Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:HOCKEY
This non-article page is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Ice hockey Portal
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Document the Categories structure. - Done see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Category structure
  2. Create a uniform ice hockey player article format. - Done see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format
  3. Created templates that can be inserted that will identify missing information.
  4. Create a uniform ice hockey team article format. - Done see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format
  5. Create a uniform ice hockey league article format.
  6. Create a uniform ice hockey Trophies and Awards article format.
  7. Create a uniform ice hockey team season article format.
  8. Fix Professional ice hockey world championships


Archive

Archives

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

Contents

[edit] Captains templates

Going through I've noticed that Rickyharder has been creating tempaltes of captains of all teams, and then adding it to the applicable pages. So far, I've gone ahead and removed them from the few pages I have on my watchlist, but want to see what the consensus was before we get into a major overhaul. I feel that like the other templates we've crushed, it's not very defining of players. As well, some of them are rather pointless, notably Template:AvalancheCaptains, which includes only one name, Joe Sakic. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be far better served by a category I think.-Wafulz (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not unsympathetic to the notion, but I get this sinking feeling that we're going to see fifty templates on every page, largely because someone thought the graphics were cool.  RGTraynor  13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I sent the user a message.-Wafulz (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree. I was going to put them up for tfd but wanted to spend the night thinking about it. -Djsasso (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to build a consensus on this. (Maybe there is one already?) Also on head coaches templates. Because we also have succession boxes on captains and coaches articles. The templates are 'hideable', but succession boxes are not, is that right? Alaney2k (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a way to build a table around the succession boxes to hide them. At one point I think that was done on the Gretzky article but I am not sure if it is anymore. -Djsasso (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Gretzky article has both, including succession boxes for awards. The succession boxes are not hideable by themselves. I guess what I meant is that the templates can shrink/expand, but the succession boxes don't have that. If I was starting from scratch, I would probably choose these templates over the succession boxes for that reason alone. Alaney2k (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually if you take a look at the code, a box is coded around both the templates and the succession boxes to hide them. So on their own you can easily do the same thing with just succession boxes. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, I can't criticize the template, given the proliferation of other templates - ones for coaches, first round draft picks, even ES Sports cover atheletes. I'm not a fan at all of them, but if we keep one, we might as well keep them all. That said, having both a template and a succession box is completely redundant. Get rid of one or the other. Resolute 16:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep the succession boxes, as they've been around longer & they link directly to their respective NHL team articles' captain sections. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The templates also link there if you click on their headings. As for what Resolute said that pretty much sums up my stance pretty well. Personally I would like to see most navigational boxes go, but they seem to be completely infiltrating wikipedia. But he is right remove one or the other. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete the 'templates'. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the 'line in the sand'? I don't think the succession boxes look better, though. I think the biggest objection is the amount of clutter. It is a real mess. If look at Gretzky's page, you won't believe the amount of navigation boxes, including an SI swimsuit cover one. All hidden by default, because it is too much. You could make an article out of the nav boxes. :-) Completely overdone, but at least it is all hidden. Is that the real solution, require all nav boxes to be hidden like Gretzky's page? We could control the look of that, (even have a 'hockey' one? -- though I hesitate to mention it because someone will create one?) and require all nav boxes to be within it? .. Over to Dj to tell me how I am wrong. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Although, if you were to force all nav boxes into one like Gretzky's it might reduce the proliferation if they are all hidden. ? Alaney2k (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I agree with you, you know. :P -Djsasso (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Mostly though I p**s you off. (sorry) I should pay some for your stress medicine. ;-> I tried changing the title of the overall nav box at Wayne Gretzky and Daniel Alfredsson to 'Quick Links to related material'. Let me know what you think. The title is a first pass. Maybe just Quick Links, or Quick Links to related articles. Alaney2k (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've brought this up at the village pump, where a discussion was already brewing. Alaney2k (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, the example at Alfredsson look compact & neat. PS- I must admit the Templates and Succession/Nav boxes are cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Even better is that someone created {{Navboxes}} which we could expand into a standard Ice Hockey navbox to hold all that crap and make it look, well, clean, tidy ... I was just thinking aloud. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, I'll go along with what ya'll decide. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've set up the template on several articles Wayne Gretzky, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux, Winnipeg Victorias and Ottawa Senators as kind of a test case. On the Victorias, I could not collapse the succession box, in fact I had to put a span tag just to get it to display properly. Alaney2k (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it, let's adopt them. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Due to a technical issue , if you want to just show or the succession boxes first add &nbsp ; to the top and will display fine , see User:Gnevin/sandbox1Gnevin (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Templates have been put up for TfD. I guess the discussion continues there. I can't seem to make a link. Alaney2k (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_2#Hockey_Captain_templates, is the place. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Team payrolls

Hey, I just created a new article—team payrolls in the National Hockey League. This is a logical conclusion to the article I created on player salaries in the National Hockey League. Please have a look. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool list, that's quite a lot of numbers. Were you planning on simply adding each year onto the tables, or keeping only the last seven years (as it is now)? If you keep adding on, it could get very long; Possibly we could limit it to ten seasons and start a new article after the 2010-11 season. Blackngold29 01:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NHL trade deadline

