Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Why are the hockey infoboxes so empty of substance compared to other sports?
When you look at a page for an NBA, MLB or NFL player, you're given a list of all the teams they played for and the years they were on those teams, all of their championships, all of their accolades, and records they may have. When you look at the page for an NHL player, you see the teams they played for and the years of their career (though not the years they played for each team). Why is this? Somarain (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relevant discussions:, , Conyo14 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And aside from everything else, a infobox is supposed to be a brief precis of the subject. If you want to find out information in depth ... read the article.   Ravenswing      05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Supposed to be brief according to whom? As I stated below, that opinion is not in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and it's certainly not the MO for pages for politicians, NFL players, colleges or countries. In addition, there are multiple things wrong with your second sentence. First, you shouldn't have to read an entire article to get basic knowledge. THAT is what the infobox is for. And second, in my brief look at Wayne Gretzky's page, basic information isn't covered in the rest of the article either. I was curious how many all star games he's played in. I couldn't get this from the infobox as you know. But it's not listed in the rest of the article either as far as I can tell. And this is supposedly a featured article. Look at the page for any NFL, MLB or NBA player and you could determine how many all star / pro bowls they played in in seconds, because their infoboxes list basic information. Somarain (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding years, unlike some sports, hockey player articles tend to include stats tables spanning a player's career, which can clearly show the reader the years spent with each team in a quick to locate format. But yes otherwise, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a guideline and keeping the infobox brief and pertinent rules the day. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the word brief only once in that link and it's not referring to the length of the infobox. Even if there was a rule in that link about briefness, it's ignored almost everywhere. Joe Biden, Tom Brady, Harvard University, Chile, all of these infoboxes are far larger and more informative than those of NHL players. From where exactly comes this "brief infobox" thing? Somarain (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To your other comment, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Echoedmyron (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the NHL infoboxes don't even contain many key facts, so they're not meeting the threshold of that guide at all. To your other comment, WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Somarain (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree the hockey infoboxes are pretty sparse and could be improved. Maybe there is a reason why people keep bringing this up. Jessintime (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like sports WikiProjects are slowly becoming "fan sites" and reflecting sports databases, rather than remaining encyclopedic entries. Infoboxes are becoming too bloated at the expense of quality prose. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are separated from the prose. They also get facts across much faster than prose (obviously the facts should be listed in both sections). Somarain (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The one thing the hockey template has over the others is it's limited to the basic info. There are sections in the articles listing all those other things. The lone issue I have with the hockey template is its appearance compared to the other sports. I particularly like the way the baseball template looks for retired players. --NHL04 (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would strongly argue it does not cover basic info. Nor do the sections in other articles. How many all star games did Wayne Gretzky appear in? You could not figure that out from his "featured" article, as far as I can tell. Not in the infobox and not in the rest of the page. Somarain (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All-star game appearances are typically listed in the awards and honors section Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's scarcely "basic" info. Now if you're concerned that the Gretzky article lacks an all-star game count, what prevented you from adding it?   Ravenswing      22:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is not basic info? Remove Gretzky's name from the infobox and I have no idea that I'm looking at someone who was considered rather good at the game. All Star appearances tell that story quickly. But if you think an all star is too trivial, surely you don't think the same thing about Hart Trophies? For your last question, my time is best spent here. The worst thing about the article, and all NHL player articles, is the bare infobox. It would take minutes to find out from the player articles information you could find in seconds from any NBA, MLB, or NFL player article. I'm focusing my efforts where I could potentially make the greatest change. Somarain (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph is very clear on Gretzky's hallmark achievements. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I note that Template:Infobox sports league has optional parameters for, ,, & , while Template:Infobox hockey league has only . It would be useful to have those alternative parameters available during the 3-5 month off-season. It could even be set-up to switch automatically. I don't know how to edit templates. Buffal kill (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Iginla kids' nationalities
