Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive1

Reorganizing and merging short articles
There hasn't been much action here in a while, but I'm working on reorganizing and merging short related articles. I merged referee and linesman (and goal judge) into Official (ice hockey) since much of the information in those articles was duplicated and there was info perinent to both (about officiating systems) that didn't fit in either article individually. I am also planning on merging a lot of the small rink-related articles into Hockey rink. It's much easier to describe concepts like "attacking zone" and "neutral zone" in the context of that article than in isolated articles. If these articles ever merit separation because they become too long, I would not object to that. The problem is right now everything is just a one-line definition that could easily be included in a parent article. I think the baseball articles are well-organized in this respect.

I also created a subcategory Category:Ice hockey rules, since I'm working on editing lots of the rules. Some articles are borderline, and might be included in both the parent category and the rules category (for example, Goal (hockey)). I plan on creating Category:Ice hockey statistics, as well.

&mdash; flamuraiº 12:08, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good work on this stuff. Kevin Rector 17:34, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Consistency &mdash; (hockey) vs. (ice hockey)
Is it worth it changing any article with (hockey) in the title to (ice hockey) instead? It's not a huge deal, but when I'm editing, I tend to forget which articles get which parenthetical. &mdash; flamuraiº 22:44, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to move all the (hockey) articles to (ice hockey) for consistency. – flamuraiTM 20:08, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's alright except for a few things: World Cup of Hockey, Hockey Canada, Hockey USA, Canadian national men's hockey team, American national men's hockey team, Canadian national women's hockey team, etc.

Earl Andrew 03:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NHL timeline
I have a WIP timeline for NHL clubs at User:kelvSYC/Timelines set up. If anyone wants to make suggestions on how to change it or how to include it in a relevant article, please talk to me on my talk page. kelvSYC 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of the words cannot be seen. Blue on dark green for example Earl Andrew 18:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a problem I'm trying to get worked out with the developers if possible. You can't change the link color. It's always blue. – flamurai (t) 01:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh! I thought it was an image! Mybad. Earl Andrew 04:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've completed all of the team colors, and now I only have to add in a few footnotes and do some tweaking to finish it. Again, any feedback should be directed to my talk page. kelvSYC 22:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've now completed the out-of-league histories and changed the timeline so it uses a few new features of EasyTimeline. There are still a few minor bugs to be addressed, though. If there is enough demand (and a place to put it), I can compile history timelines for the WHA and other leagues as well. kelvSYC 05:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

WHA timeline
A similar timeline has been put up at User:kelvSYC/Timelines for the World Hockey Association. kelvSYC 23:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

American Hockey League
Once the Edmonton/San Antonio/Cincinnati situations are cleared up and division alignments are announced (should be after the league meeting at the end of June), I'd like to bring a consistent look to the team pages in the American Hockey League. I started off with the Binghamton Senators. I left out some irrelevant(??) criteria from the team page suggestion, but I'm still seeing some reduncancies. Any suggestions? Once I get a format that's appropriate, I'll at least convert a division or more as I have time. Other volunteers are welcome. If it goes well, we can move on to other leagues... ccwaters 02:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok...I think I've come to a preferred format at Binghamton Senators. I like the record book idea that I saw at Springfield Falcons. I think it fits minor league teams better than a "players of note" listing. Any input otherwise?? ccwaters 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Why thank you. The record book makes more sense in any event, considering that a "players of note" section (in an era where an impact player who plays more than three years for the same minor league team is dramatically uncommon) just doesn't make much sense for minor league clubs. Pre-expansion days these aren't. RGTraynor 04:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, minor league rosters are too volatile for the players of note, etc. Its would be way to easy to abuse and list every eventual NHL star that passed through town for 5 games. I added flags to the listing at Binghamton Senators. I'm not sold it though.

Status: almost done but dreading the Hershey Bears and Rochester Americans. See User:Ccwaters/TaskList ccwaters 12:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm down to 1, maybe 2 teams. Got a question for everyone: The Milwaukee Admirals started out as an amateur club without any set schedule. Later they joined the then semi pro USHL. I can't find a reference as to when they actually started getting paid. There is a reference to the team having payroll problems though. They eventually joined the purely pro IHL in 1977. Should I include all of this (and related stats) in the article. Should I start at the IHL era? If I include amatuer here, I'll do the same at Hershey Bears to be fair. And if anyone with better resources can supply the SV% record holder for the Bears (25 GP min) I would be very grateful. I hope to finish all this tonight. ccwaters 12:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) REF: http://www.milwaukeehockey.com/history/historymenu.htm


