Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Archives
2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 2007: 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17

Flags on navboxes

For anyone interested I've started a discussion on the navbox talk page to see whether flags should be included on navboxes or not. -- JD554 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton Oilers' 1,000th win

Looking up references for the 2006-07 season article, I came across an interesting tidbit. Different websites seem to have different ideas as to when the Oilers franchise's 1,000th win occurred. Most say January 2, 2007 against the Panthers,[1] while others say January 7, 2007 against the Kings.[2] The season article on Wikipedia says the 7th, while the team article says the 2nd. I am going with the 2nd with the reference for now, but this should probably be checked out. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Oilers Media Guide, they entered this season with 1013 wins. That would put win #1000 on Feb 2 against Florida. Resolute 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You meant Jan 2. I pulled up hockeydb and put oiler's overall record in excel. They had 981 wins at the end of the 2005-06 season, so 19 wins in 2006-07 is the mark which indeed was January 2. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant Jan 02. Resolute 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Hockey Club

This article resembles Ottawa Senators (original) too much, to be a seperate article. Perhaps it should be tagged with an AfD? What does everybody think. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That was temporary. The club was officially always known as the Ottawa Hockey Club, during its Silver Seven days, and the Senators days. I switched the redirects around. But that can be switched back if Senators is proper policy. Alaney2k (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's similar to the listing for Montreal HC, also better known as Montreal AAA. Alaney2k (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming guidelines say to use the most common name, which may not necessarily be the official name. They may have been the Ottawa Hockey Club officially, but they were most commonly called the Ottawa Senators. Its the same reason we have the article Toronto Maple Leafs and Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club (the official name of the Leafs) redirects to it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake, I'll switch that back. Hold on a sec. Alaney2k (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Al. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Flames peer review

After about a year of pecking away at this article, I've spent the past three days seriously editing this article to add images, sources, prose, etc, and I believe it is close to being FA level. I've listed the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Calgary Flames. Any comments anyone has on how to improve this article would be most appreciated, especially from anyone who worked to get New Jersey Devils to featured status. Thanks! Resolute 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Black Hockey Players

What do you guys think of this: List of Black Hockey Players? Indiscriminate list, no? Skudrafan1 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that article tasteless. A hockey players skills don't depend on his/her skin coloration. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, tastelessness is not really an issue, given Wikipedia is not censored, but I question whether this is a relevant intersection. While there was a really good story on Willie O'Ree in the Sun yesterday, I think we have long since past the time when an NHL player being black is unique enough to be notable. Resolute 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No but it probably is a defining characteristic of the person (as much as that shouldn't be the case) which is what the requirement is for categories, so I don't see a valid reason for getting rid of it as I would think lists would fall along the same lines. --Djsasso (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's ample precedent in Wikipedia for such a list, alas. My problem is that's it's poorly done. Marc Tardif and Ray Neufeld, WTF? Bill Riley listed twice? Several players on the "Minor Leagues / Europe" list long retired? All those redlinks?  RGTraynor  00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also find it pointless, and have to ask: if we keep that, do we add a List of Asian Hockey Players, a List of Latino Hockey Players, and what about List of European Hockey Players or even a List of Canadian Hockey Players, etc.? It doesn't stop once we do that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Howabout an article List of White Hockey Players? GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, that actually does happen with most other professions on wikipedia. And yes GoodDay even that one. This one would not pass an Afd. --Djsasso (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting concept, but very poorly executed in my book. If it is going to stick around, I'll clean it up a bit. I am unclear if 'would not pass a Afd' means it 'would not pass through the process and be deleted' or 'would not pass through the process and be kept.' Thanks for anyone who clarifies. Leafschik1967 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be deleted. These sorts of articles/lists/categories go up for deletion all the time and get shot down because it is felt that your ethnicity is a defining charactaristic of who you are. -Djsasso (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New franchise records template

I have created a template to quickly link to all the articles for each NHL team's records. Check it out at Template:NHL franchise records. There are still a lot of red links for these pages, and it is my hope that some of you will help me get them all going. Eventually I would also like to include records for defunct franchises (if the information is available). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Franchise records standardization

These pages are in need of standardization, and I will work to to this. I would like something of a consensus to be reached first, to avoid edit wars. Here are my suggestions.

i. Records such as "Fewest wins" and "Fewest ties" are almost certainly from the shortened 1994-95 NHL season (or from before the 1967 NHL Expansion for the Original Six teams). For these "Fewest X" records we should include the record for short seasons and long seasons. I propose 74 games as the threshold for a "long season" (which is the number of games in the first post-expansion season). They might be listed like so:

Fewest Wins	12 16	1926-27 (44 game season) 1937-38 (48 game season) 1976-77
Fewest Losses	11 13	1994-95 (48 game season) 1995-96

ii. The Detroit Red Wings records includes the active leaders for the individual records. This could be implemented into all of the articles.

iii. Order of sections should be as follows:

1. Franchise Records
   1. Single Season
   2. Single Game
   3. Streaks
2. Individual Records
   1. Career
   2. Season
   3. Single Game
3. References

What does everyone think? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to the topic. I was going to bring this up, only got sidetracked. Looks like a good list. Also, as I've started to do in some pages, adding a few photos to the pages of different record holders helps to make it look better. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I made Anaheim Ducks records to showcase the standard I would propose for all NHL franchise records articles. Have a look. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Team Page Rosters

I noticed that the NHL pages are the only North American top-level professional sport pages that do not use templates for their rosters. I do not think our current roster templates are adequate enough to put on these pages. I was taking a look at what other team pages for other sports do such as Toronto Blue Jays and Toronto Raptors. Does anyone else think we should use templates (and new ones) for roster pages? Thricecube (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe we found that it was redundant to have them listed on a template and to have them in a table above. And the tables we used look much nicer than a template ever could. Looking at the rosters on those two pages makes me shudder, they are absolutely horrible. I would much rather see them switch to our method. It's much easier to read ours and we can get more information listed on ours. --Djsasso (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I look at all of these roster templates, including the ones that do exist for NHL teams, and I have a very hard time understanding why they even exist. They are useful on exactly one article: the team article. A template with only one use should be substituted and then manually edited from that article. {{Toronto Blue Jays roster}} transcluded on only one other article: the 2007 Blue Jays season article. But really, what purpose does that serve? In the case of our season articles, the full stats of every player to appear in the uniform is (or should be) listed. A template that points to the final roster at the end of the season dismisses much of the season itself.

