Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Archives
2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14

Ottawa Senators founding date

A question has been raised on the talk page of the National Hockey League article regarding the founding date of the Ottawa Senators. Any opinions and feedback others have is appreciated. Resolute 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The club existed from 1883 as the Ottawa Hockey Club (Ottawa Hockey Association). They played against the Montreal AAA and Victorias and Shamrocks in a tournament in Montreal. In 1901, before the 1902 season they became the Ottawa Senators Hockey Club (Ottawa Hockey Association). They eventually became an NHL club. In 1934-35, the Association operated an Ottawa Senators amateur senior team, and operated the St. Louis Eagles in the NHL. After the season, the NHL bought out the players and took back its franchise, with the promise that proceeds from any future sale of the franchise would go back to the Association. The amateur senior hockey team continued play, although it did change ownership, until 1955. In 1989, Mr. Firestone started a campaign to 'Bring Back the Senators', with the family of a previous owner as part of the campaign and with a former player as part of the campaign. It was successful in persuading the NHL to sell him the franchise. There is no information about the promise being kept or whether it was a real promise, etc. On opening night, the NHL president of the time presented the club with a 'certificate of reinstatement'. Since that time, the NHL record books list the founding as 1991, the date of the franchise purchase becoming 'unconditional', but don't mention the reinstatement certificate. Several wikipedians are definitely opposed to the idea that the clubs are linked, while others believe the reinstatement ties the two together. I believe that we should recognize the earliest founding date, not the NHL founding date, otherwise the Canadiens would become founded in 1917, the Canucks in 1970, the Maple Leafs in 1927, which disregards their 'other' history. Alaney2k 13:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Leafs would still be 1917. A simple name change is not the same as a new franchise. Otherwise, you'll be adjusting Anaheim to 2006. Resolute 14:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was more than a name change in 1927. The 1917 club was a temporary franchise, no nickname, nothing, operated by the arena owners, using the NHA Blue Shirts players, all sanctioned by the NHL. They applied for a permanent franchise in 1918, and formed the Arena Hockey Club then so they could dodge a Livingstone lawsuit. When he succeeded, they put the arena into bankruptcy to avoid paying. The St. Pat's group, though, paid the NHL, not the Arena Company, to join the NHL. That might be a more accurate founding date, though the Toronto NHL franchise started in 1917. And if you were to follow that logic, the first date of the Ottawa NHL franchise would be 1917 also, suspended in 1935, reinstated in 1991. Alaney2k 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's two Ottawa Senators franchises. GoodDay 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say instead that there are two clubs/organizations which have played using the Ottawa NHL franchise. If you look beyond just the NHL, in a historical fashion, at the whole Senators history, the founding is 1884. Why is that so difficult for people to accept? Alaney2k 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably the part where two separate franchises are being treated as one. Its akin to the Edmonton Oil Kings scenario I mentioned yesterday. In this case, three franchises with the same name. If we treat them as one, then you have a problem where two are playing concurrently - the new Oil Kings, and the Portland Winterhawks. Sharing a name, and PR tie-ins =/= the same franchise. Resolute 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, the campaign was to 'Bring Back the Senators'. The campaign listed the Cups, etc. A 1927 Senator was part of the campaign. A descendent of a previous owner was part of it, as well. It was the intention all along! That is why the certificate was given, because it mattered to the ownership of Ottawa and the people of Ottawa. In the absence of a statement saying that Mr. Stein erred, it has to stand. Alaney2k 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

'Bring back the Senators' was a PR move, it didn't retroactively declare - that a franchise was suspended for nearly 60 years. If we follow your reasoning (and the NHL's attempt to re-write history), the two Senators articles would have to be 'merged'. GoodDay 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be 'heresy' to have a merged article? Why would I be against that? Is THAT what's it about? Can you explain your personal opposition to such an idea? There are practical advantages to having a merged article. Currently, there are three Ottawa Senators team articles, two sets of seasons. We just change the Ottawa Senators (original) to a redirect. There already is a 'History of' article that covers the issue. If this whole issue is debatable, then maybe we should frame the debate within a merged article. Alaney2k 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging the 'Ottawa Senators' articles would be a wrong move. Those are different franchises. GoodDay 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The NHL reinstated it publicly. You know that. Maybe it has to be repeated. As I've said before, if they give out a certificate, and they haven't taken it back, it counts. Opinions are opinions, but there were witnesses. The president of the league made the presentation. As I've also said before, you can make an indisputable case that they are different clubs. A club can travel from league-to-league, as the Canucks or Canadiens, or original Sens have done, but these clubs had franchises in separate leagues. Now, what I've said over and over and over is that the two Ottawa clubs are linked, and the linkage is more than the certificate, it's the Gormans, it's the name, the colours, the streets around the arena, the development plan, the 1894 shoulder-patch logo, the new 'O' logo on the new jerseys. The intent from the beginning was to revive the Sens. A lot of people think that was just PR, but its not, it was a deliberate decision by Firestone. The people of Ottawa are proud of the Sens history but they would have accepted another name. Let's examine the PR argument. Do you think the Sens name helped the NHL to draw fans? Do you think it helped draw fans to the Ottawa arena? No, the intent was to revive the name. Even the mini-city plans promoted the 'revival' of the Sens. Now, look at Cleveland. The assets, the players and staff went to Baltimore. The NFL decided deliberately to say that the Browns would return, despite a lack of logic to it. They held an expansion draft for the Browns too. Why hold a different standard of logic to the NHL?? Ottawa has had other situations. The CFL, for example. The Rough Riders folded, and the Renegades had the CFL franchise for a while. Different name. Completely different intent. A fresh start. You hear and read in the media about the Sens being 'revived' or 'returned' in '92. It's not going to go away, so don't impose opinions here on Wikipedia because you don't like what the media says. Go with the facts. Firestone paid $50 million to get the Sens. Alaney2k 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are missing is the fact that the NHL HAS taken back the certificate de facto by later declaring that none of the old records and stats etc have been carried over to the new franchise. I would like to see it as the same franchise as much as you would. In fact last time this argument came up I argued it from your side, however the others provided tonnes of proof that the NHL itself has by their actions (even if they didn't hold a press conference to announce it) revoked their certificate reinstating the team and made the franchise a brand new franchise. And to tell you the truth yes I do think calling them the Senators helped bring more people to the games. People like a sense of nostalgia. The Cleveland example is different as well because all the old records from the old Browns are still honoured with the new incarnation. As well when the old Browns "moved" to Baltimore the NFL said it wasn't the Browns moving, that it was actually an expansion team in Baltimore which is why none of the records moved with the team to Baltimore. --Djsasso 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The NHL keeping the records separate is mentioned. But it's not really the NHL's Wikipedia, is it? If I were to make a guess, I would say they have taken the 'expedient' way out. I would say that they would not want to upset fans of other teams by saying now we have a team with 9 or 11 Cups. It's like jumping the queue, in a way. No, I think we can state that the records are kept separately. Even the Sens' staff is pretty ignorant of the history, I'm certain. And that leads to crap press releases about how we've done this for the first time and being ignorant that people know otherwise. But the reinstatement is consistent and relevant to Firestone's plans. Maybe he even asked for it and Stein went along with it, but when Bettman came in, things changed. But that's all speculation. Anyway, I think we all agree that the two are different. Maybe we even agree that the return of a Sens club to the NHL is connected to the old club. But we disagree in how to mark the connections. Whether the actual legal franchise is different is not that important. As shown by the NFL. Modell didn't have to buy a new franchise. I don't think he even had to trade it. We may never see the legal documents. Maybe in the Sens page, if the Bring Back section was before the Original Era section, people would not be upset. Hard to say. Alaney2k 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion offer

