Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Archives
2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15

Template Help

I was recently made aware of a template being used on the French Wikipedia regarding international hockey teams. It can be seen if you scroll down this page. I was thinking that if someone with experiance creating templates wouldn't mind translating that template into the English version, it would add something to the national team articles, most of which are in severly poor form. Kaiser matias 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a list or category of articles to add to the template and I'll do it. Right now, I have copied the template into my sandbox. --Michael Greiner 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done I've created Template:IIHF teams, using some standard templates to create the right wikilinks. Andrwsc 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Template has been distributed to the articles linked in the template. --Michael Greiner 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done everyone, suprised to see it done so quickly. Looks nice. Kaiser matias 04:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Season article format

Does a season article format page exist like it does for players and teams? I've looked through a couple seasons (NHL seasons specifically) and found many seasons have different formatting. The order is generally the same, and they all have {{NHLTeamSeason}}, but the way the charts are shown are different. The colors are different for what represents what, and it can be very confusing. For example, some seasons have green behind a team in the division standings chart to signify a team that got into the playoffs, like 2006-07 Philadelphia Flyers season and 1992-93 Ottawa Senators season, but I've seen several that use green to help the team stand out, like 1986-87 Calgary Flames season and 2000-01 New Jersey Devils season. I looked on the WikiProject's main page and found this, but that's not much help for what I'm looking for. Personally, I like how informative the division standings chart here is. Bsroiaadn^{Let's Go Devils!} 05:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe one was created, but I can't remember where it was linked off-hand. I've been highlighting only the team that is the subject of the article in the division standings because that is the team that is being focussed on. The rest were just coloured that way because people simply copied the division charts from 2006-07 NHL season into those articles. Without a key, the colours are completely random on the season articles, and frankly, I don't see why it is relevant to note on 2006-07 Ottawa Senators season that the Sabres won the Presidents' Trophy. Resolute 16:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ahh, here's the template: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/NHL team season pages format. Resolute 16:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, I standardized the most recent three or four seasons so the teams that made the playoffs were consistent. I think that explains the playoff berths best because it goes in succession from best teams to division winners to others. bmitchelf•T•F 17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To Resolute, I had found that template, and it's very useful, but it doesn't explain some things. I like the green behind every team that made it to the playoffs and the numbers next to each team to show what seed they were, and I think it would be better to bold the team that the article is about rather than have them with the green background. I also think it's relevant to see that the Sabres won the President's trophy (even on the Senators article) to see how the Senators did compared to other teams in their division. Just like I think the Senators should have a separate color behind them due to the fact that they won the Eastern Conference championship. We should work on making a standard format, mostly for the colors and such used....since we already have a template. Anyone else agree? Bsroiaadn^{Let's Go Devils!} 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough, though including the conference rank in brackets after the team name would accomplish the same goal. Adding colour as well just feels like overkill to me. Either way, if we are going to do more than just highlight the team that is the focus of the article, a key needs to be included. Resolute 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with only the team the article is about being highlighted. But I have a questions while we're at the topic; I like the idea with "Decision", who was the starting goaltender. In Elitserien we don't have W-L-T stats for goaltenders, stupid of course, but based on that I managed to get these stats and it was later quoted in NHL.com. But what to do when a goaltender is pulled? --Krm500 19:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually the team site has something like a scoresheet that records who had the win or loss. T Rex | talk 20:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, decision is definitely something we need to keep, or add wherever there isn't that column. But, about the colors, I don't mind if we only use them for the team that the article is about. But then in the older seasons, when there were less teams, the conference rank along wouldn't be good enough unless the reader knew how many playoff seeds there were back then. The colors for the division/conference championship or whatever else we don't need at all..I just liked them. With the division charts, the only thing I really think we should do is highlight which teams got into the playoffs. If it's voted that it should only be for the team that the article is about, that's fine, I just think it would be better to bold the team than do the background for them....or maybe put the teams that got into the playoffs in bold and highlight the team the article is about, either one is fine with me though I'd prefer the first. Bsroiaadn^{Let's Go Devils!} 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Family relations page

Several editors (myself included) are looking at ways to break up the enormous List of family relations in the National Hockey League. At this time, as per discussions at the talk page, this is what the situation is.

1. The criteria of the page for inclusion will remain constant; i.e. regular season or playoff game. This means no Manon Rheaume, Troy Crosby, etc.
2. The page is way too friggin' big. 111 kB to be precise.
3. Splitting along familial connections seems to be the easiest way.

Your input would be much appreciated. Anthony Hit me up... 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting along familial connections is definately the best way to go. And I still think an exception for Manon should be made. --Djsasso 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Split along familial connections, yes. Keep current criteria intact as well. GoodDay 21:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep current criteria. Skudrafan1 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria: players (except exhibition only players), owners, general-managers, coachs, referees/linesmen. GoodDay 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, go by the sections and make them their own article and make them a little template for links to each article. The main article as List of family relations in the National Hockey League should have all the relations wiped off but the mentioned template. If it's a good suggestion, it's better off using the style of another NHL template. But I do have to say, whoever does it will be so relieved after doing it because your on the computer for hours organizing the references, the templates, the articles...God, these things can be tedious.--Hasek is the best 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What's gonna happen to the main article? I'm going to also split it in my sandboxes. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have the main opening then the template below along with the other mandatory templates too. Doing this might break the FL status though. --Hasek is the best 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal if it's demoted from FL-status. We'll just FLC every sublist. BTW, feel free to see my sandbox to see how a sublist would look like, and the template I created. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the template? And if this suggestion is agreed by a couple more people than it can be done. --Hasek is the best 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:List NHL family short, just as an example. We can add more subarticles to it. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The structure can be like this:

The bolding can have the categories (i.e. cousins, in-law) and take the teams and see also out and there you go. The heading can be the old List of family relations in the National Hockey League link, the title to the main article itself. --Hasek is the best 00:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Chart help ("col span" issue)

I would like to add Jocelyn Thibault to the List of Buffalo Sabres players, given that he is making his Sabre debut tonight. However, because stats should not be edited midseason, I am trying to put "made Sabre debut in 2007-08 season" across the entire chart. It's not working so far. Can someone who is a little better with charts than I am check it out and try to fix it for me? Skudrafan1 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier to add a note at the bottom of the list. See how it's done in Maurice 'Rocket' Richard Trophy and NHL Plus-Minus Award. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, it was the space in colspan that messed it up. --Krm500 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bazillion! Skudrafan1 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, after Krm500 showed me how to do it, I went ahead and made the same sorts of edits to List of Colorado Avalanche players and List of New Jersey Devils players. I see Resolute has used a different technique to mark new players on List of Calgary Flames players. Any preference, guys? Skudrafan1 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the Devils and Avs charts, but add spacing to it. It looks kinda messy, right? --Hasek is the best 00:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I prefer the Devils and Avs charts. I don't necessarily think that spacing is necessary though. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 00:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that I'm the biggest space fan here. --Hasek is the best 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it; What do you all think of this sortable list of players? Unfortunately it's not possible for me to make the list look like the NHL team player list. --Krm500 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, but the other lists has playoffs and uses a different wikitable that seems better in my opinion. --Hasek is the best 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, but due to promotion and relegation it's impossible to use that table. --Krm500 00:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's so bad about it? --Hasek is the best 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean because a third set of columns makes it too wide? Like the stats table on Robin Jonsson? --Bamsefar75 00:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One of all the various reasons. There's no stats (regular+playoffs) available from the 60's and etc. The team uses total games played, called "tävlingsmatcher" in swedish, includes all league games, but also international games such as European Championship Cup and etc. The advantage of this table is that you can sort almost everything, even nationality, I think it makes up for lacking the divided stats. --Krm500 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case then where do the playoffs go? Are they left out for the bios only?--Hasek is the best 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This list includes playoffs, regular season, international cups, qualification play, etc. But instead of dividing all stats this table show the totals. --Krm500 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For the list of players, if you're saying that it's preferable for your sandbox chart, you have no playoffs section. What I was asking, why can't the tables from Avs players be used? You did state that table cannot be used for a reason that is confusing to me.--Hasek is the best 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Teams in the SEL can lose their spot in the league and be moved to the lower league at the end of the year. That is why he is saying it won't work so well. And top teams from the lower league can be promoted to the SEL. So the stats could be from two different leagues cause the team was in two different leagues in a span of 2 years for example. You can't just put all the stats together. --Djsasso 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that teams gain and lose levels of leagues each year also causes categories for some players to be both correct and not. This player for example is in the Timrå IK players category. That category is a child of the SEL players category. However, the player did never compete in SEL with Timrå IK even if the category he is in says so; He was playing with Timrå in the lower league and later moved to an SEL team before Timrå gained a promotion. Another example is Ed Belfour who probably will appear in Category:Leksands IF players which is also a SEL-players subcategory but that does not mean that Belfour is, was or will be a SEL player. --Bamsefar75 12:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense to Skudrafan1, but I think it just complicates things if you add players mid-season. If you put 2007-08 for a player who made their debut this season, you'd have to add that year to every other player as well to keep it consistent since they also played this season. But, in doing that, it would complicate it more because you'd have to update all their stats. I think we should wait until the end of the regular season to update the lists. I do think it should be noted which players have started this year, but think it would make more sense to perhaps have a section with players who made their debut this season and just list every player rather than add them to the charts for now...that section would include players who came back to the team after having left before. Bsroiaadn^{Let's Go Devils!} 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention having to take off the players that were current as of before free agency began but aren't anymore....making the list mildly un-stable because that would have to be updated often as well. Bsroiaadn^{Let's Go Devils!} 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think players definitely have to be added during the season. I think the list would lose its integrity if you didn't. What I think you should do is find a way to list it as "Season In Progress" for their stats if they just joined this year, just like we do for team stats on the team pages. --Djsasso 02:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

