Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive18

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


Women's Ice Hockey Section

Hi all, not sure if anyone has noticed however I have been having a play with the Women's international tournaments over the past couple of days, as it a bit lacking at the moment (don't even have all articles all on the World Championships! Anyway, i found by accident a couple of sources in relation to all of this, namely and a some of the Canadian news sources, and the old tournament sites through the web archive. Anyway, to cut a long story short if anyone fancies giving us an hand or just having a quick peek to see if you have any ideas for improvement that would be great. Carpo1982 (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul Fendley

Based on recent edits by User:, I would like to open up a discussion at Talk:Paul Fendley, on whether or not Paul Fendley is notable enough for his own article. I would like input from the hockey community. I do not know if we have a precedent for on-ice tragedies, and the fallout thereof. Flibirigit (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will participate in this discussion as I do have knowledge of the player. DMighton (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian Games hockey

I think that the Asian Games ice hockey article should be housed in a category that belongs to the ice hockey category bush... but there seems to be a variation in naming...

Ice Hockey at the 1986 Winter Asian Games / Ice Hockey at the 1990 Winter Asian Games / Ice Hockey at the 1996 Winter Asian Games / Ice Hockey at the 1999 Winter Asian Games / Ice hockey at the 2007 Asian Winter Games

This suggests that the category should be named as:

Note: There is no article for the 2003 ice hockey tourney. (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the capitalization of most of these articles as it should be a lower case h. I have moved the one article that has the Winter after the asian since the other way around seems to be the more common. -Djsasso (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Should the category and the articles not have it as "Asian Winter Games"? That is how it is in the main article. --JD554 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And is also how the Olympic Council of Asia refers to the games[1] --JD554 (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with JD554. Searches from the official site of the AWG (Which I could only find utilizing Wayback web machine all list Asian Winter Games as the order, not Winter Asian Games. --Pparazorback (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
They can easily be moved the other way, but being as how most sporting events of this type put the Winter first and how all but one of these articles had the winter first thats why I moved it that way just for consistency for now. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've renamed to Asian Winter Games and created a new category. I've also CfD the old category (although with hindsight I should have put in a CfR) --JD554 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos of statues

User:Calliopejen1 has nominated a photo of a statue for deletion, claiming it is copyrighted, due to being a Derivative work. I mention this here since I know some articles which are part of this project have photos of statues. Please look at the discussion Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_3#Image:QE2_statue.jpg, and please advise. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, near as I can tell, if the photo was taken in Canada, of a statue permanently in a public place, it is fine. If it was taken in the US, it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, and requires the approval of the original copyright holder. Off hand, the only example in the hockey project I can think of is the statue of Gretzky in the Edmonton Oilers and Rexall Place articles. There would be no issues with that one. Resolute 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Male U-18 Championship

I/We have a problem, I made a WP:AFC for Category:World U-18 Ice Hockey Championships, but instead it was created at Category:IIHF World U18 Championships, and the creator did not close the AFC (acutally I had two up, and he didn't close either of them, confusing further editors), so a later editor created the originally requested title. So these two should be merged. I prefer World U-18 Ice Hockey Championships because it is clear that it is the under 18 ice hockey world championships, the other one uses an acronym that non-hockey people would not know. (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IIHF Worl U18 Championship is the formal name, and the name of the parent article. That is the name the category should be. Given the categories are redundant, I imagine any of us hockey admins can just cut through the red tape, and delete the category that goes unused. Resolute 06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that category is the proper naming and had a bunch of articles in it already all matching the category title so the first has been deleted as a duplicate. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Already on a deletion spree, eh? Resolute 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Had to get it out of my system, doubt I will touch anymore after this except for moves that are blocked by redirects. -Djsasso (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the common name? Afterall, the WJHC is not at U-20. And I've seen it more often as World U-18 Ice Hockey Championships And since the IIHF also does inline hockey, it would be better to have "ice hockey" as part of the category name. (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Could someone please check AFD and TFD? Thanks. I will see you guys in a few days. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC for U-18 Women's

I've placed three WP:AFC for the U-18 championships that will start in a few days. (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and put a template in there for the games Carpo1982 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

5 Goal Games

Reading up on Gaborik's recent 5-goal game, its been stated several times that he is only the 42nd player in the NHL to score 5 goals in a game. I think that if we can find all the names and dates of the occurances, we should create a List of NHL 5 goal games. Once created, it wouldn't be hard to maintain, seeing how rare an event it is. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a source, here is one. Patken4 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I can try fix something up tomorrow. EDIT: Should we include against which team and goaltender(s)? Anyway, I've started workig on a list, will complete it tomorrow. --Krm500 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, if possible. Any other notes about the game that are notable, for example Lemieux's Dec. 31/1989 5 goals in 5 ways, would also probaly be a good inclusion to the list. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea I though about Lemieux. Also what nationality should Trottier be listed as? I've done all from 1980 to today so far. --Krm500 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe list him as US and Canadian, and then include some type of footnote or something of the like. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

datesort only works from 1970... Anyone have a good idea how to sort dates? --Krm500 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
use dts instead. Actually, as a New Years gift, I have corrected it for you. Question for inclusion, there have been 8 games where someone has scored MORE than 5 goals. While the main proposed article name is List of NHL 5 goal games, how could those other 8 games be included? --Pparazorback (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
List of players with 5 or more goals in an NHL thats a mouthfull. -Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I started adding only the five goal players, then I noticed the datesort problem so I stoped adding more players. Thanks for the help btw. I'll add the list to the article now. GOTT NYTT ÅR ALLIHOPA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krm500 (talkcontribs) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. With a history section and a few sources this might be a good candidate for FL candidacy. --Krm500 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think that the opposing team/goalie(s) should be listed? Thricecube (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Might be too much, I have a widescreen monitor so for me it's no problem but for people with 1024x768 it wont fit their window. Is it possible to find that information btw? --Krm500 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The Official Guide and Record Books have the goalie information. I have the 1993-94 version nearby and the opposing goalies are located in the list (page 167 for this year). In addition, should a trivia or factoid section be added? Maybe we could highlight Lemieux's famous scoring a goal 5 different ways; Gretzky holding the record for most in a career, etc. Patken4 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Gretzky is mentioned as the all time leading scorer in the caption for his picture. Lemieux's feat would fit perfectly in a history section. This should easily pass FL candidacy if a better lead, and a history section is written, and the article is well sourced. --Krm500 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm suprised at how well done the article is Krm. And in such short time. This easily should pass for an FL if we get the better lead and sources. Good show. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I only did the list though, Maxim contributed all the prose. Hopefully it will pass FL candidacy! --Krm500 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job guys, this list is incredible. Natural hat trick 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Individual team seasons' page for 2004-05

Crazy idea here...In each of the "Team seasons" templates (like this one), for the 2004-05 season, how about a redirect to 2004-05 NHL lockout? I've did it for Detroit Red Wings, but thought I'd ask for other opinions before carrying on. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A fine idea in principle, however not such a good plan. While there wasn't any games played during the season, teams were still active. An entry draft was held, teams signed and released players, farm teams had seasons that still took place, and some teams had a role in the lockout. Not all of that can be added to the lockout page, so each team, eventually, has its own page for the season. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought about that. I just hate to see all the red links!! - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In time, they will be filled. If you look up how your team handled the lockout, it could make for more of an article than one would think. The 2004-05 Calgary Flames season was especially easy to write about. Resolute 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And to give the cliche answer, the best way to solve the redlinks is to fill them in yourself. The information is out there, you just need to find it. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomáš Záborský

The Tomáš Záborský article has been prodded. According to his career stats, he has played nine games in the Slovak Extraliga. Are these accomplishments enough to warrant an article? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I haven't unproded it is that I have found alot of errors in the way stats are listed from over there. More often than not people list the junior leagues as the fully pro leagues. I have been trying to find a source that is clear on if those were junior games or not. Its not very common for a euro pro to drop down to play junior in Canada. -Djsasso (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact one of the leagues listed on there is wrong. (has been fixed now) -Djsasso (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If is reliable, then he does have four games with Dukla Trencin in 2005/06. This would be it, however. The other five games were for a division II club. Patken4 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't think he is notable enough and he doesn't meet the project standards. But he could possibly pass afd because even one professional game will meet WP:N. I personally would let the prod go through then recreate him once he has played a season professionally, but thats just me. -Djsasso (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well he does pass criteria but he could've spent 4 games on the bench in the top tier since you just have to be dressed for the game to get the stats. The article can be recreated when he is notable. --Krm500 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If his four games in 2005-06 were with the fully-pro senior club, then he meets WP:BIO for having played in the top competition of his nation. If kept though, I am certain that more can be written about him than just his stats chart. Resolute 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Krm500, a small technicality, you have to play at least a part of a shift to log a game. I know for a fact, in the NHL at least, that's a requirement to register, as backups goalies dress but don't get "credit", and even forwards and defencemen have to play to register a "game" irregardless if you're on the bench the entire game. So I think that Tomas played in quite a few games with a very high degree of certainty. --Maxim(talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't believe that is true for players, it is only true for goalies. Either way he would have played less than 5 games. I still say let the prod go through. -Djsasso (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
See [2], [3], and [4]. You'll see that Brian McGrattan, was dressed for the game, yet he didn't play a single shift, and didn't get any "credit". I thought your way as well, until the Dallas game, when I realised what happened to 'Grats. Maxim(talk) 14:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not in Europe (or at least the SEL), goalies get a GP for every game they dress, fortunately there's also GPI (games played in) for goaltenders... But skaters can spend the entire game on the bench and get credit for a game. --Krm500 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to assume since he has a point and a penalty in the premiere league, then he has at least played professional. My apologies for missing that. I will remove the PROD. Would someone please expand the text of the article. I will be gone for a few days again. Flibirigit (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article a bit, but it still needs some prose to get rid of that stub... – Canada Nurmsook! 07:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric Brewer

