Template talk:Pittsburgh Penguins

Usage
Wouldn't this template be better used if is was expanded or even perhaps contracted to remove deadlinks and/or repairing them? Jmlk 1  7  19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Important players
I can understand why some of the players would be removed from this section, but I believe that too many were taken out. More than simply Hockey Hall of Famers are important to history of the Penguins. There is also the Ring of Honor at Mellon Arena, which is much more player-exclusive than the lesser known Penguins' Hall of Fame, which as far as I can find was last updated when Paul Coffey was added last year -- list is near the bottom of the article. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.  Black  ngold29   19:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I'll concede that too many players were probably listed event though I'm the one that put them there when I updated the template back in July. The Ring of Honor, Penguins Hall of Fame, and retired jersey numbers are team specific. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed links
I am hoping at some point to bring all 30 NHL team templates into a standard form of some type, and as such spent some time a few days ago removing what I consider to be redundant and low value links. My rationale for what I removed was noted at the hockey project's talk page. An editor has expressed concern about the removal of some links on this template. Specifically aspects of "culture and lore", which in this case regards the inclusion of movies that happened to use the Penguins as a background plot device.

In my view, their inclusion on the navigational template falls into the problem of "in popular culture" sections and as such is trivial. The point of a navbox is to offer links to related topics. I don't consider something that simply mentions the Penguins falles into that category. In my view, the "lore" of a hockey team generally comes down to two aspects: key seasons - of which the "seasons" sub-template and List of Pittsburgh Penguins seasons article are both linked in this template already - and key points of history. So things like the Winter Classic, the Expansion Draft and similar key moments. The mention of the Penguins, or any team, in popular culture fits neither of these, and indeed, Sudden Death could have featured any other NHL team, or a compeltely fictional one, and not have changed. That it used the Penguins as part of the background is trivial, and linking to it on this template lends undue weight to this link. Same argument for the other movies.

