Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article has been refactored. To view the deleted text, go into the history of this article [1]. This page was refactored on October 9th, 2005 by Masterhatch. Masterhatch 16:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Division Standings

I think that it would be much more informative to give conference standings positions as opposed to division satndings. Conference standings are used for playoff seedings (except for division winners, but don't get me started on that) and they are a much better judge of team performance. For example, Vancouver finished 4th in its divison in 2006, but had a much better overall record than Chicago, who finished 4th in theirs. (42 wins vs. 26) Random89 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The goal of an encyclopedia isn't to reflect the world as we'd want it to be, but to faithfully note the one that is. Despite our personal opinions about divisions, the NHL uses them, we don't get to abolish them on our own say so, and they have a material impact on playoff seeding. RGTraynor 07:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include both then, because conference standings have an impact on playoff seeding for more teams then division seeding. The goal of an encyclopedia is to inform the public, and conference standings are at least equaly relevant information. Random89 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Except that the playoff brackets are given in the playoff articles for the particular years. Your proposal would make sense if we did day-to-day standings, but since that's not properly Wikipedia's purview, and such standings are only given after the season's done ... RGTraynor 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussion on Team infoboxes

Note: this discussion was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Montreal_Canadiens brings up some issues with the current team page format. ccwaters 22:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Someone finally commented on the fact that the "Facts" section and the infobox are essentially redundant. So which needs to go? Keep in mind that this really caused the en-us/en-ca fight earlier (since all of the infoboxed used "colours", even when it shouldn't have, it left the articles with mismatched US/Canadian spellings, often adjacent to each other on the screen). I think these have all been fixed (for the NHL, anyway), but the same information should not be repeated within the article. Flyers13 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
NFL teams (Pittsburgh Steelers)are the same way. NBA teams (Golden State Warriors) do without the fact section. MLB teams (Seattle Mariners) display their farm system in the infobox (that won't work). Just some ideas... I've been switching lang to the team's country whenever I notice otherwise in my American Hockey League work. ccwaters 03:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I'm late to the party on this. The headers on the infoboxes got colorized in the last few months, and it's shot legibility all to hell. I considered changing the background on the Rangers header to "navy" but that's not quite accurate. Should we move these back to monochromacity, or leave them in their spangly-hued wonder?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of using the team colours for the headers but I do agree that some of the colours are a little "off". If we can find the right colour matching, i think it would look pretty sharp. Masterhatch 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't just use the major color for the background and have text color be white in the headers. Thing is, the basic HTML color words are a little "off." We'd have to go through and start matching them better. I changed the example on the right to match Ranger blue more accurately. It's #009 right now, which is a lot better than the #00F of "Blue."  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 11:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree on this... If we are going to colorize the headers, take the RGB hex triplet of the primary color (*usually* main color of home jersey) and use white for the text. You can grab the hex values from most graphics programs. ccwaters 23:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've gone through and redone them with the hex taken from their websites, except for obvious ones, like the Kings, Penguins and (*sigh*) Caps who all have black as their primary jersey color now. (removed the example infobox too)  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Man, I hate to flog the dead horse that is the Ottawa Senators info box, shouldn't that be standardized? I can get the all-time leaders and put them in the lower portions. NoseNuggets 9:37 PM US EST Jan 13 2006.

I'm kinda new to the collaboration part of Wikipedia, and I've been working on some stuff before I noticed this project page. I added a line in the infobox on team history (historical names). It's a line that's in the NBA box, and seems to be helpful in helping readers associate past names with current teams. It's redundant with the facts section, so I started deleting that part. If the group as a whole thinks this is a bad idea, please feel free to delete the line in the infobox code for team_history, and that will take the line out of all the teams. In addition, I tend to agree that the Sens box is a lot different, but I think my take is that if some Sens fan really wants to update their team's info to that degree, it's their prerogative. -- Kermitmorningstar 06:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact box/section should be completely done away with and the info box should be expanded or updated. I realize this isn't a new or unique thought, but the fact box/section is worthless. I personally like the look of the NFL and NBA info boxes. --Sparkhurst 09:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Player lists on team articles

There are limits on the players to be put in "Not to be forgotten".

  1. For post original six era, limit the number of players to roughly 12.
  2. For original six teams, limit the number to roughly 24
  3. Players who appear elsewhere on the Team Page, such as "Team Captains", "Hall of famers", retrired numbers", cannot appear in "Not to be forgotten".
  4. Only players who had a significant impact on the team can go here (as long as they aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article), whether the impact was positive or negative.

A list of Current Stars is not necessary if there is a "Current Sqad" already on the page.

Currently there is a drive to add a "Currrent Squad" to all 30 teams.

[edit] Old notes on "Not to be Forgotten"

Reducing the Not To Be Forgotten list to a statutory twelve basically ensures that the only players cited will be those playing within recent years. Should players from the Twenties and Thirties be automatically excised? RGTraynor 05:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The "twelve" is not a firm number. I had suggested 12 as a limit because it seemed like a fair number. Of course some teams will go over twelve and some teams will be less than twelve. The idea, in my opinion, of setting a limit was to reduce the lists on teams like the Calgary Flames who seemed to have a list of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that every suited up for them. On original six teams, it will be hard, if not impossible to keep under 12 and I don't expect those teams to remain under twelve. I felt, and still feel, that if a player is mentioned elsewhere on the article (for example under team captains, retired numbers, HHOFers, or in the written history of the article) there is no need to mention him again in the "Not to be forgotten" section. My attempt was to try and clean-up the team articles so that they looked less like player lists and more like team articles. Your idea of reducing the Hall of Famers is a great one that will go a long way to clean up some of the messes on the team articles. Masterhatch 27 August 2005
Well ... consider this. Should we think about criteria for what would merit inclusion in a NTBF section? I completely agree that if the player is otherwise mentioned -- a Hall of Famer, a retired number, a career leader, etc -- he doesn't need to be reiterated, but should we then go ahead and pick the Xth number highest impact players otherwise? Something I'm seeing a lot of in these listings are plainly personal favorites of the posters, guys who played a season and a half three years ago, and the bar ought to be higher than that. RGTraynor 07:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
There. Just tried it for the Bruins; deleting out team captains and HOFers, and with a team as old as Boston I tried to keep it to the 10 most prominent forwards, 7 defensemen, and 4 goalies not otherwise listed, while including players who for reasons of history (Willie O'Ree) or notoriety (Derek Sanderson) merit inclusion. Tried it for Vancouver too, using 12 players and the same criteria (Tiger Williams, for instance). Take a look at the lists and see what you think. Certainly for expansion teams on down a dozen ought to do it. RGTraynor 08:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current Squad

A consensus was reached to replace the older method of displaying the "Current Squad" with the one currently in use throughout the 30 teams. The agreed upon table can be viewed here. To view the old discussion on the current squad, go here

Current roster outside links:

Just a suggestion: instead of listing the players in order by number, why not list them alphabetically? --Sparkhurst 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The advantage to putting the current squad in alphabetical order would mean you wouldn't have to move a player to the appropriate position; rather you would just change the number. Since this is Free Agent season, player numbers are usually not known until the training camp. Instead of placing them at the beginning or ending of lists and having to move them to the appropriate spot when they pick a number, alphabetically would be much easier. I realize this is a bit mundane but it seems like a good idea. --Sparkhurst 01:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Hall of Famers

I am rather new to Wikipedia, and I've contributed much of the current text that's currently in the Los Angeles Kings articie, enhanced by others, of course :-)

About the requirements for listing players who have been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame (HHOF)...at least in the case of who should be listed as HHOF players for a particular team, I believe that Wikipedia should not be dictating who should be listed and who should not be. Rather, the official listings of the HHOF should be used. Otherwise, it's as if Wikipedia is setting additional requirements that the HHOF does not recognize. While I agree that players such as defenseman Harry Howell, who played just two seasons (143 games) for the Kings, made their mark in the NHL with other teams, the HHOF lists players such as Howell with all the teams they played for. Wikipedia should do the same.Gmatsuda 08:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You could, with just as much justification, say that Wikipedia has no business dictating who should be listed in the Not To Be Forgotten sections and that everyone who has ever played for the listed teams should be cited. That being said, the business of Wikipedia isn't to ape how the HHOF chooses to format its website entries, nor to give the local fans of individual team pages heaps and heaps of feelgood entries (which, especially for the Original Six teams, led to many dozens of names), but to be informative. Claiming that Billy Smith is a Los Angeles King Hall of Famer is anything but. Moreover, the entire point of a consensus team page format is to agree on a single template that works across the board. Feel free to reopen the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Team_Hall_of_Famer_listings if you think you can gain a consensus to change the format. RGTraynor 09:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I see your point. However, Wikipedia contributors aren't the ones who set the criteria for induction into the HHOF, or regarding what team a player enters the HHOF as (the primary team he selects). Also, the HHOF has always listed all the teams their honored members have played for, even before the days of the web. IMHO, for Wikipedia to disregard all this because it's not "informative," is the wrong thing to do, is disrespectful of the HHOF and in its own way, is dis-informative. In any case, I'll try starting up a discussion about this on the page you mentioned, only not right at this moment...time to sleep. :-) Gmatsuda 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I have added to the discussion on the Los Angeles Kings page in regards to this matter. But I will briefly summarise it here: The team articles are not meant to be player lists. We have separate lists for players and over the last month many hockey Wikipedians have worked hard to make team articles read less like player lists and more like team articles. On the Kings page, I mentioned an idea about adding each team that the player played for after the players name here: List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame. That way, all you have to do is look up the player and see which teams he played for over his career. Masterhatch 14:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well ... a few thoughts. First off, I don't think many give a rat's patootie (least of all the HHOF itself) as to whether we're allegedly "disrespectful" of them; those concepts are at best left to the street gangs who obsess over them. Secondly, in revising the team HHOF listings, players haven't been restricted to one team, but have been listed for multiple teams when they've made a significant impact on each; Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque, Larry Murphy and Paul Coffey are recent examples. Finally, I'm not quite sure what is disinformative about failing to list a player with only a handful of games for a team and who is not generally perceived as having been a key member of that team ... when you think of Paul Coffey as a Hall of Fame defenseman, do you picture him in a Whalers' or a Bruins' jersey? RGTraynor 19:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
If you think what we are doing is "disrespectful", than you obviously have never actually been to the HHOF. Its in the basement level of a urban mall. Walk past the food court, shuffle through overly Gretzky-centric exhibits, pay 10 bucks to get a pic with the cup, and then proceed to the museum shop. They really have to visit Cooperstown and take lots of notes. ccwaters 19:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I support gmatsuda here; if one visits the HHOF website and searches for a team, one finds all the players that ever played for that team--even if it was only for one game. I think that that this makes more sense as well--if a guy suited up for a team and is in the HOF, a team should be able to claim that player. Zeus1233 10:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The idea of putting limits on the Hall of Famers is to prevent lists of like a hundred players on the main team page. As it is, most of the team pages are kinda full and adding giant player lists to the pages just doesn't make sense. I have two ideas that might help solve this conflict.
  1. I will use the Edmoton Oilers and Gretzky as an example. On the List of Edmonton Oilers players, put a small note beside each player that was in the fall of fame. For example, Wayne Gretzky (HOF). Do that for the Blues, Kings, and Rangers too.
  2. I will use Grezky again. on the List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame article, do something like this: Wayne Gretzky (Oilers, Kings, Blues, Rangers)
I know that this is a touchy subject, but please, we need to prevent the main team pages from turning into team player lists. It's already bad enough on some teams. The restrictions that RGTraynor and I came up with a couple of months ago have really done wonders for the team pages. Let's not go backwards and fill up the team pages again with nothing but players. Masterhatch 08:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Besides which I'm unsure what the upside to listing every player would be. Surely no one really legitimately believes that Billy Smith is perceived to be a Los Angeles King, Wayne Gretzky a St Louis Blue, Paul Coffey a Boston Bruin? Where complaints have cropped up, they haven't come from fans in Boston or Montreal or Detroit ... they've come out of cities with only a handful of home grown HHOFers, reinforcing my previous comments about this being more of a feelgood issue than anything else. RGTraynor 13:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What about media members? To give an example, it is safe to say that broadcaster Gene Hart is synonymous with the Philadelphia Flyers. Should he be included on the Flyers list of HHOF's? --Spark17 00:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree if media types were Honoured Members, but they're not; they're honorees of the HHOF, but don't generally enjoy full membership. RGTraynor 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Player nationalities

