Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive11

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

Notability standards for hockey players

This may open up a giant can of worms which I may live to regret, but it strikes me that failing any Wikipedia-wide consensus to refine notability standards for athletes generally, we could see if we can come to some consensus amongst the WikiProject members. I've a proposal I'd like people to kick around.

Notability standards for ice hockey players

Ice hockey players shall be considered notable if they fulfill one or more of the following and if they otherwise fulfill the requirements of WP:V:

Whatcha think?  Ravenswing  20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. Anything which links to the player that's hockey related should be easily accepted. --  Hasek is the best  19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Sure, I wouldn't use it as a binding policy on existing articles. I really don't think any us are guilty of gratuitous minor leaguer article creation. The only incident that pops into my mind is the sweeping creation of any player that skated for the OHL's Saginaw Spirit about a year ago (that was pre Stephen Colbert BTW). ccwaters 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Why three seasons, just out of curiosity? And Ccwaters, I don't think the point of this is so much to temper our own article creation, but to have a guideline to point to if someone is trying to delete a notable minor league player. --Mus Musculus (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Kaiser matias 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Three seasons is a benchmark that demonstrates someone who's hung out for a while. It excludes the fellows who sign with a CHL team the moment their college seasons are done, play a handful of games on PTO the next fall, and are truck drivers at age 24. And yeah, I want a club to wave at goobers who try to AfD an article on the likes of Joe Burton or a pre-1967 career WHLer.  Ravenswing  20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with creating pages for players who spent considerable numbers of years (three or more is a good number) in the AHL or IHL. Even with that, I won't go overboard creating pages for every schlub who played in those leagues. I have created a few though: Jeremy Adduono and Darren Van Oene, for example, just because I am a huge Sabres fan who sometimes wonders "whatever happened to those guys who used to be in the system but never made the team?" I think it's more than valid to have articles on players such as them, who spent their careers just slighty below the NHL level. Skudrafan1 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sold, this are great guidelines. GoodDay 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What about players who played before there was professionalism, such as the ECAHA or AHA? Same criteria as major professional players? The one issue with some of these players is verifiability. Patken4 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I love the idea. I definately think we should institute it as a Project guideline for such situations. In fact you pretty much came up with the same standards I would have set myself so I am in complete support. --Djsasso 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a standard. What you have proposed is a great starting point. I do think that it could use some tweaking. For example, I believe that top junior players are more notable than career AHLers. For example, I believe that Karl Alzner is more notable than Warren Peters. Alzner does not meet any of the criteria noted, but Peters does. Actually, most of the players in Category:Hockey prospects would probably not meet this criteria. Looking at a few articles in that category, I don't see any that are clear candidates for deletion. -- JamesTeterenko 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A few responses: first off, I'll add a clause to cover pre-professional days re: Patken. Second, as far as top junior players vis-a-vis career AHLers: how many top junior players are genuinely notable? Just for a check, I grabbed (at random) a Sporting News guide from 1988.

The top ten scorers from the OHL: Scott McCrory, Dave McLlwain, Mike Richard, Derek King, Ron Goodall, Jean-Marc MacKenzie, Mario Chitaroni, Keith Gretzky, Adam Graves, Lee Giffin. Leading goaltenders were Ron Tugnutt, John Reid and Shawn Simpson. For the WHL, the top ten were Rob Brown, Craig Endean, Len Nielsen, Joe Sakic, Theo Fleury, Adam Morrison, Greg Hawgood, Ron Shudra, Robin Bawa and Dennis Holland. Leading goaltenders were Kenton Rein, Mark Reimer and Drago Adam. For the QMJHL, the top ten were Marc Fortier, Patrice Lefebvre, Stephan Lebeau, Patrice Tremblay, Pierre Turgeon, Luc Beausoleil, Claude Dumas, Francois Guay, Alain Charland and Stefan Figliuzzi. Leading goaltenders were Robert Desjardins, Jimmy Waite and Jason Glickman.

About six genuine impact NHLers in that lot?  Ravenswing  03:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you going to add a clause about yet-to-be-drafted junior notability, make the criteria based on scouting reports or press regarding their status in future drafts. I don't have issues with any of those listed at 2007 NHL Entry Draft or even younger guys like John Tavares (ice hockey). ccwaters 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that there are very few impact NHLers in that group. However, almost all of them would fit the criteria noted above. Check out some of their playing histories: Scott McCrory, Mike Richard, Kenton Rein, Claude Dumas. They played multiple pro years. I looked most of them up, and could only find three or four that would not fit the criteria. It is only a couple of players that were always obscure that wouldn't fit the current proposed guideline, such as Jason Glickman, who was a 20-year-old 12th-round draft pick.-- JamesTeterenko 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually Traynor I count 14 NHLers in that lot, so many high scorers from junior actually do get into the NHL at some point, especially nowadays with cap restrictions everybody needing a bargain. I don't really have too much of a problem, but I think when it comes to your 3 years in the minors rule of thumb, there should also be a games minimum to go along with that say like 100 or something. I also don't think minor league notability is all that great if they never made it to the NHL or accomplished anything in their league, so for me I'd make it at least a 5 or even 7 year minor league minimum for those who acquired no accolades in their career at that level. My fear is that we will have all these articles but no one to take care of them and then they just erode, which we've been seeing with the NHL player articles for a very long. We have what now? 3000 NHL player articles? Practically all NHLers who have played more than 100 games have an article now, but I would bet a good many of them are now shoddily written or have some unreverted vandalism. I'm just saying, we shouldn't overshoot ourselves and try and create a player article for almost everybody who is notable enough to be listed in the HockeyDB website. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There are certainly at least fourteen players there who played at least one game in the NHL, but other than King, Brown, Tugnutt, Sakic, Fleury, Turgeon and Graves, who would you call an impact player? A number, however, had significant minor league careers, like McCrory, Lefebvre, Bawa, Beausoleil and the like. That being said, the intent of this proposal isn't as a springboard to churn out hundreds of articles about minor-leaguers; it's as ammunition to cut down completely non-notable players.  Ravenswing  14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I would also call Lebeau an impact player, he had 80 points one year for the Habs but for some reason his NHL career was way too short, and Fortier had 20 goals for the Nordiques as well. I'm just saying be wary of what opens up when there is too broad a scope of notability. Really I don't have a big issue with your proposal, except for the three-year rule, which I would vote to change to five, because to use your example a player can still play four years in the minors and still wind up a truck driver at 24. Also like I said before, a games mininum should be a must to go along with that too, so you don't have someone playing 5 seasons in the minors but due to injury or general lack of skill only play 89 games total. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Does a career Minor Leaguer, who was an NHL draftee only, who's only NHL experience is as a Scout for an NHL club (which has yet to advance to the Conference Finals, let alone win the Stanley Cup), deserve his own article? IF not, then the Keith Gretzky article should be deleted. It seems his 'only' notoriety is he's Wayne's brother. What does everyone think? GoodDay 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Keith would pass even with Croat Canuck's more restrictive 5+ years/100+ games standard, which I admit sounds reasonable, and which I'll post as at least the minimum standards to which we can all agree.  