Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive33

Tom Lysiak

Any idea why the stats are so weird? The headings are to the right of the numbers on the stats table. Looks pretty bad. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Whomever create the stats didn't put in the align variables between each row. -Djsasso (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I'm not very good with those tables... RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I keep meaning to see if I can write a program to translate copy pasted information from hockeydb into our table format...if only I had time haha. -Djsasso (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the solution was even easier - as long as the table header has the "align=center" paramter, the entire table will be centred. The problem here is that someone used the British/Canadian spelling of "centre", which is incorrect syntax, and discarded. You don't need "align=center" for every row if you correct the spelling of the first use.  ;). Resolute 20:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why it didn't work just putting centre at the top....I totally spelled it wrong haha. :P -Djsasso (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we Canadians have long been oppressed by American syntax! Resolute 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Centre ftw, also colour, organise, and åäö! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's organize and aao. But you got the other two right.  ;) Resolute 01:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So you prefer Oxford spelling? Tavix |  Talk  03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoser English, eh? Resolute 03:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oxford comma! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The c/p from HockeyDB thing would be pretty cool. If you copy and paste and not change anything, it looks terrible. Like this. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While a good idea, I've found that HockeyDB is lacking in most stats not concerning NHL or major European leagues. Recently NHL.com went ahead and added nearly the complete record of stats for players, even complete with international stats. I personally use the NHL.com stats for completness, and it is usually complete and free of error (though not without its own minor problems). Kaiser matias (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I only use NHL.com for goaltenders because it gives their totals, which DB doesn't. I use HockeyDB for players because NHL.com is slow, it's harder to read, and doesn't have articles for some of the less known players. RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I use hockeydb cause its stats conform to how we lay them out here better, after running them through some filters I end up not having to type them all out by hand. And I find NHL.com often misses alot of stats for the lower down the rung leagues and for less known players. -Djsasso (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Ice Hockey to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is an excellent resource. Thanks! as an aside though, Evil Kinevel? Umm... Resolute 20:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Knievel starting a semi-pro team and stiffing the Czechs in a friendly game count towards his notability? I doubt it. If there are no objections, I'll drop that banner from his talk page. Alaney2k (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd pull it. Just because someone had a very minor level of participation in hockey doesn't mean he's relevant to us, I would think. Resolute 02:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask you about doing this. Thanks, Mr.Z-man. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is great, helps prioritise which articles which should be focused on improving. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The players from the USSR issue

FYI, a thread has been opened for discussion at the MOS discussion page specifically related to ice hockey on USSR v. U.S.S.R. formatting and the inclusion of Soviet states in places of birth. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proper style for Soviet place of birth. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By me. Figured I'd get an outside opinion before bringing it up again here.--Львівске (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer to see USSR as I think that's a case of wp:commonname but that is completely an i like it statement on my part. As far as sub nationals go, I believe the reason we used them for Canada/US and not for other countries is that in hockey articles and hockey circles what province a player from is often a big deal. ie Sidney Crosby being from Nova Scotia is a huge deal because rarely do players come from the maritime provinces compared to the other provinces. Another example is that Quebec is known to be the best place to get goaltenders and players from the western provinces are known for their toughness etc. I don't know if this is the case or not between the various parts of the USSR as I don't read Russian language articles or watch Russian news. To go along with commonname I think most North American places tend to be known as <city>, <state/province> in common usage but that may be a North American bias on my part. Someone in another country might be able to answer better...when talking about Los Angeles for example do you say Los Angeles, California or Los Angeles, USA (or United States or whatever)? On the opposite end, I have never seen cities from the USSR/Russia with their subnationals in articles or in common ussage. (again might be a NA bias) -Djsasso (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well my first issue was that full stops are used on the roster pages despite common usage (U.S.S.R. vs USSR). As far as unitary euro states go it's good as-is, same goes for federations like canada or usa, but USSR was a supranational federation and I thought it would be better to be less ambiguous in light of those countries now being independent (and prior, were technically (but not in practice) considered their own states like the EU is today)--Львівске (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Keeping with the style already in place, 1) no abbreviations for states/provinces/etc and 2) only showing 2 locations I think we should do away with USSR and choose between either "Soviet Union" or the actual soviet state. I tend to think the latter is more appropriate, and informational. Lots of people have no idea a guy like Kasparaitus is Lithuanian, or Zherdev is Ukrainian (for example). If you see the Russian flag on the left column to identify their national team alignment, and read "Soviet Union" on the right, I think it's fair to say that a lot would just assume they are straight up Russians.

On the flip side of the pond (I already do this on KHL rosters), 99% of players on eastern euro rosters are from the Soviet Union, so it makes more sense to state the republic at the time, the same way we say the state/province (sans federation) on north american rosters. By doing it the 2nd way proposed, it would be uniform across all roster templates.

Just want to add that, by doing it the second way we avoid someone saying "Riga wasn't in the Soviet Union!" whereas saying "Latvian SSR" it is undeniable that the country was called that, no? As well, as it was pointed out in the MOS discussion, nobody say "London, United Kingdom" but rather "London, England". For soviet republics, people have been saying "Soviet Russia" or "The Ukraine" long before the USSR was dissolved.

That's my two cents, hope I get some replies. (btw. I'll fix em all myself, just need approval one way or another)--Львівске (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. Can you dummy up, for the talk page, some before/after examples, showing how it looks now and what you propose would look like? In other words, show a roster line item for a Russian, Ukranian, and maybe one other republic as it is now and as you propose.

One other angle to doing this: people born in 1991 are now turning 18 and will start signing pro contracts - and that's the window the USSR fell apart. It may be easier from a timeline standpoint to say "Russian S.F.S.R." and follow its timeline of name change than worry about U.S.S.R. vs. C.I.S. vs. breakup to separate countries. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as it is right now, followed by proposed in italics...

current: Moscow, U.S.S.R.
proposed:Moscow, Russian SFSR
post 1991:Moscow, Russia
current:Kiev, U.S.S.R.
proposed:Kiev, Ukrainian SSR
post 1991:Kiev, Ukraine

and so on...Just looking there, I think lists would look neater having similar country names now that we will be dealing with the name-switch (ie. Latvian SSR to Latvia) rather than bouncing from USSR to Latvia (if it was a list of Latvian born players, or team latvia, for example) --Львівске (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

>> Users "A. di M." and "—— Shakescene" agreed on the move to a city > state format on the MOS discussion. Can we get some consensus on the above proposal or even count votes against before I bold-it-up? I don't want to get into any edit wars in the process with team-exclusive editors watching roster pages. Thanks.--Львівске (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer it as USSR so as not to confuse readers since common ussage would have been Moscow, USSR not Moscow, Russian SFSR, but I doubt I would ever take the effort to change it from what you propose to that version if you started changing them. -Djsasso (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Was there a consensus reached to change thingss? because changes have been made to the NHL Roster templates. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

New article, need advice

Made a new article with Russian Open Championship. What can I do to improve the article as it is further?--Львівске (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New Collaboration project!

I've created a proposal for a new collaboration project for anybody willing to participate. It involves improving all NHL team articles to GA. Details and sign-ups can be found at User:IMatthew/NHL Team cleanup. Please help out! :) iMatthew ^talk at 13:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless it includes all removal of diacritics? I'll have to pass. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A good project, and a very long one, I think. I'll do what I can to help at various articles as time permits. Right now, I am just too busy for much more than quick hits, vandal cleanup and other simple tasks I can do from work, or in short bursts. After that, History of the Montreal Canadiens and Calgary Stampede are articles I really want to work on. However, to begin this project, we should look at our standard article format, and form a good consensus on what each article should look like. Among my current concerns:

• What lists should be included. My annoyance with the captains list is well noted, but there are others (first round picks, coaches, awards, individual records) that are all on some articles and not others. Most of these I personally favour as being in child articles, but we should decide which ones stay.
• Section titles. Overwhelmingly are POV (the Flyers and Penguins ones especially). Should we keep them, or just remove them and go with year breakdowns?
• General layout of sections. Standard lead format, etc. Leads especially I find I am able to write, so if we like how the Calgary Flames article is, I could probably look to begin replicating that across other team articles as time goes on.

Also, photographs. I've got a lot of pictures of players already, but if there are players on certain teams that we think are a must to have pictures of for the articles, we can arrange to have a few people here get some photos when these teams come to town. Resolute 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that discussing the format of these articles would be helpful to start off.

1. I agree that there are some lists in there that should be removed. They should also be consistent with all of the teams.
2. The section titles annoy me, and maybe years would be better. I can't think of anything else, really.