Following a question on the Canucks talk page, it strikes me that some criteria for determining what flags are used. I've a proposal for people to mull over:

1) To use the flag corresponding to the player's citizenship. 2) Where citizenship is not known, to associate to the player's birth country. 3) In cases of dual citizenship, to take into consideration the player's residence, birthplace, or known preferences. 4) In all cases, though, to take a player playing for a national or Olympic team as a clear declaration of allegiance.

What do you think? RGTraynor 04:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, what is Kolzig... From what I understand he was born in South Africa to German parents and raised in Canada. I had him as a German but somebody changed him to South Africa. I'm not sure what his official citzenship is. ccwaters 11:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I was going to stay out of this discussion mainly because I haven't been active with placing flags. But I am sure that a day will come when I do decide to add a flag or two, so I better get my two bits in now. Personally, I think the easiest thing to do is K.I.S.S and use the flag from where the player is born. This is pretty cut and dry for 99% of the players. Certain players like Kolzig and Rod Langway are exceptions, but there aren't many players that are like them. Honestly, I can't see Richard Park with anything but a Korean flag. Same with Owen Nolan and an irish flag. I might get flamed for this, but Brett Hull also deserves a Canadian flag. He was born in Canada to a Canadian father and that pretty much makes him Canadian. True he played for the US in international competitions, but Peter Stasney played for Canada once or twice. Would it be right to put a Canadian flag next to Stastny? I think not. Anyways, I feel birth place is the easiest way to Keep It Simple Stupid. Too many players have played for different international teams and too many players have dual citizenships. Using two flags also doesn't seem right to me either. Using international teams as a basis won't work because there are a lot of players who have never played in international competitions. In many cases, it might be difficult to find out a players citizenship and also difficult finding out where he played internationally. It just sounds like too much work for the average wikipedian. Birth place is by far the easiest and simpliest way to deal with 99% of the players. Masterhatch 14:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the point/function of the little flags, exactly? Seems to me that categorizing players based on their country of birth is over-simplistic and mostly pointless. Citizenship is what's required for a player to represent a nation in World or Olympic competition, I believe, but what's wrong with just letting individual players be individuals and leaving the whole flag-labelling thing out of it? Details of a player's background can be listed in their individual entry, if they have one. Oystergumbo 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Because, all the cool kids are doing it :-D -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Related: Where are we putting those flags (left or right of names)? I really don't care either way. I've been putting a lot of them to the right. I really don't remember where I got that. I could have sworn it used to be more of the standard, but maybe I just failed to notice the difference and went with it. I was going to work on the NHL rosters/squads, but I'll hold of until that's straightened out. ccwaters 14:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what is "standard" but personally, I like it better on the right of the name. It looks "odd" to the left. But that is just me.Masterhatch 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
We deffinately have to put them on the left. It looks better all lined up like that. (See Ottawa Senators) plus that's the standard format for flag usage (see any soccer team) -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess I am odd. Let's go on the left then. Masterhatch 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure. I like the cleaner template spec ( flagicon|CZE ) better than ( Image:Czech_republic_flag_large|20px|Czech ) as well. I use that for now on and gradually clean up what I propagated (Mostly in the AHL). ccwaters 19:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Can I get some input on the "Team Records" section at Binghamton Senators (I honor my fav team by treating it as my guinea pig). I think my last revision looks the best, but look through the last 4 revisions of mine and tell me what you think. ccwaters 20:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the last one does look the best. Good work.Masterhatch 01:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
While I cleaning up my mess, I'm editting the rosters. I'm using what's posted at team sites now. I figure most free agents are signed now, and rosters are becoming more stable. Masterhatch, I wouldn't add anything to your lists until they get down to the official 20 man and actually play a regular season game. If you need help then, just ask: we can probably divide it up by divisionccwaters 02:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keeping my lists 100% accurate once the season begins will be very difficult and a lot of work. My plan with that was more along the idea that many Wikipedians will help by occasionally updating those player lists (and the main list at List of every NHL player). Honestly, I wasn't too worried about keeping it 100% up-to-date during the season (but I will try) but rather at season's end, compare the lists to the ones at the hockey data base and make a massive update in July 2006. Of course, though, when new players do start playing and when trades are made, I will do my best to keep it current as that will make the end-of-the-year job much easier. Any and all help is much appreciated;) Masterhatch 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, right now: most teams have more than 20 players on their roster. Boston is currently listing 34. 14 of those will be playing regularly in Providence. A few *might* get call ups through out the season. I'll help you out when the time comes, but I think its a little premature to list them before they suit up with the big boys. Back on track: I listed Robyn Regehr as Brazilian at Calgary Flames. I wasn't sure and figured the issue would be more noticable with a bright green flag. :) ccwaters 03:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, of course it would be pre-mature to list all the players before they actually start playing. Well, for keeping the main player lists up to date, once a week or so, I (or anyone else for that matter) can go to a site such as tsn.ca and compare lists and call-ups and anything else and see what minor changes have happened. It shouldn't be too hard to keep the lists up to date. It is just a matter of being time consuming. As for Robyn Regehr, well he was born in Brazil, so it looks right to have a Brazilian flag. Were his parents from Brazil? Masterhatch 03:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
According to his article, his parents were Mennonite missionaries in Brazil. Mennonites are similar to the Amish and I thought their territory was mostly Pennsylania/Ohio/Indiana. I never knew them to be missionaries or Canadians, but I never bothered to investigate. However, I can tell you from personal experience that its a very surreal to ride behind Amish/Mennonites on a roller coaster at Hershey Park. ccwaters 04:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It makes sense to use a Brazilian flag. Masterhatch 05:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Regehr is a Canadian citizen and played for Canada in the 2004 World Cup. It stands to reason it should be a Canadian flag, in any case when I started with all those flag thingies I intended to show what international team he plays for or would play for. The criteria right on the top seems the way to go, details about nationality, background, etc. can be on the player page. --Legalizeit 05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, but there are a few problems with it. Many players play for different National Teams at different points in their career. Also, what flag would you use for a player who has never played for a National team? What flag do you use for players with dual citizenships? Other players actually change their citizenship. Finding exact info on citizenship and which national teams players played for can be very difficult for lesser known players. It is so much simpler to use country of birth. With 99% of players, putting the birth place flag beside the name is pretty cut and dry. Maybe Robyn Regehr should get a Canadian flag, just like Rod Langway should get an American flag. Maybe Regerh is one of the 1%. Masterhatch 07:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Wich flag should a player have if he is born in one country, perhaps Canada, by parents from another country, perhaps Sweden, but then raised in Sweden and have played in serval national games, both junior team and with the senior team for Sweden? I think they should have the Swedish flag, because they have played for the Swedish national team are raised by Swedish parents in Sweden, expect for a few years in Canada. Example of this questin is both Robert Nilsson of the New York Islanders and Alexander Steen of the Toronto Maple Leafs. What do YOU think? Killer 23:48, 1 November 2005 (CET)
The idea behind using "Country of Birth" for the flags is to keep it simple. For some players it can get really confusing because they have dual citizenship and have played on more than one national team. Going with country of birth eliminates that confusion and makes it so much easier and simpler. There are a few exceptions to "Country of Birth", though. One such exception is Rod Langway. I am not overly familiar with the backgrounds of the two players that you mentioned, but if they were born in Canada while their parents were actively living in Canada, I would give them a Canada flag. That follows along with the "Keep It Simple Silly" idea. Masterhatch 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they where living in Canada, but only because the fathers, Kent Nilsson and Thomas Steen played in the NHL. So they only lived in Canada for a few years and they have only played for one nation team, Sweden. And there parents are Swedish, they are Swedish. So I think it's quite clear that they should have a Swedish flag. If they have the Canadien flag it will confuse the peolpe who visit the page and maybe they wonder if the team has any foreign players and then they see the Canadien flag, and think, oh the are Canadien players, while they can'y play Canada because they already played for Sweden. Killer 00:45, 1 November 2005 (CET)
This "place of birth rule" seems to be a classic example of something that is simple, straightforward, and wrong. It would be much better to list them based on what team they play for internationally. With players like Brett Hull we could either pick the most recent international side, or simply have two flags. Labeling Robyn Regehr as Brazilian or Danny Heatley as German is misinformation, since those players have no links to those nations. - SimonP 23:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother with this anymore. Too much trouble for something I really don't care about. Kolzig is going to flip between S. Africa and Germany on a weekly basis. Nabakov is going to switch between Kazakhstan and Russia, too. ccwaters 01:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
If we are going to use place of birth, then we should have use the flag of the soviet union where applicable. However, I disagree with place of birth. Kolzig should be at Germany is what I think. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus that we use country of birth except in unusual circumstances where it would be misleading? And that if there is disagreement it can go on the respective talk page. There seem to be only a few players for whom this is an issue anyway. If we can KISS most of the time, but occasionally, you know, play around a little bit, I think we'll all be more satisfied.24.64.223.203 09:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
But anyways, I think the flags idea is problematic because the NHL has so many players born in one country but plays for/represents another (i.e. Richard Park, Dany Heatley, Olaf Kolzig, Rod Langway, Owen Nolan, Robin and Richie Regehr, Brett Hull, Alexander Steen, etc.). My suggestion is this: get rid of the flags completely. The birth nation of the player is already listed, so the flags are kind of redundant.
As for those worried about multiple nationalities, I recall that there's a rule in international hockey that states that players can represent one country only. That's why Brett Hull couldn't play for Canada even if he wanted to because he represented the USA already.Buchanan-Hermit 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- why DO we have those flags, anyway? They're a contentious aspect of the template, which often does not reflect the genuine nationality or intent of the players, always ignores dual citizenship, and creates numerous anomalies. There've been too many fights over nationality already. I propose we eliminate them. RGTraynor 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Either we eliminate the flags altogether or we come up with an agreement on their usage. Masterhatch 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
We didn't really arrive at a consensus the last time we tried; I don't expect we all agree now. RGTraynor 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That's why, like you, I'm in favour of removing flags altogether. If they're based on birthplace, they're redundant (since birthplace is already written on there); if they're based on nationality/allegiance, it's problematic (i.e. citizenship through naturalization). Either way, they either don't serve a useful purpose or are objects of dispute. Getting rid of them solves both problems. No more disputes, no more messes. Either that or create a concrete guideline/policy for flags, once and for all, that takes into account national allegiance and all those tricky things. --Buchanan-Hermit 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an issue that's of high interest to me, since I think there should be some sort of guideline about this, written down and all. What do you think about something like this? It can alleviate some of the confusion and provide some sort of standard by giving the flags some sort of meaning (besides birthplace, which is already listed and obvious) without getting rid of them completely. If that page looks crappy, I apologize because it's my first attempt at something like this. Feel free to improve upon my sorry version, if you think this is a workable idea. --Buchanan-Hermit 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Mm, I floated something even more stringent -- that when in doubt, the country a player played for in international tournaments would govern -- and that didn't fly. The ultimate problem is that we can't have a guideline unless there's a consensus about what rules to follow, and there is none. It's a lot of contention and a lot of editing just so there can be pretty flag graphics on the Current Squad listings. RGTraynor 13:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that's kind of dumb. If the flags don't reflect nation represented in intl. tournaments, then what's the point of the flags? Like I've repeatedly said like a broken record, birthplace is already listed so the flags don't serve a useful purpose in that regard. Maybe they SHOULD be gotten rid of. Either that or here's another idea: copy the NBA and MLB pages, and omit birthplace while keeping flags. (They go by nation represented in intl. tournaments more than birthplace, i.e. Steve Nash of the NBA.) --Buchanan-Hermit 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. International play requires citizenship and represents a player's conscious declaration of allegiance, whereas birthplace can be an accident of fate and may not even convey citizenship (depending on local law) if the parents are not citizens as well. It's actually fairly difficult to unilaterally switch international allegiances once declared past the age of 18 unless your country ceases to exist -- usually only in cases of defection, such as Peter Stastny, is that sort of thing allowed. Consider Evgeni Nabokov's situation for the 2002 Olympics [2] when he tried to play for Russia, but was denied by the IIHF and CAS because he played one game for Kazakhstan at the age of 19; he had to wait until Kazakhstan was willing to release him. Declared international allegiance (or most recently declared allegiance, in the case of switches) is a simple standard allowing players to self-determine in case of multiple allegiance (Steen, Deadmarsh, Hull etc.) -- which is why baseball, basketball and soccer all use that guideline here at Wikipedia. VT hawkeyetalk to me 06:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, that's me. I was born in Hong Kong but I don't have Hong Kong or Chinese citizenship (only Canadian). :) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHL Uniforms

