Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive17

CHL Bantam Drafts

I just stumbled onto a number of Bantam drafts for the WHL and was wondering what people think of these articles. Obviously drafts for the NHL are a big deal and should have their own articles. But other than an article explaining what the WHL bantam draft is should there be an individual article for each season listing who was drafted in each? Afterall few of the players even make it into the WHL let alone the NHL. --Djsasso (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been reverting vandalism at them from time to time while I mull over what to do with them. I'm really not sure that they are notable, but haven't decided if it is important enough info to include on the WHL season articles, or just delete outright. And ideas? Resolute 23:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally would nuke them outright, however I can see an arguement about adding them into the WHL season pages. My biggest concern with them is once you go back far enough are we even going to be able to have records for them. --Djsasso (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would merge them with season articles. The bantam draft I think only dates back to around 1998 anyways... DMighton (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is all that it goes back then yeah definately we should merge the info and then redirect those pages. --Djsasso (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bantam draft definitely goes back further than 1998 - an article about the 2007 draft says it was the 18th edition, so that is a lot of records to be combing through. Bantam Draft Archive. Leafschik1967 I think it would be easy enough to include on the season pages, although they might get a little long. Most of the later rounds seem to be 'Passes' by most teams anyways. (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... my mistake, I for some reason thought it started mid-to-late 1990s in the OHL anyways... I must be wrong. Maybe we should include the first round and then notable picks (guys who moved on to pro) after that... DMighton (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Flibrigit will know, but the OHL Bantam draft seems to only date back to 1999. DMighton (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the WHL guide, the Bantam Draft goes back to 1990, and the guide lists every team's draft picks, so verifiability is easy. The problem is, probably as many as 90% of the players drafted are not notable. As an example, if I take the Calgary Hitmen's first four drafts in 1995-98, totaling 45 players selected, only Chris Beech, Chris Nielsen, Darcy Hordichuck and Brent Krahn would really qualify as being notable right now. So the question becomes, does adding a list of drafts that saw as many as 200 players selected, with maybe 20-30 notable to the season articles make sense? I tend to think not. Resolute 05:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... then like I said, simplify the list. Include only the first round and for the freak occurrence that someone lower than the first round is even somewhat notable, then list him. The WHL Bantam Draft is 18 years old, the OHL Bantam Draft is 9 years old, how long has the QMJHL had it? DMighton (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the WHL bantam draft history, it really seems to be a crap shoot. Krahn, for example, was a 9th round pick. I'd rather include players selected in the NHL draft than the Bantam draft in the articles myself. Resolute 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I've never liked the Bantam draft... I feel it is the CHL and Hockey Canada undermining the NCAA route by convincing younger players to attend measly CHL rookie camps (and spoiling their amateur eligibility) even though they probably will never ever play a WHL, OHL, or QMJHL game. Although, I feel it wouldn't hurt to reference notable Bantam Draft picks in the different season pages. DMighton (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Eligability isn't ruined untill they play a game in the CHL, they are still able to attend camps. --Djsasso (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was eligible, which was in 1998-99, it was 24 hours on a CHL tryout roster. The rules only changed a few years ago. DMighton (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Junior bantam drafts? Are we kidding? I don't think these deserve a citation any more than linking applicable sites to the team or league pages. Consensus to AfD the lot?  RGTraynor  08:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess a Prod would suffice. Aside from a little vandalism every month or so, I doubt anyone notices them. I'll tag them. Resolute 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge all into season articles

The Bantam draft itself is not a notable enough event to sustain its own article. However, in context of the Junior Hockey League it IS metionable. Lists should be limited to the first few rounds though. Flibirigit (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The information about the draft itself would seem to fit best in the WHL article itself - how they assign players is noteworthy. The draft lists themselves would work in each season page - either the first round or two for recent years or maybe just noteworthy players for the earlier years. Leafschik1967 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I tend to disagree. I really fail to see how a list of overwhelmingly non-notable players adds to the articles. Resolute 05:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be limited to the first round or two and/or notable picks. DMighton (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The first round of the bantam is draft is very notable. The OHL for example has the Jack Ferguson Award for the top pick. These players are typically the "top prospects," for which we have articles on. The events itself, despite being a single day, is a major part of the league mandate to develop players. That in itself is what makes the league notable, the draft is that first building block. It is also an important change in the process that needs a brief mentioning of the first rounders. Flibirigit (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would say just merge the players from the bantam draft who made the NHL in that seasons WHL page. I don't know that the first round is even all that notable. Many players from the first round of the various bantam drafts are complete busts. I wouldn't consider any of them top prospects until they have atleast played in the CHL for a few years. When they are drafted out of bantam they are at best "best guesses" as opposed to top prospects. I think the draft itself needs an article ie what is the bantam draft. But we definately don't need a round by round list of each year. --Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather list players selected in the NHL draft than the Bantam draft. For the most part, it will include the same players, however given that the purpose of the CHL is to feed players into the NHL, rather than to feed players from Midget/Bantam into Junior, focusing on players who are drafted into the NHL seems preferable to me.

Either way, it would be easier to insert the players from scratch using the league guides. I'd suggest AfDing these articles and starting from scratch with however we decide to incorporate the info into the season articles. Resolute 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciations of difficult names

Hi there. I'm new to this whole editing thing, and I'm working on shoring up the Teemu Selänne page with references, ect. I added a phonetic pronunciation of his name which is based on the way that I've heard it pronounced by just about every NHL announcer ever, since I can't read IPA. Someone has come through the page and left a note that I need to cite the source for my pronunciation. Is this just someone being a jerk? If they believe I have transcribed it wrongly, shouldn't they just correct it? How on earth do I cite a pronunciation?

Further, I noticed that a LOT of the foreign and/or difficult names (the Jokinen boys, Keith Tkachuk, etc.) do not have any kind of pronunciation guide. Is that something that this group prefers to leave out? If not, is there a 'source' where I should be getting these pronunciations, should I decide to put them in?

I apologize if this seems whiny or petty--I just want to do this right. Astraldaeva (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I definitively agree! I'm not American/Canadian and for me pronunciation is something hard (Tkachuk is a perfect example). Usually I learn from NHL announcers. However, I think that you should include also original pronunciation (e.g. Selanne's Finnish pronunciation). IPA is necessary but is also complex and widely unknown. --necronudist (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not someone being a jerk, you would have to use IPA and/or have a source for what you are putting in. Unfortunately it is an encyclopedia so you need to source everything. --Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it doesn't use the IPA guide, the NHL Official Guide and Record Book has pronounciations for every player. That would be a good starting point. ESPN player profiles tend to also include pronounciations, but it is far from a total list. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not how you pronounce Selänne... IPA is a good idea, but then the correct native translation should be used, not the americanized version. After all, this is an encyclopedia. --Krm500 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce Selanne, anyways? Is it Sul-lawny, Sul-lanny, Sul-laney etc. On the NHL broadcasts I've heard many variations. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps like this on Youtube. Native pronounciation of Selänne --Bamsefar75 (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget about the A, it's an Ä which in Selänne's case sounds more like an E then an A, Ä is sometimes translated as AE (Æ). Basically, the Ä in Selänne is pronounced like the E in encyclopedia. --Krm500 (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's wer variations on how the Stastny name was pronounced aswell. Then there was Foster Hewitt's own way of pronouncing Counrnoyer (sorry, getting too silly). Anyways, there were alot of mistaken pronounciations of European NHLers names by North American media (which can be forgiven). GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators & Ottawa Senators (again)

I fear Alaney2k is trying once more to make edits that suggest the old NHL Senators & current NHL Senators are the same franchise. His edits at Ottawa Senators concerning their 'Bring back the Senators campaign' seems to suggest linkage. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No such thing. It's you who are adding an unsubstantiated line of text. Read the whole section before you make such rash comments. The second sentence says the old Senators failed. Alaney2k (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is you changed it from "The NHL is back in Ottawa" to "The Senators were 'back.'", which would indicate the old team is back. --Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the NHL no longer recognizes the 'reinstatement certificate'. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I commented out the reinstatement part of the sentence. I'd rather that than the stuff about 'no longer recognizes', which is not encyclopedic in my opinion. It said ceremonially welcomed back, as it did before. Why does this stuff go to this page, instead of the Sen's talk page? Alaney2k (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So Project members can review edits on Hockey articles. They may not have had the Senators on their watchlists. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So, now it says:

At the first game, NHL president Gil Stein ceremonially welcomed Ottawa back to the league . Banners for the 1903-1927 Stanley Cup wins were raised to the rafters and Frank Finnigan had his jersey (number 8) retired. The NHL was back in Ottawa.

