Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive38

List of Philadelphia Flyers players at peer review

Hi, I don't do much work within hockey articles, most of my work here is spent on cricket. However, I've put a bit of work into this article, and would like to take it forward to Featured List status at some point. Would appreciate input at the peer review from those here that know more about the ins and outs of hockey articles. I may also have a tendency towards British English, although I think I've caught all of those already! Harrias (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked it for accuracy [1] [2] ? ccwaters (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:98.77.73.191

This guy's going around and deleting stats tables and replacing them with sentences with the players' career stats.. He was already banned before this. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm monitoring the user this evening, and I just gave an immediate level four warning. The IP was blocked for the same behaviour two days ago, but I'm not aware of any ban related to this edit pattern. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked this individual a couple days ago for 31 hours. Escalating blocks should take care of the problem. Resolute 03:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Alm93 and adding unsourced categories

User:Alm93 has been going around adding unsourced categories to NHL player bios (among others), specifically the Category:Canadian people of (country) descent category. A look at the userpage shows suspected sockpuppet use, and contribution history shows spurts of ethnic edits. I left a note on the user page, expecting no response, and wouldn't mind some help either reverting his edits, or just watching for more unsourced additions. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I generally remove these categories when I see them if the article itself does not mention their ancestry. There is another user who consistently adds these categories without any source and has admitted to me he does so only based on their last name sometimes. So I pretty much always remove these categories now unless the article itself mentions the ancestry. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case that you mention the user is believed to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse#Sneaky Stats Vandal. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice of dicussion that involves this project.

Since User:Beast from da East decided to notify the other projects involved except the hockey project (probably since he was soundly rejected the last time or two he tried to get us to change our infobox) I figured I should make a note here of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB Infoboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that discussion is about to go as well as any other discussion that tries to force conformity across all four sports tends to go. Resolute 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NHL#Origin_of_players

Does anyone know what the source is for this table? I'd like to bring National Hockey League to GA/FA, and that table will need more obvious sourcing. I'm also intending to redo the table by nationality rather than birthplace, since it isn't quite accurate to imply that the league has Brazilian or South African players, as two examples. Resolute 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the last time someone updated it, it was taken from counting up the players birthplaces on nhl.com. I seem to remember reading an edit summary or talk page comment to that effect. -DJSasso (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I put it up, and I just added the refs if you'd like to check. I think there were some players on those lists who didn't have a game played, which was weird. I omitted them from the counts. I think I stopped at 2002–03 because that was the earliest season up at NHL.com. It seems there are earlier seasons now up, so I could work out data for those, too. But we should also probably limit the number of seasons displayed to 5 or 6, since the table will become too wide, and give people with lower resolutions the horizontal scroll bar. Wait until the off-season before adding this year's stats, since many players will be pulled up throughout the season to fill in rosters.

Anyway, changing it to nationality will require a lot more sourcing, since you'll need to provide an additional note for every player whose birthplace/nationality you change. It becomes a lot more complicated. There are Canadian-born players who have played internationally for other countries; there are German-born Canadians, Italian-born Swiss, Kazakh-born Russians, and on and on. It would be great if you could find a reliable source which already breaks it down by nationality. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how I'm going to treat it, but thanks for the sources. I may leave it, make cosmetic changes or outright blow it up. Not sure yet. ;) Or hell, even when I would. The IIHF usually has an annual article talking about player origins, typically lumping smaller European countries in together. Might do it that way. Dunno yet. And. I'm sure we'll see more discussion then too. Resolute 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Olympic rosters

Currently, most of the rosters for the Olympics (men's, women's) show no units for height or weight. I've added units to the Canadian men's roster and also added a conversion to feet/inches and pounds, which are more commonly used for height and weight in Canada (despite being officially metric) and the United States (see the diff). I also added the parameter "sortable=on" in the weight conversion templates. This is only necessary if there are players both <100 kg and ≥100 kg on the team. It probably won't be necessary for the women's teams; I am guessing they are all less than 100 kg.

Having no units is essentially meaningless (although most people can surmise what the units should be), and having only metric units is troublesome for readers not comfortable measuring with that system (most Canadians and Americans, I think). If someone has time, could they go through Category:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey team roster templates and apply the same change to each of the other rosters? I'm heading off now. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes the tables worse, in my opinion. The height & weight table cells now wrap to two lines, so the whole table doubles in screen real estate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's one line on my screen. Try tweaking the column widths to see if you can work out a good configuration. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was using a 1280 pixel wide screen, which is larger than the page size we're supposed to design for (XGA, 1024 wide). I presume you've got a larger widescreen display, but you can't assume all our readers do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See User:Twas Now/Roster test — The column widths have been tweaked, and the font size is a bit smaller. I checked on a 1024 width resolution, and it seems to work. There is no line wrapping, except where there was before:

• heading for the "Name" column
• "Freiburg im Breisgau, West Germany" (which has an explicit line break in the code)

Actually, there is less line wrapping:

• headings for "Pos.", "Height", and "Weight" no longer wrap
• "Scott Niedermayer – C" no longer wraps

I also removed the country flags. For readers not familiar with the NHL, this flag thing makes it seems like the teams in Canada and the USA are in separate leagues. The teams are defined more by their league than the country in which they find themselves. If necessary, a legend can be made for provincial abbreviations. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Olympic rosters, the roster at Sweden men's national ice hockey team contradicts that article's infobox. The former has Alfredsson as captain, the latter has Lidstrom. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. It's been fixed & there's no evidence of the mistake in the edit history? go figure. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made my suggested change to all of Group A. On 1024x768 resolution, everything fits on one line, except some birthplaces (Heatley's for Canada, Stastny's for USA). These wrapped before the changes, too. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Date format for Olympic rosters

There is confusion over which date format to use for birthdates appearing in Template:2010 Winter Olympics United States men's ice hockey team roster. Since it is about a United States team, User:Nosleep changed the format to "Month DD, YYYY". Since this template appears on Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's team rosters, where all other teams use the format "DD Month YYYY", I changed it back. Please comment at the template talk page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Request

Could someone give Asia League Ice Hockey a copyedit? Its up for GA, the reviewer has asked me to get a third party to CE, so if someone could give it a once over, tighten up any language they feel is going astray that would be a great help to getting it promoted. Thanks!--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Drew Doughty

Could I get some more eyes on this article? An IP user is determined to remove the fact that he was cut from the 2007 world junior team. I'm at three reverts, so I can't touch it anymore. Thanks, Resolute 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I got an eye on it. For some, the truth can be hard to accept. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

IIHFnation#Proposal for modification

Hi everybody,

I just wanted to let you guys know that I made a proposal for adding modest adress information with WP:What Wikipedia is not in mind. - Let me know what you think about it.

Regards, Marmanisto (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, §3 & §7. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 07:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal (NHL Commissioner and History of the NHL Commissioner)

I've started a discussion at Talk:NHL Commissioner to discuss the merger of the two articles: NHL Commissioner and History of the NHL Commissioner. I think they are small enough together to be merged. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of Olympic pictures - problem?

I peruse (read: troll) Flickr, looking for good photos of hockey action to add to Wikipedia articles, and then message the photographer asking if they would change the permissions so we can use them in the Commons. I came across 2 fantastic sets, one of Russia/Slovakia women and another of USA/Norway men, and wrote the photographer asking if she would change the permissions. This is what she wrote me back:

"Normally I wouldn't hesitate to allow that. But given the strict rules by the International Olympic Committee regarding publishing the photos online, I have reservation about changing my licensing to allow creative commons commercial endeavors. As far as I know, I'm only legally able to post my hockey photos to Flickr or Facebook. I'm not even technically allowed to publish my own photos on my own personal photo blog. So if Wikipedia wanted my photos, I'd have to retain the non-commercial creative commons use licensing, as well as make it specifically clear that I'm not legally responsible if the IOC cracks down on violations. I love when my photos have the ability to be seen, but I do not want to be caught in a legal battle with the IOC.

I found myself reading this- [3] -which was about another problem regarding the share-alike commercial CC licensing.

If you can give me assurances that the posting of my photos within the Olympic venues will not violate IOC agreements, then we can discuss further. But I cannot in good faith change my licensing to allow for commercial use, not even for a noble site like Wikipedia. Sorry."