After giving it more thought, I'm not opposed to adding new players. I'll add the colspan and I supposed I'll put "Debuted during the season currently in progress" or maybe put "Debuted during the 2007-08 NHL season, currently in progress". Or did I misunderstand what you were saying? Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope that's the general idea I was getting at. --Djsasso 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I updated the List of New Jersey Devils players. Anything you think could be done better or any more ideas? Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it. --Djsasso 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it to. Also, I'm doing my best to keep the diacritics off those NHL lists. GoodDay 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Finished my sweeping of those 30 pages, if anybody come across anymore diacritics, please hide them. GoodDay 17:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How did this thread suddenly become about diacritics? --Djsasso 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he came across a couple and wanted to point it out? Anyway, what about for players that come back for a second stint like with Jesse Boulerice in the Flyers list? Should we do something like this? Bsroiaadn^Talk 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That would work. Hadn't thought about that but I like that. --Djsasso 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, it's more for new players so they are added to the list. And please, I don't want that discussion again, no one mention the Ď-ψöŕḍ. --Krm500 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The cubes and dots mentioning was just a 'heads up' to the Project members. Nothing to worry about, Krm500. GoodDay 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template Change proposal

Hi. I am not sure where I should post this so that a lot of people will see. I have a proposal for the Detroit Red Wings page. I am proposing that we remove Template:WingsCoach and replace Template:Detroit Red Wings with a newer version (that I just created). So the only templates that will remain are Template:NHL, Template:Detroit, and Template:Michigan Sports in addition to the template that I just created, which can be viewed in my sandbox. What do you all think? - Rjd0060 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple other teams that use a similar template, so in that respect, it isn't bad. Personally though, I have never liked the idea of including division/league championships as part of the templates. I prefer that the team template focus only on the key concepts for each team - the franchise, players, coaches, records, etc. I also prefer that the templates be consistent across all teams, and if you take this this template concept and apply it to the Montreal Canadiens, you are left with one giant mess. Personally, I would prefer to retain the existing template. Resolute 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that if it is decided to go with your template style, that you have a couple of the minor league affiliates listed twice. Welcome to the project, btw. Resolute 00:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Are you referring to the fact they would be listed in the new template, and in the infobox up top, or do I have duplicates within the template? Found and removed those duplicates. Thanks for letting me know. - Rjd0060 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I personally like the fact that the div/conf championships are in the template. But I do know some people (like yourself) dont like it as much, which is why I decided to bring it here for discussion rather than to just be bold and do it. - Rjd0060 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking that first suggestion into account, I made another template (excluding the division and conference championships). They are both available to see on my sandbox. Again, I personally like #1, but the main thing I wanted to do was incorporate the coaches into the main template, rather than have a separate one for just the coaches. - Rjd0060 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! I agree with Resolute when it comes to division and conference championships, but I like your the second proposal without them. One little issue though; The text in the header is linked and thus blue, could you possibly make it white (without the link) like the current template? --Krm500 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I have changed the header color to white. Looks a lot better. Thanks for pointing that out. - Rjd0060 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the second one a lot better. I think I can tolerate Stanley Cup championships, though I would have two suggestions: first, list just the year of the title, not the season. i.e.: 2002 rather than 2001-02. Again, that is just my preference for minimalization. Also, preferably, I'd rather see those articles point to the team season article rather than the league season article. But, that is dependent on them being created.

It would be a better idea to have links to the teams season (rather than the NHL season). But like you said, they don't exist...yet. As they become created, which I plan to start doing at some point, we can change the links. - Rjd0060 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also question whether the coaches even need to be listed in that template. There is also a link to Head Coaches of the Detroit Red Wings, which I think would be sufficient for the main template - especially since it will be linked on articles where the coaches themselves are only minimally relevant. Of course, {{WingsCoach}} would remain on the articles for the coaches themselves to link them all together. Resolute 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a #3 to my sandbox with coaches removed, and with the suggested format of the SCup winning seasons. Just to clarify, for the article Detroit Red Wings (and articles related to, but not specifically about the coaches), we would remove {{WingsCoach}} since there is a link to the coaches page in the new template, right?- Rjd0060 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is my preference, yes. And I like the third one. Resolute 02:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea too. I guess I should wait a couple days and see if anybody else has any suggestions? As of now, on my sandbox, #3 is the one that will be used. Now there is the matter of consistency within NHL teams. Maybe we should include the same information in each team's template. - Rjd0060 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer proposal #3, aswell. Very compact, less cumbersome. GoodDay 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like {{New Jersey Devils}}, but I think we could just include a wikilink to the coaches list instead of listing them. I think we should keep the division and conference championships, as well as keep some of the other wikilinks that the proposals don't have that the Devils template does....at least for the Devils template. Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I based these off of the NJDevils template. I, personally, like #1 or #4 in my sandbox. But the other people don't seem to like all that information in there. - Rjd0060 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the division championships and the cups etc in there. It would make a horrible mess for teams that have won alot. And all teams need to have the same info box. I like the concept itself but those really need to stay removed. --Djsasso 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the consensus (as far as div/conf) but the cups should stay IMO. - Rjd0060 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Again you have Montreal screwing things up in that regard. If people really need the exact years for the cups they can go to the main page of the team. --Djsasso 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. If they are in the format of just the year won, not XXXX-XX, it isn't that bad. I've created a draft for Montreal here. I don't think it looks bad. - Rjd0060 14:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that is not to bad as long as those years are linking to the actual finals for that year. --Djsasso 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bsroiaadn^Talk 23:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Coding question

Damned if I can find the switch that causes tables to collapse automatically. On the oldest season articles I have been writing for the Flames, I have been using a collapsable table for the game logs. (i.e.: 1985-86 Calgary Flames season), however it is expanded by default. I've been looking, but I can't find the switch that would cause each month to be hidden by default. Anyone know what it is? Resolute 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a way at Wikipedia:Collapsible tables, but you'd have to re-code part of the charts because it's not the same format as the one used on 1985-86 Calgary Flames season. Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'll play around with that. Resolute 00:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wohoo! got it. Now to update the rest... Resolute 03:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic drive

National Hockey League awards has been nominated for featured topic status. Feel free to comment, but please no vote stacking. Thanks. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeat vandal/sockpuppeteer

As an FYI, User:IceManNJD, who has been indefinitely blocked as a vandal-only account, has taken to abusing sock puppets to persist in his vandalism of NHL and tv series articles. I've already blocked User:IceManReturns and User:IceManisback. There will almost certainly be other accounts created to engage in the exact same pattern of vandalism. Keep an eye out. Resolute 19:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like he waits a couple days to make a new account after the previous one gets blocked. I'll watch out for him, though....wish I was an admin, would make it so much easier. Haha. Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh Bsroiaadn you can become an administrator, you just have to BELIEVVVE! Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 00:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He is the worst hockey vandal I've come into contact with. His preferred method of vandalism is changing dates and playoff opponents. I originally reported the main account, which got only a 1 week block, after spending nearly an hour manually reverting. His edits are tough to spot initially, and are have not been picked up by anti-vandal bots.--Michael Greiner 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He got indef blocked for using a sockpuppet to evade that block. Fortunately, he isn't that smart with his usernames, making him easy to spot. Resolute 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahahhahaha, Oh, I believe Croat Canuck, I believe. And I looked at a couple of IceMan's edits...are they pretty much all changing minor things like stats, playoff positions, etc.? Bsroiaadn^Talk 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Basically, deliberate misinformation. Resolute 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this, as this type of vandalism is, well, sneaky, and anybody doing RC patrol probably wouldn't realize that it is vandalism. - Rjd0060 15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also block User:IMNJD. I reverted his vandalism to the Blue Jackets seasons and the 2000-01 NHL season articles. Clearly, this is an acronym of his first name. bmitchelf•T•F 07:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- JamesTeterenko 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GM's