It appears there is a pretty extensive debate here. Can someone please summarize for me what the issue is (note: I don't want to hear - he did this to me or she said that about this). I want to know what the content dispute is over in a concise statement. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically there have been two teams named the Senators in Ottawa that have played in the NHL. One folded 70 years ago. A new one was given in the early nineties. As part of the opening ceremonies of the first game of the new franchise the NHL gave a certificate stating they were reinstating the old franchise. Think novelty check. However, since that time the NHL through its actions has shown that no records have carried over from the old team, retired numbers have been reactivated and the like. The argument is basically when was the actual founding date. The date of the first franchise or the second. --Djsasso 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in finding more out about retired numbers having been re-activated. Alaney2k 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, does everyone feel that is an accurate description of the "dispute"? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From my POV, yes. Alaney2k is the primary opposer to this POV. It is also notable that official NHL publications also treat the two Senators franchises as separate. Resolute 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Let's not get into who said what to whom and on what date. My goal here is to asses the validity of the arguments and try and offer a suggestion that will help find compromise. Is there any other disputed content and does anyone have a link to the actual articles in question. It appears one is the Ottawa Senators article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• That was not my intention. I simply wanted to point out that before you accept that what Djsasso wrote is accurate, that he should have a chance to comment as well. Resolute 05:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. In the future, you could probably accomplish the same thing by mentioning this to the involved editor rather than identify them by their stance on the issue. Just trying to keep things all nice and friendly! :-) Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that two teams named the Ottawa Senators have played in the NHL. To me, the fact that the NHL president presented the certificate publicly gives it some weight and should not be omitted. The Ottawa Senators article mentions that the NHL keeps the records and stats separately. The objections seem to be to the inclusion of the historical information and linkage. I believe it is relevant. The current and past owners of the team pay attention to that history and linkage. (Championship banners of the first club are displayed at the arena of the current club. ) The media and fans do also. For someone who sees Ottawa Senators in the NHL in 1927 or the Silver Seven and wonder if it is related, this is helpful and interesting knowledge. Alaney2k 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We have no problem showing the linkage with appropriate weighting in the article. What they have issue with is using the 1884 date as the founding of the franchise. --Djsasso 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly labelled as 1991 (current club) and below that 1884 (original club). Of course, 'appropriate weighting' is subjective. I did notice the opposite effect going on, where the words new and first time, etc. were being interjected into the text over and over, in a way that is needlessly repetitive and mostly unnecessary. It comes across as bullying a point. There are competing points of view on the reinstatement. I have only argued to include the facts. Also, I do not object being considered the proponent of the view that the two clubs are linked, but I have not argued to merge the Ottawa Senators (original) and Ottawa Senators articles. Maybe at some point, we will get a clarification from the NHL on the reinstatement. I think we are working in a bit of vacuum and that has lead to opinions being considered as fact. Alaney2k 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By insisting that the 1884-1934 Senators & the 1991- present Senators are the same franchise/club; the St. Louis Eagles would also have to be included in such a 'merger'. GoodDay 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are separate Quebec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche pages. Alaney2k 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys how about y'all just agree to disagree and let things be as status quo as most of the project long ago has agreed the current status is where they wanted to be with this issue. There is still linkage info in the article and we have both dates listed so there really isn't any issue is there? As long as there is a link pointing to the old senators article and a small paragraph explaining the certificate thats all that needs to be on the new senators article. The rest can be covered in the old senators article. --Djsasso 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of my 'sanity', I'll accept the 'truce'. GoodDay 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hockey pages are really owned by people, me too. I hope you have not thought I was being insulting or anything. I must admit I don't complete understand the objection to having the history. I think it sets up the unlikely campaign by Firestone, which is the founding of the current club. But I do think that I have tried to back up the things I have added with references and quotations. I also do not understand the irritation over the reinstatement certificate. I have tried to add info to the NHL articles somewhat outside Total Hockey, such as the stuff on Livingstone, etc. I do think there is a lot more out there that needs to be there. Like 'Deceptions and Doublecross' and 'Lords of the Rinks' or 'Power Plays.' I think things like the reinstatement are interesting, whether it is bogus or not in the legal sense. I would be happy to have the words, controversial, etc. there. But something that can be backed up. Like say a quote by Dan Diamond. I put that the records and stats are kept separately. The NHL articles are a bit inconsistent in founding, though, (and need work to back up their facts!) and yet I've found three Wikipedians who want the Senators page to be consistent and I seem to be riling them up... :-) my apologies Alaney2k 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologies, you haven't wronged anyone. I'm not the Senators pages' custodian (my word isn't law). For example: I've had to accept the Vancouver Canucks WHL-NHL thing; I'd rather that page be seperated into Vancouver Canucks and Vancouver Canucks (WHL). Anyways - no hard feelings. GoodDay 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault

Edit war brewing; comments and thoughts appreciated on the talk page.  RGTraynor  21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise. Debate has been going on at User_talk:RGTraynor#Gilbert_Perreault regarding

RGTraynor edits,

TonyTheTiger partial revert,

RGTraynor revert,

TonyTheTiger line by line item by item revert (see edit summaries).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NHL team founding year

There's inconsistancies on most of the NHL team pages 'founding dates' (at the Infoboxes). They 'erroroneusly' give the 'inaugural season' date of the franchise, not the founding date. Perhaps clarification is needed at the those articles infoboxes. GoodDay 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If they all give the inagural season year, then I would hardly call that inconsistent. The question is whether that is an error. Hardly anybody refers to a franchise's founding date as the date which the team was awarded. Most go by when the team started play. The Penguins in 1967, the Sharks in 1991, the Thrashers in 1999, etc. Resolute 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if it is simply a case of thinking that "Founding" is the wrong word in the infobox, we could easily change the template to something like "First season". Most team articles already mention in the body when a franchise was awarded. Resolute 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about two fields? One, for founding of the team and another for inaugural nhl season? Montreal would be 1909 and 1917, Vancouver would be 1945 and 1970. On that basis, Ottawa should be 1893 and 1917, though, which several wikipedians dislike, and i should add seem to be fixated on. Toronto is problematic also. The Maple Leafs started in 1927, but i doubt the 'leaf nation' would accept this. But you can't go by 1917, that was temporary. 1918 was temporary, 1919 (St. Pats) is supposedly the permanent franchise start, as by then the players had no contract links with Livingstone. Alaney2k 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We're fixated on the Ottawa business because it just is not true; that would be like calling us "fixated" on asserting that the sky is blue. That being said, I see no harm with mentioning both the founding dates of the franchises and the inaugural NHL season for the team; plainly the distinction involved pertinent information of interest to readers.  RGTraynor  15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we keep the Ottawa discussion in one place, please? Resolute 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To allow Montreal and Vancouver to be consistent it should be club founding dates, then, not franchises. Alaney2k 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see our notability guidelines for the project here. --Djsasso 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks done, I asked all the top sports that I don't deal with to add their guidelines, like hockey for example. Wikipedia really needs a streight forward guidelines regarding sports articles, one wikiproject isn't happy though (the college football ones, who I don't get fully along with because of a deletionist stance regarding those articles), but it's the community who decides, not me of course. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Notability

