Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
WikiProject iconIce Hockey NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Draft capitalization[edit]

I moved a few pages like 1991 NHL dispersal and expansion drafts to lowercase, but then noticed there are a whole bunch of different lines of NHL articles with Draft capitalized. Are any of these consistently capped in sources? Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was an RM held to have those pages moved? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed your unilateral page move there & the one concerning the CFL & MLS. Please, if you want such sports related pages moved? go the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you think those are better capitalized? Or just don't want to see over-capitalization corrected without wasting a whole bunch more editor time? Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe (at least concerning sports pages) that you were asked to not make unilateral page moves. Open up an RM at NHL Entry Draft, including all kinds of NHL related Drafts. Open up an RM at CFL Draft, including all kinds of CFL related Drafts. Open up an RM at 2014 MLS Expansion Draft, including all kinds of MLS related Drafts. It's not that difficult to do. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"sport related", "NHL related". Something missing? Tony (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordsmith:, @Amakuru: What's your view? Should the RM route be taken? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already had a noconsensus at the Amateur Drafts pages, so it was clearly not an uncontroversial move. To proceed as if it was does not appear genuine, unless it was forgotten about, which is possible I suppose.18abruce (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall that one, and can't find it, but maybe there was. Anyway, I wasn't going to jump on the NHL Entry Draft without more discussion. Currently, in hockey it's just 1991 NHL dispersal and expansion drafts that I moved and that GoodDay reverted. I don't see how that could be considered a proper name, nor can its parts "dispersal draft" and "expansion draft" which are mostly lowercase in sources. I think he just likes to see RM discussions for some reason, so I guess we'll do that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and started that RM discussion that GoodDay wanted, at Talk:1991 NHL Dispersal and Expansion Drafts#Requested move 17 March 2024, on 14 NHL article titles. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I haven't studied the evidence, but there's been enough controversy over this type of thing lately that I definitely think an RM is permissible and probably advisable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of all the consensus to lowercase "draft" pretty much everywhere (though we haven't talked about "Entry Draft" yet), I leave the KHL Draft and other outlier articles up to y'all. Here's the relevant background where all the issues have been hammered out over and over and over:

Similarly with all the conference finals; I leave KHL Conference Finals to y'all. Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose lower-casing to "Conference finals" & "KHL conference finals". GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you did oppose before, so now will you help fix? Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you recommend those pages being moved at required board? I'll second the recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm recommending it here. Go ahead and make it happen. Or leave it as a monument to obstruction. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: Are there any future articles you're looking into? The KHL stuff can be fairly easy to switch. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plenty, among them other groups of capped "Draft" article titles. See User:Dicklyon/Entry Draft for some. I also have a file of "WP to fix" stuff off-wiki, with many thousands of articles worth of things to work on eventually. Many of these are things like over-capped table headings, each in hundreds of articles, that I can't really work on without semi-automated tools. Want to help? Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: I don't have time to be passionate about that kind of capitalization. I was just curious. Conyo14 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Caps are not something to get passionate about. If you'll help with KHL, that'd be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up RMs at KHL Conference Finals & Conference Finals. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more input, list those at WT:MOSCAPS#Current. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Night Owls[edit]

Came across this nonsense: Nebraska Knight Owls - trimmed some outright CRYSTAL and falsehoods, it should probably be nuked but maybe someone else wants to take a crack at it. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering their addition of “Cody Taylor” as GM, this appears to be the same user as SpeakingConsequences, who was banned a few months back for inserting made-up content into articles. I’m gonna PROD the article (there’s nothing in it that justifies a separate article from Potential National Hockey League expansion) and open an SPI. The Kip 14:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPI has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpeakingConsequences. The Kip 15:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch - you know I thought "Cody Taylor" sounded familiar but couldn't place it, now I'm remembering the prior hoax additions. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out our pal here is a notorious sockmaster with 38 confirmed socks, and hockey’s just his latest target. Both accounts have been blocked. The Kip 03:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, this is definitely someone looking for a regional ban at this point. Conyo14 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opened up an LTA case/file at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ProTaylorCraft. The Kip 05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandalism at Jack Hughes[edit]

IP editors (likely just one person) keep removing the paragraph stating that Jack Hughes is Jewish. Should we keep just reverting it or should we take other action? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reverting, I'd say. It seems like the same editor, so WP:RPP isn't necessary. I will check for evidence and report to WP:AIV if applicable. Wracking talk! 18:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An OT situation we didn’t plan for.[edit]

Well, the seemingly impossible happened - the Wild pulled their goalie in OT, got scored on, and forfeited the loser point as a result. Believe it’s the first time it’s ever happened.