Or, to make a long rant short, the way we do things now is perfectly fine, and I would argue is massively superior to the baseball and football templates in that our roster lists provide more than just a player's name. Resolute 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I have never understood why there are templates for rosters to begin with when they are only of use on a one page and even there it's not all that useful. --Djsasso (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to improve on the maintenance of the roster info? If there was a way to input the roster data in one spot, and have it output in the two spots (team and season), (in the two formats) that would be an improvement. Is that possible? It's not a big deal, just wondering. Alaney2k (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well yes that is what a template is for, but what we are saying is that when there is only two places to update its just not worth what you have to give up when you use a template. As you can see templates are alot more messy and can't offer as much information. --Djsasso (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, the ultimate would be to have one data location, and it could output the stats (the 'Skaters') in one place, the team page format in another, and the 'simple' roster (the team page) format in another. I was just wondering if it's possible to do coding like that here in Wikipedia. That would make three output formats, would that be worth the coding effort? I have not investigated at all the coding side of things here. Then, could you extend that to one data entry point for all NHL players? Alaney2k (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be possible. Templates are just basically forms where you are either filling variables like the Infobox or a pre-set amount of data like the roster examples above. There is no way on wikipedia to have a page pull data from one location and have it pull different data depending on the page. Anything like that would technically be a contradiction of Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. --Djsasso (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability question

Is simply being selected to a World Junior Hockey Championship roster enough to make a player notable? I ask because Mario Kempe, which I know we've had deleted at least once before, has been re-created. The user left this edit summary when he made the page yesterday: yea yea, I know you guys love to delete this page, but like it or not, he's on a world junior team and is thereby now "noteable". I don't see that anywhere in the notability standards. Am I missing something, or is this guy still not notable? Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is he considered a top prospect after being drafted? Flibirigit (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous AfD for this article said no: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Kempe. Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the edit summary? And the user's history? This is pure trolling, I've blocked him for 48 hours to prevent more crap like this. --Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Max. I thought this might draw your ire. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, btw, I deleted the article and salted it (ie it can't be recreated by a non-admin, unless an admin removes the protection). Maxim_(talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to block it in that way I would make note to go back and remove it eventually because he will likely eventually pass our notability guidelines. But yes the WJHC isn't enough yet, as that still isn't the highest level of amateur competition. -Djsasso (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the vanity press author... I remember him. ccwaters (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

World Juniors are an interesting problem. In Canada, that tournament may well be the most highly anticipated hockey tournament of the year, in Europe, it's pretty much an also-ran. So, I would argue that making the WJHC roster in Canada would make one notable, yet elsewhere, not as much? I might suggest for the Wikiproject's guidelines that winning the gold medal be the threshold for notability. Resolute 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to argue against that threshold. Looking back on some championship rosters, it doesn't seem to be a good guidline. While some recent rosters of Canada have several notable players, they are notable regardless of winning gold; that was just one of their achievements in hockey. An example would be Hugh Hamilton; looking at his hockeydb.com profile it looks like he had a rather ordinary career, the highlight of which would be a 1997 World Junior's Gold. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue against it as well. The "well, this tournament is considered important in X" can apply in all manner of crazy directions. Heck, should we allow articles about players in the annual Quebec Peewee Tournament, which is a huge enough deal that you can buy DVDs of the games and that a couple years have even seen trading cards of the participants released?  RGTraynor  08:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just curious - what is the highest level of so-called 'amateur' (not meant sarcastically, just that 'amateur' is pretty vague in hockey, basically only NCAA) competition, if not the World Juniors? Arguing against regional events or notable minor hockey tournaments is quite easy, but the highest level of international hockey for a significant age group (draft eligible and recently drafted) seems notable to me. I'd argue the medalists from each year more than qualify.Leafschik1967 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The highest level is the World Championships or the Olympics. The minute you add the qualifier of a significant age group then it ceases to be relatively notable for the players themselves. The tournament itself is notable because it is the best for that age group, but it does not make the players in it notable. And I would agree with Kaiser and RGTraynor. I don't really know why people can't be patient and wait the year or so till they have played a pro game. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, neither the notability criteria we have in place on WP:HOCKEY or, more importantly, WP:BIO, recognizes anything close to as subjective as "significant age groups" ... a value which, conveniently and arbitrarily, can be stretched to cover any age an individual editor can want.  RGTraynor  01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks

A question at talk: Anaheim Ducks concerning Scott Niedermayer's status, please take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Junior hockey alumni categories

So, I noticed that The main categories for WHL, QMJHL, OHL and AJHL alumni were listed at CfD for renaming from alumni to players. Seems the guy who failed to accomplish this last year tried again, and since nobody from this wikiproject was notified, or was watching CfD, it passed this time. Same reasoning applied too - the nominator does not understand the difference between minor league hockey and junior hockey. I'll be looking for a means to correct this, possibly re-listing at CfD, but in the meantime, we might want to watch the CfD pages closer, as chances are team categories will be hit next. Resolute 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Alberta_Junior_Hockey_League_players Resolute 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support having those renamed, but any reason why you didn't list all four of them? Flibirigit (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. DMighton (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My guess is because we had the two categories already, what he has done is moved all the alumni over to the players cat, not realizing the differences between the two. --Djsasso (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Could Resolute amend his proposal, or does it need to be another discussion? Flibirigit (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Might as well just put another one up if you want to. Just to be completely transparent. -Djsasso (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fatigue, mostly. Ultimately, I found the AJHL category to be the most important though, as there are several player articles in the root category. For the CHL categories, there are very few articles that are not subcategorized by team, so it didn't seem as important a battle to fight. I also felt the AJHL category had the strongest case, as there are virtually no Jr. A players who gain notability prior to turning pro. At the CHL level, there are several active players who are notable. Resolute 05:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, better to re-nominate the CHL categories separately at this point. Resolute 05:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are you going to make those other nominations too, or want someone else to do it? Flibirigit (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the attempt to correct the AJHL category is headed to a no consensus vote, I'm not sure that would serve a point at this time. Definitely going to be watching the logs to see that the team categories are not altered the same way, however. Resolute 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

I've made a few suggestions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Alberta_Junior_Hockey_League_players. Hopefully this can satisfy both sides of the discussion. Please let me know what you guys think! Flibirigit (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for deletion & discussion

I slightly rearranged the section. I've entered a line where someone can place their signature ~~~~ when the have last checked each AFD, TFD or CFD for hockey related listings. Flibirigit (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Blues

On two ocassions (September 1, 2007 and today) User: Blueboy96 added John Davidison as a General Manager. Is his edit(s) correct? see talk: St. Louis Blues (hockey). --GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. As I posted on the discussion page, the Blue's site explicitly states that Pleau is the General Manager. Regardless if his power has been reduced, he still has the official title. As such, he should be listed as the GM. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League statistical leaders