I have seen dozens, if not hundreds, of pictures taken at the Olympics that are on the Commons, and there seems to be no problem. What can I tell her so that she can change the permissions and we can use her photos? Obviously I don't want to pressure her into doing something she doesn't want to do, but I haven't noticed an issue before, so why should there be one now? Anthony (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the IOC could sue each photographer that was at the games who took a photograph and used it for anything other than personal use. They had a big skit about it on the Colbert report the other day. Talking about how strict the IOC is about olympic "coverage" NBC for example paid millions and millions for the rights which is where the clampdown comes if they let individuals get away with distributing their own pictures. While we could use them as fair use probably, I don't know that you could tell her much to get her to change her mind to make them free. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens & Quebec Nordiques infoboxes

Howdy folks. I believe we should revist this topic again. At the French Wikipedia (which I discovered to my shock) none of the infoboxes on the current & past English-based team articles (thus over 30 articles) have english at the top of their infoboxes (example: there's Penguins de Pittsburgh, but no Pittsburgh Penguins). IMHO, we should delete Canadiens de Montreal & Nordiques de Quebec from the top of thoses 2 articles' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Let sleeping dogs lie. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I've absolutely 'no intentions' of signing up to French Wikipedia & editing in the english version on all those articles' infoboxes. I figured deleting the french version, from a mere 2-articles here, would be less dramatic. At least, let's hear what the mood is (I've no intentions of deleting, without a consensus). GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't care if they are there or not, but lots of french editors on here will fight you. Remember the articles don't belong only to the Hockey project. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I just hope those who might oppose, will head on over to French Wikipedia & start adding the 'english versions' in the infoboxes of the english based teams. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

From our perspective, the French Wikipedia is irrelevant. It is an entirely different project with its own rules. I have no issue with our existing standard for these two teams. Resolute 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Would ya'll mind if I opened discussions at both those articles (don't know how to combine them)? 'Tis best we remember that this isn't the Canadian Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute; while I'm one of the folks eternally pissed off that we have to put up with a lot of garbage that isn't English here on the English Wikipedia, the official names in the original languages are found throughout. Country names in their infoboxes are a good example. While I've long since been peeved that the foreign language Wikipedias don't extend the same courtesy to English language subjects that their national partisans demand here for their own ways of doing things (diacriticals being Exhibit No. 1), they make their own rules and do things the way they please.  RGTraynor  19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, I won't push this any further. PS- Wish I knew french, as there'd be alot of comotion at French Wikipedia right now. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Although if you knew French, you'd probably be more tolerant of seeing French words and diacritics here on the English Wikipedia. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I wouldn't bet on it (hehehe). GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do know French, and I'm quite intolerant of it. This is not the French Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  21:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The brief responses at the Habs talkpage, shows the inflexiability of certain editors. You guys were right. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

league/player notability

Are players who have been involved in leagues, outside of the NHL, notable enough for a Wikipedia article? NorthernThunder (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the league. See notability criteria at WP:ATHLETE, but we prefer to use our own, a little bit more strict, notability criteria, found at WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if they have played in a fully professional league such as the AHL, KHL, Elitserien, SM-liiga, DEL, and so on. Or, if they've competed at the top level of senior international competition for their country, that works, too. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. WP:ATHLETE generally says that any athlete who's played in a fully professional league is notable, though in general I would not bother with articles about ECHL or lower players or European third or lower divisions unless they have done something outstanding. Part of the reason is that it is very hard to source biographies for players at those levels. Beyond that though, things can be taken on a case by case basis, especially junior players. Taylor Hall and Brett Connolly are both notable juniors, as two examples. Resolute 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. Remember that the guidelines work hand in hand: NHL players usually have sufficient independent sources that they meet the general notability guidelines; lower-level players don't. Exceptions to the rule, at the junior and minor-league levels, will be cases that have been written about enough that they are clearly generally notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the criteria at WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE, I believe they could be a slightly bit more inclusive. I think play on a national team at the World Championships and the Canada/World Cup (rather than only the Olympics), and membership in the IIHF Hall of Fame as well as the HHOF reflects a very acceptable notability, especially for players from other nations who have reached a very high level of play in their own national context. What do you think? Place Clichy (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Olympics and hockey whether or not to have an ITN blurb about the outcome of the men's hockey final. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving "Medal Records" box to under the infobox?

What's up with this? Is it now project wide policy? --MichiganCharms (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Any examples? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be in the international experience section unless the player doesn't have such a section, then it tends to go right under the infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought so... I noticed it when I was editing Ryan Kesler's article... someone had added his silver medal and moved the box. Most of the Finnish team also had them under their infobox. Here's an example: Saku Koivu --MichiganCharms (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would note on some pages it makes the layout of the page look really cluttered and horrible to put it in that section. Kesler is an example. I would probably move/remove some of those pictures or move the edit box to under the infobox. It looks like a mess in its current condition. -DJSasso (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this has been done for every player who won a medal. Sigh. I agree on the Kesler article, way too many pictures. --MichiganCharms (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeesh! I removed two of the images... five in such a short space is a bit overboard. Resolute 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Typically I will put the medal box in the international play section (Jarome Iginla). If there isn't one, I'll put it with Awards and honours (Hnat Domenichelli), and if that does not exist, then below the main infobox. There isn't really a standard, since these sections do not always exist. Resolute 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably asked this before (can't remember). Why is there a Gold & Silver for the Canada Cups/World Cups of Hockey? Those tournaments didn't have Gold, Silver & Bronze medals, just the Canada Cup/World Cup of Hockey championships. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably laziness. Resolute 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive38

Medal record
Men's ice hockey
Representing Canada
Olympic Games
	2010 Vancouver

Since we're on the topic; I have an issue with how the medalbox is used for ice hockey players, it says "Competitor for X" followed by "Men's ice hockey" and then on most boxes every single line it says Ice hockey. That is a great feature for athletes who compete in multiple events, Phelps, Bolt, etc, but for hockey players it looks ridiculous. Also IMO link directly to the specific tournament, the 2010 Winter Olympic article tells very little about a players accomplishment at the games, so for ice hockey players link directly to the Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament. To the right you can see how a medalbox should look like, IMO. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree; it's an unnecessary column removed. I was actually wondering about what the third column "tournament" meant the other day, until I followed the links. It's not particularly clear in its present state, but it's not a huge problem. Schmloof (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WHL Standings

The current Western Hockey League standings on the Eastern and Western Conference Pages are about three weeks out of date, is there a way to fix that graph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forret35 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Template:2009–10 WHL Eastern Conference standings and Template:2009–10 WHL Western Conference standings -DJSasso (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed them, and added playoff qualified teams, I didn't think it made sense to add conference leaders though, correct?--Forret35 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed them, realized that the Western Conference (WHL) would be very confusing without the division leaders notation--Forret35 (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Trade deadline

Just a reminder that the trade deadline is Wednesday. Be extra sceptical of changes to rosters and player articles, and don't let anything pass without a source (NHL or team website preferred). Thanks ccwaters (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

TSN is certainly reliable enough so along with NHL (the team websites are hosted by the NHL) are probably the best but other local sources are okay IMO.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be careful with TSN as sometimes the articles look like trades are official but if you read closely it just says sources say, so if you are relying on TSN make sure you read the article clearly. -DJSasso (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yesterday's leopold trade was on TSN hours before it was official (it even said "pending a call to the league"). Just remember we're not trying to beat anyone to the scoop. ccwaters (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be damned careful of citations to TSN; I've done a revert this season for someone claiming TSN had announced a trade which hadn't actually, and didn't subsequently, happen. As far as I know, there's no barnstar for First Editor To Announce A Trade.  RGTraynor  16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League on United States television

Oh my goodness. I don't even know where to start with this article. The tone of the writing, half the citations being blogs, the formatting of the citations as shown in the References section... my god. This article needs major cleanup - I'm going to cleanup that commentary in the references but aside from that, TV coverage is not my speciality, so I could ask a couple more people to help out this article - get proper citations, cleanup the writing and so on. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NHL Constitution

