Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive30

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Total penalty minutes by a team in a season

Anyone know where to find this? I just updated List of Nashville Predators seasons, and had to add all the penalty minutes. It's still not very hard but it would be much better if there was a total somewhere. RandySavageFTW (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy, just go to NHL.com and in the menu bar Stats -> Teams, then Report -> Penalties. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you can find that since I ended up screwing it up even with the calculator. RandySavageFTW (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of using a calculator for these kinds of jobs - Krm500, know of any sites that will separate players career stats totals by team so I don't have to subtract the players non Team X stats from the NHL totals? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Go to NHL.com, then Stats > Career > Career for team > Pick the team. It will be hard if the player isn't one of the team's top scorers, though, because then you'll have to look through pages. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give that a try. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

Could someone somehow remove that warning at the top when you edit it? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, its still accurate. The season doesn't end till after the playoffs cause a number of those lists are for playoff performances. I will however alter the wording a bit. -Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the wording to warn about adding playoff stats. So please now make sure you update all the regular season stats to as of this season. -Djsasso (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry about game log

Would it be possible to add the percentage of points earned to the overall monthly record? For example, in the 2008–09 New York Rangers season article, just doing quick math, the regular season game logs would look like this:

October: 10–2–1 (Home: 6–2–0 ; Road: 4–0–1) (21 points, 80.77%)
November: 7–6–1 (Home: 4–3–1 ; Road: 3–3–0) (15 points, 53.57%)
December: 6–5–1 (Home: 3–2–1 ; Road: 3–3–0) (13 points, 54.17%)
January: 6–5–1 (Home: 3–1–0 ; Road: 3–4–1) (13 points, 54.17%)
February: 3–6–4 (Home: 3–2–2 ; Road: 0–4–2) (10 points, 38.46%)
March: 8–4–1 (Home: 5–1–0 ; Road: 3–3–1) (17 points, 65.38%)
April: 3–2–0 (Home: 2–0–0 ; Road: 1–2–0) (6 points, 60.00%)

This addition would enable us to see at a glance how well or poorly a team did in a given month. A percentage of points earned is easier to comprehend at first glance than a raw record. In this example, we can easily see that the Rangers' best month was October, followed by March, and the worst was February by far. And in November through January they were rather even. And in the last two months of the season did much better. Jmj713 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks a bit cluttered IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krm500 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 April 2009

Meh, it seems like a lot. Perhaps if it replaced the Home/Away records, but I think one can tell how well a team did based simply on their record. It would something good to add to the prose though. black ngold29 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree that it clutters (besides, it should be in .xxx format anyway). The record itself gives away quickly how well or poorly a team did that month. Reso lute 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I created this template recently; it still makes use of the universal template used by the sports Wikiprojects. However, it aids the synchronization of the current season pages on the main team pages: to change from 2008-09 to 2009-10, for example, now only requires one edit. Or, the addition of more than one season (e.g., during the offseason, one before, one after) would require only one edit. Please understand the template is only cosmetic: the current layout of the page is unchanged. I would like to add this to the hockey pages; I have done so at the other 3 major American sports without incident (to date), however, a user reverted the addition to the ice hockey pages pending discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it. Alaney2k (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the reversions were reversed as I decided it wasn't worth the effort to argue about it, that being said the change is usually done automatically by script, so 1 edit vs 30 wasn't really that big a deal anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Player stats regular season and playoffs

I noticed that User:Piemann16 has been separating players regular season stats and playoff stats on the team season pages. I am not too sure I like this layout or not as the format we had been using looks quite standard. I was curious as to what other editors thought about these changes. For example, the previous Anaheim player listings looked like [this] and now it looks like this without playoff stats with a new playoff player stats section.--Pparazorback (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not a fan of the reformat and I really don't see the point in it. Then again, I'm not a big fan of the original layout either (I prefer sortable tables), but it's heads and shoulders above what it's now become. I nominate reversion. Alrin (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd revert the edits. The user has also been moving the † and * symbols to before the player name, instead of after which is the norm, breaking the sorting function. Frankly, both regular season and playoff game logs should stay together, as should stats. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd revert. Especially the moving of the symbols.-Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

May not be as pretty as the NHL ones but I use a sortable table at 2008–09 Frölunda HC season. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad guys, I didn't like how the playoff stats were not sorted by points, tried the different look. Please feel free to change what I did. Sorry again. —Piemann16 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I commend you for being bold. That is always a good thing. Just becareful about making sweeping changes to multiple articles, most of these sort of articles have a template design to them, so its always better to ask before wasting time. -Djsasso (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally understandable, I just got a username, but I have been the user that had been updating a good majority of the season pages player stats section all season long. I'm glad to help and any updates I make in the future I will check first. Though the discussions may be long over, I do think that a way to sort the playoff stats separately should be looked into. The way you guys want it reverted back to looks jumbled, especially with the listing of players that no longer play with the particular team and then having the dashes under the Playoffs section for that player.Since there are plenty of players on playoff teams that have moved on there definitely should be a way to no either re-list player names or completely separate the regular season and playoff stats sections. While the way I did it might not be liked, maybe we can come to some sort of middle ground here and re-open the discussion on the way it should be done. My thought process on the new section of playoff stats is that it is like two different seasons so the separation seemed necessary in my eyes, again open to personal interpretation by all. Also, is there a link to the accepted template somewhere, I was looking for it and could not find it. Thanks! —Piemann16 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the 2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season#Player stats which lists both in one section. What I do not like is the way that the player's numbers are being incorporated into the stats tables; it's completely unrelated to stats and the articles already have a roster listed. black ngold29 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the 2007-08 Penguins player stats section looks good to me, if we could add the color to the top, I think it looks nice with the team colors on the top of the section. Any agreement here? —Piemann16 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the layout on the majority of articles myself, and I'd rather each player's regular season and playoff stats were available on the same line, as we see in virtually every other publication discussing player stats. I also don't believe that everything needs to be sortable, however I do know that it is en vogue on Wikipedia. One thing I hope to do (probably over the summer) is find a way to make the current table format sortable. Either way, count me as being in favour of the status quo. Reso lute 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The current format certainly looks great, would be great if we could get it sortable, because I just love to sort things (unless it comes to my socks!). —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have given a shot at solving this. Have a look: before & after. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Is there some way to make a thicker line between the regular season and playoff columns? Alright! Eaton just scored!! lol, can't control myself. black ngold29 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! We should impliment this into the "model season" that was discussed up in the game log thread. Did anyone write that up yet? black ngold29 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea looks great, but it doesn't sort correctly for me. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmm, yeah the playoff stats aren't sorting. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it, so I notified Village pump (technical). Hopefully someone smarter than me can figure it out. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Template:Sort could fix it, but the table would be huge considering you should use it on every entry. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the suggestion given at the VP and it worked. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge coach templates?

Does anyone else think that {{NHLHeadCoach}} and {{NHL head coaches by team}} should be merged? The content is very similar. Links to the coach lists (from the the second) could be added next to the coaches' names (in the first) instead of a link to the team. Every place these are used, there will already be plenty of links to the actual team article. The defunct teams from the second could also be added to the first. We would slightly modify the heading of the first one just by removing "Current". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -Djsasso (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. I'd change the team name links on {{NHLHeadCoach}} to links to the head coach lists on the other template. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Any other input? I don't want to go through with this when only two approve, under the assumption that the rest of you tacitly approve as well. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. {{NHLHeadCoach}} is the one being used now; the other is a redirect. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea is now brought up by me on WT:NBA, WT:BASEBALL, and WT:NFL. Thanks for the awesome idea, Twas Now! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

KV5 have made another version of the merged coach templates on his sandbox. I think that version is better than the one on NHLHeadCoach. Comments? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Captain (ice hockey): undue prominence to specific captain replacements?

