Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive9

User:Cole435
This user has been uploading a few images which in his mind are fair use. For example, he uploaded a photo of Iginla taken by a proffesional photographer when there already existed a free alternative here on wikipedia, I db tagged it. Since then he has also uploaded these two images, Image:Gretzky.jpg and Image:Orr.jpg. Now, these are some classic hockey photos and I think many of us would like them to be used here on wikipedia but they will have to get a better fair use criteria then "fair use of a living person" if they want to survive for more then 7 days.--Krm500 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he means well, but simply does not know Wikipedia's policies. I left him a message explaining why I reverted his edits to Jarome Iginla. Resolute 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pierre McGuire
I personally am not a fan of McGuire... but there is nothing more annoying than coming across an article with a WP:Ice Hockey tag on it and finding the article itself is about McGuire wanting to have intercourse with the GM of the New Jersey Devils. Just a heads up, this page seems to be constantly vandalized. DMighton 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my watchlist. Hopefully we can keep the vandalism to a minimum. Resolute 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Brampton Battalion
I would like an outside opinion of the recent additions to the Brampton Battalion article. The section "Brampton Battalion Marketing – Inaugural Season 1998" reads like an advertisement, and goes into alot of detail that I question is important to the article. Also, the entire section and uploaded photo were added by a "first-time user" User:David t. hunter. Thanks for the help. Flibirigit 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is a neat piece of history, but I agree it is way overdone. I'm going to shrink the size of the image on the page, but I would recommend someone rewrite that section to be more concise. Resolute 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is a little bit of marketing there. And just to point something out, there never was an Ottawa Roughriders, it was the Ottawa Rough Riders. Just felt that had to be said, but not edited into a section that will be removed. Kaiser matias 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Standings bot
I had a small idea.. I think it would be possible (aka, that I could program it) to code a bot to retrieve every day standings from NHL.com or another site, and update it automaticly on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? --Deenoe 19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about an irc-bot using the nhl.com website myself, but reporting goals as soon as they appear ratther than once a day. These things depend on the format of, or what RSS availability there is on the official hockey league sites around the world. The Elitserien statspage is a bit more awkward, but still has all reports in English. The rights to publishing results automatically is probably a different story. Bamsefar75 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would the implementation of statistics require uniform format for all active players articles? Flibirigit 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm against it cause it would create edit messes which is the whole reason we don't update stats till end season. You would have hundred of unnecessary edits caused by this. --Djsasso 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the NHL teams have game-to-game standings (after every game, standings are updated) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deenoe (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I re-read what I said and I told myself : what the hell did I meant?... I meant that most of the ARTICLES on NHL Teams have a standing table for all seasons... and the current season is updated after every game.. --Deenoe 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what do you guys think about the project.. should I bring this to bot proposal and ask from permission to code? --Deenoe 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2006-07 New Jersey Devils season
Are individual teams' individual seasons really appropriate for encyclopedia articles? This seems more like something that Wikipedia is not. Croctotheface 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly which category of WP:NOT are you citing this under? I would not call this indiscriminate information, as we are trying to put together a comprehensive collection of NHL team histories.  Category:Sports history of the United States by team was created when all the 2006 NFL team articles were created; the Minnesota Twins have season articles going back many years; and once the current season articles are created, I believe I speak for the others who are working on these when I say that we are planning on expanding back through previous seasons.  How is the history of a sports franchise not encyclopedic? Skudrafan1 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Skudrafan1, there is a lot of information that can be put into individual season articles, and good information at that... I find the articles well laid out and fascinating personally. A lil off-topic, but this will be my last post as I'll be taking yet another wiki-break. Keep up the good work WikiProject Ice Hockey! Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on how you define "encyclopedia". Obviously such information would never make it into the Encyclopedia Britannica, however Wikipedia has an entirely different scope.  WP:NOT certantly does apply here, however, as Wikipedia is not paper.  In an encyclopedia that has articles on individual episodes of Seinfeld, on hundreds of Pokemon, etc, I do not see the problem with sporting almanac style articles so long as they are verifiable via reliable sources.  Many websites show complete game logs for every team back several seasons, player stats and team media guides list all of the information presented in these articles: results, milestones, season overview, playoff results, scorers.  All of this information is sought after by fans, which is why fans are adding this information to Wikipedia. Resolute 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, there is a strong consensus to include such articles, and I have no problem abiding by that. For what it's worth, though, I don't think that "fans want to read it" is a great standard to use for what merits inclusion in the future.  Fans have created articles on all sorts of non-notable topics.  If I were dictator, I'd probably say that this article (and probably the Seinfeld and Pokemon ones, too) would have to go. Obviously, though, I'm not. Croctotheface 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any structure page or template page for NHL teams season pages? --Krm500 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as such. I started with 2005-06 Calgary Flames season then sought opinions.  It appears that the users who have taken on this project have remained faithful to my original concept. Resolute 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll see if I can use it to improve some of the Elitserien teams. --Krm500 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know of a lighter green color that can be used for overtime win in a 3 pts system? --Krm500 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Use bgcolor="#eeffee" Flibirigit 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that so long as an OTW = W, the colours should be the same. I used a lighter shade of pink for OTL's becuase they are (sadly) worth a point, rather than zero, as a regulation loss is. Resolute 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but Elitserien is using a 3 points system so an OTW is only 2 points. And thanks Flibirigit. --Krm500 10:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment and importance
I was wondering if we should add an assessment option to the Project hockey template so that we can make a chart like this one except without the importance options (because assessing the importance of Simpsons articles is one thing, but doing so for such a large and varying topic like hockey is impossible), although I do not know if it is possible. That way it would be easy to see which articles fall under which class. As for adding the assessment option to the template, it isn't that hard. Thoughts or comments? -- Scorpion 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it. --Krm500 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template for this project
a) shouldn't it have a link to the Hockey Portal, rather than the Sport and Games portal b) why is it fully protected c) how come it's talk page is a re-direct to Glass and Aluminium? Kevlar67 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Probably because it may be a high risk template given how many pages it is on, and no idea. I killed the redirect.  Given how many talk pages this template exists in, a vandal wishing to affect a lot of pages at once could simply edit the template if it wasnt protected.  Hopefully an administrator will come along and change the portal it points to. Resolute 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we have a perfectly good portal that isn't being linked to. It's stupid. Kevlar67 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have requested the change be made. Of course, the ice hockey portal hasn't even been edited since October last year, so hopefully some people are willing to work on it. --Mus Musculus 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

