Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport/Ice hockey task force/Archives/2022/August

Foci, 2020
The amount of work needed to improve the 15,625 women’s ice hockey articles currently on Wikipedia is daunting and there are many, many articles that still need to be created. In the year or so that I’ve been active in the task force, two principal areas where our goals as a task force could be clarified have stood out: relative importance and breadth versus depth. Regarding relative importance, are there people involved in women’s ice hockey or specific teams and leagues that are “higher priorities” for page improvement than others? For example, are Olympic medalist bios a higher priority than World Championship medalists’ or are they of equal significance? Is the NWHL a higher priority than the ZhHL? Where do the SDHL or Kazakh Championship League rank? Should we, as English-language editors, give greater attention to English-speaking players and leagues or should the calibre of play determine ranking? These questions would be more easily answered if women’s ice hockey had been included in the ice hockey notability guidelines but, for now, drafting informal guidelines within the task force would be most helpful for identifying our collective goals. Regarding breadth versus depth, should we focus on creating new articles (broadly covering many subjects) or expanding existing articles and raising their article assessments (improving depth of content)? In a perfect world we would do both equally but, as we appear to be a group of fewer-than-ten active editors, that’s simply not feasible. Both article creation and expansion will continue regardless but I am interested to hear where other members feel our energy would be best spent. Spitzmauskc (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * From what I've noticed, there are a lot of articles that haven't been updated since 2018 (I'm guessing there was an uptick in activity due to the Olympics?), even on high-profile articles (see, for instance, those from Category:Professional_Women's_Hockey_Players_Association_players) and who have structures that tend to be all over the place. There's also a lot of articles (esp. non-North American players) that are exceptionally short (ex: Sabina Küller). And maybe even more so than player articles, there's also a ton of non-player articles (teams, leagues, seasons, coaches, staff, etc...) that either just don't exist or are also really short (even for high-profile leagues like the SDHL) NHCLS (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In terms of informal notability guidelines, I'm always a little wary of notability guidelines because I don't like them being used to delete content, which not only makes Wikipedia's coverage less comprehensive but also tends to target things like women's hockey disproportionately (since wider society tends not to consider women's sport worthy of anything, really). But if we wanted to have some informal guidelines to help determine where there are gaps in articles that need to be created, I'm all for it. Basing myself off the men's ice hockey notability guidelines, maybe something like this? NHCLS (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Having been named to an Olympic, top-level senior World Championships, or 4 Nations Cup roster
 * 2) Having played at least 3-4 seasons in top professional leagues (CWHL, NWHL, SDHL, ZHL, Naisten Liiga, EWHL, maybe?)
 * 3) Having significant overall achievements in a reasonably high-level senior or university league or internationally
 * 4) Having made a significant achievement in the history of women's hockey (ex: being the first player to ____)
 * I like these four categories for notability. Given the ongoing discussion happening in the NHOCKEY space, we'll have to fight for 2-4, and back up with sources. PMCH2 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In terms of recruiting new people to the project, since there's a very small number of us and a lot of stuff to do, I think that could be an important task. I think we'd have to both target people who've been contributing to women's hockey-related pages recently and invite them to join the task force, and also maybe reaching out to similar task forces (ex: Ice Hockey or Women in Red or Women's Sports) to see if there's anyone who hasn't previously contributed to women's hockey coverage, but would be interested in giving it a shot. Does anyone have any other suggestions? NHCLS (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It would also be cool if the WikiProject Women's sport/Ice hockey task force/Resources tab of the task force could be expanded, if anyone knows of more reliable sources to find references from NHCLS (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Some outreach suggestions Once you've got some plans in place, you might consider creating a monthly or quarterly newsletter to engage editors that is distributed to their talk pages with a targeted list of tasks. Here's an example created for women's football / soccer (WOSO) that was distributed to the talk pages of all members of the task force:


 * July 2019 example

To foster positivity and collaboration, barnstars and awards editors feel engaged and appreciated. In my experience, women's sports article editors often run into a lot of obstacles from a handful of male editors within each sports project. The more eyes on proposed deletions and notability discussions in general, the better result.

Here are a few examples of barnstars created for WOSO and there are a few generic ones on the Templates page in this task force:


 * Barnstar examples

For outreach, recruit more members by posting WHOCKEY-invite on the talk page of users who may want to join. That will produce:

Hmlarson (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Your caution about notability guidelines is well heeded, we definitely don’t want to encourage article deletion. For this task force, I see no compelling reason to adopt anything beyond the basic WP:GNG for notability. That said, informal guidelines will help determine which subjects have highest priority in page creation and expansion, so your guidelines are really excellent. Working from your guidelines and WP:NHOCKEY, how do these prioritization guidelines for players feel? – Spitzmauskc (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or all-time top-10 goaltender wins or First Team All-Star or preeminent league award) in the CWHL, NWHL, SDHL, ZhHL, Naisten Liiga, or EWHL;
 * 2) Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or First Team All-Star or preeminent league award) in the DFEL, FFHG Féminin Élite, SWHL A, Japanese Women's Ice Hockey League (ja:国際アイスホッケー連盟; English page needs to be created), or Czech Women's Extraliga (cs:Extraliga ženského hokeje; English page needs to be created);
 * 3) Achieved preeminent honors (league all-time top-10 career scorer or First or Second Team All-American) in the women's play versions of NCAA DI (College Hockey America, ECAC Hockey, Hockey East, New England Women's Hockey Alliance, or Western Collegiate Hockey Association) or other reasonably high-lever university/collegiate league;
 * 4) Played on a senior national team for the World Championship or Olympic Games, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year
 * 5) Significant achievement in the history of women's hockey (ex: being the first player to ____)


 * Considering that NWHL and CWHL seasons have both been in the 20 (or less) game range, and SDHL and ZHL seasons have been in the 30+ game range, I think it would make more sense to have different games played prioritisation guidelines - as far as I can tell from Elite Prospects, there's only been one player to have ever played 200 CWHL games, whereas there's been 61 SDHL players NHCLS (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Many discussions have been held for notability of Women's hockey players. And much research has gone into it. As it currently stands and consensus on the topic has generally been for Women's hockey you have to either have played in the Olympics or World Championships to meet NHOCKEY. There are obviously some women's hockey players who meet notability through just simply meeting the GNG. But extensive research went into leagues and coverage of players in those leagues and unfortunately other than the Olympics/WC we could not find any ideas for new criteria that would meet the GNG with a 99.999% likelihood which is the requirement that new additions to any of the NSPORTS criteria must meet. I mention this because above in this discussion Spitzmauskc says that women are not included in NHOCKEY, but they are, consensus arrived at the conclusion that enough coverage only existed for women through #6 of NHOCKEY and that there simply wasn't enough coverage to do league based criteria for women's hockey as coverage was very hard to come by for all but the very top players in women's leagues and even then a number of the MVPs and scoring leaders of the CWHL couldn't even meet GNG which was saying something since it was probably the most covered league in the world other than maybe the NWHL. -DJSasso (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background on how the notability guidelines were determined, the perspective is helpful. In the context of this task force, NHOCKEY was used as a blueprint for article prioritization guidelines only and we have collectively opted to use GNG as our principal notability guidelines. Spitzmauskc (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)