Not certain if it is notable, but there was a London Arena in the 1920s and 1930s, possibly later, in London, Ontario. It was home for professional ice hockey, so it could probably merit an article. Since there is already a London Arena in London, England, then, if I were to create an article about it, how should it be titled? London (Ontario) Arena, London Arena (London, Ontario), Arena (London, Ontario)? I've not finished researching it. It might have a more distinct name, but I've not found it yet. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How about London Arena (Ontario) to avoid repetition? Resolute 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good, just not sure about guidelines for this sort of thing. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a lot of articles on stadiums/arenas. I would agree with Resolute's idea as a good disambigutor, or perhaps London Arena (Canada). Just look at Tiger Stadium or Memorial Stadium for ideas. The current London Arena should stay at London Arena since it is likely more famous. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The IIHF is selling its media guide and record book on DVD now worldwide. According to the site here, it's got information on the 102 year history of the IIHF - records, rosters, medals, etc. Not a terribly expensive resource to acquire, and one that would certainly assist us in editing international hockey articles. Just something to consider for any editors out there with disposable income, which excludes me :/ Anthony (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bah, I might have done it if they just emailed a PDF copy. The price is high enough without having to add an extra $6 for pointless shipping. Resolute 13:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well ive got in book form, which was a pain, due to the four month wait it took for them to ship it from Canada to Australia, only to find it didnt have what I wanted. But yeh if anyone is searching for some information out of it just ask and ill take a look. Salavat (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the book as well. Its good, but could be better. It is nice to have everything in one place, rather than having to find tournament stat pages every time. Canada Hky (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I also went ahead and got it, to be let down a bit. Most of it is stuff easily available, I was hoping for stats for the lower division teams, which are harder to find. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we have an article on this tournament? I looked all over and it seems a rather notable event. However, I was unable to find much detailed information and stats, aside from the past few years. An article would be nice to have which at least details the games played and final standings. Jmj713 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally haven't heard of it. But I have a vague recollection of deleting something with the name Traverse City in it in the past that was a local league or a tournament or something. But I haven't looked on google for sources so I have no opinion either way. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty well-known tournament that started in 1998 and takes place before the pre-season games. Rookies and prospects from NHL teams play under the aegis of the team they belong to (Detroit Red Wings, New York Rangers, etc.) and of course many current NHLers took part. Here's their site, and a Google search turns up plenty of NHL and NHL team articles on the past few years. Sadly, I couldn't find something to build a season-by-season table around. Jmj713 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can find non-NHL newspaper articles (in otherwords not press releases) then I would say go for it, but anything written by the teams or league itself wouldn't really be independant. But there are a number of these sort of tournaments during the summer so I am not sure how notable they are except locally to the area they are being played in. I know my hometown of Thunder Bay had one for a couple years. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to figure out why Brendan Smith's nationality flag icon is aligned to the right. Any help on this is appreciated. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

His line was formatted with player7 whereas the rest had player4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.179.122 (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank-you. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Matt Glennon (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The banning incident coverage is not accurate (Mr. Glennon describes it as "about a quarter true") and the 30-game ban did not happen, as evidence he started out on game 1 of the next season. Could someone with some historical sources please take the time to fix this up so that we can be fair to Mr. Glennon. Thanks. If you have OTRS access it's Ticket:2011042710007254. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've fixed up the article. Maxim_(talk) 22:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just recently created the article Czechoslovakia women's national ice hockey team, but when i use the template {{ihw|TCH}} it links to Czechoslovakia national ice hockey team (I just made this a redirect when I moved the men's page), does anyone know if this is something thats coded into the template or is this simply a purge issue which will right itself soon? Salavat (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to review the FLC for List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams. Thanks! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is my feeling: The season 2010-11 Riksserien probably does not merit his own article, and such content as is appropriate should probably be merged into the Women's ice hockey in Sweden article. I invite discussion, --Charlesquebec (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the reading of your comments, I remove my proposition of merger. I only wanted to improve the Wikipedia encyclopedia but the ice hockey is not my domain of specialization. Thanks and happy editing. --Charlesquebec (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor has raised the issue of whether Parise's name should have an accent on the "e". I haven't come across any sources using this spelling, but if anyone can way in on the issue one way or the other, I'd appreciate it. Canada Hky (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add that after reading the discussion on the Parise page I agree with Canada Hky (talk). I think that there are a lot of assumptions about what Zach's legal name truly is. Since he was born in the United States it is likely his legal name contains no diacritics. Typically American names have no accent since they are not used in American English, Zach's birth certificate likely has no accent on the "e" meaning his legal name has no diacritic. This is a common thing in the US as people with names like Rodríguez are written as Rodriguez, so from that stand point a reliable source stating that he spells his name with the diacritics is needed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that this is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), it is not the person's "legal name" which decides the article's title. We are to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Dolovis (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The annual incidence of nationalistic edits to List of IIHF World Championship medalists have picked up as of late, and this year's nationalism is Slovakian. More eyes would be most appreciated. Thanks, Resolute 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The last two guys on this list:

• Mike Brown (ice hockey b. 1979), played for Chicago Blackhawks, Vancouver Canucks and Anaheim Ducks, 1999–2006
• Mike Brown (ice hockey b. March 1985), American ice hockey goaltender
• Mike Brown (ice hockey b. June 1985), American ice hockey forward for the Toronto Maple Leafs

were previously disambiguated by "ice hockey goaltender" and "ice hockey forward". I'm a pretty huge Leafs fan, and I would have a pretty hard time telling you which Mike Brown played for the Leafs. The consistency with them all being by date looks nice when they are all lined up, but as far as finding the correct Mr. Brown, its very tricky. I think position is a better disambiguator than month of birth, but figured I would check out other opinions on the matter. I'd say position / year of birth is a better combination than birth month as well. Canada Hky (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple disambigs of this nature are always ugly. This is a case where context is important. In all articles, the name will hopefully be properly disambiguated, but on the main Mike Brown dab page, I would probably add the position and teams each played for. The only problem with changing the descriptor is that it would create yet another formula for what we use to dab, and that just becomes increasingly confusing. We got around the Steve Smith problem by changing one to James Stephen Smith. If we know the middle names of these two Mike Browns, we could possibly go to full names. Otherwise, I would personally rather leave the dabs as is. Resolute 19:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What is a hockey mom to expect when she names her kid "Mike Brown". Sheesh! I agree that it is not pretty, but the dabs are accurate. Mike Brown (ice hockey b. 1979) is a forward, as is Mike Brown (ice hockey b. June 1985), and there is another Mike Brown (forward) on the way up, so using “forward” to disambiguate is not a good choice. The standard practice is to disambiguate by year of birth (not by position), and then by month if necessary. Further clarification should be at Mike Brown (disambiguation). Dolovis (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't completely true, we actually in the past have rejected the idea of using months. We use year then middle name then position. If we are still stuck after that then we look at other methods. As for the issue with forward being a problem because another forward is coming. One is a left wing and one is a right wing. So when/if the new one gets an article its still easy to disambiguate with position as they play two different forward positions. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A goalie and a skater may be easy to disambiguate, but a left wing and a right wing? Come on. That is getting ridiculous, especially the way most coaches will play their forwards in multiple positions. Dolovis (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No harder than a user trying to figure out the exact birth month a player is born in. If anything a reader is going to know their main position way before they know the month a person was born in. Yes forwards may play a few games here and there in different forward positions. But they almost always have a main position. Unfortunately I don't think the NHL tracks exact number of games at a position like baseball does in MLB. The baseball project chooses the position by a certain percent of games played at a position. But I forget off the top of my head what that number is. -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that right vs. left wing is more likely to be known than a birth month. I think a secondary term is needed, I just think position is better than month of birth. It would allow all three to be consistent, as well. I don't think the fourth Mike Brown will be much of an issue, he played eight games as an overager this year and didn't get picked up after being released in October, but that's really neither here nor there. Basically, I'd be proposing the following names:

• Mike Brown (ice hockey forward b. 1979), played for Chicago Blackhawks, Vancouver Canucks and Anaheim Ducks, 1999–2006
• Mike Brown (ice hockey goaltender b. 1985), American ice hockey goaltender
• Mike Brown (ice hockey forward b. 1985), American ice hockey forward for the Toronto Maple Leafs

With three Mike Browns, and two further (non-overlapping) points of commonality between two of them (birth year and position), it seems logical to me to use the two points of commonality as the two disambiguators. Canada Hky (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To note, this was previously disused. Consensus seemed to be to leave the similar birth year players as position diambigs. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To add to this, the Mike Brown that is coming up would simply be diambiguated as "Mike Brown (ice hockey b. 1990)". The reason we have a problem with this in the first place is the fact that we have two Mike Brown's born in the same year. The other Mike Brown's really are irrelevant to this discussion. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Leave them all with (ice hockey b. 19--). Readers will look for Mike Brown & there, they can figure out which Brown (as each one's team can be listed). GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There's two 1985s, so birth year on its own doesn't work. Also, given that guys named Mike Brown tend to be journeymen, keeping teams updated on the disambiguation page is another bit of book keeping that could fall by the wayside. Canada Hky (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Could some one check out this image and help determine if this is Derek Boogaard? With his untimely passing it might be one of the only free images available of him.
-Turns out this was Kris Newbury
While we're at it can anyone confirm that the person or the right in this photo is Artūrs Irbe? Thanks for the help.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the second picture - it is Artūrs Irbe. Utinsh (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition of 3 most important and professionnal for women:

• Canadian Women's Hockey League
• Women's National Basketball Association
• Women's Professional Soccer

but one person ( Oknazevad ) remove Canadian Women Hockey League. I invite discussion for addition of the Canadian Women's Hockey League (CWHL) in the template Major League. The CWHL is the major women's ice hockey league in Canada. I invite discussion --Charlesquebec (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I probably wouldn't put any of those, as they generally aren't considered major leagues in the sense that this template is trying to convey. They get relatively no coverage in media. Especially the hockey one. I think this template is trying to indicate the leagues with are called teh 4 major leagues. In fact I would probably remove all of the others other than the four. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion really belongs on the template's talk page. That said, I'll make my comments here.