Some examples of management selecting captains have been added to Captain (ice hockey). Do you think they are notable enough to be included, or do they unnecessarily elevate the importance of some particular captain selections? I don't think the article should end up containing a laundry list of every captain selection that raises eyebrows. Please comment at Talk:Captain_(ice_hockey)#Discussion_of_management_selection_of_captains. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/History of the National Hockey League

This FTC could use some comments; a user opposed due to, in short, the exclusion of the NHA in the topic, and went ahead and closed the FTC due, what I believe is, his oppose and a lack of comments. I have reverted this close as there was a clear conflict of interest. Some hockey people could really help out here with regards to the content issue at hand. butterfly (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:MontrealCanadiensSeason

If this is going to stay, could someone fix the capitalization in plus/minus and make "x-x" link to "x-x NHL season"? I don't think it should, though, it also links to season articles not created like 2009–10 Montreal Canadiens season. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this template is eventually being merged into the other template. -Djsasso (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its been one of the things I've wanted to do for a bit now, but never bothered (look at me turn all wikignomish...). I want to replace it with the generic one, and possibly add the ability to cusomize colours for headers on that one, then TfD this and the Chicago template. Maybe eventually... Reso lute 18:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a Boston one too. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, could we for once design project wide team and season infoboxes which can be customised (league, colour, etc)? It work for thousands of player articles, why wouldn't it work for a few hundred team articles? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it if someone fixed the red links to seasons that don't exist, fixed the capitalization problems, etc. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Has any new work been done on this? I must admit, I was disheartened to see the template removed from the Bruins season (though I wholly understand the reasoning for doing so). Alrin (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. I keep meaning to do something about it, but time has been lacking. Reso lute 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and corrected the red links and capitalization issues. Are we free now to apply these templates once more? (An example can be found at the 2008-09 Bruins season page). Alrin (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The NHL season template is protected. Also, putting in a sensible solution with customization is difficult. If you look at the template code, you'll see what I mean. It will take a while to work on it. I worked on the Montreal one. I needed it because Montreal has been in two leagues. I was unaware of the problems with it. It was removed from the vast majority of season before I knew about it. We sort of need a 'task force' on this one. We need a multi-tiered template structure here and that is just a lot of work. Alaney2k (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can move a copy of the NHL template to a user (or project) sub page if anyone wants to take on the task of customizing it, then we can put it back. Reso lute 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I think is the right approach. Please point out any flaws in this idea. The base is a 'generic team season' infobox with all of the fields, fully customizable. This one sets out the layout. The second level is a 'league team season' template, which sets the league defaults in the 'generic' infobox, e.g 'NHL', start of league year. This one has some customization possible. The third level is the team template, which puts the right values into the 'league team season' template, e.g. start of franchise year, team colours. I'm not sure how to handle the trophies in this scheme. The league one would pass them along to the generic. Maybe in the first row of the generic, and is completely built by the league template. The main point is that it separates the various customizations to make the setup better. And lets you plug in a league one between the team and the generic. Thoughts? Alaney2k (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. There are no flaws with the idea. :-) I'll get started on it. I'll use the layout from the NHL template. Let you know when I have something ready to use. Alaney2k (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Reso lute 20:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the "Evolution of the NHL"

There is an old set of articles, categories and templates that supposedly deal with the "evolution of the NHL". For the most part, however, I think they argue a relationship that simply does not exist. While these early leagues contributed to the continuity of amateur, and later, professional hockey history in the early part of the 20th century, to argue that the majority of them had any impact on the evolution or foundation of the NHL itself is laughable. The NHL is simply the survivor out of dozens of leagues from that timeframe.

With this thought, I have already nominated Category:Pre-National Hockey League for deletion here. I personally do not see anything salvagable from that category.

However, I do think we can rework List of pre–NHL seasons and Template:Evolution of the NHL into something useful.

The list argues the same dubious claim of direct decendency with the NHL. As an idea, I'd like to move the list to List of ice hockey seasons and expand it to include any season lists we have, including the WHA, AHL, and even junior leagues. The template, i think, would serve with a rename to state that it argues the evolution of hockey, though I also wouldn't be opposed to its outright deletion.

Thoughts? Reso lute 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We could move/merge the early stuff into an article such as "Origins of ice hockey", since we don't even have an article yet on the history of ice hockey (this currently redirects to Ice hockey#History). This would chronicle from the beginnings up until 1917 or maybe 1926 if we want to include the WCHL. I don't see a problem with a slight overlap with the history of the NHL.

And I moved List of pre–NHL seasons to List of pre-NHL seasons. The ndash is primarily for ranges, the hyphen is for prefixes and suffixes (among other things).

One more thing: I don't know if we can shape List of ice hockey seasons into an article. Category:Seasons in ice hockey serves well. Making a list about all hockey seasons is a stretch, with leagues varying in length, format, etc. What could we add that isn't found at Season (sports)? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be less an article than a list of lists. Reso lute 05:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This list would, given the current format, have many redlinks to nonexistent season articles. Ice hockey countries (mainly European) have played for several decades throughout the 20th century (not counting the junior leagues), but English articles havent been created for them (yet). Elitserien has only one article, out of 87 seasons played (including its predecessors, amateur in lack of pro) --Bamsefar75 (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is such a list tenable, Resolute? What benefit does a list of this type offer? I think the only purpose of such a list of lists would be navigation, which is what categories do. We can't really write prose other than "here is a list of a bunch of hockey seasons". In other words, they would be functionally identical. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The main point of the evolution is to follow the path from AHAC, which claimed world champion status, to the growth of professional leagues (WPHL, ECHA, NHA, OPHL, etc.) to those that contributed teams (WHA) to the present league which itself claims world champion status. That's the 'evolution' to the present NHL. If you want to quibble about where to start the evolution, you could eliminate the amateur ones, but even there is a link. These leagues started in Montreal, had several of the principals that would start the NHA and NHL (e.g. Northey, Wanderers). The NHL Senators aka Ottawa Hockey Club started in the AHAC in 1886, so there is a direct link. As for WPHL, that was arguably the first professional ice hockey league, then the IPHL followed from it. The professionalism led to the Montreal and Ontario leagues becoming professional. The Ontario League contributed the Toronto Hockey Club, which became the Blueshirts in the NHA, and the Blueshirts led to the formation of the NHL. I don't see why this is laughable or a mess. The NHL is a direct continuation of all of this activity and is really the NHA renamed. Nothing controversial in all this. Alaney2k (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

About the history article, the north american hockey history led to the present system of feeder junior hockey and minor leagues to supply the NHL. So it seems appropriate to lump all of the pre-NHL history together. There is amateur history, that of Allan Cup and college hockey, and international participation, but the ice hockey in North America is thoroughly dominated by the NHL. That's why Canadians get worked up about the US control of the game, why we want more teams in Canada and the like. As for origins of ice hockey, it is parallel in north america and europe. Tying them together seems artificial. Alaney2k (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I should point out one more link between the leagues. Other than the WPHL, they all challenged for the Stanley Cup. The IPHL challenge was denied by the Stanley Cup trustees, but they wanted to compete for it. The WHA was denied by the NHL. Alaney2k (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that we are discussing the evolution of organized hockey, not the evolution of the NHL. The NHL is simply the culmination of a process that completely transcends it. This is why I'd like to rename the template and list, because right now they don't accurately portray the development of hockey in my view. Reso lute 17:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The template links the leagues that all have contributed something to the NHL of today. There was far more organized hockey leagues going on than the ones on the template. Ontario had several leagues in the 1900 decade (OHA, UOVHL, EOHL, NOHA), New York had a league from the 1890s, collegiate hockey in the States. There were leagues in the maritimes from the 1880s, too. The WPHL is the furthest one out from the links, but they had the first professional teams, played the top teams of the day and built the base for hockey in Pennsylvania, which is a hockey hotbed today. Alaney2k (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it remarkably POV (and OR) to say that all of those leagues contributed to the NHL of today. In several cases, the only "link" is that they competed for the Stanley Cup. well, fine, why doesn't the Manitoba League of the turn of the century rate a mention then? And, of course, you mention numerous other leagues from the time that somehow don't rate? They suggest perfect candidates for inclusion into a much more accurate Evolution of ice hockey template/list/article structure. I've always maintained that there is a hell of a lot more to hockey than the NHL, and we have here an excellent opportunity to share that via a redefinition of these pages. Reso lute 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an evolution. The NHL is the mature phase. It's not OR. It's an era of hockey pre-NHL. The AHAC/CAHL/FAHL/ECAHA lineage provides the Stanley Cup, the Montreal area, the link to the original organized indoor game. The WPHL and IPHL were the professional pioneers. The professional leagues forced the elite hockey to change to professional, which led directly to the NHL. The TPHL provided Renfrew and O'Brien to form the NHA which formed the NHL. The OPHL brought Toronto into professional hockey, later into the NHA. The PCHA/WCHL provided teams to the NHL (Victoria=>Detroit, Portland=>Chicago) from their franchises, as did the WHA. That is what I can pinpoint. The evolution template links this all together. The MHA/MPHL could be included. It was professional at one stage. I am not pushing for any league's inclusion, I'm just not understanding your objection to this template, which attempts to link this early hockey to the NHL. Alaney2k (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What about calling it 'Evolution to the NHL'? We could eliminate the WHA? Alaney2k (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am envisioning a larger set of linked templates that define the entire length of North American hockey. i.e.: sub sections based around early amateur, early pro, major pro, minor league, major junior, senior, etc. And not just leagues, but major awards - Stanley Cup, Memorial Cup, Allan Cup, etc. I'll see if I can do a mockup of what a potential template list could be. Reso lute 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Those sound more like category definitions than link templates. And possibly over-detailed? You will still need to define when 'early' ended and such. I could agree to remove 'Pre-National Hockey League' with these cats. But I do like the link template of Evolution of the NHL, I think people can see the linkage, but we could possibly expand on it in the articles. It is not OR. I wait in interest for your proposal. What about 'Roots of the NHL'? Alaney2k (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Resolute/History

