Talk:Ice hockey/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I keep reading and hearing the curling is the official or most popular. Can someone find out why there is this contention? Chivista 15:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Which country? Disinclination 09:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably Canada. Bogdan 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Curling is not more popular than ice hockey in Canada. Take it from me, a Canadian who is a fan of both sports. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Curling is popular in Canada, but no where near as popular as hockey.Killhammer (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the violence? --Robert Merkel 04:34 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

What about it? -- Zoe

The violence of hockey and North American football is an important topic, but probably inappropriate for this article. In both sports violence has increased as the amount of protective equipment worn has increased. In hockey requirements that all players wear helmets have led to increases in spinal and eye injuries, as players, thinking that they are better protected, no longer avoid hitting other players head first into the boards and carry the blades of their sticks up around their heads. In the United States eight to ten football players die each year, and head injuries are common. Violent head butting is common in tackling. The National Football League now has procedures for determining if a player has been concussed. Concussed players must leave the game and sit out the next. Ultimately there may have to be some reduction in the violence of these games. About a hundred years ago American football rules were made less violent because large numbers of players were dying. -- Anon.

Ummm, i dont think the guy was talking about the simple violence of the sport, but the act of fighting, which ice hockey is notable for, above and beyond all other sports. What about ice hockey causes the players to fight?

They fight because they're allowed to. It's commonly believed it helps players let off steam which might otherwise result in greater violence. The fighting is highly ritualistic as a result -- it's always one-on-one and ended as soon as one player gets the upper hand. Whether it actually is a release is questionable, but compare hockey to baseball, where fighting is not condoned but you end up with beanball contests and eventually with mass brawls in which the players do not pair off but gang up on single players. The NHL has done a good job of stamping out brawls over the past 20 years. And you don't see the spearing and kicking you see in European hockey. Jfitzg

I would agree, but the action of the NHL appears to imply that the fighting is okay. I think this is the source of the real controversy. In other sports, fights are usually much more severely punished (suspensions of multiple games, fines, etc.), while in hockey a player usually sits in the penalty box. It's certainly worth noting that part of the reason for the NHL's decision to allow fighting with such little penalty is because it attracts more fans. Fans of hockey appear to be more likely to enjoy violence than fans of football and baseball. It's probably worth a section in the article, or even its own separate article, to discuss the fighting in the sport, the reasons behind the NHL's stance, and some major opinions for and against it.

The NHL doesn't mind the fighting, nor does the AHL, the OHL, the WHL, heck, most of the North American leagues all allow it. The reason above, about letting off steam is mostly correct. Fights, or the threat of a fight, is also used to reign in violence. Take Edmonton in the 80s, with Gretzky. You can bet there were tons of opposing coaches wishing they could take gretzky out of the game, they only needed one of their defenseman take him out with a rough check, or a boarding. But they knew if they did, Edmonton would have their enforcers out next shift, pummeling whoever did the dirty work, and probably taking out the other teams star. Therefor, the threat of violence keeps most of the dangerous violence out of the game. The European Leagues have an immediate suspension rule, but they also have more players injured by spearing, etc. Therefor, it can be argued, that the North American approach is better, in that it is more honest, and provides a structured conflict resolution system.142.161.106.215 22:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The NHL now uses procedures similar to the NFL, although they apparently suspend players for shorter times. Jfitzg

Indeed, baseball violence is, in fact, ritualized as well—and though I’m sure there are examples, I cannot remember hearing of a baseball player becoming seriously injured after an on-field fight. —Swing, batter 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fighting has been apart of hockey for decades, so it is not always easy to remove an aspect of a sport. And just a quick note about a previous statement, coaches did not want their players to go after Gretzky in the 80's because their owners wouldn't let them. Gretzky filled arenas, something that owners were much more interested in. There are actually cases where a player would hit Gretzky hard and then be sent back to the minors just afterwards as a form of "punishment." EZC195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey differs from most sports by having an odd number of intervals. I have found references to when hockey changed from two to three periods, but not why. Does anyone have information on why hockey has three periods?

Because the ice requires resurfacing which in not a problem in soccer, football, baseball, or basketball. If hockey ever changes to 4 quarters, they had better flood the rink after every quarter or the ice will be a mess! Kevlar67 08:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But the ice has not always been resurfaced between every period! It wasn't that long ago that in the NHL the ice was only done once a game. 142.59.153.99 07:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article with the same question. Yes, the ice needs to be resurfaced, but if this was the true reason, wouldn't 4 15-minute quarters allow for an extra resurfacing period, as well as 3 side-changes (to allow for each team to play on each side exactly half the game)? Very few other sports play 3 periods -- wrestling does so so that each wrestler is given choice of top, bottom, or neutral to begin a period, while the first is begun standing -- but hockey has no such decision making. There must be a logical reason for this. Were there originally 2 20-minute halves and the game was extended to an hour by adding a period (this seems likely)? 72.209.72.177 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure extra resurfacing would be nice, but then a game would take forever! You have to remember it takes about 10-15 minutes to clean the ice. So four quarter = 3 ice cleans = atleast 30-45 minutes of non-play, compared to 20-30 minutes of non-play. EZC195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The "mother" of ICE HOCKEY is the english game BANDY.

The bandy match has always been played 2x45 minutes, just like its predecessor, soccer football. However, when the snow fell, tha match would be split into thirds of 30 minutes each to allow shovelling.

This goes on to this day in bandy if it is played outdoors. Maybe there was heavy snofall when the British Navy team introduced bandy to Nova Scotia?

Asbjørn

Is the phrase: "Although it is the least watched of the four sports in the United States, it is the official national winter sport of Canada, where the game enjoys immense popularity (lacrosse is Canada's national summer sport)." necessary?

Should we add to the baseball section "Although it is the least watched of the four sports in Canada, it is the official national sport of the USA, where the game enjoys immense popularity"?

