Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive27

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

Presidents' Trophy

Today someone decided to revert an edit I made in mid-2007 where I removed an unsourced and poorly formatted listing of teams that had lead the regular season standings prior to the establishment of the trophy. I removed it because the article is titled "Presidents' Trophy", not "List of NHL regular season leaders".

However, this information probably should be somewhere, so should it be readded (in a properly formatted table) to the Presidents' Trophy? Or, should a new article be started (considering that there is a List of the most frequent NHL playoff series, I'm surprised there already isn't one), because at one point the Prince of Wales Trophy was awarded under that definition. -- Scorpion0422 20:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say seperate list with a link from the current article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
A separate list is unnecessary. It is no different than pre-Art Ross Trophy scoring champions, or pre-Maurice Richard Trophy goal-scoring leaders. A separate article is unnecessary additional clutter. The fact that at one time other trophies were awarded for this distinction is immaterial. It is quite adequate to cross-reference those trophies in the article, but to present one table that has the information presented in a useful fashion. Why put it in two different places? There is no reason to separate these teams, which accomplished the identical thing, from Presidents' Trophy-era teams, simply because of the fact that it took until the mid-80s for the league to create the PT. It's a continuous chain of teams having accomplished the same thing. It's appropriate to put it at the PT article because that's currently what the league awards. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make the list that had been at that article, but I also don't see how it is "poorly formatted." It looks fine to me. Sure, it's different than the PT table, but different does not mean worse. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As for the sourcing concern, I don't understand why this is a major concern. There is no dispute I am aware of that each season's standings table isn't adequately sourced. The team that finished 1st overall each year is just one piece of information on that table that is sufficiently sourced. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The biggest reason is that different trophies were awarded as the league champions so it would not be appropriate to list them all on this page. This article is about just one of the trophies. If you want a list of overall regular season champions then start a list at List of NHL regular season champions. -Djsasso (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
So what? I don't see where this makes any difference. The most useful place to collect this information is still at the PT article, with a notation that, decades ago, when the league was organized in very different fashion, 1 other trophy (which is currently in use for something else) was awarded. I would agree with you if we are talking about a half-dozen different trophies over the years having moved in and out of this role, but we aren't. There's 1 that's used currently, and 1 other that was used 30+ years ago. We don't even know whether the team is properly styled the "regular season champion." What we do know is that it's the list of teams that would have won the current Presidents' Trophy if it existed. What more logical place to put it is there than on the current PT article? MrArticleOne (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Because this is an article about the President's trophy, not an article about the regular season champions. The listing of who has won the trophy is just one part of the article. Information is routinely split out of articles all the time. And in this case its a very appropriate split as this article is not about the regular season champions. -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
How do you reconcile this logic with including all of the prior goal-scoring leaders on the Maurice Richard Trophy? Or the scoring leaders prior to the Art Ross Trophy? It is irreconcilable. But I would support those arrangements because that's the most logical place to put that information. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think those people should be there either. But I believe they were put there in the case of the Maurice Richard Trophy because there were not enough winners yet to warrant seperate articles. -Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course they should be there! The article of the trophy isn't just about the hunk of metal and glass and plastic. It's about the distinction for which the hunk of metal, glass and plastic is awarded. Someone looking up the Maurice Richard Trophy is interested in goal-scoring leaders; the Maurice Richard Trophy is a placeholder for that concept. All of the goal-scoring leaders should be aggregated at the Maurice Richard Trophy article. It's the same for the PT. I mean, the article for the PT isn't even really about the PT; there isn't a word about how it was designed, why it looks like what it looks like, or whatever. Instead, it is about who wins the award. It makes perfect sense to include everybody else who met that same criterion before the award's creation. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The article of the trophy is just about a hunk of metal and glass and plastic and who won that trophy. The leaders before the trophy was created did not win that throphy and don't belong on the article. The leaders prior to this trophy should be on their own article and linked to from the see also section or as a sentence in the prose. -Djsasso (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
What you say would be true if the article paid any attention in the least to the physical trophy itself. It does not. The only thing the article cares about is the teams that win it. Who have achieved the distinction. The fact of the trophy's introduction has not substantively changed the meaning of that distinction, and it only makes sense to have a complete list available right here. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the article talks about the physical trophy does not change the fact that those teams did not win it. -Djsasso (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
They won what it currently stands for. This is being unnecessarily literal. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
And that is your opinion. There is no reason why there can't be another article with a more appropriate scope. -Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why people think that it is adequate to write off a position because it is someone's opinion. The contrary view is your opinion. So what? MrArticleOne (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the obvious answer would be there are more people supporting my opinion than yours, which leads to consensus. Titles of articles should reflect their content is a pretty standard guideline here being the second reason in this particular case. -Djsasso (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
A 2-1 vote is hardly consensus.
Consider it like this. The post-2000 Central Division (or Atlantic Division, or Northeast Division) is not the same institutional entity as the pre-2000 Division of the same name. We don't bother with a separate article for "Central Division (NHL pre-2000)" or something. Why? Because it would be unnecessarily literal. It's mostly the same. Same enough for the purposes of organizing an encyclopedia. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that is not the same situation, the Central Division is still called the Central Division, all that changed was an attribute of it. Your example would be the equivalent of having a new President's Trophy article because a new team was added to the winners. And I didn't say it was a consensus, I said it leads to a consensus, that being said the all the people that were part of the Featured Topic Drive to get all the trophies featured agreed with them not being on the page, that would be a consensus as most of the project was involved in that and at last look we have around 50 active editors. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's best to not list pre-PT winners on the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Then where should this useful information be stored? And in a fashion that expresses the obvious connection it has with the PT "era" (that is to say, one that makes it a comprehensive, unified resource)? Look at it from another direction: arguably this over-specificity demands that we have separate articles for something like the Prince of Wales Trophy, for each of the various definitions it has had over time. There is no natural reason to organize our articles around the physical pieces of hardware rather than the abstract concept of the team accomplishment. I think that putting the pre-PT 1st-overall teams on the PT article represents a reasonable and commonsensical compromise between ordering the articles around the trophies and around the concepts, since neither one is demonstrably more worthy than the other as an organizing principle. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If it has to be stashed in an article that nobody would ever search for ab initio, that is what you might say is prima facie evidence that that is not a good place for it to be located. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you are missing what we are saying, we are saying list every regular season winner, including the PT winners on a single list. And in that list you mention that from this year to this year the winner won the PT trophy. And from this year to this year the winner won the PW trophy. And during these years there was no official trophy etc.-Djsasso (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that is one way of organizing it, but my point is that the most natural place someone would go to look for that information is the article for the Presidents' Trophy. As I said, if it's not a place that someone would think to look for it straight off, it's probably a bad place for it. Let's just work through a few premises. Nobody (or a very insignificant number) of people are going to be looking for this unless they've already heard of the Presidents' Trophy and are looking for a complete history of that award/distinction. So what are they going to do? They're going to go to the article on the Presidents' Trophy. If we can anticipate that, it seems to me there ought to be an especially good reason to force them to go on to some other article that's about what, from their perspective (that of the educated but uninformed reader), looks like essentially the same thing. For example, you've suggested that we call it a list of "NHL Regular Season Champions" or something like that. But (a) we don't even know that's how this distinction is properly styled, and (b) it's potentially confusing. My hypothetical reader doesn't know if he's looking for the "NHL Regular Season Champions," or at least doesn't know (or have reason to know) what this means vis-a-vis the Presidents' Trophy. He's just looking for the complete list of teams that have done the like accomplishment of winning the PT. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
