Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive74

2002 Women's Ice Hockey World Championships

Is this a plausible search title? It was created to direct viewers to the Olympics originally so I thought it was just nonsense, but maybe having it direct to the main championship page has some value where readers are informed about the years when no championship was held.18abruce (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a hard one. I was thinking about it and am not sure. In Olympic years the Olympics are effectively the World Championships so it is reasonable. So it comes down to where do you think the reader would be getting the information they are looking for when they type it in. I am leaning towards the Olympics page because the World Championships page only says the championships weren't played because of the Olympics. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I felt that it would lead to a mistaken notion that the Olympics are the world championships for that year whereas directing to the main World Championship explains why there is no championship that year. I was not convinced that this redirect should exist at all really; I wondered if it was created from a mistaken belief that the championship page was missing and yet to be created. I suppose it really does not matter much.18abruce (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess that is where we differ in opinion, technically the Olympics are treated as the World Championships for that year, though not explicitly stated as such. That being said, redirects are just to get people to the information they most likely are looking for and not necessarily indicators of alternate names etc. Think when we link kids to parents etc. But yeah there are a few reasons it could have been created, who knows. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion to trim NHL team infobox

An editor has proposed trimming the NHL team infobox, see discussion Template talk:Infobox NHL team#Trim infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Neal Broten and ice hockey vs hockey

I know that this has been discussed before, but here we are again, as IPs are once more reverting the phrasing of ice hockey vs hockey, and refusing to accept consensus. I can't fathom why this is mostly localized on the Neal Broten article, but I'm tired of it. Again. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It happens every once in a awhile. The simple solution is to block the IP for a day for WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE. If multiple IPs, then just semi-protect the page. I going to report it if they revert one more time. Yosemiter (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It has been reverted multiple times since. Flibirigit (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm mostly bewildered that the Neal Broten article specifically is such a target for this. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is a fan of a certain athlete is unaware of consensus on Wikipedia, or other forms or hockey. Flibirigit (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A similar roaming IP is also going after High school boys ice hockey in Minnesota. Yosemiter (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Naming convention for teams with senior, U20, U18, etc programs

I've looked through the archives and can't find a past discussion on this, so I ask the question. Is there a consensus on naming convention for teams with multiple age levels in the statistics tables? We've gotten to the point now where most counties have a page for the senior team, one for the U20 team, and another for the U18 team. My typical process has been to name the teams as, for example, Canada, Canada U20, or Canada U18 to distinguish the actual "team" that they were on at the given event based on what program was at the tournament. But I know others have often gone with just "Canada" as the piped link for all three, leaving out any specific acknowledgement of age category, so it looks a bit like an WP:OL situation but in reality each of the links are different. This is perhaps more confusing for most of the European clubs, where there is only one club page (i.e. TPS), but it's a club with multiple age categories. EliteProspects is one site that lists teams like this specifically with the age group designation. So is there a preference as to seeing teams listed as Canada/Canada U20/Canada U18 versus Canada for all three, or TPS/TPS U20/TPS U18 versus TPS across the board? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• X U20/X U18 sounds sensible to me; it avoids the need for disambiguation pages or hatnotes. Ravenswing 01:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

IIHF Hall of Fame header for infoboxes

We presently have a header at Template:Infobox ice hockey player which includes a blue bar for Hockey Hall of Fame inductees. We should do the same for IIHF Hall of Fame inductees. It is a very prestigious honour, its inductees have international accomplishments, and generate a global interest on Wikipedia. We have articles for every inductee into the IIHF Hall of Fame, and failing to have the honour listed defeats the purpose of listing someone's most significant accomplishments in the infobox. Flibirigit (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Home venue for the Buffalo Beauts

There is currently a relevant hockey discussion taking place at Talk:Buffalo Beauts regarding their current unknown status of a home arena and Wikipedia policy on WP:SPECULATION and WP:VERIFICATION. Yosemiter (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking for someone to help write with my "draft"

If you want to help collaborate, go ahead! I've already added the infobox and started the beginning of the article! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neverbuffed/sandbox Neverbuffed (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, your subject wouldn't qualify for an article. Cherniwchan's only played 173 AHL games (where 200 is the minimum for presumptive notability), and that much as a third- and fourth-liner. At lower levels, he'd have needed to gain "preeminent honors" -- all time top ten scorer, First Team All Star, league scoring leader, that sort of thing -- and the best he's done was ECHL player of the week several years ago. WP:NHOCKEY gives you the notability standards by which hockey players are judged.

  Beyond that, going forward, only include in the infobox teams for which a player's actually played. Were Cherniwchan to qualify for an article, he's never played in the NHL, so listing NHL teams in the infobox (beyond a player's drafting team) isn't on. Ravenswing 01:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Neverbuffed: Adding on to Ravenswing's comment above, the statement that he plays for the Bears is also incorrect. He signed on with a Professional Tryout (PTO) contract after the South Carolina Stingrays were eliminated from the playoffs, and has never signed a full contract with the Bears, much less the Capitals or any other NHL-level contract. However, he does have 193 AHL appearances (173 regular season + 20 playoff games), so he may meet NHOCKEY this upcoming season (even though his number of appearances was only 4 in 2018–19, he did get 40 in 2017–18, but might be viewed on the decline). In terms of WP:GNG, I've seen worse news search results, but it would take a good amount of sorting to find sources of the non-routine variety. Yosemiter (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:New Jersey Knights players

I proposed that Category:New Jersey Knights players be renamed to Category:Jersey Knights players, since the WHA team was Jersey Knights without the "New". The speedy criteria I used (WP:C2D) was that it should be corrected based on the "article name", but that's technically inaccurate, since there is no Jersey Knights article per se; it's a redirect to the New York Golden Blades article, since the team existed as the Knights for the latter half plus of that season only. And of course there is a New Jersey Knights redirect, to account for people that mislabel the team. Someone has opposed the speedy criteria that I'd used, presumably based on these grounds. Raising it here if anyone more experienced in Category renaming wants to take a stab at getting it looked after. (I mean, another possibility might be merging with the Category: New York Golden Blades players, since the majority of those would have continued with the team as the Knights, so merging the two into a new "Category:New York Golden Blades/Jersey Knights players" might make the most sense?) Echoedmyron (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Cape Breton Screaming Eagles rebranding

