Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format

Stanley Cup Champions succession box

I was wondering about this for weeks. Should we remove all those Stanley Cup champions succession boxes from the NHL team pages? For example- at Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs and Detroit Red Wings (with honorable mention to the Boston Bruins and Edmonton Oilers), they seem to clog up the bottom of the page (also makes the page longer them needed). What everyone's views. GoodDay 16:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope I think they are fine where they are. There are only a few cases where they get that long so I don't see it as an issue. --Djsasso 16:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Canadiens is the only instance in which it gets a little long. Perhaps they could be put into a template and be hidden by default on just theirs? IrisKawling 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll go for that idea. GoodDay 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well they are already listed in the infobox. --Krm500 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see where the issue is to begin with. Its not adding any load time really cause there is very little text to them. And having to scroll down is not really a big deal. For the sake of uniformity they should stay just how they are. --Djsasso 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can't stand them. What do they add to an article? Why is it important to note on the Calgary Flames article that Edmonton won the cup in both 1988 and 1990? Also, why does it matter on Sidney Crosby's article who won the Calder Memorial Trophy the year previous and following? IMO, succession boxes are simply filler used to add irrelevant information. Resolute 03:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Perhaps it's best to remove them. Krm500 is correct, the Stanley Cup championship years are already listed at the top Infobox. GoodDay 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but it allows people to follow the succession of champions throughout the years. I think it may serve as a metaphor by "linking one story to the next". Maybe I'm just full of shit, but that's me. Darthflyer 03:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. When I look at a team page being able to see who they replaced as the Stanley Cup Champion and who replaced them or if they repeated as being a very worthwhile thing. I personally like succession boxes as long as they are sorted properly on the page. For me its not about seeing that they won the championship because as you mentioned that's in the infobox, but more about who came before or after them which I do find very relevant. --Djsasso 23:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what List of Stanley Cup champions is for? Resolute 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You could say similar things about everything on a team page. Information is going to be duplicated in places...if I am just focusing on the Montreal Canadiens I don't want to have to jump to multiple pages. --Djsasso 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I can do without the succession box. IMHO, it's useless. Gmatsuda 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I could do without succession boxes. They look tacky (something you'd see on a high schooler's web page) and stumbling across ones that haven't been updated isn't good. I know its sacrilege, but I prefer the templates. They can be updated quickly, and universally. Before someone trots out the Derek Jeter example - I am not in favour of over-templating, with every team and championship, but they look much better and are easier to maintain than succession boxes. Canada Hky (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just saw that this was three years old, disregard. Canada Hky (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Diacritics compromise policies

Good luck everyone. I'm through with these diacritics usage disputes. So much for compromising. GoodDay 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the projects main talk page. --Krm500 23:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We did compromise on player names. Place names was something we never discussed cause it is already covered by an overall Wikipedia policy as mentioned in KM500's note on the main project page. --Djsasso 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::You forgot to add the 'diacritics' to this WikiProject's example Current Squad place names. It will help make things clearer, to all editors. GoodDay 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC) :::Nevermind, they're already there. GoodDay 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens

Could someone (familiar with symatix) add Denis Savard and Tony Esposito to the Canadiens 'Honored members' section. Afterall, the policy is full inclusion. GoodDay 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up on April 20th, yet know one added them. GoodDay 23:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which flag in the current roster table?

Is the flag next to the player his country of current citizenship? I use Alexei Ponikarovsky as a case in point. His birth place is listed as the USSR, but he has the Ukrainian and Canadian flags next to him in the table, since he holds dual citizenship. (He was recently naturalized as a Canadian citizen, per his article.) This isn't touched on in the text, so I figured I'd ask for clarification. Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We use the flag of the country they have played for in international competition, otherwise their birth country or a country where there is a source that they actually have citizenship from. --Djsasso 04:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Does not look good with two flags in the table. I'll remove the Canadian flag, otherwise there's a risk we'll see thousands of this example since many, many players have dual citizenship. --Krm500 11:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We should add some text about it to the manual if we want to get rid of dual flags in tables, infoboxes and other narrow places. --Bamsefar75 12:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the second field was added for players who have played for more than one country internationally. I can't remember who the example was off the top of my head but he played for Russia and Latvia I think it was. Or Nedved who played for Russia and Canada. --Djsasso 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Omitting Canada/USA from roster templates?

