Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:42, 16 June 2009.

List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation

 * Nominator(s): Scorpion 0422  19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another list relating to international hockey, enjoy. -- Scorpion 0422  19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Chris!  c t 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are New Zealand and Norway in the same cell? Error or intentional?
 * For some strange reasons, both Men's and Women's Ranking columns only sort correctly for the first time.
 * I don't see any error with the New Zealand or Norway cells, they both look fine to me. I fixed the sortability. -- Scorpion 0422  20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still see the error, but the wikicode seems correct. So I don't know. Purging the page doesn't help either.— Chris!  c t 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer a problem; probably it is just a bug— Chris!  c t 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I'll support.— Chris!  c t 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support from KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Ice Hockey World Championships is linked twice in the lead.
 * Fixed.
 * Actually, I still see two links. One is IIHF-sanctioned World Championships, and the other is Men's World Championships, the subject of the linked article.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch that the table column headings don't have non-proper nouns capitalized, like "Date Joined".
 * Fixed.
 * The last two tables aren't sortable. Do you think they're too small?
 * I had actually just forgotten to add sortability, but I would say that it would have minimal use since the tables are very small.
 * Every reference is a primary source. I'm sure the IIHF has been discussed in media outlets.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it has, but I think a primary source is perfectly acceptable in this case since it is non-controversial information (and I doubt that I'll be able to find a better one for any the table data, the exception being the former members section). Is there any specific that you think needs a third party source? Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 0422  00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't think anything here is too controversial.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support – I'm not overly concerned about the primary sources, and everything else appears to be fine.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 0422  21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Review by 
 * Lead
 * 'It is based in Zurich, Switzerland and maintains the international ice hockey rulebook, processes international player transfers, and dictates officiating guidelines and is responsible for the management of international ice hockey tournaments.' --> The 'and' in 'and dictates officiating' should be removed because the 'and' between 'guidelines' and 'is responsible' do not relate to each other
 * Done.
 * 'The IIHF was created on May 15, 1908 under the name Ligue Internationale de Hockey sur Glace (LHG).[1]' - Maybe explain what language this is in?
 * Can the language which the name was originally in not be noted?-- T ru  c o   20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, missed that. It's in French. I'll add it.
 * List
 * Whats the point of gray links? I don't really see it well in the explanation you gave above.
 * The gray links are in there to make it easier to differentiate between active teams and non-active teams. otherwise, it's hard to pick out (especially with italics) and it looks messier.
 * Oh, I see now. Can you denote that in the key or something?-- T ru  c o   20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll add something to the key.
 * One more question, what does it mean "they participated in that event"? What does 'that event' refer to?-- T ru  c o   21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that that team was active in 2009 (so, the Croatian men's national participated in the 2009 tournament, but the inline team did not). -- Scorpion 0422  00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand that but in the key "did not participate in that event in 2009", like what is "that event" referring to in general?-- T ru  c o   02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to fix it. -- Scorpion 0422  18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * References
 * Can you add a source that is not from the IIHF itself? -- T ru  c o   18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anything specific that you think requires a non-IIHF source? Thanks for taking a look. Good to have you back. -- Scorpion 0422  19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't find the guideline but there was a guideline that stated that refs should not come from 1 source, but I can't find it. Is there anything that can just be replaced by 1 non-IIHF ref? If not, its ok. Also, thanks! It's great to be back, but it's taking awhile to catch up with all these noms =P-- T ru  c o   20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that guideline is meant more for articles than lists. As this is non-controversial info, and any source would be based on the IIHF list anyway, I think it is acceptable. However, I will see what I can do. -- Scorpion 0422  21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