What relevance does this add?

It's information, I guess. But baseball is not the official national sport of the USA, as the USA does not have an official national sport, so we should not add that. --67.165.6.76 04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But baseball IS the national sport of the USA - even if not "officially". I believe that little tidbit of info is worth including on the "baseball" page, in the same way that the Canadian equivalent should be noted on the hockey page.--Vonbontee (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course English users contributing here are largely from USA and Canada, but we should try to make article more objective and also provide news about other major nations. Also, if NHL is clearly the most powerful league in the world, hockey played in North America is not hockey in general, so every info should be provided with always mentioning its local nature. In fact, from what I seem in recent times Canada and USA failed to win any important international competition, and strongest players are almost all from Europe, aren't they? Bye and good work. --Attilios 14:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - "the strongest players" are most certainly not from Europe - in fact it's not even close. Currently, the best player in the world is Canadian as is the the top goaltender. At the time of writing 9 of the top 11 scoring leaders in the NHL are from Canada. No other country has more than 2 in the top 15. I think you'll have a hard time proving your statement to be anything but your own POV. Alo, I don't see how the article can be NA bias, when the majority of it discusses rules of the game, equipment, ice hockey in popular culture and history of the sport - which is all general information. Other users are more than welcome to add information from various countries, however I don't think removing info and re-arranging the article to better suit European hockey is the way to go. Yankees76

Sorry for getting you raging about that. I am not much into the today's matters: in fact I wrote: "I seem". I'll try to expose my point. An unbiased-article, simply, whould not contain a "History [of the sport]" section deling only with its history in North America, at least when it is fairly played outside. Hope you appreciated the sectioning I've introduced lately, with a stub about matters abroad. Didn't want to get engaged in any debate about who's stronger or lesser, oh my. But it is true is that Canada and USA have won far less gold medals than other countries in the sport's international tournaments. Good work. --Attilios 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's raging? Just pointing out some obvious stats that refute your blanket statement. It's also true that washed up Canadian and American players like Alexandre Daigle and Jeff Jillson are able to extend their careers on European club teams because the quality of competition is significantly much lower than it is in North America that they are able to still earn a living playing hockey, but that's beside the point. The history section of the article deals with hockey as a whole. The fact that the sport's first organized indoor game took place in 1875 in Montreal does not indicate North American bias - it's simply a fact. Perhaps a small section of the article may have a factual leaning towards North America, but to state the article itself is North American bias is simply not true. Yankees76 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And just for fun to address your statement on my talk page and here that says In fact, from what I seem in recent times Canada and USA failed to win any important international competition. Actually, combined the two countries have won the 2002 Olympics, 2004 World Cup, 2003, 2004 World Championships, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 World Junior Championships, every single Women's gold medal at any competition, 2003, 2005, 2006 IIHF World U18 Championships and even the 2002, 2003 Spengler Cup - which isn't even a real international tournament. Contemplate on that. Yankees76 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that the Americans and the Canadians are somehow lagging in the game is absurd. JHMM13  00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Canada usually performs well in international competition. The 2006 Olympics are one of the few exceptions.Killhammer (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

who is your favorite team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebob36 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) And why does it open with (Isn't real hockey) I suspect this is just vandalism? 145.94.78.201 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The short form hockey is not only used frequently in North America, it is certainly used frequently in Sweden too, for example.

The game Bandy had been played for a number of years in Britain when a british navy team visited Canada in the 1800s. Bandy was a derivation of Football (soccer style) and Field Hockey, and was played 11-a-side.

The shortage of players in Canada led the match to be played by 7 each side, and thus Ice Hockey was born.

The British continued playing 11-a-side, a game that spread through Europe to Russia and back west to Scandinavia, where it remains a popular sport to this day. The sport died out in the rest of Europe during WWI.

The americans drew up rules of a 7-man game with waist-high walls, smaller ice, a puck and a longer, squarer stick than bandy. They also let the goalkeeper wear a stick and be called "goal tender".

The rest is history, but this important part should be included in the wikipedia article.

Asbjørn Karlberg, Norway - [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.25.178 (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actualy highly debated. In fact alot of people don't believe it came from bandy at all and rather from a game the natives in North America had been playing prior to the settlers arriving. -Djsasso (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I am new and obviously untrustworthy I am requesting that someone within the circle of trust make the following edit:

Under "GAME" the following sentence needs to be corrected:

" A player is said to shoot left if he holds his stick with the left hand on the bottom and the right hand on top, and is said to be right shot if he holds the stick with the right hand at the bottom and right hand on top."

It should read that the right handed shooter has his LEFT hand on top.

I may not be trustworthy but I beleive I don't need to argue that people only have one left and one right hand.

--Sjvmi87 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that mistake. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of...I found this whole section odd and inaccurate. According to "The Stick" by Bruce Dowbiggin, statistics kept by Easton and Sherwood show a marked difference between how Canadians and Americans hold the hockey stick. While 70% of stick sales in Canada are left, 70 % of stick sales in the US are right.