Hi, just seeking clarification as to why "Canada" and "USA" do not directly follow the state/province listed in the place of birth column. Is this only for North American roster listings?--Lvivske (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We've had a war or two over this in the past, IIRC, and the weight of the argument seemed to rest on the fact that omitting the country name for US/Canadian geographic locations is common practice in North American hockey media -- thus, omitting it in North American teams' roster listings seemed in keeping with that practice. There's no ambiguity introduced since no states and provinces share a name, and in 90% of cases, the citizenship flag matches the birthplace anyway (the occasions where it doesn't is a whole other issue). VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since previous "consensus" was mostly based on the fact that official sources used to ommit the country, how valid is it now that official NHL team pages do list the country : http://hurricanes.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=TeamPlayers&type=roster ? The points you make about ambiguity and flags are valid but would apply to other countries all the same. Bohdan80 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was based on the fact that most hockey media (north american and european) omit the country. This has still not changed. -Djsasso (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at previous discussions it does appears official NHL team pages were one reason. It also appears there was in fact no real consensus. Bohdan80 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

City & Country for all

Toronto, Canada & Louisvill, United States, is how they should be done. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Section header logical flow issues

Ok, so I was made aware of this project standard by some recent changes at New Jersey Devils, and, frankly, I have several issues with it.

Firstly, as my title indicates, there is a total lack of logical flow in section headers in this format. The biggest, in my view, is the placing of "current" roster under the "Season-by-season records" header. There's absolutely no logical flow there, as the curentr roster is not a subtopic of the records. The season records themselves shouldn't even be a top level header; they logically flow as a subtopic of the main "history" section. I propose that it be moved there.

The roster, along with individual player records, the "honored members" section and the listings of team captains and former coaches and GMs from the "Leaders" section (which is too vaguely named, and not really a top-level, separate-section-worthy concept) can and should be combined into a "Players and Personnel" section.

Another issue is the "Team colors and mascot" section. Firstly, while the section inevitably contains historical information, the same could be said about any section, and the section usually is focused on the current branding as much as the historical. I believe it should be a separate main header, as it does not fit neatly into history (which is largely chronological) or any other section. I also find the name weak, as not all teams have identifiable mascots. Logos or crests, which every team has, would be a better mention, but overall I would just call it "team branding and appearance" or something along those lines.

Finally I note that there is no quick listing of home arenas. While I guess that the infobox covers that, I'm reluctant to leave it to the infobox alone, as I've always felt that the infobox shouldn't contain information not elsewhere in the article. The arenas are naturally named in the history section, but so are coaches and they get a separate list. Of course, most teams have had far more coaches that arenas. I don't think it's critical to include, but I do suggest it.

So, to summarize, my suggestion looks like this:

• Introduction
• History
  • Various chronlogical sections covering periods of team history
  • Season-by-season records, listing the last five years, with a link to the all-time records page
• Players and personnel
  • Current roster via template
  • Leading scorers
  • Other notable single-season player records
  • Other notable all-time player records
  • Team records
  • Coaches list
  • GM list
  • Captains list
• Team identity and appearance
  • Logo
  • Uniforms
  • Mascot (If there is one)
  • Other unique identifiers-weird team traditions and such (octopus?)
• Home arenas (maybe)

Anyway, I truly felt I had to put that out there, as the current format really lacks logical grouping and flow, the way I see it. Let's see what sticks. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestions all seem appropriate to me. I just had issue with a situation where one page is completely different than the others because it can lead to the information being harder to find if each team is different, so I completely support changing the basis for all of them to your suggestions, I just didn't want it done bit by bit on only a couple teams. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I like a lot of the suggestions as well. I don't see a need for a L3 header for the season by season record - it can stay as an L2, but moving it below history would be ideal. An overabundance of lists detracts from the article in my view, and as such I personally would rather the GMs, captains, awards and coaches lists stay with their own child articles - and it may be worth modifying the team navbox to have links to those articles. Home arenas are generally already mentioned in prose in the team history. Resolute 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The L3 for the season-by-season is just a matter of flow and importance. As it isn't a complete list, which has rightly been split off per WP:SUMMARY, there's nonreal need for an entire major header for it.

