Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey: Difference between revisions

Second-tier league argument regarding Mattias Norlinder

The following argument took place today on my talk page. This IP user, an apparent fan of the Montreal Canadiens, insists on including a team which at the time was a second tier team, Modo Hockey, to the infobox of Mattias Norlinder. I know better, and have attempted to explain to them that we do not do that here, but they dismiss my instruction as WP:OWN and it would appear to me they ignore my reasoning simply because they don't like it.

Below was imported from my talk page. Feel free to put this in a collapsible template or something so it is easier to discuss. It's a small hill, but I will die on it if it's right. mftp dan ^oops 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan for the record, I don't think you did anything wrong here either - consensus policy for a long time has been to include solely top-flight teams in infoboxes if a player's been on one, and only include second-tier or lower if that's the highest level a player reached - as such, if Norlinder only played for Modo when they were an HA team (not SHL), then Modo shouldn't be included, as Norlinder's played top-flight hockey with the Habs and Frolunda. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

They ignored you and reverted the article again Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."47.54.219.33 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That guideline is entirely irrelevant? It refers to broad consensus applied locally, whereas this is local consensus applied locally with no overarching broad consensus being overruled. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just pure WP:IDHT at this point, someone take it to ANI already. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Kettle meet pot. Perhaps you should brush up on WP:USTHEM. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If the pot is five veteran editors with the same long-standing consensus versus the kettle being one editor refusing to accept that consensus, sure. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip a classic example of trying to discredit someone by pulling rank. The select "consensus" of a few does not dictate the norm. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: "Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has knowledge that leads them to hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey it in an argument that other editors can judge on its own merits." 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying we've been here longer, therefore we know better about what should or shouldn't be included. We are saying that we know what the precedents are in this project and are in the right to enforce them because we've been here a while. Huge difference. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

From the discussion thread provided by @XR228, it appears that there has never even been a precedent set for leagues included in infoboxes. I see a huge divide amongst users when reading these. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would assume it’s somewhere in the archives. Just keep searching for it, I guess. XR228 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli: I trust you when you say that you know what the consensus is, but if so, can you show it to us? XR228 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It was already enforced as such when I started editing, I would not have been here for such a discussion. @Triggerbit told me that's how it worked when I was making Samuel Laberge so I deferred to them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. My honest opinion is that our IP editor should stop fighting, as everyone else agrees on what to do. I guess we’ve reached a consensus of our own. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

All I have seen so far in the entirety of this old thread is one or two editors making mention of a perceived rule of thumb in the context of either 7 "top" hockey countries or top level leagues for countries present at the world championships. Others have pointed out that there is no way to assess this in lesser known nation leagues (i.e. Ireland, Kazakhstan), and so long as they can be corroborated by underlying source, they are fair game for mention in an infobox. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

IP, if there apparently is no consensus on this topic, then why not create one now. Can you just accept that maybe the system that these people have been using for years works. I mean, there's no reason not to follow it. It's consistent. And, if we make the changes you suggest, many articles may have to be changed. XR228 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli wrong yet again. The consensus among infoboxes pertaining to professional athletes across other sports is that it includes a comprehensive history of pro teams played for regardless of a league's perceived notoriety. For example, point guard Tyler Ennis has played for several teams overseas of varying tiers of professionalism; all are nonetheless disclosed in his respective infobox. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s the basketball Wikiproject, they have their own standards/consensus. We have our own, if you want to change them start a proper discussion instead of insisting you’re correct and we’re stupid. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip not only basketball. Soccer, baseball, need I go on? The Ice Hockey WikiProject is the only swaying from this norm. Hence my point that a limited group of editors cannot override consensus on a wider scale (re professional athletes). 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus in any forum that supersedes this project dictating what teams should be put in our infoboxes. If such a consensus exists, I'd like to see the discussion that created it. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli i've literally provided the policy that says that a marginalized group cannot tailor pages/information that differ from wider community (in this case, professional athletes); yourself, @GoodDay, @MFTP Dan, & @The Kip have also failed to provide any sort of tangible proof that second-tier leagues are excluded from the confines of infoboxes aside from your own assertion. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You are misapplying the rule and you are willfully ignoring the four regular contributors of the project who are telling you the precedent that they have applied and seen applied. Your continued insistence that you are in the right and should have unilateral authority to create a new precedent is disruptive. Please just drop it. We have already taken action for your edit warring. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me try to help you here: if this matters so much to you, how come you haven't done the same thing? Don't you think your narrative would improve if you had any of your own tangible proof of this so-called all-encompassing pro athlete consensus? mftp dan ^oops 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Wheatzilopochtli—the point of consensus is that it is to be listened to. The problem has been solved. There is no point in arguing. XR228 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I reiterate from pulling rank: "Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has knowledge that leads them to hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey it in an argument that other editors can judge on its own merits."

None of you have given me any sort of notion that this is in fact the agreed upon consensus. And to your point @MFTP Dan if universally accepted across other subgroups pertaining to pro athletes, then I have every right to question why this not apply here. All I've been told up to this point is that the WikiProject for Ice Hockey is outside this realm of confomrity just because. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