Do we really need this page? It just teams like a repetitive sub-category of the transaction pages. Thricecube (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the NHL section in the actual trade deadline article were improved to better explain this event in relation to the NHL (and the significance that comes with the deadline), I don't think this page would be necessary. But until that happens, I think it should be kept. – Nurmsook! (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The page is a hideous embarrassment. I worked on cleaning up the most recent seasons, which should be a good starting point for anyone wanting to take care of the rest. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The transaction list isn't at all necessary, and what information is pertinent can be merged with other articles.  RGTraynor  00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters

Hi there! A task for this project would be to create articles for all the redlinks at 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters! 80.203.94.189 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the redlinks at 2007 IIHF World Championship rosters? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of IIHF World Championship medalists

I have split the list off from the main page with intentions of going for an FLC. I admit that the title sounds a little off, but at first the page was named List of ice hockey world champions but I thought that wasn't very good either. If anyone has a better idea for a title, feel free to change it. And does anyone have any ideas for a (free) image that we could use? -- Scorpion0422 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:National Hockey League game log templates

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the point of these? Why create a template when only the one team season article will be using it? --72.25.52.208 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the point of it is that it cuts down on the amount of clutter on the page when people are editing the page. There is no need to have all that code on the page. That being said I don't necessarily think we need them. -Djsasso (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That is why sectional editing exists. I know other projects do it this way, but it is ridiculous, and single use templates are discouraged. I also love how it is just a cut and paste of the NBA templates, not even reformatted. I'll list them for TfD tomorrow if nobody else does first. Resolute 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Half of the websites don't work and the stats are for basketball, definitely get rid of them for now. --Michael Greiner 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and don't think it would be a good idea to use these. Sectional editing (by month --- which is how most seasons articles are now, IIRC) is simple enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion Resolute 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub sorting

While doing that interminable pre-1986 Blackhawks => Black Hawks (over 600 edits, as it happens), I've run into a powerful lot of stub templates: icehockey-bio, canada-icehockey-bio, canada-icehockey-winger, euro-icehockey ... heck, someone even came up with a Danish icehockey bio stub template. My own take is that this has to ding stub expansion, and since that's something near and dear to my heart (I've been knocking off about a stubs a day for a few weeks), I wonder if there'd be any backing for trimming them out. What we need is to consolidate into {{icehockey-bio-stub}}, so people can just find a one-stop place for biographical stubs to polish off: I can't imagine why there'd need to be separate templates for wingers and defensemen. Any thoughts?  RGTraynor  15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe its the stub project in general that makes them more and more specific. They are like sub-categories. You want to try to seperate them into smaller and smaller groups. If you go to the stub categories there pretty much a one stop place for finding them. They are just sorted into sub categories. I think wikipedia takes the other stance from you. People tend to only want to expand the articles that interest them, say Canadian players for example. So they go and work on Canada-icehockey-player-stub . If you put them all in one massive place it makes them harder to find what you want to work on. -Djsasso (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
For example if you go to Category:Ice hockey stubs at the top is the start of the stub tree. And from there it gets broken up into more specific versions. -Djsasso (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Cup Champion templates

Here we go again. I've messaged them to stop for now.-Wafulz (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All are elligable for G4 this time because they have all fallen to afd this time. Last time I relisted them cause not every team had been previously deleted. But the last person created a template for every championship team so this time they are all elligable for G4 since they all got deleted only a few weeks ago. So I will begin deleting and removing. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. Why is it allowed for NBA, and MLB Champions, but different for the NHL? Chaldean (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The NBA, MLB ones are about to get nominated as well. I've just been slow to do it cause it takes forever to link them all into the tfd debate. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And what is the reason given? Is there a link you can give me on the discussion and the decisions made? Thanks. Chaldean (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah let me find one of the many TFD's there have been a handfull. Basically the reasoning is the nav boxes are only supposed to include links that would already be linked on the page and that are defining of that pages content. The fact that a player has played with some other random player is not defining of that player. Another reason is that it creates massive clutter on the pages of players who have won multiple championships. To use the NBA for example think of all those championships in a row that Boston won. -Djsasso (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This was the last, and it links to four others. Resolute 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoops I linked it in the NBA tfd and forgot to link it here as well. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For those interested here is a link to the NBA Championship templates TFD discussion. I know many of you are interested in the championship templates. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So is this a referendum on just the NBA ones or all sports? If the NBA ones don't get deleted, are you going to bring back the NHL ones? Chaldean (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work on precedents. Even if the NBA ones are kept (and at best, that TfD will end as no consensus, which really screws any hope of using it as a precedent), I would still speedy G4 any recreated Stanley Cup templates. We've debated this at least five times now, and the consensus has consistently been that they aren't necessary on hockey player articles. Resolute 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a strong believer in consistancy when it comes to Wikipedia. I don't think it would be a good idea having different guidelines on the same issue IMO. But if you guys have like you said debated many times before, then I guess there is no point in talking about this. But in regards to this [[1]], you only had 7 people vote and I believe if we have a broader pool, like the current vote on the NBA, I think most users wouldn't mind having them. Chaldean (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As Resolute said the best this current NBA debate can hope for is no-concensus. The keep !votes mostly seem concerned with losing the information as they surprisingly don't have rosters on many of their season pages. So I would say even if this vote goes no-concensus, once the rosters are found in the apropriate places that another tfd will probably happen and they will be toast. That being said its only my opinion. In reguards to the broader pool. Most of the major sports wikiprojects were notified on their project pages to come and discuss on the stanley cup tfd and none of them did, that is very easily construed as them not thinking it was important enough to come be a part of. -Djsasso (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So the NBA debate concluded as Delete. However, the admin knowing someone would take it to DRV did not want to delete everything and then have to have everything undeleted if it got overturned decided to take it straight to DRV himself. Anyone who is interested may want to watch Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 22 as this debate combined with the delete of the stanley cup championships would likely be enough to set precedent for all sports championship templates. -Djsasso (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Cup