Ravenswing  18:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Walter Gretzky article also raises my eyebrows. Oh well, at least there no seperate articles on Wayne's children. GoodDay 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I spoke too soon, just came across Paulina Gretzky. GoodDay 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Walter Gretzky wrote a best seller so he meets the standards and Paulina Gretzky has a CD I believe and has been on a movie and appeared on the cover of a major magazine as a model so she qualifies for reasons other than Wayne as well. --Djsasso 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm in the minority and AfDs for those pages would likely fail, I'll drop the subject. GoodDay 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think three seasons in just the ECHL qualifies as notable. It's like saying a minor league arena football (not AFL) player should have his own article if he is a lineman that has played three seasons in a league. ECHLers barely ever make it any higher to be known by many people if they play three years in that league, let alone play any more than that at all, even in the ECHL. bmitchelfTF 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we might want to look at other sports to see how they determine notability. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd fine with these. Although I also agree with a previous remark that was made by Bmitchelf. I'm not sure that three seasons in the ECHL should count, unless that player was called up and played a certain number of games with either an AHL or NHL team before being sent back down. When the Peoria Rivermen (now in the AHL) were in the ECHL, they had only two players that actually made it up to AHL or NHL (or the equivalent to either one) in the three years that I had watched them. There should be a guideline on how many games an ECHLer plays at a higher level before getting the "notable" status. Other than all that, I like the guidelines that were presented.Thunderstix33 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything except the minor league requirement. It probably should be a game limit (100 might be a little too low considering it's just- at best- a season and change. It probably should be 150). I also think that being drafted (at the very least in the first round) and/or invited to training camp should be good enough for inclusion- I for one would love to know what happened to some of the prospects that failed to make the cut. Being considered by a NHL team is an accomplishment in itself, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's curious about how their team's dubious choices (like the aforementioned Jeff Kealty) actually panned out. -RomeW 08:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Notability standards is a good idea generally. But, IMO, it should not be rigid frames; rather I would prefer a set of recommendation. We don’t create sort of “Hall of Fame” here. As I understand our main task is not to immortalize players’ names but just to provide people with appropriate information. And if anyone has a wish to give such information why others must prevent it?
All above is my personal opinion, of course. RamBow 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is how these guidelines will be applied. Several comments have been made that this debate isn't to go start deleting existing articles, but to give a focus for the wiki-project. The problem is that it's already being quoted in discussions about deleting articles for notability, here and here for example. The existing Wikipedia notability guidelines state that a subject has to have several, independent, verifiable, and non-biased sources to prove its notability. Articles on team pages don't count, articles on league pages probably don't, and neither would articles from the university papers that cover their teams. I have no problem at all with setting the 'scope' of the ice hockey project by league played in, or length of time (and I agree with a lot, but not all, of the original proposed guidelines). I just think that if that's what we are deciding on (setting the focus of the project) then it should be named that, and not be confused with the notability guidelines used for deciding whether to delete articles. If it IS notability for whether to keep articles in wikipedia that we're discussing, then we should move the debate to Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes). No matter what the consensus there is, we can always set our own guidelines for what we want the hockey-project to focus on. ColtsScore 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The deletion you mention here (which btw doesn't quote these standards like you seem to imply) would have been deleted anyway prior to this discussion as he does not meet even the general standards that are already in existance and have been forever. And as for the other one, that was just a link put in to bring people to comment on the subject just like you went and did by pasting on every ones talk page and was also put up based on the long existing fact that juninor players are not eligable, however it was mistake as it was not noticed he played at the World Championships. Deleting junior players is not a new guideline it is already in full existance and has been for years. And again we are not using these as notability guidelines to decide whether to delete articles, we are using these as notability guidelines to CREATE articles. I think you have just been missing the entire point of this. --Djsasso 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The first link has an AFD discussion on this project page that includes "So, it's been decided to keep Oskars Bartulis?. The article meets the 'new' guidelines?". The second link is an actual AFD that says "fails WP:V and even the loose standards of WP:BIO, never mind the criteria in place at the hockey WikiProject." I just want it to be very clear that the project standards are for our project goals, and not notability standards for whether articles have the right to exist. ColtsScore 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I haven't been able to keep up with whats being discussed on this, as real life is getting in the way again. However, I do think that all NHLers deserve a page, and players who have appeared in a top tier league. While I will not start saying what constitutes a top tier league, as that's a whole different discussion, that should be the most obvious guidline. Any other league should not be given such a automatic article. A player would have to be very notable, because we don't need an article on every single hockey player who has ever appeared in a game. A uniform agreement of a set number of years and games, or having done something notable, is what we need, and is something that seems to have been agreed upon. So I don't see anything wrong with what has been proposed already. If some articles are deleted, then it's something we are going to have to deal with. Kaiser matias 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the notability guide in one respect: amateur players that are considered top prospects should have articles. For example, players in the juniors, AHL, ECHL, and European leagues who are considered by their drafting clubs should be allowed to have articles. This should also extend to upcoming top draft picks, such as Sam Gagner or Patrick Kane, and amateur players in significant international play. Briememory 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, except for one part (Which Briememory pointed out) that prospects should also be allowed to have their own articles. Other than that, it all sounds good to me. Bsroiaadn 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying I didn't like that they could have their own articles since that's not what was said in the list. I meant that prospects SHOULD be allowed to have their own articles and I DID like that part. Sorry if anyone got confused. Bsroiaadn 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I could envision the database that holds all of this getting very big. It really depends on how comprehensive everyone (i.e. the editors) want the hockey section to be. Players that are "prospects" could easily constitute more than 200 players every season. If that's a fair allowance, than giving each one their own page is fine. Otherwise, I think it would be nice to have at least stubs for all the current and past NHL players, as well as Hall of Fame members. Since there are quite a few leagues other than the NHL, that garner Professional Status back in the early parts of the 20th century, those leagues deserve player pages for the notable players as well. --Ered7 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why give hockey more stringent notability guidelines than the rest of Wikipedia?

