Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive41

2010-11 team season articles
Would anybody object, if we allow the captains to be listed in those article infoboxes, now? The IPs at the 2010-11 Toronto Maple Leafs season article, are gonna set me crazy. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure why you are even fighting that. The captains of the teams today are still the captains.  If Ethan Moreau, as a relevant example, is bought out before the season begins, we can simply remove him from the Oilers' article at that point.  Until then, it is a trifling thing to battle the IPs over.  ESPECIALLY given the silly overhype of Phaneuf in Toronto right now.  They are even worse than we were after 05-06...  Resolute 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll put them in then. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming discussion at Talk:AIK Ishockey
Input needed. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GAA
I've proposed that GAA be a disambiguation page rather than point to 'Gaelic Athletic Association.' As GAA is commonly used in ice hockey, I welcome project participant opinions at Talk:GAA (disambiguation). &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a little shocked people are actually arguing this. There is clearly no primary usage so it should be a disambig page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Goals Against Average is better known than Gaelic Athletic Association. If you compare the counts of GAA in daily media, and on the web. I had never heard of the Gaelic before. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SERC Wild Wings
Who wants to help me (translate) to write the article about the SERC Wild Wings (also known under the former names Schwenninger ERC and Schwenninger Wild Wings). The Wild Wings are a german Icehockey Team. Notable players who startet their carriers are Marcel Goc, Sascha Goc and Dennis Seidenberg for example. I write Icehockey articles in the german Wikipedia and I need help for the english Wikipedia, because I'm a german nativ speaker and my english isn't good enaugh to write articles in the english wikipedia. The german article about the SERC Wild Wings is nearly a Good Article (GA). Neuwied80 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

www.hockey-reference.com
I've nominated List of Washington Capitals seasons for FLC (here) and www.hockey-reference.com has been brought into question as a respected source. It's used extensively in other lists such as List of New Jersey Devils seasons so I figure you guys would have the rationale behind it; can anyone give me links to news articles or demonstrate its reliability? -- Nomader (Talk) 16:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically you have find if it has a bibliography like hockeydb.com has. I don't remember where or what it might have been for hockey-reference.com. I didn't know it was listed as a reliable source but it must be if its on another FL or FA. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or nobody thought to question hockey-reference links prior. Personally, I much prefer the use of media guides for things like this.  In the case of the Capitals, their 2010 Playoff Media Guide is an excellent and reliable source - the playoff by playoff W-L and GF-GA stats are on page 195 and the series by series results are on pages 201-205.  You could remove all of the row entries and place the media guide reference into the column headers to reference all of the playoff entries in a single shot.  Also, can use the 2009-10 Caps Media Guide as a column reference for regular season results. Resolute 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the best option. Because it would definitely be considered reliable since its coming from the source. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks-- I'll replace the references with the PDFs as soon as I can. Much obliged. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure there's something else about this website that should be addressed-- it's used for the majority of the featured lists (List of New Jersey Devils seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, List of New York Rangers seasons), in most of the featured and not featured lists of head coaches (Blackhawks, Red Wings, Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Flyers, Capitals, etc.), some players (i.e. Ted Kennedy), and some random team seasons (1980–81 Colorado Rockies season, 1956–57 Boston Bruins season, etc.). If this site is only somewhat reliable, we may have to go about and replace every single instance of a reference from it-- can we definitely prove its reliability? Someone must've proved it once down the road... there's a lot of FLs in here. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Feature List/Article process is alot more picky that it used to be. As such in the past no one probably thought to question it as the hockey project said it was reliable. They used to defer to the specific projects as being "in the know" alot more in the past than they do now. Now they tend to be more touchy about what is added. That being said its also very dependant on which user showed up on a given day to review your nomination. This particular user questioned it where as other users may not have. Basically I have no problem leaving as is until it is questioned. But there is nothing stopping you from finding better and replacing. :) -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The site can be referred to WP:RSN to get an opinion. (I always think of RSN as 'real soon now') Done that before? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I find something new every day. I sent a note to them to see what they say, can't hurt. And DJSasso, if I get the chance, I'll go through all of them-- but don't take that as a promise. I'm notoriously lackadaisical when it comes to Wikipedia. :) -- Nomader (Talk) 03:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Junior Intl's
Just a quick one, is there any consensus to include stats and medals for the World U17 Hockey Challenge and Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament in player profiles? ..also should the particular province of Canada at the U17's be listed as in Taylor Hall and his medal record? cheers Triggerbit (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He played for Team Ontario, so yes, it's done correctly on the Hall article--Львівське (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been no disucssion that I am aware of. Some people add them, some dont.  Personally, I don't include either in the medal tables as they are not IIHF events.  Valuable to put in prose, however. Resolute 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I put them in stat tables but I don't put the medals into the medals table as I reserve the medal table for top level events like the World Championships, Olympics, World Juniors. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of the popular new prospects have the medal tables all decked out but i tend to agree with thinking of only IIHF events. I'll go with the understanding of including prose and stats (if available) but no medals. Triggerbit (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Olympic stats for Julie Chu
Hey guys, need your help. I was trying to update Olympic player Julie Chu's article to add her career stats for the 2010 Olympics, but I am having a difficult time finding the numbers anywhere. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Should be at the IIHF official site. at a quick glance here Triggerbit (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Another question - can you please recommend a better way to present her career stats than the ugly table that is currently being used in that article?  It is driving me nuts.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ryan_Smyth is the standard for international competition. And look at his career stats for non-international competition. Basically we split any NCAA/pro stats to their own table & section. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Lots of work to be done for the Julie Chu article!  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we could probably do better with women's hockey. Naturally the focus of most people here is on the more popular men's game. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've poked around a few articles - Cherie Piper and Shannon Szabados being two. It is just so hard to find RSes for a lot of what the women have done.  Especially anything related to the NHWL/WWHL/CWHL. Resolute 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, Julie Chu is pretty amazing. Three-time Olympic medalist and graduated from Harvard. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the women who have played NCAA hockey, they usually have pretty complete profiles up there, as far as what they have done before and during their NCAA careers (sometimes it takes a little digging to find non-current players). Hockey Canada's profiles are usually pretty good (I haven't worked on an American profile yet).  The sources are there, it just requires a little bit more legwork, and because there are so many tournaments, rather than a full season with one team, things get a little more fragmented.Canada Hky (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles with stats that are not updated...yet
Hey guys. It's the time of year again. Was wondering if all of us can help update the articles where updated stats are needed. Here are some useful templates that can help. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor Hockey League renaming... again...
Anyone with an opinion on this? His argument seems to be that now the English website is gone, nothing stands in the way of renaming the league "Youth Hockey League". DMighton (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lester Pearson Award winners and the renaming of the award
As the new Ted Lindsay Award has now been awarded, I realise that we need a new category for winners of the award. However as we have never had to deal with a renamed award before, I'm not sure how we should go about this. My idea is to create a new category, just for winners of the Lindsay Award, and keep Pearson Award winners in their own category. I just don't want to go and do this before I get some more input from some others. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the same award. I'd take the category to CfD for renaming and just note in the category page that the award was known as the Lester Pearson previously. Resolute 04:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought of that, and was on the CfD page before having second thoughts. My biggest concern is that it technically is a new trophy, one with Lindsay on it instead of a generic player (I think?). And it would look weird in the categories of someone like Gretzky to see "Category:Ted Lindsay Award winners," considering that it was different. I just don't really feel right about the whoe thing. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a new category:"NHLPA MVP award" with "Cat:Ted Lindsay" and "Cat:Pearson" as subcategories? –Schmloof 05:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The trophy is emblematic of the award, but we are categorizing by the award, not the trophy. Many of the trophies being handed out today are not the originals - notably the Hart Memorial Trophy. Resolute 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is a fair point. I guess I'l send it on to CfD and have it renamed. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Edit: And it is up. So in 2 days the category should be changed over. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that we aren't supposed to make decisions based on what might happen, but there has been more than a little bit of talk about updating several of the trophy names. Would this trend continue?  If they rename the Art Ross, are we going to have Wayne Gretzky in the category of Wayne Gretzky Award winners?  Canada Hky (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Austin Watson (ice hockey)
Can someone move this to Austin Watson please? RandySavageFTW (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Resolute 04:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

National Hockey League Entry Draft
NHL Entry Draft has been moved to the title above by. Any opinions? Edit: According to his contributions, he has also moved the NFL, NBA and MLL draft articles, citing that the "entire name of the league should be shown in the title". --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the NHL article back. I'm not really opposed, but moves of these types have been strongly contested in the past.  It should be discussed first. Resolute 00:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I care.... but it is usually covered on tv, in print etc as the NHL draft. Either way though I don't care much, but you don't just go around moving articles, which makes me opposed to  it as a default I guess.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