I just discovered this: Category:St. John's Fog Devils players. It jumped out at me at first because it is not named according to conventions. Then I noticed that most of the player pages were recently created by the same user and most of the players probably fail to meet notability guidelines. Anyone care to tackle it? Skudrafan1 13:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only this, but I've also now noticed that the user in question removed players from the properly named Category:St. John's Fog Devils alumni to place them into this improperly named category (example). Skudrafan1 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I will fix it today. --Djsasso 14:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this change too, because of Oscar Sundh. Didn't know about the MJH convention though. There is a redlink in our page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Category structure, which perhaps can be the cause of someones dead-end confusion. --Bamsefar75 14:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the redlink. That was created before the league categories were expanded to the full name of the league. Resolute 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I prod'd all the players that weren't notable. Some of them are so un-notable that they haven't even shown up in the hockeydb yet. --Djsasso 14:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be deleted as well Category:St. John's Fog Devils player? T Rex | talk 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice that was there. I will put that up for an admin to delete as well. --Djsasso 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, an active player for a team is not an alumnus. So, I don't believe that these players belong in an alumni category. Also, WP:CSD#C1 only applies if the category has been empty for four days, which clearly these have not. -- JamesTeterenko 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are an alumni in this respect the minute you play a game for a team since there is no actual graduating involved which was why all the player cats were killed before and the names changed to alumni. As far as the reasoning this last one was empty for 4 days as it was a typo. The first one I put through I accidentally used the wrong template out of habbit but I mean we could have it reinstated then I kill it in 4 days anyways...Either way active players have been put in the alumni cats for a long time. We use the term alumni cause thats what the CHL uses, not because they are actually graduating like you would from University etc. --Djsasso 16:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out alumnus, which says, according to the American Heritage Dictionary is "a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university." It does not only include graduates, it is all former "students". I have personally never heard this term to mean current members (or students). If you look at the description of most of the categories, you see that they say former members. For example, see the leading text of Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League alumni, which says, "The following is a list of subcategories of notable former players who played for teams in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League." (emphasis added). -- JamesTeterenko 17:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Further expansion regarding the term "alumni". Again grabbed from the alumnus article, Recently, the definition of "alumni" has expanded to include people who have departed from any kind of organization or program. As such, one can potentially be a "corporate alum" of XYZ Company, or an alum of a military branch, non-profit organization, fraternities and sororities, or training process. Just to get out of the school context, this is very clear that it is a former member of given this definition. -- JamesTeterenko 17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you check the descriptions of most of the CHL teams they say current and former players. Since most current players would not meet notability requirements it would be rediculous to create categories for single players on teams when there might be 10 players in the QMJHL at any time that meet the notability requirements. I am all for having a category called Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League players but not one for each team. To go by your method we would have to remove non-active players out of the NHL players categories because they are no longer players which is no different than this circumstance where it is a given they will be alumni.--Djsasso 17:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just checked a bunch relatively randomly, and the only category that I could find that says current players, is this one that you just changed. I'll admit that I only looked at about ten categories, but that was the only one that included current members in the description. All of the league "players" categories do exist. If I am tagging an article of an existing junior player, I usually put them in that category. I do have a problem with putting current players in the alumni category, because that is very clearly not common usage of that term. -- JamesTeterenko 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with putting them in the overall league category and not in the alumni categories. I have no problem with that. It does appear that most of the QMJHL ones don't say that but I do believe most of the OHL and WHL ones do as I remember checking that awhile back. Either way this category does need to go eventually. --Djsasso 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As I recall, that was what was kind of agreed upon last year when all of the player and alumni categories went through the CfD process. There are so few notable junior players that there is no need to subcat them by team, so they all can fit in the League players category. Once they graduate, they get moved to the Team(s) alumni category. Resolute 17:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the one Fog Devil not up for prod/afd to the league category. The rest I left cause they are likely to pass prod/afd and will not end up being there anyways. --Djsasso 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay great, I think can agree on the following:

• An active player for a team should not be put in the alumni category for that team
• If the majority of the players that you have tagged with {{prod}} are deleted, then there would be no purpose for Category:St. John's Fog Devils players. (For the ones that I noticed, I believe that that they will deleted without dispute and/or would not pass an AFD discussion.)

-- JamesTeterenko 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I just didn't want to see a case where we suddenly had two categories of this type for every team like we had for awhile. I am more than happy to have them in the overall league category until they leave a specific team. --Djsasso 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The creator is disputing all of the prod tags on the players talk pages. I really hate to bite a newish editor, but I will list them all for AfD. Resolute 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to move them all to afd but I got distracted and forgot. --Djsasso 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, when I originally created all these categories, they were meant at first for players who moved on to the NHL, that's why I called them alumni. Since then, the notability standards have changed as many more player articles have been created so I dunno these days whether it should be "players" or "alumni". As for this user, he created an article about himself and that got deleted, so I'd be very wary. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Awhile back someone created duplicates of all the alumni categories with the word players, at that time it was decided that because the CHL calls all of its old players alumni that those should be the categories kept. I believe thats the discussion that was being talked about. --Djsasso 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

National Street Hockey League

Is this a real league? I live in one of the cities that is claimed to have a team and have never heard of it and I am sure I would have. I am going to prod it, but if anyone does have more information feel free to remove the prod. --Djsasso 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, zero google hits for "National Street Hockey League", sounds like either a local rec league, or a fantasy league that someone felt the need to create an article for. Resolute 14:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell I am still asleep? It never even dawned on me to check google. It's totally one of those days... --Djsasso 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just delete it, but given it asserts it is a pro league, I don't think any speedy criteria qualifies. Hoaxes aren't a speedy reason either. Guess it lives for five more days. Resolute 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well as expected he disputed it so its now up for afd. --Djsasso 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards featured topic

