Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive12

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


Draft picks format

Serte and I are in a discussion about how best to present a page of all the draft picks made by an NHL team. He has created List of Colorado Avalanche draft picks, which is currently a featured list candidate. I objected on several grounds, some of which are minor and irrelevant for purposes of our discussion. I also pointed out to him that I had begun working on a similar page for the New Jersey Devils on my sandbox page. Each page has its merits and its faults. We are offering both up to the WikiProject to see if we can come to a compromise, since whichever format is decided will be the standard for all pages (since the Colorado page will take that format and become featured, thus setting the benchmark, much like the Devils page has done for team articles). The Colorado page had pictures, but they interfered with the table at smaller resolutions (I see they have been removed for now; I'd like to see them return at some point). Also, the Colorado page is sortable; my only concern is it's not the type of page that needs sorting. The Devils page is broken up by draft, and also includes notes on what picks were traded and for/with whom. If we could build a consensus (I know that's an evil word on Wikipedia, but I don't care), it would help the development of future pages. Anthony Hit me up... 15:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw this in to the mix, it was a FLC a while back. I prefer sortable tables, it gives you the chance to see which player was most succesful, who was picked highest and lowest for example. --Krm500 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That was my idea when I made the table.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally much prefer the Devils one. I find it alot easier to read and I also dislike sortable tables for things like this. There really is no point to it. I know you mentioned it could be used to see who was most successful etc. But the info in that table doesn't really help to show that. Except maybe the stanley cup wins. Oh and I really really really dislike all the years being clumped together in one table. I don't mind the Frolunda one because its for a much smaller number of players. But for an NHL team list that would have the same issues of being one table like the Avalanche one. --Djsasso 17:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I really like the Devils one (good work!) And I too dislike the sorted tables. If the Devils table is to be the standard, Djsasso is right, there is no point to sorted tables as they should be sorted by round name anyways because who really cares about sorting 6/7 rows by team name. Thricecube 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also have to throw my support to the Devils format as well. Much clearer and easier to read. Kaiser matias 01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I don't like about it is how it says something like "No pick this round" whenever the Devils had no pick that round. I think that column should just be deleted and for example go from the 3rd round straight to the 5th. Thricecube 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah just skipping the round in that case would be good. But other than that. Its far easier to read and use than the Colorado version. --Djsasso 05:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason I included the no pick this round information is because we have the information; several sources track the Devils' transactions, and I personally thought it would be a good idea to show where the non-picks went. Also, I know it's not hockey, but List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks and List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks, which are featured lists, both include a "no pick this round"-type level (List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks is a featured list candidate, and could use some support *wink wink*). I'm still not finished with the list (as you can see, I just added 1985 last night); once it's all done, we'll put it up for peer review and see where it goes from there. In the meantime, I think we should still talk more about the format; it seems we're getting a decent response from the project members. Anthony Hit me up... 10:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The community has spoken. And I'm happy for that. So, I could use some help converting the Colorado Avalanche draft picks to the standard to be set here. And I agree with telling where the new picks came from and where the other picks went to when there are trades with picks. I just don't know. So, let's set a standard. Anyone has any major objections to the FutureNJGov type of article?--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone knows of a good site that lists traded draft picks, that'd be good so I could start working on the Avs while it still is a Featured List Candidate.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a specific site. HockeyDraftCentral.com only covers up to 1984. The Devils have a PDF with their all-time transactions on their website (it's just a scan of the pages in their media guide, I know b/c I have it). For the more recent ones, you could probably find them online somewhere. I checked the Avalanche website for something akin to it, but I couldn't find anything. HockeyDB.com doesn't list them on the draft pages, but does include on an individual player's page if their draft rights were traded... it's a bit more cumbersome, but the information is there. I'm at work all day today, but I can help you with some stuff tomorrow and over the next few days; alternatively, is there any way we can postpone or put the FLC on hold until these changes are completed? I'd hate to see it lose FLC while it's in the midst of an overhaul. Anthony Hit me up... 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I intend to mimic the Devils concept, though I do like elements of the Avalanche one. My biggest problem with the Colorado list, is simply how massive an unbroken table will be for a team like Calgary, with their 28th draft coming up, nevermind the 12 oldest teams who's draft histories go back to 1969. Which is a shame, as I do like the sortable list idea here, as it is cool to see which picks played the most NHL games, etc. One change I do intend to make wrt the Devils list is to remove the Stanley Cups won header. I personally don't see a great use for it, and I think that in fairness, it should include every cup such a player won, regardless of whether he did it with the team that drafted him or not. I choose not to go down that route. Resolute 22:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, a thought on the "no draft picks" thing:

Rather than this:

Rd # Pick # Player Nat Pos Team (League) Reg GP Pl GP SC winner Notes
2 0 No second-round draft pick

Why not do this:

Rd # Pick # Player Nat Pos Team (League) Reg GP Pl GP SC winner Notes
2 34 Pick traded with John Doe to the Kansas City Scouts for their 3rd round pick and Bobby Orr.

It places information in the chart rather than leaving a bunch of empty space, while also reducing the number of footnotes at the end, helping to compact the entire article. I would also still include the pick number, rather than using a "0". It would help identify which pick was dealt. Resolute 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't know of any up to date database on draft picks and trades with draft picks.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If we are going with the Devils one as the standard, I would prefer the name of the country next to the flag so you don't have to roll over or click on a flag you don't recognize. It makes sense in case anybody wants to print the article. Also, I don't see the use of including every round with the "no pick this round" information. It makes sense for those football articles because those are addressing first-rounders every year, but for this, we are listing all draft picks that are made, not ones that are not made. The references can still be used when there is an extra pick in a certain round involved. A couple other ideas I had are noting currently active players and players whose numbers were retired with their drafted team. bmitchelf•T•F 17:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a more neutral color than red. --207.69.140.22 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The red is just corresonding to the Devils' team colours. The color will differ as per team colour. Thricecube 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Page break

