Talk:National Hockey League/Archive 4

New playoff bracket for next year's realignment
I've been experimenting with playoff bracket designs for next year's playoffs, since the NHL is switching to a hybrid division-wild card playoff format. My new bracket is currently at User:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket, with an example at User:Canuckian89/Sandbox. If anyone is interested in commenting, please feel free to do so at User talk:Canuckian89/New NHL Bracket. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 01:55, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Believe the first and second rounds are called the Division Semifinals and the Division Finals. Jntg4Games (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Flags in infobox
To echo what I said in a previous thread (though, at that time, for different flags), since the country names do not indicate representatives of the country, or persons/teams competing on behalf of a country, I don't believe the flags in the infobox fall under any of the appropriate uses for flags under Wikipedia guidelines. Accordingly, I believe the flag icons can be dispensed with. I haven't found any related discussion threads in the archives for this talk page, other than the discussion related to the TV broadcasters; I don't know if there were any discussions on other talk pages. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree JOJ Hutton  18:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The same thing appears to be going on at the NBA article. I'm not watching that article, so I won't revert there to avoid the appearence of stalking. I have been watchlisting the MLB article for some time, so I'll remove the flags there if they are added. Perhaps this needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons for clarification. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This came about because "I" am the one who edited the article yesterday and removed the flags inserted just a few days prior. My name showing up in the edit summery of the article is an apparent red flag (no pun intended), for Djsasso. He seems to always be checking up on my edits from time to time on this article. Notice he reverted my removal of the flags at NBA as well. He didn't just simply remove them, he literally went back in the edit history and "undid" my edit, as if to make a specific point I feel. JOJ  Hutton  18:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted here because I mainly edit ice hockey articles and its one of my most highly watched pages so when I saw them removed I reverted regardless of who did it. Not because it had anything to do with you personally. You just happen to be a person who has removed them on this page a few times. As for the NBA no I didn't do them to make a specific point, I just know then when someone removes them from this page they tend to go and remove them from the other pages as well (and the undo was only because its quicker to hit undo then to parse the page looking for the specific text to remove). -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have removed them here had I noticed their recent addition, but I missed it. As to his undoing the revert, it might well have been easier for him to just undo the edit, to assume good faith. He has regularly edited both articles for many years, to my knowledge. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Always willing to assume good faith, as long as a pattern of stalking doesn't arise. JOJ  Hutton  19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't believe using the "undo" function signifies anything special—not only is it more convenient, it leaves an entry in the history log specifying exactly what edits were reverted, which is handy for those perusing the log and trying to figure out what was changed. I always use the "undo" function where possible, for these reasons. isaacl (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons that you are invited to.—Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

 * Noticed there's a whole paragraph specifically dicussing Wayne Gretzky in the expansion section... while it's definitely important, there's no introduction to it and no other comparable discussion of a single player. Could maybe use some editing Importemps (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to National Ice Hockey league

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. No way this proposal is ever carried out. It's prima facia ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is to not confuse with field hockey.
 * Funny joke. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case this is serious, no. Title does not require disambiguation because despite there being field hockey leagues with National Hockey League in the title, the North American ice hockey competition is the primary topic. Hack (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

headquaters
1185 Avenue of the Americas in Midtown Manhattan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/realestate/commercial/27sqft.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.135.154 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Divisions
Looking at the articles for the Atlantic Division and the Metropolitan Divisions, I think it's necessary that we change these to make them more accurate. The Atlantic Division after realignment has none of the same teams as the Atlantic pre-realignment, and imo that makes the history sections of the Atlantic Division article very misleading. I propose doing one of two things: 1. create a new Atlantic Division (1993-2013) article or 2. move the pre-2013 parts of the Atlantic Division article to the Metropolitan Division one. What do everyone else think? Insert90 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in Infobox
The Montreal Candaiens have won 24 Cups, not 25 as the infobox claims. The 1919 Cup Finals were cancelled with no winner due to the 1918 flu pandemic.Canswiss (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Canswiss
 * The infobox is referring to National Hockey League championships, not Stanley Cup victories. See the footnote and the articles it links to for more details. isaacl (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Canadiens Stanley Cup wins, there's a bit in the brackets at the end of the ref that has me confused. The ref talks about their 25 wins (22 as NHL, 3 pre) but the bracket states: "(The Canadiens have also won a 24th Stanley Cup as a member of the NHA.)". Not entirely sure what that means? 86.189.181.113 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Canadiens existed prior to the formation of the NHL. They previous belonged to the National Hockey Association (NHA) from 1909-1917. The NHA was one of the leagues that competed for the Stanley Cup, which was an interleague competition back then. This extra Stanley Cup championship refers to when the NHA champion Canadiens defeated the Pacific Coast Hockey Association champion Portland Rosebuds in 1916. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to reword it a little to improve clarity. Thoughts? Resolute 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, much clearer now, cheers. As someone (relatively) new to Ice Hockey and the NHL, and as a UK-based fan where most of our sports have traditionally only had one "winner" since they started, the early history of the NHL (and many US sports if I'm honest) can be confusing. The rewording clears it up. 86.189.181.113 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad it helped! Resolute 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons in the list of teams tables
User:KHLrookie restored the flag icons to the list of teams table, which was previously removed a few years ago. As it was then, and it is now, per MOS:ICON, I find it visually distracting since it is dominated by one country. What do other people think? I'm soliciting other opinions here per WP:BRD. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally can't stand them..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on the use of icons, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride, and undue weight is placed on the team's country through the use of a flag icon. Although Canadian fans often show a greater interest in Canadian teams, the NHL is not generally viewed as a competitive league between teams representing nations. Thus I agree with not including the flag icons. Additionally, in its current form, Wikipedia's guidelines on accessibility aren't being met, since the information is only being presented visually. isaacl (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, US based teams dominate. That's why i put up the flags. To make it easier to navigate which are the non US based teams. KHLrookie (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ICON and WP:ACCESSABILITY are important guidelines. And especially the later. oknazevad (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think they are fine. MOSICON allows them because they are being used in a sporting sense to determine where teams are located. And accessability is met by the presence of ALT text on the image which screen readers do read. It is a great misunderstanding that the text has to be literal text, people always seem to forget that alt text meets the criteria for not just being visible. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For information considered essential and not just decorative, alt text is insufficient, as it is problematic for those who have difficulty with fine motor control or otherwise hovering over an item on the web page. isaacl (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been in discussions on the topic where it was deemed by consensus to be sufficient. It doesn't take any more motor control to get the alt text than to click a link. wp:Accessability even recommends that method of making an image accessible. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The key is how important is the information and how discoverable it is. Imagine if everyone had to hover over the city link in order to see the flag icon: this would not be readily apparent, and kind of defeats the purpose of having a quick way to see the country associated with a team. For essential information, having a text presentation is preferable for these reasons. isaacl (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, most people won't need to hover, those who do can, thus accessibility is met as is brevity. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We should avoid flagicons here, as there's only two countries involved. Flagicons are much better suited for IIHF related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I support their use in player list articles because the flag or flag/country combo presents useful information that is often discussed about said players. On this article, the flags are superfluous and unnecessary.  They should be left off. Resolute 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeated changes
The hidden note in the article gets changed so much, as here, that I have trouble remembering what it's supposed to actually say, and it's annoying to have everyone and his brother keep changing it so much. I believe there is a way to add a template that will produce a hidden note. Is there a way we can do that, and perhaps full-protect the resulting template so that the note can't be changed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the text of a template can be substituted into the edit box so it will be visible to editors during editing. When creating a new page or new section, you can specify that Wikipedia prepopulate the edit box with the contents of a preload file, but this doesn't work with existing text (otherwise it would overwrite it). isaacl (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to a notice that is place "above" the edit screen, as I "believe" I've seen on other pages, but I can't remember where. This way it wouldn't be editable beyond removing the template file itself from the page.  That at least can be easily reverted by those of us who are "memory challenged". - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article currently has an edit notice that mentions the Canadiens. Edit notices for non-user pages can only be edited by admins (and I think those with the template editor right; I can't recall at the moment). isaacl (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Doh! I forget about that one. We just need to add the details about the numbers to that notice, and remove the hidden-text notice then. That should solve the problem. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the hidden text was added as another attempt to avoid changes to the championship number in the infobox; the edit notice pre-dates it. While personally I don't see a big harm in keeping the hidden text, it may not be terribly effective, either (I confess to being too lazy to go back and count the frequency of changes before and after the text was put in place). isaacl (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My problem is that the numbers keeps changing, so I can't remember what the correct figures are for the number of championships vs. Stanley Cups. Having the numbers in a box, which only admins can edit, would be helpful. We could just keep a shorter notice in the text, but one without numbers. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just go back to the version that was previously restored by you, Resolute, Djsasso, Alaney2k, etc... ;-) I think it's fine to put the numbers into the edit notice, but I also think the hidden text needs to have the numbers in order to have any chance of deterring one of these eager-to-make-a-correction editors. isaacl (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How's this edit? As mentioned, the edit notice was created first, then the hidden text was inserted, but that still does not really deter many people who still think Stanley Cup championships = NHL league titles prior to 1927. Any other suggestions welcome. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are always going to be people who don't notice, don't read, or don't care when it comes to this. This is one of those situations where you pretty much just have to revert when you see it. Some things you can't prevent you can only fix. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Couple of proposed trimmings
Nothing major, but I wonder now that it's been a couple of years, if the realignment section need to be so large. Or even here at all. It's notike we now have two league alignment charts any longer that need to be explained. It would probably be better placed in the background of the 2013–14 season article (which already contains much of the same info). And isn't there an article about changes in NHL structure? Either way, it seems pretty WP:UNDUE for the main article.

