Talk:Ice hockey/Archive 3

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Not sure why I was reverted but "ice hockey" is commonly referred to as hockey in parts of the world. Therefore its justified to include it under the nickname section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense to me. Americans and Canadians use that name almost exclusively for the game, but it's not the name of this article, and cannot ever be because of the widespread use of "Hockey" to mean other things elsewhere in the world, particulalry Field hockey. "Nickname" fits the bill perfectly. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Likewise the term is ambiguous. Hockey can refer to ice hockey in Europe and North America, like field hockey in other regions. But both sports use hockey as their "nick name" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "nickname". That implies it's not the proper name. Both ice hockey and field hockey, in context, are just called "hockey". --Trovatore (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's obfuscation. It's clearly NOT the proper name. That's "ice hockey". It simply IS a nickname. A very common one, but a nickname all the same. Kinda like "Mitt" Romney. Everyone calls him that, but it's obviously not his proper name. So what do we call it? We call it his nickname! HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Likewise with field hockey. So both should have it under the nickname column instead. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not nicknames. Nicknames are informal things that people make up, that you wouldn't necessarily guess from the name itself. You know, like "rugger" for rugby football or "pigskin" for American football. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I too don't think it is a nickname, really I mean then the NHL, SHL and KHL, for example, would be using a so called nickname in their league names. The game is called hockey, in the proper context. Just as field hockey is called hockey, in the proper context Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But nor is it the proper or correct name. So how would you describe it? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is, in fact, the proper correct name. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you know that's not really a helpful response. Although maybe "common name in North America" could work. In far more places field hockey is the more common or only version of hockey played. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the real name, period; whether you find that "helpful" or not. The word is ambiguous; it means ice hockey or field hockey depending on circumstance, but that doesn't make it any less the correct name. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with Trovatore here. Hockey is it's real name. Ice is just a disambiguator. If anything I would be more likely to consider ice hockey the nickname (though it isn't one) than I would to think hockey was. As Trovatore says its real name depends on the context. -DJSasso (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DJ and Trovatore. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? Moving the article to hockey? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we have an article at Hockey which covers all the versions. As mentioned when we have more than one article with the same name we use disambiguators. Sometimes we have to be creative about what we use. In this case we don't have to because there are natural disambituators which are already in use throughout the world, ice and field respectively. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ice Hockey is merely a variant of

Field Hockey

played on ice. The original game of Hockey only ever started to be called 'Field Hockey' to distinguish between the two variants when Ice Hockey came about.

So Ice Hockey is a variant of Field Hockey, which was originally and properly called 'Hockey' long before Ice Hockey existed. The clue is in the naming; 'Hockey' + 'Ice'.

The original game was just called 'Hockey' and still is in most places - I think 'Field Hockey' is the IOC term for the game, again to distinguish it from Ice Hockey. Ice Hockey is traditionally played in countries that have cold winters with plenty of frozen (and safe) areas to play on. That's why it became popular in places such as North America and Eastern Europe. The game is less popular in Britain - where hockey originated - simply because the winters aren't reliably cold enough to play on frozen ponds, lakes, etc. safely and reliably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.72 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In Germany "Hockey" refers to field hockey, and "Eishockey" (= "ice hockey") refers to ice hockey.

See the official bodies,

Deutscher Hockey Bund (German Hockey Association) = field hockey Deutscher Eishockey Bund (German Ice Hockey Association) = ice hockey

So the introduction of the wiki article is wrong and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.244.70 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Have to agree with you here, especially as the top level league is the Deutsche Eishockey Liga. I would suggest Finland/Russia (whose top league uses just "hockey" and where field hockey does not seem to be widely played - Russia/USSR has never sent a team to the

Hockey World Cup) as a replacement, but am not familiar enough to say for certainty. Or as a second option, the very ambiguous "and some parts of North and Central Europe" Ravendrop

09:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is, not what they refer to it in German, but what they refer to it in English because as you know we are English Wikipedia. As in the above talk section there are sources from English language German news papers that use just hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How much does the puck weigh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.233.37 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talks about it in the Hockey puck#In ice hockey article if you want to take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The recent findings of Swedish sports historians Carl Gidén and Patrick Houda suggest that this Category may not be justified. See: Houda, P. and Gidén, C. (2014), On the Origin of Hockey. Hockey Origin Publishing,