But it's not really universal as you say. If it was, that would mean they decided that together. They didn't, they just happened to separately decide to do their thing similarly. If they did decide that together, realistically how could we have resisted and ended up with the standard we currently have at the hockey project? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. mftp dan ^oops 00:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan refer to Template:Infobox ice hockey biography used across all associated player wikipages in this WikiProject which states in its parameters for former_teams (referring to active players): "Professional teams an active player played for. Enter FULL NAME of teams in chronological order. Former teams will not display if (current) team field is blank" and played_for (retired): "Professional teams a retired player played for. Enter FULL NAME of teams". There is no cherry picking of professional leagues based on their perceived relevance. Similarly, you will see that it has been mentioned by other users on underlying talk page that infoboxes on hockey player pages should mirror other professional leagues in being as comprehensive as possible. I am not the only one whom has pointed out this disparity. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so, but most players' infoboxes display teams from the highest level of hockey in that country. To use a different system would mean to spend a lot of time changing each page. It's not worth it, and the system we have now already works. XR228 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive38#infobox -former teams and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive44#The existing top professional leagues XR228 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those WikiProjects may have their own consensuses, but the editors of WikiProject Ice Hockey have a different one. XR228 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What "wider scale"? We have nothing to do with how their projects dictated their rules. Each of them elected to make their rules independently of each other. The narrative that all those sports somehow came to the same conclusion together and that hockey just decided to defy it, and not that we did it independently from anyone else, is entirely false. We don't have some scale of infobox settings which covers every single sport here like you seem to insinuate. If you wanna argue that we need systematic change which aligns closer to the other sports, be my guest and make a new section with your proposal. Good luck. (I oppose.) mftp dan ^oops 00:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For baseball, the guidance on teams in the infobox is specific for post-integration era players who played in any one of Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, or KBO League. In this scenario, only these teams are listed in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep asking: show you the consensus. YOU show US where this sports-wide consensus that you claim to exist was formally established. Correlation is not causation. Strange though it may seem to someone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, there are any number of ways that the various sports projects differ in their practices and outlooks. Ravenswing 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Well said. XR228 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing and gatekeeping is not consensus. I have already highlighted how other users have noted the disparity of infoboxes in hockey related wikipages compared to its sport counterparts. The past discussions surrounding precedent used also proved to be polarizing. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In short, you've got nothing. Right. Gotcha. Ravenswing 03:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If the IP were this adamant, they could procure an RfC. Though I'd imagine it wouldn't go too well for them. Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP's behaving like a troll. Merely interested in being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay Not at all. Just merely strving to be a Wiki elitist like @Ravenswing suggests we all be. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing you literally have a self quote on your user page about being a Wiki "elitist"...that says all I need to know about you. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You missed a quote on my user page: "People who pick over this user page for ammunition to use in ... discussions: ... Searching for some dirt to fling because you can't win on the merits of the argument is a sure sign that a collaborative encyclopedia is not the environment for you. Maybe Fox News is hiring." That says all we need to know about you. You jonesing that much for another block? Ravenswing 05:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing "We are not required to pay any group of editors deference, their self-proclaimed "expertise" notwithstanding." You're really pushing a collaborative agenda there with that little gem, eh? 47.54.219.33 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Your latest block puts paid to your trolling, and maybe in the next three months you can get a better handle on how Wikipedia works. We're not into snipe fests here. Indeed, we don't have to pay any group of editors deference. But we do have to respect consensus, our only option there being to gather enough support behind your POV to change or overturn it. If you're just incapable of working collaboratively and respectfully, we don't need you around here. Ravenswing 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the IP is willfully edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

After a quick look I see that is a known disruptor at Montreal Canadiens-related pages. Various IPs from this range of this particular editor have been blocked more than once for such behavior. An IP range ban would be the best solution, but administrators rarely do that. – sbaio 03:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the IP continues to edit war on his own talkpage, removing the block notice. Best we be prepared, when he returns. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Reversal of edits on Mattias Norlinder

