I'll look this up later if need be, but wondering if anyone has a citeable source for Stamkos' ethnic heritage, as there has been a very slow moving edit war ongoing relating to whether he has Macedonian, Greek or "slavic" decent. It would be nice to get a source for this to put an end to the nonsense. Resolute 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

His dad is Macedonian. Google works wonders: link link --Львівське (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch out for the Macedonia naming dispute. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a request to move Minor Hockey League to Russian Minor Hockey League or Minor Hockey League (Russia). After a few days there have been only four comments and I think there should be more input. Could the people of the Wikiproject please come and give their 2 cents?

Here: Talk:Minor Hockey League#Requested move ... I don't care which way this goes or if it stays the same, just as long as we have consensus in the Project. DMighton (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It was established here in the first place to move it to Minor Hockey League, it used to be Russian Junior Hockey League.--Львівське (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I know it was... but like usual, someone has come along and requested to move it back. So, asking for some input on the talk page over there. DMighton (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr ... this might sound weird to have to ask, but what does the LEAGUE call it in English?  RGTraynor  18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Either the Minor Hockey League or Youth Hockey League--Львівське (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As of today (1/1/2010) the Swedbank Arena, Örnsköldsvik has been renamed, and the new name is from now on Fjällräven Center. Can anyone with knowledge rename that article and change all links that are linking to that article accordingly? 78.73.112.53 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And Done. Most links changed (historical context stays). --Bamsefar75 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I created the Junior templates after noticing that some countries were not being directed to the junior pages for their respective countries. What I did was copy the Template:Ih and Template:Ih-rt and added in junior to the link. It works for Russia and Canada, but for some reason does not work with Sweden or the United States. Can anyone take a look and see what the problem is? Once this is fixed I'd like to edit all World Juniors pages to reflect this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also it appears Turkey has this problem. However, I don't believe they have a corresponding page for their juniors. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For teams that don't have pages you might want to create a redirect to their overall national team page for now. I will see if I can see why Sweden isn't working. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be linking to the United States junior team either. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed This is all working now. However, there are still some potential problems. Currently, most team articles are named as "Nation men's national ice hockey team" but some are still "Nation national ice hockey team". Template:ih et. al. will automatically produce article links of the former style, and redirects are in place for the latter style. For example, {{ih|URS}} renders  Soviet Union, and Soviet Union men's national ice hockey team is a redirect to Soviet Union national ice hockey team. Similarly, {{ihj|URS}} renders  Soviet Union and Soviet Union men's national junior ice hockey team is also a redirect to Soviet Union national ice hockey team. But the flag template system can accomodate "link overrides" so that the redirects are not needed. {{ih}} could render a direct link to Soviet Union national ice hockey team, but that would also be the case for {{ihj}}. I think it is desirable to someday create a distinct article for the Soviet junior team (and also the Czechoslovakia team) and when that happens, these articles would have to be renamed. Either both would have to have "men's" in the title, or neither. (e.g. Soviet Union national junior ice hockey team would be linked from {{ihj}} if we also want to keep the main article at its current location). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently IP socks attributed to User:Twister18, as well as a completely different user User:Something12356789101 have begun changing player heights and weights to coincide with mostly unofficial websites like Hockeydb.com and Hockeyfights.com. As it's getting disruptive, I'm looking for ways to reach a consensus. I've searched through the archives and noticed that this issue (with this particular user - User:68.39.163.15) was brought up back in 2006 [1] without a confirmation on exactly what the source for these numbers should be. Has there been a consensus on this? If not I'd like to propose that we choose a source and apply it site wide so that all players heights and weights come from the same source - wether it be NHL.com or NHLPA.com, everyone should be the same, and this will stop the edit wars that are going on the Derek Boogaard and Steve MacIntyre articles (among others).--Quartet 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Hockeyfights.com is a reliable source. It's a site run by David M Singer, and relies on user contributed content. They do not disclose where they get their information on heights and weights from or how they check their numbers for accuracy. Same with Hockeydb.com. There are basically 3 options here - official NHL player pages, NHLPA players pages, or a reliable third party source like ESPN.com, TSN.ca, Sportsnet.ca, CNNSI.com etc. etc. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say go from the source, NHL.com. They would seemingly be the most logical choice. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know hockeydb.com has been deemed a reliable source because it provides a bibliography and this has been held up in numerous Feature Article requests. That being said for heights and weights we usually go with NHL.com if its available, and if not we use hockeydb.com. -DJSasso (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take that as the policy then--Something12356789101 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Many teams publish their Media Guides online as well. I'd expect the numbers printed there would come from the pre-season physicals, etc. Resolute 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the situation at Washington Capitals, would anybody support removing the 'no captain' designation from all NHL team & defunct team articles? If there's no name there, then that in itself means 'no captain'. I'm just seeking consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a second GoodDay, you are missing the point of the discussion and misrepresenting it. What we are saying is that the team was without a captain for only 8 days. This happens all the time. We don't currently list no captain for such short time frames on any page. We only list when it was vacant for a season. This is consistent. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless the captaincy starts getting tracked on a game-by-game basis, I think noting brief transition periods between captains would give such instances undue importance. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But deleting 'no captain at the Caps page, no matter what the reason, is gonna make it out-of-line with the other NHL team articles. If we delete 'no captain' there, let me delete 'no captain' on the other team pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No it won't that is what I am trying to tell you, nowhere else do we list the no-captain for a short few game situation. We only list it for full seasons. So the caps page without the no captain in it is consistent with every other article. Adding it however would be inconsistent. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me make the deletions & give it a week, to see how it looks. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay I honestly think you need to just let it be, you are basically creating a solution in search of a problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the consistancy in me. If we 'delete' the no captain between Clark & Oveckin, that'll stink. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read what has been written, it will be consistent with all the other articles if its deleted. We have done this on every other team article. We simply don't list short time frames. We are consistent in that. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry GoodDay, but listing a "no captain" for a one week period between the naming of captains is just awful. These lists are bad enough as it is without inundating them with useless information. Resolute 16:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remove no captain from all the NHL team articles, as they are sorta meaningless anyway. Seeing as I'm in the minority on that topic aswell, I won't bother. Shame though, all that groveling, wasted. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There are nearly always gaps between the previous captain and the next one and I don't believe it to be terribly notable to label all of them as periods without a captain. If a captain misses a game due to personal reasons, or a sequence of games due to injury, is the team without a captain then? If one argues the captain still held the position even without playing, does this mean that periods without captains during the off-season should be noted, as the position was still vacant even without games being played? If the current captain is traded and a new captain is named a few days later but before the next game, was the captaincy vacant? I don't think trying to cover all of these scenarios is very fruitful; from a big picture point of view, the list of captains captures when the team went from captain A to captain B, without any notable loss of leadership in between. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

About the only other argument I've got in favour of using 'no captain', would be that less familiar readers may think that the captaincy was vacant for the entire 2009-10 season. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "no captain" designation is useful if there's a genuine interregnum, such as some of the large gaps in Bruins' history when there wasn't a captain. Eight days is far under the radar. To chop out all the "no captains" in the team articles because a bunch of us don't think an 8-day gap's worth bothering over is a bit pointy, isn't it?  RGTraynor  17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've all worn me down. I've exhausted my groveling. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with RGTraynor that there's a threshold below which "no captain" shouldn't be listed and above which it should. As noted, the Bruins have gaps in their history, as do the Leafs. Arguably, a full season with a captain warrants the "no captain" notation—and equally arguably, a mere eight days doesn't warrant it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

McPhee/Boudreau would've made this alot easier for me, if they'd given Ovechkin the C before New Year's Day. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In a recent bout of insanity, I decided to start work on a list of World Junior Championships players for Canada, and have started work here. It is going to be massive, bigger than the Olympics and Senior Worlds lists, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 names (not including the unofficial tournaments, which I had planned on adding). The version in my sandbox only has the basic formatting and it's 92,000 bytes. So, my question is, should I split the list? If so, where? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

~30,000 bytes are used just to color the gold/silver/bronze columns. Is that really necessary? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it's a very large table when someone is looking at the table in the middle, all they'll see is 10 consecutive rows of numbers. Adding the colour at least makes things a bit easier to understand. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why use three columns when most players will have won only one medal, at most? Could just use one column and denote with "G-2009, S-2010" where needed. Resolute 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say the total column can go outright as well. No need for it, imo. I'd also de-link the years and just use {{World Junior Ice Hockey Championships}}. No need for 600 links to 34 tournaments, imo. that should reduce the size as well. Resolute 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the medals column, and switched to the system used in List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada. However, I will leave the links in, because it's a sortable table, and it provides convenient linking for users. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost done with the tables. The lists note Hall of Fame players and tournament award winners, but should they also note first overall draft picks in the NHL? Almost every Canadian first overall draft pick after 1977 played in the juniors (except Owen Nolan and Doug Wickenheiser) and it might be interesting to note. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't bother me if its there, but its probably more like Trivia than directly related to the tournament itself. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's here: List of IIHF World Under-20 Championship players for Canada. All comments welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The link currently redirects to NHL Entry Draft, but there are already a few draft picks which have been traded (see User:Soccer-holic/Draft picks for details). The traded picks have all been sourced, so WP:V is not an issue; however, it might still be too early for having a stand-alone article simply because there is no further information aside from the trades. So, would it be okay to move the content to mainspace or should it stay where it is for another couple of months? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't create a page until a site has been choosen etc. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Was thinking the same. When the location is announced would be an ideal time to move this into mainspace. Resolute 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed deleting Category:Ice hockey players by century and Category:Male ice hockey players, and their sub-categories.