Here we go again. The anon block has once again expired as of Dec 16, 2007 at 0:00, and at 2:05 the drive by Martin Brodeur edits have begun again. Be on the lookout and WHEN a few more edits occur, I guess we request protection again, this time for a longer period. Too bad we can't get the protection until April 2008 - YET... --Pparazorback (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we get a longer protection? And just a reminder, don't fotget the stats template ({{subst:Hockey|Article}} ~~~~), leave this message at talk pages of users who update stats. --Krm500 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, it's just 'drive-by' anon editors (most of them making their update edits innocently). If permanent protection or semi-protection isn't possible? Then we just request another protection each time the previous one expires. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Team Draft Pages

I recently started to create the San Jose Sharks draft picks page and started to copy the existing Calgary Flames draft picks page, seeing how it's the most complete. This led to some issues I think we should clear up before I get heavily involved into the article and other associated pages. As it stands on the Flames article, it only includes players who have played at least one game in the NHL as of last season, as well as listing their career games and points, or if a goaltender, wins.

While I applaud Resolute for taking the time to create the article in such depth, I have some ideas on how to change it for the better, providing the projects blessing of course. What I personally think we should do is list every player drafted. This seems to me a no-brainer; the NHL Record Book does it for every team, albeit only the past 20 years or so, as well as the most recent draft's full listing, and as it is now, the first 2 rounds of every previous draft, plus notable players. Individual team media guides also list every player drafted by that particular team, as does hockeydb.com. Seeing how Wikipedia isn't paper, and paper sources list complete drafts, this should be no problem. Also, I think there could be something that could be added to change the stats of drafted players, perhaps adding more than just games and points/wins. Not quite sure what we could do there, so up to ideas. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to list all the players ever drafted by the Buffalo Sabres at Buffalo Sabres draft history (which, by the way, is the way the consensus had me word the title), and it was shot down per discussion at this very project's talk page. I think giving a complete history is vital in the name of accuracy and thoroughness, but apparently that's just me and you. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is where those discussions went down: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Buffalo Sabres draft picks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall a discussion saying we shouldn't list every player on that page. We definitely should as it is the appropriate place. --Djsasso (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading over that, I also don't ever recall us discussing a standard of draft pages. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind why I did the article the way I did was that each season page would have the full draft for that year, while this article would cover the players which are "notable" - ie. played in the NHL. I am mindful of the failed FLC for the Sabres article, and knew that including the full history would be required to get the Flames one to FL status. I simply haven't done it yet. Been working on a couple team articles first. I'd say complete it, including the supplimental draft, which I also wish to add. Resolute 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a complete list. And while we're at it; IMO the "header" should be neutral in color, the team color is often very hard on the eyes. --Krm500 (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what the Sabres page looks like as a complete list: User:Skudrafan1/Complete Buffalo Sabres draft history. Not too lengthy, IMO. Skudrafan1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would really like the lists being complete. It is still very easy to tell visually how many of the players have played in the NHL the way your complete Sabres page is formatted. I feel that the articles are not too long to be unmanageable. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Work has been nearly dead today, so I've been working on expanding the Flames list to include all players. About halfway done now. One suggestion for you, Skudrafan, for the Sabres list - since the FLC argued that there were too many sections in the table of contents, I cut the Flames article down to sections by decade, then using the {{H3}} template to divide years without having them show up in the TOC. Also, for the Supplimental drafts, I was thinking of putting them all into one table at the end, rather than a separate section for each. Which do you think would work better? Resolute 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

{{H3}} template, huh? I'll work on it. And having the few Supplemental Draft picks grouped together in a separate section would probably be better, yes. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the way the Sabres draft page is done up. But still think that there should be a note to list what players didn't make the NHL, although I suppose it would look rather tedious after time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In my revision at Calgary Flames draft history, I shaded all players who made the NHL, rather than players who are active this season. IMO, it helps on easily tell at a glance which players made the NHL and which have not. Resolute 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Original Sens list and Original Sens category

I've seen this done in other cases. How do you merge the category Category:Ottawa Senators (original) players and List of Ottawa Senators (original) players? The list article looks better with chronological info. Alaney2k (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't do this. The only time this is done is when one or the other is not appropriate. In this case both are appropriate. --Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I thought I'd seen that somewhere. I'll work to get the names in sync then. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I get into an edit war...

...there have been three different edits recently questioning the way Mountain Dew's sponsorship of the AMP NHL Winter Classic should be shown in the article. I have it simply shown in a referenced sentence at the end of the introductory paragraph: The game is being sponsored by Mountain Dew AMP. This sentence was removed twice, the second time with an edit summary saying "Q. Is sponsorship an important part of the story? Shouldn't M Dew donate $1MM to Wiki if they want the advertizing?. I readded it both times, but now it has been removed again and, in its place, the article's heading has been changed to call the game the Mountain Dew AMP NHL Winter Classic, with the edit summary "Shouldn't you guys treat like the BCS Bowl Games wiki pages, giving wiki link to sponsor's name in the games title as shown here now?". I am stepping back for now, because it is making me upset. The game's official name is not the "Mountain Dew AMP NHL Winter Classic"; it is simply the AMP NHL Winter Classic. And is there something wrong with a sentence saying that the game is sponsored by Mountain Dew AMP? Advice? *sigh* Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it; it's a significant aspect of this match. How the BCS bowl games are handled is WP:FOOTBALL's bailiwick, and I'm sure they can tend to their own knitting just fine.  RGTraynor  05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of the game, from the link on the page, is the 'Amp Energy NHL Winter Classic'. But later, on the linked page, it's entitled Amp NHL Winter Classic. This seems a little bizarre. That said, they did not mention Mountain Dew, who must own Amp I suppose. As we get closer to the game, I am sure this will be made more clear, but maybe the article might be more appropriately termed? Possibly it should be the Amp Energy NHL Winter Classic 2008. I've seen it referred to that way, likely indicating that the NHL wants to do it again in the future. We can do redirects for whatever is the exact title. About the placement of the sponsorship text, I think that belongs in a later paragraph. Alaney2k (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And in another page, the 'AMP ENERGY / NHL Winter Classic'. Argh. Alaney2k (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posed this question here before. For the longest time, the official NHL website for the game referred to it as simply the AMP NHL Winter Classic, which is why the page was titled as it was. But now I see that the official NHL page has changed, and most of the mentions to the naming there seem to call it the "AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic" ([3]). I will be moving the page to reflect this lengthier name, which has seemed to be the consensus among other news outlets anyway. Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (I noticed the question, after I responded in this section.) If in the future, they do another, another move can be done. About the sponsorship, should that discussion go to the talk page for the page? I think some sections are needed for this article. It is one long section, which is not very good. It should be a lead and some sections, but I am not sure of the naming of those sections... Maybe the Heritage Classic article is appropriate. I'll take a look. Alaney2k (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point the article is tiny so sections would not be a good idea. -Djsasso (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was going to break the article into sections after it has been played. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a logo for the Winter Classic at the NHL site. Would it be appropriate to use the logo under fair-use? Alaney2k (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Make sure it is well tagged though, or the bots will come to harvest your soul... Resolute 03:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fighting in ice hockey featured on main page screenshot.PNG