Various users keep editing Tij Iginla and now Jade Iginla, changing "Canadian-American" to "Canadian." Elite prospects (which is currently having technical difficulties) has them listed as both so I've been reverting the edits, and although they both lived, played, and attended school in the States throughout their childhoods I haven't seen another source explicitly say that they have American citizenship. Can anyone confirm that they they are or are not also American? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * None of the users making the edits provided sources to contradict EP, I should add. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Elite Prospects should be used with caution, since some if its contents are user-generated with editorial oversight. Please see the about page for details. Flibirigit (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it says that on the about page, am I missing something? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone can sign up for an account with Elite Prospects, then edit and create players. Flibirigit (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aside to the main discussion, but relevant to the point you are making: is that true? Anyone can edit a player? I thought EP player profiles could only be updated manually by the player or player's agent after identity verification. I'm genuinely curious! –uncleben85 ( talk ) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would take any assertion that they were "American" with an enormous grain of salt. They are teenagers who were born in Canada to Canadian parents, and have played internationally for Canada.  It is vanishingly rare for people of their ages to seek to become naturalized American citizens, and I'd like to see some very solid sourcing for anything of the sort ... and Eliteprospects just isn't that solid.   Ravenswing      10:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetical Good Topic
Let's say I got List of Boston Bruins players to FL status, and I wanted to create a Good Topic around it. Would they allow me to only add players who have achieved some milestone with the team (e.g. 300 games, 500 games, 10 seasons with the team, etc.) to the Good Topic, because getting each of the Bruins' hundreds of players is just not feasible. XR228 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Never mind guys, I think I found an answer. I could create an overview topic. XR228 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

ECHL team rosters
Was curious of peoples thoughts on if there's a benefit of keeping player rosters on ECHL team pages? For the most part 95% of players don't meet notability guidelines and the transactional movement in the league is on the high end. It's a fairly laborious work load with most rosters not kept up to date. Would like to see if there's a consensus either way, thanks! Triggerbit (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If they're not maintained I wouldn't keep them. The only reason I would think to keep them is occasionally there are players under contract with an NHL team sent down. If someone is actively maintaining a certain team I would leave it, but if a team has nobody regularly doing the work I'd remove them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I typically try to maintain the VGK ones, but I don't particularly care about the others. The   Kip  (contribs) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been doing a ton of work on minor league rosters generally, and certainly deserve applause for it. But if you just stuck with AHL articles that'd be above the call of duty, honestly.   Ravenswing      17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be to show consistency and remove the rosters league wide. After updating them for many years, I'm fairly aware that the overwhelming majority of teams aren't maintained, and really it adds no value to the article. The NHL contracted players assigned to the ECHL are mostly first year pros without notability so i think just hiding them on the AHL roster while updating their bio page if on the occasion they are notable is sufficient. Triggerbit (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel that rosters are little use for low-level professional teams in ECHL, and junior ice hockey teams in the Western Hockey League and United States Hockey League. The overwhelming majority of players are not notable at those levels, there is no added value in having this trivial information, and Wikipedia is simply replicating what can be found on databases. Any players who are notable, can be listed in the prose, or other sections such as award winners or NHL alumni. Furthermore, any time spent on maintaing rosters can be diverted to other pressing issues such as Hockey Mountain, or the thousands of citation needed tags on hockey articles. Flibirigit (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Enough time has been left open for feedback so i will remove the ECHL rosters as i come across team pages. I will add the teams list of players to the categories section where necessary Triggerbit (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Gender in medal tables
Should gender be included in the sport parameter of medal tables? I have been reverted both ways by different users so I think we should come to some kind of consensus. Personally, I am pro-gender for a few reasons:
 * 1) Men's and women's ice hockey are two different classes of competition
 * 2) A female or transgender athlete could medal in both categories
 * 3) The medal table template uses gendered sports in its example

CC @Triggerbit @DetroitFan7 @Spitzmauskc Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you link to an example? Wracking  talk! 17:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * has a gendered medal table, does not. The template in question is Template:MedalTableTop Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be very opposed to any such inclusion. All that would do would be to inject a wave of disputes over gender politics as to whether any given player does (or does not) present as one gender or another or neither, and over a distinction that has never yet come into play.  That a female or trans athlete could medal in both categories is as may be, but none yet ever has.  (I don't think there's yet been a case where one ever has competed in both sides at the national or Olympic level.)  Should that ever do happen, it's much better addressed in prose in the individual's article.   Ravenswing      17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with the gender of the athlete, it is just specifying the class of competition in which they medaled. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly in favor of including gender of the sport per #1. The gender of the sport is in no way a statement about the gender of the athlete (though, of course, it's often correlated). I don't think this would pose an issue with MOS:GID, because this is related to the class of competition. I do not anticipate major disputes being raised. See, for example, Harrison Browne—as far as I can tell, there has been no major discussion or dispute over the characterization of this (transgender male) athlete's classification within women's hockey.