(outdent) Complexity is perhaps an issue, but anyway --> my basic idea. Could be "history of ice hockey", or "development of..." or something else. I'd like to figure out how to put in a switch that allows the relevant subsection to be expanded automatically when used in an article of that type or time frame. Just a very basic idea of how we could tie all of hockey together. Reso lute 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea, I don't know how to do the expansion. Some coding there, but I have some other coding to work on. To return to the original point of cleaning up the Evo template. Or do you want to drop it completely? Should we rename the Evo 'Evolution of Pro Hockey in North America?', 'Evolution to the NHL'? Start with the WPHL, include the IPHL, OPHL, ECAHA, FHL, PCHA, NHA, NHL? We could go further to the AHL (to note the beginnings of the minor league relationship with the NHL) and WHA. If we go with 'Early Pro Hockey in North America' then we'd definitely stop at NHL. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even like the word "evolution". A series of unstable leagues one after another doesn't really argue any kind of evolution, imo. "Early history of hockey"? Reso lute 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Before the "Early amateur" section, there should be a link to the origins of the sport. The template suggests the sport started with amateur leagues, rather than on frozen canals in Holland (or whatever). But this isn't the fault of the template designer—we don't even have an article on the origins of ice hockey (or even this History of ice hockey)! All the other major N.A. sports have a history article:

This is a very active project, but in this regard we are lacking. I can help with writing and research. I have access to online academic journals; maybe I can dig up some good stuff. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The origins of ice hockey before the 1875 game are not well-documented. This is a problem. There are discoveries continuing to be made. Last year, it was found in a book now archived in Google Books that soldiers played hockey in the 1840s near Niagara Falls. It was played on skates which was a surprise. There are so many ball and stick games that can all be considered ancestors. The outdoor game in the 1800s was popular. They used to play in large groups over large areas. I don't dispute the need for the article, I just think these difficulties explain why we don't have one. (and the lack of books on the topic) The history of indoor ice hockey seems to be well covered, however. Alaney2k (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Plan for the Evo template. A book I recommend on this topic is 'Lords of the Rinks: The Emergence of the National Hockey League, 1875-1936'. I like the time period mentioned in the title, because it covers the time period from the first indoor game to the point where the current system is in place (NHL on top, AHL, etc as minors, and the amateur system linked to the NHL as a feeder system). It started as a doctoral thesis, and was published by the University of Toronto Press. I should probably follow that book as a pattern for the Evo template, and make that into a series. Alaney2k (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That does seem a fair range. Might have to pick it up. Reso lute 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm converting the Evo to Emergence template. Hopefully, this clears up the ties between the early leagues and the History of the NHL so that the FT process can pass. (Other than the NHA ;-),) I don't think those leagues should be part of a 'History of' NHL series. Next, we need to clean up the 'Pre-National Hockey League' cat. Alaney2k (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That we do, but this seems a fair start. (I subsectioned this for easier editing) Reso lute 22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting an article on the 'Emergence of the NHL'. This can summarize the articles all tied together by the template. Hopefully, it won't contain any OR for Djsasso to get me on. :-) This somewhat overlaps some of the History of the NHL. Does it make sense or not? Alaney2k (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Early history of ice hockey, perhaps? Your idea has merit, but I still dont like the invention that any of those leagues, save the NHA, led to the NHL. Reso lute 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that one league led to the founding of the NHL, it's more that these leagues have links to the NHL in some way and pioneered things. It's the whole situation around the NHL and its relations with the other leagues nowadays. The NHL emerged with the AHL as its minor league affiliate. It had started as the Can-am league and was independent. The NHL conquered the amateur associations in Canada, turning them into feeder systems. I've been reading old Globe newspapers on-line. The amateur scene was more popular than the pros well into the 1920s. Why do you think the Memorial Cup is so big, and the Allan Cup ignored? (This fight to stay on top still goes on today with the diminished coverage of the world championship compared to the NHL playoffs --it's a control thing -- IIHF vs. NHL. The NHL has not even bothered to name their Victoria Cup challenger, while the IIHF organized a Champion's League to pick its challenger.) The PCHA/WHL was merged into the NHL. Their teams became NHL teams. It was Frank Patrick who organized the WHL players into packages of assets. Detroit didn't even change the name of the team it bought, still the Cougars. The name had value as the Cougars had won the Cup in '25, and was Stanley Cup finalist in '26. They bought the top team in the west and brought it to the east. There would not have been a Pirates team in the NHL without the pro hockey in Pittsburgh. And the Pittsburgh pro organizations of course led to the IPHL which caused the elite Canadian leagues to become professional. Without the Temiscaming league and O'Brien, the NHA would not have started. The Renfrew team was the effort of a rich owner to buy the Stanley Cup, something repeated many times hence. O'Brien of course started the Canadiens, was the first to effectively own a league before the Patricks did. It was the AHAC vs. OHA rivalry that prompted Stanley to donate the Cup. Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa - the cities and teams going back to the 1880s, that formed the NHL. (The Toronto team was operated by the Montreal Arena Co.) Even at that, the NHA Toronto's organization had links to the OPHL days. It was Quinn from the 1914 NHA Blueshirts who tried to buy Quebec and overthrow the NHL in 1918 along with Livingstone. So much going on, and the NHL has come out on top, and has been on top since 1927. The challenge is to organize it all coherently. People understand all this stuff, it's just not common knowledge. Like the blue lines -- invented in the PCHA. Playoffs -- invented in the PCHA. Major and minor penalties, six-man hockey, the goal line - the NHA. The nets - CAHL. By the 30s, it was all organized and in place. Other than the WHA, and the NHLPA forcing changes, the NHL has maintained the system ever since. Alaney2k (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Holik

I moved Bobby Holik to the Czech spelling Bobby Holík and this was soon reverted. Pretty much all hockey player articles use native diacritic marks, so I find it strange that this one should be an exception (especially considering how small the difference is). Thoughts? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Move it back to Holík, that is the consensus here. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps there is an issue being raised because of his American citizenship, but native spelling is the way to go. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason given was "Most English sources omit diacritical mark. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters". However, I would argue that consensus can overrule guidelines. I think it is the consensus of WP:HOCKEY that the player articles should use native spelling. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll dissent on the use of diacritics, as usual, but I am aware I remain on the wrong side of consensus on this one. Reso lute 23:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought his Czech name was Holikovich. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I don't know about that! I'm just basing it off the Czech language Wikipedia: cs:Bobby Holík. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, his name was Robert Holikovich. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Year in Photos, 1989 on page 78. His sister is standing in for him at the NHL Draft. Infact, their family name is Holikova. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert on Czech names but couldn't it be a feminine form of the name? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia, Family name#Czech Republic; Females' names are usually derived from males' ones by a suffix -ová. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh God... c'mon!! :-) NHL is full of Czechs... you should know how their names work!! Damned anti-diactric people! :-) --necronudist (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There you have it, GoodDay. Holikova was his sister's surname (or an error, if it called him that). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Female suffix for family names? Hmm, that's kinda cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a famous thing... you know, Martina Navratilova, Dinara Safina... --necronudist (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of these gender suffixes, until now. Thanks for the clarification, Krm500. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you find it intriguing you should read about Icelandic name. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've peeked. The dios, the underlines, ahhhh my eyes. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC-bound article needs a copyeditor

I was hoping to take Ice hockey at the Olympic Games to FAC by the end of the month, but I think the language is rather simplistic and repetitive, so it needs to be copyedited first. Could anyone here please take a look at it? Or alternatively, does anyone know a copyeditor who would have time to take a look? Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting List of NHL statistical leaders

List of NHL statistical leaders is a pretty long article. I am thinking of splitting it into three separate articles: skaters, goalies, and coaches. Afterward, we could add other less prominent statistics to each, such as overtime goals (skaters), overtime wins (goalies), etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this was just to check if anyone would be opposed. I'm not just telling you what I'm thinking :D — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

At only 37k this article is about half the maximum recommended size of an article. So I would say its perfectly fine to stay as is. -Djsasso (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with how many bytes the article is, but by how long it is. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the recommended approach is to put one of those split notices on the article for a week or so, ( Split-apart ) leading to discussion on its talk page, before you go ahead and split it... Alaney2k (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we shouldn't make a 'split decision' on this. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is how you are spending your 'retirement'? :-) Alaney2k (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We both know the real decisions are made here \:J — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize you meant length, but my point is either way its not that long. Length in that way depends on monitors and resolution which varries computer by computer. I don't think we should content fork the article. -Djsasso (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's long on my monitor of 1024 height. Even if the page is considered 'not too long', it could use some improvement, though. That said, I have no hard preference on the page. I rarely access it. Probably the case for others, too. We should leave the split-apart template up for a while. Maybe some good split or navigation ideas for the page will come up. If we leave the discussion here, it'll get archived after a month. Alaney2k (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The TOC alone takes up about one and a half screen heights for me. I've been adding different statistics and plan to add more. Another point is that the scope of each list would be different enough that separate articles are warranted. Just as we have separate articles for different positions, not just one article called "Ice hockey positions". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The scope would be fine, but the amount of content wouldn't be enough to justify their own articles. -Djsasso (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Better get on this then. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be an other stuff exists arguement....which combining them would make sense yes. Go right ahead. Although looking at that article, I don't think one on forward should exist probably. The information contained in it can be pretty much summed up in the centre and winger individual position articles which have much more information in them. Foward should probably be a dab page. The irony of your argument is that this article is shorter in scrolling length than most of our team or season articles and even some player articles like Gretzky.-Djsasso (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that's a perfectly fine article. There's nothing wrong with having articles shorter than the maximum suggested limit. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Championship Team templates

There are MLB, NFL and NBA templates for championship teams for each year containing players and coaches. My question is why aren't there NHL Stanley Cup championship team templates as well?Richiekim (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it violates some guidelines and they are generally unhelpfull and clutter pages. A movement is somewhat underway to remove them from all sports. they have already been removed from some. Just not the other big 3 north american sports. -Djsasso (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't care to repeat the mistakes the MLB, NFL and NBA projects have made, imo. They add nothing whatsoever, and simply clutter articles. Reso lute 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ladislav Ščurko

Watchlist alert. [1] —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. And may I add, what a terrible thing to do. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Added, and yikes! Reso lute 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Stanley Cup Finals won't be at Template:In the news anymore...

