Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format

moved from page:

Templates for Missing Player Information
There are hundreds of ice hockey player pages that do not conform to this standard. In order to track these pages, please add the following appropriate templates to player article talk pages (does anyone think these should go on the article pages instead of talk pages?):


 * - not yet implemented (8/28/04)
 * - not yet implemented (8/28/04)
 * - not yet implemented (8/28/04)
 * - not yet implemented (8/28/04)
 * - not yet implemented (8/28/04)

If the article is not formatted at all according to this standard, place the following directly on the article page (where you would normally put a sub notice):

The template will provide information on what sections are missing, and will add the talk page to the sub categories of Category:Ice_hockey_player_to_do.

end moved section

These templates violate Wikipedia rules gainst having material created for editors in the article namespace. It would be much better to have a list of List of unformatted ice hockey players, or if templates must be used the they should be placed on the talk page. - SimonP 21:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

More info on players
A nice format and all, but wouldn't it help a little if it included such vital information like height, weight, shoots/catches, and possibly even their number? Until theirs a defined place, I'm including it in the opening paragraph. Kaiser Matias 09:29 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of that is in the Ice Hockey Player Infobox. Bamsefar75 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Update of stat table format (removal of redundant tags)
One can save some work by removing the following tags:
 * ALIGN="center" on  elements when the   element already includes it.
 * ALIGN="center" on  elements.

I suggest to update WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Player_pages_format accordingly. -- User:Docu

Players that continue as staff
Is there any good standard on how to format players turned coaches (or other staff)?

Should it be split as 'playing career' and 'coaching career'?

Hdw 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

non english diacritics
Those non english accents are driving me nuts. For the most part, i have been ignoring them when people use them but i want to make myself heard. I know it is cute to use them, but this is the english section of wikipedia and in english it is very rare that we use accents on our letters. What made me decide to comment about this was today someone changed Thomas Pock to Thomas Pöck on the list of new york rangers players. This is the English language section and in english, we don't use ö. So, I am recommending that player pages be changed to the standard use of english without accents. I know this will anger some people who want ot be as accurate as possible, but this is the english language section and to be honest in engish Thomas Pock is more accurate than Thomas Pöck. Let me know your thoughts on this matter. Masterhatch 03:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Masterhatch, I rarely see english hockey publications producing accents on players, and most of them I've never seen before. Leave that for the other Wikipedias. Croat Canuck 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * to get other people involved in this discussion, i moved Markus Näslund to Markus Naslund a few mintues ago. I will make a reference on the talk page pointing here. Masterhatch 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did the same with Jaromir Jagr and Robert Svehla, that should be enough to let people know that this discussion is occuring. Croat Canuck 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I too agree, these European players names should be in English form, as this is the English Language section of Wikipedia. GoodDay 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Spelling a name wrong on purpose make Wikipedia unencylopedia. Any encylopedia pusblished in book form would never do this. The names should be spelled with diacritics and have a redirect page without leading to them. Travelbird 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * so, you are calling viturally every single publisher in the english language wrong? very few publishers use the diacritics and wikipeida is all about the layman and the most common usage in english. Masterhatch 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My proposal
My proposal is to avoid the use of Diacritics for hockey player names in the titles and in articles because the most common usage in English does not use diacritics. I also propose this because right now there is no standard usage in Wikipedia hockey (or wikipedia as a whole for that matter). Some players use them and some players don't. Some article that mention Markus Naslund use the diacritics and some don't. What we have is a complete mixed usage. For simplicity's sake, I suggest standardising it for hockey wikipedia and leave out diacritics.

The MoS basically states that most common English name be used in titles, but of course there are always exceptions. This article talks about this very dispute we are having here on hockey wikipedia. They were unable to come up with a definate solution for all of wikipedia, but i think we can come up with a definate set of rules for the hockey section. Basically, since it is more common to avoid the use of diacritics in English when writing about hockey players, I suggest the same for hockey Wikipedia.

Here are my suggestions:
 * 1) All article titles in hockey wikipedia should avoid the use of diacritics.
 * 2) diacritics are to be used at the start of an article in the first sentence. Have a look at the Markus Naslund article. The first sentence uses the diacritics and that should be the only place in the article. The other usages should be without diacritics. Basically first mentioning should be the only place that non-English diacritics be used.
 * 3) When linking to articles, such as Markus Naslund on the List of Vancouver Canucks players, diacritics should be avoided.
 * 4) The one exception should be when the most common English spelling of a player or article uses diacritics. Off hand i cannot think of any player or article that fits this exception.

This is my proposal. Any thoughts? Masterhatch 19:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. By removing diacritics, you are misspelling a player's name. Especially with German names, if a player has umlaut on their names, the proper English spelling is ü = ue, etc (like Goethe). If a player is from another country, in their country's news releases their names is spelled correctly. Just because we are American does not give us the right to say our alphabet is better than other country's. Germany also has spelling rules as to when they should use the ß (ss), and there is a difference - so we are not observing foreign spelling rules and thus are insulting the country since we are better than using their spelling rules on their own players' names.


 * I personally think the NHL should make an effort to allow diacritics on jerseys and on team sites as well. I would be offended if I were a player to have my name blatantly spelled wrong. It is one thing for someone to not use the diacritics when they are unaware of them; it is another for someone to knowingly omit them. Another thing is that in Spanish, diacritics/accents affect pronunciation and meaning, and I am sure this is the case in other countries and languages. Therefore it is not just omission, but an error - this is an encyclopedia and should conform to a higher standard of accuracy.


 * In effect what you are suggesting is that when Word corrects naïve, on Wikipedia it should be spelled naive, and café should not be an alternate spelling for cafe, at least on Wikipedia. I think a lot of people would disagree with that, which are the implications of removing diacritics from the English version of Wikipedia. Also, if we do not use diacritics, why does Wikipedia provide all of the "Latin/Roman" diacritics for easy insertion into articles if they should not be used?


 * Oh, I'd just like to add that I got some of my Antero Niittymäki stuff signed, and when I pointed out the diacritics, he was pretty happy that someone had spelled his name right. So I am not pulling this out of nowhere. It is a matter of respect to the players and the countries.


 * Hazelorb 18:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the Wikipedia article on diacritics, which you linked, you'll find that a number of you are operating under a totally false assumption. The letters ä, å and ö in Finnish and the Scandinavian languages are not diacritics. They are separate letters of the alphabet from a and o. So, technically, the ä in Niittymäki is not a diacritic, it is a letter. Also, Markus Näslund's name is Markus Näslund, not Markus Naslund with optional diacritics. Quite simply, Markus Naslund is a mis-spelling of the player's real name.


 * Basically I agree with your proposal to not use diacritics in hockey player names. However, the Finnish and Scandinavian letters å, ä and ö are not diacritics. If you want to suggest we stop using those letters in Wikipedia, that's another discussion entirely. Elrith 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In Czech we usualy consider letters žščřďťňě and also "ch" (prononced like spanish x in Mexico) while "long" letters áéíóúůíý to be only letters with diacritics. Thus Czech alphabet has 36 letters. --Jan Smolik 11:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A second note: On reading this talk page over again after writing my reply, I found user Masterhatch's opening line "These non english accents are driving me nuts", and surprised myself by actually being offended. On behalf of the Finnish people, to whom I technically belong, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if our language and alphabet are offensive to you. Whether that's a valid reason to go moving articles and starting a discussion toward removing those letters from Wikipedia is another thing entirely.


 * I wouldn't have gone through all the trouble of saying this if this wasn't the first time I've been genuinely offended on Wikipedia. None of you have even looked at the linked "diacritics" article before deciding that these silly foreign accents have to go, and have actually started moving pages to misspelled forms of player names. I'm astounded by the approach those of you active on this issue have taken. Elrith 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Elrith. I must clarify what i meant by "These non english accents are driving me nuts." Quite simply, it isn't the diacritics that are driving me nuts, it's when wikipedians make a change to a hockey article and the only change is to add the diacritics (or whatever they may be called) to the page. Also it's the inconsistancy in their use. If you go to "what links here" usually the non-English spelling is the minority of the links, but the main article title uses the non English spelling. The letters or diacritics themselves don't bother me as i know other languages are different than English (I am a student of the Korean language). I also am not proposing a total ban on their use. I am simply saying that the article titles should avoid the use of non-English characters and the links going to the articles also avoid the use of non Engish characters, in most cases, of course, as there are always exceptions where the use of non-English characters are necessary. For example, at the beginning of the Markus Naslund article where it gives his name and birth place, there is nothing wrong with showing his native spelling (Markus Näslund). Once the native spelling is known, the rest of the article should use English characters.


 * The reason I moved a few pages was to let people know about this discussion. Most hockey wikipedians don't have this page on their watchlist, so buy moving a couple of well known hockey articles, it draws attention to this article and this discussion. Masterhatch 21:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I made such a change to the Teemu Selänne article, and for a simple reason. Teemu's name is not Teemu Selanne, it's Teemu Selänne. Basically, you're proposing we start systematically mis-spelling the names of players, and I can't accept that. And I'm working toward less inconsistency exactly by making edits like the one I made to Teemu's article. The only reason there is inconsistency in the use of these characters is that names are being spelled wrongly. I also create redirects that point pages with Scandinavian/Finnish characters in the title, for example Timo Parssinen for Timo Pärssinen. I don't think it's acceptable to argue that Wikipedia needs to start mis-spelling names. I think your suggestion, or at the very least the way you present it is practically POV. Elrith 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personaly, I think its good to have the diacritics in the name. It is supposed to give the name of the player, and most Europeans have diacritics with it. If it says Markus Näslund on his birth certificate, I think it should say Markus Näslund on here. Of course, alternatively, it is uncommon in North America. But Remember that Wikipedia is read internationaly. We can't just cater to the people of North America. It could almost be seen as a point of view. To give a direct answer, I think that it needs to have diacritics somehwer in the name of the player in the article. Kaiser Matias 01:52 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Teemu Selanne
Elrith, in English, Teemu Selanne is the correct way to spell his name. In his native language, it is incorrect, but in English, it is correct. If you hadn't noticed, English loves to change the spellings of words and names. Let's take an example such as Vienna. In English, it is Vienna. In the German language it is Wien. So, is Vienna spelt wrong? no. That is just the English way of spelling that city. Is Teemu Selanne spelt wrong in English? no, that is just how English spells that name. Whether you like it or not, Diacritics are very rarely used in English and in 99% of cases where English borrows words with diacritics (and other characters), the spellings are changed. That is just how English is. Anyways, my point is, this is the English section of wikipedia, not the international section nor the German section nor the Scandinavian section. Some words borrowed from other languages retain diacritics, such as café, but most of the time, the foreign characters and diacritics are dropped.

Now, since this is the English language section of Wikipedia and since the MoS likes to use the most common form in English, I can't see how it is POV to remove the diacritics, as you suggest it is POV. The vast majority of English publications omit the diacritics and foreign characters. Why should wikipedia go against the grain and include something that very few other English publications are including? Wikipedia is not a medium for change. These sites tsn.ca, hockeyDB.com, espn.com, legends of hockey.net, SI.com, mightyducks.com, sportsline.com, yahoosports, and NHL.com all don't use the foreign characters or diacritics and those are pretty respectable sites. Notice that the foreign characters are also not used on the players' sweaters. I also checked my local media, the Nanaimo Daily News, Vancouver Province, and Vancouver Sun. They too omited foreign characters from their publications. This site NHLPA.com has the main article titled without the non-English character but at the first mentioning of his name in the article itself, the non-English character is included. This is exactly what i am proposing for hockey Wikipedia.

Have a look at the Richard Park article. According to what you are saying, it is incorrect to use english characters to represent his last name and we should use the korean characters. You may think that this example is extreme, but it is exactly the same with only one difference: the Finish foreign character is easier to read because it is somewhat similar to English. In articles about Richard Park in English, English spellings are used. Same with Selanne in the vast majority of English publications. Masterhatch 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not compare Wien and Vienna with Selanne and Selänne. The first is a translation, the second a translitteration - and a bad transcription it is. -130.232.129.242 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the claim you make in the first paragraph is wrong. Teemu Selanne is not the correct way to spell Teemu Selänne's name in English. I hold university credits in translation from Finnish to English, and on strength of this I can say that your claim is simply not correct. It is not acceptable to change the characters å, ä and ö to a and o, respectively, while it is actually required by Wikipedia's Manual of Style to transliterate Korean characters. Therefore your Richard Park example does not apply, either.


 * The fact that you can find several media that make this mistake doesn't surprise me at all, and does not, in my opinion, reinforce your proposal at all. Hockeydb.com, for example, wrongly changes these characters to a and o, but hockeydb.com also consistently misnames European teams and leagues. These publications are not adhering to a rule of the English language, they are committing a mistake.