I think we should take this one thing at a time, though. Can we start with all of the lists? iMatthew ^talk at 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think infoboxes should be cleaned up. Awkward looking jersey mockups removed. And like GoodDay said, removal of uncited diacritics--Львівске (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't move list of Nashville Predators coaches to a child article. So you've got to leave some leeway. That said, I'd be okay with making article major headings alike. Some things are not well-covered around the business part of teams for many of the teams. Of course, some of that info is hard to get. Alaney2k (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Players born in then Soviet Union

Just making sure. Has there been a consensus reached, to change those players birthplaces, on the NHL roster templates? GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What are our choices? Masterhatch (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say revert to USSR (or Soviet Union) & then for American & Canadian players? remove states & provinces. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

yah, only countries, no states or provinces. Masterhatch (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I had 3 topics on this, plus one in WT:MOS and have held off for the longest time. I went with consensus. I think it's good as-is now and makes things most clear to the reader.--Львівске (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a consensus for the change. I prefer city-country for all the players. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As it is right now, it is city>country. Soviet Union is a supranational union of these countries....I think it's good as it is now. It clarifies the country of birth vs. the flag, it makes things clearer for KHL roster pages, etc. It's just overall better. The 'SSR' part kinda implies being in the Soviet Union as well.--Львівске (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I recommend city-country for all. Having had the USA & Canada as exceptions? created a North American-biased feel. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt mind if we change WP:HOCKEY/TPF to reflect that or not. There was some discussion on WT:HOCKEY/TPF but people looking on our structure page still are told that US/CA should use state. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, this is like picking LA and NY...there are many other cities, and to the average English speaker they are one big blur. At least defining the country will eliminate all national-team-convert issues. Also, it helps ease the Latvian issue (where they don't consider Latvia to have ever been in the Soviet Union). As well, like I said in another example, nobody say "Berlin, European Union"--Львівске (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How would we handle disambiguations for US/Canadian players? E.g., Colin Stuart of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Rochester, US is not the Rochester that is immediately obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Whereas Kiev is Kiev, Moscow is Moscow. Grsz¹¹ 04:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But Moscow, Idaho is Moscow, Idaho. WP:MOS says to follow the naming convention guidelines when referring to places. WP:Naming conventions says to follow the AP Stylebook, which allows only limited exceptions to "city, state" nomenclature. Further, "A United States city's article should never be titled 'city, country' (e.g., 'Detroit, United States') or 'city, state, country' (e.g., 'Kansas City, Missouri, USA')." So, to use city-country for the US would be overriding WP:MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And as the MOS discussion went, "England, UK" would be wrong as well. I think we're just fishing for an exception for the USSR, when there really shouldn't be one. It's more beneficial to the reader to have the currently implemented form anyway. I don't see why there is all of this backwards traction all of a sudden...--Львівске (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(I'm coming in late on this, so exccccuuuuse me if I've missed the rants.) I don't have any objection to using 'Tolyatti, Russian SFR, USSR' as a standard base. It seems a reasonable compromise. (i.e. it satisfies no-one fully) I'd rather just use that form and never have to wonder if there was another Tolyatti in the USSR. I don't want to have to know USSR geography. Admittedly the problem is diminishing, but it seems the USSR needs the SFR section to differentiate. And in the Latvian case, it covers all the bases. Alaney2k (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid a 3 part location and like said above, it's generally frowned upon for US or UK as far as style goes (right?).--Львівске (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But what if there are two cities in the same country with the same exact names? Can't think of any, but what if? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tunnel link to the appropriate one. It's easier to specify state over federation, though. There are 5 cities called "Ontario" in the US. For a USSR example, there is a city of Sverdlovsk in both Ukraine and Russia; this caused hockeydb to already screw up and write Khabibulin is from Sverdlovsk, Ukraine--Львівске (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the SFR part is essential because we are talking about the Soviet Union. That's a time period as well as a state. I agree with the policy that we show birthplaces as they were named on the date of birth. We can drop the SFR initials, but that's about as far as I'd want to go. If you just write Sverdlosk, Russian SFR, it's not clear that the person was born in the Soviet era. (unless you already know) German cities differentiate by region. I think there are two Freiburgs. Alaney2k (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it not clear they were born in the Soviet Union if you do use the SSR suffix? I think it's entirely the opposite. --Львівске (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The SFR stuff should be replaced with 'Soviet Union'. As that's the country these guys were born in (pre-1992). GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well one doensn't say the country for the US, UK, or Canada. Bear in mind, the Soviet Union, Ukraine, and Belarus were all separate members of the UN back then.--Львівске (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine & Belarus were within the Soviet Union then. Also, I prefer using United States, United Kingdom & Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they were in the Soviet Union, but represented internationally as independent countries. As for what you prefer...it goes against common use and style guides...--Львівске (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You've made those changes 'without' getting a consensus for it. Either use 'Soviet Union' or the current names 'Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia etc'. If you choose the latter, you'd also have to change 'Czechoslovakia' to 'Czech Republic & Slovakia'. In otherwords, none of this SFR stuff. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I had consensus that "U.S.S.R." was dead wrong, and change needed to be made. I've justified and explained my position ad nauseam, and now I need to prove things to you? Didn't you quit the WP?--Львівске (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I too prefer to see USSR get the boot, but only in favour of Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can you guys reading here give me some sort of conensus on which to go with? I went with the change and now we're getting intro problems. I'll post an example and just sign underneath what you prefer:

For City>State _{ex. Kiev, Ukrainian SSR / Belfast, Northern Ireland / New York, New York}

• I prefer this one, as there are 7 states in the US with a city named Dallas. There are too many city names in the US that are duplicated in different states. For example, looking at the New Jersey Roster american players, I see that there are 7 US States with a city named Winchester, Trenton, Syracuse, Quincy, and Grafton. 6 US States with a city named Sterling, 4 US States with a city named Burnsville, 3 US States with a city named Minneapolis, 2 US States with a city named Flint, and 1 US State with a city named Cloquet. Listing a player such as Barry Tallackson as coming from Grafton, US does not show where he is from. He is from Grafton, North Dakota -Pparazorback (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also think this is the best way to go about it. In some cases, it is notable to know what province/state/republic/etc the player was born in, and that should be reflected in the infobox. Besides, it looks awkward in English to write something like New York, United States, or Toronto, Canada. In regards to the USSR and the like, it certainly doesn't hurt to know what republic the player was from, either. Its just a few extra letters in the infobox; nothing to get excited about. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• I obviously sided with this one. I've stated my reasons enough times, but 1) it avoids duplicates 2) it steers away from the Baltic issue 3) country wise, it helps clarify for those who are Russian nationals, but weren't born in Soviet Russia. For US/UK/CAN, WP:PLACE agrees with this form --Львівске (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• In the previous discussion at "Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth", I generally supported this view. But this is the simplest situation; I would suggest that more complicated situations be dealt with as follows:
  • Nations made up of distinct countries: city > constituent country (> nation, if city is not well known). Examples: "Cardiff, Wales"; "Makhachkala, Dagestan, Russian Federation".
  • Nations the borders and/or political structure of which have changed: city > former state/constituent country (if any) or nation (now present state/constituent country (if any) or nation). Examples: "Berlin, East Germany (now Germany)" or "Berlin, German Democratic Republic (now Federal Republic of Germany)"; "Prague, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic)".

It may be worth creating an essay and then initiating discussion on the talk page to see if there is consensus for it to become policy. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For City>Union _{ex. Minsk, Soviet Union / London, United Kingdom / Dallas, United States}

• I prefer it this way. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Other

• I'll put myself in the hybrid category. I think Canada/US/Australia (if an Aussie ever makes the NHL) it should be city/state and the rest of the world city/country. The rationale that adding the SSRs to the rosters, as it eases where they play internationally is not valid. IIRC, when the USSR broke up all players were given the right to choose whether they wanted to play for Russia, as they were all entitled to Russian citizenship or their birthplace. So adding in that a certain player was born in the Latvian SSR does not help this, if that player plays internationally with Russia. I personally think the easiest way to deal with this is by what was printed on their passports/national identity forms at the time of birth. Ergo, all players pre-1991 from the USSR, should say USSR, all players pre-1993 from Czechoslovakia, should say Czechoslovakia etc. etc. Whether or not the current governments recognize themselves as being a portion of the country or not is irrelevant. The birthplace area in this case refers not to politics, but rather geography and as such dig out an atlas from that era. You will find each province and state having its own page and the USSR having one page. Plus if we recognize one view i.e. the Latvian government's view on history, are we not violating WP:NPOV?

As an aside, since I notice the UK brought up a lot, I'd say that England, Scotland and Wales are the UK. Since the official name of the country is the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, I'd say Belfast would be appropriate with the Union Jack as flag, but Northern Ireland as the country. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the union jack is the flag used for players, but for written location, wikipedia policy is to be city>state for the UK, re:WP:PLACE. It's also common use to write london,england vs. london,uk. That said, all examples (US,UK,CAN,AUST) are federations...the Soviet Union was a federal union as well. Sure, ALL OTHER nations dealing with (sweden, czech, norway, whoever) are unitary states and there isn't anything to discuss. If all federations use city>state, and unitary states are city>state (the state is the country!), then to follow form...logic says that for the USSR it should be city>state as well--Львівске (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are to go with city>state, then should we start using Swiss Cantons? Instead of saying Bern, Switzerland, we should say Bern, Bern? I think since the NHL has a bigger North American following than anything else, we should follow the common usage for North America right? I have no problem with the Tajik SSR being used on KHL articles, but I think since Wikipedia is built on common usage, perhaps the North American standard should rule for North American articles. I've noticed on the few DEL pages that Canadian birthplaces are pipelinked with the city>province made into city, Canada. If that is how Germany recognizes where places are, then use it there.