2012 NHL Entry Draft
I know, I am asking the same old question every couple of months (and sorry if that is getting annoying ^^;), but nevertheless: Is it okay to replace the redirect at 2012 NHL Entry Draft with the actual article as there already are quite a few traded picks (see User:Soccer-holic/Draft picks) or should this still wait another couple of months until, lets say, the 2011 Trade Deadline nears or there is more information on other aspects than just traded picks available? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind it. And I wonder which team will have the "Seen Collberg?" campaign. :) —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't like draft articles until the year they are going to occur. ie we would have just started 2011 now. But failing that we should at least wait for a site to be picked. Do we know that for 2012 yet? I forget. -DJSasso (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They won't announce it until sometime next year. And I really have no preference whether the article exists or not. It really isn't a big deal. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is enough news related to trades that have affected that draft that I see no reason not to create it. Resolute 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

captions
Captions in the Infobox...useful or pointless? Triggerbit (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointless, especially now with the horrendous name at the top. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit of both, it depends on the picture itself. If its just a headshot then they are redundant and you might as well not add them, if its a picture of action as is the case of some shots you might want to describe the action. Or if its a draft picture you will want to say its a picture of X player at the 2010 draft etc. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like them when the picture might be a bit obscure (say a Jr photo for an NHLer), but even then it should be simple: name, date, team. Canada Hky (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My thought as well. There are very few situations where I find an infobox caption to be useful. Resolute 14:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Champions Roster Template
Are you guys going to create or have created a Stanley Cup Champions roster template to put on the individual players/coaches page. Here are some examples from other sports:

--ilamb94 (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this some sort of sick joke?--Львівське (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we arent, and consensus within the project runs strongly against it. Personally, I think those templates are an abomination, clutter, introduce irrelevant links and detract from the quality of articles. Resolute 02:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support it only if we could get cited references naming all of the fans at the clinching game, if we want clutter let's go all the way... ok, seriously, I agree with the above two statements. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the Jeter image hasn't even been archived yet. That says everything that needs to be said about these templates. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I even brought it up. --ilamb94 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. We're used to it, and the reminders do help ensure that the minimalist view retains consensus support. Resolute 02:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and if my reply seemed harsh, it was only meant in fun. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As well, I don't mean any malice, these just happen so often and always end the same. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're known as the hockey mafia for a reason. Stylistic changes are almost always vetoed right away.  I must admit, though, I got a big laugh from Львівське's initial reply. –Schmloof  03:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * this template will inevitably pop up at some point though! while on topic are we ever going to get completely rid of the first round pick template? Triggerbit (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Resolute was slowly converting the first round pick templates to succession boxes. Not sure where he has gotten to with that. -DJSasso (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I got bored and walked away from it, lol. I should probably finish that off. Resolute 14:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we even need the succession boxes? I would rather have nothing at all, nothing at all. nothing at all. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When feeling up to it, I replace the template when I find it. But really, its not that exciting, so I haven't really done much for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I like having a hardcoded template of the rosters used on the Finals article only, like 1991_NBA_Finals. The information is handy, easily read, hidable, but not scattered onto all the individual player pages. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Updating team page format
A user has suggested updating the team page format we have. I think it probably is a good idea to discuss this as its been in place a number of years and probably could use with some updating. I know Alaney2k was also thinking that it might need some changing awhile ago. So feel free to add your comments at the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had a dollar for every time someone....
...adds a statment today that says: "On July 1, 2010, the team signed player as a free agent", I suspect I'd be able to afford a very long vacation. TSN may call it the "free agent frenzy", but unless they've been on Wikipedia, they have no idea what a frenzy is! Good luck everyone... ;) Resolute 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate when articles essentially become a timeline. "On June 19, Hamhuis was traded to the Flyers. On June 26, Hamhuis was traded to the Penguins. On July 1, Hamhuis became a free agent and signed with the Hartford Whalers." --Smashvilletalk 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a huge pet peeve of mine as well. At least it makes researching the player's timeline easy whenever I get into the mood to do rewrites! Resolute 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i'd guess prob 90% of the player articles are like that! ..not quite sure why there's such a fascination to update as quick as possible tho..Triggerbit (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The beauty of the Wikipedia system. Part of it now is that it is systemic.  so many articles are like that that new editors come in and think that is an acceptable way to write an encyclopedia.  Resolute 02:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Former Team Question
When a player never played nor was under contract with a team...is there any reason to include them in the "former team" category. For instance - the aforementioned Dan Hamhuis. I notice that no one has actually plugged in Penguins and Flyers as his former teams. Should we outline a minimum requirement? That the player at least has to be under contract with the team to be considered a "former team"? --Smashvilletalk 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Under contract' won't work as a defining trait, Hamhuis was technically under contract with the Pens and Flyers, as his contract didn't expire until July 1. For infobox inclusion, I'd say they actually have to play a game with the team.  Canada Hky (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. My personal rule has always been "Played a game with a top level team".  So I don't include minor league teams or teams that a player was only a member of on a technical basis. Resolute 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Or at the very least on the roster with a number assigned...like Hossa at the beginning of this season. He was clearly on the Blackhawks, but he began the year on IR. --Smashvilletalk 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah basically we have gone by the have to play a game to be considered to have been on the team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the current standard.. included in prose is appropriate enough. I'm still trying to figure out whats better, grouping former teams by league like Darius Kasparaitis or just listing top level teams chronologically without league..kinda soccer style (Theo Fleury) ..guess they both got pros n cons.. personally i'd prefer listing only NHL teams but i know thats never gonna happen as there's a bigger world out there, its just when you see for example the Belfast Giants included in Fleury's case, i mean really?! anyway.. Triggerbit (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Career start in infobox
For junior players, we usually have "TBA" for career start, which comes out as "TBA–present." Does this make any sense? RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was done that way because the template code forced us to do it that way, in other words you had to put something in if you wanted to use the infobox. Originally the infobox was only meant for pro's. I think I changed it awhile ago so that the career years are no longer mandatory. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no I am wrong. What we did was change the propose of the attribute to say Career instead of Pro Career and made it so you could list their first year of top level amateur competition as their start. To quote the new purpose of that field: career_start (first pro year if professional, first year of top level of amateur competition if amateur). -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always used career start as first year in NHL, the European Leagues, AHL, or WHA. But does to be announced - present make any sense? What does announced mean? So if a junior who's drafted's GM announces tomorrow they'll make the team this year, do we change it to 2010? Maybe TBD is better or just leave it until (if) they turn pro. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * this is one thing where those proposed changes to the infobox can be a benefit. We could make it much easier to keep this as an optional field, and easier identify the field as "Pro career" for pro players or "Senior career" for women and early players. Resolute 17:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Headings in prose
Just noticed changes to Andrew Raycroft with headers compared to before and it sparked my curiosity of what users opinions are about headers in player articles that don't contain a significant amount of prose?