Couple of things.
  • First off, I like Resolute's idea in practice (as far as listing where the pick went instead of just putting No third-round pick etc. But if you look on the page, you'll see that some of the trade information is incredibly detailed. To try and squeeze all that into one line would be incredibly ugly.
  • What I will do is go back and insert the pick number as suggested instead of just writing "0".
  • With respect to the color, I chose red because it's the Devils' team color; I would assume that, say, Pittsburgh's draft history page would be gold/yellow.
  • Bmitchelf, current players are noted, they're all in bold; I just didn't make that notation on the lead yet, since I'm going to wait until the page is done to do the lead.
  • I could switch the flagicon template to a flagcountry template; I just went with flagicon to save room.
  • Finally, with respect to length, how about this: creating one big draft history page with sublinks to shorter versions. Something like History of the New York Giants is broken up because the team is so old that to create just ONE page would be phenomenally huge. So if we're going to break it up, what's the time length on sub-pages, 10 years? 15? 20? I'll admit, even the Devils page is getting a little big for its britches, especially with all the ref tags at the end; if we break it up into something a little easier to swallow, it would make it easier to navigate (of course, we'd then have to nominate all the lists simultaneously for FLC). Good to know we're still on the topic of discussing how to make these lists better and set good precedent for everyone else. Anthony Hit me up... 13:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively to sub lists, and an idea I have been toying with, would be for Calgary Flames Draft picks to list only the players who made the NHL, and give links to the season articles, each of which has that season's complete list. i.e.: 2006-07 Calgary Flames season#Draft picks. Resolute 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, I don't like that idea. Granted, no NHL team currently has a draft history, but several other sports do. Basketball is unique because each draft is only two rounds, so length isn't going to be an issue, and there are no minor leagues. Baseball is also a special case, because there are so many levels of minor leagues, and the baseball draft is probably the least publicized because of it (and because it takes place during the season), so we can't go by that either. But football draft histories (at least the few that exist here) include every pick of the team, regardless of whether they made the team or not. Besides, extensive draft histories show how good a team is at picking players; if a team has a lot of players who don't end up making the team, that reflects poorly on management. Either way, it's not a full history if it doesn't include all the players, not just the ones who made the team. Anthony Hit me up... 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Valid points. Since I am on the topic, and since I wanted to eliminate the redlinks on the {{Calgary Flames}} template, I have stared the Flames article with my idea: Calgary Flames draft picks. While I agree with the usefulness of a complete list, I want to get around the problem of the draft picks article becoming unmanagable. The way I am doing it (for now), includes links to that season's full history at the relevant team season article. I also believe that this concept does show how well a team was at drafting players. Any season with only two entries will show as a poor year (Especially the Flames 82 draft, where only one player played more than 2 NHL games). At any rate, it's a concept article at this point. We can modify it for consistency as decided. Resolute 16:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. One point, though: for the sake of consistency, can we name it Calgary Flames draft history? Either that or List of Calgary Flames draft picks, and I prefer the former, since it's the one used almost exclusively throughout Wikipedia (with the exception of articles based solely on first-rounders). Either way, I like the look of it, and it keeps the main draft history page less cluttered. The individual season articles will be fully sourced and referenced with all trades, natch, but this way we can reduce the length a bit. Also, if this is what we're going to do, are we going to have references for any traded picks, or just have it as it is now, where it says "(from NY Rangers)" etc., and then on the season page include the full source of the trade and whatnot? I only ask these things to avoid confusion later on; I'd rather do it right the first time than have a cluster**** later on right before we go to FLC. Anthony Hit me up... 22:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer the former name as well, and yeah, no problem with that name for the article. All of the templates that were created for each team uses the format of the article name I went with, so those will have to be edited as these get created. On the team season article side, I simply copied the {from team x} part from the main draft articles. The trades that affected that years draft could easily be added, though you are quite lucky that the Devils publish their complete transaction history. Hasn't been so easy for me with the Flames seasons. Resolute 22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A little bit offtopic here but does anyone have an idea of how to write a good lead for a draft list? I was thinking of resubmitting the one I created for FLC but the lead consist of only one line so far. --Krm500 15:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A format like this might be good: List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks. Basically, explanation of what the draft is for, famous picks for the team, and top picks? Resolute 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What I was saying about active players was not just having currently active with that team, but active around the league. I think you misunderstood my point. bmitchelf•T•F 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of drafted Frölunda HC players

List of drafted Frölunda HC players is now a Featured list candidate. --Krm500 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why it hasn't been promoted yet, the vote is support, three to one, and it has been ten days now. If you find it FL worthy please put in a vote to put it over the edge. --Krm500 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Season pages format (Debuts & Last Games)

I've gone ahead and added the notable debuts & last games from each NHL season since 1989-90, and will continue to move back in time doing it (Its my little pet project right now). However I can easily see how who is listed & not listed could be huge POV, so before it gets all crazy with IPs & users adding who they feel is notable enough, I want to get some broad general guidelines for player notability in this context. Here's my suggestion that a player should be notable if the fulfill one of the following guidelines:

  • Is a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame.
  • Scored at least 400 career goals, 600 career assists, 1000 career points or played at least 1000 career games, or garnered at least 2500 career penalty minutes
  • Scored at least 50 goals or 100 points in any given season (changed from 45/90)
  • Led the league in a major statistical category in one season (G/A/PTS/PIM/W/GAA etc.)
  • Won or was a finalist for a major award (Art Ross, Hart, Calder, Vezina, Selke, Byng, Norris, Jack Adams, Pearson, Smythe etc.)
  • Played in Multiple all-star games or post-season season all-star teams
  • Was a Top-3 Draft Pick (especially important for notable busts such as Wickenheiser or Daigle)
  • Holds some sort of notable record (ie. Mike Sillinger, most teams played for in a career)
  • For Goalies, won 250 games or played in 600 career games
  • Is notable for some other recognizable reason (e.g., The Sutter brothers)