sportsecyclopedia.com -- spam or not?
Hi. I just deleted an image that was sourced to the website "http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com" [sic], which apparantly just takes images they find from all over the web and publishes them without copyright information (not a place we should be getting images from -- even if they were legit, they are claiming to be an online encyclopedia -- we cannot claim fair use on taking images from such a place). Looking for other problem images, I ran a search on that website, and was surprised to discover that it was a link in 151 articles, including pretty much every NHL team article. Does it make sense for us to be linking to a different online encyclopedia in general? Was this a WikiProject decision? I don't want to just delete these links if there has been some argument for putting them in. Jkelly 19:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that several of those links are for references. But yes, I agree that images taken from that site should be placed under scrutiny. Resolute 06:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

what the heck are 'The Mystiques'?
Mentioned on articles for Corey Locke and Peter Tsimikalis. Just some inside joke that someone wanted to put out there? Bigdottawa 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Mystiques" appear to be something created by 74.120.134.131. My hunch is that its nonsense or some inside joke. Flibirigit 18:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes
Rather than get into a potential edit war at the article Doug Wickenheiser, I would like to see what the community thinks about using succession boxes or templates for things like First overall draft picks. Currently, every article about a #1 overall pick has both. I find this remarkably redundant, and would like to remove one or the other. Question is, which should stay, or should both stay? Any thoughts? Resolute 07:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if a change is made, I would support removing the template. Every other achievement like a player of the year award or captaincy is in a succession box, so having a template for draft picks alone seems silly. PhantomOTO 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

AHL
I created the category Category:Calder Cup champions the other day and have been growing through player articles populating the list (still more work to be done), but generally I was impressed by the quality of the player articles, there's very little undealt with vandalism and many of them, although stubs, are formatted very well and categorized accordingly. I must say it was a true surprise. Another thing as for my next little project I will be undertaking, AHL-related (Kinda got a fascination right now with the AHL/IHL), is I will be creating/revamping articles that need it for greats from the 80's and 90's and beyond of the AHL and old IHL. I've got a few players in mind, but feel free to give me more ideas for great players from those leagues that deserve a good article. Thanks. Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Team Templates
Suggestion for roster templates on player pages. Hey, one of my favourite things when looking through footballer pages is that there is a template places at the bottom, easily linking a player to te rest of his team, so it's easy navigation amongst a team. Here is Barca's for example: (as well look at Ronaldinho's page for it's use at the bottom of his page)

I've slightly modified the code to include a logo and a GM. Here is my favoured version with a big logo, split into keepers, defencemen, and forwards: (I included the Bruins one because I feel it looks better with a square logo)

I know some player pages are quite small, and even if not, the templates could still be construed as too big, thus I made another version more in the mold of the football ones, merely all of the players and numerical order, as well as a smaller logo:

I have only completed both versions for the Ducks, and one version for the B's. I know a few people thought the footballer roster templates were not useful enough, but the majority felt they were, thus they remained. So I'm asking here, if it would be good to finish up the other rosters, since the hard work is complete, and start placing them on player pages. There's no sense in finishing up the other teams if they are not going to be used. As I said, I like them, and feel it's a useful navigational tool. Feel free to tell what you think. Best Wishes. Captain Courageous 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I commend you on your effort, though I am not certain how great a value roster templates do have. That said, I have no great problem with them and if you want to add them to the player articles, go ahead.  I will suggest that you remove the images - even though they make it look better - as it is unlikely that the logo within a template will pass WP:FU. Resolute 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Logically when looking at a player and the team name already in the template, the team is already identified, so you're right, I did essentially add that to enhance visual appeal.  I did read over Logos upon your suggestion, but could not find anything explicitly against using the logo, since it's purpose is to identify a brand (i.e. the team).  However, like most Wikipedia guides, it is ambiguously stringent (how's that for an oxymoron) in what is okay or not okay, so I am probably missing something.  Again, thanks for the input, and I'll hold off until I have a couple more opinions.  Take Care. Captain Courageous 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The logos must be removed as they are considered "decoration" on the template. The logo is only to be used to help illustrate a team's identity for an article devoted to the team. Any other use is considered extravagant. Flibirigit 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I removed the tags for the logos, so the templates above will reflect it.  I still like the version split into keepers, defencemen, and forwards, but it's probably too bulky, especially without the "eye candy" of the logo.  Again, feel free to comment on worth of the templates, and/or which version is best; I'm leaning toward the second.  I know plenty of people didn't like the football ones, but as I said, I like them and think they're a good navigational tool, but don't want to step on any toes by going ahead and adding them to player pages.  Truly.  Captain Courageous 03:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You should include "Talk" and "Edit" links on the templates. Thricecube 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So, does the silence on this issue means we can or can't use these templates? Personally, I like the smaller versions of the templates; the organizing of the players by position makes the templates too tall for my taste. I've got a Sharks version of the smaller template in my user space (User:NeoChaosX/RosterSandbox), I'm just waiting for any consensus that we can create and use such templates. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've took the liberty of creating tall boxes for each team. Personally, I like the taller ones better because the smaller ones, to me, look too crowded.  You can find them all here: List of current NHL team rosters. Thricecube 01:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally like the little ones as well. I find the big ones look too clunky and I can't stand big boxes on article pages. --Djsasso 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Youngstars Roster in all-star game articles
Should we include the YoungStars roster in the all-star game article? And just a thought - is there a requirement that between the YoungStars roster and the "main roster" that all teams be represented? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KelvSYC (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * It is part of the festivities, so I think it should be added. I am not sure if that requirement exists or not.  I know they dropped the "one player per team" requirement when they went to the NA vs Europe format, but do not know if it was restored when they went back to East vs. West. Resolute 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know an unofficial rule is no more than 3 per team, but I think they dropped the one per team rule. I don't believe there are any representatives from the Blues. And yes, I agree with young stars being added. I also wouldn't oppose adding the winners of the Super Skills competitions. -- Scorpion 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * St. Louis is represented in the YoungStars game (forward Lee Stempniak), and every team is represented between the main roster and the YoungStars rosters. I believe that St. Louis is the only team not represented in the main roster, though. kelvSYC 07:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the YoungStars roster is, if my sources are correct:
 * East: Lehtonen (ATL), Green (WSH), Meszaros (OTT), Whitney (PIT), Eaves (OTT), Kessel (BOS), Malkin (PIT), Parise (NJ), Staal (PIT), Steen (TOR), Vanek (BUF)
 * West: Budaj (COL), Carle (SJ), Seabrook (CHI), Smid (EDM), Weber (NSH), Getzlaf (ANA), Jokinen (DAL), Kopitar (LA), Radulov (NSH), Stempniak (STL), Wolski (COL)

