https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1159043920

being an avid fan of more indian sports, it sometimes happens to see users randomly destroy my hard effort, latest one by this ice hockey related expert (at least a good sign); however, he didn't pay attention to copypasting, overlinking, several more style errors i cleared after checking all related articles; please lets make sure it doesn't repeat and no anti-vandalism staff involved. 93.140.238.230 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I get some more eyes at 50 goals in 50 games? There's an IP that insists on including Auston Matthews. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The criteria a player scoring 50 goals within the first 50 (or fewer) games of his team's season is unsourced. Wracking ^talk! 22:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

50 goals in the first 50 games at the season's start is the specific accomplishment according to NHL records (see Most Goals, 50 Games From Start of Season). That record is kept separate from Most 50-Goal Seasons, Career).

The number of games is specific to the team's games, not the player. As stated in this NHL.com article: Scoring 50 goals in 50 games is a rare feat in NHL history that, officially, has only been accomplished by five players. "Officially" is the key word there because the NHL only counts team games, not personal games.. Post: I went ahead and added cites for the criteria in the article. Leventio (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, the news 2023 Stanley Cup winner has been pulled In the news template for the main page of this site. I find it the reasons behind it unreasonable and such. If anybody disagrees to this, we should comment our disapproval of this. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Please consider improving the quality of the article in question, and avoid an "us versus them" mentality. This project makes itself look bad when it produces poor quality. Flibirigit (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: Ask Conyo14 and The Kip about the issue. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I did my best, but they are asking for too much from me. Another helpful contributor can fulfill the remaining task if they want it ITN. Conyo14 (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@The Kip: You spread the word about what is going on In the News template about the news of 2023 Stanley Cup winners being pulled from the Wikipedia news. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the above discussion, I have initiated a discussion on ITN's talk page regarding the issue of sourcing. See it here. I recommend participating considering the core issue is what gets cited and how sourcing is done in the Stanley Cup article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 05:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello there. I’m not sure if this question has been asked before, and please direct me to the conversation if it’s already been had, but I have genuinely always been curious about the player infoboxes for ice hockey players/coaches. I’ve noticed that for players/coaches of other sports, such as basketball, American football, and baseball, things like player numbers, career highlights and awards, and years spent on a team are in their infoboxes, but they’re not listed on ice hockey players/coaches infoboxes. Instead, they’re either in prose (the team years) or it’s own section (highlights). Why not in the infobox in uniformity with other sports? It’s easier for readers to navigate when all that information is in one central place like the infobox (like the other listed sports), especially if that’s the sole information a reader is looking for in an article. That’s my two cents, and I’m simply curious. Thanks! DrewieStewie (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is the relevant discussion. Seems like it's overwhelmingly opposed. Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography#Add_Infobox_Fields Conyo14 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also adding in other times this was discussed too: [1]. Conyo14 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A discussion has been created regarding this article's existence. Please provide your input. Conyo14 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a move discussion started here: List of NHL players with 1,000 assists. There are fewer than 30 "watchers" on that article so mentioning it here hopefully gets more eyes. Masterhatch (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I just accepted Philip Granath from AfC because there were better sources on his Finnish page, but now I can't figure out how to link the English page with the Finnish page (after a long wikibreak). (There's an Add Languages drop-down and it says you can search for a language, but nothing happens when I type in Finnish or Suomi, and none of the links take me to a place where I can link a language?!?)

If someone could please link the page and let me know what I'm doing wrong, I'd be grateful. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are done through Wikidata. You search the subject, and at the bottom of their page it has an option to link Wikipedias or other projects. I've gone ahead and done so here. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!! I believe you used to be able to do it directly on Wikipedia, but I'll use Wikidata from now on. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, it used to be directly here, but they changed that some time ago. Wikidata is a whole repository of data about subjects, and can be useful for something like that, but it's not too clear from here what you need to do in your case. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

See discussion here.

Pinging @Triggerbit, Conyo14, GoodDay, and 162 etc.:, involved in above discussion. Wracking ^talk! 21:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This move was relisted after being closed prematurely. Conyo14 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a disagreement, as to whether or not Max Domi has signed withe Maple Leafs. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

So it's been reported by various insiders, but there hasn't been any official announcement by the team or the league as of this hour. (Granted, 4 AM Eastern on Monday morning.) I'd suggest we don't worry about it until midday: either there'll be a confirmation, or there won't be, and we can safely strike the statement. Ravenswing 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Signing is official. Ravenswing 21:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Greetings - Today I created 1985 in ice hockey with partial content. Here I am inviting interested editors to complete parts with "Expand section" tag, plus any additional information from 1985 ice hockey. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If it's true that Clement Piché never actually played a game in the NHL, should his article be nominated for deletion? Does he still meet notability requirements? Masterhatch (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably notable at the time. But I don't even know if being assigned to a game and not playing counts as an NHL career. No, right? Conyo14 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking since he never actually played, his article should go up for afd. Unless, of course, there's something else he's done makes him notable. Masterhatch (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I came across his article recently, and was contemplating whether to nominate it or not. There are sources though, and I imagine the SIHR article would be worth going through here (I've let my membership lapse and can't renew right now, otherwise I would myself), so it may be contested. I'm indifferent myself though. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We've consistently held that one hasn't played a game if they don't set foot on the ice, even if they're in uniform and on the bench. With that, that question is moot, since participation standards were deprecated over a year ago. For my part, although I figure the validity of a search term is next-to-nil for a guy who didn't actually play over a century ago, I'd redirect it to the Canadiens' 1922 season article. Ravenswing 19:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd support changing it to a redirect. Masterhatch (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds better. Conyo14 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No argument here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If no one has objected or come up with a better idea, I'll take care of it tomorrow. Masterhatch (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:BeanieFan11 reverted my redirect of Clement Piché. I've invited him here. Masterhatch (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Initially it didn't make sense to me to redirect someone when they didn't actually play, but thinking over it again I could perhaps see it as making sense if the person is truly non-notable. I do think Piche is probably worth an AfD discussion, though, since it seems that the journal of the Society for International Hockey Research had an article featuring him, and that would almost certainly be significant coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Being featured in an article does not automatically ensure notability. At bare minimum, he has to at least play a shift (unless there's something else in his life that made him notable). Being on the bench but not playing makes great trivia and can be mentioned in a related article (eg, the 1921–22 Canadiens season) but I can't see how he's notable enough to have his own article. I originally suggested afd, but redirecting was suggested by User:Ravenswing and other users agreed. I think we are left with two options: afd or restore redirect with a sentence or two about him on the 1921–22 Canadiens article. I am not a deletionist and wikipedia is not paper but some articles just shouldnt be. Masterhatch (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Playing in the NHL is no longer a notability criteria; the players have to meet the general notability guideline now. I was saying that being featured in that article is likely significant coverage, and so if any others are found he would qualify for an article through that. I suggested AfD because I figured there would be several people searching for sources but seeing a discussion here (and nobody finding any other sources) I would be fine if you redirected it again with a note about it on the Canadiens' page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Errr ... having been a member, I can tell you that the SIHR journal has a very limited circulation. It's scholarly enough, as a general rule, and I'd consider it accurate for facts, but I doubt a non-peer-reviewed in-house publication moves the needle of notability. Ravenswing 03:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Before I do, I'll hold off for a bit to see if anyone else has anything to add to this discussion. Masterhatch (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If it were to go to AfD, I would still say Redirect. General notability aside, WP:HOCKEY has set their notability guidelines in the past, so it is not unreasonable to assume that if a player only played for five seconds in the NHL, then they could be granted an article. Players that didn't play in the NHL have to meet the general guidelines more thoroughly. I said above this was likely notable at the time, but I don't know if it meets the WP:SIGCOV for a full article. Conyo14 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe last year it was established that the first day of the draft would be a good day to use going forward as when transactions are considered part of certain seasons, ie the 2023 draft day trades are the first trades of 2023-24. Since this was decided on last year, shouldn’t those trades from yesterday/today be moved to a new page? Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to mention that 29 minutes after Hotpotato1234567890 posted this, I completed his edits. Conyo14 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion last year actually ended with consensus being not draft + indifferent outnumbering those who wanted draft day, yet it was ignored. For the record. –uncleben85 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I notice that Category:National Hockey League first-round draft pick navigational boxes was created and populated. I thought that this project had previously decided against having such navboxes for "Persons by year and event"? Courtesy @Hey man im josh:. Any thoughts are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Flibirigit. I started working on these because I thought the succession boxes were not a good way to represent that x player was picked as a team's first round pick. Seeing similar user boxes used for NFL and MLB players I strongly believe this is a good replacement for succession boxes which, frankly feel out of place for describing that a player was a first round pick and that x player was picked the next / last year. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; if you strongly believe that, in the face of the previous consensus, kick off a RfC and make your case for changing consensus. For my part, whatever is used by the editors who work on a couple other leagues in different sports, I remain against them. Ravenswing 04:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm also against them, and don't really find it's adding anything at all to the articles. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we have different perspectives @Kaiser matias, but I personally use draft navboxes a fair bit. I do however recognize that what I find useful, others may not. I'm open to self-nominating these templates for deletion if there's a general consensus that they are not helpful in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Could you link me to a relevant discussion? I'm not meaning to fly in the face of consensus by any means. I was doing something that I believed to be helpful, so I'm sorry if it did not come off that way. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

