Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive53

Prods contested on jr players

I prod'ed Andrei Vasilevski and Olli Määttä, and also Radek Faksa and Jacob Trouba. They were contested. Since they are all junior players, do they count for something? I was under the impression that amateur players without big awards or notable accolades didn't qualify per our guidelines? thanks --Львівське (говорити) 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that, as of Thursday June 21, they are not notable per WP:NHOCKEY. However, before you take these to AfD, you should wait until the completion of the draft on Friday, as a number of them are highly touted prospects and likely to be picked in the first round. WP:PROD suggests that because these were deleted only because they were prodded, (and not the full AfD) then an admin can restore them at any time if some requests so. Ravendrop 16:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

K, so just to confirm, being a 1st round pick NHL qualifies them? If not, then they only become notable once they go pro, right? --Львівське (говорити) 17:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Ravendrop 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes. Ravenswing 20:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All of them project to be 1st rounders. Vasilevski might be iffy being a goalie. I would hold of any action until tomorrow night. TerminalPreppie (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like all of them were 1st rounders last night, so they would meet NHOCKEY today. I don't know if there were other that were prodded, but if any of them weren't picked last night they wouldn't meet NHOCKEY this morning. Patken4 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there were a few articles added today for non-notable players that were drafted today. There are a couple players who played in thr SM-Liiga or the SEL or who would be otherwise notable (1st all-star perhaps), but there others who did not get named to a major junior or NCAA D-I all-star team who now have articles. Who wants to get started Prodding them? If I have time, I might make a list tomorrow sometime. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is an annual tradition. I think we've prodded every Maple Leafs' 2nd-7th round picks for the last five years... Resolute 21:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomaž Razingar

Most likely just some vandalism but if someone can keep an eye on Tomaž Razingar maybe something happenened that enraged the Slovenian populace which might be worth noting and sourcing. Agathoclea (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That's an interesting one. harder to catch foreign language BLP vandalism. What does "Špeckahla" translate to in English? Google translate is coming up empty. Resolute 01:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't seem to be an "engraged" person, but rather somebody applying their own nicknames to many players: [1]. Resolute 01:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it means "whiner". However, that is based on online dictionaries.Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I found "traitor" in a German translator, hence my post. But the then looking at the other edits I reverted all yesterday. Agathoclea (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Years played w/ a team in infobox

I've been noticing the addition of the years a player has played for a particular team in their infobox. Such as this from Brent Johnson:
Pittsburgh Penguins (2009-present)
St. Louis Blues (1998-2004)
Phoenix Coyotes (2004)
Washington Capitals (2005-2009)
IMO it is just more clutter in the infobox, but before I start removing the occurrences when I see them, I would like to see if we have a consensus on whether we should keep years like this or remove them. Thanks.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 23:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clutter, so it should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the same view, and tend to remove such when I see it. Resolute 01:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove, there had been a user at one point that was adamant in adding them and I think most people got fed up with arguing with him about it so just let him go on his merry way. I forget his name but I think he is long since gone, at least from hockey articles. But most people remove them when they seen them I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeking Precedent in Light of Mississauga Steelheads Rename

I was just browsing around this evening, being a user of Wikipedia on a virtually daily basis but not editing as much lately, and stumbled across the Mississauga St. Michael's Majors page being redirected to Mississauga Steelheads despite being a different team name.

Now, in the past, articles have been created for older situations like this (see Kingston Raiders, Kingston Canadians, and Owen Sound Platers, among I'm sure many others, of which the first listed here existed for an even shorter period than the St. Michael's Majors). It's my understanding from asking Resolute that a precedent has been discussed in the past but never established, so at this point this discussion seems like it will become a matter of opinion.

What I'd like to do is establish a precedent. I forget who I first discussed this with, but when I brought up this subject in the past I was told that the articles for older teams SHOULD be kept. This might have something to do with Wikilinks from old season articles (see 1991-92 OHL season for instance) where having the name link to a new location would cause confusion to the reader. The reasons for a merge in all such cases suggest that information is repeated - something I brought up in my past discussion as well. I know everyone has a different opinion on this. I think we need to establish a future precedent simply because I've heard different opinions. For now, I've asked Bearcat, who moved the article, to restore it for the time being.

Please discuss. CycloneGU (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If a team hasn't relocated, but merely changed its name? then there should be 'only' one team article with the 'current' name. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

On that note, the NHL articles Toronto Arenas & Toronto St. Patricks should be merged into the Toronto Maple Leafs, as no relocation occured. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think those should be considered an exception to the rule. Merging them into Toronto Maple Leafs would make that page too long (even into the history page). Ravendrop 05:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If that's so, then there could be a renaming - History of the Toronto Arenas & History of the Toronto St. Patricks. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

But History of X is such an ugly and unnecessary title, which is why the simpler current titles are better for the Arenas and St. Patricks. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 09:30, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We did History of e.g., Brooklyn Dodgers in the baseball project, which I supported then but now think was a mistake. Of course, we don't need an article for every location a team played at, and for teams with long histories in one location it may be appropriate to split the article anyway if it gets too long. But where a team did relocate and it is appropriate to split the article, the relocation would often be an ideal place in which to split the article. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also what about cases like the Esquimalt Buccaneers who played for a single year but were a continuation of the Nanaimo Clippers both before and after. In that case wouldn't it be simpler to just keep the Esquimalt info in the Naniamo page rather than creating a very short stub?Ravendrop 05:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a tricky one, as they re-located back to their original place. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a perfect example for the rule that each individual team in a different locale have an article. It would merit one, because the team was not based in Nanaimo and was not the Clippers. CycloneGU (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that Esquimalt Buccaneers was created as a redirect as a result of this discussion. Further, there is nothing in the Nanaimo Clippers article about this history, and no indication in the season record of a break. If there is verifiability available of the existance of this team, it ought to have an article and the break from Nanaimo noted in that article. CycloneGU (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya I did create the redirect (it was a red link previously) because of the discussion. However, there is a brief mention of the move in the history section of the Clippers article. Quote: "The Nanaimo Clippers folded after the 1982 season, but were started up again before the 1983 season as the Esquimalt Buccaneers. The franchise was moved to Nanaimo early in the 1983 season, playing at the Nanaimo Civic Arena, and renamed the team the Nanaimo Clippers." I did, a very brief, internet search but found nothing WP:RS to create a page on. This was the best I could do. Also it appears that the season record for the Esquimalt year (82-3) was simply included with the rest of the Clippers' records. Ravendrop 20:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

CycloneGU brought this up on my talk page; I believe that since this is a simple rename, it should be the same article. I would only spawn new articles on a franchise relocation or if a team folds and a replacement team is created in the same city. For things like the Maple Leafs/St. Patricks/Arenas, I would merge and redirect. We already have History of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and if the Canadien's history can all fit in their history article, the same can be said of Toronto. Resolute 14:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Got brought in for an outside opinion; I know how it should be but it's tough to explain. In the first situation noted, it clearly should be a redirect, as it was nothing more than a simple name change for the same franchise. I know over at MLB we have a lot of minor league teams that have relocated frequently over the years, and an article for every change would be unwieldy and a bit silly, since it wouldn't make it clear that the teams are the same, just modified. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah we generally only split articles when they move. Simple renames are just that, we rename the article. I realize there are a few outliers that have long been on the projects to-do list to fix up. But in general consensus has long been with renames we just rename the article and for moves we create a new article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In principle, I do agree with the policy suggestions of this discussion. The only issue is that the Arenas were a separate franchise than the St. Patricks/Maple Leafs, which was simply a purchase. The Arenas and St. Pats relationship is the same basically as the Ottawa Senators original and current. And the first year of the Arenas it wasn't even a proper franchise, as there was not even a club. I know the league lumps the Arenas together with the others for purposes of the Cup, but the history of the period and books on the period say otherwise. I would have no objection to lumping the St. Pats with the Leafs, but I would disagree with the Arenas. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have to identify carefully where a franchise is in fact different than a previous one in the same city, and those by default get separate articles. This is why we have two different Winnipeg Jets articles. CycloneGU (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

UFA/RFA status on roster templates

What's everyone's stance on the timeliness of the UFA/RFA statuses on the roster templates? Some would argue that they're not FAs until 12:00pm on Sunday and thus, the notations shouldn't appear until then. I on the otherhand, say noting pending FA status is highly relevant anytime after the season ends. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We should be accurate. Free Agency doesn't begin until the end of June & therefore we shouldn't be adding FA tags until then. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything inaccurate about listing pending FA status. You could just as easily argue that on Sunday, any UFAs should be delisted from the templates because they're not a team anymore and thus inaccurate. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