24.87.79.60 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)equally new and untrustworthy

If the first professional hockey team was established in Michigan, how were there individual professionals before then? And if there were individual professionals, they were not only Canadian professionals. I propose to remove the statement "(although there had been individual professionals in Canada before this)". This is superfluous, uncited, and not preperly inclusive. 70.128.104.143 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There were no official pro teams back then. There were however players who were paid under the table to play for amateur teams. This sort of back room shady business was common in amateur hockey leagues in Canada at the time. -Djsasso (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that needs to be in the article with a source and made clear that they were unofficial professionals. The statement is just confusing the way it is now. Also, what source says this was not also happening in the U.S? 70.128.104.143 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Where in that sentence does it say that it wasn't happening in the US? It very well could have also been happening in the US, though there were almost no American hockey players at the time. American hockey players were extremely rare until the later part of the 20th century. But that isn't the point, the sentance seems clear to me and does't preclude it from also having happened in the US. -Djsasso (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that they were paid under the table doesn't make them unofficial professionals. They were professional as they were being paid. The team itself however could be called into question. But being that this is just a brief overview of things on this page and that there is an entire different page for professional hockey, it would be add bloat to this article to have to go into that much detail here. -Djsasso (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There were professionals in Pittsburgh prior to 1904. See Hod Stuart. The Pittsburgh professionals played the Michigan professionals in a 'US championship' prior to the IHL founding. I do not know whether all of the Pittsburgh players were paid, but Stuart moved there from Montreal and was paid. I think this indicates the nature of the time. We don't know the disposition of all of the players, but we do know that some were being paid. Alaney2k (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I don't doubt there were Americans being paid somewhere, I just meant that it would have been excedingly rare. That being said, your example moved from Montreal which would mean he was Canadian. But yeah due to the nature of the time we will never know exactly how that stuff was going down. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about hockey, but there is a statement made at the end of the 2nd paragraph in the Intro and again at the end of the 1st paragraph in History that states ' Wayne Gretskey was the first person to play hockey and he invented hockey ' - is that really true ? Thanks. Hawkeye717 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)hawkeye717

What is going on with this paragraph? Is there some sort of misunderstanding? For as long as I can remember, if there is a goal, the player who would be given a penalty does not go to the box. Alaney2k (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The player doesn't go in the box, but the penalty is still assessed, which means the penalty is recorded on the player's stat sheet. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

People are changing the text because it implies that the player still serves the penalty. This should be addressed, and then we can stop this back and forth lame edit war going on. Alaney2k (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really noticed the edit-warring regarding the paragraph, but by all means, go ahead an change it to how you think the paragraph should read. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any edit warring either. I just changed it back once. I don't feel it implies anything, the penalty is still called so its factually correct. -Djsasso (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, more like a 'edit skirmish' or 'edit argument'... It then got changed a few more times. Not a big deal. Let's just get it right. Alaney2k (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't matter to me how it reads as long as its clear the penalty still happens but the player doesn't go to the box. -Djsasso (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Alaney2k (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok... this section is becoming excessively long. I really don't care about, nor do I believe, every movie with ice hockey as part of the plot should be listed here. I propose one of 2 options; either we trim the section down by quite a bit or we split it into its own article. I'm tending towards splitting myself, but only because I'm lazy as cutting the section down is what we should actually do. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems really really really secondary to the topic. A list article could hold the contents or at least most of the contents. The section could be cut down to a few paragraphs. Alaney2k (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would give a brief summary and then cut the bulk of it into its own article. -Djsasso (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the short introduction. For the record, my last edit summary should read "bare" ;-) — Dorvaq (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit bare. Probably I can expand on it without mentioning specific cases, so that people won't be tempted to add more here instead of in the split article. Alaney2k (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

>>Ice hockey, often referred to simply as hockey in the United States, Canada and Sweden

thats correct for Russia as well. field hockey is not very popular here, so "hockey" means "ice hockey" in Russian, and bandy means bandy (or you can call it.. ahem.. "hockey with a ball" -- metaphrase for russian term) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.125.68.46 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC) uggugua;jfng;dfkngf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.98.230 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the article called ice hockey? Most regions that play ice hockey call it hockey. You wouldn't refer to basketball in the NBA as indoor basketball or to Polo as horseback Polo. Calling hockey ice hockey seems bent towards the southern U.S. term over all others.Weonk (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Weonk

Actually that isn't true. Most of europe calls it ice hockey and the term hockey refers to field hockey. And amongst most of the rest of the world hockey refers to field hockey. So to avoid confusion we have ice hockey at ice hockey and field hockey at field hockey. And hockey is a seperate page unto itself. -Djsasso (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

an editor has recently made changes saying that is called ice hockey in North America. We have (annecdotal) evidence here that it is called simply hockey in many other places too. I will, once more, revert these changes. Just thought I would post a note here to let people know what is going on.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Field hockey page we have this is the common name for it in many countries. However, the name field hockey is used in countries where the word hockey is usually reserved for another form of hockey, such as ice hockey or street hockey.

I am going to amend the article for uniformity and to have a more accurate representation, since hockey does not mean 'ice hockey' across the world, but rather, in some regions of it.::Halbared (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

listing all of the countries could quickly become rather cumbersome. I say there was nothing wrong with the older fversion. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We used to have it listing all the various regions and it was decided to just remove it to use the "often refered to as hockey". Because at last count there was upwards of 20 countries that call it hockey, and to only list a couple of them is a POV decision, so if we list one we have to list all. -Djsasso (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be cumbersome. However there needs to be something referring to the fact that hockey is not a universal name for ice hockey. The field hockey page seems to have managed it.Halbared (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't actually, that it is sometimes referred to as hockey would be a nickname. And when we list on wiki that someone has a nickname we don't go out of our way to say there are other people with this nickname. Even in countries where field hockey is mostly called hockey people that use the word hockey can be referring to ice hockey. You see ice hockey and field hockey are versions of the same basic sport. So there is no need for that level of detail. -Djsasso (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hockey" would not be a nickname, but actually the correct name.

"Ice hockey" is common use in much of the world where they do not have a long tradition with the game, and as such I would agree with it's use in this article, as much as it grates on me :).

I have seen a printed source for this, but it was so long ago that it would not be worth the effort to dig up, especially since I would not advocate a change, based on the above reason.