Secondly is the chart of number of foreign born players. It is just getting wider, and creates issues for those on lower resolution screens (including especially mobile devices). I think we should limit it to just the past five years. would still provide a broad enough time period to show trends without being too big.

Any thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would move it to the season article when it happened. As for the numbers of foreign born players I am not even sure we need a chart. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The foreign players chart is kind of interesting, but does need to be thinned. However, since the value is in historic trends, I would keep the data from every three or four years rather than just the last five. Resolute 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or move to a chart format that focuses on major countries/regions. Resolute 19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the table breakdown for a given season is better placed in the season article, and then perhaps a line graph can show the historical trend in this article, if deemed sufficiently notable for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And a thank you to Resolute, who took care of the Realignment section. Just one of those things where I wasn't sure if I should be bold and do it, considering the small number of respondents here, but it looks better now that it's done.oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How to list GM's/Head Coach's previous experience?
I did not know where to put this question. Anyway, it seems to me that in coverage of other leagues (e.g NFL) the Head coach's and GM's get their previous jobs listed in their infobox. I feel that this should be done for NHL personnel as well. Yes/NO? If not, what are the reasons that this is not done for the NHL? Mhoppmann (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just another way to clutter up and bloat infoboxes beyond all recognition. The best way to list the previous experience of ANY biographical subject -- certainly not limited to hockey management -- is to do so in the text of the article.  If a majority of the voting editors in the football WikiProject feel otherwise, that's their bailiwick, but I've long been a staunch opponent of All Sports Have To Follow Rigid Conformity.  One-size-fits-all suits everyone rather poorly, and if everything were to be ordered in the way a single sport does it, it'd be logical for that sport to be European soccer.   Ravenswing   18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet players' careers are summarized in the infobox with the list of teams and dates where they've played. This strikes me as the same thing. It certainly fulfill the infoboxes purpose of summarizing the main article text. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't know why we can't do something like this:


 * -Uncleben85 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of this, but should we do the same for GMs?Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 one external links on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080803060723/http://capitals.nhl.com:80/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues to http://capitals.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050409050550/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sports/indepth/cba/features/flashback.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/flashback.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060618174146/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sports/indepth/hockey_features/season_review.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/hockey_features/season_review.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140131131031/http://www.tsn.ca:80/nhl/story/?id=437509 to http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=437509
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110107230403/http://capitals.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues to http://capitals.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071103141020/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/2007/hockey/nhl/specials/playoffs/2007/04/12/OT.games/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/hockey/nhl/specials/playoffs/2007/04/12/OT.games/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220122859/http://nbcsports.msnbc.com:80/id/18470542/ to http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/18470542/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060516050646/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sports/indepth/cba/features/rule_changes.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/rule_changes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051107014625/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050928/NHL_doping_050928?s_name=&no_ads= to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050928/NHL_doping_050928?s_name=&no_ads=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927195147/http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/the-explainer-new-nhl-playoff-seeding-format-1.1871216/ to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/the-explainer-new-nhl-playoff-seeding-format-1.1871216
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070516001757/http://www.tsn.ca:80/classic/news_story.asp?ID=142315&hubName= to http://www.tsn.ca/classic/news_story.asp?ID=142315&hubName=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060527221025/http://slam.canoe.ca:80/HockeyNHLDraft99/jun27_can.html to http://slam.canoe.ca/HockeyNHLDraft99/jun27_can.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206010456/http://www.iihf.com:80/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/browse/2/article/nhl-landscape-changes.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=187&cHash=5abfb28b5e/ to http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/browse/2/article/nhl-landscape-changes.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=187&cHash=5abfb28b5e/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206010448/http://www.iihf.com:80/channels/iihf-world-championship/news/news-singleview-world-championship/article/canadas-top-export-coaches.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=552&cHash=a2631f795d/ to http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-world-championship/news/news-singleview-world-championship/article/canadas-top-export-coaches.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=552&cHash=a2631f795d/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070714160151/http://live82.ihwc.net:80/english/article/recaps/index.ihwc?artId=2398 to http://live82.ihwc.net/english/article/recaps/index.ihwc?artId=2398
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060210225017/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sports/hockey/hnic/seasoninfo.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hnic/seasoninfo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060210224941/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sports/hockey/hnic/histrad.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hnic/histrad.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111018033414/http://fangsbites.com/2011/04/nbcversus-to-air-nhl-games-for-the-next-ten-year/ to http://fangsbites.com/2011/04/nbcversus-to-air-nhl-games-for-the-next-ten-year/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090809012506/http://www.cisionwire.com:80/mtg/mtg--viasat-acquires-nhl-broadcasting-rights-from-espn to http://www.cisionwire.com/mtg/mtg--viasat-acquires-nhl-broadcasting-rights-from-espn
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930042904/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060608.wsurvey8/BNStory/Sports/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060608.wsurvey8/BNStory/Sports/home
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110102214551/http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0408/feature_sports.shtml to http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0408/feature_sports.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402171122/http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/14062010/6/finance-interview-nhl-ad-sponsorship-revenue-66-pct-year.html to http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/14062010/6/finance-interview-nhl-ad-sponsorship-revenue-66-pct-year.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Captain in Team List
Why was the list of team captains removed from the team info box? Was this something discussed along the way? Seems just as if not more important to team identity than head coach and certainly GM. -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that. It was removed a couple of days ago without discussion. Considering it had been here for over five years without objection, I wonder why it was unilaterally removed. Then again, I don't know if we really need it. Or the other names. Part of me thinks we should just leave that stuff to the individual articles. oknazevad (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think its needed so I think its fine that it was removed. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the removal should've been discussed here, first. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Same thoughts for me. I think it's a little more relevant than who the general manager, but am not convinced we need that information in this info box. All that being said, I do not agree with it being unceremoniously deleted without discussion. Are there objections to me reintroducing it? -Uncleben85 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, everyone here seems to agree that it's unneeded, so I don't think re-adding it does any good. The removal should have been discussed, but putting it back in just because it was removed without discussion when the discussion has indeed essentially agreed to its removal seems needlessly bureaucratic. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the captain information is not of sufficient significance to this article's subject to be included. I also suggest that the co-ordinates information should be removed, and possibly the arena as well (List of National Hockey League arenas should cover this adequately). I'm not sure what I think about the general manager and head coach columns. isaacl (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would leave both the co-ords and the arena. As it gives an idea of the geographical makeup of the league and location of teams. I don't think the people are necessary though. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think readers can click on the city name to see the specific location and the team name to see the arena. The map in this article provides an overview of the geographical distribution of teams in the league that I think suffices. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Every North American (and almost every world) sports league article includes the stadiums/arenas for the teams in the team list. I cannot strenuously object to its removal any more vociferously if I tried. I'm ambivalent in the coordinates, though. I really don't think we need the GMs, though. Most other sports don't include such info. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course people can click through to other pages to see that info. But you can say that about almost any info on this page. My point was you see all of it at once instead of having to go to each individual team page. When reading specifically about the league you want a general league makeup. -DJSasso (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong objection to arena information. I think the coordinate information is less intuitive to readers than the current map, though, and not really an essential part of general league makeup. My only point regarding seeing the information on the arena pages is that the information will not be lost if it is omitted from this article. isaacl (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This does more than a mere image map. The use of listing all the coordinates and the use of Template:GeoGroup at the top of the section is to allow a list of external links to be generated to mapping services that present or display all coordinates. These include linking the points to services like Google Maps or Bing, or exporting them to various mapping file formats. Another alternative is to do what is on the bottom of the Template:KHL teams organization table and have one single link to only a coordinate map on Google Maps -- but that single coordinate map is just limited to the Google Maps service (and not the other services listed on Template:GeoGroup), and cannot be directly modified by any Wikipedia editor. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand this. The key question is if having links to the coordinates of individual arenas is an essential part of presenting an overview of general league makeup. There are lots of interesting points about each team that could be presented in this table, so a determination needs to be made regarding which ones are most important and relevant for this article. isaacl (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree about both listing the coordinates and the arena. However, I think I would rather do what is done on List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas and other similar pages: move the coordinates inside either the location or the arena column instead of having its own separate column. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just when Foligno, Pacioretty, Greene & Pavelski get the honour of appearing at this article? it's all taken away :( Seriously though, inclusion or exclusion of captains, isn't something I'll overly complain about. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