See I don't see the presidents trophy as being the first place someone will look who is uneducated, they will most likely look for regular season champions first at which point you can easily mention and link to PT for the approrpriate years it was being used. However, it going the otherway, if they do go to the presidents trophy first they probably know enough to know its about the regular season champions and even if they don't the article on the presidents trophy will tell them that. At which point you have a bit explaining that prior to the the PT the PW was used and link to the other article which further explains that prior to the PW trophy there was no official regular season champion as far as a trophy goes. -Djsasso (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It'd be the first place I'd look, by analogy to the Art Ross and Maurice Richard pages. I would expect two sets of people to check: (a) knowledgeable fans who know the meaning of the PT but want this particular information (to my knowledge, it is not assembled anywhere else on the Internet, which I find especially curious since it is only a piece of derivative knowledge that comes from information (historic league standings) that are easily and authoritatively available), or (b) less-knowledgeable fans of a team that either recently won or is contending for the PT towards the end of the year and is trying to get a sense of where their team's accomplishment fits into the league's history. Either way, the PT is the logical starting point. I do tend to think it takes something along those lines to look into it, since (for example) nobody knows or cares who finishes with the best record in the NFL, since it has zero significance; by and large people are not asking who won the regular season championship in any pro sports as a routine matter. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think teams who "won" the regular season before the Presidents Trophy was awarded belong on said page. The way I look at this is how teams raise banners (or notate it in their media guides), if a banner were to be raised for a pre-Presidents Trophy win, what would it say on it? It would not say Presidents Trophy Champion, it would say Prince of Wales Trophy Champion or NHL Regular Season Champion. If you feel that people would look to that page for it, make a page called List of Pre-Presidents Trophy Winners and add a link to the top of this page to indicate to people that indeed there were other trophies given out for the Regular Season champion. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
At least some teams do precisely that (enough that it is mentioned in the article, in fact). The old banners almost uniformly say "League Champions" or "NHL League Champions." That in and of itself is an unfortunately confusing way to word it (I think most people would say the "League Champion" is the team that takes home the Stanley Cup), which is one of several reasons that I think the most natural and appropriate place for this is at the Presidents' Trophy article. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is why you make it clear in the article that its about regular season champions. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, though, I am uncomfortable with that usage because I do not know whether that is how they are properly/officially styled (note that the banners say "League Champions," not "Regular Season Champions" or something like that; I don't know the significance of this, nor do I know how to unpack it). There are just a lot of problems with this "separate article" vein. It would be very decontextualized. Just a list? If it had been done that way from the start it would have raised the question of, "why not attach it to the PT article and resolve some of the ambiguities?" MrArticleOne (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am getting the impression that some of the opposition to my position is possibly based on the fact that the top regular season finisher is not normally accorded much recognition at all. I would not argue that there ought to be a list of NBA, NFL, or MLB regular season "champions," because those leagues do nothing (to my knowledge) to recognize that distinction; it's basically pointless (indeed, I've read comments from many players that say the PT is pointless). Because the NHL currently does do something (the PT) for the top regular season finisher, it makes sense to make a complete list of teams that have satisfied its criterion as an addendum to the article about the PT itself, since the criterion is objective. It is obviously connected and relevant, in much the same way as the pre-Art Ross Trophy scoring champs are relevant. I mean, to my knowledge those players have not been removed from those articles, and although some in this discussion have suggested that, as a sort of abstract notion, they don't particularly care for those players being listed there, nobody has actually taken the step of deleting that information. I don't fully understand the group's tolerance of that (even if it does not rise to ratification of it) but your opposition to this. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I am more curious why you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. -Djsasso (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Two reasons: 1. Accessibility: this information is, as I noted, devilishly difficult to find, and the anomalous decision has been made to delete the information until a "satisfactory" place can be found for it (instead of vice-versa). 2. Consistency: we are treating like circumstances differently with the PT and ART and MRT. Both are things that I think it is extraordinarily important to pay attention to on a project, like Wikipedia, that has no central editing staff to watch for them. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I admitted defeat in light of the contrary consensus to my position. So, I have implemented this consensus in the two counter-examples that nobody on here argued were being properly implemented. And then it got reverted. I'm left wondering why the table that I wanted left in gets deleted until a satisfactory place can be found for it (and when I tried to restore it, it was promptly removed again), but when I accede to the consensus and implement it elsewhere, that information is apparently privileged enough to stay in until it gets talked about. What's the rule? Whatever it is, it should be adhered to everywhere, instead of only selectively. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I should explain that: I eliminated the tables for the pre-1948 winners of the Art Ross Trophy, and pre-1999 winners of the Maurice Richard Trophy, but that's been reverted now. I am just wanting to know what the rule is. At this point I have lost the will to keep advocating my position, but it needs to be consistent either way. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about creating unnecessary drama. Have you actually checked the articles? Because you haven't been reverted (yet). Your edits do seem very WP:POINTy, but all I did was finish the job that you didn't properly do. -- Scorpion0422 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I read your edit summary and thought that my browser cache wasn't operating properly (it's been known to happen before; my internet here on the frontier is shaky). I profusely apologize for that. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
While obviously not exactly the same situation. I believe WP:ALLORNOTHING comes into play here. The sad thing is that the richard trophy is likely to lose its FA over this. And the thing I think that is being missed is that there was no prior trophy for the art ross or richard trophy so there is unlikely to be confusion caused by listing the pre-trophy winners. Whereas having Prince of Wales winners on the Presidents Trophy page is. -Djsasso (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It may be better if I just went away. I am a lawyer first and foremost. The rationale for the status quo prior to this debate has vacillated amongst a variety of different explanations: 1. The pre-PT winners did not technically win the PT (yes, but we have other articles where that is the case); 2. The pre-ART/MRT winners shouldn't be listed on those pages, but the fact that nobody has changed is irrelevant to this debate (I changed this, and now Djsasso is saying that's a shame); 3. In the past, the PoW trophy was awarded for these same criteria (yes, but for some years it wasn't, and I argue the PT is the obvious place to aggregate this information because the list of teams at the PoW article is less enlightening since the PoW has changed definitions so many times); 4. It is inadequately referenced ( is apparently an adequate reference for a host of articles, e.g. Atlantic Division (NHL)); 5. Jeopardizing FA status for an article is problematic. I think there may be a cultural clash here that I am not fully grasping, and since I honestly don't want to be either "dramatic" or an annoyance, it may be wiser for me to confine my contributions to those subjects on which I can speak with more authority. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
One thing that occurred to me since writing that: since 1949, winners of the sportsmanship award have won a different award than prior to 1949. Similarly, different awards have been handed out to the top rookie starting in 1933, 1937, and 1942. There's been no effort to differentiate those. I would not advocate that either, but those are situations where a different award (both a different physical piece of metal and wood, as well as functioning under a different name) have been awarded in the past, but we're aggregating all the results under the contemporary award's heading. But, that's just food for thought. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we list the number?