These navboxes seem like WP:TEMPLATECREEP. I do not recall any discussion on the succession boxes. Flibirigit (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks first-round picks have changed from succession to navbox, guess he'll try and do the whole league before establishing a discussion on the issue... Triggerbit (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Triggerbit: I'd like to remind you to WP:AGF. I had held off on implementing most of the templates after I received this original ping. This discussion clearly stalled out for a few days, so I began to add them again. I'm now stopping because I went back to this discussion and realized it had progressed further. For reference, I've also only replaced the first-pick succession boxes for the Anaheim Ducks and Arizona Coyotes. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There was never any consensus for such navboxes (draft picks, Stanley Cup-winning teams, roster, etc) as already noted by other editors above. In addition, your current editing habit starts to look WP:DISRUPTIVE (with the creation of Category:National Hockey League first-round draft pick navigational boxes by team) despite four (five if including me) different editors telling you to stop. – sbaio 09:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sbaio: As I stated above, I did stop implementing these templates and creating more once there were further comments on the subject. Not sure how you could argue that I've been disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Joeykai:, because the editor started adding the navboxes without probably knowing that there is no consensus. – sbaio 12:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That is correct. To be honest I never expected pushback on this. I never would have put all that effort in to create and begin implementing them if I did think there would be so many people against it. I'm thinking I'll send the unused ones to draft space and use AWB to start removing the yearly draft pick boxes. The first-round pick by team will need to be manually done but luckily only two of those were implemented. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Quick update. Yesterday I moved all the unused templates to draft space and began to remove the navboxes from articles. Some quick stats:

• 77x total navboxes created
• 16x team first-round draft picks navboxes created
  • 14x were not in use and were moved to draft space
  • 2x in use still (Anaheim Ducks & Arizona Coyotes)
• 61x draft year NHL Draft navboxes created
  • 23x were not in use and were moved to draft space
  • 38x were in use
    • 8x navboxes were removed from all relevant pages and then moved to draft space
    • 30 in use still (1971–1999 & 2022)

I'll continue to work at cleaning up the mess and let everybody know when it's been completed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Goalkeeper, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Posting this here to ask for assistance with assessing some edits by the user mentioned in the section heading, as I don't want to get into an edit war; I also expect a somewhat busy morning with my real job after a relatively quiet couple of days (funny how the first of the month does that). Gymrat16's talk page shows a history of contentious issues with various hockey-related articles, including inserting unnecessarily long section headings and not always properly sourcing edits. I take note of a general lack of edit summaries as well. The issue that prompts me to ask for assistance here has to do with the Alexander Ovechkin article, specifically the "Player profile" section. The user in question added a fairly long string of block quotes to that section (see the final edit of the day from July 30: [2]). I posted a comment on the article's talk page saying that I think the block quotes were being overused and were swallowing up the section and significantly interrupting the article's text. I further note, upon reflection now, that there's no introduction to the block quotes, and as I said in an edit summary, they come across like a string of hosannas praising Ovechkin's play. One user responded and noted that a number of the block quotes don't comply with MOS:BLOCKQUOTE in various ways (including being too short and Gymrat16 mispunctuating them). I deleted them all with the following edit summary: " removed all the block quotes per the discussion on the talk page and because all of them violated MOS:BLOCKQUOTE—none of them were long enough to merit this treatment per the MOS. They completely interrupted the flow of this section and it more or less read like a collection of hosannas." Gymrat16 then added one new block quote (without an edit summary) and I removed it because of a punctuation problem in the source that made it impossible to punctuate the quotation correctly. Gymrat16 then undid my prior edit (in which I removed all the block quotes) with the following edit summary (typos in original: "delated a quote that was too short then re-added others that were delted but were put by other people and were reasonable because they show proof of how well documented his powerful shooting is." I removed the block quotes again and asked the user to discuss it on the talk page: "Per the discussion on the talk page, there are too many block quotes here. They overwhelm the section. Disagreement can be discussed on the talk page, where this issue has already been raised." At this point, Gymrat16 left the following comment on my talk page: "On the alex ovechkin page, there were quotes about how well documented his shots are that other people wrote and have been on there for year. Why are they being deleted just now let alone at all? I actually did delete one since there were a bit much but why did you delete all? I work so hard to find this so I can write it and cite it so why delete all and not just some?" I left an explanation on Gymrat16's talk page, which received the following reply: "Ok I get it but if it’s ok I am gonna add back just some not all just some cause it’s ok to have some especially if it is documenting something. Like I’ll re add the Johnson quote, stamkos quote, Jon Cooper quote, Orpik and bishop then done. That shouldn’t b too much or too little." The user then restored most of the block quotes. At that point, it was 10:40 at night and I was ready to go turn in, so I replied with a notice about edit warring and called it a night. Needless to say, Gymrat16 has ignored my request to hash it out on the Ovechkin article's talk page.

I would appreciate any help anyone here could provide with regard to assessing these block quotes. So far only one person responded, but because I notice Gymrat16's talk page has a history of comments from other people interested in hockey-related articles, I figured the project members might be of some assistance. It's also in the back of my mind that because I'm a Capitals season-ticket holder, it might be better to involve other people, even though here I'm trying to remove edits that are largely praising Ovechkin's play. Thanks in advance. 1995hoo (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed a few of the Capitals' quotes along with Jon Cooper's quote comparing him to Sidney Crosby. I question the necessity of the quotes themselves, but I am leaving them there for other editors to remove if they choose. Any revert from this user will be met with the hammer. Conyo14 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I very much appreciate your taking the time to consider my comment and to look into the issue. The point you made in your edit summary about Capitals teammates potentially being biased is an excellent point that hadn't occurred to me before. After I posted my comment before, I noted an extremely striking similarity between that user's comments on my talk page and the comments from user "MrHindsight" in the "One of the Greatest Ice Hockey Players of all time." section [3] on the Ovechkin talk page, but I don't know enough about sockpuppet investigations to try to go down that road. 1995hoo (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Conyo14 and 1995hoo: This editor is most likely a sockpuppet of Moka Mo per Editor Interaction Analyser. A new editor appears and goes straight to NHL-related pages with many of those pages also edited by the sockmaster? There is a sockpuppet investigation page for Moka Mo at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo. Gymrat16's edits pretty much confirm his connection to the aforementioned editor. – sbaio 17:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not doubt that there is a correlation, but I err on the side of caution here. If this user is truly a sock of User:Moka Mo, then their edits will be undone. However, unlike Moka, Gymrat16 actually speaks on his talk page. Regardless though, there are plenty of warnings and a prior block for us to bring in WP:ANI, if he continues to be disruptive. Conyo14 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sbaio I had seen your comment to that effect on Gymrat16's talk page, but while I recall seeing the username Moka Mo from time to time, I never had much direct interaction with that user and thus have no real basis for getting involved in that particular issue. (I don't necessarily "focus" on any particular sort of content.) As I mentioned in my previous comment, I found the style of writing used by "MrHindsight" and "Gymrat16" to be very strikingly similar, including not just the overall style but also the lack of sufficient punctuation and the tone of "who is undoing my edit"/"stop undoing my edits." Not sure it quite rises to WP:OWN, but the attitude rubbed me the wrong way. 1995hoo (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Heh, well, despite my telling Gymrat16 (more than once) that I opened a discussion here to try to establish a consensus, it's pretty clear that the user will refuse to participate per the following comment on the user's talk page (emphasis added): "Oh ok well please write back what they say. I understand and agree that we don’t wanna do too much but those quotes by Brent Johnson and Brooks Orpik were pretty reasonable and I think should be displayed. The other previous ones aren’t relevant I agree but yah I hope what I’m saying makes more sense now Gymrat16 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)" 1995hoo (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to participate but I am not hearing anything back and I am ofc frustrated that I am adding perfectly reasonable quotes only to be silenced. Don't get pissy and say I am refusing to participate because I am TRYING to but I can't when I don't have the right access and I don't get told when you hear back. I want a consensus to me made ASAP and I want to add back just only 2-3 quotes I thought were perfectly rational like from Jon Cooper, Jonathan Quick and Jarmoir Jagr because the truth is some of this stuff wasn't actually written by me they were written by someone else initially so it is almost like you are erasing someone else's work. Please don't waste my time any longer Gymrat16 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not my job to update you beyond notifying you of the discussion and giving you a link to this talk page. I did that. That was enough to inform you of what you needed to know. Incidentally, I note that I have refrained from further editing your block quotes since I said I was going to raise the issue here, so kindly quit your complaining, and don’t commit further violations of WP:GF by posting comments like "don’t get pissy." 1995hoo (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not complaining, I am trying to say my reasons for what I am saying and you seem to be taking it way too personally and cancelling everything I say Gymrat16 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

