Talk:National Hockey League/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

New playoff bracket for next year's realignment

I've been experimenting with playoff bracket designs for next year's playoffs, since the NHL is switching to a hybrid division-wild card playoff format. My new bracket is currently at User:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket, with an example at User:Canuckian89/Sandbox. If anyone is interested in commenting, please feel free to do so at User talk:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket. Canuck89 (chat with me) 01:55, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Believe the first and second rounds are called the Division Semifinals and the Division Finals. Jntg4Games (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

To echo what I said in a previous thread (though, at that time, for different flags), since the country names do not indicate representatives of the country, or persons/teams competing on behalf of a country, I don't believe the flags in the infobox fall under any of the appropriate uses for flags under Wikipedia guidelines. Accordingly, I believe the flag icons can be dispensed with. I haven't found any related discussion threads in the archives for this talk page, other than the discussion related to the TV broadcasters; I don't know if there were any discussions on other talk pages. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
AgreeJOJ Hutton 18:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The same thing appears to be going on at the NBA article. I'm not watching that article, so I won't revert there to avoid the appearence of stalking. I have been watchlisting the MLB article for some time, so I'll remove the flags there if they are added. Perhaps this needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons for clarification. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This came about because "I" am the one who edited the article yesterday and removed the flags inserted just a few days prior. My name showing up in the edit summery of the article is an apparent red flag (no pun intended), for Djsasso. He seems to always be checking up on my edits from time to time on this article. Notice he reverted my removal of the flags at NBA as well. He didn't just simply remove them, he literally went back in the edit history and "undid" my edit, as if to make a specific point I feel. JOJ Hutton 18:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted here because I mainly edit ice hockey articles and its one of my most highly watched pages so when I saw them removed I reverted regardless of who did it. Not because it had anything to do with you personally. You just happen to be a person who has removed them on this page a few times. As for the NBA no I didn't do them to make a specific point, I just know then when someone removes them from this page they tend to go and remove them from the other pages as well (and the undo was only because its quicker to hit undo then to parse the page looking for the specific text to remove). -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would have removed them here had I noticed their recent addition, but I missed it. As to his undoing the revert, it might well have been easier for him to just undo the edit, to assume good faith. He has regularly edited both articles for many years, to my knowledge. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Always willing to assume good faith, as long as a pattern of stalking doesn't arise. JOJ Hutton 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't believe using the "undo" function signifies anything special—not only is it more convenient, it leaves an entry in the history log specifying exactly what edits were reverted, which is handy for those perusing the log and trying to figure out what was changed. I always use the "undo" function where possible, for these reasons. isaacl (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags_in_sports_league.27s_infobox that you are invited to.—Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

Noticed there's a whole paragraph specifically dicussing Wayne Gretzky in the expansion section... while it's definitely important, there's no introduction to it and no other comparable discussion of a single player. Could maybe use some editing Importemps (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to National Ice Hockey league

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. No way this proposal is ever carried out. It's prima facia ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 

(non-admin closure)

This is to not confuse with field hockey.

Funny joke. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Just in case this is serious, no. Title does not require disambiguation because despite there being field hockey leagues with National Hockey League in the title, the North American ice hockey competition is the primary topic. Hack (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

headquaters

1185 Avenue of the Americas in Midtown Manhattan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/realestate/commercial/27sqft.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.135.154 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Divisions

Looking at the articles for the Atlantic Division and the Metropolitan Divisions, I think it's necessary that we change these to make them more accurate. The Atlantic Division after realignment has none of the same teams as the Atlantic pre-realignment, and imo that makes the history sections of the Atlantic Division article very misleading. I propose doing one of two things: 1. create a new Atlantic Division (1993-2013) article or 2. move the pre-2013 parts of the Atlantic Division article to the Metropolitan Division one. What do everyone else think? Insert90 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in Infobox

The Montreal Candaiens have won 24 Cups, not 25 as the infobox claims. The 1919 Cup Finals were cancelled with no winner due to the 1918 flu pandemic.Canswiss (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Canswiss