In efforts to change the word "GM" from red to blue on the team templates, I am working on creating lists of General Managers for the teams that don't already have them. So far I've created GMs of the Pittsburgh Penguins and GMs of the Carolina Hurricanes. I'll be working on the rest over the next few days. Just thought I'd let you all know. - Rjd0060 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the manual of style, the articles should probably be at the titles "List of [team name] general managers". Otherwise, good work so far. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that a for-sure thing? If so, I guess I will move them all. And to confirm, the "G" (in General) and "M" (in Manager) should not be capitalized in the titles? Then an example format would be "List of Detroit Red Wings general managers" (paying attention to the capitalization of the letters).Rjd0060 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That format is correct. --Krm500 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For the lists that exist, I've moved them all to match that format. For the ones that do not exist yet (but they will soon) I've already changed the links in their corresponding team templates. - Rjd0060 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Question: As far as categorizing the GM's individual pages, should I create a category called [[Category:[Team Name] general managers]], or something more general? - Rjd0060 19:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. But, then again, I am a proponent of excessive categorization. Skudrafan1 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably just something like [[Category:National Hockey League general managers]]. Because certain teams have had only 3 or so GM's, like the New Jersey Devils. But you could always put sub-categories for the teams that have a lot of GMs, anyway, I supposed. Bsroiaadn^Talk 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some teams already have them. For now, I am only going to do [[Category:National Hockey League general managers]] each individual GM article. Thanks for the input. - Rjd0060 02:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the category they were being put in currently were Category:National Hockey League executives. Category:National Hockey League general managers would be a duplicate. Personally I think splitting down past the general executives would be a bit much. It is not an overpopulated category by any means. And splitting off the general managers into their own category would create an underpopulated category in the form of the executives category cause other than the GMs there are not alot of executives that end up on here with articles. --Djsasso 02:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NHL GM's is not an underpopulated category, at all. This is the first I've heard of an executives category. I think the GM's need to be put in [[Category:National Hockey League general managers]]. A lot of them already are, and I added a few this afternoon. - Rjd0060 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I think if you moved all the GMs out of the executives category then you would cause the executives category to be underpopulated as there would only be a couple in it as all the GMs would have been moved to the GMs category. In other words creating a whole subcategory for GMs would end up just moving almost all the articles that are already in that category into the GM subcategory which would serve no purpose except add another layer of categories. --Djsasso 05:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I think the executives category should be eliminated. If we put all of the GM's in [[Category:National Hockey League general managers]], you're right, there would be nothing left in the exec's cat. I like the idea of calling them "general managers" opposed to "executives", although I guess they are both. - Rjd0060 05:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is then all the people like the presidents, governors and hockey operations people no longer have a category to go into. --Djsasso 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Obviously the GM's are far more notable than the other "executives", as most of the execs don't even have a page. The exec's cat will just have to be underpopulated because I personally really, really dislike the idea of mixing the GM's in with the rest of the "execs". - Rjd0060 05:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement. Whether we like them being called executives or not, that is what they are. That being said if the rest of WP:HOCKEY thinks we should make that extra level of categories then so be it, but I don't see a need to do that. Just have the team categories be sub cats of the executive category, and then have teams that haven't had many GMs have their GMs in the main executive category. --Djsasso 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is completely irrelevant here because that essay is referring to things to avoid in deletion discussions, which this clearly is not. We are trying to gain consensus here, and I have stated my opinion, which varies from yours. Also, it wouldn't be making a new set of categories, as it already exists, and has for a while. - Rjd0060 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes of course it refers to deletion discussions, but it holds true for any debate in wikipedia not just deletions. You shouldn't argue for a specific position cause because thats how you would like it to be, there should be a good reason for it. And yes we are trying to gain consensus here, but just saying this is how it should be cause thats how I like it is still not a very valid argument. And it would essentially be making a new set of categories, I am sure if that cat would have caught the attention of people it would have been unpopulated pretty quickly as I do believe its been deleted once already. When there is less than 100 articles in a category there is no reason to continue splitting it down to smaller and smaller categories, its pure over categorization. --Djsasso 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There were already a number of GMs in that category, and I added a couple more today. Why can't they be in both categories? And I wasn't using ILIKEIT as a main reason. I said, the category already existed, so why not add them to it. Rjd0060 05:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cause it would be duplication of categories. That all being said. I am not against having this category just so you are aware. I am just trying to show the other side of the argument. The hockey project is actually looked at a little disdainfully by alot of wikipedia for over categorizing articles, so I like to see a good strong argument for new categories that add layers, thats all. --Djsasso 05:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand that. Now, I will say I am not (contrary to what the above comments may show) against adding them to the execs cat, however, I really don't see the problem with adding them to both (to have a specific one which will be quite populated). There are lots of pages in many categories. As far as I can tell, WP:CAT encourages it. - Rjd0060 05:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup that's cool. I am sure tomorrow morning there will be a bunch more opinions to go on. There are probably alot of articles out there that aren't tagged with either which could completely change things too. --Djsasso 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is still a hard one. If the GMs would be a sub-category, definitely keep it together because you shouldn't have an article in a category and one of it's sub-categories at the same time. If they are going to be separate...I'm not sure. Depends on how many executives would be left in the category, I guess. WP:HOCKEY's categories go up for deletion all the time (at least in the past, not sure about recently), so I'm sure the executives category wouldn't be any different if there weren't many articles in it. It's important enough to keep, too...so it's not like we should just clean it out and leave it hoping it wouldn't get deleted. But, like Djsasso said, maybe there's some un-tagged articles that could changes things. Bsroiaadn^Talk 11:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

+/-

Is the omission of Plus/Minus from player stats on the NHL seasons pages on purpose, or just an oversight? +/- has always been treated as one of the most important stat categories, and the NHL even has an award for it. V-train 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly an oversight. GoodDay 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean on the season pages or the players pages? If you mean on the season pages its most likely because its not tracked for the team overall just for individuals. If you mean for the player pages, probably because its not looked at as a very important stat. There are many stats the NHL tracks but the only really important ones are goals, assists, points and pim. +/- is not really considered in the league with those ones. Also I believe once you go back a few years you can't find information on it. --Djsasso 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant for the individual player stats on the season pages. The Plus/Minus award has been around since '82, and the stat has been tracked since sometime in the 60's. On the NHL's stat pages, +/- is listed before PIMs, same with ESPN. TSN goes further and puts PIMs after goal type breakouts. Sportsnet gives prominence to P, G, A, and +/-. From the way the NHL (and other sports sites) treats it, I would say +/- is definitely an important stat, and possibly more important than PIMs according to the NHL. It was also listed in the stats on both the 2006-07 NHL season page and the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs page. Also the 2005-06 NHL season page. V-train 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The only issue with tracking it is there is no records for it before the 60's, as said above. There has been an effort to create uniform categories for all the players, and +/- is not available for everyone. PIM however, has been tracked since the start of the NHL, and so is kept. And there are those folks, myself included, who would argue that PIM is more important than +/- ever has been. Kaiser matias 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I would say it's not a matter of what people think but what the NHL does; I really haven't thought about it myself. If the NHL currently considers it one of the most important stats, shouldn't it be included on the current season team pages? V-train 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is to say they consider it one of the most important stats though? The order of how they list it doesn't really mean its any more important that any other stat. Just that that's how it best goes on a table. As Kaiser mentioned and I guess I didn't state clearly...it is a matter of having everyone the same and uniform. Wikipedia is not a stat database. In fact there are large factions on wikipedia that would like to see them removed completely. So that being said if someone wants that info that could follow the links to the hockeydb.com or one of the other stat sites whose purpose it is to have all that stuff. --Djsasso 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the NHL's stat frontpage, the four "Offensive Leaders" categories prominently displayed are P, G, A, and +/-[1]. V-train 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When I designed the format for the team season articles, I was using the Flames Media guide to determine what info is important. The year-by-year stats do not include +/-. Neither does hockeydb, my other major source. Some editors have added them to some articles, however. I would alos say that the NHL considering it "one of the most important stats" is POV. The NHL does consider it, but plenty of sources do not. Resolute 02:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The notion that plus-minus is more important than PIM is better suited to a discussion forum than here.  RGTraynor  03:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. My point is if PIMs are included, and the NHL considers +/- as important a stat as PIMs, then why wouldn't +/- be included. V-train 03:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is doubtful that the NHL considers PIM to be as important as goals. Just because it is included does not mean it is equally as important. If you have a good source that lists +/- though, by all means, feel free to add it. Resolute 03:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have some strong sources certifying explicitly that the NHL so considers it (as opposed to speculation or inference), that is one thing.  RGTraynor  06:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(ice hockey b. 19xx) vs. middle name

Did I miss a conversation somewhere? User:Michael Snow recently made edits moving the pages Mike Boland (ice hockey b. 1949) and Mike Boland (ice hockey b. 1954) to Mike Anthony Boland and Mike John Boland respectively. His edit summaries simply said that this was done because he was "using middle name as disambiguation instead". He hasn't seemed to have touched any other (ice hockey b. 19xx) pages yet. Is this a widely accepted move, or should the pages be moved back? Skudrafan1 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki standard seems to be that it should try to be the middle name when possible. I think when I named them with the (ice hockey b. XXXX) as the disambiguator I didn't notice that there were middle names in the article. Personally I prefer the bracketed disambiguator but I think I am in the minority in the overall wiki population. --Djsasso 19:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, cool. I prefer the brackets as well, but if that's Wikipedia standard, so be it. Should I be working on tracking down middle names for guys like the two Brent Hugheses, the two Mike Browns, that semi-notable Erik Johnson (ice hockey b. 1981), and others? Skudrafan1 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste your time on that, problem with middle names is sourcing them. (Not to mention privacy concerns for identity theft) There are more important things that could be done in the project instead. --Djsasso 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and you know I'd much rather be creating more player biographies than searching for middle names. Thanks for the help! Skudrafan1 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, this conversation reminded me that I've been meaning to create a page for Petr Svoboda (ice hockey b. 1980). :) Skudrafan1 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to help as much as I can sorting out the other cases. As Djsasso says, when the obvious disambiguation (John Johnson (composer) and John Johnson (basketball)) isn't available because the subjects do basically the same thing in the same field, then middle names or initials is the typical preference. Baseball, for example, has two Greg Harrises and two Bobby Joneses who were contemporaries of each other, and that's always been the standard for them. --Michael Snow 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the two Brent Hugheses father and son? Judging from their birthdates, it seems pretty plausible, but they're not identified as Sr. and Jr., which would be even better than middle name disambiguation. --Michael Snow 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion, yet again

I just restored a handful of Alberta Junior Hockey League logos that were missing fair use rationales (but had everything else, including source - not sure why the taggers and deleters couldn't have added the obvious rationale themselves, but I digress). In this case, the editor who tagged them for deletion did notify the uploader, but did not post a notice on the talk page of the article itself. That isn't policy though, so the images got deleted. If any other team logos got punted in this latest round, let me know, and I'll restore them with the missing information. Resolute 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Why can't people just add a quick Fair Use rationale instead of tagging them? - Rjd0060 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The guy who does this would rather speak to you in a condescending manner than actually be constructive about the FUR issue... that is why. Unfortunately, he usually finds the right people to back up his agenda. Resolute, the Cowichan Valley Capitals of the BCHL lost their image too. DMighton 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are talking about Betacommand, but he isn't the user that tagged these images. At least with Betacommand, we were finally able to convince him to have his bot post a notice on the articles as well, so that they can be fixed. I have restored that image as well. That one was deleted in July, in error, I think. Resolute 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand's poorly programmed bot at it again

This time, tagging images that don't specifically mention what article the fair use claim is for. Of course, one would think that he would do everyone a favour and program his bot to simply specify what article is being referred to when a logo has only one article pointing to it, but his never ending crusade to waste everyone's time won't allow this. So, if you see an image tagged, just jump through the hoops, and add what article the FU claim is for. Resolute 05:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been doing that one for about a month now. At first he was tagging images that did have the article name and he was claiming they didn't. He started tagging my OPJHL logos and I challenged him on it. In the end, I was right. I agree, he disruptive and he will always keep pushing the envelope whether he is right or dead wrong. DMighton 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop harassing Betacommand and read up on policy