'Pending' is the key word. They're not FAs, yet. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And there is no reason why we can't treat the tag as pending. I believe that is what it was originally intended for. It wasn't until I saw GoodDay removing it that I had seen someone stating it was for only after July 1st. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)We would be accurate, the players are pending free agents. The tag doesn't have to mean they are already free agents. It can easily mean they are pending free agents. I agree with TerminalPreppie that they are at their most relevant leading up to free agency. I wouldn't be opposed to adding them as soon as the teams season is done. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We should wait until the contracts-in-question expire, which is at the end of June. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am mildly in support of not listing this until the 30th. On the one hand, it really isn't worth fighting over, but on the other, consider cases like Corey Sarich and Hal Gill. They were due to become free agents, but never did because they signed before their contracts expired. Thus, the only thing I would suggest is that if reverting, be polite in responding to the people who add the UFA and RFA notes. i.e.: don't rollback and don't claim it as vandalism. The edits are good faith, even if slightly premature. Resolute 20:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DJSasso. I don't see a good reason not to include the tag, and it is useful, verifiable information, whether the free agency has already taken effect or merely pending. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding the tags 'now', would be inaccurate. The players-in-question contracts haven't expired. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel the confusion will be lifted if we explain on the roster templates that "Note: Players listed as RFA/UFA do not become active free agents until July 1, 2012 at 12:00PM (TIME ZONE)." Things can be cleared up by simply putting an explaination. I feel it unnecessary that people may be coming to Wikipedia to find out the potential free agents only to find out that we don't include it and they have to use another website to get that information. -♣ B2project ♣ 21:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a rather good solution, actually. Resolute 23:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. On a tangent slightly, I've always been in favour of adding all two-way contracted AHL/ECHL prospects to the roster template. For instance, unless a player is released by the Kings, I always hide them on Template:Los Angeles Kings roster. Conversely, until players are officially assigned following training camp, I always figure you hide all NHL contracted players on the American Hockey League/ECHL/Central Hockey League roster templates. On July 1, is this something we are in favour of doing or is the season ending rosters what should appear until the training camp rosters are released? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

FAs or not, we prefer to keep those players on the roster until they're traded or sigend by another team. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd hold off. I was actually trimming back the Oilers template today. NHL teams are afforded up to 50 contracts in their system. Plus their reserve list (ie unsigned draftees). That's A LOT. Maybe during training camp. TerminalPreppie (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The unsigned draft picks I never have added. But I always assume that players who are under contract to a NHL team that was playing in the minors, revert to the NHL team once the season is done. The reason I have always assumed that is during training camp they are necessary to be assigned to the AHL/ECHL/CHL. If the players remained in the minors like Major League Baseball does, they wouldn't be assigned to the minors, they would already be on the roster. Aside from players who are contracted to an AHL/ECHL/CHL team, all the other players revert to their NHL clubs until they are assigned back to the minors. That's the way I've always seen it and done it with the Kings. If we don't add them to the NHL roster templates, do they remain visible on the minor league team's roster?

I realize some of this may be verging quite close to OR, but I'm trying to figure out what to do with the Template:Manchester Monarchs roster and Template:Ontario Reign roster. The Monarchs typically list all players in the Kings main training camp on their roster, until the Kings start assigning players. So I'd take that as them reverting all players to the Kings, that the Monarchs don't sign themselves. Ontario on the otherhand, tends to only list Reign contracted players on their roster during the off-season. Kings/Monarchs contracted players who land on their roster aren't listed until they are assigned. I'm a bit of a roster geek, so I'm usually interested in who is where and how to reflect them here. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise, I unhid all the Kings RFA/UFAs that had spent the season in Manchester on the template. The rest of the hidden players stayed hidden. I noticed there were a few RFA/UFA tags added but one wasn't listed on the NHL's site (Oscar Moller) so I left it alone as he was hidden anyhow. Another question, is the AHL templates have the option to have RFA/UFA status listed, do we want to add it there too? I'm not sure that this applies outside of Monarchs' contracted players anyhow since technically their deal is with the Kings and not the Monarchs. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue is brought up at Template:Edmonton Oilers roster. It current list the entire Oilers farm + recent draft picks. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally we have always followed what the individual team lists on their website roster + any free agents from the year before. This way we have a source to follow on who they consider on their roster. Different teams handle it differently in the summer, some teams add all new people to the team and then trim when the season starts. Others don't add anyone. Others only add sure fire NHL players. But by following their webpage we avoid these sorts of debates. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep: http://oilers.nhl.com/club/roster.htm TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm mildly against even this compromise. I especially don't like the argument that people coming to Wikipedia expect to see this pending free agency information. The exact same argument is present before the trade deadline. The player is commonly referred to as a pending free agent long before the season ends. Therefore the tag should be added before then, so when? January 1 when contract extensions can be signed? When the season starts? An argument can even be made for July 1, a full year before the contract expires, but that will likely introduce more confusion than benefit. If pending free agent status is included, I think it should be added when the season starts which for me follows the most common usage of the start of the "pending free agent" term. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I never said people expect to see that information, all I'm saying is that with a little bit of explanation we could add it before the official start of free agency and people can come to one source to get their information. I see nothing wrong with after the Cup Final or the Draft that we add UFA/RFA to the roster with a little bit of explaining. -♣ B2project ♣ 05:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Why wait for after the cup final? They're pending free agents long before that? 99.246.116.118 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That they are which you are correct, but it doesn't really become relevant until the week before free angency starts when signing frenzies start. -♣ B2project ♣ 06:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's quite relevant in the week before the trade deadline when a similar frenzy also occurs. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

HHOF

On a tangent, I'm not sure I see the reason to revert the addition of the four upcoming HHOFers from the team articles. Even if they haven't been inducted yet, they have been named as hall of famers. Seems pointless to revert those. Resolute 23:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Those sections are for HHOF members, which Sakic, Sundin, Oates & P.Bure aren't - yet. However, if they are included (by IPs no doubt, over the next few months), then a note should be added. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just splitting hairs, imo. All we're doing is wasting our time while annoying readers. I don't see a value in the reverts. Resolute 23:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But to be accurate (which is our goal), these four aren't inductees, yet. Having them added is sorta crystal-balling. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Most pages use the notation inducted in XXXX, why not just change to elected in XXXX. It is accurate and prevents unnecessary edit waring. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 23:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I like that fix. That being said, it is NOT a WP:CRYSTAL violation to include them. We do, in fact, have a reasonable expectation that those four players will be inducted on suchandsuch a date, even if they get run over by a bus in the meantime. After all, Resolute is right: we're otherwise up for a lot of tiresome reverts between now and the day. Ravenswing 23:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not add (elected) with the Name, Year. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that's still a bit pedantic, but it is also a good solution. I'd say go for it. Resolute 23:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Completed, I've replaced inducted with elected, for those four. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I think the distinction between inducted and elected will may introduce unnecessary confusion. The only problem with inducted was the use of past tense. For correctness and consistency, I would have preferred using to be inducted. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "pending induction"? :-) isaacl (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Works for me 99.246.116.118 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

UFA/RFA again

The sources we use for the Roster Templates are all referenced back to the team's NHL official website which I understand and completely agree with. My questions to you all are, that since the source we use does not technically list the free agents should they be included in the Roster table? If we are using a source and then alter the information from that source is it still following WP:INTEGRITY? If it does not follow the integrity should we include another table below the Roster with an additional source stating the free agents? -♣ B2project ♣ 22:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the FA tag in the first place was to solve this problem. We add the tag to show why those players aren't listed on the team roster at the source any longer. But you are more than welcome to add a second source to the table. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone good with bots?

There seems to have been a recent change to the {{MedalTableTop}} template to automatically add the name to the top of the template. This can be suppressed by adding {{MedalTableTop|name=no}} but since it is one a ton of pages (most in the middle of the page) I don't feel like taking the time to manually add the no name parameter to all of the hockey articles that use this template. Is anyone handy with bots that would be able to create one to add the no name to ice hockey related articles? Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

I recently had my edit reverted in the Montreal Canadiens roster about listing AHL players who signed NHL contracts that are now free agents in the NHL roster and want to know if I am correct in my interpretation of Free Agents.

Here is the reasoning why I put the info in as I did: Andrew Conboy never played a NHL game with the Canadiens but is listed here from the official list from NHL of free agents as a free agent of the Canadiens. He is sourced here that he was signed by the Canadiens in March 2009 to a three year contract and assigned to the AHL. Therefor he was signed by the Canadiens, not the AHL affiliate and would be listed as a free agent at the NHL level. An example player who would only be listed in the AHL roster as a free agent would be Kyle Hagel since he signed his contract directly with the Hamilton Bulldogs. All of the players listed in the NHL team's roster as a free agent were signed directly by the NHL team not the affiliate team and are free agents on the NHL level.