But this does open the can of worms for other articles in the hockey realm. I imagine that there must be players who were born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire that are notable enough for inclusion on here. What do we do with those? As I believe many cities that are now in other countries (Kiev I believe is one example) were actually inside this Empire. As such, do we show those players as being born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire or whatever designation the Ukraine had within the Empire? What about players born before 1867 in Canada? Are they from Canada, Britain or whatever colony their birthplace belonged in? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is actually the version I prefer as well. -Djsasso (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Common English usage in this case dictates "Town, State/Province" for Canadian and US (and Australian) locales, while places in the former USSR are rarely (if ever?) disambiguated with the sub-national 'republic'. I don't think it's wrong to say "Kiev, Ukrainian SSR", simply unusual. I'd be happy with either "Kiev, Ukrainian SSR" or "Kiev, USSR", but under no circumstances can we unilaterally decide that hockey-related articles should use "Minneapolis, United States" or "Winnipeg, Canada". It's just not done that way. 93JC (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• I prefer this version, ie, the way it was with Owen Nolan the only player that would change from how it used to be. Grsz¹¹ 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• City, Nation flat out does not work for Canada and the US, which is why it is typically stated as City, Province/State. That should not change. The USSR one is tricky, given that standard usage in North America is City, USSR (Soviet Union). The simple question, really, is how does the English speaking world view this. i.e.: Do British and Australian sources also use City, USSR (Soviet Union), if so, then that is the common name, and how it should be displayed on the roster templates. I think in the infoboxes on player articles, we can do things like City, Ukanian SFSR, USSR, but for cleanliness, I'd rather stick with city, USSR for the roster templates. Resolute 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo licensing for 1940s-1980s, any ideas?

There's lots of old black and white photos from the 40-50s and then some further on to the 80s. Lots of these photos are uncredited, and in particular I'm looking at a lot of old Soviet league photos. Does anyone know if there is a license that allows the fair use of these?--Львівске (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect that most of them aren't supposed to be here. The exception would probably be the Soviet photos. If I'm remembering correctly, the USSR put anything published before 1973 into the public domain; I do believe Russia honoured this. However, I'm no expert on copyright law, and am probably totaly wrong on this. I do know that anything published in the US prior to 1923 is in the public domain, and therefore free; the same goes for work published in Canada prior to 1949. Again, I could be wrong, and there may very well be exceptions, but I've uploaded several early era hockey images, most of them prior to 1923 because I'm unsure if Canadian copyright law is recognised in the US or not. Regardless, I've not had problems with pre-1923 images. So to sum this up, anything post 1923/1949 probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia, unless someone from that era allowed it to be here, which is doubtful. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of debate about that, and Commons has decided that pre-1973 works are not automatically in the public domain: commons:COM:Copyright#Russia and former Soviet Union. Resolute 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn...seems a shame to let these historical pictures go to waste.--Львівске (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a fair use rationale for the use of photos, you should be able to add some of them to articles. Usual restrictions, low-res, etc. If the copyright is in doubt, you can't put them on the Commons at all. Alaney2k (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

...elaborate--Львівске (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You just have to meet these requirements and then put a fair use template on the picture page explaining why the page you added it to qualifies. See any team logo image page for an example. -Djsasso (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For logotypes however, the replaceability claim is simpler than photographs, so be careful about that. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of NHL players

There is a discussion relating to this going on on Talk:Sidney Crosby. The idea is to add criticism to players' pages somewhere (not necessarily an entire new section) rather than keep having it put in as vandalism and reverted and the page being protected 24/7/52. It has been noted that Alexander Ovechkin contains paragraphs relating to criticism over his celebrations and yet Sidney Crosby's reputation as a complainer is not as covered as Ovechkin's reputation as hyperactive. Other players which include controversy/criticism sections include Wayne Gretzky, Jaromir Jagr, Bobby Clarke etc. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Sidney Crosby. 124.180.121.67 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Former Teams On The Infobox

The Kings signed Brandon Segal today as a free agent from the Lightning. Since I tend to deal with only Kings related articles, he is now on my radar. Anyway, I noticed he had been members of the Predators, Ducks and Lightning organizations, but had only appeared in the NHL with Tampa. Since the Infobox has a place for former teams, I added in the minor league teams he played for instead of the Preds and Ducks. Is this correct or since the Milwaukee Admirals were the Preds AHL team, should I put Nashville in there instead? What about for players who play in the AHL/ECHL/CHL and are called up, does their former minor league team get added as a former team or is it simply their parent organization? At WP:CFL, we've always treated NFL Europe as a separate team from their NFL parent, so I'm of the opinion that minor league teams should be added. Am I wrong? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally it was only supposed to be the teams from the same league their current team is, however this has gone by the wayside and most people add any professional league they have played for at any level. -Djsasso (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Only put the teams he PLAYED for and not who owned his rights. AHL teams are usually left out.--Львівске (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Typically, I include only top level teams played for, so NHL, RSL/KHL, SEL, etc. In other news, "holy crap". I was wondering if Brandon would ever get his shot at playing on an NHL roster, and totally missed his two games. Remember him from his Hitmen days, and I used to work with his brother in law when he was buried in the Preds system. Resolute 14:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the top level teams only as well. -Djsasso (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, to only listing top-level teams. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That would put me in the minority then. I tend to include all professional teams, including AHL, ECHL, CHL, UHL, various European leagues, etc. My rational is simply that for the vast majority of NHLers, they spent most of their pro career with minor league teams, and I think the infobox should reflect that. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing to consider is that the infobox is just a summary of key points such as the highest level they achieved and not a place to list all the information. The information about their minor league career would be found in the prose or stats sections. -Djsasso (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to also include teams from lower leagues if they spent a significant portion of their career in those leagues. For example, it wouldn't be a good summary of the player's career to only put "Anaheim Ducks" in their former teams if they played 5 games with Anaheim, yet spent 15 seasons in various lower leagues. Those lower leagues obviously summarize their career better than the 5 games in the NHL. Use your best judgement. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup I agree with this, use common sense. -Djsasso (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so for Tom Preissing, his late season demotion to Manchester should not be added? But since Segal has thus far been a career minor leaguer, Milwaukee etc. is suitable? Using Twas Now's guidelines, at what point do the minor league teams disappear? Take Segal, if he somehow cracks the Kings' roster this year and plays all 82 games, should only Tampa remain or does he have to play substantial years in the NHL first? At least on the football templates, we usually show the teams as more of a resume style (see Bobby Harris (gridiron football) for example) perhaps maybe the infobox should go to this format and then all teams he played for would fit? Not trying to reinvent the wheel on this, just an idea. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just use your best judgement. We don't want to set a rigid, arbitrary standard. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Grant

Should this be moved to Danny Grant? I had to move it back due to a C&P move but I agree it should be probably be named Danny, more common. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be brought here. That is what article talk pages are for. I have moved it back to the original title of Danny Grant. If people want to discuss moving it to Daniel Grant please do so on the article talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There's probably like two people with it in their watchlist so I just put it here. And I would have moved it myself but it needed an admin to move it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But that is actually the point, if only two people watch the page its probably not important enough to bring here. But I know you needed an admin which is why I did the move. -Djsasso (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership issues