Now as for active players it gets a little trickier to gage who is notable and who is not, so I don't really know what to do there. I do think however that it is important to include this in the season articles, to sort of recognize what era has passed and which is about to begin. Thoughts? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think having those one-season standards (goals/points and league leader) would make a player notable, but someone who qualifies in one of those is likely to qualify in one of your other points. I think the first rounders should be expanded to maybe the top ten because three is a very low number. The whole first round is likely too many players, being that good players can come from any round and many players, especially European, don't make much impact in the NHL, many going to play in Europe. It will be tricky to include current players who seem likely to fall into one of your categories, though, as you say. bmitchelf•T•F 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think the players should be listed alphabetically instead of by team. Or, we could make sortable tables that include the position and first (for the last games section) and last (for the debuts section) game year for that player, although that would make the season's article longer. bmitchelf•T•F 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Any article or list 'touching' on Notable players, is inevitably going to attract PoV entries. GoodDay 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes but not doing something in fear of it eventually being edited with POV is not a good reason not to do it. And as for the one-season argument, I originally had it as 50 goals and 100 points, those are pretty notable accomplishments in themselves and definitely vault a player into notability... oh crap I'm gonna snezze, Aaaa--CheechooStaal... sorry that was awful but you catch my drift. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice one. I see your point - it's a good standard for players that have not had a chance to reach those career milestones yet, except for maybe PIM. bmitchelf•T•F 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I'd drop the stat considerations. For one thing, especially in this era, many of those numbers have been achieved by a whopping amount of players. I don't think of Don Marshall, Garry Galley, Mike Keane or Marc Bergevin when all time greats come to mind, but they're all in the top 100 of games played (Borje Salming is #100 with 1148). For another, they skew overwhelmingly in favor of expansion era players ... only twelve of the 71 1000-pt scorers started their careers before 1969, and I think Howe was the only 1000-pt scorer in the Original Six era. Beyond that, 45/90 are marks that a lot of guys managed at least once. By contrast, someone who was an award finalist, made an All-Star Team, led the league in a major statistical category, those are more significant achievements that aren't era-dependent.  RGTraynor  13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes but its not like many all-time greats retire each season, and I the 45/90 might be a bit lowe, however I don't think 50/100 is unreasonable. And yes some are slanted towards the post-expansion era, but even being a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame is really slanted to the pre-expansion era. Really you can't have perfect symmetry between the two eras, but you also gotta realize they are anywhere between five and seven times more players in the NHL today then there were in 1917-1968, meaning many more notable players. By the criteria I proposed, you would have at most 10-15 debuts and 10-15 retirements listed each season, which hardly turns the page into a bottom-heavy list, but at the same time for example for 1991-92, doesn't list Larry Robinson as the only notable retirement. As it stands there are 19 players listed in the retirement section for that season, which is probably too many, but if you stuck hard to my criteria you would only have 9 players listed there (not including Ken Linseman, who definitely warrants to be on the list which brings in the "...is notable for some other recognizable reason" point (which also helps for some notable original six players not matching the criteria). Linseman is a good example, he fell just short in many of the categories (860 career games, 551 assists, 807 points, 92 points in 1981-82 etc.), however he was an outstanding player in the playoffs with 120 points in 113 games. Actually just looking at it now, he did lead the 1980 playoffs with 18 assists, so he would get in. But I hope you catch my point, its not like 50 guys will be mentioned on every season article, in my opinion this is the most fair way, using achievements generally regarded to be noteworthy. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way Traynor, this isn't necessarily about a player's greatness, its more about a player's notability. If a player like Garry Galley retires after playing 1149 games, that is 17 seasons in which he is a notable commodity in the NHL and intersecting time. When Galley started, he was playing at the same time as Brad Park, Butch Goring & Colin Campbell of all people, when he retired modern stars like Marian Gaborik, Brad Richards & the Sedins were just coming into the league, and he managed to stay in the NHL as a top-2 or 3 defenceman on his team during that time. Anyways, I digress, I just completed doing the lists for the 1986-87, this time following the criteria I proposed (with the 50/100 rule, not 45/90) there were 13 notable debuts and 10 notable last games. And that's with Mike Milbury, Peter McNab, Darryl Sutter and Steve Chiasson who needed the "notewory for some other reason" thing to be included (McNab was a Point-per-game player for seven seasons with the Bruins, Milbury's pretty self-explanatory, Sutter was a Sutter brother, and Chiasson perhaps more notable for his last game than his first, due to his sudden death). Am I alone in thinking this is a reasonable way in doing this? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's where we differ. I believe that the debuts and retirements of great players should be mentioned, and that merely good players or journeymen who hung around long enough shouldn't be. Is my opinion, anyway.  RGTraynor  19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
For the retiring players, howabout listing just the ones who are (or selected to be) in the HHOF? GoodDay 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Would be a good way to avoid POV as much as possible. --Djsasso 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well how about getting rid of the 1000 game part of it, I think just doing the HHOF's is a bit of an extreme on one end... I can see the point about the journeymen really not be notable, I disagree but I can accept it. And in most cases if a person's notable for their debut, they're just as notable for retirement, so the point of just doing HHOF's for the retirements is moot. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
We can add the HHOF criteria for 'debuting' players, for the NHL seasons -before- say 1985 (just an example), though that would make later seasons 'debut' sections empty (as we shouldn't crystal-ball), and that in itself will open up a huge can of worms. You see, already PoV potential is intensifying. GoodDay 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That really wasn't my point about the HHOF... I ask, why are Top 3 Draft Picks, major award winners or post-season all stars not notable enough? This is simple and is not POV (except for maybe the last criteria, the notable for some recognizable reason should be either removed or taken on a rare basis if you want to completely elimate POV)? All these things are merely the most recognizable accomplishments in the NHL... the NHL recognizes 400-goals, 600-assists, and 1000-points as official milestones, as well as the 1000 games (the penalty minutes thing not officially, but its meant so that notable memorable players like Probert, Domi, McSorley or Nilan, and if its set up at 3000 career PIMs, only 9 players have ever done that).

The 50-goals, 100-points, again officially recognized by the NHL, those are not numbers made up to bring in POV. Leading the league in a major statistical category is pretty obvious in notability. Being on a post-season all-star team is the pinnacle of being an elite player at your position. Same thing with being named multiple times to the all-star game, it easily shows notability. Fine, throw out Top-3 Draft pick, just make it the #1 Overall pick if you don't want any POV. Holding a record is notable. Garnering 250 wins as a goalie is also recognized by the NHL. Sorry I'm throwing too much in here, but how is what I said POV? I brought this up just so we wouldn't be having random users throwing in their Drake Berehowsky's and Chris Dingman's into their articles... drawing a line in the sand somewhere so that if someone does add someone inappropriately, we can say "No, not notable enough as per guidelines".... With just HHOFer's you'll have nothing in those sections for the last 15 years. Oh having their number retired by a team should be another one actually. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, the HHOF quideline would be too restrictive. The tough guys for example, deserve inclusion aswell. Whatever guideline is adopted, be sure to add it to all the NHL season articles. GoodDay 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah see that's it, this is my pet project right now so whatever we do I would make sure that all the season articles would adopt it, including the ones I've already started. I'm following my original criteria for the most part, however if a new one or a revision of that one is agreed upon than I'll get it changed. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally am good with what you have proposed up top. --Djsasso 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is just leading to a major POV issue, unless we stay along the lines of officialy recognised league statistics. Only add players in the HHOF, 50G/100P, 1000G, 1st overall draft picks, etc. Otherwise it's just going to be a huge mess of people adding their favourite players and us having to watch every season article. We have already seen what happend at the NHL page about notable players. That provided a huge problem, and this notable debuts/retirements is just going to spread it across 90 different articles. Just my thought on this situation. Kaiser matias 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to mention in the above post, but I also think that the articles could survive without this list of players. Wouldn't hurt having some type of list, but it doesn't affect it not having them on either. Kaiser matias 07:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
On futher review, there doesn't have to be a POV issue at all. There's only so many players who debut each year & only so many who retire each year. There's no reason all can't be included, just use a diviser in the list, to keep the section at a shortened length. GoodDay 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes but GoodDay the turnover rate for the NHL is about 200 players a year (an estimate) so by your idea there would be 200 new players AND 200 retiring players, if you include everybody, the majority of them playing their only 3 games in the NHL in their only season. And Kaiser I disagree with your point that it doesn't benefit the article, it shows more or less what time period in relation to notable players that the actual season is. And of your POV point, if you read my various long posts (too long), that's exactly what I've been trying to say about the criteria is that it won't hold any POV. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 20:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
200? yikes, didn't know that. Hmm, guess it's back to the 'old drawing board' (to blow it up). GoodDay 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well somewhere between 150-200 I would imagine (30 teams *5-7 first year players of varying GP = 150-210)... but I think its time we settle this before it gets any longer. Here's the new criteria with appropriate modifications mentioned above. Not really consensus yet because everyone's on different boats, I also added a few more that would really take away any reason for the last one that I can think of. (I put my notes in brackets)
  • Is a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame.
  • Scored at least 400 career goals, 600 career assists, 1000 career points or played at least 1000 career games, or garnered at least 3000 career penalty minutes (changed from 2500 PIM)
  • Scored at least 50 goals or 100 points in any given season (changed from 45/90)
  • Led the league in a major statistical category in one season or playoffs (Goals, Assists, Points (for defencemen, G/A/PTS for D-men), Wins, GAA, Save Percentage) or led multiple times in a minor one (perfect example, Yanic Perreault's 5 or 6 year reign as faceoff leader or Dave Schultz winning 4 PIM crowns)
  • Won a major award (Art Ross, Hart, Calder, Vezina, Selke, Byng, Norris, Jack Adams, Pearson, Smythe etc.) (changed from including the finalists)
  • Played in Multiple all-star games... or was named to the First or Second Post-Season All-Star team (there are many players who played in one token all-star game (ie. Garth Butcher) who are not notable, if you do it twice that means you must have had some importance)
  • Was the #1 overall draft pick (changed from Top 3, no POV this way)
  • Holds a notable record (ie. Mike Sillinger, most teams played for in a career)
  • For Goalies, won 250 games (removed 600 games, not an Official NHL milestone)
  • Has had his number retired by an organization
  • If the player died during his last season, mentioned in the last games section only of his last season, (unless he was notable for a reason above, he shouldn't be mentioned in the first games section)
  • Was a team captain with the same team for at least five seasons.
  • Is notable for some other major identifiable reason, used very rarely.