I am the editor who cast the template into it's current form. It is not intended to be q comprehensive list of all the top-level leagues in various sports in the US and Canada. It is intended as a navigational aid linking the "big 4" professional team sports leagues, a well-established concept in US (and Canadian ) sports. However, the template was expanded to include additional leagues that are sometimes considered the "fifth major league", that is ones that are sometimes included as a major, or looked at as being the next breakthrough.

As such, a quick look at the included articles leads me to definitively take oh the CWHL, which is so far from being noticed at a level anywhere near the big 4 doesn't belong. (WPS is also questionable.) So that's why I removed it. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

GREAT. Yes cross off any mention of the major women leagues in North America. The professional licenses of the women players still exist for Hockey Canada and for Canada Soccer Asssociation /and for the US soccer but not for some wikipedians here. The Wikiproject Ice Hockey is now a man's world. Quite as the professional sport is also only man's world. All my congratulations Gentlemans.--Geneviève (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you miss the point, its not that women's sports are less valuable. Its that the topic of that template is the major 4 sports leagues. Just like you wouldn't put a hockey article on a template about baseball, you wouldn't put a league that isn't one of the 4 major leagues on a template that is primarily about the 4 major leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:BornonJune8 has been creating a series of Category:National Hockey League postseasons by team categories and I'm just wondering what everyone's take is on this. Should we have these categories, should they be named that way, etc. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. Really they just include Stanley Cup Final articles and then other "lore" related events in which teams participated suring the playoffs. Is this a case of over-categorization, or is it good to go? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 14:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think its over-categorization. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

When I first joined Wikipedia, I did it for the women hockey. It in its own way, became writing therapy for me in the sense that I was able to write about what I loved. Wikipedia allowed me to sort out parts of my life that I needed to deal with ( I am a former junior player of hockey which stopped because of a grave wound in 2009)

There are a lot of users who I worked that I would like to thank for their assistance: Ottawa4ever, Maple Leaf, LauraHale and Kaldari . For those other users whose names I failed to mention, thanks you.

To all women users, good luck and courage on Wikipedia. This is a man's world. --Geneviève (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We'd rather you stayed. Women's hockey articles need all the attention they can get. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I too hope you stay. Your work on Women's hockey articles has been a valuable contribution and true benefit. Even if you do leave, let me say thank you for the good work. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bye dear Genevieve. My experience is also negative in Wikipedia. I think that there are two or three people monitoring some related sport pages and working together to coordinate their actions and make go away any change on what they do not like. Now, how to change the sport male-culture in Wikipedia ? Sadly, I have no idea. --Charlesquebec (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of updating the List of Los Angeles Kings draft picks page. I am using the table that someone used on the List of Edmonton Oilers draft picks, but I have a question how this project handles something. On the Oilers page, the player's nationality is listed as of the political situation in the year the player was drafted. So a player born under USSR rule, but was drafted in 1993, is listed as having Russian nationality. I am working backward through the Kings picks and didn't think of this until I got to Anze Kopitar. He is Slovenian now, but was born in Yugoslavia, prior to their breakup. Should he be listed as Slovenian or Yugoslavian? I have only got to 2005, but in 2004 the Kings drafted Ned Lukacevic and he presents an even larger conundrum. He born in Yugoslavia, drafted from Serbia and Montenegro and is now Montenegran, as his home town of Podgorica is now part of the separate country of Montenegro. Thus, he could have three different nationalities listed depending on how we view this. The nationality column in the table is important since the NHL always breaks down how many players were from Canada, from the US etc. So it is important to leave this on the Kings' page as well.

On a side note, I noticed on Anze Kopitar's page, his place of birth is listed as Jesence, Slovenia, Yugoslavia. Should it be listed this way or should the Slovenia be dropped? I changed Ned Lukacevic's page to read Podgorica, Montenegro, Yugoslavia, is this how we handle places of birth in the former East Bloc countries? I am unfamiliar with how Yugoslavia divided itself. I know the USSR is easier to distinguish where a player's hometown is now, as areas outside of Russia were the Ukrainian SSR etc., so it is easy to distinguish that player X is Belarussian or player Y is Ukrainian. However, with the former Yugoslavia, did they actually divide their country into sub-national regions?