Variations of the game, played on other surfaces, with different equipment, rules, etc., are properly given descriptives such as Air hockey, Ball hockey, Barn Hockey, Bubble Hockey, Field hockey, Floor hockey, Kitchen hockey, Road hockey, Roller hockey, Table hockey, Twist hockey, Pond hockey and Ringette. Kid Bugs (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't watch hockey much, but I'm watching a Stanley Cup final game between Detroit and Pittsburgh. It's about to go into the second overtime. I can't find it anywhere... how long do the teams stay off the ice between periods? Lou Sander (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TYpically 15 minutes.Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody who knows about it (and can reference it, I guess) should put it in the article. That rest period played a big role in tonight's game, and I imagine in others, too.) Lou Sander (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is scoring with no time on the clock in hockey the same as basketball. To where the goal counts as long as the puck is in the air with no time left on the clock? -Jay Mers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.128.224 (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, has to cross the line before the buzzer goes. -Djsasso (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Terminology section is out of place, anyone else think we should move it into a more comprehensive separate article and add a link in the See also section of this article? --Krm500 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a separate article but I can't think of the name at the moment. I have been meaning to kill it off this article for awhile. -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It really stands out as something not belonging in the article. --Krm500 (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

List of ice hockey terminology is the article. I will remove it from this page. -Djsasso (talk

) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This chart needs to be updated, sourced and dated. The current data for the number of registered American hockey players does not match any of the current/past date listed on the USA hockey website. Cornhusker1225 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

They point to less extreme on-ice violence during the era before the rule was introduced.

This sentence seems to have been floating around since an earlier edit from I-don’t-care-to-find-out-when, and nobody every bothered to make it flow. Who points to less extreme violence? It no longer says. Also, it gives no examples or anything to back that up. —Wiki Wikardo 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It used to say "This so-called instigator rule is highly controversial in NHL hockey: many coaches, sportswriters, players and fans feel it prevents players from effectively policing the objectionable behavior of their peers, which is often cleverly hidden from referees.^{[citation needed]}" Someone probably pulled the statement due to the tag without bothering to see how it effected the paragraph it was in. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

God, I hate that fucking tag. —Wiki Wikardo

The "Neutral Zone Trap" is a strategy which is used by a defending team with the goal of not allowing the attacking team to gain the redline (If the attacking team gains the redline, it allows them to dump the puck into the defending teams zone). The trap is setup by spreading defending players through the neutral zone. One defending forward should be just inside the attacking teams endzone. As the attacking team begins their "breakout," The defending forward inside the attacking teams zone must take away the center of the ice and force the attacking team to carry the puck up either side of the ice. As the attacking team enters the neutral zone, the defending players shift over to the side of the ice that the attacking team is skating the puck to. The Defending team must seal off the attacking team before the puck reaches the redline in order to give the attacking puck carrier no playmaking options, and essentially turn the puck over to the defending team.

How do you beat "The Trap?" In order to beat the trap, the attacking team must find a way to get the puck to the other side of the ice that the defending players have been shifting away from. This can be a difficult task against a team that executes the trap well. The most effective way to get the puck to the open side of the ice is to have your defenceman skate the puck up one side of the ice, with the his defensive partner following behind him. As the defending forward takes away the center of the ice, and the defenders begin the shift over to the "puck side," the puck carrying defenceman passes the puck back to his defence partner who then quickly moves the puck up to the winger on the other side of the ice. This play can be difficult to make because the defending player taking away the center of the ice will most likely be trying take this option away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krs449 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more clear about what changes you are proposing? There's a Neutral zone trap article, and a Neutral zone trap section in this article, summarizing the devoted article. What do you think needs to be changed in these places? —JAO • T • C 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Michigan collegiate game or the Buffalo Winter Classic. The Michigan game lists 55000, the Buffalo game 71000, yet the Michigan game is listed as having the greatest attendance. Am I missing something?

Never Mind.

Scandinavia = Sweden, Denmark and Norway (not Finland)

Nordic countries = Sweden, finland and so on.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.251.88 (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you're editing from a Swedish IP, so I guess your native language is Swedish (as is mine). And it's quite true that the Swedish word "Skandinavien" practically never includes Finland. As for the English word "Scandinavia" however, that's much more ambiguous. See the article Scandinavia and especially the archives of Talk:Scandinavia. That said, I wouldn't oppose changing it to the more unambiguous "Nordic countries". (I don't think much hockey is played in Iceland, whatever D2: The Mighty Ducks tells us, but I wouldn't care too much about that.) —JAO • T • C 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, in English the word Scandinavia does usually include Finland in everyday common ussage. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Came accross this doing some digging and there was a report on a game at the montreal carnival between Montreal and Quebec ending in a draw in 1883. the source is the New york times Jan 27 1883 ed ( http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980CE7D8123BE033A25754C2A9679C94629FD7CF ). Don tknow how to incorporate this without wrecking the prose but if someone would like to, here it is Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel this information is incorrect:

Five skaters and one goaltender

This is the standard number of players on the ice at one time, but as such, a team is usually composed of more players. Typically two goalies and 21 skaters. It might differ for certain leagues though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.228.122 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be remembered is that not all hockey is organized hockey (ie league). All that is required to play the game properly is 5 skaters and 1 goalie. -Djsasso (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