It officially goes as an OTL for them, but our standings template automatically counts an OTL as one point - what do we do here? The Kip 22:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's odd. I guess our incredibly rare circumstance requires a change in the standings procedure to allow for this to occur. Perhaps, we can manually change the points if such a thing were to happen again? Conyo14 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking back, this exact scenario has happened twice prior, but both were before Wiki hockey made the standings table auto-update: 4/7/2000 EDM vs VAN, and CBJ vs LAK on 3/25/2003 Conyo14 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so the official NHL standings do not have it in place to consider an overtime loss in this scenario to not include the 1 point either. Some poor web dev is going to have to manually change their script too. Conyo14 (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked this up in an NHL Guide and Record book and confirmed it with the league's record site and in cases like this the two previous times this happened the games were counted as a regular loss. Deadman137 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, wasn’t actually aware of that. Guess we won’t have to do much after all, haha. The Kip 00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing on our end is making sure that Vegas doesn't get credit for a regulation win. Today's result still counts as an overtime win for Vegas for the purpose of tiebreakers. Deadman137 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The league's main website has the error present on the 1999–2000 Canucks and the 2002–03 Kings records and point totals. On the records site the information is correct for those two situations and the league is now listing today's game as a loss for the Wild. Deadman137 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Walsh[edit]

@SecretName101: recently moved Marty Walsh (ice hockey) to Marty Walsh (ice hockey player), with the rationale that he is ambiguous with Marty Walsh, the leader of the NHLPA. This move goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey), which says to use year of birth. Any objections to moving it to Marty Walsh (ice hockey, born 1884)? -unsigned comment by User:Flibirigit

@Flibirigit: No objection. SecretName101 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Conyo14 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the change. SecretName101 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of The Hockey Writers[edit]

Figure WP:Ice Hockey might be able to give some solid input at this discussion on WP:RS. The Kip 00:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from whether anything factual may be sourced to them if they're deemed an RS, I find the writing to be pretty amateurish and it's pretty much a fan site with silly opinions, and I don't take it seriously at all. My two cents. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024-25 NHL season & related pages[edit]

We use Czechia for the IIHF tournament articles. Shall we start using Czechia for other ice hockey articles, too? GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a whole RfC about the use of Czechia vs Czech Republic, which resulted in a No consensus. In the view of the IIHF, there was an RM for specifically the Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team that resulted in the same outcome. My view is still the same that Czechia is WP:COMMONNAME, but I suspect that a lot more may disagree. Conyo14 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would result in the change that you desire at this point. This is likely something that will change in the future and if it was just a hockey decision it probably would've already been done. Sometimes change is glacial around here. Deadman137 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits at Montreal Canadiens-related pages[edit]

Just want to inform everybody that an IP editor has been going against various policies/guidelines on Montreal Canadiens-related pages. I have already reported that editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:47.54.146.218, but so far no action has been taken. – sbaio 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023-24 NHL season page, not functioning[edit]

I've tried for two days, to update the stats at 2023-24 NHL season. The updates show in the boxes separately. But, won't show on the full page. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of stuff could be raised to the meta wiki. The programmers may have released something that f'd up something else. Conyo14 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Arizona Coyotes relocation[edit]

Something to keep an eye on. Lots of chatter among the national hockey writers, and also the Coyotes own beat writers, that the Coyotes will be moving to Utah over this off-season (specifically, that the league plans to announce things on this sometime after the last Coyotes regular season game).

