Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive68

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

Infobox NHL team

Is it me or someone messed around with the infobox without any discussion? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I converted it to use Template:Infobox as a base, which all infoboxes are supposed to now. This doesn't require any discussion. Yes, I accidentally dropped the colors/colours feature. But rather than fixing that tiny oversight you reverted the template to a hardcoded HTML table... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: If I knew how to fix it, I would have done it myself. I should have asked you first. But no worries if you know what is wrong and fixed it. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

San Jose Sharks unmerged Cleveland Barons?

Are the sharks the unmerged/relocated Cleveland Barons? I was reading this on their website https://www.nhl.com/sharks/news/sharks-set-to-honor-50th-anniversary-of-california-golden-seals/c-285287658

and it says Under the terms of the 1990 expansion agreement, the Sharks were allowed to participate in a dispersal draft, selecting players from the North Stars organization to comprise their expansion reserve list in San Jose, bringing the Seals genealogy back to the Bay Area. So if that is coming from the Sharks official website, wouldn't that confirm that the Sharks are a continuation of the Seas/Barons?Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Difficult to say. If we mix a drink of Seals/Barons into the North Stars (in 1978) & years later (in 1991) we divide up that drink with Sharks from North Stars (thus from 1978 to 1991, that drink's content has changed quite a bit), has 100% of the Seals/Barons elements become the Sharks, or is it 90% Barons/10% North Stars, etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The unmerger kinda makes sense because the Sharks did take almost half of the North Stars player resources. It was to the point that the North Stars had to participate in the expansion draft with the Sharks. How often do 25 year old teams participate in expansion drafts? The unprotected players for the 91' expansion draft were split up so half can go to the North Stars and the other half can go to the new Sharks. If the Sharks are claiming this on their own website (the section in bold in my previous post about genealogy) wouldn't that make it official? If it was some fans opinion then no of course not, but when the teams official site claims this and are going to actually honor the Seals there might be something to this.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the sources with me, but keep in mind that the Winnipeg Jets have honored the original Winnipeg Jets, even though they're different franchises. Therefore, this event that the Sharks are planning, may be more about celebrating the NHL in the Bay area & less about the Seals particularly. Otherewise, the Cleveland Barons would also be included in these celebrations. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Didn't they in a way when they named their old farm team the Cleveland Barons back in the day? Remember these guys?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It's possible. A retroactive declaration by the NHL would be required to consider the Sharks as a direct continuation of the Seals/Barons/North Stars. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Officially, the Sharks were an expansion franchise and are not the same franchise as the Seals/Barons. Unofficially, the NHL appeased the Gund's desire to relocate the North Stars while the rest of the league wanted to stay in MN by allowing them to take a share of the North Stars' players. So it was not really an unmerger and more of a business compromise with a team owner and the rest of the league. Yosemiter (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
They answer is yes and no. Officially the NHL treated them as a new expansion franchise. However, the team from the beginning has treated themselves as a restarting of the old team. We have typically gone with the team being an unmerger on wikipedia. However, that is brought up now and then and fought about. Its a murky subject. However, if the NHL has some official events surrounding the anniversary then it makes it somewhat less murky. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fans have been debating for years about this, but what struck me was that quote in bold (from my first post) from the Sharks official website. This isn't some reporter writing about the Sharks on a blog or website. This is coming from their own official site. That's why I decided to bring up this conversation.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Something we've stumbled over far too many times on the Hockey Wikiproject is the insistence of teams, leagues or Halls of Fame on purported "facts" that aren't actually true, generally fueled by marketing departments, few of which are noteworthy for hiring hockey historians. Unfortunately, all it takes is a single editor with a partisan axe to grind to seize on the sources making such incorrect statements. Examples that keep cropping up include the premise that the Hartford Whalers retired the numbers of Ron Francis, Ulf Samuelsson and Kevin Dineen; that minor-league hockey uses baseball-style letter grades for leagues; that the modern-day Ottawa Senators is officially the same franchise as the original Senators; that the renamed United Hockey League "was" the original International Hockey League ... and, well, this one. However much an "unmerger" gave copy to a lot of bored contemporary sportswriters, there was never any such official announcement from the league, from the North Stars or from the Gunds, and the NHL's official founding date for the franchise doesn't reflect the Seals. Ravenswing 16:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Dare I say it, this seals the deal for me. The Sharks have no franchise linkage to the others. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I've no objection to a statement in the article along the lines of "The Sharks organization claim a linkage to its Bay Area predecessor, the California Golden Seals, but the NHL recognizes no connection between the franchises." Ravenswing 19:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget the Cleveland Barons. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

merge discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_5#Template:Infobox_ice_hockey_team_season for a discussion on upmerging Template:Infobox NHL team season & Template:Infobox WHA team season to Template:Infobox ice hockey team season. I made this change yesterday but it was reverted because I had not gotten consensus. The Template:Infobox ice hockey team season/sandbox shows that this will work for both templates. A new param "League" is required for any team season that is NOT in the NHL. Since NHL is the largest, it is the default. All pages that use Template:Infobox WHA team season should already have "League = WHA" added to their infobox so if and when the merge happens, and the template it redirected, it will work. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Overtime (ice hockey)

Hello WikiProject Hockey! I would like to know if I could add an IIHF perspective to the Overtime periods section of the article Overtime (ice hockey). The section is very NHL centered and I think that it would be best to give an international perspective to the section. What do you think? Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. WP:HOCKEY covers all things ice hockey. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

It's time we permanently semi-protect that article. Every time a player passes a milestone or a retired player, the IPs keep trying to make updates. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Who is this player?

Hello, On Commons, we're trying to identify the player on this photo taken in January, 1945. I'm guessing Glen Harmon. Can anyone please confirm or suggest another name? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Compare it to the photo here, not conclusive but a very good likeness.18abruce (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. it's Glen Harmon. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
See here too Supertoff (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Penguins Stanley Cup templates

Someone created Template:2009 Stanley Cup Champions Pittsburgh Penguins and Template:2016 Stanley Cup Champions Pittsburgh Penguins, which is against the consensus. I would nominate it myself for deletion, but don't really know how to describe the reason. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirected to the team template to discourage recreation. If they get recreated I will speedy them as a recreation of already deleted templates. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's hope that the guy who created them, didn't add them to the players bio of those championship rosters. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
They aren't I looked. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see that Kaiser matias reverted them. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
He added them, but Kaiser matias removed some of them. All the remaining templates were removed today by me. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Should they be split?

I think Ice hockey in Russia and Ice Hockey Federation of Russia should be split any opinions are welcome as I believe there is enough third person info for Ice hockey in Russia to be a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

These articles could do with some help?

I think Ice hockey in the United States and Ice hockey in Canada could do with some help. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk, but there are a lot of articles that need help. You don't need to keep posting this request. The reason you probably aren't getting much help on them is that they are redundant to many other articles which already have the information. Yes they should exist and should eventually get done, but I am guessing most don't feel it is a priority since the information is contained elsewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation/primary topic issue with 1979 Challenge Cup

If anyone cares here, what was previously on 1979 Challenge Cup was moved to 1979 Challenge Cup (ice hockey), then it was made as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to 1978–79 Northern Rugby Football League season#Challenge Cup. Because I did not see any justification to make it so, I attempted to convert it a disambiguation page,[1] but was revert.[2]. Then an attempt was made to make a new primary topic article on the rugby league competition.[3] But that was reverted as well.[4] So now there is a discussion on Talk:1979 Challenge Cup#Requested move 21 January 2017 to make the rugby league competition the primary topic over the article on the hockey series. Your comments there are welcome. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Switzerland men's national inline hockey team

Is this notable? Bearian (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

A nation's team that does not even attempt to compete in the IIHF would be iffy and debatable. This article is just a roster for a single junior entry in what I imagine was one the FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships years, which I am sure is not notable. The issue to me is procedural, if this is deleted does that put an impediment in the way of someone creating the actually men's team article at some point? If not, then definately delete.18abruce (talk)
For what it is worth, Switzerland has appeared in every FIRS World Championship since 1997, except 2002. They have also appeared in three World Games since 2005. Most likely notable but terrible article but nothing worth saving by removing the PROD. Salavat (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Definitely needs cleanup, but is certainly notable as it has played in every FIRS World Championship since 1997 except as mentioned 2002. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Are these Tier III team pages worth saving?