THis section needs work. The number of injuries is reported as 'high' which is meaningless. There are two citation needed tags that have been there quite a long time. If nothing can be found I say we get rid of the section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would just remove the high and put common and use any of a number of articles out there as a reference. Should be alot around right now because I was listening on XM the other day and they were sying the numbers were way up this year. As with suspensions which already passed last years entire total a week or two ago. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for documenting a fact which is common knowledge to anyone who has ever heard of hockey. Reference the first 5 minutes of the next televised hockey game if you want to see the potential for high incidence of injury. Next some self-important geek will demand reference to the fact that there are crosswalks near busy intersections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.68.171 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone who reads this article will have ever read or watched anything to do with hockey. We have to assume they know nothing, which is why we need references for everything. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who deems it important enough--a simple rehash of lineup changes due to injury should not be too hard to research. I'm not going to do it. I Still say you are just stating the obvious. This could be compared to lineup changes in other sports relative to the # of games played and type of injuries. MBrettH 208.20.21.226 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The nationality of players was recently removed as the ref apparently did not say what the article said. How is this one? http://www.thephysicsofhockey.com/documents/country.pdf ? Not sure how good a source it is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The original source did support it, however yours is probably a better source. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Bandy as a proto-ice hokey? It is an important game in Russia and elsewhere. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because we can't list every similar game I think. I also think they are referring to bandy when they mention shinney in the last sentence of that paragraph. Yes they aren't quite the same thing, but I think it is probably enough. Also I think its a case of both being "invented" around the same time so its hard to call Bandy a predecessor to hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a book to cite about bandy and its link to ice hockey, than add a supported statement. It seems pretty clear that bandy and ice hockey developed separately in parallel. Bandy is in the 'see also'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Remarkably, books on the history of ice hockey are fairly thin on the ground around here. I defer to your superior knowledge. I would point out that Bandy is still a living sport in several countries. I suspect it deserves mention. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that those involved in bandy make the claim that ice hockey derived from bandy, but I don't think that is backed up by evidence and we have to watch out for people inserting that sort of sentence. Bandy is European in origin and 'grew up' there. The Canadian versions of shinney seem to have derived from the British influence of soldiers posted to Canada, etc., who played field hockey, shinty, etc. and native peoples games. The teams used to play in huge numbers on the frozen St. Lawrence in the 1850s. I've read of a version of shinney that did not involve scoring goals, but was won by keeping possession of the ball. And that 'shinney' referred to hitting the shins of the ball carrier. That article is from one of the people who wrote the McGill 1879 hockey rules. (It's a 1936 Montreal Gazette article which you can read through Google News Archives) And ice polo came out in the time that modern hockey got going. Ball and stick, played with one hand on the stick. And lacrosse. Ball and stick games are really old and there isn't really a straight line of descent to today. The family tree is very hap-hazard. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A graph, or figure I guess is a better way to put it, of IIHF rankings in the past few years has been posted. It was clearly a lot of work. That said, I had to stare at it for 3 min before I understood it. What have other editors thought on this? If everyone finds it hard to understand, then well, maybe it ought to go. That said, maybe I am a tad thick. Like I noted, it was a lot of work, so that in and of itself impresses me, so don't take it personally Slaja Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it benefits an article about ice hockey in general. I don't see a similar ranking on Association football article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it is not in the spirit of NPOV. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How does it violate the spirit of

WP:NPOV? (I am being serious, I just don't see it currently, I only find the thing darned confusing.....) Dbrodbeck (talk

) 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing too. As for the NPOV issue, it's because the topic of the article is ice hockey in a general sense. I think it puts the focus on an arbitrary ranking between countries, rather than on the international competitions which is what the section is about. Other problems: I think it puts too much prominence on the IIHF rankings, which might be slanted in the IIHF's interest. (I wonder why Russia is #1 when Canada won the Olympics? -- what is that about?) Does 2003-2010 make any sense? Five years, ten years? Top ten, top twenty? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The IIHF rankings do have a formula, which in and of itself is arbitrary. Still, I think I see your point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its a NPOV issue, as much as its something that doesn't belong on a page about ice hockey in general. Just put a see also link in the section to the IIHF page and that page can deal with rankings, which I believe it already does. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I've zapped it from the page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Once the terminological distinction is clear, as it is after the first few sentences, the article should simply refer to the sport as hockey, except where it is being distinguished from another form of hockey. Continually repeating ice hockey is unnecessary. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, in some parts of the world it is exclusively called ice hockey. Calling it hockey would then confuse people who are from locations where its not simply called hockey. Terms should remain consistent throughout articles. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the field hockey article, and see how many times that sport is called field hockey as opposed to just hockey. If this article always has to call it ice hockey, then that one should always call it field hockey; fair is fair. --Trovatore (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that page should as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Srsly? And American football should always call it American football, and association football should always call it association football? --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we aim to use international naming when possible since this is an international wiki. As such the ice hockey project always refers to hockey as ice hockey. I don't edit the other sports so I don't know what their agreed upon consensus is but we always refer to it on every page as ice hockey. Thus we avoid regionalisms. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see what would happen if you tried to promote that approach at the football articles (either sort of football).

Don't you think this smacks of unilateral disarmament a bit? The sum effect is that a reader who browses the various hockey articles comes away with the impression that real hockey is field hockey, and ice hockey is some subordinate, derivative thing. --Trovatore (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cut down on the repetivive "ice hockey" phrases. "In 1825, Sir John Franklin wrote that "The game of hockey played on the ice was the morning sport" -- ha! he didn't call it ice hockey "Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup" - ha! it wasn't called the Dominion Ice Hockey Challenge Cup "(also known as hockey pants)" -- not ice hockey pants? "Ice hockey is played on a hockey rink" -- not an ice hockey rink?

Feldercarb (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• "This game featured the use of a puck to keep it within the rink" -- doesn't make sense. Boards keep the puck in the rink
• "though the first known mention of the word 'hockey' in English dates to 1799 in England." -- the wikipedia "hockey" entry says otherwise
• "heavily padded shorts (also known as hockey pants)" -- can't we just say hockey pants?

Feldercarb (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No boards back then. This has been added. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This Saturday in Mexico Hockey start to be Professional, they selected the best 62 players in all Mexico and they created four teams. In Saturday they inagurated with 2 Games. In the first game the first two teams played THE ZAPOTEC TOTEMS and THE MAYAN WARRIORS they finished 6-1. Now they are gonna transmit all the Games in national televition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.152.116.205 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not the article to mention that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

>After the 1990 Women's World Championship, body checking was eliminated because female players in many >countries do not have the size and mass seen in North American players.