. Personally, I find the coordinates to be unnecessary bloat that should be removed outright. It is of even less value than a list of captains in that table, or even a list of arena capacities that was previously attempted to be added. Resolute 18:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Home city for the Islanders
Since the New York Islanders now play their home ice hockey games at the Barclays Center, the home city location for the Islanders should be listed in the article National Hockey League as BROOKLYN and NOT New York City, per the Islanders' Contact Us page at NHL.com. Yes, I know that Brooklyn is a borough of New York City. However, the physical mailing address for the Barclays Center lists Brooklyn as the city. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain why we should make a singular exception for the New York Islanders as the only team to be listed by an administrative unit within a city rather than using the city itself, as is the case for the other teams? Both the Rangers and Islanders exist in the City of New York.  This would be different (IMO) if Brooklyn was a suburb of New York City, but that is not the case.  Also, please do not edit war.  You've been here long enough to know that disputed changes require discussion and consensus. Resolute 19:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be an exception for the New York Islanders, because the corporate office address listed at the Islanders' Contact Us page is listed as: 15 MetroTech Center, 19th floor, BROOKLYN, NY 11201. Also, the physical mailing address for the Barclays Center is listed as: 620 Atlantic Ave., BROOKLYN, NY 11217. I don't understand why you feel like you have to edit war with me over this. Furthermore, the New York Rangers' Contact Information page at NHL.com lists the address for the Rangers as: 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, NEW YORK, NY 10121. That's why the home city location for the Islanders should be listed as BROOKLYN, and the home city location for the Rangers should be listed as NEW YORK. That's why there should be an exception made (IMO). Wikipedia should list the home city location for all teams based on the address for each team's home arena. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mailing address and home city are two different things. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Resolute. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: I have no objection. Quite aside from the Islanders' own assertion, we're not talking about an obscure neighborhood familiar only to locals.  Brooklyn has a widely known identify of its own, as well as both a historic and a current association with major league sports teams (as witness the Brooklyn Nets, which is listed on the NBA page as playing in "Brooklyn, NY").   Ravenswing   19:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kanata has an identity as well, but we don't list the Senators as playing there since that former city was amalgamated into Ottawa. Regardless of how this turns out, I would suggest that the Islanders and Rangers be treated consistently. Resolute 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As a further parallel, I believe the mailing address remains Kanata. To smooth the transition, the city of Ottawa did not request that Canada Post change the cities associated with the corresponding postal codes, and as far as I know, it still haven't. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It actually didn't at the NBA article until the same user changed it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And since you are bringing up other sports, The Yankees are not listed as the Bronx. -DJSasso (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I understand the idea that Brooklyn is a part of New York City, but I don't agree that listing their home city as New York City is the right way to go. I really would look no further than the mailing addresses given by the OP. Perhaps I'm off base here with this question, but if the location of Nassau Coliseum was Uniondale, NY (a town in Nassau County of New York), why is it a problem to list the location as Brooklyn, NY (a borough in New York City of New York)?  G loss  20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I do understand, perhaps my support comes from a small place of bias. Nobody 'round here refers to Brooklyn as New York City.. New York City is Manhattan. :)  G loss  20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Brooklyn is just a part of New York City. We don't list by neighbourhood. Mailing addresses are not really relevant as that is just a mail delivery thing (I actually live in a similar situation), the legal city entity is New York City. -DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment While ultimately it's six-of-one for me, I thought I'd just mention that the most comparable situation I could think of, London-based soccer clubs, usually do list the London borough in the infobox, usually as "Borough, London". Like the five boroughs of NYC, London boroughs do have some legal distinction from the city-wide government (and yes, NYC boroughs actually do have distinct borough-level governing structures, like the borough presidents. Maybe "Brooklyn, New York City, NY" would cover it best. oknazevad (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am less concerned by that naming than I am with straight Brooklyn, New York -DJSasso (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am less concerned by the naming than just Brooklyn, New York. But If we cannot agree to "Brooklyn, New York City, NY", then I vote leave it as "New York City". It is more universal and understood. -Uncleben85 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - use the whole city, not just a part of it. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia articles are written for a global audience and not just the local residents, the Islanders' home should be listed as New York City. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for initiating this discussion. I'm finally persuaded that New York City is an adequate enough geographic place name to be listed in the infobox as the home city for the Islanders. It gets too confusing (IMO) to list specific boroughs/neighborhoods for certain teams, such as the Islanders and other NYC-based teams. IMO, consistency and equal treatment as far as geographic place names should be the guiding principle here. As long as there's a mention of the fact that the Islanders now play their games at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn (which I believe there currently is), I'm satisfied. I guess I happen to agree with isaacl (talk), in that Wikipedia articles are written for a global audience, and not just the local residents. Request withdrawn. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080803060723/http://capitals.nhl.com:80/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues to http://capitals.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues
 * Added archive to http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule90.html
 * Added archive to http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/history/cup/formats.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091130110236/http://capitals.nhl.com:80/team/app/?service=page to http://capitals.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121211112604/http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411343 to http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411343
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151016020327/https://books.google.com/books?id=WpI_rzHaT8oC to https://books.google.com/books?id=WpI_rzHaT8oC#v=onepage&q&f=false

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

American Teams outweigh Canadian Teams
Hey so, I added in after a section on how the "National" refers to Canada and that the league is now binational and that the first American team was introduced in 1924, that "American teams now far outweigh Canadian teams, 23 to 7". This has been reverted. I do not understand why. It would seem to show that the league has changed it's focus to America, that Canadian teams are no longer the majority, and it is factual. The next line is about the 2004-05 season and it does not seem out of place, in time or place. Why is this being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basetornado (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This Canada/U.S. number split is already noted twice at the start of the article: Once in the first sentence, and another time in the infobox. Adding this fact again to the lead just seems very redundant. Canuck 89 (what's up?) 03:17, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Also, the wording you used was poor, and your desire to "show that the league has changed it's (sic) focus to America" is rather POV. Resolute 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National Hockey League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091130110236/http://capitals.nhl.com:80/team/app/?service=page to http://capitals.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_EarlyLeagues