I think the player's number should be listed in the infobox. I don't see why not. Thoughts? RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed and rejected. Would have to look through the archive index to see where. But basically it came down to numbers change too frequently and aren't really that defining of a player save a few exceptions like Gretzky. -Djsasso (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

NHL or National Hockey League?

For articles with NHL in the title, should it be wrote out it like that? I've seen some like it - List of National Hockey League players with 500 goals, and some not - List of NHL players with 50 goal seasons... What's correct? RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We usually use NHL. I know a user a year or so ago when through and tried to change them to long form but they all got reverted. Some may have been missed or created later by other users and no one every noticed or cared. -Djsasso (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact this looks like it was one that was moved back to NHL but someone else came along later and moved it to the long form again. -Djsasso (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I move the National Hockey League ones then? RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would assume so. For lists anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Diacritics hidden" and WP:R2D

I'm not sure if this was discussed when the consensus was formed regarding diacritics, but the recommendation on the main page seems to conflict with the WP:R2D section of the WP:Redirect guideline. At present, some editors are going through articles to change straightforward links to redirects (for instance, [[Zigmund Palffy]] to a piped link ([[Žigmund Pálffy|Zigmund Palffy]]. Per R2D, there is not a change that editors should be making. Am I missing something? Do the piped links produce any benefit at all? Croctotheface (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are correct. If the only change you are making on a page is fixing a redirect then you shouldn't be making the edit. I was thinking about letting the person I saw doing it all the time know but I never saw it as that big a deal so I let it go. That being said its even worse to revert it once its been done. The reason you shouldn't do it is because it uses bandwidth unnecessarily, so reverting it uses even more bandwidth. -Djsasso (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to take the blame for that. I didn't realize re-directs were preferred. I thought my way, was slinkier. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not that they are prefered. The idea is that redirects take more bandwidth to use, so some people change the redirects to direct links thinking they are saving bandwidth. But most of these links will never get enough clicks to justify the change. The amount of bandwidth you use to make the change is actually the equivalent of something like 10,000 clicks on the redirect so you are actually using more bandwidth than saving unless its a highly clicked link. What I do if I am going to change a redirect to the piped version is make sure I have other stuff on the page I need to change as well. -Djsasso (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what bandwiths are. But, if saving them is good, then I'm cool with the 'redirects'. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Bandwidth (computing)#Bandwidth in web hosting, but basically its computer time/energy to process the request. You could also look at it like more bandwidth used equals more money spent by the foundation. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Really all you need to remember is to make sure that a redirect is not the only thing you are changing on page when you make an edit. Add a category, editcopy something, add some more info etc along with the redirect you are changing and its no longer an issue because you are being efficient. Basically its the same idea as using preview for each edit you make instead of making 20 small edits you should make one large edit. -Djsasso (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually, the consensus of R2D is that you really shouldn't ever change [[redirect]] to [[target|redirect]]. It's not so much a performance issue (we shouldn't worry about performance anyway), but because it mucks up the page source and as the "Macho Man" below says, it can help future articles, too. It's admittedly a little silly of me to revert these changes, but I sometimes do because it just plain doesn't help, and there are ways that it actually can hurt. Anyway, I appreciate the clarification: I'm going to be bold and change the front page to something that doesn't seem to mandate unnecessary piped links. Croctotheface (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually you have it backwards. My point about we shouldn't worry about performance was in reguards to the initial change, reverting the initial change just made a bad performance issue worse. But in general you should have piped version when possible and where there is obviously not going to be a different article like in this case where its just a diacritics or non-diacritics version. -Djsasso (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting any of this from; there's nothing like it in the guideline. The piped version may be 0.0001% more efficient (or whatever it is), but that's irrelevant as we're not supposed to worry about performance anyway. Despite what you say here, the guideline never says "change redirects when you can" or "change redirects to pipes if you're making another edit to the page" or anything like what you're talking about. It says that you shouldn't change redirects if they're not broken: if clicking a redirect link gets the reader to the right spot, then leave it be. Croctotheface (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
We are not supposed to worry about performance and go around "correcting" redirects you are correct. The wording on the page has changed since the last time I looked into it, but it used to talk about don't make changing a redirect your only edit to the page. But it is rediculously pointy to go reverting people when they have (as you did) is my only real point especially since to follow the guideline, if it ain't broke don't fix it and what they changed it to also was not broken, you then continued to edit war with another user about it and reverted each other a few times. If you are going to preach about it, then follow it as well. -Djsasso (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the benefits in this specific case of having [[Diacritic Version|Non-Diacritic Version]] is that it probably helps to stop drive by editors changing it from one version to the other when they see we have both there and specifically made a point ot showing the non-dio version or the opposite depending on the situation. -Djsasso (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I revert people when there is no possible benefit to the piped version for a few reasons: first, I want to raise awareness of the guideline, as there are several editors who, for some reason, seem to think that they're helping the encyclopedia by changing redirects to pipes and are likely unaware of the guideline, the consensus supporting it, or the rationale behind it. We could argue about whether there's any benefit to using redirects or pipes for names with diacritics, and you may be correct that it's more or less the same either way, but there do exist cases where the change is clearly harmful, or else there would be no point to having the guideline. Editors who make these changes might be inclined, as User:RandySavageFTW says he used to be, to go around making these changes if they think it's helping the encyclopedia. Second, I think that it's useful for data collection purposes to see how terms are usually being linked, and always using piped links defeats that purpose. If, say, five years down the road, there's a reconsideration of the use of diacritics, it would be helpful to see how often the term is being linked without them. Third, as R2D describes, unnecessary piped links makes the article more difficult to read in page source form, and that applies regardless of whether or not you expect the redirect term to get its own article. Regarding your second paragraph, I don't agree that "drive-by editors" would be more inclined to improperly replace the non-diacritic rendition with the diacritic rendition if there is a redirect rather than a piped link. It would seem to me that if they're going to make the change, they're going to make it regardless of the presentation style.
I replied to you here to point out that your statements about how it's fine to change redirects to pipes if you're already making an edit finds no support whatsoever in the guideline, and it basically makes the very kind of "worried about performance" argument that the guideline seeks to dispel. Croctotheface (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects also help for future articles. NHL Playoffs redirects to Season structure of the NHL#Stanley Cup playoffs... if NHL Playoffs ever gets an article, all those links won't have to be fixed. I used to "fix" them all the time but then I realized how pointless it is. I don't revert people who do it, though. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spammy edits

Can someone give a second opinion on Special:Contributions/1terabit. Everything seems to revolve around promoting his blog of russian hockey players. The odd thing is its apparently the players contributing to the blog, but they only seem to do it once. I say its spammy, but others might say its their official blogs? ccwaters (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam, alot of websites get called official that are not. -Djsasso (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok... done. ccwaters (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadiens Street

Can someone check out Canadiens Street? It sounds made up.-Wafulz (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the notability of roads, but this seems a little iffy to me. Created in good faith for sure, but still... – Nurmsook! talk... 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You know what, I'm wrong. Looking at this User's edits, I'd say it's a HOAX. Google Maps makes no reference to it at all, not in a quick Google search either. And honestly...Shea Transit? $1.20 for animals and dolls? I think that's a little pricey. I'd prod it. – Nurmsook! talk... 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be time for an Administrator to have chat with Shea DM. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I think so. I was going to go through and prod everything, but if there is a faster way... – Nurmsook! talk... 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be good enough for a speedy, though I am not sure. -Djsasso (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup appearances move

I suggest renaming the List of Stanley Cup appearances to List of Stanley Cup Finals appearances. The first name sort of implies games or series, not the modern (1915-) Finals definition. Is the name too long and would the move be controversial? BTW, Canadiens total of 34 doesn't agree with 'Total Stanley Cup'. The 2000 book lists 35, the online version for the 2008 playoffs here lists 33. Do they not count 1919? Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go with the move. it's pretty non-controversial, imo. Not sure about the Canadiens issue though. Resolute 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where 35 comes from. It's obviously 33 plus the non-decision in 1919. Our list is correct. Jmj713 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I still think it should be merged, it's content forking and largely a recreation of the list of champions. -- Scorpion0422 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if you would come along and state that again. Its been awhile since you asked about merging it. :) -Djsasso (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Before reading the above, I went and did the move. We could merge, but we would have to agree by consensus what the content should be. The table does not contain wins before 1915. And what would Final series mean in the context of a merged page? Total Stanley Cup considers the two-game Dawson-Ottawa series a Final series. Holds several Stanley Cup records Do we list league championship playoffs before 1915? They did not take place every year. The other issue is that the List of Champions list is long. You can consider this list to be sub-article of that. Alaney2k (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If they were merged, we should go back to the previous version [1], which would make the current version of the list under 70,000 bytes, which is acceptable. As for whether or not it should contain wins prior to 1915, I don't think so, since it was contested as a challenge cup then. -- Scorpion0422 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought we went through all this before when you originally proposed a merge and it died. I oppose such a merge with modifications. The appearances list is extremely helpful for ascertaining a team's Finals history. I think what we have now is perfect, with the exception, perhaps, of restructuring the challenge-era article. Jmj713 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, except that wikipedia is not a database for statistics. Anyone who wanted to learn a team's playoff history could use a) the team article b) the team's season page or c) the article itself. -- Scorpion0422 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Or they could use a list which puts all the information in one place. This is no more statistics than the hundreds of season articles that exist out there. Finals appearances is different that cup winners. And is someting lots of people often want to know. It is by far no means indiscriminant statistics. It discriminates in that only people who played in the finals are included. -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say there is no consensus to merge. So we probably don't need to rehash. Is there a proposal on improving the content of the appearances article? BTW, the appearance article does list the active teams that have not made an appearance. Alaney2k (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I would probably suggest that be removed and/or be made into its own list. -Djsasso (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of international ice hockey competitions featuring NHL players

At Talk:List of international ice hockey competitions featuring NHL players, there is a discussion going on about the scope of the article. Please comment. (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of family relations in the National Hockey League

My sympathies in advance for anyone who maintains this list, as yet another Sutter is set to make his NHL debut. Brett Sutter is expected to play for the Flames tomorrow. Have fun sorting out the fathers, sons, uncles, nephews and cousins involved in this one.  ;o) Resolute 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A second generation indeed, as Brett joins cousin Brandon. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking about that when I read the news that he was being called up. -Djsasso (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. I've already updated the Uncles-Nephews section for Brandon Sutter. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I never knew Ryan and Greg Johnson were brothers. --Smashvilletalk 04:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah my hometown produces alot of brothers in the NHL. Just ask the Staals. -Djsasso (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NHL player featured lists

I've been talking with Dabomb87 regarding List of Colorado Avalanche players, which he feels has fallen below featured list status. I tend to agree with him, and looking over the other player FL's, I think that since the standards for FL's has been raised, most of them have fallen under the threshhold. Dabomb is going to provide a list of issues he thinks will require addressing, so that we can bypass a formal featured list review and just bring the articles back up to snuff.