So...the other day, Tavix moved the article Eric Brewer (ice hockey) to the more simple Eric Brewer. However, this used to be a disambiguation page as there is also an Eric Brewer (computer scientist) article. I've been working on the article for quite a while now, recently bringing it to GA status and in the process of pushing it to FA status. Now, I'm not quite sure on Wikipedia policies surrounding this matter. Should this move have happened considering the obvious quality difference over the other Eric Brewer article? Does the quality factor even matter? I just thought I'd get some input, and hopefully some answers, as I don't want to undo the move or anything if it was fully warranted. If it was warranted, let me know and I'll begin the process of changing all the Eric Brewer (ice hockey) links to Eric Brewer. – Canada Nurmsook! 06:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think they are of somewhat even notability... I think the move was unwarranted personally and that you should move it all back the way it was, unless someone can give me a good reason to think otherwise. Croat Canuck If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit 08:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and have gone ahead and reversed the moves, and cleaned up some other dab links related to Eric Brewer. In as much as we all love hockey, it's hard to argue that the hockey player has greater claim to the name than a billionaire. Resolute 15:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what images we can or cannot use from I know its a good resource for images if they are permissible. Flibirigit (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Search for the pictures using advanced search and click the "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos" box. This should narrow down the results. From there, go to the Commons where they have a resource specifically used to upload Flickr pictures. Hope this helps! – Canada Nurmsook! 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships rosters

The article 2008 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships rosters has been created which simply lists the players for each team in the tournament. I'm undecided on whether this level of detail is needed for the junior tournament, so thought I'd start a discussion here to see what others felt. --JD554 (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to prod it the other day but decided to let the tournament finish first. Team rosters if necessary could be listed on their respective national team pages. A list in one place of all the teams is unnecessary. -Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a standard used everywhere...from soccer (at any level) to basketball, to Olympic tournaments... --necronudist (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In agreement with Djsasso, it's overkill. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For me, I'd leave it. Almost every competition on many sports has a page for the rosters. Wikipeida is not paper, so we can afford to have this valuable information. In a few years, many of these guys will be NHL stars so, it'd be nice then to have this page to have information on the rosters. Listing the rosters on each team pages will only make them be deleted in a few months.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we still have 2007 IIHF World Championship rosters around. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AHL teams in Moncton

Since we now have articles for New Brunswick Hawks and Moncton Golden Flames, is it possible to get an admin to close off the discussions regarding the proposal to delete the repective logos. Also, we need some category cleanup now that everything is not lumped into Category:Moncton Hawks. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would close them but since I !voted in it, it would probably be a COI. -Djsasso (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've updated some categories. Would anyone mind double-checking? thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be in COI as well. It shouldn't matter. I don't expect that the closing admin will blindly delete an image with that many keep votes. They will notice that the usage has changed since the nomnation, and close appropriately. Resolute 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo removal

Well... the time since Betacommand's last image tagging spree has elapsed and logos we missed the FUR's on are getting deleted... could an admin please return the Olds Grizzlys logo back to its proper spot so we can add an FUR... DMighton (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Done and added a fair use rational. Let me know on my talk page if you find any others and I can fix them up too. -Djsasso (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks a lot. DMighton (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, how did I miss that one on my watchlist? Resolute 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to criticize but for the Grizzlys logo, the FUR template wasn't used, so I think it could get marked for error again as it doesn't list the article? Alaney2k (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR vs. vandalism watching

Could someone, please have a look at Hampton Coliseum. Some fans of the band Phish are insisiting on calling the arena, "Mothership." I want to make sure that I'm also not violating WP:3RR, as it appears to be obvious vandalism to me. Flibirigit (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears someone is adding a concert program as a reference? I don't think that is an admissible source, nor notable. But I can't revert anymore today. Could someone please look? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather then engage in 'edit warring', I'll allow others to review the source being offered (since if I revert, it'll only get reverted again). GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would guess that is a 'nickname' for the stadium? Possibly that is something that needs to be covered in the Infobox for a stadium? Alaney2k (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame 2.0

Hello, could some users please take a look at the page, because if nobody objects, I'm going for an FAC for it tomorrow. -- Scorpion0422 02:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work with the article! I was browsing flickr and found a few good images from the hhof, I remember there was talk about images but don't know how it turned out. Here's two "free" images; [5], [6]. --Krm500 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there are already images like that in the commons, but for the time being I think there are enough images. Although, I could add a link to the commons page... -- Scorpion0422 04:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Not ready. It's not written well enough to pass FAC, I'm afraid. This needs some copyediting. For example, sentences are starting with numbers (looks awkward), very short paragraphs (3 sentences and 3 lines), and something in quotation marks that ought to be cited. And that's only one paragraph. I've got quite a bit of experience with working on two future FAs (Stanley Cup and Calgary Flames), and I'm willing to fix it a bit more. Maxim(talk) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Coud you be more specific? ie. Point out the somethinf in quotation marks that ought to be cited? -- Scorpion0422 17:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Automating certain statistical updates, Game logs, standings

I am looking at creating a couple of more web queries through excel which will allow me to pull player statistics for the current season (Top 10 for instance), as well as standardizing the game-by-game logs. I can create the code for copy / replacement text that can be inserted in to update the information. The easiest way for me to do this would be to create templates and make it so that I can just update the templates, similar to how I have been doing the divisional templates. At the end of the season, the templates can basically be subst'd into the article. Same thing for the Game logs, to templify those and they could be subst'd at the end of the season as well. I can set up Carolina the way I am envisioning and have the community look at it and see what you think.

What I would most like to do is find someone with some good knowledge of AWB. I would like to do the following: Lets say I have a text file that is stored on my computer containing the update for a divisonal standing, basically the entire code that goes on that page. I would like to have AWB open that particular division's template, and replace the entire contents with what is in that text file saved on my computer, then save the template with an update summary. Can this be done?

Basically, if I can get that working, I could update Stats, game logs, and divisional standings with little effort. If that could be done, I would use the alternate login I have created User:Pparazorbot for those type of edits. What do you guys think? -Pparazorback (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nottingham Panthers

Hi there. For the last year or so I've been working on Nottingham Panthers. It's currently up for peer review and I'm hoping to get it up to FA standard but could do with someone better at Grammar and speeling than I am having a gloss over it to check for errors and other things. Any help would be greatly appreciated. PanthersGirl (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now stepped into the firey hell that is FAC with this article. KimThePanther (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Top Draft Picks for 2008 NHL Entry Draft

There are a few articles up for deletion for players who are projected to be high first round picks. Those players are Drew Doughty and Alex Pietrangelo (Pietrangelo is being grouped with two others). Both players are anticipated to be drafted in the top 5 of this years draft. Even though the draft is an inexact science, there would seem to be at least some nobility for both players. So how do we approach these articles? Here are two possible proposals. If you have another proposal, please feel free to add it:

  • Do not create the articles until they are drafted in the first round. Their notability would be determined based purely on winning a major award and the other project guidelines.
  • If they are projected to be in the top 5/top 10 by Central Scouting or a major publication, they would be notable.

Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't determined only by whether or not they've played at the professional level. Players like Alex Pietrangelo and Steven Stamkos have been covered by multiple independant sources, which meets the WP:BIO guidelines. -- Scorpion0422 02:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Smith

A user is not happy with the names we chose awhile back to disambiguate Steve Smith and as such is requesting moves. Please go and let people know which of the versions you prefer. Talk:James Stephen Smith and Talk:Steve Smith (ice hockey). -Djsasso (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Would it be useful to develop some sort of note or category to apply to player pages that need infoboxes so that they will be added? Alaney2k (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We used to have one but stopped using it because it didn't really help and was rarely up to date. As a matter of fact I only recently finished removing the note from all the pages with the infoboxes that asked people to go update the list. Took a few months to do. The majority of pages have them and people can add them as they go. -Djsasso (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a while ago since I added a infobox but if I remember correctly the description of the syntaxes are very weak. Maybe we should focus on setting up guidelines for infoboxes so they are used correctly? --Krm500 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we could rewrite the descriptions easy enough. However, they are fairly straight forward. -Djsasso (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We seem to have a needs-infobox=yes argument in {{Ice hockey}}. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hrm I never noticed that before. I wonder when someone slid that in there, but yeah that would work. There is even a category that gets populated when you mark it like that. Category:Ice hockey articles without infoboxes -Djsasso (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, read about the addition here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive13#Two_things --Bamsefar75 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I knew they added the taskforce stuff, but I guess I never actually looked at the template so I didn't realize they had added it as well. Either way looks good. This way is much better than the old way. Took forever to clean the old way up too. -Djsasso (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, folks. Most if not all current NHL players are covered but a lot of the past players need infoboxes, that's why I brought it up. I'll look into the ice hockey template and its parts, too. Maybe the note on WP:Hockey page to use the template could have more info on its usage added? Alaney2k (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I tend to add infoboxes to anyone whose played over 500 NHL games, unless it interferes with the layout already installed. As I complete these, I will probably begin adding the template to players with lesser NHL appearances. Yet, there's so much work to be done with other issues that the infobox additions won't be complete for a long time, atleast at the current rate. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't tend to add them until a player has enough other stuff on the page to make them not appear out of place. Most 3 line stubs I personally think they look with with the info box on. I'd rather spend the time adding more information to the article than adding the infobox. But thats just me. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, when I add the infobox I always add text/body information as well, unless it's already adequate. I figure most players with 500 games played, or HHOFers deserve more than 3 line stubs. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I also think that the infoboxes should only mention NHL and other pro European leagues, I've been editing infoboxes and finding that users have been adding AHL, WHL and other leagues. Even though they might be considered pro, they're not the top tier and clutter the infoboxes. I've been removing them as I come across them. -RiverHockey (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Player lists

While we are currently on the topic of team players lists, a thought occured. Does anyone know how feasible it would be to create a table that is currently used on the FL lists and apply it to the all-time player lists? The way I see it, we keep it the same, and simply add years active, their career statistics, and replaced the notes section with teams played for, while possibly adding a notes section, space permitting. I think it would make the lists a lot better looking, and might even provide some incentive for people to actually clean up the long-neglected lists.

The only problem I could really see would be for goaltenders, and if it is at all possible to add goaltenders in between skaters while managing to keep all the same stats for both categories. Any thoughts on this would be helpful, especially from someone who knows how to use and create tables, as I have no idea. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think goaltenders would be any more difficult than the team articles are presently. Simply put the collection of goaltenders under each letter in their own section. It adds a step if you are searching for a specific player and don't know their position, but that's a minor issue. Having gotten about 40% through converting those 26 lists to tables, this is one hell of a tedious job you are proposing. It would take a few wikignomes a bit of time to do. I am, of course, willing to help out. I was going to resume converting some of those to chart form once I was happy with Punch-up in Piestany anyway. Though I think I'll hold off until we decide if we are going to change formats first. Resolute 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I realise the enormity of the proposal, but I think that doing such a daring task is what the very principal of Wikipedia is about. While I applaud what has been done so far in regards to the player lists, the monstrous beast it is, I think its got the potential to be so much more than it is. And for clarification, are you suggesting that on each letter page, there would be two sections, a skater and goaltender section? I could see that working, as its the standard we are using on the NHL team pages, and the NHL Record Book uses that format as well, listing goaltenders in their own section, seperate from skaters. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I got dibs on Y. I like the idea but it is a massive load of work, we'd have to be a few members if we want to pull it off. Is the goal to get (most of) them featured? --Krm500 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Stars are pretty, but I think the goal is to make them a useful resource. And I call Q.  ;) Resolute 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Some list would be too short to be featured i think. I started working and ran in to trouble immediately; How should we do with years active? From first season played to last season or include every NHL sojourn (eg. 1992-1995, 1997-2001, 2003-2004)? How about players with few games? Use season they played or only the year? --Krm500 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That does introduce another issue for us. Updating about a thousand players a year is a massive undertaking unto itself. It also invites anons to update their favourte player's statistics on a game-by-game basis. Resolute 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
On the note of that, would there be any way to create a bot to automatically update the stats for us at the end of the year? If that were to be done, it would save us great amounts of time spent updating stats for the 700 or so players who are in the NHL each year. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that we use the same basic principle used on our FL team lists: list years they played, and include breaks if there was a break. It wouldn't be bad to see such massive lists reach FL level, but I would think the overall goal would be to provide the best information that we can. Indeed it is a lot of work, but I'm certain that even with a few of us doing this, it can be completed. Results just won't be visible for some time, as it would probably take several hours to load in every player on a large list. If anyone doesn't know yet, has a searchable feature that allows you to search for the stats of every player whos ever played in the NHL. Its used on the seperate team sites as well, and I personally find it a lot easier to use than It should at least help save some time for this project, and I'll even provide the link. Further more, I call Z. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC) also has a good listing for each team. Resolute 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Years active question once again; I noticed that the Atlanta list skips the lockout, does that apply to these lists too? --Krm500 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I did the same with the Flames list, and I would agree with just skipping the lockout. It creates far too many divided tenures. That said, there seems to be no rule to follow wrt the teams themselves. The Flames media guide ignores the lockout, but the Oilers media guide splits the tenures. Personally, I prefer simple. Resolute 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

List of NHL players: Y is done. --Krm500 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know who this is?

Who am I?

I found this image in the Commons, and it's a really good image considering how old it is, but it doesn't identify the player, it just says "Unidentified Toronto Maple Leafs player". The image is called "MapleLeaf1920s", so that narrows it down a little, but I have no idea who it is. Does anyone here know? -- Scorpion0422 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Love the caption! On the image description page there is a reference number for the Library and Archives Canada, maybe that can give you some information? --Krm500 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Charlie Conacher to me.  RGTraynor  01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[7] You might be right about that. I'll check the Archive for the image, but at the moment it doesn't seem to want to work for me. -- Scorpion0422 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say there too... [8] --Serte Talk · Contrib ] 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
RGTraynor might be correct. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Charlie Conacher

FL lists Part Deux

OK, I created a new list just to separate and start fresh. Based on the above discussions, I think I've summarized the points that we're going to make. If these changes are accepted by everyone, we'll start applying them to all the featured pages, as well as the SJ and the ATL pages currently up for FL status.

  • Blue background for SC winners
  • Green background for current players
    • No color for HHOF members; they'll be noted in the...
  • Notes column for award winners/captains/retired numbers/etc.
  • "Made team debut during 2007-08 season", with link to team 07-08 season article

Do I have everything covered? I'm pretty sure I do. I'll work on the NJ Devils page once we establish the standard, and everyone else can work on the pages they did the work on. Respond here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Anthony Hit me up... 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, though I remain a little concerned about how we will note players with a huge trophy case. Resolute 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Also see a concern with the awards. Just think of Gretzky or Lemieux or Orr, it would look terrible.
As a side note, I only put the Thrashers up for FL status because I wanted to get that over with, and will go through and change anything applicable if need be. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, then do we want to limit the awards we put in the notes column? In other words, do we (for purposes of the notes column) ignore smaller awards like +/-, King Clancy and stuff? I'm just trying to come up with some standard before we get to the guys like Gretzky and Lemieux. Forgive me for being a pain in the rear, but I just think it is best to have a definable set of standards for inclusion and exclusion before we go hardcore on these lists. Anthony Hit me up... 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just realized one thing to limit the number of awards on any one player's line: only awards won while they were with that team. In other words, Gretzky's list on the LA Kings page wouldn't include his SC wins with Edmonton or any awards won with St. Louis or NY. It doesn't help for guys who won tons of awards with one team, like Orr, but it still helps somewhat. Anthony Hit me up... 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I kind of assumed thats what we were talking about anyways, because the stats on those pages are only with those teams are they not? I know that thats what most of the team list pages had at one point. -Djsasso (talk)

Just finished up List of Tampa Bay Lightning players, added everything we got here, and have come to some conclusions:

  1. There should be some way to display SC winners who are active on the team still, as that is a major thing to note. A third colour would just lead to confusion and overcrowdedness, while I don't particularily like bolding players, but will settle for it if we have to.
  2. As for the awards, it will indeed start to look bad, especially for the Gretzky's and Lemieux's. Just look at Martin St. Louis, who has only won a few awards. This is going to look real ugly if we apply the same standard to someone like Gretzky.
  3. A final thing that I've been noticing. There are a lot of redlinks for players. While most of them are players who had brief careers, its really noticeable on these player lists, and is rather annoying. Perhaps a drive to get a page for NHLers should be started up as a way to elminate these redlinks, as its a rather tedious task for one person to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser matias (talkcontribs) 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a few people that are doing this but I am sure they could use help. I keep meaning to get into it but its just such a long task as I don't think I could just create stubs....I would have to put all kinds of detail into each one haha so I tend to get bogged down when I try. -Djsasso (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What I was doing for some articles was simply adding the infobox, career statistics and categories, and that alone was taking some 20 minutes per article. To add actual text beyond stating the name and notability, that indeed takes quite the effort. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
When I was eliminating the red links from the Buffalo Sabres list, I found that I could get into a nice routine where I would do the following:
  1. Pull up the player's hockeydb page
  2. Create an infobox using that information
  3. Write a quick first paragraph telling when/where he was born, his position, where he was drafted (essentially the same info from the infobox, just in prose form)
  4. Write a quick second paragraph telling which NHL teams he played for, how many games he played, and goals/assists
  5. Make the hockeydb page an external link
  6. File him under the appropriate categories (year of birth, nationality/hockey player, teams he played for)
It sounds like a lot, but once I got the routine down, I could crank a pretty decent page (a stub, but much more than bare bones) in about ten minutes. I'd do four or five of them a day, and within a few weeks, every Sabre had a page. Of course, I don't know if I even have the 45 minutes or so to do 4 or 5 biographies a day anymore... but, I guess I'm just saying it definitely can be done relatively quickly without just creating two-sentence stubs. It just takes dedication. Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Roadrunners

Not contesting the move, but Phoenix Roadrunners should probably be a redirect to Phoenix RoadRunners if anything. -Djsasso (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It previously did, but User:Mayumashu changed it. Flibirigit (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the suggestion, and posted comments here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm sure this has been brought up before, but bear with me. :-) What is the standard for adding pronunciation info to a player's page? Could it be something added to the player infobox template? The info is available in the NHL guide book, I believe. Alaney2k (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You would put it right after their name in the lead. It's the standard for all bio pages. And I am totally stumped for an example on a page that has it at the moment. -Djsasso (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh here is an example Ludwig van Beethoven. Not a hockey player as we haven't put it on many player pages, but here is an example on how its usually handled. And here is the help file on it Help:Pronunciation. -Djsasso (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh that is much much much simpler :-( I have never heard of the IPA before. I'll look into that. For the ice hockey player template, should I make the suggestion at its talk page? Alaney2k (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to bother. Alaney2k (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The NHL guide book gives a wrong pronunciation more often than not anyway. (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I had nothing to do with it, Joe Sakic has an IPA pronuciation. Not sure if that is really relevent, but thought I'd mention it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric Brewer (ice hockey) peer review

I've been working on Eric Brewer (ice hockey) for quite some time now, and have decided to put it up for peer review. I hope some of you can look into reviewing it, and hopefully we can add another FA to the project! – Canada Nurmsook! (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave a long-winded response that should give you some feedback. Like the article, its nice to see how good of quality we are producing nowadays. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good work Nurmsook, but does Eric Brewer really deserve that much of an in depth article, when many Hall-Of-Famer entries are still stubs? -RiverHockey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Brewer have an in depth article if Nurmsook wants to creat one? If there are Hall of Famers lacking quality articles, then so be it. Its the ultimate goal to create the highest possible standard for every article. If Nurmsook wants to get the Brewer article to FA status, then that's great. If he can find enough information to do that, the more power to him. I look forward to seeing how well this turns out. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong agreement. Like any other editor on Wikipedia, we work on what we please; no doubt there'd be many who could with equal justification ask why we're working on articles about some jumped-up kiddie game when there is work on important subjects to be done. When it comes down to it, RH, your own contribution history shows a lot of work on various lesser lights (the Gary Baumans and Gord Labossieres of the world) and scarcely any on HHOFer articles.  RGTraynor  12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not criticizing Nurmsook! but bringing it to our attention that many hall-of-famers and more significant contributors to the game of hockey have merely stubs and that we must work to improve them. As for my edits, I expand many stubs but don't try to raise them to featured article status. Either way, the issue at hand is that many HHOFs and notables need expansion. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see where you're comming from. I personally can't stand seeing such weak articles for many players out there. However, I don't always find those players to be the most interesting. As you might imagine, Brewer is my favorite NHLer and as a result, I know quite a bit about him and his play. As an open encyclopedia, we editors are never confined to what we edit. We are not forced down any particular road. If an editor wants to take a particular article to FA standards, then that's great! That's my goal for Brewer. And the fact is, Brewer is by no means any no-name NHLer. He's an NHL All-Star, has represented Canada 8 times, including an Olympic Gold medal, 3-time world champion, World Cup winner, and he's also a 5th overall draft pick. He is very deserving of a lenghty article, as is any player. Anyways, thanks everyone for all the notes, I look forward to showing you all a soon to be FA quality addition to the project! – Canada Nurmsook! (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we have much work ahead of us, with more always surfacing. The end result is that some projects inevitably get forgotten or ignored. Such is the issues faced when dealing with an excess of 10,000 ice hockey articles. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Messier Leadership Award

Did this award get awarded again this year? Wasn't it supposed to be a monthly award, yet there hasn't been any mention of it since last year. Anyone hear anything about it recently, or even if the NHL scrapped it? Kaiser matias (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears this 'award' is just quietly disappearing, it's page at coldfx is gone as well. IrisKawling (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... it looks so dead that I'm pondering over just deleting the page... Maxim(talk) 00:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Has there been any winners this season? I don't recall there being any? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It existed, and the NHL did make a very big deal out of it last year. Might as well wait and see if they just dropped the monthly award and kept the annual. Resolute 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I sent out an inquiry to the NHL. I'll post an update in the event I get an answer. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Season Page for Deletion

2007-08 Alexandria Glens season. I am not well practiced in Speedy Deletions or AfD's... could someone appropriately tag this for me? It is an Ottawa area Junior B team, a little too low for season articles. DMighton (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

done --JD554 (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In cases like this you could just tag it with {{prod}} since it will likely go unopposed. -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Howabout 2008-09 Vancouver Canucks season, seeing as the 2007-08 is still in progress. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There I put a prod on for it as a case of WP:Crystal. Not every move has to be discussed ad nausium you know. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
He he he. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Surprisingly someone other than the author contested the prod. So its now up for afd here. -Djsasso (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

While we have been discussing early creation of 2008-09 season information, I am sure this template is no longer necessary (until the 2008-09 pages are recreated after the season): Template:2008-09 NHL season by team, but what about 2008-09 NHL season, 2008-09 OHL season, and 2008-09 ECHL season? --Pparazorback (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All of those are now up for deletion. But there are some strong opponents on these ones. -Djsasso (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Breaking of ties in the standings

Here is an interesting one. Currently, New Jersey and Pittsburgh are tied with identical records. Pittsburgh is +10 on goal differential while New Jersey is +6. These teams have played 4 games together with New Jersey holding a 3 games to 1 advantage (all in regulation) over Pittsburgh. Now, in all 4 games, the home team was victorious, with only 1 of these games in Pittsburgh. Common tiebreaking procedure would have these teams tied using the games versus each other because you are supposed to use the same number of home games, thus the record is 1-1. Thus goal differential would be the tiebreaker, and as such, Pittsburgh is leading the division. The problem here is NHL.COM itself lists New Jersey as the current division leader with Pittsburgh sitting in the 5th seed position instead of the other way around. This, based on the text on the NHL Standings page is incorrect. Do we use what we know to be true and list Pittsburgh as the division leader or New Jersey as NHL.COM, the official site of the NHL lists? The team pages also list NJ as the leader, but obviously that is just fed directly from NHL.Com. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting question but it isn't worth the time we may spend discussing it. The tie will be broken, probably very soon, so, it doesn't really matter unless it is the end of the season.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I would just match what the NHL says. Chances are, being midseason, they are just looking at NJ's 3-1 series lead and using that as a tiebreaker for now. Resolute 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The away team was the winner in all 4 games, with New Jersey winning 3 times in Pittsburgh, and Pittsburgh winning in New Jersey. NHL says to take away the first game of the team that has the home advantage, which would be a game in Pittsburgh/a win for New Jersey. NHL [9] does not say to only account for an even number of home games, so New Jersey should get the breaker. Grsz11 (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Goaltender stats