It is not the tagger's responsibility; it yours. You've gotta read up on WP:NFCC carefully. BetacommandBot is perfectly doing is job and there is no need to call it poorly programmed. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose you are right. It is doing exactly what it is programmed to do. The problem is that the programming itself is lazy. Images with no FU rationale are one thing. Images that are being tagged for speedy as not specifying what article the FU rationale is for, when there is only one article linking to it can be fixed easily by stating that the rationale is for that article. Betacommand simply finds it easier to let his bot have such images deleted than to link the article in the image description. But then, this goes back to the same complaints that have dogged Betacommand and others for their zealotry wrt images. Many of the images Betacommand wants to delete were uploaded in compliance with the policies at the time. Someone changes the rules, and he prefers to simply damage the project by having valid images deleted based on flimsy reasoning. Rather than have his bot fix a trivial issue, he prefers to waste the time of dozens, if not hundreds, of editors. Resolute 17:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read NFCC enough times thank you and I follow it as best as I can. We follow the rules, but the rules just keep on getting adjusted. I have no problem with providing a source for my image. I did not like the bother, but I added hundreds of redundant FURs to images that probably really didn't need much more rationale, but copyright paranoia on WP can be ridiculous at times and I was sick of being bothered. I have never been rude to BetaCommand, but the moment you question the functionality of his bot he starts treating you like a moron. His bot has screwed up many times in the past, and it has taken Admins to block it to get him to do anything about it. DMighton 19:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've nothing new to add to the above. Betacommand's bot is destructive, provocative and laden with errors. Beyond that, it shows a poor grasp of fair use law, as does its creator and its supporters.  RGTraynor  07:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, on this one point, I'll side with Betacommand. Wikipedia's fair use policies are stricter than fair use law, so many of the goals he has are justified. It's just the way the anti-image zealots go about it that rankles people. Resolute 15:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ADPLANET & images

Could someone else please have a look at William "Chick" Chalmers, and the constant images problems from this user. This is getting to an edit war. Flibirigit 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric Lindros

Could someone please have a look at the edit war going on at Eric Lindros? More points of views are requested. Thanks. Flibirigit 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on it. That section needs to stay out of the article if not for copyvio, then for the diminished quality of the article while that is present. - Rjd0060 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Flibirigit 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders by country

As happens from time to time, the List of NHL statistical leaders by country page has become the source of controversy. The latest issue is about Rod Langway and whether or not he is an American, by virtue of being born on a US military base in Taiwan. The user, Sviatoslav86 has already removed it twice in the last while, and a quick look at his talk page shows he's been warned and banned for contributing in edit wars. I wrote out a detailed explanation of why Langway is listed under Taiwan, and would just like to give a heads up on the issue should it become something messy. Kaiser matias 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there are a dozen problems with this article. Based on the defined scope, Langway would qualify as American, since a military base is considered American soil. However, writing an article based on country of birth is arbitrary. Dany Heatley is not German, nor is Robyn Regehr Brazillian, so it is remarkably misleading for this article to paint them as such. Also, not a single one of the players listed under Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc, were born there. There were no such countries when they were born, they should all be listed under Czechoslovakia, etc. Finally, this is massive original reasearch. Honestly, does this article serve a useful purpose? Resolute 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess it isnt OR, since the hhof breaks players down this way, so there is a source. I'm still not a fan of how misleading this concept is though. Resolute 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why we list both countries when doing categories like Robyn Regehr is. That being said as I run into the Czech problem I am fixing it back to the old country and putting in that that part is from whichever side its now from but I suppose that has nothing to do with this article itself. --Djsasso 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a terrible organization for hockey players. Nationality is far more important since international team representation is lost with "country of birth" organization. Rod Langway was a stalwart for Team USA for many Canada Cups etc., so to exclude him from the USA list is a farce. Olaf Kolzig missing from Germany is similarly bizarre.

One simple fix I've just made is to remove the flag icons from next to the player names, as that is the common wiki convention for nationality, and put them on the country names instead. That might help some of the confusion, but I still think the concept is flawed. Andrwsc 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on all of that. Good idea to move the flags to by the country name. - Rjd0060 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The joys this article has created over its existance. Kaiser matias 17:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Gilbert Perreault

Since this war seems to still be going an RFC was created on the subject of inline citations. Please go and throw your two cents in. --Djsasso 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Smolinski and 1,000 games played

Do we wait until the end of the year to add players to the List of NHL players with 1000 games played or do we add them as they achieve this? Patken4 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that once they achieve this. But I don't know 100% for sure how it has been done. That is what makes sense to me. - Rjd0060 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is to wait until the 2007-08 regular season ends, before making updates. Anon editors, might be encouraged to update such articles everyday, thus creating the possibility of mistakes & confusion. GoodDay 01:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the new players, I think we should add them to the bottom of the list but not include their game totals - or at least make a note of them because it is way too easy to forget the players who have accomplished these things. Thricecube 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is some disagreement about what should be done here. I think we need to somehow acknowledge the achievement when it happens, but also take care to avoid Anon editors from continuously updating the information. Could we add a secondary table to each of 1,000 games, 100 point seasons, 1,000 points, and 500 goals lists? It could be titled Players Who Have Achieved XXX During 2007-08 Season and would simply include the player, date, opponent, and goaltender (for 500 goal scorers). That way, the record is noted but final totals could wait until the end of the season to be populated. Some of the lists already have secondary tables indicating players who were close to the achievement. Thoughts? Patken4 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That make sense to me. I would agree with that. --Djsasso 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look way back in the history of the 1000 points page, you will see that's what I did during the 2005-06 NHL season when Teemu Selanne and Brian Leetch did it... you provide the game information but keep the career statistics as they were at the beginning of the season. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example [2] Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a new table for 1,000 career games. As far as I know, Smolinski was the only one to reach that mark so far this year.Patken4 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Owen Nolan did so as well. Resolute 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

2006-07 NHL season Infobox

I'm a little concerned about this article's infobox. It's suppose to be about the regular season only, yet it includes the 2007 Playoffs. Are my concerns misplaced? GoodDay 21:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dont know. There is also a briefish section in the same article called "Stanley Cup playoffs". In my POV, the difference seems to be that the section has a link to its main article, and the infobox has no link to its main infobox (which would be strange). --Bamsefar75 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the infobox could be edited to have a link to the playoffs page where it has the unlinked word "Playoffs"? --Djsasso 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon Getting in Edit War

An anonymous IP from Europe that got into an edit war a year ago about how the place of birth is listed on player pages seems to be at it again. A number of us have reverted a number of his changes on a number of his IPs over the last few days. Could someone please revert Dan Boyle (ice hockey) again as I will be violating 3RR if I do again. --Djsasso 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:83.192.61.81, User:86.207.18.161, User:83.192.51.105, User:86.198.201.139, User:83.192.189.44 are the ones I can remember off the top of my head but I know there were others that I am missing. I have invited him to join the project and discuss the standards we use but so far he refuses. --Djsasso 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be violating 3RR if you are reverting clear vandalism. bmitchelf•T•F 16:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be vandalism but when I reported him to AIV one admin banned one IP and then another admin rejected the second IP saying it was a content dispute. So I just wanted to be safe since it seems the admins can't decide if its vandalism or not. --Djsasso 16:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The only one of the edits i happened to see (in my watchlist-field-of-view) was of Henrik Zetterberg. Country of birth was as deemed "redundant" and removed. Actually, it made sense in that case, but the edit was badly executed. (Article says he is "Swedish-born" and "Born ... in ... Sweden" in the same sentence. It would make more sense to replace "Swedish-born" with "Swedish".) However, several similar edits from anon IP 86.207.18.161 (in France) seem to be just removal of useful info. --Bamsefar75 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that looks like a content dispute to me on the Boyle article. See a sample edit. The edit war is not what city he was born in, but whether it should be labeled as Ottawa, Ontario or Ottawa, Canada. They are both right. Doing a quick check in guidlines WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format and Manual of Style, I don't see a specific format to be designated as preferred. (The sample article on the player page format does use one style, but it does not explicitly say that that style is right nor does it say that any other style is wrong. In fact, the style on the current article is slightly different than the project player page format.) I see on that user's talk page that he ask asked you for a link that provides the evidence for such a guideline. Can you provide a link to this? -- JamesTeterenko 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will have to search through the talk pages of the project. I know we talked about it before and came up with the fact it was not necessary for North American players. We really should update the Hockey MoS when we come up with stuff like that. His "redudant" edits were the result of Wafulz and Resolute telling him adding Canada to the articles were redundant. That being said Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) does say cities should be disambiguated by province/state in North America before resorting to Country. --Djsasso 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember this the first time around, but if I was arguing that including Canada was redundant, I most likely would have been arguing about the infobox, not the lead paragrpaph. When doing hockey bios, I always use city, province/state, country in the lead sentence. But, in the infobox, when a player's nationality is listed as "Canada", as is the case with Boyle, having "born: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada" is quite redundant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't you, it was just 2 days ago or so that I read it as a current comment on this batch of edits. For some reason your name popped into my mind when I typed this. Either way its not the biggest deal to me, I am more concerned with the WP:POINT he started to make by removing countries from European players because Canada wasn't always on Canadian artdicles. Or United States whatever the case is. --Djsasso 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeating this again, registering should be a requirement for editing Wikipedia. GoodDay 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly I probably wouldn't have as big a deal with it if he was registered. I can't stand anonymous editors who hop from IP to IP making controversial changes so they can't be tracked when it would take them two seconds to create and account or log into the account they already have. --Djsasso 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Someday, Wikipedia will ban anon editing, it's only a matter of time. GoodDay 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) is a guideline for how to name an article for a settlement, not a guideline on how to use the term in other articles. The main focus of this guideline is the proper English term (which really isn't in question for cities in the US & Canada) and disambiguation. I still believe that the anon user is correct in that there isn't an established guideline on how the city should be used stylistically in other articles. I like Resolute's way of doing things in terms of including the province/state and country in the lead sentence. Using the country after that is not necessary. As for anonymous edits vs. registered, that is really a separate debate. However, registered users do not get any more leeway just because they are not editing anonymously. In this particular case, neither side appears to have any policy or guideline behind the edits and there is just a revert war without discussing the merits of having the article one way or another. -- JamesTeterenko 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What JamesTeterenko said! -- Gmatsuda 22:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I did invite him a number of times to do exactly that type of discussion. So don't think it was just edit war with no attempt to discuss. --Djsasso 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On pages such as User talk:83.192.61.81 you have declared that there is consensus on this topic without any evidence of this. The anonymous user even asked you three times to provide a link to where this consensus was reached. I do not see evidence of trying to have a discussion. I only find baseless declarations and edit wars. -- JamesTeterenko 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, ask for one. GoodDay 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that I invited him here to discuss it which is the apropriate venue for the discussion and not a random IP talk page, so I would appreciate you not trying to bash me. He was provided links once even on that link you posted. --Djsasso 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and here is link 1 Notice the lack of country. If no one has objected to this that is a form of concensus since its been this way for years. link 2 goes to show we don't use the country for birth locations in other places in articles. And link 3 and link 4 just for your info. I am sure I could find a number of other locations where our examples show a lack of country and our talk pages indicate we don't use the country for NA players if you really want me to. The point of this was more to try and come to a concensus if there wasn't one. Hence the multiple invitations here to discuss it.--Djsasso 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Link 1 shows an example of usage that doesn't use the country, but does not state it as a guideline. The very beginning of sample text in link 2 has the country listed, "The Anytown Samplers are an ice hockey team in the Any Hockey League. They play in Anytown, Ontario, Canada at the Anytown Civic Arena." (emphasis mine). So, it is an example of qualifying with the country at the beginning of an article. The last few comments of link 3 seem to indicate that some editors felt that there was no objection to including USA or Canada in describing the birthplace. Those that objected to this claimed that there was no consensus. Link 4 has pretty minimal discussion, so it is hard to infer any consensus based on that. It does seem clear to me that there is a lack of consensus to this issue. If you invited the anon editor to a discussion, I didn't see it, but I didn't look hard. All I found were revert wars and assertions of guidelines or consensus that was not backed up. In the end, I personally don't think it makes that big of a difference whether the country is there or not. I really just think that the revert war was silly -- from both sides. If you want to gain a consensus for how this is listed in the beginning of an article, go ahead and start that discussion. I'll stay out of the discussion from now on. -- JamesTeterenko 07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My two cents when it comes to European players, especially swedes; City, Country, links go to the articles. But I always link the word Swedish in the lead to the Swedish people article. In that case Sweden is not redundant in the parentheses. Besides, say that we didn't use country after city and a player is born abroad, you'd have to go to the city article to see in what country the player was born. --Krm500 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