I agree with having a set of guidelines, but I don't understand why ice hockey players should have to reach a higher level of notability than other types of people to be included in wikipedia.

The Wikipedia notability guideline states:

  • Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".
  • A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The [| Wikipedia Notability of People guidelines] state aobut the same:

  • A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject

PLUS Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.

Playing in the AHL, even if it's only for one season, means a person is employed full-time as a professional athlete. We're not talking about ego-pages here, but articles about people who get a lot of media coverage from TSN, for example. I don't see the logic in giving ice hockey articles a more stringent notability requirement than the rest of Wikipedia. There have been AFD's on this, and the discussions have gone in accordance with Wiki's existing notability guidelines (professional paid athlete = notable). The [| Wikipedia Notability of People talk page] contains some of this discussion, but I can say that I remember a little spate of AFD's that got quite heated on this. The decision then was to follow the current guidelines.

If there's an editor willing to spend the time to create these articles, then I believe we should keep them as [| Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia] and there is no harm in keeping the articles. I disagree with the ice hockey project instituting more strict notability guidelines than the rest of wikipedia.

We aren't actually making it much more strict to begin with. We are just putting it into clear concise readable guidlines for people to follow. As mentioned above we must follow wikipedia standards however, people are welcome to have their own guidelines that are stronger than wikipedia's. No one said they were going to go around deleting articles that didn't meet these standards. It was a case of trying to avoid creating articles that did not meet these standards. And you are right there were some Afds that got heated about this. But there were also a number of Afds in the past that also passed and deleted people that only played one season in the AHL for example. And one season in the AHL does not make one "worthy of being noted" by any stretch of the imagination. --Djsasso 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
But you already are nominating articles for deletion, using these guidelines (which have not yet reached consensus) as a reason for doing so. A perfect example is this nomination of Oskars Bārtulis. This is a player that played for his country in the 2005 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships in a year where there was no NHL competition to prevent others from playing. And this while he had just turned 18. He also made the 2004-05 QMJHL All-Rookie Team. And to top it off, it is in an article that has ten listed references from six sources (including press releases and mainstream media). If you read the guideline on notability it states, Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. I agree that this article does not fit the current state of the ice hockey guideline noted above. However, I believe that with the sources given, it easily meets the generic notability guideline. I'll dispute the deletion of the article (I'll remove the prod tag referring to this discussion). I see no reason to start deleting articles of well written articles that easily meet all of the Content policies. -- JamesTeterenko 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No I put that one up based on the already very well established wikipedia standard that he is a junior player and has not yet played on a fully professional league which does fit in with the general notability standards. The addition of the link to the guidelines was just so that people would have a chance to see them and be able to agree or disagree on them. From the notability standards for people Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis.. And I must note that you are the only one that has objected to to it other than Coltscore and even you didn't object you just said you thought some junior players were more notable than AHL players, however the junior guideline is an overall wikipedia one and not one we created. So I would say there has been a consensus since only one persion out right objected and the rest thought they were still too lenient if anything. --Djsasso 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of any policy or guideline that states a junior player that hasn't played pro is not notable. There is a guideline that states playing pro is notable. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states, "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." Do you believe that there are issues with verifiability, finding reliable source or original research? The reason that professional athletes are included is because the "criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Editors evaluating an article should assume that adequate research will support notability." (from the same guideline).
I suppose I should give a suggestion as to where the guideline should be for junior players. Maybe something like, one of:
  • drafted in the first two rounds of an NHL draft
  • projected to be a first round pick in an upcoming draft (by a reputable scouting service)
  • signed to a professional contract
I believe that an article on a player that meets any of these will be capable of having an article that meets the policies on verifiability, having reliable sources and without original research. -- JamesTeterenko 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have never said all junior players were not notable. I just think there needs to be a line at some point where that ends. seeing as how many Afds have passed in the past deleting junior players I would say thats a very easy guideline to follow. However, there are obviously exceptions like Sidney Crosby would have been when he was a junior player. I do however completely agree with your suggestions as to where to draw the line. --Djsasso 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the proposal not meeting consensus; the consensus was, in fact, fairly overwhelming. That being said, contesting a prod on Bartulis under those criteria is perfectly proper, since he did indeed play in the Worlds. As far as James' proposed junior guideline goes, I disagree. We can all think of many early round junior players who never amounted to squat. Heck, while I'm a rabid Northeastern University Huskies partisan, I consider the career of Mike Morris, who was a 1st rounder from the Sharks in 2002. Morris just graduated from an injury-filled career at NU (and didn't particularly set Hockey East on fire even when healthy), and while he just signed an entry-level contract with the Sharks, he's got some ways to go before turning in even a respectable minor league career. Furthermore, since notability doesn't expire, making junior players who haven't necessarily achieved anything even at that level automatically notable because of what a scout thinks they can do at age 17: lots of articles on the Ryan Sittlers, Donevan Hextalls, Mike Pomichters, Colin Cloutiers or Jeff Kealtys of the world.  Ravenswing  14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agree with everything Traynor said. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A consensus was reached to adopt these guidelines, this debate is moot. Questioning these guidelines adoption, means questioning the purpose of this WikiProject page (and other WikiProject pages). GoodDay 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think we can stand more discussion. A consensus having been reached, the criteria are there for use and were added to the Player pages format page, but talking over the fine points doesn't do any harm.  Ravenswing  18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're right. GoodDay 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The main part of the proposed guidelines that I disagree with is the "three-year-requirement" for a pro-player (working in a lesser league like the AHL) before they fit the criteria. If they are playing in the AHL, even for just one season, that's NOT junior hockey, and it is a fully professional league. The players get a lot of media coverage, fit the overall notability guidelines, and I don't think these should be restricted further. Also, the earlier hockey history of a player is much easier to compile from current news articles than retroactively several years later when they make it to the NHL after a few years in a lesser (but fully professional league). If there's an editor willing to work on it, then why not? Earlier in the discussion someone said, "No one said they were going to go around deleting articles that didn't meet these standards." Unfortunately, I'm not certain that any new guidelines won't be applied in just that way. I'm also hesitant to declare a discussion as having reached a consensus after less than 1 week, especially when the exact same issue has been discussed at length in the past, with no clear consensus. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) as a lot of points have already been made there and any precedents we set here could have an effect on the notability discussions for all sports in general. ColtsScore 22:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But its not a new policy. Its a guideline for people to use when creating articles who are part of this wikiproject. They can choose to follow them or not. Afd decisions would not be based upon them because its not an official wiki standard, its just a guideline this particular project uses. Not to mention that you keep saying AHL players get lots of media attention, but that's simply not true. Unless you are a top level AHLer which means you probably played atleast one game in the NHL or met one of the other guidelines you don't tend to get much press in the AHL except maybe locally. And again if an editor is willing to work on it they are more than able to. These are just a set of guidelines that you can follow or not. As mentioned right at the beginning wiki standard will override these. Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) wouldn't be apropriate because its not a new overall policy we are looking for althrough many of us would probably like it to be that. --Djsasso 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Beyond that, a couple points. First off, we would be far from the only Wikiproject to come up with our own consensus and criteria about things, and I see no reason why we can't adopt a higher standard when just about everyone agrees the athletic standard in WP:BIO is ridiculously low. Second, I've participated in several debates in Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes), and there will never, ever be an agreement there, because there are too many constituencies across too many sports. Basketball and football backers see no reason why minor leagues should have any notability whatsoever (because the colleges constitute their minors), while baseball, hockey and soccer folk back sports with extensive and strong minor league systems. Hockey's junior leagues form a near-unique niche, you have North America vs. the rest of the world, and let's not even go into the Montserrat question (which if you're a soccer fan you'd get). Heck, I'll wager a thousand dollars against a dime you couldn't even get consensus on what a "fully professional" league means.  Ravenswing  07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion started out with the title "Notability standards for hockey players", and that's why I took exception to narrowing the guidelines. I have no objections at all to anything being set as the "Mission Statement" or "Scope" of the ice-hockey project as long as it's clearly marked as such, and NOT as a notability guideline that could be used to justify deleting articles (that have multiple, independent sources and fit the current wiki-notability guidelines). Also, in the future, I'd like to see us take a little more time to discuss project issues, before declaring a consensus. There are several members who don't look at the project page each day but who would have valuable input to add to the discussion. Thanks. ColtsScore 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, we can set whatever "guidelines" we want, if the community at large disagrees with us, then we have to conform to the community at large. Simply put, we cannot set a guideline or policy, all we can do is set a mission statement, and hope that we have it defined clearly enough that it meets WP:BIO - in both letter and spirit. Frankly, the caveats in WP:BIO for atheletes could be loosely interpreted to mean nearly any hockey player. The highest amateur level of junior hockey is major-junior. I could argue that WP:BIO conisders all major-junior hockey players to be notable. In practice, this has never been supported by the community. Similaraly, I am not sure that we would be successful in arguing that a player with a long minor league career would be notable, given that the AHL (as an example) is not the NHL. The spirit is not "has played pro" but "has played at the highest level of pro".
Ultimately, I suspect that for most players who don't play in the NHL, they will require exceptional performance/results to enhance their notability. i.e.: Shannon Szabados, who is a recent Junior A grad, but was the first female player to ever play in either the Western Hockey League and Alberta Junior Hockey League. For minor leaguers, a long career that includes winning major awards could be considered notable. A minor league journeyman may have trouble passing an AfD. Or, to make a long, rambling, though short: what RG Traynor proposed as guidelines are all good, except for the "played 3 years in a minor pro league" point. Resolute 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just found Notability standards for ice hockey players that was added to our wikiproject article format page on April 30th. This discussion only began on Apr.26th. I REALLY think more time should be allowed for discussion of this issue, and am in the process of adding an invitation to participate to each hockey project member's talk page. I have also moved the "Standards for ice hockey player notability" stuff to the talk page of that page. ColtsScore 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I moved it to the talk page, so it can now be found here. ColtsScore 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
But it has reached concensus. Now I haven't gone and counted exact numbers but it was something like 95% agreed. That's consensus. No two ways around it, it wasn't even close. Not to mention campaigning is looked down upon and 5 days is the general time frame for discussions to occur over unless there is noconcensus which there clearly was in this case. If they are not active enough to check the page in 5 days then really I don't think they have a strong case for complaining they missed the discussion. I find it fairly ironic that the only person who is objecting is some one who very rarely contributes based on their edit history and as of this point has almost as many "invites" to this discussion as he does edits to wikipedia over the last couple of months. --Djsasso 01:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting 'invites to discuss' on ALL the hockey project members talk pages, even the ones I'm pretty sure will disagree with my views. We have a lot of members... trust me, it's taking forever to invite them to the discussion. At the point that the consensus was declared, approximately 8 of the hockey project members had added comments, and less than a week had passed. In those 8 opinions, there were comments that the guidelines could be discussed further, tweaked or refined. As it is now, the discussion has been open for only one week. I just think it's reasonable to allow more time so that everyone has a chance to provide input.ColtsScore 02:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that they were pretty much saying they should be tweaked to be MORE stringent? That being said, nothing on wikipedia is ever permanent. Its always open for discussion. We have changed project standards in some areas a number of times as consensus has a habit of switching back and forth on some issues. --Djsasso 02:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a few instruction creep concerns. Having a page which says "this is what a lot of project members think" is useful, but if the intent is to say "these are The Standards" then I think its a bad move. What works for North America doesn't necessarily work elsewhere. For example, the one area of hockey I know about (and edit in) is British hockey. The EIHL is fully professional and the highest level here. However, media coverage is low, so many players would have permastubs if articles for them were created. Oldelpaso 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The criteria aren't North America-centric. Certainly if you nailed the NHL partisans down and asked whether they thought the European pro leagues could be considered equal to the AHL in caliber of play, most of them would agree, and I'd be among them: the best Swedish players are mostly in the NHL, not in the Elitserien. However, subjecting the European pro leagues to second tier status, however accurate an assessment, places an undue value judgment on WP:BIO.  Ravenswing  14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks & Honored Members

WPT calls for NHL team pages sections 'Hall of Famers' & 'Retired Numbers' to be written in 'pros style' under the section heading 'Honored Members'. Could someone contact Darthflyer, tell him to stop going against that consensus, as he's done at Anaheim Ducks continuously. GoodDay 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:ECHL map.PNG

Could somebody take a look at Image talk:ECHL map.PNG? The colors on the map no longer correspond to the current alignments of the conferences, according to the ECHL article. Corvus cornix 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Season by season standings