(i.e. AWAY, HOME & ALTERNATE uniforms of Calgary)

Image:Calgary Road uniform.gif
Image:Calgary Home uniforms.gif
Image:Calgary alternate.gif

Bestghuran 09:11, 27 September 2005

Ok.. thats great. but you really need supply a license and source for images that you upload. Someone will probably tag them for deletion if you don't. If they're legit, then we'll probably work them into the team articles. ccwaters 17:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Sports Logos at Chris Creamer's Sports Logos

I'm not sure how to tag these? "logo" I guess? If someone can clarify than I don't see why they can't be used. I'd suggest a more specific naming scheme though (maybe something like calgary_flames_road ?) ccwaters 15:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been tagging them as logo, but the whole issue is wishy washy to me when it comes to copyright status. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Waiting for a response here: Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags ccwaters 17:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you get a response, yet? bestghuran 8:51, 5 October 2005
It looks like "logo" is the way to go. What do you have in mind? 01:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe put the jerseys somewhere in the articles, as long as it looks good or I don't mind if I just upload the jerseys and let others put them in their own unique way in the articles. 09:33 14 October 2005
Ok I just uploaded these jerseys, if anyone has an idea about them you can do what you want with them if not just delete them. bestghuran 22:28, 21 October 2005
Image:Anaheim alternate.gif
Image:Anaheim Road uniforms.gif
Image:Anaheim Home uniforms.gif
Image:Atlanta Road uniforms
Image:Atlanta Home uniforms
Image:Buffalo alternate.gif
Image:Buffalo Away uniforms.gif
Image:Buffalo Home uniforms.gif

[edit] Minor League affiliates

I added a new addition to the infobox of "Minor League affiliates" which should cover the American Hockey League, ECHL, and (in some cases) the Central Hockey League and United Hockey League. NoseNuggets 8:30 AM US EDT Oct 7 2005

Take them out. The infobox will be to large with that, and the other info I would like to see with other teams (see the Ottawa Senators). Well, you could add them, I guess- I dont really care about the size, but others might. Just stop removing the info from the Ottawa Senators page. Add, dont remove. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Beyond that, are you freaking kidding us, NoseNuggets? First there's the incessant additions (necessitating reversions) to the team pages, you're asked to make your pitch and gain a consensus, and now you're just unilaterally changing the format itself? This is not how things work. First you get a consensus around the changes you want, then if (and only if) you get the consensus, make your changes. We've been reverting your unilateral changes for days now, and it would be a shame to have to go to arbitration. RGTraynor 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. The reversion battles continue, and now NoseNuggets has just been wiping his user talk page clear without bothering to discuss this. Earl, you're an admin; at what point can this business be taken to official channels, and what are the procedures you recommend? RGTraynor 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


Well, if he breaks the 3RR then, we can block him. Although I dont want to break it myself, so I will need some help reverting his edits. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, the team pages need a lot of work and revision. Nosenuggets has opened a can of worms that i was hoping to avoid until after all the teams had the new updated current roster (squad) and season-by-season records. What I mean is, there is redundant information, that I am sure everyone has noticed, at the beginning of 90% of the team pages. You have the box and then you have much of the same info repeated right beside the box. My plan was to finish my current projects and then sit down and look at other sports articles and do some brain storming and comparing and see what other options were available and then introduce my ideas to this page. But I hadn't given it any serious thought yet. All I know is that the current format needs to be changed. Maybe, just maybe, Nosenuggets' idea of adding the affilaiates and mascots is a small part of the solution. So, let's keep an open mind to change as change does need to take place. Of course, Nosenuggets went about it all wrong and that has caused a lot of backlash against him. I am not saying that the affiliates and mascots are a good thing. Don't get me wrong there as my thoughts about that particular information being in the article are totally indifferent. I am just saying that change needs to happen and we need to keep our options open. Masterhatch 06:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
We do need to keep our options open, and new ideas are good. We also absolutely want consensus on any change, we want people to ask before they just change, and we don't want reversion wars. But hell, we all have limited time to spend, and the time I've spent dealing with this isn't going into writing new pages, as I'd been doing the last week. RGTraynor 09:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Season by season and logos

I added the logos on the season by season table for the Minnesota Wild and Vancouver Canucks. Have a look. If it is liked, I will do it to other teams. If it isn't liked, well, I will change it back. Masterhatch 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Vancouver Canucks

So Water Bottle, you think that it looks better with the blank spots beside the season? Using your reasoning, why don't we use dito marks every time they consecutively miss the playoffs? or consecutively get knocked out in the first round? Those stats are repeating themselves. It looks much better (I think) with the logos beside each season. There is a discussion (although very brief) here and you are quite welcome to post your comments about it there. Also, there are about 4 or 5 teams that do it that way. Changing one and not the others makes no sense. The reason there are only four or five is because I haven't gotten around to finishing them all yet. I have been too busy with my List of NHL seasons of late. Masterhatch 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The logos look cool, and seem especially pertinent given the controversial history of Vancouver's uniform changes. RGTraynor 18:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't use that as a source. I pointed you to that site because that is where it is being discussed and if you want to discuss it, that is the best place. Masterhatch 02:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
So, why do you need those logos? I stated my opinion on why we don't above. I didn't have time either to change all the four-five articles that have this. My goal is not to say "you suck" and then keep changing the Canucks article. See what's best for the articles, then we could adapt them into the articles. -- WB 03:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Aesthetics. That is why. It looks so much better with the logos all the way down as opposed to three logos and a whole lot of white space. The logos add colour to an otherwise colourless table. Masterhatch 04:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I get it. Can we get anyone else to comment on this? -- WB 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I cleaned up some of the more ad ridden external links. Being linked to from wikipedia is a huge boost in search engine page ranking. Its prone to abuse/self promotion. I had to made some judgement calls: Personally, I'd remove them all to be fair, but some definitely had more research value than others. ccwaters 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Great work! Masterhatch 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So, are we removing them all? ccwaters 20:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can remove all of them that aren't informative sources. All the blogs and other ad related sites should be gone. Masterhatch 00:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two things that have been bugging me recently

Maybe its me but:

  1. There's an awful lot of wrestling with the captains listings lately. Is captaincy really that complicated? What's a tri-captain (Calgary Flames)???
  2. I think the rivalry listings are getting out of hand. Everytime I edit the Toronto Maple Leafs I barely resist changing it to...
"Rivals: The whole damn conference."