Am I correct in my interpretation that we list all NHL free agents even if they are only playing in the AHL but are under an NHL contract? -♣ B2project ♣ 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps list him as a FA at the Bulldogs roster. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, they are already listed as such in the Bulldogs roster. I believe the NHL roster pages should reflect the most accurate list of players that will play for the actual NHL team in the coming season. Otherwise they will list 50-60 players that are under contract for each NHL team.(FlameMoth (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Ok on that note then why do we list players who fall under the same category (IE:Andreas Engqvist) as a free agent lost if he only played in the AHL this past season? -♣ B2project ♣ 22:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is he listed as such? Engqvist did play 12 games in the NHL this year, though, but he did not end the year with the Canadiens. I would use the rule that any player that ends the year on an AHL team's Clear Day roster is assumed to be an AHL player, regardless of their contract. The only player on the Canadiens' roster who played the majority of their year in the AHL but was not on the Bulldogs' Clear Day roster was Mike Blunden.(FlameMoth (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

• His page on wiki isn't updated but I found out the info you just stated. Sorry about that accusation. I just feel that if the NHL is officially listing them as a free agent on the NHL level that is how they should be listed to hold true to the source and not add and interpret as we feel fit. If we find otherwise I'm fine with that too. -♣ B2project ♣ 23:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I think staying true to the original sources is important. But again I reiterate that this is not a listing of a team's free agents. It is a roster listing. The players you are talking about will likely never be on the roster, so what is the purpose of listing them on it. There are many other sources to find all the free agents of a team. (FlameMoth (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

I concur with FlameMoth here..and honestly not sure why this is even debated. Rosters on here have always reflected what is listed on the official team websites. Adding RFA is fine, however listing UFA's is incorrect as they are no longer affiliated with the NHL team and are already removed from their respective official team website's. Adding AHL UFA players who were under two-way contracts is pointless imo. Should just wait till September and pre-season when the official websites list every player on the main roster till they are later re-assigned. Triggerbit (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree and think even more names should be removed. UFAs Chris Campoli and Mathieu Darche have been reported by the Canadiens as to not be returning to Montreal next season. Although Mike Blunden ended last season in Montreal and played more there than in Hamilton, he will likely be starting the season in Hamilton. This isn't just WP:OR, this is numbers. The NHL roster can only have 23 players, the Canadiens already have 21 signed to one-way contracts, with Diaz and Subban, there will be no space for Blunden and his two-way contract. And most importantly none of these three players appear on the official team roster. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility, Round 3

Seriously, you are sacrificing the overall viewing experience of the many to satisfy a VERY few. The reason the templates are as they are is because they're the TEAM COLORS. Most of us are NOT color-blind, so you need to think about the needs of the many before the needs of the few. As Mark Twain said about censorship, what you're doing is akin to "telling a grown man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it." Tom Danson (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not colour blind, yet I find high contrast as enhancing the overall viewing experience. I agree that the use of a light background colour can be used to highlight a key piece of information, but the use of team colours serve absolutely no benefit. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Team colors are what make them STAND OUT. I could agree on, for the LA Kings, us having a high contrast (mainly black and white with minimal silver)...if we must make concessions, then let's meet in the middle and make them accessible while keeping their uniqueness... Tom Danson (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Having the background for the team name stand out serves absolutely no benefit, I'd much rather be able to read the team name. It's not as if there are only a few teams all with easily identified unique colours. And in any case the team colours you're looking for are still present as non-intrusive horizontal bars. The useful highlighting I approve of is that used to indicate Stanley Cup championship years where the year is still easily read. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion...let me know when I can talk to an actual user instead of just an anonymous IP. Tom Danson (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course my opinion, just like it's your opinion that a big distracting block is more important that the actual content. And you are talking with an actual user. My computer may have an IP address, but it's not anonymous and definitely doesn't talk for me. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For the headers, we should probably begin to implement the border-edge format we discussed in part 2, as it would address the views of all sides - team colours are retained, but the visibility of the text is improved. And FTR, an anon editor's opinion is equally valid to that of a registered editor. Resolute 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement with Tom; this does detract from the pleasure of a lot of editors to benefit a tiny minority. Ravenswing 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the border-edge colour format; in the end, though, as it is close to impossible to accommodate everyone's personal preferences with such a large group of editors on an area with a significant subjective element, we only need to reach a consensus on something most people can live with. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with my earlier compromise for the LA Kings' templates...black header, white text (what can be more readable than that?) Tom Danson (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• we should be mindful of the broader picture, which is a uniform format for all of these templates. while black on white does provide sufficient contrast here, black and white is not going to be the color scheme used for all the NHL templates. the border-edge color format appears to be the only way to both have team coloring in the title bar and provide sufficient contrast for the entire group of templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences

A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency -Mdak06 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2012‎ (UTC)

2012 HHOF Inductees

There's some editors here (including an IP) who seem to believe that Sakic, P. Bure, Sundin & Oates are in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Well, these 4 former NHL players are not & we shouldn't be making it appear as though they are. Therefore, I've made a compromise edit, by puting To be inducted.. into the HHOF 2012 addition to the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't indicate that they have been inducted, just that they are part of the 2012 induction year, of which they will be. To me it is therefore perfectly appropriate to show it now. If it's premature to show this before the ceremony in which we know it will occur, then is it not premature to indicate that players such as Parise, Suter and Staal are alternate captains of their new teams before they've performed that role? 70.30.135.52 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you go to the HHOF today, you won't see Sakic, Sundin, P. Bure or Oates' plaques or membership. There's no reason why we can't wait until the induction ceremony. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind your compromise, it's correct, I just think it's unnecessary. As I said, the infobox doesn't indicate that they have been inducted (past tense), just that they are part of that year's induction (no tense is given). I also suspect that if you go to the HHoF, you'll find a special exhibit, promotion, something for them as the upcoming inductees. 70.30.135.52 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a stickler for accuracy, which is why I believe HHOF 2012 shouldn't be added until the 4 are inducted. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Utterly WP:LAME thing for you to be edit warring over, GoodDay. They are part of the 2012 HHOF class, which is all that banner is saying. And given you've been reverted by numerous editors on this point while being the only person favouring waiting until later, I'd say consensus on this matter is pretty clear. Resolute 22:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. GoodDay, you know I've agreed with you in some disputes where few others did. But I've also said this to you before: when consensus is against us, it's incumbent on us to lose gracefully and move on. If you can't wrap your head around that, I'm sorry, but you're doing no good here. This "Because I'm right, everyone else is wrong" mindset has already contributed to several blocks this year. In this particular case, c'mon. Only one person in the 67-year history of the HHOF has failed to be inducted after election, and in the outrageously remote chance that (say) Adam Oates is filmed diddling goats in the Reflecting Pool between now and induction, why, then, we can edit the article to say so.

  Seriously, would you act like this in other areas you care about? If, say, the Red Wings named Henrik Zetterberg captain of the team tomorrow, would you edit war to keep any mention of him off the captaincy list until the first game of the regular season? Ravenswing 03:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

General response: FINE. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deutsche Eishockey Liga Teams

Template:Deutsche Eishockey Liga Teams has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Note this is Template:Deutsche Eishockey Liga Teams, not Template:Deutsche Eishockey Liga (which redirects to Template:DEL). DH85868993 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ted Lindsay Award

Unfortunately, I have just listed the lead image for the Ted Lindsay Award for speedy deletion at Commons as it is an obvious copyvio. I *might* have an image of my own from when the NHL brought a pile of its trophies to the WJHCs in Calgary last winter, but in case I do not (will check later today), is anyone close enough to the HHOF to grab a new, free image at some point in the near future? Resolute 14:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Summit Series

I've started a discussion at Talk:Summit Series. I've been working on the article a lot lately. I'm looking for a reliable source for Clarke's slash fracturing Kharlamov's ankle. Secondly, I'm not about sure about its prominence. Whether it is best in its own section or part of the game six summary. I'd like to get the article to good article status, so any help is appreciated, but especially at this point. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IIHFbox2

Template:IIHFbox2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up that 187 hockey articles are being "requested to move"

187 move requests at Dominik Halmosi talk page

I wasn't sure what the Hockey project parameters are on these moves, though they have been opposed in the past. This is just for information for those who don't read the detailed project rm's. I was not voting there but perhaps others here would want to. Have a good day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fyunck, the local guidelines are listed on the main page along with the moves. Note that I added WP project Ice Hockey tags to the stubs so they would appear in the WP Ice Hockey alerts, I also sounded out Ravenswing about a month ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• While I'm firmly in the anti-diacritics camp, the players in question appear to be solely European players, lacking particular playing time in North America. As such, there are few English-language sources, and therefore few renderings without diacritics. Honesty compels me - I wish the pro-diacritics camp operated in the same fashion - to acknowledge that there is no WP:COMMONNAME basis to render these names without diacritics here. Ravenswing 05:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. I wasn't going to check each of the 187 players to make sure they "all" fit hockey project criteria or if they just got slipped in to the mix. That's better left for hockey buffs like yourself. I just wanted to make sure editors were aware. I sure hope we have a season but I'd give it 90% that it's at least delayed. :-( Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

DEG Metro Stars

Just seeking some clarification. With an updated logo by the looks and DEL website, it seems to me that they have reverted to Düsseldorfer EG. Anyone confirm this?

Triggerbit (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this news article on their website confirms it. Unfortunately the Google translation isn't very good, so I can't be very positive about what it is saying. 99.246.120.199 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrei Markov page incorrectly moved