no human being is perfect but I am simply writing what I thought was suitable because if something like that is going to be said, you need to show proof of it. If you don't show enough proof, no one will believe it. I agree 5-6 quotes is a but much for sure but 3 isn't too bad and it is kind of upsetting to see the littlest things get canceled out like that even after I try and compromise and erase some to only show 3 rather than a bunch and I guess despite me trying to make things right or better, I feel unappreciated about it and I feel like I am being silenced. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if you are not complaining, then why do you care that they are reversed? We provide explanations why they are removed, yet you aren't even providing an explanation in the edit summary. Secondly, if you are not taking this personally, then you wouldn't feel like you're being silenced. All of us editors are not immune to tasks we wish to see get done, but editing on a biographical article comes under a lot of scrutiny. Consider the fact that so many quotes in the first place might not be constructive for Wikipedia then also consider the repercussions of someone disagreeing with an edit then try to come to a reasonable solution. I thought of one and I figured it would suffice. That being said, just make sure your edits are not disruptive to Wikipedia. So far, you've been doing better, just make sure to check your grammar and spelling, and review Wiki English standards for European players with symbols in their names. Cheers! Conyo14 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I realize that but it’s not really about agreeing or disagreeing, it is about what’s realistic. I am not trying to be disruptive to editing I am just trying to provide examples that fit this claim and I rarely ever make any spelling or grammar mistakes. I consider myself a very smart guy and I usually know what I am doing and am a big enough man to admit when I’m right and also when I am wrong. I never said you were an asshole too btw in fact I’m actually flattered and appreciative you said I am “doing better” but deep down I guess it just didn’t seem like it because you didn’t acknowledge it until just now and I guess it was hurtful because of the time it took to write it and provide my knowledge in a relatively fair way. If the edit summary portion was indeed the main issue then next time I will try to remember to put down the reasons in there. Maybe if I were to write some reasons down then maybe could those quotes be re-added by Jagr, Cooper and Quick? Please write back ASAP and thanks for the time. Sorry if I lost my temper for a minute there. Like I said I guess I was feeling unappreciated earlier which caused me to lose it and hopefully there is no hard feelings. I was fascinated by those quotes so that is why I am asking if I can re-instate them if I were to write an edit summary to explain why they are there. I know I did everything else right with punctuation and citing but obviously not the edit summary so I wanna make it up to you somehow Gymrat16 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Those other quotes by Orpik and such I agree aren’t needed but yah the quick one was fascinating and the Jagr and Cooper ones too that’s all not trynna cause harm or animosity Gymrat16 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve tried really hard to be civil and polite, consistent with WP:GF (in case it’s not clear, that’s a link to a Wikipedia policy). Believe me, I know I’m capable of being an asshole—nobody would have any doubt in the matter if I had chosen to go that route, and I’d probably get blocked for it! Look at it this way: By starting a discussion here and giving you the link, I was giving you a chance to discuss the issue, which means nobody would be trying to impose a verdict on you—you’d have a say in the matter. In general, though, remember that part of editing Wikipedia involves accepting that other people have the right to examine, revise, or even delete your work. That is why consensus is important—it’s understood that people will disagree from time to time, but no one editor is entitled to insist that his way is the only way and nobody can change his work. May I respectfully suggest that being thin-skinned about having your edits undone, or seeing other people disagree with you, will just wind up causing you heartburn. You’ll find it a lot easier if you participate in talk page discussions when disputes arise and if you use edit summaries to explain your edits. 1995hoo (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• It says here WP:OQ that we shouldn't use too many or too long of quotes as they are "incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style". So, let's just keep the quotes to a bare minimum. Pretty simple, eh? Masterhatch (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What is everyone's opinion about newly-created page at Flyers–Islanders rivalry. I thought about nominating it for WP:AFD, but I first want to know your opinions here. – sbaio 09:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I cleaned up some grammar and punctuation under the theory that if the article stays, such things ought to be correct. But it struck me that the article says the "rivalry" effectively went dormant for 30 years until almost the present time—and I daresay neither team's fans would identify the other if you asked them who their rivals are. A "rivalry" that is "dormant" for 30 years is arguably no rivalry at all, or is at best an historic rivalry. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of need for the article. I’m a Capitals fan and I well remember how the Islanders were a big rival of ours in the 1980s due to all the playoff meetings, but most newer fans have no idea that rivalry ever existed. (I once saw an article that aptly summarized, "Before there were the Penguins, there were the Islanders.") I would never suggest the Caps–Islanders "rivalry" deserves a Wikipedia article other than the legendary four-overtime game, and it of course has one. I think the same principle should apply to any "rivalry" that’s been dormant for a long time, simply because the rivalry itself is no longer notable. 1995hoo (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The counterpoint to that argument is WP:NTEMP. If something was truly a rivalry back in the 80's (and can be proven so with sourcing to meet the WP:GNG), then it should stay. Just because it's not a rivalry now, and it hasn't been a rivalry in someone's lifetime, dosen't mean that it never was a rivalry. I mean, in other sports, we have things like Chicago–Michigan football rivalry, which was a huge rivalry back in the early part of the 20th century, but has been dormant for over 80 years now (and is extremely unlikely to ever be revived). Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say just what Ejgreen77 has said more or less. Now maybe there are other reasons to purge the article (I haven't reviewed it) but notability doesn't vanish with time, so that as a reason isn't applicable. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, I've been speaking with the article creator about the notability requirement. The creator provided two reliable sources, but because both are within a week of each other I count it as one source counting towards GNG. So, I told them to find something from the 70s/80s to solidify the article. I am convinced something exists, but until it is found, this article is heavily ready for AFD. I am willing to submit it for AFD today, unless anyone objects. Conyo14 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Conyo14: I am in agreement with User:Ejgreen77 and User:Echoedmyron. This was historically a significant rivalry, and per WP:NTEMP the notability does not vanish when the rivalry diminishes or even ceases. Accordingly, it woud be fine to tag the article with something indicating that more sources are needed, but sending it to AfD doesn't seem appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Rather than bickering over an AfD, why not spend that same time improving the article? A quick search of Newspapers.com turns up literally thousands articles discussing the rivalry. Here are a few: [4] ("Flyers-Islanders rivalry ready to boil over in playoffs . . . the two teams have developed a rivalry that bubbles like tar in Augusst, that shimmers like heat waves off an expressway in the dog days of summer. The Flyers and Islanders have, if not downright hatred, at least a healthy dislike. . . . a rivalry that conjures up memories o the Brookly Dodgers against the Yankees in the World Series, or Philadelphia against Boston in the [NBA], or Green Bay vs. Dallas in older [NFL] times. Or maybe even the intensity of the United States against Russia in Lake Placid ..."), [5], [6], [7] ("Arch-Rival Flyers"), [8], [9] (Al Arbour: "There's a good rivalry between our team and the Flyers."), [10] ("There once was something called the Patrick Division in the NHL, and the fierce Islanders-Flyers rivalry was among the best parts of it."). Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe you can place these sources there. After all, my main complaint was that there were no sources from this timeline. I've not the patience to find subscription-based sources from the 70s and 80s. So, in that regard, then notability is met and the article can survive. Cheers! Conyo14 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion pending at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#About 300 articles that fail WP:NOTSTATS as to whether articles listing college hockey programs' statistical leaders (e.g., Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's ice hockey statistical leaders) should be deleted en masse. Cbl62 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Stanley Cup winner should be in the players' last games in NHL season pages for certain players who earned that position. Maybe all the players who won the Stanley Cup since they haven't NHL season page format for last games, just those who qualified for it. Because if we don't list them, it would be difficult for readers for know without having to click on their links to find out. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing those who are engraved on the Cup right? As for that, I mean it's a team award and the list only guarantees individual accomplishments. I'd be down to have a full discussion on this, since it was never discussed originally [11].