Comments from members of this project would be welcome in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 9#Ice_hockey_players_by_century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I was going to do that as well. Thank you. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A little dispute going on over at Talk:Ak Bars Kazan... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

so much for dialog? sheesh --Львівське (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With 91's all coming up for player profiles, just a reminder on the USSR breakup and the dates. Just posting this for reference.


Russia leaves USSR = 12 December 1991
Russian SFSR = Russia, 26 December 1991

Ukrainian SSR leaves USSR = 24 August 1991
Ukrainian SSR = Ukraine, 1 December 1991

Byelorussian SSR leaves USSR = 25 December 1991
Byelorussian SSR = Belarus, 25 August 1991

The August-December span gets confusing. Both Ukraine and Russia formally leave the USSR first, then change the names, while Belarus officially changes its name first and declares independence, but isn't formally out until December. Hope this helps.--Львівське (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's gonna be quite a confusion, when the counter communism post-Euorpean birth players join the NHL rosters. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Aren't you just looking forward to the edit wars we will face when a player born in Moscow, USSR and one born in Moscow, Russia are on the same roster? Resolute 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good times ahead, good times...--Львівське (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Atleast few European players join at younger ages, atleast we've got a few years until we have to worry about it in mass. But still, gonna be craaaazy. Grsz¹¹ 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Resolute), then there's the Czech Republic & Slovakia situation to come. Germany, Yugoslavia, etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it this draft? I haven't checked the Euro scouting lists. Maybe we'll have a draft with a mix of Soviet and Russian born kids. Its going to be awesome :( ccwaters (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the draftees for 2010, will have been born no latter then the summer of 1992. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So what do we do with players born between the dates above? I don't remember how those countries were referred to before they officially became Russia, etc. Also, when did Yugoslavia break up? I realize that there are very few NHLers coming from there, but it was about this time right? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if they are born between Dec 12 and 26, then it's for example, "Russian SFSR" but not Russia and not Soviet Union. Belarus is a weird one and hopefully no players come up in this year...Ukraine is the easiest, but still, I can see edit wars over this no matter what. The Baltic states are by far the messiest, but luckily (for us) not many Latvian players will be popping up outside of the Dynamo Riga roster. Yugoslavia went all the way till 2003, but outside of the odd Slovenian it shouldn't be hit us at all. For Czechoslovakia, it lasted until 31 December 1992. --Львівське (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or for even more timeline fun, a roster with Leningrad, USSR; St. Petersburg, USSR; and St. Petersburg, Russia. (The Leningrad to St. Petersburg change was effective 6 Sep 1991.) I think we're just going to have to start checking the linked city, making sure it's the contemporary city name at the time of the player's birth, and adding a comment after the city for the most contentious ones. That, and I hope that most of these kids have caps for their national U20 or U17 team, so that flag selection isn't an issue. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

good point on STP. --Львівське (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with using the declaration of independance dates, as a criteria. Once the USSR voted itself out of existance effective Dec 31, 1991, it merely confirmed the independance of the former Soviet republics. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that this discussion is intended to address hockey related biographies. My question is, why is this of any concern for them? Unless the players we're concerned with here were also politicians at some point, I don't see any direct relevance to the local politics of the time for locations which were in the Soviet sphere (or anywhere else, for that matter). If a player was born in Saint Petersburg for example, that doesn't change regardless of the fact that it happened to be "Saint Petersburg, Leningrad Oblast, Russian SFSR" or "Saint Petersburg, Leningrad Oblast, Russian USSR" (or any other convoluted, politically charged designation) at the time of the person's birth. (obviously though, distinguishing between "Saint Petersburg" and "Leningrad" would probably be important though, which is why I used Saint Petersburg as an example here).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we're concerned about the Birth country section in the NHL template rosters. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... OK. Nevermind, I guess.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a requested move at Talk:Patrik Eliáš#Requested moves. The participation of others would be welcome there. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a requested move at Talk:Defenceman#Requested moves. The participation of others would be welcome there. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Would being selected to a major amateur tournament first team all-star team make someone notable? I'm specifically looking at a Memorial Cup, World Juniors, or Frozen Four type competition. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. A player like like Nino Niederreiter who doesn't have a Wikipedia article is the subject of numerious articles in reliable sources and has represented his country at a major international tournament. In my opinion that's more notable than a fringe player like Steve McKichan who played 1 game in the NHL or other players like Jon Mirasty who have yet to play a regular season game in the NHL, but is a career AHL minor leaguer. --Quartet 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Referring specifically to the Cormier, article, right? I would think so. I would consider Memorial Cup All-Star team a major award. Add in that he's drafted, two-time WJHC team, and captain of this year's, and it should be very easy to find enough reliable coverage on him. When it comes to these players, I find the best way to do it is to be detailed and well referenced. Even if Brandon Kozun never plays pro, the references make it obvious he has gained a considerable amount of coverage for a 19 year old junior. Resolute 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Kozun meets WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE anyways so none of us would delete him. Our notability essay doesn't mention major amateur tournament all star teams which is where the ambiguity lays, but I am perfectly fine with saying Cormier is good to go. Didn't realize he had been named to the all star team when I proded him per our usual to delete junior amateurs who have not won awards. -DJSasso (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it the form it is, that looked like an easy delete. So did Kozun though - it just helped that I knew the player so well. Tough when there are new editors running around creating substubs. I've already saved Stefan Della Rovere on top of the Kozun article. Resolute 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally scan all the juniors involved in the tournament in dec/jan and all the juniors that get drafted in june for the millions of junior players that get created by fans. So this one just fell in my net. Too many clearly non-notables get created at this time of year and june. -DJSasso (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we still follow that 5 season/at least 100 game AHL rule? I've seen a lot of current AHL players without those. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't delete those players because they still meet WP:ATHLETE. Basically our essay on notability is what active members of the wikiproject should if they choose to accept it use as a guideline for creating articles. So if you agreed with our essay you would avoid creating articles which don't meet those criteria. However, if someone does create one, we cannot delete them because they do meet the official wiki guidelines of WP:ATHLETE. Does that make sense? -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could AfD them anyway, but all it takes is one person to climb on the "Keep - meets WP:ATHLETE" bandwagon before people parrot that response. Personally, I just try to use common sense. If I can write something about a minor league player, I will. Otherwise, I focus on NHLers and key juniors. Resolute 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Couple thoughts based on some editing I've done and seen tonight.

There is an IP attempting to add KHL draft info to a few articles (Jiří Tlustý and Taylor Hall (ice hockey b. 1991) to name two). While a KHL team drafting Hall is remarkably irrelevant, for several players who actually play in the KHL, it may be something very much relevant and useful to add to the infobox. It might be useful to convert the WHA_draft fields into something more generic that can support both the WHA and KHL draft systems. Also, looking at Dan Bain and Shannon Szabados, it strikes me that we need to make the pro_career field optional, and add a playing_career alternative for players whom there is no real professional alternative. Neither of these strikes me as being especially controversial, but figured I'd leave it open for discussion first. Resolute 04:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Back when the KHL was having their draft, I was a proponent (the only one?) for adding the KHL draft to the infobox. And I've found myself working on pre-NHL articles recently, a time that included no pros, so I would be for that as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We actually agreed to make the pro career optional in the past but none of us could figure out how to do so. As for the draft...I personally would like to wait to see if it actually keeps happening. With so many teams opting out of it last year etc, there is no sure thing that it will keep happening. -DJSasso (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If the KHL draft, or even the KHL, die out in the future, we could always just remove the information from the infobox. Its not like what we are doing is set in stone or anything. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My point, more or less, is that its not notable enough to be in the infobox yet. Being drafted by the KHL isn't really notable and is mostly looked at as a farce since with teams not drafting...rules changing mid draft...players being drafted that are never going to play there...players being drafted and their current team refusing to allow them to go to the drafting team. Its not really something that needs to be front and centre in the infobox...in the prose of course but not the infobox which is just supposed to be the most important information. -DJSasso (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The KHL draft is not a real "draft" in the sense it's the best players under 18 in Russia, but rather a dispersal draft of the lower end players or players from non-KHL Russian teams. The draft itself is irrelevant, and undeserving of infobox addition. It's not like the WHA/NHL at all.--Львівське (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's good to know. Ok, so just trying to change that pro career field. Sounds like that will be fun. Resolute 14:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• What if we simply dropped "Pro." and named it "Career"? Or would we be risking too many people using first midget/junior game to last game of any kind rather than just top level career? Resolute 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that last night myself. I have no problem with the change, but I wonder at what point do we consider it a career started. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say as it is now: professional if applicable, top level if not. So senior for players who never played pro, or senior-international for female players? Resolute 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