Since the NHL Constitution has become public knowledge as a result of the Coyotes bankruptcy, would an article on the topic be appropriate? We don't know when it will 'go underground' again. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't really been written on in secondary sources, so there isn't much that we can discuss outside of original research, imo. Resolute 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, basically just use what's been released as references in existing articles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite aside from that EVERY incorporated entity in the United States has articles of incorporation and bylaws; it's a legal prerequisite.  RGTraynor  19:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think every corporation has a 'constitution', though. In this case, the NHL is an 'association' and the constitution governs how the partner clubs interact. And of course, the NHL is far more notable than any corporation. I posted the definition section of the constitution to the NHL Commissioner article. I think that helps to explains Bettman's role and duties. So I was wondering if we should cover it more. Especially with respect to expansion, etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What might make more sense would be to dump most of that bankruptcy stuff from the Coyotes article into something like 2009 Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy case and integrate what's been noted about the constitution into that article. Would also help deal with the undue weight problems that now plague the Phoenix Coyotes and Jim Balsillie articles. Resolute 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I had already changed the intro to the NHL article on September 9, 2009, to reflect the NHL's non-corporate status, to-wit: "The National Hockey League (NHL) (French: Ligue nationale de hockey – LNH) is an unincorporated not-for-profit association which operates a major professional ice hockey league of 30 franchised member clubs, of which 24 are located in the United States and 6 in Canada." with "Constitution of the National Hockey League pp. 1-3" posted as the reference. Centpacrr (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Until today, I didn't know the NHL had a constitution. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How did you miss that fact with it blaring on every sports cast all spring and summer last year due to the court case? lol -DJSasso (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I barely watched that stuff. Those long drawn out cases tend to turn into a joke. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

List of members of the International Hockey Hall of Fame & List of members of the IIHF Hall of Fame

I have been editing these two Lists with an eye twords taking them to Featured List status, however I am unsure what needs to be improved. If anyone has some time could you please take a look at these articles and give me some feed back or a hand if your feel like it? Thanks--Leech44 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts:

• References, of course
• Define "builder" in both articles
• Referring to the Hockey Hall of Fame as the "Toronto Hall of Fame" is very misleading.
• IHF HOF: Expand what the builders were known for. i.e.: "Donated the Allan Cup" rather than just "Allan Cup".
• I gather the International Hall of Fame is defunct? If so, that should be made more clear.
• Expand the lead in both articles. For the IIHF article, this could easily be done by introducing a paragraph discussing the most recent inductees (which would then be replaced with the next class at the next induction, etc).

Hope this helps! Resolute 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice it is very helpful and I will make some changes. Also I would like to thank those who made some edits to help improve the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leech44 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

New criteria for "first and last games" sections in season articles

I would like to add some new criteria to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/NHL season pages format#Debuts and Last Games:

1. Has represented his nation in the top tier of senior international competition (Olympics, IIHF World Championships, Canada Cup, etc.).
   • This does not include players who have only competed in IIHF Division I, Division II, Division III, or the world juniors.
2. Led rookies in scoring in his rookie season.

Does anyone oppose these? I've made the list numbered so you can say, for example, "I oppose #1 because [reason]; but I agree with #2". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the second one, not really sure about the first one since it has nothing to do with the NHL since its supposed to be notable NHL players, not players in general. That being said if you lead rookies in scoring you will be a nominee for the calder hands down, so you will already meet the criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're right about the second one. Canadian and American players are pretty much all top-tier players in the league (they represent approx. 52% and 22% of the league, so they have a deep talent pool), but countries with few NHL players that are just good enough to make the top tier (Latvia, Germany, Norway, Belarus, Switzerland, etc.) might have a merely average player added to the "First games" list. I rescind proposal #1. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to remove the criteria entirely. List all debuts and ends. Resolute 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The lists get far to rediculous when we had it like that. One game players for example would be added to both the debut and ends. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but a four column collapsed list of 150 or so names for each isn't horrible. Resolute 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is true, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it if it were a collapsed list. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you get nominated for the Calder you don't get added unless you win it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We've been adding all nominated players for recent years, and the top goalie since its too early to predict for most players. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you Resolute. Or at least something more inclusive than the status quo. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just don't like the POV nature of it. I'd really rather have all or nothing myself, though at the very least, a simple and low cut off like 100 career games would take a lot of the POV out of the issue. Resolute 06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

City and team names in lists

Is it acceptable, or maybe rather 'proper' that we use city names and team names in lists? E.g., not just Tigres (QMJHL) or Jokerit (SM-Liiga)? Using "city team name" or "team name city name" (if that is more appropriate for a country?) is the normal convention for a list, I believe, but I'm wondering if that is also the consensus? I've brought this up with individual editors, but I think the project should weigh in. My basic thoughts are that if the cityname is part of the team official name, then you don't have to repeat it, but if the club name doesn't mention the city, we should list it too? I think that people like to see the city mentioned, for reasons of pride, but I am thinking more about what is appropriate for an encyclopedic list. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the league and the country, for example Jokerit, they don't use city names for teams in the SEL. Just the team name which in this case is Jokerit. I believe this was discussed recently maybe I saw it on a team page or something, you should take a look in the project archive. But for cases like the Montreal Canadiens or Toronto Maple Leafs I would include it because it really is an intergral part of the name. It comes down to a difference in cultural use between them. It would be in my opinion more encyclopedic to use the city names in North American articles because that is the formal name of teams over here. Whereas just using the nickname part (ie Maple Leafs) is slang. However, this is not the case in Europe as mentioned above. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not vary by country. I'm not sure why you'd think Canadiens is slang, it's their -nickname- after all. In the text of an article, it's fine to use 'Canadiens'. "Gainey resigned from the Canadiens in February 2010." In fact, it's probably better reading if we did that more often. I would not do that in a list. In a list, we should spell out "Gainey, mgr. Montreal Canadiens 2000-2010." This is what I am talking about. And if we follow that, then we should be consistent across all leagues. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Montreal Canadiens is the team name Jokerit is their team name. There is no team named Helsinki Jokerit or Jokerit Helsinki. In Europe or atleast parts of it, they don't include city names as part of the team name. As such common name also applies. We can't go tagging cities onto teams that don't have them normally, and the other way around, it would be wrong to remove city names from teams that do generally have them. As for why I think its slang, its slang because its a short form, in proper encyclopedic writing you should avoid short forms. Because it becomes conversational writing when you do, obviously to many that form of writing is prefered because its more like talking, but its not encyclopedic quality writing when you do it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be picking and choosing. Encyclopedic or use common names? Besides, I think that the official name of the Canadiens does not include 'Montreal.' To quote: "The club is officially known as le Club de hockey Canadien" ... So we do it here too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No because that is french, the official english name is Montreal Canadiens. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this? I propose that in lists where a club name is used without a city in the name that we append the city name in brackets? For example Jokerit (Helsinki) (SM-Liiga). Then it is clear what the club name is and what is the city name. This applies to high schools too, for example St. Sebastian's (Needham, Massachusetts). Using this convention does not bend the club name but includes the city name for completeness. Give me your !not votes .... ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to do this to be honest. Usually the collums that list the team names are just that, listing the teams. We aren't trying to tell people what city they are in. It just so happens that most North Amerian teams have the city in their name, or location in the case of teams like Colorado. Do we add (Denver) after it? -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Good point. We can refine this idea. How's this. E.g. if it is standings of the NHL, no, because it is one league and it's clear. But do it if we are mixing leagues and countries. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I just don't see the point with it, if you want to know simply click the link and read the article. Another example could be New York Rangers (New York City), and what about the Coyotes and Islanders? And with Swedish teams the name is often a district within the city, for example Brynäs, Djurgården, Frölunda, Färjestad, HV (acronym of Husqvarna and Vätterstad), Rögle, and arguably Timrå. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What if you don't want to click? What if you want to stay in the one article? With the listing of names and cities, you don't have to. I'm not sure what the point of the district example is. Those teams are named after their location, no? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd give my 2 cents, but DJSasso is 100% correct on this matter so far.--Львівське (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's about being consistent and encyclopedic and complete. It's about trying to show in the list article all of the pertinent information. That to me, is a good -improvement- upon the 'short-hand' we do. Sometimes, the context is clear and then -who cares-? But other times, when you just put a city name in, it is not clear upon reading that the hockey club is named the same thing. If it is a club name, it is not clear upon reading where the club exists. Yes you can learn upon reading other articles where the teams are located. But that doesn't make the original list article any better. Yes, it is more work to do, but I suggest it is an improvement. People seem to be against this improvement. Why is that? Is it the extra work? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic to make up name's simply because you're used to north-american style syntax...--Львівське (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I proposed to put it like this: [[clubname]] ([[cityname]]). How is that making up names? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Do you have an example of a list you propose to do this? Schmloof (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My #1 interest is the NHL Entry Draft lists. It should apply to trophy-winning lists too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it would be nearly useless for the draft lists. It's not particularly relevant information. Imagine: "We should draft Player X. He's everything we need on this team. Wait, what city is the team he played for from? ...really? OK, we'll pass on him". Somehow, I don't think so. Schmloof (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opinionated on whether or not the city should be displayed, but I don't think the draft list is intended to only show information relevant to deciding if a player should be drafted or not. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly be in favour of keeping the city name as often of possible in rosters and lists. My example is the 2001 IIHF World Championship rosters, where an editor removed the city names for all Finnish teams. I guaranty you that TPS does not necessarily mean a Finnish hockey team for the casual reader, especially when it's next to the name of a Russian player. The same would go for draft lists. About European teams the nickname is often just that, a nickname being used for marketing purposes only. The registered name of the team can often be different containing something like HC, the club being quite often referred to by the city name only. My local club Briançon has only been called Red Devils for about 10 years, is registered as BAPHC (and this changes quite often) although they play hockey since 1935. I'd say keep city name + club name in all rosters & lists, do as you please in the body of articles or on very country-specific articles such as a Finnish standings table. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is another good example. All of the IIHF lists should use the city name. That is what the reference material (the IIHF web site) does. I will be working on this, this week. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed you've started adding city names to several articles, such as List of games with highest attendance, Robert Nilsson, and 2004 NHL draft. I really would like to keep a dialogue going on this before you change more. You said the IIHF lists the city names. Where can I find these source materials? Even if we do list city names as per IIHF, they shouldn't apply to NHL-centric articles like Robert Nilsson and 2004 NHL Entry Draft.