My thoughts on this are no because then obscure players who did not get any of the other notable items on the list will suddenly be counted on the last games section. Conyo14 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll reiterate what Conyo said. Plenty of obscure players have won the Cup while doing little else of note; the section’s intended for guys who’ve accomplished more exclusive feats. The Kip (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I got news for you. Winning the Stanley Cup is quite festive for players. Not all the players don't get that chance to win one. Many great and notable ones, like Marcel Dionne, Mike Gartner, Börje Salming, Brad Park, Adam Oates, Mats Sundin, Paul Kariya, Phil Housley, Curtis Joseph, Roberto Luongo and Henrik Lundqvist, failed to get it. Players who managed the win the Stanley Cup are just as important as the other achievements on here. So therefore, winning the Stanley Cup should be listed on the Last Games in each season pages. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s unnecessary extra clutter and your argument boils down to little more than a circular “it’s important because it is.” The Kip (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I find your thoughts about not adding Stanley Cup Winners on last game in season pages pointless. It doesn't cause clutter as you may think it does. It makes no sense about that at all. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You’ve yet to display any rationale for why it wouldn’t, besides simply “it wouldn’t” and “you’re wrong.” The Kip (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, the Stanley Cup is a team accomplishment. Perhaps it's more notable to win the Stanley Cup three times than it is to win just once or even twice. I just wouldn't care to see someone as obscure as Jiri Becak who won the Cup in 2003 but only played parts of four NHL seasons be included in this table. Thus, it also wouldn't be fair to include the Stanley Cup accomplishment for players that meet the notability. Conyo14 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Winning the Stanley Cup is not just an accomplishment to a team, but to the players as well and it's an accomplishment to them. It doesn't even matter how many times certain players who the cup. It's a quite notable to win any championship in any league and that including them in Last Game in season pages would be meaningful and such. Not having them on that list in season pages due to policy issues just puts a dent on it and it's just meaningless without adding Stanley Cup winners on those players who played their last seasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry man, there's gotta be a bit more support for this. I just really don't care if Jordan Nolan or Devante Smith-Pelly played their final NHL games. Perhaps someone else can chime in? Conyo14 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

From 1974 onward, we have one page for each year tournament, accept 2023 which has two (all divisions & top division). Why the split for 2023? GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Bobby Baun, eligibility ends at the end of August 22nd
• Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Rick Jeanneret, eligibility ends at the end of August 24th

Hello, Hockey-Editors. Anyone here interested in fixing these 2 wikibios up a bit? Each of them has been nominated for an appearance under "Recent Deaths" on MainPage. Time is running out, though. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference of opinion about whether there should be a note regarding a player winning a Cup in a particular season. User:Sbaio reverted an IP's edit here saying there was no consensus for that addition. Unless I missed it, there's no concensus either way. Based on my conversation, that IP is probably User:Bostonbruinsfan22. Bruinsfan then started removing the note on multiple articles (one of them was on my watchlist) which caught my attention. I've asked him to stop pending the outcome of this discussion. I'm bringing this here to get thoughts on whether making a note of a Cup winning season should or shouldn't be noted. While it is trivia, it isn't trivial. My opinion is that it is better with the note but I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule that forces every player's article to include or exclude the note. Thoughts? Masterhatch (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I remember it was discussed in the past. We have a "Awards and honors/honours" section for that reason so there is no need to duplicate the same information in statistics tables. In addition, this is not the first time that this particular editor (Bostonbruinsfan22) has made edits while logged out so a warning is the least punishment that this editor could get. – sbaio 13:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this. Cup wins are listed in the Awards/Honors section and often also denoted in prose, it’s an unnecessary addition to make. The Kip (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with what what @Sbaio: said, and I remove it when I come across. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, especially where this runs into one of my pet peeves: describing players as "Stanley Cup champions" when the only actual "champion" is the team. Ravenswing 05:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

had a content dispute with an anonymous user. If anyone would like to join in the conversation it would be appreciated since I probably blew the 3rr. I think it being Lemieux's only world championship there is probably an appropriate content addition but the user refuses any attempt at discussion.18abruce (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Got an eye on it now myself. (For my money, we don't make a point of mentioning only-appearances for any other player, whatever their domestic league stature, so why Lemieux?) Ravenswing 14:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I was pointing out that the hockey hall of fame points out Lemieux presence hence the possibility of notability within that article. Was really trying to encourage his inclusion in the prose, not in the scoring leaders if his inclusion was really that important. We do include mention of Gretzky in his only WC appearance in 1982 as it was a big story for the tournament itself.18abruce (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I chimed in there. Lemieux doesn't belong on the list as he's the 11th player & we go with the top 10 scoring leaders. Lemieux has a lower +/- rating, then the tenth player. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I broached this topic at this talk page but was mentioned I should bring it here by @The Kip:. The basic thought is I think it would be ideal to include a section for players who passed away in the given year. As there's no dedicated page for documenting the entire year for ice hockey like we see for association football, or film. It just seems to me a bit improper to not have a dedicated location to highlight former players who passed away in a given year mentioned on these pages. Rusted AutoParts 23:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I personally support this proposal; my only question would be where to work it into articles (perhaps with the first games/last games/milestones section?). I likewise wouldn’t be opposed to the creation of “[year] in ice hockey” pages, albeit that’s another discussion entirely. The Kip (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A section for the deaths notable players works well for season articles. Also, "[year] in ice hockey" articles were done in the past, I think. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems that they're currently done as part of the "[year] in ice sports" articles (ex. 2023 in ice sports), but the ice hockey section of that page seems suitably large enough to be split into its own article. The Kip (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is also list of players who died in 2010-11 season, where it lists the majority of players who were killed in that plane crash, including Pavol Demitra. Three others, Wade Belak, Derek Boogaard and Rick Rypien, died in separate occasions. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's essentially what I'm thinking. It could work either in the Milestones sections or by itself. And unless there is movement towards instituting years in ice hockey solo pages, we could go by the beginning of the season to when it ends, such as October 7 to June 13 for this past season. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Rough concept, can easily be finetuned. Rusted AutoParts 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the general layout - my only suggestion would be knocking it down from a full section to a subsection of the ”Milestones” section. Otherwise, I’m leaving it in the article per WP:BOLD. The Kip (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend leaving out CoD. Conyo14 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think they're appropriate for the NHL season articles unless they were relevant to the league in that year, but I don't have a problem if they're included elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with SportingFlyer, I think this would be better suited for "[year] in ice hockey"/("ice sports" if no split is done). Wracking ^talk! 22:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So then I suppose this would bring what @The Kip: brought up earlier in regards to creating X in ice hockey articles. Rusted AutoParts 23:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend eliminating "ice hockey player" from every entry - it already says at the beginning they are former NHL players. I believe you've essentially copied the formatting from the Recent Deaths page, where context is used for every person listed, but in this application I would think skipping the nationality is fine, since there is a link to the player article anyway. Lastly, on the Recent Deaths page, teams played for are limited and usually to teams that comprised significant portions of a career, but they aren't complete lists; if teams are listed here it may be appropriate to list all teams played for. For example, Gino Odjick is missing his Flyers tenure. (Or skip teams altogether, following my logic for the nationality, as it would be covered at the player article.) Echoedmyron (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of incorporating it into the NHL season articles. It would make more sense to keep it with the "year in ice hockey" or whatever article name is used. This would also allow non-NHL players to be incorporated, as having them on an NHL-focused page would not be appropriate at all. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose such list on NHL season pages. WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a justification for such additions. Meanwhile, I do not care about the "X in ice hockey" or whatever that page is called. – sbaio 04:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have created Draft:2020 in ice hockey, where the basic layout of these pages can be fleshed out by others in this WikiProject before putting it to mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, I added some stuff in. I might recommend that the smaller (but more notable) Swiss, Czech, and Swedish leagues be added into the Europe section. Conyo14 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to add those + the DEL (German) and Liiga (Finnish), as well as draft a 2022 article at somepoint soon. Otherwise, I feel like it's ready to go. The Kip (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually not going to add the Czech Extraliga - it seems we don't even have an article for that season. The Kip (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Good work; I like what you've done here. Ravenswing 20:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Further update: after a day of losing my mind, Draft:2022 in ice hockey is complete except for deaths. Feel free to add/review. The Kip (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're probably gonna hate yourself for this, but the Winter Olympics weren't included. I've gone ahead and added them. Conyo14 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Just laying everything out fried my brain to a degree, so I suppose I just forgot. The Kip (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, is it not redundant to use "ice hockey" in the description of every single death? They wouldn't be listed here if not for an affiliation with ice hockey after all. For players, I might suggest following the style that Baseball's articles use, and refer to the players by their position, so "American goaltender" vs "American ice hockey player", etc. For executives and coaches, deleting "ice hockey" is probably sufficient. Also, good job on sourcing all the deaths, but certainly all the events need sourcing too. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Almost every instance of "ice hockey" (including in headers) is redundant unless part of an official title/common name. Wracking ^talk! 21:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed redundant, I just haven't been able to allot time to comb through their pages to ascertain their given positions to swap into their entries. What I have been mulling was instituting perhaps a table format, in which we can highlight things like role in the sport (player, coach, executive), position, teams, prominent awards if necessary, etc. Rusted AutoParts 00:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Brainstorming how to format "Deaths" sections

The argument against a table would be MOS:NO-TABLES). I think we are verging on the utility of a table, so I created some brainstorming examples using random names. Please share your thoughts.