Someone has boldly moved the page for Andrei Markov to Andrei Markov (ice hockey player). As far as I can tell by the edit summaries, because there is someone else called Andrey Markov, the hockey player shouldn't have a main page even though he has a link to the disambiguation page of the similar name. There are no other pages using the name Andrei. Now the main Andrei page redirects to the moved page, which seems backwards. Also when extra qualifications are required the convention is to only add (ice hockey) which previously existed and correctly redirected to the main page. I tried to undo the move but nothing happened, I hope someone here can help. 99.246.120.199 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved to to Andrei Markov (ice hockey) for now, per our usual disambiguation. As to the move itself, I can see the logic, so I'm not sure I want to unilaterally move back. I am inclined to support the original alignment since (a) the articles on the mathematicians use different titles, and (b) the hockey player is pretty obviously the primary topic of the two athletes titled Andrei. So I do think the hatnote suffices. I'll ask Qwertyus to join in here. Resolute 13:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, Resolute. The fact that the articles on the mathematicians use a different spelling is only due to inconsistency in Wikipedia's romanisation of Russian, on which there is apparently no consensus. If you look at the English-languages sources for the article on A.A. Markov sr., you'll see that they spell his name "Andrei", and this is given as an alternative spelling in the article as well. I actually intend to move that page as well to something like Andrei Markov, sr. and have Andrey Markov redirect to the disambig page which I think should live at Andrei Markov (see Talk:Andrey Markov (disambiguation)#Requested move). Qwertyus (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I can buy that arrangement. Thanks, Resolute 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Resolute for the player page move and thanks Qwertyus for the explanation of the intent. I would have preferred that discussion occurred first and on the page directly affected by the first move. I agreeI'm OK with most of your proposals, rename Andrey Markov to Andrei Markov, sr., rename Andrey Markov (disambiguation) to Andrei Markov (disambiguation) and redirect both Andrey Markov and Andrey Markov (disambiguation) to it. However I'm unconvinced that the hockey player shouldn't be the main page for now. For the next 10 years I believe that his will be by far the most commonly accessed page. Since you're proposing the moves, I think the onus should be on you to show that a long dead mathematician is equally notable to an active and recent NHL all-star player who dominates all Google search results. 99.246.120.199 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think preferring the ice hockey player over the mathematician is a matter of cultural bias. I don't see why some Canadian sportsman should have prevalence over a scientist whose work is a "cornerstone of applied probability" and is important in pattern recognition, speech recognition, computer vision, robotics, bioinformatics, the theory of communication, statistical physics, chemistry, and other fields. If you search on Google Scholar, you get >700k hits for "markov+chain" Markov chains, >300k for "markov+model" Markov model and 270k for "markov+process" Markov process. And let me add that I find it funny that you should trust Google's Markov model to determine the importance of a topic :) Qwertyus (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it cultural bias (the hockey Markov is Russian as well, after all), but rather recentism. The dude is an alternate captain of the world's most famous hockey team, that is going to tilt ghits and the like in his favour. Myself, if the mathematician was as notable to his field as you say, then I'm inclined to support your viewpoint. However, I wish you well in correcting all of the redirects.  ;) Resolute 13:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly in terms of the Markov chain and the resulting work in Markov modelling and analysis, this topic will have longer-term notability than the hockey player (solely based on his hockey career). Where I'm unclear is when a person's achievements are sufficiently important to confer notability on the person; personally I would have no issues with making "Andrei Markov" point to the mathematician, but perhaps I'm biased by my knowledge of the usefulness of Markov chains. isaacl (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually suggesting to move A.A. Markov sr.'s article to Andrei Markov, but to make that page the disambiguation page. Qwertyus (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; I misread your comment. As there is also the son with the same name who did notable mathematical research, personally I think it is reasonable to have "Andrei Markov" point to a disambiguation page. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Resolute in that the player has a very broad and loose form of recentism in his favour. 12 years ago very few people would have searched for information about him and in 12 years the numbers will be reduced. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call an entire generation of time recentism but I accept the point. In the meantime, I think Wikipedia should cater to its users where the vast majority of searches will be for the hockey player, not the mathematician or a disambiguation page for all people with a similar name. Most people interested in the mathematician will find him via a page like Markov chain or as you've pointed out, via a search for A. A. Markov and not via Andrei. So basically having Andrei Markov redirect to Andrei Markov (disambiguation) rather than Andrei Markov (ice hockey) is only an inconvenience to most accessing the page. I'm dropping my objection about having the player page remain with the (ice hockey) qualification. I accept and agree this will be be better for the long term. So now my only request is that I think the current redirect from Andrei Markov should remain. 99.246.120.199 (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I thought it was a case where the hockey player would blow the mathematician out of the water when it came to searches. But looking at the hit rates for both pages over the last 30 days and the mathematician has about 3 times as many as the hockey player. That being said it is summer so that number could be low for the player. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was expecting too. The page hits don't indicate how the reader got to the page, but I'll accept that the mathematician is a more popular destination. ( I assume that Wiki users know that the information they want isn't available here; namely how many games will he play until he is injured for the season again.) Based on your number I agree that the hockey player doesn't merit the unqualified page and I drop all objections. Sorry for the noise. 99.246.120.199 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Instead, thanks for the fruitful discussion! Qwertyus (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly his creation and development of the concept of the Markov chain is very notable (it is a way to model systems that feature distinct states; for example, it is often used in the analysis of baseball). That doesn't mean Markov himself is of equal notability as his creation, of course, but it does make him a highly significant contributor to the field of probability. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Although when I search for Andrey Markov, Google recommends Andrei Markov and only gives me the hockey player on the first few pages, if I confirm I really want Andrey, I get many results referring to the mathematician. Maybe Andrey is the more common spelling of his name and the current page names are best. 99.246.120.199 (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's a case like Mao Tsetung where one romanization was common before, but another now has primacy? So more recently written books and articles might be more likely to use "Andrei" for the mathematician? isaacl (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it's Wikipedia's own impact that causes "Andrey Markov" to be the mathematicians' names in Google. In scientific works, "A.A. Markov" is more common due to bibliographical conventions, when a full name is required at all (just "Markov" or "Markovian" is enough to evoke the right type of probability model, just like "Newton" or "Newtonian" evokes classical mechanics to a physicist). Qwertyus (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading the article on the romanization of Russian, if I understand it correctly, the hockey player's name would appear as "Andrei" on his passport, so I assume this would be a major influence on the spelling he would adopt in North America. In the case of the mathematician, having lived during the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, I'm guessing a lot of Western literature using his name in the early/mid 20th century would have used the BGN/PCGN system of romanization (used by the Oxford University Press) or whatever its precursors may have been before BGN/PCGN was formalized, which results in the spelling "Andrey". isaacl (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the Canadian gov't assigned the ice hockey player an official romanized name, and I'm certainly not suggesting renaming him on the Wikipedia. But actually I noticed that some older literature calls the probability theorist "Markoff", though that spelling seems to have died out. Qwertyus (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the mathematician will likely have far more long term notability, as long as the Andrei Markov merely redirects to Andrei Markov (ice hockey), and the mathematician is under Andrey Markov, there stil seems to be no reason to use the parenthetical (ice hockey) or similar for the hockey player's article. As long as "Andrey Markov" remains appropriate for the mathematician's article, the ice hockey player's article should be under "Andrei Markov" (with a hatnote) and "Andrei Markov (ice hockey)" should redirect to "Andrei Markov." Rlendog (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a move request in to move the disambiguation page to Andrei Markov. That is why it currently still points to the (ice hockey) page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Concussions in hockey

So, I've been working on this project I started up called the Concussion Project, and have already created the Concussions in American football and Concussions in sport pages, and I'm currently working on Concussions in hockey, which currently resides in User:ZappaOMati/sandbox, and in you guys' opinions, would this page be a good idea to create? ZappaOMati 01:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As with the other sports, concussions have become a huge deal in hockey. Either The Hockey News or Macleans did a feature story on it within the last year... if it was the former, I might still have access to it. FWIW though, because of the existence of various codes of hockey, the better title would be Concussions in ice hockey. Cheers, Resolute 13:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Owen Nolan

Is the article-in-question, considered a Canadian article or British? GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the article he played internationally for Canada. That would support labeling Nolan as "Canadian". —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently under a British/Irish topic ban. There was a small edit I'd wished to make to the Nolan article & wasn't sure if I was allowed. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case, his Northern Irish birth is incidental to his being a hockey player. As long as your edit does not relate specifically to his nationality, then you'd be fine. But if it does relate to nationality, I'd leave it alone. Resolute 13:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd second the caution. Honestly, there've been hammers coming down at ANI for astonishingly minor breaches of topic or interaction bans, and you've seen some of that yourself. When all is said and done, if there's any edit you question whether it's safe to make, don't make it. Ravenswing 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. The edit I made was 'safe'. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

bot help

Looking for some help fixing numerous references. I have used passionhockey.com's archives extensively for IIHF content and it appears they have moved their archive. It is over a hundred pages, some with numerous footnotes, hoping there is a simple solution.18abruce (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what the old URL and the new URL look like? -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, here is an old one: http://hockey365.celeonet.fr/hockeyarchives/mondial1982.htm While the new one is simply: http://www.passionhockey.com/Archives.html18abruce (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I could automate that since the new URL looks fairly generic. Will have to look into the page more. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh actually it looks like the new URL is actually http://www.passionhockey.com/hockeyarchives/mondial1982.htm which could be worked with. I will create a AWB run to try and catch any old URLs and convert them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what that means, but it sounds helpful, thank you.18abruce (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Stats creep in player articles

A few days ago, I noticed a borderline edit war between User:HonestopL and a few others over at Jason Spezza. HonestopL has been listing a lot of questionably notable stats in the awards and achievements section (ie 6th in points per game last season). Hes also been listing some "sabremetricesque" stats like "Offensive Point Shares" and "Goals Created per Game". See also Cam Ward, Sergei Fedorov, Alexander Mogilny. I discussed this him, but it seems like his justification is the prior inclusion of all time career rankings at articles like Joe Sakic. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"6th in points per game" is absolutely stupid, frankly. Especially when it relates to only one season rather than a career. Same with advanced stats. Not even most hockey fans understand them, so the only thing these additions do is clutter the article. I'd even pare down the list at Joe Sakic's article. Take only the notable ones (his rank in goals/points all-time in the regular season and playoffs), convert it to prose, and mention it at the point of his retirement. And in that vein, I prefer to note where the player ranked at the time they retired, as it lends greater context to the significance of those achievements. Resolute 13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in particular, I noticed Sakic was listed as 35th in career games played, but I am more concerned with Honestopl's inclusions. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think a number of sabremetric-style stats are useful, and indeed, more useful than many a traditional stat - my common rebuttal to the "Ed Belfour Is The Greatest Goalie In Hockey" deal based on his shutouts and GAA, back in the day, was "Yeah, and he faces half as many shots a game as Curtis Joseph does." That being said, such stats may be enshrined on hockey-reference.com, but they are not widely recognized by the hockey community and by reliable sources. Done deal. Ravenswing 04:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone might want to clean up the "Awards and achievements" sections of some of the other articles User:HonestopL worked on. Sergei Fedorov is a good example. It's a convoluted mess. ChakaKong^talk 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

TerminalPreppie and ChakaKong are possible that same user and I think we should have an IP check. ChakaKong registers the day after TerminalPreppie last edits and is editing the same pages in the same manner? sounds like another Sockpuppet. You can't pick and chose what's encyclopedic on your own basis, you HAVE to follow wikipedia policy and discuss on talk pages rather than forcing your own POV's on everyone else. See "List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky" - This page could violate many of the polices, such as "indiscriminate collection of information and guidelines". If you allow things like this on many other hockey players pages, like stats in first placings, you need a unified code for all pages, not just cherry picking some.