Stanley Cup will be on the Main Page on May 25, 2008. Because of its high-profile placement, it will have a lot of vandalism, so please keep an eye for the more subtle types... Maxim(talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We should also double-check for errors! I noticed that the date of Stanley's first hockey game was wrong. Alaney2k (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the finals will start on that date. Hopefully, there is at least a game on May 25. :) -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that it's going to be between games one and two. -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Game 1 May 24, Game 2 May 26, both in Detroit. Series moves to Pittsburgh May 28.Mdb1370 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw, why couldn't they put the Stanley Cup and the FP of Gretzky on the main page on the same day? --Krm500 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags in infobox

First of all, flags next to the city name, e.g. Flag of the United States New York City, are expressly prohibited in WP:MOSFLAG. Second, I really don't think the nationality of coach, GM, owner, and captain is important enough to receive the emphasis a flag in the infobox gives it. In the roster it is helpful, because those players could play for the national teams the flags represent. However, who cares about the nationality of the owner, GM, or coach? That wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion in the article body, so the flag should not be there, either.. – flamurai (t) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am necessarily disagreeing, but lots of people when it comes to Hockey care about the nationality of the owner especially if not the other two. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the coach could represent his national team as well, and many have. At that point, it becomes a consistency thing. Personally, I see no great need for them, but I'm also not all that concerned with having the Owner, GM, Coach and captain all flagged in the infobox. Resolute 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The other issue with owner is that many are owned by corporations. The point of the infobox is to quickly summarize the most important information about a team without clutter. Is it really that important to the New York Rangers as a team that the captain is Czech? The test I would use is this: Is this info important enough that you would put an extra nationality field in the infobox? (e.g. Captain: Jaromir Jagr / Nationality: Czech) I don't think it is, and I think the flags are just one level of detail too deep in the infobox. – flamurai (t) 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, for corporate or large group ownership (e.g.: Calgary Flames) no flags are used, as that would be unnecessary/unwieldly. As far as the captain thing goes, I would actually say that yes, that is useful information. It is actually a very common statement, especially this time of year, that no team with a European born captain has ever won the Stanley Cup, while only one or two American born captains have hoisted it. Given the attention that fans give this bit of trivia, it could be justified. Regardless, I favour an all-or-nothing approach, where appropriate. If we flag one, lets flag all. Otherwise, flag none. And yes, restrict this to players only. Resolute 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Win percentage or point percentage?