This is looking forward a bit, but I know several of us have discussed making a featured topic out of the NHL awards. Having featured topic experience with WWE championships, I learned (the hard way) that a category is not acceptable as a uniting factor for the articles/lists. We need to have a lead article that is at least GA, if not featured status. That would be National Hockey League awards; my question is: is this an article or a list? I would argue list, on similar criteria as the awards themselves, since there is little prose and mostly listings. In any event, I would say this list needs to reach FL status before we finish the individual awards, so that we can promote the topic as featured once the awards are done. Anthony Hit me up... 19:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that the article is best evaluated by the GA, then FL, and FA systems. I'd try for an FL, or at the very least GA, which I can grant right now quite easily, as it satisfied requirements. Maxim_(talk) 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It definitely falls under the list category. And, by the way, lists can not be GAs, so it would be best to go straight for FL. I've also worked on an FT - The Simpsons (season 8) - and the lead article of that FT has substantial sections of prose, but it is still a list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Should someone grant it GA status in case? Maxim_(talk) 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the GA criteria specifically excludes lists. You could try it, but I am pretty sure that any reviewer would conclude that it's a list. Try asking User:Colin or User:Circeus, both of whom are well versed in FL criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Like Scorpion said, lists cannot be Good articles. T Rex | talk 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be an article with a list component, but in that case, would have to be significantly expanded. I'd be willing to put it up for FL status now, if everyone agrees the lead section is ok. The big hangup right now for me though is that I cannot find a RS for NHL/Sheraton Road Performer Award. I can't even verify that it still exists. It may have to be removed entirely for the time being. Resolute 20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which one should be moved

I was about to create an article for a tournament and decided to look up how the Spengler Cup article, since I knew that individual season articles for the Spengler Cup existed. I wanted to know what the naming convention was but this didn't help me much since one articles was named Spengler Cup 2005 and the other 2006 Spengler Cup. Of course on of the articles should be moved for consistency; but which one? --Krm500 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "Spengler Cup 2005" is incorrect, it also needs more content. IrisKawling 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer xxxx Spengler Cup as well. Royal Bank Cup 2005 has annoyed me for some time now for the same reason. Resolute 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I too think the year should be first. --Djsasso 19:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds way better with the year first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hockey (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be xxxx Spengler Cup. GoodDay 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved per consensus. T Rex | talk 20:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators TopInfobox

The 'Topinfobox', gives the false impression that the Senators of 1884-1934 & the Senators of 1934-55 are the same club as the Senators of 1992- present. Just because somethings have the same name, doesn't make them the same thing. GoodDay 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Senators Context

I've also removed edits 'suggesting' the original Senators (1884-1934) are the current Senators (1992-present). GoodDay 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone pinch me, please. We've been described as obsessed, again someone pinch me. GoodDay 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::Here we go again; this time Al has a 'supporter' (supporting linkage with 1884-1934 Senators). GoodDay 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic...y'all have bickered and played with the article so much over the last couple weeks that it is now bloated and could really use some of the information cut out and moved to apropriate season articles. For example there is way to much about this years playoff run compared to most other teams where they actually won the cup. --Djsasso 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true, all this info can be found at 2007 Stanley Cup Finals and 2006-07 NHL season. Once again though, the core of it? 1884-1934 Senators linkage/no linkage 1992-present Senators, constant struggle. GoodDay 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think its a bad thing. Its good to see people editing an article. I just think someone who is better at it than I do a summary for the entire season this past year and then put it into the article instead of what is currently there which is far to huge. I don't really care about the linkage stuff that wasn't part of this particular point. That is a seperate arguement. --Djsasso 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will summarize it, as it is 'bloated'. GoodDay 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's getting more 'bloated'. GoodDay 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

TopInfoboxes

There's been an attempt to remove non-NHL information, from the Top Infoboxes of other clubs (due to misunderstanding of Senators situation). Be on the lookout, everyone. GoodDay 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call it a misunderstanding. It is a shame that Alaney is choosing to create a WP:POINT disruption in response to having no support for his Senators argument. Resolute 18:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, would calling in an uninvolved admin be appropriate? I'm this close to asking for someone to step in, preferrably on WP:AN since the above mediation only seemed to work for a few days. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alan has created a new page (see below) which suggestion continuation among all clubs named 'Ottawa Senators'. PS- I gave up trying to correct it, can't keep up with him. GoodDay 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think an Admin would be a splendid idea. Some form of concrete arbitration and enforcement, it is frustrating to see and I think it makes the WP look bad... let's fix this now. DMighton 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#POV_pusher_in_Ottawa_Senators-related_articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm betting that that post will get shot down very quickly, as this is really a content dispute, which AN/ANI doesn't typically deal with. WP:RFC might be the better route at this point. Resolute 01:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I put those non-NHL information texts in the NHL topinfoboxes to start with. So I removed them for the sake of consistency. And they've been put back! Sheesh. Alaney2k 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Djsasso & RGTraynor have explained to you why. GoodDay 19:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested removing the non-NHL history at Ottawa Senators (original) either. Consistency is not the same as pushing a point. Resolute 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite aside from this simple and basic fact: these are not, per se, "NHL" articles. They are articles about member teams in the NHL. Demonstrably, six of those teams have pre-NHL provenance.  RGTraynor  20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was that I put them in. I believed they were in error. Since I put them in, I felt I should take them out. Now, I just read the WP:POINT article. That's not the same as a WP:POINT. My wikistress is high. :-) Alaney2k 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind A2k, the Ottawa Senators franchise has been an NHL franchise its entire existance. While the Ottawa Senators (original)/St. Louis Eagles franchise, wasn't always an NHL franchise -but ended as one. GoodDay 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fighting in Ice Hockey screenshot

User talk:Misza13 deleted it on the 31st as an orphaned image... I don't know what to do about it... but maybe one of you guys will. DMighton 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's used, it's a reasonable part of WP:IAR. We're trying to make the encyclopedia better. What I do is protect it, and Betacommand bot can't bug us. Maxim_(talk) 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do so, my talk page has been bombarded with automatic orphan notes from him. --Krm500 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Game template

Anyone else feel like we need a template for hockey games? For use in season articles and tournament articles? Today we have Template:Hockeybox and Template:Ice Hockey Game, but neither is perfect. I defenitively feel a need for a new improved box which we can use in season articles and such. My wish is all fields optional (except for teams and score) and to be able to hide extra information (box score). --Krm500 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What other features would you like the template to have?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 19:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Ottawa Senators teams