 * Either way, we should try to be consistent and avoid male-as-norm bias (see also Wikipedia:Writing about women#Male is not the default). Wracking  talk! 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion it's unnecessary and second Ravenswing thoughts. Triggerbit (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. The   Kip  (contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with each of your points and feel including competition class leads to greater consistency in competition nomenclature overall, i.e. 'women's ice hockey/men's ice hockey' and 'world championship' rather than 'ice hockey' and 'women's world championship/men's world championship' (Wracking's note re:Male is not the norm is quite relevant here). The men's and women's world championship tournaments are not literally the same events and we would be leaving the reader to interpret competition class from a player's gender if we were to present both competition classes as 'ice hockey' and 'world championship.' Spitzmauskc (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur. If the player medaled in a women's world championship tournament, we should state that. If it was a men's world championship tournament, we should state that. There is zero reason to present less information. Who does that benefit? And it is very much important that we do not presumptively treat men as the default. Men are not the default setting of humanity. Period. oknazevad (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. Lack of information should outweigh any inconvenience factor, and I don't think invites gender politic as much as it just presents facts. What we would be presenting is the simple fact of which event the player participated in, separate from the player's identified gender or biological sex as well as any editor or reader's beliefs on those matters. It provides clearer information as well as helps shift that gendered bias. –uncleben85 ( talk ) 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

® and ™ in logos
Hello there. All NHL teams seem to have ® or ™ in their logos used on their respective websites, their respective Facebook pages and their respective Instagram pages. NHL also uses the logos with the marks on its website, see for example https://www.nhl.com/info/teams/. Therefore I argue that we should use this version as well. however argues that there is no need for that, “that” referring to the addition of the marks. They argues that the logos without the marks are the versions used on the teams' uniforms and therfore we should use that version. I would argue that the one on the uniform is a printed version and the one used elsewhere is the digital version, and Wikipedia is a digital platform, hence the digital version should be used. What do you think? Jonteemil (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Jonteemil - according to MOS:TMRULES, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." Regards,  PK  T (alk)  16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that TMRULES applies to images, and WP:LOGO doesn't mention trademark icons Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I wouldn't say that logos would be article text nor citations. Jonteemil (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're only talking about logo images, I guess that if one of those symbols is in the image that's uploaded, there's not much that can be done - it's there. However, it seems to me that MOS:TMRULES tells us that they are not desired, unless it's unavoidable.  I still agree with  that there is no need for the symbols.   PK  T (alk)  19:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Trademark symbols are not part of the trademark. Trademark owners optionally place them to let others know that the mark in question is trademarked. The trademark owner has the responsibility of enforcing its trademark rights; others are not obligated to indicate that a given mark is trademarked (as required by trademark law, they cannot use the trademark in a way that causes confusion about the origin of a product). isaacl (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Logos are proprietary and should not be altered or have elements edited out. Buffal kill (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable, however, to assume that the ® or ™ are not part of the proprietary logo. –uncleben85 ( talk ) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Should I escalate this to WP:RFC? When thinking about it, not only ice hockey logos use these marks so there should be a Wikipedia-wide policy on this matter, whether it be ice hockey logos or fast food restaurant logos. Jonteemil (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you do, take it to either WP:VILLAGEPUMP or the talk page of MOS:TMRULES, so you can get a larger range of opinions. Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good advice........  PK T (alk)  21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that's needed. Again, trademark symbols are not part of the logo. You can see, for example, the trademark registration for the Montreal Canadiens logo. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now posted WP:VPP. Jonteemil (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Stanley Cup winners in NHL season pages
Each NHL season pages should include Stanley Cup winners on players that played their first and last seasons who made significant contributions in their careers. If it frustrating that we don't list Stanley Cup winners on those players and we need a new consensus about it. That consensus not listing Stanley Cup winners on those players is not good and it gets frustrating having to click their links to see if any of them won the cup. So we should talk about a new consensus about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * last discussion about 11 months ago. original discussion on this section for NHL season pages.