There, I think that pretty much eliminates any POV, and the last one is only there just in case, I can't think of a case where it should be used. Agree on this? Disagree no this? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sold, the new guidelines proposal looks good to me. GoodDay 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How about captaincy? For example Saku Koivu who upon retirment wont qualify based on these criterias. Being the captain of the worlds most famous franchise for over 8 years and counting really is something. I think that captaincy is important but what would be a good minimum criteria? 10 years? --Krm500 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point actually, and I will add it only as 5+ seasons because there were in my quick research thumbing thru the NHL Official Guide & Record Boo 0 10+ season captains. Even with 5+ year captains, there are only 5 who don't fit in any of the criteria: Koivu, Jason Smith (Edmonton 2001-02-present), Mike Murphy (L.A. 1975-81), Mattias Norstrom (L.A. 2001-07), Stan Smyl (Vancouver 1982-90). Thanks for pointing that out. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to disagree on the captaincy issue but Koivu would already fit cause he won a major award or atleast I personally consider the Masterson a major award, maybe its not. --Djsasso 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I was aware of that, I dunno it doesn't really matter to me whether its considered a major award or not, I would think it would be considered one, and its more of a lifetime achievement award for dedication to the game, whereas I would say awards like the Lester Patrick Trophy and King Clancy are generally more for off-ice achievements and then shouldn't be considered major awards. That's just my opinion. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So where can we put these guidelines so they don't fade away into the archives? It would go into the season pages format page, right? bmitchelf•T•F 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That is where I would put it. --Djsasso 17:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought of a player that should be added for the "is notable for some other major identifiable reason" category - Yutaka Fukufuji was the first Japanese-born hockey player to appear in an NHL game in 06-07, so he should probably be included in debuts for that reason, I would assume. I won't add it until it's confirmed. bmitchelf•T•F 05:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Fukufuji is indeed the first player born in Japan, not only to dress for an NHL game, but also to play in an NHL game. Gmatsuda 06:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I already know that; that's why I said it. I just want to make sure it's okay to add him to the "debuts" list for last season. bmitchelf•T•F 17:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

List of current WHL captains

Why is the Afd results of current OHL captains at List of current WHL captains? What happend to the WHL captains Afd results? GoodDay 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Panic averted, an anon-user had mistakenly posted the wrong Afd. He didn't post an Afd for the WHL list. I've since removed the error. GoodDay 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nottingham Panthers is a GA

Just to let everyone know, having gone through the nomination process, Nottingham Panthers has now been listed as a good article. PanthersGirl 23:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, I like the article. --Krm500 10:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FA list and Gretzky screenshot

Recently with the addition of several more FA-class articles, I've begun to question the use of having a screen shot of the Wayne Gretzky article. I feel that we should either removed the screenshot, or put one in for all the articles. It just looks a little strange seeing one article with a screenshot. Kaiser matias 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with celebrating a little hard work every once in a while? I like the screenshot... it should be status quo for a featured article. DMighton 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The difference is the Wayne article was on the front page of Wiki. I don't think any of the other features have been yet. --Djsasso 05:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, forgot about Gretzky being on the front page. Kaiser matias 05:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The screenshot is of it being Today's Featured Article, not just another FA. That's why it's important/notable enough for the screenshot. None of the others have, yet. Although the New Jersey Devils and Martin Brodeur are on the list of requests, they just haven't gone through yet as it seems Martin Brodeur can't get a date that everyone agrees upon and a new date can't be added for New Jersey Devils since there are already 5 date requests. BsroiaadnTalk 07:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, another of our featured articles, Fighting in ice hockey, is scheduled to appear on the main page. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 00:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gary Bettman's Comments

Just a comment: Did others (like me) scream in anger last night, when Bettman declared the Anaheim Ducks the first west coast team to win the Stanley Cup? Note: He didn't say the first NHL west coast team. Gary, ya forgot the Vancouver Millionaires, Seattle Metropolitans and the Victoria Cougars. GoodDay 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Very much so. The Ducks may have been the first NHL west coast team, but not the first west coast team ever. Living 40 minutes way from Victoria only made Bettmans ignorance more obvious. Kaiser matias 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ummm guys, he is the commish of the NHL, not the PCHA or WHL... in regards to the league he is payed by, the Anaheim Ducks are the first West Coast champion... I know Bettman is a really easy guy to dislike -- I don't like him much myself... but think about it, not really much to get worked up about. DMighton 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ducks, first NHL team from west coast (yes). First team period (no), this blunder should be added to the Gary Bettman page. GoodDay 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a little extreme. DMighton 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't scream in anger myself. Bettman isn't a hockey man, and even dyed-in-the-wool hockey men don't generally know (or care) jack for history; witness the Habs' website pushing the factually incorrect POV that the team's descended from the NHA Les Canadiens. No doubt Bettman would have reacted to the notion that Victoria and Seattle had Cup-winning teams with blank confusion.  RGTraynor  19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, during the 11pm news last night, the sports anchor mentioned the Ducks were the first team from the west coast to win since the Cougars. I know that Bettman wouldn't want to confuse the million or so people watching the game in the US, but he still could have just said they were the frist NHL team to do it, not first overall. Kaiser matias 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, at least Wikipedia has the facts: at Anaheim Ducks, Victoria Cougars and here, here and here. GoodDay 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Acutally, Bettman did have an interest in hockey long before he became NHL commissioner, and even if he didnt, being the commish for 14 years pretty much ends any reasonable argument that he is not a "hockey man" at this point. As far as the specific debate goes, he is the NHL commissioner, and was speaking very obviously about the NHL's history. He was speaking from the NHL's perspective, not from global hockey history's perspective. This was especially evident when he was talking about the NHL's expansion history in California, and bragging how it only took the Ducks 14 years to win the first Cup for the state of California. Resolute 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Anaheim is not a coastal city, as the Anaheim article shows. Kaiser matias 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I stayed up to 5 am too see the cup final and screamed in anger when Scott Niedermayer was awarded the Conn Smythe. Then seeing him hoist the cup over his head and giving it to his brother made me more angry – You've won 3 already, just hand the cup over to Selänne. --Krm500 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did hand it over to his brother. However, I did not see any problem with that because of a few things: 1 - If I were in his shoes, I would have done the exact same thing because how cool would it to be to be able to hand the cup off to your own brother? Every one of us would have done the exact same thing if we had the chance. 2 - His brother is an Alternate Captain. So you had Captain hand off to his brother, an Alternate Captain, who 3 - handed the cup to Chris Pronger, ANOTHER Alternate Captain. and finally 4 - Now that the "Captains" have been served who was the next person to get the Cup? Teemu Selänne. Regarding Bettman, yes, he should have said NHL Team. Pparazorback 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides, it's not like Rob was just there because he's Scott's brother. He was part of the shutdown line that took out Ottawa's Big Three, and he'd been to the Final twice before and missed. So...yeah. Doogie2K (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow such a long discussion for such a meaningless topic about something that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Seriously, there are many better things in hockey to talk about than Bettman making a mistake that is not surprising or who Niedermayer handed it to. Glad the Ducks won, like Carolina they had so many veterans who had never won it before. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 22:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Since I started this, I should try and end it. My original intend was to see if the 'Bettman blooper' should be added to Gary Bettman. However this discussion snowballed into a blog about the Cup Final post-game events. You're correct, this discussion should be ended. Let's end it. GoodDay 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it is really not even an issue, I wouldn't add it. DMighton 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI and FWIW: In notes provided to the media after last night's game, the NHL got it right..."The Ducks are the first California-based champion and the first west coast winner since NHL clubs exclusively began competing for the Stanley Cup in 1927. The previous Cup-winning club from the west coast was the Victoria Cougars of the defunct Western Canada Hockey League, who defeated the Montreal Canadiens in 1925." Gmatsuda 02:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there are bigger issues than who passed the cup to who, everyone gets to skate it and spend good quality time with it. I was happy for the Niedermayer brothers and Teemu.