Putting this template on for ease of page navigation, and to separate the talk page discussion copy from discussion on this page. The Kip (contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your reversal of edits on the wiki page for Mattias Norlinder is both disruptive and constitutes WP:Own. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC) As an IP, you have unusual awareness of this policy (which you've misunderstood). I am not owning the page, I am monitoring your edits because I find your edit pattern and the fact that you disregard the comments of others concerning. If you take such an issue with the way leagues are represented, take it up with WP:HOCKEY. Allsvenskan teams are not included in the infobox unless the player is currently there. Would you include the Laval Rocket as well? They're a professional league, after all. Of course you wouldn't. mftp dan oops 14:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe you need to brush up on the WP:OWN policy, rockstar. "No one, no matter what, has the right to...dictate what the article may or may not say." Furthermore, your reversal of my edits are considered a form of edit warring, which, when conducted "with dogged insistence" and "without good policy backup", in itself "may be an expression of ownership behavior". For the record, there is absolutely no difference in listing a HockeyAllsvenskan team in an infobox than a DEL2 team for example (compared to its DEL counterpart). See pages such as Lucas Lessio, Christian Thomas (ice hockey), Martin Réway, and Sebastian Collberg for further reference. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC) None of the examples you've provided me are supposed to have these listed, Charlottetown. Inevitably, European players who never end up playing for the North American leagues will slip in unnoticed. We aren't perfect, but that doesn't make it a precedent to follow. I've been doing this for years. mftp dan oops 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Except every single one of those players mentioned has amassed North American and/or National Hockey League experience...your point is invalid. By the way, your statement "I've been doing this for years" also goes against the WP:OWN policy (specifically, para 1 under Statements re pulling rank. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC) You're accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing, when you really should just take the good faith of someone who has been doing this a lot longer than you have instead of arguing with someone who's been established and seen how policy is applied, even if I can't dig up exactly where this was agreed upon in some deep archive. What else do I do? But that's besides the point. Humor me for a second, Charlottetown: say, instead of being a Canadiens fan, you were a Bruins fan (a far worse fate). Would you apply the same principle for David Pastrnak's tenure with Södertalje? I'd like to see how that would go. mftp dan oops 15:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC) The player in question (Norlinder) had pro experience prior to being drafted/North American debut. Since Modo Hockey embodies both the HockeyAllsvenskan team as well as its Swedish Hockey League (SHL) counterpart, this is an accurate inclusion. This can be seen in infobox for Nicklas Lidström whom played for Västerås IK in all of: Hockeyettan, HockeyAllsvenskan, and the SHL between 1987-89, with underlying wikipage being formatted only to its SHL parallel. Regardless, it does not take away from the experience gained in the other two professional leagues whom share the same namesake. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC) That is once again not how it works. In Lidström's case, since you brought it up, Västerås was promoted to the top flight in 1989, while Lidström was still playing in Sweden. Modo was never in the top flight when Norlinder played for them, so it is excluded, since he has played in a top-flight league in his career, though briefly. Whether it came before Norlinder was in Montreal, or whether the two leagues are related or not, is entirely irrelevant. mftp dan oops 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) You can see the exact same thing in infobox for David Reinbacher re EHC Kloten. He played in both the Swiss League and National League iterations of the team. Its inclusion in the infobox can be interpreted as either or. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC) No, it can't. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's there because he played for Kloten while they were in the top flight. I don't know why you're trying so hard to argue this, any established hockey editor would tell you the exact same thing. mftp dan oops 19:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC) And yet, an "established hockey editor" you clearly are not. Stick to your Green Day albums. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @47.54.219.33 Dan is absolutely an established hockey editor and they are telling you the same things I've been telling you that you've been ignoring. Please defer to precedent and stop putting second tier teams in infoboxes. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Yes, because I'm supposed to let the IP who's been editing since June 28 be wrong just because they don't like the community's opinion on how players have their teams listed in the infobox. I may die on small hills, but they are what's right. mftp dan oops 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @Wheatzilopochtli that's rich coming from the WP:OWN gatekeeper who has created a page for a 15-year-old WHL prospect who has played a total of ZERO professional games to date across any sort of league here or abroad. @MFTP Dan I've been active on Wikipedia a lot longer than my current IP address may lead one to believe (January 2013). 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) And yet you never learned the standard? Rich. I'll be bringing this to the WikiProject. mftp dan oops 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @47.54.219.33 DuPont passes GNG, and even if he doesn't I fail to see how that's relevant. Please stop hurling insults and accusations, and start acting collaboratively. Dan is right to escalate this if they choose to do so. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This IP appears to have a compiled quite a few reverted edits that they have been warned about for more than a month. It's beyond time that they were blocked for ongoing disruptive edits. PKT(alk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's time for the IP to be blocked for edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have notified WP:ANI of the incident Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for the three player bios, so the IP will be barred from continuing their edit-warring there. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP continues to edit war & including on a new bio page. It's apparent that the IP isn't going to stop, until they're blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on your own talk page, it appears that you likewise have gatekeeping tendencies. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note - The IP has been blocked for two weeks. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Harassment on talkpage

Now, the IP is harassing me on my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny how he calls you "disruptive." IP should buy a mirror. XR228 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

IP is back

The User:216.208.243.230 is changing everything back to the way they had it on Montreal Canadians pages. This is the exact same behaviour as the previous IP. Llammakey (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a big issue with the edit you linked. I wouldn't change "publisher=Manitoba Hockey League" to 'website=Manitoba Hockey League", but there's nothing egregious about those changes. PKT(alk) 18:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody understands... 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a block evasion. Llammakey (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP is back to its behavior after block

So the IP has returned after block's expiration and immediately went back to old ways. I would report it, but I am unable to do it at this moment. – sbaio 03:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Should this go to ANI or edit war? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli@Sbaio you two really need to get lives. My edits have already been identified as non-egregious by admin above; stop harassing me. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all of them are. That's true. But you make your own standard to follow, as seen above. mftp dan ^oops 04:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI, and the previous blocking admin should be pinged. Someone who just dives back into the same behavior the moment the block expires needs a longer one. Ravenswing 05:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Before going through with the ANI report, I would recommend coming up with specific diffs that show disruptive behavior beyond the online personality they're delivering. Conyo14 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

They need to be blocked again, for a much longer period of time. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This particular IP has been doing:

• Edits like this (used another IP for this edit), which is useless;
• Changing capitalization from "NHL entry draft" to "NHL Entry Draft" (edit above and once again different IP was used, the main IP that was recently blocked or even piping to its preferred version);
• Has been removing messages from other editors from its talk page (warnings or messages of any kind);
• Has a history of WP:OWNership regarding anything related to Montreal Canadiens.

All of that just shows that another block should be indefinite, but administrators rarely block whole range. – sbaio 12:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Recently they seem to have an attachment to Rutger McGroarty as well, probably because it's recent hockey news. Or maybe they know my fandom and it's personal, wouldn't be surprised, but I have no definitive evidence of that. Probably just coincidence. Sucks, because some of what this user does is useful, but they have utter disregard for working as a community. mftp dan ^oops 16:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio warned them for their 3RR violation on Jayden Struble (assuming the 2605 IP is also them, which seems highly likely). If they continue I'm going to WP:EWN. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jake Wartenberg: has blocked the IP for three months for disruptive editing, so we’re all handled here. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

IP is back 2

2605:b100:b25:10cc:ad35:10de:233e:e612 appears to be the same user. See edit history at Mattias Norlinder. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Active at David Reinbacher too with a different address... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that’s what I call block evasion. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That would now be their second block evasion just in the last few weeks as I noted above. Their experience in doing this and using only IP addresses makes me believe that they are a previously banned user who keeps on coming back to get their wiki fix. Llammakey (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Might be what you're referring to but at one point they outright said something along the lines of "I've been editing much longer than my current IP would indicate." Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Self-incriminating IP wasn't on my bingo card. XR228 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

How does one deal with a mobile IP? What action can be taken here? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Same can be done to the main IP, a block of some length for Socking. Conyo14 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Jake Wartenberg as the original blocking admin. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI thread here. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Jake has rangeblocked the offending IPs for block evasion. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And a third time

