handball color. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
All of the templates were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 11#Unused NHL templates. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

United States ice hockey structure

Read this article recently and it strikes me more of North American article rather than simply the US. I was thinking about proposing a move to Ice hockey structure in North America as the similarities between Canada and the US greatly overlap (the main differences seems to be in the USA Hockey vs. Hockey Canada juniors/minor and the NCAA vs. CIS/U Sports). Also a possibility is simply merging into Ice hockey in North America or Ice hockey in the United States. Anyone have any thoughts on this, because right now it seems a bit original research-y to me. (Also the main source for the article is titled "The North American Hockey System".) Any recommendations? Yosemiter (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There definitely seems to be a lot of duplication of information. I'm not sure which way to merge things right now. Flibirigit (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ray Emery FAR

I have nominated Ray Emery for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Teemu08 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks founding date

Hello again. There has been some edits on the Vancouver Canucks franchise history with apparent disagreement. As the organization joined the NHL from the WHL, should it be included in the infobox as this editor attempted or removed as @Moka Mo: did here here (@Leventio: also removed it once when it was re-added). The reason I am posting here, and not the Canucks page, it that the National Hockey League#List of teams uses 1945, so a change might affect there as well. IMO, there is enough of an organization similarity that having the org. history in the history section of the template is of no harm and the founding date of 1945 is applicable (org founding instead of NHL franchise) instead of 1970 on both the team infobox and the NHL list of teams. Looking for others thoughts on this. Yosemiter (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly the issue in itself is rather complicated, and essentially comes down how far you interpret the connections between the two franchises. The primary connection between the PCHL/WHL Canucks and the NHL Canucks is due to the fact that Tom Scallen (the NHL Canuck's first owner) purchased the WHL Canucks, or rather its parent organization, Northwest Sports, prior to submitting his expansion bid (connection with the city aside, the purchase of Northwest Sports was largely made to acquire the lease rights for Pacific Coliseum, the only viable NHL-ready venue in Vancouver at the time). In this sense, you could totally argue that the franchises were "informally merged" when the WHL Canucks were purchased by the bidder for the Vancouver expansion team. However, this by no means makes it an official thing.
From what I've gathered, neither the NHL or the Canucks officially acknowledge the WHL Canucks being absorbed by the NHL (which was the case for the four WHA franchises); or the WHL Canucks merging with the expansion franchise. Honestly to me, the issue itself really comes down to sourcing (or lack thereof). The closest I've got to an official reference of a connection between the two franchises is from the Vancouver Canucks 2016–17 Media Guide. And that only states "the Vancouver Canucks owe the origins of their name to the Pacific Coast Hockey League (1945-51) and Western Hockey League (1952-69) Vancouver Canucks," which seems to convey the idea that the Canucks name was an homage moreso than a result of merging or absorption. All this said though, I'd be totally supportive of a footnote next to the founding year explaining the aforementioned connection. Leventio (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The footnote explanation is the best way to please both sides of the arguement. Flibirigit (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
As the article-in-question is about the NHL franchise, use 1970. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to search through the archives but I know this has been discussed before and the 1945 date was the date that was agreed on. We do the same thing when minor league teams jump leagues. He bought the WHL team and then used the same company to get the NHL one. This is the same situation that happens all the time when other teams jump leagues, and are generally considered to be the same team/franchise. It even used a number of the same players. It ticks all the boxes for us to treat it like we treat all such situations. It was also talked about in papers at the time as though it was the same team. Not sure when someone changed it to 1970. Surprised I didn't catch that. It should be put back to the version that Moka Mo removed until otherwise decided on since it would have been the long standing version. I believe we originally just had 1945, but because of such arguments we added the second date to basically act as the footnote. -DJSasso (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
While one can rationalize his purchase of the Canucks as an "informal merger," this itself doesn't make it formal or fact. This "informal merger" is also something that neither the NHL, or the Canucks recognize (... as opposed to say, the NHL's absorption of the four WHA franchises). While such connections can be expanded on in the history section of the article, placing a year in the infobox as PCHL: 1945 is disingenuous and a bit misleading in my honest opinion (because it implies a formal merger when no such source present this as being fact... and if anything the Official Vancouver Canucks 2016–17 Media Guide supports the idea that the name was an homage, not a result of merger or absorption). Wikipedia should be going off what can be proven with sources, not what we can informally rationalized, hence my suggestion of a footnote as a compromise (like... an actual footnote).