 * My thoughts on this haven't changed. Sorry man, there's gotta be a bit more support for this. I just really don't care if Jordan Nolan or Devante Smith-Pelly played their final NHL games. Perhaps someone else can chime in? via myself from the last discussion. Conyo14 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gonna second this. I wouldn’t mind adding to blurbs of guys who’ve already met notability requirements, but simply winning the Cup is not enough by itself. The   Kip  (contribs) 03:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it should. Stanley Cup is the biggest championship in NHL and is part of the Triple Gold Club. So therefore, it should be there. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just like months ago, your logic is recursive and boils down to “it should because it is.” The   Kip  (contribs) 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it shouldn't. All manner of obscure people play on Cup-winning teams.  This is trivia.   Ravenswing      03:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not trivial. That is fact. You all are basing out of consensus that is censoring that information on NHL season pages and you are refusing to acknowledge that information as facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * …what? The   Kip  (contribs) 05:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, we're basing this on consensus. That is, in fact, how Wikipedia works.   Ravenswing      18:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that consensus is not a good one or even a right one. In fact, that is considered censoring out something that should revealed as facts, not trivia based on that. That's a big flaw to it and it's very inconvenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, consensus isn't wrong just because it disagrees with you. That's quite literally how finding a consensus works; it's the majority's opinion, not everyone's. The   Kip  (contribs) 23:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it's going to have to be amended because the majority's decision has caused problems by censoring of what should be on there, including the Stanley Cup winners, which is not right and deemed incorrect. Stanley Cup winners on the list of players who played their first and last games in NHL season pages are facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have been on Wikipedia far too long to be ignorant of how it works. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on.  Your personal approval is not necessary to validate consensus, and it doesn't become invalid because you yourself do not like it.  This is not "censorship" any more than it is "censorship" not to include those players' birth dates, their hometowns, their junior/college teams, their marital status at the time of retirement, or any other bit of unnecessary cruft some disgruntled editor insists are "essential."  If you want to know the players' CV, click on the links to the articles.   Ravenswing      00:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That creates inconvenience of having to do that when users can see it easily on the first and last games of certain players who met the notable criteria to see the Stanley Cup winning accomplishment and it's equally frustrating of not allowing due to some consensus from the majority who failed to see it that way. It disenchants me that some consensus are causing problems and forbidding some things that we need to make things more convenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like a suggestion to overload pages with more trivial facts. No thanks. We need more quality prose and fewer lists of facts. Flibirigit (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is frustrating to having not seeing Stanley Cup winners on those players. I know we can't list all players who won the Stanley Cup in first and last games. Just the ones who made massive contributions like winning certain trophies, played over 1,000 games and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm more okay with listing that for those who already met the notability requirement. Though like Flibirigit, quality prose should go above lists of trivial facts. Conyo14 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this.
 * If it’s someone like Cogliano or Bergeron, who already meet the notability requirements? Go ahead and add it.