User 142.163.116.80 has the same patterns of behavior Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by this IP. – sbaio 02:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio @Wheatzilopochtli after reports at both ANI and the EWN (the latter specifically over Daniel Walcott, they've been blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The .80 IP doesn't seem to be blocked yet if I'm not mistaken Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah yeah, my bad - that one’s been inactive for the last two days, so I assume it didn’t meet the threshold of disruption. The other one, which had continued into today, is blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Another new address at 216.208.243.73 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has rangeblocked the 216.208.243 IPs for a week. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a month actually. Maybe we can breathe for a little while... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Prepare yourselves for a long winter. The individual behind the disruptions won't likely stop, until Wikimedia bans them. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This has the air of one of those who have been previously banned and now it is whack-a-mole until the higher ups step in. Llammakey (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as long as they’re editing under IPs there’s not a lot that can be done - admins are typically hesitant to rangeblock for more than 3-6 months unless it’s proven a disruptive IP is stable. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(moved from below) Block evader?

I'm kinda concerned about IP 142.163.116.80, who just showed up today. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Quacks like a WP:DUCK. I'll send to ANI. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, IP 142.163.206.14. Suffice it to say, he ain't gonna stop until Wikimedia bans him. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI filing here. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet (IP 216.208.243.93) another one? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Quack quack. Geolocates to Atlantic Canada yet again.

@Jake Wartenberg sorry to continue bothering - there’s another one. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think you should know. There's an IP hopping blocked editor, attempting to undo links to NHL entry draft, via making them "NHL Entry Draft", among many hockey pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some day I'll have JWB again, and can search out and fix those. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another duck

I'm in class all day today, could someone take out the new sock at 156.34.8.38? Same pattern of editing but quacked loudest at Ivan Demidov (ice hockey) Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Checked to be sure even though I think it's pretty evidently the same IP hopper, but the new IP does in fact also geolocate to Atlantic Canada. At this point I would request an extension of the blocks on every offending IP as they have made clear they will not stop evading their blocks until it is made completely impossible for them to access the website. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli Ad Orientem has blocked the IP. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan @Jake Wartenberg see above. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

and @Ad Orientem. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Sorry, but if I have dealt with this problematic editor before, I don't remember it. Who is this supposed to be? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem it’s more than like this IP range you previously blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Blocked x 1 month. Probably would be a good idea to start an LTA page for this individual that can be quickly referenced and where we can keep track of their IPs/GeoLoc/MO/target articles and subjects etc. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll get around to it soon. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem appreciate the block! The Kip ^(contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LTA page created

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/47.54.219.33 for quick reference when future socks pop up. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Wheatzilopochtli and @GoodDay as the others here that're frequently dealing with said IP. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the list will grow. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice job with this, said everything I wanted to say Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting Jake has now extended the original IP’s block to a year and revoked their talk-page access after they repeatedly attempted to remove their unblock appeal, in violation of WP:BLANKING (and left some angry edit summaries in the process). The Kip ^(contribs) 03:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Gretzky records

Can I draw people's attention to List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky? We have an editor who is trying to change 61 records to 62 by — basically original research. Masterhatch (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd welcome everyone else's input on that discussion, but as I've stated, the basis for my proposed changes is what the official NHL record book itself indicates instead of relying on a figure that comes from outside sources. Since I cite a pre-existing, official source, it doesn't constitute "original research." TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NHL.com says 61.Masterhatch (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

And their record book lists 62. There are many sports columnists who sometimes write articles for their respective sports league's websites, but it does not mean that everything contained there is reflects the opinion of the NHL itself. Using another sports league as an example, this article on MLB.com lists the all-time single-season wins record as 60, whereas MLB's official leaderboards has it at 59. Again, the official record book is the definitive account. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

where's the link to the list that has 62? Counting from multiple links to get to 62 is SYNTH. All the sources say 61 so we cannot say 62. Masterhatch (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Far from being SYNTH, it falls under WP:CALC if "the results of the calculations are correct and a meaningful reflection of the sources." For example, on the list of players who scored the points in a single season, counting the number of times Gretzky is listed on the first page (top 50 players) gives the figure of 12. The fact that a third-party source doesn't happen to literally explicitly spell that out shouldn't prohibit us from using basic common sense to arrive at such a conclusion. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

62 contradicts every source, so, no, not calc. Masterhatch (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH. What you are doing is original research. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Masterhatch (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again. I am using the NHL Official Guide and Record book to proof a record is officially recognized (listed) by the NHL. If a record that is present in a league's own official record book doesn't count "officially recognized," then no record is. In fact, there'd be no point continuing this conversation if you believe it so.

At no point have you disputed that this record is officially recognized by the NHL. You have only argued the validity of the "61 records" figure. Such figures may be based on information that isn't accurate, and if an authoritative source like the NHL record book shows that there are other officially recognized records, then it follows the figure must be adjusted to conform and not the opposite. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... I don't deny that that record is there at that link. The problem is no source says 62, not even nhl.com (which does say 61). And by doing math ourselves, thats original research. I think we need another voice in this. Masterhatch (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not original research to count the number of records held in the official record book, now present at https://records.nhl.com/. See Wikipedia:No original research § Routine calculations. As anyone can verify the count themselves, it's not hard (though tedious) to reach a consensus agreement on the number. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and that is exactly what I have done. Although I would have to recount to make sure of the validity of the figure, what I do know is that there are records listed there which aren't listed here, making the figure wrong by default. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So, the problem is with the consensus on that official tally. For all known purposes, NHL.com along with all the secondary sources I've found list it as 61, whereas the NHL Record and Guide Book counts out 62. Therefore, I would suggest a note be placed for the one record that might be questionable. This could be a record the NHL came up with after his retirement and therefore awarded Gretzky an additional record despite having 61 by the time he set it and was recognized (or whatever). Either that, or keep it at 61, and place an addendum in the article with the record that wasn't recognized during his career but after the fact.