 * In short, your proposal amounts to a proposal to start misspelling European personal names in Wikipedia articles, and I totally disagree with it. If you're not willing to take my word for it, then I'd simply like to record my vote against this proposal. Elrith 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we are not willing to take your word for it, because regardless of what university credits you hold, diacriticals are not generally used in North American English. If I crack open THN, I won't find diacriticals on the players' names, and I won't find them in the NHL Official Guide, and I won't find them on the team websites, and I won't find them in newspapers, and I'm at a loss to think about where except for the foreign-language press or articles written by Europeans or pedants I would find them.  That there is no hard and fast rule forbidding the use of diacriticals in English isn't the point; that common English practice doesn't employ them is.  I agree with the proposal.  Ravenswing 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, the letters ä, å and ö are not diacriticals. Please read the Wikipedia article Diacritical. Any practices on the use of diacriticals do not apply to a discussion that is not about the use of diacriticals. Also, many of the ice hockey articles on Wikipedia are written by Europeans such as myself. I'm amazed by this idea that Wikipedia is somehow a North American native English speaker Wikipedia. Elrith 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, if you hadn't noticed this is the English section of Wikipeida. As for your reference to "American" English, the British English follows the same practices as the Americans in removing and replacing diacritics and non-English characters. So what if many of the hockey articles are written by Europeans. The Europeans writing this should realise that this is the English section of wikipedia and avoid naming articles with characters that are foreign to English. Secondly, you know what RGTaynor meant when he called those characters Diacriticals, so stop splitting hairs over that. Oh, by the way, this "proposal" of mine includes diacriticals and other characters foreign to English for the hockey section of wikipedia. Honestly, i think your beef is that English itself removes foreign characters. Wikipedia is just reflecting the way the English language is. Wikipedia is not a medium for change and if you don't like the fact the English removes and replaces all those characters, well Wikipedia is not the place for you to make your protest. Also, if you don't like the fact that English "changes" (not "misspells" as you keep insisting) European names, then don't contribute to English Wikipedia. I do have a question for you Elrith. Not to be picky, but why would you support the removal of diacritics but not characters foreign to English like the ones found in the Finnish language? One more thing, i don't want to turn this into a revert war, but please refrain from changing any more articles until this dispute is resolved as English spellings are not "misspellings" just different spellings. Masterhatch 04:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed; you're pushing the pedantry rather hard, Elrith -- you know full well (or should) what I mean by diacriticals. You should also know that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and it follows that articles written here go by English-language grammar, spelling and typography rules, based on English-language common usage, as illustrated in English-language books, dictionaries, websites, newspapers and other such media.  Regardless of your personal preferences, the English-speaking world is no more likely to adopt your way of doing things than Finland is about to start spelling things our way just because we want them to do so.  (Say, while we're on that subject, isn't it true that the Finnish word for the country "Yhdysvallat" is nowhere remotely close to what its own citizens really call it?)  Ravenswing 06:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak but I just had to jump into this argument. Elrith, this is not North American ignorance, this is just one of the many proper spelling discussions that are to be had. In fact, us North American hockey editors can't even agree as to when to use Canadian spelling or American spelling. I have not seen once (and I have read many hockey websites and texts) the use of extra characters to letters. It is also very confusing too, as most people who are native speakers of English have no idea how to put in those things, because they are not proponents of the English language. Now I'm not a cunning linguist by any stretch of the imagination, however by using these, it brings a lot more confusion than is necessary. If you make a reply to this comment, make note that I probably will not answer right away because of my aforementioned wiki-break. Croat Canuck 15:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My last name would be pronounced "Hogän" in Finland, but they wouldn't SPELL it that way. Just because the a makes the sound their ä makes... And to quote my friend. "I don't really think it matters." To us, sure. To the mass majority of people, no. To people who know the ä/ö/etc goes there, they might wonder why an encyclopedia spells a person's name wrong. Also, wasn't the decision on the Canadian spelling to let it stay if the player was Canadian? Maybe I made that up. Hazelorb 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see from the tone this discussion has taken that I should never have said anything in the first place. I apologize for starting all this, and have withdrawn from this project and will now withdraw from this discussion. It's impossible for me to understand both the stance and the attitude that several of you have taken in this discussion, and I find all of this unpleasant and highly stressful. I'll be taking a lenghty Wikibreak from now on because fights like these simply aren't the reason I try to contribute here. I've taken my name off the project participant list and will stop reading these pages, so any replies you want to make will have to be on my talk page, if you really need to say something further. Again, I find your attitudes inexplicable, and since it feels obvious to me that I'm arguing in vain, I'll let you decide what to do. I want to finish off by apologizing if I've offended someone; I never meant to. Elrith 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The "stance" we have taken is that in English writing and other media, diacritical marks are not generally used. The "tone" with which we present this is that we not only believe our stance to be correct, but await any evidence you might present to the contrary.  Our "attitude" is that we disagree with your position.  Wikipedia has a collegial atmosphere and works by consensus, and if you both find people disagreeing with you unpleasant and stressful and are disinclined to provide the evidence to get them to change their minds, it only makes sense for you take a break.  We have not been offended.  Ravenswing 17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. Masterhatch 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The way you treat foreign languages makes me ashamed to be a native speaker. Such little respect is disgusting. 64.9.15.172 16:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The way we are treating foreign languages? please clarify. We aren't "treating" foreign languages any way; we are merely reflecting how the English language deals with foreign characters. It is extremely uncommmon for an English publication to use diacritics and foreign characters and since the is the English section of Wikipedia, we are merely reflecting that. If the tide ever changes and the use of diacritics and other foreign characters becomes the norm in English, then wikipedia will reflect that. Masterhatch 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Equally well said. Wikipedia is not a collection of street gangs obsessing over "dissing" and "getting respect."  It is about fact, and the fact of the matter is that the national Wikipedias follow the conventions of their own languages.  For instance, the Finnish Wikipedia's article on the United States follows Finnish convention as to the name of the country (the aforementioned "Yhdysvallat") rather than respecting the way Americans call and spell it.  I presume the anonymous poster has cussed them out over there for their lack of respect for Americans?  Ravenswing 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, this is the English language version of wiki and it uses English spellings. Diacritics DO NOT exist in the English version of the alphabet. (If I'm mistaken someone should inform Sesame Street). Therefore we shouldn't be using diacritics. Go to United_States and check out all the other languages' translation of the country name along the side: They are all different, but are any of them wrong? No. Do the same at Finland, Germany, Russia... How about names of people: Vladimir Putin, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden... look at all those articles "direspecting" heads of states. ccwaters 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another example... as some may have guessed from my username: my surname is the plural form of one of the most abundant substances on Earth. I wouldn't be suprised if my name got translated elsewhere: Vesi. Hell, I moved to Philly over a year ago and I haven't heard my name pronounced correctly since ("wooders"?). I'm not losing any sleep over it. ccwaters 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm back, like everybody said this is the english language, no diacratics used in the language, not disrespecting other languages but this is Wikipedia English etc... same old rant, just supporting it. Croat Canuck 23:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we don't use metric in the United States, does that mean all articles should be in lbs/ft? Originally I had articles in lbs/ft and it was changed to metric. Does that apply to this discussion, too?
 * Also about the original discussion. I think since you are doing articles on players, you should ask them which way they would like their names spelled. I doubt any of them would WANT their name spelled incorrectly. Remember, these are articles about PEOPLE.
 * The name Zoë, with the ë, is common in English speaking countries, as shown by the article on Zoë Ball. Are you saying HER page should be changed, too? I just don't understand this discussion. Hazelorb 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Metric vs English in articles: That would depend on the context. Yes, English units are more common in everyday life in the states. However, in many cases both sets of units are used. Furthermore, the scientific community uses metric almost(?) exclusively. So it really depends on what you are discussing. I might go so far as including both in some situations. I'm sure that has been previously discussed elsewhere at wiki.
 * Like I pointed out earlier... different languages have different alphabets and different ways to spell names. It doesn't mean they are wrong. We are not setting a precedent here. We are following convention used by the vast msjority of english speaking hockey organizations/media outlets.
 * Finding one example of "Zoë" doesn't make it "common". "Zoe" is greek in origin, with doesn't have "ë". What you got here is a made up stage name akin to preteen girls spelling thier names with "i"s instead of "y"s. We might as well be arguing over Prince's old symbol name [[Image:Prince symbol.svg]]. ccwaters 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My point with the metric was that even though we don't use metric here, it should be included in articles. Hrm, sounds like the opposite of the diacritics opinion you all seem to hold... And Zoë is not a random stage name, it is the way that name is spelled. "Zoey" would be the way of changing it to i. My point is diacritics are not strangers to English, which is your main argument.
 * Oh, speaking of the Prince symbol, it's funny how the proposal in this discussion says the name should be mentioned once and then the version without "diacritics" should be used, but in the Prince article, the symbol is used exclusively while that was Prince's name...
 * I'm pretty sick of arguing over this. I will continue to spell Niittymäki's name with the ä, simply because, like I said, when I had stuff autographed he appreciated that his name was spelled right. As for other players, I will spell their names they way those players would sign or write them... With "diacritics." These articles are about real people... Unless Wikipedia decides to remove them (and from the page linked it was a majority that voted to keep them) then the "proposal" has no validity, anyways. People who believe in using the diacritics will just remove themselves from this project, like Elrith. Hazelorb 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. You do what you feel you have to do.  Meantime, we will continue to work through consensus and convention, regardless about irrelevancies as to whether the articles to which we apply them are about "real people" or anything else at all.  Ravenswing 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) To say we don't use metric in the States is naive. Its all around. 2) There's more to the English speaking world then the States. 3) I said the use depends on the context. Don't warp what I have said.


 * On "Zoë": Yeah, its a stage name... here's a page from the website that represents her father: http://www.johnnyball.co.uk/AboutJBpage.htm Its "Zoe", made to look cool. Her husband's name isn't really Fatboy Slim either. If your trying to find examples please stay out of La-la land. That's why I compared her to Prince nee "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince". You found one made up example of "Zoë", yet completely ignored the vastly more common "Zoe".


 * What was voted on??? And Where? Thanks in advance. ccwooders 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing diacritics to metric units
comparing diacritics and their use to metric units and their use is like comparing apples and oranges. This is the English language section of wikipedia, not the American language section and in English the metric system is very widely used around the English speaking world It is even widely used in the United states. Diacritics are very rarely used in English, whether it is American English or Commonwealth English. There just is no comparison. English Wikipedia reflects the way the English language is being used around the entire English speaking world. Omitting diacritics is just something that the English language does. There are words and people in which it is more common to keep the diacritics in English and for those words and people, there is no reason to remove the diacritics on English Wikipedia (as that reflects mainstream English). If you don't like the fact that English removes diacritics, well...I just don't know what to say. Personally, i don't care one way or the other but for the purpose of Wikipedia, I must take a NPOV and realise that diacritics are just not used for hockey players by the vast majority of English publications. Masterhatch 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion. I didn't know that when writing English, you shouldn't use ä or ö. So I thought that there must be some information about that in the web. Well, after about 30 minutes of googling, I could not find a single page that recommended dropping the letters. In fact, all relevant pages I found supported keeping them., . I admit that those sources are not good enough to warrant renaming pages. But if anyone has a decent English style guide, please check what it says about Scandinavian letters. One funny fact is that at the moment, all other Finnish bios are using Scandinavian letters in their names. If somebody finds a solid source that the letters should be dropped, this policy must definately be expanded to all articles, not just ice hockey players. --Jannex 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest in this subject. The first web page that you pointed to is a "Style guide" when writing in Scandinavian, not English, so that doesn't apply here. The second article you pointed to refers to a particular publisher's own style of writing. There are far more publishers whose style is to drop non-English characters than keep them. I had listed nine reputable publishers about half way up the page who drop the "foreign" characters. The agreement we came to here on hockey wikipedia allows for the first mention of a player's name in an article to keep the native spelling (for informative reasons) and in cases where the most common form of spelling in English uses the foreign characters, the foreign characters (and diacritics) are to be kept in the article's title and throughout. Off hand, I can't think of any players who fit this. Masterhatch 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument is reasonable. If it is more common to write the names without Scandinavian letters, then the article names should be the same. Of course, it would be good to find a relevant guideline in some respected style guide, which would prove that dropping the characters is not because of laziness, ignorance or technical problems. Another problem is inconsistency with other Wikipedia articles. It may be that non-hockey publishers use different style than hockey publishers, but I'd still prefer that the naming would consistent in the whole Wikipedia. Anyway, I accept the current situation for now, but I'll keep looking into it. This may well be a problem with no correct answer. --Jannex 21:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We can not have a separate rule for the titles of articles about hockey players, another for classical composers and a third for politicians... if anything, the issue should be settled language-wise not field-wise. Personally I do not see why not having the article under the spelling with diacrite, with a redirect from the non-diacrite version, should make most people satisfied. // Habj 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * funny thing is, there aren't separate rules... most people just don't follow the main rule found here Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). Basically, in a nutshell, that says only use diacritics in the title if it is most common in English to use the diacritics. The hockey naming convention follows this to a tee. A lot of people add the diacritics because they think it is spelt wrong without them. Well, in English it is spelt wrong with them (in most cases). Masterhatch 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If something is preferred by "most people" in Wikipedia, as Masterhatch has observed, than the rule should follow it. Jan.Kamenicek 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. And i should correct myself. I don't know if "most" people prefer diacritics. But i can say that there people who are vocal about getting diacritics in there. There are also peole who prefer the native (or local) spelling of city names over the English ones (example Pilsen), but that doesn't make it right. Wikipedia is clear that the most common form in English (for whatever it is) is to be used. Also, "diacritic fans" have gone and moved hundreds of articles from the original English spelling to the local spelling and then said "see, most articles use diacritics. user:travelbird was moving dozens of articles around wikipedia. When i showed him this naming convention, he balked at it and said that he didn't agree with it, so he continued to move articles against the closest thing to an agreement wikipedia had. Look, wikipedia is clear, follow the English language and the most common usage of words' spellings. Diacritics are not common in English. They aren't even close to being common in English. Masterhatch 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely prefer "Pilsen" in English to "Plzeň", because it is a completely different "English" version of the name, not just omitting the diacritics. But if somebody wrote that "Pilsen is another name for Plzen" I would add the diacritics to the second one.
 * I strongly disagree with anybody, who is shown a rule, and simply refuses to follow it. S/he should discuss the rule instead, of course.
 * There are so many articles with diacritics in the title that it cannot be work of a small group of "diacritics fans". I think it is much more than "hundreds of articles". And "dozens" definitely do not change the proportion very much. Jaromír Jágr was renamed many times and mostly by different people. Jan.Kamenicek 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