According to an announcement on the QMJHL web site today yesterday, the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles are now rebranded as the Cape Breton Eagles. Does anyone have time to take on the associated changes? Flibirigit (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter and Djsasso: Here's the press release New brand and name unveiled for former Cape Breton Screaming Eagles from the QMJHL. Flibirigit (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I can make the moves. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think keeping the franchise on the same page is also best, as opposed to separate article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter and Djsasso: I will look into uploading a new logo with a fair use license. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We only separate when they move cities. We keep on the same page when they just change names. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed my typos on the logos. Please keep the page on your watchlist for any upcoming changes. Also, previous incarnations of the team, will need to have the infoboxes updates with the name rebranding. Flibirigit (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Already done. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Barrhead Bombers

Hi, I declined this draft and advised the creator that it wasn't a notable topic, but would it be acceptable if it had better references? please advise Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A team in the Western States Hockey League should pass WP:GNG. More quality citations are needed. Flibirigit (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306 and Flibirigit: They do have an announcement so far in the local papers, but I would wait for WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It is not uncommon for the league to announce teams that never play (for example, 6 teams were announced for the division last season; 4 actually played). Yosemiter (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks, will let the editor know Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hockey lore: time to discuss?

As I raised in a previous thread, there's no agreement on the criteria for what to include in National Hockey League lore. Content keeps getting added that I don't think is lore, but without a consensus on what to include, I can only argue from my personal point of view. If there's insufficient interest in building a consensus, should this article exist at all? isaacl (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The article should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. Someone wants to maintain that info as a personal website, sure, whatever, but it's entirely unsuited for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 04:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Also in agreement here. Relevant info can be moved to related articles if need be. Leventio (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Will add my name in calling for it to be deleted. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Note, even the NFL lore article which inspired the NHL lore article, is itself deleted. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Hockey League lore (2nd nomination). Yosemiter (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Barrie Colts arena name

The Barrie Colts web site is referring to the Barrie Molson Centre as the "Colts Centre", but I cannot find any independent renaming sources. Can anyone help? Flibirigit (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the previous naming agreement ended on December 31, 2018, but the City of Barrie has yet to find a new naming rights holder, so they are still referring to the rink as its current name, while the Colts are under no obligation to do so, and are thus referring to it as the Colts Centre. So it hasn't formally been renamed yet by the city. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any citation that can be added to Barrie Molson Centre for the above? Flibirigit (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This article [1] mentions the Dec 31 expiry, as well as the referral from Council back to staff regarding the proposed new rights. Since that point, the most recent thing I've seen is this agenda [2] from July that mentions the naming rights. Looks like there is some legal work happening behind the scenes regarding the rights. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Niklas Kronwall

There is an anon user that keeps adding Niklas Kronwall to the last games section of the 2018–19 NHL season article now that he has retired. My understanding of the last games criteria is that Kronwall does not qualify to be included. His best hope for inclusion would be via his Triple Gold Club status, but previous discussion on the topic led to the decision not to include international tournaments/awards. Anyways, I'm getting close to WP:3RR, so wondering if someone else can take a look at this. Thanks! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing IP is being disruptive, by not respecting WP:BRD. Article should be protected & IPs blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 - 2020 Season NHL Penalty Changes

I want to add the new NHL rule changes related to penalties for the 2019-2020 season on the Penalty (ice hockey) page. There are outlined in this article from NHL.com. I've also quoted them below. I would put an abbreviated version of these rule changes and a link to the article and rule book as references. Bdreyfus (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)bdreyfus

Please remove the quoted material from this page; it's enough to link to the external page and have a summary. Technically it poses copyright issues. Your co-operation is appreciated! isaacl (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Move discussion

There is a move discussion here that people may be interested in. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

First goal of season: notable or not?

This question relates to this edit: [3]