kelvSYC 07:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No Crosby? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Crosby is in the main all-star game as top vote getter. BTW, there is a link leading to the YoungStars roster on the wiki page for this year's all star game. Bigdottawa 08:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see; I didn't know the YoungStars players and All-Star players were mutually exclusive. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can't play on the YoungStars game if you've been chosen for the all-star game. I believe that this year is also the first which dropped the requirement that the team be made up of entirely rookies (perhaps due to three years since the last game...?). kelvSYC 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill Guerin also represents the Blues. That means that every team is represented in the big game. Think about it, why are Guerin, Yanic Perreault and Martin Havlat (Havlat's played only half the year) included and more deserving candidates like Paul Kariya, Ilya Kovalchuk, Maxim Afinogenov and Mats Sundin left off. This points toward the rule still being in place. Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, I didn't read the list carefully, but I also do have to note that the Commissioner does reserve the right to name up to two members of each team, which was what got Messier in Toronto some years ago despite not being named a starter or a reserve. Bettman may have chosen some of the players so as to allow every team to be represented, as I do not recall Guerin in the initial list of reserves. (To tell you the truth, I was surprised Ranger was a last-minute addition to the East YoungStars and Malkin was left off the scoresheet - and the fact that Thornton, Cheechoo, and Phaneuf could not score on Miller - and how Ovechkin finished dead last in Fastest Skater) kelvSYC 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guerin always makes the all star team, even iun years he doesn't deserve it. Anyway, whats the consensus here? Are we going to add the Youngstars/Super skills results to the page? -- Scorpion 14:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe Sakic
Can someone please make the Sakic page protected or semi-protected, as need be. Its being vandalised on a consistent basis, and this is getting to the point of being pointless. Kaiser matias 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go request on Requests for page protection --Deenoe 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do
So.. what are some of the most pressing items to do on this project? I have started working on various player articles, but can do some project work too. Assessment? --Mus Musculus 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this project doesn't have an assesment yet... Krm500 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was offering to set it up. :) --Mus Musculus 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great --Krm500 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested unprotection of the Ice Hockey template so I can add the assessment code to it. I will let everyone know when it is set up and we can start assessing articles as we have time. --Mus Musculus 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

HHOF section in 30 NHL team articles, too disputed
Though the 'HHOF section' isn't mentioned in the guidelines at this WIkiProject Ice Hockey page. I'd recommend the HHOF sections, be removed from the 30 NHL team articles, to end continous disputes over it. GoodDay 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this call should be made in the individual team pages. I think it's important to note famous players and a Hall of Famers section is less POV than a "notable players" section. Plus, most team pages for other sports have an HoF section. -- Scorpion 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If a WikiProject's guidelines are to be ignored, then we should 'delete' ALL WikiProject pages. We either abide by them, or get rid of them. GoodDay 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And what WikiProject guidelines are being violated? I didn't realise that we had come to an absolute decision. -- Scorpion 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, the guideline 'in question' is here. This guideline has been 'ignored' by Payne2thamax & Orangemarlin. GoodDay 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oy this has the potential to get really ugly, if it hasn't already, just looking at this editing by those two users in particularly. Whether deletion or discussion is necessary, I'll vote for whatever will put this nonsense to an end. As for the actual topic, i don't really have too much of an opinion either way, there are interesting points for mentioning all team HHOFers or just those that stayed long enough to make a big enough impact. Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   22:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can go either way on what HHOF'ers to include for a team. As I stated elsewhere, I'd prefer listing all players, because that's how the HHOF does it. However, I can live with the current policy just fine. I do not agree with deleting them altogether, however. They are part of a team's history. Gmatsuda 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep the HHOF sections aswell. However the current guideline at WPT continues to be ignored/defied. Perhaps a similar 'guideline' here, will end the dispute. GoodDay 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see discussion at here for this topic. GoodDay 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A consesus building discussion, has opened at here. HHof section's makeup is at stake. GoodDay 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleting the section isn't a good way to approach this problem, regardless of what policy is ultimatlly decided upon --T-rex 06:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, we are on Wikipedia. We can, if we acheive a consensus, modify a policy, or ignore it. Personally I have two problems with your recommendations : 1- Deleting the section is a big NO-NO. Saying : Oh, we can't settle on it, so let's delete it. Do you have an idea how much material we would lose on Wikipedia if we used this approach? A looot. 2- Who said Coaches cannot be hall of famers? A Hall of Fame is the one of a team right? A coach is member of the staff... if he has been inducted in the hall of them, then yes, it should be in the list. If it's the hall of fame of the team, and they have inducted a person to the HOF, so we cannot really contest it. --Deenoe 11:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to persuade me any further, I see your point about removing sections at the sign of disputes (how disruptive that move can be). I'm in agreement with you guys now, let's keep the 'HHOF section'. As for the coachs, they definitley belong. GoodDay 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would just let every team have every HHOF that played for the team named, their would be no problem. Every player, coach, general manager, builder or broadcast announcer should be listed regardless how long they stayed with the team.  For example, Grant Fuhr played 14 games with the Kings and was not that good but he is still officially listed as a Hall of Famer for the Kings, same goes for Wayne Gretzky with the Blues and Rangers, Marcel Dionne with the Rangers, Clark Gillies with the Sabres and so on.  If they played for the team they should be listed.   Payne2thamax 14:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The makeup of it is being decided at WPT. GoodDay 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently the guideline in question, is being given a 'review'. Be patient, it seems your view is being accepted. GoodDay 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ladder System
I know this is a little off topic but I would like your imput. Do you think hockey would be better off if they had a ladder system like they do in international soccer. An example woudld be teams getting promoted to higher leagues and being demoted to lower leagues. If we had a system like that in the US it might be something like this.