Charles Goldstein

Charles Goldstein -- did this guy play hockey? i tried to get this article speedy deleted, but it was "saved". i can't find this guy anywhere, but his article exists. Masterhatch 04:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

never mind, it got deleted. Masterhatch 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Moose Goheen

The Moose Goheen page has a possible copyright infringement flag on it right now. I'm not sure what the protocol is on correcting this. Looking at the history of the article, it looks to have started with this edit on January 21, 2006. A temp page has not yet been started. Patken4 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating a non-copyvio version of the article at the temp page. An Admin will likely delete the offending edit(s) and move the temp article into the mainspace. That is definitely a ripoff of the legends of hockey page though. Resolute 01:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to salvage what I could and started an article at Moose Goheen/Temp. Patken4 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of times Canada won World Championship

Hi, there are some discrepancies on that matter. Infobox in Canadian national men's hockey team says 18 times, Ice Hockey World Championships says 24. We recieved complaints about that. MaxSem 06:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The discrepancy comes because six of those championships happened when the World Championships were combined with the Olympics: 1920, 24, 28, 32, 48 and 52. I've added a note in the Canadian national men's hockey team infobox explaining this. Resolute 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! MaxSem 11:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spokane Chiefs

I'm starting to get into an edit war with an IP address who insists on adding a false statement into the lead of the Spokane Chiefs article. Specifically that the arena in Spokane is the "second largest arena not used for pro sports." Aside from being false (both Saskatoon and Vancouver have larger arenas not used for pro sports), it is an irrelevant intersection. The SMVA is the 7th largest arena used by a WHL team overall, and this arbitrary distinction serves no real purpose, imo. I'd rather not fall prey to WP:3RR, so if a couple of people can keep an eye on the article, that would be appreciated, thanks. Resolute 13:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put the Chiefs on my watchlist. I've noticed there's been 3 different IP addresses involved (probably the same user). GoodDay 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a new 'anon user', who's joining the pro-2nd largest edits. This is getting ugly, we need help. GoodDay 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I suspect they are all the same person - why would random different people care? The funny thing about this is that the Spokane Shock are a pro team that play out of the SVMA. I'm sure we are about to get some "af2 doesnt count" arguments in the next little while. Resolute 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just added it to my watchlist too. What a farcical claim ... heck, just from a quick scan of the List of indoor arenas in the United States, I find arenas without a pro team at any level at 10K or more in Decatur, Phoenix, Tuscon ... hell, there are three such just in Arkansas alone, and I haven't even gotten out of the "A"s yet.  RGTraynor  18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, his scope was limited to the WHL. Saskatoon and Vancouver have the only two arenas that are larger than Spokane, and are not currently used for pro sports at any level. Resolute 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1994 NHLPA Tournament

During the 1994 lockout, there was a big tourney they showed on major Canadian networks... a tournement sponsored by the NHLPA and Kraft foods and had a Team Ontario, Team Quebec, Team West, and Team USA... I think Ontario beat Quebec in the final... and West beat the USA in the bronze medal game... anyone remember this? Is there an article? DMighton 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[1] here is a little info. DMighton 23:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, do we have anything on the team that toured Europe called the Wayne Gretzky's 99 All-Stars... they played against Euro club teams during the lockout. DMighton 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky in need of a copyedit?

I think Gretzky's article might be in need of a copyedit (and potentially sourcing) in order to maintain Featured Article status. I went and did a quick copyedit and found plenty of things to fix.--Wafulz 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Rangers in 1928

Clarification needed for relating articles. Did the Rangers win the 1928 Stanley Cup (vs the Montreal Maroons) at the Montreal Forum? GoodDay 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is specifically in relation to the 1988-89 Calgary Flames season article, where it is widely reported as that year's Flames were the only team to win the Cup as a visitor in the Forum. So, the question becomes threefold: 1. Was game 5 of the 1928 finals held at the forum (it certainly wasn't at MSG), 2. Were the Rangers the visiting team? They may have classified as the home team, even if they were playing in the Forum, and 3. Are there reliable sources such as to refute the litany of sources that argue Calgary is the only winning, visiting team? Resolute 18:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't they say they were the only visiting team to beat the Canadiens in the Forum? Not just the only visiting team? I remember being upset by the Flames beating my Canadiens in the finals that year....and now I live in Calgary....I think I will be torn if they meet again in the finals cause I am a big fan of both now. --Djsasso 19:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Every source I can find does not state "only team to beat the Canadiens", but rather, only visiting team to win, thus the confusion: [2], [3], [4], [5]. This one specifies the Flames were the first to defeat the Canadiens on Forum ice, but that does not preclude them from being the first overall: [6], etc. Resolute 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they did: "The Maroons ... entered the Stanley Cup finals with an extra advantage -- they'd play all five games at home, because the circus had already been booked for the Rangers' home rink, Madison Square Garden." NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I found that link too. Question remains, were the Rangers technically the visiting team in that game? Resolute 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps at 1988-89 Calgary Flames season, we can put the only visiting team to defeat the Montreal Canadiens at the Forum. That's undisputable. GoodDay 19:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Was just thinking the same thing. I'll have to change my nomination for WP:DYK as well. Resolute 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Trail of the Stanley Cup backs it up, Vol II, p. 50: "New York now entered the final with Montreal {Maroons}. There was some talk that the Rangers' home games would be played in Boston or Detroit and overturns were made in this regard. However, the New York management decided to play the whole series at the Montreal Forum."  RGTraynor  07:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No we knew that part was true. What is at issue is if the game that they won the cup during was one of the games where New York was considered the visiting team cause even though they played all the games in the Forum the Maroons weren't the home team for all of them. --Djsasso 08:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
By today's standards? Surely. By the standards of the time? Heaven alone knows.  RGTraynor  10:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