An editor is claiming that a player's first goal of the season is notable enough for inclusion simply because it's... his first goal of the season. I argued that this is an example of Wikipedia:Recentism and that the goal itself is not notable in any way. To be clear, it's not a first career goal, and it came in a loss so the goal itself doesn't have any obvious notability. The editor showed a willingness to edit war over his edit, so I'm looking for something resembling a consensus on this before I get involved again. What are the thoughts? Notable or not notable? SolarFlash (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It is most definitely recentism. Now if it was their first NHL goal that would be different, but only the first in the season is not particularly notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with Djsasso. If we started writing about their first goal of every season we would have very long articles and these things add very little if any value to the articles. As Djsasso pointed out, if it was their first NHL goal ever then that would be worth mentioning. 37KZ (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any particular notability to a player's first goal of a season. A news report covering the game may mention it as interesting fact, but not particularly important. A player's first career goal may be different, as that has importance in the context of the player's career. And there may be situations where a first goal of the season is worth mentioning, for example if a noted goal scorer starts the season in a long drought, but then there would likely be coverage of the drought and of the first goal of the season that would indicate that this goal was of particular importance to the player's career arc. But in general there is no reason to discuss the first goal of the season. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who added the information. I'm of the opinion that when and if an article about a hockey player or any professional athlete is worked up to a comprehensive, fully-detailed, GA- or FA-standard, it will (or at least should) include brief synopses of each season from their career. And in that instance, I think details like the first goal of the season would be notable and worth including. Obviously Brady Tkachuk isn't up to that standard yet, so I can see why including the first goal of 2019-20 would appear to have undue weight in the article as it stands now. But I'm an incrementalist and would like to think it will get there eventually, and when it does I think this information can and should be included. But I don't feel particularly strongly about this one sentence on Wikipedia at this particular point in time, certainly not enough to edit war or start a talk page discussion about it like SolarFlash, so I won't revert the removal of the sourced information. — Hunter Kahn 20:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: "a comprehensive, fully-detailed, GA- or FA-standard, it will (or at least should) include brief synopses of each season from their career" – your words, emphasis mine. A single goal that has no bearing on the season itself is not what I would consider "brief". Season summaries once the season is over is more than sufficient for most players. Really, the only reason to update in-season is if they get some sort of non-routine coverage or are traded/released/retired etc. Yosemiter (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: Initiating discussion is how we do things. It was your willingness to edit war that forced me to initiate it, so you obviously had stronger feelings about your edit at that particular point in time. But if we're good now then that's that. SolarFlash (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The same applies to other pages edited by this user. Listing the player's first goal of the season is not notable unless it is some kind of record (for example, 100th goal in career, etc). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Just taking a look and it seems he's made the same edit to literally dozens of player pages. Some of them list the goal as "the team's first goal of the season". I'm of the mind that such info might be suitable for an entry on the respective team's article covering the season in question. But I don't see it being notable enough for the player pages. SolarFlash (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There is another problem. Hunter Kahn tends to WP:COPYPASTE content from the sources, which is forbidden. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not tend to do this. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 11 years, was a journalist for 8 years, and have been a professional writer for 13 years, so I take claims like that very seriously. I'm sure there are instances where the wiki-text I've written has been similar, or even identical by accident; it's bound to happen with editing like this. But I never copy-and-paste, nor do I ever purposely plagiarize exact text. Sabbatino please feel free to fix any specific instances you see, or point them out to me so that I can fix them, especially if you're going to continue stalking my edits in the future. But I do not appreciate the accusation that this is some sort of rampant problem that I tend to do. (Also, very bad form Sabbatino for making an accusation like this in a public talk page discussion about an issue that was already resolved and concluded, instead of assuming good faith and raising the issue privately with me on my talk page if you were concerned.) — Hunter Kahn 20:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: The fact that I have many pages on my watchlist does not mean that I stalk your edits so keep your accusations to yourself. In addition, Wikipedia notifies me about edits on certain pages so that is another reason why I am seeing your edits. I have never seen you edit ice hockey pages before so I take it very seriously when a new user pops up (by "new user", I mean an editor whom I never seen edit the topics of my interest before). I am not saying that your edits are bad, but please double-check before publishing them. And bear in mind that some information is subject to WP:RECENTISM like other users indicated. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: We don't need the faux outrage nor your resume, nor the psychological projection. If you're going to accuse a fellow editor of violating WP:AGF, it's typically unwise to also violate WP:AGF in the same post. SolarFlash (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• There’s nothing faux about my “outrage”. (I’ll just ignore your nonsensical projection claim.) Accusing me of plagurism in the manner that Sabbatino did is just about the most offensive thing you can do to a person in my profession. And I was not the one making the accusations here. If you guys have any more issues with me, I suggest we take it to our respective talk pages. I think the subject of this thread has been resolved (the first goal references have been removed and I’ve not contested it) and there’s no benefit to continuing this discussion. — Hunter Kahn 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The line "if you're going to continue stalking my edits in the future", which you directed at Sabbatino, is the most overt accusation of Wikihounding any of us have likely ever seen. So, yes, you did make an accusation. SolarFlash (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Fine, fair enough. I was pissed off. I’d argue the accusation lobbied against me in the first place was far worse. But fair enough, apologies. — Hunter Kahn 23:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• We should consider this apology as closure and move on. We have a lot of poorly-written articles to improve. Flibirigit (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also here. We're good. :) — Hunter Kahn 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not notable. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Preseason game log

There is this user that keeps unhiding or opening the preseason game log on multiple team's articles. For example, this edit. They have done it six times according to their contributions list. Since preseason is over, it's not necessary to have it shown, correct? I left a message on the user's talk page, but I wanted to get some insight from people over here. Yowashi (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. If it was between the last preseason game and the first regular-season game it probably would have been OK, but the season has already started. 37KZ (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Input needed

I would like some input on Talk:Linköpings HC#Requested move 6 October 2019. I made a request to speedy move its categories to match the requested page title, but got rejected because it lacked a source for a formal announcement of the name change. This is a change of the same sort as when Färjestads BK became Färjestad BK. It doesn't affect social media and news outlets since they just say "Linköping" and "Färjestad", and it's a very minor change, probably to emphasise "Färjestad" or "Linköping" instead of the "hockey" part or to indicate that there are other hockey clubs with the names "Färjestad" or "Linköping", hence why no announcement. They just dropped the "s" off the first part of the names. 37KZ (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox National Hockey League coach

Does anyone else agree that this template could possibly benefit from a resign to make it more similar to Template:Infobox college coach? It is much better organized, especially the championships section at the end, and the teams with years listed to the left of each (see David Quinn for an example of the college infobox in use). This would give it a much less cluttered and more straightforward appearance, eliminating the the Years as a coach/Years as an NHL coach/Years with current team/Years as NHL player/Position/Team/Previous team(s) fields that the current box has. Playing stats could be added as a module at the end of the box where applicable, and we could add the blue HHOF banner at the bottom of the box, like the college coach infobox template uses for their respective halls of fame. My technical knowledge in editing templated is limited, so I doubt I'd be able to do it myself, but perhaps someone could give it a try? Connormah (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that the player and coach navboxes should be combined together, similar to how Infobox:NFL player and Infobox:NFL coach were combined together to create a single Infobox:NFL biography for all pro football personell. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• I would prefer to keep it closer in appearance to our player box. I would probably remove the multiple years sections and just have an overall career like we do for players. We already do the module at the bottom so that isn't really a change. I am not a big fan of the college coach infobox. Ironically I find it the more cluttered of the two. -DJSasso (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Fair points, @Djsasso:. Personally I find that the fields for the existing box have too many words, if you will (not too sure how to word it differently) so that would solve the problem. I don't have any real strong feelings on whether we should list all teams in one's coaching career (with years), but it's an option, as I'm not really sure we need 3 separate fields for teams either. Also, I'm also not really sure that the "General Manager"/"Specialty" fields are really relevant or needed, but we could add an "awards" field to list coaching awards, and rename "Stanley cup wins" to "championships" to allow use for other hockey coaches. Connormah (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are becoming too big, and in some cases overtake the article. We should be writing more prose, and avoiding template creep. Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Western Hockey League