isn't it funny
I have noticed that the group of people that seem to want the diacritics in there more than any other group are not native speakers of English. Masterhatch 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? Jan.Kamenicek 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in a way it does because of POV issues: a minority group of editors pushing their pov spellings on the English language trying to pass off the English way as "spelt wrong". Masterhatch 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * People with diacritics in their names come from non-English speaking countries. No wonder that non-native English speakers are interested in their articles.
 * Another reason. You and others have correctly pointed out several times that many native English speakers do not have the diacritics on their keyboards. Then, of course, they do not use it and nobody wants them to do so. Just do not revert people who have it and use it.
 * I cannot consider the diacritics wrong, because it does exist in English (although rarely used besides names) and many people use it. The number of people using English far exceeds the number of people living in the so called English speaking countries. And if they know there is a diacritics in a name, they often use it (and nobody tells them they are wrong), if they do not, they omit it. Jan.Kamenicek 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't have diacritics on our keyboards, but also, we don't use them when we write with a pen either. And if you want to write in English and use diacritics in your own personal life, that is your perogative and you can do whatever you want. And, like i have said elsewhere, this isn't the international english language section, it is the english language section and it should reflect how people (media, reference books, encyclopaedias, and the common layman) write in English in English speaking countries. There is a reason why we have different language sections in wikipedia. Masterhatch 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which rule does state, what sort of English is this section? I do not know about any English-by-non-native-English-speaking-people section, so their opinion should count here. (Now I am not speaking about myself, I personally stopped rewriting the names with diacritics, when I saw it is a matter of discussion.) Jan.Kamenicek 22:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking about the pen-writing, I have completely different experience. I have met so many native-English speaking people who used diacritics when writing with pen (and even on computers with diacritical keyboards) that I was really surprised when I found out it is seriously discussed here. The only reason probably was that they travelled a lot and therefore they knew many names including the diacritics. As I have written above, nobody wants you to know it. Just let use it to people, who do. Jan.Kamenicek 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very pleased that non-native speakers of English contribute to wikipedia. They can often provide an insight that native speakers can't. But if non-native speakers are to contribute, they must realise that they shouldn't impose their language on English. It isn't just diacritics, it is also place names, such as Pilsen being called Plzeň or Sea of Japan being called East Sea. One of the problems with English being the Lingua Franca, is that people do their best to influence English to their own liking from their own languages. Diacritics in the first sentence of the first paragraph can show the average reader the native spelling of the name. Beyond that, English should be used in the article's title and throughout the article. In the vast majority of cases, diacritics are not involved in the English language. I wouldn't have had such a problem with this issue if people weren't going around moving all the articles to include diacritics and then saying that the English spelling is "wrong". It is an insult to hear that the way English speakers spell something is "wrong" when it is just the way English is! If someone (i am not going to name names) didn't go around moving every article he/she saw to include diacritics and just left it to the way that each orginal author wrote it, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I wouldn't care if a few articles used diacritics but what i care about is when the diacritics are forced onto english wikipedia. I guess you can say that my biggest beef is that i don't want diacritics forced down my throat when English rarely uses them and then told that English spelling is wrong.

English wikipedia vs. international Wikipedia in English
I would like to point out one fact. This is not an English wikipedia intended only for English people. This is an internationla project with international editors that should be worthy for all people of the world. So habits usual in England (or in USA) made out of comfort should not be taken as the only correct way of doing things. Actually this is NPOV issue. --Jan Smolik 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the Czech hockey team in English compliments of the Torino Italy Olympic Committee Here they are in Italian:, French: . Here are the rosters from the IIHF (INTERNATIONAL Ice Hockey Federation)  based in Switzerland: . ccwaters 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, Jan, this is the English section of wikipedia, not the international english section of wikipedia. That is why they have wikipedia in other languages! If wikipedia only came in english, then you might have a case about it being the "international" english section. But, alas, there are other language sections. the english section follows the POV of the English language and other language sections follow the POV of their own language. Masterhatch 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia should follow common English usage. The Czech should follow Czech. The Swahili should follow Swahili. Period. BoojiBoy 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the discussion here and it's funny that Selänne is used. I don't think I would care much if the english spelling of Selänne was Selenne nut it isn't, it's Selanne. Selanne doesn't sound anything like it sounds in finnish. The Ä sounds more like an E then an A. I would describe his name as Sell-eeh-nn-eh. And I think that it's important that the Å, Ä and Ö is used in the headers for the article so that people atleast understand that it is pronounced differently. But that doesn't mean that the must know how too pronounce the name correctly.

Here is another example. Martin Plüss is a swiss hockey player. Without all the å, ä, ö, ü and whatelese here on wp he would be known as Martin Pluss. Which is wrong, since it's pronounced more like Plyss then Pluss, the best way is too use the Ü. And many people who speaks english as their mother language knows how too pronounce the letter Ü. --Krm500 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics and non-English characters
OK, team, it's simple. This is en-wiki. We don't have non-English characters on our keyboards, and people likely to come to en-wiki are mostly going to have ISO-EN keyboards, whether they're US, UK, or Aussie (to name a few) it doesn't matter. I set up a page at User:RasputinAXP/DMRwT for double move redirects with twist and started in on the Czech players that need to be reanglicized. There's a justification on that page, but to repeat:

DMRwT is the term I use to describe when a page has been redirected and has a history on both the redirecting and redirected page. As an example, Petr Prucha started there, was moved to Petr Průcha, causing a redirect at Petr Prucha; after reviewing WP:HOCKEY policy (specifically use of diacritics and non-English), the article needed to be moved back to Petr Prucha with a redirect at Petr Průcha but couldn't because both the article and redirect were extant.

I asked User:Wiki_alf to help me out, as many of the Czech players have been shuffled around and he obliged me by performing a Double Move-Redirect with Twist on Petr Prucha.

As such, this is a fluid list of NHL players that need to be juggled as above. Please add players to the "needing" list as you see fit.

Thanks, and PLAY ON! RasputinAXP talk contribs 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to this conclusion. Previous debate clearly proved, that there is no clear consensus about using or not using diacritics. You should not be doing any mass renaming and mass moving. At this moment both variants are considered to be right by wikipedians (or both wrong - depending whether you are optimist ore pessimist). --Jan Smolik 11:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jan, I understand you're upset. Let's settle things on the Village Pump before you go changing WP:HOCKEY policy. If both variants are considered right, and there's no clear consensus, then we have the right to go about doing things based on how our consensus has been reached in our particular project. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 15:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * RasputinAPX, I am not upset. I just see that WP:HOCKEY policy does not reflect clear consensus so I just want to fix it so that does not confuse anyone. Simply, it is POV. For example admin User:Wiki_alf took it as a clear guideline for renaming. I will not do any other editing of the policy today, but tomorrow I will add following warning to the start of the section: "This section does not reflect a clear consensus. Before applying these recommendations, please see objections on the talk page". I think it is neutral. You can improve this warning if you want to.


 * The diacritics section of WP:HOCKEY was added by Masterhatch on 19 January 2006. It is quite new and it should not be treated as set-in-stone rules. Anyway prior this additions users Hazelorb on January 15and Elrith January 16 objected to not using diacritics. On January 24 you summarized the discussion with words "OK, team, it's simple". Again not reflecting the objections and asked User:Wiki_alf to change naming based on the project policy. You did not add the "policy" is 5 days old and that there were objections to it.


 * I would not say a world if using diacritics on Wikipedia was not common or was forbidden. Czech people are quite used not to use it on Internet or in SMS messages as for a long time there was no single encoding table for Czech characters. But when I arrived to Wikipedia, I saw that diacritics is commonly used and thus I am also using it. Most names of Czech people is written with diacritics. I see it as a consensus.


 * I am glad you were bold and went on with proposal you thought is right. But as there are clearly expressed objections to this proposal you should not start edit war with mass renaming. For my person I can promise you I will not go to the ice hockey articles only for reason of renaming players. But if I write hockey article or add substantial part to it I will probably use diacritics as it is normal on Wikipedia. In the conclusion I repeat this is international project written in English and not project of Britons and Americans. --Jan Smolik 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching another hockey article until this is over, and I'm not edit warring over it; We let the proposal sit for a while before we did it, and now that there's something to deal with we've stopped. I'm goign to stick to turning Wayne Gretzky into a FAC and then I'll probably leave WP:HOCKEY; I'll keep an eyeball on New York Rangers and their players and leave it at that. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happens though, it should be important that the non-diacratical version gets redirected into the diacratical version of the article. That is my only objection either way... the version many people are used to, myself included, has to redirect into the actual name (with diacratics, accents or whatever). This was not happening in a few cases which amounted to confusion. Croat Canuck  03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is for sure. --Jan Smolik 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article. ccwaters 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright Jan, I've been watching the olympics and noticed that the Czech and Slovak uniforms drop the diacritics on the back of the jerseys. ccwaters 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was mentioned earlier that oficial IIHF documents do not use diacritics and jerseys only reflect that. But it does not mean that it is the correct spelling. I personally think that avoiding of diacritics is historicaly done from technical reasons. With Unicode these reasons are not valid anymore. On the other hand I also drop diacritics from my Wikipedia signiture (it should state Smolík). So I am not completely against avoiding diacritics, especially when the first line includes original spelling. But troughout WP I saw many articles that use diacritics even in the title. And they were in more important languages than in Czech. However, I feel that for encyclopedia it is more acurate to use diacritics. But there was an important argument (I think it was yours) that we should follow habits in the real world, rather than coining new ways of doing thinkgs. BTW: I checked Czech encyclopedias and they generaly try to use diacritics (non-czech one) but are very inconsistent.


 * Today I added "No consensus warning" to the diacritics section of Wikiproject Ice-Hockey. It is not to fight but to say that anybody using this policy will soon run into dispute. --Jan Smolik 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's only fair; plainly it's a contentious subject and likely to remain so. Ravenswing 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So let's start moving the featured articles Karl Dönitz, IFK Göteborg and Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius to "Karl Donitz", "IFK Goteborg" and "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", eh? Might as well move Åland to "Aland". Once we're at it, we could translate Antero Niitymäki into "Andrew Fieldhill" (compare Wien->Vienna, United States->Yhdysvallat, Sverige->Sweden). Just "kidding". Anyway, my point is, that we should try to continue using the style that most similar articles use in Wikipedia.
 * To me, the most commonly used style appears to be using ä, ö and ü in the article name. However, I only say this after looking around at categories about Finnish, Swedish, German, etc people, so I might not be entirely correct. Here's a few examples: Eemil Nestor Setälä, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Kyösti Kallio, Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg, Franz Gürtner, Andreas von Bülow, Melanie Oßwald, István Széchenyi, Zoltán Böszörmény, Leni Björklund (OK, enough, I think you can see the point...).
 * I think that the dots on 'em letters should be present in either all wikipedia biograpical articles or none (at present, both styles are used, which makes things even more confusing). Anyway, if it is decided that the ä's and ö's should go, then put the 'official' (ie passport) way of spelling the name in brackets in the first sentence. If, in turn, the 'real' (with ä, ö, ü) way of spelling is chosen, then have the 'American' spelling (ie Teemu Selanne way) redirect into the 'correctly' spelled article (ie Teemu Selänne). --HJV 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have just received a "No consensus warning" so I have stopped rewriting hockey players' names into their correct diacritical forms, but I do not understand the point. I was doing so for the same reason, which was already mentioned above: Non-hockey articles usually respect the diacritical spelling of personal names (places, cities ...). Why should names of hockey players be treated differently, especially when redirects solve the problem in a very simple way which can be acceptable for everybody, no matter what sort of keyboards they use? Nobody has answered this question. And if somebody wants to start a new article and they do not want to bother with the diacritics, they can omit it. If the diacritics needs correction, somebody will do it.


 * I do not think that writing "Rucinsky" instead of "Ručínský" is an "English spelling" of his name, it is just omitting the diacritics in his Czech name. Despite the fact that non-Czech speaking people won't know how to pronounce his name correctly written both with or without diacritics, unless they have already heard it, for people who know the Czech alfabet it makes a difference.


 * Omitting the diacritics in the Slovak name "Šatan" may cause some amusement, but an encyclopedia should prefer accuracy. English ommitting the diacritics in the name of Croatian football player "Dado Pršo" used to cause even more amusement to Czech people, as the result meant "a tit" in Czech language (and, as far as I know, the same Croatian word is spelled also very similar). By the way, Dado Pršo is spelled correctly in Wikipedia, using the non-diacritical spelling as a redirect.