NHLPA image used in Joe Sakic

I can't remember where we had the discussion, but I do remember that we had it. The consensus was no NHLPA images on Wikipedia. I just checked out the Joe Sakic article and found a large mugshot of him. I was about to put it up for speedy deletion but decided to bring it up here so we can get a clear consensus; Are NHLPA images allowed in Wikipedia articles? --Krm500 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the fair use template, you'll see: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project.". So, if anyone wants a fair use image for Sakic, get him with the Stanley Cup. That would probably be easier to argue on the fair use claim.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 09:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That aside, the NHLPA is well known for being ferociously protective of their copyrighted photos and images. While I don't know for a certain fact their take on Wikipedia, I'm comfortable with assessing the odds that they'd sign off on the use of their images here at somewhere between "non" and "existent."  RGTraynor  12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Tagged it as replaceable. ccwaters 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I sent an email to the NHLPA but I doubt they'll get back to me. The only reason I put the mugshot there was because his current picture is just not good at all. You can't even see the front of his face. But I'll find another one. Sportskido8 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche article review

I've worked very hard this weekend to expand the Colorado Avalanche article as you can see here. I'd like to hear Wikiproject members' opinion on what could be done to improve the article further and how far is it from being a Featured Article. Please keep in mind that English is not my native language, so, there may be language errors and bad wording. Thanks.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It look great to me. PS- I'm happy to see 'no diacritics', thanks for respecting the WikiProject agreements. GoodDay 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I paid attention to that when I was writing, but there are some players (whose name was already in the article) whose links don't have the "hidden" diacritics as they should. I'm going to fix that. Thanks ;)--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. I would recommend a peer review for the article if you are concerned about potential language errors, etc. That is not my strong suit either. Incidentally, I have been starting to do the same for the Calgary Flames article, and having spent a couple hours on it yesterday, I think it wouldnt hurt if all team articles were reviewed. They are so big that people have been able to hide a ton of nonsense in them. The Flames article, for instance, looked like it was written by an Oilers fan who hates Calgary. Resolute 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably submit it again to PR, it's just that I done it just 5 weeks ago, so I'd prefer to hear some comments here before going there again. But, the article has changed a lot since that PR with these edits I've done, so, in a few days I'll probably submit it to PR if no one raises issues to deal here. Thanks ;)--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For a franchise with a relatively short history it is possible to write all the leaders sub-headings (Team captains, General Managers, and Head coaches) in prose. We're talking about four coaches, two GM's and one captain. How did the coaches change the style, what happened and why did they change GM, etc. --Krm500 22:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The GM change is explained in the History section. "The day after the loss, Pierre Lacroix, who had been the General Manager of the franchise since 1994 when they were in Quebec, resigned and Francois Giguere was hired.[53][54] Lacroix remains to this day as President of the franchise.[55]". As for the prose suggestion on the head coaches, that'd be good. It'll be hard to find sources for that, but I'll try to give it a shot. However, I think that the head coaches table with statistics should stay, as it's better that way than in prose.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't personally like the coach stats being on the main team page but thats just my opinon. I think it should be on the page for the teams coaches. --Djsasso 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention regarding "Head Coaches of the XXX"

For example Head Coaches of the New York Rangers or Head Coaches of the Calgary Flames. As you can see at List of NHL head coaches, this is the convention used league-wide on Wikipedia. I propose to change this to "List of XXX head coaches" for these reasons:

  1. The format "List of..." is a Wikipedia convention as can be seen over at WP:FL.
  2. "Head Coaches" shouldn't be capitalized much like "players" isn't capitalized.
  3. List of Colorado Avalanche players and List of New Jersey Devils players, for example, use this format.

What do you guys think? JHMM13(Disc) 04:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%, it makes more sense and will make them more uniform with the other lists. BsroiaadnTalk 04:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for it. --Krm500 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's the standard convention.  RGTraynor  12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks great to me. GoodDay 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the current format, it just seems to roll of the tongue better. But, it seems consensus is to rename. We'll have to make sure the team templates get updated as well. Resolute 13:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It may roll off the tongue better, but so would names without diacritics....most of the time anyway. BsroiaadnTalk 22:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. --Djsasso 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
El-ee-ahs vs. El-ee-ah-sh, as in Patrik Elias. I don't know how to do the phonetics properly, so I'm not even going to get into that. Granted, not much of a difference...but a difference none-the-less. I still pronounce it with the "sh", but it'd roll off the tongue better if it was "ahs". BsroiaadnTalk 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pro hockey team

Just noticed this new template in all of the AHL and IHL team articles. This is exactly what I always wanted to do with Template:NHL Team (making some if not most fields optional, which is good for defunct teams), but never got the time (or motivation) to get around to doing. I just modified to add a Stanley Cup field - would anybody mind if we migrated all the NHL team pages to use this template? I've done so already at San Jose Sharks for an example of how it looks. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

About time. I made a request about making the fields optional in the NHL infobox a while back. Instead we had to make a whole new template for the twelve Elitserien teams. I think it's great idea if all ice hockey teams used the same infobox on wikipedia. The example in the Sharks article looks great, better then the current infobox for NHL teams. --Krm500 22:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Just looked at the template code and I think it would be a good idea to instead of having a field named Stanley Cups it should be like in franchise history; Championship_name1, 2, 3 etc and years1, 2, 3 etc. For example European teams can win the national championships but also various European championships like the silver stone trophy or the new Victoria cup. Since this template would be used for more then just NHL teams this makes the most sense. --Krm500 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I think they should have separate templates for Euro teams. When you start adding in so many variables like that into templates you might as well just make a separate template to keep things simple. --Djsasso 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A template that attempts to be all things for all leagues is going to become massive, as I discovered trying to write {{NHLteamseason}}, and then modify for European teams. I ended up creating a modified template at {{IcehockeyTeamSeason}} to accomodate the change. Though I do believe it would be very wise to ensure that the templates all have the same general look about them. Resolute 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There's already many variables in this template. All I'm talking about is instead of stanley_cup = 2004 you write championship = Stanley Cup, year = 2004. And also having championship2, 3, 4 and etc. When it's not NHL teams you write for example championship = Calder Cup, year = 2004. This way we have the same look on all hockey team articles. You only have to apply updates in one template and you'll know that all infoboxed looks the same. --Krm500 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I originally composed this template just for the AHL, but I chose to give it a generic name. As you guessed, I combined Template:NHL Team with Template:Hockey team (used in Canadian Hockey League teams). I have no problems, with adding fields for Champ1..Season1..Champ2...Season2...etc... but since the template has been transcluded in many articles, that a lot of other codes to update for the desired consistency. Let me know what you guys decide. Flibirigit 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This new 'Template' fails to show the team captain? GoodDay 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It also lists the 'Head Coach' ahead of the 'GM'. GoodDay 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken Krm500's suggestion and added custom fields for any championship that can be filled in, but maintained the Stanley/Turner/Calder Cup fields for compatibility. So far I have three championship fields, although more can be added easily if necessary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This bears watching