Could someone check this article for 'original research'? It leans heavy on suggestion Ottawa Senators (original), senior Ottawa Senators clubs and Ottawa Senators are all the same continous franchise. GoodDay 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a candidate for 'deletion'? GoodDay 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a pretty blatant WP:SYNTH violation. Mish-mashing the history of several clubs of the same name in an attempt to show continuity? Blatantly WP:OR, and completely unnecessary, as Ottawa Senators (original), Ottawa Senators (senior hockey) and Ottawa Senators both cover the topic quite well. It probably should go to AfD. Resolute 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like NeoChaosX is nominating it. My own attempt at a nomination ended in an edit conflict with his. Resolute 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I decided to nominate it. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Ottawa Senators teams‎. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to over-react. It's all stuff copied over from the various Sens articles, and expanded. Alaney2k 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem... --Djsasso 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't please everyone. Others said there was too much history on the article page. Alaney2k 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But again I think you miss the point. The point was that too much of the history belonged on one of the other pages. ie you shouldn't put a tonne of stuff about the original senators on the new senators page or the other way around. This didn't fix that any. --Djsasso 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I paste back the history stuff to the current article? Or is that premature? Then you can review whether it was too much? Alaney2k 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I stole this idea from the Wikiproject Metal where I have an article on peer review. I think this will help us work together. I created a page where everyone can put hockey articles on peer review. They are still submitted at Wikipedia:Peer review, but placing them there is likely to ensure a greater response from hockey editors. So participants of the project get more feedback and help and we have better articles. I think more peer reviews should be done, I'm not sure we work together here as much as we should, so this a small step for it. Check it out here. What do you think?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is cool, but what I'd like to see is a place where we can put pages up for peer review among ourselves before we put them up for full-blown peer review. This would help us create better quality articles overall, whether they get sent up for promotion or not. For example, I'd like to put List of Buffalo Sabres players up for candidacy as a featured list, but I'd like other hockey editors to help me out before I do so. It would save me from another fiasco like when I tried to get Buffalo Sabres draft history promoted, which it wasn't. Skudrafan1 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But in peer review there is no "fiasco" because things aren't promoted there. It's just feedback, so the more people the better, right? When submitting to peer review you don't have to necessarily want to put in the article in WP:GAC or WP:FAC. This is not the same as the way things go in FAC and WP:FLC.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess my problem is that I just don't understand the process at all. Skudrafan1 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Skudrafan1, my idea with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Article Improvement was that user could add articles they are working on, so other user could help, come with ideas. Sort of a "project peer review". --Krm500 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought I had seen it all

Check out the recent edit (that I have reverted) to Los Angeles Kings. Scroll down to "Known Fans." The idiocy of some people amazes me. -- Gmatsuda 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I once saw a guy add a "Fictional Couches" section to the Couch article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit where one user had wikilinked the word "ice" in the entire history section of the Ice Hockey article.... --Krm500 12:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Oxford City Stars

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Oxford City Stars is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Left a reply on the talk page of the article. Resolute 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Ice hockey

We have a portal, yet I'm the only one right now who gives a <refactored>, or whatever :D... Set that aside, I'd be interested to hear some ideas for a "Featured bio", a "Featured picture", a "Featured non-bio article", and some DYK. Maxim_(talk) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy on the profanity, please. GoodDay 19:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I never go to the portal cause I don't know that I have any interest in it. --Djsasso 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviving Staal family

Staal family got deleted before I could remove the prod. The family is clearly notable, just look at the top 3 Ghits for the terms Staal family NHL...USA Today, CBC and the NHL are pretty good sources for notability. Anyone interested in restoring the article, or (since it was a synthesis of the individual players' bios) writing a better one? I don't have time right now...

USATODAY.com - Staal family making a name in NHLOne indication of Henry and Linda Staal's ability to produce NHL talent is there is a worker shortage on the family sod farm in Ontario. [www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/draft/2006-06-22-staal-family_x.htm]

NHL.com - In The Spotlight, For the Staal family, the comparisons to the Sutter brothers are inevitable. ... Staal, the second-overall pick in the 2003 draft, was named the NHL's ...[www.nhl.com/features/spotlight/staal120205.html]

CBC Sports Online: Hockey's next first family? Family business: With four boys destined for the NHL – Eric is already ...www.cbc.ca/sports/columns/newsmakers/staal_m.html - 20k - Canuckle 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason it was deleted. It was deleted because all it was, was a cut and paste of 4 different articles which violates WP:SYNTH. I am sure it will eventually be recreated and written in a much better format. But as it was, it was in a very poor format and was litterally all of the brothers pages cut and pasted together. If it was written like Sutter family it would probably be ok. That being said, only two of the brothers have played in the NHL so far so I don't know if it merrits its own article just yet other than to have the family aspect mentioned on each players page. --Djsasso 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN is for the exact opposite situation of this. It's for original research using published material (usally external to Wikipedia) to make a conclusion or prove a point. Clearly, the published material makes the conclusion (Staals are a notable hockey family) and this has been accepted on List of family relations in the National Hockey League. Even the speculation that they are the "next greatest" hockey family would be acceptable because it is sourced speculation. That's no reason to delete an article. It was wrong that the article was a synthesis (as I noted) of the Wikipedia bios. But that deserves a clean-up tag and rescuing not outright deletion without a redirect even placed. Canuckle 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the family article should exist so that the (likely non-notable) younger brothers' individual articles could be merged, as suggested in Talk:Jared Staal. Canuckle 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Howabout waiting until Marc & Jared join the NHL, before giving the family an article. Honestly, this ain't the Sutter family - their accomplishments aren't as impressive. GoodDay 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the article before it was deleted. It looked as if the articles of the individual brothers were just appended to each other, giving no additional value to the articles on their own. So, I did nothing to contest the prod, since I didn't think it was much of a loss. This has nothing to do with WP:SYN AKA "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". No position was being served. Actually, a position could have been advanced that speaks more about the talent of the family, since there are a number of published works about the family as a whole. And this could be done without bringing in any original research. If someone were to create a decent article, such as the one for the Sutter family, it probably would be worth keeping. -- JamesTeterenko 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it needed a complete overhaul. I remember running into it a few months back and thinking to myself how useless the article was in its current form, but I didn't push for deletion because the media has turned it into such a popular topic... look at all the stories/commercials that this family has spawned since the family became notable. Mention that instead of just the individuals. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of hockey nicknames

Okay, what to do with this list? Right now its an unorganized clutter of great names, made-up names, and disposable one-time usage names. And very, meticulously sourced I may add ;). This is an article I would love to see in really good condition or even featured someday, but right now its just a flat-out mess. First of all, there has to be some measure of notability for these nicknames to be included, otherwise it would just become an infinite list of misnomers. I mean there are players that according to this have four, five, or even six nicknames? Anyone have any ideas how to improve or set guidelines for this article?? Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a issue to decide first. Do we order alphabetically the nicknames, or the players who have them? Being a list of nicknames, it would make more sense to order the nicknames, but to see players who have more than one nickname (Joe Sakic is Super Joe and Burnaby Joe) it would be better to order the names of the player. I'd be interested in working in an article like this. We should use what there is a reference to make research but really start from zero. Only use reliable sources such as books, NHL.com and mainstream media hockey coverage sites like thehockeynews, TSN, Sports Illustrated, ESPN and so on.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes exactly, just blow it all up and start all over again, maybe even cite every nickname that isn't extremely obvious (like Rocket Richard or The Great One or Punch Imlach etc.)... I like listing it by name personally as opposed to nickname. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good thing. I believe ordering by the names of the players instead of the nicknames would be better. And the most common will be easy to cite. Every nickname in the list should be cited to avoid those Prongs for Chris Pronger and that kind of made up nicknames by changing the name of the player a little. When do you want to start?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 23:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Player	Nat	Nickname	Note
Joe Sakic		Burnaby Joe, Super Joe, Mr Clutch