So, which is back, Ottawa in the NHL, or the NHL in Ottawa? Alaney2k (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Either is fine, as long as it doesn't say the Senators are back in Ottawa. Both of what you mentioned in this last comment is the same thing. It's Senators were back that is an issue. --Djsasso (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I put quotes around 'back'. Seriously, why is that not acceptable? Alaney2k (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I could say the same thing to you? Why is NHL not good enough? Putting Senators even with the quotes can lead to a false impression. --Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have updated it, with a reference, please take a look. Alaney2k (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sens Number 18

Have also put an issue on the talk page of the Sens' article about number 18 of the Sens'. Alaney2k (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Template & Navigational boxes

I have been busy lately converting many templates into the Template:Navbox format. I've also split the WikiProject Ice Hockey/Templates page in two, creating the WikiProject Ice Hockey/Navboxes page.

I have noticed the many templates such as {{Hockeydb}}, {{Legendsofhockey}}, {{Nhlprofile}} and {{TSN-NHL-profile}} are grossly underimplemented on hockey bios. Would anyone be willing to help? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can help out, but currently only the TSN one shows the correct usage, so I am not sure what needs to be done for each link.Leafschik1967 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have steadily over the last year been going through every player page changing the first two over. I haven't really used the other two yet cause I rarely are those pages linked in bios. --Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what User:Leafschik1967 means by "currently only the TSN one shows the correct usage." Explain please. Flibirigit (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think she means instructions for how to fill it out. I believe they all pretty much use the same method. I know the hockeydb and legendsofhockey ones do for sure. The only difference between them and the TSN one is that it asks you for a team. You don't need the team for the previous two. The only time you need the third field in the first two is if someone is named John Doe (ice hockey), in that case you would type in John Doe so that the (ice hockey) would not show when the link shows up. --Djsasso (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That was what I meant. Thanks.Leafschik1967 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've completed the "usage" for all of those templates using Sidney Crosby as an example. Flibirigit (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:2002 Olympic Gold Medal Hockey Team

It seems that Maple Leaf has gone around adding said template onto all members of the mens and womens Canadian hockey teams. It just seems to be another one of those templates that we have in the past deemed useless. I would think that we are going to be removing them soon. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I saw it and added it in a few places. I was unaware of the previous discussion. I kind of liked the looks of it.Leafschik1967 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in the past was about Stanley Cup team templates, rather than Olympics, but I do feel the same way about this as the others. The teammates a player shares on a team is not an important factor of their identity. Templates like these simply lead to overtemplating. I'd be inclined to TfD it as well. However, I have asked Maple Leaf to add his input as well. Resolute 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen so many templates in other sports that I thought that a Team Canada template was useful simply because of the fact that it was the first Canadian gold for women and the first mens gold in 50 years. I do agree about overtemplating but I think that Stanley Cups and Olympics are very reasonable. Considering that there are templates for First Round Draft Picks, I certainly believe templates for notable championships are acceptable. Maple Leaf (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was not aware of the previous discussions either. Maple Leaf (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you don't know about the previous debate, I'll give you a summary. If we were inclined to put Stanley Cup templates on every person, someone like Henri Richard would have 11 templates; Jean Beliveau has 10. Even someone like Igor Larionov would be crowded, what wiith 3 Stanley Cup wins, 2 gold medals, and a bronze medal. That's why we tend not to include templates as such. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's up for TFD now. --Djsasso (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Kind of embarrassing

Did anyone see TSN Sportscentre this morning? They actually quoted the article for Carey Price because someone added the text "It is commonly held belief among Montreal fans that Price is the second coming of Jesus, only with a higher panic threshold." It was added yesterday [1] by some random IP. Either way, perhaps the article should be protected. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's rather funny, actually. ;o) At any rate, I don't think there is enough vandalism occurring to warrant protecting the page at this point. I've added it to my watchlist though. More eyes will reduce the amount of time such vandalism exists. If it does persist though, we can protect the page. Resolute 16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if someone from TSN added that themselves. But, some hockey fans can be overzealous too. Flibirigit (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP is registered to Dalhousie University. Seems some kids in Halifax got bored. Resolute 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Price? the second coming of Jesus? In that case he'll never be as popular as The Beatles (remember the reporter mis-quoting Lennon). Now, the second coming of St. Patrick (Roy)? Well, that would be blasphemy. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

An NHL.com article used unreferenced statements from the Henrik Lundqvist article, now the Lundqvist Wikipedia article use the NHL article as a reference for those statements. --Krm500 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the official name of these things?

Does any know what the official name is of those "things" that hockey teams enter through at the start of games? Some teams have inflatable objects, such as a tank (see here) or a wolf (see here), or solid objects such as the Edmonton Oiler's oil derrick. Any ideas? Flibirigit (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmick is the best fit, imo. Resolute 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NHL teams adopting Professional wrestling crowd pleasing techniques, including the annoucers yelling in 'wrestling style' -On defence, Roby Raaaageaaaar. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So you've heard our PA announcer then, eh? ;o) Apropos to nothing, in my completely unbiassed opinion, the exploding fireballs in the Saddledome is the coolest gimmick in the league. Resolute 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wunder if Keenan is thinking about having the players skate out through a wall of fire? Or are they thinking of throwing Keenan into a fire? OK, I'm getting too silly (and blogging) which is a no no. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha I was totally thinking he must have visited Calgary or caught a tidbit on the TV or something cause that was pretty accurate for text lol. --Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Low attendance & denials

Does anybody have any sources to back this. The NHL tends to claim the arena attendences are fine, yet there seems to be alot of empty seats watching NHL hockey these days. I'm just wundering if there's any sources for this & anywhere we could put such information. Or is it a superfluouis topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably superfluouis. All teams count by tickets distributed rather than turnstile count, and that is the only reliable figures we have. Unless someone actually does a physical count of the number of people at a game, using anything other than the official attendance is conjecture. Resolute 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Corporate tickets... --Krm500 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's trivial. As Resolute mentioned. Most people think attendence figures are actual people who show up at the game, but its not. It is counted by how many tickets are sold. The NHL has never denied this. --Djsasso (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hockeydb.com anomaly

Have a look at this guy... the most traded player to haved never played a regular season game, and still going after 35 seasons in the playoffs! Thought you could use a laugh. Flibirigit (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is funny! What the heck 'is that? Alaney2k (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CASH line

Does this line actually have any notability? It doesn't assert any, and I am inclined to PROD/AfD it, but given the article is nearly two years old, wanted to see if there is something I am missing here. Resolute 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd prod it; it pales in comparison to the punch line, scooter line, kraut line etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Prod it, I believe at one point we were going to create an article of just line names like a list or something. Don't know if that was ever done. --Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a section in the nickname article. --Krm500 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. I have started work on the article. Judge the article after I work on it a bit. I think they are notable as one of the top lines in the league, if not the top. Heatley has scored 50 goals on the line for the last two seasons, and the threesome tied for the playoff points lead this past playoffs. I'm sure I can avoid fandom stuff. There is plenty of history around the players. Alaney2k (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly though, in the history of the NHL, they're not very notable. Where's the Art Ross trophies, Richard trophies or most important the Stanley Cup titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

While I think you have done a fine job of expanding the article, I would argue it still does not establish notability. You have had to rely on a lot of POV - stating that that line is one of the best in the NHL is opinion, and being the top line in Ottawa establishes no notability. The one reference you used does not support the statement it is citing, and more to the point, the article really doesn't talk about the "CASH line" itself, simply that one of the players is back on the top line. There really is a derth of reliable sources that would establish this line as being notable, as I can't find any articles specifically about the CASH line as a whole. Honestly, I think the only reason this article exists is that it has a name. There really is nothing special about it. Certainly no more so than the Tanguay-Langkow-Iginla line, which was one of the top lines last year, or the old WCE line in Vancouver. Resolute 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

