Sandinista!

Archives
Archive index 2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 2007: 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 2008: 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 2008: 23

NHL roster template?

I don't really like the NHL roster template. It's not compact enough and I think it should be more like an NBA one or even an MLB one. I like the sortabilty of the NBA one and the horizontal layout and succintness of the MLB one. Either way, I think it's time to change up the roster template. What kind have we had in the past (since I'm relatively new and the current one is the only one I know)? Jc121383 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the past, the roster template we use now was what we used as the roster section on each team article, with a template much like the MLB one used on the current season articles. It was decided that they were redundant, so we eliminated the template, and converted the team roster lists to replace them. Revising the layout is certainly something that can be discussed, and if you have ideas, feel free to create a test template in your sandbox. As a matter of personal preference, I very much dislike the MLB template as it not very informative. Names and nothing else does not offer much in the way of information. The NBA one is alright, but its compactness is mainly a function of the fact that NBA rosters are half the size of NHL rosters. Resolute 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted test templates before and I discovered I'm not so good at them. I could try again though. Jc121383 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the current layout but of course we can discuss improvements. A sort function would be nice to add. Anyone think we should change what information we should use, such as replace Acquired and Place of Birth possibly? --Krm500 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Height, Weight, Age, and perhaps instead of simply a year for Acquired how about FA-2008 for free agents, D-2008 for draft picks, and so on. Remove Place of Birth since the flags reveal the same information. Also, I prefer the NBA roster template (if the NBA template were essentially copied verbatim, a 23 player roster would be about the same size as the current NHL roster templates). --Flyer47 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking, Flyer47, regarding the Acquired column. As it is now, it can be misleading regarding draft picks (some I've seen their draft year, others I've seen the year they actually signed with the team). I do like the addition of height, weight, and age because we could then include, in a legend area perhaps, teams averages of those stats. I'm sure there's code on here for that somewhere. The place of birth is kind of redundant given the flags. Jc121383 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I like the height/weight idea. Is it really necessarry? If somebody want that specific of info it's on each player's article, plus with all the different sites (NHL.com, team sites, ESPN) reports might conflict. Just seems a little overkill to me. I do however, like removing the birth sites as the flags already provide that info—unfotunately WP:FLAGBIO seems to forbid that. So the flags should probably be removed. Blackngold29 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like the idea of height/weight. I much prefer things like Aquired. As far as the ambiguity on when they were drafted vs when they were signed, that isn't an issue of the template itself, but of the maintenance of them. As far as place of birth that is definately not redundant, as the flag is for the country they represent internationally and the place of birth is where they were born. Besides the current players listed below, former players whose birth place and flag wouldn't match include such big names as Brett Hull and Rod Langway etc. And as far as compactness goes, its actually the lack of being compressed that I like about this template, I find the MLB and NBA ones are too small and look out of place on the pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, place of birth isn't always redundant. i.e.: Robyn Regehr, Owen Nolan, Dany Heatly, Alexander Steen and every player born in the former Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia. Resolute 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For Swedish teams place of birth can be useful since you (if you are familiar with Swedish geography) see if the team use local boys or not. Djurgårdens IF Hockey for example have all but 3 players from Stockholm. --Krm500 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I started making anew template a while ago, and wasn't too happy with it because I lack the sufficient skills to get it where I want it. But it is here: User:Thricecube/Sandbox. I'm sure someone should be able to modify out the date/city of birth and add how the players were acquired as well as expand the length of some of the columns. Thricecube (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Change DOB to Age and use Template:Age nts. Change Name to Player and use Template:Sortname. I think Num. (perhaps # instead) should be placed first and Pos. should be after Player. Use Birthplace instead of Place of Birth. I'm not sure whether everything needs to be centered or whether the font needs to be 95% or 100%. --Flyer47 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I had with this one as I have with the NBA/MLB ones are that they are too skinny and look out of place in articles. If there was a way we make it wider then it would look much better, like have it set to fit the screen width like the current ones is. I have to disagree with Flyer47 in that I like Place of Birth better than Birthplace. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Philadelphia Flyers roster. I did not add Acquired yet. I might try to add Height/Weight just to see how it would look. --Flyer47 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps widen the name column and condense the shot/glove column? Thricecube (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely like how it currently appears. But Thrice's idea is probably a good idea. -Djsasso (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks superb. My only beef with it is the coding is a tad confusing, and will be to new users. Thricecube (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no set width for any field at the moment. If a team were to sign a Alexander Andrijevski the width of the Player field would expand if needed. If there were to be set widths, the gray bar would likely take up two rows. While that wouldn't be the end of the world, I would prefer that the gray bar take up only one row and use abbreviations for Nationality, Positions, Shot/Glove, and possibly Acquired. --Flyer47 (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but wouldn't it be easier if we built it up like the NBA template with template within the template? Would make it much easier for when players are injured to just add "ir = yes". --Krm500 (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working a bit on a template, does anyone have any requests? I was thinking creating templates for IR and Captains would be good, to ensure that we have a uniform look across all pages. --Krm500 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more questions? Should we use all players in the same table or break it up like we have it today into Goaltenders, Defensemen, Forwards? --Krm500 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I liked the breakup we used to have between D-men, Forwards, and Goaltenders but I wouldn't be upset if they weren't seperated. Do give it a shot and see how it turns out. -Djsasso (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to that, I think a default sorting weight would help. Goalies would be 1, Defensemen 2, Forwards 3 (with centers being 3.1, left wings being 3.2, and right wings 3.3), and then uniform number could be 4, and so on. I'm not sure on the technicality of what I just said, but I could look into it. Jc121383 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very easy to fix, but is it optimal? Take a look in my sandbox with different versions, both sortable but one in the old style with Goaltenders, Defensemen, and Forwards separated. Of course if chosen I will make sure so all lines match up like the old table did. --Krm500 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the sort numbers for the Flyers roster so goalies will appear first, then defenseman, and so on when you sort it. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's easier with the sortability to just put the players all in one table; if you want to view it by position, that can be done with the sorting. Also, it doesn't look like it was discussed here, but why were the piped links in "Acquired" changed to the team's season pages? I liked it better when it just went to the NHL season or draft. If it is a reference issue, this should be verified by the player page. By the way, overall, I do like the new format! I agree with the idea for captain, alternate, and IR templates. -- bmitchelf•T•F 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Krm500's "alternative". Adding age is great, and maybe height/weight too. IrisKawling (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like what we have now. Just about exactly how I imagined a potential change when I began this section. We just need it put in template form so it's easier to use for everybody. There's a lot of code in there now that wouldn't have to be and all rosters will be uniform. I mention this because I notice the Vancouver roster has already been changed. I think that's getting way ahead of where we should be especially considering we we just going to talk about a potential change. Jc121383 (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates are also a great idea, but it could probably just be put into one. Such as {{Rosternote|IR/Capt/Asst}} IrisKawling (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I created Template:Ice hockey team roster. A player template (like Player2) needs to be created along with Template:Ice hockey team roster/doc. --Flyer47 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I overlooked something, the template is done. It has been applied to the Flyers roster and seems to be working fine. Would anyone be in favor of listing the players in alphabetical order rather than by number on the edit page? Name changes are rarer than number changes and it would be easier to simply edit the player's number rather than move the player up or down the list. --Flyer47 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting creation, is this going to be implemented? Not exactly what I meant by a "template".. more of just a small simple one like Krm said with a switch for C/A/IR to be used within the code. IrisKawling (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do now is add C or A for cap and change no to yes for ir. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer47 I think we need to work out a few more things before we put it in use, I for one don't want to see the frame around the roster, and few other things with the formatting. --Krm500 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether there is a frame or not, I would prefer to keep the title bar at the top with the Tnavbar-header. I'm not sure that can be done without a frame. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another issue concerning the roster template: I would like to be able to put multiple positions for some forwards because some guys switch based on where they are needed in the lineup, especially due to injuries. Can anyone make this possible for the template? -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know on player pages we tend to just list what position they most commonly play, to avoid this issue. Another option would be forwards should just be listed as forwards maybe?-Djsasso (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

bmitch, if I'm looking at the right thing in the right template, you should already be able to do it...

| style="font-family:monospace;" | | pos = || Acceptable values are G, D, D/F, D/C, D/LW, D/RW, D/W, F, F/D,
C, C/D, C/LW, C/RW, LW/D, LW/C, RW/D, RW/C, W, and W/D.
Column will sort in this order.