Team	Nickname	Note
Montreal Canadiens	Habs	<ref></ref>

Arena	Club	Nickname	Note
HP Pavilion	San Jose Sharks	The Shark Tank	<ref></ref>

What do you think?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good to me, we can start right away. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to keep 'Dirty Bertie' in the article. Gee, that's a discriptive & catchy nickname. GoodDay 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, looks good. I think that the table should be sortable though. --Krm500 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah I agree, sortable would be good, but Serte if you want to work on the newer nicknames for players, or the arena and team ones, I've got a beat on having the older nicknames sourced & listed. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope I don't get flamed here but honestly, I know that many including my self use Avs, Canes, Yotes, Preds and etc but should we really list them? They are just simple short versions of the name. --Krm500 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, after all we don't list short-forms like "Mike" or "Jimmy" so why should those team names be any different? Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 00:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, a recent list of nicknames was put up for deletion as trivia (sorry I don't know the outcome or link). Is this really necessary? Canuckle 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See me personally, view it as important, because hockey has a long and interesting history of nicknames within the sport. The problem is without some sort of POV you can't just say some nicknames are notable when others are not, so right now we're just working on making sure that the names are sourced and we'll see what happens next. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Three nicknames just popped into my head as I was reading this, hopefully I'll be able to find a source for them later. By the way, this is User:Bsroiaadn, I just don't feel like logging in on a public computer, I'll be sure to find sources when I get home later tonight. 209.212.23.47 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Season articles change

It's to distinguish the team of the article when you are checking a game log in a season article. What if instead of having Home and Away columns and have the team appear 41 times on each side, we put only a column for the opponent and then this: New Jersey, @ Washington, @ Philadelphia, Detroit. The @ would indicate the game as away, no @ is at home. I think it would make these tables simpler and easier to read.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is something I considered after the fact when I designed the layout, but by that time, I had already done about ten Flames articles and didn't want to go back and change, lol. Personally, I am fine with either way, though doing it the way you suggest would help reduce the size of the article. Resolute 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How best to change the chart though?

Like this:

#	Date	Opponent	Result	Score	Decision	Attendance	Record	Pts
1	Jan 1	Edmonton	W	6-1	Kiprusoff	19,289	1-0-0	2
2	Jan 2	@Colorado	OTL	3-4	Kiprusoff	18,630	1-0-1	3
3	Jan 3	@Phoenix	W	11-0	Krahn	9,544	2-0-1	5

A little more compact:

#	Date	Opponent	Result	Decision	Attendance	Record	Pts
1	Jan 1	Edmonton	W 6-1	Kiprusoff	19,289	1-0-0	2
2	Jan 2	@Colorado	OTL 3-4	Kiprusoff	18,630	1-0-1	3
3	Jan 3	@Phoenix	W 11-0	Krahn	9,544	2-0-1	5

Or something else? Resolute 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the result column having the "result" and score together; the only problem might be a shootout loss because "SOL" isn't an official game stat, since there are only W, L, OTL columns. So we might need to keep the current "OT" column, especially for the playoffs when there are multiple overtimes. I don't know if this was your final product, so I just wanted to mention that recap should probably be kept as the last column and the dates should still be wikilinked, spelled out totally, along with linking the team faced. In addition, I would put a space between the "@" and the team name; I would also use "vs." when it is a home game. Is there a possibility to use the team's name instead of location (i.e. Oilers instead of Edmonton)? This is how I would make it:

#	Date	Opponent	Result	Decision	Attendance	Record	Pts	Recap
1	January 1	vs. Oilers	W 6-1	Kiprusoff	19,289	1-0-0	2
2	January 2	@ Avalanche	OTL 3-4	Kiprusoff	18,630	1-0-1	3

bmitchelf•T•F 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have an opinion on my version in comparison? bmitchelf•T•F 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a point in the recap column, but other than that, looks good. Resolute 14:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does every NHL team get a season article like the baseball teams now??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/2007_MLB_team_articles--Mister Hockey 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I think it was our idea before baseball's, but that's neither here nor there. For the upcoming season's template, see below:

Skudrafan1 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no unified project at WP:BASEBALL that I am aware of, but some teams, like the Minnesota Twins had articles for individual seasons before it caught on here. I lifted the idea from the college football project, adapting their template, and designing a hockey specific format that was very quickly adopted late last season. By my last count, there are nearly 200 articles using the {{NHLTeamSeason}} template. We still got a loooooong way to go. Resolute 04:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Update of national team templates

Some of you may have noticed my work today, updating many international tournament articles to use Template:ih and template:ihw for men's and women's teams respectively. These templates are very similar to ones I created for football (soccer), basketball, tennis, rugby, cricket, and more. The idea is that instead of managing a set of hundreds of individual flag templates (such as Template:CANh), a parameterized template can be used. There are several benefits:

1. It is built on the same system as the familiar {{flagicon}} and {{flag}} templates, making maintenance much easier. If an image needs to be changed, one edit fixes it everywhere.
2. Consistency is automatic. All flag icons, regardless of template, will have the same visual appearance. Size will be consistent, and all flags will have the alt attribute correctly set.
3. The label used to choose a historical variant is the same. For example, just as {{flagicon|Canada|1921}} is used to display the old red ensign (), {{ih|Canada|1921}} can be used for the national team for that era (Canada).
4. You have the convenience of using country codes or nation names, as you prefer. {{ih|CZE}} and {{ih|Czech Republic}} do the same thing.

Anyway, I am almost complete with this transition, and I have started to delete some of the templates that are now completely orphaned. Hope this helps! Andrwsc 00:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks a lot, that will help keeping the templates organized.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics question

Hi guys, just a quick statistics question:

On the FLC for the William M. Jennings Trophy, the Minnesota Wild are listed as winning the trophy with 191 goals (that's what it says on the NHL standings page). However, this it says Minnesota had 184 goals allowed while this it says 191 goals allowed. It's the same thing happens at NHL.com; standings page has "191 GA" and the stats page has "184 GA". So, which is correct, and what is the reason for the goal differentials. Shootout goals? Empty net goals? Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that the extra seven were empty-net goals, since they shouldn't count against the goaltenders. Skudrafan1 02:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You should check the rules of the trophy and see if empty net goals count, because it may make the difference. For example, a team suffered 180 "normal goals" and 20 empty net. Another team suffered 190 "normal goals". Who wins the trophy? And what is the number of goals you should list?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Legendsofhockey specifically says 191 [1], so I guess they DO count empty net goals. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to NHL Stats page, and in the "TEAM COMPARISON REPORTS" box select "Goals against" in the "Report View" field, then select "regular" in the "regular/playoffs" field and of cource use 2006-07 season. You will see that MIN had just 1 empty net goal which is included in the 184 GA stat. Weird, huh. --Crzycheetah 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Empty net goals are counted, against the team. The Jennings criteria is the team(s) that allow the least amount of goals, at the end of the regular season, are award the trophy. The team present it to it's goaltender(s); something like that. Anyways ENs count, thus 191 is correct. I could be in error, of course. GoodDay 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is totally offtopic but I just had to say it! I work with the statistics for the SEL, during the game we record all the stats and game info for use on the internet (live game report) and also for direct output on television. Everything goes trough our computers. Last season which was the first for this new stats system, we had all of our crew (except two sitting in the penalty box/scorekeeper area) sitting together in the nosebleed section. We had trouble seeing the shoulder numbers and everything was too complicated then it should've been. This week we found out that we would get new seats but not beside each other anymore. Funny thing is that they couldn't get us seats in the normal seating are so one of our "stations" will be in a VIP-lounge/suite! --Krm500 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is related to shootout "goals". The NHL counts SOG's in the team standings, but not invidually. If ENG's aren't the cause of the discrepancy, SOG's very likely are. Resolute 23:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought it might be, because I remember reading somewhere that only winning Shootout goals are counted in the goals for/goals against totals. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators & Ottawa Senators