C'mon guys, I spent an hour on it so far. Anyway, if you were writing about top lines in the league today, you would certainly name them as one, no offence meant to others. Since they were put together, they might be the top scoring line during the period. The TSN article named them the 'most dangerous line in hockey'. Does the article have to come after the players' careers? Alaney2k (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The line is probably comparable to the line of Mikita and Hull? Alaney2k (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good comparison - Hull and Mikita have a Stanley Cup title between them. Also they've a few Art Ross, Hart and Lady Byng trophies among their claims to fame and did I mention their HHOF memberships. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think any of that matters either. Individual accomplishments are listed on the individual articles. My concern with this line is whether or not it will be remembered, and written about. Everyone remembers the Production line, and the Triple Crown line. Will the CASH line be held up by history? Personally, I doubt it. But I'm willing to leave it be for now. Resolute 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To put it bluntly I listen to hockey talk constantly read tonnes of articles on it and am very involved in the sport, and I didn't actually know who the CASH line was. Which is a pretty big indicator in my opinion on the lack of notability of this line. If you could find sources and not use POV and if they were still being written about 10 years or more down the road then yes I would be all for this article. But as it stands its got to go. It's not about the individuals, they are obviously notable, but the line itself is no more notable than any other line and an article on the line has to be notable for itself and not for the individuals who happen to be on it. And don't forget you can't go on what they could do either because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Djsasso (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you knew who Alfredsson-Spezza-Heatley is, no? The name is the name of the line, but it is not used that much. I think the players are pretty notable. I don't think that that is POV. I think the line is notable, especially leading the playoffs last year in points. I don't think that is POV, either. I think we can safely predict that in 10 years time, this line will still be notable, it will be in the books. It will be in the Podnieks update on the Stanley Cup due around that time. That is not a stretch by any means. Two Calder trophies, 50 goals back to back, notoriety of the car crash, blockbuster trade for Hossa, blockbuster trade of Yashin. And maybe it takes on some notableness outside of hockey, especially with the video game covers. I am not writing from Ottawa, but from Toronto. I get the hockey talk here, mostly endlessly Leafs. I don't think the name is so widely publicized but every game the opponents talk about shutting them down. That was 90% of the Ducks' game plan in the Finals. Alaney2k (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But that is the point. This article is about the named line. Its not about the existance of the line. CASH line as an entity is not notable. Yes we know who the three of them are and they have their individual articles for that. But "Cash line" as a thing is not notable. --Djsasso (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the Legion of Doom line? That was about 10 years ago. What do you think of its 'notableness'? Alaney2k (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Legion of Doom line is widely known as an entity by most hockey fans. This is what makes them notable as opposed to the Cash line. --Djsasso (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the existance of this article is being disputed, let's have the community decide. Tag it with an AfD. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It already went through that, I think. Maybe the bigger issue is where should 'line' articles go? (or not, of course) What is the notability guideline? Alaney2k (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no it did not. The AFD was put in by User:Bsroiaadn who withdrew the nomination 9 minutes after he submitted it. He inserted it here and deleted it here. It should be tagged and allowed to run it's course. As Djsasso said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this line is not yet notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been nominated so that the community can decide it's notability -Pparazorback (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this is the 'wrong' way to develop notability guidelines. Alaney2k (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The notability is fine, but there is another name for it, "The Pizza Line". It deserves an article, unless the line was mentioned separately in each article (Heatley's, Spezza's, Alfredsson's). But that'd mean other line articles would be like that too like The French Connection (hockey). --Hasek is the best 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New biography template

I've created a new biography template — {{Eurohockey}} — to get a player's profile and stats from European Hockey.Net. The site has more complete stats for European based players. The template works the same way as the {{Hockeydb}} and {{Legendsofhockey}} ones by using the player number from the url. Hope that's okay -- JD554 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! --Krm500 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope that's always a good thing. --Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've completed the "usage" that template using Jaromír Jágr as an example. Flibirigit (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I think the word I was actually looking for was 'syntax', but I just couldn't find it. Leafschik1967 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hockey line AFDs

If we are going to discuss the deletion of the CASH line, we should also put an AFD out on the following: Line Combinations of the Vancouver Canucks and West Coast express (ice hockey). These articles seem to be alot more POV. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We also need to establish some guidlines on what constitues a line worthy of earning an article, and what doesn't. Otherwise, we are going to have some issues with people claiming their favourite line is deleted, but another one is not, etc. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should work on notability guidelines first, not the deletions. To work the other way, the only fair thing to do would be to propose deleting them all, not just pick and choose. I know about the Legion of Doom line article, the list of lines would lead us to the rest. As mentioned by the nominator, the CASH line may become notable according to some future guideline. It would seem pointless to delete the article, then create a guideline and recreate the article. Alaney2k (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I should also bring up a comparison with the notability guideline for player articles on Wikipedia. We have an article on every NHL player. That seems to be a standard that is lower than what is being discussed about the CASH line. Alaney2k (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Every player has verifiable sources as to what makes them notable. This line itself most likely does not have verifiable sources showing it is more notable than the average line. Remember this line isn't being compared against the average person, its being compared against other lines in the NHL. Secondly articles being deleted and reacreated at a later date when they are notable is the accepted standard. Again Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Movie articles for example that haven't be released yet are deleted for this reason all the time and then recreated when the movie is finally released. --Djsasso (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The player notability guideline is simply that they have played in the NHL. That's all. It's a bit of a practical consideration, sure. How would you police whether each player is notable? Nevertheless it is a weak standard. Alaney2k (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No there is another reason than that, to play professionally elevates one above all those who have played amateur or beer league. There is a clear and concise difference in notability between someone who has played professionally and one who has not played professionally. And the notability guideline is not just to play in the NHL. Its anyone who has played any sport professionally or at the highest amateur level of a sport that lacks a professional option. You might want to read up on WP:Notability (people) and WP:V. --Djsasso (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have written "weaker standard." Alaney2k (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, you can make similar articles for pretty much any team in the NHL, and hardly any of them will be notable. Here is another line that is not notable, but I liked the line name -- The Mattress Line - 2 Twins and a King - Vancouver's Sedin Twins and Jason King from a couple years back. Are those players notable? Sure are. Is the line itself notable? not in the least. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And because as a project we felt WP:N was a bit weak we created project guidelines. --Djsasso (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS are the key guidelines/policies here. Just becuase the fans have created a name for a line of players does not mean it is notable. As with most everything on wikipedia, for it to be notable, it has to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources where the article subject is the focus of those sources. Just because Naslund, Bertuzzi and Morrison are notable individually does not mean the WCE line is notable. Are there reliable sources that can back it up. And by non-trivial, that means an article that says "...and the WCE line scored two goals tonight..." in a game summary is not valid. Resolute 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume a notable Hockey Line would be a line that has individual NHL awards won by each player & atleast a Stanley Cup title attached to their resume. Also, membership in the HHOF by one of the players wouldn't hurt either. GoodDay 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are all individual or team accomplishments though, and rather arbitrary at that. Notability is not inherited, so the individual accomplishments of the players on the line does not lend notability to the line itself. Otherwise there would be a flood of articles on Lemieux/Jagr/random scrub.

Ultimately, I don't think very many lines are notable at all. The few that are, such as the Production Line, Triple Crown Line, etc, would be better off in List of ice hockey linemates, with a brief description. And a lot of the non-notable lines in that list weeded out. 90% of that list is unverifiable. Resolute 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. GoodDay 18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you were to argue that the Production Line is not notable, I'd have to disagree. I think unless you establish guidelines for line notability, who's to stop someone from AfD'ing (if there is such a verb) the French Connection. Any editor can do so, no? And wouldn't that be pointless? Alaney2k 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Production Line is not notable, but rather, that these lines might be better off in a catch-all article, suh as List of ice hockey linemates. Also, there is nothing to stop anyone from AfDing any article. Whether the article is deleted or not would depend on if there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Resolute 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The French Connection actually was put up for AFD (link). The user who proposed it was brought to his senses and the AfD was withdrawn. Skudrafan1 20:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination

FYI - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL playoff lists for a few hockey-related articles that have been nominated for deletion. Feel free to comment if you would like. - Rjd0060 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Diacritics wars

I've nominated our past Diacritics wars to be displayed at Wikipedia: Lamest edit wars, after checking them over (with myself involved). GoodDay 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

haha I can't believe you put that up... --Djsasso 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just felt we all should take a momment and laugh at ourselves and be proud of ourselves that we worked things out in the end. GoodDay 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm the nominaton might fail, I haven't done a good job of presenting 'the actualy edit wars' (they want more then just heated discussions). GoodDay 01:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be flabercasted - There really wasn't a whole lot of edit warring on this topic. We Hockey editors weren't as distructive as I recalled - we (correctly) kept the bulk of our disputes on the Discussion pages. Hmm, I think we deserve an applause. GoodDay 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought about adding it myself several times before. If you need proof, just look at the several times pages have been moved to conform to the various stylings of diacritics. That, and the pages themselves, and the team pages, which I recall have been changed several times over. Good show on all of us, sort of. Kaiser matias 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was recently looking over the archived discussion at Wayne Gretzky, and while I'm not really into looking over the fine details of it, it seems as if the page was constantly edited over whether he was, to quote the archive titles, the "greatest or one of?" Just looking at the talk page shows 6 different archived pages, compared to one for general talk. Further more, it seems as if there was further issues about him including: whether he is Polish-Canadian, Belorussian-Canadian, Russian-Canadian, ethnic Polish (this is more centred around Walter though), is he Canadian, American, Canadian-American, Canadian-born American, etc. If someone actually took some time to go through it, I'm certain Gretzky could get on that page. Kaiser matias 07:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you'll have to provide the 'edit warring' itself (the heated discussions aren't enough). GoodDay 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, time providing. Kaiser matias 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

AMP NHL Winter Classic question

The NHL's official webpage for the Winter Classic refers to it simply as the AMP NHL Winter Classic.[2] However, nearly every other source I've found has referred to the game as the AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic -- today's Sabres press release, for example. I've been hedging about this for awhile. I created the page as AMP NHL Winter Classic because that was what I first saw when I opened up the NHL.com link on the day it was announced. Should we stick with what NHL.com says, or should we move the page to AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic to reflect the apparent consensus? Or have I missed something official from the NHL that does contain the word Energy? Skudrafan1 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Leave as is and create a redirect. We have to assume that the NHL is the one that is correct being that it is their event. --Djsasso 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Western Washington High School Hockey League