Which edition of the Guide book is it? Conyo14 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It was 61 at retirement and the article has to reflect that. If a record was added later, the article has to show that, much like it shows his records that have fallen. Masterhatch (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's the one that is available online, found on NHL.com. I believe that for a record to be "officially recognized," it must be featured on the Official Record book. Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing the "62 records" figure is necessarily the right one; it could be 64, 60, etc. What I am arguing is that the correct figure, whatever it may be, should only take into account the records officially listed in the Record Book.

As an aside, using another sport, for the longest time, Ty Cobb's career hits total was listed for many years at 4,191. As it was an iconic record in baseball, that number was often used and repeated. However, research has shown that the mark wrongly counted a game for him twice and so it was actually 4,189. Eventually, the new number took precedence over the old one. I use this to show that there is no such thing as an infallible figure, even if it may be often repeated, and that when the evidence changes, so should the figures and not the opposite. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Now, if someone could pull a source that shows a c. 1999 NHL Record book that actually only lists 61 records, that'd be another thing. Then it's just the NHL retroactively adding records. But I doubt that's where the number came from anyways. I think honestly, what happened is it first appeared on Wikipedia and then gained traction elsewhere, because whether we admit it or not, most people tend to get their information from the Wiki. Ironically, that same traction got the number to get accepted as fact and is now used as a justification for keeping it on Wikipedia. Maybe a tad bit circular... TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I really doubt wikipedia started the 61 number. I actually remember his retirement (I was in my mid-20s) and that number of 61 was being tossed around then and that was pre-wiki. The most likely case is a record was added retro actively, in which case, it really was 61 at retirement and could very well be 62 now. It wouldnt suprise me if they add more records retro actively in the future (say most 200 point seasons or most 80 goal seasons). Masterhatch (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Happily, I have many of the NHL Record Books from the 1980s on forward to 2011. Just counted from 1999. Sixty-one. Ravenswing 09:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! How does that book from '99 compare to wikipedia's 61? Does it give him the record for most assists by a rookie in a game? Masterhatch (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Ravenswing 13:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, so that's where the number comes from. Thank you for explaining where the "61 records" figure actually comes from. Do you also know if the 1999 Record Book also makes any mention of multi-goal/assist/point records? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Records aren't awarded; they're just a list of stats with someone at the top. If a list was removed from the NHL official records (say, if the definition of a stat was changed, so the old list was removed and replaced with a new list), or if the leader was bypassed, then it's reasonable to note that someone used to hold an official record, but that it is no longer the case. But if a new list was added for an additional stat, then the leader(s) achieved that record during their career, even if the stat was not part of the official record book at the time of retirement. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• So, I was the one who created the gretzky record article back in June 2005. Here is the original version. I don't remember which sources I used and I didnt add a source (wikipedia was a bit of a wild wild west back then). But I do remember at that time, all the websites had the same list and I do remember I didn't start that whole 61 record thing — in otherwords, I didnt take lists I saw and count 'em up to see how many there were. I also looked back at the Wayne Gretzky article from back at that time (from before my first edit) and it also had 61 records but witbout a list — only some highlights of the more impressive ones. Now, to figure out the 61 vs 62 problem, we need to take a closer look at the current official record book and compare and see where the differences are and go from there. Masterhatch (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that approach. For what it's worth, as a starting point I did a deep dive through only the regular-season records as listed in the Official Record book. While I would appreciate somebody else confirming the exact specifics, what I can confirm is that there are over a dozen records listed in the Official Record book that are not mentioned in the article, with virtually every multi-goal/assist/point record missing. In fact, they're not even mentioned in the "Unofficial Records" list, which is strange as Gretzky virtually holds every record in that category, which certainly constitutes an extraordinary achievement.

  The following is every official record I found that is not listed, with a source for every one.

  Most shorthanded goals, career: 73.

  Longest assist streak, from start of season: 12.

  Most 3-point games, season: 40.

  Most 5-point games: 15.

  Most multi-point games, career: 824.

  Most 3-goal games: 10.

  Most multi-goal games, career: 189.

  Most 2-assist games, season: 44.

  Most 3-assist games, season: 27.

  Most 4-assist games, season: 12.

  Most 5-assist games, season: 4.

  Most multi-assist games, career: 575.

  Additionally, the article lists Gretzky's 7 assists in a 1979–80 game as the Official record for most assists by a rookie in a single game, whereas the NHL actually lists Gary Suter with 6 as the record-holder. That is because the NHL never recognized Gretzky's 1979–80 as a "rookie season" due to him playing the WHA before that. It's why he never won the Calder that year. While I would support including this record in the article, I would not assign it official status. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I went through the records listed at https://records.nhl.com/ and tabulated all of those where Gretzky is at the top of the list for each stat (including where he shares the lead). I went through the pages for regular season records, playoff records, and Stanley Cup Final records for skaters. I didn't go through the "Game 7" playoff records, as they require changing a drop-down menu to access the individual records, nor did I go through the "Overtime" page that also has a drop-down menu. (There were overtime records listed on the pages which I did go through, so I'm not sure what's distinct about that page.)

In context of the lead section in question and the sentence, I agree with listing the count of records that were recognized at the time of retirement. I'm sure there's someone with the appropriate record book who can count them up (I can't remember if I do). A note can be added about any additional records held at that time based on subsequent lists being tracked. isaacl (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add a new section to the article that lists official records gained after retirement. Looks like there's quite a few. Masterhatch (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just in the middle of revising my comment as I changed my mind. Out of practicality, I think it's simpler to keep the article's current note on what records continue to be held out of the original set held at retirement, and possibly add information about additional recognized records that are held at present. isaacl (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the Lord's work with that list! While I still feel like they should be included outright as "official records," I won't object to including them but with an addendum that they constitute newly set/recognized records. At the very least, they deserve a mention. It's Wayne freakin' Gretzky we're talking about here. If we talk about his achievements, we better get them right.