 * The problem is continuity. Is there any legitimate sense that the Milwaukee Admirals franchise joined the IHL, or did the Pettits just buy an IHL franchise and give it the same name they'd been used to having?  I think back to how the Springfield Falcons ownership group first tried to secure rights to the "Springfield Indians" name, but it still wouldn't have been the same franchise.  (Then again the "Boston Celtics" franchise of the Bill Russell days and all those championships technically is the current Los Angeles Clippers.  Sports is a funny business.)  I'd give a single paragraph on the USHL team -- provided the Pettits owned that -- and nothing more.  RGTraynor 13:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I see, its the same franchise. Trust me, I've been looking. See my Hamilton Bulldogs work. I'm also eyeing the Fort Wayne Komets since the 50ies claim (wrong- there were a least 2 Komets franchises, 1 of which died as the Albany Choppers). ccwaters 14:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Y'know something, CC? We really ought to hammer out a consensus criteria for minor league team continuity.  Some of the elements to consider:
 * * A team keeping the same name in the same city, despite technical shifts of franchise (the Komets, for instance);
 * * A team keeping the same ownership and name throughout league changes (both the Milwaukee and Hampton Roads Admirals, the Komets again, the Rivermen, the K-Wings ...);
 * * A team widely perceived as having a unified identity despite affiliation/name change (Nova Scotia Voyageurs -> Oilers -> Halifax Citadels);
 * * A team name change, but with the team retaining the same affiliation and thus players (Springfield Indians vs Kings); and
 * * A franchise shift/ownership changes, but with the team retaining the same affiliation and thus players (1994 Springfield Indians -> 1995 Springfield Falcons).
 * Right now it's just too damn malleable for words. RGTraynor 14:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, I tried to be consistent in my contribs. My guidelines: if its a different legal entity (franchise), it gets a new article (Bulldogs, Rivermen). Typically franchises don't switch leagues, except in mergers (WCHL ->ECHL, IHL -> AHL) and fallouts from dying leagues (IHL -> UHL). Name changes generally get a new article (Binghamton's first AHL run). Typically, name changes indicate major changes (affiliations, etc) and thus a new "era"/history anyway. When this happens, I definitely make references to that fact in both articles. Exceptions: Providence Reds -> Rhode Island Reds, a minor insignificant name change for 1 season.
 * I'm trying to be factual and fair throughout. Other than adding a P into Binghamton :), the other pet peeves of mine are ignorant arguments that the market doesn't deserve another AHL run because they lost 3 AHL teams (Dusters,Whalers,Rangers) already. My methodologies are not glorifying my own interests at the expense of others. ccwaters 15:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Status: I just need to add a few stats to Milwaukee Admirals (I get around to it soon). I added a "Local Media" listing at Binghamton Senators. The idea is that it would help people find news articles about the teams. Coverage varies around the league though. The Philly papers essentially ignored the Philadelphia Phantoms until they made it to the finals. So I'm not sure if I'll keep it. I also added an AHL Arenas template, primarily because somone added an very ugly arena listing at American Hockey League. I did it quickly and I admit it could probably be formatted differently. Go ahead if and edit it if you have issues with its current state. ccwaters 14:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd skip the "Local Media" bit. I just noticed you added it because I only keep an eye on the Wolfpack page and I've been busy editing US Navy pages lately. To continue with your example, you're only listing the Inquirer for the Phantoms, but there's also the Philadelphia Daily News, the Gloucester (NJ) Courier-Post (where most of the players live)...AHL teams in more major areas are going to come across problems like these. Though I agree that people may find it helpful to find news articles, most people interested in smaller market AHL teams probably live in the area and already know about the local media. RasputinAXP   talk  *  contribs  14:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Mm, I disagree. Being able to review news archives is important information for research purposes, and much tougher when people aren't necessarily familiar with small market media.  That the listings are going to be incomplete and imperfect doesn't mean there shouldn't be any at all.  RGTraynor 16:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I live in Philly. The Inquirer and the Daily News are owned and operated by the same company, Knight Ridder. They share the same website ( philly.com ). So, I have no guilt leaving one out, coverage from both of them sucks anyway (mostly 3 paragraph AP game recaps hidden below the bra ads). If someone wants to add them, go ahead. I never touched a Courier Post and don't have any plans to change. Most markets are 1 or 2 newspaper towns (we can ignore the suburban rags like the NJ based Courier Post and the Del Co times), it shouldn't be too hard to maintain. I wish there was an alternative over at Hamilton Bulldogs though. Someone added a radio station over at Toronto Marlies- that's not exactly what I had in mind and I'm on the fence about removing it. ccwaters 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's the radio station that carries the team's broadcasts, it's worth leaving up, especially since a lot of radio stations do Internet streams so you can follow the team worldwide. RGTraynor 00:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is. I thought theahl.com was a centralized source for game streams, but it looks like that's not as comprehensive as I remember http://www.theahl.com/AHL/cybercasts.html ccwaters 00:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh. I live in south Jersey, near Philly. The Courier-Post tends to carry more coverage of the Phantoms than the Knight Ridder folks, though. As a Rangers fan, I can safely ignore the Phantoms unless I'm going to take advantage of a group rate or something. That being said, it's no big deal. It looked odd to me, but considering the current number of AHL teams, it's worthwhile. RasputinAXP   talk  *  contribs  02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Categorizing Ice hockey coaches
Hi,

I just stumbled upon this Category:Ice hockey coaches. Has anyone made an attempt to try to organize this like Category:Baseball managers? Which is organized by Category:Major league baseball managers by team. Also it could have another group like Category:Ice hockey coaches by nationality.

Example 1: Scotty Bowman would be in the Category:Montreal Canadiens coaches and Category:Canadian ice hockey coaches, instead of the current Category:NHL Head Coaches.

Example 2: John Tortorella would be in the Category:Tampa Bay Lightning coaches and Category:American ice hockey coaches, instead of the current Category:NHL Head Coaches.

Any comments? --YUL89YYZ July 4, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Done. --YUL89YYZ July 6, 2005 19:01 (UTC)

stats repository
with a seemingly reliable external link in hockeydb.com available, i want to ask someone with your project why bother putting stat tables in the wiki articles on hockey players? to make them rather long and cluttered, not to mention a lot of work for somebody to put together - Mayumashu 02:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I say whoever can be bothered to make stat tables might as well. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, after all, and hockeydb.com might not be around forever (wikipedia, of course, will be. =) ) Elrith 02:03, 9.8.05 (GMT+2)


 * hockeydb.com is riddled with popups too. :p --93JC 23:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, hockeydb.com lacks some offical stats from foreign leagues like the Swedish Elitserien and the Finnish SM-liiga, so it doesn't seem to be a bad idea to include those in Wikipedia, too. -Elrith 18:25, 10.8.05 (GMT+2)

Language of articles
There have been a number of recent incidents of (presumably) Canadian Wikipedia users editing NHL team entries to conform to Canadian standard English. While this is certainly defensible in the case of Canada-based teams, there is nothing about the sport that is owned by Canada, per se, and the NHL's own annual Guide and Record Book uses US standard for spellings of "color," "center" and "defenseman." Could we have a hold on editing entries for US-based teams or players out of US-standard English? If there are questions, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English RGTraynor 04:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is fair enough. I have no problem using American spelling with American teams. When I went and cleaned up some links and wording on the Boston Bruins page, I noticed that both spellings were used with no rhyme or reason. So, also according to the MoS, one spelling should be used per page. Not a mix match. Since I was already going through cleaning up bad links, I just chose one and made it consistant throughout. Sorry if I stepped on someone's toes. Masterhatch 3 August 2005