 * Top  NHL


 * Second  AHL


 * Third   ECHL


 * Fourth A combination of CHL, UHL, and SPHL

Just something to think about. John R G 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean (for example) the Philadelphia Flyers due to their poor performance this season, should be transfered to the AHL next season? Please clarify. GoodDay 18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Bad idea that would never work.  Aside from the fact that it would completely destroy the development system, franchises that get relegated would be financially destroyed, while there is absolutely no chance that 99% of the current minor league teams could ever generate enough revenue to play at the NHL level.  Leave European oddities in Europe.  Resolute 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No: In these leagues (NHL, AHL, ECHL), teams don't get promoted or demoted (players get promoted or demoted). GoodDay 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, players ages 20 & up are disqualified from the CHL. CHL are development leagues. GoodDay 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The CHL that is being referred to is the Central Hockey League, not the Canadian Hockey League. Also don't think it would work out that well in North America. Especially with hockey. Kaiser matias 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hockey has "open leagues", Elitserien is an example. --Krm500 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to hockey in general, just hockey in North America, mainly the US. Soccer is popular everywhere in Europe. Anywone will go to a game, so it doesn't matter for the teams to relegate every year. Hockey doesn't have that popularity in the States. It has a hard enough time getting people to go as is; changing the teams every year would just alienate the few fans left. I should have made that clearer at first, but thats what I was trying to say. Kaiser matias 08:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify things. I know that the US does not have a ladder system in hockey. I was just trying to show you an example and see what you thought of it. John R G 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hockey in general. This ladder system would work with the IIHF. GoodDay 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I get what your saying. I think that it would be interesting to have in North America. Don't think that it could hurt it; just look at soccer/football over in Europe, and hockey as well. They are flourishing and use the system. If it had any hope of working on this side of the pond, I wouldn't mind seeing it happen. Kaiser matias 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured/Good Articles
I was just adding some more information to the Sakic article, and began thinking. With a little more work, I think that it could probably be considered for Good Article status. I also think that we should get a few more articles up to the status of Featured or Good Article status. So, I am going to just ask for any help in making the Sakic article a littlbe better, because I think that I am going to try and put it up for nomination in a little while. Kaiser matias 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will look at this this week. I'm also going to try to work up Bob Probert to GA status. --Mus Musculus 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What do we need to do to get LA Kings up to good or featured status? Gmatsuda 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At first glance, it needs organization into subheadings. Right now, it has massive sections under Level 2 headings whose names mean nothing to non-Kings fans. --Mus Musculus 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at New Jersey Devils. The posters there have done an excellent job bringing that one up to FA status.  It is something I would like to do with Calgary Flames as well at some point.  Probably after I complete my Flames season articles.


 * Two needs that stand out clearly for the Los Angeles Kings article are the need for a more comprehensive lead section, and better fair use descriptions for the logos included. A couple of images of players or Kings games would help as well, I would think. Resolute 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unneeded subpage?
Why does New articles exist? I don't get the purpose. If there is a purpose, it should be stated at the top of the page. --Mus Musculus 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, isn't the "purpose" just seeing what the new hockey articles are? Bigdottawa 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe to get an overview of the new articles so you can see if there's an article that you can improve? --Krm500 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, I've created at least 40-50 hockey related pages and I've never noticed the New Articles page. Good to know... good to know.  Thricecube 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable
Check this out International "mini" Hockey League and Mini Sticks. One is already up for AfD... we might want to consider AfDing the league too... I can't say anything other than odd... just take a couple minutes and check out the league's page... it seems to be a glorified road hockey league. DMighton 08:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That league article is entirely a copy-and-paste job of the United Hockey League article, with some additional names added on. Putting it up for deletion would be a wise move. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's more to it that that - looks like a somewhat elaborate hoax attempt, or some people trying to get publicity for their hobby league. There are at least three users involved:
 * has added a section to the Mini hockey article about these "leagues" whose web sites redirect to a free web hosting service for fantasy and hobby leagues.
 * has added articles, a category and added mention of the leagues to other articles.
 * has also uploaded a logo and added an article.
 * I think we need to make sure these get deleted and that these people aren't adding information about non-notable hockey clubs to articles. --Mus Musculus 15:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Either they are collaborators or sockpuppets. DMighton 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried removing the leagues section from the Mini hockey article, but Nbarretta restored it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Coloured Hockey League
Anyone have enough info on the Nova Scotia Coloured Hockey League from the 1920's to make a wikipage? I saw an article today in the Ottawa Citizen, but haven't read it yet to see what kind of information it has. Anyone even heard of it before? I think it would be a neat thing to have on wikipedia. Bigdottawa 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any players from the league? Names could help research. Flibirigit 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I created a stub; feel free to expand it. Geoffrey Spear 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Added Template:ice hockey to its talk page. Flibirigit 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone know if this was mentioned in either the book or documentary version of Hockey: A People's History that CBC ran last year? Resolute 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment update
I have almost finished setting up assessment functionality for this project. Since Ice hockey is protected, I had to request that an admin make the changes to the template. That action is still pending. I will update everyone when it is done. You can see my changes at User:Mus Musculus/sandbox. I added code for the assessment parameter, and added a section explaining how to use it. I have also created an Assessment subpage for the project that I will link to the project as soon as the template is changed.

Note: Assessment will not work until the template is changed, so don't start yet. :) --Mus Musculus 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see an admin has updated that. But can we change the Portal from Sports and Games to Ice Hockey? I recall that discussion earlier. Flibirigit 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweet, assessment is active! I have added it to the project navigation, or you can visit WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Assessment for information.  The portal change makes sense. --Mus Musculus 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For this assessment thing, does an assessment of an article have to be discussed or can any user just slap on an assessment for an article? Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know you are free to give an article an grade up to B, but for GA, A and FA they need to be looked over by more peers. --Krm500 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. According to the Assessment FAQ, anyone can determine the article's quality according to the quality scale.  There is not really any sense in deliberately mis-assessing an article, since the assessments are basically for our own purposes in identifying articles to improve.  Obviously if something is already a Featured Article, it should be FA (same for GA), but otherwise we should be rating everything B, Start, or Stub.  Make sense? --Mus Musculus 20:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just seeking clarification as I am unfamiliar with the whole assessment process. However I do find it interesting and might get started soon enough assessing player articles. Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've assessed articles for other projects, so I'll help out where I can, but Ice Hockey is a pretty big scope. Are there any easy rules? ie. NHL teams are high, Hall of Famers are high, CHL teams are mid, etc.? -- Scorpion 16:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not assessing importance right now, just quality. --Mus Musculus 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wasn't sure about importance anyway. So, is the template all set so that we can start quality assessment? -- Scorpion 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Works just fine for me. --Krm500 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Famers
I think this has been brought up before, but I think we should try to make articles for the Hockey Hall of Famers who don't have pages, although every player inducted has a page (unless there are some misdirecting links). It also wouldn't hurt to do some categorization organising and add players/builders/officials sub categories.