Came upon this article while doing my semi-regular ranking of ice hockey articles. Seems one user, who started this month and has 20% of his edits on this one page, is trying to build it up, while another user, who's spent two years here, wants it deleted unless theres proof of notability. Now, as it affects our project, should it be deleted, or not? It's claimed that "There are established pages dedicated to High School Hockey in the states of Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ect. Why shouldn't Washington have one?" I think we should delete it, as there is no references, and the opening openly states that it is not affiliated with Washington high schools. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete it. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in keeping it if the article was at least sourced (hopefully sourced well). "As is" is not acceptable at the moment. DMighton (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We delete "leagues" like this all the time. I would like to see those other pages so I can put them up as well. We just deleted a New York based one 2 weeks or so ago as a matter of fact. --Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I only put this up here seeing its the second page I've put up for deletion. Not really into putting up an article that acutally is notable. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick search pulls up this category: Category:Eastern Pennsylvania high school ice hockey. I put up the one article, but then saw this category. Could lead to more of the same about high school hockey leagues. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a single AFD for all of the Pennsylvania ones that way we don't have to do each individually. (except for the one you already did Kaiser) --Djsasso (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

General precedent holds that high school sports leagues of any sort are thoroughly non-notable, and they routinely fall to AfD.  RGTraynor  22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with high school leagues being deleted. But I'd recommend going for an A7 speedy before an AfD. They usually get deleted by an Admin within a day or two that way. But if they don't you can still go for an AfD, but you can't go for a speedy after an AfD. -- JD554 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like using A7 speedies at all because they give no ability for someone to show the importance. prod is always the better way to go instead of speedy when you are deleting something that someone could object to. And since someone already objected to the Western Washington one this is why we are going AFD. --Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For this particular AfD you're correct. But I meant generally as the others had no indication from the authors. As long as the author has been warned about the speedy with a {{nn-warn}} template as per {{Db-inc}} they can then use {{hangon}} to be given time. -- JD554 (talk)

I guess the point I am making is that the authers only have aproximately a day to react with A7 (and not everyone is on here every day). Whereas with prod they have 5 days. I personally don't even like that A7 exists when there is another better more viable way of doing it. --Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Would any of the hockey articles fail notability that are listed in this: Category:High school ice hockey teams

Has already survived notability: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota High School Hockey, Boys'.. these seem to be history pages of American high school hockey. I personal don't have an issues with this kind of article's existence. I say let it be. Well written and informative. DMighton 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cat should be renamed... it is misleading. These aren't teams, these are regional histories. DMighton 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the articles I feel are valid, I will put in a request to rename if one hasn't been already. --Djsasso 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlinked lettering for 'filling-in' Captains & alternates

Shall I continue or discontinue with unlinked C & A' for filling-in letter players? See discussion at Edmonton Oilers, for example. I don't recall ever getting the Project's views on this. GoodDay 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not see that big of a deal with linking the C & A for filling in players. Using your commentary that "it help readers know which are the regulars & which aren't." I do not think is a valid argument for doing it or not. I don't think the average reader would even notice that it is linked or not since technically you are not supposed to link a second instance of the same link in the same article. With that observation, how is Average Joe Reader supposed to think there is any distinction between the linked and non-linked A or C? Overall, edited warring over linking or unlinking that is not worth it, in my opinion. --Pparazorback 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was much easier before, when the letters weren't linked (even though it showed no distinction). GoodDay 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I say pick your battles accordingly. I don't think editing a link to an A or C is worth it. While you have tried to nominate Diacritics to Wikipedia: Lamest edit wars, I say that if you got into an edit war with someone hell bent on linking the letters that you would have no problem getting that edit war onto that list. There are other things that your efforts would be better spent on. --Pparazorback 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Allright then, I was just bored - I'll no longer bother with the links (or lack there of), no matter how inconsistant they get. GoodDay 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags on navboxes

For anyone interested I've started a discussion on the navbox talk page to see whether flags should be included on navboxes or not. -- JD554 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton Oilers' 1,000th win

Looking up references for the 2006-07 season article, I came across an interesting tidbit. Different websites seem to have different ideas as to when the Oilers franchise's 1,000th win occurred. Most say January 2, 2007 against the Panthers,[3] while others say January 7, 2007 against the Kings.[4] The season article on Wikipedia says the 7th, while the team article says the 2nd. I am going with the 2nd with the reference for now, but this should probably be checked out. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Oilers Media Guide, they entered this season with 1013 wins. That would put win #1000 on Feb 2 against Florida. Resolute 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You meant Jan 2. I pulled up hockeydb and put oiler's overall record in excel. They had 981 wins at the end of the 2005-06 season, so 19 wins in 2006-07 is the mark which indeed was January 2. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant Jan 02. Resolute 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Hockey Club

This article resembles Ottawa Senators (original) too much, to be a seperate article. Perhaps it should be tagged with an AfD? What does everybody think. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That was temporary. The club was officially always known as the Ottawa Hockey Club, during its Silver Seven days, and the Senators days. I switched the redirects around. But that can be switched back if Senators is proper policy. Alaney2k (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's similar to the listing for Montreal HC, also better known as Montreal AAA. Alaney2k (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming guidelines say to use the most common name, which may not necessarily be the official name. They may have been the Ottawa Hockey Club officially, but they were most commonly called the Ottawa Senators. Its the same reason we have the article Toronto Maple Leafs and Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club (the official name of the Leafs) redirects to it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake, I'll switch that back. Hold on a sec. Alaney2k (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Al. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Flames peer review

After about a year of pecking away at this article, I've spent the past three days seriously editing this article to add images, sources, prose, etc, and I believe it is close to being FA level. I've listed the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Calgary Flames. Any comments anyone has on how to improve this article would be most appreciated, especially from anyone who worked to get New Jersey Devils to featured status. Thanks! Resolute 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Black Hockey Players

What do you guys think of this: List of Black Hockey Players? Indiscriminate list, no? Skudrafan1 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that article tasteless. A hockey players skills don't depend on his/her skin coloration. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, tastelessness is not really an issue, given Wikipedia is not censored, but I question whether this is a relevant intersection. While there was a really good story on Willie O'Ree in the Sun yesterday, I think we have long since past the time when an NHL player being black is unique enough to be notable. Resolute 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No but it probably is a defining characteristic of the person (as much as that shouldn't be the case) which is what the requirement is for categories, so I don't see a valid reason for getting rid of it as I would think lists would fall along the same lines. --Djsasso (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's ample precedent in Wikipedia for such a list, alas. My problem is that's it's poorly done. Marc Tardif and Ray Neufeld, WTF? Bill Riley listed twice? Several players on the "Minor Leagues / Europe" list long retired? All those redlinks?  RGTraynor  00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also find it pointless, and have to ask: if we keep that, do we add a List of Asian Hockey Players, a List of Latino Hockey Players, and what about List of European Hockey Players or even a List of Canadian Hockey Players, etc.? It doesn't stop once we do that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Howabout an article List of White Hockey Players? GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, that actually does happen with most other professions on wikipedia. And yes GoodDay even that one. This one would not pass an Afd. --Djsasso (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting concept, but very poorly executed in my book. If it is going to stick around, I'll clean it up a bit. I am unclear if 'would not pass a Afd' means it 'would not pass through the process and be deleted' or 'would not pass through the process and be kept.' Thanks for anyone who clarifies. Leafschik1967 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be deleted. These sorts of articles/lists/categories go up for deletion all the time and get shot down because it is felt that your ethnicity is a defining charactaristic of who you are. -Djsasso (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New franchise records template

I have created a template to quickly link to all the articles for each NHL team's records. Check it out at Template:NHL franchise records. There are still a lot of red links for these pages, and it is my hope that some of you will help me get them all going. Eventually I would also like to include records for defunct franchises (if the information is available). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Franchise records standardization

These pages are in need of standardization, and I will work to to this. I would like something of a consensus to be reached first, to avoid edit wars. Here are my suggestions.

i. Records such as "Fewest wins" and "Fewest ties" are almost certainly from the shortened 1994-95 NHL season (or from before the 1967 NHL Expansion for the Original Six teams). For these "Fewest X" records we should include the record for short seasons and long seasons. I propose 74 games as the threshold for a "long season" (which is the number of games in the first post-expansion season). They might be listed like so:

Fewest Wins	12 16	1926-27 (44 game season) 1937-38 (48 game season) 1976-77
Fewest Losses	11 13	1994-95 (48 game season) 1995-96

ii. The Detroit Red Wings records includes the active leaders for the individual records. This could be implemented into all of the articles.

iii. Order of sections should be as follows:

1. Franchise Records
   1. Single Season
   2. Single Game
   3. Streaks
2. Individual Records
   1. Career
   2. Season
   3. Single Game
3. References

What does everyone think? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to the topic. I was going to bring this up, only got sidetracked. Looks like a good list. Also, as I've started to do in some pages, adding a few photos to the pages of different record holders helps to make it look better. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I made Anaheim Ducks records to showcase the standard I would propose for all NHL franchise records articles. Have a look. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Team Page Rosters

I noticed that the NHL pages are the only North American top-level professional sport pages that do not use templates for their rosters. I do not think our current roster templates are adequate enough to put on these pages. I was taking a look at what other team pages for other sports do such as Toronto Blue Jays and Toronto Raptors. Does anyone else think we should use templates (and new ones) for roster pages? Thricecube (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe we found that it was redundant to have them listed on a template and to have them in a table above. And the tables we used look much nicer than a template ever could. Looking at the rosters on those two pages makes me shudder, they are absolutely horrible. I would much rather see them switch to our method. It's much easier to read ours and we can get more information listed on ours. --Djsasso (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I look at all of these roster templates, including the ones that do exist for NHL teams, and I have a very hard time understanding why they even exist. They are useful on exactly one article: the team article. A template with only one use should be substituted and then manually edited from that article. {{Toronto Blue Jays roster}} transcluded on only one other article: the 2007 Blue Jays season article. But really, what purpose does that serve? In the case of our season articles, the full stats of every player to appear in the uniform is (or should be) listed. A template that points to the final roster at the end of the season dismisses much of the season itself.

Or, to make a long rant short, the way we do things now is perfectly fine, and I would argue is massively superior to the baseball and football templates in that our roster lists provide more than just a player's name. Resolute 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I have never understood why there are templates for rosters to begin with when they are only of use on a one page and even there it's not all that useful. --Djsasso (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to improve on the maintenance of the roster info? If there was a way to input the roster data in one spot, and have it output in the two spots (team and season), (in the two formats) that would be an improvement. Is that possible? It's not a big deal, just wondering. Alaney2k (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well yes that is what a template is for, but what we are saying is that when there is only two places to update its just not worth what you have to give up when you use a template. As you can see templates are alot more messy and can't offer as much information. --Djsasso (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, the ultimate would be to have one data location, and it could output the stats (the 'Skaters') in one place, the team page format in another, and the 'simple' roster (the team page) format in another. I was just wondering if it's possible to do coding like that here in Wikipedia. That would make three output formats, would that be worth the coding effort? I have not investigated at all the coding side of things here. Then, could you extend that to one data entry point for all NHL players? Alaney2k (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be possible. Templates are just basically forms where you are either filling variables like the Infobox or a pre-set amount of data like the roster examples above. There is no way on wikipedia to have a page pull data from one location and have it pull different data depending on the page. Anything like that would technically be a contradiction of Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. --Djsasso (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability question

Is simply being selected to a World Junior Hockey Championship roster enough to make a player notable? I ask because Mario Kempe, which I know we've had deleted at least once before, has been re-created. The user left this edit summary when he made the page yesterday: yea yea, I know you guys love to delete this page, but like it or not, he's on a world junior team and is thereby now "noteable". I don't see that anywhere in the notability standards. Am I missing something, or is this guy still not notable? Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is he considered a top prospect after being drafted? Flibirigit (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous AfD for this article said no: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Kempe. Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the edit summary? And the user's history? This is pure trolling, I've blocked him for 48 hours to prevent more crap like this. --Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Max. I thought this might draw your ire. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, btw, I deleted the article and salted it (ie it can't be recreated by a non-admin, unless an admin removes the protection). Maxim_(talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to block it in that way I would make note to go back and remove it eventually because he will likely eventually pass our notability guidelines. But yes the WJHC isn't enough yet, as that still isn't the highest level of amateur competition. -Djsasso (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the vanity press author... I remember him. ccwaters (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

World Juniors are an interesting problem. In Canada, that tournament may well be the most highly anticipated hockey tournament of the year, in Europe, it's pretty much an also-ran. So, I would argue that making the WJHC roster in Canada would make one notable, yet elsewhere, not as much? I might suggest for the Wikiproject's guidelines that winning the gold medal be the threshold for notability. Resolute 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to argue against that threshold. Looking back on some championship rosters, it doesn't seem to be a good guidline. While some recent rosters of Canada have several notable players, they are notable regardless of winning gold; that was just one of their achievements in hockey. An example would be Hugh Hamilton; looking at his hockeydb.com profile it looks like he had a rather ordinary career, the highlight of which would be a 1997 World Junior's Gold. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue against it as well. The "well, this tournament is considered important in X" can apply in all manner of crazy directions. Heck, should we allow articles about players in the annual Quebec Peewee Tournament, which is a huge enough deal that you can buy DVDs of the games and that a couple years have even seen trading cards of the participants released?  RGTraynor  08:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just curious - what is the highest level of so-called 'amateur' (not meant sarcastically, just that 'amateur' is pretty vague in hockey, basically only NCAA) competition, if not the World Juniors? Arguing against regional events or notable minor hockey tournaments is quite easy, but the highest level of international hockey for a significant age group (draft eligible and recently drafted) seems notable to me. I'd argue the medalists from each year more than qualify.Leafschik1967 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The highest level is the World Championships or the Olympics. The minute you add the qualifier of a significant age group then it ceases to be relatively notable for the players themselves. The tournament itself is notable because it is the best for that age group, but it does not make the players in it notable. And I would agree with Kaiser and RGTraynor. I don't really know why people can't be patient and wait the year or so till they have played a pro game. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, neither the notability criteria we have in place on WP:HOCKEY or, more importantly, WP:BIO, recognizes anything close to as subjective as "significant age groups" ... a value which, conveniently and arbitrarily, can be stretched to cover any age an individual editor can want.  RGTraynor  01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks

A question at talk: Anaheim Ducks concerning Scott Niedermayer's status, please take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for deletion & discussion

I slightly rearranged the section. I've entered a line where someone can place their signature ~~~~ when the have last checked each AFD, TFD or CFD for hockey related listings. Flibirigit (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Blues

On two ocassions (September 1, 2007 and today) User: Blueboy96 added John Davidison as a General Manager. Is his edit(s) correct? see talk: St. Louis Blues (hockey). --GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. As I posted on the discussion page, the Blue's site explicitly states that Pleau is the General Manager. Regardless if his power has been reduced, he still has the official title. As such, he should be listed as the GM. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League statistical leaders

Here we go again. The anon block has once again expired as of Dec 16, 2007 at 0:00, and at 2:05 the drive by Martin Brodeur edits have begun again. Be on the lookout and WHEN a few more edits occur, I guess we request protection again, this time for a longer period. Too bad we can't get the protection until April 2008 - YET... --Pparazorback (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we get a longer protection? And just a reminder, don't fotget the stats template ({{subst:Hockey|Article}} ~~~~), leave this message at talk pages of users who update stats. --Krm500 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, it's just 'drive-by' anon editors (most of them making their update edits innocently). If permanent protection or semi-protection isn't possible? Then we just request another protection each time the previous one expires. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Junior hockey alumni categories

So, I noticed that The main categories for WHL, QMJHL, OHL and AJHL alumni were listed at CfD for renaming from alumni to players. Seems the guy who failed to accomplish this last year tried again, and since nobody from this wikiproject was notified, or was watching CfD, it passed this time. Same reasoning applied too - the nominator does not understand the difference between minor league hockey and junior hockey. I'll be looking for a means to correct this, possibly re-listing at CfD, but in the meantime, we might want to watch the CfD pages closer, as chances are team categories will be hit next. Resolute 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Alberta_Junior_Hockey_League_players Resolute 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support having those renamed, but any reason why you didn't list all four of them? Flibirigit (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. DMighton (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My guess is because we had the two categories already, what he has done is moved all the alumni over to the players cat, not realizing the differences between the two. --Djsasso (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Could Resolute amend his proposal, or does it need to be another discussion? Flibirigit (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Might as well just put another one up if you want to. Just to be completely transparent. -Djsasso (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fatigue, mostly. Ultimately, I found the AJHL category to be the most important though, as there are several player articles in the root category. For the CHL categories, there are very few articles that are not subcategorized by team, so it didn't seem as important a battle to fight. I also felt the AJHL category had the strongest case, as there are virtually no Jr. A players who gain notability prior to turning pro. At the CHL level, there are several active players who are notable. Resolute 05:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, better to re-nominate the CHL categories separately at this point. Resolute 05:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are you going to make those other nominations too, or want someone else to do it? Flibirigit (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the attempt to correct the AJHL category is headed to a no consensus vote, I'm not sure that would serve a point at this time. Definitely going to be watching the logs to see that the team categories are not altered the same way, however. Resolute 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

I've made a few suggestions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Alberta_Junior_Hockey_League_players. Hopefully this can satisfy both sides of the discussion. Please let me know what you guys think! Flibirigit (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Team Draft Pages

I recently started to create the San Jose Sharks draft picks page and started to copy the existing Calgary Flames draft picks page, seeing how it's the most complete. This led to some issues I think we should clear up before I get heavily involved into the article and other associated pages. As it stands on the Flames article, it only includes players who have played at least one game in the NHL as of last season, as well as listing their career games and points, or if a goaltender, wins.