Also somehow, TerminalPreppie/ChakaKong thinks saying a players hair color and eyes, and a quote from a respected author is not notable, and the author is just "some guy". That shows some collusion and careless/bias editing, which is against Wikipedia regulations.

Most of the stats on here aren't even from the "hockey reference", so maybe you should re-evaluate your credentials here. Very very suspicious editing going on here between TerminalPreppie and ChakaKong. Let's get an investigation going. Funny how ChakaKong edits the SAME pages and registers the Day After TerminalPreppie last edit and on the Same pages, with the same issues? and he's already an expert? Wikipedia is about getting more opinions on the "actual legal wiki defintions" - 2 users is not a consensus, not even close. They allow these types of stats on players pages, but not certain players? Doesn't work that way here on wikipedia. Civility will get you further. Show me hard-coded defintion(s) saying "Exactly" what you are claiming, because from what I've read extensivley, you are allowed notable stats (like seasons-1st placings stats/all time stats), but not every little stat like "35th Place" like in Joe Sakics etc. You could say all-time positions not in the Top5 are not notable/ are notable by the wikipedia definitions stated. The policies are there and if you know how to read properly, examine it and come back with a proper, detailed explanations. HonestopL 1:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed stats associated with the "hockey reference" from the Fedorov page because I will agree it needs better sources, which I will try to find at a later date. But removing (1st placings) which are listed on the NHL.com and other reputable sources, are inline with wiki policy, as are quotes with proper sourcing, as with autobiographical information.\ HonestopL 1:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, as to that, Resolute and I are likewise in opposition to your POV, which makes your rambling smokescreen a bit more threadbare. Your suggestion that hockey expertise is somehow tied to the date one joined Wikipedia is farcical, but you really wouldn't want to go with that measure, given that TerminalPreppie, Resolute and I each joined Wikipedia several years before you did and have many thousands of edits more than you've managed.

  That being said, no one is claiming that hockey-reference.com is an inaccurate source. We are claiming that it compiles or invents many statistics not widely recognized by the hockey world, and which aren't reflected by the NHL's own stats, by the print media, or on other notable stat collation sites such as hockeydb.com. As far as our long term consensus as to what stats to recognize on player pages? We are under no onus to prove to you that such stats aren't generally accepted. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are. Ravenswing 07:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing, please talk to me with respect please. I'm speaking of "TerminalPreppie/ChakaKong", I never condemned everyone, so don't try and put words in my mouth. "Resolute and I each joined Wikipedia several years before you did and have many thousands of edits more than you've managed." That may be, but you have to follow Wikipedia Policy, not your owns set of beliefs.

And I already said, I agree with you and I removed the "Hockey Reference sources and entry's".

But again, can't pick and chose what's encyclopedic on your own basis, you HAVE to follow wikipedia policy and discuss on talk pages rather than forcing your own POV. See "List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky" - This page could violate many of the polices, such as "indiscriminate collection of information and guidelines".

If you allow things like this on many other hockey players pages, like stats in first placings, you need a unified code for all pages, not just cherry picking some. HonestopL 3:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You want people to talk to you with respect yet you came in here accusing a long term editor of being a sock puppet and have been very uncivil to all of those in this discussion? Sorry, if you want respect you have to earn respect. And as for 2 people don't make a consensus well I agree with the others. So then that is what 5 vs 1 now. I think that is quite clearly a consensus. And yes, there are policies which determine this, stats which are used by one site and are not widely used by other organizations means they aren't notable stats. That is almost the definition of not notable. WP:NOTSTATS and WP:TRIVIA both come into play here for why they are inappropriate for the pages. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh and now looking through your edits you accused another editor as well as being ChakaKong. Accusing people of being a sockpuppet without being willing to put in a SPI case is considered disruptive. Please don't continue to go around calling people sockpuppets because they don't agree with you. You realize there are a lot of people who edit hockey articles right? Not everyone is the same person it is possible to have similar interests. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? Seruiously? By all means an admin can investigate this, because it's not happening. I think the bigger concern is HonestopL's escalating edit warring on Sergei Fedorov and possibly other articles.ChakaKong^talk 11:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought you said ChakaKong was a sock of User:Freshfighter9 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Spezza&diff=prev&oldid=510993525 TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some general thoughts on the Sergei Fedorov nonsense. First, the attempted justification for it by using List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky is off-base, as Wayne Gretzky's career achievements have been extensively written about by reliable sources. (That is not to say that cleanup is not warranted. e.g.: It is rather silly to have an entry of "fastest and youngest to 1700 assists" when he's the only guy to do it). "Career achievements" lists are ugly and, frankly, a sign of lazy editing that should be discouraged. Awards sections are one thing (and I personally like tables, looks better), but for things like "led the 1995 playoffs in points" should go in prose, in the paragraphs discussing the appropriate season. Likewise, Fedorov's all-time rank in major team and league categories. Put that in prose at the end of his NHL/Red Wings career sections. Minor stats like "all-time rank in short handed goals" pretty much is not necessary unless he is either first all-time, or was especially notable for such. That just adds clutter. And really, "First player to win Olympic Silver Medal and Stanley Cup in the same year"? Nonsense like that just makes Wikipedia look amateur. Likewise the entry on his being the only player to win the Hart Trophy and a couple of superskills events. Resolute 14:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You know what, go ahead and ruin good pages :) you guys cry like little babies here and edit under multiple accounts by-passing IP checks, and make up your own rules. That's okay :) Cause in real life, I have a beautiful girl, amazing friends, popular, good looking and have a great life that I wouldn't trade with anyone! But you guys sit on wikipedia fighting and ganging up with others - you guys are pathetic lol no wonder you guys sit on here all the time fighting lol I pray to God you dudes get real a life! HonestopL 15:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does HonestopL still have editing privileges? Between the edit warring and the personal attacks, he should be suspended. ChakaKong^talk 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I was one of the people who reverted him I can't block him, but I have given him a warning since he made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. If he continues I will put it up at the 3RR board. However, any other admin who reads this board is welcome to block him now if they feel it necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And of course he has reverted again. If he would just stop and talk maybe he would get the explanations he wants. Time for him to be blocked I think. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

He's just venting because he isn't getting his way. Sometimes it is better to just ignore it. Causes less drama that way. Resolute 14:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For someone who claims he has such an amazing life, he sure seems to want to hang on here a lot edit warring ... that, and doing the stereotypical "Wikipedia all sucks!" tantrum so beloved of less experienced editors who discover - much to their horror - that a consensus-driven environment means they don't always get their way, and that the rules against edit warring and personal attacks apply to them too. Eh, sooner or later he'll get blocked. Ravenswing 17:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have, in fact, just blocked him as he has chosen to continue his edit warring today. Resolute 17:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to revert his revert that would be great. I am already sitting on the edge of 3RR myself and don't want to go over. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I would actually be obligated to block you as well if you did. Resolute 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the clock has ticked past 24 hours now...but either way it would be better if someone else did. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR is not hard limited by time, though 3r/24 hours is the obvious bright line. I can't block him for warring over a period of three days and let anyone else pass on a technicality like that. Resolute 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know. lol which is why I asked someone else to do it :P -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did it and then realized I'm probably violating 3RR, so I reverted my reverts. Not sure if that helps.ChakaKong^talk 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Which article are we talking about?: I never reverted anything from him, just discussed it on his talk page before bringing it here. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, referring to him as a "stats creep" in the title of this discussion probably didn't help things. It's no wonder that he reacted with hostility when this discussion started out with an insult. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And also, some of the stats he was adding to the Fedorov article seem pretty valid to me. Leading the playoffs in scoring seems notable. Same with scoring five goals in a game. We have an article for it, so sure it's worth mentioning? I also don't see a problem with mentioning that he's 5th all-time in points for the Red Wings. Consider that the Wings have a long history, that seems notable to me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We already indicate leading the playoffs in scoring by bolding the number in the career stats section. Also have no problem with the others being mentioned in prose, as they already are I believe. The 5 goals is for sure. And I would note, the section title isn't referring to him as a stats creep. It means too many stats are creeping into the articles if I am understanding it correctly. -DJSasso (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you check my discussions with him, you'll see I was nothing but cordial (except for my last one here in which I called him out on his scatter spray sock accusations). Check my contributions, because he deletes his talk page quite often. "Stats creep" was meant to be just as djsasso explained. See also feature creep/scope creep. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Some vindictive/revenge editing at [Bobby Orr]. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppetry there? Worth keeping an eye on. ChakaKong^talk 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Players going everywhere for the lockout