catch 22, noone pays to see women play--Львівське (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha they did in Calgary for awhile...it was actually a popular ticket to see the Oval-Xtreme. Anyways change made to infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Been meaning to say something for a few days now, but a thought occured after looking at the newly revamped infobox. I think "Career" should be changed to say "Playing Career," as simply having career is rather vague, and in the case of a player who became an executive, it makes no distinction between the two, a problem for players who were far more notable for what they did off the ice (Glen Sather was the first to spring to mind). Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Valid point. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I will make the change, I am sure its not controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly, there has not been a lot of vandalism to this article today, but I did just rewrite the article on this referee as it was a blatantly negative WP:BLP. It would be good to have a few more eyes on Auger's article though, and if anyone can find some good sources on his officiating career, that would be ideal too. Thanks to the miracle of box scores, finding any real coverage in Google is rather challenging. Resolute 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And now it is Patrice Cormier's turn. After that disgusting elbow a couple nights ago, I would not be surprised if one of us ends up locking the article down today. Resolute 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind... protected for three days. Nothing good is going to happen on that page. Resolute 16:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a move discussion at Talk:Maxime Talbot, input appreciated. Also, could somebody un-delete Eric Tangradi and let me know, as he now passes ATHLETE. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 02:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tangradi has been restored. Also commented on Talbot. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who likes to watch the train wreck that is most administrative noticeboards, a rather large controversy has erupted regarding unreferenced articles on living people. Specifically, it is centred around the indiscriminate deletion of such. Given a project such as ours is largely focused around people, there stands a reasonable chance that some of our BLPs might come under the cross hairs. There is a request for comment ongoing, and very likely, an Arbitration case about it forthcoming.

Although WP:HOCKEY was signed up to a cleanup listing, an error in the parameter led it to fail on the last run, and it may be some weeks before the bot runs again. Personally, I believe this issue is coming to a head site wide, and it seems quite possible that a form of proposed deletion centred around unreferenced BLPs may emerge. As a project, we can mitigate our exposure ahead of time by starting work early.

WP:DontCallItSoccer has a page for dealing with unreferenced BLPs within their scope. It would probably behoove us to consider something similar for ours, and coupled with (hopefully) a run by WolterBot to populate the cleanup listing subpage, we can identify articles in need of references. Thoughts and comments both here and at the RfC are encouraged. Resolute 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it includes everything, but this might be a good start. List generated by Cat Scan. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good tool. Definitely a good start. Resolute 00:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A longer list is available at User:Rettetast/Sandbox84 (371). We use WP:AWB at WP:DontCallItSoccer to generate these lists. Copy, move, advertise or do anything you want with the list. Rettetast (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to User:Resolute/BLPs. Thanks for this. And if anyone else wants to start in on this... Resolute 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source that can confirms the poor guy's name? I know his given name is Emmanuel; if I remember correctly the Official Guide and Record Book used it for a year or two until he became better known and "Manny" supplanted it. But a middle name of Fernandez? Other than at Legends of Hockey, I've never seen nor heard of it. On the other hand I have found a few poor sources that refer to him as Emmanuel Francis Legace.

In the meantime I'm moving the page to Manny Legace from Manny Legacé, a completely unsubstantiated spelling. Presumably someone moved it from Legace to Legacé in some attempt to "correct" the spelling on the assumption he's Quebecois. -93JC (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've no probs with that. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved and took out the accented e's.--Львівське (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, you move fast Lvivske. I was just about to do it myself and found you'd already done it. Thanks! :) -93JC (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Total Hockey confirms that he is indeed Emmanuel Fernandez Legace. Things like this make me glad I just bought this book. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice, I hadn't had a chance to check Total Hockey yet. 93JC (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, a bit of confusion here. I was about to move the info about junior teams found at Estonia men's national ice hockey team to Estonia men's national junior ice hockey team when I realized that the "Junior" article refers specifically to U20s. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to move the stuff about U18s, nor does it make sense to leave at the "adult" level. Thoughts? Schmloof (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The U18 stuff should be on the same page as the U20 stuff. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup/GA1. In particular I feel that this might be better classed as a WP:List article. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem here, 2004–05 Croatian Ice Hockey League season, the infobox is not working... can someone help? (LAz17 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).

fixed. you forgot a "}" when listing the winners flag. --Львівське (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed for you. Two of your flagicon templates were improperly closed - there was only one } instead of two }}. That broke the syntax. Resolute 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Staal brothers‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

• I just didn't think they were up there with the Sutter family just yet, and anything important can be listed at List of family relations in the NHL. Besides, it's quite a poor article that only recently got wikified. Schmloof (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  I've removed the prod because they have as a family been the subject of many news articles and television spots which means the meet WP:N. Now some of those sources need to be added to meet WP:V and the the article is in serious need of a rewrite. But the family as a group is clearly notable atleast in the wikipedia sense. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't compare well to the Sutter bros article. Perhaps we can keep it, assuming Jared Staal will enter the NHL, he's yet to play a regular season/playoff game (with the Coyotes). GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this needed? Not that relevant, but category:21st-century Canadian people seems kinda pointless too. RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's up for deletion already at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_9#Ice_hockey_players_by_century right now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop it.--Львівське (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I usually use CSSR or CZE, though the fact that the flagicon shortcut for CSSR is TCH, that probably doesn't help any. Resolute 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@Lvivske: Why? That was the standard country code used by the IOC and many other sports organizations. CSK (use by ISO) is much less commonly seen, I think. (But for the record, I much prefer to see {{ih|Czechoslovakia}} {{ih|Canada}} {{ih|West Germany}} {{ih|Sweden}} etc. when I read wiki markup, instead of the equivalent (but less readable) {{ih|TCH}} {{ih|CAN}} {{ih|FRG}} {{ih|SWE}} etc.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@Resolute: please note that CZE is the code for the Czech Republic, so {{CZE}}, {{ih|CZE}}, etc. will have quite different results than using TCH! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I've never seen "TCH" before, nor do I understand how that works as an abbreviation at all. How about we stick to CS or CSSR? It's not like we use URS for Russian players, IOC codes suck.--Львівське (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know.  :) I meant I use CZE if I am not using the flag templates. You have to use TCH for Czechoslovakia on those. Resolute 19:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not talking about temps, I'm actually referring to bio info, ie: "born in Prague, TCH" It reads awkwardly --Львівське (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misunderstood. But in that case, I'd say don't use any abbreviation. "born in Prague, Czechoslovakia" is most appropriate. I would also replace any instances of "born in Toronto, CAN" or "born in Stockholm, SWE" if you see those too! Just plain sloppy. As for TCH, you must be a lot younger than me. ;) I remember seeing TCH a lot watching Olympic broadcasts in the 70s and 80s. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I always remove the abreviation for Czechoslovakia whenever I see it. One user in particular has been adding it alot lately and I remove it when I see him add it. He never responds to people asking him to change things so I haven't bothered pestering him about it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, TCH was the IOC for Czechoslovakia List_of_IOC_country_codes#Historic_NOCs_and_teams, not ISO. ccwaters (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said above. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

← I see the problem now. Template:Infobox ice hockey player/doc actually states that "(city, then comma, then country code (use [[country|country's abbreviation]]))" should be used for the birth_place parameter. What is the reason for that? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird, not really in line with other Bio infoboxes...--Львівське (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We tend to only do it for Canada and the US whose names when combined with states/provinces stretch the infobox too wide. Most other countries dispite what the documentation says tend to just stay as full countries. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The infobox documentation just says "City, Country" so why not use something like [[Lake Placid, New York|Lake Placid]], [[United States]]? Why does the state/province need to be displayed? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

State is very important, not to mention it's common use, as you don't normally say "London, United Kingdom" or "New York, United States", and I don't think I've ever heard someone say "Toronto, Canada"...--Львівське (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since following the city link will reveal the province, I don't believe it to be necessary to include the province. "Toronto, Canada" is a pretty common way of referring to Toronto when speaking to someone who may not know where Toronto is. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Following the city link will also reveal the country, so I'd say city, province/state is fine as is. Resolute 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but "City, Province, CAN" is ugly, and that's what I'm advocating we change. I'm ok with "City, Canada" or even "City, Province" (leaving the country implied by the links), but I really don't like "City, Province, CAN"... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All 3 need to be listed. Whether or not Canada is abreviated isn't a big deal to me. I don't really see the ugliness you see tho. -DJSasso (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted Floyd Thomson as a copyvio of his Legends of Hockey profile. It existed in this state since it was created in 2005, so there were no clean versions to restore to. I'm just wrapping my day up at work, so will recreate a legit stub version later tonight, but I hope I don't encounter another problem like this during this cleanup project. Resolute 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you do, farm them out to some of us.  RGTraynor  13:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lots of sourcing required here, including a couple hall of famers that some deletionist idiot might kill without checking. Resolute 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• *sigh*. Same thing at Gary Nylund. I just removed the infringing material, but it was added by Caper454 (talk · contribs) in June 2008, and whom hasn't edited in nearly a year. This user hit a lot of hockey articles at that time, though a random check didn't reveal any other copyvios. Might be worth looking closer though. Resolute 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about the team name of a team... should the article be called KHL Medveščak or KHL Medveščak Zagreb. Her is their site. http://www.medvescak.com/hrv/index.html (LAz17 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).