Borrowing from Chicago Bears seasons, I have been working on a concept for separate season list articles for teams. My work so far is at User:Resolute/Sandbox. I think that for teams with long histories - particularly Toronto and Montreal, separating the season by season stats into child articles will help to significantly reduce the size of the main articles (pulling the sbs from the Flames cuts it by 8kb, and Calgary's history is a quarter that of Montreal). It also makes for a nice graphical display of when a team had success. In the parent articles, I would prefer to see the last five seasons included, with a link pointing to the sbs article for complete history. As always, I am looking for suggestions for how to improve this, or whether it really is worth doing. Resolute 03:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, guess what I have been doing the last few days (User:Krm500/Sandbox3) ;) Krm500 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that that's been happening a lot. Somebody recently did that to the Devils article (last 5 seasons only) which I didn't really mind I guess but was a little curious as to why that needed to be done because they don't have a long list. However if it means that it will make some of the really long ones (like Montreal and Toronto) short then doing them for all seems like it'd be a benefit as a whole. Sportskido8 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't do the Devils, but I have done other teams with even less history (Florida/San Jose). Personally, I prefer the consistancy of having all team articles looking generally the same. It looks cleaner, imo. Resolute 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you all please check out User:Krm500/Sandbox3 and see if there is anything that needs to be improved or changed? I was thinking about submitting it for as a FLC, does it stand a chance? --Krm500 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Given most reviewers at an FLC will likely be North American, a bit about the promotion/relegation system might help, especially given there are several years where the team played in both Division 1 and Allsvenskan in the same season - how did that work? Other than that, some minor gramattical cleanup would also be a benifit. Resolute 00:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How it worked? You tell me. I can't belive why they had to make everthing so difficult. Before 1975 ,when Elitserien was created, Division 1 was the top tier of Swedish hockey. Today it's the third tier after Elitserien and Allsvenskan. In the 80s Division 1 was the second tier, after half the season the top teams from the four division one (North, South, etc) and some teams from Elitserien joined Allsvenskan, which at the time was a continuation league.
The biggest problem is that every season there was a new format. Even look at the playoffs, some seasons it was a "best of 3/5/7" format, some seasons the playoffs were played in a "league format". --Krm500 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fixed gramattical cleanup. One problem is that there are no season articles for Elitserien. Only one of the seasons have a link, I think this could be a problem för this article in a FLC. --Krm500 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that will be an issue. At the Chicago Bears seasons FLC, there was a concern raised about redlinks for the team season articles, and a suggested solution was to either create stubs, or to de-link seasons without an article. How it worked - or at least, how confusing it was - would be useful to note, IMO. I think it says a lot when our resident Swedish hockey expert can't make heads or tails out of it. Confused editors at FLC are going to wonder the same. Resolute 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Made some minor edits, mostly added footnotes. Please take a look and see if there's something else that needs a refrence. Also moved to Frölunda HC seasons and put it up as featured list candidate. --Krm500 00:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like five seasons is a very short time in the history of a team that has lasted for several decades and in the recent history of the league. I think ten would be a much more prudent choice. Also, I have noticed that the totals are not included on the team pages. That is important in the history of the team. I don't want to do every team myself, so I'm asking for some help with this, if people feel it should be done. bmitchelfTF 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Does nobody else have an opinion on the "recent seasons" length? bmitchelfTF 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to keep them the same, uniformity is best. GoodDay 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I went with five as it was a nice, round number for recent history, which I think is what most people would be looking for at a glance. For a team like the Canadiens, approaching 100 years in existance, a 5 year or 10 year recent history window wont really change much. Personally, I prefer leaving it at five years. The link to the full season history is clearly marked, and includes the totals. Resolute 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer five as that is a very long time in terms of sports teams as players rarely last with a team much longer than that so the team 5 years ago isn't the same team as now. A 10 year window is way to long I think. So I agree with Resolute. --Djsasso 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, when I said the same, I meant leave them at five. GoodDay 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, five is a good number. Could you all take a look at New Jersey Devils seasons and see if you can expand the lead and add a few refrences. I think it would pass FLC then. What do you think of the list? I think it looks better then the old one we used. --Krm500 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

NHL player (injury) tags & Maple Leaf orgins

I've removed the (injury) tags from players on inactive NHL team rosters (team's having missed and been eliminated from the 2007 playoffs). If this is unacceptable, feel free to re-add them (I won't dispute it). Also, how should the Toronto Maple Leafs history in its Infobox be listed? With or without mention of the Torontos and the Blueshirts? GoodDay 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Torontos and Blueshirts shouldnt be mentioned in the Maple Leafs infobox, as they are not part of the same franchise. IIRC, the folding of the NHA and creation of the NHL was done specifically to exclude the Blueshirts. The Arenas were a new franchise under different ownership. Resolute 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Kinda figured they shouldn't be listed. I've left a message on Blueboy96's page (letting him know, they should not be re-added). GoodDay 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments in Notability discussion

When it's not at the bottom of the page, I always think people may not see it. | Take a look please. Thanks, ColtsScore 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So, it's been decided to keep Oskars Bartulis?. The article meets the 'new' guidelines? GoodDay 22:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oskars Bartulis fits the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (people) as he has played in the highest level of amateur sports (representing his country at the World Juniors).ColtsScore 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So, this WikiProject's guideline is 'null & void', right? Just trying to understand, which has more authority over Hockey player articles (Wikipedia in general OR this WikiProject). Obviously, it's Wikipedia in general. Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah when I prod'd it I forgot that he played at the World Championships and so played at the highest amateur level for his sport. --Djsasso 23:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, time out here. Did he play at the World Championships or at the World Junior championships. If the former, he passes the criteria. If the latter, he doesn't and this article's a candidate for AfD.  Ravenswing  23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
He actually played in both. I thought it was just the juniors which is why I prod'd it but upon going back to the page hidden in among the jr. championships was one appearance in the men's. --Djsasso 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We were on shaky ground for a moment, but things have settled (Bartulis, is approved). GoodDay 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC request

Hey everyone, I need to take an extended leave of absence from Wikipedia. I'm posting to ask whomever is willing to "adopt" the FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fighting in ice hockey. I have been fixing people's objections as they have come along, but it still has not passed and someone has just posted another objection. I will try to respond to it this morning. I basically need some interested editors to watch the FAC and try to address objections until we can get it passed. Thanks --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have refrained from voting, as I would rather not leave a perception that WP:Hockey people are attempting to rig the !vote. As it is, the FAC is currently 7-2 in favour of passing it, so I can only suggest that you continue to address concerns as they are raised, and you should have no trouble passing it. Good work! Resolute 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work with this article Mus Musculus! I have added my image with an acceptable licence this time. --Krm500 01:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone please take a look at the FAC and fix the minor objects that are yet unfixed. I would do it my self if I knew more about the topic. --Krm500 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sakic is now a GA

Just announcing to everyone that after some three weeks of waiting, Joe Sakic has finally cleared the GA nomination. My next goal is to slowly work it into FA status, but am going to focus on majorly improving another hockey article, probably something to do with the Vancouver Canucks. Kaiser matias 02:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll help you with this. I'm trying to get Dominik Hasek to FA right now but I can do this one as well. I really like seeing hockey articles reach FA-status (most people have seen that already, I guess) Sportskido8 07:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Two Eriks Johnson

We currently have two Erik Johnsons listed here - the one everyone knows at Erik Johnson (B. 1988), and also a career ECHLer who played in Pensacola last year and had 15 points in 24 games as a forward Erik Johnson (B. 1981). The Erik Johnson page is a DAB page. Can we get a consensus to move the real Erik Johnson back to Erik Johnson and either delete the career ECHLer or list him as a DAB from the real Erik's page? BoojiBoy 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved the NHL Erik Johnson to 'Erik Johnson (ice hockey)', moved other Erik to 'Erik Johnson (ECHL)'. GoodDay 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... The ECHLer passes WP:BIO. I would feel uneasy deleting it purely for the convenience of the other article. On the other hand, it is a one sentence stub that isn't linked from anywhere. FYI: hockeydb lists a third who played for New Hampshire a couple years ago [1]. ccwaters 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as an AfD frequent flyer, I'd downright oppose filing an AfD solely because a particular article was inconvenient; that's not an acceptable policy ground. DAB from the more famous to the less famous.  Ravenswing  20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My page movements were reversed, were they that bad? GoodDay 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope they weren't bad. I just moved them to the proper naming conventions for people with the same name being Erik Johnson (ice hockey b. 1981) and Erik Johnson (ice hockey b. 1988). That being said if we are moving him back to the straight Erik Johnson it won't really matter much. --Djsasso 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks. GoodDay 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
One's a defenseman, one's a forward, could distinct them by that perhaps. IrisKawling 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is how to distinguish them because there is a standard for that already. I think he is just stating that he feels Erik Johnson without a dab at the end should be him automatically and only have the other player have a dab next to his name. --Djsasso 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I definitely think that the #1 overall draft pick should have a straight link as opposed to an ECHLer. It just saves some big disambig-repair at a later date, if no one raises any real objections I propose we move the more notable Johnson to Erik Johnson. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup lets just do it. --Djsasso 14:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's now done, what a mess. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Template suggestion

I think a very useful template for players external links would be a hockeydb.com template similar to Template:YouTube. I've noticed many players articles which have their stats page linked, displays some sort of older html page that has out of date stats. (They now use Php3) Using this template we'd be able to keep all of the links current if the site happens to change their system of displaying the page, not to mention just the ease of adding this useful link to an article. IrisKawling 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is actually one at Template:hockeydb. Slowly but surely I have been changing over all the players to it. --Djsasso 22:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking of.. funny that I (or anyone editing rangers players) haven't ever noticed it or I'd have been using it for a while. well thanks IrisKawling 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche on Peer Review

The Colorado Avalanche article is on peer review here. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hockeydb template

I just have a quick comment about the Hockeydb template. It's a great template, but for players who have the (ice hockey) tag in the article title, I really don't think the template works. On Ryan Craig's article, instead of using the template, I simple copied it and put this in manually:

The template, however, would have looked like this:

I had a user revert my manual link because they thought it wasn't good to remove a template. Well, in my opinion, it really doesn't look good at all to have the (ice hockey) part in the link. Where is there any harm in manually replacing the template? Am I alone on this, because I personally think it looks a lot better to just have the person's name in the link. - Nurmsook 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons. The first and biggest being if the target website changes how it labels its pages we only have to go to one place to make the change and not to every single player page. Secondly the name of the article is Ryan Craig (ice hockey) which is a valid disambig as to who's stats they are. --Djsasso 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I need something to do

I've hit a point where I know it sounds silly, but I can't think of anything to do for this WikiProject. I have no problem doing menial, repetitive tasks. Any suggestions/recommendations? Thanks. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Something I was slowly getting myself around to doing was improving the lists of memebers of the Hall of Fame. I think it wouldn't take much to get the HHOF and the USHHOF member lists to Feature List status. Aside from that, you could always get a regular article to FA status. Pick a team or player and work on it. Kaiser matias 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've pondered the whole getting an article to FA status thing, however I'm kinda separated from most of my hockey library at the moment, so that'll probably have to wait til I move back home.... but keep the suggestions coming. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Want repetitive tasks? See List of Colorado Avalanche players. If you really have the time, you could do this kind of stuff for your favorite team. This article is going to be promoted to Featured List, it is just waiting for the 10 day rule. It's repetitive to do, but having that for every team in the league would be some very good information to have to display. We could set up a collaboration to work on that, like: every day, every guy adds two or three players to that list and soon enough we'd have it done. If you don't have your library to do things to have FA's, do Featured Lists as it does not require that kind of stuff so much.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now your talking, that's not a bad idea.... Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing sorely needed is to complete the list of first and second all-star team honors for each season. A long time ago I started this on 1930-31 NHL season (first time those were awarded). I split up the "NHL Awards" section into three, with a table for the all-star teams. It would be nice to update all subsequent season articles to add the all-star teams and to follow that same sub-section format I started. Andrwsc 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That won't take me long, I've already done 10 seasons worth, it should keep me busy though for a short while though. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I wish a list of 'alternate captains' could be added to the 30 NHL team pages, but such a list is near impossible. The NHL team websites don't bother listing them. GoodDay 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are still 26 teams that need articles for the 2005-06 season, ala 2005-06 Calgary Flames season. While the game logs get tedious, I love doing these things because it can help take you down memory lane. Doing the section for the Flames 1991 Draft picks kinda underscored why the Flames sucked for the 90s. Really menial would be to help me convert the base List of NHL Players lists to a chart form, as is done for Players A-B, and a few random letters at the end of the alphabet. I've only been on that one for a year now. Some of the NHL season articles require cleanup, playoff brackets, etc. Resolute 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Howabout 'images' of the current captain of each NHL team (see Anaheim Ducks for example). GoodDay 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry GoodDay, I try and stay away from images as much as possible, I don't pretend to understand all the legalistic rules around it. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The current captain image, might be a hassle at Minnesota Wild as it would be change almost monthly. PS- I'm not clear on the legalistics either. Oh well. GoodDay 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With so many replies from so many people, we could coordinate our efforts and direct them on one thing and have that done quickly. Seeing results fast will only motivate us even more, which is better than just working by yourself, I think.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys... I'm an Italian ice-hockey fan so I don't have the experience and the knowledge to speak and to contribute, but I've noticed that are missing winning rosters on Stanley Cup pages. Why don't you add the roster of the winning team at the bottom of the Stanley Cup articles? I think it's a bad missing. --necronudist 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Good to see so much going on, and it sounds like its giving more people ideas other than just me. It served its purpose, it kept me busy the last couple hours and will continue to keep me busy. I'm done for the day and I gotta go, but by all means keep bringing up ideas so that others can keep busy as well. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a list of players for every team, similar to this one:List of Colorado Avalanche players or this one List of Chicago Blackhawks players. These two have different formats but both have good information on them. It's a little time consuming but researching player years and jersey numbers is useful in providing a comprehensive list of all the players that have at least played 1 game in a specific team's uniform. Also, it can internally link to the team's main page, and subsequently assist in creating individual player pages for those players that haven't gotten individual pages already.--Ered7 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a fan of the Chicago one, but I really, really like the Avs list. I will probably work on completing a similar upgrade to the list for the Flames once I complete the last 11 Flames season articles. Resolute 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Uniform numbers info, good idea Ered7. Think of it, who wore the Red Wings #19 before Steve Yzerman? Very interesting. GoodDay 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on a sortable players list, that way you can see top scorers, most games played and etc. I thought about addind jersey numbers but decided not to, but maybe I'll try it and see how it works out. The problem though will be that some players have worn more then one number for the team, for example Gordie Howe. --Krm500 23:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Also I have made a NHL team seasons list simular to the Frölunda HC seasons one, which currently is a fetured list canditade. --Krm500 23:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

I saw several NHL articles whip past my watchlist for removed images. I left a note on User talk:Betacommand about fixing the tags instead of removing the images. See Image:Calsealslogo.gif and Image:Calgary Flames.gif. Please chime in if those are good examples, as it would be less work to tag them properly now, instead of being removed from articles, have the image deleted, reupload the image, tag the image and then readd it to the articles. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am currently worked on the same task for all the logos on the junior ice hockey teams I'm watching. Flibirigit 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've hit the fellow's talk page myself with a protest.  Ravenswing  17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had a round with him as well, and he has no interest in working with the community. Technically, he is right in tagging unsourced images, but his actions in damaging the articles themselves is just ridiculous. I have been working to properly source the NHL team logos, but have also been reverting his edits as vandalism, which frankly, I consider it to be. I will be checking the WHL team logos tonight or tomorrow as well, and would suggest someone do the same for the Q, the OHL, and various minor leagues. Resolute 00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in this, but I'm just going to say that the high percentage of douchebag wannabe lawyers who take pleasure in hiding behind policy to annoy the maximum number of people is one of the biggest reasons I left Wikipedia in the first place. I'm back now mainly because of the combined effect of the CHL playoffs and a boring job that leaves me a lot of free computer time, but it's somewhat disheartening to see that in the nine months since I was really an active contributor nothing at all has changed. BoojiBoy 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Booji, I agree with you... and I know that I am happy that you are back... even in a shortened capacity. DMighton 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this matters (concerning the images) but, wasn't Betacommand recently reprimanded as an Administrator? GoodDay 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this makes me feel better, but he was. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. And after all of that, the fact that a guy like this is still allowed to do all sorts of mass image deletions and edits with a bot pretty much sums up why I left Wikipedia in the first place. BoojiBoy 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We're glad to see you back BoojiBoy. I'm also glad that it takes at least 48 hours to get logos deleted. I've had time to save a few. Flibirigit 03:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Images uploaded prior to May 2006 have seven days, which is the case for most of the NHL logos. Betacommander was improperly tagging those, and got smacked by an admin for it yesterday. Resolute 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Smith (again)

User:Mayumashu has moved the Steves Smith articles to Steve Smith (Edmonton Oilers, Chicago Blackhawks) and Steve Smith (Philadelphia Flyers). Since I'm not an admin I can't do anything, but I remember we debated this last year and we had a consensus to have them at Steve Smith (ice hockey) and James Stephen Smith. Thoughts? BoojiBoy 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gah, those new article titles are horrible. I don't particularly care for James Stephen Smith either, but it's far better than Steve Smith (Edmonton Oilers, Chicago Blackhawks). Has someone discussed naming conventions with Mr. Mayumashu? Skudrafan1 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Howabout, the former as Steve S.Smith and the latter as Steve (his middle initial) Smith? I was gonna seperate them by birth year, but 'Yep' they were born the same year (26-days apart, no less). GoodDay 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved Oiler/Blackhawk/Flame 'Steve Smith' to Steve S. Smith, previous title was too cumbersome. GoodDay 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah no! That makes it James Stephen Stephen Smith. Will the real 'Steve Smith' stand up. My page moved, makes it worst. GoodDay 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I moved it back to Steve Smith (Edmonton Oilers, Chicago Blackhawks) until an admin can move it back to James Stephen Smith. --Djsasso 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a rather special case, and James Steven Smith is by far the best alternative we have for a dab. Resolute 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just moved it back to James Steven Smith, I have no idea what Mayumashu was thinking on this one. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean, James Stephen Smith, of course. GoodDay 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hockeyville

Is there anyone who watched the show Hockeyville, that could make significant addition to the article? I never had a chance to watch. Flibirigit 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Women's hockey articles needs some attention

I've just found that the articles on women's hockey (National Women's Hockey League, Western Women's Hockey League, Clarkson Cup, et al) are grossly outdated and inaccurate, according to my sources (for one thing the WWHL is not defunct, and as a matter of fact, the NWHL is suspending next season while the WWHL continues to operate). I'd like some help in improving these articles. kelvSYC 03:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to update the articles when the leagues themselves have no clue what they are doing. The WWHL and NWHL did announce a merger prior to this season, but it appears to have been in name only. The WWHL continues to behave as if it is an independent entity, while the NWHL regards it as a division. Resolute 05:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to notability

Many of the participants in the discussion about notability stated that these weren't standards for deciding what to delete from wikipedia, but just what the hockey project would focus on. No one disagreed with those statements. The list of guidelines was put onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format with the title "Notability standards for ice hockey players". The first paragraph started out ... "Ice hockey players shall be considered notable for purposes of WP:BIO and deletion policy if they fulfill one or more of the following".