International Hockey League (2009) and Toledo Storm

User:Gjn26 insists that there is a "NEW" hockey league starting, aptly named the International Hockey League (2009), and claims it is referenced on the Toledo Storm website, which is under construction! I've reverted his changes to the Toledo Storm article itself. Any comments on the IHL article itself? Candidate for AFD? Flibirigit 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's complete bull. I'd go for a prod on it myself.  RGTraynor  13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah prod then afd. --Djsasso 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So I prod'd it but this guy seems dead set on the rumour by the looks of what Filibirigit removed from the Toledo page. So I would wager a bet it will be removed before 5 days. --Djsasso 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Current NHL forwards

No one seems to be maintaining the list of current NHL forwards. Does anyone think it has enough value to be maintained? I figured I would bring it up here before tagging it with {{prod}}. -- JamesTeterenko 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it does, primarily because it is so subjective on a day-to-day basis and would need to be edited more than once a day to stay accurate. If we don't like updating stats mid-season, why should this be any different? Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)`

Prod it I would say. --Djsasso 21:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. -- JamesTeterenko 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of NHL Players

I was recently touching up the D's when I noticed that someone added a country section to the lists, complete with a little flag and everything. I have ot advocate for the removal of this, seeing as it's a maror NPOV topic that will soon be the source of issues. As we have already seen from the constant issues at the List of NHL statistical leaders by country. The way I see it, it is already difficult enough to determine the country/citizenship/nationality of current, active players. I don't see how we will possibly list this information on players from the early years of the NHL or any other time, when there are few sources on information, particularly on the fringe players who appeared in one or two games. I would have to say that it is information enough, at the time being, to just list what we already had on the various lists, without adding what is an unsourced topic into the mix. Kaiser matias 07:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Someone added those, and I just continued on with it. If I ever get back to continuing those lists, I might just remove it altogether, but for a different complaint: For older players, the wrong version of the Canadian flag is displayed. It doesn't seem to be the most useful addition, though it does add some colour. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Milestones

The NHL has a special award given to players who achieve special milestones. These milestones include: 1000 points, 400 goals, 600 assists, 1000 games, 25 shutouts and 500 games by a goalie [3]

I've followed that definition while I've been editing Flyers season pages, but I've noticed on some of the 2007-08 team season pages the list of milestones is quite lengthy. The first and every hundred Game, Goal, Assist, Point, and so on is listed (the most excessive is probably Montreal’s). Is there some kind of set criteria for what should and should not be listed as a milestone? --Ulf17 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I like all the ones on the Montreal page to be there. --Djsasso 18:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, so I don't mind it overall. Montreal is ridiculous though. I think I am going to prune stuff like "50th anniversary of Maurice Richard's 500th goal" and some of the not-records from that list. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The powerplay goal and shots on goal franchise records have got to go too. tied for 3rd, tied for 4th is a notable "milestone?" Reeks of Recentism. IrisKawling 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

I've been working on this page with Awadewit and SandyGeorgia, and from a writing and MoS standpoint, it's ready, I think. I was wondering if you can give a quick review of it before I nominate it. Thanks. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me. GoodDay 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed one link that needed a disambiguation (unless Ted Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts, had his name misspelled on the Cup in the 1940's) and, other than that, I couldn't find anything to change. As GoodDay said, looks great! Skudrafan1 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe good'ol Ted did win the Cup when he was sober :-p Flibirigit 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently at FAC (link). Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request images!

Can people please Request more images? I'm constantly trying to find photos for players and if there was a bigger list of articles in need, even if it's just star players, it'd be more efficient to aid in my daily quests. IrisKawling 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as they're not Wayne Gretzky images. IMHO, there's already more then enough Gretzky images on the hockey articles. GoodDay 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! Currently playing in the NHL; Per Johan Axelsson, Sean Bergenheim, Christian Bäckman, Loui Eriksson, Magnus Johansson, Joel Lundqvist, Petteri Nummelin, Johnny Oduya, Ville Peltonen, Alexander Steen. Other NA leagues (I think); Jason Krog, Johan Ryno, Kirill Starkov, Morten Madsen, Mikkel Bødker. --Krm500 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have one of Johan Ryno from January but it is of low-quality like this. Usually the faces end upp fuzzy because of low light, narrow lens, and long distance from my camera. I ususally upload such pics only if players are "notable enough", making it worth the effort. --Bamsefar75 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I could add request for eight notable Arenas in Sweden to the list, but I would prefer if there was a global mix of arenas to build upon first. I recently added our project banner on hundreds of european (non-Swedish) arenas, and I think there are lots of notable subjects among them. I guess the request list is empty because of nobody have made a request yet? --Bamsefar75 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...so I took the liberty of adding some easy-to-find huge european venues without pics. Someone please add any US/Canada arenas too (capacity above 10,000 to begin with, if they lack images?). --Bamsefar75 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been planing to take my camera to Scandinavium for a while now, maybe I'll do it on tuesday. But I have some issues with Wikipedia's image policy so I'll only upload the images if I think that they can be featured. --Krm500 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to help. How do you search for these images and justify their license for use on Wikipedia? bmitchelf•T•F 01:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Flickr is a good place to start. To the right of the images you'll find the copyright status. I think you can search for "free" images as well. --Krm500 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Transactions

Would this be preferable to the various subsections under Transactions on team season pages? --Ulf17 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Cleans up the multiple tables nicely. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice and it saves space. --Krm500 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Roster templates

A user just added Template:2001-02 Detroit Red Wings to all 2002 stanley cup winners. I'm not 100% clear on the rules but aren't these kinds of templates prohibited? --Krm500 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The baseball project has them, and puts them on the article of each member of a championship team. However, I personally don't see the point of them. In short, yes they are allowed, but I don't like them. --Michael Greiner 06:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, we had a debate about the merits of those templates with the resulting consenus was to drop it. Kind of pointless anyways, I might add. Kaiser matias 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

These are a waste of time and don't really contribute much. IrisKawling 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we should have those. - Rjd0060 15:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we actually had them all TFDed awhile back when someone tried to do that last. --Djsasso 06:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD'ed several times now. Might as well put this one up too. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. They're back... --Krm500 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Return of the template

Yup.. here's another.. Template:2002 Red Wings Stanley Cup Champions, created by User:Tigersfan1992. Anyone wanna TFD? Flibirigit (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I should look here first next time. Didn't know it was being discussed already. Not sure what TFD means though? I don't know who created the first one, but it wasn't me. Tigersfan1992 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

TFD is Templates for Deletion. And no worries. I am inclined to just speedy delete your template as a G4 recreation, though I'll hold off in case you have any objections. Resolute 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates, revisted

Template images have been updated, based on consensus reached in discussions located here!