Anyway, I recently got a book with all the Hall of Famers, so I can make a few articles. These are all of the hall of famers who need pages, although there could be some typos:
 * Builders
 * Allan Pickard
 * Gen. John Reed Kilpatrick
 * Paul Loicq
 * Fred C. Waghorne
 * Frank D. Smith
 * Tommy Lockhart
 * Jim Hendy
 * Al Leader
 * Charles Hay
 * William Thayer Tutt
 * John "Jake" Milford
 * Brian O'Neill
 * Fred Page
 * Dr. Gunther Sabetzki
 * Referees
 * Robert W. Hewiston
 * George William Hayes

So, anybody want to make some pages? -- Scorpion 03:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at Pickard. More when I have time. --Mus Musculus 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See ya guys
I'm done, it was fun but no longer is fun. I'm relinquishing my administratorship and taking down the tent. I thought I'd let you guys know since I've spent the majority of my last 1 1/2 years on Wikipedia centred around this WikiProject. Made a lot of connections during that time, however most of them have left or are no longer as active. Keep up the great work and keep on learning. Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you're leaving. Thanks for all your help. I hope you still have time to be involved in hockey, and come back to visit us. Flibirigit 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate. I hope we'll still see you around as a casual editor or something.  DMighton 05:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug Harvey
Doug Harvey has been tagged as being part of the baseball project because it is is in Category:Buffalo Bisons players a category which says it is for a baseball team. It seems like this is a mistake though, since Doug Harvey is a hockey player (who played for a hockey team called the Buffalo Bisons). There may be other hockey players in this category as well. I'm posting to WikiProject Baseball as well. Perhaps someone from here and/or someone from there could work this out. For now, I've just got Doug Harvey explicitly excluded from tagging by User:WatchlistBot. Ingrid 05:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that category is a mess. I found three more hockey players miscategorized and moved them, plus Harvey to Category:Buffalo Bisons (AHL) players.  However there are players in that cat for the 19th century MLB team, for today's IL team, and for the 1950s NFL football team.  Resolute 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have sorted out the category for the time being, and put a list of the other Buffalo Bisons categories on there, in an attempt to keep people from miscategorizing in the future. This definitely needs to be watched, though! Skudrafan1 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Madison Square Garden split
I've proposed a split at the Madison Square Garden page. To me, the third version of the venue (1925-1968) and the current venue have enough information to justify separate articles for each. Add your comments to the MSG talk page if you want to participate in the discussion. Patken4 01:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OHL userboxes
Just to let you guys know, I've started making some OHL userboxes. I've made five so far, but I'm eventually going to have one for each time. They aren't much, just the team colours and the team initals, and if anyone wants to make changes to any of them, please feel free to do so. You can find the ones I have done here and hopefully some users will use them. -- Scorpion 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. Helped myself to the 67's box. Bigdottawa 16:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done the userboxes, so there is now one for every OHL team. -- Scorpion 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

time for an update?
List of one-gamers in the National Hockey League is updated to the 2000-01 season. Think it's "safe" extend by another season or two? Bigdottawa 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nottingham Panthers
I've been working to expand the article about my home town team the Nottingham Panthers lately. This is the first time I've ever done anything on Wikipedia other than small edits. There's still a bit I'd like to add but I don't really have the time at the moment and it's only little bits and pieces. I was hoping for a few comments on how I could make it better. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kim Williams 22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, very impressive. I would say that this article is actually at good article quality and wouldn't take a lot to push it up to featured article.  I recommend taking a look at the New Jersey Devils article for ideas, which is an FA.  For example, they have an illustrated section on team colors and mascot.  Overall you have a great article though. --Mus Musculus 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest peer review --Krm500 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it isn't far off of FA status. I would suggest taking this article to Peer Review.  A broader look by others not connected to the ice hockey project may offer you some comments on the structure of the prose, etc. Resolute 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your suggestions. I've now requested a peer review. Kim Williams 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I just started a category today for Category:Nottingham Panthers players. Maybe you could help populate it? Skudrafan1 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there is another sock of Moosehead007 running around
Same vandalism of the Wayne Gretzky article by User:Mr. Fantastico that Moosehead and all of his puppets did. Resolute 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens
Hi all. I have started a massive overhaul on this article, working on it non-stop in the past few days. I could some help on it. It still needs more references before it can become GA, and FA once again. Sportskido8 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just looked over the article and the Retired Numbers section will easialy prevent the article from ever gaining GA or FA status. I know that it will be a long section but I think it has to follow the Devils articles Honored members section. --Krm500 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about making the article the current Article Improvment Drive project? --Krm500 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Devils have 2 retired numbers so it's easy to make a paragraph for them. If I can get those banners approved by montrealcanadiens.com (I've sent an email already) then maybe it can work. Sportskido8 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is not so much needing the approval of the Canadiens as it is the banners themselves being excessively decorative. For a good encylopedic article, it would be better to talk about the team's retired numbers in prose rather than display them as large, unwieldly banners that (as Km500 noted) would probably look bad to those who judge the quality of articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll see what I can do. Sportskido8 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed the retired numbers. Sportskido8 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy Disagreements
I know that there is a policy of project hockey, stating that, "As well, please refrain from updating stats mid-season, as it complicates things and Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide up-to-the-date statistics," so I can understand why some users are deleting stats on player pages that have a line for stats for the 2006-07 season. But, I don't feel that this is stating, "There shall be no stats for the current season." Rather, I believe that the rule exists for edits like where someone changes the stats in one column, but not the totals, or when someone thats not a part of the project will come in and make an edit where they say, "He just scored a goal," and will add a goal in the column without changing games played or points. So, I don't think we need to go around removing stats: as long as we don't update after every game, we are still following policy. Briememory 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I think its much better for consistency and not messing up edit histories that we always have all player stats at the same point in time. Which is a whole lot easier if its the end of season. --Djsasso 05:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt about it, much easier this way. --Krm500 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of family relations in the National Hockey League
Discussion in progress on whether to include Pascal and Manon Rheaume in the NHL families. Feel free to add comments. ColtsScore 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug Jarvis
As I was adding Doug Jarvis's career stats from hockeydb.com, I noticed what I can only assume to be a major error. According to the site, it says that while with the '73-'74 Peterborough Petes, he only played 7 games, yet scored 31 goals and 84 points that year. Now I don't think that he was good enough to earn 12 points per game, so I am guessing there's a number missing there. Could anyone perhaps find it and correct it, as it looks rather stupid on the page. Kaiser matias 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a typo. He played 70 games that year:  Resolute 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just found that same link and made the edit (as well as adding the link to the page's references). Hooray for us! Skudrafan1 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Updating team records
I have noticed that theres one user who seems intent on updating the Vancouver Canucks season record as it happens. I know that we don't want players updated as such, and I've reverted edits on the matter regarding that, but what is the status on team records? Do we update them as we o, or periodically, or anything? I don't know what the verdict on that is, so if someone would tell me, that would be great. Kaiser matias 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part, the few users who have been updating team records have been quite accurate with it - the Flames article often gets updated within hours of a game ending. Personally, I don't have any huge issue with it, as it is only 30 articles, and they are being consistantly maintained, as opposed to 700 player articles in varying states of confusion.