To eliminate confusion about what these guidelines were for, I have changed the title, and introductory paragraph (here) to indicate that these notability standards are for the focus of article creation, and not WP:BIO. If we are going to discuss WP:BIO or notability-standards for deletion, then we should do it on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) talk page. ColtsScore 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But again, its not that its the scope of the project. It is the notability standards of the players. We have no intention of going through all the articles deleting people that don't measure up fully, that I agree with but we are stating that these things make a player notable. --Djsasso 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've altered the introductory paragraph of [the section we're talking about] to it does not state these are standards for deletion. In previous discussions, it's been stated '"we are not using these as notability guidelines to decide whether to delete articles, we are using these as notability guidelines to CREATE articles."' by users other than me.ColtsScore 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the wording on your most recent edit is much better. --Djsasso 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added in info about where to find notability as it pertains to article deletion. There appears to be confusion as the WP:Hockey 'guidelines' are already being mentioned in AFD. ColtsScore 09:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that many of these guidelines are just written down versions of what have long been used as valid deletion reasons. When we said we weren't going to use them to delete articles what we mean is that we aren't going to en masse go and delete 150 articles about them. --Djsasso 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite. I am comfy with them as being used as ammunition in AfD discussions as reflecting the views of the project on notability, but there's little enough call to go hunting for articles that don't qualify.  Ravenswing  14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam attempt at St. Louis Blues (hockey)

A couple of IPs have been repeatedly attempting to add an external link to a website called est1967.com to the EL. I've removed it as spam three times today. I've also removed the link for letsgoblues.com for the same reasons, and it has been readded a few times as well. IMO, neither site meets the guidelines on external links, as blogs, discussion forums and fan sites are specificed as not being suitable. Hopefully a couple others can keep an eye on this, as I don't really want to violate WP:3RR or engage in an edit war over this. Resolute 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it is part of a spamming campaign brought on by a form of penis-envy: [2] Someone want to remove the spam link? I can't without violating the 3RR policy. Resolute 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it's been removed. Should we request protection on the page? Scratch that, it's been protected already. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I decided to request protection after realizing that several editors in an edit war with a bunch of anons wasnt going to be productive. Resolute 15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, those spaming anons will be blocked (better yet banned). GoodDay 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Straight up blogs and forums are definitely frowned upon. Generally my litmus test is whether the site has a respectable almanac/historical section. I think the Detroit and Pittsburgh sites removed are well qualified in that regard. Check out http://www.pittsburghhockey.net/: its doesn't compare at all to what's going on at the blues article. I'm not going to bring that in front of our friends though. ccwaters 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. We can always restore them once these blokes leave to carry on their war somewhere else.  Ravenswing  19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, you will not be violating the three-revert rule for reverting spam. There are exceptions and spam is considered simple and obvious vandalism, so you can revert spam as many times as you like without violating 3RR. BsroiaadnTalk 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Ofcourse, it could always end up in an edit war like it apparently did that time...at that point it'd probably be better (and easier) to just protect it. BsroiaadnTalk 14:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:209.136.3.78

Keep an eye out for User:209.136.3.78. I've reverted some edits they've made at Dallas Stars and 2002-03 NHL season. Thanks. Patken4 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Preakness Game

Someone created an article called Preakness Game regarding the OTT-BUF game two days ago in which NBC cut away from showing overtime and instead went to show the Preakness Race. I tagged is as {{prod}}, stating that a game that ended about 48 hours ago has obviously not been extensively written about over a long period of time in the media and the history books to be considered historically significant and notable. And so far, I have not found a source using the term "Preakness Game". The article also lacks references.

Currently it is tagged as {{dated prod}}, so please feel free to leave comments on Talk:Preakness Game before I decide to remove the prod tag or put it on AFD. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod has been removed. Want to send it to AFD? BoojiBoy 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll take care of it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game 5 of 2007 Eastern Conference Finals. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Victoria Cup

Granted, it's a year off, but we may need to bring this up now. If you don't already know the Victoria Cup will be competed for by two European teams selected from the Champions Hockey League and a team from the NHL. This may provide some complications when adding the competitions for the Victoria Cup to the NHL teams' articles (and probably also the European teams), so I figured I'd bring it up now so we could get it out of the way and give us a while to talk about it and figure things out. The solution may be simple, but it may not be. It being 4:38 in the morning, I can't think clearly enough to think of a solution at this moment, just wanted to mention it as soon as possible (also because I'd probably forget it by the time I wake). BsroiaadnTalk 08:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What's to worry? It seems like a notable enough competition, and the first time NHL teams will ever have regularly participated in any such competition. They'll likely be mentioned in the applicable single season articles. I don't foresee this being any degree of worrisome.  Ravenswing  14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm really very excited for this. I can't wait till it happens, I can only imagine how many people will be watching (assuming it will be broadcast on TV ofcourse...I don't see why it wouldn't be), I just wasn't sure how we would add it. Say the Buffalo Sabres go to one, will we just add another, for example, 2008-09 season and put perhaps "(VC)" next to it? VC standing for Victoria Cup, ofcourse. BsroiaadnTalk 14:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I think I mis-read what you wrote. So you're saying it would be mentioned in 2008-09 Buffalo Sabres season but not in the Buffalo Sabres article? BsroiaadnTalk 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah thats where I would probably mention it if I were to mention it anywhere other than the Victoria Cup article. I don't see this tournament being cared about much in North America. Most people I know already think its a rediculous idea. I think it could be neat but only if it was the Stanley Cup champion which they have already said it won't be. --Djsasso 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much. I don't see it being a ridiculous idea myself, but then again I'm an avid soccer fan where the tradition of club teams participating in interleague, international competitions is strong. By no means should this be comparable to a Stanley Cup win, but it's assuredly notable enough for mention.  Ravenswing  14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the concept. Just don't see it being done to its potential. I have a feeling it will just be a typical pre-season type set of games and the NHL team won't use its top players. But yeah I think it would be notable enough to mention of course but probably only in that seasons article. --Djsasso 14:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's think about when Russian teams came over here to face NHL teams (I wasn't alive then, but I've watched videos of it and pretty much always wished something like it would happen again). Specifically Super Series 1976, the "Red Army" only had one loss, and it was against the Flyers..the Flyers used their top players and everything, and it was basically an exhibition game. Sure, not all of the teams will use their top players...not all of them will play hard..but there will be instances where it will happen. I do wish it was the Stanley Cup champs that they faced instead of some other team. Only reason I can think of why they wouldn't send the champs over is because maybe they're scared of causing some controversy over if a European team wins, how they should get the Stanley Cup....only thing I can think of. Still, I think I'll enjoy it a lot. Plus, I'm sure there's some pride factor as well. You wanna show that your team could beat the best of any league kinda thing. BsroiaadnTalk 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
They don't want to send the Stanley Cup Champions over because it will basically mean no summer off for them and the Stanley Cup winner would basically end up playing two straight seasons which they find to be to big of an injury risk. These aren't going to be one off games like back in the day where top players were playing. Too much money is involved now so players getting hurt is too big a deal. That and the Russians aren't the big bad Russians anymore so it doesn't have that dire need to win attached to it anymore. --Djsasso 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I haven't heard a lot about this believe it or not... but who will the NHL be sending? The top ranked team who doesn't make the playoffs? Anybody? DMighton 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I would expect a top team that goes out early. i.e.: the Presidents' Trophy winner if they lose out early, as the Red Wings were prone to do. The problem, from a North American perspective, is that the Victoria Cup will be like the World Hockey Championships are treated: as a second rate consolation prize to not winning the Cup. If the NHL is committed to this long term, then I believe it can grow in prestige in North America, and hopefully the NHL and IIHF ultimately bring the tournament to Canada or the US from time to time.
As far as the original question goes, I believe that it should be mentioned in the team article for any team that does compete in it. Especially the first team to do so, as that will become a highly notable part of that team's history. Resolute 23:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Need some images

I'm currently trying to get Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame (chronological) to FL status by modelling it after List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological). They managed to get away without having to do individual cites for every inductee, and I'm hoping that this page will be afforded the same luxury, but the BHOF page was promoted a long time ago.

Either way, I would like to include as many free use images on the page as possible. However, for obvious reasons, I have been having trouble finding some, especially of players in uniform (which are the only images I am really after). So, I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find some images that are public domain, (the ones I'm really hoping for are Howie Morenz, Frank Nighbor, Maurice Richard, Frank Calder, Art Ross and Eddie Shore). I think any image published in Canada before 1950 is free, but I'm not exactly well versed on image policy. There are some really old images at the official HHOF website, but I'm not sure if they were copyrighted by the hall or not. Also, if anyone knows of any free use images already uploaded that I haven't used, then by all means, please add them here.