Is that sentence a joke? Normal American women may be fatties and have thus more "mass" than their counterparts in Europe or Asia, but I don't think this difference generally applies to athletes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.76.180.31 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe it means muscular size, not fat. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There was at one time a small article about the history of ice hockey which now redirects to Ice hockey, with the info incorporated into the history section. I'm hoping we could write an actual full-fledged article on the roots and origins of ice hockey. Jmj713 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah go for it. It was actually the other way around, the other article was just a copy pasted copy of what was in this article which is why it was redirected back here. But definitely think it could be its own article, which is why it was left as a redirect instead of just deleting outright. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The image used on this page is Atlanta and Florida? That just isnt even right. The hockey religion frowns upon sunbelt teams. Get that switched ASAP. Not to mention those teams will both be relocated within the next 5-10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.13.6 (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a fine picture, and, this is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Its the best action picture we have, which is why we use it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the subsection on the Heritage Classic be deleted from the "Attendance Records" section of the article.

Reasons:

1) It's not the largest attended hockey game (the Michigan-Michigan State game is)

2) It's no longer the largest-attended NHL game (having been surpassed by the Sabres-Penguins Winter Classic)

3) It was not the first outdoor NHL game (the exhibition game between in the Kings and Rangers in 1991 in Las Vegas was[1])

4) The information about largest television audience is either flat-out wrong or out of date. The Red Wings-Blackhawks Winter Classic had a television audience of 4.4 million people on NBC[2], far surpassing the 2.7 million cited for the Heritage Classic

The Heritage Classic may be a notable and memorable game, but there have been many notable and memorable games in hockey history. However, the Heritage Classic is no longer a record-setting game of any sort, so it shouldn't be in the Attendance Records section.140.251.125.50 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Matt

I would note that it is the first outdoor NHL regular season game which is what makes it a history making game. -DJSasso (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been many history making games in the NHL. Should we include them all? That section of the article is titled "Attendance Records," but unlike the other games listed there (like the Cold War game and the 2008 Winter Classic), the Heritage Classic does not hold an attendance record of any sort. It just seems like it doesn't really belong there.140.251.125.50 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Matt

Like what? --

27

15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Instead split the attentendence section off and merge it with List of ice hockey games with highest attendance.
• Support split - only retain a link in the 'See also' section. Keep all text, but put it in the List article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Split. There have been plenty of games with hundreds of thousands of attendees, including many which are notable mainly for the sheer amount of people who atteneded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Sourced material is in List of ice hockey games with highest attendance, and a summary placed in this article, with a link to List of ice hockey games with highest attendance. SilkTork *^YES! 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This might be understood to mean that goaltender is one of the five players. Should it be rephrased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.129.111 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased it a bit. I think it's better now.--Asher196 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a conflict between this article and the one on Hockey - here the earliest reference to 'hockey' is cited as 1799, but in the hockey article as 1363: somewhat different! DickyP (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing on the Hockey article was suspect, and I've hidden that content. In fact, I would say it was outright wrong. See Football_(word)#Etymology; Oxford English Dictionary would be a very reliable source. That quote, as a result, should not have had the term 'football', since it was recorded in 1424 (as opposed to 1363 or earlier). The SIHR is itself a very source for ice hockey, and the date 1799 seems much more reasonable to me than 1363. Thanks for pointing it out. Maxim_(talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Never actually though about which one might be correct, so I went and looked at 'hockey' in the Oxford and it gives 1527 as first known usage. Given their standards of proof required for an entry in that reference I think the whole subject probably needs more work. DickyP (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Its one of the biggest debates in hockey. There likely are sources for all the different time periods. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of the connection between Hockey and the Scottish game of Shinty. Given the fact that it was started in Nova Scotia, an area with a huge Scottish population and given the fact that to this day, pickup or informal hockey games are referred to as "shinny" or "shinty", this theory of origin should at least be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.101.98 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that the theory should be acknowledged, hockey is hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudaheather (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

THE NAME OF THE GAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the field hockey page, the page starts with "Field hockey, or hockey, is a sport..." Perhaps the "ice hockey" page should start the same way, given that in places where "ice" hockey is played, the game is known simply as "hockey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

from field hockey wiki: the word 'hockey' was recorded in 1363 when Edward III of England issued the proclamation: "[M]oreover we ordain that you prohibit under penalty of imprisonment all and sundry from such stone, wood and iron throwing; handball, football, or hockey; coursing and cock-fighting, or other such idle games."[3] this citation is A LOT older than the uses in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.214.149 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, where the game was invented, the game is know as "hockey", not "ice hockey". In the "field hockey" article, the article stars with "field hocky, or hockey, is a tem sport.. This article ought ot at least start eh same way. For instance check this national newpaper's headings on the sport http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the section's order should be changed, so to explain basic vocabulary before using it. I, for example, could not understand what checking was until I got to the Tactics Section.Frohfroh (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ice hockey is a team sport played on ice, in which skaters use L-shaped sticks to shoot a single hard rubber puck into their opponent's net. In regions where it is popular, the game is often referred to simply as hockey. Five members of each 20-man team skate up and down the ice trying to take the puck and score a goal against the opposing team. Each team has a goaltender who tries to stop the puck from going into the goal or "net". Each game includes three 20-minute periods, but professional games often take two hours to play because of stoppages and infractions. The game is popular in northern countries and noted for its speed and aggression: players must be well-padded to avoid injury from the puck, and collisions.

I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.179.185 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The section discussing head injuries has been somewhat overtaken by recent events. It mentions growing concerns about head hits but doesn't mention the rule changes in 2010 to address those concerns.

Proposed addition as follows:

At many levels^[1], including the NHL, new rules^[2] have been brought into force with the intention of protecting players from head hits^[3].