I am now proposing that all of the bottom the page navigational templates be changed to a "navbox" format, with the "hide" feature, the "steel blue" border at the top, and no images in the upper right hand corner. See examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Templates Any thoughts? Flibirigit 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the collapsible templates were standard policy anyways... lol. Sounds like a good idea to me... we might as well get our foot up on this now. DMighton 18:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flibirigit (talk • contribs)

Why does the previous post have two monikers? DMighton and Flibirigit? GoodDay 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Flib, reposted my last comment off of my talk page.... that is why. DMighton 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love those robots :-) LOL Flibirigit 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All navigational templates have now converted to "navbox" format. Flibirigit 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Euro hockey templates

Thats odd... Where are the {{Swedish Elite League}} {{Swedish Elite League Arenas}} {{Allsvenskan (ice hockey)}} league navboxes on that summary page? Perhaps they are out due to abbreviation issues? --Bamsefar75 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of them. Thanks for mentioning ! Flibirigit 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed {{SM-liiga}}. Finding them probably just needs some catbrowsing, There might be more. --Bamsefar75 06:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There's probably more too.. such as Germany, Italy or Russia. Flibirigit 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I searched deeper and found three more league templates in Europe... {{Russian Hockey Super League}} in Russia, {{Oddset Ligaen}} now called AL-Bank Ligaen in Denmark, and {{UPC ligaen}} now called GET-ligaen in Norway. --Bamsefar75 12:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again~ I will add those too. Flibirigit 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Any luck finding, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Czech, or U.K. leagues? Flibirigit 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a {{British ice hockey}} template covering much more than just the league or leagues, but none for the single leagues. --Bamsefar75 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have templates for any of these leagues below, we should creat them in the "navbox" format. Flibirigit 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, probably there are no templates yet, so creating those navboxes seems a good idea, provided the relevant team articles are available. --Bamsefar75 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, there are articles enough in the top leagues of Austria, Czech Rep, Germany, Slovakia and Switzerland. Template examples on other language wikipedias: Austria, Czech O₂ Extraliga, DEL Germany, Slovak Extraliga and NLA Switzerland. --Bamsefar75 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

National Teams templates

I noticed while looking at this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Templates#National Teams templates, that some of the flags are on the left, and some on the right. I think we should make them all the same. Which alignment should we use? Flibirigit 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the -rt part of the templates' names stand for right. So there isn't any problem. However, usually flags stand on the left. --necronudist 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New York Americans question

I was looking at the New York Americans page and I was just wondering if that info about them being an expansion team is accurate. The article claims that the NYA were an expansion team that signed the players from the suspended Hamilton Tigers franchise. But I was always led to believe the Tigers relocated to New York to become the Americans. The reason I say this is

• If you look at thier inaugural team photo (which is on the page), you can see "homages" to the Quebec Athletics and Hamilton Tigers. The fellow sitting on the ice on the left next to the goalie is wearing a Quebec Athletics jersey from 1919/20. The fellow standing next to the goalie on the right is wearing a special NYA sweater with "HT" on it. The "HT" stands for "Hamilton Tigers". Going by this page http://hockeysweatermuseum.my100megs.com/teampages/nhlheritage/nyamericans4.htm

If they were an expansion team and were not the relocated Hamilton Tigers franchise. Why would they pay homage to the Athletics/Tigers?Giantdevilfish 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, really. The Ottawa Senators pay homage to the original Ottawa Senators, even though they are seperate franchises. GoodDay 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but that's because the modern Ottawa Senators are named after the old team. This would be like if a new Hamilton Tigers are created they would probably pay homage to the old Tigers. And this is like how the Calgary Flames honour the Atlanta Flames by wearing Atlanta Flame logos for the alternate captains. They used to be the Atlanta Flames so its makes sense for them to do it. But it doesn't make sense for the NYA to pay homage to a franchise they have nothing to do with. That they are not a part of or are named after.

Plus in Stan Fischler's book, THE BIG BOOK OF HOCKEY, he claims the Tigers franchise was purchased for $75,000 rather then the players contracts.

There just seems to be some contradiction here.Giantdevilfish 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Flames example dosen't apply, though; as it's the exact same franchise -which merely re-located. GoodDay 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read in numerous books that the contracts were purchased for $75,000. However, I don't have any of them handy at the moment as I am at work. --Djsasso 21:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the NHL Official Guide & Record Book, it lists in the All-Time Standings that the New York Americans and the Hamilton Tigers are two separate defunct clubs. It says in the mini-NHL history as follows,

_{"Hamilton finished first in the standings, receiving a bye into the finals. But Hamilton players, demanding $200 each for additional games in the playoffs, went on strike. The NHL suspended all players, fining them $200 each. Stanley Cup finalist to be the winner of NHL semi-final between Toronto and Canadiens."}

And the the entry for the next season says

_{"Hamilton club dropped from NHL. Players signed by new New York Americans franchise. Pittsburgh Pirates granted franchise."}

So from the appearance of things it was more that once the Tigers team disbanded, they became free agents so to speak and the Americans picked them up. This was in the days before the expansion draft. Perhaps the best modern example that can be stated is when the Cleveland Barons merged with the Minnesota North Stars, and the best players from the Barons went to the North Stars. Two seperate franchises, two separate histories, just large volumes of players switching teams. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Man I hate contradicting info. As I mentioned in my earlier post Stan Fischler claims in THE BIG BOOK OF HOCKEY that the club was sold to NY interests for 75,000 dollars. Also in the book The Official National Hockey League Stanley Cup Centennial Book which was published in 1993, it says this when discussing the Tigers strike of 1925. The Hamilton franchise team and players, right down to thier striped Tiger sweaters-were sold to New York's most celebrated Prohibition bootlegger, "Big Bill" Dwyer. And this Dwyer paid Percy Thompson and his Abso-Pure Associates $75,000 for the Hamilton franchise and players. Ugghh!Giantdevilfish 02:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the NHL Official Guide & Record Book which is put out by the NHL trumps any other source. Any time the NHL keeps records for franchises separate we must take them at their word that they are separate franchises. There are numerous precedents in the NHL that go to support this. --Djsasso 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to say my sources are better than your sources, but I agree with Djsasso... This IS the book the NHL puts out on an annual basis and is the most trusted source for information for NHL media all over North America... not that I don't think Stan Fischler is a noteworthy source. I'll do further research tomorrow for it if there's still an issue. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my PoV here but, Stan Fischler's knowledge NHL history isn't fully reliable. I've a book of his, describing a photo of Henri Richard as Maurice Richard. GoodDay 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I would chalk that up to something along the lines of a typo that got missed in editing. It's not so much a factual mistake. --Djsasso 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that Stanley Cup book I quoted from in my earlier post is an official NHL publication. What makes one NHL source more reliable then the next? The NHL seems to be contradicting itself in different publications. I'm just curious, what does that guide and record book call the Toronto Maple Leafs franchise in 1917/18?Giantdevilfish 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a toughy, which source is correct? GoodDay 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really a toughy. Separate stats separate franchise as is the case with all the other franchises in this situation. The NHL is pretty clear about when an team in a new location is still the same franchise. If its the same franchise they continue on the stats such as the Calgary Flames/Atlanta Flames or the New Jersey Devils/Kansas City Scouts and when they are not the same team they keep them separate like the two Senators teams or Hamilton/New York or Minnesota/Cleveland. Minnesota/Cleveland is probably a perfect example cause the business end merged, however franchise wise they remained separate. I would wager a bet the same happened in the Hamilton/New York situation what happened was he bought the contracts and the assests of the team but not the franchise itself. Remember the business entity and the franchise are separate things.--Djsasso 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree (with Djsasso) -- The Tigers folded and their former players were bought by the expansion New York Americans. GoodDay 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric Lindros, again

More neutral opinions are needed at Talk:Eric Lindros. Currently in an edit war with User:TheAxeGrinder Flibirigit 06:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League statistical leaders

Due to the recent dispute at that article, perhaps it's time to remove the flags from hockey pages. Either that, or we establish a clear criteria for flags. GoodDay 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all hockey pages, just the big list pages like that one, and the lists of people with ____ goals. Having flags in lists is pretty unnecessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am with Scorpion on this. The big lists don't need it. Elsewhere we are pretty consistant on how we choose them. --Djsasso 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever gets the traffic going - agreed, no flags on the big lists. GoodDay 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected!! Someone please revert this vandalism, I cannot as I do not want to violate 3RR. Here are here are the diffs].

Done; Though I think the 3RR rule dosen't apply, when your're reverting vandalism. PS- Repeating: The article needs to be semi-locked (thus blocking anon editors). GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been requested in the apropriate place. --Djsasso (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed other than me that the list page is not in their watchlist currently? The talk page is in my watchlist, but not that page. I am showing ALL edits, not hiding anything, but the page is simply not there currently. Strange.--Pparazorback (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it too when they protected the page I couldn't see it in my watchlist. --Djsasso (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick Schultz

I hope this is the correct place to ask this, please point me in the correct direction if not. I have been updating the Nick Schultz article, and I bumped the quality up to 'Start'. Is that how this is done, and does that seem like a fair assessment? I went through and looked at various stubs and starts (that sounds funny), and it seemed to fit. Also, general opinions on the page, if anyone has any. Leafschik1967 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup looks good to me. Good work. --Djsasso 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here Leaf, good work. GoodDay 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Team records or Franchise records?

After a very brief exchange with User:Kaiser matias, I would like to know what the consensus is on having articles on "team records" versus "franchise records". The article in question is Colorado Avalanche records, and whether or not it should include records from the Quebec Nordiques era, or whether there should be a separate article on Quebec Nordiques records. There doesn't seem to be a precedent so far, as articles such as Calgary Flames records only have records that do not include the Atlanta Flames. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well in general we should be going by whatever method the NHL Guide & Record Book uses as that is our source for things like team stats and records and the basis for many of our standards. --Djsasso 07:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on Twas Now's talk page, I also think we should follow the Record Book convention, seeing it is the standard used by the NHL. We are an encyclopedia; we simply produce information, we don't create it, it that makes any sense. Kaiser matias 07:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I don't have the book handy but I am pretty sure they carry over the records in the above mentioned cases. Especially since that is our basis for why the two Ottawa franchises are distinct franchises and why Quebec/Colorado are the same franchise. --Djsasso 07:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It happens that I do have several (4 to be exact) guides handy, and all list relocated franchises (ex. Atlanta-Calgary, Quebec-Colorado, Kansas City-Colorado-New Jersey, etc.) as one, and so forth. Kaiser matias 07:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a near-complete run going back thirty years (and the Sporting News guides to the 1960s). The current one is open in front of me, and they do include the whole run of the franchise; Dale Hawerchuk is the career goals leader for Phoenix, Teemu Selanne has the highest single-season points total, etc.  RGTraynor  12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, now Traynor this isn't a competition, we need not get into a my Collection is bigger than yours here, lets remain civil (I have 9 by the way ;)). Anyways I've agreed with this method all along, if a player has played for one franchise his whole career (i.e. Joe Sakic) he really shouldn't have these records in question just because the team moved midway through his career. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In agreement, the entire franchise records should displayed - Nordiques-Avalanche, Jets-Coyotes, Whalers-Hurricanes, Atl-Cgy Flames etc. GoodDay 15:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's being uncivil. An unbroken string of NHL Guides from the 1978 season on is useful in demonstrating that not only does the NHL consider records to be those of the franchises, not the cities in which the franchises play, but they've always done so for every extant franchise that's relocated.  RGTraynor  16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Calgary Flames records technically does include the Atlanta days. It is simply a case where there are no records leftover from Atlanta. Greater totals have all been set since the team relocated to Calgary. Resolute 18:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty solid consensus in favour of franchise records. Thanks for your responses. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Text really sucks at picking up humour, I was merely joking about the civility thing. -Croat Canuck