The infobox is referring to National Hockey League championships, not Stanley Cup victories. See the footnote and the articles it links to for more details. isaacl (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
On the Canadiens Stanley Cup wins, there's a bit in the brackets at the end of the ref that has me confused. The ref talks about their 25 wins (22 as NHL, 3 pre) but the bracket states: "(The Canadiens have also won a 24th Stanley Cup as a member of the NHA.)". Not entirely sure what that means? 86.189.181.113 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The Canadiens existed prior to the formation of the NHL. They previous belonged to the National Hockey Association (NHA) from 1909-1917. The NHA was one of the leagues that competed for the Stanley Cup, which was an interleague competition back then. This extra Stanley Cup championship refers to when the NHA champion Canadiens defeated the Pacific Coast Hockey Association champion Portland Rosebuds in 1916. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to reword it a little to improve clarity. Thoughts? Resolute 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, much clearer now, cheers. As someone (relatively) new to Ice Hockey and the NHL, and as a UK-based fan where most of our sports have traditionally only had one "winner" since they started, the early history of the NHL (and many US sports if I'm honest) can be confusing. The rewording clears it up. 86.189.181.113 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Glad it helped! Resolute 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons in the list of teams tables

User:KHLrookie restored the flag icons to the list of teams table, which was previously removed a few years ago. As it was then, and it is now, per MOS:ICON, I find it visually distracting since it is dominated by one country. What do other people think? I'm soliciting other opinions here per WP:BRD. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally can't stand them..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on the use of icons, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride, and undue weight is placed on the team's country through the use of a flag icon. Although Canadian fans often show a greater interest in Canadian teams, the NHL is not generally viewed as a competitive league between teams representing nations. Thus I agree with not including the flag icons. Additionally, in its current form, Wikipedia's guidelines on accessibility aren't being met, since the information is only being presented visually. isaacl (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, US based teams dominate. That's why i put up the flags. To make it easier to navigate which are the non US based teams. KHLrookie (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think they are fine. MOSICON allows them because they are being used in a sporting sense to determine where teams are located. And accessability is met by the presence of ALT text on the image which screen readers do read. It is a great misunderstanding that the text has to be literal text, people always seem to forget that alt text meets the criteria for not just being visible. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

For information considered essential and not just decorative, alt text is insufficient, as it is problematic for those who have difficulty with fine motor control or otherwise hovering over an item on the web page. isaacl (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have been in discussions on the topic where it was deemed by consensus to be sufficient. It doesn't take any more motor control to get the alt text than to click a link. wp:Accessability even recommends that method of making an image accessible. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The key is how important is the information and how discoverable it is. Imagine if everyone had to hover over the city link in order to see the flag icon: this would not be readily apparent, and kind of defeats the purpose of having a quick way to see the country associated with a team. For essential information, having a text presentation is preferable for these reasons. isaacl (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really, most people won't need to hover, those who do can, thus accessibility is met as is brevity. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We should avoid flagicons here, as there's only two countries involved. Flagicons are much better suited for IIHF related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I support their use in player list articles because the flag or flag/country combo presents useful information that is often discussed about said players. On this article, the flags are superfluous and unnecessary. They should be left off. Resolute 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeated changes

The hidden note in the article gets changed so much, as here, that I have trouble remembering what it's supposed to actually say, and it's annoying to have everyone and his brother keep changing it so much. I believe there is a way to add a template that will produce a hidden note. Is there a way we can do that, and perhaps full-protect the resulting template so that the note can't be changed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the text of a template can be substituted into the edit box so it will be visible to editors during editing. When creating a new page or new section, you can specify that Wikipedia prepopulate the edit box with the contents of a preload file, but this doesn't work with existing text (otherwise it would overwrite it). isaacl (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to a notice that is place "above" the edit screen, as I "believe" I've seen on other pages, but I can't remember where. This way it wouldn't be editable beyond removing the template file itself from the page. That at least can be easily reverted by those of us who are "memory challenged". - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The article currently has an edit notice that mentions the Canadiens. Edit notices for non-user pages can only be edited by admins (and I think those with the template editor right; I can't recall at the moment). isaacl (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Doh! Facepalm Facepalm I forget about that one. We just need to add the details about the numbers to that notice, and remove the hidden-text notice then. That should solve the problem. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
As I recall, the hidden text was added as another attempt to avoid changes to the championship number in the infobox; the edit notice pre-dates it. While personally I don't see a big harm in keeping the hidden text, it may not be terribly effective, either (I confess to being too lazy to go back and count the frequency of changes before and after the text was put in place). isaacl (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
My problem is that the numbers keeps changing, so I can't remember what the correct figures are for the number of championships vs. Stanley Cups. Having the numbers in a box, which only admins can edit, would be helpful. We could just keep a shorter notice in the text, but one without numbers. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Just go back to the version that was previously restored by you, Resolute, Djsasso, Alaney2k, etc... ;-) I think it's fine to put the numbers into the edit notice, but I also think the hidden text needs to have the numbers in order to have any chance of deterring one of these eager-to-make-a-correction editors. isaacl (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
How's this edit? As mentioned, the edit notice was created first, then the hidden text was inserted, but that still does not really deter many people who still think Stanley Cup championships = NHL league titles prior to 1927. Any other suggestions welcome. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
There are always going to be people who don't notice, don't read, or don't care when it comes to this. This is one of those situations where you pretty much just have to revert when you see it. Some things you can't prevent you can only fix. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Couple of proposed trimmings