While I applaud Resolute for taking the time to create the article in such depth, I have some ideas on how to change it for the better, providing the projects blessing of course. What I personally think we should do is list every player drafted. This seems to me a no-brainer; the NHL Record Book does it for every team, albeit only the past 20 years or so, as well as the most recent draft's full listing, and as it is now, the first 2 rounds of every previous draft, plus notable players. Individual team media guides also list every player drafted by that particular team, as does hockeydb.com. Seeing how Wikipedia isn't paper, and paper sources list complete drafts, this should be no problem. Also, I think there could be something that could be added to change the stats of drafted players, perhaps adding more than just games and points/wins. Not quite sure what we could do there, so up to ideas. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to list all the players ever drafted by the Buffalo Sabres at Buffalo Sabres draft history (which, by the way, is the way the consensus had me word the title), and it was shot down per discussion at this very project's talk page. I think giving a complete history is vital in the name of accuracy and thoroughness, but apparently that's just me and you. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is where those discussions went down: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Buffalo Sabres draft picks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall a discussion saying we shouldn't list every player on that page. We definitely should as it is the appropriate place. --Djsasso (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading over that, I also don't ever recall us discussing a standard of draft pages. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind why I did the article the way I did was that each season page would have the full draft for that year, while this article would cover the players which are "notable" - ie. played in the NHL. I am mindful of the failed FLC for the Sabres article, and knew that including the full history would be required to get the Flames one to FL status. I simply haven't done it yet. Been working on a couple team articles first. I'd say complete it, including the supplimental draft, which I also wish to add. Resolute 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a complete list. And while we're at it; IMO the "header" should be neutral in color, the team color is often very hard on the eyes. --Krm500 (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what the Sabres page looks like as a complete list: User:Skudrafan1/Complete Buffalo Sabres draft history. Not too lengthy, IMO. Skudrafan1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would really like the lists being complete. It is still very easy to tell visually how many of the players have played in the NHL the way your complete Sabres page is formatted. I feel that the articles are not too long to be unmanageable. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Work has been nearly dead today, so I've been working on expanding the Flames list to include all players. About halfway done now. One suggestion for you, Skudrafan, for the Sabres list - since the FLC argued that there were too many sections in the table of contents, I cut the Flames article down to sections by decade, then using the {{H3}} template to divide years without having them show up in the TOC. Also, for the Supplimental drafts, I was thinking of putting them all into one table at the end, rather than a separate section for each. Which do you think would work better? Resolute 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

{{H3}} template, huh? I'll work on it. And having the few Supplemental Draft picks grouped together in a separate section would probably be better, yes. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the way the Sabres draft page is done up. But still think that there should be a note to list what players didn't make the NHL, although I suppose it would look rather tedious after time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In my revision at Calgary Flames draft history, I shaded all players who made the NHL, rather than players who are active this season. IMO, it helps on easily tell at a glance which players made the NHL and which have not. Resolute 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Original Sens list and Original Sens category

I've seen this done in other cases. How do you merge the category Category:Ottawa Senators (original) players and List of Ottawa Senators (original) players? The list article looks better with chronological info. Alaney2k (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't do this. The only time this is done is when one or the other is not appropriate. In this case both are appropriate. --Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I thought I'd seen that somewhere. I'll work to get the names in sync then. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fighting in ice hockey featured on main page screenshot.PNG

Image:Fighting in ice hockey featured on main page screenshot.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I get into an edit war...

...there have been three different edits recently questioning the way Mountain Dew's sponsorship of the AMP NHL Winter Classic should be shown in the article. I have it simply shown in a referenced sentence at the end of the introductory paragraph: The game is being sponsored by Mountain Dew AMP. This sentence was removed twice, the second time with an edit summary saying "Q. Is sponsorship an important part of the story? Shouldn't M Dew donate $1MM to Wiki if they want the advertizing?. I readded it both times, but now it has been removed again and, in its place, the article's heading has been changed to call the game the Mountain Dew AMP NHL Winter Classic, with the edit summary "Shouldn't you guys treat like the BCS Bowl Games wiki pages, giving wiki link to sponsor's name in the games title as shown here now?". I am stepping back for now, because it is making me upset. The game's official name is not the "Mountain Dew AMP NHL Winter Classic"; it is simply the AMP NHL Winter Classic. And is there something wrong with a sentence saying that the game is sponsored by Mountain Dew AMP? Advice? *sigh* Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it; it's a significant aspect of this match. How the BCS bowl games are handled is WP:FOOTBALL's bailiwick, and I'm sure they can tend to their own knitting just fine.  RGTraynor  05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of the game, from the link on the page, is the 'Amp Energy NHL Winter Classic'. But later, on the linked page, it's entitled Amp NHL Winter Classic. This seems a little bizarre. That said, they did not mention Mountain Dew, who must own Amp I suppose. As we get closer to the game, I am sure this will be made more clear, but maybe the article might be more appropriately termed? Possibly it should be the Amp Energy NHL Winter Classic 2008. I've seen it referred to that way, likely indicating that the NHL wants to do it again in the future. We can do redirects for whatever is the exact title. About the placement of the sponsorship text, I think that belongs in a later paragraph. Alaney2k (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And in another page, the 'AMP ENERGY / NHL Winter Classic'. Argh. Alaney2k (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posed this question here before. For the longest time, the official NHL website for the game referred to it as simply the AMP NHL Winter Classic, which is why the page was titled as it was. But now I see that the official NHL page has changed, and most of the mentions to the naming there seem to call it the "AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic" ([5]). I will be moving the page to reflect this lengthier name, which has seemed to be the consensus among other news outlets anyway. Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (I noticed the question, after I responded in this section.) If in the future, they do another, another move can be done. About the sponsorship, should that discussion go to the talk page for the page? I think some sections are needed for this article. It is one long section, which is not very good. It should be a lead and some sections, but I am not sure of the naming of those sections... Maybe the Heritage Classic article is appropriate. I'll take a look. Alaney2k (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point the article is tiny so sections would not be a good idea. -Djsasso (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was going to break the article into sections after it has been played. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a logo for the Winter Classic at the NHL site. Would it be appropriate to use the logo under fair-use? Alaney2k (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Make sure it is well tagged though, or the bots will come to harvest your soul... Resolute 03:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of tangential to this WikiProject's purview

But I could use a little help with Denver Pioneers Hockey. I've suggested the article be merged into University of Denver or be made part of a new article called Denver Pioneers, since no school has an article for their own hockey team (to the best of my knowledge). The author, User:Ctrottnow was welcome templated just this very day and is obviously new to the process. He or she is seemingly taking offense to my proposal it be merged and has twice deleted the mergeto template. I've left messages on the article's talk page and Ctrottnow's. Any help greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be moved to Denver Pioneers which would cover all of the sports. Just like Michigan Wolverines does. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am aware of at least two college ice hockey programs with their own pages: North Dakota Fighting Sioux hockey and Minnesota Golden Gophers men's ice hockey. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You know I was trying to find some, not sure why I didn't think of those two. That being said I think it should be part of a bigger article until it is big enough to be split off onto its own. --Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

editconflict I don't think that's necessarily a 1:1 comparison though. Both of those schools have individual articles for each of their varsity sports. This is the first and only article on any Denver Pioneers sport. But yes, I do stand corrected to a point. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what you mean now. We both stand corrected to a point. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know why I didn't think of this solution. It works, no merger necessary. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of edit wars ...