An IP address has taken objection to the use of Northwestern United States at the Western Hockey League article. Does anyone else want to look into this? I see no issue with the status quo. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: Correct as is. The IP is confusing the name with the overlapping, but less specific, Pacific Northwest. The PNW also includes BC, so it also overlaps with Western Canada. The usage of both Western Canada and PNW is somewhat redundant, whereas Northwestern US is the US portion of the PNW. So they are not wrong, just less precise. Yosemiter (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems he's also confusing it with the long-outdated use of "Northwest" to describe the state's along the Great Lakes, which, prior to the Louisiana Purchase, were considered the northwest, a factoid that remains in the name of Northwestern University in Chicago. Outside of that and a few other historical curiosities, no one calls that the northwest anymore, becaus fits clearly the Midwest. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting that the term "Pacific Northwest" apparently includes British Columbia. Obviously, BC is located in southwestern Canada. The Canadian "Northwest" would obviously be Yukon. At the very least, I'd say the term when used is that context, is pretty US-centric. For the record, I'd have never thought of including BC in the "Pacific Northwest" until I read this exchange. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Canadians when we say the Pacific Northwest we are including British Columbia. Alaska and the Yukon etc would just be the North or the Arctic. It seems odd but the only real part of Canada than Canadians consider "South" is Southern Ontario. Everything else is North, North West or West. Even the east coast which is just as far south as Sourthern Ontario is only every called eastern Canada. (That isn't to say we don't use things like Southern Alberta to indicate which part of a province. But in the larger region sense you won't hear a Canadian consider BC south.) -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the term "Pacific Northwest" pre-dates current territorial boundaries, back to when the British Empire controlled the region and the initial hunts for the Northwest Passage by Vancouver and such. But I may be wrong, I'm not a historian. Yosemiter (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I always just assumed that the "Northwest" in Pacific Northwest referred to the region's geographical positioning relative to the Contiguous United States. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the term is that its a geographic one, used in context to North America (as opposed to an area of a single country, its seems to correspond to the historical Oregon Country). Honestly, based off that understanding, the IP isn't wrong in using that term... But the fact were all debating what PNW actually entails, is sort of a good case for why we shouldn't use the term to describe the area (at least as opposed to how its presently worded...). Leventio (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Except that the area in question isn't "northwest" in terms of the entire North American continent (that would be Alaska and Yukon), it's only "northwest" in terms of the Contiguous United States. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say its contemporary usage is certainly US-centric, people in Oregon and Washington use it, but I am not familiar enough with folks in BC to know their opinion. Even the PNW page itself says it is an ill-defined region and vague. So who cares? Use the links that are current well-defined boundaries that have no overlap and its all good. (Fun facts: historically, the Northwest Territories once included Northwest Quebec as well as all of Saskatchewan and Alberta. "Northwest" was used for nearly every geographic descriptor at one point during the westward expansion of both Canada and US. The British and Americans co-occupied the Oregon Country/Columbia District. The Oregon Country was NW of the US territories, the Columbia District was the NW of the British Empire. This is even more true since at the time of these namings, there was very little incentive to go more northwest for either country as it was either arctic or controlled by the Russians via treaty.) Yosemiter (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) As someone from the coast of BC, I would say that the phrase "Pacific Northwest" is not that commonly used in Canada, but when it is it would only really encompass Vancouver Island and the greater Vancouver region. The phrase definitely is US-centric, though no one in BC would really be offended or not know what it meant. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and makes sense in current context. I still think it is too vague to describe the US team locations in the WHL though. Yosemiter (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• How do those commenting feel about the wording, "based in Western Canada and the American states of Washington and Oregon"? Flibirigit (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems fine to me as is, but that option is acceptable too. It might read a bit odd using a region name followed by state names though (and not say provinces and state names instead, which might read too long for a first sentence). Yosemiter (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would just go with how it is now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There's only six states / provinces - why not just list them out? It's approximately the same number of words, and more clear. "Northwestern states" certainly seems to be more than just Oregon and Washington. Canada Hky (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Listing them all would make for a very poor lead sentence. Reading comma separated lists generally turns readers off. While it is definitely more clear, it isn't necessary. The current wording also works for a historical context as well as the current context where it did include more US states than Oregon and Washington. The individual states are mentioned farther down the lead which allows for the first sentence to be much more of a hook to draw in readers. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Milestones

Looking over the bloated milestone section at 2019–20 NHL season article, I wonder if we should implement an entry criteria. Honestly, is a 300th game or a 400th point, kinda over doing it? GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay I’m pretty sure there is. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/NHL season pages format#Debuts and Last Games. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

But, that's for 'Debut/Last Game' entry criteria. I'm concerned with the 'Milestone' section. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see, sorry. I think maybe we can apply some of the same criteria. Such as “Scored at least 400 career goals, 600 career assists, 1000 career points.” HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There was a minor discussion (sort of) about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive73#"Major milestones reached" section in NHL season pages. Editors agreed to trim it down, but the actual milestones' numbers were not determined then. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New Drive idea and help requested

Hello, I have created the NHLtoGA Drive which focuses on bringing all current NHL teams to Good Article status. Any tips on how I can improve the page, promote the drive, and be successful? Any tools I could use? Also, should I move it to WikiProject/Wikipedia space when I finish the page? Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly just by posting it here I think a lot of users who would be interested will see it. However the project has largely not done a lot of mass-collaboration drives, though that is not to say no one would help with this. It is a commendable project, and I look forward to seeing it progress. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be few editors in this project interested in quality over quantity. The project has hundreds of articles which are undersourced or not sourced at all. I think a drive to educate more editors on how to cite sources would get more results. Flibirigit (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Baby steps would be better than a giant leap, in my opinion. Flibirigit (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. There is a lot of articles that are in rough shape and need some work to get to a basic level. Though that can be expected with roughly 35,000 articles within the scope of the project. Just have to keep doing what we do. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We've done a drive in the past but that was like a decade ago and we don't have as large an editor base now as we did then. Drives are definitely great. A few people have pages like yours in their user space that interested editors pick pieces off that they want to do. But yeah you most likely won't get a massive uptake on it, but you will get some people that might be interested in it. Sports editors often specialize in specific areas of interest because there is soooo much to do so big drives like this often don't excite people. But I do wish you luck in your attempt. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Conference Standings