I propose that the "61 official records" figure be denoted as "widely credited with" as that is technically accurate as evidenced by the secondary source documentation, while not making a judgment value on what constitutes an official record or not. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The key issue is that it requires backtracking through history to figure out what additional records were held by Gretzky at the time of retirement, and that does start to stray into the territory of original research. Sticking with the NHL official record book from the time is safer. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added the "widely credited" label to the 61 records figure. It's probably for the best to not attempt to go back to see which ones counted then and which didn't. That's a whole new hornet's nest and I wouldn't to open it.

The question then is: what do we do about the records that ARE now officially recognized, but weren't presumably then? How do we talk about them? TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Masterhatch and I have suggested adding info on what official NHL records are currently held by Gretzky, even if they weren't tracked by the NHL at the time of his retirement. We can see what other people think. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "widely credited": it's not a phrase I like in this context. There is no doubt about any of these records; they're events that have happened. The only thing that's changed is that the NHL is officially tracking more leaderboard lists. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's worth adding in information about the discrepancies of records that didn't exist. Unfortunately, yes, it's harder to track that. I'd say keep it at whatever most secondary sources say (i.e. 61 vs 62 records), and if the record book begins tracking a new stat, then we can write that in. Use best judgment for the stat and whether it's notable enough. Conyo14 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, "widely accredited" can be worded differently. I'm sure we can find a consensus. Conyo14 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think that we have a direction to go with this. I think that we should continue the discussion at Talk:List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days so I won't be around much. Masterhatch (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ottawa Senators (original)

Ottawa Senators (original) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

List of Florida Panthers players - anyone want to help with improvement?

Stumbled across this when I was looking for a reference as I nominate List of Vegas Golden Knights players for FL. Thankfully it's nowhere near bad enough to justify an FL reassessment, partly thanks to my own emergency work, but man oh man, the lead needs some cleanup/sourcing, and the "Notes" sections of the tables need some updates (Barkov wasn't even mentioned as captain?)/general formatting improvement. I'm not sure if I have the time to do it entirely myself - anyone want to lend a hand? The Kip ^(contribs) 07:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Liiga logo update?

The Finnish Liiga turns 50 years old this season and the league has released an anniversary logo. Do we replace the normal Liiga logo with it for the season or should we keep it as it is right now? It will most likely be changed back to the normal one after this season unless they make a new one after this. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 18:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

For the NHL, whenever there's a new logo, the season reflects it, even if it's a special anniversary edition. I imagine it's the same here. Conyo14 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Poriman55: It has always been that anniversary or any other occasion logos go to specific season page and not main page. Therefore, refrain from edits like this at Liiga page. – sbaio 17:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. thanks for the correction! – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A-class

I have a few articles nominated for GA review, and some of them have been waiting for a quite a few months now. I know that waiting long periods of time is normal for a GA, but I was wondering if we could speed up the promotion process by doing A-class reviews instead. I like this idea because A-class reviews also help prepare the article for Featured status. If it's ok with you guys, I could rescind some of my current GA nominations, improve the articles a bit, and submit them for an A-class review. XR228 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Masterhatch (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I have placed A-class review sections on the talk pages of Coachella Valley Firebirds and Philipp Grubauer. Feel free to give feedback. XR228 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone who'd be able to give an A-class review? I'd like to ping @Ravenswing, @Conyo14, @HickoryOughtShirt?4, and @Deadman137 because you guys are the first people who come to my mind when I think of being good at writing ice hockey-related stuff. XR228 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Just gonna point out The Kip and Alaney2k have written way more articles than me. Conyo14 (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Many. Too many. :-) I've not done an A-class review, though. I'll take a look. Alaney2k (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alaney2k Thanks! XR228 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess so. You just seem to be doing a lot of stuff at the WikiProject i guess. XR228 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I also have never done an A-class review before but I cannot imagine it strays much for GA reviews. I can check it out! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think A-class reviews are very commonplace. Only certain wikiprojects do them, so I guess this is a first for all of us. I hope to do some more of these in the future. XR228 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the shoutout, though for the same reason I haven't done any GA/FL/DYK reviews yet - I don't trust my own judgement of others' work. Made peer reviews in college a bit difficult at times, haha. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha (I am like 6 years away from college 💀). Anyway, @The Kip if you wanted submit some A-class reviews you could (I totally do not wish for the Vegas Golden Knights team to stop existing) XR228 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Frozen Confines

Greetings, all. Forgive my failure to WP:BEBOLD – looking for project consensus on whether The Frozen Confines: Big Ten Hockey Series should merit an article, either now or closer to the event, or whether it would be better served as its own subsection in the 2025 NHL Winter Classic article. As part of the 2025 Classic, four Big Ten hockey games will be played at Wrigley Field in January. The event has received coverage in The Athletic, USA Today, and ESPN so far, although the coverage is understandably bare bones. Regardless, I have my tickets for the women's OSU vs. Wisconsin game on the 4th and hope to get at least one picture of the Wrigley setup. We'll see how my camera handles the cold. Cheers! — GhostRiver 03:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO, if it gets around 15+ good sources, then maybe it could be an article. Else, it should remain a part of the 2025 Winter Classic article. An image would be good though, nonetheless. XR228 (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell, those sources lack significant coverage of the Big 10 games. If we proceed towards the event and there are better sources to use, then you should draftify it. Conyo14 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Eh, keep it as part of the Winter Classic article. If this gets enough coverage down the road, break it out. If it doesn't, there are enough sources to make it worthwhile in the WC article. Easy peasy. Ravenswing 07:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