That is my rationale for my removals. As request though, I encourage other editors to discuss the point. Resolute 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the previous discussion and would note that I agree with your assessment. The inclusion of that type of films does not aid in the understanding of the franchise. If they were movies based on significant franchise events like We Are Marshall or even the focus of the movie that expanded the visibility of the team like Major League it might be worth including. But the fact that they simply feature the Penguins does not make them part of the "culture". The way i look at it if kid were doing a report on the Penguins for a class assignment would these links help to define the team, and incorporate significant information. I have to say that they do not.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to agree here that these shouldn't be in the navbox. Per WP:EMBED only links that would already be likely to appear in a completed version of the pages the box is used on should be included in navigational lists. The links he removed are not likely to be found on every page this box is used on. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Djsasso not sure where you are coming from, [|Sudden Death] has had a link to the Pens since April 2009 with no one contesting it. If your standard is that links should "likely to be found on every page this box is used on" most hockey boxes will be dwindled down to virtually nothing.  As I trust that would not be your intent, so I appreciate your attempt to clarify that confusion for me.  I am all for a set of standards we can use throughout Wikipedia hockey.  Those advanced however might defeat the reason for its existence.  Thank you for your discussion.  Hholt01 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is actually the intent. The hockey project has long had a consensus to remove trivial links as much as possible from navigation boxes. So that only the fewest most important links possible are left. We do this in order to make sure that all links in the box directly relate to the topic that the navbox is used on and expand knowledge of the topic. Links such as Sudden Death don't help us understand the topic of the of each article the navbox is used on any better. Should the Sudden Death article mention that it surrounds a Penguins game? Of course. But should we link to the Sudden Death article on every article that the penguins navbox is on? Of course not, because not every article that the navbox is found on has to do with Sudden Death. Every link in a navbox is supposed to directly relate to the subject of each page the navbox is placed on. -DJSasso (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Leech44, you state you agree with Resolute but directly contradict him with such films as We Are Marshall and Major League. Also this statement baffles me "But the fact that they simply feature the Penguins does not make them part of the "culture"."  I assume you are referring to Sudden Death, HBO 24/7 and Zach & Miri.  "Simply feature" would be akin to stating hockey is "simply ice", it does nothing to describe that the films/shows are indeed 50% or more Pens.  Film is not culture?  And if film is culture aren't there plots just as much of that very culture?  I am sure you would agree since that's the only logic behind your earlier justification for "Major League".  Second contradiction.  Finally as with most of these points struggling to rationalize belief, you build a magnificent straw man about a kid doing a report for a class assignment and that being included in the box for the team.  But that wouldn't even be a wiki page.  Either you are advancing that Sudden Death, HBO 24/7, Zach and Miri and She's out of my league wikipages should be deleted on similar grounds as a deletion for some kids class project put on wikipedia ASAP or you are suggesting that wikipedia change its policies radically to allow class projects to have their own wikipedia articles?  I trust you have the best intentions here Leech44 but you may have just been guilty of what you are attempting to rationalize deletion of, a discussion post that as you claim the films/shows do in the box, "does not aid in the understanding", "based on significant", "simply feature" contradictions, and "help define . . . and incorporate significant information".  Although discussions aren't held to the same standards, I would never pretend to make the same baseless (even contradictory) rationalizations about your beliefs, even those beliefs about C&L.  I hope we can both proceed with the noble effort you are showing to keep standards with boxes on Wikipedia, in ways that can be perhaps less misguided.  Thank you for your efforts. Hholt01 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Resolute, first I appreciate the opportunity to discuss consensus, you are to be commended on your efforts to uphold standards on wikipedia. Like everything in life though it is MHO that moderation at times is sacrificed some in the pursuit of standards.  You state your idea of C&L primarily encompass key seasons and key points in history.  You are aware I imagine that Sudden Death was partially the project of Pens owner Howard Baldwin, and had it's premier in suburban Pittsburgh with the Pens royalty in attendance, a Hollywood-like premier complete with red carpet for a teams fans, players and builders that never happened before and hasn't happened since is far from a "key point in history".  You then state that Sudden Death et. al. could have featured any other NHL team or a "compeltely" fictional one.  In the most respectful manner possible: Huh?  If that statement is what you are hoping consensus will be then it would apply across Wikipedia.  "___ could have featured any ___ or a completely fictional ___".  "The Stanley Cup" could have featured any "fishing tournament" or a completely fictional "science prize".   Time for deletions?  You also state: "That it used the Penguins as part of the background is trivial . . .".  First (and respectfully) that makes no sense, second and even worse it's factually incorrect, the Pens weren't simply "part" they were the entire background for SD, HBO 24/7 and the majority of it for Z&M.  You then use that statement to justify "weight", but I can't find anything that statement would possibly justify.  That you cite it as "trivial" from the perspective of the films and TV shows it is incorrect (major if not all of the plot) and from the perspective of the franchise and it's fans it is also incorrect (owner producing, red carpet in-town premiers, access to Pens players, etc.).  Striking Distance has mentions of the Penguins, but very few fans or team officials would say that the film belongs as culture and lore of the franchise.  You are rationalizing the wrong case.  Users like myself would personally stand with you if a misguided fan added Striking Distance to the box.  To imagine that myself or others are using the same standard to include entire or half plots in the box (not Striking Distance) misrepresents our thought process to the degree where it could be construed as vandalism.  I can see you have the best of intentions here and we do need standards and users that help keep them, but this IMHO is not one of those instances.  I am still awaiting factual, coherent reasons that could be taken forward as consensus for wikipedia (or at the very least it's hockey pages) as to why these films/shows should be deleted.  Thank you.  Hholt01 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but it is trivial, from all angles. You made note on the Pittsburgh project's talk page about "local importance" - well, 1. I've seen no indication that it is even locally important to tie these movies so closely to the team, and 2. Globally, these links are not important at all.  I respect the emotion of your arguments, but these movies and shows are not remotely important to understanding the franchise.  They are, as I have said, "in popular culture" trivia, which is something to be avoided.  That is not to say that the links between the movies, the team and Baldwin should not be mentioned - they should be noted on the team, movie and Baldwin's article - but they are not important to the navbox. Resolute 21:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay let me see if I can further explain my position since apparently i did a poor job of explaining it. First off I understand that movies are culture. However, we are talking about the "Culture of the Pittsburgh Penguins" which is different. As for my examples of We are Marshall and Major League, I put them in to illustrate that movies must be taken on a case to case basis. For starters when I mentioned those films I stated I might include those, and here is why: We are Marshall is a fictional account of real events about the death of the football team, how the university responded and the struggles they encounter in fielding a team in order to move on past the tragedy. Sudden death is a move about a firefighter stopping a terrorist plot during a major sporting event. Marshall's film is about the culture of the university where as sudden death could easily be replaced by another team/sport. If memory serves correct only two actual characters in the film that are Penguins, Luc Robitaille, who plays himself and has like one speaking line (because he's Luc Robitaille) and has little to do with the plot besides scoring a shorthanded goal to force "sudden Death". the other one is the team goalie who Van Dame replaces and gets involved in the game in order to escape being captured by the terrorists. So why we see the game going on at several points in the film it has virtually nothing to do with the Penguins. As for Major League(which I would consider it a much more fringe example) I mentioned that since it is specifically about the Indians with the entire movie revolving around the team. As such it is often tied to the franchise in a way that the other films are not. Also, though it is a fictional movie it touches on several things that pertained to the Indians. The Indians were a bad team for 30+ years and moving to Florida was a common threat during the time frame of the movie (the White Sox threatened a similar move prior to the construction of US Cellular Field), attendance dwindled while they played in a stadium colloquially called "The Mistake by the Lake" (not the actual stadium used in filming BTW), and the city had an apathy for the team. Could another team have been used? Yes, the Cubs, Red Sox and White Sox all had longer droughts (at the time) but also had a better fan base. Could a fictional team been used? Yes but then the history would probably have to be more explained than the montage of papers used in the beginning. In fact by the third installment of the film series the Indians are no longer the team of focus as they became a winning franchise. Even with the 50% you claim the movies involve the Penguins they are not significant to the movie, much like Rookie of the Year isn't part of the Cubs culture or The Rookie (which is also based on a true story) isn't part of the Rays culture, as those movies are about individuals that happen to play for a specific team. As for the "does not aid in the understanding" and the example of the child doing a report I was trying to make an example of the movies relation to the franchise, I wasn't advocating pages being deleted. Let me try this example and see if that helps, if you were going to tell a stranger about the Penguins would you mention these movies? In other words are their appearances in theses films "significant" to the franchise, or is it an also ran?--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That pretty much sums up my view. Before any link is put in any navbox you need to ask yourself. Would your knowledge of the topic be completely lacking if the link wasn't there. So in this case, would someone not be able to understand the Pittsburgh Penguins if they didn't read the Sudden Death article. And another question that WP:NAVBOX suggests is "Where will the reader most likely want to go next?" If someone is reading about the Pittsburgh Penguins, is the next page they are most likely going to want to read about be Sudden Death? -DJSasso (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)