For anybody that does game logs and stats, do you calculate GAA as (Minutes/60)/GA...making an overtime game worth 1.08 games? Also, if a different goalie plays the shootout, does he get the result (W or OTL) and the decision, and the other goalie gets the minutes, GA, and no record? Thanks. (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's easier just to use or TSN or someone similar's stats rather than calculating it manually. However, GAA is calcualted as GA/(Minutes/60), so yes, an overtime game is "worth more" to GAA. Also, yes, if a goalie comes in specifically for the shootout, he gets the W, but no other stats. Resolute 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Darn it Resolute, I was trying to be helpful and here you come swooping in with the answer right beneath me. Well putting hatred of Resolute aside, he basically stated what I was going to type. Yes you are right on both counts. Croat Canuck Talk 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My internet > your internet. Resolute 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Some day we hockey conservatives will win back control of the NHL, then it'll be bye-bye OTL & Shootouts - hello, W-L-T & red-line. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the shootout, it causes much more interest in the game. Only thing they need to do to fix it is change a regular win to 3 points a OT win to 2 points and an OTL to 1 point. -Djsasso (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
AHHHHHH. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You just have to be in a pub and watch a game go into shoot out to know that it causes more people to pay attention...the whole bar turns to watch. And ties...when it was just ties people hated ties just as much as they hated the shoot I think the 3-2-1 method is the best compromise. -Djsasso (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait a sec, we're blogging here (that's a no-no). As I started it, I'll finish it. Sorry folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Ice hockey

Our topic's portal, was quite poor, but I've being maintaining it quite a bit recently and I've submitted it to portal peer review. Some comments would be very appreciated. :-) Maxim(talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

07-08 Season by team template

What does everyone think? I added the conference colors to the background of the division titles. Also, I added links to the division articles to each. The previous version is here. A user pointed out that the colors may distract users from navigating this box, but I personally think it has a better appeal with these colors. Input welcome. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I must agree, I prefer the version without colours as it makes the side hard to read. -Djsasso (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that the divisions are linked and I don't mind the colours. --Krm500 (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the linked divisions, but I think the colours are a little bold and tacky. Thricecube (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the colours as well. I don't mind that they are coloured, but the ones currently chosen really do draw the eyes away from the template. Perhaps switch to something a little softer? Resolute 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah thats a better way of stating what I was thinking. It draws my eyes over to that side automatically. -Djsasso (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like it, with the colors it is more attractive and I even think it makes it easier to read than that colorless bunch of words as it was before. As for the eyes drawing to the side... Control them :P Just kidding. --Serte Talk · Contrib ] 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good to show whole article names whereever possible, so to take up some of the empty space, I would add the team names to the locations that are there. It should still come across as one line for each division. -- bmitchelfTF 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. There's way too much empty space to the right and the team names would fill the void. Thricecube (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's how it looks with the team names:
I'd say the Atlantic and Central division lines don't look so good, since this adds an extra line to each. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it must be the resolution you use. Because the lines don't even come close to using a second line for me. Infact they barely cover half the screen. -Djsasso (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was. I changed it right after I posted this. I think it looks good with the names. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good at 1024x768 which I think is the most used resolution. I still like the coloured background. --Krm500 (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've went ahead and changed the template, as I don't think anybody is going to complain, but obviously, anybody is still welcome to discuss it. Also, please check the spelling, as I just realized I spelled "Detroit Red Womgs" (of all the teams to spell wrong, I did it to mine). Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In my browser, the "See also" heading on the last line spans two rows for no apparent reason. The rest of the line uses only one row. Using Internet Explorer 7, 1024x768. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked a couple people via IRC if they have this problem, and they do not. I also do not, but I think everybody uses Firefox these days, so maybe a problem when viewing in IE. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rjd0060 up for adminship

User:Rjd0060 is up for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rjd0060 2. He's an active member of this project, so I thought I'd let you all know. Feel free to comment on his adminship capabilities. Maxim(talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone knows IPA

Would anyone with IPA knowledge help me? I've been trying to translate Paul Stastny to IPA. According to the Colorado Avalanche website, it is pronounced STAS - nee. Using Wikipedia's Help:Pronunciation and looking at other examples, I've translated to English pronunciation: /pˈɔːl stˈæznɪ/. Is this correct? If not, help me get it right. Thanks--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another edit war seeming to be brewing

The wonderful article known as List of National Hockey League statistical leaders by country is the subject of yet more problems as of late. A user, One Night In Hackney has gone off about the convention used on the article, this time regarding the Irish players and whether they should be classified as Northern Ireland or just Ireland, seeing how most of them were born pre-partition. However, seeing as nearly all of them are from modern Northern Ireland, and the convention used is to use modern entities. This is starting to look ridiculous, with notes now placed stating it includes all of Ireland, no flag representing the country, unlike every other one. It has also now spread to other countries on the list, namely the former Soviet republics. Some input from some users here should help to once again resolve this tiresome list. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tragically, the Northern Ireland edit squabbles of Wikipedia, have reached an NHL related article. See my suggestion at article in question. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh goodie... Resolute 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If the rest of the members of this WikiProject care about hockey articles? your help is needed (big time). I'm afraid in order to stop Wikipedia's Irish problem from spreading to hockey articles, we may have to Delete this article (or something). Trust me folks, I've been in these Irish argument elswhere on Wikipedia, if ya don't stop it here, it'll poison all hockey articles. This is a MAJOR SOS. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I can't think of very many other articles where Irish nationality in lists become a problem. For bio's, we use the nation of birth at the time the player was born, so that's pretty cut and dry. I'm not sure the "troubles" will spill over too much into the hockey domain. Resolute 19:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We need some help here. We cannot let these users who have never edited a hockey article before in their lives uses one of ours as a place for their political opinions. Grsz11 (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I changed it to Ireland myself, I believe the issue is now resolved, just lump Ireland and Northern Ireland together, as is. I really don't think deletion of the article will be necessary GoodDay. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking simply rename it Northern Ireland & put Riley in a section called Republic of Ireland. I'd prefer lumping Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland into a UK section; but I don't think many would support that. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blake Parlett

Apparently this junior player has been prod'd three times now. Twice before his draft year, and once again by me this month. I don't know the first thing about AfD's so I would appreciate it if someone could set this up for me. This will probably snowball, but the person who removed the prod said that because of the amount of prods done to the article, it needs to be AfD'd. Please give me a hand. DMighton (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've went ahead and set up the AfD for you. You can see it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Parlett. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Division standings tables