CHL Import Draft remains capitalized

CHL Import Draft is the only hockey-related draft article that remains capitalized. I moved it (twice by accident) and @Flibirigit rightly pointed out when they reverted it that the vast majority of sources treat it as a proper noun. This, however, also applies to basically every other draft within the purview of this project. My question is, does the recent consensus on lowercasing draft names apply here, and if not, what is different about this particular instance? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Case-by-case. If Import Draft is capitalized in a consensus of sources, then it shall remain. Conyo14 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder then how the lowercase consensus for NHL drafts was reached. I rarely see it lowercased in sources. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

When I was searching for the entry draft, it was mostly split, but it's been around for a while and the sources from the 80s to now made it mostly lower case. Conyo14 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Is deference not given to newer sources? If it's the majority of contemporary sources then for all intents and purposes it's become a proper noun even if it wasn't initially Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Mostly because a handful of MOS-worshiping hardliners stampeded the discussions. Ravenswing 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

+1. Won’t name names, but yeah. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Peer reviews for lists

@The Kip and I have run into a problem—we want to promote several featured lists, but we can't, because they're not long enough. Ultimately, we plan to turn these lists into their own good topics. Luckily, there's a criterion that allows us to have lists in the topic that are not featured because they are too short, as long as they complete a peer review to make sure that the list is FL-quality. With that, I ask if any of you would like to do peer reviews on any of our short lists.

I would also like to ping @Hey man im josh to make sure what I'm saying is even correct. XR228 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm no good/featured topic expert, but my understanding is passing a peer review for an article that doesn't meet FL length requirements is acceptable. It's that little pencil icon. I'd say wait until the topic is complete aside from those and I'll probably chip in at the peer review. To be honest, I don't really care for peer reviewing, but I'll do it if it's the last piece of the topic. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What lists? I've taken part in FA and GA assessments before and could take a look. Llammakey (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll open one at List of Seattle Kraken seasons. XR228 (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed the list of Kraken seasons.Llammakey (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing written on the peer review page… XR228 (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad. Copied it over from the talk page. Llammakey (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Need to be reviewed

Someone at this Wikiproject Ice hockey needs to review this Draft:Dubai Mighty Camels. Gabriel (……?) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Conyo14 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Gabriel (……?) 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

FPS (ice hockey) vs Forssan Palloseura and other possible article moves

The article for ice hockey club Forssan Palloseura currently uses the shortened version of the name, FPS (ice hockey), in the Wikipedia article. In my honest opinion it would be clearer and more understandable if the article used the official full name of the club, Forssan Palloseura. Could someone make this move? I would also say the same with KalPa (Kalevan Pallo), SaiPa (Saimaan Pallo) and HPK (Hämeenlinnan Pallokerho), but that's something we'd have to talk about. We use the full length names for Rovaniemen Kiekko and Iisalmen Peli-Karhut, so why not the other ones? – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The full names are certainly an option and they are currently used on the associated Finnish Wikipedia pages. However, for an English-speaking audience that is unaccustomed to or unfamiliar with Finnish nomenclature and spelling (i.e. the vast majority of English speakers), there is no particular benefit to expanding an abbreviation like FPS to Forssan Palloseura. English-language sources rarely use a Finnish club’s full name when a shortened version is available and switching from the abbreviations may cause more confusion than clarity for the English Wikipedia audience. This is especially true for Liiga clubs like HPK or HC TPS, which receive fairly regular mention in English-language publications via coverage of NHL prospects and former NHL players. Also worth noting: the NHL, hockeyDB, Elite Prospects, and many other stats sites primarily or exclusively use the abbreviated names.

Personally, I’m fairly neutral on your suggested changes but I’d like to see greater consensus for or against before any moves are made. Spitzmauskc (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of short forms, speaking generally English-language sources use the abbreviations most of the time Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

+1. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME, we reflect what is most frequently used in reliable sources. Flibirigit (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Renaming of Budweiser Gardens

Does someone have time to deal with Budweiser Gardens being renamed as per this CBC article? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone gets to it before me, I'll create a redirect for it, and copy-edit the material over. Conyo14 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Canada Life Place is available. But needs a new logo. Conyo14 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully I can play with this tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, the move was undone by Skynxnex. I will not move the page again unless it has a consensus under an RM. Conyo14 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears like the renaming is at a future date. Let's revisit this after October 11. Flibirigit (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is likely that once the rename happens and there's more coverage just than the initial announcements (like stories that just use the new name), it would be, based on previous arena renames, uncontroversial and so likely won't need a full RM (for example, I would support such a move then). But that's next month and the move was done improperly so needed to be reverted anyway. Skynxnex (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed a long section from the 2024–25 Anaheim Ducks season page, called "Detailed record". This section isn't in any of the other 2024–25 NHL team season pages or even the past Anaheim Ducks season pages. Is this "Detailed record" section, something the project sees fit to include in all NHL team season pages? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's something by hockey reference. I don't see its necessity considering it's not included on other season pages. Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Jank images