Without Zagreb in the name. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the question of the use of players' middle names as disambiguators. The guidelines on WP:NC (hockey) and WP:COMMONNAME (or at least some of their practices) seem to contradict each other.

WP:NC (hockey) is currently inactive, and retained for historical reference only, but some editors still follow it, by default I guess. Maybe we could find a consensus.

There has recently been a couple of page moves back and forth concerning (at least) two players:

• Ron Anderson (ice hockey b. 1950) <-> Ron Henry Anderson,
• Tom Martin (ice hockey b. 1947) <-> Tom Raymond Martin.

What the WP:NC (hockey) says is basically that, in the case of multiple people carrying the same name (and one of them being a hockey player), either "(ice hockey)" could be appended to the player's page name, or the player's middle name could be added, to ensure uniqueness.

To me, this piece of advice is a little vague, and should be developed, since it contradicts one of the guidelines in WP:COMMONNAME (which is not historic), namely the "Precision and disambiguation section: "Be precise but only as precise as is needed".

I mean, sure, Ron Anderson could be stored as Ron Henry Anderson, but only provided that this is how he is/was known, to at least some extent. If it's not how he is/was known, then it should be Ron Andersson (ice hockey b. 1950), as it's more likely that people who search for him know his profession and approximate year of birth than his middle name.

About the question of consistency: I checked the first page of the American ice hockey players and Canadian ice hockey players categories, and there were 35 "(ice hockey)" disambiguators versus 0 middle names (American, one middle initial though), and 24 "(ice hockey)" versus 0 middle names (Canadian, 4 nickname dabs and one middle initial).

What say you?

LarRan (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the (ice hockey b. year) solution. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: If we've got players with the same name/commonly used name and/or same year of birth, then middle names is required. Examples are Robert Frederick Murray & Robert John Murray. --GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

They were not born the same year, but I see what you mean, and I think I've stumbled across one example, but I just can't remember their names right now. LarRan (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If we knew the middle names of the other Tom Martins & Ron Andersons, we'd be using their middle names aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2 Steve Smith hockey articles were real doozers, as they were both born in 1963. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Be aware we only were using the middle name when there were two ice hockey players. So comparing 24 (ice hockey) to 0 middle name isn't exactly accurate as the only time we use the middle name is when two people with the same name who would both use (ice hockey). A more accurate comparison is (ice hockey b. date) of which there was 1 in American and 0 in Canadian. And for the one person with the (ice hockey b. date) it was because we don't know the middle name of either of the John Hughes. If you want a list, there is a very long list of cases where we use middle names. There are also numerous discussions about this in the archives. Consensus in the past being, use the middle name if you know it but don't waste your time searching for middle names just to disambiguate. (and only use the middle name if there are two ice hockey related people) -DJSasso (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia-wide naming convention say "Be precise but only as precise as is needed". My interpretation is that we should not use middle names as disambiguators, unless they really are called by both names. So if they are known by their full name - e.g. Billy Bob Thornton and Johann Sebastian Bach (they are not hockey players, but the principle's the same) - then fine, the article should be stored there, but if not, then we should use (ice hockey) and (ice hockey b. year) as disambiguators. We can't just arbitrarily add the middle name. What if they've got two middle names? And why Ron Henry Anderson? It could be Ronald Henry Anderson or Ron Hank Anderson, for consistency reasons. The same principle goes for whether we should use Will Smith, Willie Smith, Bill Smith, Billy Smith or William Smith. It's their known-by-name that decides the name of the article. LarRan (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By naming convention we also are not supposed to use birth dates in disambiguators. Both are cases of WP:IAR that make wikipedia better. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But one of the conventions is historic and the other is current. Can you agree on that people searching for the persons mentioned above are more likely to know that they are (or rather were) hockey players and their approximate age than their middle names, or do you disagree? LarRan (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think using a birth date is any easier search wise than a middle name. Either way they are likely to go to the disambiguation page first when searching, no one is going to type in Joe Smith (ice hockey b. 1934) or whatever, they are going to type in Joe Smith. And once at the page there is usually a descriptive sentence about each person so how we differentiated becomes moot. And I think middle names are a much cleaner and more concise title for the page. -DJSasso (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree or not? You didn't answer that question.

I - on my part - agree that the search will lead people to the dab page either way we store the articles. That leaves us with the following:

• Dab via middle name: breaches WP:COMMONNAME, but complies with historic WP:NC (ice hockey).
• Bracketed dab: complies with WP:COMMONNAME, and also with historic WP:NC (ice hockey), as it allows both options. Downside is that Djsasso thinks it looks less clean and concise. How much weight should be given to that?

LarRan (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did answer the question, I don't think the fact that people might know the birth date and not the middle name is relevant. I also don't think using the middle name breaches the common name as much as you imply it does. And you keep pointing to wp:nc (ice hockey) as historic. I only pointed to that page cause it was the easiest to link to. But we have had recent discussions on this as recently as a year ago. I would also like to point out that you need to stop WP:CANVASSing. You posted here, where people that are likely to be interested can comment, but to continually reach out to more and more people is canvassing, even if you word it neutrally. And I don't mean to imply bad faith, I just mean alot of the people you messaged watch this page pretty closely so all you are doing is spamming. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And to be more accurate:

• Dab via middle name: breaches wp:commonname but complies with historic WP:NC (ice hockey) AND WP:NC
• Bracketed dab with birth date: breaches wp:commonname AND wp:NC (ie the birthdate part) but complies with historic WP:NC (ice hockey)

So I think both breach naming conventions equally so with a lack of any good reason to change, I don't really see the issue. Especially when I think middle names are more concise and clean. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought one was supposed to try to get a consensus, instead of edit warring or move warring. "A lot of people I've messaged"? I have invited altogether f-o-u-r editors to join the discussion - you, Marc87, RGTraynor and Krm500 - and as of now two have responded. Before I invited the latter two, there were reponses from only you and GoodDay, and I wanted to widen the participation. Never thought I'd be accused of canvassing. I guess the expression "a lot" has a meaning to it that goes over my head. Sorry. It won't happen again. LarRan (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing smanvassing, you ain't doing any harm. Don't sweat it, LarRan. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think you were doing it out of bad faith, just I get touchy about people spamming discussions. Thought I had read more than just the 4 of us. Must have been thinking about a different set of invites in combination with yours. My bad. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, WP:CANVASS specifically outlines the requirements of "friendly canvassing," which seems to be the case here: brief, neutral invitations and no particular notion what those solicited feel about the issue.  RGTraynor  03:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't any hugely strong feelings on the issue, but being one of those canvassed, I suppose I should chime in. Generally, I agree with DJ: that both middle name and birthdate as an identifier breaches current naming conventions, that we've used them both here traditionally, and that this is a spiffy example of why IAR is a good policy. I don't doubt that both identifiers are in common use Wikipedia-wide (heck, I remember two Gene Washingtons who were contemporaneously Pro Bowl wide receivers in the NFL in the 1960s and early 70s), that as more bios are added they'll increase, and that for anyone who's confused by it, they're whom disambiguation pages are for.  RGTraynor  16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This article was listed as a Prod today. I noticed that the article claims that "In the 2006- 07 OPJHL season he was named MVP of the North Division". Would that make his notable, or is that award not high enough to establish his notability? -Pparazorback (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify that as a major award myself. Nevermind that it is just Junior A. At any rate, I couldn't find any reliable sources to back anything up, which is why I prodded it. Resolute 03:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed on the page, that it was mentioned that verification of him playing in the Hungarian League was unsubstantiated by reliable sources. Is Eurohockey.net not a reliable source? The reason I ask is they have him playing in Hungary (Career Stats). Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe its reliable, and playing in the top hungarian league would make him pass athelete, assuming that is the top league and not a junior version of the hungarian league. At the age he would have had to been that year I can't see him playing pro. -DJSasso (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not unbelievable (if thats a word) to have him playing in the pro Hungarian league at the age of 16. After all guys like Ovechkin, Jagr, and most recently Hedman played in their respective top pro leagues, and they are of a far better quality than the Hungarian league. If he was good enough, its possible. And there are records of him playing for the Hungarian U20 team in the 205 Div II and 2006 Div I World Juniors. Even so, I would be hesitant to keep the article, as we really don't have any concrete evidence of him playing pro. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I did find the listing of him playing for Dunaferr SE at the 2006 World Juniors, as I added as a reference. I did a bit of research and Dunaferr SE became Dunaújváros AC according to Dunaújváros FC. So I believe that would save him from being a speedy delete. For that matter, doesn't playing for the national team, albeit juniors, make him notable as an athlete? For the record, I have never heard of this guy before and have no vested interest in seeing this article saved. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that if they played for the senior national team, they qualify; simply playing for the junior team is not enough. Thats why there is always a spree of deletions come World Juniors time. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No the juniors isn't considered the top level of amateur competition because it is restricted by age it means the best players in the world are not playing, and since there is nothing stopping junior age players from playing in the senior world championships (it has happened in past), juniors is not the highest level he could play. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Was considering that, but it shows no games played, just games dressed. Then again, they credit him with an assist too... Feel free to reference to that and cancel the prod. Resolute 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And I don't find anything on him on Eliteprospects, and he isn't listed on the roster of the team eurohockey list him for. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 06:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If the team and league aren't relevant enough to have articles themselves, then neither is the player that *might* have played for them for a few games in the playoffs (and that doesnt count as pro by any means)--Львівське (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My other concern is that it is impossible to write a biography on this individual. There simply is absolutely no coverage. All we can possibly say is "This guy played hockey." Resolute 14:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Even assuming he played "pro" hockey (is it pro? or semi pro? i cant see them making much money in hungarian hockey...) how is that in of itself 'notable'? It's a job. Being pro in a league with national coverage means something, but not so much in tiny national leagues. There are plenty of Ukrainian league guys I'd like to make articles for, but as you said, the bio would consist of "this guy played hockey and got paid a little bit in the process"--Львівське (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it was written by a WP:Single-purpose account. Check out Special:Contributions/Cattaneopapa. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, which I think is the best article I have ever contributed to, will be the TFA on February 12 - the opening day of the Olympics. I'm surprised it got that day I figured it would probably run on February 28 (gold medal game). Also, the Olympics will see a lot of traffic, and hockey articles will probably be targeted for vandalism, so please keep a sharp eye on Olympics-bound player articles for the next few weeks. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Two hockey articles in less than a month, niiiiice.  :) Resolute 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shhh! We don't want them to realize what they've done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the February 12 date was rejected at WP:TFAR because of the closeness with the other hockey TFA. So, I switched it to February 28,, which gained a lot of support. However, Raul went with the 12th. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I found this while going through the unreferenced BLP's. Is there something I am missing with this article? A CHL trainer does not seem notable to me, but I am not really familiar with the OHL, so feel free to let me know. Canada Hky (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd PROD that. Definitely not notable in my view. Resolute 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy ya'll. I've found some things needing clarification at those templates. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