) 22:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an age old debate. The question comes down to when is it hockey and when was it a precursor to hockey. For example the natives in Canada were playing a game with a name that resembled hockey (Hogee) long before white people were even on the continent. Heck forms of it without skates were played in Egypt. At what point do you drawn the line. Most research would indicate the game as we know it today started in Canada while obviously drawing in pieces of other earlier sports. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that one essential for ice hockey would be ice, not that easy to find in Egypt. Is your argument based on the name, deriving from Hogee? But if it's a "debate", that has no clear answer, perhaps there ought to be two Categories - Category: Sports originating in Canada and Category: Sports originating in England? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My point was more along the lines of at what point do we switch from something being just a precursor to being the actual sport. For example all the rules and game play we know as ice hockey was invented by a university student in Windsor, Nova Scotia and the first organized game was played in Montreal. My argument is that while skating around on the ice with a ball/puck is similar to hockey, without the rules of hockey then it can easily be argued that it isn't yet hockey. Its just a game that resembles hockey. Just like bandy which everyone knows was played in England for a long time is similar to hockey but doesn't have the same rules or game play as hockey so it isn't hockey. I would be more agreeable to both being listed than removing the Canadian one. What I meant about an age old debate was that every few years another place lays claim to being the birthplace. In hockey circles its an ongoing argument about whose area it really started in. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the sentence "Hockey on ice as we know it originated in the United Kingdom and migrated to Canada in the early 1800's" was there before I arrived, sorry. It's not every day we have a whole book published "On the Origin of Hockey". But I'd agree that "invention" is a problemtaic term to use when discussing te origin of many team games, which can have divesre precursors and which may have shown a gradual development in the codificatiom of a standard set of rules. I'd see nothing wrong with retaining that sentence and qualifying with "It has recently been suggested that.. " , or whatever. After all, we are not trying to establish "the truth" here, but simply produce a fair report of what researchers have said? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, as I mentioned in my first summary that the info should be mentioned in some fashion, just not stated as definite. If we can reword it in a way that it mentions that recently it has been suggested then that would be I think more beneficial. I admit I obviously haven't read the book yet as it just came out days ago so I don't know how they have worded it in their book and I only see news articles reporting on it which often tend to make books sound much more sensational than what they actually contain. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The book has certainly received a lot of attention on the press. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how investigating the origins of the game affect the history of the sport. The sport has a clear history dating back to the game in Montreal. There is no evidence of any organized indoor ice hockey prior to that. That has been recognized by the IIHF. What there was, was games of stick and ball, played anywhere. Alaney2k (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. Is that what Houda and Gidén say in their 286-page book? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have dug up something new, which I would have heard about. They are members of SIHR, as am I. Their research is readily available on sihrhockey.org. The book is a compilation of their research. I don't think the contents of this book contradicts anything in this article. Alaney2k (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the (insider) clarification. I was just surprised that a 286-page book could be summarised in 44 words. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think that the number of pages in a book has any relation to the quality of the content.--Asher196 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue is really that when Houda and Giden release any findings on the origins is that it is sensationalized by the media. It gets lost that there were games such as shinney and ice polo developed in North America. Somehow, finding evidence of skaters with sticks and balls or bungs is played up as some place or other having "invented" the game. Ice hockey is clearly the amalgam of all sorts of informal games. The modern sport of ice hockey was clearly developed in Montreal from many influences. And I use the word sport deliberately. I sincerely doubt we will ever find an inventor of the ancient games. It is the "grail" of these researchers, it seems. But we do know where the modern sport originated. Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ice hockey is clearly *not* the amalgam of all sorts of informal games. Ice hockey came naturally to field hockey players who played their game on ice, and usually with skates, when there was a frost, which happened at least once nearly every year in England (there are records of skating for at least 98 of the 100 years between 1800 and 1899 in England). You can't say that "the modern sport of ice hockey was clearly developed in Montreal from many influences" when the rules used by the first hockey players in Montreal were in fact a subset of the rules of the Hockey Association (HA, England's association of field hockey) with very few, and mostly minor, changes. There is no reasonable definition of hockey that would include all the games played in Montreal since 1875 and exclude all the games played in England prior to that year (there are games for which we have the score, the duration of the game, the duration of the intermission, the names of the players, the names of the scorers and even the times of the goals). Also, your first statement on this thread mentions "indoor". Since when is hockey played outdoors not hockey? Many Olympic ice hockey tournaments would contradict that. I would also comment on "That has been recognized by the IIHF." What they recognized was in 2008. Research did not stop then. Mpj81 (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually that isn't true about the first rules in used in Montreal. The rules used in the first game in Montreal were known as the "Halifax Rules" which were different than the straight up field hockey rules. Subsequent games in Montreal did use rules similar to field hockey. However, hockey had been played by different rules from field hockey in Halifax-Dartmouth for decades before that. Montreal reverted to field hockey like rules for a short period but overtime began to regain some of the older Halifax rules. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source indicating that the first game in Montreal was played with the Halifax rules? They could have used the earlier Teddington/Surbiton field hockey rules. Note that the Wikipedia entry for the Halifax Rules does not provide any source and gives the year that journalist James Power first started his career rather than the year the Halifax rules were published, which was 1943 (in the Halifax Herald - also note that rules #7 and #8 even contradict one another). See the book On His Own Side of the Puck, by Iain Fyffe, pages 12-17. Mpj81 (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope it has big print and lots of pictures. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Petty nationalists are in for a disappointment as Canadians didn't get separate citizenship until the 1920s, so the originators of the game would all have been British subjects anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.72 (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Google Books, bandy was more written about than ice hockey until sometime in the 1970's, see https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bandy%2Chockey+on+the+ice%2Cice+hockey&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbandy%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chockey%20on%20the%20ice%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cice%20hockey%3B%2Cc0 , and I think this ought to be reflected in this encyclopedia, but still, Wikipedia has much more information about ice hockey. How come? Is it just because ice hockey is more popular nowadays and since Wikipedia started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.120.178 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. See