I would like to see team names with their most common official-ish names, such as 'Arsenal' for Arsenal F.C.. Speaking of which, many football (soccer) clubs don't have the city listed next to them; see any of the player articles for Arsenal or Chivas USA. They're never listed as "Arsenal London" or "CD Chivas USA Los Angeles" even though it's not clear which city they're from. And what about league names? I've never seen anything listed as "SM-liiga Finland", or "NHL USA and Canada". They're not clear either.

And if you do continue to add city names, please, instead of "Team name City", at least make them "Team name (city)", for the sake of clarity. The way you're doing it now makes it seem like the city is part of the name. Thanks. Schmloof (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The city names are part of the IIHF records on their web site. Look at this link for example. The listings are accurate at the time of the tournament. I noticed that Frolunda is listed as Frolunda Vastra further back. I see no reason to differentiate in lists between European teams and North American teams. The IIHF doesn't, why should this encyclopedia? If you use only the city name or the club name then it's incomplete. As Djsasso said before, using just the nickname is like slang. Although to be true to his word, he meant it in opposition to my proposal. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should further add, that I see this as an improvement. Why should we use shortcuts? We should write 'fourth' instead of '4th'. 'Second-round pick' instead of '2nd rd pick'. Wiki is not paper and we aspire to a level of writing above fanboys. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a matter of opinion on the fanboy comment, personally I can see how some might see the way you want to do it as the fanboy method (not that I am saying it is). That being said. The IIHF is the only place I have ever seen it listed this way. Their individual leagues don't, and they would be the official source over the IIHF. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look in official records, you see it this way most commonly. For example, Hockey Canada and its listing of Allan Cup and Memorial Cup winners. One thing about the IIHF site, is that when it lists the clubs, it does not also list the league, which would aid in disambiguation normally. What I mean about 'fanboy' is that we should write for the un-initiated, not for those who know the ins and outs of a topic. That, I believe, is what an encyclopedia aspires to. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Which again brings us back to the point of, these lists aren't about the team the player came from. Should people want more information about the team the player came from then they click on the link. The use of wikilinks is for the un-initiated. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced by the "official name" argument. It's just that mentioning a team called the Blues can very well refer to the Auckland Blues, the Cardiff Blues, the Espoo Blues, the St Louis Blues, the Carlton Blues, the Chelsea F.C. and a few other teams. The first 3 clubs of this list have dropped the location in their official name for marketing reason and simply call themselves the Blues, which you can do if you live near them, but not on an encyclopaedia. On the strict opposite note, nobody uses the official name Club de Hockey Canadien instead of Montreal Canadiens, or RHE 76 for the Dragons de Rouen. Why should we not use the most clear and common name? I believe that's what the IIHF does. Place Clichy (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your points. The IIHF lists Frolunda HC as Frolunda HC Gothenburg in its 2009 WC web site, and as far back as 2000 that I've seen. On the IIHF rosters articles, I believe very strongly that we should use the names as given on the IIHF site, and redirect them to the club article, not use the name of the article, which of course can change over time. The article name can change over time. It's part of being historically accurate. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We do use "historically accurate" conventions: we always list the Chicago Blackhawks as Chicago Black Hawks prior to 1986. I don't think Frolunda HC has historically been called Frolunda HC Gothenberg. And we are not under contract by the IIHF so we don't have to follow exactly what they do. Wikipedia follows WP:consensus, not necessarily official sources. I think Place Clichy has the right idea in terms on when to use official names and when to use common names. Schmloof (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave an example. For the IIHF articles, we are relying upon the IIHF web site. In a list of clubs, we should provide the same information about all clubs. For consistency. I think consistency is a good thing. People say, well, you can click to go to the team page and I say, let's just put it on the list page. It's clear to me that a club is referred to differently in different cases and I hope it is clear to you. It's not just the IIHF, it's high schools, minor/youth teams. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we should be using the name Blues in articles stricly about the club, the city, Finnish league standings tables and Finnish players having only played in Finland (and even so...) and using Espoo Blues everywhere else. Everywhere else includes NHL draft lists, Finnish players having played abroad, World Championships or Olympics rosters etc. The fact is I have always seen this convention used for Finnish clubs and players in about every news or fan site I have read. Strange enough the situation does not seem to be the same for Swedish teams, where Djurgårdens or MoDo seem to refer unambiguously to the hockey club. BTW Frolunda is the name of the city where Gothenburg's region club is located, so Frolunda HC Gothenberg seems to be as redundant as Lowell LockMonsters Boston. Place Clichy (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just disambiguation, which is important. It's about being able to read the list. Club and city. Frolunda is from Gothenburg. A team called the Scarborough Hockey Club can exist in Toronto, but you should list it like Scarborough Hockey Club (Toronto) or Toronto Scarborough Hockey Club. In fact, if you look at Scarborough Hockey Association you'll see several Scarborough hockey clubs. At one time Scarborough was separate from Toronto. And it should not be felt as prejudicial, it's about being encyclopedic. You or I may know Frolunda is in Gothenburg, but not outside readers. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Right but the point of, to use your example, a draft list is not to educate a user where a team is located. Its to list information about the people being drafted. The team he came from is relevant, the city it was in less so. If people want to know where Frolunda is then they go ahead and click the link. This is the whole point of wiki-linking, so you dont have to make such clarifications on articles. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I've beaten this (topic) horse to death. Time to move on. I would guess the consensus is to not add the city name in lists, as people feel it is unnecessary. I get that it is useful sometime, but that's as far as it goes. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

I noticed some articles (like the draft articles) include nationality of the various players drafted. Are we going by birth country? I noticed this edit regarding Tyler Plante. Enigma^msg 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We go by birth country unless the player has played for the national team of another country more recently. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The fun begins at the 2010 NHL Entry Draft. Born before Jan 1, 1992? you're Soviet, born on & after that date? you're Belrusian, Latvian, Russian, Ukrainian etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Or unless a player's alternate nationality is explicitly stated. (i.e.: Richie Regehr). Resolute 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The next headache will be the 2011 NHL Entry Draft, concerning Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic & Slovakia. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so we have listed all Russian players drafted prior as USSR? I could have sworn we used the current nat for draft lists, not birth place...--Львівське (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, seems Vladimir Tarasenko is our first player article that fell under the odd gap where the birth country is neither the USSR nor Russia! Glad someone caught it.--Львівське (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Marc87