 * Though for next year, it may be a good idea to head it off by adding a line saying "season in progress, see 2007-08 NHL season for updated stats", which has been done on some OHL team articles, and which I borrowed for the Calgary Hitmen article. Resolute 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I like how they do it on New Jersey Devils. Would in some cases cause a person to not update them. Just a thought. --Djsasso 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was updating records earlier, until I noticed that I received a message, which told me that my edit was reverted. I can accept this, but I'd like to mention one thing. If you have a few people who are actively updating all the stats, I don't see any reason to revert as long as everything is up-to-date as quickly as is possible. With my knowledge of NHL statistics, I could probably make as many as 300 updates every evening, keeping the articles as up-to-date as I can. I see here that I am not the only one updating the stats, so keeping the stats updated doesn't seem to be too much to ask. Just putting the suggestion out there. Let me know what you guys think of this idea. --Al 21:38, 15 February 2007


 * I also like it how the Devils article approached this so I adopted it on the Frölunda HC article.

Al, it was me who send you that message. The article you edited has had much problem with vandalism but mostly good faith update edits. The generall guideline set here was to update all stats at the end of the season for maintaining high accuracy. I noticed that the edit was done by an ano IP so I added the template to your talk page. Krm500 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with constant edits creates inconsistency and inaccuracy. And a million edits in the history that can make the history page hard to read. --Djsasso 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then let's make a stats uploader bot. --Deenoe 13:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which would still cause the same issues of the multiple edits every day to update the stats. Which is one of the main reasons why we don't do current season stats. --Djsasso 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading this discussion, it does make sense to only update season stats at the end of the season, especially on teams that have season pages linked to the pages. As such, I have modified the Carolina Hurricanes to conform with this the same way that the New Jersey Devils page is currently done. Will make my future edits easier (though I put together a simple Excel spreadsheet to help me with those edits to ensure accuracy of the math). Pparazorback 10:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Krm. I'd be willing to help with updating stats at the end of the season if you guys need anything. Al - NJD 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier :) --Krm500 08:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Categoris
A listing of current Categoris related to ice hockey might be a good thing to list on the main page so users that edit players/teams/coaches.. have a good idea of some of the current categoris they can add.--Khoogheem 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Question - Semiprotection for List of NHL statistical leaders?
The history of List of NHL statistical leaders is incredibly difficult to wade thru due to the nickel and dime changes by IP addresses, which are quickly reverted due to the "Not updated until end of the season" policy as above. Seems like this this is a perfect case for Sprotected2 and WP:SEMI. The Talk:List of NHL statistical leaders page indicates it had been protected, but it expired. I wanted to put the question before the members. Thx, &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup I would agree with that. --Djsasso 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this aswell. GoodDay 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In keeping with the policy, I've reverted the article (back to October 4th, 2006). Now all statistics are as they were before the 2006-07 season. GoodDay 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- I've re-added Brodeur's Playoff win in 2006 East semi-final vs Hurricanes. GoodDay 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Foster Hewitt Award winners and the HHOF
I'm caught up in a bit of an edit war at Calgary Flames with a user who insists on removing the mention of Peter Maher from the Hall of Famers section. While he is correct that Maher isn't a "true" hall of famer, he is a recipient of the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award, which the HHOF regards as a significant part of its program. I reinserted Maher, and noted that he was an award winner rather than a full inductee. User:Walor insists on removing all mention of Maher and the award. So, I ask, should he stay or should he go? Please offer comments at Talk:Calgary Flames. Thanks. Resolute 17:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to add him when I noticed that Walor removed him again. So I agree he should be there. All the media and in press releases from the HHOF do mention he entered the hall of fame with this award. Though they mean as an honouree and not a member. So I say it should stay. I have been debating this with myself for a couple months now. --Djsasso 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Recipients of the Foster Hewitt and Elmer Ferguson awards, although not referred to as "Honored Members," are refereed to as "Media Honorees." Although they aren't Hall of Famers in the same sense as players, coaches or builders, they are recognized by the HHOF and are permanently enshrined at the HHOF. As such, I don't see the point of removing media honorees. They should be listed on team pages. Gmatsuda 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dispute has been resolved, see Calgary Flames for current section style. GoodDay 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports clubs established in YEAR
I have a question on the standard here. I've noticed that this category is not used the same on different teams. For example, on the page for New Jersey, they are listed as forming in 1974, which was when they were founded in Kansas City. Likewise, Dallas is listed as forming in 1967, which it did in Minnesota. However, that standard is not the same on other teams. For example, Phoenix is categorized as forming in 1996 which was the year they moved to Phoenix, but should be listed as forming in 1972. I think this should be standardized, so which standard is correct? Pparazorback 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a particular preference as to which way we go. But I do seem to recall a conversation about this but I can't remember if it was baseball or hockey teams and the reasoning was that the league considers some teams a continuation of the other team and considers some teams a brand new team. I vaguely recall Phoenix being an example of one that was not considered a continuation. --Djsasso 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have a particular preference: It is ridiculous to list a team's establishment date as being prior to the team's creation. The Calgary Flames were established in 1980, not 1972.  The Atlanta Flames were established in 1972.  It looks completely stupid to have the Devils and Scouts listed as having the same establishment date, and as far as I am concerned, is an attempt at pushing a blatantly incorrect "fact". Resolute 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The wording for the start date is "Founded," strongly implying the start date for the organization.  In the case of the Flames, that'd be 1972.  Crack open the official NHL Record Book, and Calgary team history starts in 1972.  RGTraynor 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Doing some research here this morning, I checked all NFL, MLB, and NBA team pages. In all instances except for NFL Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns, the establishment dates for all the other franchise goes back to the original franchise team in it's original city. I believe the debate regarding the Colts and Browns is what Djsasso recalls.