Current format (List format A)

• Terry Gray, 81, Canadian ice hockey player (St. Louis Blues, Los Angeles Kings).^[1]
• Henri Richard, 84, Canadian Hall of Fame ice hockey player (Montreal Canadiens), 11-time Stanley Cup champion.^[2]
• Gunnar Svensson, 64, Swedish ice hockey player (Björklöven) and coach (Djurgården, Troja/Ljungby).^[3]

List format B (how I would slightly edit it)

• Terry Gray (81), Canadian winger (St. Louis Blues, Los Angeles Kings)^[1]
• Henri Richard (84), Canadian centre (Montreal Canadiens); Hall of Fame inductee and 11-time Stanley Cup winner^[2]
• Gunnar Svensson (64), Swedish forward (Björklöven) and coach (Djurgården, Troja/Ljungby)^[3]

Table format A (not sure about line breaks vs. commas for teams/accolades) (I'm also very ambivalent on accolades vs. awards vs. honors vs. whatever)

Name	Nationality	Age	Position	Teams	Accolades	Refs
Terry Gray	Canadian	81	RW	St. Louis Blues Los Angeles Kings		[1]
Henri Richard	Canadian	84	C	Montreal Canadiens	Hall of Fame 11-time Stanley Cup winner	[2]
Gunnar Svensson	Swedish	64	F, coach	Björklöven Djurgården Troja/Ljungby		[3]

Wracking ^talk! 01:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I personally prefer the table format as it's a tad more informative/considerably less messy-looking and avoids both the redundancy of listing "player"/"executive" (ex. Joe McHockey, Canadian ice hockey player) or the awkwardness of just listing nationality (ex. Joe McHockey, Canadian). That said, I'd recommend adding nationality by flagicon (ex. ) rather than text. The Kip 19:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Like one of these?

Table format B (nationality as flagicon; plus other header changes)

Name	Nationality	Age	Position	Team(s)	Notes	Refs
Terry Gray		81	RW	St. Louis Blues Los Angeles Kings		[1]
Henri Richard		84	C	Montreal Canadiens	Hall of Fame 11-time Stanley Cup winner	[2]
Gunnar Svensson		64	F, coach	Björklöven Djurgården Troja/Ljungby		[3]

Table format C (nationality as flagicon after name)

Name	Age	Position	Team(s)	Notes	Refs
Terry Gray	81	RW	St. Louis Blues Los Angeles Kings		[1]
Henri Richard	84	C	Montreal Canadiens	Hall of Fame 11-time Stanley Cup winner	[2]
Gunnar Svensson	64	F, coach	Björklöven Djurgården Troja/Ljungby		[3]

Wracking ^talk! 22:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Table B looks better, but we can shorten "Nationality" to "Nat" so that the column doesn't take so much empty space. Also, the flag, position, and age columns should be centered. Finally, do we want to have a separate column for non-player activities (GM, coach, commentator, etc.) that way it's not overbearing the positions column? Conyo14 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would hesitate towards adding another column, especially if it goes largely unused. The wider a table is, the more difficult it is for mobile users to access. MOS:NO-TABLES arguments still hold quite a bit of sway for me here. Wracking ^talk! 03:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"List Format B" seems the best option to me. I'm not sure I see the value in creating sortable tables for this either, when surely they will be listed in order of date of death. A Notes column that only sometimes gets used suggests it's not essential, and the content could be better handled in list form. I also don't see how a table is required to handle the issue of redundancy in the repeated usage of "player" etc when again that could be simple word choice. Also, per MOS:SPORTFLAG: "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." And per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE: "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags". Echoedmyron (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback and MOS cites. If entries are to be listed by death date, we will have to find a way to incorporate the death date into the text (or else it will be unfeasible to edit/add to). List format B2 is similar to 2020 in association football#Deaths, with death dates included. I think I'm partial to this format above the others I've created thus far.

List format B2 (List format B with death dates)

• January 2 – Terry Gray (81), Canadian winger (St. Louis Blues, Los Angeles Kings)^[1]
• January 31 – Gunnar Svensson (64), Swedish forward (Björklöven) and coach (Djurgården, Troja/Ljungby)^[3]
• March 6 – Henri Richard (84), Canadian centre (Montreal Canadiens); Hall of Fame inductee and 11-time Stanley Cup winner^[2]

Wracking ^talk! 03:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me; not only is it closer to the football example but also to what Baseball does. (Although they tend to skip nationality altogether as well as sourcing (!), and add more details about the individual than is maybe required.) But this is looking better to me, and I think the dates could be broken up into monthly subsections like in then Drafts linked further upthread. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This version then. It will be easier to implement for the current articles. Conyo14 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should include relegation series stats on the "career statistics" sections at articles about players. The relegation system is really common in Europe and those games might be bigger than some playoff games. How could we include these statistics? --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you give an example of the stats you think should be represented? I'm happy to brainstorm but not very familiar with the system. Wracking ^talk! 18:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There are already more than enough problems with ice hockey player pages (I am not even mentioning European player pages, because they are in terrible condition) and we certainly do not need more problems. – sbaio 20:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, for example Logan Couture played in 2013 for a swiss team. In my understanding the Category:Canadian expatriate ice hockey players in Switzerland stays on his article or does it not? Inviting @PKT: to the discussion. Any input would be welcome. Kante4 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I see this as much the same as the point I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive81#Connor McDavid, that keeping the "expatriate player in foo" categories is nonsense if a player has moved on. The category can become outdated and should be removed. In most cases, the player will also be listed in a list of players for whatever team s/he played for. In addition, I've seen cases where a player has been listed in as many as eight to ten "Canadian expatriate ice hockey players in...." categories if they've bounced around from team to team. Conversely, if it's reasonable that a player is still in a particular country, then the corresponding "Canadian expatriate ice hockey players in...." makes sense and should be kept. Regards, PKT(alk) 15:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

These expatriate categories seem completely useless and non-defining. Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed completely. They fill up the category section, and provide nothing of value. If they were removed, and even deleted, I would not be opposed. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 to that. Quite aside that the whole concept is flawed: an expatriate is someone who's made the conscious decision to live in another country, generally with a long term intent. This seems to have been extended here to cover ANY player signing ANY contract with a club not on his or her native soil. I'm comfy with Bobby Orr, a Canadian citizen who's lived in Massachusetts for nearly sixty years, being described as an expat. A fringe NHLer who signed with the DEL, no. Ravenswing 05:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above replies - it's a pointless, often temporary method of categorizing someone that serves no meaningful purpose. The possible exception of an Orr aside, I think the cats leave themselves open to misuse and should be culled. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that's clear consensus. Thanks for the replies. Kante4 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi folks. I just want to flag this question I posed at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey team, hoping to generate some discussion and hopefully consensus. It boils down to how we define titles or championships, and if they refer to both regular season and playoffs, and how those might be distinguished. Thanks! Other justin (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Splitting off the discussion above to not get that one too off-track; we've now got three fully or partially-completed "[Year] in ice hockey" articles drafted:

• Draft:2020 in ice hockey, by @Rusted AutoParts - fully complete, needs copy-editing
• Draft:2021 in ice hockey, by @Conyo14 with additions from myself - partly complete, needs deaths section and copy-editing
• Draft:2022 in ice hockey, by myself with additions from @Conyo14 - fully complete, needs deaths section and copy-editing
• Draft:2023 in ice hockey, by myself - fully complete, needs deaths section and copy-editing

I'd like to start a proper discussion on whether we have enough here to properly spin these off from the "[Year] in ice sports"/"[Year] in sports" articles, and if so, whether we should continue to flesh these out. Additionally, I invite other editors to copy-edit and make necessary improvements - I wouldn't be remotely surprised if I missed a few things. The Kip 00:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Year in ice hockey pages, would be great. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We will need references for every event that occurred. I'm sure that once we complete these articles, it'll get easier for future articles. Conyo14 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I assumed they'd be like every other YiS article where sourcing is inherently derived from their linked articles, with sources only added if content doesn't have one (ex. the LATAM Cup). The Kip 05:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, yes that's what I meant. Conyo14 (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup, thought just occurred to me. Some of the source articles are in considerably better/worse shape than others; in particular, our KHL articles are disastrously thin on details, albeit with a shallow pool of Russian editors due to censorship/banning of Wikipedia, that may be an uncorrectable problem. The Kip 06:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It's more a will thing than any other factor. While I haven't visited recently, the KHL at least used to have an English-language option on its website, and Google Translate does well enough to gauge whether coverage is noteworthy or not. Ravenswing 23:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'll do some copy editing this week. Wracking ^talk! 17:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:2021 in ice hockey has been created. I started with the IIHF tournaments and moved down to the ECHL season but need to take a break. Conyo14 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the efforts, my brain needs a bit of a break for now but I'm happy to help flesh it out a bit later. The Kip 00:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Finished the 2021 page aside from the deaths which I'm sure others can contribute to. Conyo14 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this, but a quick look at the drafts leaves me with one comment: I would remove the flags in the articles. It's a little distracting, and I'm fairly certain WP:MOS has something about limiting flag usage, which I feel this would not fall under. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's copy-edited from "[year] in ice sports", which uses flags in both Bandy and Ice Hockey. Conyo14 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

These are blantant violations of MOS:FLAG. Please correct mistakes instead of duplicating them elsewhere. Flibirigit (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It won't stop the article from being published, but they can be removed from everything except the Olympics and World Championships where it is more appropriate. Conyo14 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably also worth keeping at international club tournaments, ex. the CHL/Continental Cup. The Kip 18:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Formal-ish vote: Do we want to officially publish these?