User is going through every player imaginable and changing all countries to olympic country codes (ie. Czechoslovakia to that weird acronym I already forgot that we discussed above and Soviet Union to URS, and so on.) and putting the birthplace in the first sentence beside the date of birth, which I believe we don't do. I don't have the patience to deal with this, but maybe someone could help close the floodgates before a lot of reverting happens? --Львівське (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think adding the birth place — Name (born DD Month YYYY in PlaceX; died DD Month YYYY in PlaceY) — is acceptable, unless the birth place is already mentioned in the lede. No need for redundancy. The country codes are debatable, since an abbreviation such as URS is less recognizable than USSR, etc. But if there's already one in use, he shouldn't be changing it to an alternative (to-may-toe, to-mah-toe). By the same token, there's no need to revert his changes, since one is as good as the other—the reader is only going to see the output anyway. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we just had a discussion here on the country codes and agreed that it should be Czechoslovakia and not TCH, Switzerland, not SU, and so on. On top of this, we have an IP user (99.235.160.143) going around changing all abbreviations to long form, so consistency be damned!--Львівське (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been undoing him when I catch him changing them. But I haven't be able to keep up with him cause he moves so fast. If you check his talk page people are having tonnes of problems with him. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're talking about it, I notice that a lot of the time he inserts some really obscure middle names that I have no idea where he got the source from. Perhaps time to do some fact checking? I just saw Steve Smith revert his "Fernando A. Pisani" addition...--Львівське (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He looks up what ever players are celebrating birthdays/died on the particular day and then just edits them. I've told him twice about categories being in alphabetical order, but he doesn't care. Plus there are tons of other problems on his talk page like him adding category:people from "province" when he's been told there are "ice hockey personnel from province." RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[4] [5]

...and then there's his lists of hockey players by non-white-race, regardless how mixed they are.--Львівське (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think blocking the fellow, will certainly get his attention. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an update but I gave him a final warning last night about adding unsourced middle names to articles. He has finally responded to a message on his talk page, he says he is getting them from the Society of International Hockey Research. Not sure how decent of a reference this is since you have to pay to see its information. And as far as I am aware they are all user generated information like wikipedia. I know many years ago they used to be looked down on just like wikipedia for having all kinds of incorrect information. Is it getting any better? Would it pass WP:RS? -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a former SIHR member, it is all user-generated information. I believe that it's pretty sound research, but sticking a nickname on an article presupposes that the player's generally and publically known by that nickname. In many cases he is not, and no matter that a sportswriter or two called Gordie Howe "Power" or that the Bruins' dressing room called Terry O'Reilly "Taz," neither nickname was contemporaneously or at any other time commonly attached to the player, and I'd really like some guideline or ruling about that ... the list of hockey line nicknames bugs the hell out of me for the same reason, where overzealous editors claim line names that never were in contemporary use.  RGTraynor  16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about nicknames, if it not a notable nickname I will remove it even if its sourced to the SIHR. It's their actual middle names that he has been adding lately that I was wondering about, I think he got the hint about nicknames when a number of us removed the nicknames as he added them. But middles names he wasn't budging on. If people feel the SIHR is pretty sound then I have no problem letting him add middle names etc as long as he mentions in his edit summary that is where its from. Just some of the names he was adding were way out from left field and he would never answer where he was getting the info from. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete the nicknames & middlenames. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle names are important to a biography, he just needs to source them. I am not going to take the time to find middle names, but if someone wants to go through that monotony of doing that, all the power to them as long as they are sourced. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanfully, he's finally acknowleged us. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He is back at it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

He atleast is adding (cryptically) where he got the information now by adding SIHR in the edit summary which is the Society for International Hockey Research. However, I don't fully know that that is a good enough resource. I haven't been able to decide which way I feel about that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they related to SABR? If so, I'd take them as reliable. Resolute 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have no idea, I just know they are user generated content like wikipedia, except you have to pay to be a member. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. If it is user generated, then I wouldn't hold it to being reliable. Resolute 16:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The info at SIHR is reviewed periodically. For some things, like non-NHL information of player records, it might be the only source available. So that may make it the best source possible. The records are based on official league records except where those don't exist. Since you have to pay to be a member and these are -serious- members that monitor the database, I would think it is considered reliable, though not under Wikipedia terms, because it's private. We accept books as reliable sources, though they often have errors. Coleman's Trail of the Stanley Cup has lots of errors, but is overwhelmingly correct. I would say the same about SIHR. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with that is a person can go to the library and look at a book, we can't access the SIHR to proove what someone says it says is true (without paying). The issue with this user for example is that he keeps adding names that no other source has for these players. And since we can't actually check the SIHR we can't see if it truely says what he says it says. -DJSasso (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

infobox -former teams

Been away for a little while and just wondering if listing every pro team (and league) is the consensus? eg Markus Naslund, Brian Fahey. I really don't have a preference but just curious as to what other people think? (Triggerbit (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm unsure of the consensus since the format seems to keep changing, but IMO it should only list the major pro teams they were on.--Львівське (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion awhile ago that any professional team is included because there is a POV issue of deciding what major pro is, for example major pro to me is only the NHL, but fans of the KHL or SEL will also call those Major Pro. No junior or amateur teams are included. The two examples you link to are how they are supposed to be formated. You will see alot of infoboxes do not have all the pro teams, but that is because wikipedia is a work in progress and no one has gone through the effort to update them all. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Major pro" is North American nomenclature, so that makes sense. Personally, I list only teams in top level leagues, which is fairly easy to identify. If they never played in a top level league, then I list all of the minor or second level leagues they played in. Resolute 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the IHL team from Näslund's infobox, IMO it doesn't belong there because he didn't sign a contract to play there, he was assigned to them. That goes for any player who is sent down to a minor league affiliate for a short time, but if the player signed the contract with a minor league team and then moved on to play in the NHL or spent the majority of his career (Matt Carkner for example) in minor leagues I think it's acceptable to include those leagues in the infobox. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. Its hard to have a concrete methodology when players now days just bounce around different levels everywhere. In the past i've been inclined to resolute's view of just top level teams. I'd list the top level teams with no indication of league, thought it explained itself enough. The example of Matt Carkner then challenges that approach and then opens the door for including every team.. ahhh wiki!. Well anyway so i can move on, the consensus of format is that Brian Fahey is preferred to Matt Carkner? (Triggerbit (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

Yeah Krm500 pretty much summed up the issue with picking and choosing. If you list it on someone like Matt Carkner, then you need to list it on others for consistancy. I have no problem with only listing top level, as that is pretty much what I do in the rare case anymore that I actually update the teams on a players infobox. But I think its an all or nothing situation...we either only list top level teams....or we list all level teams...I don't think it should be split ussage. Though we used to have the rule being teams in the highest level they achieved. (ie if they made the NHL then nothing else but NHL teams were listed). And I didn't mind that at all. But people got upset when that meant SEL teams didn't get listed. And for the first few years of the infobox, only teams in the league they were currently playing in were supposed to be listed. But we got rid of that quite awhile ago. -DJSasso (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Seguin

Tyler Seguin's page has been made again. Just FYI. I don't know if it needs to be speedy deleted again, or if he's acheived 'notability' for being the Team Orr Captain. Captain Courageous (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think being the captian of an all-star game is enough, but he has definitely been the subject of multiple, non-trivial stories in reliable sources. Given he is a potential top overall pick, I'd say we are better served by expanding this article than re-deleting it. I'll probably do that myself a bit later. Resolute 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored the page to what we had before it was deleted. I think the kid is notable enough, as I'd stated in the deletion. He's leading the O in scoring and has been talked about nonstop this year in juniors/draft talk. Captain Courageous (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the way you decided to circumvent policy, but whatever...there are bigger fish to fry here. --Smashville^talk 15:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, someone else recreated the article already. I'm happy to go through AfD again, but FWIW, I would contest a speedy deletion request. Resolute 15:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I guess I totally misread this whole thread. D'oh! Sorry, CC. --Smashville^talk 15:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'd contest the speedy deletion as well. There probably are most definitely bigger fish to fry. Besides, if it got deleted, it'll be bloody recreated soon enough. Ha ha. Cheers. Captain Courageous (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would still be a valid speedy since the discussion happened only a month and a bit ago. If its not suitably exanded I probably will still speedy it. No point leaving a stub of an article that was deleted so recently. If he is truely worthy of an article go write one. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanded. There is an excellent chance he will win a major award in the next week or so as well (OHL scoring title). Resolute 01:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There we go. Much better time spent expanding than arguing if it should be there. :) -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Epic article

Had a chuckle at this: [6].