Since I am raising this topic, just so I (we) have a clear idea what about other nations that no longer exist? East/West Germany for example should this be distinguished or is Germany sufficient? What about Czechoslovakia? Did they have sub-regional areas of Slovakia and the Czech region? Conversely, is this an issue at all? Are Canada and the USA the only areas where sub-national regions are important for places of birth? I do know that other nations use sub-national regions too, so for a German player do we list the state as well? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit of a mess. I see on the Flames list I used current nationality at the time I wrote the article. I suppose two options present themselves as the "cleanest" solutions: 1. Just remove the flags altogether. Or 2. Use the nationality of the play at the time of the draft. That would probably be the most NPOV way to do it. Resolute 02:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had Hobey Baker promoted to GA on May 12, and looking around for more stuff to go to FA, came across the HHOF website, which published one of their "One on One" articles on members. They had one for Baker made up on May 13. Looking through it (link here) I noticed a lot of similar wording to the Baker article, right down to some of the still-awkward phrasing that exists in the article. Thought I'd share that even the HHOF uses our work. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If they want the text, they should be willing to pony up some pictures.... ;) Canada Hky (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be borrowing some of those pictures. Couple of them are one's I've wanted to use, but couldn't find any online. Now I can touch up the article a bit more before sending it one its way. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Would an administrator move that article to 2014 IIHF World Championship? I've not the patients to put in a request at the RM page (where it takes me about 1-hour to fill out a request, only to be edit-conflicted when I present it). GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, anybody out there? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Its at its proper name. If you notice articles are usually named in this format for the top level of the world championships. The name you want it moved to is the name for the general article for all of the different levels of the world championships. -DJSasso (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What of the others? up 'til 2012, which is why I moved 2013, 2015 & 2016. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The others are named that. Go take a look...as I mentioned. Both names exist. But for different types of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How are they different? For example: see 2005 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships & 2005 IIHF World Championship. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Some articles may need to be fixed. But in most cases one is for just the Championship Level. And the other ones are an overview of all the levels. Feel free to fix them instead of sitting around here griping about it. If you notice one is just for the main tournament and the other is for all 4 of the different world championship levels. Read the articles. -DJSasso (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the problem, It was the infobox at 2011 IIHF World Championship. PS: Stop complaining. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I read the post-2011 tournament articles & they fall under the IIHF World Championship articles. Therefore, my page moves 'yesterday', were correct. The correct Men's Ice Hockey Championships articles 'post 2011', are yet to be created. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The information (minus game schedule) for the 2012 tournament has been released for all divisions. I realize that DJ just moved that one from 2012 IIHF World Championship to 2012 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships, but if that can be moved back I will go ahead and fill out the two pages. Information is here for 2012. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment was actually backwards. Its at the location it should be at now. The IIHF articles appear to be seperate articles for just the championship division. The info might as well be all on one page for now unless you are going to create a large enough article to need to split them...we haven't had two seperate articles for any of the recent years. Have to go back to the early part of the last decade for that. Uggh these articles are a mess...looks like they aren't all in the category. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved. Feel free to create. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DJ. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your WikiProject's policy on templates like {{Montreal Canadiens retired numbers}}? I seem to recall this WP's stance against navboxes in preference of succession boxes (and although I personally am against it, that's beside point here). Jrcla2 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and for the record, I'm aware that a succession box is not applicable to retired jersey numbers, my point was that you're (generally) against these types of navboxes, so I think. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In my view, it is just clutter. WP:NENAN. Resolute 16:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thats my view as well. Only the most important things should have a navbox at the bottom of a page. Tangentally related things like that are mostly clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it will be put up at TfD then? Jrcla2 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it used on any pages? If not I would just redirect it to the main Montreal Canadiens template. If it is then yeah a tfd. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A redirect might only encourage an editor to add retired numbers to the team infobox. I'd TFD it. Resolute 17:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's no list. The ideal situation would be a link from the main template as this would probably discourage recreation of the retired numbers template. Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on putting together exhaustive lists of international players for the various nations and the major international tournaments (Olympics, World Championships, and World Juniors), based on the format of the FLs for the Canadian men and junior teams. The source I'm working with (the IIHF record book) doesn't break down individual tournaments, and just compiles the totals for players at each level (WM18, WM20, WM, and OG-M). My problem is this: how do I deal with players who played for both the Soviet Union and Russia/member nations, or Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic/Slovakia? Most of the players are clearly one or the other, but there are a handful of players who played in the late 80s/early 90s, and I can't break up their statistics. Any guidance or suggestions would be most appreciated, thanks. Anthony (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Only thing I can suggest is trying to find sources which do split them up. Probably wouldn't be easy. Especially for the Russians where there are 3 options for some of them. Soviet Union/CIS/Russia. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess my follow-up would be: do we have to split them up? The reason one could argue "no" is because the IIHF considers Russia to be the successor to the Soviet Union, and the Czech Republic to be the successor to Czechoslovakia. If the IIHF considers them the same nation, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the list group them together? The only hurdle there is figuring out what to title the article. Would it be List of IIHF World Under-20 Championship players for the Soviet Union and Russia, for example, and List of IIHF World Under-20 Championship players for Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic? The title is unwieldy, but I don't see another way to combine them. Anthony (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that not all players went from Soviet Union -> CIS -> Russia. Some went Soviet Union -> CIS -> Belarus etc. Or from Czechoslovakia -> Slovak Republic. Because they aren't considered the same by the IIHF. Or does it split them up when they went to Belarus or Kazakistan or wherever. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it splits them up by country. I grabbed my copy of the record book, and promptly blanked out on anyone who might actually be in this situation. Jan Vopat is listed as playing for TCH at the 92 & 93 WU20s and CZE for subsequent tournies, so I think that should be an acceptable way to do it. I also seem some URS --> LAT, so they didn't lump everyone in. Canada Hky (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not always. By way of example, Andrei Trefilov is listed as playing in the World Championships from 1991-96, but the country is URS. Now obviously he only played for the Soviets in 1991, and Russia thereafter, but how do I split up the statistics? And that's another issue - it only states the years he was active, not each individual tournament. Maybe he didn't play in every single tourney from '91-'96 - how would I know?Anthony (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To follow up on that, his detailed stats can be found on NHL.com, but only because he played in the NHL, and they broke it down by annual tourney. Some transition-era players didn't make it to North America, and thus won't have detailed stats anywhere else but through the IIHF. Not saying it's going to be easy, but I'm looking for guidance before I begin going full-bore into this. Anthony (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Trefilov's stats just look messed up, as they have him playing for URS and RUS from 1991-96 in the WM for URS and the WCH (which only happened in 1996) for RUS. Igor Kravchuk's are similarly screwed up, though. Unless the Soviet Union participated in the 2002 Olympics. If this is only an issue for Russian players (or guys with the succession line intact (Czech)), then I would combine them. Of course the issue then becomes - what to do with players who represented the Sovient Union, and later moved on to represent Latvia? They should be on a list of players who represented the Soviet Union, but not on a list of Russian players. This is the one area of the IIHF record book that I was thoroughly disappointed in, it shouldn't have been that hard to give tournament by tournament stats. I guess one option would be to have two tables on the Soviet / Russian page. Canada Hky (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems eurohockey.net might help. You should be able to get individual tournament stats for the affected players there. Resolute 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. One final question: what about the 1992 Olympics? Are the CIS players listed under the Soviet page or the Russian page? I would lean towards the Soviet page, and then starting in 1994 break them off into their own separate country subpages, but I don't think we need List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the Commonwealth of Independent States for the one year, since CIS was the USSR in all but name anyway. Anthony (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would make a seperate page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the Unified Team/CIS? The only statistics are going to be from the 1992 Olympics, and the 1992 World Juniors (which will be a separate page anyway). I would argue that the stats get rolled into the Soviet page, with a marker of sorts indicating they participated as a member of CIS. Particularly with the Juniors, who started the tournament as USSR and ended as CIS because the tournament crossed over from 1991 to 1992. For simplicity and ease of continuity, I would say CIS/Unified Team stats are included on the Soviet page, and then any tournament stats after 1992 go on the respective page for the new republic. Anthony (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The best option in my view is to leave CIS as part of the USSR page, with a note on each player that played for the CIS team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)

If anything I would put the Juniors on the same page as the Olympics (if its size you are worried about) for the CIS instead of lumping two completely different teams together. There is no reason why you couldn't have one small list for the CIS/Unified team instead of trying to lump them into a much larger list. Personally I can see people specifically searching for people who played on the CIS teams and having to search through such a large Soviet Union list to find the 25 or so players from the CIS would I think be an unnecessary negative. I think the fact that the CIS team played the way it did is notable in its own right separate from the Soviet Union since its the only non country to compete as a team in the Olympics and juniors. That being said I can see an argument for lumping in the juniors since they started the tournament as the Soviet Union. But for the Olympics I would definitely separate them. -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I need help from other Wikipedians to watch over the article! Also, are we going to keep the tradition of making another team article for the relocated team? --K.Annoyomous (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Thrashers get relocated, we'll need a new team article. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorely tempted to semi-protect the Thrashers and Jets articles. And yes, the Thrashers article would become historical, discussing the franchise's time in Georgia, and a new article would be created for the new Winnipeg team, should the report be true. The current Jets article would remain historical, discussing the 1972-1996 team. Resolute 04:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And that's enough of that. Both articles are now semi-protected until Tuesday night. As I will be off-line for most of the weekend, anyone can feel free to lift or change the protection as they see fit. Also, watch for similar edits at related articles. National Hockey League and Calgary Flames have both seen at least one such edit. Resolute 04:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There are going to be quite a few articles to watch out for, including current Thrasher player articles, Philips Arena, MTS Centre, Don Waddell, Atlanta Spirit, LLC, etc. Fans on both sides, either angry or happy, could make some interesting changes in the coming days. Patken4 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That's if the NHL owners approve of the sale & re-location, of course. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