Also, the acquisition of a minor league team is not a prerequisite or a norm for NHL expansion bids. It also isn't a prereq when any minor team to jump leagues (while purchasing higher-end talent is a thing, purchasing a team is hardly a prerequisite for jumping leagues... just look at the Colorado Eagles jump from ECHL to AHL this year). If were actually gonna get down to the reason of the acquisition, it was because Tom Scallen needed to acquire the lease rights to the Coliseum (the only NHL-ready venue in the city at the time, which was held by the Northwest Sports, the parent company of the WHL Canucks), not because it was required for a "league jump". But again, this all boils down to sourcing. Most of those aforementioned minor league teams have sources from either the League or the team acknowledging an absorption of their franchise into another League, or a merger with another existing franchise. A similarly source for the Canucks has yet to be fetched.
The fact that a good portion of players came from the WHL Canucks is irrelevant when we are talking about the founding year of a franchise. We do not put the Toronto Maple Leafs as 1911, even though the majority of the Toronto Arenas players in the first year were from the NHA Toronto Blueshirts (people at the time also thought it was the same team, as they were all the same players, same uniforms, etc.). Simiarly, the Detroit Red Wings founding year is not set to 1911, even though their owner acquired the rights to the players of the Victoria Cougars prior to their first season. Players move all the time (and sometimes together), but when we are talking about the franchise's founding year, we are looking at when the franchise charter was granted. In the case of the NHL Vancouver Canucks, the furthest we can formally go back to is 1969/1970 when the League granted franchise rights to Tom Scallen (again, this changes if we can find a source from the League or team formally recognized a merger or absorption of the WHL Canucks, but that hasn't happened yet). Leventio (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Djsasso: It was changed on April 6, 2018, by Moka Mo. On a side note, we had a long discussion here about the founding dates. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Except we aren't talking about when the Franchise charter was granted. We are talking about when the organization was founded. They are two very different things. The Red Wings is a good example of when we don't, its actually a false fact that the Red Wings were just the Cougars that were bought. In the case of the Red Wings they just bought the contracts of the players, not the business entity which is why we use 1911 for them, had they bought the Cougars team we would use 1911. The Blueshirts are also a very clear example of when not to as the business entity itself was different. The league or team does not have to formally acknowledge the continuation for it to be fact. The NHL has on many occasions disavowed knowledge of many things that were actually true, its why primary sources aren't always considered reliable. We only need articles from third party sources treating them as the same team. And we have those in spades in contemporary newspapers. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I only brought up the Blueshirts and Cougars because you brought up the players being from the the WHL org. I didn't mean to imply that it involved a deeper connection. Should have clarified that. Not the best analogy but thats I thought you were simply going off the player's background. As for organization foundation, that is the franchise charter.
Also this really has nothing to do with "what the NHL decides to disavow." Look, I'm all for third party sources, but my issue isn't about toeing the NHL line. The reason I keep bringing up whether or not the NHL or team acknowledges a merger or absorption is because I'm essentially asking if they were legally merged into a single entity. This was what I was alluding to with the Blueshirts. Cultural resonance of a team's legacy is something that can certainly be passed down, but if were asking why the Blueshirts and Leafs are really seen as distinct, it is as you said, because they are legally two separate entities. This is essentially the issue I'm asking about. Are the Canucks and Canucks the same entity, or separate?
Just because an owner buys a franchise does not mean that his assets went through some kind of business merger (i.e. with his pending expansion team). There is a lot of legal work involved in that, which is why I'm asking is there any source out there that reports such a merger legally happened, because if not, this is simply the case of a owner that owned two franchises that were named the same (being owned by the same owner, and even having the same name is not a unique case in itself, though moreso for hockey). I understand the practical reality, where, for all intents and purposes, the management of the two Canucks acted as one (they didn't transfer players though, they were legally signed as free agents I believe), hence my suggestion of a footnote, but putting 1945 in itself is misleading, and does not reflect what is the legal reality of the two teams. Leventio (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive71&oldid=1137380019"