@GauchoDude: recently prodded a couple of defunct Tier III junior teams that have some questionable coverage. Are the Motor City Chiefs and Indianapolis Inferno worth saving? I deprodded Chicago Hitmen since it was also a North American Hockey League organization and suggested that perhaps that one should be taken to AfD instead. Yosemiter (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Per WP:ORG, for which WP:NSPORT notes as the standard for any sports teams, a Google news search provides just 7 total results for Motor City and just 2 for Indianapolis. I don't find any of the WP:ORGCRITE met and all mentions look to be WP:ROUTINE and in my opinion do not justify a stand alone article. Fair point on Chicago, which isn't an apples to apples comparison to the other two listed. As the objector on the two articles with justification that it does meet WP:GNG for which I do not believe, how would you like to proceed? I'd be interested to view which "... significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ..." that I was unable to find as the basis for your de-prod. In the event that we continue to disagree, the natural course of action, to your point, would be further discussion with more involved via AfD. GauchoDude (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@GauchoDude: I wasn't objecting to the Motor City Chiefs or Indianapolis Inferno. I was asking here, the relevant WikiProject, if anyone thought they should or could be saved. I pinged you because I thought you might want to know where it was being discussed. Yosemiter (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yosemiter: Mmmm ... great point. I just noticed that 1. this is not my talk page, but in fact a Project (hello all!) and that 2. you were not the one who de-prodded the other two, my mistake! @Djsasso: welcome to the conversation. Please see above.
As someone who doesn't deal in the hockey-space, I'm more than happy to provide an outside voice. Not sure how similar any other "Tier III" teams are compared to Motor City and Indianapolis are above, but I prodded those articles as I couldn't find the depth of coverage I typically have seen in other sports spaces and therefore concluded they didn't warrant stand alone articles, in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For my part (and with regrets to DMighton, whose baby Tier II/III leagues and teams tend to be), I doubt that notability sufficient to meet the GNG would be possible to establish for a number of these leagues, never mind teams. Ravenswing 01:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this particular project has something similar, but the WP:FOOTY project where I spend more time has a rough guide for notability as adopted by the project as a whole. You can view these at WP:FOOTYN. Not sure what an ice hockey guideline would look like, but as it relates to this topic the "Club notability" section would be of interest. GauchoDude (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Footy guidelines seem to be indicated for professional or national based teams, unless I am reading it wrong. In this case, Tier I/II/III (USA) and Junior A/B/C (CAN) are purely developmental leagues which is mostly for players looking to advance to higher leagues. If it is referring to nationwide tournaments then any of the USA Hockey/Hockey Canada approved teams can theoretically meet those requirements.

    The Canadian clubs typically pass GNG on their own as an ORG due to significance of the sport there (at least at the Jr A/B levels, the newer Jr. C team pages lack notability IMO unless they have a significant history). The top teams of those regional leagues play each other at the end of the season, so they often get national coverage during the tournaments.

    The US junior teams however are notable at the Tier I and II levels mostly for the coverage most of the teams get and the players they are developing that usually end up in the NCAA at the Div I level. Unfortunately, the significance and notability appears to be much less at the Tier III level, where there are many leagues and teams, most with only regional media coverage, if that. At best, some Tier III teams could probably pass GNG when they played in the USA Hockey Tier III National Championships. But there was no tournament held last year (and none this year as far as I can tell) and the event itself is barely notable (it doesn't even have a page on WP).

    I know some feel all teams in a notable league (or semi-notable) have inherent notability, but this does not appear to be the case. I have been doing most of the upkeep on the US junior leagues for the past couple of years (DMighton seems to mostly keep to north of the border) and these are just my observations. Yosemiter (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

100 Greatest NHL Players

I suppose you are all aware that NHL are revealing the list of 100 greatest NHL players. So I wanted to ask if we are going to reflect it with an article or at least a category? At the moment I'm thinking that a category would be enough, because the article would have one source, which wouldn't really help it. Any thoughts? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I think that when it's received significant coverage in multiple independent sources, that's when it gets an article. Beyond that? It's not even category-worthy: it's a publicity list, similar to many such others over the years, and worth a casual "Awards and achievements" mention in the appropriate articles. It's certainly not even lead-worthy. Ravenswing 11:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would be worth an entire article, but we should make mention of it on the respective player articles somewhere. Deadman137 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's best to simply have an article chronicling NHL's Centennial events, and obviously include the list. Jmj713 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree it is just a weak publicity list by the NHL that will certainly have its share of criticism, it is something that should probably be noted on the respective player's articles. After all we do the same for the 1998 Hockey News list, and this is arguably the same thing, often with the same people ranking the players. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Looks like it's not just a list as NHL have articles for every single player in that list. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

All-Star Game article titles

Why do the articles for NHL All-Star Games use the overly formal title structure such as 62nd National Hockey League All-Star Game, when this format is not even used by the league or reliable sources at all? (which prefer 2017 NHL All-Star Game, similarly to its equivalent in the NBA.) ViperSnake151  Talk  16:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I too, would rather those article titles changed to Year NHL All-Star Game. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's because the league uses both. It is slowly getting less common I agree, but it is definitely used by the league. It used to be the main way they labelled them and slowly the seem to be transitioning over to the other. They dropped it from the logo around 92 but it is still in some press releases. And just to show its not just the NHL here is possibly one of the best known RS for hockey. A fan's guide to 62nd NHL All-Star Game in Los Angeles. Just the first hit on google. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

U.S. hockey

FYI, there's a merge request at talk:ice hockey in the United States requesting the merging of History of ice hockey in the United States into Ice hockey in the United States -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Retired Jerseys for NHL teams

I've noticed that there is no retired jersey section on any of the NHL team pages. Is there a way to create a section underneath maybe the jersey section on each team page to put the jersey numbers that each team has retired. Maybe do something similar to how the MLB teams have retired jersey numbers on their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFloyd (talk • contribs) 00:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are such sections in the NHL team pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, kinda perplexed here; EVERY team has such a section. Ravenswing 16:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect the OP means in the infobox, adding a parameter for this. MLB infoboxes have such a parameter, so in the infobox directly under the images showing uniforms there are italicized numbers that wikilink to the articles for the players for whom those numbers were retired. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha just realized after i posted this that all teams have a section that shows the retired jerseys. Yeah i was talking about the possibility of adding it to the infobox, but since there is already a section, i guess it wouldnt make much sense. TheFloyd (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Auston Matthews

Hi there - an editor has repeatedly added a stat line to the Auston Matthews article for the current 2016-17 season, in spite of two of us removing the line repeatedly because the season's not done yet. Can a couple of additional editors please watch for this? If I revert his edit again today I would violate the 3RR rule. Thanks in advance! PKT(alk) 14:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it as well. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Editor just re-added the stats line (which they've put as TBD rather than actual stats for this season) and I have reverted again and issued a warning on their talk page. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I also added a warning about edit warring and the 3RR rule. I'll keep watching and see what happens. PKT(alk) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

More championship roster templates...

Should these be deleted? Or is there a different approach for NCAA ice hockey? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirected as per usual. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexei Marchenko → Alexey Marchenko

Looking for consensus to move Alexei Marchenko to Alexey Marchenko. A discussion has been started on his talk page already. -Uncleben85 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

A thought on the 100 Greatest NHL Players list

I started working on a way to make the 100 Greatest NHL Players list look like something respectable, rather than just a list of names. It's based off the various lists of players per team, and I've got a basic idea going at my sandbox. Before I go any further want to see what the consensus on this is, so I don't end up wasting time. I feel the teams each player was on should be included, but feel that may just get to unwieldy (especially for someone like Jagr who's bounced around a bit now); could just drop that and in the notes section (if it stays) list trophies, though think that may get a little much (thinking of Gretzky here). So any input is welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you missed it, but I created a discussion about this above (you also gave your opinion about this) in January. NHL gave quite a publicity to this and they created articles for every single member of this list. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed saw it, and the individual articles are a nice touch, despite the somewhat questionable decisions of some of the players named. Just want to create a simple format though for the list article here, as any real info would be (in theory) on the individual player pages. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the point was that in that discussion people didn't seem to think there should be a list article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I fully support this change, Kaiser. What you have created is much more valuable and informative than the current page as it is, as a list. -Uncleben85 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Enough is frigging enough.

On the spate of another bunch of AfDs in which chuckleheads don't get it, I'm making the umpteenth proposal to tweak the NHOCKEY criteria, and deeply apologize to you all for doing such a wretched job of writing the damn thing in the first place. I should've known that relying on common sense was a weak reed:

(1) Change criterion #6 to the following: Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, at the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year." This should put to bed once and for all the nonsense. (Yes, I eliminated mention of the Olympics, which is already covered in the Olympian criteria.)

(2) Remove criterion #7 altogether. One current AfD raised the spectacle of a player potentially being eligible through putative (future) membership of a Filipino Hall of Fame. All we need is one bored goober to set up a website and establish a Trinidadian Hockey Hall of Fame, and the articles on beer leaguers will abound. Let's just trust that any player or front office type of genuine significance who'd be in a HOF could meet one of the other criteria or the GNG, eh?