 * I noticed that, on 8 August 2005, you made several similar changes to the Flyers article (colour, etc.). It's going to get ugly if we don't agree to en-us spellings for US-based teams, and en-ca spellings for Canada-based teams.  Flyers13 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Most articles on hockey on Wiki are using a mix of spellings. Lately, I have been trying to fix links (as there are a lot of bad ones) and while I am busing fixing links, if the page that I am editing uses a mix of spellings (which is really annoying to the reader), I will 'fix' the spellings as well. As for when I said I have no problem with an article that uses American spelling, I meant that. If a hockey article on an American team or subject is written entirely using American spelling, there is no need to change it. It is the articles using mixed spellings that I have changed. But I see that this is causing some annoyance with my fellow editors. So, from now on, when I am editing a page and and see that the spellings are mixed (as most articles on hockey are) on American teams, I will leave it be. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. Masterhatch 9 August 2005

Well, there've been a number of cases where the spellings were NOT mixed, but were changed by you anyway -- for instance, I just reverted a number of changes to en-ca for the Ray Bourque article, who played his entire professional career for American teams and has lived in Massachusetts his entire adult life. Now if we were to think hardnosed on this, the NHL's own publications and press releases use en-us, but be that as it may, perhaps it would make for less controversy to follow the Wikipedia style book for articles you do not yourself create. To quote:


 * If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another.

RGTraynor 15:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.


 * From what I understand, the style guide also says country of the subject matter dictates the dialect. Therefore the NHL page should be in en-US (There's a labor vs labour revert war brewing there). Address: 1251 Ave of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 ccwaters 11:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible to me. As long as the NHL is based in the United States and uses en-US in its own publications and press releases ... RGTraynor 12:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh... The Philadelphia Phantoms is my fault. Actually all of the AHL team pages I reformatted are like that because my original "template" page that I used as a stub was like that. Sorry, it slipped past me. I'll go though and edit them tonight. ccwaters 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. When I get to the Canadian teams, should I keep them in en-US? ccwaters 12:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's probably only fair to put Canadian minor league teams in en-ca. RGTraynor 14:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight: we've gone from "US-based teams shouldn't be in Canadian English" to "US-based teams should be in US English and Canadian-based teams should be in Canadian English" to "the NHL has a head office in New York, therefore everything should be in US English"? The NHL is based in Canada too, kids: 2600-1800 McGill College Ave, Montréal, Québec, H3A 3J6 and 1100-50 Bay St, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2X8. The Official Guide & Record Book uses US English to save money rather than print two different versions. US press releases are in US English. Canadian press releases are in Canadian English. US-based teams should be in US English and Canadian-based teams should be in Canadian English, and that's that. --93JC 13:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just refering to the league page where there is current conflict (of which I am not a part of). I'm just looking for a resolution. I agree with you on the team pages, and when I reformat the Canadian based AHL teams, I'll _try_ to go en-CA (read: I won't stand in the way of any Canadianisms I may miss). The AHL office is in Springfield, Mass BTW. ccwaters 13:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really think there is a resolution to the dispute on the NHL page itself. Either spelling is valid. The conflict will end when one side can't be bothered anymore. As for the team pages and the en-US vs. en-CA, perhaps I read it wrong, but the generally vibe I was catching was "use en-US". Amidst all of this I'm surprised no adventurous United-Statian has edited Capital Centre to read "Capital Center" :D --93JC 13:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you read it wrong? Dude, the text is right above this. I am seeing post after post concerning team pages blatantly saying to use en-US for American teams and en-ca for Canadian teams, and not a scrap of text to the contrary.  Plainly this is a controversial issue, but that isn't a distortion, it's an outright invention.  RGTraynor 14:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking back on it, yes, I did completely misread the above. 'spose it's what I get for not getting very much sleep. :p --93JC 20:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is getting out of hand. I hardly call one non-discript IP address user who changed one word on the NHL page an edit war. I only changed it back because it looked out of place with the rest of the article. An edit war is something that is on going with lots of reverts. I hardly call this an edit war. Anyways, I agree that American based teams should use US english and Canadian based teams use CAN English. Let's keep cooler heads here and work towards building the best hockey site on the Internet! By the way, it would be a great help if when people added the "St. Louis Blues" to pages that they also add (hockey) so that it doesn't keep going to the wrong page. Also, when dates are added, please use the right dating method. For example, 2001-02 NHL season and not 2001-02. Those links are useless. It seems like I am spending too much of my time fixing bad links and not enough time adding useful information. I want to finish all the team player lists and I eventually want to finish all the NHL seasons (as well as WHA seasons). I know it is a big project, but I will eventually get it done (if i don't have to keep fixing bad links everywhere). Masterhatch 11 August 2005


 * Looking at the NHL article, it looks like it should have "Labor", just because that's how it was originally (and in a stable form). There are only 3 words that I noticed that really denote an en-US or en-CA difference (labour twice, honour).  Now, saying this article "should" be en-US is silly, as the content is without doubt equally Canadian.  In that case, it should stay in its "first major contributor" form (so, to the best I could determine while paging through 500 edits, should probably be en-US). Flyers13 04:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually it was the "Capital Centre", or at least initially ( http://washingtoncaps.com/history/index.cfm?cont_id=59175 ). Not matter, its a shopping centER now, just like everything else in the region. MasterHatch: The work you're doing is awesome. My little project pales in comparision. ccwaters 14:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That was the joke, chief. --93JC 20:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

A discussion on a possible merger
I want to discuss merging some player list pages. I want List of current NHL players and List of retired NHL players merged with User:Kevin Rector/List Every NHL Player Ever. I have explained all of my reasons here: Talk:List of NHL players. Do not discuss this here on the WikiProject Ice Hockey page. Discuss it here: Talk:List of NHL players. Masterhatch 16 August 2005

The so-called "Expansion Six"
The term 'Expansion Six' is riddled through the pages, and it has always struck me -- I had never heard that term used before Wikipedia. In point of fact, Google it, and almost every citation of the phrase comes from Wikipedia or Wikipedia-mirror sites.