 * The fact, that players themselves drop the diacritics on their jerseys, is not an argument. They play hockey, that is what matters to them, they do not bother about spelling accuracy. But we write encyclopedia. Jan.Kamenicek 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, we are writing an encyclopaedia, but guess what! this encyclopaedia reflects the current, most common forms of the English language. in english media and other publications, the removal of diacritics is the most common way of writing. Masterhatch 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Its "Jagr" and "Hasek" in worldbook.com, encarta.msn.com, and britannica.com. That's the 3 currently produced encyclopedias that I know of. I'm not sure why a Croatian surname translating to "tit" in Czech is any concern for an English publication?. There's Fucking, Austria, Nevermind the natively named Dick Trickle.  ccwaters 02:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, Dado Pršo was not a good example, because the Czech connotation has nothing in common with what is written in an English text. However, I insist on the example of Šatan compared to Satan. The connotation of the name changes and it is because of the change in spelling (while the connotation of the Austrian settlement is amusing in English without any change in spelling, and in such a case there is of course nothing to do).

I do not know much about Worldbook, but Encarta and Britannica often use diacritics in foreign names: see also my comment below. Jan.Kamenicek 23:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've decided to anglicize the names in the articles I've put together or made significant contributions to, something I now realize I should've done in the first place. The thought came to me recently when someone replaced "Selanne" with "Selänne" in the 1992-93 NHL season article.  That gave me the idea to search for "Selanne" in the article, which returned zero results.  And that tells me that the article is broken.
 * Wikipedia is an electronic resource, and one of the major benefits of that is that it is searchable. And if I'm prevented from finding any instances of a name I'm looking for because I didn't use characters my keyboard doesn't have, the article is broken.  I don't care what the "ä" in his name is, because whether it's an a with an umlaut or a completely separate character, my keyboard doesn't have it, and nor do the keyboards of the overwhelming majority of native english speakers.  And I can't be expected to remember every single diacritic/non-latin character in every language out there just so I can locate info at an english encyclopedia.
 * The place for "Selänne" is fi.wikipedia.org. Here, we speak and type in english. Aottley 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So why should Selänne be treated differently from Gerhard Schröder who has his name spelled correctly in Wikipedia? You might wanna look at Category:Finnish_people, Category:German_people, Category:Swedish_people, Category:Estonian_people, for a start. If you do, you'll notice that pretty much 99% have their named spelled properly, as they are spelled in their passport. I bet if you counted, a large majority would have their names written with the ä's and the ö's (I did mention this up there already). Try searching for, say "Gerhard Schroder". It'll take you to the article, even though you replaced the ö with an o. The same goes for all the other similar articles, as long as there's a redirect from the umlautless version to the actual article. Therefore your argument that, say, Selänne couldn't be found by searching for "Selanne" is false. I repeat, you can find the article using search regardless of what characters your keyboard has as long as a redirect spelled without the umlauts exists (assuming your keyboard is not chinese or something). Type in Selanne in the box to the left and press search. His article is the first result on that page.


 * Some people say we need to misspell the names because that's how other publications spell them. If the common belief in the world was that the earth is flat, should we write that in wikipedia, even if we know that it's not flat but round. No, we should write that the world is round. One reason to the very existance of encyclopedias is to broaden people's view of the world. Not to narrow it, which we would be doing by telling them to spell the name in an incorrect way. --HJV 04:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You clearly misunderstand what I mean by search. I mean search within the page using a browser's text search, i.e. ctrl-f.  In fact, I made that quite clear by using the words "in the article".  If someone is at the 1983 NHL Entry Draft article, knowing that Dominik Hasek was drafted that year and wants to know which selection Hasek was, he might press ctrl-f and type "Hasek" into the text box that appears.  As the article is now, those perfectly logical steps would result in him successfully finding the info he wanted.  But if the article spelled his name "Hašek", the find would be unsuccessful and the person would be left mistakenly believing that either he was wrong about Hasek's draft year or that the article was incomplete or incorrect, all because of a diacritic that isn't on his keyboard and that he probably has never even heard of.
 * So no, my argument is not at all false. The diacritics and non-english characters in the article titles are less concerning to me what with redirects and all, but those in the article bodies themselves are an impediment to text searching for people whose keyboards lack those letters.  That so many articles have them is irrelevant.  It doesn't necessarily make them right.  And what's that about broadening people's views?  There's nothing wrong with having the person's native spelling pointed out right at the beginning of a person's article (see Sergei Fedorov for one of a great many examples), so there's your broadening right there.  But once every instance of a name everywhere on wikipedia gets replaced with something I can't easily type, then wikipedia articles become more difficult for me to search and therefore less useful.
 * Oh, and who are you to say that the names are being misspelled? By all means, show me some reference of authority that says that "Selänne" is the proper english spelling of his name.  By the way, I don't see any explanation of "Antero Niitymakiho" as mentioned above.  It's not exactly as his name is spelled in Finnish, so it must be incorrect, right?  Someone misspelled Владисла́в Алекса́ндрович Третья́к as "Vladislav Tretiak".  Should something be done about that?  I eagerly await your answer.
 * Stop with this "incorrect" nonsense. Finnish is not English is not Czech is not Russian and so on, and peoples' names often look different between different languages. Aottley 07:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of "Antero Niitymakiho": Nouns in the Czech language have inflections, which change according to the grammatical case used, a bit similarly as English nouns change from singular to plural (dog - dogs). Thus, the word "man", in Czech "muž" changes in different sentences: I can see "muže", I gave it to "muži", I saw her with "mužem" ... That is why the Finnish hockey player's name may end with -ho. I think nobody would object, if an English journalist wrote about e.g. "Niitymäki`s shot", in Czech "Niitymäkiho střela". It has got nothing to do with spelling. However, it is true that the author dropped the diacritics, either because he did not know it (maybe the message was taken over from some English source) or did not want to bother with it. On the other hand, many Czech journalists use foreign diacritics properly, as both Niitymäki and Selänne are used in this article in the most read Czech news portal.

That is the answer to the question, but Czech attitude to foreign diacritics might not have much common with English, because the languages are obviously different.

People often use Britannica as an argument: Jágr is spelt there without diacritics. Well, that is true, but I have noticed that Britannica tends to change this attitude: see for example "Jaroslav Hašek" or "Karel Hynek Mácha". They are not always really correct, as for example in the article "Havlícek Borovský, Karel" instead of "Havlíček Borovský, Karel", but we can see that they try to use it. Their problem is that, unlike in Wikipedia, there is nobody to fix the mistake.

Look also at the List of English words with diacritics. I think names have even bigger right to use diacritics than these plain words. Jan.Kamenicek 23:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor format proposals
Here are some of my proposals to standardise how we present the statistics and the international play:

In the statistics table, use the name of the city (in the North America kind of name, i.e. Calgary Flames would shorten to Calgary, as would Calgary Hitmen, and Belfast Giants would shorten to Belfast) or an abbreviated, commonly used name for the team (such as HC Lugano for Hockey Club Lugano or from football, Man City for Manchester City, Man Utd for Manchester United)

Of course, there is the possibility of confusion. Depending on the year Atlanta (NHL) could be either the Flames or the Thrashers. So the first time the team name appears, it should be wikified to the full team article. Thus the Atl Flames and the Thrashers would be differentiaed this way:

Atlanta Atlanta

and you could hover your mouse over it to see the full name very easily. This is just my opinion, but it looks better than spelling out the entire name and keeps things nice, sleek and compact.

Likewise, the first time the league name appears it should point to the league article:

NHL QMJHL Swiss A SM-l

and of course please always point to Western Hockey League rather than just WHL, as has been discussed previously.

(this of course also brings up a need to standardise abbreviations for the European leagues, but that's a battle I'll tackle another time)

As for international play sections, perhaps it should be changed to

Played for Canada in:


 * 1996 World Cup of Hockey
 * 1997 Ice Hockey World Championships
 * 2004 World Cup of Hockey (gold medal)
 * 2005 World Championships (gold medal)
 * 2006 Winter Olympics

with the membership of a top 3 team being noted as above, linked to the appropriate page for the competition. The name of the country should point to the team's page, again as above. I think we should also explicitly standardise that the international statistics should be listed in international play and NOT incorporated into the player's club career as I've seen quite a few recently. The Olympic medal template which has popped up all over should also be shifted into this section, especially since it really interferes with the other goodies we've got on the top of the pages.

Thoughts?

--Legalizeit 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally am a fan of using the full team names, not especially for the benefit of the NHL teams, but for junior and minor league teams. Both of those change so much in cities and in team name (example, Owen Sound Platers becoming Owen Sound Attack). Also if you mention the full name one then the next line just the city name, I don't think it looks any better than having the full name spelled out. I know there are others that agree with me on it, and some who don't, but I don't know how many people keep track of this talk page, so there might not be too many comments. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]] Croat Canuck [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * However, you could see the full name just by hovering your mouse over the link in most browsers, including IE, Firefox and Opera. What I'm proposing can be seen in many player pages already, I'd just like to see it made an official standard or guideline, at least in this project. What I'm suggesting looks like this (from Joe Sakic)

I just prefer that because I like to read it like that. In any case what I'm saying is everyone should wikify the first instance of the team and the league.

--Legalizeit 07:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I got some objections to the city name proposal. Minor/juniors/european hockey franchises are much more volatile than NHL teams. Binghamton has had 4 teams with 6 names playing in 3 leagues. That clarification shouldn't be hidden, especially if someone wants to print them out. Then there's Philadelphia with the Flyers/Phantoms relationship. ccwaters 15:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't thought of printouts. I'm think I'm in favour of the full names now. However the city name only is still the "standard" on the actual format page. Perhaps we should change this?


 * I agree it should be changed on the actual format page but I am still of the opinion it should be the full name. And from the number of comments on here it seems others thought that as well so not sure why it was changed? Djsasso 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And what about my proposal for listing international play? A good example of how it would work is in my recent edit to Darius Kasparaitis - two countries and all the major competitions in the list.

--Legalizeit 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm cool with everything else you else you proposed. Abbreviations of euro leagues is going to cause trouble though :) I've been there before. ccwaters 11:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's no further discussion on the int'l play format, I'm going to consider it consensus and change the page accordingly tomorrow. --Legalizeit 13:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise with player stats... if no objections I'll change it tomorrow.

--Legalizeit 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming Conflicts: What to put in the brackets
After a thorough discussion with Jerzy, he showed me the importance of having brevity in the brackets when name conflicts occur such as Scott Walker. I had been following the rule to put Scott Walker (hockey player), but he told me the problems with that, as its much too specific and extends beyond the bracket's purpose. What's inside the brackets should only be meant to distinguish the difference between people of the same name, so thus, Scott Walker (hockey) is the best to use. Now many of the hockey bio articles have (hockey player) as it stands now, including a few I made into (hockey player) a few days ago before I was convinced why it was the wrong way of doing things. I myself am going to chip away and try to standardize those articles into (hockey), and I wouldn't mind some help. If you would like to help me, let me know that you wish to help on my talk page so that I know I have some help. An advantage is that if you have editcountinitis, this is a great way to boost your edit count, just to add some incentive. Croat Canuck  03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

European league abbreviations
Suggestions for standard European league abbreviations in player stats:


 * SM-liiga - SM-l
 * Elitserien - Elit
 * Swiss Nationalliga A - SwissA for A division, SwissB for B division, Swiss1, etc.
 * Deutsche Eishockey-Liga - DEL
 * Czech Extraliga - CzEx
 * Slovak Extraliga - SvEx
 * British Elite Ice Hockey League - EIHL
 * Russian Hockey Super League - Rus

The main complication I can think of is that some leagues have several divisions with relegation/promotion systems which might differ, and there are different names for some of them, like the Swiss league or Suomi-sarja. While SM-liiga may be closed now at some point in the past some teams may have been in the 2nd division at some time and at another time in SM-liiga.