I fully support the use and need in good articles but just wondering about stubs and such? It seems excessive to hardly have a paragraph under each header...i guess the worst example i can think of is the train wreck in Olli Jokinen and less so in others like Christopher Higgins. Personally i would prefer to just split the headings to Amateur and Professional for a stub (Victor Oreskovich). Cheers for response Triggerbit (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't have split them in the Raycroft case. I would only use them when there are significant sections of prose that needs splitting up. At worst I would have split Raycroft in 2. But not as many as is on it now. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackhawks vs. Black Hawks
This came up while I was doing a review of Bill Mosienko for GA status. The team was previously known as the Black Hawks, but the Hawks on their official website now retroactively refer to the team as Blackhawks in everything (example: http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=46777 ). Is there any official reasoning for going against this? Resolute pointed out the example of the Ducks vs. Mighty Ducks, but the Ducks still refer to their previous incarnation as the Mighty Ducks on their team history pages ( http://ducks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?bcid=17234 ). Barring a source that overrides the team's official page, I think we should go with what the team in question uses, although a mention of the name change on a player's page would certainly be appropriate. Canada Hky (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Black Hawks is a historically accurate name of the franchise and should not be altered in any way. Moreover, their official website also refers to the team by the correct name: http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=530250 ("The 1938 Black Hawks (that's how they spelled it before the early '80s) may have been the worst Stanley Cup-winning team of all time."). I think it's just simpler to retroactively refer to the Black Hawks as the Blackhawks, whereas there's a big difference between the Ducks and the Mighty Ducks. Jmj713 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources that override the team website, every news paper from the time period for example. No team has the ability to rewrite history. Anyone who played for the Black Hawks when they were named such need to refer to the team when they were named that way. No mention of the name change should be made on the players page. Modern sites such as hockeydb that do not make the difference are flat out wrong. Any contemporary source from the time they were named that outweigh any current source. Not to mention as pointed out in the sentence above, the Blackhawks site does mention they were named differently prior to the 80's. People are just lazy or ignorant to the fact the name changed, so they write it without the space. We aren't beholden to what a team may or may not want to rewrite in their history. There have been other instances of teams rewriting some of their past that we also reject. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasonable, but a newspaper from the time was using the team name at the time, whereas the Blackhawks as an organization have made the decision (apparently) to retroactively brand themselves 'Blackhawks' - is it not original research to supercede that? Are there any current reliable sources that do not rebrand the team (besides a single mention on the team website, that is clarified in prose ie - do they ever use Black Hawks without mentioning the name change)?  Also, considering how heavily hockeydb is used in this project as a reliable source, its opening up a can of worms to declare them 'flat out wrong' when they are just following the official team procedure.  When do the so-called reliable sources become 'wrong' because Wikipedia is 'right'?  There is also a consistency issue:  Bill Mosienko is not in category 'Chicago Black Hawks players' he is in 'Chicago Blackhawks players'.  He is on the 'List of Chicago Blackhawks players' where there is no mention of a different team name.  It seems a tad high-handed to say 'Wikipedia has it right, the team and other sources we heavily rely on have it wrong.  This time.'  It isn't a matter of laziness or ignorance on my part, rather clarity and consistency.  Canada Hky (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly the team name at the time, he played for the Black Hawks, he never played for the Blackhawks. You can't retroactively change what your team name was. Secondly a source is capable of being a reliable source for one topic and not for another. This is a common concept of sources. His team names have been wrong in other areas a few times, though I have a feeling that was a technological reason in those cases. He often addes dashes in names that have spaces in them. My guess is his site can't use two words in a team name, and in the case of the blackhawks he just merged the words since thats the new name. We are consistant in articles, or atleast we try to be. Whenever a player played for a team prior to the change we use it with a space. The categories etc are another can of worms. Some teams have had categories created whenever the team name changes. Other teams have had all players who played for a team in the same city merged under the same category. Our categories in general are a mess. As for the List of players, I attribute that to no one thinking to make that distinction, and is an easy enough one sentence add, but then again the page links to the Chicago Blackhawks page which makes that distinction on it. But we aren't saying all sources are wrong and wikipedia is right, we are saying all the sources from that point in history are correct and current ones are wrong. Which is true. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing that the Hawks team name changed (although some would say that it was never 'changed' they just corrected a long standing error of common usage - my guess is that's why the team website uses Blackhawks mainly througout - it was technically incorrect to use 'Black Hawks' so they just globally corrected the error, rendering everything else 'wrong'). Mainly though there is no consistency with the usage on Wikipedia, as it seems other reliable sources have made that same decision for the purposes of clarity and consistency (ie it was universally used, but wrong, let's correct it).  It is consistent for the list of players, etc. but individual articles are not consistent with pages outside that (or even within themselves (Denis Savard), which is confusing for the user.  Hockeydb is a further can of worms as far as naming goes - he makes the change for Mighty Ducks vs Ducks (http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4863). To me, unifying the team names would be clearer for the user, provides a standard for editors to use, and the information about the name change is still available (however one chooses to present it).  Canada Hky (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would point out that it would then make it inconsistant with every other team that has had its name change. But I will let others comment now. I just feel as an encyclopedia it is our job to be historically accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that the Blackhawks actions regarding this make it less of a name change, and more of an error of common usage - supported by how the Ducks and other teams deal with their history (previous names for the Leafs, Habs etc.) It is inconsistent with every other team name change, because it isn't the same situation.    Canada Hky (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "Black Hawks" is not an error or a typo that went uncorrected all those years. The team is named after Black Hawk, a chief of the Sauk tribe in Illinois, which is why the team's logo is an American Indian. Jmj713 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For that matter, Maple Leafs are certainly a much worse typo. Does this mean we should correct it on every page? I wouldn't change Black Hawks retroactively in the body of articles, however the team is really just one team and we shouldn't either have two different player categories, or team articles. Minor league or European teams change name to a similar name much more often, it does not hurt too much consistency to consider the Dynamo or CSKA Moscow one team even if the official name changes a bit from year to year. Place Clichy (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't the explanation given on this encyclopedia (albeit uncited), best reference I could find was from a geocities page (!) that doesn't exist anymore  Canada Hky (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Major McLaughlin chose the name Blackhawks for his team. There are a couple of different stories about why he chose that name. The first one says that during World War I, McLaughlin had served as commander of the 333rd Machine-Gun Battalion of the 85th (Blackhawk) division of the U.S. Army. The division's nickname commemorated Black Hawk, a prominent Indian of the early 1800's, so McLaughlin chose the Blackhawks for the team's name in honor of his military unit. The second story says that the Major had a restaurant in Chicago called The Blackhawk and he named the team the Blackhawks to get a little free advertising for his restaurant. There's probably a little truth to both stories.


 * Until 1986, the team's name had always been written as two words (Black Hawks). That year, owner Bill Wirtz officially changed the spelling to conform to Chicago's original charter of 1926. The name was mis-written on everything from League scoresheets to club publicity for 60 years."

Not that I expect anyone to use a defunct geocities site as the reliable source, so if anyone has anything better, please feel free. The usage of 'mis-written' also supports my theory of the Hawks retroactively correcting what they could, which makes it still just a theory. Canada Hky (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) I went to baseball to see how they handled team name changes and found my answer pretty quickly: 1953 Cincinnati Redlegs season. The Cincinnati Reds changed their name during the 1950s to avoid communism connotations. When the name changed back, our article titles followed suit: 1959 Cincinnati Reds season. See also Brooks Lawrence, which refers to his run with the Cincinnati club under two separate names, the Redlegs and the Reds.