Looking over them myself, I think the most glaring need is for a marked improvement in the lead section. Most of them start off with "This is a list of players of the ...", which in reacent FLC's has been deemed weak, and a reason to oppose. The leads require rewrites, and citations. Also, per WP:MOSFLAG, flag icons should be accompanied with the country name. I am going to begin upgrading these lists as time permits, though hopefully some interested wikignomes will help out.  ;) Also, given that a majority of our FL's were promoted prior to the changes in the process, it might not hurt to do a cursory look over most of our featured content to ensure that it remains at the highest levels of quality. Resolute 15:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, some lists (Sharks) require stat updates, and I guess we should decide on how we will denote active players on the roster. Some use background shading, some boldface the players. Which should we use? Resolute 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I like what we have at List of Vancouver Canucks players, but my opinion is largely biased. Although the lead could use some expansion, it seems to be the only article that actually uses symbols to compliment the shading, which is now required and was one of the most glarring issues to me about the other FLs. Most of the FL articles use the shading, so I'd say stick with that. I'll be more than willing to help out with getting the FLs back up to standard so we don't lose any. I'll start off with standardizing the key and symbols (as like I said, it seems only Colorado uses boldface, while Edmonton uses a mix—I'll assume shading with symbols is the consensus). Aside from that, as is the case with Vancouver, most leads need expansion. – Nurmsook! talk... 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty close to what I have with the Flames article, so lets go with that. heh. As far as symbols goes, the MOS says only that shading should not be the only way of noting something. Since in the Flames list, current players are also noted by having their year's played end at 2009, and any award winners have their awards listed as well, I counted that as the additional notation. But, symbols can easily be added for consistency. Resolute 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I ran into trouble with that reasoning when I had the Canucks list at FLC. One of the respondents said "I don't quite agree with your reply. It's a lot easier to spot "*" or "#" next to the name while scrolling, then "2008" in the "seasons" column or "HHOF" or "ret" in the "notes" column." after I essentially made the same argument as you. I'd agree with ya, but like you said, it's no biggie to add them for consistency. Anyways, I'll get cracking on some of these in a bit. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be happy to help in the upgrading of these articles. I have written a couple of similar sports list FLs (List of New Jersey Nets head coaches, List of Washington Wizards head coaches); while those are of a different topic and sport, the basic format of the lead, tables and citations are the same. The Avalanche list should be the model FL to follow here. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Current player FLs

2008–09 Montreal Canadiens season

Under the broadcasting section, does anyone know how to link to without the www.? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, but why do you use external links like that when the station has a wikipedia article? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
They are on the station RDS and on the website, I believe. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would probably consider their website one and the same. -Djsasso (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dustin Tokarski

Is winning the Stafford Smythe Trophy, MVP of the Memorial Cup, a notable achievement? Our guidelines say that a playoff MVP from a minor or junior league is sufficient, but I don't know if that means the individual leagues or the Memorial Cup. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say so. I would include the individual leagues, as well as the Memorial Cup. Resolute 19:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah looking at his awards again, and with the WJC success...I'd say so. I prodded it originally for that same reason, but this is good enough for me! – Nurmsook! talk... 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hrm ... if being the playoff MVP in a junior league is sufficient, why would there be any question that the Memorial Cup MVP is? That TRUMPS the playoff MVPs.  RGTraynor  22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects versus pipes for diacrirics, again

I know that this is not a big deal, but could we definitively say whether or not we actively prefer using one or the other? LaRan seems to believe that the consensus here is to ignore WP:R2D and make a concerted effort to change redirects to pipes. If that's the case, OK, but I don't understand why that should be. Would it be accurate to say that most editors don't really care one way or the other? Croctotheface (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea why he would insist on doing it, really. There is no benefit to it and the only thing gained in the process is +1 in the edit count. Perhaps raise the matter at WT:R for a more general discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well what he is trying to find out is that has WP:HOCKEY decided not to follow the guideline so asking on WT:R won't really help. Because I told them to stop edit warring over the Islanders page. Personally I don't care what version we use (well actually thats not true. I would like to see the actual article name used. *grin*), but I also think reverting someone over and over who has already done it is getting to the point of being WP:POINTy. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's go with re-directs, folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Care to explain why? It uses extra bandwidth and you get an ugly "(Redirected from example)" at the top. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Djsasso explained to me that Re-directs uses less bandwith then Pipelinks. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Other way around GoodDay. -Djsasso (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Jumpin' Junipers; how'd I get mixed up? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, Djsasso in that a direct link is better. But, I don't see the need nor have the urge to change them just to do it. I think you agree with that - Lame ;) - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I wouldn't go out of the way to make the change of myself, but if someone else wants to do it I think all the power to them. Its the warring over it that I don't like. -Djsasso (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, I think this stands on the verge of becoming a WP:LAME edit war. Does it really matter if someone wants to change them to pipe links? In the end, I don't think it matters so long as he respects our decisions on displayed spelling. Resolute 17:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree that its closing in on WP:LAME. -Djsasso (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The title suggestions begin here: Diacritical Mass --Bamsefar75 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly a lame edit war, and I personally feel a little silly for being willing to revert past the first time. Having said that, would it be a correct reading of the sentiment here to say that there is no preference for pipes or redirects? Croctotheface (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last thing I'm likely to post about this dispute. On the 3rr noticeboard, an uninvolved admin did perhaps a better job of making my case than I have so far. As he explains at this diff, it becomes harder to find links should the pages ever be moved when there are pipes added. So, again, the piped links make things more difficult on an administrative level. There's a reason for R2D; it would probably be in our best interests to follow it. Croctotheface (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

I noticed this morning that User:RandySavageFTW moved the List of National Hockey League statistical leaders to List of NHL statistical leaders. I seem to remember this was moved about 2 years ago to conform to MOS. It was List of NHL statistical leaders prior. Which naming style should be correct? -Pparazorback (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose List of National Hockey League... would be prefferd, for less familiar readers. Personally, I'm content either way. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Then again, I've noticed that more of our list items start with List of NHL... as opposed to List of National Hockey League... so I guess it makes more sense to abbreviate in that regard. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to move that article back. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out, there was a little discussion on this up the page a bit (NHL or National Hockey League?). – Nurmsook! talk... 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion above and Nurmsook brought to my attention, I'll leave it be. The point above is there should be some consistency on the article names, and that seems to be the more consistent.--Pparazorback (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of NHL Draft pages?

Is there any opposition to a cleanup of the NHL Amateur Draft and NHL Entry Draft pages? My suggestion is an attempt to add a uniform and consistent look to all of the pages including format and colors. My suggested changes would include:

  • Updating the sub-section headings from numerals to words.
  • Removing the secondary TOC or "tocindent" and allowing the default TOC to prevail.
  • Updating all tables to wikitable format including styles. (this format could also allow for sorting)
  • Removing the periods after numerals.
  • Adding a column in the tables for Position (thus separating it from the players name).
  • A general cleanup of the existing tables.
  • Addition of NHL Hall of Fame citation where necessary and available.
  • Removal of the succession box and NHL Template which reads National Hockey League (2008–09) with the NHL Entry Drafts refined over the last few days.
  • Categorization if necessary.
  • And lastly if the page contains a significant introduction and player data with citation upgrading it's quality assessment to C Class or better.

I submit the following two examples 1963 NHL Amateur Draft [2] and 1964 NHL Amateur Draft [3] as a starting point. This format easily identifies areas where the list or article is lacking for prospective editors, while enhancing the quality of the series. Any help is obviously appreciated especially in the areas of diacritic which I will never master. Thoughts, criticisms, suggestions? Slysplace talk 00:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it as long as you don't do something goofy like orange text on a black background. :P 93JC (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to share with you that I compared all our main draft articles nine months ago (45 Amateur/Entry), to summarize what condition the lists were in:

  • In 6 lists (1963 to 1968) all rounds were brief.
  • In 15 lists (1969 to 1972, 1974 to 1977, 1979, 1982+1983, 1990 to 1992 and 1999) first round were detailed, but the following rounds were brief.
  • In 8 lists (1980+1981, 1986 to 1989 and 1994+1995) first and second round were detailed, while the following rounds were missing completely or selectively.
  • In 4 lists (1998 and 2000 to 2002) the first, second, third and sometimes fourth round were detailed, while the following rounds were brief or selections.
  • In 2 lists (1996 and 2003) nearly all rounds were detailed.
  • In 1 list (1973) all rounds were detailed but lacking some info.
  • In 9 lists (1978, 1984+1985, 1993, 1997 and 2004 to 2007) all rounds were detailed.