Also the Russian league has had some different names over the years from USSR to CIS to Russia, all of which I'm not too clear on. If the Russian also has multiple divisions the main page should be "Russian Pro Hockey League" or whatever the full name of it is, and not "Russian Hockey Super League" which would be only a division in the league. I don't have the knowledge of European hockey for all this, so for now I suggest "Rus" be the abbreviation for all the incarnations of the Soviet/Russian league. --Legalizeit 07:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sami Kapanen and KalPa are a good example of the Finnish league issues... ccwaters 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely the problem I was having in mind... But since we know the league division the team was in, it's no biggie. Mestis can easily become "Mes", Sarja can be "Sar" or "Srj", though I'd prefer something that signified its status as one division below SM-liiga, it isn't really a big deal since the article explains it and it's preferable to something like "Fin-2" or "Fin-3". It's only a potential problem when you go further back and don't know when the team was in a particular division. --Legalizeit 13:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Elitserien's abbreviations is and should be SEL - Swedish Elite League. --Krm500 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that the official abbreviation? --Legalizeit 07:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that SEL i the official abbreviation for Elitserien. According to the Swedish Ice Hockey Association's stats site they use the abbreviation Elit for Elitserien. Take a look at this page for example: Player page example. Also, a search for "SEL" on their web site doesn't give much. --claes 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I too have to go with SEL is that is what it is known as in English speaking countries. Elit is fine if this were a Swedish site. But for an English site the name of the league is the Swedish Elite League and as per Wikipedia the most commonly known by name is correct. As for the others based purely on the fact that the majority of pages on here use them. RSL for Russian Superleague, Swiss-A for the Nationalliga A, SM-l for the SM-liiga, CZE for the Czezh Extraliga, SLK for the Slovak. --Djsasso 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The updated suggestions for standard European league abbreviations in player stats:
 * SM-liiga - SM-l, lower divisions Fin-2, Fin-3, etc.
 * Elitserien - SEL, Swe-2 for HockeyAllsvenskan
 * Swiss Nationalliga A - Swiss-A for A division, Swiss-B for B division, Swiss-1, etc.
 * Deutsche Eishockey-Liga - DEL
 * Czech Extraliga - CZE
 * Slovak Extraliga - SLK
 * British Elite Ice Hockey League - EIHL
 * British Ice Hockey Superleague - UK?
 * Russian Super League - Rus or RSL?
 * Austrian Hockey League - AUS?
 * Croatian Ice Hockey Championship - CRO?
 * Danish Oddset Ligaen - DEN?
 * French Ligue Magnus - FRA?
 * Italian Serie A (hockey) - ITA?
 * Norweigan GET-ligaen - NOR?
 * Spanish Superliga Española de Hockey Hielo - LEH

--claes 08:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RSL. --Krm500 08:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I added some more leagues to the list. Fill in the blanks or change the uncertain abbreviations. --claes 09:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I like most of those and definitely RSL not RUS. I like BISH or ISH for the British Ice Hockey Superleague so as not to confuse it with the EIHL. --Djsasso 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that EIHL looks confusing. It sounds more like EIsHockey Liga (DEL) than Elite Ice Hockey League to me. --Bamsefar75 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I think you are a bit confused. There are two leagues, the EIHL and the BISH are different leagues. Other than perhaps Germany I don't know that the DEL is only known by the EisHockey Liga anywhere. Most places its known by its full name. Which is why its shortened to DEL. --Djsasso 05:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good except for AUS...should be AUT instead. AUS stands for Australia. Would prefer Nationalliga A be shortend - NLA - instead. HakanSükür 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the abbreviations should be at least three letters. There is too much confusion with other general stuff (such as the 2-letter ISO country codes as used in top-level domains). This would mean UK is not so good. Perhaps UKSL (or just IHSL?) for the 1996-2003 historical league in the UK. Does UKEL for the current UK league sound good too, perhaps? --Bamsefar75 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Swe-2 and so on are OK for second-level leagues but HockeyDB thinks otherwise for some reason and use Swe-1 for second level (and SEL for first/top level) in Sweden. Unless HockeyDB has a good reason for this, we should go with Xxx-2 since the 2 digit means "second level" here. --Bamsefar75 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems Swe-1 means first/top level before SEL/Elitserien, as on Börje Salming (played for Brynäs in the early 1970s), but is incorrectly used on Chris Marinucci, Lars Jonsson, 2004 NHL Entry Draft and Roman Vopat. There are some 20 articles (majority) using Swe-2 notation as suggested above, so we'll just need to correct those four. Salming's article should use Swe-1 though. --Bamsefar75 12:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and done --Bamsefar75 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems Swe-1 is in use also for recent seasons. For example, Libor Prochazka in 2005-06, Morten Green in 2003-04 + 2004-05 + 2006-07, etc. All of these means second level. I often see articles changing from Swe-2 to Swe-1 deviant from the suggested format above. How to deal with this? --Bamsefar75 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I think I mentioned before, I still like using SWE-2 as that is how I am used to seeing it, but being that hockeydb.com is out biggest reference I am not sure. Perhaps we just need to find another source I don't know. -Djsasso 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Goalie Stat Tables
What's the reasoning behind splitting regular season and playoff goalie stats into 2 tables? I'd imagine we could squeeze it all into one row if we didn't commit so much space to the season/team/league columns. I suspect this came about from copying the nhl.com stat format. ccwaters 15:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion (Using Antero Niittymaki):

Stats as of February 12, 2006.

I noticed we don't have Save Percentage which in my opinion is the most important goalie stat. I added that plus the related SA (Shots Against). On a related note: we might want to consider adding +/- to the skater stats. I also experimented with using the real estate in the totals rows to spell out the league. I figure that might quiet down any objection to the proposed abbreviations listed above. Any thoughts? I don't see any problems at 1024x798. 800x600 is bad but anything is bad at that resolution. ccwaters 19:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That really doesn't look good squished into 2 lines. We need to split it if we're going to include SA and SV% in there. Also plus minus can be quite a misleading stat unless properly interpreted with the team's performance so I personally don't like it. Also not all leagues track it so it may often be unavailable or difficult to find (hockeydb.com also doesn't show it and it's possibly the best stats source given its breath and general comprehensiveness). --Legalizeit 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Shots Against isn't needed. that's just the natural compliment to SV%. I just find trying to corelate between 2 seperate tables confusing, especially when non-playoff seasons are omitted in one. Feel free to experiment here: User_talk:Ccwaters/Sandbox ccwaters 17:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I use 1024x768 resolution, but usually have my browser in 800x600 size. The table makes the page scroll sideways now... All of my school computers still use 800x600. So unless you can make it fit in 800x600 then that's why it's split. I like adding sv%, I second your motion to add it. A high GAA can be forgiven/explained by a high sv%. BTW: I don't think the other league totals are needed, kinda cluttery.Hazelorb 21:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (Edit) Also what is the policy on ties/shootout losses/OTL/etc?


 * I can't see how anyone can work at 800x600. Sorry to hear that. Leave the T column in for historical purposes if that is what you are asking. Leagues treat the OTL/SOL stats differently, I not sure what to do there. ccwaters 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just meant how are we recording OTL/SOL? I wish all the leagues just made it the same in their stats. Even the AHL/NHL shows them differently! The AHL puts them into the losses column, but this is misleading because you still get a point for them. The NHL just does not put them anywhere. We should come up with some kind of system. Anything we come up with has to be better than those two systems. How do we record OTL currently? The NHL has had OTL for a long time... Hazelorb 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, and this is just my opinion, but they should have it structured so that shootout losses are considered the same as ties (to keep some consistency in historical statistics) and have overtime losses just as ordinary losses like they always have had. You know what, I might write The Hockey News about it, perhaps I should... Eh, maybe later. As it is now though, it is quite confusing and inconsistent. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]] Croat Canuck [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] 03:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the stat table headers are centered... I use Internet Explorer (yea, lame, I know...). Hazelorb 19:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the way those tables appear on the pages (my opinion). The names get squished and the columns distort. I'd rather they look like the back of a hockey card...they are more box like and much easier to read. League stats should be separated. AHL in it's own table.. juniors, Europe.... etc... instead of being clumped into one giant compilation. People researching certain league stats would probably benefit as well since the only totals most of the standard tables provide are the NHL final totals.-Rainman71 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Goalie stats revisited
Sample, using stats from Miikka Kiprusoff. The idea of having regular season and playoffs stats together is a good one and makes more sense, even if we can't fit in SA and SV%. Any consensus on making this the standard?