Nothing major, but I wonder now that it's been a couple of years, if the realignment section need to be so large. Or even here at all. It's notike we now have two league alignment charts any longer that need to be explained. It would probably be better placed in the background of the 2013–14 season article (which already contains much of the same info). And isn't there an article about changes in NHL structure? Either way, it seems pretty WP:UNDUE for the main article.

Secondly is the chart of number of foreign born players. It is just getting wider, and creates issues for those on lower resolution screens (including especially mobile devices). I think we should limit it to just the past five years. would still provide a broad enough time period to show trends without being too big.

Any thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I would move it to the season article when it happened. As for the numbers of foreign born players I am not even sure we need a chart. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The foreign players chart is kind of interesting, but does need to be thinned. However, since the value is in historic trends, I would keep the data from every three or four years rather than just the last five. Resolute 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Or move to a chart format that focuses on major countries/regions. Resolute 19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the table breakdown for a given season is better placed in the season article, and then perhaps a line graph can show the historical trend in this article, if deemed sufficiently notable for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And a thank you to Resolute, who took care of the Realignment section. Just one of those things where I wasn't sure if I should be bold and do it, considering the small number of respondents here, but it looks better now that it's done.oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How to list GM's/Head Coach's previous experience?

I did not know where to put this question. Anyway, it seems to me that in coverage of other leagues (e.g NFL) the Head coach's and GM's get their previous jobs listed in their infobox. I feel that this should be done for NHL personnel as well. Yes/NO? If not, what are the reasons that this is not done for the NHL? Mhoppmann (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Just another way to clutter up and bloat infoboxes beyond all recognition. The best way to list the previous experience of ANY biographical subject -- certainly not limited to hockey management -- is to do so in the text of the article. If a majority of the voting editors in the football WikiProject feel otherwise, that's their bailiwick, but I've long been a staunch opponent of All Sports Have To Follow Rigid Conformity. One-size-fits-all suits everyone rather poorly, and if everything were to be ordered in the way a single sport does it, it'd be logical for that sport to be European soccer. Ravenswing 18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • And yet players' careers are summarized in the infobox with the list of teams and dates where they've played. This strikes me as the same thing. It certainly fulfill the infoboxes purpose of summarizing the main article text. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I don't know why we can't do something like this:
Randy Carlyle
Born (1956-04-19) April 19, 1956 (age 68)
Sudbury, ON, CAN
Height 5 ft 10 in (178 cm)
Weight 200 lb (91 kg; 14 st 4 lb)
Position Defence
Shot Left
Played for Toronto Maple Leafs
Pittsburgh Penguins
Winnipeg Jets
National team  Canada
NHL draft 30th overall, 1976
Toronto Maple Leafs
WHA draft 69th overall, 1976
Cincinnati Stingers
Playing career 1976–1993
-Uncleben85 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of this, but should we do the same for GMs?Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Captain in Team List