The History section is confused, disorganized, and in some places, repetitious. It really should be redone completely, so that the history comes either in some kind of time order, or in some kind of "origin" order, since Ice Hockey's origins are in dispute or undecided. Hires an editor (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Have at it. :) -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The percentage of American players has the decimal point in the wrong position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.169 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No that is actually the correct position. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't body size in other countries be true for men as well?

"After the 1990 Women's World Championship, body checking was eliminated because female players in many countries do not have the size and mass seen in North American players."Editfromwithout (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Under the "Foundation of modern ice hockey" subsection, I wonder if someone is willing to incorporate a mention of the

Rename article to hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.154.167 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a new IP editor, 76.64.228.218 who wants to say the above in the very first sentence. It makes no sense on it's own. The statement is true where the game is the more popular form of hockey, and untrue where field hockey is more popular.

I have welcomed the IP editor, and tried to have a constructive discussion on the matter, to no avail. I won't go any further because of 3RR (our new friend has already breached it), so I'm seeking help to sort this out.

The IP editor geolocates to Toronto, Canada, so has possibly never seen a game of field hockey in his life, but this is no excuse to ignore reality.

So, more eyes please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is now fair. Mentions everything. And yes I have seen a field hockey game before (actually was on my school's field hockey team :). BTW please don't punish me I don't know any rules 76.64.228.218 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, it's inaccurate as it is now. To say "commonly known as hockey" is simply wrong for probably the majority of countries in the world. You say "hockey" here in Australia, and field hockey is what people think of. That's why I qualified it to "commonly known as hockey in those countries where it is the most popular sport". I can see what you're trying to say, and it's obviously true for Canada and the US, but let's make the statement true for the whole world. HiLo48 (talk)

Well said, and true. Also the IP user's edit summary would indicate that he/she is well informed on what the rules are.

18abruce (talk

) 04:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I added Europe as well because the majority of the continent calls it hockey (Scandinavia, Germany, Eastern Europe, the Alps). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.228.218 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there no variation due to the fact that English is not the native language in those places? HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In Germany, for example, it is known as eishockey, my rudimentary German tells me this is 'ice hockey'..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Most countries on Europe speak multiple languages. Not just one. When using English in those countries it is often referred to as hockey. Removing the fact that more than just the US and Canada that use that term is creating a falsehood. That isn't even mentioning that it is often called hockey in England which /is/ an English speaking country. I should note that I am not saying it should be referred to as "commonly known as hockey", I am only indicating that it should be clear that more than just people in Canada and the US call it such. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing evidence for that. Two of the leading (field) hockey nations in the world are Holland and Germany. I am aware that they also play ice hockey. Did you know that they played field hockey very well too? I wonder what they call that? Oh, and have you noticed the name of the global federation in the Infobox? HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also just noticed that you have again reverted the article text, in defiance of this section. That is arrogant vandalism. Have you heard of discussion? Read the final line in this section! HiLo48 (talk)

This section is talking about adding a line "commonly known as" it has nothing to do with what I added. What I added was making sure it is known that using the word hockey to mean ice hockey isn't limited to only people in Canada and the US. I am not even remotely claiming it is commonly used which is what this section is about. You also need to learn the difference between vandalism and good faith editing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof? Or are you just arrogantly ignoring everything others say? HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the most glaringly obvious one is that the highest level hockey league in sweden just changed its name to the Swedish Hockey League. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's one. Any more? What do the Dutch and Germans call it? And why are North Americans so obsessed with proving that their abbreviation is more common than it really is? One part of the problem is that so many don't even realise that most of the world DOESN'T call it hockey. HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The KHL is not the KIHL for example. I don't see why saying it is beyond North America where it is called hockey rather than ice hockey. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I repeat I am not saying it is the most common way to say it. I am actually one of the people who helped established that we use the standard "ice hockey" across the wiki. So don't try playing that I am just trying to proove its common because that is ridiculous. I am just indicating that it isn't just limited to those two countries. Why are you so obsessed with trying to say its only a North American thing. And yes Dbrodbeck mentions another example the #2 hockey league in the world is called the Kontinental Hockey League which has teams in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Croatia. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Then there is the Finish top league which is called the Finnish National Hockey League in English on their official site. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And since you wanted German here is a German newspaper in English that uses hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As a German I was surprised to see Germany being there as an example. I cannot remember anyone calling Ice Hockey simply Hockey, when you say Hockey everyone will think of field hockey, which might also be seen from the German Wikipedia articles for both games: Hockey and Eishockey 08:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoleia (talk • contribs)

The fact that the governing body (IIHF) uses Ice Hockey in the name, while the governing body for field hockey (FIH) does not specify, should be a clue to what the more prominent usage is in Europe.

18abruce (talk

) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo here. Those who feel otherwise should discuss the issue here before making further changes to the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"In North America," the National Hockey League (NHL) is the highest level for men, and the most popular. --------> "In North America" should be deleted, as this imply that the NHL is only the best hockey league in north America. There is absolutely no doubt that the NHL is in fact the best hockey league in the world. Thus the sentence should be written as: the National Hockey League (NHL) is the highest level for men (worldwide), and the most popular. 24.200.93.100 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That comment isn't about being the best, its about being the highest level. ie the top of the pyramid. In other countries other leagues are the highest level in their countries pyramid. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Coppercurls (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC) The major difference between men and women’s hockey is that checking is not allowed in women’s games. ^[4] Between athletes, coaches, and crowds, there are differing views on whether this is a good or bad thing. Many people feel that without formal checking there is the potential for the game to be based more on skill. ^[4] However, there is a certain lack of primal excitement for a crowd watching a game with no checking. Men’s sports are viewed as an acceptable outlet for violence and aggression both for the athletes, and the crowd. ^[5] Women are not expected to have the same need to express aggression and are viewed as more fragile, so checking does not seem appropriate for women’s hockey. Unfortunately, without checking the game is perceived by many as less exciting and more feminine, despite the incredible skill demonstrated by the athletes.