If the state above still is true, all this could probably be fixed semi-automatically using a good source or two, more easily than by hand. Or maybe we could split the work up based on interest. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The state of these pages remains true. I have already converted 1963 - 71 to tables, expanded all available player data in those tables, and re-assessed them. True they may be lacking in wikilinks to player positions and junior / club teams and some still need expanded openings, not to mention link verification and DAB work will be inevitable. Semi-automatic editing is one solution but writing a script for a project this size could be just as tedious as manual editing. I have been using an external editor to do much of this work, find and replace style but there is a lot of intensive by-hand editing involved as well. The key I feel is to keep them uniform in look, style and functionality. Slysplace talk 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, doing search and replace is considered semi-automatic in my world, so there you go. Also a sidenote on diacritics: Since all NHL Draft pages are very "North American hockey", our project policy is to have the dias either none or hidden (see mainpage). So, probably nothing needs to be addressed in that field, unless there happens to be dias visible somewhere in the articles. Håkan Loob in 1980 is one. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore the dias for now... I've completed thru 1973 so far on the cleanup and data expansion, and I'm almost done with 74 but going crosseyed... time for a break tomorrow is another day. Slysplace talk 03:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Remember that teams still should have them though... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've come across any yet, but any help in spot checking is appreciated. I Believe I'm finished with 1963 - 1976 at this point with the changes I proposed earlier (and a few other changes I thought would enhance the lists) Slysplace talk 15:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Krm, forgot about that. I have checked each european team up to the 1974 draft and applied changes (just seven picks). Sourced it lazily, feel free to improve. By 1975 round 8 it becomes a bit more diverse so I stopped there for now. I have not linked the league in Sweden before the 1976 draft, since there is no article describing it yet (like Finland's SM-sarja), maybe with the exception of HockeyAllsvenskan (thanks Pemer!). --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What about updating the project guideline for NHL drafts? Its a bit outdated but has some good points. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly looked for some sort of guideline before I proposed any changes. How I did not find this is beyond me. It appears that I've definitely thrown the whole thing out and in no way adhered to the guidelines already in place. So if a re-write of the guidelines to reflect what I've done thus far is in order I could rewrite it, but a re-write seems a bit late at this point as I've completed all missing data from 1963 - 1978 as well as changed the entire layout and organization of those pages. More discussion on this may be needed. Slysplace talk 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just re-read the guidelines (I previously/moments-ago read/skimmed incorectly to apply only up to 1979) Ok a re-write may be in order but more discussion is important on this matter. Slysplace talk 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on the edit history of that page, I don't think it ever really went through any discussion. It's a very old outdated page that was mostly created before this project really got as well organized as we are these days. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll draft something over the next few days similar in style to the current guideline page using the format I've used on 1963 - 78 amateur drafts. I'll link the discussion page too this discussion, be bold and if there are no objections let it ride. Slysplace talk 00:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Well it's been more than 5 days there has been no further comment on this guideline issue yet I'm still not quite sure I'm the person to do this. I did draft something a few days back, see User:Slysplace/sandbox3, and it needs work. Looking over the later years 2005 and up there seems to be a lot of other data that could & likely should be included. Further comments appreciated. Slysplace talk 22:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
So far, I think your drafts look excellent. I've often looked at the draft pages thinking they required cleanup, but never had the motivation to do it myself. The work you've put in so far is quite good, and I'd already take your proposed format over the one that currently exists. And I do agree with Djsasso about the dubious consensus regarding most of our guideline pages. For the most part, I think we tend to base our guidelines off existing FA's. Resolute 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I would just be WP:BOLD and replace what we have with what you had. As I said most of our active editors were not around when that one was created or were not involved in a discussion creating it so I doubt anyone will object to your versions. -Djsasso (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
OK BOLD it is, although it seems a bit "self supporting" of the work I've done thus far of which I'm glad everyone appreciates. Thank's for all the kind comments. Slysplace talk 13:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold as I've been and as old as this conversation is getting, I cant seem to stop adding features to the possibilities list or noticing deficiencies. Some of these features / deficiencies are going to require some additional volunteers. Lets start with HOF, certainly their are some notable Hall of Famers, and then there is the All-Star Game, not to mention the amount of team names that need to be expanded to more than a city/province, Country flags requireing to be set to the proper date, player disambiguation....This list could go on forever. I'll continue to slowly work on the original list. Slysplace talk 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, no matter how much you change or what you do, you always find more that needs to be done. And the addiction begins. -Djsasso (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dickie Moore

Does anyone have any idea why every Montreal Canadiens season article links there? I checked the templates and they have the correct links with Dickie Moore (ice hockey).. RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be that a template was recently fixed. If that is the reason then it can be a day or more before all those templates stop showing up in the what links here list. -Djsasso (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That is too weird. The only link to Moore I see in these articles is in the Canadiens template where #12 in the retired numbers section is linked to him. It was originally linked to Dickie Moore, but was changed to Dickie Moore (ice hockey) on December 16...almost a month ago...Could it be that delayed? – Nurmsook! talk... 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's still like it... It's also the exact same with Claude Julien and Boston Bruins seasons articles. I changed it to Claude Julien (ice hockey) on Template:Boston Bruins 4 days ago. What is happening?... RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with your renaming. I figured it out and the "what links here" is absolutely correct. They all link to the subjects. Dickie Moore had his number retired. All articles that use the "montreal canadians" template have a link directly to Dickie. Go to any of those articles and look at the retired numbers - click on the second "12". That is a link to Dickie. Same thing for Claude Julien. As a coach, any article that uses a template for a team he coached would have a link to his article as well. Nevermind, I see the problem you are mentioning. Will research further. --Pparazorback (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is definately a transclusion backlog of some sort. If you were to go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Dickie_Moore and click on each page that links to it that should no longer, hit Edit, then Save, it disappears. Also, note that none of the articles that list on Special:WhatLinksHere/Dickie_Moore list also on Special:WhatLinksHere/Dickie_Moore (ice hockey) until you do what I said. I imagine the same exists with Claude Julien. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I filed a bug report at WP:VPT on this. --Pparazorback (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Recommended not to do a null edit since it puts even more pressure on the server. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yea, they said that the job queue is rather long at the moment, so this sort of thing will take a while to sort itself out. Unless there is some sort of pressing reason, just let it work itself out. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators roster

Did I miss something? It appears this roster is not sorted alphabetically but by another confusing and elaborate way. Jc121383 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears someone resorted it by position, then alphabetically. Resolute 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I did it to see if it sorted okay afterwards. (When you clicked on the sort symbol) I guess it should be reverted. Alaney2k (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

{{NHL Winter Classic}}

Thoughts on this template? I'm tempted to TfD it, though it might work if it was reduced only to the games (2003, 2008 and 2009) then used as a navigation template between the outdoor games. Resolute 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you, alot of whats on there isn't necessary. -21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Remove the bottom line of NHL stuff. I agree. Alaney2k (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The extra links aren't really necessary as they are surely already linked on the pages elsewhere. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically in order to be a valid navbox all the links in it should be found elsewhere in the article in a perfect version of the article per WP:EMBED. That being said those links don't belong in this case anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lame question

Can any sources by found for List of pairings known as "Bash Brothers", or can this be redirected? Grsz11 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The last 3 can. The first two you probably could if you looked hard enough, but I don't think they should be on there. Conseco and McGuire were very famous in the late early 90's as the bash brothers so sources can easily be found for them. The movie itself is reference for the mighty ducks pair. And I am sure a reference could be found for the comic one by similar means. That being said is the list usefull...probably not. -Djsasso (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about sources, but I don't like the article's title. Why can't it just be Bash Brothers? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Transactions section guideline proposal

I've added a proposed guideline at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Player_pages_format#Article_Sections page. I think the 'Transactions' section, which seems to be used in many player articles should have some guidelines. The discussion is here. Alaney2k (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Home arenas