...in protest. End rant. ccwaters 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The captain thing has been bugging me too. It almost seems like too much info added. But I'm not so worried about it that I feel reverting it is necessary. As for the rivals, they been buggin' the %@*$ outta me too. I never thought that we would have to come up with a limit. A rival should be between two teams that have been rivalling each other for a long time, not just the past season or two. There has to be some criteria set otherwise every team in the division will be listed and that is pointless. Any ideas out there?Masterhatch 15:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's gotten to stupidity level; there are people adding teams on the basis that (say) the Leafs played a couple hard games against (say) the Flyers, there were a few fights, and now the fanatic starts breathing heavily every time he sees an orange uniform. I doubt that rivalries pass POV muster, as to that. Here's a thought: could we change it to "Traditional Rivals?" That preserves the Bruins/Canadiens-type rivalries that have been ongoing for decades while possibly eliminating the chaff. RGTraynor 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the "Traditional Rival" idea. Makes sense to me. Besides, honestly, that is what i thought it meant in the first place. Masterhatch 05:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Me too. Carolina Hurricanes is one which has clearly gone nuts with this. On the other hand, I've got another one: Flames-Canucks, which is contentious. They do have a bit of a history which certainly was intensified in 2004, and this season in the fight for the division lead, but definitely it's nowhere near as big a rivalry as with the Oilers, nor is it as deep. It's definitely a rivalry, but a "traditional" rivalry? --Legalizeit 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it will be a POV fight no matter what you call it. How far back do you have to go for it to be considered "traditional"? What I would prefer is a section called rivalries that explains the rivalry with facts. If it is backed up with paragraphs, then it would be okay to list in the rivals section. (I'd argue that you could write a few paragraphs on Vcr-Cgy, with the intense playoff series last year and Sutter publicly stating that Vancouver is the team to beat and in my opinion, the Vancouver games have by far been the most intense for the Flames this season. I probably could find some newspaper articles to back this up. I would argue this, but I don't find it important enough to do all the research and write the section.) -- JamesTeterenko 17:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

I made everything "blahblah, Québec" when going through the rosters, but I'm having second thoughts. I vaguely recall something along the lines of "Quebec" is the province and "Québec" is the city. Is that right? ccwaters 01:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Um no, they are spelled exactly the same. For wiki purposes, Quebec City is at Quebec City, Quebec and the province is at Quebec. Never use an accent in the English wikipedia when spelling Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
What he said. Mainly because we don't have an e-accent-aigue on our keybpards. RasputinAXP T C 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forgetting "Not to be forgotten"

I've been thinking -- and that having spent two days redoing the sections for all the teams this past summer -- that NTBF is a headache greater than it's worth. The sections keep ballooning, every time some newbie gasps with horror that his own favorite players (often being with the team only a couple years and always having played within the last few seasons) aren't on the list. Short of keeping a master list somewhere to which to revert the individual team lists to every couple of months (while updating for the very rare genuine addition who's been traded or retired), this just seems doomed to be a perpetual POV-ridden favorite player list. Should we just eliminate it in favor of adding any worthy players to the main article, where appropriate? RGTraynor 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask you about that very topic. All the hard work put into the team pages is very evident. They are all very informative and the layout is very good as well. But, even as a casual viewier, it's easy to see how marginal players are being removed and then added back constantly. Your comment about perpetual POV hits the nail right on the head.(IMO) Mr Pyles
Yeah. I could just revert back to the lists I painstakingly prepared months ago, and then it'll just all happen again, until we get to the situation prevailing before we tried to rein in NTBF, which was that popular recent expansion teams had a couple dozen entries of marginal players, while a couple Original Six teams with small Wikipedia followings (Chicago for instance) had a half dozen ... or where (picking on the Blackhawks again) a Dominik Hasek's modest couple years for a team merits inclusion where a Steve Larmer's, a Dennis Hull's or a Pit Martin's many years of stardom for the same team doesn't.
Besides which, even the concept I put out was POV-ridden. Glance over at the Canucks' talk page, where there was a lively row over who merited inclusion. I think my choices were right, but they're debatable, and they shouldn't be. RGTraynor 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I am in favour of eliminating the not to be forgotten. Masterhatch 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I too agree. Get rid of the section. -- JamesTeterenko 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Good riddance. ccwaters 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Kill it! Kill it with fire!!! ;) I agree, it's just a pain in the ass. Retired numbers are all we need. RasputinAXP talk contribs 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me. I'll start eliminating them tonight. (sighs) I hate to lose names of worthy players, but I swear a quarter of my overall edits are on those sections. RGTraynor 02:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They are all gone. -- JamesTeterenko 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me, less vandalism this way -- Sseagle 07:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that I missed a couple, I should clarify. I removed it from all of the current NHL teams. I see it has been removed from the Atlanta Flames and Winnipeg Jets articles, there may still be some outstanding. -- JamesTeterenko 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top scorers

Would it be apt to put a list of the top-ten or top-five point scorers in team history on each NHL team page? I would be willing to put them in myself, I just need the go ahead from the WikiProject. Keep in mind (this is my opinion) that the totals would be franchise totals, not current team totals (ie. Ron Francis' total points with both the Whalers and Hurricanes). The reasoning is that the actual players were playing in the same organization, the team just happened to move during their tenure. As well, everywhere I look I see the totals for the franchise and have yet to find a source that does not have the all-time point leaders for only the Carolina Hurricanes. What do you think? Croat Canuck 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be franchise totals as opposed to totals for the individual cities. That caveat aside, sure, go for it; it's a worthy inclusion. RGTraynor 06:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Hartford/Carolina stats should be combined, Quebec/Colorado, Winnipeg/Phoenix etc... Here's an interesting sidenote too, 3 of the 4 WHA teams have since left their original cities with Edmonton the only one still left (and that was close to leaving in the late 90's along with the others). More input is still welcome on this matter. Croat Canuck 06:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I posted this comment on the page at the Template talk:NHL Team Infobox page, and I'll also post here. What's the thoughts on increasing the Team infobox to look similar to the NFL's? I like the NFL's box, as it covers a lot of info in a relatively small space, info which is often duplicated on the main article or in the "Facts" subsection. Just throwing it out there as a possibility. Anthony Hit me up... 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CONFERENCE STANDINGS TOO

The conference standings should be included with the division standings.

[edit] Season-by-season records

I started looking at ways to standardize team pages across sports, incorporating different ideas from each sport. My biggest thing that I've been working on has been the NBA season-records page, since it's a pain to find all that info in any one place. I tend to think that's a good idea here as well (putting round-by-round info for each team in each playoff year) and to include past team names in the current franchise page (ie. include Whalers seasons in the Hurricanes page). I'm sure that NHL fans are much more territorial than NBA fans are about franchise histories, (dunno if Whalers fans WANT that info on the Canes' page), so I'm hesitant to put all of that together. On the other hand, I think it's really a big deal to include a comprehensive round-by-round summary of playoff years (series results are fine, no need for game scores). Any thoughts? Thanks! -- Kermitmorningstar 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that the the example of Hartfords records and standings on Carolinas page would be kind of redundant, the articles make reference of the former identity of the team and believe that said references would contain links to Hartford Whalers. So I say nay to combining relocated franchises pages. I also think that (if im reading your post right) that you want to put summaries of all the playoff series on a teams page? That would make some articles (Montreal,etc) incredibly long, I do think that linking the playoff result portion of the table to the NHL Playoff Year page would suffice to show the summaries. The cross linking seems to be so powerful, and I would be willing to assist in linking all the teams playoff results column to the proper years. sseagle 04:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On a different note, I made a number of edits that were reverted (I didn't really know about this project at the time, so I didn't run it past anyone. No complaint about the reverts. But, basically I was thinking that the Season by Season table seen on the Philadelphia Flyers page was a decent format (perhaps without the League column). Thoughts? Harrias 14:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Trivia section

After the recent warring over the "Redneck Hockey" fad on Carolina Hurricanes, I did some quick research on how other NHL team pages handled odd non-play-related information, fan movements, etc. It doesn't seem that there's any clear place within a team article to put information such as the Wings' octopus legend, the intradivisional status of NYI-NYR-NJD versus other NYC-area sports rivalries, Carolina's unique employment of a cheerleading squad, etc. -- things that are not key to the franchise's history, but are worthwhile notes to have in the article.

The Canes' article has had a non-standard Trivia section for some time, and seems to be a reasonable place to keep such information -- it segregates that stuff from on-ice happenings and makes it easier to weed passing fads out when they've run their course. I'd propose that an optional first-level Trivia section be added to the template at the end of the main content, prior to the See Also and External Links sections, formatted as a bulleted list of one-paragraph-or-less notes. Thoughts? VT hawkeyetalk to me 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am against making it part of the template. If the information is trivial, than it is not important enough to put in an encyclopedia article. If it isn't trivial, then you should be able to work it into the article. -- JamesTeterenko 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retired Numbers

Seeking consenses; the 'Retired Numbers' sections have been changed somewhat on the New Jersey Devils & Philadelphia Flyers pages. Do we accept this, with hopes of the other 28 pages going the same way? Or should the 2 pages sections be reverted to previous forms? GoodDay 00:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections were renamed 'Famous Players'. GoodDay 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I would revert. If some editor wants to change the way things are set up, he can seek consensus. RGTraynor 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Consenses, has been reached (see Talk:New Jersey Devils). The new Format has been accepted. GoodDay 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth places

Why are some of them listed as City, Province and others as City, Country. That doesn't seem to make any sense. Is there any consensus on this ?? 86.192.127.194 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because the vast majority of NHL fans don't require prompting that a player hailing from British Columbia or Manitoba (say) come from Canada, matched by a like number who wouldn't recognize a Slovakian kraj or a Finnish maakunta from a hole in the ground. Likely noting that a player hailed from Ostrobothnia, Vysocina or Orebro without reference to country wouldn't be particularly informative. RGTraynor 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make it the right thing to do, though. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not another mediocre Americentric paper. Also, a lot more people recognize Russia or Ukraine than Rhode Island. As for Ostrobothnia, it wouldn't have to be "without reference to the country". 86.192.127.194 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
While your concern about "mediocre Americentrism" would be expected in the various European Wikipedias, this remains the English Wikipedia. The current consensus format reflects easy reading within the template, as well as informing people about the nationality and hometown of the players with which they are familiar. Do you have any reasons for us to switch to your preference other than that it's "the right thing to do" or that this is "supposed to be an encyclopedia?" RGTraynor 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's also the most common format used by NHL teams on their official websites. (examples: [3][4][5]). Yankees76 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I made this change to the Chicago Blackhawks page in order to stave off an edit war. The page was initially set up as City, State/Province in the case of USA/Canadian players, but as City, Country in the case of other players. A minor disagreement over a Ukraine vs. U.S.S.R. birthplace changed into a disagreement over birthplace format as a whole -- retaining the original format vs. an overall City, Country format. The last obviously does not give enough information, while I believe the first violates the Anglo-American bias part of NPOV, so I suggested and implemented a City, Region, Country format. That was reverted, which brings us to this talk page.