Image:Fighting in ice hockey featured on main page screenshot.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of tangential to this WikiProject's purview

But I could use a little help with Denver Pioneers Hockey. I've suggested the article be merged into University of Denver or be made part of a new article called Denver Pioneers, since no school has an article for their own hockey team (to the best of my knowledge). The author, User:Ctrottnow was welcome templated just this very day and is obviously new to the process. He or she is seemingly taking offense to my proposal it be merged and has twice deleted the mergeto template. I've left messages on the article's talk page and Ctrottnow's. Any help greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be moved to Denver Pioneers which would cover all of the sports. Just like Michigan Wolverines does. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am aware of at least two college ice hockey programs with their own pages: North Dakota Fighting Sioux hockey and Minnesota Golden Gophers men's ice hockey. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You know I was trying to find some, not sure why I didn't think of those two. That being said I think it should be part of a bigger article until it is big enough to be split off onto its own. --Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

editconflict I don't think that's necessarily a 1:1 comparison though. Both of those schools have individual articles for each of their varsity sports. This is the first and only article on any Denver Pioneers sport. But yes, I do stand corrected to a point. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what you mean now. We both stand corrected to a point. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know why I didn't think of this solution. It works, no merger necessary. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of edit wars ...

Some of you might know that over in the Bobby Orr article, there's been a user, User:TrulyTory, who for a couple of years has been pushing variously the POV that Orr is the greatest player of all time and more particularly (weirdly enough) the POV that Doug Harvey is one of the greatest offensive defensemen of all time. Virtually all his Wikipedia activity this calendar year has revolved around inserting the latter into the article, and there's been a good deal of discussion in the Orr talk page on the issue, much of it peppered with WP:CIVIL violations on Tory's part. After an absence of a few months, he's popped back to make the edit again. Could some folks pop over, give their own opinions on this and head off another dreary edit war?  RGTraynor  12:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, we agreed to use the line one of the greatest... to end these silly disputes about a year ago. I'll be glad to help out. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the players listed as the "exceptions to the rule". It is extraneous information, as if we intend to argue that offensive-defencemen were not common, then pointing out examples of offensive-defencemen kinda defeats the point. This also defeats the attempt at POV pushing on that front. Otherwise, agreed with GoodDay. Orr is consistently considered one of the greatest of all time, and there are literally hundreds of sources that would back up that phrasing. To call him the best of all time, with certainty, is not correct. Resolute 15:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a bother, but I noticed at the article Wayne Gretzky, we neglected using the line one of the greatest.... Why has that article been given special treatment (yes I know about the citations, but those are arguablely PoV citations). Anyways, I'm not gonna raise a stink there, just pointing out application of 'double standard'. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to see surrender to that idjit, but I suppose you're right, Resolute. As far as Gretzky goes, the thing is that there's a hugely sourced consensus among hockey experts that Gretzky is the greatest. It's not a matter of special treatment, it's a matter that regardless of our personal opinions, the hockey world has a POV, that POV is generally in Gretzky's favor, and failing to recognize that position would be POV-pushing on our part. Heck, the very first line of Gretzky's Encyclopedia Britannica entry is "Canadian ice-hockey player who was considered by many to be the greatest player in the history of the National Hockey League (NHL)." Plainly they don't consider the statement out of line.  RGTraynor  16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not gonna bring up the (IMHO) 'double standard' thing at that article. Yes, we all know the people(s) in the hockey media worship Gretzky & those in the non-hockey media go by what little they know. OK, I said my piece. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy apparently went Orr crazy. Was looking at his edits and came across this diff which I just undid. --Pparazorback (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You could say the guy was Orriginal in his edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(blinks) He edited the Number Four article to include Orr? For heaven's sake, I'm a bloody Bostonian, Orr's just the next thing to Jesus still around these parts, but sheesh!  RGTraynor  19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's lotsa uniform numbers at 4 (number), but it appears every single "x (number)" article has an "in sports" section. Flibirigit (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As does this one, which he is already mentioned in. -Djsasso (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Robot request

Is is it possible to get a robot to be programmed to convert player profile links in URL form into the {{Hockeydb}}, {{Legendsofhockey}}, {{Nhlprofile}}, {{TSN-NHL-profile}}, and {{Eurohockey}} templates? If so, who can do it.. or where do we ask? Flibirigit (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also looking for the same kinda thing to add Category:Sports clubs by year of establishment and Category:Sports clubs by year of disestablishment, with the respective years substituted. Flibirigit (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This maybe possible with a simple AWB bot... Gimme a couple days to figure this out. --Maxim_(talk) 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for a few months. I got a couple hundred done but it gets so tedious without a regular expression to speed things up. I'll be starting with Category:American ice hockey players until I can get a regexp made. IrisKawling (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some nice folks at the AWB page made a nice little RegExp code/module to make this task easier, see: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#RegExp request IrisKawling (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well looks great.. but I have no idea what to do with it :-s What to do now? Flibirigit (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Junior national team

The question was brought up at Talk:IIHF World U-20 Hockey Championship, I checked and no such articles exist. I noticed there were many articles on national U20 soccer teams, anyone think we should take the time and create these articles? --Krm500 (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. For Canada, at least, I'd argue the Junior national team has a higher profile than the senior team, Olympics aside. Resolute 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What would such an article be called - Nation national junior's ice hockey team? --Krm500 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think its overkill as I stated in the link above... That's five total articles per nation: men's, men's u-20, men's u-18, women's, women's u-18. I think it would be easiest to consolidate to one mens and women's team article per nation or just link to the sanctioning body (USA Hockey, Hockey Canada, Swedish Ice Hockey Association). However, if someone wants to do all the work, then go for it. I would name them "XXX national men's U-20 ice hockey team", etc... ccwaters (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, the football articles are named "Nation national under-20 football team" (or "under-21", etc.). I think that "under-20" is better looking than "U-20". However, my preference would be to group the men's under-20 and under-18 teams under a single "junior" article, and include the women's under-18 team in the existing women's articles. That would give us three articles for most major hockey nations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Which