True. But if it happens, Thrasher fans may want to take out their frustrations on the Atlanta Spirit and Waddell articles. Since Waddell is alive, there might be some BLP issues. Patken4 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thrashers fans? that should be about 10 IPs. Seriously though, you're correct. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the protection on these articles will expire very late tonight (after midnight, EDT). Hopefully we won't see a resumption of these edits. Resolute 18:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I fear we will. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Thompson is scheduled to make a main page appearance tomorrow. The blurb is here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 24, 2011. Any extra eyes watching over the article will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA! Resolute 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, did you mean to say "condolences on the TFA"? :P Maxim_(talk) 00:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It is amusing how TFA's are just 24 hours of vandalism... Resolute 00:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And corrections. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Following my earlier discussion on Russia and Czechoslovakia (I'm leaving them for later and focusing on Switzerland right now), I have another question. I've been compiling the data for Switzerland in the Olympics, and was going to put it into table form, to match the List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada. But I also looked at the List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present), and the format is different between the two lists. For one thing, the Olympic one doesn't include minutes for the goaltenders. For another, the Olympic lists all medals together, while the WC list has individual lists for gold, silver and bronze medals. I think the Olympic one is nicer, because it has all medals sorted together - adding in the minute totals for goalies isn't that hard of a task. What say you? Should we standardize the lists, or keep different formats for WCs and Olympics? Anthony (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past few days, I've been working on putting a copy of Hockey: Canada's Royal Winter Game on Wikisource, here. This book is the first ever written about the sport. The book is "verified"—somewhat like Wikipedia's inline citations—from scans; in this case, I lifted the .pdf of the book from LAC and got it converted to a .djvu file. The process at Wikisource is to get a work first proofread by one contributor, then validated by another. This process is fairly simple: it consists of checking if the typed text matches with the scan, which are shown side-by-side in the Page: namespace. The index of the pages is here: Index:Hockey, Canada's Royal Winter Game.djvu. The ones in red have not been proofread at all; the ones in yellow have been proofread once. The pages highlighted in green have been validated, so no further work should be needed for those pages. I was hoping that some WP:HOCKEY members would be able to pop by Wikisource and check some pages; I'm posting in the hope that those who are interested in the subject will be more inclined to help out. If you have any questions regarding Wikisource, pop by my talkpage there. Maxim_(talk) 02:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the proofreading and validation work on the book has now been finished. A big thank you to those who came over to help out. I was wondering if there are any ideas regarding what other public-domain works regarding hockey could be found and placed on Wikisource. The project is always looking for new contributors and new works, and placing works on Wikisource makes them more accessible (e.g. Hockey: Canada's Royal Winter Game is easier to access, IMHO, from a wikipage than from a PDF or a page-turning application.). Furthermore, the works—in their entirety, or specific sectiosn—can be easily linked from relevant Wikipedia articles. Any thoughts on this will be very appreciated, either here, or my Wikisource talkpage, which has, in the past few days, turned into sort of a general discussion page. :p Maxim_(talk) 15:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You can see at the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals a fully filled out infobox. I'm thinking that anthem singers and announcers is trivia, and maybe should be removed. I've asked for discussion at the template talk page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks increasingly likely that the Thrashers will eventually move to Winnipeg, we'll probably need an article in place for the probable announcement. I know Dolovis has started on an article at User:Dolovis/Winnipeg NHL Team. There are a few problems with it, mainly that it carries forward the Thrashers name, colors, GM, coach, etc. Does anyone else have an article that they are working on in their userspace? Should we protect Winnipeg NHL Team until we can get something in there, to prevent people from putting garbage in the article before the official announcement? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage any editor to work on the article at User:Dolovis/Winnipeg NHL Team in preparation for its inevital move to mainspace. Dolovis (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll be in tears, when the NHL blocks the move to Winnipeg. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis' draft is the only one I am aware of, and should be the one we focus our efforts on. Keeping the colours, pending a new scheme is fine imo, but all of the assumptions need to be removed. Specifically, the assumption of a name of "Winnipeg Thrashers" (or anything else), and the assumption that a new AHL team in St. Johns would become the affiliate. Resolute 14:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Nick Kypreos, it looks like it's all but certain that this will be announced tomorrow. Since this type of a transaction is not done on the fly, I think it's very likely a new team name, be it the Thrashers or Jets or something new, will be announced as well. Maybe even the logo and jersey, too. Should be a chaotic couple of days... Jmj713 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect an announcement to be made until after the finals. Doubt they would want to steal the thunder from the finals. His draft is the only one for a full out page. A couple other pages have the same basic content as far as information related to the possible move. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the deal's pretty much done: 1, 2: "WPG lawyers signed off on their end. ATL lawyers doing their due diligence now. Soon as they sign off, deal is done, pending board approval. If ATL lawyers sign off today, announcement tomorrow morning. If ATL lawyers don't sign off today, drags out another day or two." 3: "Bettman really pushing announcement before Gm 1 begins. Despite time line hard to believe Canada's biggest story won't overshadow it." Jmj713 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of speculation that TNSE would retain the Manitoba Moose name. Which means, Manitoba Moose would go to Manitoba Moose (1996–2011), the redirect left behind deleted, and the draft copy to Manitoba Moose. If they were to go back to the Jets name, same strategy, except the current Jets article would go to Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996). Any which way we cut it, there will be a lot of cleanup required. Personally, if Kypreos is right on the announcement, I hope they announce the name right away, as I would hate to deal with 25+ player articles where people are guessing at who they are playing for. Resolute 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, should the Thrashers move to Winnipeg & adopt the name Jets, it would still mean the creation of a new article, as there'd be 2 franchises: Jets/Coyotes & Thrashers/Jets. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That stub of an article is a good start, but it needs a lot more info regarding the events leading up to relocation, especially recently. Jmj713 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, IMO, most of the stuff in the "potential relocation" section of the Jets article is misplaced, as none of it applies to that franchise. I think that if a move is confirmed, we can move most of that content over to the new article. Resolute 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would remove it now and put it in the Thrashers article (where it mostly already exists). But I suppose people would just keep re-adding it in. So yes once something is official it should be removed from that page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like Dolovis' draft is in pretty good shape for any such announcement - but do we really need to do anything more pending a legit announcement? Items like name, personnel, colors, logo and the like we put in when there's an announcement one way or another. (I would also, were I an admin, preemptively start - and protect - possible pages such as Winnipeg Thrashers, Winnipeg Moose and the like.)

  Other than that, yes, a new "Jets" would be a pain, but with AWB or a similar program, it'd take an hour, no more.  Ravenswing  15:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Press conference at noon ET [1] - looks like speculation will end at that point and we can start moving forward. Just a heads up to start locking down pages and watching for vandals at that time. Anthony (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mm, yes ... the Jets' page should be under full protection. I'm sure today will be a complete ratfuck, but it's only to be expected ... and we should have a page under control by this time tomorrow. I assume that the new team page will be semi-protected from the get-go?  Ravenswing  15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Scope

Honestly, I really, really hope that if the team moves, they don't use either the Jets or Moose name. If a new team were to be called the Moose, we would have to change all existing links for Manitoba Moose to a dab title - touching about 300 articles. If they go with Jets, we're looking at over 500. And that isn't even thinking about National Hockey League or American Hockey League and related articles. Resolute 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't be that hard to fix, but yes hopefully it is a completely new name. They have said publically they want to use something other than the Jets. But the public outcry has been pretty loud about keeping with history. Kind of hoped we would avoid that sort of thing in hockey like they have in baseball where there are 3 different franchises etc that have been called the same name at one point in time or another. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be unfortunate if the new team is named the Winnipeg Jets. Maybe they'll compromise and name it the Manitoba Jets? But Manitoba doesn't have the ring to it that Winnipeg does, I don't think, no offense to anyone elsewhere from the province. Winnipeg Thrashers would be a good choice, too, keeping some of the franchise's original heritage, as was done with the Flames. Jmj713 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jets + Thrashers = Thrusters. The logo possibilities are endless. Canada Hky (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling they intend to use Manitoba no matter what. They want people outside of Winnipeg to feel it is their team as well. Sort of the way the Saskatchewan Rough Riders do it so that they can draw more people from out of town to come watch. It is the same reason they used Colorado instead of Denver. Felt they needed to appeal to people outside the city in order to get good enough attendance. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just the fixing of current articles - those will be time consuming, but not hard. There will be helpful anons and editors putting Dustin Byfuglien into Category:Manitoba Moose players before the CfDs on the old categories close and are renamed. The whole thing's going to be a pain in the ass. and Canada Hky, how about Winnipeg Threshers? ;) Resolute 16:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Threshers would definitely appeal to the key 85 year old farmer demographic, which makes up a larger portion of Saskatchewan and Manitoba than people would like to admit. Canada Hky (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have actually liked that name when they have brought it up a few times on TV. It has a certain ring to it. I think I just like plays on words. Personally I am hoping for Manitoba Blizzard. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's Manitoba Moose, couldn't we have Manitoba Moose (AHL)? The category for the IHL team is already Category:Manitoba Moose (IHL) players. Patken4 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the same franchise though. You could possibly rename the existing categories to Category: Manitoba Moose (AHL) players, but the main article encompasses both leagues. Personally, I think the categories should as well, but that's an entirely separate argument. Resolute 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

At least we can be fairly certain that if the Moose do end up moving to NFLD, that team will have a new name. Although, the other bit of spit-balling I heard was that the Moose would move to Saskatoon, and the Blades would move to Chilliwack. That may very well have been a Saskatchewan pipe dream, though. Bad summer for franchises. Canada Hky (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the AHL team is most likely heading to Thunder Bay assuming city council there approves the new arena. Its only a short 45 minute flight from winnipeg. Or a short 10 hour bus ride. That way they are not displacing an existant junior team and the city is closer to most other AHL franchises than either St. Johns or Saskatoon. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention, what happens to the Chicago Wolves. They are currently the Thrashers farm. If the Winnipeg Widgits also want the former Manitoba Moose as their farm team, then the Canucks are going to need a new AHL team. Patken4 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Theory was Moose to St. John's, and becoming Winnipeg's farm team (thus the speculation in Dolovis' article), and Chicago becoming Vancouver's affiliate. The domino effect of such a relocation will be huge, and we've already seen the first topple with the WHL relocation to Victoria. It will be kind of crazy to think about the number of articles we will be creating, renaming, moving and updating out of all of this. Resolute 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Could be worse; we could all be in the footy WikiProject. Now those poor bastards have it tough.  Ravenswing  17:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, the Moose will head to Atlanta. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the deal is a go, and the announcement will be tomorrow at 10 AM: 1. Rumor has it the name may be the Manitoba Falcons (in honor of the Winnipeg Falcons). Jmj713 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: So why exactly do we have it tough? ;-) Anyway, let's hope that the "Winnipeg gets another team" saga will be over soon. Next up: Quebec City in 2012? ^^ --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• The debate over what is "fully professional" or not; the horrible headache over what national leagues are "top-level" or not, and upon what objective criteria is this decided; the annual promotion/relegation realignment chore across a hundred countries and hundreds of leagues? Heck, this is the first NHL team move since Wikipedia was founded. This is easy.  Ravenswing  22:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully, the new Winnipeg team won't be called Winnipeg Jets. That way, we can avoid the fights over 'merging' that article with Winnipeg Jets. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't a general discussion forum, but it strikes me as odd that the owners would want to choose a new name when there is already a perfectly good one with proven fan loyalty and history already available. I think it would be well worth the hassle of changing a few wikipedia links.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Coverage of the press conference live now. Sounds like it really won't be named Winnipeg Jets. Thankfully. Jmj713 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link; I'd been running the live feed from Winnipeg's sports-talk radio station. Wonder how many of us are watching/listening to live feeds right now?  Ravenswing  16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am. I kind of hope they announce a name so we can change links once, rather than fight IPs assuming everything will be "Jets". Resolute 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

::Aaaaand we have our first move of Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg NHL...ugh. Admin fix? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And the dominoes fall

Moose to St. John's, announcement to come as early as tomorrow. At least this will cause a smaller battle for the is/was debate! Resolute 19:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