I stand by my opinion that the current format violates NPOV. I don't think my implementation of City, Region, Country is the only solution (check the Chicago Cubs' roster section, for example -- baseball rosters show only the flag of the player's country, with no reference to birth city or region), but a change needs to be made. Jpers36 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you were canvassed to join this dicussion by our anonymous friend. I'm curious though, as to why 86.192.127.194 decided to start making widespread changes to various team pages (Washington Capitals, Buffalo Sabres, Chicago Blackhawks, Montreal Canadiens for example) based on a discussion between just the two of you? Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus; not by inserting opinion, and then reverting - often rudely (see Buffalo Sabres) - when another editor reverts the changes back to the established template format (again mostly done by anon - not yourself).
To address your point, I don't beleive that this qualifies under Anglo-American bias. The National Hockey League is a North American hockey league and conducts it's business in North America (Canada, United States). The vast majority of players in the league are Canadian and American, and the teams themselves follow the current format, as do the majority of networks that cover the league - not to mention the NHL media guide. As was noted above the current consensus format reflects easy reading within the template, and informs readers about the nationality and hometown of the players in a fashion they are already familiar with through the sources I've mentioned. Yankees76 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's your consensus: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). ccwaters 13:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, look at postal formats: [6] ccwaters 13:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I endorse Yankees76's comments, in their entirety, quite aside from that attempts to change consensus through insult seldom work. RGTraynor 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yankees76: I think anon's request that I enter into this discussion was understandable. I was concerned about anon's change to the Chicago Blackhawks, but I agreed with the perceived intent behind it -- to reduce the page's Anglocentrism. So I edited the page to a more sensible format, not knowing that the problem was not just on the Blackhawks page, but rather on this Team pages format. In fact, from the Blackhawks page, there is no way to know that this Team pages format even exists.
Secondly, it may be incorrect to state that the "vast majority" of players are North American. Six years ago, there were more non-North American players than US American players.[7] I have not been able to find more recent data yet, but the trend in the linked article shows non-North American representation has been increasing greatly since the fall of the U.S.S.R.
Additionally, I don't believe that Wikipedia should necessarily follow the standards set by the NHL or sports media outlets. In doing so, you are tailoring the template to another bias -- that of the (North) American sports fan -- rather than aiming to provide information for all. As you state, "[T]he current consensus format ... informs readers about the nationality and hometown of the players in a fashion they are already familiar with through the sources I've mentioned." (italics added)
I believe your other concern in that sentence -- that of readability -- is trivial; there is no significant difference in readability between City, State/Country and City, Region, Country. In fact, adding the additional modifier will enhance understanding in certain situations -- for example, if an NHL player is from Georgia or Georgia, both of which are very possible.
ccwaters: Can you perhaps explain how those links apply to the discussion? I'm not sure what your point is.
RGTraynor: I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me, but I don't believe I've been uncivil or insulting.
Would any of you have issues with an RFC? Jpers36 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Your friend in France asked where a consensus was reached, and I pointed him towards previous discussion of said issues. I also wish to point to biographies of most non-hockey individuals: Jacques Chirac was born in Paris, France, not Paris, Île-de-France, France. USA and Canada happen to be examples of countries that require states/provinces for among other things: postal addresses. If you wish to throw in a "USA" or "Canada" afterwards, I won't object (I have often thought of proposing it). I do however object to City,Region or City,Region,Country where it is not a convention or requirement to do so. I also object to using countries that didn't exist at birth. As an analogy, if upstate New York ceded from NYC/Long Island and became the state of "Upper Hicktralia" tomorrow, I would still state my birthplace as Xtown, New York not Xtown, Upper Hicktralia. ccwaters 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, ccwaters, your position and mine are not so different. The central aim of my argument is to include USA or Canada in birth place, while the region issue is secondary. And I never advocated using countries that did not exist at birth (when dealing with birthplace, that is) -- I completely agree with you on that. Jpers36 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think following the standards set by the NHL, it's teams and players when writing articles about the NHL, it's teams and players is always good practice - one reason is having to with verifiability. Any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Take Thomas Vanek for example, under your proposed changes, Vanek will now hail from Vienna (city), Vienna (province/state), Austria (country). Any Wikipedia reader looking to verify this information doing a search on Google, the NHL media guide or the offical NHL site for Vanek will not find the information presented this way. Nearly all NHL-related sources considered verifiable by Wikipedia standards will say Vienna, Austria (some say Graz). The same for Jochen Hecht. Wikipedia would listed him being born in Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Yet the majority of verifiable sources will simply state Mannheim, West Germany.
And though not extremely relevant to this discussion, the vast majority of players are North American (only 33% are European - Canadians alone comprise just over 50% of the league). I would not be opposed to an RFC. Though the current consensus is well established, perhaps further comment is needed. Yankees76 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about this, then -- forget the region question for the moment. Would it be acceptable to just add USA or Canada to the birthplace of those players hailing from USA or Canada, respectively? Jpers36 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. ccwaters 13:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since there's been no further discussion, I'm assuming consensus, making the change, and removing the POV tag. If I'm mistaken about consensus, go ahead and make the change back, but then please readd the POV tag as well. Jpers36 13:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't beleive there's been a consensus (where are the results of the RFC - or where is the RFC for that matter?) Yankees76 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
New debate: Talk:Anže Kopitar. ccwaters 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Multiple editors disagree as to whether country of origin should be included in players' birthplace for those players from USA or Canada (see previous discussion). The existent standard is City, State/Province for those born in the USA or Canada, and City, Country for those born elsewhere. Two alternate standards have been suggested: City, Region, Country for all players, or the addition of Country to those players born in the USA or Canada.20:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • (copied from above, with changes) I made this change to the Chicago Blackhawks page in order to stave off an edit war. The page was initially set up as City, State/Province in the case of USA/Canadian players, but as City, Country in the case of other players. A minor disagreement over a Ukraine vs. U.S.S.R. birthplace changed into a disagreement over birthplace format as a whole -- retaining the original format vs. an overall City, Country format. The last obviously does not give enough information for those players from the USA or Canada, while I believe the first violates the Anglo-American bias part of NPOV, so I suggested and implemented a City, Region, Country format, which was reverted. Since then, I've been convinced that the Anglo-American bias can be removed simply by the addition of USA or Canada to the birthplace of players from those two nations. I stand by my opinion that the current format violates NPOV. Jpers36 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has established a Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format." In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. The National Hockey League (NHL Enterprises) is a North American organziation. The current format reflects what is used by the NHL and their teams and affliates (including minor leagues such as the AHL) on their official websites, and media guides, as well as what is used by the majority of press covering the sport - both American and Canadian. The current consensus format reflects easy reading within the template and follows a format consistant with the official entities of the subjects being discussed while informing readers about the nationality and hometown of the subject in a fashion they are already familiar with. And, should the reader attempt to verify the information will find it written the same way by sources considered verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Yankees76 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Oppose. That the nomenclature used by a North American-based organization has a North American bias is plain and expected. RGTraynor 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would be stupid to add region for swedish players since it isn't used in Sweden when talking about birth place.--Krm500 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Krm500, I am no longer advocating the adding of regions to non-North American birthplaces -- I am advocating the adding of country to North American birthplaces. Jpers36 13:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would advocate adding the country of birth to all players. This seems to be the most convenient and consistent thing to do.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We're talking about a Canadian/American league, Canadian and American players, covered mostly by Canadian and American press, and generally followed by Canadian and American fans, being read in English -- we should use American and Canadian English place naming conventions: City, state/province, and add country for non-US/CDN players. Place names are linked anyway -- any question can be resolved easily by following the link. VT hawkeyetalk to me 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons already laid out above. --Djsasso 17:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics

I've checked over many NHL team official websites, checked over NHL jerseys. Checked over my collection of past NHL guide books. No where, have I seen any diacritics on non-English names. Why are these diacritics being FORCED on the NHL team pages. As an English reader, it's frustrating not being able to read certain names on the team articles of the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. These annoying/pushy diacritics, should be auto-reverted from th 30 NHL team pages (alow them on IIHF tournament teams). Forgive the rantings of a frustrated English speaking Canadian, who expected only English words on the English Wikipedia. GoodDay 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And again, this fits in well with my point regarding birthplaces, if it's not used by the league these players play (by their employers) or the verifiable sources that much of the info is sourced from, why are they here in Wikipedia? Yankees76 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Because there are a handful of European edit warriors who really do think their version of reality should prevail world-wide. With only a couple of exceptions, the only times we ever see them around here is to pack each other's votes and to put diacriticals in. RGTraynor 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Under Wiki rules - Could we conduct a consensus on diacritics in NHL team pages? With a provision, barring editors who don't give a 'bleep' about NHL team articles, only caring about adding their diacritics? GoodDay 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Å, Ä and Ö are not A and O with diacritics, they are seperate letters. Now I can agree on the issue regarding all the Czech and Slovak players since they are diacritics but please respect the names like Selänne and Lidström are correctly spelled. --Krm500 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct spelling for the Finnish & Swedish Wikipedias NOT the English Wikipedia. If you can show us these diacritics on Lidstrom's Red Wings jersey & Selanne's Ducks jersey, you'd have a legitimate agrument. How would you like it, if English spellings were added to the Finnish & Swedish Wikipedias? How about adding Japanese spellings to the Finnish & Swedish Wikipedia? GoodDay 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Looked up the 'Detroit Red Wings' page on the Finnish Wikipedia. I'll admit the North American names have no diacritics there, however the mention of the Red Wings, Boston Bruins & New York Rangers were printed in Finnish. What's with that? GoodDay 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Krm500, how about asking all 30 NHL teams (through their official websites), to add diacritics to their European players jerseys. How about getting, in contact with the NHL front office, asks them to add diacritics to their European players jerseys? Personally, I've no problem with diacritics on the Players bio-pages. However the 30 NHL team articles should follow the NHL teams choice (not to add diacritics). Why won't you pro-diacritics compromise, when it comes to NHL team articles? You've got the Players bio-articles. GoodDay 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the personal attack GoodDay, but you got it all wrong, I'm not pro-diacritics, I'm pro-encyclopedia and how encyclopedic is it to miss spell names? And what did you expect to find at the Swedish wikipedia, Joe Sakic spelled Jöe Säkic? Joe Sakic is spelled and pronounce Joe Sakic in both Finland and Sweden. Swedish and English are two very simular languages, why can't you respect that in Sweden and Finland we use å, ä and ö in our alphabet? --Krm500 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
An extensive discussion has alrady taken place on this topic. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). That says to only use diacritics in the title if it is most common in English to use the diacritics. Also review the WP:HOCKEY policy (specifically use of diacritics and non-English), as well as the main article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey). Further discussion on the subject can be found here.[8] Yankees76 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
We do respect that Sweden and Finland use different letters in their alphabets. Why can't you respect that English (which happens to be the language of this Wikipedia) doesn't? Why should the English language Wikipedia be forced to use European typographical conventions, yet the European language Wikipedias are not compelled to use ours? RGTraynor 14:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The english language does have diacritics, native english speakers are probably just to lazy and ignorant to use them. --Krm500 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That remark is totally uncalled for (especially since the use of diacritics in English is a relative rarity and tend to be words borrowed from other languages). You've just lost any respect I may have had for you with regards to this discussion. Yankees76 16:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Krm500, I wasn't attacking you, however if you think I was, then I'm sorry (didn't mean to offend you). My suggestions of you contacting the NHL & NHL websites, was to get you to see that those cites don't have diacritics & so the NHL team articles should reflect this. GoodDay 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, have any of the European-born players in the NHL complained about their names being translated into English (on their NHL jerseys)? If those guys have consented to the anglonization of their names, why can't pro-diacritics & their supporters do the same (here on the NHL team pages)? GoodDay 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
And even more interesting is the fact that in some tournaments Finland, Czech Republic, Russia and Sweden did not even bother putting them on their own uniforms [9], [10]. It feels kind of pointless arguing about including diacritics to a name like "Jágr" when his own country doesn't feel the need to when he represents them. Yankees76 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Great point. All the more reason, to remove the diacritics from the NHL team pages. GoodDay 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to take back my last comment in this discussion and apologize, since the comment was exaggerated and way beyond the line. My intention wasn't to offend anyone here, nor was it directed at anyone here from my point, but in reflection I can understand if someone was offended. I'm sorry and ashamed that I was negligent when choosing my words.--Krm500 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