On the List of National Hockey League head coaches, we calculate percentages based on points, not on actual win/loss. For example, Craig MacTavish is shown (after I fixed an error) as 222–182–47–41 in 492 games, for a percentage of 0.541. I was looking at the paperback Oilers media guide (which I would claim is a WP:Reliable source), and it shows MacTavish (through the end of 2007) with a 222–203–67 record, for a percentage of 0.519. Clearly, they are adding the OTL numbers through the end of the 2003–04 season to the regulation "L" totals (since the point for the OTL was already counted in the "T" totals for those years), and the OT numbers from 2005–present are added to the all-time "T" totals. This seems a bit confusing at first, but it might be a much better number to use on articles that compare performance over many years (i.e. from the W-L-T era to the W-L-T-OTL era to the present W-L-OT era). Are there any WP:reliable sources that use "point percentage" instead of "winning percentage"? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing across eras like this is misleading, and imo, useless, since the changes in the point format renders comparisons obsolete. Given the NHL uses point percentage for teams, it is reasonable to assume that they also do so for coaches, though I'd have to look into it. I believe the Oilers go by winning percentage on their media guide of their own accord. I'm fairly certain that the Flames list their coaches using point percentage, but I can't check their media guide until either tonight or Monday night. Resolute 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Where do you see the NHL using point percentage? All I can find on their website is point totals but no percentages. I don't have an Official Guide and Record Book at my disposal at the moment either. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The most obvious example is that it is the first and third tie-breakers are based on point percentage: [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
Hmm, ok. I'd like to see an actual table with numbers at some point. (Certainly, the whole OTL point fiasco has made it impossible to compare across eras, and artifically inflates current team performance. A 100 point season isn't what it used to be....) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It always was meaningless to compare across eras; just in my own lifetime, the league's fluctuated between 70 and 84 games, and there were vastly fewer players for much of it. Look at it this way: exactly how great a team would you have to be when the worst goalie you'll have to face in your six team league is the likes of a Henrik Lundqvist, and the "third-liners" you face are going to be guys like Rick Nash, Cory Stillman or Paul Kariya?  RGTraynor  20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but I'm talking about comparing winning percentages between teams, coaches, etc. from the mid to late-90s and today. A team with 33 wins and 37 losses from the 1998–99 NHL season (82 games) has a 0.478 percentage, but what of a 32 win and 34 loss team from the 1999–2000 NHL season (also 82 games)? In this case, one method of calculation shows 0.537 because 8 of those losses came in overtime, but another method shows 0.488. I think the latter is more representative of the success (or not) of that team. More importantly, if we're making tables that show percentages for coaches than span either side of that season, then we're comparing apples to oranges if we use point percentage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
We're not comparing apples and oranges, or anything else, actually. Our job as an encyclopedia is to give the raw data (which, after all, is the same raw data listed in every other source), not to work out interpretations according to our lights of statistical accuracy, which in the best of circumstances involve judgment calls. Is there a cross-era divide that might seem to produce differing results in a psychologically jarringly short amount of time? Possibly, yes ... but there was a time when the Original Six wasn't safely forty years in the past. In 1967, it was just the previous season. That mid-90s to now timeframe is the exact same time that encompassed the Original Six (1966), a doubling of team size (1967), 2nd expansion (1970), 3rd expansion and the WHA (1972), 4th expansion (1974) and a united hockey world (1979).  RGTraynor  21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but at the start of this thread, I pointed out one WP:reliable source in my hand that calculates career coaching percentages differently from the unreferenced List of National Hockey League head coaches article. Shall we get rid of the WP:original research we're apparently using on that list? None of the references we're using for any of the coaches who span all those years (like Lindy Ruff) show a career percentage. Hockeydb etc. show per-year percentages only. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
We've got List of New Jersey Devils head coaches as a featured list, and it claims to show a "Win %" when it really doesn't. Damn sloppy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to close on this thread, see my rewrite of List of Edmonton Oilers head coaches to see how I handled the Win% vs. Pts% issue. I used Pts% in the main table but added footnotes for Win%. I also explained how to calculate them in the "Key" section. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

I've created a channel for the project, at #wphockey . If you're not familiar with IRC, look over WP:IRC, which should provide the information needed to connect, if you are interested. Maxim(talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Good to see you back! -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 IIHF World Championship

How many medals did Russia win in this tournaments history? Do we include the USSR's total? See that article's discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. There is longstanding consensus across many sports and hundreds of articles when it comes to the USSR and Russia and their sporting history. We have distinct articles for Russia national ice hockey team and Soviet Union national ice hockey team for a reason, and so does many other sports on Wikipedia. Clearly there is a relationship that cannot be ignored or trivialized, but the right thing to do (in my opinion) is keep the numbers distinct with respect to tabular results, and add footnotes in lots of places to explain the situation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I've reverted the 24 titles edit, at that article. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] current sports-related template

A template that we use on many hockey articles is up for deletion at current sport-related. Thought you all might like to be aware. -Djsasso (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne Gretzky

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this but Wayne Gretzky is up for delisting as a featured article. It'd be nice to keep this one.-Wafulz (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Three users have been updating and sourcing the article for the past couple weeks. I don't expect it will face delisting. Resolute 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I recommend taking a look over it all around. I did yesterday and picked up two factual errors and one typo at a casual glance.  RGTraynor  16:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A few editors have made major contributions to the article, and it is looking much better. Because of these improvements, the article has retained its Featured Article status. Thanks to everyone who contributed. I think it would be nice to nominate it for Today's featured article in the near future. Stanley Cup is already scheduled to be the TFA on Sunday, but what about sometime next month? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Too late. However, Dominik Hasek has yet to appear on the main page....-Wafulz (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

He is on the main page today! --Krm500 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of IIHF World Championship tournaments‎