On the 2007 Summit Series article... it seems we missed this, but the logo: File:2007 super series logo3.gif got deleted because of lack of valid FUR... Can someone roll this back so we can fix it? DMighton (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

NHL Standings Update Robot (Sort of)

I wrote an Excel web query that does the following: 1) Imports ESPN's NHL Standings onto an Excel Sheet. 2) Re-sorts the standings to break ties using fewer games played then # wins. 3) Creates wiki code for all 6 divisions so that all one has to do is copy / paste the code into the edit box and the standings are updated quickly. Anyone who has Excel and is interested in the sheet, e-Mail me and I will be more than happy to send it to you. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Question re: automatic archiving and User:MiszaBot II

I notice that the automatic archiving at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey uses a "space" between the "archive" and the number e.g "16". Hence, we now have two separate entities in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive16 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive 16. How can we fix this? Flibirigit (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot was configured to have a SPACE between archive and the Archive #. I have 1) merged the content in "archive 16" into the "archive16" file, 2) db-empty'd the "archive 16" page as it is no longer needed. 3) reconfigured the path save filename in the miszabot configuration to delete the incorrectly placed space between the word "archive" and the archive number. This should fix the problem. --Pparazorback (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you should do it the other way round - the standard is to have a space between "Archive" and the number. Миша13 17:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I removed the spacing to be consistent with the other 15 archive pages (as well as the original archive16 page) which was created prior to using the bot to archive. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Professional League?

Please take a look at Sebastian Stefaniszin, a prod that was challenge by an anon editor. Looking at his career statistics, the player's career had him in the Deutsche Eishockey-Liga and in the 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey). Are either of these professional leagues or high enough for this player to be notable at this time? Thanks. --Pparazorback (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DEL is a professional league, and on the rise. Generally ranked in after Russian Super League & Swedish Elite League (in a group of their own), and Finland's SM-liiga & Swiss Nationalliga A. --Krm500 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another league: Vysshaya Liga. Lower division of the Russian pro hockey league. Are their players notable for playing in that league? With that question, I have an idea that would help as far as determining which articles should be considered for Prodding. We should create a listing of all leagues that would have it's players notable based on WP:Hockey project guidelines for notability. --Pparazorback (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says the league is professional, so as long as the player has played at least 5 seasons and 100 games in that league (or one of equal or higher standing) then they would be notable as per WP:HOCKEY. However, WP:BIO has much freer guidelines in that they player simply has to have "competed in a fully professional league" — in other words one game is enough. I think the guidelines for WP:BIO would scupper your plan. -- JD554 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Individual game summaries on season articles

Interested editors, please take a look at the discussion at Talk:2007-08 Buffalo Sabres season about the merit of including summaries of particularly interesting games within the body of season articles. I guess my question is "where does it end?" How do we determine what games are worthy of being written about and what games aren't? Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Commented there. We should have a page discussing general content and layout of season pages. --Michael Greiner 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

a simple question

I am currently watching the Colorado vs. Vancouver game and the Canuck goal was (somewhat) caused because the linesman couldn't "jump" out of the way along the boards. The announcer said that they aren't allowed to "jump" up on the boards anymore. Does anyone have any info on this rule change? This is the first i've heard of it. Masterhatch (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, MH, long time no hear; how goes it? (That being said, this is news to me. WTF, you can't jump out of the way of the play?)  RGTraynor  03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I was watching the game and the announcer said that the linesmen aren't allowed to jump out of the way by climbing up the boards like they used to. Because the puck hit the linseman (who couldn't jump up on the boards) and the puck didn't clear the Colorado zone, the canucks were able to convert that into a goal. anyways, i just wanted to see if anyone heard anything. So, RGT, i see that you are still quite active here on wikipedia. ARe things going well? I only contribute rarely, and that is usually just reverting vandalism on pages on my watchlist. Have a merry christmas! Masterhatch (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of [insert team] first-round draft picks‎?

Most of the NFL football teams have lists like this (even the newer ones) and they seem to be becoming FLs at an impressive rate. I was wondering if we should start making lists like this for NHL teams? There are sources, NHL.com has a full list of all first round picks going back to the 60s, the Hockey Database has a list of draft picks by team and some of the team websites probably have some kind of history page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a working model of all draft picks for the Devils at User:FutureNJGov/sandbox/Devilsdraft. I don't see why all teams can't have this. --Michael Greiner 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it baffles me how those can even become FL's. Yeah, the scope is specifically limited to the first round, but there is more than one round. There are some draft articles already, ie Calgary Flames draft history and San Jose Sharks draft picks, but yeah, more should be done. Resolute 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need a set guideline for naming conventions... Resolute 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Resolute. Looking at some of those lists, they are quite weak. What we have going on, including the full draft history, not only includes that information, but also has the other drafts. This is notable because as anyone can attest, being a first round draft pick doesn't guarantee success in sports. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach Thunderboltz

Does anyone know what the status is of the Myrtle Beach Thunderboltz? They are due to begin play in the ECHL in 2008-09, however it appears their proposed arena YRT2 Arena has been postponed due to funding issues. Patken4 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Special edition triple crown offer

One of the members of this project recently earned the imperial Napoleonic triple crown for contributions to ice hockey. As some of you may know, special edition triple crowns are also available to WikiProjects. Basically if five members of this project each earn a triple crown for ice hockey articles I'll Photoshop a unique award and give it to the project, along with copies of the award to each project member who qualifies. You'll also receive your own project section on the triple crown awards page.

It shouldn't be too hard for an active project to earn this: the threshold for each participant's inclusion is 10 line citations to a GA or FA, so a couple of article drives could earn recognition for several people. The only thing you'll have to do individually is contribute your own DYK (see the award page for more info).

Thanks for the good work improving articles and best wishes! Durova^Charge! 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know I'd qualify: Template:GA-symbolCalgary Flames, Template:GA-symbolCalgary Hitmen, Template:GA-symbolCalgary Tigers, List of Calgary Flames players, National Hockey League awards, List of ice hockey teams in Alberta, List of ice hockey teams in Saskatchewan, Calgary Tigers, 1988-89 Calgary Flames season.

