Talk:Mike Vernon (ice hockey)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMike Vernon (ice hockey) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed

1996-97 season[edit]

Why did he play backup in the regular season, but start in the playoffs? --zenohockey 05:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just the way things go down. Osgood was playing good, but Vernon started playing well when it came into the playoffs. Also Vernon's playoff experience was most valuable. I'm interested if anyone has information about the contract issues that he had with the Red Wings? I think it actually ended up having some impact on Canadian law involving Fax Machines to submit agreements to offers Marcus1060 08:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Vernon (ice hockey)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
Calgary Flames
  • "fourth goaltender on the Flames' depth chart" -> "fourth goaltender (name1, name2, name3) on the Flames' depth chart"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rest starter Reggie Lemelin"-> "rest starter Lemelin" (delink redundant)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link to team season articles throughout (not sure if it is against WP:HOCKEY policy). Once for each season of the team he plays for and for each opponent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • E.G. "Following a 9–1 loss to the Hartford Whalers" should link to 1985–86 Hartford Whalers season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer not to. Such links would be easter eggs in my view, taking the reader somewhere other than they would expect. Also, I think that would lead to significant overlinking issues. Resolute 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not a sensible objection. I write and review a lot of articles for all sports. I read a lot of articles regarding sports. When a player plays a franchise early in his career and late in his career, they are different teams. In fact, they are different each season. Look at the team links in the career section of Bobby Orr for what I am talking about. If you do something against the 90-91 team it is different than the 97-98 team from the same franchise. Unless you can convince me there is some policy against this I am asking you to take the time to improve the article. People who read WP should be able to expect to be pointed to a link to a useful article. In this case the franchise is not the useful article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My objection is far more sensible than your request. I have explained my reason: I consider this to be against the MOS, specifically WP:OVERLINK and WP:EGG. So no, I will not make this change as I consider it both counter to guidelines and something that would be detrimental to the article at worst or utterly pointless at best. Also, I write and review a lot of sports articles as well, so your "do as I say, I know better" attitude is neither warranted nor appreciated. Resolute 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not WP:OVERLINK. See Bobby Orr for what it looks like. This is not EGGs. Take a sentence like "the Flames ultimately fell to the Montreal Canadiens". The Canadiens have been around for 100 years. Linking me to the general page does me little good. He was not beaten by Guy Lafleur or Rocket Richard. The Flames were bested by the 1985–86 Montreal Canadiens. The proper thing do is either write "the Flames ultimately fell to the 1985–86 Montreal Canadiens" or "the Flames ultimately fell to the Montreal Canadiens". It will just cause a few more links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, it is overlinking. It is not something we do on any other article (except Bobby Orr and only then because you got involved in the GA review). It seems to be something that only you and a couple other baseball project members do. The current choice to link to the team article on first use only is complaint with policy, guidelines and MOS in this regard and it is consistent with our other articles. I will not introduce unnecessary links simply to placate your personal preferences. At this point, I think you need to either accept that, or request a second opinion. Resolute 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Look at the content in Montreal Canadiens and 1985–86 Montreal Canadiens. Which one tells the reader who they lost to? One points you to the history of the Canadiens and the other tells you who all the key players were for the team that they lost to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A reader clicking on a link to "Montreal Canadiens" expects to go to Montreal Canadiens. This is a standard across Wikipedia. This is a standard across almost every sports article you are not involved with. Again, I will not placate your individual preference, nor should you be expecting me to as a GA reviewer. You have neither a policy-based reason to expect such a change, nor a WP:GACR-based reason to continue objecting on this basis. Resolute 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Looking at second opinion tag on GAN page, I would support linking to the specific season as it is the most relevant link. If the season is not being linked to, then no need to link to the team name when talking about team specific performance. --LauraHale (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We link to the team article on first use, then not again thereafter. This is a standard across all of our hockey articles, and frankly, across nearly all sports articles in general. I respect your opinion, Laura, but Tony has not the right as a GA reviewer to mandate such a change by fiat. Nor can he in good faith hold up or reject this nomination on the basis of his personal opinions. If he wishes to propose that hockey articles as a whole be re-done in his preferred format, then he needs to go to WP:HOCKEY and gain consensus. Resolute 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I agree word-for-word with Resolute's response at 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC), and with the general points that the likes of Montreal Canadiens and Hartford Whalers are easter eggs, and to format links in this way is neither widespread practise nor recommended by policies or guidelines. I'm reluctant to give an opinion on whether (and if yes, to what degree) it's desirable to incorporate opponents' season links into the prose without using easter eggs, because I can see the arguments either way. But even if I gave one, it would be irrelevant to this discussion – unless a wider consensus has been established, the reviewer cannot insist on these changes being made en masse. —WFC— 04:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am checking in with other projects, to make sure that your perceptions are way off. The feedback that I am getting is that most sports editors use team season articles. Would you be able to answer the question about whether a team season link would provide the reader any information about the Canadiens in this sentence "the Flames ultimately fell to the Montreal Canadiens".