There is a bit of a disagreement at the page over whether the Soviet Union and Russia's counts should be combined or not. Wikipedia convention is to list the nations seperately but some feel differently (and one user thinks it's a giant plot to make the Czechs look like not as good of a hockey nation). -- Scorpion0422 13:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we have three Russian ubernationalist carpetbaggers claiming consensus.  RGTraynor  15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to get personal... Resolute 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, when we're talking people with a marked lack of hockey-related edits and including at least one SPA suddenly showing up and edit warring on the subject ...  RGTraynor  16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What does IIHF say about this? For example FIFA recognizes Russia as the successor of USSR. --necronudist (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
They contradict themselves. They don't actually have a listing of medal count. They do have a few opposing sports writers articles posted that conflict with each other. I do believe for olympic medals the IIHF seperates them. But these guys based on a sports writer argue that that is not the case for the world championships. -Djsasso (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that the IIHF does list Russia as a member since 1952, which would lead to the inference that Russia and USSR are the same in their eyes. However, wikipedia does not follow federations, e.g, FIFA considers Russia and USSR the same yet the FIFA World Cup wiki article lists them separately. And no compromise seems to be possible. Alaney2k (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, talk page has 90 updates in under two hours. I cannot possibly catch up, but it must be something more than a disagreement. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they are pushing a nationalist POV pretty hard. Though they deny they are. -Djsasso (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"Is there simply some plot here to make the Czech Republic look like a lesser hockey nation" - that pretty much sums things up. If this ever makes WP:LAME, that quote has to be mentioned. I've been forced to withdraw its FLC due to this edit war (that would also have to be mentioned)
Would it be worth getting a checkuser done on the users, because I agree that it really looks like sock/meat puppetry. -- Scorpion0422 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so. SergeiXXX and Berkunt have reasonable enough contribution histories. It's this Lenev fellow who I think is a meatpuppet.  RGTraynor  17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You could try putting one in, but it would likely get rejected. Couldn't hurt. -Djsasso (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on this comment (which he made after not editing since December 2006) I think it's safe to say that he is at least a sock of one of the IPs that has been involved. -- Scorpion0422 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Lenev accidentally posted one of his comments while logged out, so I have his IP address. That one accidental post was that IP's only edit. I don't believe he is a meatpuppet. I don't think a checkuser would accomplish anything here. Thus far, no actual policies or guidelines have been broken, though a few of us (myself included) are dancing on the edge of 3RR. I'd say let the discussion settle, and see how things shake out before pushing for anything more drastic than the protection of the article that exists now. Resolute 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
* Whoa ... the plot thickens. Take a look at the contribution histories of Special:Contributions/87.80.215.198, Special:Contributions/Mystery_man_2008_alen, Special:Contributions/91.78.185.39 ... there has been a positive flurry of SPAs and others piling on to conflate Russia/Soviet Union all of a sudden. I'm not nearly so sanguine about a lack of chicanery.  RGTraynor  17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if User:Roitr was behind some of this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Team pages concerning the 2004-05 NHL season

How should these be addressed? As there was no season played should the page simply be ommited or a messege concerning the lockout be left?

Also I believe that it is likely many pages concerning the seasons after the lockout have been mis-labled by users who forgot about the lockout season (through no fault of their own); for example it would be inaccurate to state "The 2006–07 Atlanta Thrashers season was the seventh season of the franchise" because it was really their sixth season played, due to the lockout. Unless it is meant as the "seventh season in the NHL"? If there was a previous discussion about this please direct me to it. Thank you. Blackngold29 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would include them anyway. There was still the draft, player transactions and minor league results. You'd be amazed how much there is for some teams. I would correct the Thrashers page to note that 06-07 was their 6th season of play though. Resolute 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I'll do that. Also, that claim was never made on the Atlanta page, I was just using it as an example. Thanks! Blackngold29 04:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization / Use of Template:NHLPlayoffs

Are there plans to implement Template:NHLPlayoffs into playoff articles before 2008? I've been working on standardizing the format of the playoff articles as far back as 2003, but before that they acquire a much different look than the 2003 – 2008 articles. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we wanted to see how the 2008 article was size wise once all the prose was added into it before we started implementing it on other articles. As of right now its starting to creap really close to 100k with about half the prose not there yet. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. Just for reference, the readable prose of the article is only about 16.5 kB (see my sandbox). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I have no problem with it being used on all the other articles. I just thought we should see how the article turns out before we spread it to all of them. I know that last years article had a form of this template and it did get rediculously large so it was stripped out of the article. But the template author has done alot to make this version much more streamlined so it will probably work out great this time. But definately once the finals are done we should look at moving it towards other articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that a guideline as to what belongs in the prose recaps of the series should be included. I wrote the Eastern conference finals recap; I included a mini recap of each game, using the recap on the Pens page as my basis. I cited sources (which I seem to be the only one who has) for each game. Other series recaps were a lot shorter. Are there any suggestions as to what should be included? Thanks! Blackngold29 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the shorter ones are mostly there just to be place headers. If you look at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs That is a good example on the size and what should be included. Yours looks pretty good to me. As long as not every insignificant goal or play is added its probably decent. The more prose the better really, as long as its notable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that each individual game should be cited? I don't really think it could hurt. Blackngold29 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ideally you can find a cite that includes all of them for a series. But whatever works. -Djsasso (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply include an external link to the NHL.com or ESPN box score for each game, and eliminate the inclusion of the detailed scoring/goaltending information from the template? That would cover the desire to cite the information, and reduce the already ridiculous size of the article. Failing that, we might want to look at splitting the playoffs article along conference lines. Resolute 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I agree, I liked the tables we used in 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs better than the template. But there were a few people quite vocal that they thought we should have more details added. Go check out the talk page for this years playoffs. There is alot of chatter about it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In response to Resolute, I have proposed a new field (or, in case of technical limitations, a new template) at Template talk:NHLPlayoffs#Game Recap field. Have a look. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The changes proposed regarding the addition of a recap field have been implemented into the template. Please check out the template page and it's talk page for further details. Thanks. —Sukh17 Talk 02:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Cup Finals

Since it will affect more than just the current year. There is a discussion going on about whether the Stanley Cup Finals articles should be spelled with an S or no S. Feel free to go and give your opinion either way at Talk:2008 Stanley Cup Finals. -Djsasso (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force

Can I just start one or do I need someone permission?Trakrecord 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to see who else is interested first. If it's just you, then it's not much of a force. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea to see who is interested as Twas Now mentioned. We currently have a number of them where the people didn't really look into if there was much interest and almost all of them are not really all that active and could have been served just as well by the normal project. So it is a good idea to let people know what you want to create task force wise. -Djsasso (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hal Gill