The problem with eliminating the lists is most of those positions have no child articles, and I likely think that any attempt to split off such lists would be too stubby to really need a child article. Anyway, an average reader, wanting to know who was, say the coach of the Minnesota North Stars in 1979 would most likely head to the North Stars article to find out. So keeping the info in the main article serves those readers best, in my opinion.

And, as I said, the coaches are also mentioned in the prose, but are also rightly listed in a quick reference list. Not everyone who comes to an article reads the whole thing from beginning to end. As a reference work, readers are just as likely to go to a page, check the fact they want, and leave. It is appropriate to serve those readers with quick reference lists that are linked in the ToC for easy access. While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it also has aspects of an almanac (sports almanac, in this case).oknazevad (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all of those lists have child articles. Some need to be completed (namely several draft pick lists), but we do need to worry about both summary style and page size constraints. Having so many bare lists in these articles detracts from the overall quality of it. Resolute 15:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I put a proposed team page out there for discussion, but no-one has talked about it. The notice went to the archive without comment. I put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Proposed team pages format. (The Ottawa Senators page uses it.) Go ahead and edit that, if you want. The main point is to put prose before the bunch of tables and lists.ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily a bad idea. My main concern with it is that would push the current roster and other player-centric aspects too far down on the page. As players are central to the team (after all, they're the ones actually playing the game), the should be fairly prominent, I think. oknazevad (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a comment on which way would be better. But technically these pages are about the franchise first. The pages that focus on the current team are each of the season pages where I would expect the roster to be very prominent. So technically the roster on these pages are second to information about the franchise itself. To some this is a key fact to consider, how important it is to everyone I don't know. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep in mind the average reader who is unaware of the heirarchy of pages that have developed across the various team sports Wikiprojects. I'm pretty sure that most even regular editors aren't knowledgable about the existance of the season articles. I'd also argue that without players, the franchise is meaningless, but that's a different debate. oknazevad (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some solid suggestions, but I'd prefer to have the Players and personnel section below team identity section. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately I could go either way on it. My main concern was getting subsections under the appropriate headers, and getting things at the right level. Since the article is about the team, puttig the team-centric identity info first is fine. oknazevad (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Two comments about the above proposal. Team Identity, etc. is really part of the team history. Secondly, putting prose of the team identity, logo, etc. after the players and personnel tables violates the style guidelines of Wikipedia. I like the idea of simple top-level headers. (History, Members, Record) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That was three things. For each: I disagree that team identity is completely part of history. The section should first be descriptive of what the team uses now, with a discussion of historical development following up on that. Some teams have a lot of branding history, and haven't had a major change in decades, others haven't. But all if them have an identity that stands out. I believe the section should as well.

Now. It is a hockey team in the NHL. In a certain division. That's about it.

I know of no such style guide that requires all charts, lists, etc. after prose. In fact, most articles I've seen, including a great many technical ones, but such information where it logically and topically makes sense. That is what I feel is needed here, a better grouping of topics within team articles. They currently make little sense.

Not all. But look it up in WP:MOS. It's good style to put prose first. If it is after a bunch of lists, it gets ignored. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, the problem with one word headers is they aren't descriptive enough and could cause confusion. "Leaders", for example, doesn't say enough about weather it covers team officials or record holders. While it's obvious that it's the former when you read the section, it isn't obvious from the table of contents, which is important for the quick refence aspect of these articles. It also isn't a word commonly used in describing the positions, which makes it a poor choice. oknazevad (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That was an over-simplification on my part. Here is an example of simple, straight-forward headers that are standard. The Roads group specifies Route Description, History, Future and Exit list. You know, it works. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, hearing no further negative feedback, Im going to do a test implementation of my idea at the Devils article. Based on the feedback, I'll flip the "team identity" section before the roster and player records bits. Let me know what you think. oknazevad (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been away. Don't take my comments as negative feedback. I've been coming at it from another team's perspective. I've looked over the Devils. I've adopted the Players and personnel title for the Ottawa Senators article. I'm not sure about the Team Identity heading. On the Senators article, I have a section called 'Sens Mile' about an area of downtown set up for Sens fans and celebrations. Doesn't seem to fit. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not too wedded to the "Team identity" header, but I figured it was broad enough to include things like the "Sens Mile" that help give the each team it's unique and local flavor. That was my intention, at least. I would expect some variation needed fir each team, of course. These sort of team traditions, unique characteristics and local customs are the hardest part of having standardized headers. oknazevad (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ghost town

Wowsers, the sub-branch of WP:HOCKEY seems to have been abandoned. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramping up ...