...such as? Resolute 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we add the Cleveland Barons to the Stars template & delete the Victoria Cougars from the Red Wings template? GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No to both, we have a standard of spliting templates like we do team articles so for the Barons case that is what we would follow, though a single link to that team page is fine. As for the Red Wings, the cougars were an important part of the red wings history so a single link to it also is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wonderings 'cuz, the Victoria Cougars & the Detroit Red Wings are not the same franchise. I wasn't sure if the Cleveland Barons & the Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars were the same franchise. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Barons merged into the Minnesota North Stars, then de-merged to form the San Jose Sharks. There is really only a slim connection between htem and the Dallas Stars, not strong enough for the template, imo. Resolute 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The Barons situation is complicated as I am sure you already know....they merged with Minnesota which of course became the Dallas Stars. But many view the San Jose Sharks as a demerger of the Barons from Minnesota which happened before the team moved to Dallas. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We should (I assume) adopt the old ways concerning the Barons/North Stars/Sharks. Barons folded, their players wen to the Minnesota North Stars. San Jose Sharks an expansion team. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just leave things as is to be honest. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the Barons/North Stars/Sharks has the potential for major headaches. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know how to fix external sources? I certainly don't & have no patients for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Resolute 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So I saw the Ukrainian Major League page. I figured why not include a map like it is on the KHL page. I made a map and uploaded it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkrHockeyMap.png - can someone help with the rest? (LAz17 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)).

User Andrwsc has made bad edits to the Slohokej Liga article and the Serbian Hockey League article. He has changed the box that shows which teams are in the league. He has done so for the worse, and I reverted his edits. If anyone would be kind enough to give some input on this, it would be appreciated. If he can ruin the articles with ugly boxes, then what is stopping him from doing the same to the KHL article? (LAz17 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)).

Actually atleast on Slohokej Liga he was correct. What you had there were city flags, not country flags. You shouldn't use city flags in such situations. If you look at the KHL article they are country flags. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Err I was looking at the infobox, not the team list. The KHL shouldn't have city flags either. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this such a problem? Is it that big of a deal - meaning that we have to remove flags from many league pages? (LAz17 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).

It's against the WP:MOSFLAGS policy. You shouldn't use flags unless they add something specific to the article. And a city flag isn't really helpful in a hockey article. One could argue that neither are state or country flags, but they atleast have some more use than city ones. Secondly alot of city flags are fair use which might also be an issue, state and country flags are usually in the public domain. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, he removed the city flags. On the KHL article, the flags are state ("oblast" or province or republic) flags in the Russian Federation. In a unitary state like Serbia, I don't see the purpose as much as I used for the KHL. --Львівське (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The flags that I put were municipality flags, not city flags. This is not proper? (LAz17 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).

And I just removed them from there too. They have no useful purpose whatsoever in that table. There is a good reason why you don't see the flags of Ontario, New York, California, etc. on the NHL article, for comparison. National flag icons at least serve some useful function, when a league has teams in multiple countries. But subnational flag icons are mere cruft. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case you would have to remove the flags from the KHL topic too. Otherwise it's selective discrimination.

We have a problem here. You say no subnational flags should be used. Lvivske says that regional ones are okay. I'd side with lvivske... who where is right?

I say, if its an international league, go with consensus I guess *shrug* if it's a national league, using regional/provincial/state flags to give a visual representation of what regions are involved in the league should be fine. I realize this can get touchy, and in international leagues comprised of federal and unitary states, this makeup might not jive (like KHL) but NHL, if you ask me, would benefit from this. We can argue day and night over whether this merits WP:FLAGS rules, but this is just my personal take on it.--Львівське (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, why did you remove the team logos that I had in the Serbian league? How were those a problem? (LAz17 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).

They are non-free images (like pretty much every team logo in every league), so Wikipedia policy is that they can't be used like that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, state/provincial flags would make a lot of sense for the NHL article in lieu of writing the actual state/province out. For unitary states, going down to municipality doesn't fit, nor other administrative divisions, but if its a federation like USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, Russia, etc. then it does if you ask me.--Львівське (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How are subnational flag icons at all useful in an article about a hockey league? What contextual information do they provide? They are completely irrelevant. There are already wikilinks to the state/province article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

Well, for one, they provide a visual layout of the geographic division of the league. Many Russian teams compete in state tournaments, and "Governor Cups", representing their state as host. As well, you have other teams who fly the state colors (Kazan, Ufa, etc.) and are funded wholly by the state, so there is that strong link between the two. --Львівське (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that people can't identify flags of subnational entities as well as they can national flags. Personally, I can only identify subnational flags from Canada and a few U.S. states; on the other hand, I can probably identify over 100 national flags. Almost everyone from outside Canada/U.S. won't recognize the provincial/state flags of Canada/U.S., and people outside Russia won't recognize the Russian subnational flags. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As above, I disagree. You cant assume that someone knows what or represents. Subnational flags in these cases are nothing more than eye candy that confuse readers. Resolute 01:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some teams are in the same district. Some are not. This would help readers get an idea of where the teams might be. For example, your nova scotia flag... suppose there are three teams in nova scotia, one in BC, two in winnipeg, and one in ontario. I think that the regional flags would be quite nice. But, perhaps we are splitting hairs here. (LAz17 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).

I don't think flags confuse people if they don't know what they are, seeing as hovering your mouse over it or clicking on the flag will bring you to the state's Wiki page...--Львівське (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

← The KHL article has an excellent colour-coded map that does far more to "provide a visual layout of the geographic division of the league" than a collection of subnational flag icons that 99% of our readers wouldn't recognize. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

re:map:Thanks :) --Львівське (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, you went about removing nav-boxes - then why does the KHL navbox still remain, instead of being a table? (LAz17 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).

He did do it on the KHL page. In fact that was the first page he did it on. Just chill, no need to be stressed. -DJSasso (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some more eyes to look at the Ukrainian Major League article, please. Lvivske seems to have some WP:OWNership issues (see User:Lvivske#These are mine. Don't touch (or else)) and reverts my changes to remove irrelevant oblast flags, despite the comments in this project thread, and despite another editor questioning this on his talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow I certainly hope that the section name is tongue in cheek. But I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made a map, perhaps it can be of use. I made it on the basis of the same model that is used in the KHL article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkrHockeyMap.png However, I must say that I feel that Lvivske is right that the flags make the article(s) better. But, I will go with the concensus. (LAz17 (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)).