Hmm, Just noticed somebody added a conference "rank" column to these tables (like Template:2007-08 NHL Central Division standings). What do we think about that? I think (if it stays) there needs to be a more clear title for the column; just saying "rank" without specifying League or Conference is a bit confusing. Thoughts? - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A user by the name of Chrimart added them. I formatted my update sheet to continue updating that information. I changed the heading from Rank to CONF to hopefully address your concern. Any better suggestion for a header? I can easily change to whatever the consensus is. If the consensus is to remove the data, I can do that too. I figured since someone took the time to add the information and since it is somewhat useful, I conformed my updater accordingly. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I, personally, would just remove the column. I know once the season completes the rank could just be added next to the team name. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
...but obviously I'd like to hear what others think. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me, doesn't matter to me. The PRO about having them is one can see the conference rank for each team. The CON is that unless the updater updates only 1 division in a conference, it is possible that the ranks listed in the other two divisions won't match. If I do the update, I would update all 3 as I can do all 6 divisions in about a minute, minute and a half using my excel program, but most editors don't have that ability to do it that quick without some sort of bot. --Pparazorback (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. My only real concern is the inaccuracies that are introduced if all three templates per conference are not updated at the same time. And given the number of users who are updating after their team's game is done, the chances of an erronious rank grows. The addition of conference rank is a good change, but might be best suited for the end of the year. Resolute 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe it should be removed until the end of the season. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless anyone else has an opinion supporting KEEPING the information, I will remove the CONF column when I update the standings later on tonight, due to updating concerns. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Pparazorback. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is interesting, I just wanted to the conference rank because it is by far more important to list teams by their conference rank than division espcialy by the end of the year. But I respect wikicraty! - chrimart (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm holding off until the games after the all-star break. Thinking about a solution, but have to get some sleep due to work, will look at it more this weekend. update tonight still has rankings. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When I first created the division templates we now use, together with another use, I mentioned the possibility of creating conference standings templates as well. Someone replied to me saying we should wait until the All-Star Break. Now that the conference rank is starting to become much more important than the division rank, I think we should create these templates as well. I'm sure Pparazorback could update them using Excel to retrieve the data as well and it is just two more templates. Maybe we could do even better. If there's a possibility, create the conference templates and then try to use the functions we already use to highlight the team of the season article and the teams of the division the team belongs to.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I just made a test and it is possible and easy to do what I just said.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 11:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be easy, but a lot of editors would still only edit the division that their team is in, and more than likely not modify the conference ranks. Conference templates is one idea I am considering, which could be added as a "see also" in the standings area. Work is getting in the way though - I've already worked about 37 hours this week, not a lot except my work week starts Wednesday morning! Will look at this a little later. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I created Template:2007-08 NHL Eastern Conference standings but didn't have time for it then, and couldn't get it to fit in the articles I was editing. It's there if you want to work on it. Grsz11 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just got finished. Two new templates exist that work exactly like the division templates. Now is how to put them in, whether to transclude them in the team pages, or to add links to the conference standings and create a conference standings page that can be clicked on, etc... Anyway, here are the templates: Template:2007-08 NHL Eastern Conference standings , Template:2007-08 NHL Western Conference standings. I was going to put them side by side, but didn't know how that would look on a smaller screen (I have a widescreen laptop). If it is going to be single, I could re-add goals scored/against without much difficulty. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I put it in at 2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season. I'm not sure how I like how it fits in. It would be nice to have consistency between the sizes of each template so they move together better. It would probably be beneficial as well to have an * denote the conference leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grsz11 (talkcontribs) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you mean having a * to denote division leaders? Good choice. But I don't see the point of having the "RANK" column in the conference tables/templates because every team is already organized by ranking. It's just excessive/redundant, since it's not there for the divisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmitchelf (talkcontribs) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, added suggestion to put * to denote division leaders, and it now looks identical to the divisional chart. Any more suggestions? --Pparazorback (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My only suggestion would be to add something that tells that the * means, for people who don't know. Other than that, I think it looks great, and should be transcluded. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Done - transclude away! --Pparazorback (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I transcluded the conference standings to all teams in the Eastern conference. Will get the western later tonight or tomorrow, I have something I have to do -Pparazorback (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job. Looks good! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Western conference and 2007-08 season page complete. Not sure if there is a better way of displaying the conference rankings on the league season page, but as I get ready for bed, it's the best I could do for now. If anyone has any other ideas, feel free. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
One more suggestion -- there should be some kind of marking separating the top 8 from the bottom 7. It should be easy, at first glance, to see who is in the playoffs and who isn't. As the template stands now, readers have to physically count the rows to see who is in 8th place and who is in 9th place. Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take the standings out of the right table to avoid inconsistency between it and the templates. No big deal for a reader to look there instead, and it's easier to edit the 2 rather than those, and the page as well Grsz11 (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was confused as to what you meant until I saw your edit on the Pitt page, you mean take the conference ranking out of the infobox on the right. As for Skudrafan1's suggestion, I can add that, but I need to figure out how to add such a mark. Someone modify the template and I can edit my code accordingly to put some sort of separation there. I originally had the place listed but it was suggested to remove it for consistency with the other standings. Open for suggestions. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a very subtle break (mainly because I don't know how to do anything else) between the eighth and ninth positions, at least as a starting point. Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I created some examples of how these can be displayed. Check out User:Pparazorback/Sandbox for 4 different examples. Discussion ongoing as well at Template talk:2007-08 NHL Eastern Conference standings. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul Stastny

I just finished working on Paul Stastny. You can see how it was before and how it is now. Anyway, I know it's not finished, because I'm pretty sure it'll need some copyediting (I am just kind of tired to do that right now). What I am asking you is to help me out giving tips on what to improve, saying stuff that is missing, etcetera. Kind of a peer review within the Wikiproject. I'd like to see the article go to GA and (maybe, if you think it has any chance) to FA. Also, check this if you know IPA. Any help appreciated, thanks.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice looking article. I would say that with some copyediting, it probably has a fair chance at passing FA. Though I wouldn't mind having a secondary photo added to the article. Not necessary I would think, but it would just make it that much better. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Good work, much improvement. I agree with Kaiser matias and would like another photo, but no, it isn't necessary. Agree, needs a bit of copyediting, but it's definitely GA/FA material. As soon has Stastny signs for the Red Wings, I'll be ready to support a GA/FA. (just kidding, of course). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the comments. If there's any user with FA experience and some free time who can help me copy-edit the article, I'd be thankful. I'd assist in the process. I have difficulties doing it as English is not my native language, so my prose isn't up to professional standards of course. Also, when you write the stuff and look at it for so long, you fail to see so quickly where you can improve. Thanks.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to me personally, but how come his name isn't spelled with diacritics like his father? Also, I changed it back but am not sure, shouldn't his position be spelled "centre" since he is Canadian-born? -- bmitchelfTF 11:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

About being centre, I've explained it in the summary of the revert. He lived in Canada until he was 4 years old. Then, he moved to the US. His entire hockey career was in the US, he played US junior hockey, US college hockey. Played internationally for the US in the world championship. And (not that it makes a difference) he played for an American franchise. He is American. Why should it be centre? About the diacritics, I think it should stay as it is. Being born and living in North America, the diacritics disappeared from his name; they stay for his father name because that's how he was named when he was born in his country of origin. I've never seen Paul Stastny being written with all those diacritics. I doubt Stastny is Slovak, (at least he doesn't speak the language) and I doubt his legal American documents have Stastny written with diacritics.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 11:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, he was born without diacritics, so they wouldn't be correct. --necronudist (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray Emery

I'm thinking about nomming this for FA. Any comments? Maxim(talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, that in true Emery style, if you do nominate it, forget to transclude it for a day.  ;) I'll read it over and see if I have any suggestions. Resolute 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any more you can add to the heading? It just seems rather short to me. Either way, I like the aricle. Interesting subject to nominate at this point of time. Will gladly support it either way. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I might add something about yesterday's incident to the lead... It is short as his career is so young... but does it meet FA criteria, I think it does. Maxim(talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, yes it does. Go for it and see what happens. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

2007-08 Manchester Monarchs season

I have made a suggestion to User: that we create the 2007-08 Manchester Monarchs season article as a place to put all the scores inputted by the user. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We have recently deleted most season articles by teams lower than the NHL so I don't really think its a good idea personally. -Djsasso (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I belive those were even lower levels than the AHL. But I'm willing to see what happens to this article. It might become a keeper. Flibirigit (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the professional ones were, but we also killed some junior ones which I would argue as being the same level as the AHL. -Djsasso (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would personally encourage it... after all we have everything else practically allowed for the AHL and I would argue the whole Wikipedia is NOT a paper. I would also say AHL is a little above because a low percentage of junior players can actually crack a regular AHL roster. Croat Canuck Talk 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess its just a case of Wikipedia is not a indiscriminant collection of statistics. The NHL pages manage to get some prose to them to avoid being deleted but I can't see the AHL pages living up to the same standard. That being said I don't have a problem with them personally. Just wanted to mention that we recently deleted alot of pages of the same nature. -Djsasso (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I get the impression that User: seems dedicated to contributing to articles related to Manchester, New Hampshire. Hopefully we can encourage him/her to be a long time Wikipedian with some guidance. I would hate to lose more editors over deleting material, but rather educate and foster growth, and endeavour to join a WikiProject. Flibirigit (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FL Player Lists

I noticed that List of San Jose Sharks players is an FLC, but while I was reviewing the other three current FLs (Colorado, Calgary, and NJ), I noticed some discrepancies between the three (as well as SJ). So I'm bringing it up here to discuss so that we can set one standard for them all to follow, and not have any more minor changes.

  • To distinguish current players, Colorado & NJ use bold type, Calgary and SJ do not.
  • For further confusion, NJ and Colorado use colors to note Stanley Cup winners. SJ uses colors for current players. Calgary has colors for BOTH.
  • For players who debuted for a team this season, Colorado and NJ use bold face; however, the wording is different, and Colorado's words link to their season article, while NJ's links to the main NHL season article. Calgary and SJ do neither.
  • Colorado and NJ have a column for Stanley Cup wins and nothing else. Calgary has a "Notes" column for SC wins, HHOF inductions, and retired #s. SJ uses the "Notes" column to indicate captains and award winners.