I think there's a forum targeting Hal Gill. I've semi-protected the page, but an extra pair of eyes is appreciated.-Wafulz (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same radio station in detroit that has sent people after wiki pages in each of the last few rounds...this time we semi protected the team pages ahead of time I think so they probably are going after players instead. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm throwing out single warnings and blocking vandals for one month. I figure that's a long enough time from the playoffs.-Wafulz (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to add any article to my Watchlist that seems targeted. Wafulz: I'll let you know if I revert any vandalisms. Blackngold29 18:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it wasn't a Detroit radio station, that I can tell you. Chaldean (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luc Bourdon

Bourdon has died in a motorcycle accident. His article will see a lot more activity as details become available. It might be a good idea to watchlist it, just in case. Resolute 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking on google to see why he was removed from the Vancouver page. I guess that explains it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Very tragic. I had just heard about it, but couldn't find an English language source until just a couple minutes ago. Resolute 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Very sad. This wasn't exactly my most enjoyable edit on wikipedia.... --Krm500 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite comprehensive, if we put some further work into the article do you think we maybe could get it featured? --Krm500 (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of a picture would be an issue. Perhaps you could write the Canucks, explaining your goal, and seeing if they would be willing to release a photo of Bourdon to a free licence? Resolute 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be more complicated than that. Aren't the photo rights owned by the NHLPA? Anyway, since he died, we could at least claim a fair use photo. I searched Flickr and the best photo I found was of his back.-Wafulz (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmm ... my gut instinct is that Wikipedia is not a memorial. There are many, many articles on all time greats who don't have FAs. Heck, if we're going to work to get FAs for hockey players who died in an untimely fashion, Howie Morenz doesn't have an FA; neither does Hobey Baker, Georges Vezina, Tim Horton, Charlie Gardiner, Steve Chiasson, Pelle Lindbergh, a whole bunch of others who had major contributions to hockey.  RGTraynor  14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already contacted a few members on Flickr asking for images. And my idea wasn't getting his article to FA as a memorial, I was just thinking that it was already quite comprehensive and with a little work it could get to FA class. --Krm500 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I with agree with Krm500. There is no reason why this article can't be made up to FA standard. He was clearly notable so its not a memorial issue. The more articles made up to FA the better, no matter what/who the subject is. -Djsasso (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image of memorial site added, still waiting for replies from two photographers with images of Bourdon. --Krm500 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with RG. Chaisson, Lindbergh, Morenz etc should be given priority. This sudden push to have Bourdon as an FA, seems emotional. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's like saying 'why write an FA article for Ray Emery when the Patrick Roy article isn't FA yet?'. Any hockey article that gets to FA is great. Chaisson and Lindbergh articles doesn't even come up to B class yet, Morenz however has potential. And it's no an "emotional push", I'm not a fan of Bourdon, I just think the article is in good shape and with minimal work could push for FA. --Krm500 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Krm has a point, its more about the fact that an article is almost at FA quality already whereas many of those others you mention are in horrible shape. Why not take advantage of the fact alot of people have come to the article lately and edited it into a decent article? -Djsasso (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree as well. Putting aside the fact that by it's nature, Wikipedia will have a systemic bias towards recent topics, we all focus on what interests us the most. Sure, there are a great many teams that are more important, but that didn't stop me from putting the Calgary Hitmen up at FAC before them. If editors have an interest in bringing Luc Bourdon's article to FA status, I'd say we should encourage them. Resolute 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Azevedo

I was looking through the junior leagues and noticed that the Justin Azevedo artcile has been deleted twice. Since he has won some notable awards, he is now notable for an article? Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup I will undelete him. Please add the award info to the article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added in the awards he won. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Bettman - What the hell?

Something is up. Looks like Bettman's article was the subject of a coordinated attack given the number of different IPs that hit it today. I've semi-protected it for three days, but given this is a high profile vandalism target, it might help to have more people watching it. Resolute 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I just added it to my watchlist. -Djsasso (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Same here. This has been happening a lot lately.-Wafulz (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't doubt that they all stem from the one radio station telling people to do it against colorado, and then people on a message board have continued the tradition since then after getting the idea from the radio station. -Djsasso (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's probably the case since a lot of them have history editing Hal Gill/Steve Ott/Colorado Avalanche.-Wafulz (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you know which message board it is? -- Scorpion0422 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the unofficial scapegoat is letsgowings, but I haven't actually seen any coordination there, so idunno.-Wafulz (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeepers, doesn't anybody in the hockey world, like Bettman? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we ban the annons? --Krm500 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm handing out long-term blocks (at least one month) to those with previous problematic edits.-Wafulz (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Come down hard! :D I'm all for it. These attacks are despicable. I'll watchlist it too, but when the coordinated attacks happen, I can't do anything because it's too hard to keep up. Need an admin there to protect it immediately, and then the work on sorting out the vandalism edits can begin. Enigma message 17:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox needed for Stanley Cup Finals