That is precisely the best approach. Lvivske's argument above is that oblast flags provide a visual representation of what regions are involved in the league. But I fail to see how tiny icons of flags unrecognizable to 99.9% of Wikipedia readers accomplish that goal. A map on the other hand, is the perfect way to provide that visual representation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

More people know the flags than the teams, so its a moot point, dontchathink?--Львівське (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good news, I got the map up and running. Take a look and give feedback. Gotta go soon, so I can't put all the teams in the exact places tonight. Not sure how to do Kiev, with so many teams. Help please. (LAz17 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)).\

I'll help tomorrow or something. Too much to do right now. For Kiev, look how I did the Moscow teams on the KHL page if I don't get around to it.--Львівське (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@Lvivske: No, it is an irrelevant point. The purpose of the article is to educate readers about the league. The table contains a list of teams and their location. With a map, you get some context of location. But how does help the reader understand where Sumy is located? Of course, it doesn't. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I got the map done. The exact alignment should be double checked - perhaps some team like yavir could be moved by a couple pixels.

For the flags - I agree that it might not help so much as to tell people exactly where something is... however, aesthetically I find it to look very nice. I mean really, why do these flags bother you? I think that almost everyone would find the article more pleasing to look at with the flags. (LAz17 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)).

Flags are not supposed to be used for aethetical purposes. Infact we are supposed to try and avoid using images for looks period. What one person thinks looks nice another might not. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Enough editors thought this was important enough that we have a Manual of Style guideline that reflects the consensus of the community. One editor citing WP:IAR to disregard that consensus is inappropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this article? I don't know if the subject is notable. Theleftorium 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, that was difficult to read. I've never heard of this player before. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's notable on a technicality in that he has played professionally - over 100 games, in fact. I'd have to look up to see if anything can be written beyond "he plays hockey". Resolute 21:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you could find any sources then that would be great. I just removed the copyvio so I thought I'd leave the sourcing/expanding to you guys. :) Theleftorium 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The server must be lagging in my area. Your changes aren't showing, yet they're in the history. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As Bugs Bunny would say "what's up, doc?". The change isn't listed in your contributions. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Try purging the page. Theleftorium 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ti's OK now, the server caught up. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, I didn't even check the history. They seriously just copyvioed the media guide's log? Laaaaaaame! Resolute 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted those edits from the history, so now it's just Theleftorium's noncopyvio edit remaining. --Smashville^talk 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did a quick tidy on the article, got a couple refs, etc. Should salvage something out of it for the time being anyways. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Glove save, Nurmsook! Looks like a legitimate stub now. --Smashville^talk 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am bringing this to the attention of the Ice Hockey people. Recently I have begun templatizing (is that a word?) all the US national rosters to the best of my ability - see here. I've also touched on a few Canadian rosters as well. This is due in large part to the 2010 Olympic roster templates, which were created for the ease across the articles. Now I know that some people may have an issue with creating a template for what is essentially a one or two use thing, so before I go any further, is this a good idea? I only ask because there is a surprising lack of information on some of the pages. Hockey Canada's website, however, contains an amazing wealth of information on pretty much every international tournament that the Canadians have ever participated in, and many of them include rosters for all teams in the tournament, not just Canada. If we can standardize the format so that all roster pages across all tournaments look the same, it would really help. Also, I wouldn't mind not being the only one tackling this issue should it move forward.

On a related note, List of Canadian national ice hockey team rosters and List of United States national ice hockey team rosters need to be overhauled. Canada lumps all the rosters together, only separating men, women, and juniors. The US breaks it down by tournament, but still has all men, women, and juniors on one page. I suggest breaking them up into sub-pages (men, women, and juniors), and then going from there. Note that for Canada, the individual men's and women's lists of players are already FLs, and the junior page is a current FLC. But I propose three pages: List of Canadian national men's ice hockey team rosters, List of Canadian national women's ice hockey team rosters and List of Canadian national junior ice hockey team rosters, and the same goes for the US. Then we can decide whether to make them templates or simple tables, and what information to include on each table.

The key is finding sourced information for each roster, which isn't always easy. I've been operating off media guides, Hockey Canada's website, USA Hockey's website, HockeyDB.com, and HockeyDraftCentral.com, but there's still a lot missing. I hope to spark a discussion before I go off half-cocked and start overworking myself on something that no one else wants (again haha). Anthony Hit me up... 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with you, as this is also a problem on the articles themselves. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See Canada men's national ice hockey team, it's got Babcock as coach & Niedermayer as captain. Now, that's correct for the 2010 Olympics team, but I betting it won't be correct of the 2010 World men's championship team, nor the 2010 WJC team. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That one changes based on the nearest tournament. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading though. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, there is only one national team at a time. Right now there is no World Championships team and there won't be until after the Olympics. As for the juniors they have their own page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a split is in order for that article. Say Canada's World Championship ice hockey team & Canada's Winter Olymipc ice hockey team, then have the 2 articles linked into Canadaa men's national ice hockey teams. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I don't agree but that's cool. I see no point since they are both the national team, and yes the roster changes, but so does any given NHL team as people are called up and sent down etc. PS. Last Olympic year I believe we had the Olympic Roster listed and then when the World Championships happened we had two sections on the page for each roster. This would be the best solution possibly. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that I look the page is set up like that right now too. So I don't see the issue at all. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Both squads are representative of the national team, so a split along those lines is not necessary, imo. A history of... child article for the Olympic team is a bit out there on my radar, however. IMO, the main page should include the most recently named roster only. i.e.: the Olympic roster for now, and once it is named in April, the WHC roster. Everything else is outdated info. Resolute 17:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the less familiar readers, that might get confused. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To bring this back a bit both on the page and in the discussion, I think splitting the Canada national men's ice hockey team article is a bad idea; as DJSasso said, there's only one national team at a time (juniors notwithstanding). However, splitting the roster page itself is a good idea, as per GoodDay's suggestion. Splitting by gender and age is fine, but to cut off a problem with GoodDay's idea: what about the Canada Cup/World Cup of Hockey? What about the Summit Series? If we create separate pages for the World Championships and the Olympic teams, where does that leave the rest of the rosters? And while we're at it, Team Canada participates in a lot of smaller European tournaments... are we including the Spengler Cup or the Deutschland Cup? Just thinking of all the possibilities before we split the pages (which I think we're all in agreement on). Anthony Hit me up... 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see them as the same team. But, if we're splitting the rosters? that's a solution. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The name on the front doesn't change. Would we make a new article every time the New Jersey Devils sign a new player or make a trade? (and with the injuries lately, that'd be every other day) The point is, the Canadian national team is the Canadian national team, no matter who the players are... which is part of the mystique and history of the team. At any rate, how would we split the rosters aside from age & gender? If we split any more than that, we run into problems. Anthony Hit me up... 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out, for the "list of" rosters, that for the table there is both the state/provincial flag, and then CITY/STATE in text. I think this is redundant, and should be just the flag of the state, then the city name. Would be cleaner and eliminate much double lined cells. --Львівське (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the flags should be removed, not the text. Not many people outside of Canada would understand what means, while the flag images are not helpful to anyone who can't see images for various reasons. Calgary, Alberta (or AB) is preferable to Calgary, imo. Resolute 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the flags link to the respective states/provinces. Personally, I like them, but either way its a one or the other solution.--Львівське (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Flags add to the list. Since it is all just lines of data the Icons help to break it up visually. They also help quickly identify when a player is from an unusual place, such as a non-traditional US state, or Canadian Province, or born in another country. I also don't think that having both takes up that much room or that it cause more double line cells.--Leech44 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I split off the women's page into List of Canadian national women's ice hockey team rosters. I then further divided the page into Olympic rosters and World Championship rosters. I thought this could be a starting point for determining how the men's and junior pages would go. To wit: although it's obvious we go chronologically, do we start at the top with the most recent or the oldest? The Canadian pages start with the most recent at the top; the American page starts with the oldest at the top. I'm looking for some consistency, and assistance would be helpful.