Why was the list of team captains removed from the team info box? Was this something discussed along the way? Seems just as if not more important to team identity than head coach and certainly GM. -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that. It was removed a couple of days ago without discussion. Considering it had been here for over five years without objection, I wonder why it was unilaterally removed. Then again, I don't know if we really need it. Or the other names. Part of me thinks we should just leave that stuff to the individual articles. oknazevad (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think its needed so I think its fine that it was removed. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the removal should've been discussed here, first. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Same thoughts for me. I think it's a little more relevant than who the general manager, but am not convinced we need that information in this info box. All that being said, I do not agree with it being unceremoniously deleted without discussion. Are there objections to me reintroducing it? -Uncleben85 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Eh, everyone here seems to agree that it's unneeded, so I don't think re-adding it does any good. The removal should have been discussed, but putting it back in just because it was removed without discussion when the discussion has indeed essentially agreed to its removal seems needlessly bureaucratic. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the captain information is not of sufficient significance to this article's subject to be included. I also suggest that the co-ordinates information should be removed, and possibly the arena as well (List of National Hockey League arenas should cover this adequately). I'm not sure what I think about the general manager and head coach columns. isaacl (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I would leave both the co-ords and the arena. As it gives an idea of the geographical makeup of the league and location of teams. I don't think the people are necessary though. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think readers can click on the city name to see the specific location and the team name to see the arena. The map in this article provides an overview of the geographical distribution of teams in the league that I think suffices. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Every North American (and almost every world) sports league article includes the stadiums/arenas for the teams in the team list. I cannot strenuously object to its removal any more vociferously if I tried. I'm ambivalent in the coordinates, though. I really don't think we need the GMs, though. Most other sports don't include such info. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course people can click through to other pages to see that info. But you can say that about almost any info on this page. My point was you see all of it at once instead of having to go to each individual team page. When reading specifically about the league you want a general league makeup. -DJSasso (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any strong objection to arena information. I think the coordinate information is less intuitive to readers than the current map, though, and not really an essential part of general league makeup. My only point regarding seeing the information on the arena pages is that the information will not be lost if it is omitted from this article. isaacl (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This does more than a mere image map. The use of listing all the coordinates and the use of Template:GeoGroup at the top of the section is to allow a list of external links to be generated to mapping services that present or display all coordinates. These include linking the points to services like Google Maps or Bing, or exporting them to various mapping file formats. Another alternative is to do what is on the bottom of the Template:KHL teams organization table and have one single link to only a coordinate map on Google Maps -- but that single coordinate map is just limited to the Google Maps service (and not the other services listed on Template:GeoGroup), and cannot be directly modified by any Wikipedia editor. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand this. The key question is if having links to the coordinates of individual arenas is an essential part of presenting an overview of general league makeup. There are lots of interesting points about each team that could be presented in this table, so a determination needs to be made regarding which ones are most important and relevant for this article. isaacl (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I also agree about both listing the coordinates and the arena. However, I think I would rather do what is done on List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas and other similar pages: move the coordinates inside either the location or the arena column instead of having its own separate column. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Just when Foligno, Pacioretty, Greene & Pavelski get the honour of appearing at this article? it's all taken away :( Seriously though, inclusion or exclusion of captains, isn't something I'll overly complain about. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

. Personally, I find the coordinates to be unnecessary bloat that should be removed outright. It is of even less value than a list of captains in that table, or even a list of arena capacities that was previously attempted to be added. Resolute 18:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Home city for the Islanders