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Team Logos
I am proposing addition of team logos in the | list of teams as it makes it easier for readers to visit the pages and some people with no knowledge of all the teams names uses logos to recognize teams. Ralphw (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cannot be done per WP:NFCC. oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, so you're saying that the logos are copyrighted and can only be exposed once on the respective team pages? Ralphw (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. As they're not free content, they can only be used minimally, at as specifically relevant pages as possible, and with an acknowledgment that their use is a claim of a fair use exception to copyright. Using all the logos on this article would be over-using the logos on Wikipedia in general, and using too many non-free files on one article. Can't be done. Otherwise I actually think it's a good idea, but we cannot. oknazevad (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you for your insight. Ralphw (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Women in the NHL
Removed section. Lightly sourced and has not had a significant impact on the NHL to warrant a subsection. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Restored section. Three sources supporting two statements of fact is not remotely "lightly" sourced, and the first woman ever to suit up for a big league team in any North American sport and one of the first to be a full-time coach are not insignificant events.   Ravenswing   20:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Three sources doesn't match the weight of material dedicated to the history of the NHL. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And when you get consensus for overturning the pertinent policies and guidelines regarding sourcing (such as WP:IRS and WP:OVERLINK) -- or, for that matter, get consensus for your change -- that'd be another matter. The only valid reason for demanding extra sources is for highly contentious statements.  These two are neither, and your premise is specious.   Ravenswing   02:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the subsection is what is specious. My argument isn't based on WP:IRS, but the pertinent policy of WP:UNDUE. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL"
The request for comment here is to get an outside opinion on the inclusion of the subsection "Women in the NHL". The discussion above explains the disagreement. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest renaming the section "Origin of players" to something like "Demographics" and including the information there. The "History" section is currently an odd mixture of chronological sections and thematic sections. I think within the current article structure, the participation of women in on-ice activities would fit better within the context of team demographics. isaacl (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Isaac I think that is a great idea. That seems more fitting-Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it belongs there, those are highly significant events in what is considered a male sports league. Would definitely a bad thing to remove it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a way to incorporate this into the article, without giving it a sub-section. BTW, don't forget the only woman to be president of an NHL franchise, Marguerite Norris of the Red Wings. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Heading's name is good as it is. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The heading name isn't what is being discussed. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to get further opinion on Isaacl's suggestion, does that seem like a more acceptable way of laying out the outline of the article? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with the way it is now. The information is relevant and properly sourced. WP:UNDUE was mentioned earlier, but I don't really see how that applies here, as this isn't a view to be held, it's a statement of documented, undisputed facts. The only real argument should be in relation to WP:N, and I don't see any argument being valid that crosses that. Women playing, owning, coaching, etc in a major, male dominated industry, is an important topic and notable enough to be included as it's own section. { MordeKyle }  &#9762;  20:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's exactly the same way I feel. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The events are definitely notable; I'm not clear, though, if there is a sufficient narrative to warrant a separate historical theme on this topic, as of yet. (The larger topic of women professional hockey surely does, but that subject is broader than the NHL.) On the other hand, this can be an opportunity: who would like to research the area further to more clearly outline how its influence on the NHL is similar to the two other themes in the history section, labour issues and player safety issues? isaacl (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep subsection "Women in the NHL". I think the section is important and is valid. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral as to whether the information should be in a standalone section or whether it could go into a Demographics section as per issacl. One consideration is that there's a very notable fact that could go into the existing section which wouldn't really fit in a demographics section: that Marguerite Norris in 1952 was the first woman to become president of a major league North American franchise, in any sport.   Ravenswing   18:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be well-suited for the "The Original Six" section, placing the event in context of the related history. (And the corresponding History articles should be updated with the information about Norris and Braid.) isaacl (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be perfect. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any problems with Isaacl's suggestion? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for changing this article. If they haven't been already, though, feel free to update the related History articles. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Although it makes no difference to the determination of consensus, I don't believe the closing statement accurately reflects the views I expressed. isaacl (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I debated whether or not to say "only one editor" or "only two editors", and decided to put "only one editor" because it did not seem that you were for removal as much as the proposer. However, if you feel that is inaccurate, I apologize, but you are correct. It does not change the consensus. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 07:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Drug Testing and Popularity
Hi, after reading this article, I noticed two areas of concern for possible revision. First, the section on "Rules" has outdated information from what is a now dead link on drug testing in the NHL. The link has information regarding drug testing as it relates to the 2005 collective bargaining agreement. This information should be updated to include drug testing policies that reflect the most current collective bargaining agreement signed in 2013. Updated information can be found at this link NHL Drug Testing Policy. Another area of concern is in regards to the section on "Popularity". This section does not seem overly neutral. The television statistics regarding the 2016 NHL Playoffs do not paint a positive picture, and are not mentioned in this subsection. Much of the information is regarding the 2010 NHL season/Playoffs. Perhaps updating this subsection with a more neutral approach is required. Robcacciola (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Clubs
There are 31 member clubs. Just because Vegas isn't playing yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Correctron (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Difference Between a Team and a Franchise
The Montreal Canadiens is both a Team and a Franchise. They have had the same logo, same team colours and same name for their entire history (with minor tweaks to their logo of course but still keeping the same overall CH Design). The Detroit Red Wings are both a Team and a Franchise, for the same reasons as the Montreal Canadiens. The Colorado Avalanche is a Hockey Team. Colorado would be the current Franchise, as the Colorado Avalanche have not always been known as the Colorado Avalanche, as they originated in Quebec as the Quebec Nordiques. The same is true for the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Toronto Maple Leafs are a Team, but NOT a Franchise. The Franchise would be the City of Toronto itself. The Toronto Arenas and the Toronto St. Patricks are part of the Toronto FRANCHISE, but they are NOT the same Team as the current Toronto Maple Leafs. So it would be incorrect to say things like, "The Toronto Maple Leafs are 100 years old." Or "The Toronto Maple Leafs have won 13 Stanley Cups." The Toronto Maple Leafs, the TEAM have won 11 Stanley Cups. The City of Toronto FRANCHISE has won 13 Stanley Cups with 3 different Teams. If you want to know the history of the Toronto Maple Leafs, you can look up their previous Teams, The Toronto Arenas and The Toronto St. Patricks, as both of them are different teams from the Toronto Maple Leafs, they both have their own pages on Wikipedia. But long story short, The Arenas had their own logo and their own team colours, when they became the St. Patricks, they changed their name to the St. Patricks, they changed their Team Colours and they changed their Team Logo. Same thing for the Toronto Maple Leafs as well. These were 3 different teams under 3 different owners. It's one thing if someone buys a hockey team and keeps the name and logo, essentially keeping the team the same, but if someone buys a hockey team, moves them or changes their name, logo, colours etc, then it becomes a new team. It's a very simple concept and the only reason people make this confusion with the Maple Leafs is because the Franchise didn't move to a new city but that doesn't change the fact that they became a new team, with a new name and a new identity each time. So when I edit the NHL page to reflect the fact that it is the name of the Franchise is simply "Toronto" and not the "Toronto Maple Leafs" I am making an edit to try and correct this confusion. Sparhawk85 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Sparhawk85
 * Completely wrong, legally and intellectually. Plus, if you're going to make unfounded assertions, at least learn how to use capital letters and grammar correctly. Your stuff is unreadable. oknazevad (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What Oknazevad said. You've so far entirely failed to gain any consensus for your non-factual views.  If you keep pushing these edits without doing so, you're at risk of a block.   Ravenswing   16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And I see I am talking to 2 completely retarded Leafs fans. That makes a lot of sense now. The Toronto Arenas is a hockey team. They won 1 Stanley Cup. The Toronto St. Patricks is a hockey team. They also won 1 Stanley Cup. The Toronto Maple Leafs is also a hockey team. They have won 11 Stanley Cups. The Toronto Maple Leafs is a TEAM NOT A FRANCHISE. You cannot factually say the Toronto Maple Leafs have 13 Stanley Cups. Would you please learn the difference between the two. Wikipedia even has a separate page for both The Toronto Arenas and the Toronto St. Patricks. Now please learn how to read and stop making idiotic changes. The table on this page also clearly states that they do not include cups won by defunct teams. The Arenas and The St. Patricks are defunct teams. A consensus on this was reached 2 years ago on the Toronto Maple Leafs talk page itself. And I'm sure it was changed 2 years ago as well and then Leafs fans who refuse to accept the truth, changed it back.