...at least not that easily. There has to be public upheaval of some sort for it to be included. Same for the NBA and MLB. –Howard the Duck 06:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like most US sports are pretty international anymore. The NHL for one seems to have far more players from Canada. Not really that fitting anymore to call it the National Hockey League. black ngold29 15:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. sports would have to go through it the hard way in order for it to be included. There's a pseudo-rule at ITN that a sports league confined to one country (give or take a few teams from a nearby country) is a "domestic" league and not international enough. –Howard the Duck 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If Bettman & the owners continue tampering with the rules, it'll soon be NBA II; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Added my thoughts at the talk page. Cant say I favour removing the big four championships when fully a quarter of Wikipedia's readers are from North America. Seems like they are trying to avoid a pro-American bias and are inadvertently creating a pro-European bias, imnsho. Reso lute 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:NHL Year

I've imployed a new version of this template so that it can practically be used on any NHL article. Check out the document to know how to use this crazy template! Big thanks to User:LOL for coding all that. Without him, it wouldn't have been possible. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 18:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done! I've always liked {{by}} and thought an NHL version would be ideal. Glad someone finally got around to it! Reso lute 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources query

I need to update the 'Name origins, logos and colours' section of the Nottingham Panthers article as there are going to be a couple of changes next season with us using a retro 1950s logo and reverting to our old colours. The problem I have is that the only source I have for this is an article posted on this website. It's basically an online fanzine which a group of Panthers supporters (myself included) contribute to. Although these are accurate pictures (shown by the general manager) it could be argued that they're not official (they were taken by a fan) and not at this time reliable. Is using this as a source a problem, or would I be better waiting on something more official? KimThePanther (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would wait. More press coverage will come out in time. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

Does anybody have (or know where one was posted) a list of AfDs for biographies created after the draft that were deleted? Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 02:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a tonne of them you just have to go look through the hockey afd archive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ice hockey/archive and pick them out. They won't be labelled as such though. But there are quite a few in there. I would note the majority of them are usually deleted via Prod though instead of Afd. Afd probably accounts for only a tenth or less of the ones that get deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:ATHLETE

There is a proposed change to WP:ATHLETE found here. Interested individuals are invited to comment. Grsz¹¹ 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

haha He obviously never reads the talk page of wp:athlete. There is a propossal to change it every 2nd week, and its usually to make it more strict not less strict like he is trying. This will be shot down in seconds. -Djsasso (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there's a big posse of pro-football editors that make deleting their articles a challenge. Grsz¹¹ 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh believe me I know, them and baseball editors brute force keeping articles or deleting articles alot. I am actually surprised sometimes that they haven't brute forced their standards on our project since I would say there are less hockey editors than the other sports...but I think that may be because we are the most organized. -Djsasso (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

to be fair, we block !vote as well... though I have seen a lot more dissention within our ranks than I usually see elsewhere, as the NHA/NHL debate shows. ;) I think, for the most part, they haven't pushed anything through because they don't care enough to watch for othersport articles. I don't think there is any doubt we do a lot of things differently in the hockey project than the other big three sports, but so long as we don't push our standards on them, they don't push their standards on us. It makes conversations like this one easier, since ther are no project vs. project conflicts to get in the way of discussion. Reso lute 19:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all want to write our own OR and POV stuff. Get out of the way!!! :-) Alaney2k (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know we block vote sometimes (lol there is currently one up that could use the block lol), but with the other sports, you will find editors who don't edit sports articles voting with the football block just because they are a football fan or whatever...of course thats only my opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Phantoms

Should Philadelphia Phantoms and Adirondack Phantoms be two separate pages? --scottieISmad (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes. They are two different franchises now, and if there is enough information for two seperate articles, then most certainly they should be split. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, same franchise, but we do like to maintain separate articles for each incarnation. I.e.: Quad City Flames and their being replaced by the Abbotsford AHL team. Reso lute 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have a standard that the articles split when teams change locations. -Djsasso (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Eliminate the x, y, z's?

Each season article contains various standings templates (ie Template:2008–09 NHL Eastern Conference standings) and I thought that now that the season is over, is it really that necessary to have the whole key to show which teams made it and which teams didn't? Nothing will change, so it just seems redundant. Thoughts on removing them? black ngold29 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, keep 'em. They help show how the team performed compared with the rest of the conference. What's the point of creating them if we're just going to delete them at the end of the season? These are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not sports news pages to keep people updated. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I don't think that they should be used in the first place. Shouldn't it be obvious how each team performs compared to the whole? That's why they're in that order. black ngold29 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember not everyone who reads that article necessarily knows anything about hockey or how standings work in general. -Djsasso (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait... I see what you mean now. I thought you meant remove the standings altogether... (and was confused by the "x, y, z's" heading). We should still have a legend, but we can modify it now that the standings are final. Perhaps we can show a capital "P" for the "Presidents' Trophy winner", an "*" for "Division leader", an "x" for "Playoff berth", and then nothing next to the teams who didn't make the playoffs. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Colored backgrounds in NHL Draft articles

I started removing some yellow backgrounds that were inexplicably added to some NHL Draft articles by Marc87 (talk · contribs) back in February. However, I just found out they're meant to indicate an "All-Star". There is a legend from 1996 and earlier. Later draft years don't have the legend, which is why I had no idea what the yellow meant. A pale green is also used to show Hall of Famers. Was there a discussion to include this color coding, or should it all be removed? I've stopped removing them for now. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It wouldnt hurt to overhaul the draft pages somewhat to include stats. Would be useful for draft comparisons. But as the charts are now, I don't see the colour coding as strictly necessary. Reso lute 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How about trying to set the standard by getting 2009 NHL Entry Draft to FL status once it's done? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't User:Slysplace just do a massive overhaul of all the draft pages. I know he just rewrote the draft template page based on the few decades worth of pages he had already finished overhauling. -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stats of what, Resolute? Hopefully not their NHL totals :\ — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

~~I think the stats from their NHL career used to be there but were removed in the overhaul.~~ Nevermind I am thinking of individual team draft pick pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't have their NHL stats. We'd have to update the last 20-ish draft articles after every season. And mixing player stats and goalie stats in the same table would be a mess. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, that is what I was thinking, though it might be a little too hockeydbish, especially with player stats everywhere else. As far as a draft FL, 2009 would be interesting to do. 2008 could work as well, especially since I've been able to get pics of at least three first round picks, and the sources for the prose would be easy to find. Reso lute 04:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I got images of Hedman and Pääjärvi covered, think I could scramble something up of Rundblad and Erixon as well. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add Full Quality Scale to Project Banner Template