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that specific instance I don't think it's necessary, because 1986 Stanley Cup Finals is already linked in that sentence. But I'm going beyond the bounds of what I stepped in here to say, which was simply that if seasons are linked, they should not be linked simply by the team's name. —WFC— 02:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 130 GA or FA class hockey articles, and I can think of only one time this has come up before: The last time you did a hockey GA review. That's it. I hit 10 soccer bios at random - didn't find one using your personal preferred style. Went through five football bios at random - found only one: one of your articles. Baseball: none in 5. Nobody else seems to feel this is important, nobody else seems to care. This is why I hate interacting with you, Tony. The moment you don't get your way, you become aggressive, combative and you badger until you get your way. And it isn't just in our interactions. Anyone who dares thwart you gets the same attitude, occasionally with bad faith accusations of bad faith. I have far better things to do than waste further time dealing with your personal preferences on this matter. Either drop the stick or abdicate as reviewer and let someone else finish handling the nom. Resolute 17:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Resolute, the linking to specific years is an Easter egg leading the reader somewhere other than their expected target. When it comes to a team that no longer exists like the Whalers it seems more likely to me that a reader will click on to read about the team rather than the season of a team they may be wanting to read about. Furthermore the vast majority of season articles are barley more than a stats dump, they tell very little about a team at all. Take for example the 1985–86 Winnipeg Jets season (one of the first NHL teams mentioned in the article) all it states in terms of prose is "The 1985–86 Winnipeg Jets season was the fourteenth season of the Winnipeg Jets. General Manager John Ferguson replaced coach Barry Long late in the season and guided the club on an interim basis to a 7-6-1 record. The Jets placed third in the Smythe to qualify for the playoffs only to lose to the Calgary Flames in the first round." the rest is stat tables and game logs. IMO it is much cleaner and accurate to link the team on the first mention rather than constant linking to season articles that give very little information.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am weighing to give the perspective of a sports outsider purely to give the perspective of someone who is completely new to this topic. Being that "Hartford Whalers" are mentioned for the first time in the article at the contested point, it would be more useful to me as a reader to link to the general team article than their season article. Going into the seasons seems to get too specific, and the main fact that I need to know (that there was a 9-1 loss), has already been succinctly reported in the current article. Like I said, I am an outsider when it comes to sports articles, but I just wanted to give a "rookie's" perspective to the issue. Cpkondas (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback that I am getting here is so different than the feedback I have been getting on various talk pages. The most recent page I have created is Drake Dunsmore. In his career section I use seasons and when he had notable performances against the Iowa Hawkeyes football team in two different seasons, I was able to demonstrate the two different teams. I am not sure what I should be doing, but the discordant feedback is confusing. Everyone here says don't do it with seasons and everyone everywhere else says do it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate both views, and there is valid logic behind both opinions. I imagine that presidence varies between all the different sports. I think what it comes down to is this: if the intended audience for this page is a general reader with little to no background (like me), then the link should link to the general team page. If the intended audience is meant to have a knowledge of the topic closer to the writer and editors, then the page may be better off linking to the season page. I personally would benefit more from the first option, so that is where my bias lies. I also feel like there are already more blue characters than black characters on the page, but from what I gather this happens more often on sports pages than the rest of Wikipedia. Cpkondas (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Honestly Tony, what you should be following here is WP:GACR and WP:GACN. You are asking for (proposing) a significant change to linking style, and that is not something that belongs in a GA review. I find it interesting, and predictable, that of "everyone everywhere else" that you claim "says to do it" never included the folks at WT:HOCKEY. If you want to press for changing linking style, that is where you need to be pushing your argument. Not here. Resolute 15:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4 users have now given a second opinion - 3 for linking to the team and 1 for linking to the season. This petty argument has been holding up the rest of the review since April 22. It is time to make a decision and move on. This is NOT a review for FA status. To quote Help:POLICY, "Assuming good faith means that we assume that other people's intentions are to improve the project, even if their editing style is unusual, doesn't fit in with all the rules, or doesn't fit in with one's own views." I think a general majority has been expressed. Let's move on with the review. Regardless of which linking style is chosen, I am willing to bet the world will still be spinning on its axis the next day.Cpkondas (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although discussion on this matter has slowed at WP:HOCKEY, I want to take in the feedback there. It will be a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest as an alternative that Resolute agrees to abide by any future changes in WP:HOCKEY guidelines that arise from that discussion, and if that happens (and assuming the review is otherwise successful), TTT promotes the article with that agreed caveat in his closing statement. Whether anything happens or not, I've been involved in similar discussions (on different issues) at WP:FOOTY in the past, and they literally took months. I don't think it would be appropriate to hold this review up for that long. —WFC— 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always abide by the consensus of such discussions, so agreeing with that is not a problem at all. Resolute 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • You link to 1986 Stanley Cup playoffs. Link to other playoff seasons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am just noticing how few playoff seasons are mentioned. Why don't you mention the seasons when they were ousted in the first round.