Since the New York Islanders now play their home ice hockey games at the Barclays Center, the home city location for the Islanders should be listed in the article National Hockey League as BROOKLYN and NOT New York City, per the Islanders' Contact Us page at NHL.com. Yes, I know that Brooklyn is a borough of New York City. However, the physical mailing address for the Barclays Center lists Brooklyn as the city. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why we should make a singular exception for the New York Islanders as the only team to be listed by an administrative unit within a city rather than using the city itself, as is the case for the other teams? Both the Rangers and Islanders exist in the City of New York. This would be different (IMO) if Brooklyn was a suburb of New York City, but that is not the case. Also, please do not edit war. You've been here long enough to know that disputed changes require discussion and consensus. Resolute 19:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There should be an exception for the New York Islanders, because the corporate office address listed at the Islanders' Contact Us page is listed as: 15 MetroTech Center, 19th floor, BROOKLYN, NY 11201. Also, the physical mailing address for the Barclays Center is listed as: 620 Atlantic Ave., BROOKLYN, NY 11217. I don't understand why you feel like you have to edit war with me over this. Furthermore, the New York Rangers' Contact Information page at NHL.com lists the address for the Rangers as: 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, NEW YORK, NY 10121. That's why the home city location for the Islanders should be listed as BROOKLYN, and the home city location for the Rangers should be listed as NEW YORK. That's why there should be an exception made (IMO). Wikipedia should list the home city location for all teams based on the address for each team's home arena. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Mailing address and home city are two different things. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Resolute. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I have no objection. Quite aside from the Islanders' own assertion, we're not talking about an obscure neighborhood familiar only to locals. Brooklyn has a widely known identify of its own, as well as both a historic and a current association with major league sports teams (as witness the Brooklyn Nets, which is listed on the NBA page as playing in "Brooklyn, NY"). Ravenswing 19:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Kanata has an identity as well, but we don't list the Senators as playing there since that former city was amalgamated into Ottawa. Regardless of how this turns out, I would suggest that the Islanders and Rangers be treated consistently. Resolute 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • As a further parallel, I believe the mailing address remains Kanata. To smooth the transition, the city of Ottawa did not request that Canada Post change the cities associated with the corresponding postal codes, and as far as I know, it still haven't. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It actually didn't at the NBA article until the same user changed it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • And since you are bringing up other sports, The Yankees are not listed as the Bronx. -DJSasso (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I understand the idea that Brooklyn is a part of New York City, but I don't agree that listing their home city as New York City is the right way to go. I really would look no further than the mailing addresses given by the OP. Perhaps I'm off base here with this question, but if the location of Nassau Coliseum was Uniondale, NY (a town in Nassau County of New York), why is it a problem to list the location as Brooklyn, NY (a borough in New York City of New York)? Gloss 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I do understand, perhaps my support comes from a small place of bias. Nobody 'round here refers to Brooklyn as New York City.. New York City is Manhattan. :) Gloss 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Brooklyn is just a part of New York City. We don't list by neighbourhood. Mailing addresses are not really relevant as that is just a mail delivery thing (I actually live in a similar situation), the legal city entity is New York City. -DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment While ultimately it's six-of-one for me, I thought I'd just mention that the most comparable situation I could think of, London-based soccer clubs, usually do list the London borough in the infobox, usually as "Borough, London". Like the five boroughs of NYC, London boroughs do have some legal distinction from the city-wide government (and yes, NYC boroughs actually do have distinct borough-level governing structures, like the borough presidents. Maybe "Brooklyn, New York City, NY" would cover it best. oknazevad (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am less concerned by that naming than I am with straight Brooklyn, New York -DJSasso (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I too am less concerned by the naming than just Brooklyn, New York. But If we cannot agree to "Brooklyn, New York City, NY", then I vote leave it as "New York City". It is more universal and understood. -Uncleben85 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - use the whole city, not just a part of it. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As Wikipedia articles are written for a global audience and not just the local residents, the Islanders' home should be listed as New York City. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for initiating this discussion. I'm finally persuaded that New York City is an adequate enough geographic place name to be listed in the infobox as the home city for the Islanders. It gets too confusing (IMO) to list specific boroughs/neighborhoods for certain teams, such as the Islanders and other NYC-based teams. IMO, consistency and equal treatment as far as geographic place names should be the guiding principle here. As long as there's a mention of the fact that the Islanders now play their games at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn (which I believe there currently is), I'm satisfied. I guess I happen to agree with isaacl (talk), in that Wikipedia articles are written for a global audience, and not just the local residents. Request withdrawn. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

American Teams outweigh Canadian Teams

Hey so, I added in after a section on how the "National" refers to Canada and that the league is now binational and that the first American team was introduced in 1924, that "American teams now far outweigh Canadian teams, 23 to 7". This has been reverted. I do not understand why. It would seem to show that the league has changed it's focus to America, that Canadian teams are no longer the majority, and it is factual. The next line is about the 2004-05 season and it does not seem out of place, in time or place. Why is this being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basetornado (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This Canada/U.S. number split is already noted twice at the start of the article: Once in the first sentence, and another time in the infobox. Adding this fact again to the lead just seems very redundant. Canuck89 (what's up?) 03:17, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. Also, the wording you used was poor, and your desire to "show that the league has changed it's (sic) focus to America" is rather POV. Resolute 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Team Logos

I am proposing addition of team logos in the list of teams as it makes it easier for readers to visit the pages and some people with no knowledge of all the teams names uses logos to recognize teams. Ralphw (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Cannot be done per WP:NFCC. oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Right, so you're saying that the logos are copyrighted and can only be exposed once on the respective team pages? Ralphw (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. As they're not free content, they can only be used minimally, at as specifically relevant pages as possible, and with an acknowledgment that their use is a claim of a fair use exception to copyright. Using all the logos on this article would be over-using the logos on Wikipedia in general, and using too many non-free files on one article. Can't be done. Otherwise I actually think it's a good idea, but we cannot. oknazevad (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand, thank you for your insight. Ralphw (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Women in the NHL