I'm wondering if they might not exist between 1994 Stanley Cup Finals and SNlyer12, who's frequently reverted any edits by other users, for a start, and also insists on inserting material about the same city hosting the 1992 and 1994 NHL and NBA Finals into any page regarding either subject, even when told to stop. Just curious. –ConkblockCity (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor-in-question, has made edits/reversions in the past; while choosing not to discuss them. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He's pretty clearly obsessed with the 94 finals, but for the most part, when I've commented or reverted elsewhere (i.e.: trying to brag about the 94 Rangers on the Edmonton Oilers article), he's left it. not sure about 1994 Stanley Cup Finals though. Resolute 14:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We all have our own pet pages, but there's always the option of *editing* other editor's contributions, or at least giving reasons for reverting. It seems like there's a determination to have only his facts exactly how he wants them, no matter how opinionated or trivial. –ConkblockCity (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He has this issue with other articles too. Just look at his talk page where he doesn't respond to queries (one section in particular is from me, where he continued doing what I was asking him to stop without even commenting). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The times is coming for him, to start answering a few questions. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked up on his 4-year history on Wikipedia. It seems he's rarely (if at all) responded to anybody, at his User-talk page. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, less than 250 edits to a user talk page since April 2005. I don't know how that is possible. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 64 edits made on my talk page since Christmas in 2006. About 20 of them are not bot or self edits. Hope I didnt jinx it now. :) --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I went back and undid some of his recent edits...lots of pointless rewording. Although he did do a decent job collapsing the boxes on the MLB pages. --Smashville^talk 14:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not only does he not discuss them...I went back through his last 5000 edits...he's left less than 50 edit summaries...--Smashville^talk 16:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming he'll continue to ignore us, how shall we get his attention? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins can warn him about it if he keeps doing it on a specific page. And if he ignores multiple warnings he can be short term blocked for disruptive editing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And there are at least 4 admins watching him, based on this thread. --Smashville^talk 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I reckon a block (if it comes to that) would certainly get his attention. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this page for a long time now, and this user has been called out by at least four or five different users about WP:OWN on the article. I've been wanting to go through and do a re-write to remove some of the POV and irrelevant information in this article, but haven't really had the time. I think a block is all that's going to get his attention, as almost every query on both his user talk page and the article's talk page has gone nowhere. Quite a frustrating situation. This user has also been a strong backer of the Cinderella (sports) term. I have every Vancouver Canucks player in my watchlist...you couldn't believe how many times I've had to watch this user add "Cinderella run" to any 1982 and 1994 Canuck. I personally think it's a POV word, even a weasel word, but that's neither here nor there. Anyways, nice to see this situation getting some attention, it's been a massive thorn in my side for quite some time. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one who noticed the bit about the Cinderella term. I removed the references from the 1994 Finals because I find it a rather condescending term. I definitely agree that it's a POV word, as I would argue that, even as a #7 seed, they were not out of place in that series. They had back-to-back division titles in the 2 seasons before that and were largely the same team.Djob (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I may have been one of those four or five.  :) That was a few months ago, but I saw what seemed to be this user's modus operandi, and then just noticed now that someone else's perfectly reasonable edit had been reverted without a word, and I figured it qualified as a good last straw and that more people needed to share the annoyance. You're welcome! :) –ConkblockCity (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it's time for Snyer, to be blocked, say 30-minutes to 1-hour (just to get his attention). GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say 24 (at least) would definitely be more effective. Enough time to sit in the corner and think about what you did. User IS a repeat (repeat, repeat...) offender, after all. –ConkblockCity (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Though highly irregular, I made a revert at 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, with an eye catching (for him) edit summary. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, any Wikipedians with the power around here...this user continues to edit, at this moment, while clearly ignoring a request for discussion (as has been the case for 4 years). Given that, isn't it justified to say he's editing in bad faith by totally disregarding other editors? And isn't that enough to earn him some time off, like RIGHT NOW? –ConkblockCity (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your best course of action is to follow the WP:BRD cycle. If there are articles that you think require some pruning, prune them. If you get reverted, start a discussion on the talk page of that article and form a consensus. If an editor attempts to enforce a position against consensus, then we'll see a lot more scrutiny. Obsessive though they might be, SNyler does seem to be attempting good faith edits for the most part. Be sure we don't lose site of that when attempting to rein in the ownership issues on some articles. Resolute 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 48hrs (see the ANI report). I've been more concerned with SNIyer's snubbing of editors. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Don't forget to read all the way to the bottom, folks. :) –ConkblockCity (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors and admins of the jury... I'm sorry, I started laughing when I saw it. (Please note what section occupies the page. Then note the page's subject. Then note the amount of edit summaries.) –ConkblockCity (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just going through the archives, while the person in question is blithely ignoring us atm...(see his contributions) This guy's already got a really substantial rap sheet and a trail of evidence many miles wide. Has he never been blocked before? And why on earth has he been allowed to persist in the exact same editing habits for years??? –ConkblockCity (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, is there an administrator in the house? GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy's gotta be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. Anybody got the know how? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've reported him (hope it's the right place). GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, where is everybody? Is SNIyer holding ya'll hostage? GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm here! Though I do plan to do a little happy dance when this user's taken out of commission for some length of time...perhaps internally. :)

In the immortal words of Kermit the Frog, "Sheesh." (exasperation goes here).

So you've reported him, do you think it'd be beneficial if another user did the same? I assume you just referenced this discussion? –ConkblockCity (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just follow my contributions, they take you to it. The more input there, the better. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Followed. (and linked back here.) –ConkblockCity (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nurmsook, if you'd like to take a crack at the original page in question, the disruptive user in question's now been blocked for 48 hours!! –So feel free to edit to your Wikiheart's content. (If anybody else wants to work on anything, now's the time....have fun, kids...responsible, credible, relevant fun.) –ConkblockCity (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, SNIyer12's 48hr block has expired. PS: He's such a socializing bloke. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and he's gone back to work, though so far I've seen nothing too bad. Funny, he was inactive for 48 hours and 10 minutes! He's stayed away from the '94 Finals so far.Djob (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because he had been blocked for 48hrs. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what I meant was that he was apparently editing right up until he was blocked and then resumed IMMEDIATELY after the time ended. Personally, I didn't think a 48 hour block would accomplish much because most people routinely go several days without editing, but I guess it was effective in his case.Djob (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Some editors treat Blocks as a 'wiki-break'. They're not overly upset by them. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Order of sections on player biography articles

I was just made aware that on our long-forgotten player page format page, there was a standard set out that, I would argue, needs to be changed. According to the page, which I'll admit I haven't looked at since probably sometime in 2005, it says to put awards and records ahead of career statistics. Now, I am opposed to this, and think we should change it. My rationale is quite simple. For the majority of player biography FA's, the career stats come before awards/records, etc (see Jacques Plante, Martin Brodeur, Trevor Linden, Jarome Iginla, and Tiny Thompson). Another reason would be that the NHL, as well as most websites or any other reference, includes those lists after the stats (see NHL.com player profiles, NHL Record Book, hockeydb.com, legendsofhockey.net, etc). I'd like to here what other peoples thoughts on this is. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that our guidelines already stated that stats comes before awards and records. And I also prefer it that way, so I'm all for a change. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it. 100s of players have awards ahead of their stats, it would take forever to fix them all. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to fix it from the past, unless you are working on an article already, but I prefer the layout we have on our current FA's going forward. Resolute 02:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That international play section on the PPF needs a major overhaul as well. The standard at Joe Sakic is what we should be aiming for there. Resolute 02:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On Joe's international stats, I like how the event is linked too. Like - 1998 - Canada - Oly. A lot of those sections only like to the Olympics. And speaking of section ordering, should a coaching statistics table be before or after the playing one? RandySavageFTW (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would put coaching record after playing record, as that would fit chronological order. Resolute 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting awards and records before stats can be considered as a consequence of following the inverted pyramid technique, where more important/pertinent facts are placed before lesser ones, so anyone who stops reading the article at a given place has read the most important bits to that point. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in theory all that stuff would already be written in the prose of the article. So regardless of where the section is place, the reader has ideally already read about that stuff. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The placement of the sections themselves can also follow the inverted pyramid technique, so someone browsing through the sections looking for a piece of information can see more important parts before ones of lesser importance. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

so simply put shouldnt someone put the Joe Sakic page as the guide for the PPF? its odd how the good FA articles out there dont relate at all to our current PPF page layout. Surely its confusing to new editors who want to do the right thing and look at the PPF before they start editing. Triggerbit (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My expectation is that most editors don't even know the PPF exists. I think they would be more likely to copy a live article, which have been gravitating towards the Sakic standard. Resolute 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say it gives me a sense of pride knowing that people are using an article I spent a lot of work on as the template for most biography articles, even while I think it is no longer one of the better looking articles out there and could use some improvement. I also think that we need to seriously overhaul the PPF page, even if nobody looks at it. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone Taylor; help needed

I have recently added this article to Slovenian wikipedia but found a mistake/crack. How is it possible that Taylor played for Pittsburgh Pros in the 1909 WPHL season but there is no Pittsburgh Pros team in the article about the season of the WPHL? Thanks. Jambornik (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that Pittsburgh Pros is another name for one of the teams listed on the season page. Teams back them seem to have sometimes had multiple names they were known by as often names were unofficial. Would have to do some google searches etc to see if this is the case though. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Many teams back in the day rotated nicknames like...something that rotates a lot. --Smashville^talk 20:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that is Pittsburgh PAC. That is what the SIHR site says. I'll update the Taylor article. Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:NHLseasonTOC

I really don't like this TOC for season articles. I'd much prefer to use a regular TOC box. Can we get rid of this? iMatthew ^talk at 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather continue to use the template, but modify the template to make it better. I think it is important to make the season articles fairly uniform so that people find what they are looking for in a reliable way. I've been creating a lot of team season articles and the toc fits what is expected in an article, in a compact way. It fits between the Wiki column on the left and the infobox on the right. So, to not show it for just a few articles would not look so good. For example, did you want to show more sub-headings? We could modify it or create a companion seasonTOC that shows more sub-headings, but still stops the empty space. We can do more than that of course. Alaney2k (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it altogether. I'd prefer that it was removed from every season articles. iMatthew ^talk at 13:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I created it because the full list of subsections becomes ungodly large on these articles. I've gone with a regular TOC, limited to just l2 headings for 2008–09 Calgary Flames season, which will work better, imnsho. Resolute 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me iMatthew ^talk at 15:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I started a thread a long time ago about getting rid of it and most agreed.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive31#Template:NHLSeasonTOC. I don't really want to go remove them all, though.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised. I thought that most wanted it, that's why I've been using it and upgrading it. I can probably remove them all with AWB. I don't have access it to AWB until Monday. I'd like to hear some opinions on what we should replace them with. Should we use some of the TOC options (i.e. limit to level 2)? I'd like to see some consistency, that's why I ask. Alaney2k (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the 2008–09 Flames one looks great. I'd support that, actually I'd probably support any other than the TOC. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started the AWB process. Should be cleaned up by tomorrow. Alaney2k (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the NHL team season articles no longer have the template. They all have the {{TOClimit |limit=2}} instead. Alaney2k (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

NHL uniform

Can someone help me out of here NHL uniform. I got IPs pushing unreferenced POV. ccwaters (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

NHL Lifetime Achievement Award and the National Hockey League awards FT

As NHL Lifetime Achievement Award was recreated, it needs adding to the FT. As it was recreated on the 19 June, then it needs adding by the 19 September, having gone through a completed peer review. Hope that's okay - rst20xx (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor league hockey task force