Sparhawk85 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Sparhawk85
 * And now we've crossed in personal attacks. PS, I'm a Devils fan. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Co-signing what Oknazevad and Ravenswing said. This argument is incoherent and makes no sense, and has no grounding in facts or reality. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep definitely sounds like I'm talking to a bunch of idiots. If you don't understand the difference between a Hockey Team and a Hockey Franchise, then you have no business making edits on a Hockey Page. The Toronto Maple Leafs have 11 Stanley Cups. the Toronto Arenas have 1 Stanley Cup. The Toronto St. Patricks have 1 Stanley Cup. Those are 3 different Hockey Teams. I explained this to XboxGamer22408 yesterday when he reverted my initial edit and after explaining it to him on his talk page, he fully understood what I was talking about and even said I could go back and re-apply the edit. Sparhawk85 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Sparhawk85
 * Agreeing with Oknazevad and Ravenswing. Oh and I hate the Toronto Maple Leafs with the intensity of a thousand suns.  You might want to read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can hate something all you want, that doesn't make you right. There is a very clear differentiation between a Team and a Franchise. All you gotta do to see this is look at Winnipeg Jets 1972-96 and Arizona Coyotes. Notice 2 things here: 1) All the Division Titles and Avco World Trophies that the Winnipeg Jets won, are NOT considered trophies won by the Arizona Coyotes. 2) Notice how the page for the Phoenix Coyotes doesn't exist anymore and redirects you to the Arizona Coyotes? That's because they are considered the same hockey team. Now notice how Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto Arenas] and [[Toronto St. Patricks all have their own Wiki page, with their own Championship and Division Titles table etc? Notice how Wikipedia itself already treats these 3 DIFFERENT HOCKEY TEAMS as DIFFERENT HOCKEY TEAMS? If you sell your Broom to your buddy and your buddy doesn't like the bristles on your broom and replaces it with a sponge and then decides he doesn't like the grey handle and decides to repaint it red. Is it really still your broom? Or a broom at all? No, it is now a mop and your buddy has even renamed it to "mop". When you rebrand something, you are changing it. It is no longer the same as it was before. Sparhawk85 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Sparhawk85
 * A city is not a franchise. Teams and franchise are the same. Some pages are split to make them easier to read as there is usually a large amount of information regarding teams that have been around a while. Your entire argument is literally just your opinion and not fact. Correctron (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, this native Bostonian and lifelong Bruins fan is happy to report Sparhawk's block due to disruptive editing. Perhaps he'll cut out his "Everyone else is WRONG because I'm right!!!!" riff, but of course that's not our experience with that ilk.  But just in case he slinks back for more, the NHL's own Media Guide credits the Maple Leafs with 13 Cups.  No doubt Sparhawk believes that he knows better than the NHL does, and I wish him luck taking up the issue with league management.   Ravenswing   04:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * HHoF also concurs with the total of 13. Oh, and LET'S GO RANGERS! Keri (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As a Habs fan I find agreeing with a Bruin fan and a Ranger fan disconcerting..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Technically he isn't wrong, a team and a franchise are two different things. A team uses a franchise to gain entry to play. That being said I don't agree with him that changing a team name changes a team. They are still the same team even if the name changes. But a team and a franchise are two different things. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The term "team" is very flexible. For example: one can say the 1986-87 Montreal Canadiens & the 2016-17 Montreal Canadiens, are different teams. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Vegas
Should Vegas be considered a "current" member now, rather than a "future" member? As of today, they became an official member of the NHL (https://www.nhl.com/news/golden-knights-officially-join-nhl-can-make-deals/c-287272940?tid=281011650). If not, when would they be considered a current member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFC8:3680:1CFC:25C:1A44:50BD (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whennthe new season officially starts on July 1. They aren't a current playing memeber, so saying there are 31 playing teams is misleading. oknazevad (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "playing clubs". It says "member clubs".LordAtlas (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Typically across all league articles we don't add teams until the "season" they are playing in begins. For hockey consensus has been this is when the draft is held. We usually just note in the prose that they are an expansion team that will begin play in x season. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend waiting until the 2017 NHL Expansion Draft, before adding the Golden Knights. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to side with GoodDay on this one. Once they have enough players to make a roster, then we can add them. Plus waiting three and a half months isn't going to harm anything. Deadman137 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is no reason why they can't be added under their own heading, rather than being placed in the Pacific division right now. Resolute 01:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with Resolute as well. Frankly, I'm bewildered at how the Knights somehow don't really count as being a member club of the league just because they haven't hit the ice yet. Beyond that, the "harm" this is doing is that we're constantly having to revert the article against IPs who are just exercising their common sense.   Ravenswing   04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Vegas isn't even mentioned in the lead which is weird too. LordAtlas (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Should Vegas be put in Current since that the season is over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.229.7 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite aside from any other consideration, take a gander at the NHL website, folks. Under "Teams?"  It not only lists Vegas, but does so in the Pacific Division.  Are we really going to continue to claim that the NHL's judgment of what teams are in the league is inferior to ours?   Ravenswing   18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Vegas became "an operational member of the National Hockey League" on 1 March, allowing it to "enter into Trades and Waiver Transactions or sign Players to NHL SPCs in accordance with CBA Section 50.8(d) or a Player Transfer Agreement." The article should now reflect that. Keri (t ·&#32;c) 01:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How about this rewording I just made? "... is currently contested (emphasis added) by 30 member clubs – 23 in the United States and 7 in Canada – with a 31st team in the U.S. that will begin play in Fall 2017" Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * From a language perspective, the NHL is not contested by member clubs, though; its season and championship are. I have no issue with stating that a new team will start play in October 2017 (for an international audience, stating the month is probably better). isaacl (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose the following: The National Hockey League ... is a professional ice hockey league currently composed of 30 teams – 23 in the United States and 7 in Canada – with a 31st team in Las Vegas scheduled to begin play in the 2017–18 season. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any opinions on my proposed text? I would at least like to remove the word "contested". isaacl (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. oknazevad (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are no other opinions, I will implement the change. Of course any further discussion is welcome. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made the change. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

French Translations
There is no reason to have French translations in every and all pages related to the NHL in English Wikipedia entries. The language of these encyclopedia entries is English - it is arbitrary to translate into one chosen foreign language and not another. Perhaps with the League name NHL/ LNH, there is an argument since they are both official names. However, when this is extended to associated pages - having to translate Stanley Cup into "Coupe Stanley", the NHL Entry Draft into whatever the French equivalent is, etc, it starts to become unwieldy. For the vast majority of English language users of Wikipedia, there is no use in having translations into one foreign language. And there are French versions of the pages that can be easily accessed anyway.

I tried to clean up the pages but the revisions were quickly undone and then I was threatened by Wiki user Oknazevad, who seems to be some sort of French Canadian language activist.

I think there should be some sensible discussion on this issue rather than have some self-appointed arbiter of Wikipedia content stymie what are sensible improvements to the English language entries of this online resource 2001:569:79A0:6300:B87F:EBC0:491B:FFFA (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm from New Jersey (Let's go Devils!) and don't speak French at all (took German in high school and college). But it doesn't change the fact that the NHL is a bilingual league, and French is not a "foreign" language for memeber teams. Or that the name "Coupe Stanley" is just as much the actual name as "Stanley Cup". Your cleanup wasn't cleaning anything up, just removing valid native language names for the topics of the articles, which we are supposed to include. oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a league with a team in a French speaking city, but this is the English Wikipedia. The United Nations uses many languages, but this being the English Wikipedia, we use English.  JOJ  Hutton  02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why the article is at the English title. Including the French name does not in any way fall afoul of WP:USEENGLISH, and is well within the guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way that French is added to these articles falls perfectly under the guidelines recommended by the WP:MOS. The personal opinions of a few editors on a talk page are not enough to change this. Deadman137 (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ligue nationale de hockey is a formal name for the NHL, so it is appropriate to note this. And given that is literally the only time French appears in this article, this is much ado about nothing. Resolute 13:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that for organizations where there is a formal name in an alternate language, it is reasonable to note it in the article text. (Although I personally disagree with it, general consensus is also to list the alternate title as part of the infobox caption.) isaacl (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I think this is an argument in search of a problem.  Certain elements are quite reasonable to list their French names (the NHL itself, the Canadiens, the Senators), and the articles do.  The vast majority of NHL-related articles, including teams in cities without significant Francophone populations, don't.   Ravenswing   19:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: The IP that started this conversation has continued with their slow moving edit war at NHL Entry Draft. Given that their IP address changes slightly each time, but all addresses are from the Vancouver area and the rationale never changes, it's clear that all of the edits are from the same person. Deadman137 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I just now see this discussion here. I'm the person accused of the "edit war". Note that in the NHL Entry Draft page I made an entry in the talk section detailing the rationale for the edit - the counter editor above did not engage in the talk there - it was he that aggressively and heavy-handedly took to revising content without participating in any discussion on the matter in that forum. Now that I see there has been some wider engagement on this page, I'll continue here.