Some of you might know that over in the Bobby Orr article, there's been a user, User:TrulyTory, who for a couple of years has been pushing variously the POV that Orr is the greatest player of all time and more particularly (weirdly enough) the POV that Doug Harvey is one of the greatest offensive defensemen of all time. Virtually all his Wikipedia activity this calendar year has revolved around inserting the latter into the article, and there's been a good deal of discussion in the Orr talk page on the issue, much of it peppered with WP:CIVIL violations on Tory's part. After an absence of a few months, he's popped back to make the edit again. Could some folks pop over, give their own opinions on this and head off another dreary edit war?  RGTraynor  12:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, we agreed to use the line one of the greatest... to end these silly disputes about a year ago. I'll be glad to help out. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the players listed as the "exceptions to the rule". It is extraneous information, as if we intend to argue that offensive-defencemen were not common, then pointing out examples of offensive-defencemen kinda defeats the point. This also defeats the attempt at POV pushing on that front. Otherwise, agreed with GoodDay. Orr is consistently considered one of the greatest of all time, and there are literally hundreds of sources that would back up that phrasing. To call him the best of all time, with certainty, is not correct. Resolute 15:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a bother, but I noticed at the article Wayne Gretzky, we neglected using the line one of the greatest.... Why has that article been given special treatment (yes I know about the citations, but those are arguablely PoV citations). Anyways, I'm not gonna raise a stink there, just pointing out application of 'double standard'. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to see surrender to that idjit, but I suppose you're right, Resolute. As far as Gretzky goes, the thing is that there's a hugely sourced consensus among hockey experts that Gretzky is the greatest. It's not a matter of special treatment, it's a matter that regardless of our personal opinions, the hockey world has a POV, that POV is generally in Gretzky's favor, and failing to recognize that position would be POV-pushing on our part. Heck, the very first line of Gretzky's Encyclopedia Britannica entry is "Canadian ice-hockey player who was considered by many to be the greatest player in the history of the National Hockey League (NHL)." Plainly they don't consider the statement out of line.  RGTraynor  16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not gonna bring up the (IMHO) 'double standard' thing at that article. Yes, we all know the people(s) in the hockey media worship Gretzky & those in the non-hockey media go by what little they know. OK, I said my piece. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy apparently went Orr crazy. Was looking at his edits and came across this diff which I just undid. --Pparazorback (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You could say the guy was Orriginal in his edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(blinks) He edited the Number Four article to include Orr? For heaven's sake, I'm a bloody Bostonian, Orr's just the next thing to Jesus still around these parts, but sheesh!  RGTraynor  19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's lotsa uniform numbers at 4 (number), but it appears every single "x (number)" article has an "in sports" section. Flibirigit (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As does this one, which he is already mentioned in. -Djsasso (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

NHL Standings Update Robot (Sort of)

I wrote an Excel web query that does the following: 1) Imports ESPN's NHL Standings onto an Excel Sheet. 2) Re-sorts the standings to break ties using fewer games played then # wins. 3) Creates wiki code for all 6 divisions so that all one has to do is copy / paste the code into the edit box and the standings are updated quickly. Anyone who has Excel and is interested in the sheet, e-Mail me and I will be more than happy to send it to you. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Robot request

Is is it possible to get a robot to be programmed to convert player profile links in URL form into the {{Hockeydb}}, {{Legendsofhockey}}, {{Nhlprofile}}, {{TSN-NHL-profile}}, and {{Eurohockey}} templates? If so, who can do it.. or where do we ask? Flibirigit (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also looking for the same kinda thing to add Category:Sports clubs by year of establishment and Category:Sports clubs by year of disestablishment, with the respective years substituted. Flibirigit (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This maybe possible with a simple AWB bot... Gimme a couple days to figure this out. --Maxim_(talk) 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for a few months. I got a couple hundred done but it gets so tedious without a regular expression to speed things up. I'll be starting with Category:American ice hockey players until I can get a regexp made. IrisKawling (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some nice folks at the AWB page made a nice little RegExp code/module to make this task easier, see: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#RegExp request IrisKawling (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well looks great.. but I have no idea what to do with it :-s What to do now? Flibirigit (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Question re: automatic archiving and User:MiszaBot II

I notice that the automatic archiving at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey uses a "space" between the "archive" and the number e.g "16". Hence, we now have two separate entities in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive16 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive 16. How can we fix this? Flibirigit (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot was configured to have a SPACE between archive and the Archive #. I have 1) merged the content in "archive 16" into the "archive16" file, 2) db-empty'd the "archive 16" page as it is no longer needed. 3) reconfigured the path save filename in the miszabot configuration to delete the incorrectly placed space between the word "archive" and the archive number. This should fix the problem. --Pparazorback (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you should do it the other way round - the standard is to have a space between "Archive" and the number. Миша13 17:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I removed the spacing to be consistent with the other 15 archive pages (as well as the original archive16 page) which was created prior to using the bot to archive. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Individual game summaries on season articles

Interested editors, please take a look at the discussion at Talk:2007-08 Buffalo Sabres season about the merit of including summaries of particularly interesting games within the body of season articles. I guess my question is "where does it end?" How do we determine what games are worthy of being written about and what games aren't? Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Commented there. We should have a page discussing general content and layout of season pages. --Michael Greiner 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

a simple question

I am currently watching the Colorado vs. Vancouver game and the Canuck goal was (somewhat) caused because the linesman couldn't "jump" out of the way along the boards. The announcer said that they aren't allowed to "jump" up on the boards anymore. Does anyone have any info on this rule change? This is the first i've heard of it. Masterhatch (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, MH, long time no hear; how goes it? (That being said, this is news to me. WTF, you can't jump out of the way of the play?)  RGTraynor  03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I was watching the game and the announcer said that the linesmen aren't allowed to jump out of the way by climbing up the boards like they used to. Because the puck hit the linseman (who couldn't jump up on the boards) and the puck didn't clear the Colorado zone, the canucks were able to convert that into a goal. anyways, i just wanted to see if anyone heard anything. So, RGT, i see that you are still quite active here on wikipedia. ARe things going well? I only contribute rarely, and that is usually just reverting vandalism on pages on my watchlist. Have a merry christmas! Masterhatch (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of [insert team] first-round draft picks‎?

Most of the NFL football teams have lists like this (even the newer ones) and they seem to be becoming FLs at an impressive rate. I was wondering if we should start making lists like this for NHL teams? There are sources, NHL.com has a full list of all first round picks going back to the 60s, the Hockey Database has a list of draft picks by team and some of the team websites probably have some kind of history page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a working model of all draft picks for the Devils at User:FutureNJGov/sandbox/Devilsdraft. I don't see why all teams can't have this. --Michael Greiner 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it baffles me how those can even become FL's. Yeah, the scope is specifically limited to the first round, but there is more than one round. There are some draft articles already, ie Calgary Flames draft history and San Jose Sharks draft picks, but yeah, more should be done. Resolute 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need a set guideline for naming conventions... Resolute 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Resolute. Looking at some of those lists, they are quite weak. What we have going on, including the full draft history, not only includes that information, but also has the other drafts. This is notable because as anyone can attest, being a first round draft pick doesn't guarantee success in sports. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach Thunderboltz

Does anyone know what the status is of the Myrtle Beach Thunderboltz? They are due to begin play in the ECHL in 2008-09, however it appears their proposed arena YRT2 Arena has been postponed due to funding issues. Patken4 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Special edition triple crown offer

One of the members of this project recently earned the imperial Napoleonic triple crown for contributions to ice hockey. As some of you may know, special edition triple crowns are also available to WikiProjects. Basically if five members of this project each earn a triple crown for ice hockey articles I'll Photoshop a unique award and give it to the project, along with copies of the award to each project member who qualifies. You'll also receive your own project section on the triple crown awards page.

It shouldn't be too hard for an active project to earn this: the threshold for each participant's inclusion is 10 line citations to a GA or FA, so a couple of article drives could earn recognition for several people. The only thing you'll have to do individually is contribute your own DYK (see the award page for more info).

Thanks for the good work improving articles and best wishes! Durova^Charge! 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know I'd qualify: Calgary Flames, Calgary Hitmen, Calgary Tigers, List of Calgary Flames players, National Hockey League awards, List of ice hockey teams in Alberta, List of ice hockey teams in Saskatchewan, Calgary Tigers, 1988-89 Calgary Flames season.

T-Rex is also a qualifying candidate: Clarence S. Campbell Bowl, Thomas Lee (Virginia colonist), Himalayan Brown Bear

We seem to have many others who are close. Scorpion0422 has contributed to many GA's and FC's, but I am not sure of any DYK's. Skudrafan1 has a pile of DYK's, and List of Buffalo Sabres players looks like it simply needs FL nomination. Not sure about GA's, though he did help copyedit Calgary Flames. Serte is only a DYK away as well, it seems: List of Colorado Avalanche players, Conn Smythe Trophy, Colorado Avalanche (and others). There are more, all of whom are close, and some of whom may have those missing DYK's. Resolute 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any GAs or DYKs for this project. I did earn a special triple crown as part of the Simpsons WikiProject. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that bit of copy-editing I did on Calgary Flames recently is really my only contribution to a GA. I'd love to get List of Buffalo Sabres players and/or Buffalo Sabres draft history to FL status soon. Maybe I'll get working on that tonight -- seems like a good way to spend a Christmas Eve. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to put 10 citations into a version that passes GA in order for the work to count toward an award. If a few people share the work on a B-class article that shouldn't be too hard to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get an individual crown for T-Rex shortly. Resolute, are there any DYKs in your own list? Scorpion, if you earn a GA and a DYK for this project you'll become the first editor to receive two different special edition project crowns.