I propose to add the full quality scale to the project banner template, because there are 4000+ articles in the NA-Class category, that makes it almost impossible to find, specifically, a template, category or an image page, etc., without having to slog thru 4000+ pages. I know most of the pages in the NA category are already tagged with "NA", but if just the "ice hockey" template is placed on cat, disambig, file, etc., pages, it automatically categorizes it into the proper category, such as Category-Class, etc. If there are any objections, (and I can't believe there would be), let me know. With that category so large, it makes it almost worthless to try to find anything in it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't object I suppose, but the point of assessment is to see the quality of the article. So anything in the NA category probably doesn't need to be found through those means because they aren't going to be a rated as a quality. Having all the other categories is just over categorization. I actually think having those other classes would be harder to find things. And make it more difficult for those of us who go through tagging to tag. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It does make it easier to look over templates, categories, etc. Reso lute 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just use the template/image categories we already have for that (which are linked on the actual template page as opposed to hidden on a talk page). Like I said not a huge deal I suppose. :) -Djsasso (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember that the WP template will auto-categorize talk pages for templates, categories, project pages, etc., whereas the template and image cats that go on the main template and image pages are not always added (at all). So having the FQS implemented will enable you to go thru the talk page categories and then correctly tag the main pages too, and vice-versa. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If it does it automatically then that is not bad. It never used to do it automatically so you would have to go through changing them by hand from NA to Cat. -Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you just add {{ice hockey}} to the talk pages, it now categorizes them according to namespace automatically. You still have to tag Lists and disambig pages, but it handles cats, project, templates and images automatically. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical note: Funandtrvl is correct in that adding {{ice hockey}} to a template talk page would automatically classify it as Template-Class, etc. However it seems that most of these pages are actually tagged as NA-Class; therefore these wouldn't move in the default setting. It would be possible, by using a custom class, to have the namespace override the class specified, if this is desired (let me know if you want help with it). Secondly, you would need to decide whether or not the taskforces should also use the full scale. If so, then a lot of additional categories would need to be created. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that makes a lot of sense, Martin. Instead of using the "FQS" to sort the category, file, project, portal and template pages, keeping them out of the Unassessed category, thus saving someone time, not to mention the boring task of manually having to go thru 1400+ articles to add "class=NA" to all the non-standard class type pages that were dumped there by the bot, to use a custom-designed hook, if I'm understanding correctly, that if {{ice hockey}} is placed w/o any parameters (i.e. "class=NA") on a non-standard talk page, then it will automatically place the page into the "NA-Class" category for the project and its task forces, and it would satisfy the project's desire to categorize all of their non-standard pages as "NA-Class". Would any redirect, disambig, current, future, merge or needed pages, etc., if used, still have to be categorized manually by adding "class=NA", because they can't be categorized on the basis of their namespace? --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Champions Template

A tfd has been relisted for more discussion. It involves the penguins cup champions. Please add your two cents. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Pittsburgh Penguins 1991 Stanley Cup Champions -Djsasso (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There should probably be a note on WP:HOCKEY about the consensus position on these types of templates so that we can cite that more easily. They will probably pop up again in the future. It's not hockey editors that are writing these, we are writing content. I think it comes from only a superficial interest in the sport. Write an article, people, don't add crud! Alaney2k (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on what I think till after the relisting is closed because I don't want this to be a canvass issue so I need it to stay neutral in my wording. :) -Djsasso (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Other templates

While we are at it, I tend to agree with the WP:NAVBOX essay on the idea that navigational templates should not be used for lists of people who only shared a title. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that for navboxes like each team's coach, each team's first round draft pick, first overall draft pick, EA sports cover athlete, etc, that we convert to succession boxes then TfD the templates. Many of the same arguments apply to those templates as they do to the SC winner templates. It is remarkably irrelevent to know on Mike Keenan's article, as an example, that Al MacNeil coached the Calgary Flames in 1980. Reso lute 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this, infact we used to have succession boxes for this at one point and when navboxes became all the rage someone switched them. -Djsasso (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. It might cause a stir if we suddenly nom'd them all at once, but I suppose if there is a consensus here and we're inside the guidelines the I see no reason why we shouldn't do it the right way. black ngold29 00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would just do one set of templates at a time. ie wipe out the coaches and then when that one is done take on the next set. -Djsasso (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd batch nom a set, after replacing all. And I will get started on that soon. Reso lute 14:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with thou... because I enjoy modular arithmetic. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting with the low hanging fruit: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_3#Template:NHL_FirstOverallDraftPicks Reso lute 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And a second, though for different reasons: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_3#Template:EA-NHL-series. Reso lute 16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree on everything said already. These templates just get in they way and make everything look bad. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ducks-Red Wings and Overtime

If anyone is around right now, the Ducks and Red Wings are starting their third period of overtime. That means that if no one scores in the enxt 14 minutes, it will eventually be added to the list over at Overtime (ice hockey). The problem is that people tend to add the games in while it's in progress, so it would be good to keep watch over the article and make sure that it is kept stable until the conclusion of this game. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Anaheim just scored. Tavix | Talk 22:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just going to say that it doesn't matter anymore. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian Junior Hockey League

I don't know anything about this new league other than it was announced... would someone be willing to work with it? Worse case scenario, at least list the teams? DMighton (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just every Russian KHL team, minus Amur...I'll have to double check on that--Lvivske (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationality and Categories

Hey. Having a current issue user:98.232.98.144 (who looking at their history, has a penchant for stirring up russian nationality/ethnicity issues and deleting things). I think it may be a sockpuppet for User:Aleksandr_Grigoryev, not sure, but both users act similarly...

Anyways, this issue has come up due to a handful of Ukrainian players who have changed their citizenship mid-career to be eligible for the Russian national team and get noticed by scouts. The players in question are Nikolai Zherdev, Oleg Tverdovsky, Alexei Mikhnov, and Vitali Vishnevski.

1. All of these guys were registered Ukrainian hockey players at one point, so why should they be removed from the "Ukrainian ice hockey players" category because they did the ol' switcheroo? Both old and new country should apply, no?

2. I had the flags set up to show both old and new nationality, similar to how Petr Nedved and Owen Nolan have it (I don't know why Nolan has it...'anyways), but it's being continually changed to show only Russia. I think this is different from someone like Robyn Regehr, who obviously never played ice hockey in Brazil, as these guys actually played ice hockey in Ukraine from a young age until usually mid to late teens. I understand for a roster listing RUS is correct, but for the infobox both should show.

The infobox doc. says nationality_2 is used if a player has dual-citizenship. The argument against is that Ukraine doesn't legally acknowledge dual citizens. If the latter argument applies, then no player on the UKR national team would be legal citizens as it is common practice for players to get a RUS passport when playing pro in Russia. Guys like Ponikarovsky have even admitted to having all 3 (UKR, RUS, CAN) citizenships at the same time.

--Lvivske (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The documentation should probably be updated but it was recently decided I believe that the nationality field no longer means nationality but which national teams they have played for. -Djsasso (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell these guys all fit under the Brett Hull type of situation. He has both...seems the right thing to do--Lvivske (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

None of them has played for Ukraine or is even eligible to do so. Bohdan80 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Zherdev played for the Ukrainian junior team. -Djsasso (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Zherdev played for the Russian national junior team. Bohdan80 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt it is M.V.E.i. who is a puppetmaster who constantly pushes russian agenda and has targeted hockey articles a few times. Thought his IP geolocates to the US which is not the normal set of IPS he hits from. You might just have someone who is very passionate about this. -Djsasso (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that username...good call!--Lvivske (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, straight from Zherdev's mouth he is Ukrainian. Interview. -Djsasso (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair about that article, it is a translated version, so it may not be written as he meant it to be said. I also remember that when I created the Zherdev article back in the day, I went through this same issue. What I found to be a compelling argument is that Zherdeve was prevented from coming over to the NHL because of his obligation to serve in the Russian military, something all Russian citizens must do. When you also consider that he played for Russia in the U-19 and World Junior Championships. So in conclusion, I don't really know what I'm trying to say and am not really adding anything to this discussion. I would agree that he is both Ukrainian and Russian. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Grouping RSL, KHL, etc, stats together, or as separate leagues?

Hi, just noticing that some articles combine Soviet and RSL, and now RSL with KHL stats. What is the proper method here? Are we to count the KHL as a continuation of the RSL (and its previous incarnations) or as a new league with a new stat total line? Thanks in advance --Lvivske (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd combine totals like RSL/KHL totals. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't so far, but could agree with either way. They are technically different leagues, they just happen to have the same teams. Almost similar to the NHA/NHL and WHA/NHL, in a way. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

hockey fan seeks adoption

See User:AlexW1122, who wants adoption & is a hockey fan... just letting you know. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Uniform Images

Um, hello everybody. I'm the Silent Wind of Doom, and for those of you who don't know me by my screen name, I am the creator of the uniform images for Major League Baseball and the National Football League (although the latter has gotten out of hand. I plan to fix that next. One project which I have been working on for some time is NHL uniforms, although I have become distracted and lost touch with them, I have finally completed them. I've rolled out the images tonight, and they can be seen on every team's page. I plan to refine them, and should have a finely tuned and updated version ready by the beginning of next season. I've delayed quite a bit with these, and wanted to have them up before the end of the season, especially given the Canadiens' special set of uniforms. There may be little issues here and there, and if there are any inaccuracies or issues, please tell me and I will try to fix them as quickly as possible.--The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. If you get the time... there are other leagues with really interesting jerseys you might want to try... Kontinental Hockey League, American Hockey League, Canadian Hockey League... etc... good work. DMighton (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic job, really. There is one you missed though. The Carolina Hurricanes alternate jersey. Thricecube (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you were adding them yesterday, and wasn't too sure to start, but they are growing on me. However, now that these have been added, per WP:NFCC I am going to remove all fair use jersey images added last year before the start of the season. We shouldn't have two sets of fair use examples of team jerseys. Reso lute 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I never been a big fan of them (soccer articles) but you've done a great job indeed. But I think they should be placed at the bottom of the infobox together with the colour info, in the middle it just looks a little bit odd IMO. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a nag, but the legs are ridiculously long compared to the jersey sleeves...--Lvivske (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Icehockey kit