Jc121383 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

About FA on the Main Page

As has been discussed before, I personal goal of mine was to have Trevor Linden appear on the Main Page the day the Canucks retire his jersey. However, the issue was there was no date set yet for this event. Now that the Canucks have announced that December 17 will be the night his jersey is retired, I am asking how one goes about getting an article on to the Main Page. I know some of you here have done this, so any advice on the topic would be great. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you go to this page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests -Djsasso (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading up on it. Basically, when Raul is taking requests for the period that you want the article to appear, you can nominate it to appear on that date, assuming that date hasn't already been scheduled. He allows only five requests at any one time, and uses a point system to determine which requests should stay. People then support or oppose a nomination, and if supported, he'll schedule it in. Resolute 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Calgary Flames TFA

Speaking of which, I've noticed in my watchlist that Calgary Flames will appear tomorrow as the TFA. I was planning to request it for Early October to match the start of the season, but this works too.  :) That said, I expect a lot of vandalism from Canuck and Oiler fans especially. Should be an interesting day on the main page. heh Resolute 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that when I looked at the request link yesterday, congratulations on yet another fine article on the main page! --Krm500 (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going to aim to have the first NHL history article featured on December 19, in anniversary of the first NHL games played, but I think I'll leave that one for later. Linden definitely deserves the spotlight, especially for a one time event. Resolute 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What we should have aimed for was getting Montreal Canadiens back to FA status so it could have been up for their December 4th 100th anniversary. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Still possible, right? A good summary of the history, the rest of the article is already set. --Krm500 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got the books for inline citations on the old history. Resolute 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I will take a look at seeing what needs to be cleaned up this weekend. I have a bunch of old Canadiens books as well. Was an uber fan growing up, however since moving to calgary a decade ago I have become split, since we don't see many canadiens games on TV here anymore. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Though if you want to get technical, the 100th anniversary of their founding is December 4, 2009. We still have over a year for that. This is their 100th season though. Resolute 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh see I thought the way it worked was Dec 4th 2008 was their 100th anniversary, but their 100th season wouldn't be till next year because of the lock out. -Djsasso (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Including the lockout, this is their 100th season. Just the magic of 1909-10 through to 2008-09 equalling 100 seasons. But the anniversary of their founding is still over a year away. Plenty of time to rewrite and refocus this article. :) Resolute 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Canadiens needs the main article, the History of article and many seasons articles filled out, I think, to get to FA status proper again. I have been entering the seasons, and it is up to 1926 only. The 100th season is why I was entering the season data, and I will get to entering more seasons RSN. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That being said, sub articles don't have to be up to FA level (or even exist) for the main article itself to get FA. The only page that really has to be overly worried about is the main article. The Flames are a good example as its missing many of those things, or rather was when it was promoted I think. -Djsasso (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I never understood the validity of moving stuff out to sub-articles to circumvent the FA standards. There ought to be references for the stuff in the subs. Anyway, I wanted to point out that the annversary of the first game of the Canadiens is in January 2010 (game one was vs. Cobalt, so I doubt that will be the opposition for any outdoor game). Alaney2k (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I was concerned about were red links to season articles. We can link to NHL season articles I guess. Alaney2k (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought about the red links, yes articles would need to be created for those you are correct, I would just tend to create those as needed, but thats just personal work flow. We haven't really moved information to sub articles to circumvent FA standards. You move them to sub articles because the main article gets too big. Remember pages are shootting for around the 60k size mark. As for the outdoor game, according to the news today it looks like they are aiming to have an outdoor game this December 4th vs the Rangers. They are just in talks with the city to make it official. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That being said, TSN just reported that the team denies a date has been set. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This December would only be the -99th- anniversary of their founding, so I don't understand that date. Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the official kick off day of their anniversary year though from what I have read. But anyways all rumours and speculation at this point I would guess. -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was neat to see a picture I took on the front page. Congrats on getting the Flames article featured and on the front page. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ahh, I was wondering if this would lure you out of retirement, heh. Thanks, and it is a good picture, even if a couple of people at Calgarypuck think it is Kipper's bad mask. ;o) Resolute 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see a quality hockey article on the front page. Congrats Resolute, I know you've been striving to reach this milestone for a while. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Comically, we've now attracted an edit warrior attempting to enforce his opinion of image policy by any and all means necessary. This would be comical if it wasn't so sad. Resolute 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... with all the WP:POINT he's throwing around - and I note he does this a fair bit - I'm about ready to set up a RfC.  RGTraynor  14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about an ANI post on him, but decided against as it may seem retalitory at this point, and honestly, he's running out of avenues to be disruptive. I'm almost curious as to where he will go next with this. Resolute 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting to Jimbo's user talk page? Going to the media? Thing is, he's certainly being disruptive, he's certainly acting in bad faith, and these aren't the only images he's targeting, but has he yet committed ANI-worthy violations? It'll come to that, of course ... let's face it, how many times do the edit warriors who know for a certain fact that they're right and all the rest of the world is wrong ever, ever just meekly sit down and shut up when consensus is against them?  RGTraynor  15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he went to Rfc earlier this year, so this isn't the first time there has been an issue with him. -Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Make that twice. -Djsasso (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

DEL Category

I'm inquiring about Category:Deutsche Eishockey Liga players. Should all the players in the category be moved to team categories rather than the league? Raphie (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you know the teams they belong on yes. In general players are in the league category if we don't have all their team categories created yet. -Djsasso (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Resolute 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right then I'll get started then. Thanks gang. Raphie (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see Djsasso has started working on A so I'll start from B. Raphie (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No No I was just testing something go ahead and start on A. Becarefull on the naming so you don't duplicate. For example. Cologne Sharks are the Kölner Haie. -Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that and all, I'll load up the DEL wiki page to assist me anyway just in case. No problem I'll work from the top, last thing I wanted was more than one person working on the same and causing edit conflicts. And by all means anyone can assist if you wish to do so :) Raphie (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the Nurnberg/Sinupret Ice Tigers, would creating a category for Nurnberg result in a duplicate? Raphie (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I see you already done that, mucho gracias. Raphie (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was looking for incorrectly categorized players and it seems the Sinupret cat is full of them so I am just cleaning it up. -Djsasso (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost done, just another 23 files to go, was hoping to do it all tonight but time and fatigue has beaten me (5:14 am over here in UK). Nevermind, always tomorrow. Raphie (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No rush, you are doing a great job! Always good to see editors focusing on Euro based articles. -Djsasso (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a problem I'm trying to work on, with me being European and all. I hope to create many European player bios in the near future and expand it a little bit. Loads of european leagues, but not enough european players. Raphie (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it all done! I'll look at other league categories lacking team catergories (Austria, Italy, Switzerland etc) and not make a start on Wikipedia, but rather on pen to paper and see what I can come up with. Raphie (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the leagues may not need seperating yet, if there is only 10 players in say the Italian league on wikipedia they probably don't need to be split into teams yet as you might end up with only one person per category. (I just picked league at random I know this one probably should be). -Djsasso (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we currently have about 90 files in Italy which would mean possibly going ahead with that one, but there are only 9 in the Slovak Extraliga, so to do that one right now would be close to pointless. If I created more players that play or have played in Slovakia and say we get to like 60 or so then it would be possible to split them then. Raphie (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup that's my point, I just picked Italy at random, hadn't looked how many articles it had. -Djsasso (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some team categories already exist but aren't in the league catergories. I'm gonna make a start with Serie A. Raphie (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A new women's hockey record