As a reminder, there are still tons of hockey articles tagged as BLP-unsourced that require references, found at User:Resolute/BLPs. Resolute 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Latvia men's national ice hockey team

Can some one who knows a bit more about where the information is likely to be obtained from have a look at the infobox on this page as apparently Latvia played it's first international match on 27 Feb 1932 while managed it's biggest defeat a month earlier on 21 Jan 1932. Obviously they can't have a big loss prior to playing any games so... Waacstats (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version of the page which had the date as 20 Jan 1935. I am guessing it was vandalism. I however, do not know if either of them are correct. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

DJSasso's version seems to be the correct one as I found the same dates and scores for these 2 games here and here. This site is the most precise I know for this type of information so I would be pretty confident. Place Clichy (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympic hockey photos

Hey gang, I've just uploaded a ton of Olympic photos I got from Flickr here, by a photographer who was kind enough to license them for use in the Commons. I've started uploading a bunch, and tagging and categorizing them; you can see all the ones I've added here. I have a hockey game to head to now, so if'n y'all would like to pick up where I left off by adding them to the Commons, and then adding them to the corresponding articles, we can bang through the rest pretty quickly. I've been using Bryan's Flickr upload tool to make the job easier. Any questions, leave me a comment on my page. Anthony (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

US Olympic hockey players

Hey gang, I've just completed work on List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States and List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States, which are based on the similar Canadian articles here and here. I wanted to get some eyes on them before I submitted them to FLC. I know in particular the men's article lead needs some work. Also, if anyone has info on taxi squad players for the American men to match the Canadian article, that would be great. Thanks in advance for your help. Anthony (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why did you decide to go with a check system for the Women's team instead of just having one feild for the year?--Leech44 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Because that's how the Canadian women's list did it. I was just following their lead. Anthony (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My concern is that that style will eventualy become a nucence with all of the date columns but there wouldn't be a new column for another four years, and probably wouldn't be bad for 12 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leech44 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators (original) for peer review

I've added the Ottawa Senators (original) article for peer review here. Any suggestions are welcome. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

US Olympic hockey players

Hey gang, I've just completed work on List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States and List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States, which are based on the similar Canadian articles here and here. I wanted to get some eyes on them before I submitted them to FLC. I know in particular the men's article lead needs some work. Also, if anyone has info on taxi squad players for the American men to match the Canadian article, that would be great. Thanks in advance for your help. Anthony (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why did you decide to go with a check system for the Women's team instead of just having one feild for the year?--Leech44 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Because that's how the Canadian women's list did it. I was just following their lead. Anthony (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My concern is that that style will eventualy become a nucence with all of the date columns but there wouldn't be a new column for another four years, and probably wouldn't be bad for 12 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leech44 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators (original) for peer review

I've added the Ottawa Senators (original) article for peer review here. Any suggestions are welcome. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Philadelphia Flyers players at FLC

I have listed List of Philadelphia Flyers players as a featured list candidate, but so far after six days, it has received no comments at all. I would invite members of this project to have a look. It is based on the other hockey list FLCs, however I have added sortability to the tables. Regards, Harrias (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

In a similar point to Harrias' above, List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States is up at FLC, and is commentless. Some assistance would be appreciated, thanks. Anthony (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming question

Hello. I have a naming question regarding the second and third-level Czech Republic hockey leagues. Should 1. národní hokejová liga and 2. národní hokejová liga be renamed to the "First National Hockey League" and the "Second National Hockey League" respectively? These are literal translations. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally we keep league names in their original language. Such as the Elitserien or the Deutsche Eishockey Liga because english media still often refers to them in their native name. -DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

An English explanation of the Czech, even the literal translation would be appreciated. I suggest adding that to the lead. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

We've a vandalist at that article, I need help in containing him/her. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

99.250.131.240 is the culprit. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits are in good faith, which is not vandalism. Resolute 18:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing "Gordie Howe" to "Stew Woodhead takes it in the ass!!!" is not in good faith... 93JC (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

lol, yeah that wouldn't be. The two I checked at random were to change Selanne ot 600 goals and Heatley's flag from Germany to Canada. Resolute 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted a stat update but I clicked on Vandalism instead of AGF, and now I feel bad. Oh well. Schmloof (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

List of team player FLs

While commenting on the List of Philadelphia Flyers players FLC, I took an opportunity to view the other player list FLs. There are 11 current FLs plus the Flyers candidate, and there is a distinct lack of consistency. For example:

• What marking should we use to indicate players with the team during the current season?  †  like the Thrashers?  *  Like the Flyers?   Just a box like the Sabres?
• Along those lines, what about Stanley Cup winners?  †  like the Devils or   like the Avalanche?
• Nationality is a hodgepodge as well. Is it spelled out Switzerland in full, or do we have just have a flag and put a table at the top?
• The leads are also different as well. I understand that each team is different, and that the Blackhawks, for example, have a long and illustrious history while the Thrashers are barely a decade old. But I think there should be some general information that is included in the lead for every team, like franchise leaders, HOF members, and/or retired numbers.

I know this topic isn't as important as, say, capitalization of positions *rolls eyes*, but these lists are a reflection of our project, and if we're to get all the team lists to FL status (which should be our eventual goal), we need to create a template of sorts, and base every list off that template. If you guys can break yourself away from the Winger controversy to chime in, I think that would be most helpful. The first step is figuring out the template, then the work needs to be done on all the other FLs to bring them up to that standard. Anthony (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at some of the lists and my opinion would be that the symbols  †  are often redundant where    the different color would be fine, I do like the symbol when some one is in their first season in addition to the colored box. As for the nationalities personally I prefer just the flag the as most hockey fans know the different countries and any unusual one you could "mouse over", but since the list should be set up for all who could look at it, I think that the nationalities should be spelled out like Switzerland--Leech44 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the symbols ( † ,  * , etc) are used because the MOS states that colours can't be used as a marker, as colours doesn't really help for those colour-blinded folks out there. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite correct "der Kaiser"... =)

• According to WP:COLOUR, one should "...not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels."
• When it comes to flags and their country names, WP:MOSFLAG states under the subtitle "Accompany flags with country names"; that "...the name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags." This means that you could use the {{flag}}-template, like this; Norway, for Patrick Thoresen, and only the {{flagicon}}- template, like this; , for Ole-Kristian Tollefsen... But for consistency in tables, it is maybe better to use the {{flag}}-template throughout, as stated in the subtitle "Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used". One could use the {{flagathlete}}-template throughout the table, like this; Patrick Thoresen (NOR), but that will prevent sorting by country, unfortunately...

Personally, I would prefer only coloured labels and plain flagicons, but for these accessibility reasons; symbols and country names should accompany labels and flagicons, respectively. When choosing among the symbols and colours, I'm indifferent. But since the cross (†) is used for both Stanley Cup winners and current players, across articles, while the star (*) is only used for the latter, according to Anthony. We should maybe use the star (*) for current players, and the cross (†) for Stanley Cup winners. lil2mas (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 ☺ --Львівське (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the List of Florida Panthers players to what I think the consensus was on how the lists should be done moving forward to get uniformity. The page still needs a lot of work to be any where near FL status, but it gives a starting point to look at an possibly debate further. --Leech44 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Marleau

Another user and I have a debate of his article and need to gain consensus. So I'm inviting you guys to join in on the conversation here Talk:Patrick Marleau. It's about his birthplace. His birthplace according to hundreds of reliable sources like TSN, ESPN, NHL, Yahoo, etc. all say his birthplace is Aneroid. Regardless of what may be true or not, wikipedia goes by what the sources say under Wikipedia:Verifiability. He has only one source that says Swift Current, while 20 others that I have that say Aneriod. This user wants to have Swift Current, while I want Aneroid as that's what every source says. He reverts anyone who changes it so I want to gain consensus so we can settle this. Join in on the disscussion. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Template: Dallas Stars roster

Howdy, I'm in a bit of a disagreement with a few IPs, over weither Jere Lehtenen is an alternate captain or not. According to the Stars official website, he's not (even though he's been seen wearing an 'A'). GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

76.183.227.42 is being a pesk, at that Template. Would somebody help resolve this dispute? GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

He was officially a game day A on saturday [7]. I don't follow the stars, was he filling in for someone? ccwaters (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm figuring he's filling in for somebody, yet there's no IR tag on anybody at the Stars official website. It wouldn't surprise me, if the website isn't updated. PS: The IP doesn't seem to know about using the talkpage or his own IP-talkpage, thus making it difficult to communicate with the IP. It only makes one edit (the same edit) per day. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that Lehtinen would be filling in for Mike Modano since he is out from an appendectomy. The Stars website lists 4 alternates as it is, Steve Ott, Brad Richards, Stephane Robidas, and Modano, so I'm guessing that two guys wear the "A" for home games and two wear it on the road. Since Lehtenen is filling in (I assume) he's not an official alternate and that's why the website doesn't reflect his status, but since there is no time table for Modano's return and the user won't acknowledge you on the talk pages I would just give it a few days to see if any thing comes about to make it official and/or the website is updated.--Leech44 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as Modano is currently on IR, perhaps I could put that tag in-place & have an 'A' next to Lehtinen; as that's is our practice on Wikipedia NHL rosters. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes (Modano on IR, Lehtinen filling in). Hopefully, that'll be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't think the user should have a problem with your solution, since they seemed to just want to get the "A" next to Lehtinen.--Leech44 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories.