A user has uploaded low-quality, high-artifact images to Owen Beck (ice hockey), David Reinbacher, Arber Xhekaj, and multiple other pages. I think the images detract from the pages and should be removed but I'd like a second opinion. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Holy cow those are bad. The editor has used the summary "better than nothing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" at the Reinbacher article, and honestly, nothing would be better than these images. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh man, those are crunchy. Agree that they probably don’t pass muster - it’d probably be better without them. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I get it, my phone just ain't good enough to get good pictures from up in the stands. Was of the opinion that a low-resolution image was better than nothing but I'm not faulting anyone for believing otherwise. Cheers --Maniacduhockey (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maniacduhockey Don't get us wrong - we definitely appreciate the effort to have the photo documentation. I recommend going to view warmups at ice level in order to get good-enough photos - that's how I took the main pics for Logan Thompson, Mark Stone, and Pavel Dorofeyev, among others. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip don't worry I didn't take it the wrong way. Unfortunately, you had to get first-floor tickets to get near the ice, I still tried to enhance the pictures (believe it or not, the horror that you see was after me adjusting them to make them clearer) but it was a lost cause. I do highly encourage anyone to get better pictures of those players in the future, that would make mine irrelevant, like they should be --Maniacduhockey (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Usually the ushers don't care during the third period ;) Conyo14 (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If it was at the Bell Center - pregame warmups are open to everyone, at least in my experience. Ushers just start to clear out everyone not sitting there around the anthem/lineups. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Good to know for the third period. Yes it was at Bell, I might have just stumbled into an overzealous one Maniacduhockey (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello there. I'd just like to get you guys' opinions on what I've done to the 2024–25 Seattle Kraken season article. I've tried to make it a timeline, and I'd have no problem updating it throughout the season. XR228 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the timeline in the offseason consists of the transactions which are already included in the transaction section. The only notable things are Jessica Campbell joining the coaching roster and the TV deal.

The preseason is a bit too much. I'd say limit the events to be notable enough to not just be a recap, or scrap it entirely. Typically, a timeline in Wikipedia follows historic events. For sports it's a bit less bold. If you follow this for the regular season, it's good to get some trivia, or major injuries, or perhaps discussing the month-by-month of the team as that'll be generally covered. Conyo14 (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll write a few sentences after each Kraken game, maybe a sentence for every transaction, and a couple sentences for anything else notable. It will be a long article, but I'll enjoy writing it. XR228 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm recommending not doing that. Conyo14 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Conyo14. Timelines have to be turned into prose at some point. The season summary should mention losing streaks, winning streaks, significant team achievements (like first time the team came back from a 4–1 deficit, the first time they've won six games on the road), player hat tricks; essentially things that do not slot into the other section or are not apparent from just looking at the data. Or context. For example if player A misses time and it coincides with a slide in the standings. Movement in the standings at the end of each month might be of interest, because if a team was in second place in the standings in December and ends up last in April, that should be documented and explained somewhere, be it injury or poor play, big trades, etc. At least that is what I would be looking for in a season summary. Llammakey (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But like what if I could do that—but even more. Like summaries for every game and transaction. I wouldn't mind writing it (e.g. after a certain game, if there's something notable that happened or a certain player wasn't there or got injured, I could write about that, or if a certain player being called up from the AHL is important, I could write about that too). XR228 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the others here, this is already unwieldy. For example, the draft picks and free agency can be summarized with charts only, the timeline adds little that is useful. And timestamps?? Echoedmyron (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think having everything arranged chronologically works. I also plan to add more stuff, stuff which is far more than the charts could tell you. XR228 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I just don't think a timeline is the way to do it. A summary of the season as Llanmakey has suggested works well.

Perhaps if Wikimedia implements a "recap" section then you can place them there, otherwise it's too much for one article. I mean you're covering 82 games? Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing for 10–20 minutes per day doesn't seem that bad. XR228 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's try it for this season. If it doesn't work, then I won't do it for 2025–26. XR228 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think summarizing every game puts undue emphasis upon all of them. I feel that we should follow the lead of season summaries provided by reliable, independent sources. (For example, personally I wouldn't include events like the first time a team came back from a 4–1 deficit, unless that featured prominently in the season summaries provided by other sources. I'm not sure what makes the sixth road victory of the season more significant than any of the other road wins—by definition, each number of wins is achieved either once or never in a season.) isaacl (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If a certain game has something special about it (e.g. a player/team milestone or win/loss streak), I can tack a few sentences onto the game summary I write. XR228 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear: personally, I don't agree with writing game summaries for every game. isaacl (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: - it was significant team achievements achieved during the season, the road victories was just an example. Just to be clear. Llammakey (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand it was an example; I don't agree that winning a sixth road victory is a significant team achievement, though. I don't think the first time someone reversed an X-Y score is significant, or perhaps more generally, an N-goal deficit, is significant in the large scheme of things, either. When this first occurs is influenced by many factors, including strength of opponent. Any meaning that might be teased out from this stat would need a larger sample size. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you understood the point of either of my comments and the blatant obfuscation is off-putting. I think we should agree not to interact further. To the other editors - significant team achievements (as those noted by WP:RS) should be included. Llammakey (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then. I'll just continue writing game summaries, important events/milestones, and transactions. I think the timeline format has the potential to work. XR228 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You're working against the majority, but I wouldn't consider it disruptive until someone is bold enough to revert it. So, good luck. Conyo14 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You came here for opinions. We've all told you not to do what you're doing. You've said you're going to do it anyway. So why did you even ask? Echoedmyron (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted your 'time-line' style at the page-in-question & 2021–22 Seattle Kraken season. Please, don't re-add or add such style to any NHL team season pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok sorry. XR228 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the 2024–25 material prior to GoodDay's reversion and the level of minute day-to-day detail seems to me to violate the intent behind WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 1995hoo (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. XR228 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sorry about that. Anyway, hypothetically, if I, in the future, were to create a page called "Timeline of the Seattle Kraken" or such, could I do what I was doing (scaled back quite a bit of course) with these season pages there? XR228 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

When I say "scaled back quite a bit" I mean not having stuff arranged by the literal time in the day it happened. XR228 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

When the history section of Seattle Kraken is too long,History of the Seattle Kraken can be made into its own article. Right now, it's still good as a section. No timeline though. You're going to run into the same WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. Just write in prose. It's not just a lot easier, but also better for content editing. Conyo14 (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. XR228 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Czech Republic#Requested move 1 October 2024

There is a discussion here that may change the title of the Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team by proxy. Conyo14 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)