At least they won't call them the Maple Leafs. Maybe they will try to appease fans by naming the farm team the Jets. Canada Hky (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It'd be ironic if the farm team was called the Jets, but not Winnipeg... Resolute 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody had created this article as a stub earlier. I started expanding it, but there's a whole trove of information that can be added about how the group came together, how Thomson became involved, how the MTS Centre was built, and how the whole thing has progressed to this point. I also created articles for True North Sports & Entertainment Limited, True North Sports & Entertainment and TNSE and redirected them to make piping existing references a lot easier. I think I managed to get every specific reference to TNSE directed to the new page, but obviously more expansion should probably be done. Also, Mark Chipman should probably get an article but I'm not even sure where to begin there. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion regarding "major awards" here, if anyone has an opinion on the matter. Canada Hky (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a problem with this infobox we are using for the season articles. I went to the 1992-93 NHL season page and noticed the infobox has the Habs as Eastern Conference champs and the Kings as Western Conference champs. The 1993-94 NHL season is the first to use Eastern/Western Conference. For seasons between 1974-75 and 1992-93 the conferences were known as the Prince of Wales and Campbell Conferences. Of course between 1967-68 and 1973-74 the conferences were the East and West Divisions. Also, from 1927-28 and 1937-38, the conferences were American and Canadian Divisions. I thought the easy solution was simply to add conf3 and conf4 to the infobox. However, when you do this a) conf4 does not appear and b) when you change the infobox on the season page from conf1 and conf2 to conf3 and conf4 it adds in the Eastern and Western champs in addition to the conf3 items.

So I am stumped how to fix this, but it does need to be fixed. The only way to get around this is to change it to Prince of Wales Trophy and Clarence Campbell Bowl champions, except it seems weird to add a runner up for each of those. Does anyone have any ideas how to fix this? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I can work on the code for the template. At the least, we can make the conf1 and conf2 settable. Right now they are hard-coded. I'll see if we can use a year param or something like that to set the values for us. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we consider semi-protection until the Finals are over? I've just reverted vandalism from separate IPs to both the Bruins and Canucks articles.  Ravenswing  03:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd consider it. BTW, did anybody notice, Recchi's A was missing from his sweater tonight. Who replaced him? GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Recchi started the first two periods with the A but came out in the third without. Good catch. Alrin (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Could simply be that the stitching came out.  Ravenswing  05:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A wardrobe malfunction. GoodDay (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that he changes jerseys between periods, and for some reason didn't have enough sweaters with the "A". isaacl (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Its a good time of the year to capitalize on non-regular editors work. Any vandalism can easily be reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I would quickly protect any BLP facing vandalism (Rome...), but for the team articles, the level of vandalism hasn't been high enough to warrant blocking editors attempting to contribute from doing so. Resolute 14:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mm, you guys may be right. In the wee hours, an anon IP reverted some unwarranted language himself, so ...  Ravenswing  14:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I may have requested clarification before, just can't remember. The Canada Cup tournaments & World Cup of Hockey tournaments were NHL sponsored. What's the diacritics situation on those tournament articles? keep or delete? GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

They are international tournaments. You have asked this more than a few times. While NHL players played they were international tournaments along the same lines as the participation of NHL players in the Olympics and World Championships. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I had to be certain, as the Olympics & WCs are IIHF sponsored. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So was the Canada Cup. Either way the point is more that they are international tournaments and not just restricted to North American teams. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

CCs were NHL sponsored, anyways, just needed clarification. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And IIHF sponsored. Which was the point of the Canada Cup...to end Canada's boycott of the IIHF and create a true best on best series. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The NHL was the main component. But let's not get off track, here. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

They were NHL sponsored, but IIHF sanctioned. I wrote them with diacritics given the view that they were international tournaments, and as such the scope far exceeded the NHL/North American hockey. Resolute 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I needed to know, so that I wouldn't be making alterations, only to have'em reverted. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possible this has been brought up before, but I was looking over articles of players, and I noticed that there isn't a common listing of Stanley Cup wins for the individual players. In my opinion, something could be added to the info bar on the right side of each page, sort of like it is on PGA Tour players info bar's listing how many PGA Tour wins they have had. Just an idea, I thought it should be easier to see if a player won a Stanley Cup or not. Piemann16 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Even better, there should just be a list of all people who have won the Cup. Jmj713 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I started to make one at one time (User:Leech44/List of player names on the Stanley Cup) but had difficulty separating the names of the teams players were on. I think I know how to do a better job of that now. I think I stopped working on it because I was concerned that it might be considered trivial and the source I had contradicted some of the pages on Wikipedia and that the Official NHL guide book says names "eligible" to be on the Stanley Cup (I think). Which to me made it questionable about older players who would have had to pay for their names to be engraved on the Cup. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That list looks like a great start! Would love to see it as a companion to our List of Stanley Cup champions. Jmj713 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been working on some other pages and I have some real world things going on right now but I'll try to get back to working on this in like a month or so.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this is being discussed here. I'd love to see more input! Piemann16 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is another year that the NHL Conference Finals are winding down, and it seems that newly registered user and IPs are yet again confused about what should actually be listed on Western Conference (NHL)#Stanley Cup champions produced from the Western Conference and Eastern Conference (NHL)#Stanley Cup champions produced from the Eastern Conference – despite the hidden comments.[2][3] I would instead prefer it be merged into the relevant tables in the NHL Conference Finals, Prince of Wales Trophy and Clarence S. Campbell Bowl articles. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think edits like that are bound to happen on various articles. There is a issue that happens on wikipedia where people think they get a cookie for being the first to make an edit or create an article so they ignore those messages. Only thing you can really do is undo their edit and move on, it's not that they don't understand. It is that they don't want to listen. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I think it would be better to expand the lists on those two articles. If it is formatted in way and provides a bit more information than what is on the Campbell and Wales trophy articles, it will emphasize -- especially to those unfamiliar with NHL history -- how the playoffs were unique from 1975 to 1981 (compared to the NFL, NBA, and MLB). And how in that period, the playoff teams were seeded regardless of conference. And that there were no conference playoff champions, only conference regular season champions. And how it was possible that two teams from the same conference could meet in the Cup Finals. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the stub image for hockey-related articles needs to be changed. The current one looks like a bandaid. An image has been created that depicts a hockey stick and puck. Should we change it? AmericanLeMans (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this recently I believe. Did you perhaps bring it up before? I seem to remember the exact same comment from the proposer. In the end I think this was the best image we had that didn't lose its detail too much when it was that small. -DJSasso (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes here it is. It was you, I knew it sounded familiar. -DJSasso (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like he's mentioning a new, different stick & puck image, so I wouldn't dismiss it off hand. I know I've never particularly thought the rink looked good at such a small size. I'd like to actually see which image he's proposing. oknazevad (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Hockey in Canada -- where a proposal for a new wikiproject for Canadian hockey is presented. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, the proposer has been banned as a sock & this IP account only began editing 2 days ago. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Notifying WP:HOCKEY of a hockey related issue obviously should not occur, since they don't want to be informed; why does it exist then? Thank you for insulting me at the WikiProject proposal page. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Such notices are definitely appreciated. Resolute 13:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do just that. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As the NHL free agent season will soon be upon us, I would like to seek a consensus for how to record free agents signed by NHL teams on the current season team articles. In past years, some have argued that only players who switch teams should be listed as a free agent signing (i. e. Free agent acquired); while others have argued that a free agent who is signed after July 1st should be listed as a free agent signing even if he re-signs with his previous team (i. e. Free agent signed). Can we settle this now before too many edits have been made? Dolovis (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Choice 1: List free agent signing only if player switches teams (Free agent acquired)

Choice 2: List free agent signing even if re-signed as a free agent by the same team (Free agent signed)

• 1 (as always). TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely 1. I know I have personally been working on these for the past few seasons and my feeling is a player changing teams is listed under free agents acquired and a player re-signing with the team goes in the player signings section along with drafted prospects who are signed. Piemann16 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm of the mind of option 1 as well. I did see what you added to the Flames season article re: Glencross' signing, and I'm not against a separate table for such signings, but I like to see the additions and subtractions in separate tables. With that in mind, I also favour the general table layout as exists on the current Flames articles than the multiple tables for every different type of movement as exists on the other articles created (i.e.: 2011–12_Tampa_Bay_Lightning_season#Transactions. Why use five tables where two would do? Resolute 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Option 1, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Option 1. I never knew it was even in question that we do it another way. -DJSasso (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a request for move at Talk:Jakub Čutta, which is a part of this WikiProject. - Darwinek (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Season" column in the Winners table really be that season's Finals, or the playoffs? Jmj713 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it should be the playoffs, as it's the playoff MVP award. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those templates that bugs the hell out of me, as it is basically used as a dumping ground for random topics that have some association with the NHL, no matter how tenuous. The result is a mishmash of links with no real organization, and a heavy duplication of content in the main template. I would like to get rid of this template altogether, replacing it with templates that cover specific, defined sets. This would involve changes to {{NHL}} and {{NHLHistory}}.