I am not sure if it's something I am doing wrong or what, but when the Conference standings appear on most (if not all) team pages all I see is the wildcard standings. I don't see the top three teams listed from the two divisions.Juve2000 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Juve2000: It does not appear you are doing anything wrong. It looks like Frietjes recently split the templates for conference standings and now it only shows where the team is based on their current playoff position standing (Wild card standings and top three standings). Not sure I agree here as if the team is in a top-3 position, it will just show the same info twice with one just being a shorter list, but also listing every team in that case is also not really great either. It seems the most universally useful would be to have the full divisional standing and then just the Wild Card standings regardless of if the team is in a top three position (as in the top-3 team would not be listed in the second table, but would still be useful if they are a borderline #3 team at the time and it show that the two wild card teams in the table have more points). That way the "current standings" on the Bruins page would look identical to the standing on the Senators page. Yosemiter (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: I agree that having the information repeated for the top three teams is not useful. to show the Wild Card standings instead, you just change {{2019–20 NHL Western Conference standings}} to {{2019–20 NHL Western Conference Wild Card standings}}. once the season is over, we can consolidate the tables for the individual team articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes and Juve2000: I guess it would have been easier if it did it automatically. I have no strong opinion, but the best path forward is probably changing all the "Conference standings" sections where the template is right now (which is inaccurate currently as it either only shows top-3 div. or wild card) to "Wild card standings" and using the wc template instead. If the team is not listed, I assume it would sill work fine (as in my Boston example)? Yosemiter (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: having the {{2019–20 NHL Western Conference standings}} only show the wild card standings is an easy change, but that would (obviously) not change any section headings in the articles above the table. Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

now updated, but feel free to modify the articles further if my changes aren't acceptable. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It used to be that we could see both the divisional standings, and the full conference standings (two groups of the top three divisional teams and the wildcard standings) in each team page. I assume the issue was that showing the top three teams in the division separately was being repetitive. I personally did not have an issue with the original presentation. Was this change discussed and was consensus reached?Juve2000 (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I do see your point about being repetitive. In my opinion, if the consensus is that users oppose having both the divisional standings AND the full conference standings (3 first-placed teams in each division plus wildcard standings), I would rather see the divisional standings eliminated and keep the FULL conference standings (3 + 3 + Wildcard). I just realized that is exactly what they do in most television sports telecasts as you hardly ever see the divisional standings but do see the 3+3+WC format.Juve2000 (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Photo request

I am going to the Hockey Hall of Fame in a couple weeks. Does anyone need photos from the Hall or surrounding area? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have hundreds if you want to borrow them! LOL Flibirigit (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get lucky and run into a Leaf. We need more photos for BLPs. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You would have more luck going to the Leafs' practice facility in Etobicoke, or searching Flickr. Flibirigit (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The term "overager" as a typo

I am familiar with the term "overager" being used in junior ice hockey to refer to a player in his overage season. Maybe this is jargon peculiar to the Canadian Hockey League. I have seen a few edits where the term is deemed a typo, and a template is added. Here is the most recent example [4]. There have been other instances, but I cannot find an example right now. Any suggestions on how to move forward? Flibirigit (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "real" word, it is accepted jargon within a particular community similar to "Hall of Famer" or "NHLer" ("overage player", "Hall of Fame hockey player", and "NHL player"). If we want to be less jargon (and we probably should be more inclusive as an encyclopedia), it would probably be best to not use jargon whenever possible. It's not really harming anything as is though. Yosemiter (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if there were a section on the Junior ice hockey page to explain the concept, to which "overage/overager" could be linked. Additionally, I think it would be better (as much of the Colts article already does) to use "overage" as an adjective modifying a noun. Lastly, the {{not a typo}} template can be used to flag any uses of overager as an intended spelling (and not a misspelling of "overeager"). isaacl (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think overage player would be much better. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted an overage player definition at Junior_ice_hockey#Major_junior. Any other suggestions? Flibirigit (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I still recommend, as Yosemiter and Bellowhead678 have also said, using "overage player". It provides more context which is helpful for someone to infer what the term generally means (of course, they won't be able to know the precise details without following the link). isaacl (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

NHL stats leader article

I believe that List of NHL statistical leaders needs updating concerning its 'red letter' message. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Already done. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hockey player's former teams, in infoboxes.

Where players are on a franchise that relocates & they remain with that franchise. We should hyphen it as the same franchise. For example: at Joe Sakic, it should be Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche, rather the having Nordiques & Avalanche separate. Another example is Andrew Ladd, concerning the Thrashers/Jets. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Remember its teams in the infobox, not franchises. The Trashers and Jets are two different teams but one franchise, so they are listed separately. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that as it's currently shown, it may confuse less familiar readers. They might think the fellow was traded from the Thrashers to the Jets. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The infobox just shows teams he played on. It doesn't indicate anything in regards to how they got to their teams. For example we don't list teams twice when a player played for them during two different time periods. It is only a list of teams they were on. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If the team is renamed like the Coyotes or Blackhawks, then we use the name of the team for which the player played for. If he played for both (for example, Black Hawks and Blackhawks) then we use the more recent name. At least that is what I have done to many infoboxes. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the Blackhawks one is a bit of a strange one since its so similar, I have definitely never listed both for Chicago. But ones like the Anaheim Ducks and Mighty Ducks of Anaheim etc I typically have both I think but its been a very long time since I have made an edit where that has mattered that I am not positive which I have done. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I completely forgot the Ducks. And I do the same as with the Coyotes and Blackhawks. It is rare that the player would get back to the team at some point when they change their name. At least I cannot remember anyone regarding the Ducks' case. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Player birth places

Looks like another nationalist editor is trying to overrule previous consensus discussions on whether the SSR should be used in birthplaces. Their current target is Toivo Suursoo if others would like to keep an eye on it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

One of Nug's fellow revisionist. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do you guys want this hill so bad? Please don't quote policy. The athletes of other sports born in the occupied Baltic countries seem to all use Estonia, Latvia, ... only in ice hockey does it seem to be in dispute ... Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There was an RFC on this for all bios, not just athletes, all biographies are supposed to use the de facto name at time of birth. They keep changing them accross the wiki as an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli to have people make the exact comment you are making. There are editors across the wiki that revert them on a wide variety of articles, but because the nationalists obviously care more in what they are doing, they typically get the changes made more often and other editors don't notice. Thankfully the hockey project has typically made sure they didn't push their biases here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

But you guys, especially you two, have really taken this on. I was wondering what the personal motivations are, not the policy. There seem to be two sides to this point. I'm not Baltic, but I think I can understand what it means to have SSR pushed on you when you feel it is illegitimate and was declared illegal. I don't recall any independent sports teams or embassies for those SSRs. To me, those are pretty good indicators. And I am not sure of the benefit of pushing SSR. Do you have a link for the RFC? I don't mean to waste your time. (Although you seem to have enough for this dispute! :-) ) Alaney2k (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Only reason I am on it is I dislike inaccuracies/outright misrepresentations in the wiki. Rewriting history like this is counter to the very core purpose of the wiki. It is really that simple. It could be about anything, in this case it just happens to be about the Baltic states. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