The real aim of this thing is to inspire people who are already good contributors to do a little more of their excellent work. So ping me when you have enough for a project award. In the meantime, what do you think would be a good hockey-related image for the project award? For WikiProject Australia I put a crown onto a koala bear. Maybe I could tilt a jaunty crown onto a puck, or maybe just use the Stanley cup? Durova^Charge! 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have two DYK's - Calgary Tigers and 1988-89 Calgary Flames season. As far as a triple crown goes related to hockey, it would be almost sacreligious not to use something related to the Triple Crown Line, though I'm not sure there is a good image. Probably a typical puck, or crossed sticks or something of the like. Resolute 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the image would have to come from freely licensed material on Commons or Wikipedia. If you find and upload something suitable then more power to you. I'll get to work on those imperial jewels for you (why is it now that I've written up my year end stats I get a rush of new qualifiers?) Happy holidays, Durova^Charge! 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked. ;o) I'm sure several of us can create an image of some kind. It's not like we don't have pucks, sticks or other hockey equip that we can take photos of. Resolute 00:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely certain what type of image you want (though I did notice the ones in your TCA subpage), but the Hockey Hall of Fame would be appropriate. Image:Hockey Hall of Fame.jpg Good luck putting a crown on it though. Good pic of a puck. A hockey helmet, which would be appropriate for a crown. Resolute 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a working draft?

lol, sweet image! Now we just need a couple more editors to qualify for it. Thanks for the award on my talk page as well.  :) Resolute 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, it's a pleasure. :) Keep up the good work. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Did You Know away from that, as Resolute already said. Sooner or later, it'll come, for sure. It's a great idea.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Holiday wishes

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays WikiProject Ice Hockey!
Flibirigit (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your hard work with WikiProject Ice Hockey and endeavours to make Wikipedia an amazing repertory of ice hockey information. I look forward to seeing what we can accomplish in our next wikiyear.

File:Julekort.jpg

.

I concur. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian: Auguri a tutti (Greetings to all) --necronudist (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you said Merry Christmas! That's it, I'm gonna find someone who is offended and sue you!.... Seriously, I agree with everyone and may everyone have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Let us hope 2008 is the year where vandals lay down their keyboards and join the Wikipedians in a knowledgeable song. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

God Jul! --Krm500 (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

I've been working on the page, and I was wondering if some people could take a look at it and let me know how it's going. Just remember that I've yet to start work on the lead, the exhibits and "Operations and organization" sections, but the rest of it has been reformatted. The criticism section could also use a bit of expanding, so if anyone knows of any reliable sources that could provide some good info, please feel free to add it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! What are you gunning for; GA or FA? --Krm500 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, GA. It'll probably be a month before it's reviewed, but after that I might try for FA status. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Junior national team

The question was brought up at Talk:IIHF World U-20 Hockey Championship, I checked and no such articles exist. I noticed there were many articles on national U20 soccer teams, anyone think we should take the time and create these articles? --Krm500 (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. For Canada, at least, I'd argue the Junior national team has a higher profile than the senior team, Olympics aside. Resolute 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What would such an article be called - Nation national junior's ice hockey team? --Krm500 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think its overkill as I stated in the link above... That's five total articles per nation: men's, men's u-20, men's u-18, women's, women's u-18. I think it would be easiest to consolidate to one mens and women's team article per nation or just link to the sanctioning body (USA Hockey, Hockey Canada, Swedish Ice Hockey Association). However, if someone wants to do all the work, then go for it. I would name them "XXX national men's U-20 ice hockey team", etc... ccwaters (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, the football articles are named "Nation national under-20 football team" (or "under-21", etc.). I think that "under-20" is better looking than "U-20". However, my preference would be to group the men's under-20 and under-18 teams under a single "junior" article, and include the women's under-18 team in the existing women's articles. That would give us three articles for most major hockey nations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Which

On the 2007 Summit Series article... it seems we missed this, but the logo: Image:2007 super series logo3.gif got deleted because of lack of valid FUR... Can someone roll this back so we can fix it? DMighton (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Professional League?

Please take a look at Sebastian Stefaniszin, a prod that was challenge by an anon editor. Looking at his career statistics, the player's career had him in the Deutsche Eishockey-Liga and in the 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey). Are either of these professional leagues or high enough for this player to be notable at this time? Thanks. --Pparazorback (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DEL is a professional league, and on the rise. Generally ranked in after Russian Super League & Swedish Elite League (in a group of their own), and Finland's SM-liiga & Swiss Nationalliga A. --Krm500 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another league: Vysshaya Liga. Lower division of the Russian pro hockey league. Are their players notable for playing in that league? With that question, I have an idea that would help as far as determining which articles should be considered for Prodding. We should create a listing of all leagues that would have it's players notable based on WP:Hockey project guidelines for notability. --Pparazorback (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says the league is professional, so as long as the player has played at least 5 seasons and 100 games in that league (or one of equal or higher standing) then they would be notable as per WP:HOCKEY. However, WP:BIO has much freer guidelines in that they player simply has to have "competed in a fully professional league" — in other words one game is enough. I think the guidelines for WP:BIO would scupper your plan. -- JD554 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Player rosters on amateur teams

Just wanted to let you all know another editor brought up the concern of player rosters on less than professional teams. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Player rosters. Since it would fairly heavily affect this project I figured you all should be aware of it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents. DMighton (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh god not this again. I cringe everytime I see a roster in the Canadian Hockey League with blue links full of non-notable articles. Flibirigit (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do as well, but I do feel we need a list of who is on the team, linked or not. -Djsasso (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Referees/Linemen

I've created a few basic stubs on some retired NHL referees/linemen the last two days and realized that they may/may not be notable. So far, I've only created articles for those that officiated 1,000 games or more and are retired. I was going to start on some current officials but want to make sure these are in fact notable subjects before going through the work. So what are the notability requirements of referees/linesmen? Simply officiating an NHL game? Officiating a notable event (Stanley Cup/World Championship/All-Star Game)? A certain number of games? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there are any set guidelines, I would probably go with officiating a notable event or atleast reaching NHL level games. I will have to think on this. -Djsasso (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One notability item could be related to making it to the NHL and refereeing such contests such as the Stanley Cup finals despite the fact that the ref is obviously either nearsighted or blind, such as Mick McGeough. Sorry could not resist the commentary, he is my least favorite referee in the league. </Blog mode off>. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still proud of how we booed McGeough when the Flames celebrated his 1000th game as a ref... At any rate, I would think that going with the general notability criteria would suffice. If they made the NHL, that would make them notable enough. Problem then is whether there is enough material with which to write a biographical article. Resolute 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would just revert to the standard biography notability guidelines. Basically, if enough reliable secondary sources for the information that would allow for the creation of a solid article. I would think that this would be rare for referees for the most part. Some would have enough, but I can't imagine being able to find too much information on those that only refereed for a year or two. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kerry 'the hair' Fraser comes to mind. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with James; since they're not "athletes," per se, they fall under the general WP:BIO guidelines, and that would exclude all but the most famous officials. I'm not sure if, in recent years, anyone would pass that save for Don Koharski or John D'Amico.  RGTraynor  18:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for comparison, here are the baseball wikiproject guidelines for umpires:

• Meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO
• Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff and have worked in at least one postseason or All-Star Game; umpires of the 19th century must have worked in at least 200 games. Minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement.

--Michael Greiner 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention it, we already do have a mechanic in place for some articles; our own notability guidelines sign off on Honoured Members of the HHOF. Therefore: Neil Armstrong, John Ashley, Bill Chadwick, John D'Amico, Chaucer Elliott, George Hayes, Bobby Hewittson, Mickey Ion, Matt Pavelich, Michael Rodden, Cooper Smeaton, Red Storey, Frank Udvari and Andy Van Hellemond. Scotty Morrison is in as a Builder.  RGTraynor  19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the HHOF members are no-brainers that should be included. I also believe that there would be enough independent sources for more officials than just those to have articles. But when it comes down to it, there probably isn't an easy way to determine notability short of being in some hall of fame. Each official would have to have done something important for independent sources to publish information about them and likely would have to be treated on a case by case basis short of being in a hall of fame. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD, TFD, CFD

Could someone please check the AFD, TFD and CFD listings? It hasn't been done in a while. I'm going away for a few days. See you next year guys. Flibirigit (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Next year? That is entirely too long. --Pparazorback (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

07/08 DRW Question

In the Milestones section of 2007-08 Detroit Red Wings season, should that just be about the players? I'm thinking maybe we can add Mike Babcock's 200th career win on December 15 (I think it was). What do you think? ^{BTW...GO WINGS!!} - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its definately a milestone that would fit in there I would think. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think so. Now, the column header says "Player"; should that be changed to something else? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably should change it to name or something. -Djsasso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Or even just leave it blank. Team milestones could be added their as well... i.e.: The Oilers 1000th franchise win last year. -Resolute (unsigned)

I hadn't thought about leaving it blank, that is probably the best option. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Djsasso up for adminship

Just noticed that Djsasso, a very active member of this WikiProject is up for adminship Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Djsasso. Feel free to comment on his adminship capabilities. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)