Based on that, I would say that the team should be referred to as the Black Hawks during times when it was then known as the Black Hawks and can be so verified in reliable (and preferably contemporary) sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But as of right now - there is no consistent usage with the team name, and baseball isn't consistent either - unless I am reading this wrong - Frank Robinson refers to the team only as the Reds (1956-1959, should be the Redlegs, if it was consistent, correct?), so that doesn't really help the issue, except to point out a few other instances where some clarity would be needed. Canada Hky (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's unclear about it. We refer to the team name as the name it was at that time. For example, if we retroactively renamed the teams, Gordie Howe would have finished his career with the Carolina Hurricanes and the Phoenix Coyotes would have won the last WHA title. Do you realize how ridiculous that would look? --Smashvilletalk 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I've been saying. I'm specifically saying that in the way the team has dealt with the name change, and the way most contemporary sources aside from Wikipedia have dealt with the name change is different from every other franchise name change.  They have dealt with it as though they are correcting a mistake, rather than changing the name (or moving the franchise entirely.  I'm not saying Gordie Howe played for the Carolina Hurricanes, I'm saying that the 1926 - 1986 Black Hawks were called so because of an error, and the team has retroactively corrected this.  The Carolina Hurricanes weren't mistakenly called the Hartford Whalers because no one bothered to double check the paper work.Canada Hky (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline is what it comes down to when you point out exceptions like Frank Robinson. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Not every page is going to be corrected to the perfect standard at any given time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a matter of a deadline, its a matter of basing a decision on an example or precedent that doesn't fit. How can we use the Reds as an example, when they are not consistent?  Based on that argument we should let individual editors decide what to use on a given page.  Canada Hky (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of consensus. And the consensus appears to be that we use Black Hawks in historical instances prior to 1986. --Smashvilletalk 21:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to date has been to use Black Hawks. It's not a special case. Leave it at that. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If there was a consensus reached, can someone point me to the previous discussion? If that discussion is occurring now, fine - but I was unaware of a previous discussion of the issue until this point, and this could all have been avoided.Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The simple fact that we've been editing Black Hawks into hundreds of articles doesn't count? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, Chicago was known as the Black Hawks, regardless of the reason why, whether it was a mistake they later corrected or whatever. That was the name of the team used everywhere for decades. When referring to the time that name was in use, that's the only name that must be used. Period. There's no room for discussion, because Blackhawks did not exist then. Jmj713 (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC) As with others, I prefer the historically accurate spelling, but I do see Canada Hky's argument. Resolute 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What we report here on Wikipedia is fact, not revisionism. Too many people are willing to claim the assertions of a club, a webmaster or a faction - none of whom, as a matter of course, are historians - as fact.  We see this bizarre nonsense throughout the hockey pages, where people claim that Bobby Hull officially played for the Rangers, that Kevin Dineen's number is officially retired by the Hartford Whalers, that Stan Mikita and Tony Esposito officially played for the "Blackhawks," so on and so forth.  This is nonsense, and it flies in the face of common sense and Wikipedia policy both.   RGTraynor  21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia currently says that Mikita and Esposito played for the Blackhawks, in a category and a list. It does not say that Gordie Howe played for the Carolina Hurricanes.  I don't particularly care one way or the other (although I understand it probably seems like I am hell-bent on Blackhawks), but there is no consistency, and that is confusing.  To me, the easiest way to resolve the confusion is to use 'Blackhawks'.  If someone comes up with another way that works throughout, I'm all ears.  Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Categorization has always been clunky as long as I've been at Wikipedia. I wouldn't worry too much about it.  The inconsistencies do need addressing, but as DJ noted, is something that will happen over time. I correct articles as I encounter them, but don't go out of my way to do so.  Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Resolute 23:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion that I can sense. First the team was named Black Hawks, then Blackhawks. What's confusing about that? Same with Anaheim. Jmj713 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Chicago Blackhawks & Chicago Black Hawks weren't franchise re-location situations. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of inconsistencies. They are always being worked on. I know at one point RGTraynor did make a run fixing the naming on all players who ever played on the blackhawks or at least a large number of them. Over time editors who don't know better changed some back. Wikipedia will never be completely consistent because of the nature of allowing anyone to edit. This is the reason for essays like WP:NODEADLINE and WP:NOTIMELIMIT. Basically people do what they enjoy doing on the wiki, and for most people that doesn't include continuously going over a few hundred articles making sure there is a space between black and hawks. They just do them when they see them. I would try not to worry too much about inconsistencies, because doing that can really dampen the enjoyment you get out of wikipedia. Just ask GoodDay, he is our resident consistency nut, and he is constantly stressed about it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see Canada Hky's argument. It seems to boil down to that we ought to change historical fact just so there's always the same team nickname in articles.  That is, frankly, a desperately lousy reason to do so.  Our mandate with this encyclopedia is to post verifiable fact.  It isn't to indulge in revisionism so things look tidier.  (And, hm, maybe it's time for another run through Chicago player articles, come to that.  I haven't fired up AWB in months.)   RGTraynor  08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. There went a couple hours and two hundred edits.  At least I've set up a page of nothing but pre-1986 Hawks' players so I can run a pass every month ...   RGTraynor  10:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's an issue of the franchise name versus the team's name during any one given season. If the team nickname were dropped when referring to the franchise, then the potential conflict for things like categorization would go away. For example, Gordie Howe played for the franchise that used to play in Hartford but is now located in North Carolina. Of course, cases where there are multiple franchises (or were different franchises at different points in history) in one city would become complicated to refer to. Perhaps the team player categories should be in the format "Players for the Carolina Hurricanes franchise" or "Players for the Chicago Blackhawks franchise" to clarify the distinction? Isaac Lin (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would make it more complicated than less. I think how we currently do things is fine. As long as the category page at the top makes the distinction of who is elligable for the category we are in the clear. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll wade in the situation. To Canada Hky's point about the history of the team name, I have a book "The Stanley Cup Story" published in the 60's that says McLaughlin named his team after his WWI unit. I have also heard the story of the Blackhawk restaurant as well, but don't think it's true. The last Don Roth's Blackhawk Restaurant recently closed link and there's no mention of McLaughlin. Even the Wiki article doesn't mention McLaughlin at all. The interesting thing is the unit was named "Blackhawks". The unit was named after Black Hawk, the indian chief. Patken4 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranking graph at Ice hockey
I would like the project's thoughts on the IIHF ranking graph at the Ice hockey article. Does it violate an NPOV? Discussion at Talk:Ice hockey &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured topics/National Hockey League awards
Hey all. This is mainly a courtesy note, but could we get Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award to an FLC now? It seems to pass the criterion for a featured list now (ten years) and that would make this featured topic that much better. It won't be removed as an FT if you decide not to right now, just thought I'd throw it out there. Nice work on it! Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are they?
There used to be 2 pages. One with the Eastern Conference NHL rosters & one with the Western Conference NHL rosters; but now I can't find'em. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You could have just looked at what links to any of the roster templates but they are at List of current NHL Eastern Conference team rosters etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They link me to the NHL template rosters category, but the East & West links aren't there. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant click on the what links here button on the side of the page. It lists every page that links to the page you are on. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where abouts at Category: National Hockey League roster templates is this button? GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the left hand side under Toolbox. -DJSasso (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's weird, the category won't show up on my 21:35 posting. A wiki-tecno prob? GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand (and why won't my category link show up). GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to put : before the word Category if you want it to show up. -DJSasso (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a newbie for me. Anyways, I checked the category up & down/left & right; still can't find what you're talking about. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, finally I found it. Checked the what links here & apparently EAST & WEST doesn't link there. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * List of current NHL Eastern Conference team rosters and List of current NHL Western Conference team rosters in case you didn't see above. -DJSasso (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certain those used to be in the category-in-question. Why were they taken out? Finding those at the category made it easier to check out the 30 rosters for wrong birth country edits. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its probably not in that category because they are not a template. Just bookmark them. :P -DJSasso (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bookmark? Forgive me Dj, I'm not keen on internet jargon. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Save it in your favorites. You know at the top of your browser. -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're way over my head, now. Oh well, atleast I know why they were removed from the category page. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Boing, you mean my watchlist? GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you been hiding under a rock since ´95 GoodDay? ;) Anyhow, Wikipedia always have the answer, see Bookmark (World Wide Web). —Krm500 (Communicate!) 23:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been hiding under a rock since '95, Krm500. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yves Sarault
Could somebody please copyedit the supplemented statistics in an appropriate format? Thanks. --Leyo 08:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeez I wasn't expecting anything that bad. I reverted it for now, since that's more of a mess than simply malformed code.  –Schmloof  09:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Template: Dallas Stars roster
Though it's not the end of the world, we've a persistant IP (a SPA) who continously adds an A to Jere Lehtinen, even though the Stars don't list him as such. The IP refuses to respect the Stars website (a prime source). GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP-in-question is 76.183.227.42 -- GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both you and the IP are on the edge of an edit war. I'll keep an eye on the template as well, but now might be a good time to disengage for a bit.  Resolute 20:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Tis a good idea, the IP simply ignores & reverts my warnings now. Anyways, the Stars don't list Lehtinen as an alternate captain. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Stars don't list Lehtonen at all since he is a free agent. Was he listed as wearing the A before his contract expired? Resolute 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, they just had Modano, Ott, Robidas & Richards as the alternates. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