A user has ignored the previous naming scheme we have for "Ice hockey personnel by province" when creating similar categories for the American states. Could you please take a look at the CFD and have your say. I don't have a huge issue with either way of naming, but we definitely have to have it the same for both countries. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This one is also related. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot I nom'd this one as well. Should have closed by now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

2010–11 Elitserien Qualification

Is there an article named similiar to that? /Heymid (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's currently only one season article about the Elitserien qualification (Kvalserien): 2008–09 Elitserien qualification, but feel free to create 2010–11 Elitserien qualification... You can find information at the Swedish article: sv:Kvalserien till Elitserien i ishockey 2010/2011. lil2mas (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I wanted to edit. :) /Heymid (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick tagging of KHL.ru profiles like we do for hockeydb or nhl.com?

Can we get a template done up? KHL.ru uses pin numbers assigned to each player so should be easy to make a quick template for this, but I don't know how it's done exactly. Thoughts?--Львівське (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just create a new template, something like {{KHLprofile}}, then copy-and-paste the source from {{Nhlprofile}} or {{legendsofhockey}}, and modify to your needs. Shouldn't be too difficult. Schmloof (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll set up the template, if you can point me to a KHL player or two who has KHL.ru data linked manually in the article, so I can get a baseline on how it's formatted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Its just http://en.khl.ru/players/ followed by the 5 digit player ID # and another forward slash, ie "13851/" would send ya to Jagrs page--Львівське (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Make sure it links to the English version if available. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Template is live. Modeled on NHLprofile, it's {{Khlprofile}}. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Färjestads BK squad

I was categorizing Swedish ice hockey templates, when I stumbled over this template. It has been nominated for deletion before: Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 16, but was kept although it hasn't been updated since it got created (almost 3 years ago now)... The idea behind the template is to be used on player pages, and is therefore different from Template:Färjestads BK roster. So, since it hasn't been updated, nor have there been created similar templates for other Elitserien teams, should we update it, delete it, or just keep it redundant? Any thoughts? lil2mas (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I would just be bold and redirect it to the other one which is what I usually do when people create such templates for NHL teams which the past has shown there is no support for. -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, redirects are cheap... Thanks for the input! lil2mas (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Messier

Anyone know why his career stats have that weird format? RandySavageFTW (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It was this edit made on 19 September 2009. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of winger

Does anyone else think these shouldn't be capitalized? And if they are capitalized in the infobox, shouldn't they be in the lead, too? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is like the word General Manager. It can both be a title or a description. So in some instances it needs to be capitalized and others it does not. When its talking about a title (which is what you are doing in an infobox) it needs to be capitalized like we do with General Manager. When you are talking about it as a position then you don't. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about a position in the infobox. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably didn't explain it well. It happens with titles alot and gets people confused. Prime Minister or President for example can be capitalized or in other situations not capitalized. In infoboxes we would capitalize it because we are talking about their title. ie Left Wing. We aren't talking about the position of left wing itself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eitherway common use would probably come into play here, that when listing the position on bio pages etc it is always capitalized. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're not talking about a position in the infobox why does it say Position: before it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see what I didn't explain clearly enough....I mean talking about the position in general. example "Obama was President of the USA." and "Obama was a president." One is talking about Obama's position as President specifically while the other is talking about the position of president. The infobox is specifically talking about Jarome Ignila's position of Right Wing. But in the lead it is talking about him playing the position of a right wing. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To use a hockey example. "Right Wing Jarome Iginla scored a goal tonight." & "Jarome Iginla, who is a right wing, scored a goal tonight." -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense. There is one president, that's probably why it's like that. There's tons of right wingers. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a stretch to call it a title. It's just a position. Almost every sports article you read will refer to positions in the lower case. I don't care if we keep it capitalized in the infobox, but in the prose it looks ugly and archaic, as Though We are Living in the Most Glorious & Magniloquent Past. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah I would probably never do it in prose. I mostly do it in the infobox because that is common use in profiles both on-wiki and on sites such as nhl.com or hockeydb.com etc etc.. -DJSasso (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the common use on Wiki yesterday... RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It was prior to you changing them all... -DJSasso (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing them in the middle of a debate? RandySavageFTW (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't really find this a debate, I find this a case of you saying IDONTLIKEIT. I have changed maybe 50 in total that you had changed. Compared to hundreds I have passed that were in the other capitalization. That is enough proof to me that there is a standard that was being followed for years prior to your changing them. The process is WP:BRD, you boldly changed them, now I am reverting them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

winger, Winger, Debra Winger. ccwaters (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're using IDONTLIKEIT, I gave a reason (it contradicting the lead), and you made up something that didn't make sense. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't actually contradict the lead at all. I also pointed out that common use on any source you will find that has a profile in short (ie not prose) will be in this format. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Capitalize both then. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't capitalize it in the lead because its talking about right wing as a group. You do the same thing with many words king, president, doctor, lieutenant, prime minister etc etc. Any of which you would capitalize if you are listing it in the infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You would also capitalize those words in the lead. Right wing is a position in hockey that tons of players play, there is one president so we say the President of the United States and theres tons of wingers so we say right winger. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You would not say "Joe was a King." The proper way to say it is "Joe is a king." You would not say "Joe is a Doctor." you would say "Joe is a doctor." This applies to any job title whether there is only one or there are many. There are many doctors, lieutenants, constables etc etc. This is an english language rule. Its not something I just made up as you implied above. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama is the President of the United States, infobox has it capitalized. Where's the proof right wing should be capitalized anyway. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And why are you changing the Winger (ice hockey) link to Left Winger (ice hockey)? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course the infobox has it capitalized, that is what I am saying. (When you list the title you capitalize it. When you are talking about one president (right wing) among many you don't capitalize it). As for why I am changing that link its so the page can be split later, or so I can redirect to a specific section of the page. Winger (ice hockey) is ambiguous. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama is a president, he's also "The President of the United States." Simon Gagne is a left wing, but he is not "The Left Wing of the Philadelphia Flyers". What exactly are you 2 arguing about? An Infobox? Where is this? ccwaters (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Any infobox of a winger. Simon Gagne is a left wing. But he is also "Left Wing Simon Gange". Just like "Joe Smith is a constable." and "I called Constable Joe Smith." -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Split just like the defenceman article that was supposed to be a dab page? Left Wing Simon Gagne shouldn't be capitalized as it's the same as Simon Gagne is a left winger. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Split as in two pages or two sections of a single page. And no Left Wing Simon Gagne is not the same as Simon Gagne is a left winger. One is using a title, his official position with the Flyers. The other is just listing the general position he plays. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just under height and weight? I would say not capitalised [8]. I don't think its a big deal though. Have fun. ccwaters (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They're the same and the only two others who commented don't agree with you. You're probably only arguing since you've already changed so many, they can be changed back but it doesn't help that you continue to change them. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Both people actually said they don't care. You are only arguing it in my view because I am undoing what you did. Did you not stop to wonder why every article was capitalized like that before you changed hundreds of pages? I always wonder why someone makes such a drastic change without even asking if there is a reason why its done like that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should check before you assume something like that. [9] I am arguing because what you're saying makes zero sense, and Twas Now said he didn't care about the capitalization in the infobox, but before that he basically said it shouldn't be capitalized there. CC also said it shouldn't be and he didn't said he doesn't care, he said it's not a big deal. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well since your throwing other people into the debate, I would have to say that I agree with Djsasso. It should be capitalize when used as a title much like "I'll call Doctor Hibbered" vs. "I called Julius Hibbered, your doctor."...but what do I know--Leech44 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And you took one person's comment to be a license to change them all? -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, since no one else bothered to disagree when tons of people, including you, have this in their watchlist. Lol @ still changing them. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't ask if people thought you should go around changing them. I would have spoke up if I had known you intended to go around changing them. You only asked about the capitalization. And yes I am still changing them, BRD says to revert to original when there is a disputed change made. You made a change I am disputing, so BRD says to change them back. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't have a watchlist? I changed a lot of them, like you said, but you didn't say anything. And I dispute your changes, so I can change them back. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And you probably shouldn't be changing them to Right Winger (ice hockey), there is no page as of now. We changed so many to Defenceman (ice hockey), yet it's still defenceman. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a guideline that actually says redirects are helpfull for future page creation. You are welcome to dispute my change back to the historical consensus, that is the D part (discuss) of BRD. Its not BRR. Reverting my reverts is called edit warring. As for watchlist, I don't have many players on my watchlist because it gets to hard to track the important pages when you have a watchlist full of players. -DJSasso (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting your edits is what I should be doing, though. Using AWB and editing tons of them with zero consensus is borderline vandalism. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus, there was 5+ years of consensus. I am reverting to the last known consensus version which is what I am supposed to do. Instead of arguing about what should be happening. Why not find some sources that proove your way is right. I can find lots and lots of major reliable sources such as nhl.com tsn.ca and so on and so forth that show common use when listing players physical attributes etc is to capitalize it this way, nevermind proper english. The only time I have seen it done Right wing is on articles you have changed. I have never seen any other reliable source capitalize it that way. -DJSasso (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