In the past, I was accused by others of having a personal motivation in other topics around ice hockey & now you're suggesting I have a personal motivation on this topic. Very well, do what you (or others) want with those articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Just asking. I have been on the wrong side of a lot of arguments, so I basically edit elsewhere. Alaney2k (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

To take a somewhat similar North American example, how legitimate is Canada? For instance, many public events in Ottawa start with an acknowledgement that the attendees are currently "standing on unceded Algonquin, Anishinabek territory". I appreciate it's a sensitive topic, but I also think an infobox isn't a good place for subtleties that imply a political structure that didn't exist at the time. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, totally think the history should be on the appropriate pages, but the birth date in the infobox is not really a good place to try and express them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It all started with France claiming Canada with a cross. But there are lots of examples where First Nations have willing come under British/Canadian rule. Then there are Lots of places, especially after the war of 1812, where the British just usurped before the USA did. There is a recognition within the Canadian Constitution of the various rights, etc. of First Nations. Canada is legitimate, though not fully, I think. And as far as I know, there are no alternative governments being held outside of Canada's borders. It's not like the Baltic SSR histories. Alaney2k (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The point being it is also understandable for First Nations people to feel aggrieved at the status of unceded land in Canada (the article I linked to has some discussion of the treaty status of Canada with respect to the First Nations). So if we need to take into account the feelings of a group that has had an unwanted political structure pushed upon it, there is a lot of additional explanation that can be inserted into many articles. Justly or unjustly, it's more practical to have specific articles focus on the details for such topics. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no parallel between Estonia and the Soviet Union and Canada. If the US invaded Canada, that could be a parallel. Or maybe the Indian wars in the States. By and large, the treaties with First Nations were done to preserve the rights of the First Nations. The treaties were ok, the subsequent behaviour afterwards, not so good, e.g., residential schools. For example, Manitoba was created to form a government for the peoples of that district. And like I said, the treaties are protected in the constitution of Canada. The Algonquins, to be specific, are working through an agreement with the Govt of Canada. They are not disputing the legitimacy of Canada. Alaney2k (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course the situations are different and I'm not saying that one needs to be treated the same way as the other. But as I assumed you had a greater familiarity with Canadian history, I was providing an example of where there is an alternate viewpoint to the conventional European-centric history of Canada. Just as you said you understood what it meant to have a political designation pushed on you when it was deemed illegitimate, others can understand what it means to have entered into treaties that were violated, rights signed away under a foreign legal framework, and land appropriated by foreigners. Having an understanding is great; nonetheless, I don't believe the best approach is to ignore the political structures that were in effect at the time. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

For me, Baltic revisionism, is as frustrating as diacritics implementation. But what can one do? These types of disputes are always tense. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

But we don't use diacritics in English where we have a common name, etc., etc. Since when do we go out of our way to use SSR? In conversation we use Estonia, Latvia, etc. Alaney2k (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Do what ever yas want, concerning the Baltics. I'm not going through this stuff again. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't edit those articles, I was just curious. Alaney2k (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

To be fair the SSR part is less important, that was actually a compromise to make sure the links to Estonia, Latvia etc were called out instead of just doing Riga, Soviet Union. The important part was making sure that it was indicated that it was part of the Soviet Union at the time as that supplies a good chunk of information about the subjects situation at the time. In general conversation outside the USSR we would typically just say Soviet Union for anything that was a part of the USSR. Atleast to the average joe. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

True. Alaney2k (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I've found a few more Baltic ice hockey player bios, which were tampered with in the last roughly 2 years. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Need clarification. Lithuania left the USSR on March 11, 1990; Estonia on August 20, 1991 and Latvia on August 21, 1991. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Please do not state that it applies to all the Baltic editors. The Estonian editors are the ones who mainly have problems with the birth places. They tend to change them constantly. Another example would be Leo Komarov's page. Moving on to another subject, Lithuania restored its independence on March 11, 1990, Latvia – on May 4, 1990, and Estonia – on August 20, 1991. That is usually the breaking point when deciding if the countries were part of Soviet Union. In addition, the dates, which I listed, are considered national holidays and people do not work or go to schools/universities in those countries. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Latvia is August 21, 1991. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that is where you are wrong. See On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia for more information. It is better to listen to the natives of the Baltic states on some subjects than try to act like you know better (no hostility intended). – Sabbatino (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Do what yas want. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No need to get frustrated. it is possible to have reasonable conversation about it. In this case Sabbatino is correct, if I recall he actually lives in one of the countries.-DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm annoyed with @Alaney2k:'s personal motivation comment. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Having a motivation is not necessarily a bad thing. He is just curious what it is. You don't need to take offence. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No offense meant. :-) !!!! Alaney2k (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well. Remember that I went through a lot of crap on Wikipedia, earlier this decade. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I was really just asking what keeps you going on this topic. Alcohol, power drinks, etc. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Combating inaccuracies is my motivation. Wish we could have an Rfc, to fix up all the Baltic bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been some. There was one where some editors tried to create a Manual of Style page saying you had to use the non-ussr name. But they never had consensus so it currently sits as an empty page. There was an Rfc here on this page specific to hockey articles and it closed with consensus to do as we do with City, SSR, Soviet Union. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank goodness commonsense prevailed at WP:HOCKEY, in this topic :) GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Women's tournaments

Ok, for Men's hockey: We've got 2020 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships for the overall 2020 tournament & 2020 IIHF World Championship for the championship division.
What's the equivalent for Women's hockey? Need to know, as I'm planing to fix up their article titles. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

World Championship articles

I've noticed a while ago that the various World Championship articles are either in the format of "World Ice Hockey Championships" or "Ice Hockey World Championships". Considering the proper format, as per the IIHF, is "Ice Hockey World Championship", is there any opposition to switching them all over to this format? Kaiser matias (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I've no objections to your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias:, how's it going with the page moves? Quite a headache eh? The 1998 onward IIHF World Championship articles, have a tendency to confuse me, as they're branched off of the main articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've actually been caught up in things the past few days, but am planning to tackle this over the weekend. And yeah, the more modern articles are a lot more effort than the older ones, a lot of steps required there. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I've completed all the page moves to Ice Hockey World Championships & Men's Ice Hockey World Championships :) GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Divisions