(shaking his head in dismay) Ravenswing 20:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The change to criterion #6 would be welcome, I would think that World Cup, Canada Cup, etc. players would satisfy other criterion easily already. There may be an exception, but the trade off is worth it I think.18abruce (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Support both changes. Having seen some of the responses towards #6 seems a bit baffling (as in some of the recent players I saw you nominated that nowhere near meets GNG in an age where a Google search should find anything notable), but your removal of any ambiguity should clear that up. Deleting #7 seems fair as any people in a notable HOF should meet some of the other criteria (if it is hard to meet GNG due to age of inclusion, they probably meet at least #2). On a separate note, in criterion #3/4 what would be (or is there) a coaching/management equivalent to preeminent honors? (Such as an AHL/ECHL coach/GM of the year.) I have come across a few where, at brief glance, sources are routine but they have won some management award. Yosemiter (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
For coaches, the only equivalent would probably be Career wins leader. Yearly awards (other than first all star) haven't really worked out for players and have been removed so I don't think they would work for coaches. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I support both changes. Removal of "Olympics" is valid, because of preexisting Olympian criteria as you said; and leaving 7 open to all national Hall of Fames does leave too much interpretation, and has been noted, if a player does make a HoF, then they most likely already meet other criteria. If they somehow don't then we can open up a case-by-case discussion on the validity of that article (it'd be so rare, and much less work than the case-by-case NN deletions you are spearheading). –uncleben85 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove mention of olympian as the individual criteria overrule the more general one. Secondly the highest level is already in there. That change was made before. Check what the link links to. I disagree with removing 7. Remember meeting the criteria doesn't mean an article has to be kept. And in most cases baring the unusual Trinadadian case being in a national hall of fame will meet the criteria. There will always be people trying to poke around the meanings of the various points, but unless Afd decisions start siding with the ridiculous arguments there isn't really a need to change them. Especially since NSPORTS already says meeting these does not mean an article has to be kept. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Idea for (NHL team) rivalries articles

The recent creations of Bruins–Flyers rivalry and Capitals-Flyers rivalry got me thinking. From a Flyers fan perspective, if pages for those two rivalries can be created then there are others that can be easily justified. If Capitals–Flyers gets an article, so too should Flyers–Islanders. If Bruins–Flyers, it isn't much of a stretch for Flyers–Sabres.

A better idea I thought of is just have one page per team listing their rivalries (or one page for teams with enough rivalries to justify it). The existing rivalry articles would be merged into these. A Flyers rivalries article would look like the following:

  • Rivalries
    • Division rivalries
      • Rangers
      • Islanders
      • Capitals
      • Penguins
      • Devils
    • Notable historical/periodic rivalries
      • Blues (late 1960s to early 1970s)
      • Bruins (primarily 1970s)
      • Sabres (primarily mid-1990s to mid-2000s)
  • Records against every team (update totals once at end of each regular season)
  • Playoff records against every team

Thoughts? --Parkfly20 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of these articles have been deleted. Unless a book or specific articles were written about the rivalry it isn't truly notable. I suspect these might go up for deletion as well. There really are very few rivalries that live up to the GNG requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just an observation: Since the 1993 realignment (particularly playoffs), such Divisional rivalries have dissipated. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States delisting

Hi all, I'm nominating List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States to be delisted. This list has sadly been neglected for about 6 years. Almost all the links have rotted away (12/23 links are dead, including all major links), and the list hasn't been updated to reflect the 2014 Olympics (!). The formatting of the tables and placement of images could also use work. This requires major work to bring up to FL status, and can be found here: List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States. Mattximus (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

USA Hockey boycott

Is there a wikipedia article for the United States women's national ice hockey team boycott of USA hockey? I've seen it mentioned in the news pretty constantly over the last week or two and have seen nothing related to it on wikipedia, and request that someone start an article for it. Joeykai (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The boycott isn't actually happening and it probably falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a sentence might be added to the history of the United States women's national ice hockey team. Then I surfed over to that article and found out that no history whatsover is listed there, which one might think would be useful. Ravenswing 18:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bolding a player's statistic if he led the league that season

What is the consensus on bolding a player's statistic in the career statistics box if a player led the league in a specific stat for a season? For example, see the following pages:

But then we have pages like:

So should we be boldin/highlighting in the career statistics box if a player led the league in a specific stat? I am personally for bolding a league-leading stat, I feel it is a good stat to highlight on a player's page and highlighting it does not distract from anything in the article or show any bias towards that specific player as every year is generally a different league leader in some stat.--Richardtalk 01:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree that these sorts of stats are useful to point out. I do have a few questions, do other sports bold stats in this way? Is there a way to make it clearer to the reader's what the bolded numbers mean? I know there is a comment at the top of the table, but if you are simply there to read the stats it can be easy to miss. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no universal "league leaders are rendered in boldface" ethos prevailing through sport. That being said, this sort of thing is common, though a frequent variant I've seen in ice hockey publications is to render league leading stats in italics, and reserve boldface for league records. As far as cluing in the readers go, well ... someone wondering why certain numbers are in bold who doesn't decide to spend more than a three second casual glance in the hope that he might find out is not going to pay attention to anything short of a giant honking !!YO, BOLD FACE STUFF MEANS THAT HE LED THE LEAGUE IN THAT!! in flaming red letters. Something that'd be needlessly insulting to the great majority of readers. Ravenswing 17:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
My main problem was that I was expecting a note to follow the table rather than lead the table, like notes would. My main idea would be to replace bolding with a note to make it more explicit, although I understand that would be bulkier than bolding. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I could have sworn our manual of style for player pages said to bold league leading stats, but I can't seem to find it now. I think bolding is fine. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll give my opposition to the idea, mainly because I prefer the stats to be simple and to the point, and believe in the ideal that league leaders should be noted in prose. However I see I'm in the minority, so don't really think I'm going to sway anyone here, nor do I mean to. Kaiser matias (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with @Kaiser matias: on this one. Why we should bold it if players get various awards for leading in some statistic? – Sabbatino (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Eh, I'm in favor of bolding, but I don't feel hugely strongly about it one way or another. Ravenswing 12:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Bell Centre

When and who changed everything to the French "Centre Bell"? Should it not be the English common name? LordAtlas (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens

The NHL page references the Montreal Canadiens as having 25 championships as league champion. Why does this include anything prior to 1917-18 which is the first season. A Stanley Cup tally issue is something I would understand but how can anyone credit Montreal as winning the league 25 when they've only one 24 times since it has existed? LordAtlas (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the Habs have won the Stanley Cup '23' times since 1917-18. The first Stanley Cup championship occurred in 1915-16, before the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
My bad. Anyways, the issue I have is the info box and some text on the National Hockey League page references 25. I've seen the asterisked 24 before but never 25. LordAtlas (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The Canadiens page says 24 as well. Did someone add OR to the info box and no one noticed? LordAtlas (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It's explained in the footnote in the infobox. The Stanley Cup used to be contested between the winners of different leagues. Thus the Canadiens have won NHL championships in some seasons but not the Stanley Cup. isaacl (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't explain 25 NHL championships at all. They are only credited by the league as having 24. LordAtlas (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I've reread and get the point now. I still find the explanation too wordy and confusing. LordAtlas (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a complicated situation but that is about as simple an explanation as possible without leaving out context or getting too detailed. But if you have a better proposal by all means let us hear it so we can see if it would work better. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Stanley Cup playoffs

Can I get an admin to deal Paperkings who has been vandalizing the article? Deadman137 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Past team seasons

We've always (to my memory) changed "is" to "was" at a team's season article, whenever a team's season comes to an end. This is currently being challenged at 2016–17 Vancouver Canucks season (why only that article & not the 13 other non-playoffs bound teams? who knows), but there you have it. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You have changed tense against MOS:TENSE. No acknowledgement of the MoS and no recognition that exists.
Why only that article? Because it's on my watchlist and the 13 other are not.
While you're amending your ways, stop linking nations in infoboxes, which is against WP:OVERLINK and don't add national flags unless it's in relation to performance on a national team as stated in WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Not just the 2016-17 team season articles of non-playoff bound clubs. But what about all the past seasons of all sports teams? Example: 2014 Boston Red Sox, 1992-93 Montreal Canadiens season, 2011-12 Toronto Raptors season etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Please keep listing them since they all appear to be against the MoS. I can commission a bot to fix them all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note, a discussion on this matter has been opened at MOS. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oh for pity's sake. How could this possibly be against MOS:TENSE, which holds "Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such." (Emphasis mine.) A concluded season, which never will again be played, is a past event. Ravenswing 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
We always use WAS for past events, and I mean for ALL events – sports, music, battles etc. I've encountered this user various times, and all of those times he was rude and didn't try to listen to anyone else but himself. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You always incorrectly use was for past events for all sporting events. You incorrectly indent and use caps and bold. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want a meaningful discussion on this issue, you can have that. If you're just going to troll us, spare your time and ours. Leaving aside your take here (which is completely contradicted by the very text of the very link you cite), we can decide for ourselves how to format. Ravenswing 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if you think I'm being a troll, I appear to clearly have misread the MoS and when you wrote past events, I recognize that a season con be seen a s a past event (or more correctly a series of events). I stand corrected on that. The MOS:CAPS issue listed below has been addressed, not OVERLINK and INFOBOXFLAG need to be addressed and I'll be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And ignoring MOS:CAPS in edits like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Vancouver_Canucks_season&curid=50730683&diff=774803303&oldid=774785568 . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion to start NHL Transactions pages on July 1