Check this out: [1]... Slovakia defeated Bulgaria 82-0 and outshot them 139-0 in an Olympic women's hockey qualifier for Vancouver 2010. I don't know for sure, but this has to be some kind of record! DMighton (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"The margin of victory is a record for a women's International Ice Hockey Federation-sanctioned event." Is there somewhere we can post this amazing massacre? DMighton (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to create a new article: International ice hockey records. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Need to create Bulgaria national women's ice hockey team or Slovakia national women's ice hockey team to note it there. Seems there are a lot of redlinks at Template:IIHF among the national women's teams. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably... but that is mind-blowing. I forget the men's record... but it was pretty ridiculous too. DMighton (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This says that Bulgaria's goaltender Liubomira Shosheva had enough of it at 18.35 in the third period, with the score 79–0 to Slovakia. Kamelia Drazheva replaced her in goal, and she shut out Slovakia for 9 seconds! --Krm500 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

On average, Slovakia scored a goal every 44 seconds! How humiliating that must have been; even Slovakia should have been embarrassed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IIHF agrees it is a record for sanctioned games [2] and notes it didnt beat the non-sanctioned record from 1998. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing the South Korea/Thailand men's score is the all-time record sanctioned or unsanctioned... damn. DMighton (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, I remember back when Northeastern University was a women's hockey powerhouse and Harvard decidedly wasn't, the Lady Huskies beat Harvard 12-1 ... and had 110 shots. I thought then, and haven't changed my mind, that the poor Harvard goal must have been greater than Jacques Plante, Clint Benedict, Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy combined to face 110 shots and let only twelve in.  RGTraynor  02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, I get bored after putting video games on easy and scoring 15 goals in the first period... The men's score was mentioned, but not given; could it possibly be higher thanthat? Blackngold29 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was 92-1 but I might have the losing teams score wrong. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

92-0 South Korea over Thailand I believe. DMighton (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

diacritics

It seems to me that the note on the project page about the use of diacritics goes well beyond the intention of the compromise between participants in the diacritics debate, which was only about players' names. Shouldn't it be modified to clearly apply only to players' names? One editor has removed diacritics from the name of the town a player comes from, and is quoting this note as justification. Surely that wasn't the intention of the agreed compromise? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. City names are still to have diacritics. Though there are still some people who disagree heavily with that fact. Diacritics in city names are already goverened by a wiki wide policy. The note actually specifically mentions player names and is on the player format page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Whoops looks like we have it on the main page now. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was done on a player's page, I'd agree with you. Heck, the grounding behind the anti-diacritical position is that players' names aren't commonly rendered in English using diacriticals. That position doesn't readily hold water for hometowns in non-English speaking countries, where with a few exceptions an English-language variant of the names aren't known to a preponderance of users. What's the page in question?  RGTraynor  16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Buffalo Sabres roster Town names should only be changed if there is an actual english translation for them. For example Munich is a translation of München. Removing diacritics is not a translation. Most cities in non-english countries as mentioned by RG, either don't have a translation or its not widely known by that name. The argument behind the players names losing them is that the NHL doesn't put them on the back of jerseys which of course doesn't hold up for city names. -Djsasso (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And, happily, DJ just tightened up the language on the policy, which I think all sides can agree was our intent.  RGTraynor  17:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think most people would agree this was what we were trying to get across. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Our project is nothing if not organized and fast. Someone mentioned on one of the Wikiproject proposal pages that we were one of the most organized projects out there. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to have twenty or so capable, knowledgeable editors willing to defer to one another's expertise and with a spirit of compromise. Heh, Chris, let me ask this: can you tell which sides of the diacritics issue some of us take?  RGTraynor  19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you would never know that RG and I are on completely different sides of the arguement when it comes to player names. I also can't believe its been about a year since our last major blow up about them. I would say the compromise is working. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've stuck to my self-imposed gag order. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

1967 NHL Expansion

Although an important event in NHL history, I question the need for full capitalization in "1967 NHL Expansion". Having it capitalized seems to give undue importance to the event—I would reserve full capitalization for truly important events such as the My Lai Massacre. What are people's thoughts on renaming this to 1967 NHL expansion? This would be more in line with Wikipedia's naming standards. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on if it was an official title or not. Did the NHL officially call it the 1967 NHL Expansion or is that just a term we use to describe it. If its the former it needs to stay capitalized. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the intro talks about the "major expansion for the 1967-68 season", as opposed to referring to 1967 NHL Expansion as a formal title. I'm leaning lower-case. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it was ever formalized. I think that it was just so drastic, after 25 years of only six teams, that people gave it a name. The 1967 NHL Expansion Draft, however, I would keep capitalized, as that was a formal event. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I created the article, and I agree it's no formal title, and that current naming conventions should have "expansion."  RGTraynor  06:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So where does this stand? 1967 NHL expansion? 1967 expansion of the National Hockey League? 1967 National Hockey League expansion? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say option 1. We tend to use NHL in most article titles such as seasons. -Djsasso (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NHLSeasonTOC

I've added a year parameter to the NHLSeasonTOC template. This is to omit the 'Draft picks' link for the seasons prior to 1963. Another one I think we should control is the 'Farm teams' link. I think we could use whatever year farm teams were started, or we could use an option to the template to hide it. I suggest the year, because I am already using it, but I don't know if that is a good solution. Is there a good year to use as a starting point? Alaney2k (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't farm teams in one form or another always been around? I mean they may not have been called farm teams but they basically were. In the O6 era it was "sponsored teams". Before that it was probably the same idea, local teams that were at a lower level that they pulled players off of. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Official farm teams existed as early as the 1920s; the Springfield Indians were founded as a Rangers' farm team in 1926, and the Boston Cubs in the CanAm started in 1930 as the Bruins' farm team.  RGTraynor  03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian Heaton has died

[3] Kingsville native and goalie equipment revolutionary Brian Heaton has died. You can thank him for Heaton and Brian's goalie equipment... as well as many major innovations in which goalie equipment is made and thought of. DMighton (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NHLPrimaryColor

Template:NHLPrimaryColor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

These are all already listed on our project deletion page. -Djsasso (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The history of captains

I would like to write a prose introduction for the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains in an attempt to end the confusion that that page has become, especially in the off-season. If anyone would like to help, I welcome you with open arms. As for my main goal, I think the intro would benefit from a brief history of the concept of the captain and alternates. Currently the captain article has no info on the origin; and I think that article would certainly benefit from the info as well. I know very little on the topic, is there anyone who could help me out? If we can get a good start, then perhaps after the season begins we can go ahead with an Featured list nomination—but as for the short term, I just would like to end the changes and reverts that seem to go on quite a bit. Thank you. Blackngold29 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, all of that should be put in Captain (ice hockey). However, a prose section is definitely needed in the list of current captains article. Any mention of the history of captaincy should be a brief summary, with Captain (ice hockey) being the main article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is: The Captain (ice hockey) article has no info on the origin of captains. If somebody could find this info I think both that article and the list would benefit. Blackngold29 01:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Roster Guidelines

What constitutes an official roster for a team? Yesterday when the LA Kings released their training camp roster, I went and updated the Template as it is officially their roster. All those players (and their numbers) were deleted from said template. (The format was also changed, which I don't like but apparently I have no say in that matter as it was discussed above) I would say that since the Kings either have to assign or release all players in camp that the training camp roster is their official roster. Especially, since they have released a training camp guide on their website that lists all these players as members of the LA Kings. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shootmaster 44. Training camp rosters are different from official rosters. With respect to the players you added in, most of them would wind up in the AHL by the start of the season, meaning we would have to delete almost half the roster. An official roster contains players called up to the actual team to play an NHL game, traning camp just gives the minor players a chance to impress the coaches and try to earn a spot in tne team for the upcoming season. Raphie (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They could be hidden instead of deleted. That said, if we were to follow the Kings website as closely as possible RFA's Patrick O'Sullivan and Brad Richardson would not be listed. --Flyer47 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We could hide them, but that would still mean typing in a good deal of players that will never play. I don't generally do too much roster work so you can do what you want, but it just seems like a lot of time that could be spent on other needed things. Blackngold29 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Kings do a lot of yo-yoing with players in the last few years, many of those players are likely to see the light of day in LA. Plus, since I already added them to the roster all it takes is adding the hidden lines when they are sent to Manchester etc. However, if consensus is that training camp rosters, even if sent out by the team, are not official rosters then I will leave the issue alone. But the way I've always looked at it is the NHL season begins as of the first day of training camp. Ergo, that roster is no longer the offseason roster, but the current roster. But again since consensus seems to be no to this issue, I will leave it be. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of us, except a few people that are hardcore into rosters don't touch rosters until the season is officially underway. Because of too many edit wars from drive by editors. Technically speaking the team has no official roster until Day 1. I personally don't like any rosters on team pages until the season starts as they cause too many issues. A training camp roster is not a team roster, it is a roster of people at the training camp. The team roster is not announced until the team is selected. -Djsasso (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, what I go by is: if a player played a game in the NHL the previous season, he should be on the offseason roster. Thricecube (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Alaney2k (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Frame around roster template