===Compromise on Diacritics in NHL team articles=== I've decided to offer a compromise, for all 30 English Wikipedia NHL team articles. 1- Where diacritics don't belong: Top Infobox (lists owners, gms, coaches, captain etc), Current Roster and Team captains sections. 2- Where diacritics belong? in sections not listed above. I offer this compromise, to end constant editing conflicts on the NHL team pages (concerning Euro & French-Canadian names). I Hope pro-Diacritic & pro-English editors, will consider this compromise (by a pro-English editor). This compromise concerns only the NHL team article at English Wikipedia, NOT English Wikipedia as a whole. After all, above all else we're Wikipedians. GoodDay 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC):Recommend Compromise Vote last 10-days. GoodDay 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

===Compromise to a vote=== Support. In order to end continous bickering of diacritics. We must come to agreement. It's the Wikipedia way. GoodDay 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to lack of feedback, I've scrapt the compromise idea. GoodDay 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In the last few months there seems to have been an understanding of sorts, concerning diacriticals on NHL team pages & NHL player pages. The understanding being: No diacriticals for NHL team pages, Yes diacriticals for NHL players pages. Hopefully, this trend of understanding will continue. GoodDay 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Won't be a complaint from me. This is always how I felt it should be. --Djsasso 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags in NHL team infoboxes

What do guys/gals think of the Flag additions, to the NHL team pages infoboxes? GoodDay 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is for a quick overlook of the information, so why not? --Krm500 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
They're fine by me provided the information is verifiable. Yankees76 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
They're neat & informative, I like them too. GoodDay 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Fame section

The guideline for this section continues to be ignored. Editors are still adding 'names' that don't belong on respective teams HHOF sections. Perhaps these editors should be given a 'block' warning. GoodDay 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

These editors are using WP:HOCKEY (which has no guideline on the HHOF sections), as their reason for re-stuffing the sections. GoodDay 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

HHOF section, too argumentive I suggest the section, be removed from the 30 NHL team articles. HHOF career, is based more on the 'individual' less on the 'team'. GoodDay 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No NO and NO. That is a bad way of working on Wikipedia : oh it's too argumentive, let's just drop it.. We would lose a heck of a lot good material. I think that, like in the case of the Ottawa Senators article, Coaches CAN be added to the Hall of Fame section.. since they are still staff of the team, so they are related to it (but need to be specified as so). --Deenoe 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's why I didn't like your edits. I like the fact to see who was a Hall of Famer who might have passed through a particular team. As an example, Luc Robitaille is most definitely a Hall of Famer, and he's always going to be known as a King. BUT, he won a Cup in Detroit. I think he had two stints in Detroit. So does he get mentioned in the Detroit section? You and I might say he does, but someone may not. What gives the right for any of us to make that decision. So if we get rid of the HHOF who played on teams, that's probably the best way to remain neutral. If, however, you keep it, then it's got to be totally inclusive--my idea of a Kings Hall of Famer is going to be different than yours. But more than that, how can we make that judgement on any player. Wikipedia subscribes to Neutral Point of View, so we either dump the category, or keep it, being completely all inclusive. Orangemarlin 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way I agree with Deenoe. This category is not only interesting trivia, but is useful information. Borque won a cup with Colorado. But he's really a Bruin. Most of his career had nothing to do with the Avs, but 10 years from now, it will be interesting to know that about the Avs. I think that GoodDay is being a one-man police department, and we're missing consensus. Orangemarlin 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The guideline on this page backs my edits. Question is, should the guideline be appealed? We need a 'consensus vote' on this. If the guideline is going to be ignored, what's the point of having this WikiProject page? GoodDay 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure who wrote the guideline, but implementing it was rather sudden. I was reviewing the Kings page (I watch it, so that's how I know you made a change), and the HHOF players were added a long time ago. Why would you go on a sudden edit rampage, when things seem to have been status quo for so long? It's like you want to "purify" the hockey team pages. I think there should be some sort of consensus. If a vote is required, let's do it. Whatever the consensus, I'll agree, but if we keep the players, then you have a lot of work unreverting (not really a word)!!! Let's get a group consensus. Orangemarlin 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I'm not personally against the HHOF section existing on the 30 NHL team pages. I'm not personally against -all- HHOFers being on team pages they've barely played for. What stuck the thorn in my side? It's the fact that there's a HHOF guideline (which I didn't author), that's not being respected. The Big Question is - Shall we keep that guideline Or remove it? Should a guideline be respected OR not. GoodDay 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus building discussion

Shall we keep this guideline? GoodDay 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No - based on the text of the guideline listed below
Note: Hall of Famer players must have played several seasons for the team in question, and those seasons have a material impact on their selection as Hall of Famers
-- bold emphasis added by User:MrDolomite
Unless WP editors get to vote on HHoF ballots, we should not try to read the minds of those who induct them. Yes, I know Borque played for Boston for a long time, but the number of Stanley Cups he won with the Bruins is still zero. To help distinguish this, list the years the player played for that team (or possibly the number of games, if you really want to show the "impact"), and the year he was inducted into the HHoF. Oh, and be sure to check out the Detroit Redwings official website list here. They list Paul Coffey, but according to the guideline, he would only be an Oiler. If a method of inclusion is not put down clear, quantifiable terms, then grab your WP:WHEEL, cuz each editor is going to bring their own interpretation. And all that is going to do is decrease the quality of these hockey articles. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • NO - because it (current guideline) isn't being respected by all editors & leaves room for dispute. It's either 'delete' the guideline or respect it. It hasn't been respected. GoodDay 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No - but I will add that I think it's ridiculous to list HOF players for the Winnipeg Jets on the Phoenix Coyotes article, when those players never wore a Coyotes jersey. It's irrelevant that the Jets became the Coyotes. --Mus Musculus 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. The only reason the team is the Coyotes is because they moved from Winnipeg. It's still the same franchise. Even the Phoenix media guide officially recognizes their "team history" going all the way back to their days in Winnipeg. Gmatsuda 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
See the Dallas Stars, they've handled that situation well. GoodDay 03:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No - Only because it is subject to a POV as to which team a HHOF player built his HOF career. Gretzky will cause infinite arguments between Kings and Oilers fans. Just put all players who played for the team and are in the HHOF irrespective of whether it was one game, or most of their career. As for teams that changed locations, I believe that the team owns all of the honors and records of that team, but that might be subject to a debate. Orangemarlin 07:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Orangemarlin, I love the Hall of Fame section and it should not be deleted just because of 1 rampaging editor named GoodDay who deletes everything he doesn't like. Don't you see GoodDay, everyone wants every HHOF listed except you. Listing every Hall of Famer will end disputes instead of causing them. Whether it be 1 game or 20 seasons, everyone should be listed. I don't want to see any messages regarding the HHOF anymore from you, RGTraynor or Bmitchelf because that guideline does not exist any more. Payne2thamax 27 January 2007
Gee...could you be anymore immature? Let's face facts...you and others brought about this movement towards change, but you did it the wrong way by starting an edit war instead of trying to build consensus by starting a discussion about it as GoodDay has. So please spare us the attitude, personal attacks and childish behavior. Gmatsuda 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
When will we close this 'consensus building discussion'? Currently the No's lead 5-0. How about closing it (after 1-week) on 1:38 February 2, 2007 (UTC) ?. Surely 1-week is long enough. GoodDay 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
One week sounds good to me. It sounds like consensus is we dump the guideline. Orangemarlin 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No - dump the guideline. --Deenoe 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The HHOF players for each team should be retained in each team article. They are a part of the history of each franchise. Regarding the debate about which inductees to list under what team, as I've stated elsewhere, I can go either way. I would prefer that all inductees be listed for all the teams they were involved with because that's how the HHOF does it. But I can live with the current guidelines as well. That may be wishy-washy, but that's how I feel about it. Gmatsuda 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Im gonna go with No because it the right thing to do and we gotta give the peeps what they need. Say goodbye to the guideline GoodDay. As for Gmatsuda, thanks for the advice, just be sure to add Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr, Terry Sawchuk and other deserving greats to your LA Kings HHOF section in one week. Payne2thamax
I've voted 'No' (see above) like you did. Why are you pestering me about the growing consensus to remove the quideline in question? GoodDay 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

==Who's the 'original' rampager?== Payne2thamax, you were rampaging too (Team articles 'history' proves it). You ignored this guideline. You had no consensus at WPH to add ALL HHoFers. You should have brought your 'argument' to this talk page OR this talk page before making your edits. So please, don't call me a 'rampager', unless you include yourself in that definiton. PS- please add your vote (Yes or No to this consensus. GoodDay 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the guideline (as consensus for removing it is quite clear: 6 to 0). GoodDay 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added the 'restrictive guideline', as I'm not a member of this WikiProject (Ice Hockey). My previous actions may have been in error. GoodDay 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you are the leader of the rebellion, GoodDay, you have no choice to take this matter to one of the members of the the WikiProject (Ice Hockey) to get the guidline removed. Payne2thamax
The 'restrictive guideline' has been a thorn in your side for months, you or anyone can contact a Member. Here's a list of members to contact Ccwaters, RGTraynor and Pparazorback, it's up to you. PS- There's still edit battles over the 'HHOF sections', they may yet be removed from the 30 NHL team pages. GoodDay 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Guess (in a way) I am a Member (just don't have the badge, yet). I'll remove the 'restrictive guideline' again. GoodDay 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No - If I want to know what hall of famers played on a certain team. I want to know ALL the hall of famers that played for that team. Not just some POV opinion on who had a big contribution to the team. --Djsasso 05:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It alright, the 'restriction' has been lifted, ALL HOFmers for teams are included. GoodDay 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Devils

The Devils article, has a 'Famous Players' section (which has helped the article get an 'FA'). However in the months since, ONLY this article has the section (thus giving the impression -I think- of a Devils fansite). A similar 'Famous Players' section was at Philadelphia Flyers (but has since been deleted). Furthemore there's no 'Famous Players' guideline at this WikiProject page. According to this WikiProject page, the Devils 'new section' should be deleted (like the Flyers). What should be done about the Devils article? All other 28 NHL team article, don't have the 'Famous Players' section. GoodDay 05:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See below, consensus to add 'Famous Players' renamed 'Honored Members' as a guideline, is currently getting majority support 4 to 2. GoodDay 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The Devils section 'Famous Players' has been accepted, with the new title 'Honored Members'. GoodDay 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommending new guideline