Hockey – like most sports or career paths idolized by our society – has long been male dominated. As a result, male hockey players are paid more and are able to shape culture through their sport.

Huh? Do you want this included? Please read

WP:TALK it will help you understand what talk pages are for. Dbrodbeck (talk

) 21:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check out

WP:OR as well. Dbrodbeck (talk

) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

But I think it's not correct that the article keeps repeating ice hockey at every reference, particularly when the field hockey article does not do that. That is not balanced. That makes it sound as though field hockey is default hockey, and ice hockey is just some variant.

Compare the solution with association football and American football. In both articles, unless they've changed since the last time I looked, each sport is given its full name in the title of the article and at first reference, but thereafter is just called football, except perhaps when making comparisons between them.

That's a correct solution, and that's what we should do at the two hockey articles.

The argument about the international governing bodies is not a good one. The most important ice hockey body in the world is not the IIHF. It's the NHL. I expect there's probably officially some international governing body for American football as well, and it presumably calls it American football, but that doesn't matter; we still use football at second reference in articles about American football. --Trovatore (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's North American centrism at its worst. Sad. Field hockey is known as hockey in far more places than ice hockey is known as hockey. And it came first. It shouldn't have to adapt to the fact that half the North American ice hockey fans don't even know the other form exists, and that it's played in far more places than ice hockey is known as hockey. And it came first. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not North American centrism — I'm calling for a neutral solution.

WP:ENGVAR

that no English variety is to be considered preferred over the others.

Now, I could also accept the other solution, whereby both articles always use the unambiguous form. It seems unnecessary to me, but it is closer to the current state (there are lots of instances of "field hockey" in the field hockey article). Can we reach a neutral agreement along those lines? If not, then HiLo, given that I intuit (based on admittedly circumstantial evidence) that you are not particularly interested in ice hockey, I think you should leave the ice hockey article alone and permit those who are interested in it to decide how to refer to the sport at second reference. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Calling it 'Ice Hockey' all of the time is simply sloppy writing. It is quite clear when reading the ice hockey article, for example, that the variant that is being discussed is, in fact the kind where you wear skates and what not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in all sports Trovatore. I also know that a lot of North Americans are surprised when they grow up, having been misled over the real name of ice hockey, and then discover that there's another, older, more globally known sport with the name hockey. I didn't. I was aware of both sports from a very young age. You are demanding that North American conventions be applied to articles about what you insist on calling field hockey. And Dbrodbeck, in my country, all discussions about ice hockey use that complete name virtually all the time. It's how the sport is known here. It's not sloppy here. To just say hockey would be sloppy. I don't see why the rest of the world should bend to your countrymen's needs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, I am not in fact demanding that North American conventions be applied to articles on field hockey. My preferred solution is that articles on ice hockey should call it hockey at second reference, and symmetrically for articles on field hockey. I would, however, find it acceptable to use the term ice hockey everywhere, provided the symmetrical convention were followed in articles on field hockey.

Your references to the "real name" of ice hockey amount to insisting on your own variety of English, contrary to

WP:ENGVAR. There's a banner at the top of this talk page, explaining that this article is written in Canadian English. I think it's pretty hard to dispute that, in Canadian English, the unmodified word hockey refers to ice hockey. --Trovatore (talk

) 01:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying about why the rest of the world shouldn't bend to one countries needs. But if you actually look at the situation the vast majority of readers of the page are likely coming from the places that do just call it just hockey. 73% of the registered hockey players in the world come from two countries. The percentage only gets higher when I start adding in the other countries above that use just hockey. Or since you had been trying to argue that only English speaking countries should count when deciding. If you go by that metric then Australia and New Zealand are the only two fully English countries that don't call it just hockey. You keep trying to indicate people here don't know there is such a thing as field hockey but that is insane considering it is played a lot in North America. But barring all those arguments people are already on a page called Ice Hockey and have already been told in the first sentence that it is ice hockey so using hockey farther down in the article is not confusing because we have already explained what version of hockey we are talking about. I would note that field hockey also started in 1849 if you read its article and ice hockey started in atleast 1810. Making ice hockey the older. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't accept that final claim. As for who uses just hockey for field hockey, you must include the UK, Holland, Germany, (and here's the killer blow) India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I believe the game is still proclaimed as India's national sport, and that dates from before the separation of those nations. So now we're talking of well over a billion people. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You "simply don't accept" his final claim, so we're just supposed to believe you? Not that it matters even slightly, of course, so the question is of purely intellectual interest. How many people use "hockey" to mean "field hockey", or in how many places, also does not matter even slightly. This is the ice hockey article, written in Canadian English, and here "hockey" means "ice hockey", with no danger of confusion. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My point about the countries was a reference to your comment that "those countries don't speak English". None of the 6 countries you mention are English speaking nations except the UK which tends to use both. But as Trovatore mentions, this is an article about ice hockey so it isn't going to confuse anyone which form of hockey we are talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We (in the UK) use Hockey (meaning field) and Ice Hockey. However, since their is so much ambiguity between countries, using full names in the title, then hockey there after, makes sense to all countries, English speaking or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.113.194 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's not necessary to frame this discussion as having anything to do with nationalisms or regionalisms. Compare the case of water skiing. I am (in theory, though I haven't actually done it in some time) a (snow) skiier, and to me "skiing", unmodified, means snow skiing. Snow skiing is certainly the older, and I would venture to say that most people, coming across the word "skiing" in a neutral context, will interpret it to mean snow skiing.

But I would never go to the water skiing article and demand that every instance of the word "skiing" be prepended with "water"! That would just be silly. It's the bloody article about water skiing; of course "skiing" in that context is going to mean water skiing.

HiLo, I can't believe you can't see this. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the nickname section have hockey in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)