If anyone would like to just help me get the page to FL status, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion0422 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are there two list? Chronological and alphabetical? --Krm500 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I was wondering that myself. I'm more likely to think it should be put up for afd than to be pushed to feature level. Its total duplication. --Djsasso 12:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am working on merging the pages, but it will take time. Again, help would be appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 13:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I only mentioned it because I thought it was decided awhile back to not have a chronological version and to only have the dates next to the names on the alphabetical one. --Djsasso 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a case where the sort list feature would be put to excellent use. I can certantly see a use for both an alphabetical and a chronological list, and I believe these two articles were created before the sort list function was created. Good luck with merging and improving this list. It is a good candidate for such work. Resolute 15:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The pages were split about a year ago because various users felt that there were uses for both lists. This was some time before sortable tables were introduced. -- Scorpion0422 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can fix a sortable table later but I have no time to add the names. --Krm500 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just re-created List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame as a sortable table. Feel free to delete the other two lists and redirect to this one if you like. Andrwsc 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use violations

Please watchout for User:Mrcbc and his anonymous IPs. He insists on adding copyrighted material to articles. Most recently the Ontario Hockey League and all 20 team logos. Thanks. Flibirigit 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Stanley Cup Finals article

Is this article really needed? It should be re-directed to the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. I know there's Senators fans out there, who are tickled with the fact their team is in the Finals. However, there's no other Stanley Cup Finals articles on Wikipedia (that I know of). This article might be a candidate for deletion. What does everyone think. GoodDay 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should be. --Djsasso 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just found others (Cup Finals article), 1918 Finals through to the 1922 Finals. Should they be deleted aswell?? GoodDay 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say if you are up for it to merge what you can of those ones into the main page and then redirect. The 2007 one didn't really have anything in it so I just redirected it. --Djsasso 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Also found the 1925 & 1926 Cup Finals articles. I'll let you and/or others attempt a merge (then redirect). I'm not very good at that. GoodDay 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the 1918-26 articles should be merged. It's an apples-oranges comparison. In those days, the Stanley Cup finals were between multiple leagues, not just within the NHL. Therefore, it is illogical to merge 1925 Stanley Cup Finals into 1924-25 NHL season, for example. You'd have to do a similar merge into 1924-25 WCHL season, and that would make a merger somewhat pointless. It's better to keep 1925 Stanley Cup Finals distinct, and linked from both league articles. I agree with you that we do not need more than one article for the whole playoffs (as you've proposed to merge 2007), but that means that in early years, the single article would sometimes be named "19xx Stanley Cup Finals" because of the situation at the time. You'll see that from 1922-24, the articles are named "19xx Stanley Cup Playoffs" (not "Finals") because those years featured three leagues, so more than one series was necessary. For all other early years, "Finals" is the best article name because it was a single series with two league champions. I hope this makes sense. Andrwsc 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that (Multiple League Finals, which they were). Excellant point. GoodDay 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You know I was totally thinking that and meant to say it. Thats what I get for trying to comment on wiki and work at the same time. --Djsasso 19:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone has restored the 2007 Stanley Cup Finals article. The 1994 Stanley Cup Finals needs re-direct, aswell. GoodDay 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah its redirect again with comments on the talk page as to why its redirected. Hopefully it will make sense to him. There is no actually 1994 Stanley Cup Playoffs article that I can find at the moment to redirect/merge it to.--Djsasso 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah ha, alot of the Stanley Cup Finals are merged into their respective NHL season articles Example: 1993-94 NHL season. GoodDay 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps ALL the post-1926 Cup Finals & Playoffs should be merged/redirected into their respective NHL season articles. GoodDay 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There is too much detail in later years to merge into one article. I like to see the main season article include the playoff bracket only (as a clean summary of the whole set of playoffs), and the playoff article can include series game-by-game scores and series commentary if available. Andrwsc 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
On further review, I'm in agreement. We'll keep the Stanley Cup Playoffs articles. GoodDay 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
But we also need to clean up and add content to many past years.... Andrwsc 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've redirected the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals to 1993-94 NHL season (there's no 1994 Stanley Cup Playoffs). GoodDay 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am actually going to disagree with the redirect for a technical reason, if for no other: 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs is nearly 100KB in size right now, and will probably be 120+ by the time the finals are done. This is ridiculously large, and is well past the point where a split is ideal. In fact, it might be best to split the article into 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Western Conference), 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Eastern Conference) and 2007 Stanley Cup Finals with 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs redirected to 2006-07 NHL season#Playoffs or some such. This would be equivalient to how the baseball articles are done - one article for the ALCS, one for the NLCS and one for the World Series. Resolute 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If it'll cut down the length of articles (which it will), I'm sold on the idea. GoodDay 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather see the length cut down by removing alot of the useless trivia from 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs --Djsasso 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that much of that trivia section can be removed, the bulk of the article's size is the game logs. If anything, I would like to remove the trivia, keep the scores, and add some commentary for each series. While that would, IMO, improve the quality of the article, it would make it even longer, further necessitating a split. Resolute 01:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I am all for more than one article if we have someone that is actually going to do the prose for both. I think it would be ridiculous to have this massively detailed finals page and not the same kind of info for the rest of the playoffs. --Djsasso 01:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A comment made when one user reverted one of the redirects seems to suggest to me that the recent Finals articles were created in response to the fact that the NBA gets their own championship series as standalone articles. To those users with that thought process: I think we should probably worry more about the project's own articles rather than worry about how another WikiProject does it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm with Resolute and Djsasso; this article is ridiculously large, and it's that way because of the insistence on a complete box score for every game. Why is that, exactly? Slash those box scores to a simple "TeamX 3 @ TeamZ 1, W: Cheevers, L: Aastrom, GWG: Orr (5) from Esposito, Bucyk, 17:05 3rd" for each and every one and the file size will go down a lot.  Ravenswing  02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Other sports have articles on the finals, why can't the NHL? I'm going to recreate the article, since I don't think we've had long enough to discuss this. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ravenswing, I thought that too, but the folks working on the 2007 playoffs article shot it down. I thought the tables from 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs was perfectly fine, but everyone rejected it because (get this) "it didn't include goalie stats". Earl, we need to discuss this before we recreate the article; it really isn't necessary and you have to have a good reason we should have one aside from "The NBA articles do, too". NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Hilariously, the 2006 article is only 2/3rds the physical size of this years despite having about a million more words of prose. Personally, I have no problem with the expanded box scores, and actually like the ability to show/hide it. They dont add a lot, but they dont really detract from it. The article does need the kind of prose of the 2006 article. Resolute 03:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem is that all the detailed needed for those expanded box scores is the reason the article is 50% larger than the 2006 playoffs article. Plus, we're not making this article just for hockey fans; do you really think the average reader's going to care when a goal was scored, whether it was shorthanded or on the power play, and who assisted on it? I think it's overkill. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm aware of all that.  ;). The prose is required for the average fan/reader, the detailed boxscore is for the die-hard only. If we reduce it back to just final scores, that's great too. Resolute 03:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The point of the separate finals article was so that it could be elaborated on in more detail than the boxscore. There wouldn't be any reason for it, though, if the playoffs page was changed from having only the scoring details to something with a lot more prose (and perhaps using the less-detailed tables). The playoffs article really should get prose anyway; if the time and such are worth mentioning, then they could be noted. (And would it really hurt to include a LINK to the discussion??) Comrade Tux 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I've proposed a change back to the older boxes (with some modifiations) over on Talk:2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm always a fan of more detail, even if it takes more articles to do it. This topic is notable, and I say keep the trivia. ColtsScore 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ho-hum, this discussion has really snowballed... I would say that without question the season & playoff articles should be kept separate (just stating the obvious). As for a separate article for the Stanley Cup Finals, I see no problem with it... Just try and not make it too hard to actually reach these articles when one is searching for them. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I would really like to re-create the article. I think we can work on previous articles as well. I really like how the other leagues do it, and I don't see why the NHL shouldn't. Someone said that that wasn't an excuse to have it. Why not? Tell me how the NHL is any different. The Stanley Cup Finals are a lot more important than the World Series and the NBA Finals to a lot of people, so why should we not have an article? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems other sports separate the play-offs from the final (whether it be a series or a single game). NFL - Super Bowl XLI and National Football League playoffs, 2006-07. MLB - 2006 World Series and 2006 American League Championship Series (baseball separates each round and league of the playoffs). The aforementioned NBA - 2007 NBA Finals and 2007 NBA Playoffs. Champions League - 2007 UEFA Champions League Final and UEFA Champions League 2006-07. UEFA Cup - 2007 UEFA Cup Final and UEFA Cup 2006-07. FA Cup - FA Cup Final 2007 and FA Cup 2006-07. To me, it would make more sense to separate the finals from the entire play-offs. Patken4 13:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it looks like no one is making any more opposition to having an article on the finals. I will re-create the article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement Earl. We also need to cut down the stats of the article and bring things back to simple game reports. Flag of Canada.svg Eric B ( TCW ) 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I can live with Stanley Cup Finals articles, just hope nobody gets the idea to start creating other NHL playoff round series articles. Then again, maybe that too, wouldn't be such a bad idea. GoodDay 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags

We seem to be having a lot of discussions here on the hockey project page, which makes it pretty long. Another option is to use the

{{Mergeto|NameOfArticleYouWantToKeep|date=April 2007}} and {{Mergefrom|NameOfArticleYouWantGone|date=April 2007}} .