I think an infobox needs to be created for the Stanley Cup Finals pages. Looking at all the code at the start of the articles makes my eyes bleed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like too difficult of a venture, and I am pretty willing to go about and do it, but I'm probably going to need about a week before I can get around to it as I don't quite have much time currently. If there are any ideas about possible features of a universal infobox, they would be greatly appreciated. I will most likely be able to deliver a usable product on the 12th of June at the earliest. Thanks. —Sukh17 Talk 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Only a couple of things. We have to make many of the fields optional to make it usable for the older finals for which the information is not going to be readily available. No logos, definitely. What I think I'll do is start the template and use it on some of the older Finals pages and then you could add more features for the newer finals? Alaney2k (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll check out some of the older articles to see what is up with them. Also, I'll probably make most all of the fields optional to maximize the usability of box across the older articles, and perhaps other uses as well as I have done for the NHL Playoffs template. Leave me a note if you come up with a template, and I'll be sure to work off of that. One of my ideas was perhaps simplification of the score summary box. The solution would be where the user simply enters the score for each game, and the whole box is automatically generated, and automatically formats for series finishing in either 4, 5, 6 or 7 games. If you have any other ideas that would eliminate clutter, let me know as you go along. Thanks. —Sukh17 Talk 16:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have started it at {{Infobox Stanley Cup Final}} and tested it with the 1920 Stanley Cup Final as a demo. I've made most fields optional. I've added several parameters as the format of the finals earlier on was best-of-five or less. I am going to document what I've done. I like the idea of entering the score directly. I am not knowledgable enough with the template coding language to try that. This is only my second template I've written. Specificially, I'd like to change the output using a field to indicate the series winner. Alaney2k (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A seven-game series uses it at 1965 Stanley Cup Final. I did that page because it was a seven-game series and it had an MVP. Alaney2k (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's excellent work! I've corrected the page layout a little because of ugly whitespace by using {fixHTML|begin} and {fixHTML|end} to envelop the infobox, plus floating the TOC. Jmj713 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I think the whitespace looks better than the mashed up look that is there now. You have to remember whitespace is very heavily dependant on your own monitors settings. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but if you take a took at the 2007 article prior, you'll see oodles of whitespace. The entire viewable area as the article loads is taken up by the infobox on the right with nothing on the left. Perhaps we can rework the TOC placement and/or appearance. Jmj713 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I fixed that. It was because of where someone placed the wikinews template, once that was moved it was fixed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, much easier than my way :) Perhaps you can work on a TOC that's not so long? Maybe Template:TOCnestright? Jmj713 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common, irritating mistake in sports articles

I wanted to let everyone know that there's a very common mistake in pretty much every non-featured hockey article:

  • Incorrect: Ottawa would respond 11 minutes later with a goal by Chris Neil.
  • Correct: Ottawa responded 11 minutes later with a goal by Chris Neil.
  • Incorrect: On October 18, 2006, young Russian superstar Evgeni Malkin scored a goal in his first NHL game, and went on to set the modern NHL record with a goal in each of his first six games.
  • Correct: On October 18, 2006, young Russian superstar Evgeni Malkin scored a goal in his first NHL game, and set the modern NHL record with a goal in each of his first six games.

I usually fix it whenever I see it, but it's pretty much everywhere. Try to keep this in mind if you're reading/writing an article.-Wafulz (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For the second example, the way it is written makes it sound like Malkin set the record on October 18, even though that obviously can't be the case. Maybe add the date that he set the record to make it clear, if that is a real case. I definitely understand what you're trying to say, and I probably make the mistake myself sometimes because it's more of the way to write an engaging story rather than encyclopedic. What verb tense is that anyway? Conditional? -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I was a bit off in the second one, but the point is the tense. I'm not sure what its name is.-Wafulz (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a "mistake" - it's a stylistic preference. A "mistake" would be incorrect grammar. My own preference is for more direct phrasings (my editors would not have been pleased with "Boston can be described as being ..." rather than "Boston is ..."), but that doesn't make the tense poor English. Heck, if you want to go after something that is a widespread mistake, let's eliminate all the "Teemu Selanne won the Stanley Cup ..." phrases out there. No, Selanne did not win a Stanley Cup; he played on the 2007 Anaheim Ducks, which did.  RGTraynor  17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that we're aiming for direct phrasing wherever possible. I've seen it brought up at FAC a few times.-Wafulz (talk)
  • My impression of the FAC crowd is that they have a positive thirst to find some way or another to tell people that their articles don't measure up for some reason or another. One would think, for one, that if direct phrasing was a goal of the encyclopedia the Manual of Style would say so. It's silent on the subject.  RGTraynor  18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate seeing that, too, Wafulz. The first example leaves one asking: "they would respond but what?" The word 'would' implies a certain conditionality (see counterfactual conditional), but there is nothing conditional about an event that has certainly already happened. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
'Would' in the example used is not conditional. There is a context not represented in Wafulz's snippets of text. Really, what is being debated here is the use of 'active voice' vs. 'passive voice' styles of writing. The 'responded' is using active voice. Active voice is generally considered to be better from what I recall at college. However, both examples are ok when it comes to grammar. I think 'replied' is better than 'responded' in any case. Alaney2k (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SC Finals rosters

If you take a look at a finals rosters as we currently have them, there is entirely too much wasted space in the tables. First of all, the columns could use a reduction in width (the Place of Birth column is obscenely and needlessly wide). Secondly, I propose we add an additional column, Finals appearance, where we would list how many times a particular player's been to the Finals at that particular time. If it's his first, it could just say 1st, but for repeat appearances, we could also list the years, for instance: 3rd (2008, 2009, 2010).