Now, we can look back at the Jets / Thrashers relocation in 2011, and see articles and statements from Bettman and other league execs denying the relocation as late as May 25 (the sale and relocation of the Thrashers to Winnipeg would become official on May 31).

Also of note, it looks like the NHL might be willing to grant Coyotes owner Meruelo a "five year window" in which he can basically get the right of first refusal to another Arizona NHL franchise. This might be something like the Browns / Ravens situation from the NFL, where the Browns players and front office were moved to Baltimore in 1995, but the Ravens were deemed to be an "expansion" team, with the Browns records and history staying in Cleveland (the Browns were put into a period of "inactivity" for a few years, resuming operations in 1999). Canuck89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page 20:38, April 12, 2024 (UTC)

It could, but given how the league usually does things the franchise history would most likely stay with the relocated team. Either way we'll deal with it. We will need to see when the official relocation date is as that will have implications on the current and upcoming draft and transaction articles. Deadman137 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't rememember if the Trashers / Jets did any transactions (trades, signings, etc...) in the time between the move was officially announced (end of May 2011) and the end of the league year (end of June 2011). Will have to see how things go for how to assign things to Arizona or to Utah. We do have the picks of the 2011 NHL Draft (held June 24) as belonging to Winnipeg. Canuck89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page 09:31, April 13, 2024 (UTC)
Why not wait until something actually happens? This looks like a lot of unsourced rumors, which is not the goal of Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The executive committee has voted to approve the relocation. Assuming the full board of owners will vote on the move sometime in the next week (to get the official announcement out just after the end of the regular season). News article Canuck89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page 19:53, April 15, 2024 (UTC)
Just to answer your previous query Canuckian, the last trade Atlanta made in 2011 was at the trade deadline. They did not sign any free agents after the trade deadline or during the relocation phase and no trades were commenced by the Jets until the second day of the 2011 draft, which for our purposes was already the next league year.
Once this becomes official the future draft pick trades that Arizona has been involved in will have to be reworded but that won't take long to fix though there are trades that go into 2027.
Are there any objections to calling the relocated team the Salt Lake City NHL team until the new name becomes official? Deadman137 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t be opposed, though Utah NHL team might be a more concise alternative. The Kip 21:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had the same thought about Utah as well. I figured that a quick straw poll (don't care which way it goes) for a temporary article would be the best idea until the permanent name is announced. Deadman137 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that team is required to use "Utah" instead of SLC, as per a state law about accessing public funding. Also, @Deadman137:, it appears somewhat likely that the NHL is going to grant Coyotes owner Muruelo what is effectively a 5 year period for a "right of first refusal" regarding another Arizona NHL team, and the Coyotes name, logo, records, etc... will be left behind in Arizona. So, we might have a Browns / Ravens situation, where the NHL considers Utah to be an "expansion" team with no prior history, and the Coyotes get "deactivated" for 5 years to give Meruelo time to get his situation in Arizona all sorted out (like how the Browns were also rendered "inactive" for a few years in the late 1990s). Canuck89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page 21:37, April 15, 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that note about Utah state funding that makes me lean towards using Utah instead.
Based on what I read here [1] a new Arizona team would be an expansion team. It is possible that a Browns/Ravens situation could still happen but unless the Coyotes franchise is listed as defunct/dormant after the season on the records.nhl site it would be prudent to treat this a normal relocation until more information becomes available. A Browns/Ravens situation would affect a couple of articles but all of them are quick fixes. Deadman137 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be the first time it's happened in recent memory either - we could consult WikiProject Basketball and WikiProject NBA on how they handled the Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans scenario in 2014. The Kip 22:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL tends to not do that, however. It's something that grid-iron football does. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the NHL's pursued this route due to the threat of legal action from Meruelo - a forced sale would be a long and costly fight. The Kip 23:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated but a note I'd like to voice - for the "History" section of our incoming Utah article, I recently wrote a brief but usable section on Salt Lake City's hockey history and Smith's efforts to gain a team at Potential National Hockey League expansion. The Kip 23:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decent start, outside of maybe adding a mention of 2002 Winter games that's about as far as we'll get for it. Deadman137 (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to some digging done by The Kip and according to this article [2] the Coyotes are suspending operations and the players and personnel are going to Salt Lake City as an expansion team. So this is a Browns/Ravens situation and the league will have 33 teams with 32 operational. Deadman137 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, once we get the official announcement from the league, we'll know how to actually proceed. Create a new article for the Utah team, probably with a temporary name something like Utah NHL Team, until the branding is officially announced for that (which shouldn't take too long, I imagine they'll want to have everything set up by late June for the draft and free agency). For the intro for Utah's NHL team, we can probably copy the format from the Baltimore Ravens page (where the Ravens unusual founding is explained, and how they were technically an expansion team composed of the players and front office of the Browns). What do with the Arizona Coyotes page, though? They won't be defunct, but they won't be operational, either. Will have to figure out how to word things nicely that they have "temporarily suspended" operations. Canuck89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page 23:57, April 15, 2024 (UTC)
This is a first draft of what the Arizona article could lead with:
The Arizona Coyotes are a professional ice hockey team based in the Phoenix metropolitan area that has suspended operations pending their acquisition of a new arena to play in. If the Coyotes secure a new arena by no later than 2029 they will rejoin the NHL as an expansion team with all previous team history, records and uniforms being maintained. If they do not secure a new arena the team will cease operations. Before suspending operations the Coyotes competed in the...
Then we could leave the rest of the opening section more or less intact. If anyone wants to improve what I wrote feel free to, all I ask is just post the revised version to my talk page and we can try to figure out what works best before bringing it back here. Deadman137 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually KNOW yet whether this is a Browns/Ravens situation or not. There is no point at all in speculating ahead of the evidence. This is not a race, and no one's giving out barnstars for being the first editor to "scoop" every other one. It does us no harm to wait. Ravenswing 04:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not officially, no, but when reputable publications like ESPN and TSN are reporting it as such, there’s no harm in preparing for how to deal with it. I’d rather this than deal with an avalanche of new and IP editors sure to descend upon here with the official announcement. The Kip 04:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to semi-protect that article when Salt Lake is announced as the destination. Conyo14 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, we have to wait until the initial wave of disruption happens before the article can be protected. Deadman137 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if this does end up being a Browns like situation, does it mean the Arizona Coyotes will also keep the history of the 1972-1996 Winnepeg Jets or will they finally give it to the new jets? 129.89.181.123 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knows yet, but there's another possibility you haven't considered: The original Jets' records sit in limbo with the "suspended" franchise and then continue to belong to that franchise if/when it is reactivated. 1995hoo (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at what the league has done in the past, if the Coyotes do not come back then all of the original Jets' franchise history would die with the Coyotes. This is similar to what happened with the Hamilton Tigers (previously the Quebec Bulldogs) as the franchise was dropped by the league (not suspending operations like the Coyotes) and the players went to the New York Americans and the two teams are not considered to be linked.