Calling this now. Doing so would involve linking the ice hockey sections of "[Year] in sports"/"[Year] in ice sports" articles to these, and copying over info to the main pages to standardize our formatting. As nom, I'm obviously in support of publishing. The Kip 18:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support yeah it looks good. Especially if we use the format Wracking suggested above for the deaths. Conyo14 (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support collaboration is fun, IMO they're all fit for mainspace Wracking ^talk! 22:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Not ready. The lists need to adhere to manuals of style, otherwise we as a project make a bad name for ourselves. Quality should always prevail over quantity. Flibirigit (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Flag issues have been mostly dealt with. They’re kept for international tournaments (whether IIHF national teams or continental tourneys, ex. the CHL/Continental Cup) and have been removed otherwise. The Kip 17:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually they have not. Flags might have a purpose for identifying national teams per MOS:FLAG, but there is no purpose to use the flag of a country next to the name of an event's host city. The MOS also states on that note, "use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue." On another subject it's noticeable that with the exception of a couple of cites in the 2023 drafted article, none of the content that isn't a death has citations. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Citations are inherently drawn from all linked articles as per quite literally every “[Year] in sports” article, and I’m not going to be the one to change how those are formatted. The Kip 01:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

These lists are in very poor condition. As mentioned above, many violations of MOS:FLAG still remain. The introduction of this list is only one sentence–it it way too short as per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Section headers should not have wikilinks as per MOS:HEADINGS. The large majority of sections and lists and no citations whatsoever. The few citation that do exist, fail to use any citation template. Flibirigit (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ll simply repeat what I said above: the standards you’re holding these to necessitate a massive overhaul of effectively all “[Year] in [sport]/sports” articles, and I’m not going to be the one to do that. By the standards of the articles we’re basing them off of, no significant issues seem to remain. Additionally, of course, if you see any issues, you’re welcome to correct them yourself rather than rely on us to address your concerns. The Kip 02:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The correct guidance is not MOS:LEADLENGTH, it is WP:SALLEAD. It would be helpful if you provided specific guidance about what should be included in the lead. The MOS:HEADINGS issue is there, and merits some thinking about how the articles can maintain navigability while keeping a consistent style. Per WP:V, all content must be verifiable. This content is easily verifiable by checking the wikilinked list items. Please challenge specific entries, if you feel the need. Or do it yourself.

Wikipedia is broadly understood as a work in progress, and small stylistic discrepancies should not preclude these articles' publication to mainspace. Wracking ^talk! 02:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If this is indeed a list, then WP:LISTN is applied. The notability of ice hockey around the world is very apparent. Plus each linked article will contain the necessary WP:GNG. Otherwise, quality of articles is not inherent for an article to exist. If you have a problem with certain items, you're welcome to change them. No one is stopping you. But also remember that when (not if) these articles are created, deletion is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Rusted AutoParts 22:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Does Mike Babcock belong at List of Columbus Blue Jackets head coaches and Category:Columbus Blue Jackets coaches? He did not coach a game despite initially being named the ninth head coach in team history. In addition, the Blue Jackets did not say in their press release that Pascal Vincent is the 10th head coach. – sbaio 16:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion he does, since he was hired for the position. I think the way he's listed at List of Columbus Blue Jackets head coaches, with a footnote that says he never coached a game, is appropriate. I'm sure the CBJ's will want to erase the Mike Babcock debacle from their history, but he was there. PKT(alk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the NHL at records.nhl.com does include Babcock as the ninth head coach in team history so I guess this matter is resolved. – sbaio 17:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel it's similar to Babe Siebert and the Canadiens: he was named coach in the summer of 1939, but drowned before the season started. He's always been listed among their coaches, despite never actually coaching a game. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a case-by-case thing. Bill Belicheck was head coach of the New York Jets twice -- however briefly -- but never coached a game for them. The situation is mentioned at List of New York Jets head coaches, but he's not listed in the table.

Beyond that, the NHL is pretty good at ignoring the things it wants to ignore. Larry Aurie's number being retired, the fact that the lineage of the Canadiens runs through the Haileybury Comets and not through "Les Canadiens", the real Boston Bruins captaincy list running into the 1940s ... that sort of thing. (Never mind all the hassles we had ten or more years ago because of the utter unreliability of the HHOF website when it came to factual accuracy.) I do not myself consider the NHL an utterly reliable source. My vote would be for us to decide what we wanted to do here, without reference to what the Blue Jackets organization might prefer, because who'd like to bet that a few years from now, Babcock's erased from organizational memory? Ravenswing 04:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You're not wrong to assume that either. We may need to pull the Wayback machine on those links to the NHL sites, that way we can maintain a permanent record of these instances. Conyo14 (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Similar to the above opinions; despite not coaching a game, Babcock was formally hired to serve as head coach, and while the Blue Jackets may try to erase that, it’s not like it didn’t happen. I feel like the listing with a footnote is appropriate procedure, and Babe Siebert is a good comparison. The Kip 05:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Also bears noting that during his brief time in the position there’s a pretty strong chance he had input into player personnel decisions and the like, in consultation with the GM, so he would have had some role despite never coaching a game. 1995hoo (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that he should be listed. And Belicheck should be included in the list of Jets head coaches, but that's a separate issue. Rlendog (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

As may be, but obviously the football Wikiproject has its own notions. I mentioned Belicheck because that's the one example sticking out in my head of someone who was only ephemerally the head coach of a team. Ravenswing 17:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Per PKT and The Kip, Babcock should be listed as the ninth, and Vincent as the tenth. Wracking ^talk! 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I noticed a few days ago that NHL.com (and all the team websites) have changed their format. At first, I was annoyed because it made it harder to search up articles but today I noticed something that the community should be aware of. It seems like articles pre-2014 are being 404'd and no longer accessible. This is an issue because we have hundreds of articles with links to old articles. It seems like we will have to go through them and archive all these links now. I know something similiar-ish happened with the IIHF but a helpful editor (I cannot remember who) contacted them and they gave us a solution. I am unsure if the same can happen here. I am very annoyed with this new development as it makes it harder to update older players articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not dissimilar to their change in 2016. However, yes the articles from 2014 are 404'd. If you look up particular articles by name, they'll still exist under a different url. Ideally, these articles should be archived right away, but not everyone has the time or tools to use the InternetArchiveBot. Conyo14 (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Conyo14, My main concern at the moment is long articles and/or GA articles. Would it maybe be fruitful to submit a bot job request for large pages we can identify have lots of missing links? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good idea. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have encountered articles from 2020 and 2021 that do not work after the update of NHL's website. In some cases it is enough to change the URL to current format, but most of the time that does not work. – sbaio 17:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I just want to ask project members to please keep your eyes peeled on edits on 2023–2024 team articles that are coming from accounts that you guys are not familiar with. User XR228 is a sockpuppet of Cool a123, who was blocked over 2 years ago, and the editor has been using new accounts or IP's to edit ever since. I'll mention that the editor tends to edit team schedules, for example. ([12], [13]) For the last 2+ years, I have repeatedly reported this editor because they always come back after one of their accounts gets blocked. However, I need other people to be aware of this editor so that we can all work together to take them down. So if anybody spots edits like those on 2023–2024 pages that are coming from unfamiliar/newly registered accounts, please report them. Yowashi (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you already submit the user to sockpuppet investigations? Conyo14 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ll go ahead and take care of it, seeing as it hasn’t been done apparently. The Kip 18:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had the opportunity to open a SPI case due to my job and other priorities. I reported the sock to an admin, but I didn't get the response that I was hoping for. I'm now having to wait for another response after I had to explain things in more depth. Yowashi (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the same editor that you suspect, but I have seen similar edits in the past. Season pages before 2022–23 should also be looked through. – sbaio 13:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the above note of pre-2014 articles being 404ed, for team season articles I've now noticed that the NHL.com gamecenters lack both the goalie decision and the game reports from which we previously sourced attendance figures.