In regards to the official NHL transactions pages (for example, 2016–17 NHL transactions), officially, the NHL season ends and starts July 1, for the sake of transactions of player rights - which is what this page is interested in. That is the day of turnover for all old contracts and the start of new ones. The years on contract, based on July 1–July 1 influences counted player experience, buyouts, waiver eligibility and prices, among other things. Why not follow that, especially if the format we have is monthly sections, and we currently have repeated sections (ie. June)? These pages have been built to start on the draft day, a fairly arbitrary point that changes each year. I post this considering my work with the transactions pages, but I understand this would spill over to many other places in the Ice Hocey WikiProject, like team season pages, but it's a discussion I want to have yet again. –uncleben85 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense to start on July 1, to keep it in line with the NHL and the CBA. Honestly I didn't realize it wasn't already the case. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Arguments against in the past have been it's the way it currenly is and would take a lot of work to go back and change old pages" (which is a weaker argument, imo) and it would clash with other pages like a team's season page that uses the draft as a starting point. –uncleben85 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
While you are correct that the CBA, in regards to contracts, is based around July 1, I find it hard to argue logically that any transactions that take place after a team has finished playing its season should be included on a season where they have no effect. Why should we include a player traded in the during the 2015 draft in the 2014–15 season transactions when it doesn't affect that season? The pre-July releases, trades, and drafts greatly effect the next season, including how teams act on July 1, but nothing to the preceding season. Yosemiter (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Your points apply just as much to each team's season page as it does for the league-wide transactions page. I think the chief point I've seen made before is that the league awards are handed out after the Finals (in normal seasons anyway) and just before the draft and should be seen as the last event of the prior season while the draft is the first of the next. IMO, the awards are for a particular season and the date they are officially handed out shouldn't be used as a benchmark date for anything (compare with Oscars being handed out for the year's "best" in movies in February or March of the following year). If I were king: the day after a team's last game would be the starting point for the next season for team pages. The league-wide transactions page? The day after the trade deadline with a few exceptions if the transaction pertains to that season and not the next like most transactions after the deadline do. --Parkfly20 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Yes, the new NHL calendar year officially begins July 1. But what about the coach fired the day after his team is eliminated in the first round of the playoffs? That transaction has no bearing on his now-former team's just finished season. But it has effect on the upcoming season, so it needs to be mentioned on the following season's page to give the appropriate context. And trades are not frozen during the time between the end of the Cup Finals and July 1, so a player can be traded to a new team so that the transaction affects the next season but not the prior. A hard and fast cutoff date makes sense for writing contracts, which is why the NHL has that provision. But we need to use common sense and be flexible about what to include. oknazevad (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Still think we should stick to the draft as being the first official event of the new season due to its bearing on the upcoming playing season and not the past playing season. July 1st is just a legal date for contracts and doesn't reflect the reality of when the season really takes place. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The NHL Entry has very little bearing on the upcoming playing season. On average, something like only two players a year go straight from draft to NHL roster. The Entry Draft has bearing on the NHL future as a whole, but not the beginning of a new season. The legal date that allows teams to bring in a new subset of players, and sees the landscape of the NHL change, more than any other day of the year... that has bearing on the upcoming season. The Draft is symbolically when teams begin anew, but really July 1 is the date teams begin to reshape their roster and organization for the upcoming year, if it had to come down to a single day.
To speak to some other points, I agree, making the cutoff at the end of the regular season makes sense, in that any other moves that happen will be for next year, but it just seems really awkward to me to say the year is done, when 16 teams are still playing. Trades and free agent signings (junior, college, European) are quite common during the playoff period, as are coaching and management changes.
Lastly, a large reason to change the date, for me, is because as it stands, the year rolls over mid-June, meaning the articles I'm concerned about which are sectioned off by months for ease of browsing, becomes unnecessarily muddled (not beyond usability, I must admit) with two "June" sections. Running July 1 to June 30 every year would help clean up the pages.–uncleben85 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The draft is an arbitrary date, but it is one of the earliest instances of transactions that greatly affects the following season. You point out that very few drafted players play in their draft season, which is correct, but do not account for the 6 to 12 trades including current players that occur on that day(s). Many of the overage undrafted Junior/College players that are signed before the draft are typically also not going to contribute to either the season they were signed or the following season (also, it seems most of those undrafted future prospects signings aren't even listed on the league transaction pages, just team pages). It does seem odd to have the beginning of June listed in the finished season though and would actually propose changing the standard to any transaction involving the season for that player that had no effect on the previous season (so that this does not including a trade from the 2017 deadline in the 2018–19 season page because it involved a 2018 draft pick). But that is just another alternative suggestion to address your complaint about June being on both pages. Yosemiter (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There are no signings of undrafted prospects, because as it stands, the page is built so as to only describe changes in NHL contracts (or reserved rights, with regards to unsigned, but drafted prospects who are traded) from year-to-year, so we don't list new signings from juniors or college or Europe who did not have an NHL contract in the previous season. That specific page has been setup specifically for transactions of NHL players, not additions of NHL players. With that said, I do support the addition new college/junior/European additions, and have been keeping track of them in my sandbox this season, just in case! –uncleben85 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

On a similar subject, is there a reason we consider postseason coaching changes part of the following season (such as 2017–18 NHL season with the four fired coaches) but not a player's retirement (such as Shawn Thornton or Brian Bickell in 2016–17 NHL transactions)? Both are team personnel transactions that only affect the following season. Yosemiter (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

CHL

Curious. I've been looking at the QMJHL/WHL/OHL playoffs & have noticed that the home team in each series, is shown as if it were the road team. Why is that? GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's the NHLPlayoffs Template that is being used. It lists home team on the left side. The NHL playoffs pages manipulate it so that home team is on the right (as in, in the parameter home1= the road team is listed. For the ECHL playoffs, instead of trying to switch everything, I just put a statement at the top that says home team is listed first. Yosemiter (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Too bad, we can't correct this. Make them the way the NHL presents it. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a way to correct it by fixing the template somehow (I personally am not the best editor for template changes). However, there would be a lot of work involved in updating all the pages that use the template, which may be why it has not been done. Yosemiter (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a way to do it. As long as the series in question is a 2–2–1–1–1 series then there is no need to use the home parameter. If there is a 2–3–2 series then the home parameter must be used for Games 5 and 6. Any other series configuration can be dealt with easily depending on the needed result. Deadman137 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That would still place the home team on the left side, which is what I believe GoodDay is referring to as being different. Most leagues usually list games as a "San Jose at Edmonton" style (for example from this year's playoffs). The Template for that series currently is: team1=San Jose, team2=Edmonton, stadium2=SAP, stadium1=Rogers (which obviously is counter intuitive when reading that team1=stadium2). The template in the 2–2–1–1–1 style then defaults to stadium1(2)–stadium2(2)–stadium1(1)–stadium2(1)–stadium1(1) and displaying on the right side (the conventional home team side) team2(2)–team1(2)–team2(1)–team1(1)–team2(1). The other problem is with junior and minor leagues, 2–2–1–1–1 and 2–3–2 formats, while preferred, only happen if the teams can actually get the rinks in that order, so the home#= parameter must be used. So then when applying that parameter and you want home team on the right side home#=Away team#. Yosemiter (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
At this point changing the existing template would screw up just about every single article that uses it. So we have two options, make a brand new template and correct the minor issues that have been raised or we just continue with forcing the existing template to spit out the information that we want. Also the home parameter can be used on any of the seven games that the template generates; the best example of this comes from the San Jose/Colorado series from 1999. Deadman137 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm well aware, I was just pointing out the template is incorrect and clarifying why. In minor and junior league playoffs, I use the home parameter on every game, just to make sure, such as the 2017 Kelly Cup playoffs. That Adirondack/Manchester series is 2–5 with the lower seed starting at home because the circus is town all next week. Yosemiter (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nashville/Chicago

Can someone place both team's articles under temporary protection? There is an IP vandalism war between fans of the two teams about who the owner of each team is. Deadman137 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Centre Vidéotron

Why is this not under its English common name? LordAtlas (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any discussion defending the move, and it seems to be against wikipedia policy. I will move it back. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Did not realize there was a disambiguation page that would block the move, will request an admin move it. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. LordAtlas (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

NHL page

Someone messed with something. Many pages have a messed up navbox at the bottom listing the Pacific Division and random other things. LordAtlas (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wanna be more specific about this? How can we see the "messed up" part if you don't show us anything? – Sabbatino (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Next time be more specific about it. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"NHL page", "many pages", "bottom." That wasn't all that hard now was it? Would you like a screenshot embedded in text? LordAtlas (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Consider looking at your grammar before posting as I could barely understand what you meant. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Since there were no mistakes in the original post I'm excited to see your next excuse. LordAtlas (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seldomly updated roster templates

Does it really make much sense to have current roster templates for European leagues when they are seldomly updated? Many haven't had real updates in a few years. See w:Category:Liiga roster templates and List of current SHL rosters. Those are the two leagues I checked and I can't imagine the others are much different. --Parkfly20 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I regularly delete rosters from minor (lower than ECHL) and junior teams if they are more than a year out of date. Some editors/fans do like to keep them up (see Pensacola Ice Flyers) but otherwise out of date info is of no encyclopedic use. I see it as too many and too frequent changes with a lack of general interest of any current editors because it takes a lot of time and effort to keep them current. There are better sites for that info. Yosemiter (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If they are out of date (previous season etc) feel free to remove them. But don't remove them if they are the current seasons roster as they are totally valid additions to pages. -DJSasso (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Players with worst plus/minus ratings as team leaders?