A sports related merge crusader attempted to AfD Montreal Expos, arguing that the Expos are actually the Nationals, and therefore the article is redundant. He favours a merge. See: Talk:Montreal Expos#Current Merge Discussion. We'll have to watch this user in case he attempts the same nonsense with any hockey articles. Resolute 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looks like he is already trying, see this dif at Minnesota North Stars, [7], which Krm500 immediately reverted. Resolute 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think he will get very far....he has very sporadic edit history. He will tire of wiki again before long and disappear for a few months again. --Djsasso 05:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an editor who wasn't involved in the Montreal Expos merge debate remove the merge tag? Another user and I have agreed that this debate has gone on long enough, but we feel it would be better if an uninvolved editor removed the tags. Resolute 21:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you can remove the tag, as long as you have a valid reason for doing so. The only thing editors can't remove are tags added by Administrators (I think). GoodDay 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The consensus at the Expos page is no merger, that's your valid reason. GoodDay 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
True, I already tried to remove the tag once before per WP:THEBLEEDINGOBVIOUS, but it was reverted. It's just simpler this way. ;o) Resolute 23:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NHL rosters

Lately, there's been names of NHL dratees & AHLers being added to the NHL rosters. I've removed them from the Chicago Blackhawks (notable: Jonathan Toews) and the Toronto Maple Leafs (notable: Staffon Kronwall). If you spot anymore (throughout the Team pages), be sure to 'remove' them. You have to pass training camp, before you join an NHL roster. GoodDay 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone wants to be the first to make an edit. I'll keep a closer eye on the NHL pages on my watchlist. Resolute 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well trades are acceptable though, correct? For example Mark Bell and Vesa Toskala are now on the Leafs roster (typical Leaf fan here, most either hate the deal, or love it. I would consider myself to be in the latter.) or Adrian Aucoin is now on the Flames roster, but that doesn't make the prospect that was traded for him now on the Blackhawks roster....
Yeah, trades are acceptable, those guys are NHL veterans. Sorry about my line You have to pass training camp... it was mis-leading. GoodDay 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim O'Brien (ice hockey)

Do you really plan on creating articles on every draftee, whether they've even played a second in the NHL or not? Corvus cornix 02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind having a page for each first-round pick, but I should hope that there will be no pages specifically created for second-through-seventh-rounders quite yet. Skudrafan1 02:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, just for the record, I whole-heartedly plan on contradicting myself and creating a page for whomever the Sabres select tomorrow morning at #31. I just want you all to know that ahead of time. :) Skudrafan1 02:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow quick response here, I merely made this page because he was the only first round draft pick who did not have one... Having said that I highly doubt many articles of later draft picks will surface until they have reached some sort of actual notability. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I would not be surprised if several of those articles are AfD'ed, and I further wouldn't be surprised if the precident set by the mass deletion of first round picks from the MLB draft affects their ability to survive those AfDs. Some, like Karl Alzner - WJHC gold medal - shouldn't be too hard to argue as a keep, but don't be surprised if this happens. Resolute 05:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It was already decided thru AfD's that draftees were not eligible for articles, except if they are top prospects, especially if they did not play a second in the NHL. I think this should go to Prod ASAP. Or maybe you can create articles on the draftees, but redirect it to 2007 NHL Entry Draft. --Deenoe 13:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It could be argued that a first round draft pick is a top prospect. While I brought up the MLB draft example above, there is a considerable difference between first rounders in a 50 round draft and first rounders in a seven year draft. This specific article could use a little more information on it though, otherwise I would not be at all surprised if someone does slap a tag on it. Resolute 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been argued before and pretty much came down to what Resolute said. First rounders are Top Prospects or they wouldn't be drafted in the first round. --Djsasso 14:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First round draft pick is a top prospect. Even if the career goes nowhere, they'd be notable as a bust. ColtsScore 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When the draft ends

When the draft ends, we should try to work on the article, organize it, see what to do about the red links, inset all the trades informations. If we all spend a few days working on that, it'd be ok soon and it's better to do it now when there is a lot of coverage than later.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 14:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The last few NFL drafts are featured lists; there's no reason they have to hog all the glory. Anthony Hit me up... 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm up for it, I think it could get featured. Would be nice with some images if someone was at the draft. Also if someone was at the draft I'd love to use a photo of Eller being drafted by the Blues. --Krm500 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's wait until it ends, and let's go for another featured list for this wikiproject. We all got some experience on that. I'm looking forward to it.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great to get each team with a featured list? Then we could have a "featured topic" consisting of all the lists of players. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's something I have thought about but it will require much work. I think we could create a taskforce someday to create lists of players for every team in the league and maybe create a giant List of NHL players (divided into alphabetical articles so it doesn't get too big) with updated and complete stats every season, instead of the team lists which only lists the player stats with that particular team.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Having been at updating the existing lists of NHL players (ie: List of NHL players: A) for over a year now, very, very slowly, I wish you lots of luck with creating a master list that has stats for every player. ;o) Resolute 16:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeking a little permission here to diverge from the player list used for the Devils and the Avs. I tried to use it but it just was not possible for a Swedish team. The Club, league, and national association, none of these list stats for playoffs and regular season separated. So I'm currently working on a player list which is sortable that has the stats total (regular + playoffs) listed. I will try to get it featured when it's done but it wont look the same as the current featured list. I know that it's not good to have to different sorts of list but it wasn't possible with the current format. --Krm500 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to advise again (see above at NHL roster), be on the lookout for editors (usually anons) who may try to add the new draft picks to the NHl rosters. GoodDay 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the word "defence" suposed to be spelled like "defense"? Such as TSN's site http://tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/ Thricecube 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Defence and Centre are the Canadian english spelling, defense and center are American. Resolute 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And defence is how it is spelled on the inscription of the Norris trophy so depending on how you take that you could say that defence is the way the NHL spells it. Even though they spell it differently on their webpage but that's probably cause its maintained by US web designers. But really its mostly a non-issue to them I am sure. --Djsasso 02:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never noticed TSN's inability to spell before. But indeed, it is spelled "defence" in Canada. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Since this is the English Wikipedia, both can be used (as long as they're consistant on each page). GoodDay 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A "Defence vs Defense" discussion can be found atTalk:Defenceman (ice hockey)#Spelling of "Defenseman" for ice hockey if anyone's interested in a past discussion about this. ColtsScore 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

NJ Devils on the front page

Just wanted to let everyone know that on this Saturday, June 30th, the Devils will finally get their spot on the front page of Wikipedia. I've been trying to get this on there forever, and now we finally have an article that can join the likes of Wayne Gretzky. Sportskido8 05:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm excited, man. I kept watching the date requests waiting for a spot to open up and as soon as I saw it, I put it in and I knew it would get by. The only part I don't like is Raul645 is using a picture of Marty instead of the Devils logo, which I don't understand. But, oh well, it doesn't bother me that much. Haha. BsroiaadnTalk 05:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
They always take a free image before a nonfree image. And, isn't Fighting in ice hockey supposed to make the main page in a couple of days? -- Scorpion0422 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the Devils logo is obviously a much better representation but whatever goes. As for the fighting article, I don't see a date attached to its article yet so I think that might have been pushed off for a while. By the way, thanks for all your efforts in getting this up there Bsro. I can't wait. Sportskido8 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, by Wikipedia rules, they *must* use free images on the front page only. There is no way they could possibly use the Devils logo, as it is copyrighted. That said, congrats on the front page. Shame Fighting in ice hockey got bumped back though. Resolute 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's there now! --Krm500 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! Looks pretty good. Sportskido8 02:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people can't stand to see a good thing. The Devils page is being hit with constant anon vandalism. Semi-protection may be required. GoodDay 17:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I've posted a request for semi protection at WP:RFPP. Resolute 18:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Template Images

The following is an invitation to discussion as to what images, if any should be used on templates found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Templates.