Would anyone be in favor of removing the frame around the roster template, removing the title bar at the top, and replacing it with a simple Tnavbar-header? It would end up looking like this:

Updated September 5, 2008.[4][5]

#	Nat	Player	Pos	S/G	Age	Acquired	Place of Birth

This would be added to each team's roster template page (similar to how it was before) and wouldn't require a separate template page for minor league/junior teams (such as what I did for the Philadelphia Phantoms or User:Hucz did for the Kelowna Rockets. --Flyer47 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove it, I think the coloured frame looks tacky. This proposal looks much cleaner. --Krm500 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it with the frame, actually. This type of thing, in my opinion, adds to the general appearance of these articles, in a positive way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

May I also add that I would prefer if goaltenders, defensemen, and forwards were separated like we used to do. Here's an example of how it would look. --Krm500 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am indifferent towards the frame. I think it looks good either way. As far as separating positions goes, I would prefer that as well. At the very least, make the default sort position followed by jersey number. Alphabetically is just awakward looking. Resolute 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with this too – nice to separate the positions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? There is absolutely no difference between Forwards and Defensemen and the difference between Skaters and Goaltenders is insignificant. --Flyer47 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference? Really?....... - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. There is no difference between Forwards and Defensemen and the difference between Skaters and Goaltenders is insignificant (Shot and Glove)... as they are presented on Krm500's alternative. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that people who don't know of hockey will read these pages too, it makes it easier to them if positions are separated. Also since the table gets quite long a simple breaker like position makes it easier to read. --Krm500 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Where were these insightful comments September 3-6? A 23 player roster is not very long. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the previous discussion again, three user were in favour of keeping the separators. --Krm500 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And the separation between postions would make the template even longer. To sort by position, it's easy enough to hit the sorting button at the top of the colum. -- bmitchelf•T•F 23:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The NHL separates by position on the team's roster pages. I agree it looks better and more easily informative that way. ConkblockCity (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of separating the rosters by position. I have never seen any hockey team list their players in any table format without the separations. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coaches, refs, etc.

There's been a recent flap in AfD over the college football Wikiproject's house criteria when it comes to coaches. Despite recent changes in WP:ATHLETE to explicitly remove coaches from the "competitors" criteria, WP:CFB essentially declared anyone who'd ever coached a game at any level of college football (even down to NAIA and Bible academies) "notable."

We don't have explicit guidelines for coaches, referees or administrators ourselves, and it strikes me that we should, because sooner or later this'll come up. So ... here's a first shot at it; feel free to tear it apart.  RGTraynor  14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability criteria for ice hockey coaches, referees and administrators:

Non-playing hockey personnel are not inherently notable unless they meet the general notability criteria of WP:BIO or one of the following:

• Are Honoured Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame;
• Have won a significant professional award for their post, such as the Jack Adams Award, the Kalevi Numminen trophy or the Ken McKenzie Award;
• Are within the top five career leaders for games coached, games won, games lost or games officiated for a major professional or top level minor professional or amateur league;
• Have been the head coach or general manager of a Stanley Cup championship team, a World Championship team, or an Olympic medal-winning team;
• Otherwise qualify as a player under the notability criteria for hockey players.

***********************

Only thing I really would say is that I think any NHL (or other top league like SEL etc) level coach should be ok because really, head coach in a top level league pretty much means they are at the top of their profession and are likely to have verifiable reliable sources about them. Though I suppose that probably falls under the last point you have there. -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who has coached a top level league is notable. If for no other reason than you can guarantee they pass WP:N itself. Such coaches are virtually guaranteed to be the subject of multiple, non trivial stories. Ditto GMs. Can't say the same about referees and linesmen though. Resolute 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that WP:ATHLETE doesn't currently agree; declaring that coaches at any level are de jure notable bypasses that. If they do have verifiable, reliable sources about them, then they can be sourced and added. If none are found, there shouldn't be an article.  RGTraynor  15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with that, we do it for players all the time. Alot of the players who meet WP:ATHLETE are in the same situation as the coaches. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We do it for players all the time because WP:ATHLETE explicitly says so.  RGTraynor  16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It said it about coaches too, until a single person removed the line without discussion, and wp:athlete actually says competitor not player. I would argue a coach is a competitor, just in a different way than a player. -Djsasso (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Djsasso: NHL and other top-level league are considered notable. I would like to add that coaches of national teams at the top level (World Cup / Olympics) should also be OK. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue not. A coach "competes" not one whit more than the equipment manager or the general manager, both of whom you can argue equally contribute to the material success of the team, and none of whom advance the puck in a game so much as a foot.  RGTraynor  19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean besides deciding which player is on the ice when? Or which players are taking the shoot out, or which player is in net. All of which are crucial to the strategy part of the game. Yes there is the physical competition of the game but there is all the strategic competition involved in the game. Too few people remember that a coach can make or break a good team. The word competitor does not limit to physical competition. You don't have to advance the puck in the game to make a difference in the game. For example a certain coach decided not to put Wayne Gretzky in the shoot out at the Olympics and Canada lost. I would wager a bet Gretzky would have scored had he been on the ice for the shootout and won Canada the Gold Medal. So a coach directly influenced the game. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the end, however, WP:ATHLETE is only a special-case guideline—WP:PEOPLE is the top guideline for people. Have a look and decide if you think any top-level coach would not pass the criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you are totally correct. I can't imagine a single NHL head coach that hasn't met that criteria since there is going to be an article in the local paper atleast saying they hired a new coach, the local tv news is also going to have a story saying a new coach was hired, likely the national news on TSN etc will say a new coach was hired....and so on and so forth. It would be impossible for a NHL level coach to not meet those criteria. I can't say for sure the same with other leagues but I wouldn't doubt it. The same can't be said for an equipment trainer. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this one is a no-brainer. We can almost directly apply the notability standards we use for players on coaches. Any coach in the NHL or any top professional league worldwide, and then award winners or top-5 record holders and whatnot for lower leagues. The gerneral notability standards can easily be passed on these people. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others and say that being a head coach in the NHL or other top level league is notable. For AHL, ECHL, etc, you have to achieve the notability requirements listed above or be notable in another way. GM's and referees are a little different, though GM's would more than likely meet WP:PEOPLE. For referees, could we implement some sort of game threshold? Maybe 500 or 1,000 games officiated? Patken4 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For ref's I seem to remember at some point we said they had to be in the hall of fame or otherwise meet WP:PEOPLE. But I wouldn't know where to begin looking for such a decision. I could be making it up haha. -Djsasso (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this was our prior discussion on refs and linesmen. Patken4 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Ice Hockey

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there are five articles from our project on this list in need of cleanup: American Hockey League, Buffalo Sabres, Minnesota North Stars, San Jose Sharks and Staples Center. Personally, I can think of probably a hundred articles I would consider more important from a WP:HOCKEY perspective than Staples Center... Resolute 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo Sabres looks pretty clean. The others need work. I think Staples got there because it gets links into basketball, too? Alaney2k (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What about adding an importance to the Ice hockey template? Alaney2k (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Do we have Kaiser Matias around to assess all 12,000 articles again?  ;) Actually, an importance scale would be pretty easy, imo:

• Top: Top level league articles, players that revolutionized the game, i.e.: Orr, Gretzky, Plante, Howe
• High: Current NHL teams, teams in other current top level leagues. Hall of Famers, current stars.
• Mid: Historical NHL teams, Historical teams from defunct major leagues, i.e.: WCHL, PCHA, current players, Major NHL, international and amateur awards
• Low: Everything else
• Negative: Edmonton Oilers players. ;o) Resolute 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While the thought of sitting on my computer for the better part of 3 weeks grading the importance of 14,000 hockey articles, I might just have to pass on this opportunity. But don't forget to add the Leafs to that negative list. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention we have like 1287 articles that aren't even rated yet that still need rating. I don't think importance is that important. -Djsasso (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but it seems inevitable that it will be added, no? Maybe we can default the template to set all articles that include the template to low importance. Then only the ones higher (a much smaller number) need to be rated. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mm, plainly their rating system does, though, although I have to wonder about a system that includes the Izod Center and Ray Emery over scores of more worthy articles, and I can think of a lot of hockey concepts I'd want up before hat tricks. (This being the revenge of those of us thinking "RAY EMERY at FA?!?!?") I do have a thought ... if being unrated is something that disqualifies an article from this list, could we look over that Unassessed list and see what ones fail just because no one's rated them yet?  RGTraynor  15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding importance could possibly override a simple FA status. Ray is definitely low importance. (or negative). :-) Actually negative is an interesting concept to consider. Alaney2k (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the way they do it is, the higher the rating the more likely it is picked at random. So I would bet unassessed don't get chosen from at all. -Djsasso (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Importance doesnt seem to have a huge effect. Calgary Hitmen somehow showed up on WP:CANADA's list, which was just bizarre to me. Resolute 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the rating system isn't a huge priority, but it might also help organize articles a little. I really don't see there being many top or high priority articles, and really, even if implemented I don't see a huge need for a project to rank everything. Articles just get ranked when they get ranked, and so be it.

As far as the assessment goes, I suppose this is why we got the notice. The project is looking for feedback. Staples Center, Ray Emery and a couple others shouldn't be there ahead of some other articles. Aalborg Boldspilklub and Minnesota North Stars ranked ahead of HC CSKA Moscow? The list has 61 articles. Perhaps we can create our own list of 61 and submit it to this project, stating that these are the core ice hockey articles? Resolute 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I think the point of the random picking was to make sure that there was no bias as to what articles are going to be included and so that there is a fair representation of articles at each level, FA, GA, B, C etc. So if you are switching out say a Trevor Linden which is a FA you would need to switch in another FA. If we try to get them to change so many of the articles on the list there is a bias introduced. I think we were just being asked to remove articles that shouldn't actually be a hockey listed article. For example if Magic Johnson showed up in the list. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is their criteria, so I guess that does make playoff more important than Stanley Cup Playoffs, but some selections are fairly goofy even in this context. We can nominate articles that we consider important. Resolute 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes?

Some thoughts on changes.

• Ray Emery out --> Patrick Roy in
• Izod Center out --> Maple Leaf Gardens in
• Staples Center out --> Montreal Forum in
• TD Banknorth Garden out --> Boston Garden in
• Aalborg Boldspilklub out --> HC CSKA Moscow in
• Minnesota North Stars out --> Djurgårdens IF Hockey in? (need more international representation, but this article needs work)
• Quebec Nordiques out --> TPS (ice hockey) in? (again, international and needs work. Our european based friends might help decide which are the best teams to use)
• Playoff out --> Stanley Cup Playoffs in
• Trevor Linden out --> Gordie Howe in

Resolute 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add Gordie Howe, but that article needs cleanup and citations. Sad but true. The rest I can agree on, though I'd like to keep the Nordiques. Alaney2k (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell, if there were no limits, I'd like to add all NHL teams. But really, I think the current teams should be given preference. Hard to justify the Nords over the Montreal Maroons, for instance, or the original Senators. Plus they would be linked to in the Colorado Avalance article. Resolute 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Staples Center would be better included if it were as a representative of the basketball or NBA projects since it hosts two teams. Patken4 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that that is why its there. If it links to more than one project its listed in both and I think has a higher chance of being picked based on what I saw for some other projects. It is a part of 7 different wiki projects which all but guarantee'd it would be picked. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with Resolute's suggestions. Got to admit, much though I loved the North Stars and the Nords, having them in and Central Red Army out is insane, and if any player bar Gretzky deserves to be in more than Gordie Howe, I can't think of him.  RGTraynor  17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Then we should pitch in on the Howe article. It needs work. Maybe we need a 'historical players task force.' At one time I was going to, right after working on keeping Gretzky at FA. Howe is 80, we should not delay, I suppose, though I think he is pretty healthy. Alaney2k (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging articles

Does anyone know how to merge articles? I have three (!) articles that are for the same venue. They are the Everett Events Center, Comcast Arena at Everett, and Comcast Arena at Everett Events Center. The venue is home to the Everett Silvertips, so it is part of our project. It seems the official website refers to the venue as Comcast Arena at Everett Events Center. Can anyone help me out with this merge? Thanks in advance! Patken4 (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it; please merge Jonas Nordqvist to Jonas Nordquist. --Krm500 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do to merge is copy and paste what you are moving into the proper article and as an edit summary say which article you took it from. And then redirect the articles you no longer need.-Djsasso (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... there's no great secret to it. You take from the old articles what you think ought to go in the combined article, is all.  RGTraynor  16:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only important part is putting in the edit comments "meged from X" in the new article and "merged to X" in the article you are redirecting so people looking for who to credit the edits to can find them. -Djsasso (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Most viewed articles

Looking at the full list of articles from that Version 0.7 list, I noticed that it can be sorted to show articles by monthly page views. These would then be the most viewed articles from within this project:

Article	Rank	Views	Notes
National Hockey League	Template:GA-symbol	71,670
Wayne Gretzky		51,930
Erin Andrews	Start	49,920	rofl
Ice hockey	B	42,090
Madison Square Garden	B	41,610
Ted Turner	N/A	40,590	I removed it. Turner has no real association with hockey
Jockstrap	B	36,900	Ahh, the maturity of the internet
Kontinental Hockey League	Start	31,110
Detroit Red Wings	B	30,000
Toronto Maple Leafs	B	27,600
Mats Sundin	B	26,250	East coast bias!!
Montreal Canadiens	B/FFA	25,770
Hockey	Start	25,170	Marginally relevant
Sidney Crosby	Template:GA-symbol	24,990
Stanley Cup		24,780
Vancouver Canucks	B	22,260
Hat-trick	Start	20,940
The Mighty Ducks films	Start	20,790	Seriously?
New York Rangers	B	20,790

Resolute 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally responsible for some of those Erin Andrews page views. Patken4 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. But (inappropriate commment here) to get into the WP:Hockey? Alaney2k (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thirty seven thousand people look at a jockstrap article?!? Man. That is proof positive that we should throw all the computers away and go back to McGuffey Readers.  RGTraynor  17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Woho, Frölunda totally dominates hit count for SEL teams! With 2,460 hits.... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, but if you think about it, getting a tenth the hits of the Toronto Maple Leafs, on a foreign language Wikipedia, that ain't shabby. I bet they get a good many more hits on sv.wikipedia.org.  RGTraynor  00:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon IPs => NHL article

The National Hockey League article's been vandalized nine times in the last eight hours by several anon IPs. Should we get semi-protection for it?  RGTraynor  16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, right away. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks at this point like it is only two editors. One is on a Level 4 warning, and will be blocked if they try again. Otherwise the article is pretty stable. I'm watching it, and will bring the hammer down on these two editors if they persist. Resolute 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, they should be forced to watch videos of the 1975 Washington Capitals-Kansas City Scouts game.  RGTraynor  17:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's just cruel and unusual. Resolute 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now that's fourteen vandalisms in a bit over 24 hours from five different anon IP addresses. Can we go for semi-protection now?  RGTraynor  17:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Get'er done. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would probably normally deny one with so little vandalism spread out over 24 hours. If 15 had happened in say 3 hours I would probably do it. But with the hockey season beginning it may get worse...so I have semi-protected it for 3 days. -Djsasso (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding "List of" to NHL team records articles

After a series of hostile, bad-faith moves (targetting me) by Davegnz (talk · contribs) (on 17 September 2008 between 10:55 and 11:05, EST), I moved all of our NHL team records to include "List of…" at the start of the article name. If you are interested in what precipitated this series of moves, see my comments on Davegnz. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season article a GA??