Can someone point out a reference that lists the player with the team's worst plus/minus rating as a team leader (specifically that) along with the player with the best rating? I don't see that here on a league-wide basis. Looking at Template:Infobox ice hockey team season, it isn't displayed as such in the example nor is it discussed on the talk page. --Parkfly20 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be a silent consensus of some sort as all other pages list the best (+) and the worst (–) players in the infobox. You are the only person objecting to this at 2016–17 Philadelphia Flyers season article. However, this should be discussed to avoid edit wars and I thank you for starting a discussion here. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "all other pages"? A survey of 2016-2017 NHL team pages finds a small majority (16) actually only list the plus/minus leader (eg 2016–17 Arizona Coyotes season, 2016–17 San Jose Sharks season, in the interest of saving space/time I won't list all 16). It seems a weird thing to include to me, no other "negative" category is displayed (examples of other interesting ones might be "Highest GAA" or "Fewest PIM").
Looking at San Jose specifically I see that there isn't even consensus on single team's pages, for the last five years they have flipped back and forth between displaying the lowest plus/minus and not. How strange. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Look at older seasons and you will see what I mean. I am currently updating all teams' pages. Also seeing that you are new to all of this—I do not know if you had another account before starting to use this after ~2 years since its creation—it does not help it either. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you're wrong about that. A lot of team articles from the 70s, 80s, and 90s don't even have the statistical leaders section filled in. Some have the other stats filled in, but not plus-minus since I assume it was not originally included when the template was created. The basic issue is this: Why do you think the player with the worst plus-minus rating should be listed in the team leader section? --Parkfly20 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what my account's history has to do with the observable fact that there is no clear consensus on this. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It does seem a little odd to note the lowest plus/minus. Even including the highest is not really a common thing as well, but it really seems irrelevant to note the lowest there, it doesn't contribute much. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The information in an infobox should be essential for a succinct summary of the topic. I don't believe listing the worst players for any given stat meets this criterion. isaacl (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. For what other stat do we do this? We don't boldface the goalie with the worst GAA, or the player with the fewest points. Ravenswing 04:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree, worst +/- is not needed. Kante4 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Likewise agree. oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Greenville/Johnstown ECHL connection

For whatever reason @WilliamJE: keeps removing the Johnstown Chiefs from the Greenville Swamp Rabbits infobox. He claims that because the Chiefs' owners still own the team branding and organization that this overrides the franchise license transaction (clearly shown in the league's own history page). This transaction is evidenced, referenced and called a relocation in multitudes of other sources (HockeyDB, yahoo, Post and Courier, Biz Journals, and the New York Times). I have hit my 3RR, someone else want to educate him on the difference between a team and a franchise? Yosemiter (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it is there right now. But you are correct, they just retained the branding and the history. The franchise still moved either way and there are plenty of sources to back it up. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Deadman137 came and seconded my comments on WillamJE's talk page. No idea why he wouldn't believe my large number of sources vs. his one. It's not like the branding of a team staying in city when the franchise relocates is uncommon. Yosemiter (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Women's ice hockey players category vs non-gendered ice hockey player categories

Hi everyone, I was just wondering what the general opinions on player categories are? I edit and create NWHL player articles, and I was wondering why women's players are not generally included in the general ice hockey categories. For example, I notice that the category on Paige Harrington was changed from Category:American ice hockey players to Category:American women's ice hockey players (rather than including both). Is there any reason why women aren't in Category: American ice hockey players?

This is also in other country categories. For example, Category:Canadian ice hockey players appears to be primarily or completely male as a category while female players are moved to Category:Canadian women's ice hockey players.

Would it be acceptable to switch such categories to "male ice hockey players" if only male players are included, or to include women in these categories? (I'm not actually sure if there's a wikipedia guideline etc on this, so please let me know if there is anything I should be aware of!)

Thanks, Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There should be 3 types of categories. ... ice hockey players, ... men's ice hockey players & ... women's ice hockey players. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidance on categorization by gender, which if I understand correctly, says that for sports figures where men and women compete separately, there should be separate categories that are "diffusing": the non-gender specific parent category doesn't have any persons in it, just other categories. isaacl (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The biggest reason is that you don't put an article both in a sub-cat and a parent-cat, you only use the most specific. Other arguments have been made in the past that they are technically two different sports since some major rules diverge. (Not saying I agree with this assessment just that it has been made.) -DJSasso (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports

Welcome to Women in Red's
May 2017 worldwide online editathon.
Participation is welcome in any language.

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits adding info about teams in geographic regions in the playoffs?

I have recently noticed User:Jewel15 adding unsourced info to many Stanley Cup playoff pages (such as 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2006 Stanley Cup playoffs, etc.) about teams and their geographic regions. Most seems to be trivial facts (such as "Chicago defeated Philadelphia ... and become the first Original Six team besides the Red Wings to win the Stanley Cup since the Rangers won it in 1994" from 2010) at best and WP:OR at worst (ex. "Ottawa became the first (and so far, only) team based in Eastern Canada since the 1992-93 Montreal Canadiens to make it to the Stanley Cup Finals, and this was the Canadian province of Ontario's first time hosting games in the Stanley Cup Finals since 1967, when Toronto hosted Games 3, 4, and 6 of that Finals series" from 2007). I didn't want to just go through and revert them though, so I am looking for others' opinions on the additions. Yosemiter (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, Jewl15 is overdoing it, with trivial additions. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Useless trivia and most certainly original research. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Alright, Sabbatino. You go ahead and post some "useful" info. I genuinely don't care what you think. - jewel15 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Template:NHL hockey player

Random template made Template:NHL hockey player. Not sure you guys need this? Feel free to nominate for deletion.--Moxy (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The equivalent was long ago merged into Template:Infobox ice hockey player. As such I have just redirected it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:[insert team] seasons

I want to see your input regarding the change to this template. Would anyone be opposed if I changed this to this for all teams? The current format has a lot of unused space and it looks weird to me so I decided to rearrange it by making a hybrid of Template:Navbox decade list and Template:Season list. In my opinion, the latter template is obsolete as it has a mere 111 transclusions as opposed to 7,746 of the first one. Any thoughts? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I would object, the first one looks much cleaner. I would rather white space at the end than all kinds of white space between each link. The current looks a lot better and fits how most navboxes tend to look. I am sure there are examples for the other way but I definitely like the current better. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DJSasso. Large gaps between the years is distracting, and makes the template harder to use, in my opinion. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
If changes were to be made, I would prefer narrowing the width of the header and footer to better fit the content width, rather than the other way around. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I honestly like the second one better. But I'm looking at it on my iPhone, and the first one, like many of these navboxes, wrap differently on such a screen, making each decade appear on two separate lines with the break being at the sixth year. It totally ruins the grid effect, which the gals actually ensure on smaller devices. So we should keep that in mind. oknazevad (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have the opposite problem, I am looking at it on a 21 inch screen which I think is a fairly common monitor size these days for a desktop and the huge amount of white space between each year makes it incredibly hard to read with any kind of quick glance as you lose where you are in the list really easily and have to spend a bunch of time trying to figure out where you are again. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
What we should try to do is make the list prefer to break at the five-year point. I'm not up to date on what the latest browsers support on different platforms, so I'm not sure what is feasible; maybe someone can share their expertise? isaacl (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Team moving, renaming

The Toronto St. Michael's Majors (1937-1962, 1997-2007), Mississauga St. Michael's Majors (2007-2012), and Mississauga Steelheads (2012-) are all one team. Thing is, neither the Toronto Majors' page or Steelheads' page has anything on the middle team; it serves as a redirect to the latter. Where should the info on the middle team go? -- Zanimum (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I would say the Steelheads. A city move is one thing, but a mere name change is another; it's not as if we have separate pages for the Detroit Falcons or the Toronto St. Pats. Ravenswing 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

player stat table size

Can anyone help me out as to why the size of the statistics table has grown even though the same 60em setting hasn't been changed? it used to cover about half the page in width but now it's over three quarters and affects the layout a bit! It's got me stumped, is it just my own setting's.. or has anyone else noticed it?.. Cheers for any ideas Triggerbit (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an example article? I don't recall ever using a 60em setting in stats tables I create (usually use width:75%) so I am curious of an example page so I can see. I looked at a few of the pages you recently edited and they only take up a small portion of my screen, but am on a fairly large monitor. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
cheers for the reply. It seems to have corrected itself though..sorry it must have just been me!.. Triggerbit (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Logo for the Worcester Railers