I realise that some of us have dealt with this from the last lockout, but keep in mind that for NHL players signing with European teams, make sure that it is a confirmed signing, and sourced. Especially in the first few days here, with everyone going everywhere and rumours of them going somewhere else. Just a heads up for everyone. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality articles by NHL team

I did this last year at the start of the season, and felt it would be interesting to do it again. I've listed each NHL team by number of GA, FA or FL articles, even if a player appeared in only one game for said team. Looking at the stats, it seems we have slowed down considerably in the last year with the GA+ articles. Notably, our Vancouver contingent is slacking off.  ;) Even my own editing, with eight Flames-related GAs and a couple others, is under last year's work. Though my excuse is that I have increased focus on non-hockey articles in the last year. I've included the increase in each team's total since last year. With the exception of one Atlanta Thrashers FL, all of the increases are biographical good articles:

Team	BioFA	BioGA		GenFA	GenGA		TFA	TGA	FL	Total		Increase
Vancouver Canucks	5	37		0	1		5	38	2	45		+2
Calgary Flames	2	22		2	7		4	29	5	38		+8
New York Rangers	4	14		0	0		4	14	2	20		+2
Florida Panthers	1	14		0	0		1	14	2	17		+3
Montreal Canadiens	4	9		1	1		5	10	1	16		+2
Toronto Maple Leafs	1	13		0	1		1	14	1	16		+2
New York Islanders	3	8		0	0		3	8	3	14		—
Chicago Blackhawks	3	9		0	0		3	9	2	14		+2
New Jersey Devils	1	8		1	0		2	8	3	13		+1
Detroit Red Wings	2	7		0	0		2	7	2	11		+2
Buffalo Sabres	1	4		0	3		1	7	2	10		—
Boston Bruins	2	7		0	0		2	7	1	10		+1
Edmonton Oilers	3	6		0	0		3	6	1	10		+1
Los Angeles Kings	1	8		0	0		1	8	1	10		+1
Philadelphia Flyers	1	8		0	0		1	8	1	10		+2
St. Louis Blues	3	5		0	0		3	5	1	9		+1
Columbus Blue Jackets	1	6		0	0		1	6	1	8		—
Pittsburgh Penguins	0	4		0	3		0	7	1	8		—
Washington Capitals	1	5		0	0		1	5	2	8		+1
Ottawa Senators	2	2		0	2		2	4	1	7		—
Tampa Bay Lightning	1	4		0	0		1	4	2	7		—
Anaheim Ducks	1	6		0	0		1	6	0	7		+1
Colorado Avalanche	3	1		0	1		3	2	1	6		—
San Jose Sharks	0	5		0	0		0	5	1	6		+1
Dallas Stars	0	6		0	0		0	6	0	6		+2
Atlanta Thrashers	0	3		0	0		0	3	2	5		+1
Phoenix Coyotes	0	4		0	0		0	4	0	4		—
Quebec Nordiques	1	3		0	0		1	3	0	4		—
Montreal Maroons	0	3		0	0		0	3	0	3		—
Nashville Predators	0	3		0	0		0	3	0	3		—
Ottawa Senators (old)	1	1		0	1		1	2	0	3		—
Winnipeg Jets	0	3		0	0		0	3	0	3		+1
Carolina Hurricanes	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2		—
New York Americans	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2		—
Minnesota Wild	0	2		0	0		0	2	0	2		+1
Hartford Whalers	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1		—
Minnesota North Stars	0	0		0	0		0	0	1	1		—
Montreal Wanderers	1	0		0	0		1	0	0	1		—
Quebec Bulldogs	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1		—
St. Louis Eagles	0	0		0	1		0	1	0	1		—
Atlanta Flames	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1		+1
Colorado Rockies	0	1		0	0		0	1	0	1		+1

It is worth noting that there are five articles currently queued up for GA reviews: 2011–12 Washington Capitals season, 2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season, Brett Hull (Cgy, Stl, Dal, Det, Phx) Brad McCrimmon (Bos, Phi, Cgy, Det, Hfd, Phx) and Paul Henderson (Det, Tor, AtlF). We have not had a new Featured Article promoted since last year, though Kaiser matias is currently trying to fix that with Hobey Baker. Resolute 00:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I always find this interesting. Looks like Det is about to make a big move, the three articles they have at GAN would tie them for second highest increase on the current list. If you take into account that one of the two pages for the Canucks page was one by Resolute for the Flames it really shows how much we've stalled. Though I gotta say it makes me feel good being the only one to promote a non-bio page, oh and I just hurt my arm patting my self on the back. :) --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And the two non-bio nominations currently queued up are yours too. Your slowdown with the Canucks is somewhat understandable, given how high a quality virtually every current player article is. That we have only four Penguins GA/FAs is very surprising to me given some of the players who have gone through there. I actually keep a few tables like this on spreadsheets for my own amusement and research (some of which is here). Of course, it is important to note that this only reflects the reviewed content processes, which only a few of us have been dedicated to. We do have many editors quietly working away at improving articles to C/B class. I should post a table of it, but over the summer I went through and ranked each team's 2011-12 roster by article quality. It was interesting to see which teams were quietly being worked upon. Resolute 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rivalry page moves

Both Battle of Quebec and Battle of Ontario have been moved to the team-team rivalry naming convention with out any discussion. My understanding was that the battle of name was a more specific and more often used terminology when describing both of the rivalries rather than the team team naming convention so they should be at the Battle of name. I did some quick Google checks below.
Battle of Ontario (49,800,000) vs. Maple Leafs-Senators Rivalry (355,000)
Battle of Quebec ice hockey (5,640,000) vs. Canadiens Nordiques rivalry (56,700)
Shouldn't these be moved back to their original names? --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bt8257, 63.226.215.252, and Nuggets56 sure seem to have similar editing habits, don't they? ChakaKong^talk 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, these were WP:BOLD moves, so I have no problems with the editor themselves for making them. However, I have reverted these two specific articles to their original titles due to the moves being challenged, with advice givent to Nuggets56 to initiate a RM if they so desire. I will do the same for any other articles so challenged. Resolute 15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Another WP:NHOCKEY discussion

See here. General discussion about the appropriateness of our notability criteria, with particular focus on how well our subject notability guideline meshes with WP:GNG. Also a focus on if the "100 pro games in a minor league" criterion is appropriate. I would invite and ask all interested editors to add their opinions. Thanks, Resolute 01:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Saskatoon Sheiks → Saskatoon Crescents

Please see Talk:Saskatoon Sheiks#Requested move. GiantSnowman 16:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Invasion of the Sean Collins clones

As some of you may know, we have three articles on hockey players named Sean Collins, two of which were born in 1983 which makes disambiguation problematic. Currently, the articles are titled

• Sean P. Collins, a defenceman who was born in October 1983
• Sean Collins (ice hockey b. 1983) a forward who was born in February 1983
• Sean Collins (ice hockey b. 1988) a forward who (thank God) was born in 1986

The problem I'm trying to solve is that using "Sean P. Collins" is not an acceptable solution because nobody else calls him that. In fact I'm not even sure what the P stands for. He's listed as Sean Collins on hockeydb, on nhl.com, on eliteprospects, on tsn.com, on the website of his current team (Connecticut Whale) and so on. I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of fans doesn't know his middle initial and as far we know the other two Sean Collins may also have a middle name that starts with P. The article was briefly first moved to Sean Collins (ice hockey b. Oct. 1983) by Dolovis and a couple of days later to Sean P. Collins by Djsasso with the rationale "We don't go as far as months in disambiguation. We find more clear means first." As I explained, the current situation isn't clear. And while it's true that we don't disambiguate by month, I think this is mostly due to the incredibly low probability of finding two notable people with the same job born on the same year. I'm proposing two solutions which I think would be superior to the current one. The first exploits the fact that the two 1983s play different positions.