As it was stated above nothing is official yet, though the current Jets are a different franchise so it is very unlikely that the league would move the previous Jets history to the new one because if they were going to do it they would've already done it. Deadman137 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the Arizona Coyotes do get a Browns-like deal where the brand, record and history in Arizona stays in Arizona with Meruelo, while the players, and coaches get to move to Salt Lake with Smith, then maybe the current Jets can get involved and try to reclaim the history and records of the 1972-1996 jets in exchange for giving up its history of the Atlanta Thrashers from 1999-2011 to the NHL for use in a potential future NHL team. A three (or four if you count the NHL themselves) way deal would be complecated, but duable. 129.89.181.220 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just be patient and wait out what the League decides. Conyo14 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a whole lot we need to prepare for; we've been through the drill before. If the team doesn't relocate, we don't need to do anything. If the team does relocate, we populate the new Salt Lake City NHL team page (it's already been created as a placeholder) pending a renaming, transfer the appropriate information, create the new infobox, etc etc. If the team relocates and it's a Browns' situation where the team history stays with Meruelo, then we know what to do there too. It's all pretty straightforward. Ravenswing 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (which is not much for the moment), Darren Dreger just tweeted that there will be a Board of Governors call on Thursday (he didn't say what time), though at this time it's unknown whether there'll be a vote on the Coyotes or just an update or something else altogether. 1995hoo (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meeting is at 3:00 p.m. ET. So we'll know more tomorrow. Deadman137 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Queue up the Jeopardy theme song .... 1995hoo (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Board of Governors meeting is at noon PDT. Looks like most of the articles from the last week are saying the NHL wanted to have the move all official for around April 18th / 19th. Will see whenever the NHL decides to make an official announcement to the public. Canuck89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page 03:09, April 18, 2024 (UTC)
@Deadman137: Friedman and other hockey journalists are reporting the Board meeting just ended, with a vote to formally approve the sale. Official announcement from the league could be coming within the next day or so. Canuck89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page 19:55, April 18, 2024 (UTC)
And the NHL just put out their press release confirming the move, and the fact that it is a Browns / Ravens situation (where the Coyotes will temporarily suspend operations, Meruelo will retain the Coyotes name and branding in Arizona, with a chance to "reactivate" the Coyotes in the next 5 years). Canuck89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page 20:02, April 18, 2024 (UTC)
The NHL could renege on their promise though as they have done in the past with the New York Americans. Conyo14 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reports are also that Meruelo won't require further BoG approval, though - if he gets an arena built, expansion is automatically triggered. The Kip 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly so, but this is something we won't have to worry about for years. Ravenswing 08:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opted to draftify Draft:Salt Lake City NHL team, so that we can construct a finished product before rolling it out to the mainspace instead of having a chaotic work-in-progress in mainspace. The Kip 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Deadman137 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switched it over to Draft:Utah NHL team - this confirms it'll be "Utah" instead of SLC. The Kip 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in the main NHL article's list of teams, the Utah team's "join date" has an asterisk after it, which the note below the table says denotes a franchise move. From a realistic standpoint, obviously that's what it is. But from a "legal" standpoint, as discussed above, it's not a relocation in view of the Browns/Ravens situation. I also note that there have been a good number of edits (mostly, I suspect, from one person, given the extreme similarity in edit summaries) to the "Utah NHL team" article that have removed the reference to it being an expansion team. Those edits keep getting reverted, and rightly so. I'm going to remove the asterisk from the table in the main NHL article because I think it could be seen as taking away credibility to call it an expansion team in one place (the team article) and a relocation in another (the main NHL article). I wanted to flag it here because I'm sure it's going to be an ongoing problem. (On a semi-related note, yesterday NHL.com had a press release saying the team will be called the "Utah Something." I'm waiting for someone to edit the Wikipedia article to use that name, claiming a reliable source says that's what it will be.) 1995hoo (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Sebastian Aho (ice hockey, born 1997) § Requested move 12 April 2024[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sebastian Aho (ice hockey, born 1997) § Requested move 12 April 2024. Wracking talk! 22:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cody Taylor vandal has returned[edit]