--Legalizeit 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I started working on a stats table for Nikolai Khabibulin, and when I went to the Patrick Roy page to grab the stats table there as a template, I didn't like how the regular season and playoff stats were separated. I preferred the look of the skater stats, with regular season and playoff stats all on one line. So I just created the table without using a template (can be seen here), and then I came over to the WikiProject Ice Hockey to make the recommendation that all goalie stats be that way. Now see there's been discussion on it, but why was no consensus reached? The Player pages format page still shows the separated stats, and it appears that most editors want them combined. I don't know if we need more discussion, a vote, or whatever, but this issue appears to have been brought up, but never closed. Can we reach a consensus so this issue can be put to rest? Also, I notice that the second table seen here has removed the "Ties" column from the playoff stats, which is the same thing I did when making the Khabibulin table. I don't know of any league where ties exist in the playoffs, so I don't see any point in having them. --Muéro 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I encountered another problem when working on Khabibulin's stats: ties and overtime losses. TSN.ca and HockeyDB.com incorrectly list overtime losses in the ties column, and add them up with the ties in the total, which obviously is not accurate. NHL.com does not list the overtime losses anywhere, which leaves quite a few games unaccounted for in goaltender's stats. Prior to 2005-06, overtime losses were included in the "losses" column of goaltender's statistics, even though the team got a point, so changing the policy now that ties no longer exist, as Hazelorb suggested, does not make sense. I see no reason why overtime losses should not be included in the losses column, just like before 2005-06. --Muéro 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions
See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey) - Should Naming conventions (hockey) become a naming conventions guideline? --Francis Schonken 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Player Infobox Template Suggestion
Greetings, I've been editing quite a few of the NHL player articles to bring them up to the said standard. However, in looking over the many players who aren't on the "plyers needed to be formatted" or however its dubbed, Tie Domi for example, gives a brief spiel of his hegiht, weight, is he left or right shot etc... might I propose, that in addition to the specs already laid out to create an NHL player article, we design a template info box quick facts with picture.. any thoughts? Boort 09:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Template:Infobox ice hockey player. Jaskaramdeep 16:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Billy Boucher example article
Billy Boucher is listed at the top of this page as an example of a good article for a player that was a bit less notable (whereas Gretsky was very notable). Unfortunately, most of the Boucher article appears to have been copied from the Hockey Hall of Fame "Legends of Hockey" site. It's now a candidate for deletion. I've started a new stub to replace the old article, but it needs to be fleshed out, OR a different example of a good article needs to be put on this page. I'll also mention this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey ColtsScore 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Finnish hockey team names
A note on Finnish ice hockey team names: Finnish teams don't generally use the location-name format that North American teams do; since hockeydb.com apparently has hardwired two-word names for teams they've come up with names like TPS Turku and Jokerit Helsinki to fit their format. These names are technically incorrect; most blatantly in cases like TPS Turku, where TPS stands for "Turun Palloseura" (roughly Turku Ball Club), so TPS Turku is like saying Toronto Toronto Maple Leafs. I run into this a lot on Wikipedia, and I wanted to drop a note here that I think Wikipedia articles should conform to this. The one-word names of the teams are all listed in the SM-liiga article. Elrith 16:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's how the SM-liiga refers to its own teams, it only makes sense to do so here. Ravenswing 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I probably inadvertently propagated some of these issues myself. I was wondering why we had the inconsistency.  I'll fix what I see over time.  -- JamesTeterenko 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec... in TPS (ice hockey) it states, "Today, the full name of the club that owns the ice hockey team is HC TPS Turku Oy." The team name does include "TPS Turku".  Is that correct?  -- JamesTeterenko 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the TPS website it is.  Ravenswing 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, the team itself uses the combination, which means that it is not as incorrect as indicated by Elrith. If the we want to use a standard shortform of "TPS", that is fine with me.  I just want to make sure we are doing so with our eyes open.  -- JamesTeterenko 17:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the Wikipedia article is actually incorrect. The name of the company that owns the team is HC TPS Turku Oy; the name of the hockey team is TPS. The team is always referred to as TPS, by the league and by the official website which I'm afraid you've misquoted. The sections referring to HC TPS Turku Oy are the ones dealing with the company that owns the team; the "Oy" in the name is short for OSakeyhtiö, meaning corporation. The team is most definitely called TPS. I can't imagine why they wanted to name their company TPS Turku, since, as I've said, the name is senseless because it repeats the name of the city. Elrith 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Finnish proper names
I've now created a policy proposal for Finnish proper names at Naming conventions (Finnish). Please comment on it! Elrith 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics
I thought a lot about the diacritics issue we had in January. I came to a following conclussion: I think there is a big difference between Europe and USA. In Europe the name of the person is what is written in birth registry. So we cannot accept that Jaromir Jagr without diacritics is actually a name. It is how he writes his name in american environment but it is not his name. In US tradition name of the person is how this person calls himself. So your former president can be called Bill Clinton. Americans would mostly agree this is his name. Europeans would say no this is just how he calls himself. That is why there is a problem with Czech ice hockey players in the USA but not with Czech footballers in England. Check Petr Čech.--Jan.Smolik 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No one denies the concept that foreign languages have different rules for how spelling and orthography are rendered from the English language. What I question is the presumption that only Americans fail to use diacriticals.  For instance, since you raise the subject, kindly show us where on the Chelsea FC website Petr Cech's name is rendered with diacriticals? Ravenswing 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that by European understanding of things you cannot have something as most common English name of person. Either it is name of person or not. Petr Cech is not his name. It is written as such for simplicity reasons. But it is rather a nickname. I am not pushing diacritics into american ice hockey articles. I am just trying to find out why our oppinions are so different. So use Jaromir Jagr if you want to, but do not call it as his most common name. This is most common way how people write his name once they do not have í and á on they keyboard. BTW.: If I were you I would not use argument: "we do it this way". Many people see this as a very offensive thing and ... uhm ... very American. I lived in the US for long enough to learn to like the country, but this is why so many people in Europe, Asia and probably everywhere else do not like Americans. --Jan.Smolik 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And we English-speakers, Britons, Canadiens and Americans alike, share a certain trait: we find it very offensive when outsiders tell us what rules our language are and are not allowed to use.  Throughout this painfully long debate, your side has tacitly pushed the notion that there is a "European" style of English (hitherto unknown to linguistics experts) which uses diacriticals.  Unfortunately, you've as yet failed to provide any English or Irish sources for the same.  There is no national variant of English in which diacriticals are used, and that is the point: this is the English Wikipedia, and should follow the standard rules of English.  Ravenswing 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it so funny that "diacritic supporters" (for a lack of a better term) have yet to show any sources for their arguments. There is a signed Naslund sweater for sale in my hometown and the funny thing is, there are no diacritics used in his name in his own signature. Masterhatch 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will say my views again. If a player has diacritics in his name, they should be somewhere in the article. Looking at other pages on Wikipedia, I think that it should just go at the start of the article. Give a player's full, proper name, and after that, just use their conventional (read NHL/N. American) name. That way, it provides the players legal name, which in an encyclopedia should be there, and his common name, which is also important. Kaiser matias 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that appropriate diacriticals are acceptable in the player article alone. I do not believe that they're acceptable in other articles referencing the player.  Ravenswing 04:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ravenswing, I totally agree with you. And Kaiser matias, you just reiterated what I have been saying all along. Use the most common spelling in English for the article title and show the native spelling in full on the first line. Beyond that, revert back to the most common spellig in English. Masterhatch 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, do the European Wikipedias (ie. Finnish, Swedish, Czech etc) have the diacritics removed from Anglophone names? GoodDay 21:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :I know the French Wikipedia doesn't add diacritcs to Anglophone names. GoodDay 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I don't understand, do you think swedish and finnish wikipedia adds diacritics or change the spelling of english names? --Krm500 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Team Captains & 2004-05
As the Consensus is to list NHL captains 'by players' (not 'by seasons). I've decided to add 2004-05 to NHL captains lists (as the world & NHL teams existed during that time). EXAMPLE: Team captaincies (before change in 2005-06) status June 2004 to October 2005 - Steve Rucchin (Anaheim), Shawn McEachern (Atlanta), No captain (Buffalo), No captain (Carolina), No captain (Chicago), No captain (Minnesota), Scott Stevens (New Jersey), Alexei Yashin (NY Islanders), Mark Messier (NY Rangers) and Al MacInnis (St.Louis). All the above were their teams' captains during the 2004-05 LOCKOUT. They weren't stripped of the role OR replaced during 2004-05. Their captaincy ended when they were traded, signed away OR retired (in 2005). Again this goes with listing Captains by players NOT by seasons (by seasons would mean -remove 2004-05- as '04-'05 was never an NHL season). GoodDay 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This should have been on the WikiProject Team pages format page, my mistake (didn't know how to transfer it). GoodDay 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics in English language
The past discussion has followed more or less just only one point, the claim that there would not be diacritics in the English language, and therefore they shouldn't be used in the English language Wikipedia either, even in foreign names. This assumption is fundamentally wrong, see the article English words with diacritics for further information. As long as the English language does use diacritics in English words such as café, rosé, résumé (etc, etc) there is absolutely no ground for declaring diacritics non-English and banning the correct spelling of foreign names using them. As a last random note I do find the hate of some against diacritics even more amusing while practically all articles with the less common letters Ä, Ö, Ü and Å carry those in their names. -Mz55 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, there are documented influences from the Spanish, French, and German in American English (I speak from an American view, because that is what I know, feel free to expand this to other English variants). What isn't documented however, is documented uses of foreign letters (scandanavian Ös are separate letters, not accents like the German umlaut)/ marks in English publications of hockey players names. That is the current cultural convention. Is that wrong: who knows? Is it en.wiki's job to change cultural convention? No. en.wiki's is here to document culture, not definite it.. Damn this has been going on for over a year now... ccwaters 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "cultural convention" of the North American hockey journalists is not an authority of the English language by any means. Wikipedia then again provides information that is verifiable as correct, and there such personal names are a very easy matter. You don't need to like diacritics, I'm not trying to push that, but they do exist in the English language and even more so in foreign names. The factual spelling does not get changed by any random column of the Hockey News or any other source of sports entertainment, just as your name doesn't change if someone happens to write it wrong, be it intentional or not. Besides in all cases random reverts hurt the articles, as they were originally rather full of BOTH ways and even other spelling mistakes. -Mz55 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not just NA journalists. Its clubs, leagues, player's UNIONs and sanctioning bodies. How about the IIHF or IOC  ??? ccwaters 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are not responsible of any "cultural conventions" either. As said, accents are difficult for the North Americans, the symbols do not exist in keyboards and it's often technically the easiest way to simply leave them out. That does not mean that these spellings would be anything but wrong, even if understandable to the reader. Wikipedia is not a union of journalist nor a body for sanctions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore provides verifiable facts, not convenient mistakes. There is no technical limitation preventing the usage of diacritics in Wikipedia, and indeed in most articles they are used correctly (for the North American users there is even a list of them under this edit box). Ice hockey articles do not have any own naming conventions, the names of ice hockey players are not any specific linguistic case, and diacritics are a part of the English language. -Mz55 18:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "accents are difficult for the North Americans": That's just insulting, what do you base this assumption on? I think every one here is fully aware of the variants of the Latin alphabet and can utilize them as needed (UTF-8). And its NOT a North American thing: the IIHF is based in Switzerland and is Euro centric. Its policies are the will of it member national hockey associations. Surely the Swedish Ice Hockey Association, would have something to say about the IIHF's English publications if it objected? Ditto For the various international Olympic organizations in regards to the IOC. Anyway, I repeat myself: this has been going on forever.  My challenge from a over year ago still stands unanswered: Show a pattern of Finnish hockey publications spelling Czech players names in native Czech, and Czech hockey publications spelling Finnish players names in native Finnish AND I will concede. ccwaters 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Czech publication spelling Finnish names with the correct spelling : . Also look at the Category:Czech ice hockey players on Finnish WP. 83.192.184.220 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Those are not responsible of any "cultural conventions" either." I have no idea what this means. ccwaters 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It means, that NHLPA or Anaheim Ducks are not authorities for the spelling of foreign names in English language. Please provide the facts of the name Teemu Selanne being factually correct, and I will naturally admit being wrong, and even promise to help deleting all Gerhard Schröders and Joé Juneaus from Wikipedia. -Mz55 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When Gerhard Schröder begins his NHL career and at some point in the future is best known as an NHL player, I'll be happy to move his article. Geoffrey Spear 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do different naming conventions apply to sports persons as to politicians? The North American sports journalists are not enough of a source. -Mz55 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Err... The NHLPA is the will of the players. It exists solely to represent the players. Obviously its not an issue for them. I have referenced entities from every facet of the hockey world using "non-diatrics". I'll oblige and do it specifically ( http://philadelphiaflyers.com http://nhl.com, http://syracusecrunch.com, http://theahl.com , http://nhlpa.com, http://www.iihf.com http://torino2006.org http://tsn.ca ) You seem to think that there can be only one right. Can you except that there are differences in language. I'm not saying your spelling is wrong, I'm saying the usage I am defending is more common in the English language, and therefore should be used on en.wiki. I'm not sure what to do with [[Gerhard Schröder,as I haven't research the use of his name in English publications. ccwaters 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The NHLPA is just and only a union of workers. It does represent them, but is not an authority over their names. It is interesting to see how you (User:Ccwaters as well as the other equally brave warriors) do nothing to oppose the current reverts of the articles that were corrected to be written without diacritics or other similar issues, nor correct the reverted issues of the occasional mentioned diacritics. If I wouldn't know better I would suggest you are here only for picking a fight, despite knowing being wrong in the language issue (even if I wouldn't know better I naturally would assume this as only a random case of antipathy against the foreign elements, not general evilness). -Mz55 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ccwaters, the NHLPA does spell the players name in the correct form on the NHLPA PLAYER BIO. I looked a few players up and was satisfied when I saw that Holmström, Brière, Lidström etc were all spelled correctly. Now as you said, -"The NHLPA is the will of the players. It exists solely to represent the players." the player in the NHL with diacritics and the letters Ü, Å, Ä and Ö should from now on, always be spelled in their native form, since it is the will of the players. Case closed, goodnight! --Krm500 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, the http://nhlpa.com search engine gives zero results for "Lidström", while search on "Lidstrom" leads to a page of which the first words are "Nicklas Lidstrom". The accented version is only in the body of that bio article, not in its title. Similar for Tomas Holmstrom/Holmström, Daniel Briere/Brière etc. We're talking naming conventions here, that is the name of an article in Wikipedia: following NHLPA conventions would mean that the article name is without diacritics. Further, unlike what the NHLPA website seems capable of, in Wikipedia a redirect should be created from the version with alternative spelling. For the body of the Wikipedia article there are MoS recommendations that the "original" spelling of the name should at least be mentioned in the lead paragraph (compare first sentence of the Arnold Schoenberg article). Also there current Wikipedia guidance is not unlike the practice of the NHLPA website. --Francis Schonken 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess they don't use "Lidstrom" for the title for simplicity sake in their system/archives. That doesn't change that they use the correct spelling on the players bios. This is wikipedia, it doesn't matter if it is english, french or spanish, it is an encyclopedia and shouldn't ban diacritics for simplicity sake or because some user don't like them. --Krm500 14:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Diacritic, shouldn't be on the NHL team pages. Euro-players pages (no problem). The major sources for the 30 NHL team pages are the NHL team official websites (that don't use diacritics). Can we please, respect that. Thank you. GoodDay 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mm, I keep seeing "this isn't enough of a source" or "that isn't enough of a source" ... that is, of course, because the sources don't back up one side of this debate. Just out of curiosity, could the Euro-warriors come up with English-language sources to back up their POV?  Ravenswing 05:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NHLPA under player profile --Krm500 10:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the exact treatment we have been defending here: Native spellings in the byline. Everything else is "anglonized" (for lack of a better word). ccwaters
 * We don't change Pavel Bure to the english spelling Paul Bure so why should we remove diactrics? If we remove the diactrics then we should start renaming all the players pages to their literaly english spellings as well. --Djsasso 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't write Павел Буре, we put it into English letters. English doesn't have diacritics, although the French accent aigue has made some inroads (café, résumé, et al). --Walor 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