Furthermore, we still haven't resolved what information should be included in the roster templates. It seems state/province flags are out. What about national flags for the team they're playing for at the time? For Canada and the US, it's almost exclusively US/Canadian flags for the NHL or the junior teams, but for Sweden or Russia, there's a lot of nationals playing for home teams. Do we include the flags for all or none? Height/weight and place of birth are also contested on some pages. Like I said, just looking for consistency. Anthony Hit me up... 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that most readers would be interested in the more recent teams, so going in chronological order from most recent would seem to make the most sense.--Leech44 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve this article in a similar fashion to the Jordan Eberle one. Would someone mind taking a look and letting me know how it is going, and anything else I should do / add? Canada Hky (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Left comments on Talk:Nikita Filatov. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, it passed GA review yesterday. Canada Hky (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any interest in starting a Pittsburgh Penguins task force?--Blargh29 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I've been working on a number of national team issues, and one of the things I managed to scrounge up is a bunch of free images on Flickr. After writing to HowlingMad (many props to you sir), I got him to change the licensing on a set of photos of goalies at the 2009 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships. I've already uploaded a few of the pictures using the FlickrBot, but the rest of the goalies don't have pages, even though they'll pass the notability requirements. If you guys could create some stub pages so we have someplace to use the rest of the pictures and then upload the rest of the shots, that would be great. I don't want this great opportunity to go to waste, but I don't have time to create all the pages myself. Thanks in advance for any assistance with this. Anthony Hit me up... 15:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will get to these as I have time - finished up Viona Harrer. Could you list which players need pages, so I don't have to go through the Flickr set and see who doesn't have pages here to get them done? Canada Hky (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Have pages: Noora Raty, Chanda Gunn, Kim Martin, Kim St-Pierre, Charline Labonte, Jessie Vetter. Need pages:Sara Grahn, Yao Shi, Jennifer Harss, Florence Schelling, Irina Gachennikova, Maija Hassinen. Hope that helps. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone verify that Mr. Joy actually played in the 1993 World Championships, rather than simply playing with the national team on a European tour that year? If it is the former, he'd be notable (barely), if it is the latter, I'd probably PROD this article. I am very willing to bet it is the latter given hockeydb does not list WC/WJC stats. Thanks Resolute 00:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He did not play at the 1993 World Championships. Both the List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present) and the Hockey Canada all-time roster don't have him listed. Probably a PROD candidate. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He did not, but he did play two seasons in the Danish Superisligaen.[2] —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

National team in my books cuts it anyway even if its a tour. But like Krm mentioned he did play pro. -DJSasso (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a reason Spengler Cup rosters aren't listed on the likes of List of United States national ice hockey team rosters and List of Canadian national ice hockey team rosters? While I understand that the Cup is neither IIHF sanctioned nor a real international competition, it's listed in both the US and Canadian national team articles and the players are certainly representing Canada and the US. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the Canada page but for the US page it's something that can be difficult to find. The world championship teams only go back to 2000 when the US has been in the tournament since the 1930s and the WJC on goes back as far as 1999 when the US has participated since 1974. If you are able to find the information I would suggest that it be added.--Leech44 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I can find the roster of the 1988 championship (captained by Ron Wilson, actually)... but yes, other than that I'm not even sure if I'd be able to find which years we participated. I'll add the '88 team, though, as it's the most important. --MichiganCharms (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DJsasso has vanadalized a number of slovenian hockey league season pages. For example here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992%E2%80%9393_Slohokej_Liga_season&action=historysubmit&diff=342040580&oldid=341807021 The guy simply does not understand that the slohokej liga is in its first season right now. Everything prior to it was the slovenian hockey league. (LAz17 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)).

You need to read what vandalism means. Vandalism is the intent to damanage a page on purpose. The article itself calls it the slohokej liga. So before you go accusing someone of vandalism you better get your facts straight. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with an editorial move, feel free to begin a discussion. However, under no circumstances is a good faith edit vandalism. Please assume good faith. Resolute 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Has there been some discussion, such as on Talk:Slohokej Liga (although there is none there), about how to deal with this situation? It sounds like Slohokej Liga is a continuation of SHL and not a new league, so it's not the first season of the organization (even though it's the first under the new name). Since there's some dispute, I think a little consensus-building would be helpful. What I see at this point is two editors working in good faith but in opposing directions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care what the pages are called, but the season articles themselves refer to it as the Slohokej liga which is why the pages were moved. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All the season articles were called Slovenian Hockey League - I know because I made them. I have talked to people on some hockey forums. I was wrong when I assumed that this was called Slohokej liga. I was very wrong. Up to a few years ago the Slovenian league/championship was pretty much exclusively for slovenian teams. This became an issue in the last two seasons, as a croatian team was there. So, to not have this problem a totally new league was created. This new league is administered by d.o.o., not the slovenian hockey federation. In effect the slovenian hockey league was scrapped, and a new Slohokej liga has replaced it. The slovenian hockey league still exists - in the form of the playoffs/championship. In these the slovenian hockey teams from both the slohokej and EBEL(austian) leagues take part. Hence things are changing. But, to claim that there was a slohokej liga before is absolutely ridiculous. This slohokej liga is a new thing. It is a lower level competition then the previous slovenian championship because the best teams do not participate in it. The competition is very very different. (LAz17 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)).

It's like calling a soviet league season the "KHL"season. In fact it's even much worse than that. (LAz17 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)).

All of that is well and good, so find some references that proove that, then put them in the articles and then correct the season articles. There was never any need to accuse me of vandalism when the articles themsleves said they were the xxxx season of the slohokej liga. If you are going to rename the pages then make sure you change the articles content as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. The articles did not say that. Heaven forbid they said that - I had made sure that I changed it. I had been fixing a lot of stuff lately, and had changed that. You undid it - if you are indeed of good will - then you go about changing it. It is very tedious to go about undoing a bunch of edits. As for the sources of proof - I can copy and paste personal messages from forums. It's not easy to find some place where everything is just laid out and says 'here this is how it is'. In fact, it is extremely difficult to find much if any information on hockey in this region. (LAz17 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)).

In some cases, at least, you did leave the title and infobox title as the old format: [3]. No big deal, really. I'd say simply find a source for the official name of the league at that time, we'll go with that, and all will be fine. Resolute 23:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the example you link to above. The very first sentence says "The 1992-1993 Slohokej Liga Season was the second season of Slovenia's hockey league." Personal messages also don't cut it, find a source from that time period that names it as you say it is named and all will be well. After all that is the requirement of any article. -DJSasso (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There clearly is not any source that I can find in english saying one way or the other way. The closest thing is something like this - http://www.hockeyarchives.info/Slovenie1994.htm - as we see it does not say slohokej anywhere. (LAz17 (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)).

Looking for an opinion here. I have been updating most current season pages player stats. When it comes to players who have been traded to/from a team, I have been including the stats that the particular player scores during the season on the season page of the team that player actually scored those points with. I.E. Ales Kotalik's stats scored during his time with the Rangers are only listed on the 2009-10 New York Rangers season and his stats scored with the Flames are only on the 2009-10 Calgary Flames season. Is this opinion shared that the points Kotalik scored with the Rangers have nothing to do with the Flames and therefore shouldn't be listed on the Flames page or am I alone in that opinion. Thanks! -Piemann16 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is how we handle it. Take a look at 2008-09 Calgary Flames season for an example of how we notate it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should we differ from what the offical site for the NHL does, which is include the entire season.Zwilson14 (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because our season pages are specific to certain teams. We aren't trying to give completely pictures of players like the NHL pages are. We are only trying to show what happened to that specific team during that specific season. Also we aren't beholden to how the NHL chooses to display its stats. Our purposes are completely different from theirs. If someone wants the entire picture of a players season stats they go to the player page. Quite frankly you get more information this way than simply combining the states from the two teams. -DJSasso (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And for what its worth, individual player pages on NHL.com seperate stats per team and season (see Joe Thornton as an example). Kaiser matias (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It has come to the attention of Resolute and I over at the New Jersey Devils page that having the mini season box above the team infobox on team pages can cause text to overlap the infobox for certain people with certain browsers and resolutions. As such and from previous discussions I have created a sample of merging the season box into the team box at Template:NHL_Team/sandbox/example. It would bring us inline with how the NFL and MLS projects handle thiers. However MLB and NBA do it as we currently do. If no one has any objections to this then I will implement it in a few days. And of course we can tweak how it looks slightly, I just used the same look that the NFL had. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That should work fine, though I might prefer if the links said "2009-10 team season" rather than just "current season". The former would be more intuitive to new readers/users. Resolute 17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That can easily be changed. I debated about which to use since we currently use the 2009-10 Team season and the NFL uses "Current season'. I have now set the example to be "2009-10 Team season" but what do others think? Its a simple piped link change in the code so easily adustable to whatever we want. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Djsasso. I'd probably put the text/link under the logo, but that's a minor quibble. I completely support the change to the infobox.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this also affect other team infoboxes so it would be super if you could make the change to them too. Or how about, oh I don't know, make one uniform infobox which can be applied to all hockey teams? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That is the point, it would be a change for all teams. I would be changing the template. I just used the Devil's as an example since thats the page it came up on. As for a uniform infobox, still don't think that is appropriate as there would be far too many parameters making it unwieldy. We can however make them all look similar. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of NHL/non-NHL infoboxes, I completely agree that consolidation isn't worth it. Although, coming up with a common core (eg: Template:Citation core) for all of the hockey related infoboxes is something that is certainly worth considering, at least.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Template has been changed per above since there were no objections. Changes have been implemented on all teams using the template. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Great discussion, and even better resolution to this issue. Keep up the good work gang! — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you people think of numbering seasons in lists of seasons? I did so on List of NHL seasons, and I think it works really well. I think we should implement this on all such lists, like lists of teams seasons. I believe this really helps to quickly identify within the list which season was which. For example, to quickly find the New York Rangers' 50th season, all one needs to do is look at List of New York Rangers seasons. Right now there's no real simple way to do that. What do you all think? Jmj713 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I much prefered the NHL season list prior to your change, was much easier to navigate since its only a disambiguation page. But stretched out it makes it much harder to use in my view. but as for the numbering on 50th season or whatever, I guess some people might like that, I don't really see that as vital information, or even information that would be searched for very often. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I put it in a table because we can add a lot more information on a season, like what's been done with List of AHL seasons. Plus the numbering I think is important, at least I was looking for that, which is what caused me to make that change. Jmj713 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of season lists, I think we should add conference finish to the division finish, to better show where a team finished in the overall standings. Jmj713 (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I understand your reasoning, I just think that that information on the AHL page for example is redundant to the AHL season articles themselves, I would rather the page be laid out like the NHL page was originally. I can see making footnotes for the important seasons of a team ie 25th, 50th etc. But I don't think numbing them all would visually be a good idea, would just be clutter. As for the conference finish, teams aren't officially ranked by conference. Only division and overall. Yes they are seeded for the playoffs, but thats not an actual ranking since some teams get the division winner boost. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not officially, but we have conference standings in season articles, so why not have that information? It's strange seeing a team finish 4th or even 3rd, yet have it say it didn't qualify for playoffs. Adding that it finished 10th in the conference or something would place that in better context. Jmj713 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember that season list pages are just for summaries, not to explain everything. That is what the individual season pages are for. There comes a point when you start trying to jam too much information onto them. Just look how crowded the New York Rangers list is for example. I have a widescreen monitor and it already barely fits my screen. People with non-widescreens are probably already pushed to the limit. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer it the way it was. GoodDay (talk)