I represent a group of roughly between five and ten wikipedians who focus much of our edits to minor professional (minor league) hockey articles. We would like to coordinate our efforts to improve the quality of minor league articles, but have only been able to communicate our interests through posting on several user talk pages. We believe that improving these articles would be very beneficial to the main project, as the task force would improve articles that are given the least attention from the main project. If we are to create this task force, the committed members and I would like to request for approval and permission from WPIH to continue with our efforts. I hope you are all ok with what we want to do. Rik (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible Rik, exclude diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No offence, dude, but bringing up diacritics on so many threads where they aren't even mentioned is borderline trolling. Resolute 22:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. But, I'll put it in neutral. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And absolutely, sounds like a great idea. Resolute 22:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have active editors have at it. Let me know if I can help in setting it up for you. We mostly just have issues in the past with people creating task forces then never doing anything with them...see the junior task force and many of the team task forces for examples. As long as you have a bunch of editors already working together I say go for it. -Djsasso (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Image request

Hey guys. I was wondering if anybody had any good pictures of New York Islanders anything. I'm looking for images to put in the main NYI article, and I can't find much more than current players pictures, pictures of the Coliseum, etc. Any help appreciated. iMatthew ^talk at 15:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what type of pictures you want (i.e.: game situations) and I'll see what I can do when the Isles come to Calgary on Sept 17... and Tavares had better play that game, or I'm going to kick Wang's ass.  ;) Resolute 20:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, try emailing the Islanders marketing department to see if they'd be willing to freely licence a couple of old photographs. I did with the Flames, and they did agree to license a couple photos, but not a a resolution I could use. I've got plenty of photos in that article, so I just thanked them, but other organizations have been known to be forthcoming. Resolute 21:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything you can get would be cool. I'll be going to a lot this season too (company season tickets, baby!) So I'll get all of the players, hopefully. I'm going to have to find a good camera first though. Anyway, I was mainly thinking of anything related to the 1972-2000 Islanders. Players pictures, management pictures, newspaper covers (if they're free licensed). As for e-mailing them, I'll get on looking for the address... how long did it take for them to reply? iMatthew ^talk at 21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Flames took about ten days to respond to me. The Kelowna Rockets never responded at all when I sent them a request, while the GM of the Albuquerque Isotopes responded within 48 hours, and eventually gave me four pictures for use on the Calgary Cannons article. So I can't really say how long it would take the Isles to respond, if they choose to. Resolute 21:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Michel Ouellet

Small problem on the stats section. It says <TR ALIGN=Center right before the stats. I don't think there is anything wrong with the table. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The HTML code is from a copy/paste from hockeydb's source code. I've wikified it, as it should be. Resolute 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Die-a-critics (one more time baby!)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hate (hate!) to resurrect the bloodthirsty zombie that is diacritics, but it's just bugging the hell out of me and wanted to rant a bit. Here is my proposal, distilled and straight up:

1. Only use diacritics in a name (player or team) when that is the common usage OR in English media.

There, that's it. For example, there is absolutely no reason a player like Sandis Ozolinsh should have his page titled as Sandis Ozoliņš with the English translation in the brackets! I notice this a lot for Latvian articles. The names are written entirely in Latvian, and not English. As far as Czech's go, Jagr's name has never had an áccent in his name ás long ás he hás pláyed in the NHL. Just like with the band Motörhead, the heavy metal umlaut is kept because that's how it is always written in English. Conversely, I'm not going to write the team name Sokil as "Sokïl" just because the diacritic letter applies in Cyrillic, but because it's not published that way in English. Ever.

This isn't like the Quebec example where English sources may or may not use diacritics and it becomes a debate. This is unsourced revisionism, and totally against all wiki-rules and MOS stuff I've seen.

So to reiterate, Mežaparks, good - it has an English source supporting the spelling. Patrik Eliáš, bad, no English-language article should have to have an English translation in the header. Put the common use or sourced name the one in the article, and put the translated name in brackets as we do for any other language.

Thoughts? --Львівске (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In the archives of years ago, you'll discover these arguments were had. Personally, I prefer all diacritics/accents deleted from English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is an ongoing issue with history in the archives, but the "Ozoliņš" article just stuck out to me like a sore thumb and pushed me over the edge.--Львівске (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You won't get a budge on player article titles. This is just stirring up the pot, many non-hockey editors will start crying foul if you change actual page titles. Sandis is a good example of a page that was at the forefront of the "war". Wikipedia on a whole argues about this back and forth, in the end I think this is best just left alone as are most diacritic issues. One of the arguements is that as a proper noun its not actually translated to English, what we think of as the english version is just a nickname which is why it ends up in brackets. But of course this is only one side of the argument. I would also note in the cases like Elias that names in the brackets were mostly added by those wanting to get rid of diacritics, other than Sandish where it makes sense to have the other version listed, it does not for players like Elias. Most of those edits to add them were WP:POINT edits. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In the end what you need to realize, is our "compromise" on diactritics isn't meant to be a policy or a guideline or MOS. It's just meant to be something that stops the non-stop arguments and debates on this topic which will never see either side gain a consensus. Basically when created it was meant to stop these topics from being opened over and over. :) The real idea originally was to just leave them as you find them but a few editors were incapable of doing that. WP:HOCKEY can't overrule Wiki-wide consensus, which for diacritics doesn't exist as the whole wiki is split about 50/50 our compromise is just to stop the constant debate among hockey editors. It used to come up every month and used to drive editors away from editing because you would see people reverting each other well past 3 reverts etc. For about a year and a half or so there was no noise about it and all was good, and then someone unknowningly brought up quebec and now its come up over and over again the last month or two. -Djsasso (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the Quebec example has sources on both sides to back it up. The Central Euro names have nothing to back them up....and how is the English variant deemed a nickname? I mean, you could say all Russian players translations are nicknames then, but hey, we don't allow cyrillic to creep in there do we? I just find it silly we allow unsourced and uncommon text to find its way on here.--Львівске (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The names as you would like them to be all redirect to these pages anyways, so in the end nothing is lost, and nothing is really harmed. -Djsasso (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Except it's difficult to read through a lot of these things, and looks very awkward to boot. I (coincidentally) just sent some mail off to the Czech Republic this morning and the person at the counter, upon seeing the address, was like "huh? What are all these markings??"....--Львівске (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I like Lvivske's reasoning as it tends to agree with WP:COMMONNAME. If the player's name is commonly spelled with diacritics then keep it that way, if not then leave the diacritics off. I really don't know of a good hockey related example to back it up, but I know in baseball if a person has an "ñ" in their name, the tilde is usually kept on the n. Tavix |  Talk  23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

>>I should have just read the MOS to begin with. This is right on the main page,

---

"...their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines."

Within an article, spell a name that appears in the article title as in that title (covered in naming conventions) rather than an alternative spelling, unless there is a good reason to do so, such as may be given in Naming conventions (use English). Spell the other foreign names, phrases and words as most commonly spelled in the English-language references in an article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic. If the foreign names, phrases or words do not appear in the article's references, then use the spelling as most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources (for example other English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias). If the foreign phrase or word appears rarely in English, avoid using it."

---

...it's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! Diacritics stole fizzy-lifting drinks! They bumped into the ceiling that now has to be washed, and sterilized so they get nothing! They lose! Good day sirs!--Львівске (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So, if it appears rarely in English..? use Teemu Selanne, Jaromir Jagr, Peter Stastny etc? GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that the MOS is a guideline not a policy and that in most causes diacritics are not considered to affect the spelling. Diacritics are considered letter modifiers. Sandis is of course a rare exception. WP:Diacritics (another guideline) for example says Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. If it were as black and white as that the diacritic war on wikipedia would have been over years ago.-Djsasso (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to note the fact that I'm getting annoyed with these diacritic threads. Yes, this comment is unhelpful. That is all... :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you read selectively, but it clearly supports common English usage to trump all.

Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them.