===Compromise for NHL Euro & French Canadian bio articles=== Currently the consensus is; KEEP title of such bio articles in English (no diacritics). In order to end continous fighting over this topice, I offer this compromise. When (and only when), a person retires from the NHL (no longer listed anywhere -present tense- on any NHL team articles), then that persons bio-article should be moved, to have title in diacritics (as that Euro or French Canadian individual, is no longer a member of the NHL). I (a pro-English editor), offer this compromise, in order to end (once & for all) the English Wikipedia NHL bio's debates. Consider it please. GoodDay 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Scratched out my compromise proposal; it's been already decided (by consensus), to keep Bio-articles of non-English persons (including NHL bios), with English titles & diacritics in content. GoodDay 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) :There's still alot, of NHL bio articles that haven't conformed to the Consensus. Some did conform, but were later rudely moved back to Diacritics. GoodDay 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is still on the table, I don't think it's a useful policy that the spelling of players' names will depend on the team they currently play for. The issue around how names are listed on NHL teams' official websites is a red herring. If Wikipedia policy/style/consensus is to allow diacritics, there are verifiable sources to find the correct spelling with diacritics. We aren't dependent on one source, and don't have to be consistent with it as long as we don't violate WP:V. The question is, should we have them or not. For better or worse, it's clear that Wikipedia is inconsistent on this issue. --Walor 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia (In my opinon), shouldn't have diacritics, but how do you police over 1,500,000 articles to keep diacritics away? Instead of fighting it out, why not give & take? creat a bi-partisan agreement? See Colorado Avalanche page's history, it's was protected for about week do to a Diacritic edit war. If we (all editors) don't compromise, soon more blocks/bans/protection of pages will occur. GoodDay 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If we can't say no diacritics, period (probably my preference in the English Wikipedia, but unlikely to be implemented barring an edict from above), then I think the only viable compromise is similar to the one for English spelling variations (e.g. U.K. vs U.S.)—either is acceptable and don't make edits to change from one to the other (except to be consistent within an article). Whoever plants the flag first calls it. Not a great solution, but I can't think of one I that is. --Walor 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC) ... Addendum: when I wrote that, I was only thinking of the names of articles, e.g. the article on Borje Salming is at Börje Salming. There's no way we should be using diacritics in every reference to him within the article (bad example here, because the only diactitic is in his first name). I think the policy should be no diacritics in names except in one parenthetical reference in the first line of a bio. --Walor 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) :::Due to lack of participation in voting (thus disapproval of my compromise) I've discontinued the vote. And I thought, once & for all the diacritical disputes might end. How naive of me. GoodDay 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC) ===Compromise to a vote=== Support. Naturally, it's my proposal. Main reason for support? Fatigue from endless Diacritical debates/disputes. GoodDay 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jaromir Jagr
The diacriticals dispute of this NHL bio article of a non-English person, was settled by compromise. Pro-diacritic editors & Pro-English diacritic editors, decided to end the dispute (at that article). Hopefully, this (Jagr) article will be a shinning example of cooperation. Hopefully, all NHL bio articles on English Wikipedia, will follow this example. GoodDay 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I give credit to Krm500, for this solution. Also see our talk pages, as we're both working out a solution for all NHL related Player bio pages. GoodDay 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Solution is simple
The solution is simple: use the most common spelling in English. If that includes diacritics, then fine. If it doesn't, then fine. I have been saying this all along and none of the pro-diacritic people have ever told me what is wrong with that. I have, for the most part, retired from wikipedia due the the large amount of biased found in articles and the overwhelming amount of politically correctness that actually waters down articles. It seems that a large number of wikipedians have their own agenda and are having trouble removing the own POV when writing and editting articles. This whole diacritic debate is a perfect example. wikipedia policy is clear that wikipedia is for "readers over editors" and "laymen over specialists" and that the most common and recognisable forms and spellings be used, not only for article titles, but in the main body as well. Honestly, there really shouldn't be a debate. It is actually quite black and white. If people would just remove their own personal POV and agenda and just follow wikipedia policy, this debate would be over and the most common and recognisable spellings in English (since this is the English section of wikipedia) would be used. People have used the argument "English spells it wrong!" No, it doesn't. English doesn't spell English wrong. People have also used the argument "English doesn't use diacritics!" well, yes it does. There are many words that use diacritics and many people whose name is most commonly written with diactics in English. Masterhatch 01:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is funny that no one has an answer to my simple solution. In fact, no one ever has. Not a single "pro-diacritic" wikipedia has ever told me what is wrong with this solution. This solution follows common sense, wikipedia policies, wikipedia guidelines, and OTHER ENGLISH ENCYCLOPAEDIAS. For every article in question, see what other encyclopaedias, reference books, Internet, and media are doing. If most of them use diacritics, then use them. If most are not, then don't. Please, I beg, someone tell me what is wrong with this solution. Masterhatch 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is never a "right" or a "wrong" in naming conventions. But I prefer Wikipedia to be as factually correct as possible, and that includes bio article titles having the actual name of the person, and not the name that a lot of people might use, if that name is incorrect. For example, Börje Salming's name is Börje Salming. With the "ö". It is factually incorrect to say his name is Borje Salming. It might be a spelling a lot of people use, but it is nevertheless incorrect. The same goes for most other persons with diacritics or special latin characters, with the exception for people that have "translations" of their name (such as regents or historical persons). – Elisson • T • C • 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you are saying that if the majority of reputable English publications do not use diacritics for Borje Salming, they are all wrong? That is an awfully bold and presumptuous accusation. Wikipedia is not here for original research and if the majority of reputable English publications spell it Borje Salming, not Börje Salming, then wikipedia should go against the grain? Sorry, but wikipedia is not for original research or going against the grain. We, as wikipedians, cannot say that the majority of English publications are wrong and we are right. That is not what wikipedia is all about, but that is exactly what you are saying. So, i don't buy it when you call for the "most accurate" form, considering wikipedia policy. Have a look here and re-read this "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." That doesn't sound like "most accurate" to me. There are examples all over wikipedia that use the most common spelling instead of the most accurate. Look at South Korea vs. Republic of Korea. While Republic of Korea is the most accurate, South Korea is the most common. Another example: United States vs. United States of America. Wikipedia is not about the most accurate, but rather the most common. So, try again and come up with a real reason we shouldn't use "the most common spelling for article titles". Masterhatch 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, a quick Google search gives more then twice results for Börje Salming then Borje Salming. --Krm500 21:21, 16 January: 2007 (UTC)
 * Try your google search again, except this time use English only and minus wikipedia. I bet you will get a much different result. I tried it and this is what i got 395 for Börje Salming and 20,200 for Borje Salming.  Just under 400 and just over 20,000 is a huge difference. Masterhatch 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the logic in your argument. How can it be original research to spell his name the way he actually is named? There are always sources for people's real and correct names. What a majority says is not always right. It was "commonly known" that Polish cavalry attacked German panzer units during the 1939 invasion. This "fact" has later been proven to be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the majority of books on the subject still has the incorrect "fact". If 90 books writes about "Borje Salming", and 10 books says that "his name is not Borje Salming, but Börje Salming", then I prefer to stick to the later books. The examples you give does not have anything to do with what we speak about here. There are several biographies that are at different titles than the person's real name, such as Bill Clinton, but what we speak of here, is diacritics and special characters. If the title of the article spells out the person's name as he was born, there is nothing that improves Wikipedia in removing such characters. The policy you cite supports this. "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize[...]". I do not believe English speakers would recognise Börje Salming less than they would recognise Borje Salming. Saying "your arguments aren't real arguments" is nice, too. – Elisson • T • C • 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I too fail to see the logic in your argument. If the majority of English publications are not using diacritics for a certain subject, it seems ludicrous to me that wikipedia should. You made refernce to out of date publications possibly being different from more modern publications. Well, if older publications didn't use ö but new ones are, then i would agree that we should use it in his name on wikipedia. But if older ones and newer ones are not, then, again, why should wikipedia be different? Masterhatch 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By 'Elisson' argument (ALL bio article titles, in native spelling), Saddam Hussein would be in Arabic (no English form), Hirohito in Japanese & Nelson Mandela in African. Yes, these are World Leaders NOT Hockey players, but Elisson did say ALL bio articles (no exceptions, for NHL players). GoodDay 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the only way to end this 'Diacritics' Schism, is to have a Arbitration Committee Ruling. GoodDay 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC):


 * Last input from me as well. This should not be discussed here but at the naming conventions page. You have not read what I've been saying. We speak about bio articles whose subjects' real, original names are written with the Latin alphabet (which includes English, Czech, Swedish, French-Canadian, Finnish, and many more. What do you mean with "African", by the way? Afrikaans, which uses the Latin alphabet?). Non-Latin alphabets follow different rules (transliteration) and I have not said a word about those. Regarding ArbCom, please quit it. ArbCom does not exist to create new guidelines or policies. They exist to enforce such rules. We are discussing in a pretty polite tone here and I see no need for them to "solve" anything, especially since RfAr is the last step of dispute resolution and we have not, and should not, take this to any of the earlier steps either, IMHO. – Elisson • T • C • 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Last input in this discussion for me. Saddam Hussein and Hirohito orgins from countries with a diffrent alphabet. Börje Salming is a citizen of Sweden, a country which use the latin alphabet as a foundation for its language, just like the english language. Hussein's name has to be translated but Salming's doesn't. --Krm500 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Last input, as I've said earlier, Arbitration Committee is the next step. GoodDay 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As others have said this has nothing to do with what the Arbitration Committee does. So it has no merit to say that is the next step. --Djsasso 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are the 'others' that say this has nothing to do with what the AC does? If (that's if), these Diacritic disputes were ended by an AC ruling, would you (as I would) respect that ruling (even if it's against 'Diacritics' on article titles) abide by that ruling? I would respect a ruling infavour of 'Diacritics' on article titles. Would you respect an AC ruling (no matter what that ruling was)? GoodDay 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment had nothing to do with whether I would agree with their ruling or not. I go with whatever the consensus is. My point was that the ArbCom does not decide this sort of matter. --Djsasso 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I said, I wouldn't post here anymore. But now the AC's authority in this matter (if this goes to the AC), is being questioned? What gives? GoodDay 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom doesn't resolve this kind of dispute is what I and earlier in this thread Elisson mentioned. ArbCom just resolves disputes on already existing policy. For example a couple users that are having an edit war over some detail on a page. They don't create new policy. --Djsasso 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Will a review by the Mediation Committee, make all disputing editors happy? GoodDay 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest this was a dead issue...most people had compromised to leave it be for article titles a long time ago and not have it in the article itself. It only came up again recently because you questioned it and yes I know you are not the only one who has an opinion which is why the whole debate fired up again. --Djsasso 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some NHL Euro article titles are in English, some are in Diacritics. If there's a compromise, it's not being respected (for example: Antero Nittymaki, Jarmoir Jagr). All I've been trying to do, is have ALL the NHL Euro articles titles in sync, why is that a bad thing? GoodDay 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad thing. It's just something that will never get settled. Just like the US vs UK spelling debate. Most of the articles in question have atleast a redirect of the opposite spelling just so a person searching either way can still find the article just as easily. --Djsasso 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Each Euro NHL bio article, will decide its own title (Diacritics or Non-Diacritics). This seems the only workable solution. May all editors respect the consensus of each Euro NHL bio article. I'd prefer the article titles be in sync, but it could be worse (the article titles & content could be in Klingon). GoodDay 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Should a future blow up, of a dispute in 'Diacritics' happen? The Mediation Committee, will be the correct route. GoodDay 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Diacriticals Guideline
I've removed the Use of diacritics and non-English characters guideline. The guideline's existance is contrary to this Project pages desire. That desire being 'to allow European NHL players pages decide for themselves, to use or not use diacriticals'. GoodDay 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics comment
Just a comment. Congratulations to all Wikipedians, who continue to respect 'No diacritics' on NHL team pages and 'Yes diacritics' on NHL player pages. Keep up the NPOV work. GoodDay 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Info below was removed from main page as discussion to adopt these has not reached consensus
Click here for discussion that is in progress on project's main talk page

Notability standards for ice hockey players
Ice hockey players shall be considered notable for purposes of WP:BIO and deletion policy if they fulfill one or more of the following and if they otherwise fulfill the requirements of WP:V:


 * Played one or more games in the National Hockey League, the Elitserien, the SM-liiga, the Russian Super League or other such top national professional league.
 * Played one or more games in a defunct league generally considered to have been a "major" professional league, such as the World Hockey Association, the National Hockey Association, the Czechoslovak Extraliga, the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and suchlike.
 * Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant, such as the 19th century Amateur Hockey Association or the Soviet League.
 * Played five or more seasons, and at least 100 games, in a fully professional minor league such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league.
 * Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, league or playoff MVP, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association or the Western Hockey League or in a major collegiate hockey league.
 * Played on a national Olympic team.
 * Are Honoured Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame.

I propose that the following be added to the criteria for notability: Bradn87 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Captain or Alternate captain of a official CHL francise (ie: QMJHL, OHL, or WHL)
 * Has played three or more seasons in the CHL.


 * Why? ccwaters 12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because they're notable. Captains and alternate captains receive ample media attention and are the face of the francise (and as of right now, QMJHL francises are still considered notable...knock on wood). Same stands for palyers who've been with the league three years. Because most players leave the league at 19 or 20, having started at the average age of 17, having played regularly in the league for three years is a notable accomplishment.Bradn87 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of the sheer number of captains that go through the major junior hockey leagues the fact that it is notable is lessened greatly. I personally know a number of former captains and alternate captains from the CHL and many of them have never gone on to be anything more than that. Playing major junior hockey is not all that notable considering when I went to highschool probably 1 out of 5 guys played. The Franchises themselves are notable because they are part of a major league, but that notability is not passed on to all the players. So to sum it up playing major-junior is not considered an acomplishment due to the sheer number of people who do manage to play it. Playing professionally is much more difficult. --Djsasso 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Being a captain or (especially) an assistant captain is not particularly notable on the professional level, let alone the amateur level. (Quick, without looking it up, how many current NHL assistant captains can you accurately name on teams for which you don't root?)  It takes an Yzerman, a Bourque, a Delvecchio or a Messier to make a captaincy something noteworthy ... or in the alternative, a genuine controversy about a captaincy, which would fit within an already notable article.    Ravenswing  15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Movements
I thought we were gonna 'discuss' or have a 'consensus vote' on player pages, before moving them (to diacritical or non-diacritical titles). Wasn't that the understanding? the gentlemens/ladies agreement? I've since 'moved back' Marian Gaborik and Peter Stastny to there original state, because of this reason. I'm a little disappointed with Darwinek 'page movement' methods (whick also include non-hockey articles), they seemed quite arbitrary in nature. GoodDay 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The way I understood the agreement was that player pages have diatrics with a non-diatric redirect. And that on team pages etc we don't use diacritics. --Djsasso 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was, each player page 'decided' for itself (via discussion/consensus). Your version, however sounds easier (hundreds of page movement discussions, is alot). Perhaps silence on all those pages, since Darwinek's changes (I had to break the silence) is a sorta 'silent majority'. As a result, I've no intentions to 'move back' anymore of his 'page movements'. GoodDay 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the part you are referring to was that we weren't going to set out and change existing pages, but I am not sure if that was about this diacritics or not, there has been so many format discussions lately. I believe we were just going to leave pages as is. However, if people do change them to diacritics its ok but if they change the other way its not cool. In order to avoid the fights that plague pages like Jaromir Jagr --Djsasso 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're correct, this isn't about 'diacritics'. I just felt Darwinek's moves were arbitrary in nature. If he had moved 'diacritical pages' to 'non-diacritical pages' with the same method, I'd still be upset. GoodDay 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jaromir Jagr and Marian Gaborik
For consistancy's sake: I feel the time has come, to move these pages (Jagr, Gaborik) to diacritics form. Yes, I was earlier opposed to this and Yes those pages have had 'consensus votes' to keep diacritic away. However, the concerned WikiProject pages (via agreement on diacritics usage) calls for these player pages to be diacriticized. These pages should conform (PS- leaving a note at here & here). GoodDay 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup they should. --Djsasso 01:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lea Hardy
Can someone help me out, with an new anon user. He/she is being innocently disruptive. Calling in an Administrator, may be too drastic. GoodDay 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is similar to Heatley and Regehr. Unless we can find a source that states that he has Swiss citizenship we stick with Canadian since we have a source for it. Besides, I think I remember that that Reto von Arx was the first Swiss player to score a goal in the NHL. That backs up the theory of Hardy only being born in Switzerland. Parents on vacation or maybe stationed there. --Krm500 16:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the nationality to Canadian. Thanks for finding a 'reliable source' (and ending a potential 'edit war'). GoodDay 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah we would list him as Canadian but as far as cats go per previous standard such as Robyn Regehr etc he has cats for both the place he was born and the nation he represents. --Djsasso 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Player page structure
According to the guidelines on WP:HOCKEY/PPF show that a place of birth should be given with the date of birth at the beginning of the article. However, WP:DATES states that locations should be given subsequently. Should the guidlines on this page be updated? -- JD554 07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To add - it seems perfectly sensible to me that it can be included as it isn't "entangled" -- JD554 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stat tables
Which looks better to use?