 * The situation regarding Baltimore and Cleveland was that the NFL officially made ruling that when the Colts moved to Baltimore, that it considered the Browns as "suspending operations" and as such, all records, history, etc... was to remain with Cleveland. Right or wrong, I do not know.  But with that, you will note that Baltimore is listed as being established in 1996, and Cleveland is listed as forming in 1946.


 * Using that standard, and because each team is a Franchise, the established in year should be the year the Franchise was formed. Unless a situation occurs with a franchise such as what happened with those two NFL teams, the original year should be recognized.  RGTraynor, check the NHL Record book on the following teams which are currently categorized in a year later than they were formed to see which year the NHL officially recognizes each team:  Colorado - Formed 1972, on Wiki as 1995  Phoenix - Formed 1972, on Wiki as 1996. and Vancouver - Formed in 1946, on Wiki as 1970. Pparazorback 13:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * RG - the Flames organization was founded in 1972. The Calgary Flames were founded in 1980.  When discussing the Calgary Flames, the franchise history only goes back to 1980.  The time in Atlanta is essentially pre-history.  The NHL record book combines different aspects of teams for brevity.  It is simply easier to include the Atlanta years in with the Calgary years than to give defunct teams their own pages. Resolute 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The time in Atlanta was scarcely "pre-history." There was complete continuity in franchise, nickname, colors, team records and players.  The  NHL, and the team, recognizes the records of the Atlanta Flames as being part of Calgary (looking at the NHL Record Book, there are ten major team and individual records belonging to Atlanta).  Each and every team has an official "Franchise Date" on the title page of the official book, and that date for the Flames is June 6, 1972.  To paraphrase your own words, the NHL's stance on the matter "is an objective, NPOV criteria," and I anticipate at least as much respect for it as, say, the POV here that the HHOF thinks that Bobby Hull was a New York Ranger.  RGTraynor 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know how much simpler I can put this. The Calgary Flames did not exist in 1972.  It is a patently false statement to argue that they did.  The Flames organization was founded in 1972, but not the Calgary Flames.  Unless we are going to propose combining all articles about relocated teams, they should be treated separate. Resolute 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah from that point of view I would have to agree. I think they should be separate and have their own distinct year of establishment. --Djsasso 19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Utilizing that point of view, then the majority of the team articles in the NBA, MLB, and NFL should also require recategorization. ALL of the MLB teams that have moved cities or changed names refer to the year of their establishment as the first incarnation of the team. As RGTraynor pointed out, Calgary recognizes team records from the Atlanta Years. Here is a link to the all-time individual records of the Calgary Flames. And here is the [all-time season by season records of the Calgary Flames. Both of those links are directly from the Calgary Flames website. Both show records and stats prior to 1980.  If the Official NHL Record book defines the founding date of Calgary as 1972 then it should be listed as 1972.   The date is the beginning of the Franchise, not when they moved to whatever city they may be playing in now.   If the Pittsburgh Penguins move to say, Kansas City, the Franchise would still have been established in 1967. [[User:Pparazorback|Pparazorback]] 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Forgot to sign earlier)
 * So when I edit the Atlanta Flames article to reflect the fact that the team is still active, and indeed, won the Stanley Cup in 1989, nobody will have an issue with it? Resolute 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When you do, it will be reverted because it would be false. The previous incarnation of the team would not hold any of the records going forward after the club left that city. However, the franchise itself keeps it's heritage, thus moves the team's history forward into the new city. Based on what I have read this morning in looking at ALL of the other major sports teams, the standard for this category is to classify each team when it was formed.  And the Flames Franchise was formed in 1972.  If the Calgary Flames were to get a moving truck and move the franchise to Winnipeg next season, it still will be a franchise formed in 1972. Pparazorback 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Flames franchise was founded in 1972. The Calgary Flames were not.  Unless, of course, you can show me a single box score from 1972-79 that involves the Calgary Flames.  There was no Calgary Flames in 1975.  there was no Phoenix Coyotes in 1994.  there was no New Jersey Devils in 1977.  It is patently false to suggest that these teams existed when they did not.  The Flames Franchise is a concept that encompasses both the Atlanta Flames (established 1972, disestablished 1980), and the Calgary Flames (established 1980).  An article about the Flames franchise as a whole should include 1972 as an establishment date.  An article about a sepcific aspect of the franchise should have its establishment date listed. Resolute 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your opinion just plain doesn't count. The NHL plainly maintains that the Calgary Flames franchise was founded in 1972.  You've already gone on record this week saying that it doesn't matter a tinker's damn what we think or how little sense it makes, if the Hockey Hall of Fame website claims that Bobby Hull (for instance) was a New York Ranger, then Wikipedia must echo that citation.  I would hope you'd have the good grace to be consistent here and accept that the NHL's position on when one of its own franchises was founded trumps yours or any of ours.  RGTraynor 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah as long as the pages themselves stay seperate I agree with RGTraynor for the sake of having everything the same that we should go the way the NHL goes. Just like I think Hull is a Rangers HHOFer. Cause I would 100% oppose the pages of the teams being merged. --Djsasso 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As would I. IMHO, team pages of relocated franchises should read much like they do now - with continuity in lists of team captains, seasonal record, HHOF members, retired numbers still currently honored, team records, and synopses of pertinent franchise history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RGTraynor (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually, I have made no claims regarding Bobby Hull and who the HHOF decides a player represents. My argument there was wrt the inclusion of honorees.  Regardless, there is quite a distinction between franchises and clubs.  The NHL considers the Flames franchise to have been founded in 1972, but the Calgary Flames hockey club was founded in 1980.  But hey, it seems that we wish to push a lie.  So be it.  Facts arent that important to an encyclopedia anyway.  Resolute 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where the car's parked, it's still the same car. In otherwords, the NHL franchise 'the Flames' have existed since 1972, staying in Atlanta 1972-80 & in Calgary since 1980. As such, the Calgary Flames founding date is 1972. GoodDay 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