I do not believe it is the task of Wikipedia to not only invent terms but to pass them off as if they're common to the hockey lexicon; you could with as much justification proclaim the collective name for the 1967 expansion teams to be the "Blarglefrack Six" and pass it off as a well-known idiom. I'm considering eliminating the reference whereever I find it, but wanted a notion of what people thought on the matter. In particular, I'm interested in hearing from the person who invented the term on Wikipedia to defend its use with traditional, pre-Wikipedia citations. RGTraynor 14:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is actually funny. I wasn't alive when the league expanded and wasn't a hockey fan until i was 7 years old in 1981 (just in time to see the Canucks (my favourite team) go to the finals). I too have never heard of "Expansion six", but when i saw it on wiki, I never thought about whether it was correct or not. It is a cute catch-phrase. I do wonder where it came from. I say leave it in until we can find out where it came from. Masterhatch 16 August 2005


 * I think I have heard the term before, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't just on Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; let's document it, then. The NHL's publications don't use the term.  Total Hockey doesn't use the term.  The Sporting News guides haven't used the term.  I've got a heap of hockey magazines from the era; none use the term.  The Hockey News hasn't used the term.  Trail of the Stanley Cup doesn't use the term.  20th Century Hockey Chronicle doesn't use it, the NHL's Stanley Cup Centennial Book doesn't use it, the Fischlers' Hockey Encyclopedia doesn't use it.  The near universal usage in all of these sources is a line along the lines of "The expansion teams were all placed in the West Division, while the 'Original Six' were placed in the East Division."

Lacking any genuine, checkable, non-Wikipedia documentation, I'll start making the corrections tomorrow. I was just interested if anyone had any citations for this invention. RGTraynor 19:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've only heard "Expansion Six" as a way to group the six new teams in 1967 to contrast it with the Original Six, and nowhere else. I have seen it used in NHL publications, but only in quotes.  Although (and you can check that) I added that reference, it somehow evolved into an article on its own, which merged into Original Six. kelvSYC 05:44:26, 2005-08-17 (UTC)


 * Outstanding; which NHL publications? I've got NHL Media Guides going back to the 1968-69 season, and I've yet to find a reference.  I've already cited Coleman's work and the Centennial Book.  I've Brian McFarlane's Fifty Years of Hockey, which runs through the 1968 season; no such reference.  The NHL's Hockey: The Illustrated History?  No such reference.  None in Fischler's Slapshot!, nor in Neil Issac's Checking Back.  The Hockey Almanacs that came out in the Nineties?  Nope.  THN Yearbooks going back to the early Seventies?  Nope.  Hell, I can't even find any such reference in the WHA or minor league guides and histories I have, and I've spent a few hours checking.  Can anyone find an attributable reference beyond "I saw it somewhere once?"  RGTraynor 19:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that it was either the first edition of Total Hockey, which was removed for the second edition, or the NHL 75th anniversary book. kelvSYC 04:30:11, 2005-09-07 (UTC)


 * I've both the first ed of Total Hockey and the 75th Anniversary book and reread them during the debate. Nothing.  If you've a page ref for me contradicting that, go for it, but it just plain isn't found.  At this point, this falls under the Wikipedia neologism guideline: [].  I just went 150 deep on Google hits (most such uses are from computer hardware) and there were only three hits on 'Expansion Six' that weren't from Wiki sources or Wiki mirror sites, and two of them were letter responses in blogs.   RGTraynor 10:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I need some help finding info
I have googled myself silly and I can't find the right info. Being in South Korea, I don't have access to real live books about hockey; Just the internet. For the 1920-21 NHL season I need some help finding information. That season was the last 'split season' in the NHL and all the sites on the net (that I have found) only show the combined totals for the whole season. The first three seasons here on Wiki are all fine. They show the split wins and losses. But this one season...the last season seems to be a tough nut to crack. If anyone out there has the info, could you please help me. I am going crazy. Thanks! Masterhatch 20 August 2005


 * Done and done. --93JC 19:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Masterhatch 20 August 2005

I need some more help finding some info for the 1950-51 NHL season. I am missing some playoff information and Al Rollins information. All the tables are built, it is just a matter of tracking down the missing stats and plugging them in. Any help would be great! Masterhatch 27 August 2005


 * I've completed Rollins' stats, but I don't have any playoff information. Anybody out there have it? --93JC 18:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I plugged in the playoff info a couple days ago. RGTraynor 09:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Great work! thank you. I have been meaning to get back to finishing the seasons, but I have been side tracked lately with an edit war and it has been taking up too much of my time. I hope to get back to the seasons shortly, though. Masterhatch 09:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