To illustrate:

# Player Catches Acquired Place of Birth Finals appearance
30 Chris Osgood L 2005 Flag of Canada Peace River, Alberta 3rd (1997, 1998, 2008)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmj713 (talk • contribs)

First; this discussion should probably take place elsewhere. Anyhow, The only problem I see with the current table is that the 'Place of Birth' column is too wide, as you said. This can probably be reduced, and I think the idea of adding the new 'Finals appearance' idea is good, if we don't mind adding more information to the table. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I proposed this idea here, since it pertains to all Finals articles. I was using the 2008 one as an example. Jmj713 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very common table formatting problem, and it drives me nuts. Editors like to use style="width:5%", for example, but that really makes it ugly when you look at the table on a widescreen (8:5) display, with far, far too much whitespace. I think editors think that percentages are better than hardcoded pixel widths, but the truly better solution is to use em spaces. For example, style="width:3em". This solution is vastly superior because the user can change their font size (browser setting) and the table will scale accordingly. For example, look at the following table with different font sizes to compare with the table above to see what I mean. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

# Player Catches Acquired Place of Birth Finals appearance
30 Chris Osgood L 2005 Flag of Canada Peace River, Alberta 3rd (1997, 1998, 2008)
This does look a lot better, it's excellent! I hope we can implement this as soon as possible. I'll do this for the 2008 Finals as a demo, if nobody minds. Jmj713 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose, they're be re-newed edit struggles over countries. Czechoslovakia & the USSR (for example). GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't. You should stop worrying about other people's petty edit wars and just do your own thing (no offense meant). As for the table, do we even credit the players who did not play, or list them on the roster at all, especially if they do not get their name on the Cup? Also, it might be a good idea to use the idea of putting the flag next to the birthplace in the roster tables in each team article. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a doctor in the house??

Since we're on the subject of the Stanley Cup Finals (congrads to the Red Wings). I'm throwing in the towel, where hiding diacritics are concerned. They're popping up everywhere on the NHL related articles (most recently on the Stanley Cup Final articles). Call it exhaustion, or just plain going banannas - I just can't cope anymore. PS- recommend Elrith take over, for me. GöödDáy (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You were told before that you were going to be fighting a losing battle cause there are millions of editors out there that have nothing to do with this project and could care less about our compromise. As was said change them when you see them and don't get to upset about it as it will happen. Just like the opposite will happen. -Djsasso (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it, oh boy do I know it. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA article traffic - May

Little update on FA traffic for last month, as compared to April. With the season wrapping up, most articles saw big declines in traffic. The two notable exceptions were the two articles that appeared on the main page last month. Two new FA's in the last month as well: Trevor Linden and Calgary Hitmen. Incidentally, we've had at least one article promoted to FA status each calendar month since November. Who's gonna get one up in July? Resolute 02:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article April 2008 May 2008 Difference
Stanley Cup 106,907 165,808 +58,901†
Wayne Gretzky 101,790 114,176 +12,386‡
New Jersey Devils 34,265 22,997 -11,268
Calgary Flames 42,223 22,820 -19,403
Martin Brodeur 29,938 16,187 -13,751
Joe Sakic 23,373 16,026 -7,347
Dominik Hašek 13,867 13,150 -717
Hockey Hall of Fame 10,964 12,286 +1,322
Fighting in ice hockey 13,318 12,197 -1,121
Trevor Linden* 18,513 6,886 -11,627
Jacques Plante 7,252 6,072 -1,180
Ray Emery 13,054 5,287 -7,767
Paul Stastny 5,075 3,387 -1,688
Calgary Hitmen* 3,129 2,817 -312
Nottingham Panthers 1,873 2,008 +135
† On main page as Today's Featured Article on May 25 (39k views)
‡ On main page as Today's Featured Image on May 24 (16.7k views)
* Promoted to FA status during the last month

[edit] Eric Brewer (ice hockey)

I've gone ahead and nominated Eric Brewer (ice hockey) for FA. I've been working on it for quite some time now and hopefully I can get your guys' support! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey). Thanks! – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey at Tropicana Field

Hi!
I'm doing some research for the German Wiki and have got a question regarding Tropicana Field. Has the ice rink at the stadium been discarded after the Lightening moved to Ice Palace? Or is there still the possibility to play hockey at Tropicana Field? As far as I know, the Tropicana-Lightning relationship has only been a temporary solution. Perhaps you are able to help me. thx, --Eintracht4ever (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Thunderdome" was always just a temporary solution while St. Pete Times Forum was being built. I would presume that they could reinsert an ice plant if the need ever arose, but it seems very unlikely. Resolute 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)

The first history article is written, and I have it up for Peer Review here. I would be most appreciative if a few people here would look it over and offer suggestions. Especially on any important topics I may have missed. Thanks! Resolute 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look through it tomorrow or Tuesday.-Wafulz (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Blackngold29 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)