Are we listing all home arenas (current and former) for each team in the infobox now? If so, I guess I missed something. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw somebody making that change, but I saw nothing on the template for whether home arena was current only or current and former. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted it, only current home arena is relevant IMO. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that was added on the Carolina Hurricanes page by a user a few days ago. I don't see a problem with it and it is encyclopedic in nature. We do list franchise history for teams that have moved, that itself is relevant. I think it is good to be able to see where each team played their games historically, IMO --Pparazorback (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
And the Canes may have one of the longest lists of arenas of any team in the league. It's not cumbersome there, so I think it's a good addition—especially since it was hard to find the history of arenas in the article, so including it in the infobox is useful. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of listing all of the past home arenas, but can live with it. One thing I don't agree with, however, is listing the home arenas of previous incarnations of teams. i.e. the Hartford Whalers history belongs on the Whalers article, not the Hurricanes. Resolute 01:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Also to add, infoboxes are meant to show information at a glance. We don't want to overload them with marginally relevant information. Resolute 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather not see all the former home arenas listed. There's enough in the infoboxes as it is. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I like Resolute would rather they weren't there. That's what the prose is for. I can live with it however, except as he says Hartford Whalers on the hartford page etc. -Djsasso (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just went through a whole bunch of NHL team articles and reverted the edits by Kalel2007, who added all the former arenas. I reverted all of the edits that weren't already reverted. On his talk page, I thanked him for the good faith edits and suggested that he check with the WikiProject next time before making such "global" edits. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This was -decided- way too fast and a poor decision has been made. Two, three is enough for a consensus'? Tell me then, where are we to list the arenas if there are several. In the prose is lame, sorry. I have to search through the article for something like that? A list is quite appropriate for a detail like that. I don't want to add a list page for the list of Ottawa Senators (original) home arenas. Following the succession box from the current arena? Lame. Don't just take over, provide a solution. Alaney2k (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Well a few things, There is 4 in this discussion that I see that supported them not being here, plus other editors at team pages that reverted his edits. As well silence equals consensus and those articles have sat without the historical arenas for years. The process is BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS so we followed process by reverting, and now we are discussing. Thirdly there doesn't need to be a list page for a list of home arenas. You mention in your prose that in this year the team moved to a new arena etc. People here often get too wrapped up in lists instead of prose. Prose is our goal. The infoboxes are just supposed to be quick summaries of the most important info about a team. Its old arenas don't qualify as the most important info. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Djsasso. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You did not need to revert so fast. Now we have nothing to look at and compare. What is the alternative. What do you suggest for the old Senators case? Create a list at the bottom? Adding details about old arenas in the prose usually takes up more space than a listing. A sentence always takes up more space than a simple listing. That's why we have listings. Don't look down on listings. The listings are there to improve the prose from having to carry specific details. Think about that. Alaney2k (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
And give more than 24 hours to show some consensus. Alaney2k (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. The infoboxes on team articles have enough information as it is. Former arenas should be included in the prose, if that information is important (can't see why it wouldn't be). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
And I, as noted above, agree with this. The infoboxes should not be a catch-all for every marginally useful piece of history, and that, frankly, is what past arenas are. The arena a team used to play in is not of such important that it needs to be captured in the infobox. It is just another part of the franchise history that can be contained in prose. Resolute 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The idea is that you revert to what was the consensus version until a discussion can take place on whether consensus has changed. If people want to see an example of how they looked with all the arenas. Its easy enough to link to the historical version of the page. Listings are not to save space, more often than not listings are because no one has taken the time to write the prose. The prose is what is supposed to have the specific details, and the infobox is supposed to have a summary. Now this of course isn't the case for actual list articles, this is in regards to normal articles. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are former arenas marginal? Most teams play in them for decades? Would you say that about Maple Leaf Gardens? Montreal Forum? Boston Garden? Alaney2k (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want 'marginal', I would say that the divisional championships are marginal'. Alaney2k (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think its marginal because its not informations someone is likely to be looking for when they first go to the article. That is what I think of for infobox information. It should be something that a person is most likely looking for when they first come to an article. And in that sense I think a person is more likely coming to find out how many times they won their division than they are coming to find out what the old arenas were. Yes the old arenas are very notable, there is no questioning that. Its that people aren't likely looking for that immediately upon arriving at the article. -Djsasso (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've no prob with adding the former arenas. Though, if they're not included, I won't loose sleep over it. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It might look kinda tacky being the only link, but we could technically link Home arena in the infobox to National Hockey League arenas. I personally don't see the need for showing historical arenas in the infobox, some articles even have sections of prose dedicated to arenas, but this is just a thought... – Nurmsook! talk... 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I was unaware that that article had the old arenas listed. So there is a useful list we can use. I would support making that link.(To me, this could be an interesting FL) Also, maybe we can link that into the team's template that is put at the bottom, and say that is where past arenas should be looked up. This is not a solution for the old Senators page. Maybe, for no-longer franchises/teams that the infobox is where we list the arenas? And only those teams? Alaney2k (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Like the team template? Because that should include former arenas as it is. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. The team tpl is not a good spot for dates. Still need/want a list somewhere for the old Senators. Someone should not have to go searching through the article for it. And for a defunct team with more than one home, listing just one is misleading. I understand that the infobox entry is for the current home arena. Which doesn't apply for old teams. So, I guess the infobox will do double duty for old teams. Alaney2k (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well the template doesn't need the dates, just the links. It simply states all arenas, not a timeline of when each was used. As for defunct teams, the infobox should definately include all arenas. Just not in the infobox for current teams. All team templates should include all arenas though, just no dates. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) While information on the arenas is in the text of some/many/most? articles, it makes more sense to have it readily available in the infobox with the years. I would rather have that than the listing of every division championship; especially since the season by season article has that information. My 2c. — MrDolomite • Talk 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we include all previous coaches, GMs, captains and owners as well? Resolute 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ugh.. Please don't. But, adding former arenas will only get people doing that. Bad idea, in my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah we have to draw the line somewhere. I think its perfectly reasonable to have the only historical info be the titles and team names. The infobox shouldn't be trying to contain all the information, thats what the article is for. -Djsasso (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Sports__flags about Irish sporting flags which is related to this project can you please have a look Gnevin (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Head Coach List Format

WP:HOCKEY currently has a number of very nice lists of team head coaches, some of which are Featured Lists. But in reviewing some recent Featured List Candidates, currently List of New York Islanders head coaches, it occurred to me that the format being used, while attractive, limits functionality. In particular, using a two-tiered structure for the header prevents the lists from being sortable. And sortability can be very helpful to readers of these lists. For example, it can help find the particular coach a reader is interested in, it can show the records of coaches with multiple tenures together to allow the reader to add up his total record, and it can allow the reader to order the lists by a statistic of interest, such as number of wins or winning percentage. As a result, it seems to me that it would be preferable if these lists used a format that would permit sortability. What do other members of the project think? Rlendog (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I never liked the term Head Coach (Coach suits me). Anyways, I'm for anything that causes improvements. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A simple way to implement it would be to have two tables: one for regular season, and one for playoffs. Coaches who did not make the playoffs can be omitted from the playoff table. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be one way to do it, though presumably we'd want to implement a similar solution for the players lists, which are in the same format, and it is impractical there. I've been fighting with the sort template for a while, and personally I can't stand it, lol. It is a nice function, but not strictly necessary. For the coaches, I would rather see the tables remain as-is if we can't find a fairly clean alternate. That said, there does have to be some way we can modify. It will just take some thinking and ingenuity. Resolute 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

2011 NHL Entry Draft

Since teams have exchanged the first pick of the 2011 NHL Entry Draft today, I would propose – assumed that there is no opposition to the idea – to collect all 2011 picks at User:Soccer-holic/Draft picks as a intermediate solution until there is enough material to build an article for the 2011 draft. Given that there is still no information about the location of the 2010, the creation of the 2011 page with almost no information would violate WP:CRYSTAL. --Soccer-holic (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No reason really to collect that information anywhere as it will be readily available. -Djsasso (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No reason not to collect it in userspace though. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Feel free to collect them as you see fit. I'd say that once the site and date for the draft are picked, we would be fair game for creating the article, though you'll probably be holding that draft in your user space for well over a year. Resolute 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

List of one-gamers in the NHL

Should this be moved? Title's not very... encyclopedic. Perhaps List of NHL players who have played one game or List of players who played one game in the NHL. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be changed. I like List of NHL players who have played one game, but don't really care what it is changed to; as long as it is done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
One game in what league though?  ;) List of ice hockey players who played one game in the NHL? Resolute 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it could be implied that we were talking about the NHL? After what I've seen around here, you're probably right ... <<wink>> Your title is better, yeah. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that one makes more sense. Although it could be just "List of players who played one game in the NHL" - no "ice hockey," but it's not a big deal. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, but hasn't every player who played in the league technically played one game in the NHL? As such, shouldn't this be List of ice hockey players who played only one game in the NHL or List of players who played only one game in the NHL? --Pparazorback (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well that makes sense too. As long as "one-gamers" is gone and it's "NHL" instead of National Hockey League. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I was BOLD and renamed to List of players who played only one game in the NHL --Pparazorback (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

2011 World Cup of Hockey

I ain't got the sources for it; but the NHL & NHLPA have agreed on when the next World Cup of Hockey tournment will be held. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the NHLPA head whose name I always forget announced it on Hockey Night In Canada yesterday. -Djsasso (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Paul Kelly. PS- It used to be Stan Fischler's old buddy, Ted Saskin. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that's why I never remember his name...he doesn't get all up in peoples faces like Saskin and Goodenow did. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
2011 eh? I know that the NHLPA has tied participation in another world cup to remaining a part of the olympics after 2010. I would then presume that the announcement of the next world cup will be made alongside an agreement to go to Sochi as well. Resolute 21:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are a couple of links [4] and [5]. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alain Cote

