Talk:Denver Pioneers men's ice hockey

Inclusion of names
The people that play for this team or not inherently notable unless specifically reported in third party sources. Giving details about living people, such as their previous school, is not appropriate and is an invasion of privacy that is disallowed by the WP:BLP policy. It is also not particularly encyclopaedic and is best served by an official website. violet/riga (t) 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in my edit summary, I can agree on the previous school issue as I was just using the standard table template for university sports team rosters. However, the list of players is very encyclopaedic in that it is describing the team that the article is about. It meets the criteria of being a defining characteristic so to speak. Just because the players aren't notable doesn't mean they aren't a defining characteristic of the team itself. -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly if there are BLP concerns they should be left out and not restored until there has been a discussion - putting them back in is not appropriate.
 * While I accept that the team is notable it is not necessary to give details about the players as they are not notable by themselves. The site (Denverpioneers.com) can include such detail but it is not inherently encyclopaedic.  Since there are several articles that go into such detail I think this is a wider issue and a general decision made.  violet/riga (t) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do see how a previous school can be an issue for WP:BLP, however it is not listed as one of the things that should be avoided and is not really all that different than listing a previous team a professional player played for or a company a CEO previously worked for. Another thing to note is that nowhere in WP:BLP does it state you cannot revert a WP:BLP concern. Without your edit summary saying what the concern was, I feel a reversion is a more than appropriate move in this particular situation. More often than not I discuss before reverting, however since you left no reason for a BLP concern there really wasn't anything to discuss. In general it is a fairly well followed policy to state what the concern is when you are saying there is one. But yes a larger scale decision should probably be made on this as there are currently hundreds of articles with this level of detail on them. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We err on the side of privacy with BLP issues and should avoid reinserting them without at least attempting a discussion. Wider issue raised at Village pump (policy)/Archive 16.  violet/riga (t) 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The CC/DU rivalry is not objective. Having been on both sides of the fan version of the rivalry, CC views the rivalry differently than DU does. The current presentation of the rivalry would be best suited for CC's page. DU has a very tough rivalry with North Dakota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.0.199 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)