IP 76.183.227.42, is back at it 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Brought this to ANI, the IP is just being spiteful now. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:IIHF World Championship winners
FYI, IIHF World Championship winners has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tracy Karpas
Delete. 'Nuff said. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was an odd page. Gone. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. Most of it was c/p from Brodeur. Thanks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That person was added to a few pages including, oddly enough - List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career. Canada Hky (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NHL All-Star categories cleanup?
Here is something that might be worth a bit of cleanup. There is a category for players who've played in the NHL All-Star game (Category:National Hockey League All-Stars) (which I am doubtful was created or intended that way) but there is not a category for those players who've been named to the all-star team (end-of-season). Would it be too much to add another cat? e.g (Category:National Hockey League All-Star Team players) Should we differentiate? The Team members have almost all played in the game, after all. Should the first cat be renamed to (Category:National Hockey League All-Star Game players)? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Left Wing Lock article
The Wiki article states that the "Left Wing Lock" originated in Sweden. That's not correct. It came from Czechoslovakia. Here are couple of links: http://www.hockeyplayer.com/paid/publish/article_549.shtml http://zomi.blog.hokejportal.sk/?845/jan-suchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaanosik (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which article? Also, WP:So fix it. –Schmloof  19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS
Just wanted to let everyone here know that WP:NSPORTS was officially promoted to guideline status replacing WP:ATH. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * About Bloody Time. I foresee quite a purge ahead!    RGTraynor  10:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on whether projects can rally the troops. I think there are a ton of soccer articles that might go as a result, but we've done a fairly good job of enforcing a stricter standard overall so there shouldn't be much of a target for us.  The unsourced BLP war is the bigger issue as we still have easily a couple thousand untagged, unsourced BLP articles. Resolute 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The one thing to remember about the BLP situation is that all that requires to settle that one down is a single source. It doesn't have to be enough to establish notability. So on most pages just switch external websites to references (ie hockeydb.com) and you erase the unsourced BLP concerns. However you then have to add more sources of course to solve the notability issues. So when I see those I switch the heading of the hockeydb section and add the refimprove tag. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The ice hockey guidelines are all player-centric. Would it be useful to have guidelines for others, such as on-ice officials, coaches, and general managers? Isaac Lin (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GMs and Coaches basically fall under all the same standards as players (substituting coached for played etc). Atleast that's what I recall in old discussions but I may be misremembering. As for on-ice officials I think we have pointed to hall of fame/NHL in the past. Either way nsports is only a guideline to protect pre-internet players from immediate deletion when they fail a google search but are likely to have newspaper reports about them way back in the day. Personally most off-ice personnel would best be served just being with GNG because it gets to be more arbitrary with them as its harder to quantify likely notability levels with them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, hockey's one of those sports where the great majority of coaches and GMs are former players. Let's face it: is there another major sport with so many Hall of Famers behind the bench and in management positions as hockey?  At a glance, I can think of only three current NHL coaches who've never played professional hockey.   RGTraynor  19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the rest, I typically follow WP:GNG and the question of whether or not I can build a biographical article. Hypothetically, an NHL official should qualify on the same merits as a player - he is still an athlete at the highest level of the sport, just not in a playing capacity.  However most referees and linesmen do not get any sort of coverage such that an article is warranted. Resolute 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on pre-Entry Draft traded picks and the players eventually chosen with these
It might be a bit of a moot point, but should the names of players chosen with traded picks be included on the transactions pages (as in this revision)? I think they should not (see this revision) because it was not known which player would eventually been taken with the respective pick at the time of the trade. However, I thought it would be better to ask if there is any consensus on this, simply because I'm a part-timer at best in this project and therefore might not know any exisiting opinions/rulings... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. I consider that to be trivia. What was traded was actually the pick not the player. Its misinformation really to list the player. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a parenthetical reference, I like having the information there. It is easily verifiable, and sort of finalizes the deals.  I include it when relevant on a player's page.  Canada Hky (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to include them. The NHL Record Book does as well, and it can be an important part of the trade in hte long run. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I am hesitant to add the name is that it can bias the view of the trade. A trade should be viewed as it was at the time of the trade itself. ie a 7th round pick was included in the trade which for most people is a throw away. But if you list the name of the players say Pavel Datsyuk who turns out to be a big star. It can make it seam like the trade was a ridiculous trade at the time, when truthfully it wasn't. The drafted player is a seperate event and should be viewed as seperate. In other words by listing the player it makes it look like the original team would have drafted the exact same player. When they may or may not have. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with DJ's reasoning here. Including it implies a stronger link than actually exists.oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is a strong link. There's a big difference in the Phil Kessel trade between Tyler Seguin and if the pick had ended up being Joey Hishon - the resultant player is key to evaluating the trade.  I don't think it biases the view of the trade to have complete information.  The team isn't only trading for the draft pick - they are trading for the player they pick at that position. Canada Hky (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But that isn't true. They are trading for the pick only. The player they choose with that pick is completely dependant on their GM and scouting staff. It is only tangently connected in that they got the pick from the trade. There are rare cases where the player that will be drafted is known. (ie trading for the 1st overall pick after the draft order is set) But in general, the trade itself is completely seperate from the player they end up drafting with the pick. The pick itself is the valuable part of the trade. What makes the trade good for Boston is the position in the draft they acheived, not the player they took with that position. Because they could have compeltely blown the pick (and who is to say they haven't yet). Toronto didn't trade Tyler Seguin, they traded the opportunity to pick a player somewhere in the first 30 picks. Toronto didn't (but should have) know that they were giving away the 2nd overall pick. Thus you can't say wow the GM really blew this deal based on implying that he traded Tyler Seguin for Kessel which is what listing the player does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two aspects: when evaluating the wisdom of a making a trade, the expected value of the draft pick ought to be used rather than the actual achieved value. (The expected value could be adjusted based on the expected available talent in the draft year in question, though of course this would complicate things a lot.) When evaluating the return on investment for a trade, however, the actual net return should be used, since this corresponds to what the team really gained. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is basically what I am getting at. In lists of transactions you should only list the pick as only the pick was part of the transaction. If you are writing a paragraph about a trade (say on a players page) you would later mention what the pick turned into. But you shouldn't list the person drafted as part of the transaction itself. Only that the transaction led to that player eventually being drafted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The draft pick isn't the end point of the trade, though. No team trades or trades for a 'pick'.  They are trading for the opportunity to select a player.  And who that player ends up being is important to the trade.  Listing the player doesn't imply that a team blew or won a trade.  It just finalizes the information about the trade.  A blown trade is entirely subjective.  Putting the names of the players involved in the trade doesn't pass judgment.  Offering partial information can be just as biased.  The rights of the player drafted belong to the team as a result of both the trade and the draft pick.  Canada Hky (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure teams trade for a pick. The pick is the opportunity to get a player. Yes the end result is they have a player, but that isn't why they are making the trade. The pick is the reason they are making the trade. For example someone wants the 1st overall pick. They are trading for that pick so they have the opportunity to pick whomever they want. Its the opportunity they are trading for. Who they get is a result of scouting efforts, gm judgement etc and not the trade itself. The draft pick itself was a result of the trade, not the player. Of course who they get is tied to the trade (ie cause and effect). But that player wasn't part of the official transaction. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the reason for the trade is a pick and not the end result of having a player. I do agree that the actual transaction is for a pick, and not the final disposition of the pick (for example, it could be traded away to another team; the transaction doesn't keep snowballing). However as long as information is presented in a way that makes the original transaction clear, I don't have an issue with showing the player that ended up getting selected. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm not saying to only have the player name in there, but I think 'traded for Toronto's first round picks in 2010 (Tyler Seguin) and 2011' is accurate and neutral. Canada Hky (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree on that stance for players' articles as well, there is nothing wrong to say who has been eventually drafted with that pick, especially in prose.

However, it is a different cup of coffee for transaction lists. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the three major transaction "outlets" (NHL official website, TSN, HockeyNews) usually only say "Walter Player was traded to the Norfolk Nightingales in exchange for a 4th-round pick in the 4567 NHL Entry Draft." Neither of these alters their reports, bulletins, or player profiles of players involved in trades with draft picks after the Draft has concluded stating that "Frank Freshman was taken with the pick acquired in the trade" or something like that. Therefore we should stick with the facts at the time of the trade, as this is essentially what can be cited from the sources for these lists. One could probably compare these lists to a list of business transactions. From a business point of view, the transaction is completed in the very moment the league approves the deal. How the respective club uses its newly-acquired asset(s) is not part of the original transaction. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, in prose on a player page its completely acceptable to do as Canada Hky suggests. It's the transaction lists I am talking about. It is completely inaccurate to list what player was taken in a list of transactions as the transaction itself was completed with the pick being exchanged. -DJSasso (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not very opinionated about this either way. However, since Wikipedia is not a news outlet, I don't believe a list of transactions needs to limit itself to the information known at the time of the trade. For example, if the trade includes a "player to be named later", I believe it would be appropriate to list the player once determined. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia can describe trades within their historical context. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia doesn't simply have a list of transactions in isolation. The lists are always (to my knowledge) part of a bigger article, usually a draft article or a team's season page.  In the context of the entire article, most of the picks are for guys taken in that draft (or becoming property of the team) and the names are important information - rather than scrolling to find out who exactly was the 169th pick in 2009. Canada Hky (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2009–10 NHL transactions, FYI. –Schmloof 07:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are already at the 2010–11 list, but nevertheless, there is even a whole category of these. Similar lists exist for the NBA and, although different in nature, for various soccer leagues. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as on every team season page there is a list of transactions as well. (on the seasons that are kept up to date anyways) -DJSasso (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A "player to be determined later" is a different situation, because the player himself is part of the transaction and the transaction is not complete until the player switches teams. However, in the case of the draft pick the transaction is complete soon as the NHL approves the transfer o the pick. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the situation is different; I gave the example just to illustrate that a Wikipedia article does not have to limit itself to the presentation format of the three major outlets listing transactions, nor does it have to limit itself to just the facts known at the time of the trade. Isaac Lin (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I can't believe I missed that. On a simple list of transactions, I don't see the need for the player name, because there is no external context.  Within the context of another page (season page or draft page), I think the names should be there (when known).  Canada Hky (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  Include the names: The names of the drafts picks who are involve in trades should be listed as they become known. This is how the NHL record book shows the transactions, and it is easily verifiable. A trade is viewed by observers both at the time of the draft and also in hindsight. To intentionally leave out the information concerning who the draft pick turned out to be is short-sighted. The value of articles increase with verifiable information. An article is improved with the addition of the names of the draft pick as they become known. It the long run, that is who the trade was ultimately for. Dolovis (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Canada Hky. On season and player pages, the trade can represent entire culture shifts, like when Eric Lindros was traded to the Nordiques for (arguably) the 1996 Stanley Cup.  Transactions lists with no context don't need names. –Schmloof  18:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In prose I am all for listing the name, because you can say something like "X was traded for a 2nd round draft pick in 2010 which was later used to aquire Dave Smith". It's in pure transaction lists, (ie table format) that it shouldn't be listed. As it fosters the misguided belief that the transaction was actually for that specific player. When the team trading the pick usually doesn't have any idea who the pick will be used to draft. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position, the name of the player acquired with the draft pick should be listed when it becomes known, but in brackets as suggested by DJSasso above. The fact that a trade was for a draft pick must not be hidden by changing the draft pick to a named player, but rather the new information to personify the draft pick should be added in brackets. Dolovis (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh what the... After reading everything of this thread, it seems to be consensus that the eventually drafted player should be written in prose, but should not be listed in transaction lists such as 2010–11 NHL transactions. So, Dolovis, I can't really follow your addition of the names to said article... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

EHL players
I have a question. Would players in the old EHL that never played an NHL game be considered notable? ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Ice_hockey (Can we get a shortcut directly to the hockey section, maybe WP:NHOCKEY??). ccwaters (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed that up. wp:nhockey now goes to the section. It was redirecting to wp:nsports and you would get stuck there. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They need to either meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY ;). -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

1930 world hockey chanpionships in chamonix france
you have reference the port arthur bearcats as the canadian representatives that won the gold medal at this original world hockey championships but have lists the players from the 1930 CCM team that actually won the tournament, i have copied your listing of the 1930 world hockey champions roster also found in wikipedia and it is correct (see below) but again you have listed the Port Arthur Bearcats as the team when it was CCM.