Now, I have searched as much as possible and can find no evidence that the NHL as an organization is officially bilingual. Given that NHL Enterprises Inc. is incorporated in New York, that the CBA is fully in English and that all league business is conducted in English, I think is fair to say that the league is not bilingual.

Similarly, I think it is a stretch to say that the league actually has two official names. LNH is of course trademarked so it would be fair to say that it is an official trade name it uses in certain markets. But then again the NHL trademarks everything under the sun, so that doesn't mean much. For example, "Hockey Fights Cancer", "Because It's The Cup", "Hockey Is For Everyone", and "NHL Thanksgiving Showdown" are all registered trademarks of the National Hockey League. What is notable is that the league's own website https://www.nhl.com/ has versions in multiple languages: Swedish, Finnish, etc. In each of those except French, "NHL" is "NHL" (never translated) with the exception of Russian where everything is in Cyrillic script - but even that preserves the "NHL" logo. I think what we have with the LNH thing is the NHL wisely catering to the French portion of its fanbase with its use of names wherever possible. That doesn't mean the two titles have equal status though.

Now similar to user Issac above, while I disagree with English Wikipedia having excessive translations into foreign languages (ie non-English languages), I think I am willing to concede that the use of LNH is widespread enough and established enough to warrant a French translation at the beginning of the main NHL page. And I guess as the umbrella entry for all NHL related articles it is a convenient place to have the redirection to the French version. However, I do disagree with the pervasive use of French translations in each and every Wikipedia entry for anything NHL related. As user Ravenswing seems to note above, it intuitively seems appropriate to not to have a French translation in many cases. I point to some specifc instances where it seems unnecessary:

The NHL Entry Draft entry gets a translation: "Repêchage d'entrée dans la LNH". It just seems like a literal translation - not enough of an established alternative name to warrant the inclusion of a translation. It's verging on insisting that an entry for Hockey Puck should have to have a French translation of the word puck. Sure the NHL capitalizes and probably trademarks the use of "NHL Entry Draft", but really we are dealing with something that is common parlance - to most it is just the draft. And what is notable is that unless the draft is held in Quebec, the NHL doesn't bother with bilingual signage or anything. Everything just says "Draft 20xx". And as a sidebar, note that the French version of the NHL Entry Draft page doesn't have a parallel translation into English, and nor should it have to in my opinion.

Another example would be the Wikipedia entry for the Stanley Cup Playoffs. It gets a translation: "Les séries éliminatoires de la Coupe Stanley" Again, it just seems like a literal translation - I don't think it merits inclusion. Certainly you see that written on the ice in Ottawa, but that is just the league smartly marketing to/ appeasing its French fanbase (or maybe complying with Canadian signage law?). Similarly though, the NHL's Russian page has NHL Playoffs as "РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ". Why doesn't that get a translation for the NHL Playoffs Wikipedia entry? There's a ton of Russian players in the league. That is why I say it is arbitrary to include a translation of some of these article names into one select foreign language (again foreign in the context of non-English in an English Wikipedia entry) and not another.

So I propose a compromise: leave the LNH translation in this page, but eliminate the two aforementioned ones. Coupe Stanley I think is 50/50 so I won't propose altering that.

Also note that the New Joisey Devils suck. Nolan Patrick will bust. ;) - images of NHL Draft usage in practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79A0:6300:F406:F93E:BD62:8A7D (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What happens at other language wikipedias is irrelevant here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Those other pages are also official NHL names, the logos for which often feature the french translations, especially in Canada they are almost always in both. I think you are on the wrong side of this unfortunately. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not true that they are often translated - I would say it is very rare for them to be in both languages (look at the link I provided). And I address why it is questionable if they should be considered official names - I think they are just lip service being paid in one limited geographic region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79A0:6300:A595:FA8E:89CB:7346 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please show me on this doll where the French translations hurt you. LordAtlas (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The entire country of Canada is not one limited geographic region....Yes Quebec has the majority of french speakers, but there are french speakers throughout the entire country since we are a bilingual country. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

1) There may be French speakers (and Mandarin, and Punjabi, etc.) in all parts of Canada but French is not widely spoken in many (most?) parts of the country; likewise the NHL event names etc. are definitely not almost always translated into both languages throughout Canada - perhaps they are in one region but they are not throughout; 2) Canada's official bilingualism is not really relevant in any case as Wikipedia is not Canada and whichever languages Canada's government have deemed to be official does not dictate content here. Honest question for someone who does speak French - do people even typically refer to the draft as "Repêchage d'entrée dans la LNH" or the playoff as "Les séries éliminatoires de la Coupe Stanley"? I suspect these are more cereal box type translations that aren't even commonly used by the French themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79A0:6300:1C41:10F6:12BC:CDA7 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you need to refer to the full names, then, yes, these are used (being the literal translations, there isn't any other option). Of course, if you are in a conversation where the context is understood, often the terms will be abbreviated, just as they would be in English. I'm of two minds regarding these terms that are basically common phrases for any sport combined with a descriptive sport-specific adjective. On the one hand, it is in a way similar to translating a simple term of art like "ice hockey stick", and there are inter-wiki links to provide translations. On the other hand, the benefit-to-discussion ratio of removing the translations is pretty low; I don't see much point in taking them out now that they're there. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a reasonable response that I can live with. I would suggest that removing them would be an improvement stylistically; as currently presented it seems pretty stilted to include French translations that are themselves contrivances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79A0:6300:2197:9A5E:E283:2FFB (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I'm not clear why you're calling the translations contrivances; as I stated, these are the appropriate French terms. isaacl (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Just in the sense that the term is artificial - not typically used in ordinary parlance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79A0:6300:B13D:A0AA:9BB8:92EA (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're saying that; I assure you these are the regular terms in use, just like "Stanley Cup Playoffs" in English. isaacl (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Update Timeline of Teams
Could you please update the timeline of teams? The Capitals won the Stanley Cup. Could you please update the timeline? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D4E:5E49:846C:38F1:9260:4EE1 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Bruins colors on franchise timeline
The Bruins actually used brown as their predominant color until around 1934. My only source for this is the unofficial NHL uniform database, but if someone could find a source and then knows how to fix the timeline to reflect their actual team color scheme from their inception till about 1934, please do so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

San Jose's Arena Name
The Shark's arena is called SAP Center at San Jose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.33 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you bring it up at Talk:SAP Center, not here. However, Wikipedia uses the most commonly used name in media for article titles, not official titles as the common name is what most people would be looking for or referencing in the most frequent circumstance. It is a bit telling when even the arena's own social media simply calls itself "SAP Center" most of the time (as seen here and here). Yosemiter (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Most cups is incorrect
Although I'm a Habs fan, we only have 24 cups and it says 25. Bmanrandon16 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article lists the 25 titles, as explained in a hidden note on the page:


 * This does NOT list the Canadiens' twenty-FOUR total STANLEY CUPS. Please remember that these values are different because the Stanley Cup has NOT always been solely the NHL championship trophy, and that the Canadiens existed before the NHL was founded.
 * Hope this helps. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can also read the footnote that is linked within the infobox. isaacl (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can also read the footnote that is linked within the infobox. isaacl (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected. We have 25 titles! My apologies. Bmanrandon16 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

District of Columbia
Can any interested parties please discuss how to refer to the District of Columbia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey? Thanks! isaacl (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2019
I think that the chart that states the teams, their arenas, capacities, etc, should include the coordinates of the arenas. This would be consistent with the NFL and NBA pages. I could also see removing the coordinates from both of those pages. However, I think that it is nice to have. Itsanandj (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What purpose does that serve other than clutter an already large table? The arenas and cities are both linked, hence implicit coordinates (locations) already in the table. There is also a map showing the locations of the teams directly above. Why do we need a fourth way of showing location? Yosemiter (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done As stated above, there are already multiple ways to get locations. Upsidedown Keyboard Twemoji12 1f920.svg (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Article issues