T-Rex is also a qualifying candidate: Clarence S. Campbell Bowl, Template:GA-symbolThomas Lee (Virginia colonist), Himalayan Brown Bear

We seem to have many others who are close. Scorpion0422 has contributed to many GA's and FC's, but I am not sure of any DYK's. Skudrafan1 has a pile of DYK's, and List of Buffalo Sabres players looks like it simply needs FL nomination. Not sure about GA's, though he did help copyedit Template:GA-symbol Calgary Flames. Serte is only a DYK away as well, it seems: List of Colorado Avalanche players, Conn Smythe Trophy, Template:GA-symbolColorado Avalanche (and others). There are more, all of whom are close, and some of whom may have those missing DYK's. Resolute 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any GAs or DYKs for this project. I did earn a special triple crown as part of the Simpsons WikiProject. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that bit of copy-editing I did on Calgary Flames recently is really my only contribution to a GA. I'd love to get List of Buffalo Sabres players and/or Buffalo Sabres draft history to FL status soon. Maybe I'll get working on that tonight -- seems like a good way to spend a Christmas Eve. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to put 10 citations into a version that passes GA in order for the work to count toward an award. If a few people share the work on a B-class article that shouldn't be too hard to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get an individual crown for T-Rex shortly. Resolute, are there any DYKs in your own list? Scorpion, if you earn a GA and a DYK for this project you'll become the first editor to receive two different special edition project crowns.

The real aim of this thing is to inspire people who are already good contributors to do a little more of their excellent work. So ping me when you have enough for a project award. In the meantime, what do you think would be a good hockey-related image for the project award? For WikiProject Australia I put a crown onto a koala bear. Maybe I could tilt a jaunty crown onto a puck, or maybe just use the Stanley cup? Durova^Charge! 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have two DYK's - Calgary Tigers and 1988-89 Calgary Flames season. As far as a triple crown goes related to hockey, it would be almost sacreligious not to use something related to the Triple Crown Line, though I'm not sure there is a good image. Probably a typical puck, or crossed sticks or something of the like. Resolute 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the image would have to come from freely licensed material on Commons or Wikipedia. If you find and upload something suitable then more power to you. I'll get to work on those imperial jewels for you (why is it now that I've written up my year end stats I get a rush of new qualifiers?) Happy holidays, Durova^Charge! 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked. ;o) I'm sure several of us can create an image of some kind. It's not like we don't have pucks, sticks or other hockey equip that we can take photos of. Resolute 00:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely certain what type of image you want (though I did notice the ones in your TCA subpage), but the Hockey Hall of Fame would be appropriate. Image:Hockey Hall of Fame.jpg Good luck putting a crown on it though. Good pic of a puck. A hockey helmet, which would be appropriate for a crown. Resolute 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a working draft?

lol, sweet image! Now we just need a couple more editors to qualify for it. Thanks for the award on my talk page as well.  :) Resolute 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, it's a pleasure. :) Keep up the good work. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Did You Know away from that, as Resolute already said. Sooner or later, it'll come, for sure. It's a great idea.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Holiday wishes

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays WikiProject Ice Hockey!
Flibirigit (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your hard work with WikiProject Ice Hockey and endeavours to make Wikipedia an amazing repertory of ice hockey information. I look forward to seeing what we can accomplish in our next wikiyear.

File:Julekort.jpg

.

I concur. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian: Auguri a tutti (Greetings to all) --necronudist (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you said Merry Christmas! That's it, I'm gonna find someone who is offended and sue you!.... Seriously, I agree with everyone and may everyone have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Let us hope 2008 is the year where vandals lay down their keyboards and join the Wikipedians in a knowledgeable song. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

God Jul! --Krm500 (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

I've been working on the page, and I was wondering if some people could take a look at it and let me know how it's going. Just remember that I've yet to start work on the lead, the exhibits and "Operations and organization" sections, but the rest of it has been reformatted. The criticism section could also use a bit of expanding, so if anyone knows of any reliable sources that could provide some good info, please feel free to add it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! What are you gunning for; GA or FA? --Krm500 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, GA. It'll probably be a month before it's reviewed, but after that I might try for FA status. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Player rosters on amateur teams

Just wanted to let you all know another editor brought up the concern of player rosters on less than professional teams. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Player rosters. Since it would fairly heavily affect this project I figured you all should be aware of it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents. DMighton (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh god not this again. I cringe everytime I see a roster in the Canadian Hockey League with blue links full of non-notable articles. Flibirigit (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do as well, but I do feel we need a list of who is on the team, linked or not. -Djsasso (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Referees/Linemen

I've created a few basic stubs on some retired NHL referees/linemen the last two days and realized that they may/may not be notable. So far, I've only created articles for those that officiated 1,000 games or more and are retired. I was going to start on some current officials but want to make sure these are in fact notable subjects before going through the work. So what are the notability requirements of referees/linesmen? Simply officiating an NHL game? Officiating a notable event (Stanley Cup/World Championship/All-Star Game)? A certain number of games? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there are any set guidelines, I would probably go with officiating a notable event or atleast reaching NHL level games. I will have to think on this. -Djsasso (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One notability item could be related to making it to the NHL and refereeing such contests such as the Stanley Cup finals despite the fact that the ref is obviously either nearsighted or blind, such as Mick McGeough. Sorry could not resist the commentary, he is my least favorite referee in the league. </Blog mode off>. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still proud of how we booed McGeough when the Flames celebrated his 1000th game as a ref... At any rate, I would think that going with the general notability criteria would suffice. If they made the NHL, that would make them notable enough. Problem then is whether there is enough material with which to write a biographical article. Resolute 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would just revert to the standard biography notability guidelines. Basically, if enough reliable secondary sources for the information that would allow for the creation of a solid article. I would think that this would be rare for referees for the most part. Some would have enough, but I can't imagine being able to find too much information on those that only refereed for a year or two. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kerry 'the hair' Fraser comes to mind. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with James; since they're not "athletes," per se, they fall under the general WP:BIO guidelines, and that would exclude all but the most famous officials. I'm not sure if, in recent years, anyone would pass that save for Don Koharski or John D'Amico.  RGTraynor  18:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for comparison, here are the baseball wikiproject guidelines for umpires:

• Meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO
• Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff and have worked in at least one postseason or All-Star Game; umpires of the 19th century must have worked in at least 200 games. Minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement.