1930 World Ice Hockey Championships Toronto CCM's

Head coach: Les Allen Willie Adams Howard Armstrong (C) Bert Clayton Joe Griffen Gordon Grant Alex Park Fred Radke Percy Timpson

paulChesterns (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I was actually just working on an article for a former Bearcats player (Phat Wilson) a couple nights ago, and there was no mention of a world championship play during his career, which included 1930.  I did come across this article from the Gazette noting that it was the team from Toronto that played.  Several other news articles from February 1930 makes it clear it was the Toronto Canadas that were in Europe. I actually wonder why Port Arthur did not go, given they were the defending Allan Cup champions when the 1930 world championship took place. Resolute 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with AIK players
''Section moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Sweden Ice Hockey task force. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)''

Marc87
It seems the warning by Sasso and RandySavage were met by ignoring them and then deleting the comments from his talk page....I guess this means he doesn't give a shit about the rules and we should move beyond warnings now?--Львівське (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Users are allowed to remove warnings. When I see him continue to do what I warned him about I will then block him again. But as of yet he hasn't done it again since my final warning. I only warned him about putting the birthplace in the lead sentence. Atleast thats all I mentioned this most recent time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What about replacing countries in the infobox with olympic codes?--Львівське (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a content dispute, can't really block for that unless he gets into revert wars. At least not as easily I can when he is blatantly ignoring the MOS and a number of different editors have warned him about it including non-hockey editors. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * argh, hes walking a fine line: 1--Львівське (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * M87 is just one of those non-communicative types. I've run into those kinds before. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Two quick things for opinion
There are a substantial amount of licensed NHL DVDs appearing regarding full stanley cup final games (10 greatest games etc for teams). I think it may be notable to include reference to games that are available on DVD for the articles regarding XXXX Stanley cup finals articles. But It does seem like trivia in a way. I welcome any opinions on that. Main question though, WP: Notability for hockey says very little on coaches. Ive been seeing a few questionable articles regarding players who under notability do not meet the requirements of playing, but have coached maybe a player of note. Im not too convinced on notability with that, but I was wondering if there should be a clause associated to coaches under Notability_(sports) Any thoughts welcome, Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This was discussed a few sections up. Or rather the part about coaches was. See here. In general most off-ice personal best fit under straight out GNG. However, in most cases you can substitute the word coached for played in the notability guidelines for a coach. Remember that NSPORTS is just a guideline for when sources are likely to exist, they aren't an automatic keep if they meet it or delete if they don't. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * K thanks for the quick reply on coaches, makes sense Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career
Having a bit of a discussion over inclusion on this list. Opinions welcome. Canada Hky (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hockey Systems
I have been working on the Fred Shero page and I have a question regarding systems. Shero is credited with being the first coach to employ systems in the NHL. During a peer review the reviewer suggested a definition of the systems. Would it be better to wikilink to the Tactics section on the ice hockey article or in parenthesis put in some sort of quick definition? Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a pretty good idea for a link. I'd be wary of trying to squeeze too much in a parenthetical remark, especially when there's an appropriate wikilink. oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Template vs Succession Box
Have seen a few edits recently swapping out templates, such as 1st round draft pick, for succession box. Can't remember where I've seen a guideline/policy/suggestion/etc about this. I also can't remember if it was pro-succ, pro-template, or include-both, but thought I would bring it to the Project. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Lanny_McDonald&diff=next&oldid=370696154 and https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wendel_Clark&curid=629765&diff=377160410&oldid=375668686 and MapleLeafsFirstPick which has been nominated for speedy deletion. Of course, the speedy deletion is based on being a orphan, which happened based on the IP edits which removed it from the articles. :/ &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 19:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of succession boxes using Draft picks info. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the templates, especially for draft picks. Canada Hky (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The temps are cool for those. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I much prefer succession boxes, and the IP editor is completing something I started a while ago but lost interest in. The issue I've always had with these templates is that a player selected in 1981 has no relevance to a player selected in 2007.  It is important to know on that biography that they were drafted by the team, but not other players the team drafted.  I don't think I need to haul out the Jeter template mess, but if you allow one, you start to allow all.  Succession boxes emphasize the fact the player was drafted by their team.  Templates emphasize irrelevant players. Resolute 20:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Had a brain fart. I'm definitely against templates used like those at Derek Jeter article. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The succession boxes are the better, there was a discussion about this were we decided to switch them all over. We got about half way through and stalled. This IP editor is just finishing what we started. It does actually qualify as a speedy per T3 which is a redundant unused template, its redundant to the succession boxes. -DJSasso (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the succession boxes, and have periodically removed the templates when I feel like it. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have to invoke a little WP:IAR to justify a T3 deletion, but I don't disagree much. ;) Resolute 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That text is entirely too familiar
Another fine example of our reach as a project. The Flames' |CGY|home press release for their heritage jerseys includes a fair amount of text on the Tigers history. It sure was familiar to me, given I wrote it. I love how they said the info was "supported" by the HHOF rather than crediting Wikipedia... I guess a sign both of our influence and a bit of a credibility shot. And, NBC picked up the same text, lol. Resolute 04:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read that as well and then ended up reading the Tigers article and noticed it felt similar. Just proves that we are doing something productive here, even if they don't want to give us credit. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to see how many views that article gets. I've lost track of how many times I've heard people say they didn't know we had any teams before the Flames. Resolute 13:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * someone's due royalties.. Triggerbit (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of Art Ross
Anybody up for a quick review of Art Ross before I send it off to FAC? Any help would be appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to give it a once over at some point today. Resolute 13:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Cup => Victoria Cup (ice hockey) requested move
A request to move the Victoria Cup article to Victoria Cup (ice hockey) has been started (leaving behind a disambiguation page at Victoria Cup). Discussion is at Talk:Victoria_Cup if you want to comment. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AHL roster template.
Been meaning to discuss this for awhile, but in order for the 2010–11 season was thinking of a roster overhaul for the American Hockey League teams and even ECHL teams, to be consistent to the NHL rosters.

With a quick look around, there are many variations from using a NHL roster template (Adirondack Phantoms), to old wiki style (Hartford Wolf Pack), to others with added contract status (Lake Erie Monsters) and even a few like a dogs breakfast (Bridgeport Sound Tigers)..

Whilst admittedly not a computer savvy person, i tried to work on a new roster a while ago but can't for the life of me figure out the whole creating a template thing. The best i could come up with mucking around in my sandbox was this User:Triggerbit/Sandbox, without actually formatting it correctly. I felt it was important to add the extra "contract" column as teams are invariably made up of players from ECHL to NHL contracts and is a solution to having a messy looking key as with the Sound Tigers. Ideally i'd like the contract status to be listed similar to the Lake Erie Monsters...