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In prose, I talk about notable playoff appearances. The statistics table covers the rest. Repeating "Lost in first round" nine times would be redundant and pointless. Resolute 00:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't a bio suppose to highlight and summarize both the good and the bad. In bios, I usually try to summarize all playoff appearances, especially at the pro level. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • E.g., look at this WP:FA where all his playoff performances were not so hot: Tyrone Wheatley.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is summarized, in the stats table. And I note that your example article is missing playoff statistics in its tables. That's rather poor for a supposed FA, don't you think? At any rate, we also follow the sources in this regard. Notable performances and events - both positive and negative - that are covered in the sources are covered in the article prose. Resolute 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would like to see more extensive playoff coverage. I think it is a bit POV not to include the disappointing first round losses. However, given the depth of the article it is allowable. At FAC, I would object, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your assumption that a first round loss is "disappointing" is also POV. I will re-check the sources I have for further additions, but if all I get is "won two games, lost three and had a GAA of 3.33", I won't bother. Resolute 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was voted to the starting lineup for the All-Star Game in both seasons via fan balloting". Do these games have articles? Link to all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't name the games specifically, but did link to the main ASG article. Resolute 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit, San Jose and Florida
  • "Their dispute went to arbitration at one point after the an offer of a two-year, US$5.45 million contract made by Detroit was accepted by Vernon and his agent after it had been withdrawn." -> "Their dispute went to arbitration at one point after a withdrawn offer of a two-year, US$5.45 million contract made by Detroit was accepted by Vernon and his agent."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ultimately, I think both of our wordings isn't great. I've gone to a third alternative. Resolute 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of my main complaints with the wording is having the word after in the sentence twice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about changing "after the team claimed to have withdrawn it" to "although the team claimed to have already withdrawn it"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would have helped if you had stated your actual concern in the first place. Now that you have finally done so, I understand what you are getting at and have reworded to eliminate the duplicate usage of "after". Resolute 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he became the 38th to 200 wins. What was his place to 300 wins?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a source that says 13th.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the stories I can find on it say. I got the number via count. You'll have to tell me which you prefer - that figure in, or that figure missing, because I can't give you that figure with a direct source. Resolute 00:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the reason for the backup goalie to start in the playoffs?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do I WP:V "Given his greater experience"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is implied in the reference that states Bowman "turned to his veteran". If that isn't good enough for you, I am planning to go collect some articles on another subject this weekend, but will add a search for this timeframe as well. Resolute 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looked up some of the 97 preview articles and added a new source specifying why Bowman went with Vernon. Resolute 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could not see any source previously and now I see an offline one. I will WP:AGF.
Return to Calgary
Personal life
Awards and honours
  • I usually see medals records in the main text if not infobox in basketball, swimming, track or lacrosse. Why is this one so far removed from the main text?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • His awards are mentioned in the main text where appropriate. We tend to locate the awards table with the statistics table, after the prose. Resolute 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't All-Star games included?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm often fairly indifferent to all-star game statistics as they are pretty much meaningless, especially for goalies. Won't be an issue to add it, though I'll need to get a book from the library as the statistics are not plastered all over the net. Resolute 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that playing in an NHL All-star game is at least as important as whatever franchise award you mentioned at the bottom of the table. I also think that you can enumerate his All-Star game appearances in this table without a trip to the library. I am not talking about augmenting the stat table or anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misinterpreted this request. I too am indifferent to all-star game statistics. I was requesting addition to the Awards and honours section table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That I certainly did! Changed. Resolute 00:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowing the editor, I am quite confident that these issues will get resolved. I will put this on hold for 7 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate the review! Your concerns should all be addressed, comments added above where necessary. Thanks, Resolute 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I continue to have reservations about some wikilinking, I do consider this to have been a very successful GA review. Keep up the good work. I am now Passing this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it just wouldn't be us if the conversations weren't... challenging, eh? ;o) Despite the heated conversation, I do appreciate the review. Thanks, Resolute 14:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Vernon_(ice_hockey)&oldid=1209773162"