Removed section. Lightly sourced and has not had a significant impact on the NHL to warrant a subsection. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Restored section. Three sources supporting two statements of fact is not remotely "lightly" sourced, and the first woman ever to suit up for a big league team in any North American sport and one of the first to be a full-time coach are not insignificant events. Ravenswing 20:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Three sources doesn't match the weight of material dedicated to the history of the NHL. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
And when you get consensus for overturning the pertinent policies and guidelines regarding sourcing (such as WP:IRS and WP:OVERLINK) -- or, for that matter, get consensus for your change -- that'd be another matter. The only valid reason for demanding extra sources is for highly contentious statements. These two are neither, and your premise is specious. Ravenswing 02:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The inclusion of the subsection is what is specious. My argument isn't based on WP:IRS, but the pertinent policy of WP:UNDUE. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL"

There is consensus for keeping the section in its present form. A majority had objections to removing it on the basis of the importance of women's role in a male sport. Other editors did not object to merging the content to another section, but also did not object to keeping the section. Only one editor had a strong preference for removing it. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The request for comment here is to get an outside opinion on the inclusion of the subsection "Women in the NHL". The discussion above explains the disagreement. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the section "Origin of players" to something like "Demographics" and including the information there. The "History" section is currently an odd mixture of chronological sections and thematic sections. I think within the current article structure, the participation of women in on-ice activities would fit better within the context of team demographics. isaacl (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Isaac I think that is a great idea. That seems more fitting-Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it belongs there, those are highly significant events in what is considered a male sports league. Would definitely a bad thing to remove it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a way to incorporate this into the article, without giving it a sub-section. BTW, don't forget the only woman to be president of an NHL franchise, Marguerite Norris of the Red Wings. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading's name is good as it is. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The heading name isn't what is being discussed. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to get further opinion on Isaacl's suggestion, does that seem like a more acceptable way of laying out the outline of the article? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with the way it is now. The information is relevant and properly sourced. WP:UNDUE was mentioned earlier, but I don't really see how that applies here, as this isn't a view to be held, it's a statement of documented, undisputed facts. The only real argument should be in relation to WP:N, and I don't see any argument being valid that crosses that. Women playing, owning, coaching, etc in a major, male dominated industry, is an important topic and notable enough to be included as it's own section.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly the same way I feel. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The events are definitely notable; I'm not clear, though, if there is a sufficient narrative to warrant a separate historical theme on this topic, as of yet. (The larger topic of women professional hockey surely does, but that subject is broader than the NHL.) On the other hand, this can be an opportunity: who would like to research the area further to more clearly outline how its influence on the NHL is similar to the two other themes in the history section, labour issues and player safety issues? isaacl (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep subsection "Women in the NHL". I think the section is important and is valid. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral as to whether the information should be in a standalone section or whether it could go into a Demographics section as per issacl. One consideration is that there's a very notable fact that could go into the existing section which wouldn't really fit in a demographics section: that Marguerite Norris in 1952 was the first woman to become president of a major league North American franchise, in any sport. Ravenswing 18:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it would be well-suited for the "The Original Six" section, placing the event in context of the related history. (And the corresponding History articles should be updated with the information about Norris and Braid.) isaacl (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I think that would be perfect. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Anyone have any problems with Isaacl's suggestion? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
          • At this point, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for changing this article. If they haven't been already, though, feel free to update the related History articles. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although it makes no difference to the determination of consensus, I don't believe the closing statement accurately reflects the views I expressed. isaacl (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Issacl: I debated whether or not to say "only one editor" or "only two editors", and decided to put "only one editor" because it did not seem that you were for removal as much as the proposer. However, if you feel that is inaccurate, I apologize, but you are correct. It does not change the consensus. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 07:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Drug Testing and Popularity

Hi, after reading this article, I noticed two areas of concern for possible revision. First, the section on "Rules" has outdated information from what is a now dead link on drug testing in the NHL. The link has information regarding drug testing as it relates to the 2005 collective bargaining agreement. This information should be updated to include drug testing policies that reflect the most current collective bargaining agreement signed in 2013. Updated information can be found at this link NHL Drug Testing Policy. Another area of concern is in regards to the section on "Popularity". This section does not seem overly neutral. The television statistics regarding the 2016 NHL Playoffs do not paint a positive picture, and are not mentioned in this subsection. Much of the information is regarding the 2010 NHL season/Playoffs. Perhaps updating this subsection with a more neutral approach is required. Robcacciola (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Hockey_League/Archive_4&oldid=1137038102"