Does anyone have a valid alternative, besides digging through the play-by-play for decisions and the internet for attendance? The Kip 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

NHL do not usually have game reports or any kind of statistics in the preseason. However, I managed to get those by changing numbers in the game report URLs from last season games. For example, game reports for 9/24 NY Rangers at Boston, 9/25 Devils at Canadiens, 9/25 Flyers at Devils. – sbaio 19:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Update. The method that I mentioned above does not work for Australian games between Los Angeles and Arizona. – sbaio 19:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How're you able to tell which numerical codes to enter in the URL? The Kip 16:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Kip: For example, 10/6 Vegas at Los Angeles:

• NHL website URL is https://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/vgk-vs-lak/2023/10/06/2023010104 or https://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/2023010104 (short URL). Last numbers in the URL are "season start year (2023) – season stage (01) – game number (0104)", which is 2023010104. In the regular season the last numbers would be 2023020104 (10/25 Minnesota at Philadelphia), while in the playoffs – 2023030104 (not working yet obviously).
• Game summary URL is https://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20232024/GS010104.HTM ("GS – season stage (01 – preseason, 02 – regular season, 03 – playoffs) – game number (0104)").

Next example is game 5 of the 2023 Stanley Cup Finals (6/12 Florida at Vegas):

• NHL website URL is https://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/vgk-vs-fla/2023/06/12/2022030415 or https://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/2022030415 (short URL), which is "season start year (2022) – season stage (03) – game number (0415)", which is 2022030415.
• Game summary URL is https://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20222023/GS030415.HTM ("GS – season stage (03 – playoffs) – game number (0415)"), which is GS030415.

I hope these explanations are clear. As I already wrote previously – NHL does not care about preseason so most statistics are usually unavailable. I assume that the NHL will be back to their "normal regime" for the start of the regular season. – sbaio 19:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The Kip 00:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing that I was unable to find the attendance for the NHL Recap games. We will have to dig through the attendance and goalie decisions by going to ESPN NHL team recaps. But the attendance will not show up until after at least 24 hours from when the team finishes playing the game typically. NicholasHui (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am not a fan of the new format used on NHL right now, it does make it harder to search through to find what your looking for (attendances and recaps), hopefully it's just for the preseason. I have been using the method that Sbaio mentioned above and it has been working great, although there are still some games that won't work. Xolkan (talk) 4:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

...although there are still some games that won't work. – NHL have been doing this for years. Some games from older seasons just do not have any statistics listed anywhere and this year is the same. – sbaio 16:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Update — The way we search for attendances for NHL Teams, we will have to do NHL covers.com for NHL teams that played for those games. However, not all attendances are available to be shown for every single game. NicholasHui (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you were told not to use unreliable sources. And now you are suggesting that we should use some kind of sports betting website. You should stop immediately with such suggestions. – sbaio 18:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Similar question to this rivalry. Does Islanders–Penguins rivalry really exist? – sbaio 16:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like Wiki Fandom is creeping into Wikipedia. We should remain an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Flibirigit (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No, they don't. AfD time? Conyo14 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No. I thought we torpedoed these stupid under-supported rivalry articles a couple of years ago. oknazevad (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

National Hockey League rivalries exists for specific rivalry page links or rivalries that don't have the standing for a full article. Every year myself and other editors will delete or trim undefendable rivalries. It seems now people will create articles on the rivalries with little standing. Conyo14 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe PROD should be done first? The reason I am asking about new rivalry pages is because American and Canadian editors have better knowledge about these things (and North American ice hockey in general), because in Europe we have limited access to such content due to certain laws (VPN is not an option for us either). – sbaio 19:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah, this would have to go straight to AfD. An article created today is highly unlikely to be undefended by its creator, and a PROD would be a waste of time. Ravenswing 19:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The AfD has been created: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islanders–Penguins rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

On the other side, the Pittsburgh Penguins–New York Islanders brawl might be an interesting GA. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh I very much agree, which is why I suggested in the AfD that this rivalry could be redirect target. Conyo14 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1975 playoff series may also be worth including (or having a separate article for) as that used to get a lot of attention back when it was the only 0-3 comeback. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What to do with sections like Pittsburgh Penguins#Front office and coaching staff? None of such sections are sourced. I am leaning towards removing such sections, but other opinions are needed. In my opinion, such sections are simply WP:FANCRUFT. – sbaio 16:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete the sections, if the other NHL team pages don't have them. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to that extent and I wouldn't be opposed to removing it; that said, I also wouldn't be opposed for formatting it like Vegas Golden Knights#Other personnel, where only coaches/GMs are properly listed and other notable staff may be added at one's discretion (with sources). The Kip 16:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR mostly. Unless it has a source tied to it, 86 it. Conyo14 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The bullet item "A resource for conducting business" in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory gives the general guidance that articles should not include listings of employees. It is, of course, up to editorial judgement to decide on which roles are of significant importance to the team article, such that knowing their staffing is a significant contribution to understanding the history of the team. Mentions within the prose is one possible indicator. isaacl (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

One more vote for striking the whole section; I can't myself see how knowing who the "Goaltending Development Coach" or the "Director of Performance and Sports Science" is can contribute so much as an ice shaving's weight towards understanding the history of the team. (Quick: who was the Director of Performance and Sports Science for the Penguins when they last won the Cup?) Anyone with a burning desire to knowing an entire personnel roster can always click on the team's website link. Ravenswing 23:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete the sections as trivial lists of non-notable persons. Flibirigit (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Section removed from the Penguins page. However, after scrolling through every NHL teams' pages I noticed that most of them have trivial sections about fans, who sings the national anthem, "goal songs", etc. Should these also be removed? Such information does not really add anything apart from fanboy stuff. – sbaio 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, fan culture is fairly important to the identity of a team. If it’s unsourced go ahead and remove it, but if not I don’t entirely get what rules it breaks. The Kip 17:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that is by definition WP:FANCRUFT, but honestly, you can have just a YouTube video or X (formerly known as Twitter) post to show these minor details. Conyo14 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: recently created {{WHL seasons}} and implemented across all seasons articles, which already had a succession box for the same, see the bottom for 1966–67 CMJHL season for example. It seems redundant to have both a succession and a navbox providing navigation on the same article. The navbox might be slightly better as it is more complete. Should have have both, or just one or the other? Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Navboxes for seasons is generally the norm for other sports, despite being hidden on the mobile version. I don't think the succession boxes are as intuitive or user-friendly, as they require a lot more jumping around to find specific seasons. SounderBruce 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I just did what is I believe my first article on an ice hockey subject (I am an active article creator over at the NFL project) in Ty Emberson - there could be some cleanup needed as I'm not as familiar with hockey requirements as I am for football. Let me know if its alright. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if you're a Wiki rookie, after all! Looks like a good and thorough job to me. Ravenswing 15:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well let's see:

• WP:SIGCOV under WP:HOCKEY rules state that if a player made (in this case makes) their NHL debut, they will qualify for the notability needed for an article.
• Article needs to pass WP:GNG in any case.

Your article completes all these requirements. So, good job! When it becomes available, you should add in a photo of the player. Conyo14 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good to me too. Clearly meets GNG now. Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'll go ahead and add his career stats. The Kip 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, over several weeks (or days) I've updated the succession boxes of incumbent general managers, head coaches, captains & award winners. I think this removes confusion in the 'succeeded by' box. See example of change, for Mikael Backlund's captaincy box

From:

Preceded by Mark Giordano

Calgary Flames captain 2023–present

Succeeded by Incumbent

To:

Preceded by Mark Giordano

Calgary Flames captain 2023–present

Incumbent

I find it further clarifies the incumbent's status. When the incumbency ends? the succession box can be easily reverted back, in anticipation of a successor being named. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect 1995 NHL season to the article 1994–95 NHL season has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15 § One year NHL Seasons until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 22:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2013 NHL season and 2021 NHL season have been bundled into this as they fall into the same type of NHL season. TartarTorte 22:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I just read the Edmonton Oilers article and saw that it mentioned that the Oilers have not won a "division title" since 1987. But when I then looked at the infobox, it showed that the Oilers won the "division championships" in 1988, 90, 91 and 92. This confused me very much and I asked myself whether "division title" and "division championships" are two different concepts or whether one of the two pieces of information is incorrect. I then tried to find out how these terms are used on Wikipedia and whether they are defined on here. So I read some other articles for other NHL teams and some other NHL-related articles. The closest that I came to a definition of one of the terms was in the NHL article: it says "the team that finishes with the most points in each division is crowned the division champion". But I believe this contradicts the way the terms are used in the articles that I read, because my current theory is this: the editors in NHL-related articles use "division title" as "finishing with the most points during the regular season in their division" and "division championship" as "winning the division finals of the playoffs". But, as I wrote, I do not see these definitions in any of the NHL pages that I have read, e.g. Stanley Cup playoffs or NHL and, in fact, the NHL article seems to directly contradict it. What further added to my confusion was the following:

• the parameter in the template:Infobox NHL team which shows up as "Division championships" has the name "division_titles".
• As far as I could see, the articles related to the other major US sports leagues consistently apply both "division champion" and "division title" only to the regular-season division winners.