Is there any official linkage between these two franchises? Ottawa Senators (original)-St. Louis Eagles and Ottawa Senators. Recent edits & discussions at Ottawa Senators/talk: Ottawa Senators, 1992-93 Ottawa Senators season and Prince of Wales Trophy/talk: Prince of Wales Trophy, have shown a continued schism on this topic. We need a 'clear & undisputed' consensus, to end this schism. GoodDay 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does everyone 'have' to agree? I thought we were supposed to be neutral. I vote to continue to allow disagreement. Alaney2k 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Oops, left out a smiley) I vote to continue to allow disagreement. :-) Alaney2k 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in a way yes. You are allowed to have a differing opinion of course. But you should be following concensus on the issue. That is how we acheive neutrality. But pushing your WP:POINT you are not being neutral. --Djsasso 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay, let's start all over again. I feel like 'words are being put in my mouth'. What or who defines that 'official' linkage? Here are the links that I know of:

• one -- Firestone named his campaign 'Bring Back The Senators', this show intent
• two -- he named the streets of the development around the arena after former Senators hockey players, intent
• three -- he had a representative of past ownership as part of the campaign
• four -- he had a representative of past players as part of the campaign
• five -- he secured the name of the original club
• six -- he used the same colors for the new team
• seven -- both teams are professional men's teams in the NHL
• eight -- both teams represent Ottawa in the NHL, i.e., operating the 'Ottawa NHL franchise'
• nine -- upon play, the team raised the Stanley Cup banners (hoouring the old)
• ten -- upon play, a former player was present (Beverige) (passing the torch)
• eleven -- upon play, the president of the NHL presented a 'certificate of reinstatement' publicly in front of 10,449 witnesses (I don't dispute that it is in dispute, or even that it is PR)
• twelve -- Sens have rights to past club logos, evidenced by O on shoulder
• thirteen -- old Sens jersey had est. 1894 on shoulder
• fourteen -- retired a number of a player from the previous era
• fifteen -- two teams with same name in same league -it has to be explained-

After all that, I think there is a 'linkage', but maybe there is some technical point we are sticking on here. I think that people are saying that I am saying it is the same franchise, like the two eras are the same 'thing'. I am not sure of what they are accusing me of. It's the Ottawa NHL franchise. Like it's the McDonald's franchise for City X, it seems to be the same thing. The McDonald's could close and re-open years later. What does it mean? It's not the same organization running it, indisputably. I call it a different 'club' or 'team' but others use the word 'franchise'. I don't know if they ever 'folded' the original franchise after closing down in St. Louis. I am looking for info on the topic. Anyway, all of the above 15 points of the list need to be in a Sens article to be complete, IMHO. That's basically what I argue for. I think we can do that in a 'neutral' way. I don't understand this 'official' business, I think we have to be encyclopedic, stick to the facts. The above things occurred and are facts.Alaney2k 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, if those 'fifteen links' are to be viewed as 'undisputable' links, then the two Ottawa Senators pages should be merged. GoodDay 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again we aren't disputing that they were linked for PR reasons. But what I think the issue is, is that you are putting undue weight on it in the article. Quite frankly it was perfect the way it was 6 months ago. It was very clear that they had the whole bring back the nhl campaign and what not. But now after the constant fighting and changing of each others edits, its become and bloated over grown mess. I am of the opinion that it should just be reverted back to before the edit wars occured. Some of the above facts are however, incorrect. The owning of the logo rights is not valid as the copyright on those long ago expired and it wasn't till they started using the logos again that they were recopyrighted which does not mean the two are linked. Just means they essentially picked up the logos free and clear. Most of the other points you have listed up there don't prove the two are linked either. They just go to show that the team is honouring the past of hockey in ottawa. And again all that stuff you want to show was already there before you started tinkering with it. What we are objecting to is your constantly adding more and more single words here and there trying to make it sound more and more like the two are the same team when they are not. --Djsasso 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The NHL would step in and say they cannot use the old logo if it was inappropriate, no? Alaney2k 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was even content with the reinstatement certificate being briefly mentioned at Ottawa Senators weeks ago (we all were content), that's where it should have ended. GoodDay 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the 'official linkage' question. Now I seem to have to defend my edits, too! I am not the only person editing the article. I don't know what 'undue weight' means. I added a lot of other things to the Sens article - about the financing, etc. So it is bigger. What is the issue there? I tried to organize it chronologically. I don't think it was better six months ago. I have tried to be consistent and 'positive' in the writing. I don't think I've tried to be 'rah-rah', just not negative when it seems to be unnecessary. There was lots of unsubstantiated stuff before, it's gone. I tried to use descriptive headings such as 'Martin' era, and added the info about the various GMs. I've added articles about Sexton and Gauthier. I think the expansion campaign was notable, though, in the context of how Ottawa won it despite others thinking they had no chance, and that it was underfunded, but somehow this got past the board. Alaney2k 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean the article itself was better. Just the history part when referring to the older franchise. --Djsasso 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the real concern, if I might guess, is the use of the word 'reinstated' when applied to the Sens. I respectfully submit that using the word 'new' to the current Sens is getting old. Thoughts? Alaney2k 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, briefly mentioning the 'reinstatement' as a PR move at Ottawa Senators is acceptable. GoodDay 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually just use the term "the current Ottawa Senators" that way there is no "reinstatement" or no "new". --Djsasso 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the undue weight aspect. That, I think is a debatable thing. But, what about moving the History section, or Expansion Campaign section after the on-ice history? Should we have a 'Founding' section, where this could be part of the article, yet less prominent? That's it for me today. I hope you guys don't run too 'wild' without me around. Alaney2k 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So Al, are you now in agreement, no more pushing of 'linkage' between the Senators? GoodDay 13:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to revise 'history'. I am only trying to write 'well'. That's what it is. It is more informative to say 'Ottawa returned to the NHL' than to say 'the new Ottawa Sens started this year'. I do NOT want to be deceptive. Alaney2k 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My two cents; as I've said in many a spot, the limit of acceptance of linkage would be a simple sentence that a "certificate of reinstatement" was given to the team ... provided it can be sourced, because I really am challenging this now. That's it. The NHL has made it plain that it considers the current team to be a separate franchise. The team's own records, standings and statistics make it plain that this is a separate franchise. Far too much time and talk have been spent on this heavily minority POV a single editor is pushing, and it is time for consensus (and the facts on the ground) to prevail.  RGTraynor  18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