 * This article has some issues that ultimately reflect negatively against the multi-project B-class assessment.
 * Prose: There appears to be a word omission in the "Player safety issues" subsection: "Player safety has become a major issue, with and concussions – which result from a hard hit to the head – have been the primary concern, with recent studies showing how concussions can affect retired players and how it has decreased their quality of life after retirement."
 * Tags: The article has at least two "Citation needed" tags (that I saw), one in the "International" subsection (dated June 2018), and one in the Popularity section (dated October 2015).
 * The prose (sensibility) and tags are covered in the assessment criteria (#4 and #1) as issues affecting possible article reassessment so needs to be examined and corrected. Otr500 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the lede should be condenced into 4 paragraphs, as per WP:LEDE. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the lede (lead) is certainly an issue that may require major work. Aside from the two single sentence paragraphs (the headquarters content probably should appear in the opening paragraph) There is, what could be considered by someone not overly familiar with the subject, confusion. The second and third paragraphs are directly related but the beginning of the third paragraph states "At its inception, the NHL had four teams". When one goes to the early history section this is not presented and one would have to go to History of the National Hockey League for verification.
 * I am among those that believe the lede (lead) is the introduction to the article, a "summary of its most important contents", and as such does not normally need sourcing because what is found there should be referenced in the article body. I also think four concise paragraphs normally is all that is needed. I have seen longer articles, where five paragraphs have been successfully used, but in this case seven paragraphs are certainly excessive and I think four properly formatted and structured paragraphs would suffice. Otr500 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a guideline that 4 is the max amount of paragraphs for a lede. This doesn't need to be sourced as per WP:LEDECITE. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Seattle Kraken
The NHL announced today that the Kraken are now a member club because they finished paying their expansion fee. On the other hand, it's indisputable that they're not yet competing, and they certainly don't fit within the current divisional alignment. I suspect we may start to get some sort of edit warring over people who want to say their membership is now "officially official" (we know many Wikipedia editors think the word "official" is very important) and that the count of teams, etc., must be updated ASAP. There will be other people who will say it's too confusing for non-aficionados who read this article and then see the standings that don't list the Kraken. My thought is that a reasonable compromise would be to revise the opening sentence to say something along the lines of "in which 31 clubs compete—24 in the United States, one in Canada—and an expansion franchise will begin play in the fall of 2021." Elsewhere, at an appropriate place, the article could refer to the Kraken's member status becoming effective today. This doesn't need to be a huge issue, but these things tend to lead to tug-of-war style edit wars that it would be best to avoid. Hence why I'm raising it here. I think there's a legitimate, verifiable basis for listing the Kraken as a member club, but due care must be taken to reflect that there are only 31 playing member clubs for the time being. 1995hoo (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * When Vegas came in we didn't change anything until around the expansion draft, so I would do the same this time as well. Deadman137 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, but we know there are plenty of people reading Wikipedia who don’t remember that or who are unaware of it. My point is, can anyone come up with a good way to make it clear so those of us who are interested in accuracy don’t have to keep reverting changes for the next two months? 1995hoo (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Short of leaving a hidden note, not really, because there hasn't been enough disruptive editing yet to protect it. By Monday or Tuesday most of the editors that you're speaking of will have forgotten about it and moved on to other things. Deadman137 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Origin of players
There are two problems with this table:
 * Czech Republic did not exist before 1993 just like Russia did not exist before the end of 1991
 * Some of the numbers are different than in the sources

In addition, nationality listings are incorrect in about all sources that I could find since Darius Kasparaitis is listed as being Russian (born in Lithuanian SSR, played for both Russia and Lithuania, never had Russian citizenship) and Andrey Pedan is listed as being Lithuanian (born in Lithuania, never had Lithuanian citizenship). There might be more examples like this, but these two players are the first ones that I remembered. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I just added Slovakia to the "Origin of players" table! May somebody fix the problem with alightment?!? Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Color of Divisions on Map
The metropolitan and central divisions look nearly identical on the map making it hard to read. I am color blind (protanope) to be fair. Maybe they should be shaded differently? - Dkyguy1995 (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a great point! When I put together the new map, I tried to match the old colours, but they are quite pale and unsaturated, which probably doesn't help; Metro is a pale green, and Central is a pale yellow. Having the lived experience, are there shades or colours that you would recommended? –uncleben85 ( talk ) 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Uncleben85: sorry to butt in, but i just spent the last ten minutes staring at the map and wondering why the atlantic didnt get a color when the other three did. oops. if you do update the map (and maybe the colors in the table underneath it as well?) could the "empty" states/provinces be a lighter gray and/or the atlantic be a darker blue? thanks a bunch! Oasisarah (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely something I can do! I think having higher saturation will probably help too. @Dkyguy1995 any insight? –uncleben85 ( talk ) 22:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Conversation about capitalization of Black as well as around race and the NHL
( and so you're aware of this)

First, I'd like to thank you both for your work on this and many other pages.

Second, I'd like to offer that this page should be capitalizing Black as per AP’s style which is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense. As per AP, this conveys an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.