• Sean Collins (ice hockey defenceman) (or perhaps Sean Collins (ice hockey defenceman b. 1983))
• Sean Collins (ice hockey forward b. 1983)
• Sean Collins (ice hockey forward b. 1988)

The second solution is the one implemented by Dolovis. Yes, it's clunky to have the months but it's better than using a phantom initial

• Sean Collins (ice hockey b. Oct. 1983)
• Sean Collins (ice hockey b. Feb. 1983)
• Sean Collins (ice hockey b. 1988)

Obviously I'm very much open to other suggestions. Pichpich (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The third name is re-directed to another article. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

True, the third one currently redirects to MJHL All Rookie Team which I must admit I find a little silly. But he's started playing in the AHL so there's a strong possibility that someone will write a stub about him. Pichpich (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The way it is disambiguated now is currently the way that we handle two people with the same name in the same year. In fact its one of the examples used in the naming convention page about disambiguation. Though the example is of a different player Steve Smith. The problem with dabbing by position is that positions are very fluid in hockey. I am not completely opposed to using a position, but I'd rather we stick to the precedent which the naming convention page says is to avoid excessively long disambiguators. We absolutely should not use months. Anyone who doesn't know the middle initial will just type the name Sean Collins and go to a dab page anyway which will then mention the team he is/was on and the reader will get where they want anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is really saying: "be creative when necessary". In this case, I can't even find a good source to verify that his middle initial is P. The additional problem is that people who don't know his middle initial but do know his year of birth are likely to go use Sean Collins (ice hockey b. 1983) which may result in wikilinks to the wrong Sean Collins. It's true that there's some fluidity in positions but that's mostly true among the various forward positions. It's relatively rare to find a player who's known both as a defenceman and as a forward and that's not the case for the three Sean Collins. Pichpich (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah as for the positions, that is why I am more willing to use it in this particular case as its not as common to switch between defence and forward. If we go that route I would use Sean Collins (ice hockey defenceman) and Sean Collins (ice hockey forward b. 1983) and leave the 1988 one as is. DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'd be fine with that. Pichpich (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has objected I have made the change. Anyone that objects is welcome to revert. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the best approach. Rlendog (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks. I've updated the dab page accordingly. Pichpich (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NHL Labour Relations

We have this handy template ({{NHL Labour Relations}}, but I'm thinking there should be a catch-all article for the history of NHL labor negotiations which would summarize all preceding negotiations (I'm sure there must've been other labor-related issues prior to 1992), strikes, and lockouts, and detail the ongoing negotiations as well (I don't know whether or not there's enough to build a separate article on yet, but I would really like to see a detailed chronicle of this - the 2012–13 NHL season article covers it a little, but barely). Jmj713 (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly no there wasn't really anything prior to '92. The union was rather toothless for a long time, especially when it was found out that Eagleson was doing what he was doing. Anything that might have cropped up would have been relatively minor and would probably be more related to the history of the NHLPA than labour relations in general. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The history of labour and NHL goes back at least as far as 1925 when the Tigers went on strike. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there was that but I wouldn't include it in an NHL Labour Relations article as it wasn't an NHL issue, it was a Tigers issue only. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your focus, I suppose. If it is titled 'relations', I would rather one that encompasses the whole history, not just the labour negotiations referenced in the template. There is also the matter of the pension plan frauds, the signing of under-age players to the various forms locking them up to one team, etc. There is a lot that could go into it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there has been a fair bit. I would include the Tigers' strike, personally, as it was the quintessential owner-player dispute: the desire for more money. There was legal wrangling between the NHA/NHL and its players when the PCHA and WCHL competed for talent. Ted Lindsay's first attempt at a union. The NHLPA. Alan Eagleson. The legacy of the WHA. And then we get into 1992 and the first strike. There is plenty of history and material for such an article. Speaking of, I keep meaning to start a sandbox copy of 2012 NHL lockout to pull live on Saturday, as there is already a ton of background information. I may not get to it though, and won't be around on the weekend in any case. So if someone else gets to it first, just let us know where to add to it! Resolute 14:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of what you mention would be great for an NHLPA page (Ted Lindsay, Alan Eagleson etc). Labour Relations generally means Company-Union issues. Of which most of that isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think certainly the historical stuff Alaney and Resolute have pointed out could go at least in a Background section for the NHL Labour Relations article. That's actually what I was looking for, and not finding, the historical information for pre-1992 labor issues. And of course I feel an overarching article to cover the entirety of these relations would be quite helpful. I'm not as knowledgeable in this area, so hopefully you guys get to it sometime soon. Jmj713 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 20:::12 (UTC)

I put a bit of backgrounder on the early union attempts in History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967)#Unionization. The sources there would give an author a decent start on that front. Resolute 22:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This would be some useful statistics to add to the labor relations overview article. Jmj713 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So I know everyone's probably depressed about the lockout, but what about going ahead with a History of NHL labour relations article? There were quite a few interesting events brought up in the discussion above that I wasn't even aware of, so I'm hopeful that the more knowledgeable editors in this area (Alaney, Resolute) would go ahead with such an article. I would really like to see it, and of course I'll collaborate to the best of my own abilities. It's always preferable, in my opinion, to have a good and well-researched overview article than have its components strewn about random articles. This is a fairly important topic, especially now, and it would benefit a lot of readers to get a good sense of history about how we got here. Jmj713 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not depressed. I'm not that wrapped up in the NHL's importance. As I saw somewhere, the NHL has lost more games to labour disputes than the US major league sports have, -combined-. So, it's really par for the course. I'm working on the Summit Series article, trying to get it to GA. Too bad I didn't start sooner, it would have been nice to get it up to FA for the 40th anniversary. I do think the labour relations article would be a good addition, however. Right now, I couldn't be a lead ed. on it. I might start something in my sandbox, just to get some facts together. I'll try to help. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that graphic as well. It was a bit misleading because he was only counting from the 92 NHL strike. But if you go before 92 then other leagues pass it I do believe. Was a writer trying to make it look like a bigger deal than it was. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I linked to that graphic right before this present discussion. It's a nice (if admittedly selective) visual representation we could appropriate for the article. Jmj713 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 NHL lockout

In advance of what seems inevitable, I have created a sandbox copy of a lockout article at User:Resolute/2012 NHL lockout. It is just at a rudimentary point for now, and while I may add more over the next couple days, I invite anyone else interested to work on and expand it. Also, since I will be offline most of the weekend, anyone can feel free to move it to mainspace once the lockout is called. Resolute 22:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's now official. Let the lockout begin... sigh... Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 04:10, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to move the page to main space, but someone had already created the page before I could move it. I did a copy paste job since it was more detailed that the one that was just created. Don't know if something different should have been done. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Good examples to follow with this lockout would be 2011 NBA lockout and 2011 NFL lockout. Jmj713 (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

While on the topic; How about implementing a field in the infobox for lockout team? Right now many lockout players playing overseas have their european team listed as their prospects team. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It should actually be in their main team parameter. If its otherwise it should be fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User accessibility concerns

I have recently been replying to questions about user accessibility when it come to the NHL templates (like {{Ottawa Senators}} were the color does not meet our policy for partially or fully color blind people (see policy at WP:CONTRAST and WP:NAVBOXCOLOR). There is also a concern about hiding links by way of colors ( Like white links at {{Toronto Maple Leafs}}) - we should never impede user accessibility by way of recognition of links to have nice colors as per WP:Link color and WP:CONTRAST "Links should clearly be identifiable as links to readers". I see this may be a monumental task to have to fix all the templates - but following basic accessibility policy is something all projects should strive for.Moxy (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is the most recent discussion on template colors and the apparent consensus to use a colour border rather than a colour background. isaacl (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

as Issac notes, it is something that we've discussed a couple times now. Mostly, I'm just waiting on someone with the patience of a gnome to get into changing it.  ;) Resolute 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understood how, I would be able to undertake such a task. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Has this WikiProjct reached a consensus on what to do with the decades sections & how to deal with the pre-location & post-location links? GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support removing the decade group labels, and the invisible span stuff, and just let each row of years center align. as for the colouring, I believe we settled on something like this to solve the contrast issues. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think decade grouping and span works perfectly well with Hlist. Some season templates already use it. Jmj713 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor quibble with respect to the Sens' example provided. I think the title should be standard blue link colour as used in previous Kings' examples. Other than that, I find this a very nice enhancement without being distracting. Or maybe it shouldn't be a link as it duplicates the first link in the box, the franchise link in franchise row. Or should this be a separate discussion? 99.246.102.93 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I like RexxS's final Los Angeles Kings season example that used a table to display the years in a well aligned tabular format. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I may need an example from ya'll, as to how to change these templates. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this is an example for the seasons template, which uses hlist, and this is an example for a team template, which also uses hlist. tables seem to be heavy-handed, considering the fact that these are lists, and accessibility guidelines discourage using tables when they are not necessary. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Los Angeles Kings seasons template is pretty much perfect. It keeps all the elements we Ice Hockey Project editors wanted while attaining accessibility. Jmj713 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But how are these Templates created? What's the edit sequence, that makes the bars white with coloured borders? GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw the discussion previously about the reformat of the navboxs and after reading this thread I decided to do a rough run, located here, of the current NHL teams to see what they would look like. Fell free to leave comments on if I got something wrong. I took all the colors for the borders directly from the team pages and used the 2 primary colors that are associated with the teams. B2project (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Look good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya got it, B2. That looks great. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Very clean and nice indeed. If you could, please check out the defunct and relocated team templates here, which also need to be brought into the same standard I would think. Jmj713 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am almost finished with the defunct/relocated teams but I feel this template should either be left alone or broken up completely. Any thoughts? B2project (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Done with all defunct/relocated teams. Wanted to do a one last check to see if everything looks good before implementing the changes. B2project (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks perfect. By all means, implement. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just saw it come up on my watchlist. Have to say, it looks pretty sharp. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it in some cases, but when you look at the nested boxes on Colorado Rockies, for instance, it does become a giant eye sore. Looking at that, I'm almost inclined to suggest leaving the team colours for the main team infobox only, and having sub-boxes (coaches, seasons, etc) go neutral. Resolute 14:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just curious: should a similar methodology be applied towards infoboxes as well? Some feature less contrasting color combos, like the Sharks and Thrashers, which both have a form of yellow on the team name. Yes, the infobox is right next to the article title, so there won't be as much concern about legibility, but I'm just wondering about a consistent style for both infoboxes and navboxes. The navboxes look great for the most part, FWIW. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Taking out the groupstyle would not be an issue. I noticed that while I was changing all of the related infoboxes that it was getting kinda busy. The other issue could be that some teams may have too many related infoboxes and that could be causing it too. I for one am for just having the main infobox and the seasons infobox the remaining ones for the coaches/GM's could just be combined into the main infobox. B2project (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have a strong dislike of navboxes that try to integrate every little link into one box. All you do is stack irrelevant link on top of irrelevant link. There's no reason why a list of coaches should link to an individual season, and vice versa. It is just not a useful navigational aid. Truth be told, I'd just as soon delete coach/GM navboxes and use succession boxes instead. Resolute 17:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had already been getting rid of coach/GM navboxes and replacing them with succession boxes. I know I have redirected a number of them in the past already. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted everything on the Anaheim Ducks pages and will continue to do so if changed again. The "new" format is absolutely horrible and looks like something threw up on my screen . . . those are the nicest words that I can come up with about the change. If there are accessibility issues with the teams ACTUAL colors (and I doubt that there are many), then there are features built into operating systems and browsers to help those people, we don't need to go screwing up these pages and navboxes. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And repeatedly reverting against consensus will get you blocked. Just so you are aware. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So be it . . . it WAS NOT consensus among Anaheim Ducks editors, and we believe that it is more important that the team pages are uniform than the league being uniform. I am getting tired of long established designs for reasons that are ridiculous at best. Also, if you wish to get consensus on this kind of thing league-wide, then you should seek ACTUAL CONSENSUS of the editors that will be affected. We did not know about this horrible change until after it was done, and I am sure that we (and many others) would would have been vehemently opposed to this. Thank You. --CASportsFan (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a reason why your not willing to follow our policy on this matter? Moxy (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