-- Crzycheetah 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I think you need to include a note or mention in the lead that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania had their memberships expire during the Soviet era.
 * Could you explain why some links are red and some grayed out in the "Teams" column?
 * The italicized links (I prefered bold, but oh well) indicate that the team participated in the 2009 World Championships (so it's active). A lot of the teams don't yet have pages, so they are red. The grey links are teams that did not participate this year (inactive). I have added a note about the Baltic states. -- Scorpion 0422  04:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must be blind because I can't see any note about Baltic States. As for the grey links, I think it's confusing; italics is good one to indicate the active teams.-- Crzycheetah 04:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You checked to quickly. I wrote that first and figured I'd have it done by the time you came back. I'm not sure why grey links is confusing, I could delink them, but some links do exist (most of the nations do have men's national team page), so it does help to link them. -- Scorpion 0422  04:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you should delink. I just want to see either red links or blue links - no gray links. Links in italics means that the teams are active; link in normal/non-italics mean that those teams are inactive. Am I right? So why make those links gray?-- Crzycheetah 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the active teams would be much easier to pick out. I tried it before, but it was very confusing with both italicized red and blue links and non-italicized links. -- Scorpion 0422  04:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just not common for Wikipedia articles to have gray links. When I first saw this page I thought it was just gray text and not a link. I was surprised when I clicked on one of the gray links and the page opened. Also, per this, we should probably avoid gray links.-- Crzycheetah 04:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  The gray links should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because of visibility issues.-- Crzycheetah 04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that without the gray links, the table would be more messy and complicated and would fail 5a. For example, every row would look something like this: M· M–U20·M–U18· W· W–U18· inline
 * And having every row like that looks horrible and is very confusing. -- Scorpion 0422  15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, gray color or any other color but blue and red is confusing because those are two Wikipedia colors for links: Blue for working links and red for non-working links. When a third color is added, it will confuse regular readers because they're not used to it.
 * Gray links in the light gray cell are very hard to notice for people with bad vision. That's why I believe this page fails 5a.-- Crzycheetah 17:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about just normal black then (although that would also cause confusion because one would assume that black text is not linked)? -- Scorpion 0422  19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Black is worse. Any third color is confusing. Let's say you're reading this list and you notice those gray links and you click on one of them, then Oops, there's no such page. What would you feel about Wikipedia? One of the greatest things in Wikipedia is that non-working links are colored in red, so that readers don't click on it unless they want to create that page. You're basically hiding the fact that those team pages are not created. I am not even talking about the fact that 29 out of 68 members don't have a page in Wikipedia . -- Crzycheetah 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's not my intent. When I first added those teams, I found that it was immensely confusing to have bolded and non-bolded red & blue links. But, the bold was a lot easier to pick out (which was why it was used in the first place). Now for some reason, I can't use bold, so now the active teams are even harder to find. But, that's okay, because I made the non-active teams gray, but now I'm being told to remove them and use a version I immensely dislike. 99% of the gray don't have pages, but I wanted to include links anyway. How about I delink the gray text? I'd rather not, but it would solve the three link colour debate. -- Scorpion 0422  19:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, delinking will not solve the problem. The most optimal version right now is the one you mentioned above: M· M–U20·M–U18· W· W–U18· inline . Italic text indicates active teams and regular text the inactive ones.-- Crzycheetah 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Late comer to the discussion, and I could frankly care less about the grey links, but I think there are two compromises that will work: A. do something similar to what Cheetah suggests, drop the gray, turn into redlinks, but add an asterisk or ref label note to mark those teams which did not participate to add more emphasis than just the italics, which frankly given the size of the text is hard to see. B. Ignore MOS:Bold - it seems to be written with prose articles in mind rather than lists, banning bolding to avoid confusion with its use to identify article topics, which is not a confusion likely to happen if the bolding is inside a table. It's a risk that KV or someone else may then oppose, but I'd chalk it up as being bold. No pun intended.
 * A couple other comments too that don't rise to the level of opposition. First, at some point you should make a version of the map that is usable by people with color blindness. Second, there are far too many redlinks here. You should fill some of them in. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you aren't opposing over it, but I just want to clarify that red links aren't justification for opposition. See WP:RED. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the map myself, and my map making skills are very limited, so I just used the most obvious colours I could. What would be the best ones to use? As for redlinks, I will try to create some more stubs for the national federations. Also, I would be willing to go back to using bold, and then removing the gray. Crzycheetah, would that be acceptable? -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Update The organizations for all of the full members now have small, crappy, stub pages. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the map, I wasn't thinking of completely changing it, I like the one you have. But because it's so useful, I think Colours comes into play. What I've seen on other lists in the past is the creation of a version with different contrasts to help the color-blind, linked to from the thumb caption underneath the main map. Just can't find an example of it right now. As I said, not a reason to oppose, but maybe a good diea for future article improvement. Geraldk (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, bold would be better.-- Crzycheetah 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, switched back to bold and removed the gray. Personally, I think it looks worse without the gray, but oh well. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  02:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you!-- Crzycheetah 04:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question - How many of those redlinks can actually become valid articles? If the articles cannot be turned into notable articles, could you please delink them? Thanks. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that there will never be an article for any of the under-18 teams and a majority of the non-full member teams will never have pages either, but if you start selectively delinking, it causes confusion. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice find! Much better now.-- Crzycheetah 02:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from --  SRE.K.A.L. 24 [c]
 * I don't think "Key" and "In the Teams column" is really needed in the article. Could be argued, but from the list, it looks like it's obvious that the everything on the key is on the Teams column.
 * If you're not going to remove those from the article, then "Key" should be . --   SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the removing the entire key or just the title "key"? -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Laugh out loud. Just the titles. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "National federations" --> "IIHF members". This is because if you include the Unified Team (see last comment below), then not all of them would be national federations.
 * I still think it's better having the section be titled "IIHF members"... --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Went with "members" -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

--  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "President" column needs to be sorted by Template:sortname.
 * Done.
 * The men's and women's rankings should be noted by "As of..."
 * Done.
 * You only noted on the IIHF Full Members list. Should be on both the Full Members and the Associate Members. Or, you could just put the note at the very top of the section. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot about the other table. I'll just add it to the key. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The category should be Category:IIHF instead of Category:Ice hockey governing bodies.
 * Done.
 * Why is the article in the Category:Ice hockey governing bodies? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is basically a list of national governing bodies in ice hockey. As such, I think it has a place in it.
 * I still don't get why the IIHF wouldn't transfer Czechoslovakia's membership rights to both the Czech Republic and Slovakia...Would be nice if you could find the reason for this, but don't worry about it, as it won't affect my decision.
 * For the former members section, why isn't there the Unified Team and West Germany?
 * Added West Germany. However, as far as I can tell, the Unified Team was never actually a member of the IIHF. It was just the combination of several existing IIHF members.
 * Well from the IIHF navbox, it lists the Unified Team as a former member of the IIHF. Suggest you remove that from the navbox if it is false. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Says teams, not members. My bad. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Would still want to know how the membership transfers from one to another. Do they do this formally, or do they just list it, without media attention? Ehh...I Support. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Finally got around to reviewing this article, but something sticks out for me. In regards to the national federations, some are listed in English (Iceland, Hungary, etc) while other are listed in their respective official languages (Germany, France, etc). I'm going to assume this is because the IIHF lists them as such, but perhaps some consistency would be appropriate for the article? Maybe keep them all in English, which is logical, or find their official name in whatever language used, which could be an issue for countries that use a different alphabet (Russia, China, Thailand). Other than that, the list looks great. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed some of them, but I haven't been able to find English translations for all of them. Do you know of any sites that might be of use? -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through and translated most of the ones left. However, my knowledge of Spanish is non-existant, so there are only 3 left (Mexico, Spain, and Macau (Written in Portuguese, not Spanish)). So if someone who knows Spanish is available, then it should all be cleared up. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.