(From Jason Spezza)

or

(From Jaromir Jagr)

My changes that I prefer: Is Spezza's (my preferred version) better to use? --Hasek is the best 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Use "P" instead of "Pts"
 * Link heading stats
 * Use on dash instead of two
 * Use same color in same season (it's not showed in Spezza version though)
 * Personally I don't like any of those changes, well I suppose the two dashes doesn't make a big deal. But linking heading stats wouldn't be good because then you would have to link them all, it is an all or nothing thing and there really isn't any reason to link them. As far as the same colour for the years, the colours aren't to indicate years. They are to make it easier to read that line of stats. So that your eye can follow that line of stats across the screen easier. So for example if you had 3 teams in one year you would have a harder time going across the table reading the stats because all three rows were white. --Djsasso 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For heading linking I copy Spezza's heading then paste it on other NHL player articles with 50% width or no links. I do know it's easier reading with the rows, so how about this:

However the only problem is that when Spezza switched leagues we need links to the different league seasons or there'd be no point to the NHL seasons linked. I like the links for easy reference. Besides, if a non-hockey fan read a page they'd think "what does "G" mean?" Links are there for the article, Goal (ice hockey) so that is my excuse of keeping links. I'm off for the night btw. --Hasek is the best 03:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think you need a year listed for every line. There is no good reason not to do that. I do understand why you want to link. But for example. You have G, A, P, PIM linked....so the question automatically pops up well what is GP? (thats what I meant about linking them all. I didn't mean player pages) I don't really think non-hockey fans would really be an issue. That being said if you all feel that is an issue we should go back to having a small legend below the stats and have the words in that legend linked instead that way you can also write out fully Games Played since there is no article for it. --Djsasso 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)--Djsasso 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for using Pts instead of P? Am I forgetting some other hockey stat, or is it just done to separate it from the P in GP? Also, using two dashes looks more obvious than having just one, imho (it gets a bit small). Could also have some longer dash, but I guess there are standards for when using those. More importantly, I would like the European league abbreviations to be shortened in some standard fashion. That is however another topic (see above). --Bamsefar75 10:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason that I am aware of. I just assumed it was cause it was more obvious than just a P. --Djsasso 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I might know how to keep the aligning colors white to grey. We put the first season like any other then for the rest of the same seasons we push out the seasons to the right, something like this:

The way to do this is by using the | ALIGN="right" | before the season. --Hasek is the best 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with that, it doesn't look too bad. My only question is why the desire to change. The status quo seems to be working quite fine since it was finally implemented. Aweful lot of work going to change a few thousand pages to just indent some years. Lots of other more important things that could be done with that effort. I guess what I am getting at is what is the benefit we gain by this and is it worth changing everything. --Djsasso 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...And if this table is set I guess I'll work at it. I don't know about you but at least 80% of my edits will be devoted to stats. --Hasek is the best 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only reason I ask that is that a bunch of people would have to turn their sights onto the task because the idea behind this whole page is so that all hockey pages are consistant so we would need to go at it all at once to change them all fast. --Djsasso 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is going to be fun... --Hasek is the best 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(Re: Bamsefar75): How about somebody makes up an article on games in ice hockey then link it. It would be kinda strange since there's nothing really to talk about as it goes into the article of structure in the NHL. About the reason for using only one initial for Points, Pts just doesn't seem to look well and it breaks repetition (i.e. lower caps). Again, the one dash just seems better, it's just my opinion I guess.

Going off-topic, you know I was thinking: what if hockeydb's stats were templates we could paste onto edit screens? I know it's one of those "dream on" cases but it's be less aggrivating and tedious to paste the whole thing on, with the correct colors. --Hasek is the best 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually cut the stats from hockeydb.com and then paste into excel and then cut from excel and paste into a webpage that converts it into wiki format. I have my own personal template made in a text file that I just paste the wiki cells into and then copy and paste the colours....only takes me less than 2 minutes to do unless the player has played for a million teams. --Djsasso 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's so neat! I always had to do it manually; I was wasting my time especially spending a good 45 minutes on Randy Cunneyworth. Do you have the URL for the site? --Hasek is the best 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now be aware that you can't cut directly from hockeydb and paste into this website. You have to paste it into excel in one big chunk. Then you highlight the whole chunk and paste it into this webpage. It is not as pretty as doing it by hand as it will put each years stats on one line. (The visual on the page however is still exactly the same). Anyways the page is. http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~sdouglas/table.cgi. --Djsasso 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I should warn you the header and footer will be wrong in what is presented to you. I just cut the year stats and paste them into the middle of my template that has the proper header. And the totals you will have to adjust slightly to be like our template. But all in all its alot faster than what you have been doing. --Djsasso 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to install excel though right now. --Hasek is the best 01:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find the cd so my dad will have to bring the only copy back to me tomorrow. --Hasek is the best 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why use P instead of Pts? I think Pts is a much better abbreviation for points, and it's certainly more widely used. --Krm500 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry guys, since I didn't know there is a machine for stats, I wouldn't have gone on ranting like before. For convienence only, stick to the standard but still put in NHL seasons if you can. If you don't, somebody else will do it sooner or later. This also goes for the "Pts". Stick with this, I'll use links for the header if you guys don't want to do it. Again, the links are for handy reference. Oh yeah, I haven't tried the machine yet, I will soon. --Hasek is the best 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks big time Djsasso, now I can do tables without them seeming like a chore. Btw I'll keep the Pts as it is, but I'll still link them. --Hasek is the best 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ducks
A few days ago I saw someone changing Mighty Ducks of Anaheim to Anaheim Ducks in a stats table. The player played for the Ducks during the 90's. Even though the team changed it's name last season the player never played for the Anaheim Ducks. He played for the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. I reverted the edit and that was correct, right? Just want to sure what the guidelines are. --Krm500 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it should be the name of the team the player played for. --Djsasso 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In a way it's tough to decide but it does make sense to put the old name. Besides, at least it links to the new name. I was responsible for doing this to a couple but now I understand. --Hasek is the best 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Trades/transactions
What's the policy regarding all the trades and transactions a player has gone through? Is a separate section necessary? They seem to be applied inconsistently. For example, Grant Fuhr has one but Kimmo Timonen doesn't. Schmloof (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have a policy on them really, ideally they would be incorporated into the prose of the Playing Career section. -Djsasso (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't want all details of trades and signings in the playing career section. We have a transactions section on teams and leagues so as long as you use it appropriately (it's a list so it goes after the prose sections) it's a useful addition. Alaney2k (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Trades would belong in the playing career section as that is where you would describe that they have switched teams, that is actually the exact type of thing you want to see in the playing career sections. Every single demotion and promotion to/from the minors is different and I don't think needs to be mentioned on a player page at all. -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The prose is better without the complete details. E.g. exact dates. Those are better in a list format. I agree that demotions aren't important. When a player changes teams as a free agent, that's the sort of thing for Transactions. It becomes tedious reading to recount details of trades, etc. in a playing career section. I'd rather focus it on details of the playing, not the changing of teams. "Player X had his best season with the Team Y in the 1992–93 seaons with 45 goals and 90 points." For the trades, mention them in a writing format, not a recitation. E.g. "After being traded to Phoenix in 2008, Jokinen had his best offensive season with the Coyotes, scoring 90 goals." For historical players, its easier to provide cites for the transactions as a whole. So you can just list Source: below the list. Alaney2k (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is pretty much what I meant by include the trades in the playing career section. "After being traded to Phoenix along with Joe Smith, Jokinen had his best offensive ..." I didn't really mean the nitty gritty details, thats best left for team season pages etc. -Djsasso (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Transaction Guideline
I've added a proposed guideline for player page sections. I think it is a normal part of an encyclopedic-type article and it should be optional, and used only where it makes sense. Alaney2k (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really against having this sort of section, but I feel things like transactions should just be incorporated into the prose of the playing career as that is what the transactions affect. What is going to happen if we have an actual standard in place for these sections is that we will just get a list of transactions which isn't really the way it should be handled as most of that information isn't relevant to the actual player's bio and is more relevant to the team's season page. (ie who he was traded for). -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like usual you disagree with me. I'll just abbreviate that in mobile-speak as LUUD from now on. Does that work. :-) Seriously though, I've noticed that a large amount of articles just regurgitate the transactions instead of talking about the playing career. I'd rather that be discouraged, and I hope that a simple list section at the end with some guidelines would make for better prose. Alaney2k (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know people don't always have to agree with you. It's just I have been through this discussion a few times is all. I am not sure what you mean when you say regurgitate the transactions. Because thats what I think when I think of a list at the bottom of the page. And as I noted above I am not against a section like you are proprosing. I am just saying I would prefer sentences describing it in the prose instead of a list. -Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the best prose includes all aspects of someone's career, at least all major aspects. Trades are essential information, as they are the link between prose paragraphs. If you're talking about player-x and his career with team-x and then start talking about his career with team-y, the prose becomes choppy and confusing to the reader. I have some bias here, but it seemed to work fine when I wrote Eric Brewer (ice hockey) by incorporating transactions into both the prose as well as a list, and I really like how it turned out. I think something like what's there works fine; you get a little list at the end of the prose if someone doesn't want to read through the article to find when, where, and whom he was traded with; however, if you do want to read the prose, you won't have to stop and look at the bottom of the page to see how he got from Team-A to Team-B. In a nutshell, I think it's important to have both, same sort of deal with the awards section. – Nurmsook!  talk...  17:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The one thing I think everyone can probably agree on is that transactions should only include trades. -Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say trades, free agent signings, and waiver pickups. Really should show how he wound up at each team he wound up on. – Nurmsook!  talk...  18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I meant. I meant that we shouldn't include call ups and send downs etc. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-signings and dollar figures. Re-signings are routine and should be omitted. It's kind of implied in what Nurmsook said above. I put that in the proposal. While it may be reported that a player has signed for X dollars, I am undecided in the value of including the dollar figure. The dollar figure might be a new record. It seems to be too much, unless it is a record. I've not put in a sentence, but maybe we should. Alaney2k (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In rereading what you have again, I might suggest removing the retired on info as thats not really a transaction and will more than likely be covered well in the prose above. -Djsasso (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we using Scott Walker as the example? He's not retired & is currently playing with the Hurricanes. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but I'd preffer if all list (awards, records, transactions, etc) came after/under the stats section. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Player measurements
Now pardon me if I am suggesting this in the wrong place, but shouldn't the measurement system used in a players country of origin be favoured in said players article? As in American players getting their height and weight done in imperial first with metric in brackets, with the reverse being the case for a Russian or Swedish player. The way it seems to be right now, with imperial measurements favoured over metric in all articles about ice hockey players, regardless of the nationality of the player in question, is strange. This is of particular importance as this is something that differs even between English speaking nations. 81.231.145.180 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is something that would have to be standard, one way or the other for all articles. And even in lots of countries that do use metric as the main standard, they tend to talk about height and weight of players in imperial. Canada is a good example of this, we do not use imperial but when talking height and weight of hockey players we do. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, this does remain the English Wikipedia, and the system used by the preponderance of readers of the particular articles should apply. If Canada used metric measurements when discussing hockey players, if the UK and India cared enough about hockey, matters would be different.    Ravenswing  18:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghost town
Wowsers, this sub-branch of WP:HOCKEY seems to have been abandoned. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Goaltender stats tables
I was going to updated a couple of goaltenders whose teams were knocked out of the playoff and was going to make sure the format for the table was correct and then found out there isn't one. I saw further down in the thread that there was talk about making a standard but did anything come from it? Are we looking to keep it like the skaters format or different like Roberto Luongo or Tim Thomas who both have 2 seperate tables for regular season then playoffs? Any ideas? ♣ B2project ♣ (Talk) 06:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of AHL teams in Played For parameter in infobox
Is there a guideline anywhere for when to include a player's time with an AHL team in their infobox? I don't see anything under general player article guidelines. Earlier today I removed Doug Jarvis's 24 games with Binghamton from his infobox, as it was the tail end of his career, and to me insignificant to an understanding of someone who predominantly played in the NHL. A career AHL'er, I could see inclusion. For future reference, what's the dividing line on this? Echoedmyron (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know that there is one, or that it should be restricted to the AHL if there was.   Ravenswing   21:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are discussions in the archives of the wikiproject if you want to search on the topic. We used to restrict it to the "top" league they ever played in, then we changed it to be the top leagues in any of the hockey pyramids around the world (NHL, KHL, SEL, etc.) . I can't remember if we eventually went to every team for retired players but for some reason I feel like we did as long as the leagues were labelled. I personally wouldn't put AHL teams in if they had played in the NHL but I can't remember if we ever codified something different. -DJSasso (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)