Should these two pages be moved to Alain Cote (b. 1967) and Alain Cote (b. 1957)? Ice hockey is not needed.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Another page... Mike Brown (forward). I remember hearing Sasso saying we don't disambiguate by position. I'd move it but I can't. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I just noticed there's another Mike Brown in ice hockey born in 1985, Mike Brown (goaltender)... :S RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the reason we have the two Brown's by position is because they have the same birth year, otherwise it'd be (ice hockey b. 19--). I'd say keep the ice hockey in the two Cote's. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, we only rarely use the position. Pretty much the only two examples I can think of is Mike Brown and Stephan Richer. And we keep the ice hockey in for uniformity. Alain Cote as you can see by the history has been moved a few times. :) -Djsasso (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


How come it doesnt have a field for previous and next season? Would be useful. Grsz11 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea was brought up before and people liked it, but I don't think anyone got around to coding it. edit: looks like the discussion I was thinking of is on the template talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I implemented it for the MontrealCanadiensSeason template, which I derived from NHLTeamSeason. (for one, because the Canadiens were in the NHA also) See the various Montreal Canadiens seasons to see it. I'd like to propose some of the features of the template for NHLTeamSeason. It's a locked template. Then the Canadiens template could just fill out the NHLTeamSeason fields. Alaney2k (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - I started a discussion about this here and it seemed to be a good idea, but nobody ever implemented it. I added the code to the templates sandbox (see Template:NHLTeamSeason/sandbox) and it seems to work fine (see Template:NHLTeamSeason/testcases). I used the code from Template:Infobox ProHockeyTeamSeason as Alaney2k suggested above. Thoughts on this before we make it live? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well - turns out the only way to get it to work (as set in the example above) is to edit every page the template is used to add a new parameter specifying the year of the season for that page (so it knows which links to use for the previous/next years). I don't see this happening, unfortunately. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't be too hard for someone to whip something up for a bot to do that. Maxim might be able to do it. I haven't gotten far enough into bot coding for wikis yet to be able to do it. -Djsasso (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I was just notified that the discussion was happening here. I'm willing to contribute time if a bot isn't created to get it done up for some teams. Cheers, Andrew647 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Maxim informed me he is too busy to edit here right now so a bot probably won't be coming. Perhaps you and Rjd can disuss what is needed. I don't think anyone objects to making the change. Its just how we go about doing it that is the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently looking for somebody to run a bot through this. It is about 700 pages so doing it manually isn't preferred. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you leave a notice on my talk page if you can't find anyone to make a bot? I'll contribute what I can in either situation. Andrew647 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I found somebody who can run this bot. Based on everything below, I'm not sure that we still need it. Should I have them go ahead? The instructions I gave them are here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) OK - The bot fell through and I think we can just do it manually. It is less than 700 pages and I have now started adding the parameter. See User:Rjd0060/Sandbox2 if you'd like to help with this. I broke down the list of pages into 14 groups so that we are sure not to miss any. I've started withe first group (here is an example edit). Once these are done we can edit the template itself to make these new parameters actually work. Any help is appreciated however if you do want to help please edit my sandbox page there (like this) to avoid people checking pages that were already done. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DONE - I've added the parameter to all pages using the template and I updated the template. Did a few checks on various pages and everything seems in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else fells that it's a good idea to merge all the existing templates? I'd prefer only having one template used on all hockey related articles, now we have Template:NHLTeamSeason, Template:Infobox ProHockeyTeamSeason, and Template:IcehockeyTeamSeason... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. NHLTeamSeason for example has NHL specific parameters. As for ProHockeyTeamSeason and IcehockeyTeamSeason - perhaps they can be, but I'm not familiar with those two. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You could still use NHL specific parameters with one merged template. I want to have a uniform look on all ice hockey articles, only player infobox have that now unfortunately, teams, leagues, season articles etc don't. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that idea. Andrew647 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if there was only one template, but I don't think it is possible. I think we can go for one 'look and feel'. But not one template. What may be possible is a hierarchical approach, where we have some core template, then a league-wide one that fills that out, and another team one that fills that out. E.g. Infobox BaseHockeyTeamSeason=>Infobox NHLTeamSeason=>Infobox MontrealCanadiensSeason. The Base could have blank parameters for the championships, trophies, etc. The NHL would fill out those names for the common NHL stuff, e.g. 1917, 2004-05 lockout, etc. The Canadiens in this example would add the team colours, fill out some defaults (e.g. starting year is 1909). I suggest this approach because the code gets really messy for fancy coding, and if you split in a hierarchical approach, then you can code with less trouble, because it separates out the ifs. Because if you put it in one template, I am pretty certain that the code won't work, what with the | characters and } characters and the ifs etc. If we could agree on a layout for the Base (the three sections that we have today, plus the previous and next ), then we could add the defaults to a new NHL season, and test with some teams. We could have substitutes for each league. While we wouldn't have just one template, at least we could have one 'look and feel'. If a team switched leagues, then the team one could switch its middle layer for a different middle layer. E.g. Quebec Nordiques, Edmonton Oilers switched from WHA to NHL, Montreal Canadiens from NHA to NHL. Alaney2k (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A bit confused... was the previous season supposed to refer to the season before the season that is covered by that article, not the current season? (see testcases) LegoKontribsTalkM 03:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The template needs a year param, set to the start of the season. Ideally, you'd like to build the season from the year, but it doesn't do it, at least not yet. Alaney2k (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is being worked on. See my last comment above (from 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)). I found somebody to add this parameter to all pages using a bot - just want to make sure we still want to go ahead with it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving to Good article

I've been recently rewriting Anyang Halla. When I found it, it was a mess. Basically cut and paste jobs from various press releases done by an IP and SPA, who I think are trying to promote AL and the various teams in it. I've managed to put together a team history, clean up the templates, add some appropriate images, etc. I've run in to a couple stumbling blocks. I basically spent 6 weeks continuously searching google for english language sources. I've pretty much included anything that even references the team. While my korean is not that great I've managed to include a couple korean sources with help from some koreans I know. The stumbling block is the pre ALIH history. There really isn't any. The korean hockey league didn't seem to be that big and any history we can find on the team is just a paragraph of a bird's eye view. Even searching news sites reveals little mention of the teams old name (which it shares with a popular air conditioner) and the only thing we've really come across is the occasional game summary. Even the team's own website mostly includes just simple dates about training camps, press conferences announcing the foundation (which we already have) and really simple things without much depth. I've got another citation I'd like to dig up (the obs broadcast deal) and the regular season will finish up this Sunday (25th) so I can write some stuff about that. My question is: will it be possible for me to event attempt GA on this if the history pre ALIH just doesn't seem to exist?--Crossmr (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting topic to pursue, and definetly something that is hugely under-sourced in the English/Western world. What I would suggest in regards to the pre-ALIH history is give a mention that there really wasn't much history before the formation of the league, and include a reference that says there wasn't much happening in the realm of Asian ice hockey. If something obviously didn't happen, then there would seem to be no reason to include it. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
well a couple of the nhl references do make mention of the fact that hockey has a pretty low profile here. I mean something obviously was happening for this team. In 9 years they won 5 championships, but there just isn't really that much coverage of it and with the league dead, its unlikely that sources would suddenly crop up writing about it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a huge worry. As long as you convey as much information as you can, then it'll be fine. As it stands, this article probably has the single most pre-2003 information on this team of any English media source, which seems pretty good to me. If the info isn't there, there's not a whole lot you can go. As long as you get a solid paragraph or two of the pre-2003 history, that's all you really need for GA. Post-2003 is where Asian ice hockey really took off, so that's where the beef of the article should be anyways. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Try contacting the local or national ice hockey association/federation and ask if they have anything in their archives. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the context and the profile of Asian hockey pre 2003, how necessary would you feel that is to the article? The federation may have little more than simple score sheets, standings, records of playoffs, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The other issue here as well is the need by many korean websites to archive things very quickly. The stories may still be held on the website but they become inaccessible. For example looking at the headline news you can see there are in fact a few hundreds items stored there, but only the ones from this year are accessible. When the next season starts we may find that any primary sources used from the website suddenly become 404. Trying to find a citation on the OBS deal is similarly impossible (I'm expecting a press release) but the OBS site only lets you search news going back 30 days.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Career statistics (players)

I have seen that some NHL player articles do not have legends for their career statistics. I have also seen that the players with a legend for their stats hace the legend in small. According to WP:MOS, you shouldn't make legends smaller than 100% just for visual appeal, as some readers have diffuculty reading. I have made a legend that could resolve these problems.