 * If it’s someone like Brayden Pachal or Alexander Volkov, who doesn’t? A cup win alone isn’t enough to add to the table. The   Kip  (contribs) 02:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is that any players who already meet the notability requirements and won Stanley Cup should have the Stanley Cup on that table. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree. That's what we should do. Players who already meet the notability requirements and won Stanley Cup should have that achievement on the list. In my opinion, the current consensus of first and last games is censoring some important contributions of player's achievements, including the Stanley Cup, which is a big deal. That information is facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would've just assumed that being a Stanley Cup winner with their name on the cup would in and of itself imply notability. Actually, until now I thought that being in the NHL was notable. I'm new here. Buffal kill (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case they don't mean notable as in worthy of an article, but a separate standard of notability for inclusion in the NHL season articles when they retire. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite alright, Buffalkill. Participation standards have been deprecated generally sports-wide. Playing in a competition doesn't make anyone notable, any more.   Ravenswing      03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like playing in a top-level professional league is a pretty solid standard of notability, is it not? Whether it’s one NHL game or 1,000. The   Kip  (contribs) 04:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Depends. "Top-level professional league" also includes someone playing a single game in the top Austrian league in the 1950s.  Or for the NHA in 1909.  Or a guy who pitched a single inning for the Worcester Ruby Legs in 1889.  And so on.  The number of players for whom all that's known is "Smith, P." sportswide is very large.  That's why the GNG's in play for the vast number of people who didn't win scoring championships or named to season-end league All-Star Teams.   Ravenswing      18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be adding such trivia. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that's not trivia. That is actually fact. That so-called consensus about the achievements in player's first and last NHL seasons is censoring out who are Stanley Cup winner in NHL season pages in the first and last games section and it does not make it convenient. If you want to compromise, then add Stanley Cup winners on players who made notable achievements like who won certain trophies, played over 1,000 games and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're mixing opinions and facts. Trivia = fact that miscellaneous. You mean to say it is not miscellaneous. Conyo14 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless, we should settle a compromise to amend the consensus to allow to have players who made other notable achievements have the the Stanley Cup win on those tables in the first and last games in NHL season pages? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see Jay Bouwmeester is listed with Triple Gold Club in the 2019–20 NHL season and Patrice Bergeron in 2022–23 NHL season. What does that you all? That means they are Stanley Cup winners and that's the more reason why Stanley Cup should be listed in each NHL season on players' achievements on their first and last games, not censor it based on poorly voted consensus by the majority on this. Therefore, that consensus should be amended, one way or another. I do have a case about it, no matter how strong and weak it is to you all. Stanley Cup winning achievement is considered factual information, not trivial. Consider that a fair protest and fairly reminding you that something most of all found convenient to be blinded by that consensus. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't force others to agree to what you want. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But I tell you this. Because when I see the eyes and faces of the players who won the Stanley Cup, it's like seeing them win an Olympic Gold Medal and winning the Super Bowl. That it's one of the biggest notable achievements in any playoff games on any hockey player who got the chance to win the cup that naysayers are obliviously blinded by their negative views that they considered it trivial, which in reality it is not and have failed to understand why it should be the list based on their accomplishments and censoring that on that list. I will not accept the current consensus that suppresses the Stanley Cup achievement on the table list in the first and last games in NHL season pages, everybody. Not I and I never will. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors will not be bullied into your point of view. Refusal to accept consensus is disruptive behaviour. Flibirigit (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not bullying. That is a fair protest. It's about how an unfair consensus that censors out what should be listed in the achievements and reminding how the majority of you found convenient to refuse to acknowledge that problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn’t “unfair” just because you disagree with it, lmao The   Kip  (contribs) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, drop the stick already. This is pointless. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the consensus I don't agree with and never will. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. The   Kip  (contribs) 17:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As i said earlier: Ok 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No one's forcing you to agree. But as I said uptopic, your personal approval is not required in order to establish consensus.   Ravenswing      00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no consensus forming for the proposal-in-question. Recommend this discussion be closed. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do have a proposal that I will set up whatever it takes. Maybe not now, maybe not in awhile, but when it does, I will make a case about it and I will use this discussion to raise some awareness. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Chris Patrick (ice hockey) article needed