NHL.com capitalizes all of both words. We say President Obama because that's a title he is commonly referred to. We don't commonly refer to Iginla as Right Wing(er) Iginla. We just say Jarome Iginla or Iginla.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, NHL.com capitalizes all of both words, so why are you trying to uncapitalize them? -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, right wing is a position, not a title. So it shouldn't be capitalized, unless at the start of a sentence, or "prompted", as in an infobox, like "Position: Left wing". This is in analogy with "Profession: Journalist, author, etc". What NHL.com does is irrelevant. First, all ice hockey players don't play there, second wikipedia is not a mirror site of its sources (of which NHL.com is but one). LarRan (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the debate weather or not it needs to be capitalized in the info box.

I think that this could go on indefinitely so I suggest that the positions be capitalized in the Info box much like the title of a book obviously you wouldn't capitalize the word two in the middle of a sentence but you would capitalize it in The Tale of Two Cities.--Leech44 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes NHL.com is but one, however every source does it this way is my point. Which is where the commonuse guideline comes in. right wing is a position correct, and the title of that position is right wing. Just like at your job (assuming you have one) you have a job title aka position. Say website administrator. When listing off the position in something like an infobox you would say Website Administrator. However, in a sentence in all but a few cases you would put website administrator. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am more than willing to change my position on the subject if anyone can find me sources that support the other way of doing it. Every english news outlet, all the team pages, league pages, media guides, books that list bios etc etc. Do it this way when not in a sentence. So find me sources that show its done the other way, that is what is required on wikipedia, otherwise its original research. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have a job (as long as I don't go here too often, ha-ha). In an infobox, I would write this: "Profession: Website administrator", i.e. with the first word capitalized. Ok, it seems to be fairly common to capitalize both words, but maybe camel-case comes into play? Are there possibly conflicting guidelines? LarRan (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NHL.com capitalizes all of both words, as in, RIGHT WING. Check it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But you don't mean that we should write "... and the second goal was scored by RIGHT WING Jarome Iginla", do you? Also "... and the second goal was scored by Right Wing Jarome Iginla" looks a bit awkward to me. Looks like he's got three first names. (The man's got enough names as it is, check!). LarRan (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting either. I simply think the R and W should be capitalized in the infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate the last couple of days, and since it doesn't seem to be any progress here, I suggest you should take it to WT:MOS, and see what they think... They should know! lil2mas (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend against taking it to the bureaucratic quagmire that is the MOS talk page. You have been warned. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DJ used NHL.com as a source for capitalizing Right Wing, I checked and it said RIGHT WING on Iginla's. "But you don't mean that we should write "... and the second goal was scored by RIGHT WING Jarome Iginla", do you?" - This is what I am asking DJ. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I DONT MEAN YOU SHOULD CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE SENTENCES. I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE INFOBOX. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. -DJSasso (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not instead of attacking my position, you find some sources or policies or heck anything that supports your arguement? -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

All I said was NHL.com has it in all caps which you seem to love. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

nhl.com was just one random website I picked off the top of my head that I was sure I had seen it at before, I should have verified before stating it. However, it doesn't change the fact that I have never seen anywhere it done as Right wing. I have said I am willing to agree with you, just show me anywhere that its done that way. -DJSasso (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The one CC posted earlier. And TSN says RW or LW. I would be fine with capitalizing it if it was done in both the lead and infobox but you have your explanation which I don't agree with. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The page CC posted earlier doesn't even have the either position written on the page....unless you have to create an account to see it? Why do you need to capitalize it in both the lead and the infobox, one is in prose and other other is just listed out. Two very different circumstances. -DJSasso (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Highlight the first card. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think position names are ever proper nouns. Unless I'm missing something? Croctotheface (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Croc. LarRan (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As do I; position names are never proper nouns. Powers ^T 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I would say lowercase in prose, and the first letter capitalized in the infoboxes (Right wing), as what I am going to say here isn't grammatically rigorous, but it is analagous to starting a sentence when it is used in the infobox. Not a perfect comparison, but that's how I see it. Canada Hky (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

2006 IIHF World Championship rosters

Hi, im interested in working on the 2006 rosters to featured quality like the other ones (2009) however ive hit a bit of a hurdle. I cannot seem to find the player entry procedure information and the player eligibility for the 2006 years. (Lead looks like this without the information)

Through the wayback machine i have managed to locate the the rulebook [10] and found that a team is only allowed 22 players (20 skaters, 2 gk) but thats all i could locate.

Any ideas on where i can find this information or if i have overlooked it on the 2006 IIHF page, or even if it has changed since 2006? Salavat (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In most of the 2000s the IIHF was using the website ihwc.net to report on the World Championships. Here is the homepage of this site at the time of the victory of Sweden in the 2006 IHWC ,as found on archive.org. You may try to look from there, or another archived copy of this site if you find any! Hope this helps... Place Clichy (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool thanks alot, ill have a look over that site. Salavat (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

USNTDP

I am noticing more and more players are coming out of the USA Hockey National Team Development Program and with that comes confusion with the players stats. I would like to come to a conclusion so they aren't all over the shop. Should we just go by what Hockey DB has with only providing stats for NAHL or USHL league games eg, T.J. Hensick, or go with the complete stats over the course of the year eg, (Patrick Kane)? i have also seen the mixture separating both eg, Ryan Whitney..ewww... and it goes on..

I get the feeling that just the Hockey DB numbers is not the sexy choice as it is the norm in the second year for the U/18 team to play less NAHL/USHL games and more collegiate, tournment games. Stats showing just 14, 15 games for the year can be misleading. I guess i would be more inclined to putting the combined stats for the year together, like Pat Kane, but then i would think the league would have to be changed to something like USDP not NAHL/USHL.. really i dont care which, Hockey DB would prob be easier but i just want a consensus. Cheers for thoughts (Triggerbit (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

I would do it as is done on Kane and put the league as USDP if we can find a source for combined. I actually thought that was how it as being done. Didn't realize there were so many variations. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes its the little things that bug me... NHL.com player profile's are usually spot on. TSN, eliteprospects etc are hit and miss (Triggerbit (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

• While we're on the subject, does anyone else think perhaps it's time to create a separate entry for the NTDP? I know it's an offshoot of USA Hockey, but I've always been of the mindset that it deserves its own article with a roster, since it seems to be an afterthought on the USA Hockey page anyway. Anthony (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If you can find enough to write about why not. My only question would be is how fluid are the lineups on the team. Are they pretty consistent throughout the year? The team I followed in the USHL moved cities just as the NTDP just started playing in the league so I don't know much about their program. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The NTDP competes with two teams, the U17's and U18's, splitting the 60 game USHL schedule something like 34-26. Their records are then combined to only count as one team. So even though its two different teams its effectively the same lineups. There certainly is enough info out there to create its own page. The only question would be issues like having two different rosters on the page? or jus combining them with a status column? etc...USA Hockey site has the NTDP team site and splits it in two. (Triggerbit (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

I would say two rosters, perhaps a heading of Rosters and then subheadings of Under-17 Team and Under-18 Team. Because the page refers to the program, and the program contains both teams, that seems logical to me. Canada Hky (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and started the page (USA Hockey National Team Development Program ), I think there is easily enough for a page - its been in place since 1996. Canada Hky (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)