--Львівске (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It also goes on to say that its hard to find sources online because search engines have a hard time distinguishing between articles that have them and don't. It also goes on to say to not make a big deal of it. Just use the engvar method an don't add them or remove them from what the original author used. Especially since (to muddy up the waters) WP:IAR is used often in the case of diacritics, ignore a rule if it stops the wiki from improving and most people who like diacritics would say not having diacritics would be stopping the wiki from improving. -Djsasso (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my stance from the last debate, then go back to the sidelines. I support diacritics in the article name, and in the lead when discussing the name of the article (ie. the bolded part of the lead). After that, I don't care what is used; you can refer to Jagr as Ĵąğŗ for all I care. My rational is simple: the article title (usually, and my personal preference) is the name of the article in question, and the name in the lead is the official name (or in the case of a person, their full name). Thusly, they should include the proper name of the article, which (sometimes) includes diacritics. After that, it really makes no difference what name is used. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(res to Djsasso): Interesting, can WP:IAR be applied aswell, for deleting dios/accents? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. No one is required to follow our compromise, our compromise was made to stop people warring with each other. Its not a policy, its a Gentleman's agreement. You are free to run around deleting diacritics if you want GoodDay, but we both know it would be a waste of your time because people will just revert you. -Djsasso (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, they wouldn't revert me if I deleted the dios at the NHL player's birthplaces on the NHL roster templates (of course, I dare not do so). GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away with birthplaces.... we (me, you, whoever, doesn't matter) should only be focusing on unsourced / unreferenced diacritics in names --Львівске (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the 'English translation' of Sandis Ozolinsh is in brackets in the lead exemplifies everything that is wrong with the idea that "Sandis Ozoliņš" is the best title for that article. You will find absolutely no English source with "Sandis Ozoliņš" in it, anywhere, except Wikipedia... 93JC (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah his article is probably the only one I would agree on mobing since it involves completely different letters as opposed to just modified letters. -Djsasso (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I knew I remembered last time this came up some people found some sources. :) -Djsasso (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a Latvian source...how about non-biased? NHL, HockeyDB, EuroHockey, and IIHF.com are the major registered sources....versus one independent Latvian blog/news site--Львівске (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And those sites would have a North American bias for not wanting to put the extra effort in to add diacritics since you have to type ascii codes.... Every source is biased in some way... -Djsasso (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it a "North American" bias or more just an "English language bias" that you are eluding to?--Львівске (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

North American, because we have found many sources in the past from Europe that use diacritics in English. -Djsasso (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick point: the IIHF referred to Ozolinsh as "Sandis Ozolins" in the article announcing that he is going to play in the KHL (Sandis Ozolins). Though I'd help add to the confusion of what to use for names. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point out that neither the Official Dinamo Riga (re: Latvian) website, nor the KHL website use diacritics on Latvian player names. see here and here. Can someone here seriously claim that the Latvians themselves are too lazy to put diacritics on their own English website? --Львівске (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on who makes the website for them... Sort of the same as how the NHL site uses American English because the company hired to make their website is American, but lots of their official paper documents/books etc use Canadian English... -Djsasso (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that's just wild speculation on your part.--Львівске (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that someone is actually proposing to lower the quality of the wikipedia. Because that's what this proposal is about. In my profession, which is systems development, we have a saying: "Every piece of information is less accurate than its predecessor". Every time you process data, there is a risk of doing something wrong. Translated into this it means that if you start ignoring how names, teams, leagues, etc, are spelled, we might as well quit all of us. Because it's gonna look stupid as hell, for anyone who knows how it really should be spelled, just like a text full of "normal" spelling errors looks awkward to anyone who has graduated. Börje Salming spells his name like that, and not in any other way. Sure, everybody has the right of not knowing exactly how things are spelled, but then they should be guided right by redirects, so people without diacritics on the keyboard could find the guy anyway. But deliberately misspelling articles? That's a non-starter. Check the recently archived discussion "Diacritics - again" (which unfortunately never came to a conclusion), and you'll see that the discussion is going in the other direction.

When it comes to Jágr and Ozoliņš, the reason they did not have the diacritis on their jerseys is that NHL has a policy to ignore them. This isn't NHL.

I'm finding it really hard to understand why some editors seem to be more or less "allergic" to diacritics. They're part of the Latin alphabet - albeit not very frequent in English - and they appear almost daily on the Main Page. Inside me there's a fire burning, and I think a share that with most editors; I don't want errors in wikipedia. And ignoring diacritics, well if that's not an error, then I don't know what is. LarRan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles would look neat, without those squiggly wigglies. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LaRan, I understand what you're saying but in reality, diacritics make wikipedia wrong. They do not use the common use and English name, on English wikipedia. Also, diacritics may be part of the Latin alphabet, but not English. Period. It lowers the quality of the pages by using characters that no other source would. It's one thing to follow in brackets the spelling of the name in its native language, but it's a whole other issue to forcefully ignore how it's spelled in English and proceed to use a foreign language for the sake of kitsch. --Львівске (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Börje Salming's name isn't spelled differently in English. Since it's the same alphabet, a name with diacritics is either translated (München -> Munich), or spelled correctly, i.e. with diacritics. Those who spell his name Borje are either lacking equipment (keyboard) or knowledge - or just don't give a damn. Regardless of which, it's an error. Speaking of errors, my name is LarRan. LarRan (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not an error to spell a name in its common usage. As far as correctness goes, there's a reason why artices like Prague (Praha), Kiev (Kyiv), and Moscow (Moskva) are kept at their current "misspelled" variant, and that reason is common use. It's the backbone of wikipedia and you blatantly ignore it, hoping to make names impossible to read for even the scholarly. As far as how a person signs their name...that is irrelevant altogether.--Львівске (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong is common name... In a way, because since when should an encyclopedia obligate to peoples nescience? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Because that's how all Encyclopedias are. Like above, Prague should be Praha, but that's not common use. Rules are rules, and it seems you guys are hell bent on ignoring them.--Львівске (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lvivske is confusing spelling with translating. Prague is not an "alternative spelling" of Praha, it's a translation. It's the same thing with Kiev and Moscow. Did you miss the Munich example above? LarRan (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So we should change the Mexico page to México, then? Why not diacritics on the Czech Republic article? It's Česká, afterall. --Львівске (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No. In some cases, like this one, México is translated to Mexico. The article on the Czech Republic should stay where it is, as that name is a translation, not another way of spelling (am I repeating myself?).

Ask yourself: how is your name spelled in Czech (or Swedish or German)? The answer is: it's spelled the same way as in English, of course. You're just so lucky in the English-speaking countries that, since you have almost no diacritics, your names can be reproduced correctly in all languages using the Latin alphabet. So you won't have to see your names bastardized in other languages. If there had been a diacritic that was in common use in the English language, maybe this discussion wouldn't exist. Because then you would have the experience of constantly fighting misspellings. Maybe there's the key to this everlasting discussion: lack of empathy. LarRan (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Get a clue. What is this rubbish you're spitting about names transliterating exactly as-is to other languages? In Latvin, Jagr's name is "Jaromirs Jāgrs". Why assume letters don't change? To keep with the Ozolinsh example, it's spelled with the SH because nobody in the western hemisphere knows what an S with a ~ on top means. It seems by the tone of your posts that you are just on a crusade to fix "bastardized" names, and to hell with common use and English transliteration, eh?--Львівське (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kind of like how Mattias Öhlund is translated to Mattias Ohlund.

Kind of like no, no Öhlund does not translate Ohlund... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the English wiki, not the Latvian, and what rules they have is up to them. But since you mentioned it, I checked Latvian grammar, and it turns out that the Latvian language uses declensions in all cases for nouns and names, including nominative, which is where articles normally are stored. Masculine nouns (and names) decline with an -s in the first declension. So it's not a spelling issue, it's a grammar one. In English, nouns and names are declined only in genitive. Accordingly, Peter Forsberg's article is stored as "Peters Forsbergs" in the Latvian wiki. It has nothing to do with diacritics.

However, the Ozolinsh/Ozoliņš case makes me hesitate a bit. It's kind of the same thing with tennis player Novak Djokovic/Ðoković. But where draw the line?