  GP Games played   G  Goals  A  Assists
 Pts  Points  PIM  Penalty in Minutes  +/–  Plus/minus
 PP  Powerplay goals  SH  Short handed goals  GW  Game-winning goals

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Too gaudy, imo, though I like the effort. I'd say a better option is simply to link the headers to their appropriate articles. Resolute 05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and for what it's worth, PIM actually means Penalties in Minutes.  ;) Resolute 05:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's can be called both. Just look at the article if you haven't. I just think that having a legend is more easier more readers to see IMO. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I prefer links in the header. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 17:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I also prefer links in the header, but one might not know what GP, PP, SH, or GW is. They don't have links, so I think the example on Gretzky's stats is the best way to do it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
And how often do we use them? Should be removed from the Gretzky article IMO, if it is something extraordinary it can be worked in to the prose. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I do however see a use for it on season articles. We could make it a template with a show/hide function, how about it? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah as long as the legend has a show/hide feature where it is originally hidden, I think it would be perfect. Also, chaning the Penalty piped link to Penalties in Minutes would be more current. Like the article says, hardly anyone uses Penalty Infraction Minutes anymore. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of auto hiding the legend. That would work. Resolute 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
How about like this? I don't think the hide function is going to work as it now spans all the way to the right of the page. Great ideas you guys are coming up with. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There are template styles that wont span the entire page (i.e.: the military campaign infoboxes). We should be able to engineer one of those to suit our needs. Resolute 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really think we should even hide the legend, since there's really no point. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Which I disagree with.  ;) I really don't want a big, ugly legend in the middle of the article. If it is hidden, it isn't in the way for people who do understand the stats, but is available for those that dont. If we were going to display the legend, I would much prefer something along the lines of what is in the Gretzky article. It's visible, but is not in the way. Resolute 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when people disagree with me. :( Anyways, if you haven't noticed, I copied this straight from WP:NBA. I will always respect what this WikiProject together will decide, even if I don't disagree with it. This was just a suggestion, but I still want a legend with wikilinks on every single ice hockey player and goaltender articles. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the links to the respective articles like we are currently converting the stats tables too. That is what we have on our player format page as being the standard. Its just that most articles got their stat tables before we decided to switch to linking the headers. I wouldn't be against an auto hidden legend. -Djsasso (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If we do it, there is going to have to be one for the goaltenders too. But I don't think it's that necessary unless the table has PP/SH/GW goals, which most don't. RandySavageFTW (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
here is a goaltender version:
  GP Games played   W Wins   L  Losses
 T  Ties  OTL  Overtime losses  MIN  Minutes played
 GA  Goals against  SO  Shutout  GAA  Goals against average
 SV%  Save percentage

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. It's not a big deal but I think shutout should link to Shutout#Ice hockey. RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. I'm going to implement these by Saturday if no one opposes. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't SHO now the abbreviation for shutouts now that shootouts are in the game? Jc121383 (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any of the hockey articles in Wikipedia use SHO for shutouts. still uses SO for shutouts. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless its hidden, I am 100% against a legend of this type on player articles. Linking the headings is by far the better option. -Djsasso (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree, but it could be used in season articles, players lists, and such. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In those sorts of lists I don't have a problem with it. But definately do for players. -Djsasso (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I'm all for it, but like I said before, only if it's hidden. Otherwise, we should just stick with the GP = Games played; G = Goals; A = Assists; Pts = Points; PIM = Penalty Minutes; +/– = Plus/Minus style legend. I almost prefer that one as it is; no need for any hiding, doesn't distract, yet is there if anyone needs it. Besides, we already have links in the stats box itself, so linking the legend makes that ultra-redundant. – Nurmsook! talk... 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said when I first started this thread, according to WP:MOS, you shouldn't make legends smaller than 100% just for visual appeal, as some readers have diffuculty reading. That was why I created this version. As I also said some 1-2 days ago, all I want is a legend with wikilinks on every single ice hockey player and goaltender articles. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 01:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
And I think you are being told we don't feel the need for a legend on every single player page. This is why we are converting the headings to hyperlinks on player pages. To avoid the need for a legend. And the comment you are referring to on the MOS is about using the small tags to make the font smaller, not to hide the legend. We are talking about colapsable boxes. -Djsasso (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

→I'll support linking the heading then, but Nurmsook was talking about the current legend, which confused me. One question, how about the ones without wikilinks? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki links only became part of our player page standards a couple months ago so there are alot of pages without them yet. I know RandySavage has been linking a bunch of them, and I know I saw someone else linking a bunch of them recently. I could probably whip something up in AWB to go through making the changes. -Djsasso (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I meant how about the ones without wikilinks? (ie. GP, W, L, T, MIN, GWG...) -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 03:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sure atleast W, L, T, Minute have articles they can link to. GWG should have an article too I would bet and if it doesn't it should. The only hard one is GP which may or may not be valid for an article but could possibly link to a en.wiktionary article. -Djsasso (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If we do do this, are we still gonna link the goals, assists, points, and PIM in the header? And when (if) you're adding these, would you mind changing "NHL Totals" to "NHL totals," linking NHL regular season, Season (sports) and NHL playoffs, since you'll be editing like every player's stats?.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup I could try to work something up for that. Its mostly just a search and replace anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any talk for a while, I need to make this more active. I think the legend is the best thing we've got right now for indicating what the abbreviations are. The only reason why you guys don't like it is because of the size of the legend, and the space it creates. I hope you guys support me in putting this in all hockey players and goaltenders article for now, until there is something better. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 09:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
How do you think we will support it when almost everyone so far has been opposed to it? I think we've come to the conclusion that what we have now is basically what we're going to go with. Sorry to say, but you just seem to keep kicking a dead horse on this one. This discussion has been pretty active. It died down once everyone said no. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

List of players with five or more goals in a National Hockey League game

Could someone move this back to List of players with five or move goals in an NHL game? The consensus is "NHL" in lists, I moved it and then someone moved it back. I questioned him but he didn't reply. I can't revert it back. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I took care of it. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the wheel-war, Kaiser. I have a life, and if I don't reply immediately (in this case, a few days), means I either missed it or I am busy. The reason I strongly prefer to spell out the acronym is there are concerns whether it should be a/an (User:Risker's suggested it; when an acronym that spelled out will not have the first sound being a vowel can be both "a (NHL game)" or "an (NHL game)" in the written form, according to her grammar guides). I also suggest RandySavageFTW use edit and log summaries... Maxim(talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well you could have replied immediately since you were editing on those days. And a consensus > someone's "guide." RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I missed your note. Have fun keeping track of your talkpage when you get multiple request to restore images and a short pops up about a completely different topic. I hardly see any consensus (a very short discussion is not general agreement when someone (in this case, me) disagrees. As for your point consensus being more important than a grammar guide, there's hardly any consensus and I'm merely bringing to attention what Risker, a highly experienced (and excellent) copyeditor, says on the matter (continuing the discussion). Maxim(talk) 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what your second line was supposed to mean. And if you want to move it back, try making a bigger consensus than the current one. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Just for the sake of the ignorant, where is this discussion for consensus located? Grsz11 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
#NHL or National Hockey League?. Not much of a consensus.. But who disagreed? RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I did... or have you not been reading what I've been writing? As for my second line, I said that I must have missed your note. Maxim(talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
17 hours to gather consensus? Between two people? Grsz11 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well it's not my fault no one else replied. 2 > 1... And I meant the line about my talkpage and restoring images. Not sure what you're talking about. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically Pparazorback and GoodDay agreed with you as well up at #List of NHL statistical leaders. It doesn't really matter to me how it's named; all I care about it that all of these lists get some consistency to them. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There are also other discussions on it in the archives. When I can't remember his name went changing all the names from NHL to National Hockey League and at that point concensus was to revert them all back....and that was hundreds of pages. -Djsasso (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) For the record, it doesn't matter to me which way they are named. My only concern is that there should be consistency, so those lists should all be either NHL or National Hockey League. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't been paying much attention to the recent discussion of whether to use National Hockey League or NHL. While I personally prefer NHL for the convenience factor, I could care less as it leads to the same subject. I simply moved the page because I saw a request for it to be moved, and with my passing viewing, assumed that it was a project consensus to do so and acted accordingly. If I knew that such a controversy would erupt from such a move, I'd have left it and allowed for a more thorough discussion. I didn't intend to be disruptive in any manner. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)