1) It looks horrible. 2) It is not uniform with everything else on the team's page (game logs, info boxes, etc). 3) It doesn't really match the team's colors. 4) A real consensus of the people who actually edit these pages was never sought. 5) There is no need for the change. --CASportsFan (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

1) It ain't horrible looking. 2) When was anything ever uniformed on team articles. 3) Colour adjustment can be made. 4) Take it to a RFC or DRN. 5) Change is a part Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above and in our policies/guides "Nice colors" should never impend user accessibility - as per WP:CONTRAST and WP:NAVBOXCOLOR and WP:Link color. User accessibility is not "reasons that are ridiculous at best".Moxy (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything navbox related is league-wide so that there is consistency. This is the case for all the major sports. If you are a big time editor of ducks articles then you should probably watchlist this page because lots of stuff gets discussed here which then is implemented league wide. Anaheim ducks editors don't own their articles. By all means indicate your positions here in this discussion. Consensus can change. However, I don't think it will in this case because there is strong wikipedia policy already which indicate we have to make the change. Game logs will eventually be updated to this standard as well because they also suffer from the same problems. So in the end everything will be uniform on pages. The wiki as a whole has a number of policies and guidelines which do say this change is necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to be locked into one style or another, though consistency across all 30+ teams is definitely desirable, so I'm afraid you're not likely to win the argument on that basis, CASportsFan. However, there's no reason why we need to use the colour combination we do on that template. Or perhaps we should get rid of the border around row headers. I'd say rather than bicker, lets look at what makes that template look so ugly, and try to find ways to fix it that also achieve the accessibility concerns that led to the current format. Resolute 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little timid about saying this because I'm afraid you'll take it too seriously, so let me debunk what I'm about to say by first saying that I would prefer that all the navboxes return to their original form. If you're so concerned about accessibility, maybe we can sit down and have a discussion about how to meet those requirements without making the navboxes look as ridiculous as they do. Now, personally, although I believe that a team's colors should be reflected in the navboxes, if given a choice between the current setup and not coloring the navboxes at all, I would choose the latter. Just having normal, uncolored navboxes would look more cleaned up and streamlined, in my opinion, than the current design. (At the very least, can we color the internal links in the navbar, even if only to black? It makes it look like blue is a color of teams that don't even use it.) Personally, however, I believe this discussion should be reopened. It seems to me rather inconsiderate that such a far-reaching change would be made without consulting all the editors who work on these pages. It's getting to the point where it seems like editors actually have to join the WikiProject just to get their voices heard before a so-called "consensus" is made. Thank you, RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Have no problem with the colour of the link being black. But I definitely wouldn't go to a complete absence of colours. While no one is obligated to join a Wikiproject. The whole point of them is for centralized discussions to take place so that people such as those who edit navboxes on the subject in question can be notified about the discussion. If you aren't watch listing the Wikiprojects for the subjects you edit then you probably are missing out. That is how interested editors are notified. This discussion has gone on for 7 months (the process started March 8th). Anyone who was paying attention would have noticed that it was happening. As for how the current navboxes look now, I think they are the best looking navboxes on the wiki. I think they look really good. They both keep the team colours involved that most people still wanted in the navbox while satisfying the accessibility requirements. If anything this is a really good compromise between those of us who wanted to keep what was there originally and those who wanted to go fully to the neutral side of things. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the only way to get these extra responses is to be bold and just make a change. If this change is not suitable, that's fine. As I said, there's no reason why we need to lock ourselves into a certain style if better alternatives exist. But one thing is certain, we need to get rid of some of the truly obnoxious combinations (notably, the Rangers, which I've often had to revert someone's decision to change a title bar or navbox colour to a blinding red on blue). So I'm fine with continuing discussions on it. As I noted above, the new look works for many teams and in isolation, but stacking these navboxes has already revealed a stylistic problem in my view. Below I suggested white text on each team's solid dark colour. That is something we might mock up to see if it works better while still achieving the accessibility aims. Resolute 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

UBXes

This has gone WAY TOO FAR. Now we're diluting the team's color identities on UBXes just to placate a SMALL MINORITY (less than 1 percent of Wikipedians). As Mark Twain said about censorship, that is like "telling a grown man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it." Tom Danson (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

where have I heard that before, probably not from Mark Twain. which userboxes are being changed? Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no reason why we need to lock ourselves into one style. One of the nice things about enacting this change is that more feedback arrives, from which we can refine the look. However, SMALL MINORITY or not, Wikipedia is growing increasingly concerned about visibility and accessibility. And truth be told, those on the user accessibility side would rather we replaced all of these navbox and table headers with neutral colours. It behooves all of us to compromise. My personal question is, is this a case of "I just don't like it"? or is there a specific template you're concerned most with that may not look the way we'd hope? Resolute 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that the only alternative I can think of that might still meet all sides' requirements is each team's dark colour as the background and white text. In most cases, I'm not sure that is an improvement. Though we'd have to do some side by side comparisons. Resolute 23:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy that covers user page crap in this manner as there is with article space. Userboxs are for kids to mess around with and are not related to main space problems - noone cares about colors etc... So lets pls not confuse the two types of templates. Wikipedia:Userboxes.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the section indenting was correct as I modified it. Tom Danson is saying userbox, but is clearly referring to the navboxes. His complaints are directly related to the above discussion. Resolute 23:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes you believe his wording is wrong - hes previous edit was to a UBX. Perhaps best hes clarifies what hes talking about.Moxy (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think a minor change to what shade of white that UBX uses as its text font - the first edit in 15 months to that page - is what set off the angry response above? Resolute 13:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete all boxes-in-question, if it's going to be this much hassle. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The new navboxes are definitely overkill and aestheically unpleasing to the eye. I believe that using only white or black for the text should alleviate the accessability concerns and make it readable for everyone, while showcasing the colors for the individual teams.Richiekim (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We should get some mockups going, especially for cases where navboxes will stack upon each other. Resolute 23:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

for an alternative to the over/under borders see {{rail navbox titlestyle}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A similar discussion at the Baseball project showed this style:

What would you think of that colour scheme from an accessibility perspective, Frietjes? Always using solid white text with the primary dark colour box and a secondary colour border? Resolute 02:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is another solution that can be made I am all for it. In WP:NAVBOXCOLOR it states that text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks), and background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable. Since there is an actual policy for it I believe we should adhere to it. As identified by W3C here there is a formula for the contrast ratio that the brightness difference between the two colors should be greater than 125 and the color difference should be greater than 500. Running the primary colors for the teams and they don't meet both criteria in most cases. B2project (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

we should also be mindful of Help:Link color which states that link colors have meaning, and we should not obfuscate that meaning without a very good reason. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure I was using the correct team colors so I just used all of the team logos and took the color codes directly off of them. I haven't changed them on their official template yet but they are listed on the original sandbox I was using before. Some of them (that I originally took from the teams Wiki page) were completely off. They should match the logos much better now. B2Project^(Talk) 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Christoph Bertschy and Christopher Bertschy

These articles seem to be about the same person. --Mika1h (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I merged them. --Mika1h (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sailing back from Ice Hockey Olympics 1920

Hi, I noticed some datas are missing about U.S. ice hockey players. My free trial 14 days (ancestry) is running out and I found quite all the U.S. soccer player.

These are the pages I found:
back from Southampton with S.S. Mongolia 13 may 1920:

• List #1 Raymond Bonney, Drury, Joseph and Lawrence McCormick, Franck Synnott (wrong, right = Synott), Cyril Weidenborner.
• Synott back from 1924 Olympics
• Cyril Weidenborner died 1983
• Cyril Weidenborner died 1983 County Beltrami
• Coach Cornelius Fellowes born New York Jan 1st 1877
• George Pierce Geran

S.S. New York, 22 may 1920

• Edward Fitzgerald
• Leon Tuck
• Anthony Conroy

Hope these useful to complete your records.--Nipas (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)