User:Resolute/Template

The first template is an update to {{NHL}}. The second is a new template focusing on league records, and the third would replace {{NHLHistory}} and be moved to the end of an article rather than serve as a sidebar. As an additional possibility, the personnel section could be moved to its own template, and the international section could be moved into {{WorldCupofHockey}}.

My proposed changes would orphan several articles that don't really fit anywhere, and not everything needs a navbox:

• NHL Conference Finals - Largely duplicates the Playoff articles and the Campbell and Wales trophy articles. Not especially useful, and the NHL is not MLB. There is not a need for a separate article for every round of the post-season. Propose redirecting to Stanley Cup playoffs
• NHL trade deadline - Propose merge and redirect to Season structure of the NHL
• List of player salaries in the NHL - Not one of my favourite articles, but no real merge target. Potentially list with labour relations articles
• List of team payrolls in the NHL - as above
• List of ice hockey video games - Doesn't need to be part of main template. But should be added to the video game articles themselves as a see also link.
• List of NHL mascots - Potentially added to the main template, though my initial feeling is that mascots are trivial.
• Hockey Fights Cancer - NENAN.

Thoughts, suggestions, alternative proposals or insults? Resolute 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• That, or just link the orphaned articles on the NHL page itself.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• The individual team Templates need work too. Definitely umbrella the playoffs and season structure. The "Streaks" and "Droughts" pages are links to playoff streaks and droughts exclusively, which is pretty limited in scope; having a stats/records template would definitely provide clearer and more comprehensive access than now. Salaries should be merged into individual team pages, as part of the roster table. Not sure about mascots; maybe a category and leave them on individual team pages? juan^less 01:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone knew whether or not Savard will get his name on the Cup, and if he should be mentioned in his article as a Stanley Cup winner. I've been told that only players who had gametime during the playoffs get their name on the cup, but that there might be an exception for injuries. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The requirement is one final game or 41 regular season games, but if the Bruins request special permission from the commissioner, they can add Savard's name to the Cup. See: [4]. Elrith (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Savard played only 25 regular-season games and he did not appear in a Stanley Cup Final game, but exceptions have been made for players who did not met that standard because of injury - so we will have to wait and see if Savard will get his name on the cup or not. Dolovis (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Boston Globe, the Bruins' GM plans to petition on behalf of both Savard and Steve Kampfer, who fell three games short of the regular season qualifying total.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Anybody know how to re-add Mark Recchi, without making the same change at Boston Bruins? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the template will need to be changed to a table. I doubt there is a way to keep a template stagnant on one page while it is updated on others, if the rosters are going to stay up on the page (and several of the 2010–11 season pages) they need to be changed over as the templates will continue to change and not be an accurate representations since they do not remain dedicated to a particular season but rather a franchise.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah normally we use a table once the finals are done. On roster pages we just remove them because the scoring summary shows the rosters. But for the finals I think we usually just create a table. -DJSasso (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've converted them to tables but someone will need to go through and remove the players who didn't actually play in the Finals there are a number. -DJSasso (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I just stripped out all the Bruins who didn't dress for the Finals. Someone with a better handle on who dressed for Vancouver should do the same there ...  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is being limited to just those who played in the finals. Many of the players removed were on the roster and are listed as healthy scratches.[5] --Izzygood (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(shrugs) Because they didn't dress. We likewise don't list every player under contract to the teams, even though they're under contract.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If a player had nothing to do with the Finals, why list them? Excepting, of course, any player who might gain an exception from the league and have their names engraved on the Cup. Resolute 04:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No one who didn't play for the Bruins in the finals would otherwise normally qualify for a Cup engraving, barring exceptions - Steve Kampfer came closest but fell three games short.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  04:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I got the Canucks roster fixed. As per above I left Mikael Samuelsson on the list since he met the regular season requirements. Now back to the horrible depression that is another game 7 Stanley Cup Loss.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

After a half-year's absence, User:Elrith has cropped up again, making a few dozen diacritical changes against the ongoing consensus, marking them minor and - apparently - hoping no one noticed. They've mostly been reverted by myself and a couple other editors, save for some legitimate changes to IIHF-related articles and to a few articles including European club names, something for which I don't believe we've a current consensus. I just figured more sets of eyes would do some good.  Ravenswing  04:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a new issue, Dolovis has been battling about it for a few weeks now. There have been sockpuppet accusations, ANI threads, various MOS threads. I am surprised you have only just now noticed. It is why Elrith showed up I believe. Because Dolovis was arguing against our compromise and pushing the issue so Elrith started pushing in the other direction. Which is ironic because this is exactly why we have the compromise so POV pushers on either side of the issue will just let the dead horse lie in peace. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be a retaliatory response from Elrith. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm mostly correcting spelling on player pages, only to have it reverted. You guys don't seem to respect your own "consensus" either. Elrith (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to comment on DJSasso's post, your position is untenable. You're basically alleging that the current consensus is perfect, and anyone who disagrees with it is "pushing POV". There is room in Wikipedia for disagreement on policies; you can't simply claim that the whole issue is "a dead horse" because some kind of compromise has been articulated. I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with this so-called "consensus", and it's intellectually dishonest to simply claim that anyone who disagrees is "pushing POV". Elrith (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Intellectually dishonest?" To be blunt, it takes some gall to say anything of the sort, when your reversion today to those pages has "No such consensus" in the edit summaries, and where you reverted non-player pages, when you know full well there is a consensus which encompasses non-player pages. Beyond that, the proper way to deal with a consensus with which you disagree is to propose a change and open a discussion for the same ... not to just ignore a consensus you know is in place, as well as lie about it. This is intentional, willful disruption.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Elrith's behaviour is typical of those pushing diacritics beyond reasonable usage. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The irony of it all is that I support his position....But he is a bit pushy when it comes to his view. But to be fair y'all reverted him on player pages as well and you know that we allow diacritics on player pages. As for dead horse. Kicking a dead horse means its an argument that won't likely be decided any time soon. I don't say it because we have some sort of consensus. I say it because its a huge waste of time to keep fighting over it, like someone has posted below. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I'd have a lot more respect for your "consensus" if the editors who supposedly policed it actually respected it. I've just logged on to find that User:Ravenswing has reverted all of my edits to player pages, where, as you said, "diacritics" are allowed. So, you know, it takes gall to accuse other people of violating the "consensus" when you don't respect it yourself. Elrith (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense; you have never respected it, you have never followed it, and you've expressed your contempt for it any number of times. Claiming that you would "respect" it if only others did as you wished is facile and fatuous.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I never made any such claim. I just find it amusingly hypocritical that you insist on others respecting "consensus", while reserving the right to unilaterally re-interpret it yourself. Elrith (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the diacritics and other marks, here's my take on the whole ordeal. Nobody's right. Elrith is very passionate about proper spelling of names, and he's got a point. The umlauts, accents, and other marks are included in the official documents (birth certificates, etc). Teemu Selänne has the marks over the "a" for a reason. North American English, however, chooses to ignore 99% of those marks for whatever reason. Rather than recognize cultural differences, everyone stamps their foot, screams "I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG NA NA NA CAN'T HEAR YOU", and we get nowhere. Elrith reverts a consensus he didn't take part in, and people on the other side attack him rather than his argument. Am I the only one who sees everyone acting like fools? Here's the way I see it:

• Elrith, you're right in principle. The marks have a purpose. However, you cannot override the entire North American media on your own. We have to make Wikipedia accessible to all editors, and the English Wikipedia is (for better or worse) primarily North American edited. When it comes to the NHL, it's even moreso. As a result, the marks are a hindrance to editing. The media doesn't help any. By way of example, "Teemu Selänne" gets 9,400 hits on Google, the North American "Teemu Selanne" gets 94,700 - that's a difference of 10x. We go with what's most recognizable - the article's listed under Hulk Hogan, not Terry Bollea for a reason. Please understand the viewpoint of the North American editors.
• Alaney, GoodDay, and others - try to see Elrith's argument. North American English has bastardized the proper spelling of countless people, famous and non-famous. Ellis Island is filled with stories of immigrants who came over here and had their names changed because it was too hard to pronounce/spell/understand, my own family included. We don't own the English language, and we certainly don't have a right to say who's correct and incorrect. Europe is constantly subjugated to the wants and desires of North America just because we're louder and protest more than them. On this issue, he's got a perfectly valid point. Please understand the viewpoint of the European editors.
• If anyone has an issue with the consensus, then let's reopen the discussion. But let's assume good faith on the part of all editors, and have an actual debate on the issues. No namecalling. No strawmen. No projecting your own insecurities. Personally, I think the current consensus works just fine - the players have their articles with the proper spelling, and anything North American related pipes the links for ease of use. But that's just one opinion. If we want to talk about it, let's do it. No more petty reverting, going rogue, or saying "well I didn't vote so I'm going to ignore it". This project exists for all hockey editors to come together and improve the articles, but we can't do that if we can't come to an agreement. And now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work that I get paid for, and not this gratis exercise for fun. Anthony (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep dios off North American ice hockey articles, including North American hockey player bios. I rather have'em removed from all hockey articles-in-general, but that's not a possibility. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All player pages get them. Which is why we specifically say all in the compromise. Its just team and league pages etc that get them removed. The reasoning if you recall for that was that the leagues specifically didn't recognize them in most cases. Although I have seen the odd french player with them on team websites in the NHL and it appears the CHL now has them on jerseys for european players. Atleast the WHL does for sure from some pictures I have seen on here recently. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec, it says -where required-. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't think I don't see Elrith's pov. It's that - a pov. When anyone says I'm correct and you're not -- it's a pov. We transliterate, translate, butcher, whatever you call it, but it is done. Newspapers may have originally left them off due to lack of keyboards, but today that is not the case. We have unicode. It is still done. Name call it as cultural imperialism, whatever, but that does not help the readers. (You don't think that a lot of the writers today don't come from immigrant backgrounds?) If you came to Ellis Island from -wherever- with an unpronounceable name, then the clerks probably did the folks a favour, trying to make a name that the existing residents could interpret and speak. Is that not practical? Is that always a bad trade-off? Would you stick to your birth spelling and starve? No. So don't raise that. There is hope for the future. The IIHF has started a process of working on a transliteration standard, starting with Russian and Ukrainian names. I hope that they will extend it to other languages that add to the basic Latin alphabet with modifiers. In the meantime, we cope as best we can. As I've said elsewhere, it's difficult to agree to push for something that is generally ignored as it is out of range for most North American readers. I think that we should simply use them as little as possible, except when it's clearly adopted in English usage (café) or it's simply a foreign name, like the Czech towns in player rosters. This is the basis of the wp:hockey compromise and I am okay with it. I am okay with using the birth spelling for a player's article title, unless there is a known transliteration (e.g. Russian names) Going further is to go into the realm and style of academic papers, which are read by the dozens or hundreds, not by thousands or more. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"When anyone says I'm correct and you're not -- it's a pov." I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. By this standard, anyone with an opinion has a POV, and no discussion on anything can ever be had because everyone has a "POV" and, apparently by extension, only the people defending the status quo are NPOV. "We transliterate, translate, butcher, whatever you call it, but it is done. Newspapers may have originally left them off due to lack of keyboards, but today that is not the case. We have unicode. It is still done. Name call it as cultural imperialism, whatever, but that does not help the readers." Yes, it is done by you in North America. This is not a North American Wikipedia. Heck, this isn't even a native English speaker Wikipedia; it's an English-language Wikipedia. This is the other thing that really annoys me about this debate: North American editors constantly behave as if they somehow own the English-language Wikipedia, and anyone who disagrees with them is a European who should go back to their own Wikipedia. GoodDay's said as much several times. This is supposed to be an English-language Wikipedia that is the best it can be, not a North American Wikipedia that repeats North American journalists' sloppy work and the NHL's cultural imperialism in disregarding spelling. Elrith (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. You are on a crusade. GoodDay is in his own tree. Wikipedia is about consensus first. You can't overnight expect North American readers to know the various diacritics. Where is the support for the readers? Where are the standards for transliteration and translation? None. So you can't blame the NHL or journalism for 'making do.' ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am on a "crusade", even though I don't appreciate the word. How does that make me wrong? And I'm not expecting anything to happen overnight, nor do I even expect North American readers to know the diacriticals and extended letters. The point is that there are plenty of European editors who do know them, but they're being removed. And just because you don't know what the translation standards are doesn't mean there aren't any. It is a uniformly accepted rule of translation that proper names are not translated, except with very few exceptions, and there is no transliteration between Latin alphabets. By the way, this is why it's consistently annoying to see the Finnish and Scandinavian letters å, ä and ö referred to as "diacriticals", because they're not. The distinction is that in some situations, diacriticals are omitted, but those letters are never transformed into other letters. Ravenswing calls the ä in Selänne an "umlaut", which pretty nicely demonstrates that he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about. Elrith (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite aside from that we don't have to do so. Elrith, and other Europeans who think the same way, are plainly incensed that the English-speaking world doesn't transliterate in the same fashion their own languages do. (And don't give me this "North American bias" garbage - neither England, India, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or any other English-speaking country uses their format either.) Well, gosh, their own national Wikipedias don't transliterate English proper names as is done in English either. Why? Because those Wikipedias don't do their business in the English language. They tend to their own knitting in their own fashion, using their accustomed usages, and that's fine.

For my part, I think the project consensus is toadying garbage, and I've always felt so. It is plain and demonstrable that (for instance) "Teemu Selanne" is rendered without an umlaut in English-language sources. That Elrith and his fellow language warriors hate that is obvious, but it is neither up to them nor should be up to us to dictate that the accustomed usage of the media, the leagues and the great preponderance of English language sources is wrong. It should be up to us to follow their usage, whether or not it suits our linguistic amour propre.

Obviously, we don't do things that way. What we have is a compromise, reached only after painful, heated and prolonged discussion, and it is necessary to stave off edit wars. I was willing then and am willing now to support it, lacking a clear consensus in one camp or another.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground for this sort of thing. We're not here to right great wrongs, or ensure that we're telling the "truth". User:Elrith, User:Djsasso, and User:Resolute should take up their fight with the NHL rather then trying to use Wikipedia as their soapbox (and the two administrators in that group ought to be ashamed of their behavior in this area).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that Resolute disagrees with using them right? You also realize that there is plenty of reasons, backed up by many sources and references for using them right? The reason I support the consensus the project came to was exactly to stop these sorts of battles. That is the whole point of the consensus and why I support it. So please stop assuming bad faith of people without actually doing some research into the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at your talk page and notice its the stopping of the continual arguing about it that you seem to have issue with. By all means people can certainly keep arguing around in circles about it. However it just causes editors to lose time that could be used in more constructive ways. We have lost many editors that have left this project or the wiki completely because of the wars that occurred around diacritics. The reason the project came to a consensus at the time was to try and stem the tide and stop the situation from continually hurting the wiki. If consensus changes then so be it. But please don't assume bad faith just because you disagree with something. The very reason I support the consensus is to avoid soapboxes, so to be accused of using wiki as a soapbox is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, anytime you wanna devide English Wikipedia into New World English Wikipedia (without dios) & Old World English Wikipedia (with dios)? I shant mind. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that you want the diacritics and you make your devious comments with that in mind. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong conclusion. I want dios eradicated from English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The irony of the situation is that I saw a link to one of if not the first discussions on this topic years ago that Nurmsock posted somewhere the other day where GoodDay was advocating adding them. So it amuses me that he is so venomous about them now. -DJSasso (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Show me the link. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting long past the point of caring about diacritics, but I would mention that DJ is correct. The compromise arrangement never included player articles. That said, I also don't think the existence, or lack thereof, of an accent mark on an English presentation of a foreign-language name is such a grievous error that it requires this kind of battle. For player articles, I tend to use a live and let live mentality. Which is to say, if I see diacritics, I'll leave them. If I don't, I won't change the other way either. There are better things for us to spend our time working on. Resolute 19:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The sentence in question reads, in point of fact, "Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question." (emphasis mine) The nationalities of the player pages reverted are uniformly North American. No one has stripped any diacriticals from European player pages, and I will oppose any attempt to do so as being against the ongoing consensus.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Even the bolded part doesn't make it clear which "player" is being referred to, though. The player whose page it is, or the player whose name is being mentioned. If I were to read that, I would interpret it as saying that a player's name should always be rendered in his native language. Just because the waters weren't quite muddied enough. Canada Hky (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation was the consensus until Ravenswing decided to re-interpret it. Elrith (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Elrith is correct, it did mean every player mentioned on any player page whose name included them. It wasn't talking about about the subject of the page it was talking about the player being linked to. -DJSasso (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to review the NHL player bio articles & the usage, non-usage of diacritics. Apparently, there's anbiguity there. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso, you might want to tell Ravenswing that, as he's insisting otherwise on his talk page. Elrith (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a really badly written sentence. I never thought I'd see writing like that in hockey project articles! ;-> I figured it meant follow the subject of the page and I've acted following that. I'm right, of course.  :-) It's consistent with the team/league compromise. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:FutureNJGov/Anthony's take on all of this, for the most part. I just wanted to add though, I never took part in any sort of compromise on this issue. Hockey articles currently live in this strange side area of Wikipedia, where they clearly have their own set of special rules. It's clear to me why this is so (an otherwise respectable pair of administrators who enforce their view of what hockey articles on en.wikipedia should look like), but... well, I don't have the stomach for the fight required to overcome the situation here. Wikipedia is a big place so, as much as I love hockey, I'd rather simply spend my time elsewhere than deal with this bullshit (both the style issue directly raised here, and the behavioral issues exhibited by several of this project's regulars).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So Ravenswing is still telling me the consensus is something different from what at least myself and Djsasso think it is. I've tried discussing it with him, but he's gone so far as to post on my talk page to accuse me of harassment and lying, for the crime of disagreeing with him. So once again, WP:HOCKEY defines consensus as "the anti-"diacritic" editor who shouts the loudest". What a way to run a Wikiproject. Elrith (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yelling at our windows? Whatever gave -you two- the idea you would find sympathy, compassion and a shoulder to cry on at -this- page? We've got our elbows up, our sticks are sharpened, we're wearing foil on our fingers ... this is the 'Slap Shot' section of Wikipedia. ;-> ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am getting sick of the constant arguing about this. All I have ever thought was the article titles should have them because the convey more information than not having them and the not having them version can be redirected to it so that people who don't type them in still get to the page. As for them being used elsewhere, its just going to be a never ended argument so all I have ever really wanted was the article titles. The rest just isn't worth the headache that this topic creates. Do I think they should be used in more than just the titles yes but this whole debate always gets to ridiculous proportions that its not worth the effort to try and get it there. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that we have a range of opinions that are strongly held. Sometimes it's hardest to stand up for a compromise. I think our little compromise tries to balance that wide range of opinion. The majority of pro-dios editors are from countries where they are used. The majority of anti-dios are from North America. I think we fit under variant rules. I don't think we are -dumb- here in North America, we just don't use the various modifiers much, if at all. (When the New York Times doesn't use them, I don't feel that stupid.) I think that's hard for Nordic and Slavic persons to accept. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know...I think the compromise works well for the wide range of strong opinions. We went about 3 years without any issue with it at all. So it was clearly working. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I side with Ravenswing's interpretation of the 'players pages' part of the compromise. I'm mostly around the team, tournament articles, etc - less trouble for me there. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that the season is over, shouldn't the Tampa Bay Lightning article be updated with their new logo? It used to exist but has since been deleted, and I'm not good with Commons at all in regards to copyrighted images. I put in a request, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to speak up here as well. Tampabay721 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lightning got a new logo? GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[6] Tampabay721 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo's shouldn't be on Commons, since commons is for free media only. You'll ahve to upload their new logo here on Wikipedia, and be sure to add a fair use rational to it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Either way, I'm too casual of a user to do it myself correctly, unless it just looks difficult to me even though it really isn't. Tampabay721 (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate it! Tampabay721 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at some of the Thrashers pages when I came across this one - List of Atlanta Thrashers general managers. There were only two GMs in the history of the Thrashers. It doesn't make sense to have a "list" that has only two names, so can we change this to a redirect to the Thrashers main page? Note - A section for GMs could be added since it doesn't exist yet. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• It'd only make sense.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Since the team is done yes I would put it in a section on the main page and redirect it. Sort of like how we did the Winnipeg Jets seasons article. Same idea really. If it was an ongoing team I would say no but they are done like dinner. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we drop the division standings from the NHL seasons pages. They are basically irrelevant. Make a separate 'standings' page for each season, with divisional, conference and league standings? Maybe just at the end of the season? I realize it's a 'fork', but it would reduce the amount of tables on the season page. I've modified the templates for the 2011–12 NHL season page, so that the division appears as a column in the conference standings. Please take a look. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but personally I look at the division standings more during most of the season and only in the last few weeks of the season in the playoff race do I look at the conference standings. But that might just be me. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea in principal is good. However, now that the divisions have been included into the table itself, the rank column could be removed in order to not confuse readers. The all-grey row separating the playoff teams, however, should definitely go as it causes a disruption for the middle divisions when sorting by division. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Since division leaders are ranked 1-2-3, you need a rank column to restore the order after you've sorted the table by points or some other column. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I oppose. The league contains divisions, and the standings are published as such. We do a disservice to readers if we remove the division standings outright simply because some here consider them unimportant. That is one POV position; team's which hang banners based on division titles certainly wouldn't agree with it. The most neutral thing to do is just to include them as they would be found on the NHL website or in a local newspaper. oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't work. At least as far as I can tell; maybe it's something in the template syntax I'm unfamiliar with. I went to remove the grey bars, as mentioned above, and decided to try a test in preview mode. When I manually added random points values for each teamand then sorted the table using the division column, the divisions did not sort to the giving the individual division standings within the table. Instead the teams sorted into alphabetical order within the divisions. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the conference table cannot be used as a substitute for individual division tables. oknazevad (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Season schedules for the NHL 2011-12 season were released today, June 23, 2011. They are located at http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=69865 - these should be used for future reference and for season article game logs for each team. EOProductions (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