More Missing info
If one goes to the 1923-24 NHL season, one will notice three question marks where stats should be. The first two are in regards to dates and the third one is in regards to a game score. If anyone has those stats, could you please fill 'em in? Masterhatch 05:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Just FYI, if you have (or can obtain) either Coleman's Trail of the Stanley Cup (good luck) or Total Hockey, the date and score information you've been lacking are in those.  RGTraynor 07:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would kill to get either of those books, but alas, I am in the land of the mourning calm (South Korea) and finding any books about hockey is near impossible. I have to rely on memory (which is fading fast with old age) and what I can find on the net (which seems terribly inadequate). I am planning a trip into Seoul this weekend and I will hit one of their major book stores and see what they have, but i doubt there'll be anything. In regards to English, Korean book stores seem to only carry ESL type books, children's books, and popular novels (such as Stephen King). So, I build what I can here on Wikipedia with what information I can find and hope that someone else comes a long with the missing pieces now and then. Masterhatch 10:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, heck, it doesn't make much sense for you to pay through the nose to obtain what I already have, when I can fill in the info just as readily as you can. Just keep letting us know what you need and I'll plug it in.  RGTraynor 10:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan that'll work. It's taking me longer than I expected to resolve the edit war I am involved in, but (hopefully) it'll be resolved soon and I can get back to the NHL seasons and completing the player lists for each team. I really want to have all 30 teams up to date before the the new season begins. One thing i have noticed about the net in regards to information is that it quite often contradicts itself and sometimes knowing which site is right and which one is wrong can be difficult. For example, I have seen several different spellings for this team Saskatoon Crescents from the Western Canada Hockey League on various sites around the net. I believe Saskatoon Crescents is right, but seeing other spellings always throws a doubt into my mind. Masterhatch 11:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing. I seem to be having trouble finding the Regina Capitals logo. If anyone out there has it, could you add it to the Regina Capitals article? Thanks! Masterhatch 06:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A question
Would it be wise to add a list of NHL Draft Busts and NHL Draft Steals to the WikiProject or would it wreak of POV?

I will accept any response given. --Hossmann 22:46 August 23, 2005
 * That is an interesting idea. I would have no problem with it. Here's another idea, though, why not, instead of making new articles, put the "Busts and Steals" on each draft year. Just a thought... Masterhatch 24 August 2005

I'll go and add a link to both NHL Draft Busts and NHL Draft Steals on the NHL Draft Page and in each NHL Draft. The steals and busts for each actual draft would be in more detail than the overall list of both busts and steals. --Hossmann 14:00 August 24, 2005


 * I can't see why it'd be a POV issue. Someone drafted Top Ten who played 50 NHL games, that can't be characterized as anything else but a bust, and 7th round Hall of Famers as nothing else but a steal.  The logical endpoint to the absurd POV worship as applied to sports would mean that you couldn't call the Gretzkys, Orrs or Hulls of the world "great" because it would be giving a point of view. RGTraynor 20:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the lists are up. They are only skeletons of a list (since I don't feel like adding to it now), but if you want to add anything, go ahead. The lists are under List of NHL Draft Busts and List of NHL Draft Steals --Hossmann 18:36 August 24, 2005


 * I added Falloon. Is that what you are hoping for? ccwaters 22:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much like that. If it's possible (or if you feel like it), add a stub about why he is an NHL bust, since most people may not know who Pat Falloon is. --Hossmann 20:06 August 24, 2005


 * I got thinking about something. How can we define NHL Steals? Could you classify Pavel Bure as a steal? I wouldn't. Yes, he was drafted in the 6th round, 133 overall, but there were reasons for his late drafting that had nothign to do with his playing ability. There are many European players that fit the same billing as Bure, do we classify all of them as Steals? Just a thought. Masterhatch 25 August 2005

I also thought about this as well. For me, i'm not going to add any player drafted from the Svoiet Union from the beginning of the draft until the 1991 entry draft (when the IIHF was not signed by the USSR). I added Nikolai Khabibulin to the list, which may cause some backlash, but he was drafted in 1992. So technically he wasn't drafted in the era of the USSR. I pretty much added every notable steal from the 1992 draft from the 5th round and later. So don't look there (unless you want to add europeans, etc.) --Hossmann 23:22 August 24, 2005


 * I'd also define them a lot more narrowly than you're doing. Do you really think that people like Adrian Aucoin and Dan McGillis are "steals"?  Sometimes 5th and 10th rounders come up to have decent careers.  The real steals at 5th round aren't the Aucoins of the world, who are quality players, but the ones like a Peter McNab, a Don Edwards, an Esa Tikkanen, a Miroslav Satan, major impact players.  There are one to three Aucoins a draft, at least one McGillis a draft; they're not all that unusual. Here's my proposal for a genuine Steal:  a mid-round Hall of Famer-type (Glenn Anderson, Tikkanen)  or a very late round impact player (Pat Boutette, Ron Wilson, Craig McTavish, Randy Cunneyworth, Gary Suter).  Late round Hall of Famers (Luc Robitaille, Dave Taylor, Theo Fleury) are just gravy.  RGTraynor 04:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's move this discussion to here Talk:List of NHL Draft Steals so we don't fill up the Wikiprject page with this topic. Masterhatch 25 Augst 2005

Just a notice that the List of NHL Draft Busts is complete (in my mind), excluding the opening statement. If you wish to add anything, feel free to do so. Hossmann 20:20 September 5 2005.


 * Looks pretty solid. I don't see anyone on there who isn't either a genuine bust or widely perceived to be one (Daigle, for instance).  RGTraynor 10:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that these lists are finally complete (I finally decided to add the definitions to both the NHL bust and NHL steal sections), minus the yearly additions of new busts and steals. I'd like to thank anyone who has aided me in bringing these lists to "Wiki-quality". Hopefully, these lists will "educate" people about busts and steals in an NHL draft sense. As for me, I will be adding a List of NFL Draft Busts and List of NFL Draft Steals to my repetoire. If anyone wishes to contribute, please do so (since the lists only consist of a "skeleton" and the "under construction" template). Hossmann 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Team Hall of Famer listings
One thing that's bugged me about the Hall of Famer listings for many of the teams is that they often include every HHOFer who's played as much as a single game in the team's uniform. Using Boston as an example, Jacques Plante played nine games for the Bruins, Sylvio Mantha five, a number of players like Bun Cook or Guy Lapointe who played a season or less at the very end of their careers, or players like Bernie Parent who played briefly for them at the beginning of theirs. Does anyone agree with me that team HOF listings should be limited to players having significant impacts with the teams for which they're listed? God knows no one genuinely thinks of Parent or Lapointe as "Bruins" Hall of Famers. RGTraynor 21:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Totally. Maybe there should be threshold of 60-70 games (a good chunk of a season). It happens in the minors too: Did you know Bob Gainey played for the Nova Scotia Voyageurs? Guess how many games? Answer here: http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid%5B%5D=1819 (I'll put the Voyageurs on my TODO list). ccwaters 22:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't even make it merely a season's worth. Bernie Parent even played half the games for Boston his rookie year, but the proof of that year was that he was unprotected in the 1967 draft.  I'd look for 3-4 years, and years that would significantly contribute to a Hall of Fame election.  A Nels Stewart, a Brad Park, a Jean Ratelle I'd count as a Bruin; a Parent or a Lapointe, no.  RGTraynor 01:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that there needs to be limits on who can be listed as a Hall of Famer for each team. Three to four years sounds fair. But limiting it to three or four years would mean some teams wouldn't have any on the list. A possible suggestion is this: set a maximum number for the hall of famers, for example 10. What i mean is, for teams, such as the Canucks, they can list every hall of famer that has ever suited up to a maximum of ten. In the event that more than ten hall of famers have suited up for Vancouver, then the ten players who have played longest for the Canucks remain on the list while the "one gamers" get removed. This would work well for post orginal six teams. For original six teams (or other teams that happen to have a lot), set a limit of three (or four) years of playing. When post original six teams have more than 10 players who have all played more than three (or four) seasons, then they too can excede 10. Any thoughts? suggestions? Masterhatch 26 August 2005