In order to make it more readable, I've been adding 'hyphens' in the text of these articles. Changing (for example) Division IA & Division IA tournament over to Division I-A & Division I-A tournament. Not sure if there's an exact way that the IIHF does it, but without hyphens it's confusing having a Roman numeral squeezed against a letter. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: If a spacer is preferred to a hyphen, then please let me know. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Islanders–Rangers rivalry

A situation has come up at Islanders–Rangers rivalry where PrideMatters (talk · contribs) insists on using non existent records in the infobox. I tried discussing the matter at User talk:PrideMatters#Islanders–Rangers rivalry, but he/she just ignored what I wrote (with the addition of not understanding or not willing to understand) and turned to hostility, incivility and insults. Opinions from the members of the project are appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@PrideMatters: needs a block, to cool off. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Its hard to follow the talk on their talk page because of the formatting. But they are probably right that doing W-L-T-OL/SL does seem to only apply to one team instead of both of the teams. In this context doing purely W-L-T is probably a better way to present the facts so it applies to both teams. Or somehow list the records of both teams. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

He's started an Rfc on the matter. Though it's located on his own talkpage, instead of the article talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought about listing the records of both teams in the infobox. However, the infobox is supposed to show the leading team? The documentation of Template:Infobox sports rivalry does not help either as it does not mention anything about the usage of the fields. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That is true. I hadn't thought about the fact that it is supposed to show the team leading. In that case I have no problem with it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalry#Head-to-Head Record is inaccurate. It is being kept inaccurate on purpose. I ask for the editors of the project to give your opinions there. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Goalie stats table sizes

I was wondering if there's been any agreement as to what the size of goalies stats tables should be? It should be noted that I'm talking about the tables that combine both regular season and playoffs into one. I've commonly seen the 75%, but it the numbers look squished, and it's a bit "suffocating" in my opinion. For this reason, I go with the 90% size (85% if stats don't include OTL). If you guys want an example of each: Manny Fernandez is at 75%, while Tim Thomas is at 90%.

Heroman26 (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I usually use 75%. Probably for exactly the reason you don't like it. It compacts the numbers and eliminates a lot of unnecessary white space between columns. I find the 90% to be a bit unwieldy and clunky looking. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think a little more breathing room would help with readability, so maybe try a size in between? isaacl (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Bill Peters

Can any admin that participates on this talk page temporary semi-protect Bill Peters. There has been persistent vandalism by various IP editors due to the recent allegations against Peters. A request for protection was requested a few hours ago, but no admin has responded. Yowashi (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it has been taken care of. I extended it for a week, let things cool down a bit. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yowashi (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected Calgary Flames for 10 days too after having to delete a few revisions. Let me know if there are any other pages that may require protection until the story blows over. Maxim_(talk) 17:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Matiss Kivlenieks

I see that Matiss Kivlenieks was deleted after an expired PROD, then it was immediately recreated by User:TheRealCBJFan. Does anyone feel that an AFD is warranted, and/or discussion with the user that created the article? Flibirigit (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The page should be WP:AFDed since he does not meet the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY. The page could be created again when he makes his debut in the NHL. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Northern Michigan Wildcats men's ice hockey

Could some members of WP:HOCKEY take a look at this article? I wondering about the color usage in the table in Northern Michigan Wildcats men's ice hockey#Records vs. current WCHA Teams and the use of the flag icons in Northern Michigan Wildcats men's ice hockey#Current roster.

Regarding the colors, MOS:COLOR gives some general guidance on color use and I'm not sure whether the way they are being used in the table is in accordance with bullet point 1 about accessibility for blind users. It seems as if the background colors being used for each team might represent each team's colors, but I'm not sure if that's the case or even whether that's even something encyclopedically relevant to the reader. Would there really be a loss of encyclopedic value if no background colors were used?

Regarding the flag icons, they seem a bit distracting and redundant since the same information is basically given in the "Hometown" column. Do the icons really significantly improve the reader's understanding of the content? Even though it's not an infobox, it does seem as if some of the concerns given in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG would also be applicable here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Taylor FAC

Hey all, I hate doing this, but if anyone would be interested in commenting at the Cyclone Taylor FAC it would be much appreciated. It's been up there for a while now with little activity, so is in danger of being archived, which is not something I'd like to happen at this point if I can avoid it. Any help would be appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

I was looking through the 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs article and I came across this link 2019 Stanley Cup Eastern Conference First Round series and I'm fairly certain that we stopped making singular articles like this a long time ago. Deadman137 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We indeed stopped making those. It should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please link to the discussion where that was decided? I'm not sure where to draw the line, but some series probably do deserve their own articles. That one is poorly named because it is about a specific series, not all 2019 Eastern Conference First Round series.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I would have to try and find a link as I don't remember off the top of my head. But I do recall something about we should only do it for the finals. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I could find in the archives that is close to this issue was WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive64#Level of detail for playoff articles, but it doesn't seem like that's what you are remembering.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is another discussion from April 2019 – Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive73#2019 Blue Jackets and Lightning series. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sports reviewing idea

I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach) move, again

Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach) was discussed for a page move in March 2018, but his birth date was ambiguous. Now that reliable sources have been added for his brith in 1965, the move was still contested. Does anyone have time to submit a RM? Flibirigit (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Only takes a minute to do if you want to do it. Just add a couple templates. If the sources are indeed reliable we should follow naming conventions. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have submitted a RM. Please comment as you see fit. Flibirigit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ordering teams by name

How should teams like IK Oskarshamn be ordered? Should they be ordered after its formal "name" (Oskarshamn in this case) or by the name in its entirety (i.e. "IK Oskarshamn")? 37KZ (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is this question about alphabetical order in some list or infobox? Please elaborate. Flibirigit (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's about alphabetically ordering the teams. 37KZ (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

He was asking about where are you talking about ordering them. In infoboxes, we usually order by date they were on the team. From most recent to oldest. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about which practice to use when you try to order teams alphabetically and you have teams like "IK Oskarshamn" that begin with "IK" which aren't really the "name" but rather a disambiguation that it's the ice hockey team from Oskarshamn. I see you've now gone ahead and moved IF Björklöven to right after HC Vita Hästen, which clarifies for me that the teams are sorted from left to right alphabetically and in their entirety. However I also noticed that you placed Västerås before Västervik, suggesting that non-English letters are treated without their extras (e.g. "å" is sorted as "a"). 37KZ (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be correct. In English the disambiguators are treated as part of their "name" -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