2006-07 Season pages
I took the time today to create the rest of the missing team season pages, Standings and Game Logs are all that are complete on them. Trades, stats, etc... still need to be added in. The most time consuming part of those pages were the Game Logs, which I wrote an excel macro to format the Wiki code to get that information in to the sheets. Through Feb 24th, all teams have their game logs current (except for one that played last night, their info was not yet current on espn). After getting that information together, I think that all teams' pages should have their season-by-season record set up like New Jersey with merely a link to the Season page for the current season for the most accuracy. I may work on that when I get the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pparazorback (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Awesome! I was trying to do them as time permits, but frankly, if I am going to deal with the tedium of game logs, I would rather it is for the previous Flames seasons, heh.  Out of curiousity, I noticed that all opposing teams got wikilinked on the February game logs.  WP:MOS-L says that this is not necessary, and it can add significantly to the size of the article in kb.  I have generally wikilinked only the first mention of any team in each section.  I do not mind either way if they are all wikilinked, but I would think for consistancy sake, we should decide which way to go.


 * Also, related to the articles, I created the template below as an alternate for the table of contents, as I initially thought that having the TOC below the infobox would look somewhat goofy. Looking at 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres season, it does not look that bad below, but I have a fairly high resolution on my monitor.  Again, for consistancy, we should decide how to display the TOC. Resolute 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I noticed that some of the other pages did not have all opposing teams wikilinked. I will soon modify my excel sheet to only wikilink the first instance of each team, and when I do that, I will do a sweep of all teams to make every one consistant. Once I program it, it would take about 30 minutes to do the entire league to make them all consistant.  Pparazorback 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm about Wiki'd out for a while. I have updated stats on just about all teams through Feb 24th. Will work on the wikilink WP:MOS-L over the next week as I get time, I do have a real job too!! lol... Pparazorback 03:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I actually looked at the seasons pages today and was suprised since the last time i checked only about 40% of the articles were created. good work! --Krm500 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean.  There were 7 missing teams when I started, now every team has a 2006-07 page.  We'll have to make sure to start a 2007-08 template before the end of the playoffs to prepare for next season.  Pparazorback 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could someone add places in these articles for the captains & alternate captains? see examples 2006-07 New Jersey Devils season & 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres season. GoodDay 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue about Canucks Coaches template
I was recently looking over the templace: and noticed a problem with one of the links. Bill McCreary links to a disambiguation page and not a specific person. That is the link used on the template. As I do not have any idea how to anything about fixing the template, I was hoping someone more knowledgable with this type of thing would be good enough to do so. Kaiser matias 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. --Djsasso 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A little help please
Since my native language isn't english I have no idea what word to use in a sentance. I'm working on the history section of a team and when the team was founded there were two main persons who were arguing about the foundation of the team. Now the person who argued for an ice hockey section in the assosiation is the "advocate", right? What would the correct antonym of advocate be? My best guess is impugner or deprecator, is that right or is there any other suitable word? And the second question; What is the best word to describe a person who handles the economy in an assosiation? A cashier? Thanks --Krm500 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mm, most leagues have "treasurers" in the position you'd figure for handling financial matters at the league level. As far as your "advocate" antonym ... could you give us a little more background on the debate and the situation?  RGTraynor 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, it's not at a league level. This discussion was in a sports association. Whether or not that association should start a new section with ice hockey. The "advocate" was a chairman on the board and the person who was against the start of a new section was the person who did handle the economy in the association, also a board member. In his opinion the association couldn't afford a new section but the chairman thought that it would benefit the association financially. The problem is that I don't know the correct terms in english for these persons positions in the association. --Krm500 10:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding this correctly, the person who WANTS hockey to be added would be a "proponent" or "supporter" of the idea. The other person would be a "critic" or "detractor", or "opponent". Hope this helps. Stoneice02 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Important Proposal
Since the Category:Stanley Cup champions seems likely to be deleted. I propose we convey the same information with a template. Ideally it would be based on the Olympic Medal templates (e.g.MedalGold), so it could be part of the same tabel.Maybe something like:

. Any suggestions? Kevlar67 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think its going to be deleted. There are too many comments to keep it with good reason behind it. However, if they do vote it down I think your idea is good. I would much rather have the category though. --Djsasso 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Worst case, that CfD is heading to a no consensus, with a high probability of a keep vote.  However, I would suggest that if we wish to add a template for winning the cup - which is a good idea regardless of the CfD vote, that we might be able to include it as an addition to the hockey player template, as opposed to creating another one.  Either way is good with me though Resolute 05:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think it would be a good idea to add that to the player infobox. I hadn't thought of that.--Djsasso 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a two week old discussion with a 10-7 vote to Keep. The cat's staying.  RGTraynor 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Massachusetts Super Eight HS Tourney

 * I'm not an active participant in this project, but the high school team I played on from '98-'02 is in the Super Eight tournament this year so I decided to keep it up-to-date with 2007 information. If anyone has historical information on the tournament, the article is really lacking so please add. See: Super Eight. Stoneice02 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Brent Sopel: Calgary or Saskatoon
Where exactly was Sopel born? The NHL site and canucks.com say that he is from Calgary. However, my Canucks Media Guide from 2004 states he is from Saskatoon, as do several other sources. Further backing up the Saskatoon claim is the fact that he played minor hockey in Saskatoon, and coincidental and less usefull is he played for the Blades while in the WHL. So can anyone actually confirm where exactly he is from? Kaiser matias 04:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The NHLPA says he is from Calgary. As does ESPN, sportsnet and hockeydb.  I believe the most trustworthy sites all agree on Calgary, so that is what I would go with. Resolute 05:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your media guide is probably stating his hometown; not neccessarily his birthplace. Thricecube 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)