Wonder what user's thought's are? or if someone could be helpful enough to create this as a Template! cheers.. Triggerbit (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well realistically they should all look like the NHL ones, as the template code was built generically so that they could be used for any league. It's just that no one cares as much about AHL rosters as they do NHL rosters (or I should say few do). If you want contract status, that would require a complete rewrite of most of the underlying code that is used I think. I am not sure. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that listing AHL and ECHL rosters is going too far down the almanac path away from encyclopedia content. Put them in the hockey wikia, maybe. I would vote to ban them unless there is a good reason for them. How could we turn down CHL and NCAA rosters too? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I don't have so much a problem with AHL as I do with CHL and NCAA where none of the players would qualify for articles so they would be perm redlinks....well for most of them anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's in the too hard basket to add one column? ..Really no one is going to put the effort into a CHL roster and NCAA..Im really only talking about streamlining the AHL rosters as i'm sure it's notable enough...all 30 are regularly updated so i would say a number of people care. Triggerbit (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not having rosters listings in the minor league articles WAS a guideline of sorts a few years ago. The premise was that the minor leagues are far more fluid then the NHL rosters and less likely to be updated. ccwaters (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The roster's for AHL have been around for a couple years now so obviously this isn't a massive issue. Strongly believe they add relevance and are an important part of the team's article. Was able to add in the extra column in the sandbox without much of a fuss, would just need to create another player card template and minor league template. I'll hold off for now but would probably be inclined to add them to AHL teams after their respective training camps. Triggerbit (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:WHA team season
Anyone good with template code know how I might change the team= param to accept piped links. Or to atleast add a second param to accomodate it? There is a case of one team that if you just enter its team name into the name field it will link to the wrong article, so I need to be able to pipe to the correct link. I thought I had it working but realized that the team= param also is used in the prev and next season links at the bottom of the infobox so my solution wasn't workable I don't think. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the NHL template has a teamlink= parameter to deal with the St. Louis Blues (ice hockey) issue. Should be able to just copy that, I would think. Resolute 14:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh ok...looks like it has that already...didn't realize that is what that was trying to do. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Eric Belanger
can there be some kind of protection for Eric Belanger until he has announced his team? vandalism is kind of high.. Triggerbit (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Belanger? Seriously? /facepalm. Protected for a week. Resolute 23:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah some people..cough hfboards cough.. Triggerbit (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I should have guessed... Resolute 03:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hfboards have also organised an attack on the Kabarle article... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At least with Kaberle the deadline to trade him is the 15th, then his NTC starts again. And if the last several years have proven anything, I really don't see him going anywhere. Though it would be better if they finally did trade him so these rumours, and "updates" on his article, could end. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of the Fred Shero article
I was hoping to take this article to GA soon and was wondering if some one could give it a quick look to see if it needs more copy editing of if there are any glaring problems with it. I had taken it to peer review but the user who was helping me dropped out to concentrate on some other GA reviews. A complete review is probably not necessary but I want to make sure as many potential problems are taken care of before I take this to GAC. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Errol Thompson (ice hockey)
Could someone move this to Errol Thompson please? He's the only one.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's no need for a disambiguator, try taking it to Requested move. They're generally pretty quick. –Schmloof  03:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hrm there wasn't even anything blocking the move, you probably could have moved it yourself. Either way its done now. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I have moved it back now...there was another article, and someone was in the process of moving it. Looks like they were meaning to make it a dab page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried moving it and couldn't. I didn't notice that other one, I searched "Errol Thompson" and I could only find the hockey player. Thanks for the help. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:AIK (ice hockey)
We need more input at Talk:AIK (ice hockey). We would like to come to a consensus, whether to move the article to AIK Hockey, AIK Ishockey, AIK IF, etc. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 11:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

titanium hockey sticks
I know you guys have a different view of things than I do, so I am asking. I am working on User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/David Morrow (lacrosse). I am not sure whether he is an important enough hockey innovator for me to add a hockey tag. What do you guys think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with adding the Ice Hockey Tag since he is the founder of Warrior which has become a big hockey company. However, I do question your source on the use of titanium hockey sticks. Warrior produces composite sticks, which are primarily graphite and Kevlar (which I don't think titanium is in involved at all in the process, but I don't know for sure I'm no expert). To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a metal stick since the 90s when Easton was making aluminum shafts (once again I'm not an expert).--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Until corrected by a superior source, I will go with the sourced content that I have included.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Help identifying a photograph
This photo was recently uploaded to the Commons. The City of Toronto Archives identifies the date as being 1940-1970, which is less than helpful. Anyone know the approximate date, or even the identities of the players in the photo? Any help is appreciated. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Leafs goalie in that pic is Johnny Bower, but I don't know of a date. Canada Hky (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Leafs goalie is Johnny Bower, who began playing with the Leafs in the late '50s. The two Black Hawks are Ron Murphy (#10) and Eric Nesterenko (#15). Not sure who the Leafs defenceman is. Murphy was traded to the Red Wings in 1964, so that puts it sometime between '58 and '64. 68.145.111.63 (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I was all set to note, unfortunately, that we can't use the image because it would almost certainly still be under copyright, but the City of Toronto uploaded it as CC-BY. Definitely a nice find. Resolute 22:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolute, I was about to nominate it for deletion on Commons until I realized the same thing. Thanks, everyone.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Duncan MacPherson
There's a SPA named Seawaggg who's been pushing POV, speculation and MOS-violation terms for some months now on the article. I've just went over it point-by-point on the talk page, but if anyone wants to put their oars in, please feel free!  RGTraynor  23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Armenia
I made a new page, Armenian Hockey League. Perhaps someone could help in finding something about the more recent seasons? (LAz17 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)).

Sergejs Žoltoks
this isnt going to be another Sandis Ozolinsh is it?! ..should be safe to move back to english no? Triggerbit (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh hell yes. They can use whatever bloody orthography they like on the Latvian Wikipedia.  This is the English Wikipedia, and we know what this fellow's name looks like in all English-language sources.   RGTraynor  12:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a consensus, stick to it. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus being we use English right? Just checking.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On NHL related pages, that's the consensus. Let me also remind you all that this is an encyclopedia, we report factual accurate information, not pass along what some dumb beat writer/web master decides to name a person. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoughts so, and yeah, I am aware of how sourcing works, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He'll always be Sergei Zholtok to me. But, a deal's a deal. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In cases like this, it is pretty stupid, especially when the foreign language Wikipedia's change the English names of people to suit their native languages: lv:Džeroms_Iginla. Diacritics is one thing, but using a foreign language spelling that is completely out of touch with the common name that English speakers would understand and expect is stupid. Resolute 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much we can do about it, without causing a disburbance in the force. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Err ... not much we can do about it? Our vaunted consensus is for the use of diacriticals, not in completely rendering the orthography into another language ... which is against Wikipedia's naming policies.  What the heck is next, rendering all the Slavic players into Cyrillic?  This should be reverted at once.   RGTraynor  15:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had a terrifying thought, Japanese names being converted to Japanese characters (are they read from top to bottom, or vise versa). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes, I just thought of Jim Paek (a South Korean). -- GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the problem with he and ozolinsh, is that their names as we know them are transliterations from RUSSIAN to english, yet both would become latvian citizens, so officially these are their real names--Львівське (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the transliteration in these cases. Those are both the common English spellings of their names, and something that English readers would expect.  It is the spellings that every English language source would use. His name is spelled as Sergei Zholtok regardless of the diacritic situation. Resolute 21:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * common sense suggests common sense should win out...Triggerbit (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it's all or none. You can't put diacritics on names like Jagr, Elias, etc. and say that's fine but when a Latvian wants to spell a player's actual name it's wrong. I'm against diacritics, but you can't pick and choose. --Львівське (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a diacritics issue, but a spelling one. It's one thing to put useless marks over various letters, but it is quite another to completely change the spelling to suit a foreign language on the English Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME should win out here, regardless of the diacritics nonsense. Resolute 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Ozolins(h), this is his name through the english-language IIHF as well. It's only through the NHL that they misspelled his name the Russian way. link. I understand common use, but this spelling *is* supported. --Львівське (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the spellings should be Sergei Zholtok & Sandis Ozolinsh. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, according to common use, but names on bios are birth names, with nicknames or alt. names in quotes (if not in prose, bolded)--Львівське (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related topic, is this an article that should exist: Latvians in NHL? (Seems iffy) If so, should it use the english spellings? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially when we have List of Latvians in the NHL as well. Again using Latvian spellings. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be bold and merge them. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating statistics
This should have been done 2 months ago, but I'm guessing no one had the time or forgot to update the stats. Most of the team head coaches articles need to be updated. I already updated the first two vertical columns. The rest I will do later today or tomorrow if no one here wants to volunteer updating the statistics. Thanks! --  K. Annoyomous  (talk)   00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NODEADLINE. Welcome to how a wiki works. People don't tend to jump on stats very much since they are rather burdensome. -DJSasso (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad for using the words should have. --  K. Annoyomous  (talk)   01:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the unreferenced BLPs. But, -obviously- these stats matter more. ;-) Seriously though, if I were to nominate articles for work, it would be on the stubs out there. I'll put a counter or some note in the 'To-Do' on this page. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