Hi everybody. Just while The Silent Wind of Doom was uploading his beautiful images, I was creating a template for inserting hockey uniforms in articles... So now we have both... The template can be useful for european and nationals teams, when a uniform image is not present... At the moment it works inside {{Infobox national hockey team}}, and a few patterns are uploaded here and here. Before editing {{hockey team}}, for using the new template inside it, I would like to have a feedback from this project. Thanks. --Doctor Dodge (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, and looks decent, but I've only heard the term "kit" used to describe soccer uniforms. Is it used in other countries for uniforms for other sports? I'd rather see the template use the term "uniform" in the title, but as long as the colors and design look accurate, I won't object too much. --Mtjaws (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as its addition to the infobox goes, we need to find a way that if the images don't exist (yet) that the "[[Image:{{{uniform_image}}}|center|275px]]" text doesn't show up. Tons of infoboxes for non NHL teams who used the NHL template look broken now.--Lvivske (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NHL team season articles & Division titles

I've peeked at the 1991-92 Boston Bruins season & 1991-92 Montreal Canadiens season articles & noticed a problem. How do we identify the Division champions from the 1981-82 to 1992-93 NHL seasons? Shall we use the 'regular season div champ' or the 'playoff div champ'? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Other examples, are the 1985-86 Philadelphia Flyers season & 1985-86 New York Rangers season articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

? Isn't the division champ the one at the top of the division? In the 1991–92 articles you mention, it was the Candiens; in the 1985–86 articles it was the Flyers. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

From 1981-82 to 1992-93 the division champion was the team which won the division championship playoff series, so it follows that the 1985-86 Patrick Division champions were the New York Rangers. Similarly, the 1985-86 Smythe Division champions were the Flames, the Adams Division champions were the Canadiens and the Norris Division champions were the Blues. Not the Oilers, Nordiques and Blackhawks, respectively.

To recognize the Flyers and Oilers as division champions that year would be akin to recognizing them as conference champions too, since after all they had the best regular season records in the Wales and Campbell conferences. I think some people, particularly younger people and newer fans, simply don't understand the playoff structure of that time. 93JC (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the Oilers themselves do not recognize 1985-86 as a division winning season, whereas the Flames do. Same story, in reverse, for 1987-88 and 1989-90. Reso lute 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a simliar discussion at Montreal Canadiens, concerning their listing of 1991-92 as a Division winning season. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall I delete those (regular season) Division champion banners from those articles-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, but it would be nice to have a concrete source to justify repeated removals should anyone challenge. Reso lute 14:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I've no sources. Only my memories. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Flyers have banners for 1982-83 and 1985-86 Patrick Division championships when they lost in the first round. They have no such banner for 1988-89 when they advanced to the conference finals.[2] --24.102.232.53 (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a 1989 article from the New York Times that refers to the Islanders as "last year's (1987-88) division champions" and that the Devils "went farther in the playoffs than any other Patrick Division team." As far as what NHL.com says, the Patrick Division Wiki article points to this page which has a section for all-time standings and it says, "Need to know who won what division in which season? All the information is contained in our All-Time Standings section." The 1980s and early 1990s are listed exactly like the standings for other seasons and there is no note suggesting the playoff champion is the real champion of the division. --24.102.232.53 (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What's it gonna be? Regular season Division champs or Playoff Division champs. We can't have both, which is currently the case. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Table problems

I'm currently working on a project that involves using sortable tables, and am having some dificulties making the numbers work. If anyone is interested in helping out, the table is located at this link. The issue at hand is when I try to make the columns descend, it goes by the first digit. As a result, 9 will go before 20, and so forth. Any help would be appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll help. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciated the help greatly. After spending nearly two hours working on it, I was getting ready to throw my computer across the room in frustration. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my world with the draft picks table! Basically, something is forcing it to alpha sort rather than number sort. You'll have to check to make sure that the contents of each cell in any given column are all numbers, or all wrapped around a {{sort}} template. I've left more at your talk page. Reso lute 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I got this all figured out. With that said, feel fee to take a look at what I hope to use as a starting point for a total revamp of the 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters article, and the other WC roster articles. Any advice or commentary is welcome and appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport

I've started a discussion on the guidelines of Template:Current sport and their application here, for those who are interested. --Conti|✉ 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Need a little help

[3] I am having trouble putting a border around this chart... can someone lend a hand? DMighton (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Think I got it fixed... looked to be some syntax issue, but I changed three things at once, so don't ask me which it was! Reso lute 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot... I can only do so much with that stuff then my brain goes fuzzy... much appreciated. DMighton (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Np. It sure helped that there was a "working" table right above it to base off of! Reso lute 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rosters or stats on past seasons?

It certainly makes sense to have rosters on the current team season's articles as they are ever-changing, but once the season is concluded and the statistics are added should we just remove the roster? Aside from birth places/dates (which are avalible on the player's individual articles) it's basically repeating player's names which have already been given in the stats section. Yay, ney, thoughts? black ngold29 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the stats section is there I am happy with that. I tend to just subst the template into the article so that people can get any information they need before the roster is fully removed. Only issue with relying solely on the stats section is you lose what position people play. -Djsasso (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I remove the rosters on past seasons. As soon as the season ends, the roster is no longer relevant, as I don't see any reason why it is important to know who was on the roster on the final day of the season as opposed to the first, the midway point or day 133. The player stats section covers off the entire season's roster. Reso lute 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just add a position column to the stats? A simply D, LW, RW, C would suffice. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Roster info (often) has birth places, birth dates, uniform numbers and playing positions. What about that? Alaney2k (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am less concerned with the birth places and birth dates as they don't really have a relevance to the season unlike positions etc that impact the actual team. Birth dates etc can be found via going to the player page. -Djsasso (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but others may -like- it. Anyway, is it ok to propose to add two fields to stats table - uniform number and player position? Alaney2k (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I was against it...I was just stating why I thought it was less important to have them there vs the number and position. -Djsasso (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see more worth in the position than number, as position have some effect on stats. black ngold29 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that you don't usually see jersey numbers in player articles, so I'd be for including them along with positions in the stats tables. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, Nurmsook. A player might change their number throughout their career, and it would be useful to document it with each season article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Now I don't feel like such a dumbass for adding uniform numbers to every stats table in every season page I've ever written. 93JC (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Weird this discussion popped up, I was just thinking about it...but for national teams. National team rosters are more relevant historically than an NHL teams (which can fluctuate through a season). How should historical rosters be handled? As separate page-list? And is there a style guide for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvivske (talk • contribs)

Page move request

Could someone move Scott Young (ice hockey b. 1967) to Scott Young (ice hockey) please? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ice hockey) should probably be a dab page which I have now changed it to. The bigger questions is if the main Scott Young (disambiguation) page should be moved to Scott Young. Not sure if the hockey writer is the most notable, have to read the various bios first. -Djsasso (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Scott Young should go to the disambig. page, SY (ice hockey) to the player. SY (writer) to the other SY --Lvivske (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OMGZ! Balsillie is at it again!!1!!