--Michael Greiner 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention it, we already do have a mechanic in place for some articles; our own notability guidelines sign off on Honoured Members of the HHOF. Therefore: Neil Armstrong, John Ashley, Bill Chadwick, John D'Amico, Chaucer Elliott, George Hayes, Bobby Hewittson, Mickey Ion, Matt Pavelich, Michael Rodden, Cooper Smeaton, Red Storey, Frank Udvari and Andy Van Hellemond. Scotty Morrison is in as a Builder.  RGTraynor  19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the HHOF members are no-brainers that should be included. I also believe that there would be enough independent sources for more officials than just those to have articles. But when it comes down to it, there probably isn't an easy way to determine notability short of being in some hall of fame. Each official would have to have done something important for independent sources to publish information about them and likely would have to be treated on a case by case basis short of being in a hall of fame. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

5 Goal Games

Reading up on Gaborik's recent 5-goal game, its been stated several times that he is only the 42nd player in the NHL to score 5 goals in a game. I think that if we can find all the names and dates of the occurances, we should create a List of NHL 5 goal games. Once created, it wouldn't be hard to maintain, seeing how rare an event it is. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a source, here is one. Patken4 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I can try fix something up tomorrow. EDIT: Should we include against which team and goaltender(s)? Anyway, I've started workig on a list, will complete it tomorrow. --Krm500 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, if possible. Any other notes about the game that are notable, for example Lemieux's Dec. 31/1989 5 goals in 5 ways, would also probaly be a good inclusion to the list. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea I though about Lemieux. Also what nationality should Trottier be listed as? I've done all from 1980 to today so far. --Krm500 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe list him as US and Canadian, and then include some type of footnote or something of the like. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

datesort only works from 1970... Anyone have a good idea how to sort dates? --Krm500 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

use dts instead. Actually, as a New Years gift, I have corrected it for you. Question for inclusion, there have been 8 games where someone has scored MORE than 5 goals. While the main proposed article name is List of NHL 5 goal games, how could those other 8 games be included? --Pparazorback (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

List of players with 5 or more goals in an NHL game....man thats a mouthfull. -Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I started adding only the five goal players, then I noticed the datesort problem so I stoped adding more players. Thanks for the help btw. I'll add the list to the article now. GOTT NYTT ÅR ALLIHOPA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krm500 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. With a history section and a few sources this might be a good candidate for FL candidacy. --Krm500 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think that the opposing team/goalie(s) should be listed? Thricecube (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be too much, I have a widescreen monitor so for me it's no problem but for people with 1024x768 it wont fit their window. Is it possible to find that information btw? --Krm500 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Official Guide and Record Books have the goalie information. I have the 1993-94 version nearby and the opposing goalies are located in the list (page 167 for this year). In addition, should a trivia or factoid section be added? Maybe we could highlight Lemieux's famous scoring a goal 5 different ways; Gretzky holding the record for most in a career, etc. Patken4 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gretzky is mentioned as the all time leading scorer in the caption for his picture. Lemieux's feat would fit perfectly in a history section. This should easily pass FL candidacy if a better lead, and a history section is written, and the article is well sourced. --Krm500 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm suprised at how well done the article is Krm. And in such short time. This easily should pass for an FL if we get the better lead and sources. Good show. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I only did the list though, Maxim contributed all the prose. Hopefully it will pass FL candidacy! --Krm500 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD, TFD, CFD

Could someone please check the AFD, TFD and CFD listings? It hasn't been done in a while. I'm going away for a few days. See you next year guys. Flibirigit (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Next year? That is entirely too long. --Pparazorback (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

07/08 DRW Question

In the Milestones section of 2007-08 Detroit Red Wings season, should that just be about the players? I'm thinking maybe we can add Mike Babcock's 200th career win on December 15 (I think it was). What do you think? ^{BTW...GO WINGS!!} - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its definately a milestone that would fit in there I would think. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think so. Now, the column header says "Player"; should that be changed to something else? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably should change it to name or something. -Djsasso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Or even just leave it blank. Team milestones could be added their as well... i.e.: The Oilers 1000th franchise win last year. -Resolute (unsigned)

I hadn't thought about leaving it blank, that is probably the best option. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Djsasso up for adminship

Just noticed that Djsasso, a very active member of this WikiProject is up for adminship Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Djsasso. Feel free to comment on his adminship capabilities. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category concerns

User:Mayumashu has been making a lot of category edits and changes lately. I do not know if they are major or not... but I do not see where they were discussed, maybe someone can fill me in. Something I am not liking is that he is starting to group all "Senior leagues", like Major League Hockey and Eastern Ontario Senior Hockey League, into a broad category called "Amateur hockey" as opposed to something that would make more sense like a category for "Senior hockey". Anyone? DMighton (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other types of leagues in there, other than senior? There is senior hockey, junior hockey, minor hockey and professional, so far as I know. If they are all senior leagues, I might discuss the idea with Mayumashu of taking this cat to CfD to request a rename to Category:Senior ice hockey, or some such. Resolute 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the usage of "Amateur" and where I think he is going with this. I have written him and told him what I think... also I left an example of how I think it would work the way I would like to see it. Check it out if you want to comment. DMighton (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Senior /= amateur. I'm thinking of the semi-pro senior league in Quebec, for one.  RGTraynor  06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have argued with him numerous times on the fact that he keeps adding levels of categories without ever coming here to discuss them. I don't like any of the changes he has made to the league categories. I have however atleast tried to clean up the mess he has made cause he often starts the categories and then only moves half the articles or whatever over making a huge mess. He really needs to be stopped. -Djsasso (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have created a new category called "Senior ice hockey" and have hopefully cleaned up that mess. DMighton (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He's made a lot of changes to the British categories as well, such as splitting Category:Coventry Blaze players into the two leagues they've played in: Category:Coventry Blaze (BNL) players and Category:Coventry Blaze (EIHL) players. This has added quite a few categories to some players who have played for a number of teams in the different leagues they've played in. This seems to be over categorizing to me as the team is still the same team despite the change in leagues. A worse example is the changes made to Category:Nottingham Panthers players (see Paul Adey as an example) where he's split them into the two incarnations of the team and then the different leagues for each player. Does anyone else agree this is uneccessary when it's the same team and not different clubs? --JD554 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Women's Ice Hockey Section

Hi all, not sure if anyone has noticed however I have been having a play with the Women's international tournaments over the past couple of days, as it a bit lacking at the moment (don't even have all articles all on the World Championships! Anyway, i found by accident a couple of sources in relation to all of this, namely http://www.whockey.com/ and a some of the Canadian news sources, and the old tournament sites through the web archive. Anyway, to cut a long story short if anyone fancies giving us an hand or just having a quick peek to see if you have any ideas for improvement that would be great. Carpo1982 (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian Games hockey

I think that the Asian Games ice hockey article should be housed in a category that belongs to the ice hockey category bush... but there seems to be a variation in naming...