These are plainly separate franchises. How about trying to argue that the St. Louis Blues are a continuation of the old franchise (which I am not suggesting at all, but just saying someone could try that) since the old Sens moved to St. Louis where they folded after one season. The only source I can locate so far regarding a certificate is from this sentence: Although there is no direct tie to the original franchise, the modern era Senators were given a certificate of reinstatement by the NHL when the team joined the league as an expansion franchise in 1992. from TSN.CA's Ottawa's Cup Drive article 2007 -Pparazorback 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that Firestone started a new club in '91. I have never disputed that. What I feel we must include somehow is that "Ottawa Senators" something was revived, brought back, whatever, because that was what was intended. Ottawa is back in the NHL. It's not like the Renegades. Anyway, I have a copy of the certificate. It is in the 'Backcheck' magazine. The first one the current Sens published. I will copy the text, but it's not handy right now (I'm out of town) Alaney2k 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the NHL coming out and saying in a citable way that 'Ottawa did not return to the NHL', where is it? I would like to know what that is. At least out of curiosity. I know all about the Sens saying this is their 15th season, etc. That's not where this originated. This originated in how to write that Ottawa returned to the NHL without p****ing you folks off! I'll admit, I'm terrible at debating. Some things just seem right to me, and I can't see the problem with it? We still have to explain how there are two teams of the same name, the new owners wanted to bring back the old Senators, at least because of its valued history, but yet the owners let him have the name but somehow they are not related somehow. How do you write that in a way that you guys don't find disagreeable? As far as I know, Stein is not on record as saying the certificate was a lie. He is a lawyer, so who knows? Do you folks think it is stealing from the past, what? Trying to claim 11 Cups? Alaney2k 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you are missing the point. This article is about the NEW Ottawa Senators. Not about hockey in Ottawa in general. If that is what you are trying to write about then you want to probably have an article called Hockey in Ottawa. I think the issue we are having is that you are trying to load the article with even more information about the old senators than is already there. There was already 2/3rds of the history section about the old senators. We just don't get why you are trying to push more and more information about linking the two teams into an article where it doesn't belong. --Djsasso 05:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that way now. Where else would the expansion campaign go? The NEW team raised the banners. The NEW team named the streets. The NEW team retired the jersey. The NEW team had the 'Established 1894' on its jersey. The NEW team had the campaign. As far as I know, the other cities did not do anywhere as much work to get a franchise. Especially in the 90s when the NHL was trying to dig up owners all over the map. So, it's a differentiation and NOTABLE too. We just have to get a consensus where I don't go over 'the line in the sand' where it is written as a 'continuation of the franchise.' Maybe I don't like where the line is drawn, maybe a bit of leeway to use the words revived, for example would not hurt and would be informative. Alaney2k 16:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply mention 'reinstatement certificate' at Ottawa Senators (like it was weeks ago), pointing out it was a PR move. That's the only article where this certificate should be mentioned. PS- The consensus here seems to be - you've already gone over the line. GoodDay 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So it comes down to the certificate. That's what irks you. If you have a citation as to the certificate's purpose, put it in. The banners, the expansion campaign, the retired number, the naming, the Gormans, the colors, that too? Unless you have a citation that it is only PR, then it is your unproven opinion. The paragraphs states the info about Total Hockey, etc. It mentions about the stats separately. In the article, the certificate is only mentioned in one sentence. I don't see the need for the cynicism, the negativity about this certificate. Why do you not apply that standard to Total Hockey, etc. Why doesn't that book mention about stealing Livingstone's players, or Jack Adams lying about Ted Lindsay, or Calder pocketing thousands, or the Norris's shaving of tickets, lying about the capacity of the stadiums? The league itself is the place to direct your cynicism. Alaney2k 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not lying to say the league welcomed back Ottawa. Can we say that the president of the league welcomed Ottawa back to the league with a 'reinstatement certificate'? Is that 'over your line'? Alaney2k 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming back the City of Ottawa isn't a problem (for me); as for everyone else? GoodDay 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind of course, the St.Louis Blues article makes no mention of the NHL welcoming the City of St. Louis back into the NHL (after 32 years). GoodDay 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want I can look into whether they got one? :-) Alaney2k 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do as you like, but let's also wait and see how the others feel about adding Welcoming back the City of... throughout the various NHL team articles. Examples: Philadelphia Flyers, NHL welcomes back City of Philadelphia after 36 years; Pittsburgh Penguins, NHL welcomes back City of Pittsburgh after 37 years etc. Mind you these Welcoming back City of... additions would be better served by being added to their respective 'city articles'. GoodDay 13:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Senators were given a certificate, that's the difference. It is notable in those other teams' articles to mention that there was a previous NHL team, don't belittle that. Alaney2k 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, the certificate may be mentioned in the Ottawa Senators briefly (and as a PR stunt); anything more then that, would suggest an unbroken linkage between both NHL Senators franchises. GoodDay 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The infobox states 1991 as the founding date. People can read that. This is from the NHL books. But the certificate is not mentioned in the NHL books. The references come from other sources. So, to say it is 'X' or it is 'Y' would have to be cited. The simple fact is that it was given. I've suggested that it welcomed back Ottawa to the NHL. That is an interpretation, but a minimal one. As I've said before, aim your cynicism elsewhere. It was not a cynical gesture by the league. And cynicism is inappropriate in a sport or entertainment article. It is a point of view. Alaney2k 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you here, yet you're accusing me of cynicism. What gives? GoodDay 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes my writing comes across in the the wrong way, more harsh than I intended. I sometimes try to be more wordy, etc. I mean we should not reduce every gesture or action to be a self-serving act. I suggest that putting the words PR in reduce the sentence to mean the NHL did a cynical move. Yes, the NHL let Firestone in because he was willing to pay the $50 million, that was cynical, but Firestone did far more than other cities groups to convince the NHL. Such as the band and supporters in Florida. Finnigan. Resurrecting the name. It adds up to more than 'just a new team', so the certificate recognizes that. Alaney2k 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Certificate or no certificate, it's a new franchise/team/club etc. If you're going to mention Welcoming back City of Ottawa in Ottawa Senators, then you must add Welcoming back City of ... for the other team articles (where appliable). The Senators article shouldn't be given special treatment. GoodDay 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The club has Stanley Cup banners. The club retired a sweater at the first game. Do the other 'revived cities' have similar things? Alaney2k 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The arena has banners, not the team. As far as sweaters I do believe they are looking at that in a similar fashion. A good example of this is the Hartford Wolfpack of the AHL still has all the retired banners (tho not cups obviously) and numbers of the former Hartford Whalers and I don't think you would try and argue they are the same teams even though the Wolfpack raised those banners. So yes, this is common. --Djsasso 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)