As seen here. Already taken to SPI. The Kip 15:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many accounts need to be blocked for them to get the point? Conyo14 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least 77, apparently. The Kip 21:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They need a date. No, a hobby. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMs opened for NHL Entry Draft & related pages[edit]

RMs opened at NHL Entry Draft, KHL Conference Finals & Conference Finals, btw. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team goal totals on records.nhl.com[edit]

Quick heads up for anybody using records.nhl.com to check season goal totals across different articles, something weird is going on with their tabulating software as I came across multiple errors with many different teams. If you need to check numbers for a specific season, use the standings section on nhl.com as that is working correctly. Deadman137 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual career vs individual season for "Xth person to [reach single-season milestone]"[edit]

Asking this as a point of clarification for season pages. At 2023-24 NHL season, we have:

  • Auston Matthews listed as the 43rd player to score 60 goals in a season - Matthews himself had done it before, as has much of the 60-goal list, but his 23-24 season is the 43rd time that it's been reached.
  • Connor McDavid listed as the fourth player to record 100 assists in a season - it's been accomplished 14 times, but McDavid is the 4th individual to reach the mark.

Naturally, these two seem logically inconsistent; if we want to standardize, either Matthews is the 22nd individual to accomplish 60 goals and we denote that it's the second time he's done so, or McDavid is the 14th player to accomplish a 100-assist season. Personally, I'm split; the McDavid precedent makes more sense but is harder to spell out, as simply stating "X player did Y, becoming the Zth player to do so" seems like better and more concise wording than something akin to "X player did Y for the second time in his career, the Xth time this has been done in a season."

We've been inconsistent on it in the past; for instance, last season's article had Matthews and Pastrnak listed as being the 41st and 42nd to 60 goals (when individually speaking they were the 22nd and 23rd), but McDavid as the 6th to 150 points (when it was the 17th time 150 had been reached).

So, in short:

  • Should we denote single-season milestones by the individual (ex. McDavid is the 4th individual to reach 100 assists, although it's been reached 14 times overall) or by the season (ex. Matthews is having the 43rd season of 60 goals, although it's been previously reached by 23 individuals including Matthews himself)?
  • If the former, what should the wording be?

For now, I'm changing McDavid's wording to the Matthews interpretation, but I'm open to changing it if better wording can be developed for the alternative. The Kip 05:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to be consistent in the sentence structure, but we should mention both the individual and season records, at least in a footnote. (I think this will also future-proof articles from well-intentioned editors mistakenly changing the meaning.)
I think we should avoid "although" which is a MOS:EDITORIAL word to watch. I think the "43rd season of 60 goals" wording is confusing and clunky.
Here's some alternatives I think could work:
Mention both in the main text: (I'm being lazy about finding synonyms for "feat" right now)
  • alt1: Matthews had a 60-goal season, with the feat having been accomplished 42 times previously by 23 individuals, including Matthews himself.
  • alt2: McDavid's 100-assist season was the 14th in the NHL, with three players having accomplished the feat previously.
Individual:
  • alt3: McDavid was the 4th individual to reach 100 assists.[a]
  • alt4: With exactly 100 assists, McDavid became the 4th individual to accomplish a 100-assist season, a record reached thirteen times previously.[a]
Season:
  • alt5: With 69 goals, Matthews accomplished the 43rd 60-goal season in the NHL.[b]

References

  1. ^ a b As of the 20XX–XX season, 4 players had collectively accomplished 14 100-assist seasons in the NHL.
  2. ^ As of the 20XX–XX season, 23 players had collectively accomplished 43 60-goal seasons in the NHL.
Wracking talk! 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally partial to alt4 or alt5. We could also have something along the lines of:
* On April XX, 2024, Edmonton Oilers forward Connor McDavid recorded his 100th assist of the season, recording the 14th 100-assist season in NHL history, and becoming the 4th individual to reach the mark.
* On April XX, 2024, Edmonton Oilers forward Connor McDavid recorded his 100th assist of the season, becoming the 4th individual to reach the mark, and recording the 14th 100-assist season in NHL history. I might experimentally roll that out on a few season articles. The Kip 21:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those look good too. I think saying "record" twice in the same sentence is a bit repetitive, but I'm being lazy with synonyms today, so glass houses. Wracking talk! 21:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my bad haha. I’ll figure out a different word to include, but I like the second format a little more; I’ll tentatively start rolling it out in the next few days. The Kip 04:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHL Drafts and rights in player articles[edit]

I have added info about Joel Armia's KHL draft in 2011 and the sale of his KHL rights from Severstal to CSKA Moscow in 2018. Armia never played in the KHL (and most likely never will), so i'm just wondering if this info is important enough to include in the article. Feel free to revert my edits on Armia's article if you dont think it should be there. Thanks. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 18:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National team in infobox[edit]

If a player has played internationally at the senior level, but not in a tournament, should the national team go in the infobox? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression their national team is added if they've ever played internationally, be it junior/senior or tournament/friendly. The Kip 21:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey&oldid=1220518129"