If this is Croat? please sign in. If this is an imposter? we've got your IP number. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax dude...sometimes people don't want to log in from a public computer for security reasons. --Djsasso (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

False alarm, I thought it was an imposter. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Shame. I like the impostor better. ;o) Resolute 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Resolute well you can just shut up... just so no more further confusion, if there was some sort of stick-out tongue emoticon I would use it here. I do not really think Resolute should shut up, in fact he should continue to delight us with his humorous ramblings. Now that's sarcasm! Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Notre Dame Hounds

This page seems to be directly related to the Junior A team, but lists guys like Richards and Lecavalier played minor hockey at the school, but not for the Junior A team. Any issues if I break those guys out and add them to the school's page instead? Leafschik1967 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Junior A team is the school's team. They are one and the same. --Djsasso (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The school also has AAA teams in bantam and midget categories and several ages of women's teams. These students attend the high school, but aren't SJHL players. Leafschik1967 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article should have a small paragraph mentioning that there are other teams which share the same name, and any mentionable alumni not from the Junior A team. Only the Junior A itself would be notable enough to have its own article. Flibirigit (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Depending on how highly one rates something like the Mac's AAA midget hockey tournament, the midget Hounds might be notable enough for an article, but yeah, converting that article into one on the school's overall hockey program would be for the best. Resolute 06:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is already an article about the high school itself, what about expanding that to include an 'athletics' section, and maintaining the separate page for the Junior A team? There's no need for the minor hockey teams to have a page, but including the school alumni on the SJHL team page is incorrect and misleading, IMO. Leafschik1967 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I did a bit of expanding on the high school page, and shifted some of the information between the two pages, to where it fits best. Leafschik1967 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens & Quebec Nordiques season articles

Recently, a number of new Habs & Nords season articles have been created. However, they've been created with the french accent. Do I have the Projects permission to 'move those articles' to English (no french accents) thus matching Montreal Canadiens & Quebec Nordiques? GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically they are proper place names and as mentioned in the last diactric debate, wikipedia as a whole uses the accented version when there is no english translation.....Technically Canadiens & Nordiques are french words anyways....--Djsasso (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean Montreal Canadiens and Quebec Nordiques need the french accents too? Just seeking clarification. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I just mean let sleeping dogs alone. There will never be total standardization when it comes to those things. --Djsasso (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to be clear on the 'french accent' application. Merci (Thank you). GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating Categories

Hopefully no one minds all my new, mindless questions, and I apologize if it has been done before. Any thoughts on creating a category - 'Team Canada WJHC Alumni'? Its a pretty big tournament in Canada, and it is a bit of a different subset from just 'Canadian hockey players'. One of my main interests, so I figured I'd check. Leafschik1967 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see that as a necessity. Categories need to be something that are defining characteristics of whatever the article is about. I don't object to it or anything like that but I think the wikipedia community as a whole would probably have the category deleted pretty quick. We are already looked upon as putting too many categories on player articles. They already tried to delete the Stanley Cup champions category which is a bigger deal than the WJHC, which is why I say that. --Djsasso (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. Just figured I'd check. Leafschik1967 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Hockey League players

Are players in the WHL generally considered notable, or do they have to distinguish themselves?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes they have to, for example John Tavares who is expected to go 1st overall, or if they have played in a professional league or played for their country's senior national team. Edit; I don't know the process for afd, but this one seams to fit the criteria - Tyler Johnson (hockey). --Krm500 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability standards for hockey players. In general they have to do something outside of just being a WHL player to get a page. Like being drafted in the first round or winning an MVP. Something of that nature. I will just prod that article for now. I usually prod them unless someone objects then I move it to afd. --Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We now have a Featured topic!

Thanks to the contributions of many users, we now have an NHL related Featured topic: National Hockey League awards. The drive has taken over three months, but we're done now. Will there be another FT drive? Who knows. Either way, thank you to everyone who contributed and I look forward to possibly working on another. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Okey, next featured topic drive; NHL. We just need to get all 30 team pages and the league article featured! (kidding!!) --Krm500 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In a more serious nature, we probably should begin the slow process to get NHL to be a FT. We already have the New Jersey Devils as a FA, and the NHL and Colorado Avalanche are both GA, so if we all slowly worked on the pages, I'm certain it could happen, sooner than we think. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally for me if I ever got the time for a featured topic I would do Captains of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Every single captain of the Leafs would be notable enough to have a featured article. However that is more of a pipe-dream than anything at this point, I just would never be able to find the time for it. Also good work to all those who helped with this Featured Topic, and special thanks to Scorpion for getting it all organized. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 05:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DOing all of the teams would be a difficult task and would take a while, but I guess it would be possible. I was thinking we could get the List of Stanley Cup champions promoted and go for a Stanley Cup FT. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NHL is a huge topic. Narrowing it to Current NHL teams (is current even possible in a FT?) makes it still quite a large topic, given the recommendations stated on the criteria page. Larger than the NHL awards topic. Good work on that, btw. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What about The French Connection? That page and Gilbert Perrault are already GAs, so if we would only need to work on Rick Martin and Rene Robert, although it likely would be difficult. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my unserious reply, it wasn't my intention to undervalue what had been done in any means. It is an interesting thing though, most articles are of good quality and could probably be improved to get that shiny bronze star. The NHL article should be the #1 priority for a collaboration. --Krm500 (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we seriously need to get the NHL article up to FA status, seeing how important it is in respect to hockey and the project as a whole. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon looking at the article, Ice hockey could probably get up to FA status with little effort as well. From a quick glance, it looks rather solid and a dedicated collaboration would probably push it through. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It has a good foundation but far from becoming featured at first glance. But the projects members has shown numerous times that they can get thing done. I didn't participate in the FTD but I followed the progress closely. If we can get that kind of commitment once again from several members anything is possible. --Krm500 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

Why not ask the question right away; How many are interested in a collaboration/feature article drive? Please suggest witch article you think should be our #1 priority and sign your name, keep the discussion above. --Krm500 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very interested in working together with other members. We have proved we can do great things when we work together. My suggestions are the ones already mentioned that I feel that should always be our top priorities: ice hockey and NHL.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Forgotten already?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, NHL and ice hockey are core topics. But the topic in the best shape is Stanley Cup. Two list can pass in two weeks, one GA, one FA... Maxim 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Images from Wikipedia commons, and User:Zetterberg40

User:Zetterberg40 has made a recent rash of edits resizing photos, and posting images from the Commons as the title picture in an article. Is this allowed? What's the official stand on these photos? Flibirigit (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious clean-up needed

I recently discovered this article; Northern Pacific Hockey League. Is there anyone who knows enough about the league to clean-up the article? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I ran into that the other day as well but I don't know anything about it really. --Djsasso (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Found the official website. Flibirigit (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are currently ranked as Tier II in the US but I only think that because that is what the two leagues that merged to create it were. --Djsasso (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They are a Tier III Jr. A league. They were a Jr. B league until 2007. They kicked their last Jr. B champion, the Fort Vancouver Pioneers, out of the league for paying players. DMighton (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[4] This is this year's USA Hockey set up. DMighton (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Washington High School Hockey League

Came upon this article while doing my semi-regular ranking of ice hockey articles. Seems one user, who started this month and has 20% of his edits on this one page, is trying to build it up, while another user, who's spent two years here, wants it deleted unless theres proof of notability. Now, as it affects our project, should it be deleted, or not? It's claimed that "There are established pages dedicated to High School Hockey in the states of Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ect. Why shouldn't Washington have one?" I think we should delete it, as there is no references, and the opening openly states that it is not affiliated with Washington high schools. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete it. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in keeping it if the article was at least sourced (hopefully sourced well). "As is" is not acceptable at the moment. DMighton (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We delete "leagues" like this all the time. I would like to see those other pages so I can put them up as well. We just deleted a New York based one 2 weeks or so ago as a matter of fact. --Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I only put this up here seeing its the second page I've put up for deletion. Not really into putting up an article that acutally is notable. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick search pulls up this category: Category:Eastern Pennsylvania high school ice hockey. I put up the one article, but then saw this category. Could lead to more of the same about high school hockey leagues. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a single AFD for all of the Pennsylvania ones that way we don't have to do each individually. (except for the one you already did Kaiser) --Djsasso (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

General precedent holds that high school sports leagues of any sort are thoroughly non-notable, and they routinely fall to AfD.  RGTraynor  22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with high school leagues being deleted. But I'd recommend going for an A7 speedy before an AfD. They usually get deleted by an Admin within a day or two that way. But if they don't you can still go for an AfD, but you can't go for a speedy after an AfD. -- JD554 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like using A7 speedies at all because they give no ability for someone to show the importance. prod is always the better way to go instead of speedy when you are deleting something that someone could object to. And since someone already objected to the Western Washington one this is why we are going AFD. --Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For this particular AfD you're correct. But I meant generally as the others had no indication from the authors. As long as the author has been warned about the speedy with a {{nn-warn}} template as per {{Db-inc}} they can then use {{hangon}} to be given time. -- JD554 (talk)

I guess the point I am making is that the authers only have aproximately a day to react with A7 (and not everyone is on here every day). Whereas with prod they have 5 days. I personally don't even like that A7 exists when there is another better more viable way of doing it. --Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More image problems

Heads up to users in this project, User:OsamaK has been tagging images in the following manner. More work is ahead. Flibirigit (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my naive question, but -- What's going on at Wikipedia? The image rules seem to be continously changing. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Source clarification shouldn't be a big issue, and not fixing it does not seem to lead to deletion. Seems it is just a cleanup tag. I don't know about the collected hockey logo files here as a whole, but the ones I upload usually have a source such as "direct image url on image page url". --Bamsefar75 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