...at least according to this report at NHL.com. However, don't expect anything official prior to the announcement of pick #7 tonight. In any case, increased surveillance for unwanted edits of the usual articles would be recommended. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Until the pick we won't know for sure so can't change it, however. I wouldn't doubt that it could be a purposefully released misleading info. But I am betting it will end up Jets. But probably Manitoba.-DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we just begin the draft with the #7 pick? I currently have an IP who constantly changes to Winnipeg Jets (2011-present) at 2011 NHL Entry Draft; other team-related articles should experience a similar pattern so far... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if an admin could semi-protect Steven Stamkos. There has been a significant amount of activity on that page in the last 24-48 hours identifying him as being re-signed or traded to Philadelphia. Like, insane amounts of vandalism for something that isn't really in the news that much of late. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone may want to help out with the construction of the restarted List of Winnipeg Jets seasons. I've done what I can, but the code in the table just confuses me, so I'll let someone more tech savvy handle that. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 02:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Having a bit of a dispute with User:Bhockey10 at Talk:J. T. Miller#College and am hoping to get a wider community input. The issue is the use of Category:North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's ice hockey players. J. T. Miller has committed to played at UND for the upcoming season, so naturally has yet to play in a game for the team. Bhockey10 is of the belief that because he is a member of the team (or will be shortly), he belongs in this category. However, I am of the belief that we here at WP:HOCKEY do not add players to players categories until they have played in at least one game for the team. Bhockey10 is arguing that while this is correct for NHL and junior players, college ice hockey is different because there aren't trades, etc. and once a player commits to a team, it means he'll play for the team. In my opinion, until Miller actually plays in a game for the Fighting Sioux, this is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL because anything can happen. Bhockey10 is arguing that if anything were to happen between now and then, he could be removed from the category. Can I get a wider opinion on this. I thought for sure there was already an established usage of these categories. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't add players unless they play a game. These categories are for players who have played a game. Alot can happen between now and September. Even in college, god forbid a player can get in an accident and not be able to play. They can decide they no longer want to play period. All sorts of things still can happen. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically my argument is that under NCAA guidelines they're members of the team, unlike pro and junior hockey college teams don't have the ability to call up, send down, trade players- There's one active roster. To illustrate the issue better Tyler Biggs and Connor Murphy are on the current/active roster for the upcoming Miami Redhawks season. If they're actively members of the team they should be in the associated category. In pro hockey we often equate this to playing a game on an NHL team, college is a bit different since players report well ahead of the first game, unlike a prospect which is years away from an NHL team. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Playing in a game means the same thing no matter what level of hockey you play in. And that's what these categories are for; players who have played in a game. Not players who are on a roster. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference really, he may be on their roster, but until he plays a game he wasn't a player for the team in that he never played. That is what the word player means. In order to be a player you have to actually play. So it would be inaccurate to call him a player of a team before he has played. He might be on the roster but that doesn't mean he is a player. Not to mention alot can happen before they play that game. Numerous college players or would be college players at the last minute have switched their mind and jumped to the CHL. The odd one to the pros. -DJSasso (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I told Nurmsook, it doesn't bother me either, way I do see your point with college hockey there's a lot less movement than pro and junior hockey. With the college season starting in a cpl months and being on the active roster I saw no reason not to place the category. There's a few things that could happen but that's the case with a lot of players. and other stuff on Wikipedia. WP:Crystal is for unverifiable speculation. Such as earlier and the Jets situation, it was only speculation until very close to that 7th overall draft pick. But this isn't speculation, these kids are rostered on that team, and without ability to trade, send down/call up players if you're on a roster for college you're going to play. I don't see much of a difference btwn adding the category now, in about a week when the 2011-12 academic year begins, or in a cpl months when the first game is played. If a player has an accident or dies removing a category tag is the least we have to worry about. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think one prime example can be Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger. If you saw the film, you'll remember that Rudy was a member of the team, but it wasn't "official" unless he was on the field for at least one play. Had he never played in that final game, he would have had no stats, and wouldn't have been officially recognized as a Notre Dame football player. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's way differnt, these players are "official" members of the team on the official roster, i.e. players. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rudy was on the official roster all season as well (albeit for the scout team). But he couldn't be a player until he actually stepped onto the field. I would note that just being on the roster doesn't make you a player. Playing does. You could sit on the bench all year dressed up. But if your skates don't hit the ice during game time you aren't a player. You were just a guy who dressed up too much for games. -DJSasso (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Backup goalies are another prime example. They could be on the game-day roster all year long, but unless they actually step on the ice, they aren't in the players category. Basically, if you have stats, you're a player. If you don't have stats, you're not a player. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe the issue you are having is that you consider "Team member" and "Player" the same thing when really they are two different things. Being on the roster makes you a team member. But only playing in a game makes you a player. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Think that's the issue, it's a wording thing. In the case of college hockey- what the NCAA defines as a player/team member/student-athlete is broader than the specific player definition used for the categories here. The person becomes a student-athlete/member of the team prior to participation in the intercollegiate athletic program. I'll just add the category additions to my to-do list and add it in late Sept/early Oct. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)