..Not unless, the alternate captains situation is solved. Sydor & Malone should not be listed. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They served for a majority of the season, and even still, isn't enough to unqualify it. Grsz^talk 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Malone & Sydor never wore the A's while Crosby, Gonchar & Roberts were in the lineup. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But did when they weren't, which was more often then they were in the lineup. Even Malone was still wearing it in the Eastern Conference Final. (Perhaps this should be discussed on that page). Grsz^talk 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Malone wore an 'A' in the Eastern Conference Final, whenver Roberts was a healthy scratch. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes him an alternate captain. If there's no stated standard regarding this, it's a non-argument. Grsz^talk 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, had Roberts been in the lineup (along with Crosby & Gonchar)? Malone would've been letterless. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why everyone who wore the "A" cannot be listed? Seems to me if they served, they should be listed; if prose is added as a further explination then fantastic. Who says there can only be two? We're the ones who make the rules. Blackngold29 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If we added every fill-in alternate captain. The NHL team articles (for example) would potentially end up with 'bout 8 players wearing letters. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, if a player wore an A he was an alternate captain, even if only for one game. But maybe you could also clarify that he was an interim somewhere in the prose. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I can't stop the article from being ranked an GA (with Malone & Sydor included as alternate captains)? I'm on the loosing end. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with eight people being listed; but anyways, I think we should just remove them, get the article passed at GA, and then discuss what should be done. Now that we have a pretty good system down for how season articles work, similar situations are bound to pop up in the future; we should just discuss it once and be done with it. Blackngold29 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The standard ought to be that if they wore the "A" even once, they are alternate captains, but with an explanation in a footnote or prose. But, I agree with Blackngold29, that it is something that can be hashed out after it is listed as GA. Definately not a life or death situation until it comes up for FAC --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with GoodDay on principle - If they fill in for a game or two, that's a bit ridiculous. At the same time, I don't see it as a huge issue here, given the length of time that players wore the A. Naming alternate captains is not as rigid as naming the captain is. Resolute 05:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but we aren't talking about a game or two, this is over half the season. Grsz^talk 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Beyond that: (1) It isn't as if alternate captains are a position for which official records are kept, as with captaincies; and (2) Do GAs really need to have no disputes as to formatting, no matter how trivial? For pity's sake, just put in a sentence along the lines of "Roberts, Malone, Sydor and Gonchar all served as alternate captains at varying times during the season" and leave the "A"s out of the roster block altogether.  RGTraynor  13:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK having checked the 1985-86 Montreal Canadiens season article, Grsz11 is correct about including Malone. Naslund filled-in for the latter half of that season, with Tremblay on the side-lines. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just FYI, as I said when I added Malone and Sydor back into the article, "there were four guys who had the 'A' in the front row of the official team picture, and there were four guys listed with the 'A' on the roster at the end of the season through the playoffs". Mark Eaton had the 'A' for a game when somebody was injured, I remember, but this is clearly a different example. ConkblockCity (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

O'Brien Cup/Trophy

When I took the photo of the O'Brien Trophy at the Hockey Hall of Fame, I noticed in big letters across the top, "The O'Brien Cup". This was probably the name it was known by, and its official name when donated. For that reason, I think we should rename the article to match what is clearly labelled on the the trophy itself. I don't think that the trophy is commonly known, and it would be likely impossible to determine the most commonly known name of the Trophy, especially during its usage lifetime, since it is has been defunct for many years. Changing it to Cup would be consistent with labelling things as they were known at the time, and especially with what is labelled on the item itself. As a final reason, it would mean it would not be confused with the Larry O'Brien Trophy also. Since it is an FA, that means some further steps would be done also. Does this seem incorrect to you folks? Alaney2k (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made it a requested move. Alaney2k (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound incorrect to me. As far as all the history books I have read have indicated, it's been called the O'Brien Trophy. Even the NHL and the Hockey Hall of Fame call it that. Now, if there's evidence that it was called the O'Brien Cup for most of the period of time it was being awarded, you'd have a case. Considering that all sources that talk about the award call it "Trophy" and not "Cup", however, I'd say to keep it where it is. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 00:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't as if, after all, a different article is named "Dominion Challenge Trophy."  RGTraynor  02:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper name has been forgotten, that's all. The trophy has not been awarded since 1950, after all. It is mentioned as the O'Brien Cup more than once in "Trail of the Stanley Cup". The 1910 Montreal Wanderers 1910 team photo has a picture of the trophy, looking more or less like it does today, as far as I can tell. As for the HHOF and the NHL, I think it is simply the case that the web site writers are not historians and just accept whatever. I know that those sites are argued as both reliable and as incorrect. I can see the parallel between the Stanley Cup vs. Dominion Challenge Trophy, but since the O'Brien is defunct, and long defunct, I think it is more appropriate to go with its proper name. Alaney2k (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I agree that "O'Brien Cup" is the true name of the trophy, but Wikipedia naming policy rests on the term most familiar in English, not the one most proper to the subject. Google searching both terms (+ hockey, - basketball, to weed out the Larry O'Brien Trophy) returns 650 hits for the O'Brien Trophy and only 35 for the O'Brien Cup.  RGTraynor  17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the exact search string you use in Google to do that? Just curious. I notice that people use that as a basis for article naming. Alaney2k (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In a Time Magazine article from 1927, available on the web here, it states the O'Brien Cup. I can look up Globe and Mail article up to 1950. But I think you guys would defer to the name on the HHOF and NHL web sites. Alaney2k (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I always, always use advanced search, just off the top. The settings here were "O'Brien Trophy" (or "Cup) as a phrase, with must include hockey, and do not include basketball. The point, though, is not what the 1950 Wikipedia would have called the trophy, but the most common term today for it.  RGTraynor  19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't always true. We use the names of Arenas as they were at the time. Alaney2k (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a different argument entirely though. We dont title the article on the Pengrowth Saddledome as "Olympic Saddledome" because it was once known as that. The title of the article is the name in current usage. Resolute 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we use the current name if the structure still exists, or the name it is most commonly known by now if it does not (in general). -Djsasso (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. My point is that the current usage doesn't match the name of it, doesn't match the name of it when it was used. Because it is not that commonly discussed, it seems that the current name was just 'invented.' without research. Lord Stanley was around when his trophy became commonly known as the Stanley Cup. If we forgot the name of Pompeii and gave it a name in an essay and other people used that name, would you not want to use the name Pompeii, when you found out that was what it was called? Alaney2k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1993–94 Anaheim Mighty Ducks season article

I feel this article should be moved to 1993-94 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim season. Anaheim Mighty Ducks was never their official name so moving the article to meet it's official name at the time would make sense in my opinion. Anyone else see my view? Raphie (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but the more common name is Anaheim Mighty Ducks, no? Just create an alias and redirect it. Alaney2k (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

While it may be ture, the only reason it is common is because it's listed on hockeydb as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, because it cannot read team name first, it has to read city name first. It's the same with the Beast of New Haven (New Haven Beast) and all the foriegn teams (Avangard Omsk - Omsk Avangard). It's quite easy for a non-hockey fan to edit a hockey related article, using hockeydb as a guide and using Anaheim Mighty Ducks. All the other Mighty Ducks season articles read it's official name except this one which is why I rasied the question. Raphie (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how the name Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is handled? GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as we all use hockeydb here, I think I'd need a citation showing that that website is the only reason Anaheim Mighty Ducks is the most common. Resolute 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, hockeydb is not the only reason we name them in that fashion, most media outlets referred to them as such as well. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so I'll admit I'm wrong with my theory, please take it for granted that I am not North American, it would be extremely easy for me to screw up on these issues. I just find it strange that the other Anaheim Mighty Ducks season articles, redirect to read Mighty Ducks of Anaheim seasons, (2001–02 Anaheim Mighty Ducks season this being an example) Raphie (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The team name changed from Anaheim Mighty Ducks to Mighty Ducks of Anaheim to Anaheim Ducks. When they switched to Might Ducks of Anaheim most people kept on calling them Anaheim Mighty Ducks. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Apparently I was mistaken, but I could have sworn they started out one way and switched to the other. I guess its probably cause people are used to team nick names coming after city name. -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks guys for shooting me. Raphie (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's the most common name, unless it is completely incorrect. As we're discussing in the O'Brien above, that's what we use. Until they changed to the Ducks, I think that newspapers always referred them to as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. You can do a Google search and compare. I don't think that hockeydb.com is unique in the media in referring to the team as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Alaney2k (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• A Google search for "Anaheim Mighty Ducks" turned up 876,000 hits. One for "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" turned up 123,000.  RGTraynor  15:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A Google search with the hits limited on language returns roughly the same difference. It said about 627,000 English pages for "Anaheim Mighty Ducks" and about 108,000 English pages for "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim". --Bamsefar75 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, common-usage trumps official name? Just to note: before we changed the Anaheim Ducks article to its current title (in 2006), it was titled Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As unfortunate as it may be, the team was officially the "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" until the 2006-07 season. I would strongly favor, and say that its correct to historically reference the team as such during that time frame. ccwaters (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No no, I think the good folks have settled an agreement to keep it the way it is. Perhaps we should change any existing article reading the official name and change them to read its common name, if that what we are trying to suggest with these numbers. Raphie (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 NHL team season articles