Balsillie has put in a major bid for the Phoenix Coyotes, and the team has filed for bankruptcy protection. Expect a lot of action at that article. There was once an "NHL team in Hamilton" article, was there not? Given how much news Balsillie has made on this topic, that might be viable as an article again. Reso lute 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton Tigers again? Alaney2k (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Jets are comin' back, baby!--Lvivske (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Board of Governors (who, are the real NHL power) will never allow a 'move' to Canada. Had Balsillie promised to buy & move the Coyotes to Las Vegas or Kansas City? the NHL would've welcomed him with open arms. Don't hold your breath Canada. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the beauty of the move Balsille pulled. Because Phoenix filed for bankruptcy the NHL board of governors have no choice in the matter, legally the judge decides who has made the best offer. It's now in a judges hands who will be the owner. I am pretty sure Balsille told Phoenix to file for bankruptcy without informing the NHL of it for this reason, so the NHL couldn't strip Moyles of the franchise first which would mean the NHL could decide who the new owner would be. This is why the NHL is so mad in their comments to the media about how the Coyotes never informed them of their plans. -Djsasso (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and where is Bettman going to find a sucker billionaire willing to get into a bidding war with JB for a bankrupt money bleeding team, or one willing to outbid to move the team to a new market and have to throw down X more millions in setting up a franchise in a new market. JB seems to have this one all but won IMO (then again, I'm a former Hamilton Predators season ticket deposit holder, so I'm being hopeful all over again)--Lvivske (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bettman & Co will fight any possible move to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the owner of the because there is someone who wants to buy the team. Balsille isn't a billionaire for nothing..this was all planned. -Djsasso (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see the franchise purchase & re-location to Canada, become a reality. But, I'm not gonna under-estimate Bettman & Co's anti-Canadianism. This is gonna get ugly. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they are looking into whether or not the Coyotes are allowed to file bankruptcy on their own, but I betting that they are since a few teams have done it in the past. I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on since the NHL sent a VP to Toronto the other week to talk to a group about putting a second team in Toronto. I think its more Anti-Balsille than Anti-Canada at this point. -Djsasso (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is is possible, that Balsille is related to Eddie Livingstone? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the anti-Canadianism angle is greatly overblown. It's become probably the single most enduring myth of the Bettman era, and most certainly a myth that Balsillie is more than willing to exploit in this case. I do think the reluctance comes not from hating Canada, but from the power struggle that is Balsillie vs. Bettman. Reso lute 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone saw this, but the commish of the KHL wants to buy an NHL team and relocate it to Canada as well, http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=277645 --Lvivske (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that as well, was wondering if he was one of the 3 offers that Phoenix supposedly was working on before Moyes filed for bankruptcy. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Governors would be stupid not to take up Balsillie on his offer. The team is bleeding money from the league coffers. Bettman has been quiet publicly. If he was wise, he will stay quiet until the Board tells him what to do. If he rants and raves too much, he could get tossed if the Board goes ahead and approves the transfer. I don't see how the bankruptcy court could force the NHL to move the team to Hamilton. Toronto and Buffalo would want some cash. I don't know of an arena other than Copps in the area that could take the team. The junior arenas are about 5,000 seating. I think Balsillie will have to make a settlement with Buffalo and Toronto for it to go. Moving it from Phoenix/Glendale is the best idea for the team and the league, but the Glendale govt and mayor will be fighting it. Stay tuned! Alaney2k (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that is one of the things the league is trying to fight, whether the court can tell them they have to allow the team to move. But basille bought a large plot of land between Kitchener and TO it is expected that was where he is planning to build an arena once he hooks a team. So it will probably be Copps until its built. Just like in Ottawa and Carolina before their arenas were finished. If I was the NHL I would be careful not to get too upset because they were already walking a fine line with not getting slapped with an Anti-trust lawsuit for collusion. -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Copps could work as a temporary solution. Lord knows even in that hole it would make loads more money than PHX does presently. The court aspect of this is really interesting; NHL doesn't have the right to deny a bid, but at the same time the court doesn't have the right to approve of relocation. It'll be interesting once the newspapers get the opinions of bankruptcy lawyers on the matter.--Lvivske (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: CBC just interviewed a bankruptcy lawyer, and the court's decision would be final, and the Bettman wouldn't be able to veto relocation.--Lvivske (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A while back, someone suggested a "Jim Balsillie and the NHL" article. Perhaps that would be an idea worth considering? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

His actual profile is one big hockey heading. Maybe a good idea to cut it out and do that? --Lvivske (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it fits best within his own biography, where events could (in theory, if his article were improved) be placed in context with the rest of his life and business career. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, I totally support Balsillie and think he is the best thing for the NHL in a long time, and there should be a new Ontario team. That said, I also think Phoenix deserves to stay. I would argue it takes about 20 years for a market to fully back a team, and the Coyotes have only been there 10. So give them at least another 5 years, and kill that horrendous lease with Glendale, and it should make things better. But if Balsillie finally gets his team, then good on him. I think the court is going to take one look at the Coyotes financial records, look at Balsillie's records, and hand over the team with no questions, citing the poor performance of the market. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe PHX should be given another 5 years? I don't get it...--Lvivske (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I just think they should be given time to develop a following. You can't simply put a team in a new market and expect it to be a success. As an example about devloping a following, California is now starting to produce at least a few draft picks each year, which is attributed to Gretzky arriving 20 years ago. If I remember correctly, the Coyotes just had their first Arizona-born player suit up this year, so there is some progress starting. Think about that if a kid started playing hockey upon the Coyotes arriving in Arizona, he would only be 15 or so now. Give them a few years, and then results will show whether the market is successful or not. Trashing that idiotic lease would also help. I know I sound crazy, but hockey has to expand into non-traditional markets somehow, and its not going to happen by every team going back to Canada. Even so, I don't have that much vested interest if the NHL is a global league, or a Canadian-centric leage based in Canada and the northern US. As long as the Canucks are around, I could really care less. So many contradictions in this statement, wow. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the Coyotes are beyond the point of growing. It's just losing money beyong purpose. Also, remember that the LA/Cali market is the same size as all of Canada, whereas the PHX/AZ market is relatively small. I think it's time to cut the losses and move on.--Lvivske (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

They had a game with only 1500 people there this year... I think after 10 years that kind of thing shouldn't happen. -Djsasso (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been 13 years now, and Phoenix was not exactly new to hockey. They've played hockey in the desert for decades. Ultimately, "time to develop the market" is meaningless. If nobody wants to own a team in Phoenix, its gone. Reso lute 03:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny how the 'Yotes are now the NHL's Expos...but the contrast between the leagues is hilarious. MLB couldn't wait to find an owner willing to take the burden away, NHL is fighting tooth and nail to lose money--Lvivske (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There probably are enough fans for the Coyotes to draw well enough. The lowest attendance this year was 11,000. Maybe that's paid or including giveaways? But they seem to average in the 14,000s. That's with the arena being off to the west in a location people don't like and a team that is not a winner. (Read some of the Arizona Republic web site comments) There are 4 million people in the metro area. That's why the NHL wants to keep the team there. I think, what with Gretzky's parasitical salary and the lease, I don't think they can make money. Tampa and Florida don't have great attendance, either, but the teams own the arenas, and the arenas are doing great at concerts, so they're happy to just break even or lose some with hockey. We're stuck with those teams for a while. The Coyotes don't own the arena, and their concert firm is losing money -too-. Just a bad situation all around. The NHL has to let it go to bankruptcy. (This may be going on behind the scenes, what with some owners fed up with propping up the Coyotes) They can blame Balsillie and promise to come back to Phoenix in the future. Glendale should never have built an arena for the Coyotes. I hope Pittsburgh is not making the same mistake... Alaney2k (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one it's not paid attendance but counting giveaways and other ways to make the number look nicer. On top of that, what is the average ticket price? It's gotta be pretty low...last year I could go to a Blackhawks game for the price it costs for good Toronto Bluejays tickets here, so I can only imagine PHX being even cheaper...edit: this picture says enough, lol http://coyotes.nhl.com/ext/0809images/tickets/2009-2010SeasonTix_320.jpg --Lvivske (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like JB has competition. Atlanta to Hamilton popping up now: http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=278109 Maybe there should be a 7th canadian team article? --Lvivske (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Been considering that for a few days now... there used to be an article about the NHL's possible return to Hamilton, but damned if I can find where it was at. There is no shortage of source material... the city building Copps Coliseum to try and lure a team, being passed over by the early 90s expansion committees, Balsillie's attempts WRT Pittsburgh, Nashville and Phoenix, and now this Atlanta bid. As an aside, I would find it to be a somewhat amusing coincidence if this latter bid was successful, and the only two times in NHL history a team moved from the US to Canada, the city being left was Atlanta. Reso lute 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be great to have a timeline of the push to get a team back in Canada. Add Medvedev to the list of wannabe owners. --Lvivske (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Winnipeg angle would make a good fit too. Medvedev would warrant only a sentence atm, but depending on his plans, that could change too. Reso lute 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My fellow Canadians, don't get your hopes up. Donald Brashear will win the Art Ross, before any American franchise is moved to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be creating articles for teams that only exist in our imaginations. Just recently an article was deleted for a team that existed on paper, but never played a game. How would a team that never even existed on paper hold up? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential National Hockey League expansion into Canada. The title is horrible (anyone with a better idea?), but the idea isn't to write about a team, per se, but about the efforts to bring NHL teams to Canada. Balsillie himself has provided a ridiculous amount of source material, which coupled with the Winnipeg bids, and Canadian nationalistic feelings, of which Good Day is a good example, there is plenty of notability and sources for an article. Reso lute 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We need a word in between relocation and expansion...--Lvivske (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers, that's the last thing we need in the NHL, expansion. 30 teams, is more then enough. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

True, lol, but that's besides the point. --Lvivske (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think a 32 team NHL is an inevitability, and that this recession is the only thing keeping the real discussions from happening. The NHL knows it can make a killing putting a team in the Golden Horseshoe, and with major interest in KC and Las Vegas, it is only a matter of time. As far as the standard arguments against expansion (esp. dilution of talent), I've found that those arguments have never stood up to scrutiny. Reso lute 19:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Dilution of talent is a fact --Lvivske (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We're getting pretty far into a forum discussion here, but if a nation of 25 million can supply 95% of the players for the NHL's 21 teams in 1989, there is no logical argument as to why the United States and Europe can't provide enough talent for nine more teams. The talent pool grew far, far faster than the league expanded. Reso lute 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea what this heading meant, so I skipped the updates when they were in my Watchlist. Think we should change it to a more relevant heading? --Mtjaws (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed. ;) I was just being cheeky the first time, and wasn't expecting such a huge discussion. Reso lute 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining Russian Champion vs. League Champion

Me again with some Russkie problems. To give a little history, the Soviet/Russian leagues have traditionally bestowed the team with the best reg. season record as the (USSR/Russian) "Champion". In most (but not all) years, their league(s) have also had a playoffs for a league "Cup" to decide the best. Now, to a normal English speaker, differentiating between "USSR Champion" and "USSR Cup winner" may be a bit confusing; especially when in the NHL (and other NA hockey leagues) the 'Champion' is decided through the playoffs, and the best of the regular season is considered a 'title'.