Third, being that the league has had a plethora of race-based issues over the past several years, there should be some conversation given to the racial dynamic in the NHL. The fact that the league is the whitest professional sports league in North America and that there are lots of conversations revolving around making the league more diverse, more inclusive and more accepting, it would be a meaningful mark of this community to allow content on this page that allows the public more knowledge of these issues. Mrohlewis (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Black vs. black is a non-issue. Wikipedia has its own manual of style. AP's style is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia, we can use "black" or "Black" as there is no consensus as to which is preferable. That said, for you to go to articles and change whatever case is being used is obviously driven by your own agenda to right perceived wrongs. That is not what Wikipedia is about, which segues easily into your large addition about racism in the league. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to do an expose. The amount of material you added is obviously WP:UNDUE. Plus, an article already exists, which you obviously copied from without any hatnote or attribution, Black players in ice hockey. Although this is not the best venue to discuss your conduct, if you persist in this approach to Wikipedia, you risk being blocked for a combination of WP:NOTHERE and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that will be it, eh? I understand you don't come down on the side of capitalization of the word Black. I'm an amateur editor, you can clearly see that and your threatening tone regarding my edits is very discouraging. Please read some of what current Black NHL players (as well as lower-league players) have said about racism in the hockey and NHL community. To not address it here is doing a disservice not just to those players but to the fans of the league and those looking to know more about it. If the point of the talk page is to have a conversation about these issues, perhaps we can do that. If the point is only for the most experienced editors to have complete control and prove it, than I guess it's the end of the story. That being said, let's talk about it and work collaboratively to come to a consensus about what could be done. Isn't that the entire point of WP? Mrohlewis (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * MOSCAPS discussion Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms and more recent MOS discussion Black or black? (where Mrohlewis has commented) have not resulted in a guideline change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. The discussion is very odd to me as the only writing that has black instead of Black is right-wing media in America. I understand that it's not the case elsewhere in the world yet, but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a league that is primarily based in America and that a vast majority of the Black players are of American decent. It seems to be a basic issue of respect for the current cultural awareness around race. Especially important in a league where, again, 93-95% of the players are white and racial incidents are all-to-common. Mrohlewis (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AP's MOS has no relevance here. Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style. Cable10291 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why a Wikipedia article about the NHL should reflect "current cultural awareness around race" or why player demographics matter. The fact that there aren't many black players does not mean the NHL is somehow inherently racist, even if some black players have said they have encountered racism over the years (which is extremely unfortunate but is also hardly unique to hockey). Most black people I've known just plain aren't interested in hockey—they prefer basketball and American football—and I don't doubt the desire to play a sport correlates with what sport one follows when growing up. (I don't doubt there are also various economic factors at play, too. Hockey is expensive!) Essentially, I just don't see why something that is an inherently political issue should be injected into a sports-related article that is supposed to be neutral and factual. While there may be "conversations around making the league more diverse," I don't see why that should influence the writing on this article. Finally, regarding Associated Press style, it is demonstrably wrong in some of its mandates, most notably its insistence on wrongly omitting the serial comma, so I'm always skeptical of putting too much stock in their rules. (Unrelated, BTW: I apologize for some of my edit summaries last night being truncated. I was typing on my iPad and my finger accidentally hit the Enter button and once you do that, you're stuck.) 1995hoo (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, when nearly 100% of the Black players in the league openly talk about racism they've encountered, when they form a specific group (Hockey Diversity Alliance) that was originally PART of the NHL only to leave the NHL because they feel no action is being taken....something is up. To not address that here in a factual article when it is a fact is again a disservice to all but especially the Black players. Further, your insinuation that Black people can't afford to play hockey and only care about basketball and football is, well, actually racist. Please re-read that part as I don't believe you meant to say what you did. Please see this article regarding Black NHL players being subject to racial abuse in this exact way you are speaking. You are literally making the point as to why this needs to be talked about and mentioned in this article. This is not some arcane subject, it is openly discussed by every major sports-news outlet. The NHL made it a centerpiece of their 2020-2021 season. Lastly, to argue the AP style guide is wrong because of their omitting serial commas is missing the forest for the trees. You're right, the AP is not always correct. However, every major style guide in America has moved to capitalize Black. Again, I respectfully that we include the conversation regarding race in the league as it is happening right now, today, in the NHL and beyond. Mrohlewis (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Kindly review WP:AGF and do not ever again accuse me of racism. 1995hoo (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kindly review your words and read the article that I listed. Also, kindly review the other parts of the response I provided rather than only focusing on one part.
 * I stand by what I said, and I very carefully phrased it the way I did for the specific reason of not trying to apply my comment to black people at large (after all, I surely don't know most of the black people in the world, and I'm pretty sure you don't either). I'm not trying to say the NHL should not examine the sorts of incidents you reference, nor am I saying the NHL should not try to determine why hockey's fanbase contains far more white people than black people or why there are far fewer black players than there are white players. They should. But a Wikipedia article doesn't need to delve into that in the sort of intense detail that you seem to be envisioning. 1995hoo (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Nor any of the rest of us, in fact. It is deeply offensive to claim that failure to buy into your POV on capitalization equates to being racist.   Ravenswing      19:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not, in fact, called the rest of you racist. Nor did I call 1995hoo racist. I pointed out that what the individual said was in fact, uses of ideas and words that have been found to be racist in the recent past. Please read the what the user wrote and you will perhaps see why the phrasing was inappropriate.
 * Thank you, yes: I did read it. I also read what you wrote. "Further, your insinuation that Black people can't afford to play hockey and only care about basketball and football is, well, actually racist" is calling the writer racist.  Period.  You do not get to say such things on Wikipedia with impunity, but at least I'd expect you to own the words you typed a bloody half hour ago.   Ravenswing      19:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I take ownership of those words, and yes, you are correct that I was mistaken in my previous post. That being said, I did not call the community or you racist. I'm guessing that 1995hoo gets to say such things with impunity because they've paid their dues? You cannot say that "Most black people I've known just plain aren't interested in hockey—they prefer basketball and American football—and I don't doubt the desire to play a sport correlates with what sport one follows when growing up." Do you truly not see the issue in such a statement? Mrohlewis (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends. Is it inaccurate? I recognize it's more convenient to point fingers and cry "Racist!!!" than to look at demographic facts.  But one fact -- inconvenient though it may be -- is that the Canada and the European nations from which most hockey players come have a significantly smaller black population than the United States does.  Another fact -- inconvenient though it may be -- is that it is far more costly to play hockey than any other major team sport, which lines up with the equally inconvenient fact of the relative affluence of various minority communities.  What leads you to automatically conclude that pointing these things out is automatic proof of racism?  (Because let's not weasel-word it, shall we?  What "issue" are you expecting me to see?)   Ravenswing      21:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've another take on things. You claim -- unilaterally -- that your preferred way of spelling is the only respectful way of doing so, and you also claim -- unilaterally -- that not doing is prima facie racist. For my part, I call bunk. Says who? One hallmark of these discussions is a notable disinclination to poll the actual affected group for their take on it ("Latinx", for example, is roundly disfavored as a term by the community to which it purports to refer). Another is the dizzying shift in terminology that speaks more to boredom than it does with what terms may or may not be respectful. In my lifetime alone, the polite term used to refer to Americans of visible African descent has shifted six times, while the word we all agreed over a century ago was offensive is still in all-too-common parlance within that community.  I am not myself black.  If I were, however, I fancy what I'd find disrespectful is the premise that the capitalization of that word (or not) mattered a tinker's damn in the broad scope of the genuinely serious issues that petty "controversies" trivializes, and I'd find downright offensive the absurd charge that the only people who defied your preference were right-wing media. (How could this be, by the way, if "every major style guide in America has moved to capitalize Black?" Make up your mind.  Which is it?)  To that end, we amateur editors -- and we're all such here -- already have a consensus as to what to do: follow the MOS.  I see that you're making the attempt to change consensus, and that's your right to try.  Until consensus does change, we are under no onus to agree with you, nor to accept that your linguistic preferences and prejudices are the only legitimate ones, nor to believe that the terms used to refer to particular communities that were deemed perfectly respectful BY those communities five years, and ten years, and twenty years, and fifty years ago suddenly are no longer so, because, well, REASONS, that's why.   Ravenswing      19:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You make very valid and strong points. I don't come here to dispute them or your good intentions. I am simply trying to identify something that is seemingly a glaring mistake in 2021. You are right to point out the changes in American English for terminology around Black people. As with all cultures and societies, things evolve. I don't believe you are arguing against progress but simply pointing out that the changes have occurred. To that, I agree. But also to that, I remind you that changes happen for a reason, and in this case, the reason is recognizing systemic racism (i.e. overwhelming white-based perspective) in writing. As for "making up my mind" regarding "every major style guide in America has moved to capitalize Black", I stand by my assertion. The right-wing media in America, as with other parts of the world, is fringe. It is not mainstream and is not consumed by the vast majority of Americans (this is known by network views, page reads, etc.). You are correct, until there is consensus on such changes, that may not occur. However, if people do not raise these issues and continue to push them to the forefront, they will not occur. That, respectfully, is what I am doing. Mrohlewis (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And while I'm not quite so arrogant as to respond with "And you will find that very few people here will agree with your POV," I anticipate that this will prove to be the case. It seems that you're as much inside your echo chamber as those you decry: to describe (for instance) the top-rated news network in America as "fringe" is badly misunderstanding the definition of the word "fringe." In any event, what you're pointing out is not a "glaring mistake." It's a dispute in capitalization that, so far, only a minority is enshrining ... and on form, will become bored with within a few years for the latest en vogue gimmick. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trendsetter. It is not our job to be on the "forefront" of pretty much anything.   Ravenswing     20:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on this matter. I appreciate the exchange of ideas here, even if at times a bit heated. Mrohlewis (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note the banner at the top of this page saying that this article is written in Canadian English. Typically that's come up for spelling reasons where American and Canadian English differ (defenseman versus defenceman, for example), but I suppose the issue of the capitalization of "black" could fall within that category as well. I have no idea what, if any, consensus there might be in Canada on that issue, but I'm reasonably confident that Associated Press style is irrelevant in considering what Canadian standards might be. 1995hoo (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Some Canadian newspapers are going for Black in future articles, and maybe someday so will Wikipedia's guideline -- after a discussion with appropriate notice, on the guideline's talk page, that overturns prior consensus. That prior consensus was recent so making a kerfuffle immediately might cause more irritation than sympathy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will point out that as per MOS:PEOPLANG, capitalizing Black is acceptable and it is a choice being made to not capitalize it. So if MOS:PEOPLANG is correct, this is not about being on the forefront of anything, it's simply a choice. Mrohlewis (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting topic, but difficult to follow. please read up on WP:INDENT, when responding to others' posts. PS - Folks, can we avoid using bullet points for our posts? GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Help add Depict statements to NHL player photos on Commons
There is a project on Wikimedia Commons to add structed data elements to as many files as possible. One of the important data elements is the Depict statement which says what is depicted in the image. A very easy to use tool called Depictor has been written using a game like interface to add Depict statements to Commons images. It's very easy and anyone can do it. I have created a challenge on the Depictor tool site to add Depict statements to all of the photos of NHL players on Commons. If anyone would like to help you can find the challenge here. When you click on the link you will be shown a known photo of an NHL player on the left and another photo on the right. If the photo on the right showns the NHL player you just click on Yes, if it doesn't click on No, if you are not sure then click on Skip (On a mobile device the known photo will be on the top and the unknown on the bottom). There is a Youtube video describing the tool and how to use it here. You will need to authorize the tool to use your Wikimedia Login. Give it a try, its easy. Thanks Captain-tucker (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Teams section
The “Teams” section is confusing. It starts with discussing alignment when NFL had 31 teams, and discussing the 17-18 realignment.

this is no longer current information. As far as I’m concerned it could even be deleted entirely, or moved down, as a historical follow-up information. But the section should begin with describing the currrent alignment of teams. SWojczyszyn (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)