The page badly needed an update, so I did it. In particular, I used the "Pro hockey team" template instead of the NHL one, and edged towards minor league usages. The NHL teams are all solidly done, after all, and a new team creation would almost certainly be a minor pro/junior/collegiate squad. Ravenswing 10:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the guidance, "Equal weight should be given to a team's entire history," I think instructions on due weight should be given. A team's championship years, for example, should receive greater emphasis than other years. isaacl (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Ravenswing 15:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have revised the text accordingly. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

While we are at it, perhaps some guidance on naming of history section subheaders? Pittsburgh Penguins, for instance, has gotten to be quite asinine. And though a non-hockey example, what has become of Toronto Blue Jays reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. Resolute 15:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I completely agree. This current fad for proclaiming the handful of years a star plays for a club or a coach is in place an "era" is moronic. If headers have names at all, they should reflect broadly accepted -- and, dare I say it, sourced -- terms: "Broad Street Bullies," "Big Bad Bruins," the dynasties of the Red Wings, Canadiens, Oilers and Islanders. Players' names in those headers should reflect only the greatest of stars: the Gretzkys, Orrs, Howes and Richards of the world (for all it was a tragedy, Michel Briere's career was a single-season blip in the Penguins' nearly fifty year history, and his name shouldn't head a section, for instance). Other than that, we fall on widely known breakpoints: the WWII era, the 1967 expansion, the merger with the WHA, the 2005 lockout ... and if that means we have some long sections, then we have some long sections. Thoughts? Ravenswing 15:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the case of Calgary Flames, I simply used year ranges (and yesterday reverted a late addition of POV 'eras'). And while in that case I did use unofficial breakpoints, if we keep to simple divisions like that, then there is no need for long sections. Resolute 16:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Although broadly accepted terms are generally preferable, I don't think it is necessary to limit headings to only these. Editorial judgment should be allowable to decide on useful section divisions and appropriate headings with appropriate descriptions. It can be a key event during the corresponding period, or in some (in my opinion, typically exceptional) cases a key person. isaacl (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My problem with that is that everyone's notion of "key event" and "typically exceptional" varies, and we can all think of prolific editors with disruptive definitions of anything not put down in black-letter guidelines (_{*cough* Dolovis *cough*}) ... how sections are named "The (Coach/Team Captain de jour) Era." Ravenswing 07:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with requiring section headings to be sourced is that it would make section divisions inflexible, as editors would be unable to rebalance sections based on the content, and that frankly the divisions and labelling of stretches of ordinary seasons is arbitrary. Different sources will divide them up differently, based on their own convenience, not out of any generally-accepted convention. Plus the promotional and storytelling nature of sports journalism means that finding sources for "the Player x era" is straightforward for a team's top player, anyway.

As in all articles, the heading should be germane to the section, and ideally provide a label that facilitates distinguishing the time period from others, but often that won't be completely possible. However in a lot of ways this discussion is moot: in my experience, people aren't sufficiently interested to engage in a consensus discussion on article headings, and so most of the time it's going to be a case of "last edit wins". isaacl (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I filled in a few more holes, and I admit I got a little bit silly. Take a look and tell me what you think, folks. Ravenswing 16:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates to this page, it should be helpful for pointing new users towards. A couple of comments/questions. In the Franchise History in the Infobox, should the time periods be en-dashes? Most of what I have seen are and I have been correcting others when they use the hyphen or when they are mixed because I thought I had read that in a Manual of Style somewhere. Also I have been recently in a policing effort with User talk:66.94.206.60 (who is quite un-responsive) about breaking up the teams in the info box when they also switch leagues instead of just names/relocations. It doesn't matter in a lot of cases (such as Tulsa Oilers) but in some cases it can get ridiculous (such as their edits to Utah Grizzlies and Wenatchee Wild)? Thoughts/opinions?

Yes on the en dashes and no on splitting up the leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)