For an example, see Blocker (hockey). It creates a space for the discussion, people interested in the article who aren't part of the hockey project will see it, and it's a GREAT way to find a volunteer to come along and do the merge work for you <smile!> ColtsScore 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

216.60.196.222

Looks like this guy is going around and spamming the rosters of Stanley Cup teams on articles. Wasn't there a decision not to add these to articles? --Wafulz 12:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we even had the templates afd'd. --Djsasso 19:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am new just wondering why you don't want these on the champion player's pages?

Its because it makes the pages cluttered. Can you imagine a player like Henri Richard who has won 11 Stanley cups. The page would become a mess. We have or intend to (don't know if its been done yet) have a table on the applicable season page that would indicate who was on the team that won the cup that year. --Djsasso 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Djsasso, I hope to see that new table soon sorry about any mess I made.

88.112.222.56

Has anyone notice that someone using this IP has been changing statistics on player pages such as height, weight, etc.? S/he generally changes it back to what it should be, but this has been happening quite often. Gmatsuda 12:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

S/he is still at it, even though I left a message for him/her on his/her talk page. Latest is on Dany Heatley Gmatsuda 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Report him/her to the Administrators, I'm certain Heatly isn't 6'5' tall. Lower the boom. GoodDay 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That user makes changes and then corrects them right away. It's weird. Gmatsuda 21:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
He/she just doesn't know about the sandbox. That's the place for these Wiki experiments. GoodDay 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User is at it again, this time in Anže_Kopitar. I've added another warning to his/her talk page, although I doubt it's being read. User_talk:88.112.222.56 Gmatsuda 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him to the Administrator's noticeboard's incidents section. Patients is a virtue, 88.112.222.56 is trying my virtue. GoodDay 17:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
He/she's been blocked for the next 24hrs. The Administrators will be keeping watch now. GoodDay 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement

In the spirit of the Stanley Cup Finals, anyone want to take a shot at re-writing the Scott Niedermayer and Dustin Penner articles? The Niedermayer article is not on-par with the other articles of players of his calibre, and the Dustin Penner article is just poorly-written and tons of fancruft and POV. Anyone? I'm just a lil too busy on other stuff to do it myself. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

sortable tables

although i don't fully understand the technology, sortable wikitables has been implimented, and was discussed here; this seems extremely useful for displaying hockey stats. just thought i'd let you know, 131.111.24.187 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really help with stats all that much except maybe standings I don't think, but I know they were using it in the project for some other sorting. --Djsasso 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I used them for a re-write of List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame, and they are also used for the two small statistical leader tables on 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Andrwsc 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Very usefull for stats, for example if you want to know who is the teams leader in games played, goals, assist, points, and penalty minutes. I'm working on a players list with inspiration from the Avs one, but sortable. --Krm500 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Youngest NHL captain?

Not if we count 'interim captains' (which we do at Wikipedia, as the NHL also recognizes them). Today, Sidney Crosby at age 19-yrs 9-monts was appointed an NHL captain (Penguins), media declare him the youngest captain ever. What about Brian Bellows? who served as the 'interim captain' of the Minnesota North Stars (for the later-half of the 1983-84 season) while Craig Hartsburg was injured/out of the lineup. Bellows was appointed at age 19-yrs 4-months. What's everyone's opinons. GoodDay 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We should probably call him the youngest full-time captain and say who was the real youngest in the Crosby article. As you picked up on this, various media outlets will probably pick up on it as well, especially in Minnesota, and we will probably be able to find a source that states the same. bmitchelfTF 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As expected, my edit at Sidney Crosby is attracting opposition (though I understand why). It's frustrating, we've NHL team sites (external sites) that list 'interim captains' with regular captains & yet there's external sites listing Crosby as the youngest captain (ignoring Bellows). Conflicting sites, indeed. GoodDay 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo-Mania 2007

Well, Betacommand has his bought going around and tagging and SPAMing everything it find. I've spent the better part of the day adding Fair Use Rationale to anything I can find... I've done probably between 150-250 images so far... if anyone wants to help, because everyone will be affected by this... please add this template to all fairuse non-free content:

Summary

Note after archiving: The <noinclude> tags for the following template have been replaced with <nowiki> tags to prevent the appearance of this page in Category:Wikipedia files that transclude the Non-free media rationale template with no Purpose specified. Originally, the template itself, not the wikicode for it, was shown. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Non-free fair use rationale|Description= |Source= |Portion= |Purpose= |Resolution=reduced |Replaceability=Impossible |other_information= }}

I hate this too. But I doubt we have a choice. DMighton 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This, in a nutshell, is why I hate Wikipedia. BoojiBoy 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
True. But with some users - especially rogue former admins - policy trumps common sense, despite the claims that Wikipedia is not a beurocracy. Having beein heavily involved in one of the complaints against BetaCommand on the administrators notice board, I am grateful that we have at least, finally, gotten him to listen to alternative ways of doing things. It took a litany of complaints, but he finally stopped vandalizing articles as part of his process, and accepted the compromise of simply tagging the image, and leaving a note on the talk page of an affected article.
Fortunately for us, most logos will be easy to source and rationalize, as it seems a great majority was borrowed from sportslogos.net. I've already done the NHL team logos, so those should be safe. Gonna work on the WHA stuff tonight some time, hopefully. Resolute 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've gotten into it with Tony Sidaway about his unilateral sig deletions too. There just seem to be a few headhunters out there who don't think the words "consensus" and "discussion" apply to them, and there seems to be a lack of will to muzzle them as much as they feel free to muzzle others.  Ravenswing  15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The biggest reason I left last year was because the whole Steadman affair really illustrated just how far one ass can go in annoying a kajillion others on Wikipedia. Yes, he was banned, finally, but it took months of aggravation and RFCs and other stuff. People here are essentially free to push whatever POV they want, in spite of the ostensible "rules", and I promised myself back then that if I ever got involved again I would only concentrate on articles and not the ridiculous admin stuff that pushed me out the door in the first place. At least with message boards and such there are moderators - here, there's no one authority to say "hey, you - stop being a dick". BoojiBoy 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
People with authority, but few with the will, and even fewer when the perp is an admin or another prominent user. What Wikipedia badly needs is an "Eliminator Of Bullshit," as one club had it; someone who can just instaban - and publicize doing so - anyone for being a persistent dick. If we could all be trusted to deal with one another in a happy, fuzzy way, society wouldn't need laws, courts, police or prisons.  Ravenswing  16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
BoojiBoy if you let the vindictive asses bother you you'll never stick on Wikipedia, as unfortunate as it is. I've seen too many good users leave because of it. The best way to do it I think is to take a step back and realize that its not like real life, and if someone's being a dick just don't give them the satisfaction of leaving because of them.... As for the other editing stuff, do it as you want to do it. I went through about a year of very sporadic editing because I was forcing myself to edit instead of only doing it when I wanted to (or when I was bored :)). Now I'm doing more administrative crap than I've ever done, and I never woulda dreamed I'd be at this point. I'd say to people, don't force yourself to help with this if you really don't want to, pick the battles you want to fight. Anyways, keep up the good work guys. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils seasons

I mentioned it here a few days ago but I'm not sure if anyone noticed it. I made an major reconstruction of the New Jersey Devils seasons list. In my opinion this table looks better then the old one and I think it would be nice if we used it on all seasons lists. If someone could write a better lead and add more refrences, I think this list could pass Featured List Candidacy. --Krm500 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not half bad. I'm not sure I see the point in the note 3 for when the Wales became the Eastern Conference though. Resolute 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Nice job. Sportskido8 07:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That's definitely a good solid effort. The one thing it is missing to make it FLC is a column of team seasons, which will obviously have to be created as articles. If you look at all the FLs that are team seasons, the first column is for the league season that year, and the second is of the individual team 's season. Then all the other stuff. Resolute, the note about the conference changing over is standard practice. In fact, the list could use a reference to the year they switched jersey colors, and an update to this coming season where it indicates that they're moving to the Rock. It shouldn't take too long to hammer out individual season articles at least as stubs to start (I'd offer to help but I'm up to my neck in projects as it is). Once that's done then we can submit to FLC. Anthony Hit me up... 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know about the "team" column but since there's only one of those articles I didn't bother to add it. But that is a minor detail, what's important is the lead plus footnotes. --Krm500 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

Stanley Cup is now assessed as Good article. Congraduations. OhanaUnited 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)