I'm getting anxious. Is it alright if I start adding the captains to the articles infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm definately getting anxious too. I would think if you can cite it, preferably in the prose somewhere, than it would be fine. Although I don't think all teams have made their leaders official yet, I haven't seen anything about Penguins' assistants since Gonchar got hurt. Blackngold29 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I could leave the alternate captains unlisted, until after the reg. season begins. But, I'll add the captains now. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel better? ;-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, now I won't be sqirming on the floor & biting my sleeves anymore; ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I will get to see an NHL game live for the first time in my life! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, Krm. Be prepared to see a ton of penalties, though. Under the post-Lockout rules, a player gets 2-min for holding, by simply brushing snow off his opponents jersey. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Mats Sundin

Assuming Mats Sundin won't be signing with the Maple Leafs any time soon (if ever) & the Maple Leafs don't name a new captain at the start of the reg season; shall we remove him as Leafs captain? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that, if the season starts, and he's not on the roster, and there's nobody named to wear the C, that the position is effectively vacated at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah at that point it would make sense to remove him. Or preemptively list John Tavares as the captain....-Wafulz (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, remove it will be. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• One consideration: we are in no rush, and no one's handing out awards for scoops. When the Maple Leafs make an announcement, or the team takes the ice for the regular season without a "C", we follow their lead.  RGTraynor  19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NHL rules & the Canucks

What should we do at the Vancouver Canucks article? concerning Captain Roberto Loungo. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You should probably put Vancouver Luongo in the captain's area, but footnote it to say that Willie Mitchell is the designated man to speak with the referee.-Wafulz (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to see how the NHL views this. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I'm under the impression that the Caps tried it with Kolzig and didn't get away with it.-Wafulz (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnoting is likely the way to go. Obviously the Canucks can declare that Skippy the Wonder Llama is the official team captain, but a non-goalie on the ice is the only one who can legally wear a "C" on his jersey.  RGTraynor  19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody pinch me, please. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I added Luongo as the captain, but we should have footnotes to both Mitchell handling on ice official duties, as well as to Ohlund being used in special situations, such as ceremonial faceoffs. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, special duties alternate captains? somebody give me spelling salts. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You get far to worked up about captains. :) Just breathe... -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm having a 'wiki-breakdown'. I'll try standing on my head, for a few hrs. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, when I saw this section title on my watchlist, I was thinking of something entirely different... like how certain rules don't apply to the Canucks in Vancouver. But that might just be my Calgary bias showing. ;o) Simply put, the NHL won't recognize Luongo as team captain. It has to be a skater. I'd say list the NHL recognized captain/assistant captains in the infobox and add a note in prose that the team chose to name Luongo the honourary captain. And then watchlist the damn thing because IPs will be reverting it on a daily basis... Resolute 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think rather than "(unofficial)" we should go with a footnote (for both instances) on the bottom of the page (in the same way as a citation) that says Luongo's captaincy is not recognized by the NHL, if that is in fact the correct statement. From the TSN article, all it says it that he can't wear the "C" so maybe that is the appropriate footnote. Also include that Ohlund is the ceremonial captain while Mitchell is the on-ice captain, even though that makes no sense to people who don't know about the situation. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Still standing on my head), I thought the Wild bugged me with the season rotating captaincy thing; but, the Canucks take the cake. Anyways, In agreement with Bmitchell. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think there should be a footnote to clarify. "Unofficial" by itself is misleading. He is, after all, officially named captain by the team. – Skyezx^message 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NHL.com has announced his captaincy. DMighton (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

six or five?

six or five captains? tsn.ca says six. I can only find five. Bill Durnan, Charlie Gardiner (ice hockey), George Hainsworth, Roberto Luongo, John Ross Roach Masterhatch (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Five's all I found in a cursory search. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this really warrant a category? And, if it does, it should definitely be renamed to something like Category:National Hockey League goaltenders who have served as team captain. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We determined captains for regular players shouldn't be made into a category, so I would probably agree for goaltenders and make it a List instead. -Djsasso (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A list works. Or a category. I don't mind either way. Masterhatch (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all a big publicity stunt, I feel. There's no one else on the team who stands out as captain material, so the Canucks need to break a rule, one that specifically states a goalie can't be captain. And for the record, I was thinking of the mess this would cause on Wikipedia while I watched the press conference. I can't believe I did that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I found two more Alex Connell and Roy Worters. I got those from tsn.ca Masterhatch (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this article lists the seven we have. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cup

Is it just me... or has the NHL virtually ignored the Victoria Cup?... No major network seems to be carrying it... and I don't see much of a reference to it on NHL.com... This is being played for a large chunk of cash as a prize... it would be nice to be able to watch it on TSN or CBC... Any thoughts? DMighton (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is because it's such a random concept thus far. It was put together too quickly I find. Maybe if we actually see the Stanley Cup champion versus the Champions Hockey League champion (ie: top European team versus top NHL team) in future Victoria Cup's, we'll see more interest. But hey, look at the FIFA Club World Cup. It's by far one of the less popular FIFA tounaments, completely pales in comparison to the UEFA Champions League. I think the whole concept has a few years to go before it gets some steam behind it. Until then, it'll just have to be up to us to push the concept ;) – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this year's competition even being played for prize money? That would be kind of dumb since the Rangers were just an arbitrary selection (and they don't really need the money with their expensive tickets). -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it is for 1,000,000 Swiss Francs. DMighton (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that is just in the future. This article doesn't say anything about a reward, aside from the trophy. You would think a prize would be mentioned if there is one. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Google search: "Victoria Cup" francs gives some results that mention that reward. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[6] It is mentioned here too. DMighton (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hockeydb new look

Just noticed that hockeydb.com has changed their look, however, when viewing an existing hockeydb profile it reads the old layout in basic form. From my sources, the old address read pdisplay.php3?pid before the profile's number where in the updated layout, the 3 is removed. Does anyone know how to change the hockeydb code? Raphie (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The template is located at Template:Hockeydb. I'm not sure exactly what change needs to be made, so I'll let somebody else take care of that, or you if you could clarify. Thanks :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As it's protected only administrators can edit it at this time. I'll state an example of what would need changed. Say Paul Kariya for example. The old layout reads http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=2640 and the new layout reads http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=2640. The 3 in between php and ?pid in missing, so it definatley won't take much to change it. But again only admins can edit it. Raphie (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin ;-) . I've made the change. I've also spot-checked quite a few links using the template - seems to be okay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! Well only Damian Surma and Ray Sheppard (my most recent edits) seem to read the old layout, but Bruno St. Jacques was the same and after an edit, it read the new layout all right, so maybe for the other two, I'll just make a minor edit solely for them to work. Thanks for your time. Raphie (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Surma and Sheppard now read the new layout. Raphie (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I assume it didn't change immediately because of the job queue. Thanks for pointing this out to us. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

About time, the new format looks much better. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 07:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Teams notability

I'm not sure if the Detroit Dragons and the Chelsea Tornadoes are sufficiently notable and am wondering if an AfD is in order, but I can't find a relevant standard. Both were expansion teams in the Mid-Atlantic Hockey League, but the league folded before the teams played a single game. Grsz^X 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Did they play games? If so then I would say they are. I am sure there are reliable sources out there talking about them. -Djsasso (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They did not play games. They were schedule to begin the 2008-09 season, which now isn't going to take place. Grsz^X 16:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to just redirect the team articles to the league page. Resolute 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was gonna say but you beat me to it. Glad to see at least somebody sharing my opinion. Raphie (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thats what I would suggest as well if they didn't play any games. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding "name" parameter to player infobox.