League-wide jersey number retirement

In September 2019, the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League retired Sidney Crosby's #87 across the league.[5] This needs to be mentioned at Crosby's article, the league article, and at Rimouski Oceanic. I have reverted the edits by 24.200.146.138 which added # 87 to lists of retired numbers on other teams. When Wayne Gretzky had his #99 retired by the National Hockey League, it was not added to lists of retired numners on other teams, but instead mentioned in the prose. (examples at Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens). I think we should keep the same standard for other leagues such as the QMJHL. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Ravenswing 19:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE: I have added the above with citations to the team, league and player articles. Flibirigit (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is fine for me. It did use to be listed in with the other numbers. But at some point in time we had a discussion to remove it out to prose. We were at the same time I believe supposed to convert all the retired numbers to prose I think, but that never happened. Especially for teams with very large lists like Montreal. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing such long setups, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

GMHL

Anyone care to help clarify to User:Fridayhockey12 that sanctioning in junior hockey is far more than just insurance like they are adding to the Greater Metro Junior A Hockey League? I think we know this, but I am getting into edit war territory because they keep deleting the mention that the league is not sanctioned by Hockey Canada like most Canadian junior leagues. It is one of the most discussed topics on the league. If you Google Outlaw Junior Hockey the top hits are all GMHL for a reason. Yosemiter (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I will watch the page, if I see more I will protect the page or block. He was warned by someone yesterday so I will see if that warning is taking in. If it isn't I will go from there. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Ice Hockey since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Felix Rossignol

The article Felix Rossignol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It does not meet the notability criteria for biographies.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DA1312 (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• PROD has been contested and removed since all players in the National Hockey League meet the WP:NHOCKEY guidelines for an article. Flibirigit (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion on edits at 2019–20 Toronto Maple Leafs season

FYI

There is an ANI discussion regarding stats edits at 2019–20 Toronto Maple Leafs season. It could use input from hockey experts and admins.—Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Glenn Anderson

I'm close to WP:3RR at Glenn Anderson, with an IP who insists on adding Team Canada to the list of played-for pro teams in the inbofox. I went looking for the guideline that actually says which teams should be listed there, and while there is clearly a separate field for national teams, I'm not seeing anything in writing that specifically says to not put national teams in the list with pro teams. Which would be helpful with this stubborn IP. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be anything specific cause its inherent in the definition of what a professional team is (i.e. a team which pays its players, as opposed to amateur sports). afaik, Team Canada does not pay the athletes that compete on the men's hockey team (pretty sure its the same for womens too). Leventio (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Right - but I'm not finding anything that says that the "played for" field is in fact only for pro teams, even though it is generally only used for such. I know in discussions people have referred to "top level only" - as in, we tend to not list minor pro teams if you made major pro teams - but the source guideline I'm having trouble locating. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

In saying that (and looking at the edits in question), every team sent to the 1980s Olympics were formally made up of amateur players. Professional players were not admitted into the Olympics (for most sports) til '88 (not factoring in the NHLs own hesistation to the 90s). That said, I think the IP user is just confused over the ambiguity of the parameter's name being just "played_for", which I could see why he would be confused as to why not all teams can be placed there. I'd probably redirect the IP to the actual Template:Infobox ice hockey player page so he can review the actual criterion (being former pro teams). Leventio (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoops sorta typed that out before seeing your reply, but yeah, the source guide line does specify the use of pro teams, though I'm not sure if theres actually been a discussion on that. Leventio (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Glenn Anderson did in fact play professionally for Hockey Canada in the 90's along with many others. If that is the case that the IP is making, then maybe it is worth a discussion. However, I am not convinced that he is making that case at all. As it is the infobox lists Canada as a national team immediately after the list of teams played for, so I can't think of a good reason to add there.18abruce (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Leventio - I was looking for a manual of style guideline, and missed the simple yet obvious description at the template. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gord Miller birth date

The birth date for Gord Miller (sportscaster) is contested. Please see Talk:Gord Miller (sportscaster). Does anyone have time to follow-up on this? I cannot listen to a cited radio clip until I get home. Flibirigit (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Found a couple of sources for you from his Twitter feed to back a 1965 birth year. I believe these are fine sources to use per WP:TWITTER. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The article is much better off now than last week! Flibirigit (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game

Hey folks, I need some help at CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game. It looks like the URLs for every game summary no longer work. The reason might be a renaming of the event and its web site to a new title sponsor. Once each game summary URL is replaced, it would probabyl be a good idea to run an archiver to prevent this happening again. Does anyone have time to assist? Thanks, and Merry Christmas to all. Flibirigit (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I have updated each game's citation. Could anyone run an archiver? My computer is not compatible with the required script. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Article naming conventions, n-dash or slash?

The names of CHL Canada/Russia Series and CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game have been challenged by 2001:569:7440:800:D5E9:78A2:18E0:382C. How does the project feel about whether the title uses the n-dash or the slash? Flibirigit (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Default to the WP:COMMONNAME first via searches, and then use WP:OFFICIALNAME. A basic search says the Top Prospects Game almost always uses a slash. The Canada Russia series does not appear to have any common usage, using variants of "Canada/Russia", "Canada-Russia", and just "Canada Russia". The space and the dash seem more common than the slash, even on the CHL page despite the name webpage title link having a slash. Based on how it displays its name on the top of the official webpage, I would probably suggest "Canada Russia" as the best option there. Yosemiter (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Any others users care to comment, Djsasso perhaps? Flibirigit (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

World Juniors 'name'.

Not a big concern really, as I've already brought consistency to the intros. But what exact name are we settling on, concerning the World Juniors. Is it World Juniors Ice Hockey Championships? IIHF World U20 Championship? Ice Hockey World Junior Championship?, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That is a complex question because it was U20 but changed officially in the 90's, and only uses the 'Junior' title for the top level. Additionally the IIHF terms both the u18 and u20 championships as 'Junior' in their rule books. Common name convention should probably used but official name is "IIHF World Junior Championship" right now. Not really tied to one particular answer.18abruce (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Done my best, to fix up where the plural is used. Some had Championships while others had Championship. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)