 * If some teams didn't have any HHOFers on the list, because no one was eligible, why would that be a bad thing? We're reporting facts, after all, not plumping up lists just so local fans can feel happy.  (And as it is, I just checked; every NHL expansion team until the Sharks has at least one Hall of Famer legitimately associated with the club, so no one's going without.) RGTraynor 16:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will support you 100% if you want to shorten the HHOFers list to players only legitimately associated with the club. Masterhatch 27 August 2005

I also have some issues with the "Not to be forgotten" section (such as its title, but I digress). Someone added Tony Amonte to the Flyers article; I assure you, in the strongest possible way, that Tony Amonte was an eminently forgettable Flyer. So, I removed him, but I'd like to avoid having to perform similar judgement calls on every article. Flyers13 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Some limits to "Not to be forgotten" have been put in place here: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. It is just a matter of implementing some of the changes (alas, I have been too busy to go team by team shortening the "Not to be forgotten lists"). Masterhatch 27 August 2005


 * He'll be back. They can't keep Therien away... Anyway, I agree with you. Or at least be rename it The team has been around almost 40 years, but here's some notable forwards we've had in the last 5 seasons ccwaters 03:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Team Page format
Featured_article_removal_candidates/Montreal_Canadiens brings up some issues with the current team page format. ccwaters 22:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes! Someone finally commented on the fact that the "Facts" section and the infobox are essentially redundant.  So which needs to go?  Keep in mind that this really caused the en-us/en-ca fight earlier (since all of the infoboxed used "colours", even when it shouldn't have, it left the articles with mismatched US/Canadian spellings, often adjacent to each other on the screen).  I think these have all been fixed (for the NHL, anyway), but the same information should not be repeated within the article.  Flyers13 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * NFL teams (Pittsburgh Steelers)are the same way. NBA teams (Golden State Warriors) do without the fact section. MLB teams (Seattle Mariners) display their farm system in the infobox (that won't work). Just some ideas... I've been switching lang to the team's country whenever I notice otherwise in my American Hockey League work. ccwaters 03:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of the NHL
Having a look at this evolution of the NHL, I couldn't help but notice that two leagues were left off: the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and Western Canada Hockey League. I know the WCHL didn't pre-date the NHL, but the PCHA did and the PCHA had a strong influence on the early development of the NHL. The WCHL also had a strong influence on the NHL as their Victoria Cougars (formally of the PCHA) won the Stanley Cup and eventually joined the league as the Detroit Cougars. The Portland Rosebuds of the W(C)HL also went on to join the NHL as the Chicago Blackhawks. Both of these leagues played a key roll in the development and expansion of the early NHL. If the Cougars had not won a Cup, I probably wouldn't be typing this right now, but i think that that is significant enough to include these two leagues. I am not pushing to include the World Hockey Association as they never challenged for the Cup, even though the WHA did have a major influence on NHL expansion in the early seventies and the merging of 4 teams at the end of the decade. I would like to see these two older leagues on the table. Any thoughts about adding these two leagues to the table? Masterhatch 27 August 2005


 * I'd argue quite the opposite; if anything, the WHA should be included and the PCHA/WCHL not. Competing for the Cup shouldn't be the make or break factor for whether a league is part of the NHL's evolution ... come to that, there were seasons in which the NHL did not possess the Cup itself.  As far as mergers go, the WHA directly and unequivocally added four franchises to the NHL.  By contrast, neither the Portland nor the Victoria PCHA teams "joined" the NHL; the Victoria players were sold by the Patricks to the new Detroit owners, as in like fashion the Chicago owner bought the Portland players.  RGTraynor 01:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points about the WHA. Yes, the WHA actually had a major influence on the NHL. Not only did four teams directly join, but in the early years the WHA forced the NHL's hand for further expansion (Islanders and Flames for example). You convinced me, I am in favour of adding the WHA to the list. As for the other two leagues, I am still in favour of adding them. The PCHA not only competed for the Cup every year, but rule changes (forward passing) made by the PCHA found their way into the NHL. Many hockey observers (at that time) considered the PCHA on equal footing with the NHL and NHA as they were the West's major league. When the WHL collapsed, all the players were bought by the NHL and many of them, including the two teams already mentioned, became part of the NHL. I feel that those two leagues had a very strong influence on the NHL. With the final collapse of the WHL, that meant for the first time most of the best players were in one league, the NHL, and that meant no further major competition for over 40 years. If that isn't a major influence, I don't know what is. Masterhatch 28 August 2005