The point is that there is no coherency between these lists, and it is up to the Hockey WikiProject to come up with one before we have even more different types of FLs. What's the plan here, people? Anthony Hit me up... 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well I might as well be honest here and say that I based the Sharks page on the Flames one. The only reason for this was when creating the Sharks page I forgot we already had 2 other FL's (the Av's and Devils). For the adding of the captains and award winners was something I did to give the 'notes' section a purpose; obviously the Sharks have yet to win the Cup, HHOF inductee, or retired number.
  • Personally, I would like to see the following: Colours (different, if necessary) for both SC winners and active players, nothing else; notes used for either of the following: SC winner, retired number, award winner, and captains. Anything else, I don't have any real feelings towards. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I think would make the most sense, and is some combination of all of the pages (and can easily be rectified):

  • Bold type for current players; no color distinction
  • "Debuted for 'team' during '2007-08 team season', currently in progress" used for first-year players
  • One color (green or blue) for SC winners; another for HHOF inductees
  • Notes column for award winners, captains, and SC wins

That would cover everything, lay everything out in simple fashion, and set it up easily for future lists. Does anyone have any problems with that? Anthony Hit me up... 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the blue for cup winners as that is what is used on the player pages themselves, so it would lead to conformity. Other than that I like the rest of the ideas. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I threw a different colour background for current players on the Flames article becuase I felt that simply bolding the player names didn't stand out enough, but I'm cool with dropping the colour and going bold instead. Differing colours for SC winners and HHOF inductees doesn't work well, as several players (McDonald, MacInnis and Mullen for Calgary) qualify as both. I'd prefer to use one colour to denote players with any kind of note. A notes column for awards may not work well either. i.e.: How on earth would you handle Wayne Gretzky on the Edmonton list if/when it gets upgraded? Resolute 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, playing around with a function I found in another list, I re-combined all of the tables for skaters into one on the Flames list, with a separate TOC to reach each player by last initial. I'd like to make the table sortable, but I'm not sure that's possible with a two row header? Resolute 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with adding a colour for current players. I'm in the middle of redoing the Lightning page, and looking through what I have done, its harder to see bolded names as opposed to coloured columns. I like the idea of finding the players by initial, and have added that to my editing of the Lightning page. As for the awards, I simply added them to the Sharks page, and later the Thrashers, as unlike the other FL's we had, the Sharks had no Cup wins, or anything to include into the notes. It probably wouldn't hurt to have the awards removed, but I still think that if it can somehow be added to the lists, it would be beneficial. Shows what teams have had award winners and the like. Everything else that has been said, I'm totally for, and am just waiting to see what the end result is before I go ahead and edit the Sharks list. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I finally have List of Buffalo Sabres players ready to be nominated, based on conversation here. If the bolding for current players needs to be changed to colour, that will be easy enough to do. Let me know if anything needs to be changed/reworked before I go ahead with the nomination. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You will want to convert the hyphens (-) in the years to endashes (–), as per the manual of style. Also, I'd remove the French Connection image. Since that article doesn't offer commentary on the French Connection line, it has an invlaid fair use claim. Other than that, looks good to go! Though, you've introduced another minor formatting inconsistency, as for players with multiple stints, you have the years in one row, while the other articles have each stint in its own row. Just another thing we have to work out, heh. Resolute 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just started fixing the Chicago Blackhawks list in my sandbox since the last person to work on it removed the majority of the players in a misguided attempt to only list players who have played over 150 games. He ended up cutting alot of big time players. It's going to take me awhile, so feel free to figure this all out so I can just steal off your pages. hehe -Djsasso (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
To Kaiser Matias - what color would you use for current players who also won a Stanley Cup? For that matter, what about players who won the Cup and are in the Hall? At least for the bold, it leaves only one situation where someone could have two colors (since it's impossible to have three). Anthony Hit me up... 14:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point about the Sabres list: for current players, it lists years as 'first year-2008', rather than saying 'first year-present.' Just a point that might want to be changed before nomination. I'm also thinking that we should maybe consider an actual FL drive towards all the player pages, with the evuentual goal of a featured topic. From what I count, we already have 3 FL, 1 nominated, and at least 2 ready to be nominated. Factor in the other lists that only need a small amount of work on them, and we can get this done in a relative short amount of time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We're missing the article/category that binds them all together though. That would be the tricky part. Resolute 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, ignoring that vital, critical aspect, we all but have this locked up. And I'm certain we could create something that will bind all the articles together. We just have to believe. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to be difficult about the "first year-present" vs. "first year-2008" thing, but I'm afraid I like "first year-present" better. "First year-2008", in my opinion, has drawbacks. First of all, it makes it appear as though 2008 will be the player's last season on the team. Secondly, it raises an issue for "current players" (such as, for the Sabres, Mike Card and Michael Funk) who are still members of the organization but who have not appeared in a game yet in the 2007-08 season. Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of minor leaguers like that, I went by what the Flames media guide listed. i.e.: For Eric Nystrom, his tenure as a Calgary Flame is 2005-06, 2007-08. Though he was still in the organization last year, he didn't play in Calgary, so that year is removed. Resolute 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. You will see similar listings on the Sabres list for players such as Paul Gaustad (2002-03, 2005-present). Therefore, if Card and/or Funk do not appear a game with the Sabres this year, I would change "present" to "2007". I guess what I really meant, though, is that "2008" (which was proposed as being shown instead of the word "present") would only be listed for players who actually finish their tenure with the team during or after the 2007-08 season. For example, if a player were to be traded tomorrow, I would change "present" to "2008". I know, I know, splitting hairs. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While working on the Tampa Bay Lightning list, I've noticed how lengthy and unnecessay it is to list the aformentioned, "Debuted for 'team' during '2007-08 team season', currently in progress." What I personally have been using, and is also used on the Calgary article, is "First season in (city name)." I want to know if it is good enough to keep, or should we find something else? Personally, I feel that we need something like it, a quick, simple phrase. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the most logical way to approach these first year present, trades, etc.. is to use the same standard that we use for the Statistical page - All stats are through the 2006-07 season and as such, do not list any stats, trades, etc for things that have occured during the 2007-08 season until the season is completed. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I understand what your trying to say, we should leave out any players who are in their first year with the team, and update it when the season ends? That would probably be the best thing to do. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And for the players who are on the team and were the previous year, their stats and time with the team would still say -2007 and not -2008 because no stats are included from 2008 yet. --Pparazorback (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking this is the way we should do it. That would also eliminate any hassel of adding players midway through the year. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The lists lose their integrity as comprehensive lists of a team's players if we do not make some denotation of players that debuted this season. You're saying that as late as June (since playoff statistics are included in these articles as well), a player who debuted for a team in October should not be listed as a member of that team. It just seems lazy. It's really not a "hassle" (it takes two minutes, tops) to add a player with a simple note saying "Made [team] debut in 2007-08 season". You could lose the "currently in progress" part, which is implied anyway, and be left with a brief little statement. To stay statistical pages don't include players who reached a milestone during the season is just incorrect: see List of National Hockey League players with 1000 games played, for example. Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That may be the case for milestone pages, but is definately not the case in List of National Hockey League statistical leaders and individual player pages where stats are not supposed to be updated until the end of the regular season to ensure the highest accuracy. See Template:Hockey. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess my point is that debuting for a team during a season is more akin to reaching a milestone (because everyone who has ever reached that milestone is listed, just like everyone who has ever played for a team should be listed) than it is to becoming a statistical leader (because only a select few are put on those pages). Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When I have some free time, I'd like to do more lists of players. Have we reached a consensus? We should do it now, we already have a bunch of FL, and they have differences. Let's reach a consensus and put it in a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Lists of players pages format.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with tables

As it stands I'm currently trying to fix up the table on List of Atlanta Thrashers players so that if possible it is not so bulky and taking up so much space while managing to stay at the top of the article. Now, I'm not so good with tables, in that I have no idea what I'm really doing with them at all, but I know that some of you folk do know what to do. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look and seeing if it is possible to condense the key while keeping it in place, that would be excellent. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin help

Template:Start IHL SBS was approved for deletion at TFD, but it was missed. Could an admin follow up? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The TfD debate referenced didn't include this exact template. Just CoHL and UHL templates. It might be better to list this one separately than to use that debate as a precident for speedy-deleting this template. Resolute 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, heh. Resolute 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread what you wrote and tagged it speedy. Flibirigit (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Works just as well. I was betting Maxim would come by and nuke it anyway. Seemed easier to download the issue onto someone else.  ;o) Resolute 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Question

Just a general question... would it be considered POV in an article to say that Leafs were jilted out of a win last night? Absolutely terrible, I'm still just a little bitter about that one... its a good thing Ovechkin had another four-goal night last night or I would be really, really ticked... Anyways there is an actual question coming out of this. Do we consider suspensions to be notable enough to be mentioned in player articles? I'm asking because I'm wondering whether its worth putting in the Antropov article. I remember back putting a bit in the Mats Sundin article about the whole stick-throwing incident suspension from a few years back, but it got deleted twice, so I don't know whether short suspensions are notable enough or not. Any thoughts? Croat Canuck Talk 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally unless they are of a longer length, I wouldn't add them in as 1 or 2 game suspensions believe it or not are quite common. -Djsasso (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be a bit of a case of recentism on the Antropov article, as his suspension will likely be forgotten as soon as it's over (what a dumbass move, btw). But for a player like Simon or Bertuzzi, I think suspension history would be very notable in establishing the player's reputation and history. Resolute 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey watching that game, it was frustrating enough that if I were in his skates, I would have probably done the same thing. It got friggin ridiculous. That's what I was thinking though, there is definitely way too much recentism in these articles as it is. All right I'll leave it alone. Croat Canuck Talk 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I can bet. We've alrady been McGeoughed this year ourselves. I wonder how much source material there is for an article on Criticism of NHL officials? Though I might have fully protect such an article from creation, heh. Resolute 23:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category concerns