It has been suggested that my proposal to add a "name" parameter to {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} should be mentioned here; I'm happy to do so. Adding a name will not only make the infobox more in-keeping with other biographical infoboxes used on Wikipedia, but will facilitate the use of an hCard microformat. Please comment on the template's talk page, not here, as I'll be watching there. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Brown

Essentially, we have three articles for Mike Brown hockey players as can be seen at Mike Brown (ice hockey). Now, two of these articles sort of have a random name. Basically, we have one Mike Brown born in 1979, so he fits the Mike Brown (ice hockey b. 1979) mold, but we have two Mike Brown's born in 1985 with articles titled Mike Brown (forward) and Mike Brown (goaltender). I was just wondering what your guys' thoughts would be on moving these articles so that we at least have the standard "ice hockey" term in the title? Or should they just stay the way they are? I personally am a fan of having the ice hockey term in the title, but to one his own. Any opinions? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion regarding him came up before, and this was the solution. -Djsasso (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

dab's of this sort are always ugly. You could possibly go to Mike Brown (ice hockey forward) and Mike Brown (ice hockey goaltender) if you really want ice hockey in the dab, but other than that, its going to be ugly no matter how we do it. Resolute 03:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am good either way. Stephane Richer (ice hockey defence) was an example of the other way, but its since been changed to coach. Which actually highlights the issues with dabs. -Djsasso (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Mike Brown (ice hockey b. 1979) is also a forward. Ha ha! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there no middle names that we could disambiguate these fellows with? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 07:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I've always been of the position time is better spent improving articles that searching for middle names to replace brackets. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Krm500 up for adminship

Krm500 is up for a adminship and since he is a very active member of this project, I figured y'all would best be able to comment on his adminship qualities in either direction. His nomination is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krm500. -Djsasso (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

World Hockey Association reversion war

Just FYI, over the last few days, User:Average Guy and User:Gold Dragon are getting into it big over on the WHA page, involving Average Guy placing some fact tags, and Gold Dragon removing them with neither comment nor sources.  RGTraynor  18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Page is protected for now forcing discussion, so go over and discuss the dispute, however its pretty cut and dry. One thinks fact tags belong and the other doesn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just figured that while no one had gone over 3RR, there'd been a lot of reverts. Thanks for the assist.  RGTraynor  19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pens media guide

I posted this over on the Pens talk page, but I think it's good enough to mention here. The 2008-09 media guide is avalible as a PDF, and is 421 pages in length. Now, I don't know if I should do this because some of you like your statistics way too much and we may never see you again, but it's some pretty astounding stuff. But hey, you never know when somebody will ask "What was the longest home winless streak for the Penguins in the 1977-78 season?" And you'll proudly be able to respond: 5! Blackngold29 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Four hundred twenty one pages? Jesu-Maria, does it come complete with Ken Schinkel's jock size and the middle name of the daughter-in-law of Lowell MacDonald?  RGTraynor  23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it for like ten minutes, page-by-page and I realized the scroll bar had barely moved, then I looked at the page count and realized why. Whoever typed these stats up must've been sitting at a computer for three years straight. 15 MB isn't all that bad for every stat in the history of the franchise. Blackngold29 23:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through it, and really didn't find much of anything that isn't included in the Oilers and Flames media guides from last year, both of which are just under 300 pages. The difference is that there is a lot of wasted space in some of the Pens information. Especially the all-time roster sections. Still, as I said on the Pens talk page, the big advantage is that it is freely available, and easily accessable. I gotta pay $10 for a Flames or WHL media guide. That said, it's amazing what they pack into these things. I just randomly found a list of every playoff OT game the Flames have ever played, how long they lasted and who scored the winning goal... and I've been through that guide so many times the spine is broken in two places. Resolute 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A copule teams now provide their media guides online. I'm pretty sure that Washington has all of theirs online, as well as Atlanta. That said, I just bought my copy of the 2009 NHL Record Book the other day, and alreay found an error, one that is correct on Wikipedia. Most playoff OT goals is 8 by Joe Sakic, not the 7 they have in the book. Forgot to add the 1 he scored this past spring. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Current roster, injury tags

Just wanna say, the new tags (the little medical cross) are super. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the rosters are really looking good, probably the best format of all of the sports leagues. The only I would consider changing is the reference link to the team's official cite; would it screw the template up if we put in a traditional <ref>Ref template</ref>? Would it just show up at the bottom of whatever page it's on in the References? That would be awesome. Blackngold29 23:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They'd look better if silly names that will never see NHL ice because the player got hurt in training camp weren't included, but that will sort itself out.  ;) Resolute 00:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, once all teams announce their final 23-man rosters—including the four teams who were allowed 24-men in Europe—all that should be worked out within a week or so. Blackngold29 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way that we can make the image link to the page "Injured reserve" as the old "(IR)" did? It looks very sharp! -- bmitchelf•T•F 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks a lot like the Swiss flag, anyone know if we have a similar icon with white background, red cross, because I think it would be more suitable. Also, the previous discussion regarding separating goaltenders, defencemen, and forwards died out. Should we try to reach consensus or be happy with what we got? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked at commons and there are two alternatives; and . —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd take 10 seconds and MS Paint to make a new one if needed.  ;) As far as the linking of IR goes, we could incorporate the {{Click}} template for the image. Resolute 02:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

non notable?

does this guy George Pelawa deserve his own article? i know he died early, but does that make him notable? i mean he was a highschool star, not a pro star. Masterhatch (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:It could go either way, but I'm leaning toward not notable. It seems as if the article is based on his asserted potential, which may or may not have played out as expected. I would think most states name a player best in the state each year, and per the info included that would appear to be his biggest accomplishment. If/when the Flames have a History of the franchise article, I think the info could be merged there. Blackngold29 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is kinda in Mickey Renaud territory... but drafted higher... I'm more inclined to say keep it... but I dunno, is he notable enough? I've never heard of him until now sadly. DMighton (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mickey doesn't have his own article, just a mention on his team's page. Maybe something like that is the best fit for George Pelawa too. Masterhatch (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He passes the notability guidelines on being a first round draft pick. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And the subject of multiple, non trivial sources. Resolute 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I created the page because he was a first-round draft pick, not because he died. As per the notability guidelines posted by Krm500, first-round draft picks are notable. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me :) I was just checking. Masterhatch (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Game log recap links

I don't know if there was a recomended link to each game of the individual game recaps on season page game logs, but I would like to propose that it be the "NHL.com recap page". The page contains the AP article, box score, a preview of the game, and thanks to NHL.com's awesome redesign: Video highlights of every game (a pretty good amount too). Should we reach consensus on this or are there any other recomendations? Blackngold29 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is to dump them. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. IMNSHO. Resolute 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I like them. Every bit of info you want and more! And it's from the the official site, so it should be good. Jc121383 (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I could see the argument for eliminating them, but if I'm some random dude who comes on looking for info (either next week or in 10 years) and I see a game that peaks my intrest for whatever reason, I think it's cool that we can provide quick access to in-depth coverage of that game. I guess if you really want that info you could go to NHL.com and seach it up, but I bet more people would click on the link if it's there than going to another site. Blackngold29 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute. And the problem is that we don't know long the links will be active. 10 years is really questionable if you ask me. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has articles dating back to around 1995 and there are online databases which have articles that appeared in newspapers from the 1960s to the present day. I don't think they're gonna go dead anytime soon because storage will inevitably become smaller, but then again, different companies do different things. Blackngold29 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to drive traffic to other websites though. A single link the team page more than sufficies. From there, an interested reader can browse a list of games from that season. Basically, per both WP:EL and MOS:LINK, we should not be using 82 external links where one will suffice. Resolute 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, I don't like the recap links for the reasons that Resolute just linked. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)