Screaming Eagles, Blazers, Blazers, Cowboys
Before I make any drastic changes, would anyone object with the merging of the Miami Screaming Eagles, Philadelphia Blazers, Vancouver Blazers, and Calgary Cowboys of the WHA? Basically, they are the same team, but just bounced around a lot. Currently, there seems to be a standard of separating teams that have a distinct history in a city that they played for (such as Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes and Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche), but with teams with a less distinct history (such as Cleveland Barons/Oakland Seals/California Golden Seals and New York Americans/Brooklyn Americans and Ottawa Senators/St. Louis Eagles) they are grouped together. The Eagles never played. The P. Blazers only played one season. The V. Blazers played two. The Cowboys played two. To me, at least, merging would make sense. Dito for Cleveland Crusaders/Minnesota Fighting Saints and Los Angeles Sharks/Michigan Stags/Baltimore Blades and New York Raiders/New York Golden Blades/New Jersey Knights/San Diego Mariners and Ottawa Nationals/Toronto Toros/Birmingham Bulls. Any thoughts? Masterhatch 4 September 2005


 * Mm, it's a compelling argument; go for it. The one place I disagree is with Cleveland/Minnesota -- you need to keep the original Saints separate, at least.  RGTraynor 17:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to see them as separate articles. How would you choose where the article should sit?  What do you do about regionally based categories (e.g. Category:defunct Philadelphia sports teams & Category:Calgary sports)?  At what point do you say that a team has a distinct enough history in multiple cities that it should be multiple articles?  What harm do they do as separate articles?  -- JamesTeterenko 06:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, choosing this one was actually difficult. But I felt that since the team first played in Philadelphia and had the best record there, that is where the article should be based. I felt merging these teams was the best choice simply because you had the team in 4 different cities (including Miami) in 5 years. As it was, all 4 pages were stubs (with the Calgary one the best of the four) and if all four pages were expanded beyond stubs, you would have a lot of redundant information describing the history of how each team got there. For the Philly article, a brief history of the Eagles would be needed and a brief history of the following two teams would also be needed. Same with the Vancouver Blazers. A brief history of how the team got to vancouver plus where it ended up. Again, same with Calgary. Before you know it, you are repeating yourself (just like I am now) on 4 articles without much in between. As for which teams get merged and which ones don't, I think that is a case by case situation. That is why six days ago I posted my intentions on this page to get some feed back. RGTraynor gave feed back and if I ever decided to expand Cleveland or Minnesota, I will definately take his opinion into consideration. As it is, I am not finished with the Blazers page. Within the next day or two, I will be putting up a pretty table showing their season by season record. Masterhatch 06:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How would you choose where the article should sit? Wherever the team played the longest. What do you do about regionally based categories?  Include them all, of course.  At what point do you say that a team has a distinct enough history in multiple cities that it should be multiple articles?  It's plainly dividing down a line of "three years = not enough" (and the Toros/Bulls were the only split as long as three years).  What harm do they do as separate articles?  No "harm" per se, but the Wiki standard is for a main article to which redirects are made. RGTraynor 09:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I really would prefer to see these as separate articles. I think that the overlap would be minimal.  The history section would only have to be a few sentences.  The two of you even disagree on where the article should sit.  Given RGTraynor's answer, it should be either named Vancouver Blazers or Calgary Cowboys, since they were in both cities for two years.  Using the best record is tricky, with similar logic you could argue it should be Calgary Cowboys because that is the only team that ever had a winning season.  And from what I can tell, the only time they won a playoff series was in Calgary.  I feel that the Cowboys do have a distinct history in Calgary.  Masterhatch notes that the Cowboys page was the most developed.  If you look at the history, you will see that it got this way with the three major contributors (including myself) being from Calgary or the area.  I think that this is reasonable evidence that the Cowboys do have somewhat of a lasting impact to Calgary.  I personally do not associate them with the Philadelphia Blazers.  -- JamesTeterenko 05:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You made some good points. Honestly, being from the Vancouver area, I don't think of "my" Blazers being from Philidelphia, but when I sit at my computer and type on Wiki, I do my best to remove myself from my personal beliefs and opinions. Personally, I would like to see the V. Blazers separate, but in reality, it doesn't seem to make sense. Four cities in five seasons. Honestly, taking personal favourites out of the thought process, can we say that this team had a truly lasting impression on any of the 4 cities in 5 years? compare this to the Quebec Nordiques and the Avalanche. Or the Jets and the Coyotes. Does this WHA franchise really compare? Also, if you separate the four teams, you would go back to having four stubs. Now, I don't mind stubs if they have a great potential for growth (check out some of the stubs I have created with the NHL seasons), but if a stub seems destined to be a stub forever, then that erks me. In my opinion, there isn't enough history in each of the four locations for this franchise to go beyond expanded stubs. Now, why did I chose Philly to locate the article? I did that because that is where the team first played. If they had played one season in Philly and 4 in Vancouver, then I would have put the article with Van. But since it was impossible to chose between Vancouver and Calgary, I went with the location of the team when it played its first game and season. Masterhatch 14:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * While I don't think a team that few people came to see in any city can be said to have had a lasting impact in any of the three, I've a suggestion. Why not call the article "Blazers/Cowboys" and handle it all through redirects?  That makes it city neutral.  RGTraynor 06:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but wouldn't that set a horrible precedence? Masterhatch 03:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It might set a precedent, but scarcely a horrible one. This can't be the only team in sports history with franchise shifts too fragmented for the team to be strongly associated with any one city, and too close together to merit separate articles.  RGTraynor 07:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In my mind, the cleanest solution is to have them as seperate articles. As there appears to little support for that outside of my little head, I think that the most appropriate name would indicate that it is an article for the franchise.  A name along the lines of "Blazers/Cowboys WHA franchise" would probably make the most sense to me.  -- JamesTeterenko 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in a situation like this, as is obvious from the fact that we are discussing this, using one city to represent all four just doesn't make sense. If we change it to either RGTraynor's or JamesTeterenko's solution, it will be the only hockey team I know of that uses this naming system. I support a name change and I will confuse matters even more by throwing in a third possible name: Blazers/Cowboys WHA. Anyways, I think we are on the right track to coming up with a solution. Masterhatch 03:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like either of your suggestions better than mine. Whichever one you prefer.  RGTraynor 09:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * done. I also moved the player list page too and created redirects. Masterhatch 04:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