Currently most templates use hockey pucks, the project template uses the Stanley Cup, and many league templates use the ice hockey layout image. Should there be a uniform image such as a puck, skate, ice rink, etc? Flibirigit 06:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes. We should pick one free very high quality image to represent it. The problem now is what should be have. --Evilclown93(talk) 12:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the birds eye view of the ice better then the pucks. --Krm500 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Krm500, the ice was much better looking and easier on the eyes than the pucks. Couldn't figure out what it was when I first saw the new image, and the image for a template should be rather obvious to the viewer. Kaiser matias 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I liked the ice better than the pucks as well. --Djsasso 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Two (or more) pucks stacked in the same place are rarely seen during a game. A single puck with some airborne ice would perhaps be recognized more easily. The ice rink layout is also unique enough, however slightly less recognized. --Bamsefar75 11:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the ice rink or the pucks would look very good in the userbox, or at least not as good as the Cup does, but I do think the ice rink would be a better image for {{ice hockey}} and the stub templates too. BsroiaadnTalk 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Proposal

Should we use the ice layout image for all templates, except for the project template, using the Stanley Cup? Flibirigit 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) The image in question is...Image:Icehockeylayout.svg
.

Counter proposal

I'd use it for all templates. Afterall, this is WikiProject Ice Hockey, not WikiProject NHL. So again, I'd use it for all templates. GoodDay 18:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:PatrikR

Can someone inform him about the use of diacritics on team pages, it being that we don't show them. I just told him, and the response he gave...I can tell he's not someone I'd get along with. So rather than get into a huge thing about it, I'm asking someone else to take care of it. I don't think I'd be able to keep a cool-head if I keep talking to this guy. BsroiaadnTalk 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted him aswell. We can't let him disrupt, what all of us (on both sides of the previous Diacritics discussions) came to agree upon. GoodDay 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And I'm not sure whether it's a good sign or a bad sign, but he's deleted the entire conversation. I guess time will tell. BsroiaadnTalk 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Assuming he's ended the dispute and accepted the compromise. I've thanked him (on behalf of us) for his acceptance of the compromise (and pointed out, we've understood his edit were in 'good faith'). GoodDay 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, again. But, he deleted it. Oh well, I'm sure he understands and will go along with the compromise from now on. BsroiaadnTalk 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Condensed stats tables

I just had a lil chat with IrisKawling about this, and we both believe it is more beneficial to use a more condensed stats table (as seen in Gordie Howe or Wendel Clark), especially for the players who have been around for 20+ years so that you don't have to scroll up or down to see all the stats. I'm just wondering if there are any objections that we have not considered, or if this is something that should be put to use much more. CroCan I'll die before I surrender, Tim 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if we're going to change the stats tables I think we should do a complete overhaul. I have no problems with these more compact versions, but in fact I'd rather see a new, better stat table. --Krm500 02:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've made this change in a dozen or so players with about 1200+ GP and it does look much nicer. But ran into a road bump with Wayne Gretzky and Stan Mikita, articles that use a slightly different table code for stats, that is css-like that I'm not as familiar with. I'm all for this overhaul idea as well and would help out incorporating it if someone designs it once something is agreed upon. IrisKawling 03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Lol Iris, I ran into the same problem on those exact same two pages when I also did a few tonight. Overhaul sounds good, but that's just it, it sounds good. I would be surprised if anyone with the knowhow would be willing to put the work into creating a new table. But we'll see, I've been wrong a couple times before. CroCan I'll die before I surrender, Tim 03:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I fixed Wayne Gretzky for you. I like the condensed tables by the way. BsroiaadnTalk 03:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
and I just did Stan Mikita, too. If you find anymore that you can't re-do, tell me about them and maybe I can help. Or you could just look at my edits and see what I did. BsroiaadnTalk 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea and like how they are wider. But from top to bottom I find them now much harder to read cause the lines blend together so much more so its harder to keep track of what line I am on when reading from left to right. I prefer to have a little bit of white space between lines like we have in the old ones. Now maybe I just have bad eyes but I am sure I am not the only one in that situation. I just adjusted Ron Francis to see how it would look and much prefer it this way, cause I can now read the stats and it still has the wide style though it does make you scroll but I think that's a small price to pay for being able to actually read the stats. And I must object though not to heavily on the fact you all went changing all these tables without bringing it up on the format page for player pages first. --Djsasso 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If we would try to create a new stats table I think we should fix the problem with players who has played for more then one team during a season. Today you'll find many different solutions. --Krm500 11:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no trouble seeing it either, but we have to think about everyone that may be looking at it, not everyone will have great eyes. Plus, even if they do, sometimes computer screens just don't work well. I was trying to find a solution to the problem Djsasso mentioned, about the lines blending together, by adding a border on the bottom of each row but it's not really that practical, the only solution I found would require adding a lot of coding and it would take up too much space on some pages that are already pretty big. Unless someone can find a solution to it, maybe we should just put them back to the way they were before. BsroiaadnTalk 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed the padding on Ron Francis to a 1 instead of the 0 that is on new tables and the 3 that is on the old tables and I personally think that makes a huge difference in readability and still condenses it a bit, perhaps compromise is the solution? --Djsasso 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it looks good to me. BsroiaadnTalk 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Without using drastically different colors or borders I can't imagine a way to make this kind of large table both slim (no need to scroll off the page), and easy to read while being easy on the eyes. Something like league specific colors might be something to consider but that could get messy too.. IrisKawling 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can use a darker shade of gray to differentiate from one row to the next. For example instead of this color (which is the one used on Wayne Gretzky) we could use this color. If you don't see what I mean, I changed the colors of the backgrounds for those words, not the color of the words themselves. BsroiaadnTalk 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. I was just thinking if maybe the shade was the problem a few minutes ago. --Djsasso 16:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Djsasso and I were talking and he'd been fine with the condensed tables as long as #e0e0e0 is used instead of #f0f0f0 for the shading. You can see an example of what it would look like here, it would look like the top table. Is this ok with everyone else? BsroiaadnTalk 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I like it, but would need a new color for the top and bottom (Totals) row.. IrisKawling 16:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive12&oldid=1146378478"