He put six notices on my page today... all of them for images with decent sources... I am really not interested in doing more work on these images... they are not why I am here. DMighton (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know these "rules" very well, as I regularly delete thousands of such images on a daily basis. If you need help with an image, don't hesitate to ask me at my talkpage. Maxim 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with this, especially when webpage names are not static, only the route name is. Flibirigit (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

Hello guys, there's an anon editor fighting to include Bruins 'interim-alternate captain' Marc Savard on this article; I'd say Savard doesn't belong (as his service is temporary). Am I guilty of 'ownership' of that article OR is he guilty of pushing a PoV. Should we included 'interm alternate captains'? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If he is listed on the Bruins website as an Alternate then he is in the right. If he isn't then you are in the right. --Djsasso (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough - go by the websites. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Bruins official website lists no alternates. Howabout, I re-add the 'interims' & place 'injured' tags on those alternate who are injured (thus explaining the extra 'alternate')? GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Though more cluttered, I may have found the answer. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Spellings

User:Djsasso has suggested that all Canadian-born players should use Canadian spellings and by extension that all American-born players should use American spellings, regardless of whether a Bobby Clarke is more identifiable with an American team or a Joel Otto is more identifiable with a Canadian team. While I don't necessarily agree with basing the spelling solely on place of birth, it would quickly end any future revert wars that might spring up if it were made a guideline for WikiProject Ice Hockey. --Ulf17 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Canadian & American players spelt their names differently. Please clarify. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Positions. --Ulf17 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He means the spelling of centre/center and defenceman/defenseman etc. But one thing to mention is Canadian players will end up using Canadian spelling anyways if we follow the idea that spelling should be the same throughout the page because they all belong to the various "Canadian ice hockey <position>" cats which are spelled with the canadian spelling obviously. --Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This Project & its daugther Project Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format (I believe), decided to use Canadian spelling for Canadian-born players & American spelling fo American-born. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to locate this prior decision you speak of. --Ulf17 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Check those WikiProject's Archives. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still coming up empty-handed. If you are referring to this, it appears as though nothing was decided, at least not for player pages. --Ulf17 (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Its more of a case by case argument, I think, which muddies the waters. Generally, the variant of English used should coincide with the ties the subject of the article has to which dialect. And while Bobby Clarke is identified as a a Flyer, he is also identified as a Canadian national team player, and by his developmental years in the WCHL. So one certainly cannot argue he identifies with the US more than Canada. However, per WP:ENGVAR, which variant of English used should really only be changed if there is good reason to. Lacking that, the article should follow the variant used when it was created. So in the case of Joel Otto, using the Canadian spelling doesn't seem to be a big deal. Not that anyone really should complain if American spellings were substituted. Resolute 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how I've decided which variant to use. I was told this was POV, however. [5]. --Ulf17 (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we apparently didn't come up with a formula for these spelings? Let's do so right now. How's that, people? GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically it is POV because you are making a call based on your judgement. As Resolute mentioned above he said he would be ahrd pressed to say Bobby Clarke is more indentifiable with the US than with Canada whereas you think he is more identifiable with the US. So no two people will necessarily make the same judgement call. That's why I prefer to stick to cold hard facts like where they are born because you can't dispute that. Well atleast I hope you can't. --Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing the Canadianisms for Canadians and the Americanisms for Americans didn't cover was what to do with Europeans. --Ulf17 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Use the diacritics (Sorry guys, I couldn't resist); Seriously though, I don't know how to handle those. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually it does because what you are calling Canadianisms are not just Canadiancentric as the "Canadian" spellings are used in most other countries whereas the "American" spelling is pretty much just the US. --Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation of the German word Verteidiger: Defender
Translation of the Russian word Защитник: The defender
It seems mighty North American-centric to assume the Europeans would use either defenceman or defenseman. --Ulf17 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! not another Languistics dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about how it is said another language, I mean in English. Most other countries do not use American English when using English. Remember that in most European countries people speak/write more than one language. How it is spelt in German or Russian is a matter for the German and Russian Wikis. --Djsasso (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Which European countries use American English? Which European countries don't? --Ulf17 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From the linquistics classes I took waaaay back in the day I can't honestly remember any that do. The majority have British English for obvious reasons, but I am not confident enough to list off which do and which don't as its been a decade since I have done work in those areas. --Djsasso (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The English spelling of the terms are defenceman or defenseman. Defender, while a literal translation, is not a proper translation, if that makes any sense. For European players, I would suggest defaulting to the article creator. That is what the guideline says. So if you are writing articles and tend to lean towards one dialect over another, it isn't a big deal in my view. How to spell the words is a fairly trivial concern that tends to miss the point of this project: to provide information. Resolute!

Defender is the word used in BrE and is as good a translation as "defenseman".

Agreed, we know the centre and center OR denceman and defensemen, mean the same thing respectively. So, it's really a big fuff over nothing. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Solution to spelling variants

Parser functions on templates allow for any user who chose "CanEng or Canadian English" in their personal preferences, to have Canadian spelling displayed. However, this must be encoded into all templates. The same parser functions can be done in text as well. Flibirigit (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this, but I didn't know it was possible. Where would one begin? --Ulf17 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CHL Bantam Drafts

I just stumbled onto a number of Bantam drafts for the WHL and was wondering what people think of these articles. Obviously drafts for the NHL are a big deal and should have their own articles. But other than an article explaining what the WHL bantam draft is should there be an individual article for each season listing who was drafted in each? Afterall few of the players even make it into the WHL let alone the NHL. --Djsasso (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been reverting vandalism at them from time to time while I mull over what to do with them. I'm really not sure that they are notable, but haven't decided if it is important enough info to include on the WHL season articles, or just delete outright. And ideas? Resolute 23:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally would nuke them outright, however I can see an arguement about adding them into the WHL season pages. My biggest concern with them is once you go back far enough are we even going to be able to have records for them. --Djsasso (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would merge them with season articles. The bantam draft I think only dates back to around 1998 anyways... DMighton (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is all that it goes back then yeah definately we should merge the info and then redirect those pages. --Djsasso (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bantam draft definitely goes back further than 1998 - an article about the 2007 draft says it was the 18th edition, so that is a lot of records to be combing through. Bantam Draft Archive. Leafschik1967 I think it would be easy enough to include on the season pages, although they might get a little long. Most of the later rounds seem to be 'Passes' by most teams anyways. (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... my mistake, I for some reason thought it started mid-to-late 1990s in the OHL anyways... I must be wrong. Maybe we should include the first round and then notable picks (guys who moved on to pro) after that... DMighton (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Flibrigit will know, but the OHL Bantam draft seems to only date back to 1999. DMighton (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the WHL guide, the Bantam Draft goes back to 1990, and the guide lists every team's draft picks, so verifiability is easy. The problem is, probably as many as 90% of the players drafted are not notable. As an example, if I take the Calgary Hitmen's first four drafts in 1995-98, totaling 45 players selected, only Chris Beech, Chris Nielsen, Darcy Hordichuck and Brent Krahn would really qualify as being notable right now. So the question becomes, does adding a list of drafts that saw as many as 200 players selected, with maybe 20-30 notable to the season articles make sense? I tend to think not. Resolute 05:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... then like I said, simplify the list. Include only the first round and for the freak occurrence that someone lower than the first round is even somewhat notable, then list him. The WHL Bantam Draft is 18 years old, the OHL Bantam Draft is 9 years old, how long has the QMJHL had it? DMighton (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the WHL bantam draft history, it really seems to be a crap shoot. Krahn, for example, was a 9th round pick. I'd rather include players selected in the NHL draft than the Bantam draft in the articles myself. Resolute 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I've never liked the Bantam draft... I feel it is the CHL and Hockey Canada undermining the NCAA route by convincing younger players to attend measly CHL rookie camps (and spoiling their amateur eligibility) even though they probably will never ever play a WHL, OHL, or QMJHL game. Although, I feel it wouldn't hurt to reference notable Bantam Draft picks in the different season pages. DMighton (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Eligability isn't ruined untill they play a game in the CHL, they are still able to attend camps. --Djsasso (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was eligible, which was in 1998-99, it was 24 hours on a CHL tryout roster. The rules only changed a few years ago. DMighton (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Junior bantam drafts? Are we kidding? I don't think these deserve a citation any more than linking applicable sites to the team or league pages. Consensus to AfD the lot?  RGTraynor  08:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess a Prod would suffice. Aside from a little vandalism every month or so, I doubt anyone notices them. I'll tag them. Resolute 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge all into season articles

The Bantam draft itself is not a notable enough event to sustain its own article. However, in context of the Junior Hockey League it IS metionable. Lists should be limited to the first few rounds though. Flibirigit (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The information about the draft itself would seem to fit best in the WHL article itself - how they assign players is noteworthy. The draft lists themselves would work in each season page - either the first round or two for recent years or maybe just noteworthy players for the earlier years. Leafschik1967 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I tend to disagree. I really fail to see how a list of overwhelmingly non-notable players adds to the articles. Resolute 05:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be limited to the first round or two and/or notable picks. DMighton (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The first round of the bantam is draft is very notable. The OHL for example has the Jack Ferguson Award for the top pick. These players are typically the "top prospects," for which we have articles on. The events itself, despite being a single day, is a major part of the league mandate to develop players. That in itself is what makes the league notable, the draft is that first building block. It is also an important change in the process that needs a brief mentioning of the first rounders. Flibirigit (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would say just merge the players from the bantam draft who made the NHL in that seasons WHL page. I don't know that the first round is even all that notable. Many players from the first round of the various bantam drafts are complete busts. I wouldn't consider any of them top prospects until they have atleast played in the CHL for a few years. When they are drafted out of bantam they are at best "best guesses" as opposed to top prospects. I think the draft itself needs an article ie what is the bantam draft. But we definately don't need a round by round list of each year. --Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather list players selected in the NHL draft than the Bantam draft. For the most part, it will include the same players, however given that the purpose of the CHL is to feed players into the NHL, rather than to feed players from Midget/Bantam into Junior, focusing on players who are drafted into the NHL seems preferable to me.

Either way, it would be easier to insert the players from scratch using the league guides. I'd suggest AfDing these articles and starting from scratch with however we decide to incorporate the info into the season articles. Resolute 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)