As for my tone, well, please keep in mind that English is not my first language, so I most probably express myself less skillfully than other editors. Any rudeness is unintentional. But striving to correct errors, as defined by consensuses can't be wrong, can it? After all, we have quality assessment of articles, and among the requirements are correct spelling and grammar. It's the definition of errors we argue about. LarRan (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring proper spelling under the guise of "consensus". Real "consensus" is popular usage. When thousands of people spell it one way and a handful of people on wikipedia say it's another, who really has the consensus?--Львівське (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it - you don't see me making edits in violation of the consensus - I'm trying to improve it. Thousands of people "spell it one way" because they lack the equipment (keyboard) or knowledge, or just don't bother. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. After all, wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, which means that it should be correct. Even if a misconception is widespread, it shouldn't spread to wikipedia. LarRan (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the total eradication of diacritics from all Hockey articles on English Wikipedia. A poorly kept secret. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If it wasn't for Wikipedia, I wouldn't know that any player even had dia-crap-tics, except for the Swedish players, but that's only because I'm partially Swedish and I can recognize which last name have them. I have never seen any English online/print/television media source that has players names listed with diacritics. I guess I should edit the Sweden page to a redirect and make Sverige the main article. I'm sorry, but it seems that (nearly) everyone in favour of keeping diacritics speaks English as a second language. Thricecube (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Thricecube (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good thing you said nearly. Cause the only language other than English that I can speak is the odd french I remember from school many years ago. -Djsasso (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how some editors twist the arguments. Nobody has suggested moving the Sweden article. There isn't even a diacritic in "Sverige" (unless you count the i). And you don't have to be a rocket scientist - appropriate expression these days - to realize that speakers of languages with diacritics will want to keep them. You try to manage without one of your letters in the alphabet! Remove the m, for example, and use the n instead, they almost look the same, don't they? And why bother having a "double-U"? Wouldn't a single U suffice? Think about what I said on empathy above. Had there been a diacritic in English language that was unique to the English language, we probably wouldn't have this discussion, because all English-language editors would then have first hand experience of the slight nausea that arises when seeing bastardized versions of English names. The understanding of my point of view, and that of several other editors, would be far greater. LarRan (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No. As far as consensus goes, it's diacritics on player's articles. Beyond that is compromise. Keep that in mind. The group, and maybe Wikipedia too, is being generous and tolerant, mostly. I think the majority of English/North American editors do not want diacritics here. It's not a right to impose diacritics wherever you like. A fair portion of us feel they are being imposed here. Belief in one's correctness is just that, a belief. Alaney2k (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you go around hiding them on player articles? RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the spelling consistent on some NHL player articles today, is that what you mean? I see no reason for Jagr spelled with diacritics on Mike Bossy's article, e.g. Alaney2k (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is all player articles.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the mine fields... -Djsasso (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus says that player pages should keep the diacritics, then that should be respected. Unless I've missed something, the consensus doesn't say that where the players currently play is relevant. Alaney2k, along with some other diacritics critics (!), is just trying to invent a loophole that doesn't exist. Samuel Påhlsson is an NHL player, should we then lose the diacritics on his page? And then restore them if he goes to the KHL, or back to Sweden? It's is a ridiculous argument. LarRan (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like Alaney2k's idea. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus here is to not use diacritics on NHL related articles (see: rosters) but leave them to the discretion of the player pages (based on factors of how it was first, etc.) Consensus to ignore the player pages does not constitute an override of wikipedia policy whether you like it or not. Common use is the most important. Period. The people who fight for diacritics care not for how the name is spelled in english, just how it's spelled in it's native language and carrying it over here. If you look at some players, the name is different in different languages. There is a simple solution that serves all and it is the "Name (Lang: NAME)" format. It provides the proper spelling in the native language as well as the english common use translation. --Львівське (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hush now, that's just too sensible a 'solution' to this 'problem'.93JC (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"How it's spelled in English"? How is your name spelled in French - or Spanish or German? It's spelled the same way as in English, of course! It's the same thing with names in all languages using the same Latin alphabet, unless they are translated. LarRan (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true--Львівське (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I guess you will provide evidence to the contrary in the near future. LarRan (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How boring. When somebody wants to support the cutting of diacritics always says "this is an English language encyclopedia bla bla bla!". Well, some can argue that before being an "English language encyclopedia", Wikipedia is (should be?) an encyclopedia. Since diacritics are fully part of a letter, I can't understand why someone should voluntarily do a mistake and mispell a name. An encyclopedia shouldn't care about "how a name is commonly mistaken/mispelled/mistyped", but should provide the correct information. But hell, you're right, this is just wikipedia... nothing serious. --necronudist (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It's one thing if some do not really care to use them, but to actively fight them - Jesus! LarRan (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could one of you Swedes do me a favour? Please move the Canada article at the Swedish Wikipedia to Canada from "Kanada". It is a blatantly incorrect spelling, both in English and French. Thanks. 93JC (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so the issue is even more stupid than I thought. Someone here is comparing place names to people names... However, as I told 6.000 times before, when the issue was brought up, do what you can, I don't really care, but simply be aware that cutting diacritics means doing a mistake. --necronudist (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand: Canada is always spelled with a 'C'. Always. Any other way is wrong. The Swedish alphabet has the letter 'C' in it: there's no excuse for the Canada article to be named "Kanada". 93JC (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Difference between place names and people names? A proper name is what it is!--Львівське (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and since you're Italian, could you be a dear and move it:Elisabetta II to Elizabeth II? After all, that is how her name is spelled. Take away the 'h' at the end and you're making a very great mistake. 93JC (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe big time fail 93JC. Spelling Canada Kanada in Swedish is for pronouncing it correctly, like you Canadians would like it pronounced. If Canada was spelled Canada in Swedish we would butcher your country's name. See, in Sweden we care about correct pronunciation. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

'C' before 'a' in Swedish is pronounced the same way as 'K'. Therefore the entire Swedish diaspora is perfectly content with purposely screwing up the spelling of Canada. I'm personally insulted. 93JC (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To add to the confusion: you may have a point, maybe the Canada article should be moved to Kanada. I'm not certain at this moment, but I think Cameroun is at Kamerun and Cambodia is at Kambodja. Many languages have their own translations to country names, including Swedish, and it's not intended at insulting anyone. And the pronunciation doesn't change. The hard-vowel-rule applies in Swedish too, making C sound as K when followed by a hard vowel. LarRan (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I've said before, and as this discussion so aptly shows, there is no consensus about diacritics. Why are you trying to push them against the consensus? I would say there are four categories of editors' opinions here. 1. Diacritics always is correct. 2. Diacritics is always incorrect. 3. There is a place for diacritics in names. 4. Those who don't care or tolerate them. I think that category 4 is probably the largest. And of course cats 1 and 2 both think they have the correct solution.

Now I place myself in category 3, which I think is the same category as Djsasso, which shows there is a range of opinion within three itself. But I hope that the cat 3 people are the most reasonable, most open, and of course, most humble :-) members of the fraternity. (My family name was changed when it immigrated to England, removing a diacritic. I did not make the decision, but I am not pushing to put it back on the name. So I feel some affinity for the category, which I think is the 'there are bigger fish to fry' category. )

I have to agree that where there is no body of English work for the spelling of a name, as indicated by the many place names of small towns in Europe, it is most appropriate to leave the native spelling. No question. (Now maybe we should not indicate the place-names to avoid the problem, but would that be better?) Now, I agree with the category 2 people that we don't use diacritics in English, and secondly, that diacritics are not integral to the correctness of a spelling. The diacritics indicate the proper pronunciation of a word, because the alphabet is not one native to the country. It's called the Latin alphabet for a reason. Not the Swedish, or Slavic. As is seen so aptly in English with night and knight, we don't use that convention. The English convention is to put the diacritics in the dictionary. We sort the letters based on the base Latin character, as well, which I think is further evidence of what is a character. Thirdly, in the North American media, UK media, league media and even the IIHF federation media, there is no use of diacritics. So, to push diacritics as far as possible all over the English Wikipedia, I think is going against the grain, against convention, beyond reasonable usage. It's not 'use english.' Wikipedia is here to provide information and provide it so that persons understand. We should provide the information in the way that people expect, not what we think is in their best interest.

We should be using diacritics sensibly. To me that is basically what the compromise is about. And it has to be a compromise, because there is no consensus. I don't think it is a sensible use of diacritics to just push them everywhere. Same as I don't think it is reasonable to wipe them out entirely. I think it is an important sign of respect for a person to use their native spelling. But, we all tolerate compromises and the NHLPA has not itself pushed for the use of diacritics, or even brought up the issue, that I know of. I support them where we would normally see them as not uncommon or not unexpected or reasonable. The player's own page, international tournaments, etc., discussion of players originating within a country. (The IIHF tournament articles probably use the diacritics incorrectly by disagreeing with the IIHF usage. Possibly for the Olympics also.) The main point that is that it is reasonable. But I do not think that because a player such as Jagr wins an NHL trophy, that his name with diacritics should be on every other player's article who has a succession box link with him. It's an -NHL- trophy, you know? Or simply other NHL team-mates. That is going beyond a reasonable usage to a POV.

I would like to work towards guaranteeing a place for diacritics and their usage, but I don't think it is all or nothing. Those sort of all-or-nothing beliefs just lead to warring. If I were to vote between cat 1 and cat 2, I would vote cat 2. And I think if we are to see the pushing of diacritics beyond reasonable use, I would switch to cat 2. Alaney2k (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well said --Львівське (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well put indeed. Maybe there's the foundation for a consensus, if all editors would be as reasonable as that. I personally confess to cat 3, as can be concluded from my previous input. I don't think the question "Why are you trying to push them against the consensus?" is directed to me, but if I'm wrong, and it is, the answer is: I'm not (I think). I've only been "fighting" editors who want to eradicate diacritics totally (cat 2 people). Having said that, there is a modification to the current consensus - if one exists - that I'd like to propose: since diacritics (mainly é, è and ê) are so common in French names, and there is a large French-speaking community in Canada (and French also being the other official language beside English), my suggestion is that diacritics would be hidden in articles on US-based entities only (plus the NHL, which operates in both US and Canada), instead of North American-based entities, as indicated in the project notice. The reason: there are national and regional leagues and teams in Canada whose names have diacritics (e.g. Rimouski Océanic, Chicoutimi Saguenéens and Verdun Collège Français), and it doesn't make any sense to me hiding them there. LarRan (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If nobody objects within a couple of days, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the project notice according to my proposal. LarRan (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, are you proposing that the general Wikipedia guideline of common usage by reliable sources be used for Canadian teams and leagues (excluding the NHL)? Isaac Lin (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what he is saying is keep what we currently have but extend it to include leagues in Canada which regionally use diacritics like the QMJHL. -Djsasso (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, articles on Canadian non-NHL entities should allow visible diacritics, that's the proposal. LarRan (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On the flip side, then, why can't we get rid of diacritics from non-North American entities that don't use them officially either?--Львівське (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point if there is an explicit policy, like NHL has (I've been told). The pure absence of diacritics may not necessarily constitute a policy, it might just be a keyboard issue, or lack of knowledge. An example would be useful. LarRan (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he is referring to the IIHF and the KHL. (There could be a ruckus over the IIHF) I think we discussed the QMJHL before. I have no objections to the use of diacritics there. English newspapers in Quebec use them. I'm not sure if they've been forced to by the Quebec government by law or whether it is their own policy. I think we need a clear wording proposal on the project notice. Something to reference that the usage of diacritics should be consistent with the league's or organization's policy.Alaney2k (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will the diacritics be removed 'entirely' from the NHL team article's (i.e. the Team roster player's birthplaces)? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for player names there are lots of sources, not so much for place names. I think you really need to cite another source other than NHL or NHLPA for place names. They could be spelled differently (aka phonetically). There may not even be a conventional English spelling... Alaney2k (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to pass on this proposal. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Quebec government does not regulate the spelling used by any publication. However, I am not comfortable with any blanket statement regarding the practice of English newspapers in Quebec; I believe evidence of a preponderance of reliable sources should be presented for each case being examined. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mean regardless of the presence of common usage by reliable sources, then I would not personally favour your proposal. Persons may have well transliterated their names and so I don't believe it should be assumed otherwise. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please use more clear language for your last sentence. Alaney2k (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Persons may have chosen a specific way to spell their names when written in the English language, and so I don't believe it should be assumed they have not without reliable sources. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean as opposed to assuming they have choosen to spell their name different from the way it truly is spelled? If either assumption is going to be made the most logical one to make is that the person chooses to keep their name spelled the way it originally was. -Djsasso (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As you are aware, the usual Wikipedia standard is not to make assumptions either way and to follow common usage by reliable sources. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and one of the main ideas behind this whole argument is that sources reliable for one thing may not be reliable for another. And one of the arguments put forward is that english media is not reliable when it comes to the proper spelling of names that include diacritics. -Djsasso (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