Honored Personnel
Players who's jersey's are retired. Players who've been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Coaches who've been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame are included in this section's content. These sections are currently at New Jersey Devils & Philadelphia Flyers. GoodDay 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This new guideline would replace- Notable Players, Hall of Famers and Retired Numbers guidelines. GoodDay 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Personnel? Members is a far better word to use IMO. --Krm500 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Members is a better word. GoodDay 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Let us not forgot the other sections the Devils page introduced. --207.69.138.144 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Note sure if this is the right spot for this, but before I vote on this, what about the format that is used for NFL teams, which is basically Hall of Famers, Retired Numbers, Notable Alumni (just a table of names, so it limits length)...I think the notable alumni who are not in the hall of fame, nor have numbers retired is an important part of an "encyclapedia article on a given NHL team. Bjewiki 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One guideline at a time.*Accept: This new guideline concerns me in one area though. Team pages like Montreal Canadiens, New York Rangers, Chicago Blackhawks (old franchise) will have large content (will make those team pages longer). GoodDay 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Blue Jackets will have next to nothing which differs little from the present format. Columbus and Montreal will be on opposite ends of the spectrum, just as it is with franchise history. Every other team will fall between those two. --207.69.138.144 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:::You guys have convinced me. I'm no longer concerned about article length on older team pages (Mtl, NYR, Chi etc). GoodDay 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Accept - Honored Personnel is a good compromise. As for teams that would have a large list, it can be formatted into columns. Teams with no or few names will just need to get cracking! ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. It's not an issue that some teams will have longer articles; uniformity in length has never been a requirement. If a team's section of Honored Members gets too long, it can be split into a separate article using summary style. --Mus Musculus 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This consensus building discussion, should last 1-week [end on 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]. That should be enough time to get a consensus. Does anyone agree? GoodDay 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. I've thought it over & over, about this 'Honored Personnel/Honored Members' proposed guideline (which ironicly, I prosposed). I'm afraid my orginal concerns over the older team pages has returned. The current style of the other 28 NHL teams are easier to read. The Devils & Flyers pages should be reverted to match. Therefore I'm reversing my opinon from 'accept' to 'reject'. Sorry guys, I've been giving this some heavy thinking. GoodDay 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't think I clearly understand your concern here. The older teams pages are going to be longer because they simply have more history. I agree that each team page should follow the same "outline", but what do you mean by format? --Mus Musculus 12:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. I still think it's all right. I think it's great to read about what players played on the early teams (thankfully only 6, unless you include the really really really old, but no longer with us teams). Poor Good Day. You're having a bad day. :) Orangemarlin 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:Poor GoodDay, you're having a bad day? What's with these personal jabbings, anyway? First Payne2thamax in the 'HHOF guideline discussion' (above) and now Orangemarlin at this discussion? GoodDay 18:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mine was purely nice. I was reading how you went back and forth on this, and I felt bad for you. It's just hockey, not something serious, like the crazy trolls at the Creationist article. Orangemarlin 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about my misinterpretation. I'm being too paranoid. Removing my complaint. GoodDay 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. I still think a notable alumni (like the NFL team pages have) or notable players section is of good value. Bjewiki 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I would be okay with this, if it was standard for each team page to link to a another page that has a list of players, like: [List of Philadelphia Flyers players], however not all of the NHL team pages have this. Bjewiki 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; Why is it so bad that 2 articles has a higher standard then the other 28 teams? If you look at the 12 teams in the swedish Elitserien there is huge diffrent in quality of the articles? Should sections be removed from, for example Frölunda HC since Mora IK doesn't have them? The Devils article is rated FA, it sets the standards and therefor editors of the 28 other articles should take a look at the FA article and follow it. Not propose deletion/change of content in the FA article since other team article doesn't have the same content. So my vote goes to follow the FA --Krm500 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's a better question, should this WikiProject page have any authority of the 30 NHL team pages? If not, what's the purpose of this WikiProject page existing? GoodDay 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just read your input on the Devils talk page. Yes it would have been a good idea to maybe ask before adding a new section or renaming it. But the user who worked the Devils article to FA probably changed this section in good faith. Afterwards there was a discussion, I think on this talk page, regarding consensus on team articles. The result was then to follow the Devils page. --Krm500 10:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
'Honored Members' section & content (Devils version) is being accepted now. The conflict is over. GoodDay 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
'Honored Members' guideline has been added to this WikiProject page. The majority view is to use the 'Devils' version. GoodDay 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applying new guidelines

I've added the 'Honored Members' section & other New Jersey Devils features to the Anaheim Ducks, Atlanta Thrashers, Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres pages. Hopefully other editors will do the same for the rest of the NHL team articles. GoodDay 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Honored Members' section & other Devils related features. As I've discovered there's a Membership at the WikiProject Ice Hockey (which I'm not a part of), my pro-Notable Members edits may be erroneous & invalid. GoodDay 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahoy matey - look up! You've been posting on a subpage of WikiProject Ice Hockey this whole time. So this entire discussion has been had in full view of anyone who cares enough to look. If there were objections from anyone in the WikiProject, they have been addressed by now. And, welcome aboard. --Mus Musculus 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Just the same, I'm going to stay away from this 'Honored Members' thing & the 'restrictive' HHoF guideline (which I've restored, due to my uncertainties). It's entirely up to you and others from here on, as to how you wish to proceed. Goodluck, from a spectator. GoodDay 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm removing the 'restrictive guideline' & re-adding the 'Honored Members' guideline. GoodDay 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season by Season Records - Split off?

I was wondering if I should split the Canadiens' seasonal records table off into another article because it is so big. I could make this section in paragraph form if I did that. Sportskido8 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO it depends on how the paragraph would look like. How do you summerise all those seasons? --Krm500 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You ought to, because it isn't the Leafs, who have nothing to split off, because they haven't done anything in 40 years. Orangemarlin 02:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like the idea of splitting the season by season record off, and going with something along the lines of Chicago Bears seasons. For the parent article, I might suggest retaining the five most recent seasons, with a {{main|Montreal Canadiens Seasons}} tag. Ultimately, I think this should be done for all 30 teams, even the Wild. Resolute 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Captain, is a captain, is a captain

It's been recommended at Talk: Philadelphia Flyers, and now being recommended here for all NHL team pages. Should we remove the 'interim' tags from players who've been listed as captains of their teams, even though they were filling in for a captain who was injured long-term. Examples in 2005-06 NHL season - Lapointe filling in for Aucoin in Chicago & Hatcher filling in for Primeau in Philadelphia. GoodDay 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not unless it was during preseason. If they dressed for a game with the captains "C", then they were a captain. As long as it's verifiable of course. Yankees76 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing the 'interim' tags seems a correct move. B.Murray, Mogilny, Lapointe & D.Hatcher (for example), have worn their teams 'C' for at least half-a-season, while the captain was injured. Also the Flyers website had declared D.Hatcher as the Flyers 14th team captain (yet oddly, Forsberg was later declared to have succeeded Primeau as captain). I'd say we should remove the 'interim' tags (Gee, at one time, I didn't want to list 'interim captains' at all, go figure). GoodDay 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I obviously agree that we should strip the "interim" tags too, considering that I was the one who originally proposed taking it off of Hatcher's designation on the Flyers page. If the team considers a player to be part of their "official" captain history, then we should acturately reflect that. Bjewiki 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "interim" captains should be listed at all beyond a temporary citation in the infobox for current interim captains only. I feel strongly that there are only two official, authoritative sources for captaincies: the official team websites and the captains' listings given in the NHL Official Record Book and Media Guide. Someone not significant enough to make either verifiable, permanent source isn't significant enough to be listed here. RGTraynor 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's tricky, some teams have chosen to list their 'long-term' interim captains as captains (example: Mogilny in Buffalo '93-94, Robitaille in LA '92-93 and Bob Murray in Chicago '85-86). So do we A)remove those guys from the captains list, B)leave them on the list & remove the (interim) tags, or C)leave the captains list in its current form. PS- This is why, I originally opposed listing long termed 'interim captains' (even though their team sites had listed them). GoodDay 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we need a definitive source? (I lean to this) Is it the team's website? Is there an official NHL repository of this captain data? Just like everything else, we should be able to verify it Bjewiki 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It ought to be the team's website. GoodDay 21:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it really should be the team's media guide and/or the NHL Official Guide and Record Book. Gmatsuda 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Those sources are equally good. Though I'm in favour of removing the 'interim tags', those tags do help the less familiar readers. GoodDay 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HHOF

This sub-section of 'Honoured Members' has got to go. I'd hoped, the conflicting edits would have stop (they haven't). Seeking again to have the HHOF thing abolished, it invites too much PoV's. Even, I've been involved in disputes of 'additions' to the section(s). It's got to go. GoodDay 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We had a sensible consensus going for over a year, overturned by the kneejerk inclusionists. Hey, why not have Bobby Orr and Gerry Cheevers listed as Hartford Whalers HHOFers? They were both employed by the team as consultants at one point, that should count, right? Vlad Tretiak's been a consultant for the Blackhawks for quite a few years, add him in. Fern Flaman and Marcel Pronovost have been scouts for New Jersey for a few years, Grant Fuhr's the Phoenix goalie coach. Wasn't Mike Bossy the color commentator for the Nordiques for a few years? Hell, there's no end to it. RGTraynor 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed also. --Mus Musculus 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. They are a part of a team's history, regardless of what we think. And I resent being referring to as a "kneejerk inclusionist." While I would've settled for the previous inclusion policy, I supported the current one because it follows what the HHOF is doing. The examples that RGTraynor mentions above are ridiculous. I agree those should not be included. I don't think the HHOF does that, either. Gmatsuda 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I too disagree. RGTraynors examples are rediculous and anyone with common sense knows those wouldn't be included. But players who have actually played a game with the team definately should be. They were a member of that team whether you like it or not. --Djsasso 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Djsasso 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Great, then get rid of Hull's Rangers' entry, since he was never a signed member of the team nor played in any regular season game. Get rid of all the entries where a HHOF member (often times after his induction) is listed with a team ... notably coaches and executives but in a few cases (Howe/Hartford, Lafleur/Quebec come to mind) players as well. Furthermore, you make the completely erroneous supposition that we are (and other editors will feel themselves) bound by the HHOF's POV. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy; we're no more bound to slavishly follow a single private organization's POV than any other -- certainly the political Wikipedia editors would laugh themselves giddy at the premise that the only facts to be found in the George Bush or Tony Blair articles are those released by the administrations themselves. "Common sense?" Mm, no, the notion that Billy Smith is a "Kings" HHOFer, Paul Coffey a "Bruins" HHOFer or Grant Fuhr a "Flames" HHOFer doesn't have much to do with "common sense," and I wish you folks the very best of luck in defending the notion against all those who'll push the envelope that Hall of Fame members associated with NHL teams aren't really associated with them. RGTraynor 16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Again your example does not fit this situation. Of course you should be bound by the HHOF's POV on who is a Hall of Fame member. Because it is THEM who decide that. It is not even remotely like George Bush's administration writing the article. And its not like MLB where a player decides what team he is entering the Hall for. The HHOF purposefully does not tie a player to any single team. There is no such thing as a "Bruins" HHOFer or a "Flames" HHOFer. There is just an HHOFer who played for the Flames or the Bruins or whoever. If you would have left it as Hall of Famers and just allowed players who played with the team you would not have nearly as many issues. But going back to honoured members is going to be rediculously POV. --Djsasso 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We alreday have 2 articles (at Wikipedia) listing the members of the HHOF. Therefore, what's the purpose of having HHOF sections on the 30 NHL team pages? GoodDay 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
To see what players who eventually went on to enter the hall of fame played for that team. --Djsasso 18:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Aren't the teams listed in the HHOF players bio pages? GoodDay 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
But then you would already have to know what players were on the team. --Djsasso 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate isn't going anywhere, do what you guys/gals want. Bobby Hull? a NY Ranger?, smelling salts anyone? I'm out of here. GoodDay 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he did play a couple games for the Rangers team in a tournament so he was a Ranger. Just remember the HHOF is not just for NHL players/teams. And the tournament was high profile at the time. --Djsasso 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Bobby Hull did not play for the Rangers in an NHL regular season or playoff game, so I would think that he shouldnot be listed as an HHOF member under the Rangers--he was not officially a member of the Rangers. HOWEVER, the HHOF has him listed under the Rangers, so if the HHOF is doing it, that's the official word, as far as I'm concerned. Gmatsuda 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't find this as an extreme at all. An extreme would be listing a former player who is in the hall of fame now who is a scout for the Rangers. Bobby Hull however did play games for the Rangers and the HHOF is NOT only for NHL players so it does not matter if it was regular season, exhibition or playoffs so that is completely irrelevant in this case. --Djsasso 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow the team pages format