Now, I guess my questions are

How should things be worded to avoid confusion between the two possible victors? (ie. champ, title, etc.)
When listing league champions, does one list the regular season or the playoff champion? Normally the reg. season 'champ' qualifies for tournaments like the Euro Cup/ Champions League...now the KHL promotes the Cup winner...and recently they brought back the "Russian Champion" title, so its one big mess

As usual,--Lvivske (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for listing league champions, what does Russia consider to be the overall champion, the league winner or the playoff winner? I would think that is what would define this. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It being a national league, the national champion (hence the title "USSR Champion" "Russian Champion") was regular season, but does that make it league champion? Or would the playoffs crown the league champion with the former defining their national champ to represent in international tournaments? The problem is they never specifically call anything the "league champion", it's either state champ vs. cup winner

Here's an example of some perplexing wording I'm dealing with, from the KHL official site: "the Russia Champion will be determined in the KHL Championship – the highest ranked Russian team will be proclaimed the Champion of Russia", and then go on to call the Gagarin Cup the "League Trophy"--Lvivske (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should make an article for the Russian Championship? It seems to me, that it's a national title from the federation, not a league title. Getting through this weird syntax and language has been hell. lol. Also, one question to whoever's reading....should there be continuity between Soviet and Russia? It's the same hockey federation, right? --Lvivske (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's that time of the year again

When users get mad that Russia and the Soviet Union's World Championship medal totals are listed seperately and say it's a conspiracy to make Canada look like a better hockey nation (it hasn't been said yet, but it's coming). This time, it's at Ice Hockey World Championships, and it probably won't be the last discussion either (especially if Russia wins again). The discussion can be found here. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just silly IMO. When you dissolve and start fresh, so do the records.--Lvivske (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Little offtopic here but looking at the World Championship article and seeing there's no image of the trophy I really regret not taking one of it last year, I friggin carried the thing at centre ice... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How did you manage to do that? Sounds like you have some connections with the IIHF. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

TV production team got to pose with it before the final. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And now the user has questioned the neutrality of the page. It's funny, because when I was writing it, I was concerned that people would complain that it mentions Canada quite a bit (although not without good reason), and yet the first complaint is about a much more trivial issue. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the same user from last year. User:Lenev who I am pretty sure was a sock of a well known Russian POV pusher. -Djsasso (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is odd that the user (who previously had 8 edits in 2009) suddenly decided to re-open this issue, and he did seem well prepared for it, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is Lenev (although it should be noted that this account was created in 2007). About Lenev being a sock, wasn't this suggested and disproven at some point last year? There were several users in that debate who either disappeared or were proven to be socks (ie. Berkunt (talk · contribs) was a sock of Miyokan (talk · contribs)) -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just odd that a user shows up after a long absensce to argue this topic which is exactly what Lenev did last year as well. There are a few sockers on the wiki that push the russian POV so i don't put it past any of them to have sleeper accounts. -Djsasso (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Lenev. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was right, the first accusation of bias wasn't far off. [4] It probably is Lenev, but I think that account has been inactive too long to be able to have a checkuser done. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that is why I didn't bother filing one. -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed a mistake lenev made a number of times last year. So it's definately him. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is user:Ssashok a sock for him as well? He just popped up and started adding info to the soviet national team page about how russia is the direct successor, yadda yadda yadda --Lvivske (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

With a user page that says I am a Hockey fan and native of Belarus. I like to compare teams, clubs and players, that's why I am a fan of all kinds of rankings. Also, I believe that people should be able to access information presenting the other point of view. I would guess that he is. Or at the very least a WP:MEATPUPPET. I mean what other point of view is he referring to. -Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This Soviet/Russia PoV pusher is becoming a pain, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I say we shun him --Lvivske (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well its settled now, a user got an email back from the IIHF stating their position on it, I have directed him to file an OTRS ticket with the email to make it official as a reference. So this shouldn't ever come up again. The IIHF considers them combined. -Djsasso (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, I usually delete them when I see them unless they have links to them. -Djsasso (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Carolina Hurricanes seasons FL question

Quick question on this list. I originally tried to get this list to FL. One reviewer decided that the Hartford Whalers seasons should be combined. I told him these are different teams, and should have different list articles. The Calgary Flames seasons and Atlanta Flames seasons were mentioned. Before going through this headache again, would this pass on FL? I've been away for a while and want everyones opinion before I continue it. Plus the list needs some general updating.

Also, would the List of Carolina Hurricanes head coaches be too short for FL consideration? Thanks, PG Pirate 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes the seasons should stay split, this is how we handle franchises and as you point out the Calgary article is split and is a FL. -Djsasso (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the recent FLC discussion finalized that lists should have a minimum of ten items. In fact, according to that discussion, the Hurricanes list should truly be at the Hurricanes' page. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thats what I assumed. I'll cleanup/update the seasons page and if anyone could look over it, it would be appreciated. Then I'll bring it to FLC. Thanks for the reminder on FL length. PG Pirate 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated List of Carolina Hurricanes seasons. Could someone look over it before I take it to FLC? Thanks, PG Pirate 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it, though I might recommend awaiting the conclusion of this season before going to FLC. Might as well not risk that someone objects based on the fact that there will be a change within the next month. The "Hartford should be there" issue will come up. Easiset way to get by that is to build a decent (not necessarily FL quality) list for Hartford as well, and make sure it is clearly linked. That was the carrot I needed to get around the people thinking that everything has to be like the baseball and basketball projects do their articles and lists on relocated franchises. Even then, expect someone's going to make an issue of it. Reso lute 02:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be a while until our season is over:). But, I agree I should wait. Last time someone causes a stink over the Hartford Whalers not being included. Hopefully it won't happen this time. Thanks, PG Pirate 04:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone will. You can bank on it. As always though, it is a matter of consensus. It was easier for me with the Flames since there were 30 seasons, while Carolina has only 12. Reso lute 04:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: are playoff stats required for FLs? I just spent a load of time doing Sokil Kyiv seasons, modelling it after the Canadiens list...and am now seeing this format used on carolina here and it's kinda disheartening :( --Lvivske (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't view it as required. Especially since I very seriously doubt you could compile playoff stats for Sokil Kyiv easily. Reso lute 04:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

...I actually have the information, just neglected to add it --Lvivske (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does suck when you put a lot of work into bringing an article up to a certain format, only to find someone else superseded it elsewhere. Reso lute 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Levi ozbey

Does Levi ozbey meet notability requirements? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he is a hockey player at least ([5]), but he does not meet the notability criteria for ice hockey players. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue yes, if there can be sources found. He plays in the Turkish league, which is their highest level of competition, and it says he was with the Turkish national team. Both those are reasons to keep the article, pending sources proving this. However, a quick search hasn't found anything, and he was not a member of the Turkish team at the 2009 Division III tournament. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems I should look up our guidlines a bit more often. I was under the impression that we included top national leagues of all countries, and being on the senior national team, not just the Olympic team. My mistake. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Though the Turkish league is not a professional league, and I found a post mentioning that he was banned for two years from playing in IIHF tournaments due to rule violations regarding citizenship by the Turkish Ice Hockey Federation, but even if he had played for the men's national team it would have been in IIHF division III, definitely not the highest level of amateur competition in ice hockey. (And lol, second edit conflict between us now Kaiser)—Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Turkish league to gauge whether or not it's pro or not, so I'll trust your judgement on that. But in regards to playing in Division III, one could still make a case that it is top level hockey. After all, the members of the Turkish team, for example, are the best in their country, and even if they are not of the same calibre of Canada or Sweden doesn't mean that they are not playing to the highest level (they made Division II for next year, for the record). I would go so far as to make an analogy to the World Cup of football/soccer. Just because Mongolia hasn't ever qualified for the World Cup, does that mean the players for the Mongolian team do not deserve articles? (Most of them don't) Both teams are still playing for the national team of their country, and I would make a case that even though they are not in the elite division of play for that sport, they are still notable enough to merit articles, providing information is available. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify for those of you just chiming in that the article existed when Who then was a gentleman? (talk · contribs) asked this question. It was speedily deleted soon after. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It was improperly cited, but cited nonetheless, so shouldn't this have gone through afd? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In the past, players have survived afd for playing in the highest league in their country as long as it was pro. Playing in the world championships would have qualified him on the amateur side even if it was division 3. -Djsasso (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the responses. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)