User:Mayumashu has been making a lot of category edits and changes lately. I do not know if they are major or not... but I do not see where they were discussed, maybe someone can fill me in. Something I am not liking is that he is starting to group all "Senior leagues", like Major League Hockey and Eastern Ontario Senior Hockey League, into a broad category called "Amateur hockey" as opposed to something that would make more sense like a category for "Senior hockey". Anyone? DMighton (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other types of leagues in there, other than senior? There is senior hockey, junior hockey, minor hockey and professional, so far as I know. If they are all senior leagues, I might discuss the idea with Mayumashu of taking this cat to CfD to request a rename to Category:Senior ice hockey, or some such. Resolute 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with the usage of "Amateur" and where I think he is going with this. I have written him and told him what I think... also I left an example of how I think it would work the way I would like to see it. Check it out if you want to comment. DMighton (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Senior /= amateur. I'm thinking of the semi-pro senior league in Quebec, for one.  RGTraynor  06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have argued with him numerous times on the fact that he keeps adding levels of categories without ever coming here to discuss them. I don't like any of the changes he has made to the league categories. I have however atleast tried to clean up the mess he has made cause he often starts the categories and then only moves half the articles or whatever over making a huge mess. He really needs to be stopped. -Djsasso (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have created a new category called "Senior ice hockey" and have hopefully cleaned up that mess. DMighton (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He's made a lot of changes to the British categories as well, such as splitting Category:Coventry Blaze players into the two leagues they've played in: Category:Coventry Blaze (BNL) players and Category:Coventry Blaze (EIHL) players. This has added quite a few categories to some players who have played for a number of teams in the different leagues they've played in. This seems to be over categorizing to me as the team is still the same team despite the change in leagues. A worse example is the changes made to Category:Nottingham Panthers players (see Paul Adey as an example) where he's split them into the two incarnations of the team and then the different leagues for each player. Does anyone else agree this is uneccessary when it's the same team and not different clubs? --JD554 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! By my count there are now six sub categories that Nottingham Panthers players can be sorted into - the original and modern era clubs and then the British National League, British Hockey League, Ice Hockey Superleague and Elite Ice Hockey League. He's also missed out the English National League which the Panthers played in between 1946 and 1954. There just doesn't seem to be any point in all this division in my opinion - there a few Panthers players who could only fit into the two different incarnations of the club and not into an individual league page and there are numerous players who could be sorted into multiple different Nottingham Panthers categories. Having one category would be much easier. PanthersGirl (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ice hockey teams by country

Since we now have Category:Ice hockey teams by country with subcats as Category:U.S. ice hockey teams and so on for most countries, shouldn't there be Category:Canadian ice hockey teams as well? Is there an ongoing discussion somewhere? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that such a category should be created, and then subcatted by province. However, that category is already under consideration for renaming, and there is discussion here about what kind of convention to use. We might want to hold off on creating these categories until that discussion reaches a consensus. Resolute 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Club Lugano

I've gone over the Hockey Club Lugano article, removing images which violate fair use, and kept only a few, with appropriate FUR. The rest of the article looks like it was copied directly from an Italian language website then translated. Also looks like most contributions came from a single user, who edited few other articles. Anyone care to have a go over? Maybe there's enough good material to create a good article! Flibirigit (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire society and history sections of that article is a straight rip of the official website [10]. However, in the edit history, there is an OTRS ticket mentioned that suggests that the content was released to Wikipedia, so it may not be a copyvio. There certainly is plenty of info there, but yeah, that article needs a massive cleanup. Resolute 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
How does one cite an OTRS ticket in a list of references, or is it necessary? Also, should the images I removed be restored? Flibirigit (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't in the references, but was cited in an edit summary in the page history. Looks like you just turfed duplicate logos, which I think is fine. the historical gallery is more than sufficient. Resolute 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We've got troubles at St. Louis Blues (hockey)

An anon editor is constantly changing the Blues captain list. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon blocked for 55 hours; I tried blocking the IP range as well as the other IP is very similar, indicating it was the same user using two IPs. Anyhow, that's clearly editwarring and he'll stop for at least 55 hours now. Maxim(talk) 01:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the authoritative citable source for that captain's list? Is it the NHL, or a Blues guide? (editwarring with GoodDay? never happens :-) )Alaney2k (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya got me singin' the Blues. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm more concerned with the Blues current alternate captains. Is there five of 'em, or three?: Tkachuck, Kariya, Jackman (undisputed); Mayers, Slavador (disputed). GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Donnan

User:Richard Donnan has been making a great deal of hockey related edits, but he tends to introduce a great deal of spelling and grammar mistakes even as he occasionally adds relevant information. He also has the habit of adding his signature to mainspace edits. He makes a LOT of edits, so it would probably be in the best interests of the project if his contributions were watched carefully. Croctotheface (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I just went through his recent edits and pretty much just undid most of them. Good faith, yes. Making a mess, also yes. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of fixing about 20 or so more. He made a lot of edits today, (Feb. 3) that I haven't had a chance to look at yet, either. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You may want to even check my edits, I'm getting tunnel vision from fixing so many. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
He made a sincere effort to improve 1979 Stanley Cup Finals, but it's still messy. Rather than revert it, perhaps we should just clean it up and use some of his edits? -RiverHockey (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have another issue. I am wondering if he is pasting the contents of Podnieks' book into the Stanley Cup Finals articles. I think that he is now using the IP address instead of his login, based on the content of the edits by that address (various Stanley Cup Finals). If he were to respond on his talk page, etc. then we could work together and get his help, but at the moment he is adding more work than content. What to do? Alaney2k (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Junior hockey alumni categories, again

Here we go again, another crusade to rename the alumni categories into something incorrect, whoopie. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 28#Category:Brantford Alexanders (OMJHL) alumni. Resolute 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness that is over for now. Flibirigit (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Excessive transactions on season articles

This section on the Penguins' season article caught my attention. Are two way contract movements/call-ups really of importance to keep a log of? I originally removed it, but one of the frequent editors of the article disagrees with me, so I'm wondering what the consensus here is? I remember a similar topic was brought up earlier in the season regarding excessive logging of player milestones, but this is even worse in my opinion. IrisKawling (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that that is excessive. Random call-ups and demotions are quite trivial. Resolute 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And quite frequent. Heck, each team usually has a couple stringers who yoyo between their AHL clubs and the NHL, as much as ten times a season. This is trivial.  RGTraynor  16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the user has re-added the section because "he doesn't mind the adding them". Thricecube (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth

Over at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth they are having a wide-ranging debate about what country to put in infoboxes for people born in countries that no longer exist such as the Soviet Union or Czechslovakia. Seems pretty relevant to here. Kevlar67 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Project organization and other similar stuff

The skeleton of my thoughts: A discussion about the continued existence of the Article Improvement and Requested Help, Peer Review, Task Forces, Featured Topic Drive, (and maybe more to come...). Also, would it be possible to write down the project's guidelines? I got in to some "trouble" after closing an AfD (correctly IMO) but when my decision was influenced by our unwritten guidelines. Maxim(talk) 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What guidelines are you meaning? Our notability guidelines? They are written down in the player page format section here. As far as the rest of those things why wouldn't they continue to exist? -Djsasso (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well there's not much activity in any of them. I would really like to hear you input on the task forces Maxim, and please post them at the respective talks pages too. --Krm500 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know they where there. I think we need an update and to split it up. Maxim(talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just don't see the need for them to be extremely active. That is part of the reason they are task forces and not full blown wikiprojects. But by all means lets hear your thoughts. -Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But they seem to be dead outright. Maxim(talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I am all for getting them active again if there are people who want to be active in them. But I don't think we should just toss them is all I am saying. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey League

I was browing through List of ice hockey leagues, and found under Section # 7 - Europe, this league: International Ice Hockey League (1999- ) - multinational league with teams from Austria, Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Yugoslavia and Slovakia.

The problem is it redirects to a low-level professional league in North America. Does anybody know anything about this multinational league to which this link is supposed to lead? Flibirigit (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the edit where the addition was made here, by anonymousUser: Any comments? Flibirigit (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems there is a note about it on too, but according to them, the teams were from only three countries. Seems it is or was a league that replaced Alpenliga. More info needed. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What should be do about the redirect? Maybe it should be deleted since its incorrected. What is the protocol for deleting a redirect? Flibirigit (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Another thought... maybe redirect it to Alpenliga, then expand that article? Flibirigit (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have redirected it to Alpenliga instead. Flibirigit (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)