@Tjmatthews94: has requested that the Worcester Railers HC logo be updated. The logo on the page right now is slightly different then the one the team now is using on its website. The user attempted to load a new one but it was very large and did not have the invisible background, so I reverted with the reasoning of WP:LOGO, WP:NFCC and that the image in use does not misrepresent the organization. However, updating with a good file is preferred. I am not the right person for image editing but I am assuming someone else here can make an updated .svg logo for the Railers. 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I could take a look, but what logo is that? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
File:WorcesterRailers.png is the version used on the page, their page has an updated one. (The detailing, such as on the mountains, is slightly different as far as I can tell.) The image used on their facebook profile would probably be best when shrunk and background edited. Yosemiter (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Updated. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive68/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Ice Hockey, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

John Tavares (Ice Hockey) to John Tavares

Can we finally get a redirect? He's clearly what people are looking for. Not his uncle. LordAtlas (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this may be what you meant, but to be clear John Tavares (the disambiguation page) should be deleted, and John Tavares (Ice Hockey) should be moved to John Tavares. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Haha. Yes. LordAtlas (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes at the bottom of coach's article

Is there any preferred practice for adding or removing team's/teams' navbox/navboxes at the bottom of coach's article (for example, Mike Sullivan)? I thought we take a minimal approach regarding the navboxes on hockey-related articles for people? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I wish we had a zero tolerance approach on navboxes, which got into the ridiculous a long time ago. But navboxes for minor league coaching positions? Seriously? Ravenswing 14:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You misunderstood what I meant. I wanted to know if templates like Template:Boston Bruins and Template:Pittsburgh Penguins should be at coach's article? I am not talking about the succession boxes, because I suspect that you thought about them. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      • The justification is those templates have a list of coaches that includes him. I don't think those templates should have a list of coaches (or GMs, retired numbers, etc.) when there is already a link to an article listing coaches included in the template, but adding redundant if not irrelevant junk to these templates is common. If the template was limited to the current coach then the template should be removed when he is no longer the coach. --Parkfly20 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I agree that lists of head coaches, general managers or anything else should be removed (just look at the Rangers' or the Blackhawks' templates, which are a mess). In my opinion, we should standardize the templates so that they all would follow the accepted pattern, because now every single NHL team's template is different and people can easily get lost when looking for some information there. I also think that the Flyers' navbox is the best example of how it should look like. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm of the opinion that they shoul be removed. But I've always been opposed to those types of infoboxes clogging up the bottoms of articles. The succession box is relevant enough for coaches. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Typically team navboxes are only put on coach articles when they are the coach. Succession boxes remain after they no longer are coach. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Suitable Infobox for hockey training camp, please

I'm editing World Hockey Centre, which uses the 'pro hockey team' Infobox. My immediate aim is to add geographical co-ordinates. However, it's obvious that a more appropriate Infobox is needed. SewerCat (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this camp is notable -and the sources as they exist do not lend confidence - I would guess you could use an infobox suitable for a geographical location. Resolute 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Possibly another thing you might want to do is put in reliable, independent sources attesting to the subject's notability. As it stands, it's ripe for an AfD. Ravenswing 13:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I read through it, looked for some news sources, and found nothing non-routine or non-primary. So I nominated it for deletion. Yosemiter (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting championships in player stats

I had this idea a long time ago but never actually tried implementing it. Often when looking at a player's stats season by season, it would be very useful to have the season the player made it to the championship either highlighted or denoted somehow. For international there is a Result column with a medal or ranking, but nothing for league play. It can be a simple background highlight (one color for making the finals/championship, another color for winning it), or it could be a separate column. What do you all think? Has anything similar been done in other sports, maybe? Jmj713 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I would oppose such an idea. The stats are mostly just to show that, the stats for the players, and (in theory) should be covered in the body of the article. They don't need to show that the player won anything, least of all simply reaching the final. It is much better off being written about prior to that. Keep it simple and to the point for the stats, don't clutter it up with more unnecessary detail (I'm also of the opinion the international stats shouldn't have their final place, as that's irrelevant to that area, and again something for the body of the article). Kaiser matias (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Adding various accomplishments has been discussed before and pretty unanimously rejected. My opinion hasn't changed. One of the worst things about the other sports infoboxes is the clutter of such things they throw in. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody please show me where this topic was previously discussed, because I definitely feel that an individual player's Stanley Cup wins should at the very least be highlighted like it is for NBA, MLB and NFL players? My cousin didn't even know Wayne Gretzky won any titles because they weren't listed like they are for other sports. After he mentioned it to me I looked at Wikipedia and I saw how easy of a mistake that is to make especially for less well known players. Many people aren't familiar with the fact that that's the one big sport that Wikipedia doesn't list championships for. If you're used to checking an NBA or NFL player's championships by quickly glancing at highlights on Wikipedia, and then you look at a hockey player and you see nothing it's understandable to think they never accomplished it. So what is the harm in at least listing their titles? This is a definitely a case where Wikipedia should be consistent, because it can otherwise confuse. If titles weren't listed for any sports player up top then it wouldn't cause that confusion. However, when three out of the four main sports do it and hockey is the only one that doesn't that can be very confusing and it seems unnessary. Is it hurting the article somehow to let people know what they accomplished right away? So, please let me know where this was discussed at in case I can't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the second sentence of the third paragraph of Gretzky's article says: "When the WHA folded, the Oilers joined the NHL, where he established many scoring records and led his team to four Stanley Cup championships." So it is right there in the opening, as it should be for every player who won the Cup. If someone skips past that for whatever reason, as well as the body of the article (where it is mentioned, appropriately enough, in the "Edmonton Oilers (1979–1988)" section), then frankly I don't see how we can be faulted. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of highlighting Stanley Cup wins in a player's article. As its noted above we already track international medals so it's not that far of a leap to add only Stanley Cup wins. Deadman137 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It is highlighted, throughout the body of the article. See the aforementioned Gretzky article, where it is noted both in the lead, and in the body of the article, that he won the Cup. It is also mentioned in the List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky article, but obviously most players don't have such an article. However it is expected that anyone who won the Cup would have it mentioned in the lead, and in the body (plus in an awards section, if applicable, though not always). This is to be expected, and should be added if not already done. And I've previously expressed my dislike for noting team placement in the international stats table, but I feel I'm in the minority there. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
When people want to quickkly scan the stats, they may not read the whole article, they're just glancing at the stats, so I don't see what the big deal is. This looks clean enough and may be even improved upon on our end: Michael Jordan#NBA career statistics. Jmj713 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
That is where I disagree. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of stats. If they want that, there are a multitude of alternatives that advertise themselves as stats databases to use. I feel we are more about comprehensive coverage of the subject, so one should expect to have to read a bit. Though even then the most notable aspects are pointed out in the lead. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Highlighting a championship is not a stat. There is no reason it shouldn't be list in the info box as with other sports. The honour should be easily recognizable. The lead is nice, the body is not what anyone would consider highlighted, but the infobox in the top right corner is the first thing everyone reads. LordAtlas (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I would argue Wikipedia is more than a simple encyclopedia, people come here for all kinds of info, including news and sports stats. And we already highlight team championships in team season articles, so why would this be different? Jmj713 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this would be far from indiscriminate information. After reading the lead section in the Gretzky article you have no direct idea when he won his Stanley Cups (obviously everyone around here knows, but we cannot assume that everyone else is an expert on the subject matter). Not everyone is going to read to the second sentence of the third paragraph in the lead to garner a very small snippet of information. Deadman137 (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The problems start coming in when you have to start evaluating what championships to include. You can't include stanley cups but not khl championships or ahl championships or any other league etc, because once you start making calls on which are more notable for the infobox you start violating NPOV deciding which championships are more important than others. The baseball infoboxes for example are very full of NPOV decisions and should really have most of their stuff stripped out. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
If we limited it to only leagues that are considered top professional leagues we might be to work around that. Though I certainly understand your point that the devil is in the details if we were to open this up. Deadman137 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
We typically note it the lead, I think that is enough. We also have it in the body and in some cases in the Awards section. I don't think we need more clutter in the infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Why would we highlight a championship in player's stats' table when it is perfectly fine? Just because NBA articles have this practice, it does not mean that we should apply the same thing in ice hockey articles. This project takes a minimal approach regarding the infoboxes, navboxes ant other hockey-related stuff. Mentioning the championship in lede is enough. However, some players' articles have a separate table or list of achievements and would be enough. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
(Outdent) But again, what constitutes a "top professional league" here? The NHL sure, the KHL most would agree with, the SHL and Liiga could fit under that, and maybe the DEL and Czech Extraliga. But does Slovakia make the cut, does the AIHL in East Asia, the Polish, Hungarian, Austrian leagues? If not, why? What about historic leagues. The WHA would probably make it, after all the NHL considered it a pro league when it mattered. And the Soviet league was pretty good, as was the Czechoslovak league. But what about the pro WHL? It was a fairly high-caliber league, almost equal to the NHL at times, but was it a "top" league? Or the AHL, especially in the early years. Or the myriad of amateur leagues from the early 1900s, which while not "professional" were obviously the top leagues, or even the IHL of 1904-07; it was considered a renegade league by the Canadian leagues, but certainly had the talent to be top level and was by the very definition "professional." It's the same issue I have with denoting scoring championships/league leaders in the table: what is the limit, and how can you define it to satisfy notability guidelines? Kaiser matias (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)]
Obviously, it isn't fine as it is, which is why I brought this up. I didn't think this was controversial, as it's only natural, at least it seems to me. I'm always on the side of more info, not less. It's not like we're restricted by space. And this would not be doing anything but highlighting a winning season, same as the team season articles do now, which are stats for teams. I would prefer to highlight making it to the championship as well, but that would be just a bonus. Highlighting a winning season is a must, I believe. And it would be whichever the final or championship of that player's particular league and season happened to be, regardless of type of league. I think that makes it the most fair and straightforward. Would this be so terrible:

 Denotes league championship 

    Regular season   Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
1999–00 Cole Harbour Red Wings Peewee AAA ~70 — — ~200 — — — — — —
1999–00 Cole Harbour Red Wings Bantam AAA 1 1 3 4 — — — — — —
2000–01 Cole Harbour Red Wings Bantam AAA 63 86 96 182 — 5 10 6 16 —
2001–02 Dartmouth Subways Midget AAA 74 95 98 193 114 7 11 13 24 0
2001–02 Truro Bearcats MJAHL 2 0 1 1 0 — — — — —
2002–03 Shattuck St. Mary's Midget AAA 57 72 90 162 104 — — — — —
2003–04 Rimouski Océanic QMJHL 59 54 81 135 74 9 7 9 16 10
2004–05 Rimouski Océanic QMJHL 62 66 102 168 84 13 14 17 31 16
2005–06 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 81 39 63 102 110 — — — — —
2006–07 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 79 36 84 120 60 5 3 2 5 4
2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 53 24 48 72 39 20 6 21 27 12
2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 77 33 70 103 76 24 15 16 31 14
2009–10 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 81 51 58 109 69 13 6 13 19 6
2010–11 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 41 32 34 66 31 — — — — —
2011–12 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 22 8 29 37 14 6 3 5 8 9
2012–13 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 36 15 41 56 16 14 7 8 15 8
2013–14 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 80 36 68 104 46 13 1 8 9 4
2014–15 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 77 28 56 84 47 5 2 2 4 0
2015–16 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 80 36 49 85 42 24 6 13 19 4
2016–17 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 75 44 45 89 24
NHL totals 782 382 645 1027 576 124 49 88 137 61

Jmj713 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I can see it's not as unanimous as Djsasso made it seem. It's obvious that there is no legitimate reason not to highlight Stanley Cups wins. It makes absolutely no sense that almost every other sport highlights titles, but for NHL players you have to dig through the article to find the titles and dates. How exactly is being consistent and making information easier to find going to hurt Wikipedia? You guys who don't want the championships highlighted there are obviously hockey lovers who like the idea that your pages are somehow different than other sports. As far as all these other leagues you are mentioning that would have to be included, no hockey player has won championships from that many different leagues. You post the titles from the major league the player plays in. What's so difficult about that if someone is willing to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs)
I was actually referring to the infobox. But I think the stats tables should stick to displaying stats. Now in the example stats table above, you would also (assuming it happened for sake of example) have to highlight the championships for the AAA and MJHL teams etc that won titles. Lots of notable players win championships in many leagues. And we can't do it for one and not all the others, and eventually the lines lose all relevance if there are many of them. The problem is that it doesn't necessarily make the information easier to find. It can actually make it harder to find when you try to make one thing do too many things at once. -DJSasso (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
How many different championships can one player realistically win to render highlighting moot? I highly doubt you can find such an example. Most players may win one or two minor league championships and maybe a Stanley Cup or something similar. Very few will have several lines highlighted and a select few would have many of them. And as far as making things harder to find, I'm not sure what you mean. I can take a look at Crosby's stats above in the table, and in a second ascertain he's won three championships in his career, as well as when in the span of his career he won and how he contributed. Maybe his earlier seasons he's also won something, I haven't researched that, but that just goes to show you that without a highlight like that stats are just numbers and don't tell you the whole story as well as a simple highlight could, which is why it seems to be used with other sports. Make sense to me... Jmj713 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Players on their way to the NHL? I would suggest they are often on teams that win all of their minor leagues championships prior to major junior. Euro players are probably similar winning in Euro leagues. Stats shouldn't be telling you the whole story. They should be just stats, telling you the statistical part of the story. The prose is where you tell the detailed part of the story such as how and when and with whom championships were won. I again also point out our manual of style for players pages has an Awards & Records section where championships are listed as well. How many places do we need to list it? -DJSasso (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
First, accusing us of wanting to be different for some altruistic reason isn't really constructive and not helping the argument. Second, it isn't as unanimous as you claim for other sports articles to highlight championships. A quick look suggests soccer doesn't do that at all, baseball lacks any stats, basketball shows championship and league leading statistics, football seems to do so as well, golf uses some odd colouring formula I don't understand, tennis colours every result in tournaments, cricket seems to omit stats, but when it does they don't colour, and rugby seems to omit stats as well, but doesn't colour the ones I saw. So it is all over the place, and we are not unique in avoiding colour.
That also ignores the fact that adding colour like this would make the table difficult to read. Its already bad enough some use one colour for the same season, but if you have five seasons in a row of the same colour (as anyone on the 56-60 Canadiens would show; or even worse on CSKA players, who won 13 in a row at one point), it makes the table unreadable, and is probably going to run afoul of those who are colourblind, which is a larger Wikipedia policy. The benefit to adding colour is outweighed by this.
That all said, there may be a compromise. Some articles did, and may still have, an asterisk in the stats table to show championships won. I believe the NHL Record Book does the same, and while I am still of the opinion it should be clear of anything, this may be a simpler alternative, one that keeps things simple but still makes the point that a championship was won. It also avoids the issue of when multiple championships are won, as the table is still readable, and distinct rows are still discernable. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
While I am sure there is a format to properly indicate a championship season by a player that is clear (the above table isn't bad at all in my opinion), it becomes a matter a definition of a player's championship season. I may be in the minority, but I firmly believe that a championship season is a team effort over 90% of the time and has little to do with a player's stats. So how then would be objectively define a championship season for an individual when there are many situations where a team won but the individual had negligible contributions to the actual championship.

An example that comes to mind is a third or fourth liner who played two-thirds of the season with the NHL, but ended up on the IR or sent to the minors during the playoffs. Said player may have actually contributed somewhat to the team making the playoffs, but had no impact on the Stanley Cup win. The reverse could also true, a minor league ace who only played a few games with the NHL club makes the playoff roster but does not play. Both could be considered champions for that season. Many situations also end up with players' names on the Stanley Cup who did not play for it that season (currently, a player only needs to have played in 41 games for the team that season to get their name on the cup), such as getting traded at the deadline. All of these considerations could either lead to controversial entries if marked as shown above and also have a bit of WP:POV involved.

In the end, a championship season is less of a player's statistics and more of an achievement that the player participated in. But that is just my two-cents. Yosemiter (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say a highlight would be preferable as it's instantly apparent, but an asterisk or another special character could be added in a rightmost column to indicate the player won their league championship that season. But I still don't see what's so abhorrent about a simple colored line. Jmj713 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Because something like this happens (from Igor Larionov:
    Regular season   Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
1977–78 Khimik Voskresensk Soviet 6 3 0 3 4 — — — — —
1978–79 Khimik Voskresensk Soviet 32 3 4 7 12 — — — — —
1979–80 Khimik Voskresensk Soviet 42 11 7 18 24 — — — — —
1980–81 Khimik Voskresensk Soviet 43 22 23 45 36 — — — — —
1981–82 CSKA Moscow Soviet 46 31 22 53 6 — — — — —
1982–83 CSKA Moscow Soviet 44 20 19 39 20 — — — — —
1983–84 CSKA Moscow Soviet 43 15 26 41 30 — — — — —
1984–85 CSKA Moscow Soviet 40 18 28 46 20 — — — — —
1985–86 CSKA Moscow Soviet 40 21 31 52 33 — — — — —
1986–87 CSKA Moscow Soviet 39 20 26 46 34 — — — — —
1987–88 CSKA Moscow Soviet 51 25 32 57 54 — — — — —
1988–89 CSKA Moscow Soviet 31 15 12 27 22 — — — — —
1989–90 Vancouver Canucks NHL 74 17 27 44 20 — — — — —
1990–91 Vancouver Canucks NHL 64 13 21 34 14 6 1 0 1 6
1991–92 Vancouver Canucks NHL 72 21 44 65 54 13 3 7 10 4
1992–93 HC Lugano NDA 24 10 19 29 44 8 3 15 18 0
1993–94 San Jose Sharks NHL 60 18 38 56 40 14 5 13 18 10
1994–95 San Jose Sharks NHL 33 4 20 24 14 11 1 8 9 2
1995–96 San Jose Sharks NHL 4 1 1 2 0 — — — — —
1995–96 Detroit Red Wings NHL 69 21 50 71 34 19 6 7 13 6
1996–97 Detroit Red Wings NHL 64 12 42 54 26 20 4 8 12 8
1997–98 Detroit Red Wings NHL 69 8 39 47 40 22 3 10 13 12
1998–99 Detroit Red Wings NHL 75 14 49 63 48 7 0 2 2 0
1999–00 Detroit Red Wings NHL 79 9 38 47 28 9 1 2 3 6
2000–01 Florida Panthers NHL 26 5 6 11 10 — — — — —
2000–01 Detroit Red Wings NHL 39 4 25 29 28 6 1 3 4 2
2001–02 Detroit Red Wings NHL 70 11 32 43 50 18 5 6 11 4
2002–03 Detroit Red Wings NHL 74 10 33 43 48 4 0 1 1 0
2003–04 New Jersey Devils NHL 49 1 10 11 20 1 0 0 0 0
2005–06 Brunflo IK Swe-3 2 1 3 4 2 — — — — —
Soviet totals 457 204 230 434 295 — — — — —
NHL totals 921 169 475 644 474 150 30 67 97 60