At the Calgary Flames article, changing the list form to prose form (as is preferred in the team pages format) seems to have met with a positive reaction, and defused two edit wars. I would suggest that the same be done for all teams. In the case of teams like the Rangers and Canadiens, it would necessatate a child article be created, i.e. Hall of Famers of the New York Rangers, but an article of prose allows one to describe what impact a given individual has had with the named team. i.e.: Brian Kilrea's entry into the hall had absolutely nothing to do with his play with the Los Angeles Kings, so including him in a list form is misleading. But stating that he played for the Kings, and later going onto a Hall of Fame junior coaching career allows him to be mentioned, while allowing for the proper context. Resolute 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My broken faith in the 'Honored Members/HHOF section' may be restored afterall. I most certainly support this idea. GoodDay 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
How about a list with footnotes for players/coaches/builders who didn't have a lot to do with a particular team, even though they were part of that team? That could work in pretty much the same fashion as what Resolute mentions above. Gmatsuda 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If it will end the disputes, go for it. GoodDay 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK...I made the edits to the LA Kings article. What do you all think? Gmatsuda 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it, perhaps this will satisfy all disputing parties. GoodDay 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I considered including the footnote right next to the player's name in the list, but I thought it would look cluttered. Gmatsuda 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend you begin a new 'Rfc' to put this new guideline in the 'Team pages format' GoodDay 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't learned all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet...how do I do that? Gmatsuda 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Try Rfc. PS- you don't have to go that route, if you don't want to. GoodDay 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's see what kind of response we get here. If it's not sufficient, we can go that route, I guess. Gmatsuda 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a combination of your's & Resolute's plans could work aswell. GoodDay 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)\
Perhaps. But adding the narrative seems to be overkill, IMHO. Gmatsuda 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the comments I recieved when I sent the Calgary Hitmen article to peer review was that it was list heavy. Anything that can be done in prose form is encouraged, and while the footnotes you added offer some context in how much of an impact that HHOFer had on that team, it is a little "clunky", as you have to click on that note to find out the significance of that player's contributions. Personally, I would suggest going with prose as a better solution. Resolute 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's an issue of what one prefers. IMHO, it's quicker and easier to get the same information from the list, in this particular case. Gmatsuda 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that Resolutes is alot better. Having to click links makes it harder to get the information. --Djsasso 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not my preference, but I'll go along with whatever everyone decides. It's not a big deal to me. :-) Gmatsuda 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also (upon reviewing), this WikiProject page calls for a 'pros' style (concerning the HHOF & Retirement Numbers sections). A consensus had been reached on this, giving it the title 'Honored Members' (see New Jersey Devils) article. PS- Retirement Numbers in pros (as called for by the WikiProject page) might be difficult to implement. GoodDay 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea for combining the two trains of thought, as GoodDay recommended. How about listing the ones who have made major contributions to a particular team, and then explaining in narrative format about the others who did not play a significant role? Gmatsuda 23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the prose style thing (I guess I haven't been keeping up here...sorry). Does this preclude a combination of the two styles? Gmatsuda 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't see why it should? GoodDay 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK...someone care to take a stab at it? I've gotta head over to Staples Center to cover tonight's game. :-) Gmatsuda 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Not me (concerning 'Honoured Members'). You & Resolute can give it a try. GoodDay 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Places (II)

Should we list American & Canadian born NHL players 'birth countries': Example 'instead of Calgary, Alberta , it should be Calgary, Canada. GoodDay 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should list Canada & the USA. That would make the 'Current Roster' sections easier to understand for non-North Americans. GoodDay 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried something out at Anaheim Ducks: All I did was 1) add the country (more worldly), I never saw any objections to it during the multiple times I brought it up, so I finally acted on it. 2) broke up City, State into separate wikilinks. Pretty simple enhancement.
Note: Keep the states and province in the US and Canada respectfully. They are needed for disambiguation. DO NOT add them to countries that don't require them. ccwaters 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds cool, I'd recommend however removing the provinces & states. Simply give it the proper wiki-link - My example: London, Canada. Keeping the 'provinces' & 'states', might be confusing to non-North Americans (as we don't list their 'political divisions' -provinces & states). Overall though, adding 'Canada' & the 'USA' is correct. GoodDay 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No way- clicky clicky: Philadelphia, United States. ccwaters 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with ccw: This is a mistake. "City, State/Province" is common usage in North America, precisely for the reason ccw brings up: disambiguation and consistency. Your "London, Canada" case is unambiguous, but users shouldn't need to follow a wikilink to determine which Richmond or which Springfield (to use two very common city names in the USA) a player was born in. Add Canada or USA to the end if you feel you must (though it sacrifices readability in articles that are obviously North America-centric), but st/prov must be displayed in text (not just linked) for accuracy and consistency. Removing them because of some perceived subtle POV bias toward North Americans would make the article unreadable for the sake of political correctness. VT hawkeyetalk to me 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I see both your points. I'm concerned with how it crowds the sections though (having 3 place names). GoodDay 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, leave the country off for US/Can. Country is the only part of those 3 that can be uniquely determined by one of the other two (since no state and province share a name). VT hawkeyetalk to me 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks so much more complicated now. Why not stick with the old format? town, state/province is the most common way in the US and Canada while town, country is more common in Europe. --Krm500 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. Keep it town, state/province in US & Canada. Bjewiki 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Really? I've been a proponent of adding the US or Canada because that is a fairly common complaint in wikipedia. See [11]. ccwaters 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that in prose sections, such as the one you linked, City, Province, Country is the best solution for North American locations, and that is what I do when writing articles. In the roster table, however, I think that City, Province is adequate, especially given formatting concerns. Resolute 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And the presence of a flag... --Krm500 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In respecting the views held at this discuss, I've restored previous edits to Anaheim Ducks, restoring 'City, Province/State' for North American birth places. GoodDay 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This birthplace thing certainly evokes a lot of nationalistic tendencies. Anze Kopitar was born in Slovenia, which when he was a born was a constituent republic of Yugoslavia. Some anonymous Slovenians (easy to see IP addresses) continue to change his birthplace to Slovenia. Boring. Anyways, if I ever become an NHL player, I was born in Tokyo, and I would have been the first Japanese NHL player, but not now. Fukufuji beat me. Oh, wait a minute, I could have been the first Japanese-Jewish-American NHL player. I missed my calling. Orangemarlin 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Czechoslovakia vs CSSR

Czechoslovakia should be abrreviated to 'CSSR', the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is written in 'USSR'. GoodDay 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No one ever called Czechoslovakia that. And no one ever says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or "Federal Republic of Germany", or "Republic of China" (that's Taiwan). I can see argument over USSR/Soviet Union or Germany/West Germany. ccwaters 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Most common name should be used. USSR is only abbreviated because "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is bulky, and there was no great alternative. Resolute 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't as if we tab hockey players from a certain tiny state as coming from "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," the real name of the state. RGTraynor 09:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I've suggested CSSR, was to help make 'Current Rosters' less cluttered looking, in the 'birth place'. My source was Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. However, Czechoslovakia is the most common usage. Oh well, It was just a thought. GoodDay 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
CSSR is certainly easier to spell, but I don't think it was used very often. Mostly, I think, in the English Wikipedia, we use American or British names for almost every country, and Czechoslovakia is the name used at that time by most English-speaking countries. If someone was using Holland instead of the Netherlands, I'd have to protest. Orangemarlin 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Capitan

In regards to NHL team captains, two things that bug me. First, why do we have "No Captain" listed for many teams during the NHL lockout? That seems silly to me - there was no season, so there should jest be a blank space. Second, why do some teams list "rotating captains" and other teams spell out the captains list month by month? Should people who were captains for less than half a season be listed with the other captains? Shouldn't they be listed to the side with interim captains and periods with no captain?--CastAStone|(talk) 19:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some teams, notably the Minnesota Wild, trade out their captains on a regular basis. Others have "co-captains" that rotate based around various criteria, like trading off games or choosing a "home" and an "away" captain. As far as the time factor goes, for example, Wayne Gretzky was captain of St. Louis for only 18 games. Yet, in the eyes of the team and the league, he was the official captain of the team for that period of time, and so there are no grounds for not citing him in the list of official captains of the club. RGTraynor 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've listed 'no captain' (lockout) tags, for this reason - The team captains are listed 'by player' Not 'by season'. If they were listed by season, 2004-05 wouldn't be there. Futhermore, if we removed 'no captain (lockout)' then all captains during this time-period would be effected - you'd then have Saku Koivu, 1999-2004, 2005- present or Keith Primeau, 2001-04, 2005-06 - see what I mean? GoodDay 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what he is getting at is the fact that unless the team said those players were no longer captains. That they were actually captains during the time period of the lock out. except maybe for the wild who do it by month instead of indefinate. So there would be no gap in your Koivu example. It would be 1999-Current --Djsasso 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If we're to omit 2004-05 (where there's no captain), then we should remove all 'no captain' tags. Either we keep ALL 'no captain' tags, or we don't. What's it gonna be? GoodDay 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Howabout, we omit ALL 'no captain' tags in th 30 NHL team pages & defunct team pages. This will make the lists more compact (note - player pages with NHL captain succession boxes, omit 'no captain' tags). GoodDay 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Ice_Hockey_Team_pages_format_6fdb.html"