Are there any sources that state that the lockout didn't count as a season? Otherwise this could be an OR issue. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

could some one please take a look at this stub I've contributed, and help me with some feed back? I was adding players from US Olympic teams who didn't already have a page and wanted to add more info than just saying that they were Olympians. Could you let me know what might need improvement and what categories I should add, this is the first new stub i have contributed, so any help is greatly appreciated.--Leech44 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad start. A few quick thoughts:

• Avoid mixed tense statements like "He would do x". I know this isn't trying to be a featured article, but that reads awkwardly (I was also terrible for that when I first started, lol). The statements should all be in past tense. "He did x", "He was reunited..."
• It would be ideal to use a stats box similar to all other player articles for consistency. You might also consider adding the {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} template.
• Nice job on sourcing. New page patrollers will love that, especially given the heightened concern over unsourced biographical articles. I would recommend moving the source for the stats out of the section header though.
• As far as categories go, The birth category, in this case Category:1924 births would be there. And, if he is alive Category:Living people. For dead people, Category:2010 deaths (or whichever year). Many minor professional teams have player categories, so possibly Category:Milwaukee Clarks players. Category:Dartmouth College alumni in this case, and Category:Ice hockey players at the 1948 Winter Olympics (correcting for year for each of your player articles), Category:Olympic ice hockey players of the United States. And, finally, you could add Category:American ice hockey players.

Hope this helps! Resolute 02:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's your first created article you've done very well. Just a few notes;

• Avoid unnecessary white space, I took care of it while removing the review template but think about it in the future.
• In the lead you use former, I prefer to use retired since former can indicate that the person in deceased. Also look over the commas in the lead, only gazed briefly at the prose but didn't see any similar issue there.
• Try using citation templates for your references, here's a beginners guide.
• Also as Resolute said; Infobox and use a stats table similar to other players. You can find everything you need at WP:HOCKEY/Player pages format.

Continue the good work! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I have made several changes you guys have suggested. I will try to watch out for my use of mixed tense, however i think that's just the way I write...unfortunately. There are some other changes I will look at making soon, like the citation templates. your suggestions have been a big help--Leech44 (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I started out with the mixed tenses too. If you ever get to the point of trying for good or featured articles, you will get beaten over the head about it until you relent. Resolute 04:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Any of you Euro hockey fans know if this is a notable tournament? Its currently up for prod. Could have sworn I had heard the name alot in the past but I can't find much on it. So I am probably thinking of some other tournament. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the Euro Hockey Tour perhaps? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have heard of it before. As far as tournaments go, I believe it is a sort of B tournament. Probably akin to what the Viking Cup or any of the college tournaments are. As far as sources go, I'm not sure of any off the top of my head. Might want to ask over at International Hockey Forums and see if anyone has any ideas. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

With the Olympics beginning today, if any Wikipedians are going to Vancouver to watch the hockey games, bring a camera and take some pictures. If we can get some good pics of the players in Olympic action, it would beef up the quality of the articles IMHO. Just a thought. Anthony Hit me up... 17:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Got tickets to Russia-Latvia and Czech-Slovak games on 16th and 17th. With some good seats and a good camera, I'm hoping for some Olympic pictures of Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Nabokov, Jagr, Elias, Gaborik, Chara, etc. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently moved Soviet Union national ice hockey team to Soviet national ice hockey team, on grounds of grammar and euphony. Then I looked in the history and saw that someone had moved it the other direction in 2007, on the grounds that this was the naming for the other national teams.\

So I looked around and saw, for example, Greece national ice hockey team. Srsly? I'm not really a big hockey fan and won't mix in further if that's the way this project wants these things named. But in my opinion this is at the very least tin-eared English, if not actually in error.

If you don't like the demonyms (like Greek), how about national ice hockey team of Greece? --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, it should be the denonyms. "Canadian hockey team" is proper, "Canada hockey team" is not. I hate the names as they are now.--Львівське (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a terrible naming convention, it is, however, also a standard naming convention across the project. Resolute 22:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? They've been changed dozens of times...mostly by Marc87 if I remember correctly --Львівське (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be Greek national ice hockey team. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep--Львівське (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies Lvivske, I meant 'Greece' so as to match with the other national teams. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Something to be aware of is that this is the standard naming convention across wikipedia, not just hockey. Or atleast it was at one point. I haven't checked today to make sure. I would also note that there is alot of code requiring the pages to be named this way so if we move the pages make sure you leave the redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

While on the subject; I want to move Sweden men's national ice hockey team to Tre Kronor. Thoughts? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate your response? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In english it's Sweden, this is the English-language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, in English it's Swedish national hockey team. Sweden national hockey team is terrible English, at least stylistically, if not an outright grammatical error. --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well unlucky for you both the NHL and IIHF call them Tre Kronor ([4][5][6][7][8]), so it is the most common name in English. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But almost no media does. I have never heard them called the Tre Kronor except when an article is mentioning that they are known by that in Sweden. So its an extremely uncommon name in english. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

English language sports media (hockey announcers/commentatories/writers) have always called them Team Sweden. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Team Sweden sounds slightly informal but acceptable. *Sweden team really doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I know for certain, they don't say Team Tre Konor. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully believe you on that :-) --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking a wild guess here: I wonder if the original problem might have been that, using demonyms, the team from the US would have to be American national ice hockey team? That's completely unambiguous (there's only one nation that uses American as its demonym) but might tread on certain sensibilities. And making a special exception for the US team might tread on other sensibilities. If that's the problem, well, it's a bit silly, but that doesn't necessarily make it easy to solve. But national ice hockey team of Freedonia would at least be grammatically unassailable, unlike Freedonia national ice hockey team. --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that if these articles are renamed to something with a demonym in the title, instead of the name of the country in the title (preferably as the first word(s)), then the flag templates such as {{ih}} used extensively on our results pages would all require redirects, instead of linking directly to the article. The current pattern for national team article names is used for every other sport on en.wiki (football, rugby, cricket, basketball, volleyball, water polo, baseball, field hockey, ...) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned the coding, and that this would also take us out of line with every other sport. -DJSasso (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the issue needs to be addressed in general, then. Of course that's always more difficult. However, it sounds here like lots of people don't like the current convention. That might be true for the other sports as well. So it's possible the proposal could go somewhere. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, why is it United States women's national ice hockey team, and not United States national women's ice hockey team (and Canada, and Russia, et al.)? The sport is women's ice hockey, and it's the national team, so shouldn't it be national women's ice hockey team? Same applies for the men's team as well. Just food for thought while we're talking about changing the names around. Anthony Hit me up... 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is women's ice hockey a separate sport? In other words, is it the national team in women's ice hockey for the United States, or is it the national team in ice hockey for United States women? In Olympic parlance, it's same sport but a different event. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. They're different sports (men's ice hockey and women's ice hockey). The team names should reflect that. Anthony Hit me up... 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Same sport, but different team. As to the original topic, these would be controversial, so I would not recommend making any moves unilaterally. I'd do it via move requests. That said, I would recommend against even that, because moving the articles will necessitate moving the categories as well (cat trees should follow the name of the parent article), and I strongly doubt that makes it through CfD. Resolute 23:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of articles it affects, I'm actually thinking the Village Pump is the way to go. That ought to pre-empt CfD. Technical issues such as templates and category names should not get in the way of having titles that make it sound like the author actually speaks English. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)