World Hockey Summit
Article worthy? Was contemplating trying to tackle it. Bigdottawa (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would say no. Simply a news story.  It'd be like writing an article on the General Manager's meetings. Any major decisions could be mentioned on relevant articles. Resolute 22:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. -DJSasso (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I as well. Nobody remembers a similar summit from 2000. I only know of it because my edition of Total Hockey mentions it several times, and I have no idea what they are talking about. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Billy Coutu
Hey folks, I've been glancing through this article and realised that I still don't have a clue of how Coutu was involved with his assault on the two referees in 1927. Was he an Ottawa player? Because his stats don't tell anything about it. I mean, his stats say he was a member of the Habs in 1926-27 season. The problem is only that the Habs didn't qualify for the Finals (which was contested between Senators & Bruins - and Coutu played for neither back in 1927). Moreover even the list of his transactions has no mention of Ottawa, so... was he a spectator while attacking the refs? Anyone have any clues? Cheers --Jambornik (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He played for the Bruins in 1926-27. Mentions it down below in his list of teams he played for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does say that he was with the Bruins in the pros it states "After the 1925–26 NHL season, Coutu was traded to the Boston Bruins".--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that article is in need of a lot of work. I'm especially fond of the references...  "Personal Interviews" are not reliable sources.  I might tackle that one this weekend if time permits. Resolute 14:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. My mistake. Thx, Jambornik (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Atlant Moscow Oblast
Hello, please pay some attention to this page. Skilled editors are necessary to take part in discussion and probably correct both articles according to some words told there. Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Alex Ovechkin Page
A user has been vandalizing the Ovechkin page, I've reverted it a couple of times but want to avoid the 3RR, hopefully they won't know about it and get blocked, but could someone can keep an eye on this page. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If its clear vandalism 3RR doesn't apply. 3rr only applies if its a content dispute. -DJSasso (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, for vandalism by one user like that, an escalating series of warning templates usually leads to the vandal either stopping, or after a L4 warning, blocked if you report them to WP:AIV. Resolute 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:IIHF
Just having an everyday content dispute at IIHF and Template talk:IIHF. Opinions welcome. –Schmloof (talk &bull; contribs) 04:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Youth Hockey Leagues
I got ripped a good one by 'admins' so someone who is more experianced, please help me out. I believe that ALL Youth Hockey Leagues (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_hockey_leagues#Youth) should have pages as these are good sources of information and I do not see how they fall under A7 of club or group. However if they should not have pages, I believe that the other league pages should be deleted. Please comment. HockeyCoach80014 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of one page does not mean another should be able to exist and the deletion of one does not mean the other has to be. Every page stands on its own. I must say its odd that this comes up now as I just had this discussion about the same level of hockey with someone else earlier today....you wouldn't happen to have more than one account would you? -DJSasso (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A good rule of thumb for leagues is, if you can find reliable sources discussing the league itself (ie not scores or passing mentions) in papers in parts of the country other than the local area the teams are in, it probably deserves a page, if you cannot, which is the case for almost every league below the junior hockey level except some high school leagues like Minnesota, then the page should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I do not have another account, and I've read the other stuff exsists page, it's just all bs to me. I thought I was being nice and helping out, made 3 pages, did all the research, and by the time I finished the 3rd the first one had been deleted, the next 2 went within the hour and I'm like wtf?!?! I guarentee I can find articles for every travel league that's ever sent a team to the National Tournament if that's what needs to be done. My real argument though is that wikipedia is being used for so much now that parents and players search for teams here when they start playing or move to a new area...If none of them should be there, then maybe someone should delete the others to reduce confusion...HockeyCoach80014 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point of what wikipedia is, its not a directory or a search engine for random information, it deals with historically notable information, in otherwords things people are going to want to search for in 100 years. Some of these other leagues will be looked at and some may be deleted, but as has been explained to you by a few people not all leagues are created equal, some may end up with articles and some may not. Just like not all people get articles. -DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, it is most certainly not "bs." Wikipedia policies and guidelines are how this encyclopedia is governed.  It is not a publisher of first interest nor a free webhost, nor, as DJ accurately points out, is it a search engine for parents wanting to hook up with youth hockey leagues.  The policies and guidelines which govern this particular case include WP:V, WP:ORG and WP:RS.  I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with them before continuing.   RGTraynor  19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for all these policies, im not that experianced in this, I just think that either all or none should be there. The rest of what im saying is just me rambling... HockeyCoach80014 (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia operates by way of those policies and guidelines, not by our personal opinions. No one will force you to read those policies, but the odds that your contributions will be reverted or deleted are far greater if you don't.   RGTraynor  05:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1994–95 NHL season
This is probably a silly idea, but I'll throw this out there anyway: shouldn't, technically speaking, the 1994–95 NHL season article be titled the 1995 NHL season, since no games took place in 1994? Jmj713 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no objection to a move. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would object. Sure it technically should be named the 1995 NHL season however the official designation for the season is correct. As far as I know all sources call it by the two year designation, including the NHL on NHL.com. Calling it the 1995 season alone is essentially original research--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources calling that season the 1995 season also exist: . Jmj713 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1994-95 season is correct. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd object too. That you can infer from a single LA Times column some people referred to it as "1995 NHL season" is apparent.  What does the NHL call the season?  That's the rub.   RGTraynor  19:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I frankly doubt there is any 'official legal designation' for the season. More just a convention. I am sure it is listed as 1994-95 or 94-95 in all the official guides, but that's just following their regular pattern of listing seasons. Each team would have had a 1994-95 media guide probably, but that's just the title. The NHL Media Guide would be the 1995 Guide, which comes out in 1994. The reality is that it was a '95 only season. What's -wrong- with that? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong with it. But I think its a case of WP:COMMONNAME. Its quite clearly most commonly referred to with both years. -DJSasso (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The playing season might have only taken place in the calendar year of 1995, but the 1994-95 season began with the 1994 Entry Draft and ended when the Cup was handed out. Everything in between was part of that season, including the lockout that canceled many games. Resolute 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hit the nail on the head. If we're counting technicalities here, then the NHL was certainly active in the 1994 part of the 1994–95 NHL season. Further, if the 1994 part of the name were to be dropped based on games not being played, then there would be no need for a 2004–05 NHL season article, as no games were played on either side of those two years. More takes place in an NHL season than just games. – Nurmsook!  talk...  03:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Resolute and Nurmsook. The season isn't just the games played (or not, as in this case).oknazevad (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe many players contracts were still in effect during the lockout, even if they were being blocked from earning their pay. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals rosters
I propose we use for team rosters the template currently used for the 1919, 1994, and 2008 Stanley Cup Finals rosters (perhaps others). I don't know why they're just used on those particular articles, but I like them more aesthetically and encyclopedically than the alternative. Jmj713 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those were the old style rosters we used to use on every team page, we since moved to what you see on the team pages now, which has things like sortability that the old roster format lacked. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of wasted white (gray) space in those tables though, and they're missing the Finals appearance column. Jmj713 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I am not saying we couldn't use them for the finals pages or adapt something similar for the finals pages. I was just pointing out what those were and why they were only on a couple pages, most likely they got missed in the conversion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Barring any objections, I'd like to split the "Pro clubs" and "Playing career" lines of this template into four optional entries: "Pro clubs" and "Pro career" for professional athletes, and "Senior clubs" and "Senior career" for amatuer and women's players. As it stands, the "Playing career" field is ambiguous since it doesn't define when we consider a career to have started and ended, while "pro clubs" an obviously incorrect title for a player like Dan Bain. Any thoughts? Resolute 00:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it, that being said I thought we had changed Pro Career to "Playing career" on purpose so that it would be ambiguous so that we could use it in all instances without needing to have separate fields for pro and amateur. Having two might be an issue for old time players who bounced back and forth between the two. You would end up with things like AM: 1910-1912 1915-1917 1920-1925 Pro: 1912-1915 1917-1920 etc. etc. -DJSasso (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I vaguely remember that. I'd be fine with leaving that as is, but the pro clubs one needs to change, imo. Resolute 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have zero problem with that one. -DJSasso (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, even simpler: I just changed "Pro clubs" to "Played for". That change will affect retired players only. Resolute 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup that is probably the most simple solution. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News
This article is an absolute mess. Looking over the history, it appears people have been changing the order of players to suit their own opinions, rendering the article worthless. Does anyone actually have this book and can return it to proper order? I'm half inclined to take it to AfD as I don't see any reason why THN's opinion deserves an article where any number of other media lists do not. Resolute 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This revision probably is the correct version as it is back at the beginning before people started going crazy on it. Only really had the original creator and a respected editor having edited it by this point. As for notability, this list was talked about in alot of various media outlets besides its own magazine, this was big news when it came out. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually started a total re-edit of this page in one of my subpages with the intention of getting it FL'd a couple years ago but got totally sidetracked by other projects. I have the list in my watchlist but after a few months it was getting too irritating to keep reverting stuff every day. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll finish it off. Here's the subpage, let me know if you have any suggestions. I'm using a totally basic list format for it, and obviously I'll be deeply expanding the prose + adding images. – Nurmsook!  talk...  04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just restore that good revision?  RGTraynor  06:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone more in tune with copyright laws can answer this, but are there any concerns with printing the list in full? Thanks!  Patken4 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I believe some jurisdictions have extended copyright to include databases of information, as far as I recall, they are still not protected in the United States (for example, the lists of phone numbers in a phone book is not protected by copyright). Thus I do not believe a publicly published list of factual data can be copyrighted in the U.S. (usual caveat applies: IANAL, and this does not constitute professional advice). Isaac Lin (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was determined a long time ago that that list isn't a copy vio as its just a list of names. If we listed that commentary that went along with it then it would be a copyvio. -DJSasso (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)