Or consider what Jean Beliveau would look like:

    Regular season   Playoffs
Season Team League GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
1947–48 Victoriaville Tigres QJHL 42 46 21 67 — — — — — —
1948–49 Victoriaville Tigres QJHL 42 48 27 75 54 4 4 2 6 2
1949–50 Quebec Citadelles QJHL 35 36 44 80 47 14 22 9 31 15
1950–51 Quebec Citadelles QJHL 46 61 63 124 120 22 23 31 54 76
1950–51 Quebec Aces QMHL 1 2 1 3 0 — — — — —
1950–51 Montreal Canadiens NHL 2 1 1 2 0 — — — — —
1951–52 Quebec Aces QMHL 59 45 38 83 88 15 14 10 24 14
1952–53 Quebec Aces QMHL 57 50 39 89 59 19 14 15 29 25
1952–53 Montreal Canadiens NHL 3 5 0 5 0 — — — — —
1953–54 Montreal Canadiens NHL 44 13 21 34 22 10 2 8 10 4
1954–55 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 37 36 73 58 12 6 7 13 18
1955–56 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 47 41 88 143 10 12 7 19 22
1956–57 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 33 51 84 105 10 6 6 12 15
1957–58 Montreal Canadiens NHL 55 27 32 59 93 10 4 8 12 10
1958–59 Montreal Canadiens NHL 64 45 46 91 67 3 1 4 5 4
1959–60 Montreal Canadiens NHL 60 34 40 74 57 8 5 2 7 6
1960–61 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 32 58 90 57 6 0 5 5 0
1961–62 Montreal Canadiens NHL 43 18 23 41 36 6 2 1 3 4
1962–63 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 18 49 67 68 5 2 1 3 2
1963–64 Montreal Canadiens NHL 68 28 50 78 42 5 2 0 2 18
1964–65 Montreal Canadiens NHL 58 20 23 43 76 13 8 8 16 34
1965–66 Montreal Canadiens NHL 67 29 48 77 50 10 5 5 10 6
1966–67 Montreal Canadiens NHL 53 12 26 38 22 10 6 5 11 26
1967–68 Montreal Canadiens NHL 59 31 37 68 28 10 7 4 11 6
1968–69 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 33 49 82 55 14 5 10 15 8
1969–70 Montreal Canadiens NHL 63 19 30 49 10 — — — — —
1970–71 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 25 51 76 40 20 6 16 22 28
NHL totals 1125 507 712 1219 1029 162 79 97 176 211
It just makes the list more difficult to read and is distracting and distorts the focus of what it's meant to represent. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that looks fine to me. Nothing difficult, the color can be tweak enough to what seems to be the most pleasing to the eye, but the overall point still stands, it highlights when a player won a championship, and yes a few select players will have several highlights in a row, but I don't see a dig deal about one or five. The table is still presenting its information as it's meant to. The highlight is just giving a little extra but important information. Jmj713 (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I second this highlighting scheme. In no way does this detract. I'd have to argue that it's necessary. If a player plays in the playoffs, they are playing for something. The natural conclusion would be to show whether their efforts were successful or not. LordAtlas (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Then what about a player like Scott Wilson (ice hockey)? He played 24 games last season with Pittsburgh, but no playoff games. His name is not on the cup but he was a member of the 2016 National Champion Pittsburgh Penguins because he was moved to IR while in Pittsburgh. (Someone has listed the Cup as one of his achievements on his page.) I would still argue that winning the cup (in any capacity as a member of the team) is an achievement and not a statistic (which is more about what a player does in a season to season basis). In fact, better use of highlighting would be for MVP seasons, Leading Scorer season, etc., which are usually somewhat player statistic based. Yosemiter (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Because outliers exist, it's a no from you? LordAtlas (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I may be in the minority, but I think it is a team achievement, not a individual statistic and that is my reason for opposition. I actually think the highlighting looks fine, just unneeded. Under sections for Honours and Awards, it could easily be listed as another achievement. Each year won would be listed, there would be no need for highlighting and no need having another legend on the stats table for whatever the highlighting means. Clear and concise is my preferred table or list, not a jumble of color. Yosemiter (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
You honestly think those look ok? They are ridiculously hard to read the stats in that form. Which is the whole point of the table. So you make a change that is detrimental to the actual purpose of the table just so you can shoehorn in some different information into it? -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It indeed looks ridiculous. Current table is fine and easy to read. That is why players' pages have "Awards and achievements" section, which is better. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
If (big if) it were agreed upon that the team outcome for the season should be included within the table, personally I would prefer a final column with a brief notation, rather than colour-coding the information. It is more readily discoverable, understandable, and does not pose visual accessibility issues. I'm not very opinionated either way; I appreciate that it would be placing a team achievement in an individual's stats table, which I know some editors strongly dislike, but I also understand that it is a key bit of context that many readers would like to know when examining a statistical summary of a player's career. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that last part completely. I don't see how a player winning a championship, especially the Stanley Cup where their name gets engraved on it for all time, is not a player achievement. Sure it wasn't that one player by themselves but at this point it doesn't really matter. That person won that championshi[p, and the stats table as of now fails to denote that in any way. It looks like, to a lay person, that these people never won anything. Again, team season lists are highlighted, which is why I though this should be. But a column added to the right of the playoffs stats also make sense, I'm just not sure how to add one with the current table code being used. Could someone do an example, please? Jmj713 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not just have a red box around the team the year they won ala World Cup hosts etc... LordAtlas (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Playing career end date and LTIR/other situations

This came up and I feel it needs to be properly addressed: when to put the final date for players who are either "LTIRetired" or announce their retirement sometime after their last game. The most egregious example, and the source of a previous discussion (which ended with not firm stance), would be Marc Savard, who's still listed as active, despite not playing since 2010. A slightly different case would be Mario Lemieux, who played his last game in December 2005 but only announced his retirement in 2006, and has the latter date as the end of his career. Also consider Chris Pronger, who last played in 2011, and has that as his final date, but had a contract that expires this year. I'm of the opinion that it should only refer to the year they last played a game, as contract dates are meaningless here, as are when a player announces his retirement. Just because they want to wait a while to confirm something doesn't mean they still played, and in the cases like Savard and Pronger, though they likely didn't want to stop playing in 2010 and 2011, respectively, they did, so it is inaccurate to reflect something different. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Typically we still leave it as not done if they have a contract because to do otherwise is crystal balling. However once their contract is done we go back and date it as to when they last played a game. However, its a never ending stream of people coming and changing it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Maybe there should be an "Under contract until" field as well as "Last played" (or something similar)? Once the contract term is over the field can be removed. isaacl (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Does that need to be an infobox item thing, though, as much as a "Look, guys, just read the article, okay?" Ravenswing 15:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Not really sure... In a cap world, the contract's end date could be considered an essential part of a succinct summary of a player. But maybe just having a "Last played" field is sufficient. isaacl (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't really work for the multitude of players who either came from a pre-cap world, or are in other leagues that don't work with that. Keeping it simple and having first year of a game played, and last year of a game played, seems the easiest solution, and let the nuance be expressed in the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
By definition, the field would only be used for players under contract, so in the NHL they're all subject to the cap. It wouldn't have to be used for non-cap leagues. That being said, I'm not strongly opinionated either way; just offering an idea that would (a) include some potentially essential info and (b) allow the last game played value to be updated before the end of the contract term while still acknowledging that technically the player's career is ongoing from an accounting perspective. isaacl (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Pronger & Horton have their articles reflect the last played game in the infobox & aren't listed as current players despite being under contract. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Mostly because I believe we gave up fixing it because for awhile it was an every week thing to change it from one or the other version. This is one of those things I usually say just leave it however you find it because it will sort itself out soon enough. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating a working bibliography for the project

A while back I created a bibliography of works pertaining to hockey that I either had, or had access to (and credit to @Resolute: for adding his collection): User:Kaiser matias/Bibliography. After some delay in getting around to it, I thought I'd introduce it here, with the hopes both that people add to it, and with the goal to make it a permanent link on the project main page, in the sidebar somewhere. Ideally it is to help with researching things, as one can look up books that exist and see if they may be of use, as well as showcase to the wider world what materials exist out there on hockey. So here it is, hope it can be of some use to everyone. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive68&oldid=1149600786"