League abbreviations and links
Yes, I've been guilty of this in the past, but can we refrain from linking to league acronyms and use the full names instead? I cleaned up some prominent AHL links and changed them to AHL (Sorry, I haven't checked how to display inline wiki syntax. Anyone that knows how has my permission to edit those properly). Actually, can we establish a convention of using the full name at the first mention, and then maybe supplying the acronym for additional mentions? This might be especially helpful with Canadian Hockey League vs. Central Hockey League. Just to be thorough: the ECHL is officially just the "ECHL" after the merger with the West Coast Hockey League So the Stockton Thunder will be members of the ECHL, but the Hampton Roads Admirals were members of the East Coast Hockey League, which was abbreviated ECHL. Nothing is ever simple, is it. ccwaters 23:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Length
I got warnings about article lengths. Should we somehow archive some of this? There's a lot of chatter (me included :) ) Its a good thing really, we're active and productive. ccwaters
 * I wouldn't worry too much yet. Take a look at talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute. Now that is a long talk page. Masterhatch 01:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Using the timelines
What do you think about using my timelines in the relevant articles? Do you think we should include them or put them in a separate page? kelvSYC 04:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mighty Ducks
As unfortunate as it may be, the team is officially named the "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim." I think we should use that when formally referencing the club. That would also apply to the Beast of New Haven (AHL). ccwaters 14:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * sigh* I agree Masterhatch 15:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No way around it. Maybe the new owner will change the name.  RGTraynor 17:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

List of NHL players
It took me long enough, but all of the teams are complete as of the end of the 2003-04 NHL season except the List of Hartford Whalers players. My fingers are tired of copy/paste so, I will give them a break and do the Whalers another day. I believe the List of Chicago Blackhawks players is complete, but I didn't thoroughly check them. I don't like the way that page is layed out as it makes it difficult checking players. But a quick glance over the chicago players tells me that there doesn't appear to be any missing players. Now that that those lists are complete, I can move onto other projects like the List of NHL seasons and puting a season-by-season record for all the teams.

So, now that those lists are complete, whenever a new player plays for each team, it would be a great help if those players were added. Masterhatch 15:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The List of Hartford Whalers players is now complete. Masterhatch 05:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A note I forgot to mention. When updating players on the player lists for the team with rookies, don't forget to add the rookies to the List of every NHL player. Masterhatch 05:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me the master list was taken from hockeydb.com and I have noticed that those players names were added without accents where applicable, ie. Jan Hrdina. I have created a redirect to that page, without the accents, to the properly accented link.SD6-Agent 00:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a topic that I have avoided discussing because it will cause a huge disagreement but I will put my two cents in anyway. This is the English language section of Wikipedia, so therefore we don't need the diacritics. Honestly, I feel that everywhere on the English hockey pages the names should be written without the diacritics except on the main player article itself, but not as the main article name. The main article name should be written without them. So, the "Jan Hrdina" article should be Jan Hrdina, not Jan Hřdina. The article should start like this: Jan Hrdina (Jan Hřdina) was born blah blah blah. Could you imagine if Richard Park's article was called Richard 벅? "벅" is not an English way of writing and neither is "ř". But this is a very touchy subject so I am not going to argue my beliefs; just make them known. I am not going to "fix" all the diacritics, but on the other hand I am not going to add them either when I make player lists. I will ignore them when I see them, but if I have to type that players name, I won't use them. Masterhatch 01:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is to write the original article with the proper diacritics (throughout the entire article) then create a redirect to the page without the diacritics. I believ there is a difference between how Hrdina's name is written with the diacritics and how you wrote Park's name with the native language, which is not the same as adding diacritics.SD6-Agent 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just finished updating all the team player lists. In doing so, I noticed that the Blackhawks weren't as complete as I had originally thought. they seemed to have been missing players from the 2003-04 season. Anyways, I updated it and it might be missing a player or two, but there shouldn't be any gaping holes in the list. Same with the Bruins. It wasn't as complete as I thought it was. Anyways, I think I got all the Bruins and Blackhawks players, but not 100% sure, so it would be a great help when creating or dealing with players that had previously played on those two teams to just take a quick look and see if they are on the list. Dito for List of every NHL player. I think I got all the rookies, too, but without an actual list to follow, I probably missed a player or two. Now that the lists are complete, I am not going to drive myself nuts and update them after every game or player transaction. I will make it easy on myself and at the half way point of the season and again at season's end go through the teams and do a complete update. Masterhatch 02:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding Team Uniforms
I have noticed that the Ottawa Senators page has their uniforms on their page. I have all other team jerseys if anybody wants them just message me. Bestghuran 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Requested more info at his talk ccwaters 00:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

More on Infoboxes
Yeah, I know, I'm late to the party on this. The headers on the infoboxes got colorized in the last few months, and it's shot legibility all to hell. I considered changing the background on the Rangers header to "navy" but that's not quite accurate. Should we move these back to monochromacity, or leave them in their spangly-hued wonder? RasputinAXP  talk  *  contribs  02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the idea of using the team colours for the headers but I do agree that some of the colours are a little "off". If we can find the right colour matching, i think it would look pretty sharp. Masterhatch 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't just use the major color for the background and have text color be white in the headers. Thing is, the basic HTML color words are a little "off." We'd have to go through and start matching them better. I changed the example on the right to match Ranger blue more accurately. It's #009 right now, which is a lot better than the #00F of "Blue."  RasputinAXP   talk  *  contribs  11:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages
If no one objects, within the next day or two I will refactor this page. I don't think it needs to be archived, just refactored for readability. Masterhatch 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)