So could anybody enlighten me? Did I misunderstand something here? If not, I would strongly suggest giving an explicit definition of "division title" and "division championship" and their difference in a way which is consistent with their usage on here in (at least) the articles NHL and Stanley Cup playoffs themselves and ideally give some external references which show that this distinction is used outside of Wikipedia. (I googled a bit for those external explanations but could not find any.) Spike (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

From 1967 to 1982 & 1993 to present, a division title was undisputedly, a team finishing the regular season at the top of their division. From 1982 to 1993, the terminology developed a double meaning, with a regular season division title (which is what we go by) & a playoff division title. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. But I'm not sure if I understood it correctly. So i think you are saying that the term "division title", when used here, always refers to the regular season title, correct? That would still leave the question what editors mean on here when they use the term "division championship". Spike (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Much of the problem comes down to that the nomenclature has changed several times over the years, flip-flopping between having the most points in the regular season and being the team to emerge out of the ranks in the playoffs. With the NHL being inconsistent about what constitutes a title/championship, we can't ourselves establish a consistent definition. Ravenswing 10:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spike: This has been asked more than once in the past so here is the most recent discussion about it (also includes links to older discussions) – Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive81#NHL Division champions. – sbaio 10:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that link. I should have looked at more than the first four results after searching for "division championships"...

I would still have some suggestions:

I have now looked at the articles for all current NHL teams to find out which definition the editors were using in the articles' infoboxes for the element "Division championships". And it looks like the Oilers infobox (the one that I had seen first and which had confused me) is the only one where the team's playoff results are used. For all other teams, "Division championships" counts the regular season division titles. (There is one small caveat: four teams have a 100% overlap between regular season division titles and Stanley Cup quarterfinals wins: the Kraken, Blue Jackets, Golden Knights, and Coyotes. So for those teams, both definitions would arguably be correct.) So, I would suggest changing the Oilers infobox so that it counts the regular season division titles, not the playoff Division Finals wins, to make all infoboxes consistent. We could also add some information to Template:Infobox_NHL_team/doc which states that in this infobox, "division_titles" means regular season, something like

division_titles = <!-- regular season division titles -->

And to make it totally unambiguous, we could change the displayed label of the element "division_titles" from "Division championships" to "Regular season division titles". Spike (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've checked over the 1982 to 1993 team season pages (as well as team pages) & we've got inconsistencies across the board. Example - both 1990–91 Edmonton Oilers season & 1990–91 Los Angeles Kings season, have Smythe Division champions, in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could try to get a better photo of Pierre Turgeon? Him mooning the camera isn't exactly the best profile photo on the site.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone might be able to get one but photos of former players who aren't coaching are really hard to get. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Tylerboyd17 has started edit warring over the position of Carter Verhaeghe. The editor is clearly in violation of WP:OR as can be seen in this revision (there was also a lengthy rant about positions on my talk page). The NHL lists Verhaeghe as centre (including NHL statistics pages for all the seasons he played), while Elite Prospects lists him as centre/left wing. However, Tylerboyd17 is basing his belief on faceoff count, which is ridiculous. – sbaio 14:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You've taken appropriate actions here. Perhaps you should explain why we use Elite Prospects and the NHL to confirm stats and positions, then double confirm with secondary sources (Sportsnet, Hockey Reference, TSN, ESPN, etc.). Otherwise, you've given them a warning, so if they continue to edit war, take it to ANI. Conyo14 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the roster on the Panthers' webpage lists him as a center as well. Ravenswing 03:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Verhaeghe is listed as a centre because he was a centre before his arrival in the NHL. However, since then he’s played most if not all his NHL games on the wing. Watching Panthers games, he’s penciled in as a winger playing with centres Barkov or Bennett. It’s not abnormal for centres to switch to wing upon arrival to the NHL. Examples include Blake’s Coleman, Jonathan Huberdeau, Jake Guentzel, Adrian Kempe, Jordan Kyrou, Chris Kreider, Gustav Nyquist, Kyle Palmari, etc. Some of these guys are still listed as centres on the NHL website, elite prospects, and other hockey websites. However, all these players are ONLY listed as wingers on their respect pages on this site. Verhaeghe should be no exception from this. if Verhaeghe should continue to be listed as a centre, fine, but all the players I listed should also be listed as centres too. From a visual standpoint, Verhaeghe is a winger; from a statistical standpoint, Verhaeghe is a winger: from a lineup sheet standpoint, Verhaeghe is a winger. He broke out as a winger, and those who watch a lot of hockey (like me) say he’s a winger. I don’t mean to come off as disrespectful and narcissistic, but I assure you Verhaeghe has only played wing since coming to the NHL. Tylerboyd17 (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Gonna need a source my man. Conyo14 (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/teams/florida-panthers/line-combinations <—updates all the time, so bare in mind

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/teams/FLA/florida-panthers/depth-chart/

https://www.capfriendly.com/depth-charts/panthers

Honestly, I’d like someone to find a FULL game of him playing centre in the NHL. I might send more links in another reply as I’m trying to find gamely line up sheets, but the games he has a strong likelihood of playing centre are very few. I know going by faceoffs isn’t reliable, but hear me out. The most faceoffs he ever took in a game was 10, and he did that on Oct 10, 2019. Besides that, there are only 3 other games he took more than 5 faceoffs in a game; with the most recent being March 25, 2021 (I’ll put in links for highlights of those games. Even 4th line centres get more than 5 faceoffs a game fairly regularly.

March 25, 2021 took 8 faceoffs and it does look like he played centre, or at least started at centre. The announcer mentioned he normally is on the wing. He also mentioned Barkov was injured, so that’s probably why: https://youtube.com/watch?v=B8NQda7BZQw&si=HTdY0bgnGkV_reKr

March 23, 2021 he took 9 faceoffs, but is situated on the left wing during the opening puck drop. Especially considering the centre is right handed, and a lefty would normally take the draw when the ref is on that side on the opening draw if he were to take strong side faceoffs:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=eLXCWVkynlw&si=9oEKdwXTg5SPzxlu

October 10, 2019 is the only game he took 10 faceoffs in his career, but he isn’t the most noticeable, so I apologize: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XaxSIzzV_Ok&si=xXQ4bNJHZgk-VJs-

October 19, 2019 he took 9 faceoffs:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LdN3iMIB0DQ&si=PoqxAmMQq8L9rugq

Other than those games, he never took more than 4 faceoffs in a game, and he only took 4 draws in a game twice, took 3 draws in a game 6 times, took 2 draws in a game 13 times, and had games where he took the draw once about 64 times. Like I said, I know faceoffs are not the best way to base off what position a player plays, but it’s evident that being a centre is a thing off the past for Mr.Verhaeghe unless the panthers have an injury problem. Even then, they’d likely throw someone else at centre. Take it from me, I’ve watched the guy play constantly, and check the lineups constantly. I think it’s safe to say in my opinion that he’s just a winger at this point. Not abnormal for centres to become full time wingers when they make the jump to the NHL; the guys I listed in a previous reply are perfect examples. Tylerboyd17 (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We go by what the NHL and team lists and not some random websites. In addition, what you are doing is WP:OR. The best solution regarding Verhaeghe's situation would be to list him as forward in the infobox so the edit warring would stop. Just today you did this on Patrik Laine's page, while official NHL game reports do not list him as centre (we ought to list Laine as a forward also). I advise you to stop with more WP:OR edits. – sbaio 15:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Then make Jonathan Huberdeau, Blake Coleman, Jordan Kyrou, Mike Hoffman, Kyler Palmari, and Jaden Schwartz centres too. I listed Laine a centre because the Blue jackets are playing him on centre. 2001:56A:76B8:E600:B573:6DEC:A6E8:92B3 (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Daily Faceoff is unreliable. Cap Friendly is BLP, but Wikipedia doesn't bother tracking cap stats anyways so it's unreliable for other measures. CBS Sports is the only one that is semi-reliable here. However, as sbaio has said, we only use the NHL and their associated teams for stats and player profiles. YouTube is a WP:TERTIARY source, so it can almost never be used here. Read up on WP:OR then you'll understand. Conyo14 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I sent the stats. Like I said, the NHL website still has guys listed as centres that don’t play centre anymore. Jonathan Huberdeau, Blake Coleman, Jordan Kyrou, etc, etc. I sent other links too. Those video links I sent are likely the only games I can find of him playing centre. You use the NHL website for stats? Then you’ll know he’s only had one game where he took 10 faceoffs. Tylerboyd17 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think doing it this way can get very complicated. What’s the threshold? Does someone have to play 6 games as winger per season to be listed as such. It’s just so arbitrary. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Carter Verhaeghe may be winger now, but he’ll still be listed as a centre until further notice. In the mean time I decided to edit the pages of players and list their correct positions according to NHL.com. Jonathan Huberdeau is a top centre in the NHL, and I’m proud to say I fixed his page. Same with a bunch of other elite centres. I was also keen to fix some wingers pages too. Amazing left wingers like J.T. Compher and Erik Haula. Was not finding a lot of reliable sources to back up Haula playing centre. So that being said, he’s only listed as a left winger for the mean time. Tylerboyd17 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)