Similar to Eric Tulsky, the Capitals just named a guy GM who we don't have an article for. I lack the time to do research atm and I'm not great at writing exec articles anyways, but some points to cover in the article are that he's been with the org for 16 years, was drafted by the Caps in the 8th round of the 1994 NHL entry draft, won the Cup with them in 2018, and is the son of Dick Patrick and great-grandson of legendary HHOFer Lester Patrick. The  Kip  (contribs) 17:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and created Draft:Chris Patrick (ice hockey), which I've based off of Tulsky's article. The   Kip  (contribs) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And it's now published. Carry on. The   Kip  (contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Free agent infobox
Should a free agent be listed as such in the infobox? @Sbaio and I disagreed on this at Michael McLeod (ice hockey). I think it looks really bad in its current form with the lowercase t in team; either the free agent text should be removed or the template should be updated to say "Current team" if no league is listed. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This has always been the practice so I find it strange that you did not see that earlier. – sbaio 04:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the accusatory wording of your comment. I didn't see an instance of this until now; I've been editing regularly for less than a year and it's not common for a player to be a free agent for long enough that it appears on their page. I just wanted to have a discussion about changing either the practice or the template so that there's not a lowercase letter there. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally think the "‎ team" looks bad too, and would be in support of updating the box to say "Current team" instead of " [League] team". Is that really where we need to list the league anyway? It sort of implies there could be more than one active professional league/team. I also feel, just because something has been done one way for a while is not the best reason to continue it.--–uncleben85 ( talk ) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

British National League (1996–2005) nominated for deletion
British National League (1996–2005) has been nominated for deletion. The article needs a lot of work. Does anyone have time to play with it? Flibirigit (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Patrick family article
Myself and @Hey man im josh mused on this a bit at Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Patrick (ice hockey) - the Patrick family certainly has enough history, as well as WP:SIGCOV, to merit their own article, rather than being contained in subsections of Lester Patrick and Craig Patrick. Lester, Craig, Frank, and Lynn are all in the HHOF, while Muzz was a player and served as a head coach/GM, Glenn was a player, Dick is a longtime Capitals executive, and Chris is the Capitals' new GM. The "hockey's royal family" notion is used widely across secondary sources.

Examples of similar articles can be seen at Sutter family and Apps family. I don't really feel the drive to work on one at the moment, but I figured I'd drop the idea here should anyone be interested in attempting to flesh one out. The  Kip  (contribs) 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's an absolute tragedy that this family, "hockey’s royal family" (according to the Washington Post), doesn't have a standalone article. I was shocked to find that not only wasn't it a GA yet, it didn't even exist! 7 Patricks have their name on the cup, 4 in the HOF, and more experience in high level non-playing roles. This is ripe for an excellent GA and possibly good topic if anyone were up for it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The individual family members are notable, but the family as a whole must demonstrate GNG to be notable. Has anyone found articles specifically talking about the Patrick family as a whole? Flibirigit (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ,  Conyo14 (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also a book: "The Patricks: Hockey's Royal Family" ISBN:9780887801037 Conyo14 (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ... which I happen to own. The Patricks have been influencing professional hockey for 125 years now.  Their impact on the sport, its legendry and lore dwarfs that of the Sutters, Appses, Howes ...   Ravenswing      01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * AND YET WE HAVE NO ARTICLE FOR THEM! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hanson Brothers
Does anyone have time to clean up Hanson Brothers? It has been nominated a second time for deletion: Articles for deletion/Hanson Brothers (2nd nomination). I'm too busy right now to do it myself. Best wishes! Flibirigit (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"NCAA" vs specific conferences
When linking to a college player or team and referencing the league they play in, do we want to be saying "NCAA" or the specific conference they were in, such as Hockey East or NCHC? A more specific framing for the discussion can be found here: Talk:2024–25 NHL transactions –uncleben85 ( talk ) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I rarely see the conferences specified when it comes to hockey, whereas the CHL component leagues are differentiated every time. I would lean towards NCAA in most cases, but as long as we're consistent (and imo apply the same treatment to U Sports and its conferences) it really doesn't matter at all. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)