Ice Hockey at the 1986 Winter Asian Games / Ice Hockey at the 1990 Winter Asian Games / Ice Hockey at the 1996 Winter Asian Games / Ice Hockey at the 1999 Winter Asian Games / Ice hockey at the 2007 Asian Winter Games

This suggests that the category should be named as:

• Category:Ice hockey at the Asian Winter Games
• Category:Ice hockey at the Winter Asian Games
• Category:Ice Hockey at the Asian Winter Games
• Category:Ice Hockey at the Winter Asian Games
• Category:Ice hockey at the Asian Games
• Category:Ice Hockey at the Asian Games

Note: There is no article for the 2003 ice hockey tourney.

70.51.10.98 (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the capitalization of most of these articles as it should be a lower case h. I have moved the one article that has the Winter after the asian since the other way around seems to be the more common. -Djsasso (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the category and the articles not have it as "Asian Winter Games"? That is how it is in the main article. --JD554 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And is also how the Olympic Council of Asia refers to the games[4] --JD554 (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JD554. Searches from the official site of the AWG (Which I could only find utilizing Wayback web machine all list Asian Winter Games as the order, not Winter Asian Games. --Pparazorback (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They can easily be moved the other way, but being as how most sporting events of this type put the Winter first and how all but one of these articles had the winter first thats why I moved it that way just for consistency for now. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've renamed to Asian Winter Games and created a new category. I've also CfD the old category (although with hindsight I should have put in a CfR) --JD554 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul Fendley

Based on recent edits by User:205.210.141.74, I would like to open up a discussion at Talk:Paul Fendley, on whether or not Paul Fendley is notable enough for his own article. I would like input from the hockey community. I do not know if we have a precedent for on-ice tragedies, and the fallout thereof. Flibirigit (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will participate in this discussion as I do have knowledge of the player. DMighton (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos of statues

User:Calliopejen1 has nominated a photo of a statue for deletion, claiming it is copyrighted, due to being a Derivative work. I mention this here since I know some articles which are part of this project have photos of statues. Please look at the discussion Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_3#Image:QE2_statue.jpg, and please advise. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, near as I can tell, if the photo was taken in Canada, of a statue permanently in a public place, it is fine. If it was taken in the US, it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, and requires the approval of the original copyright holder. Off hand, the only example in the hockey project I can think of is the statue of Gretzky in the Edmonton Oilers and Rexall Place articles. There would be no issues with that one. Resolute 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomáš Záborský

The Tomáš Záborský article has been prodded. According to his career stats, he has played nine games in the Slovak Extraliga. Are these accomplishments enough to warrant an article? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I haven't unproded it is that I have found alot of errors in the way stats are listed from over there. More often than not people list the junior leagues as the fully pro leagues. I have been trying to find a source that is clear on if those were junior games or not. Its not very common for a euro pro to drop down to play junior in Canada. -Djsasso (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact one of the leagues listed on there is wrong. (has been fixed now) -Djsasso (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If eurohockey.net is reliable, then he does have four games with Dukla Trencin in 2005/06. This would be it, however. The other five games were for a division II club. Patken4 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think he is notable enough and he doesn't meet the project standards. But he could possibly pass afd because even one professional game will meet WP:N. I personally would let the prod go through then recreate him once he has played a season professionally, but thats just me. -Djsasso (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he does pass criteria but he could've spent 4 games on the bench in the top tier since you just have to be dressed for the game to get the stats. The article can be recreated when he is notable. --Krm500 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If his four games in 2005-06 were with the fully-pro senior club, then he meets WP:BIO for having played in the top competition of his nation. If kept though, I am certain that more can be written about him than just his stats chart. Resolute 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Krm500, a small technicality, you have to play at least a part of a shift to log a game. I know for a fact, in the NHL at least, that's a requirement to register, as backups goalies dress but don't get "credit", and even forwards and defencemen have to play to register a "game" irregardless if you're on the bench the entire game. So I think that Tomas played in quite a few games with a very high degree of certainty. --Maxim_(talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't believe that is true for players, it is only true for goalies. Either way he would have played less than 5 games. I still say let the prod go through. -Djsasso (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See [5], [6], and [7]. You'll see that Brian McGrattan, was dressed for the game, yet he didn't play a single shift, and didn't get any "credit". I thought your way as well, until the Dallas game, when I realised what happened to 'Grats. Maxim_(talk) 14:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in Europe (or at least the SEL), goalies get a GP for every game they dress, fortunately there's also GPI (games played in) for goaltenders... But skaters can spend the entire game on the bench and get credit for a game. --Krm500 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume since he has a point and a penalty in the premiere league, then he has at least played professional. My apologies for missing that. I will remove the PROD. Would someone please expand the text of the article. I will be gone for a few days again. Flibirigit (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Male U-18 Championship

I/We have a problem, I made a WP:AFC for Category:World U-18 Ice Hockey Championships, but instead it was created at Category:IIHF World U18 Championships, and the creator did not close the AFC (acutally I had two up, and he didn't close either of them, confusing further editors), so a later editor created the originally requested title. So these two should be merged. I prefer World U-18 Ice Hockey Championships because it is clear that it is the under 18 ice hockey world championships, the other one uses an acronym that non-hockey people would not know. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IIHF Worl U18 Championship is the formal name, and the name of the parent article. That is the name the category should be. Given the categories are redundant, I imagine any of us hockey admins can just cut through the red tape, and delete the category that goes unused. Resolute 06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that category is the proper naming and had a bunch of articles in it already all matching the category title so the first has been deleted as a duplicate. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Already on a deletion spree, eh? Resolute 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Had to get it out of my system, doubt I will touch anymore after this except for moves that are blocked by redirects. -Djsasso (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the common name? Afterall, the WJHC is not at U-20. And I've seen it more often as World U-18 Ice Hockey Championships And since the IIHF also does inline hockey, it would be better to have "ice hockey" as part of the category name. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD and TFD

Could someone please check AFD and TFD? Thanks. I will see you guys in a few days. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC for U-18 Women's

I've placed three WP:AFC for the U-18 championships that will start in a few days. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and put a template in there for the games Carpo1982 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know who this is?

Who am I?

I found this image in the Commons, and it's a really good image considering how old it is, but it doesn't identify the player, it just says "Unidentified Toronto Maple Leafs player". The image is called "MapleLeaf1920s", so that narrows it down a little, but I have no idea who it is. Does anyone here know? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Love the caption! On the image description page there is a reference number for the Library and Archives Canada, maybe that can give you some information? --Krm500 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)