English sources are the only reliable sources when it comes to the spelling of names in English.93JC (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to be a reliable source, the source must fact check. How many sports reporters do you think went to see how to actually spell the persons name on their birth certificate or in relevant government records or whatever. Removing diacritics does not make a word english. -Djsasso (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you mean to tell us that you believe every single English source on Earth is unreliable on the subject of how to 'properly' spell Jaromir Jagr (for example)? Riiiiight... WP:ENGLISH: Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them. English usage is often best determined by consulting works of general reference which deal with the subject and seeing what they use. ... If there is a consensus on spelling in the sources used for the article, this will normally represent a consensus of English usage.

It's all there, black and white, plain as day. I can cite a plethora of sources saying 'Jaromir Jagr': you find me one English source that says 'Jaromír Jágr'. -93JC (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup and that is a guideline not a policy. To be used with common sense. The particular paragraph works well for other words but not Proper Names which are correct however they are originally spelled and remain the same through languages (baring different alphabets like Cyrillic). WP:IAR on the other hand is a policy which trumps a guideline and says ignore any rule which stops wikipedia from being improved. Dropping the proper spelling of a persons name from an article clearly is not making the wiki better. And no I don't believe every source is incorrect, we have found many sources for the diacritic version of Jagr's name in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got to get off the position that there is one and one only 'correct' spelling of a player's name. That is not objective. This is not about being 'correct'. That's what gets this warring going, over and over. Follow the demonstrated usage out there. It's easier, we can cite directly, etc. I would estimate that 95% or higher, certainly, that spellings of Jagr in English do not use the diacritic. That 5% does not justify 100% usage in Wikipedia. No way. It does not justify spelling names in articles differently than the sources we rely on for those articles. Of course there are going to be league errors, that is still not a justification. Alaney2k (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but spelling someones name wrong is an insult. A huge one at that. It's not an opinion that is likely to change. -Djsasso (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't keep using IAR/BOLD as a shield for this WP to ignore common use, a plethora of wikipedia rules, and all the people who want to uphold said rules. This act of yours is getting tiring...--Львівське (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule, that is the point. A guideline is just a suggestion, not a rule. There was a compromise that was doing just fine for 2 years without much trouble from either side of the issue until you started arguing it. So its clearly not just me as you keep implying. -Djsasso (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaney & 93JC, I admire your efforts & patients. But, getting Dj, Krm & company to bend on this topic? is as likely as getting me to bend. We're all 'too dug in'. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion is going around and around in circles lets archive it and step away for a moment and let heads cool off. If people want to continue it I have split out Alaney's proposal to its own section. If people still want to continue it lets start a new topic below as the bot will continue to not archive this topic if we keep commenting under it and its causing this page to be way past ideal talk page size. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Same season in career statistics sections

Should the same seasons be the same color? We usually go from black to white in the seasons, but on some articles, they keep it the same if it's the same season. I personally think it looks bad, look at this diff of Jagr's article [2] he played for 5 teams in 1994–95, I don't like how it looks. Thoughts? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a different colour on every line, the colours are not to denote seasons but to make it easier to keep your eye focused across the table on one line. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Similarly, I hate, hate, hate right aligning subsequent mentions of the same season. It's ugly and unprofessional. I've been cleaning those up as I come across either of these situations. Resolute 17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really like that either, I debated with a user about adding them on the Player Page Format Page. He has since retired from editing so I think they will slowly all disappear as you fix them. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it visually confusing when there is nothing to separate the seasons from each other. Either color, indenting the years, or something should be used.--Львівске (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its all about how people individually read stat tables, I always take them on a line by line basis, while two lines might be the same season they are separate teams so in my mind I think of them as separate entities. But I definitely understand your view as well. I just can't think of a way that makes it easier for people who view it as you do. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's the same season and the same league (e.g. from a midseason trade), there should be some indication of that. But if it's the same season and a different league, then it seems OK to keep them undifferentiated. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment. Personally, if I'm scanning through a guys point totals and see 75,72,43,25,71...it throws me off, seeing as the format is so uniform you almost assume each line is a different season.--Львівске (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We could do something like put a * next to the line and a footnote at the bottom of the stats indicating the trade that caused the player to play for two teams in a single season. This would be a way to to get in the transactions that some people would like to see listed on pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the indenting thing either, but I'd rather that than the same color. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i think this might be hard to get a general consensus. I find it confusing when the seasons arent differentiated so the same colour is a clear way to get a grasp. I agree when a player has played for four different teams in the one season it doesnt look great. not the keenest on indenting but there should be some solution!? Triggerbit (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we should try and get a consensus. Most of us don't want the same colors but there should/could be something. I'm fine with indenting, or anything other than same color. I brought this up again because I've been removing them lately and Triggerbit is adding them. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

i still think seasons should be grouped. I find it confusing as hell if its just line after line.. some people read it line by line, some people read it grouped..hard to get around making everybody happy but im open to new solutions! Triggerbit (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's the same season in the same league, you can tell that by the season not being linked the second time. I'm actually fine with anything other than the, IMO, terrible looking same season = same color format. The Jagr diff I posted earlier shows how bad it is for 5 teams in one year, but it's even worse for a guy who played in the minors for most of the season and NHL for some. (See this diff of Ryan VandenBussche [3]. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Im the complete opposite on VandenBussche, i think that's exactly where its more useful, so its not just a whole bunch of teams piled on top of each other. Its good that you pointed out how you differentiate the seasons, but thats the point, people look at stat table's have different process' on reading them. Personally, id think the average person on wiki wouldnt study the table's line by line. I'd expect they have more of a glance and visually i think thats where same season=same colour helps. We could go round and round but its just one of those things that we deal with seeing both ways until someone can come up with some other alternative... Triggerbit (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot of what I think is the best stats layout on the web. There are some issues, because we link seasons from the player stats page, however. Basically, they omit the season, but change from grey to white for every line. Without further redo, from the Society of Internal Hockey Research, (member-only site) this is a snapshot of Jágr's stats: Alaney2k (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Jagr-stats.jpg

(This image is to be removed because it is not in article space)

The red asterisks are for league lead in a category, and the bolding indicates what is considered major league status. Alaney2k (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't bad at all, but the immediate problem I see is that it prevents us from linking each league season when a player goes from league to league. i.e.: we can't have 2007-08 ECHL season, 2007-08 AHL season and 2007-08 NHL season in the same list. Resolute 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Although, I suppose we could use the league column to link the season, though it isn't quite as intuitive:

				Regular season						Playoffs
Season	Team	League		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM		GP	G	A	Pts	PIM
2007–08	Macon Whoopee	ECHL		36	26	30	56	22		—	—	—	—	—
	Saint John Flames	AHL		36	34	53	87	20		—	—	—	—	—
	Hamilton Predators	NHL		48	6	23	29	33		19	3	6	9	10
2008–09	Saskatoon Coyotes	NHL		72	33	38	71	112		21	7	11	18	34

Resolute 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I like what you've done. And I have no objection to using the league link as you suggested. It's likely a massive job to change to this format, though. It will need consensus. Macon's got the best team name, though silly. Alaney2k (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't like how it can't be linked from league to league in that format. I still think if we have to go with something it should be indenting. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

While it does look nice, I would prefer league links still be directly to the league. I think the best situation is still the way we currently do it. Unless we add the year for each different league. -Djsasso (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As a test: Craig Conroy#Career statistics. I am actually not sure if it is any better or worse. Resolute 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Dj. NHL being linked 10 times straight is kind of an eye sore. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Prefer the old format. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Wow, a heat wave hits BC and I back away from the computer for a couple days and chaos breaks out here (in reference to above topic). Anyway, I like the way we got going now, which is link for each season (when available), different shades for each column and no indenting. I think it looks terrible to change the first two, and think the indenting looks ridiculous, but would say I'm most apt to changing my opinion on that. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer using the same background for all rows of a season, to indicate grouping. Why do people not like that style??? I have created a version of Conroy at here. Anyway, that's probably my last word on this topic, but I'll be reading. Alaney2k (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks great--Львівське (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)