WP:RECENTISM. HiLo48 (talk

) 06:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Should there be more coverage of bandy, perhaps, then go work on bandy articles. It is not that big a deal for this article. There should probably be more articles on many other topics as well. The fact that bandy and hockey are similar after a fashion is really a red herring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is sour grapes of a user who was blocked for sock puppeting to push bandy. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/891 mm/Archive#08 May 2014. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The guessed at, hypothetical motives of a questioner does not negate a question. HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It does if it is a question that has been answered for the person time and again and they are posting just to try and make a point.. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So says the guy who does it all the time. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the topic, rather than other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I was discussing the topic. ie the nature of the post. It didn't turn to other editors until you decided to be confrontational. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're doing it again. There is a difference between disagreeing and being confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is, but that wasn't the case in this instance. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Simply stating yes and recentism is not helpful and just insults editors. It's hard enough to get and retain editors without sniping. Everyone works on their topic of interest. Related to this topic of increasing content on bandy is a proposal to develop a task force or something being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Bandy. Maybe something will develop out of there. Alaney2k (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I should also note your graph is not accurate either, because in North America, ice hockey isn't called ice hockey, it is called simply hockey. If you type in hockey into your graph it passes bandy in 1905. Admittedly that is also not super accurate as it would end up including other forms of hockey if you did it that way. All in all it goes to show comparing in this manor is pretty useless. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. The term "ice hockey" is relatively recent. For a long time, both forms of hockey (field and ice) were simply called "hockey", either because they were simply seen as two different ways of practicing the same activity (as in England in the 19th century) or because context was sufficient to determine which one was being talked about (in Canada, hockey = ice hockey; in India, hockey = field hockey). By the logic of that graph, you will probably also find that "Snowboard" is more popular than "Downhill ski" or "Alpine ski".Mpj81 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an illustration captioned "Winter landscape, with skaters playing Golf (Hendrick Avercamp, 17th-century Dutch painter)". Shouldn't this be colf? WikiParker (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What is colf? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A possibly naive question (I'm really not very knowledgeable about hockey) relating to this edit: What happens if you pick up your skate, and intentionally set it down on the ice where the puck will hit it, but without kicking? Is that legal or not? If it is legal, then I think 71.14.191.130 kind of had a point. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked into who put the dubious tag on the article, but I created the section here. Maybe you'd care to discuss. Alaney2k (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have removed it because its a pretty obvious true fact. If they wish to re-add it they an come and discuss it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't bandy players play hockey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:210:61C7:B15A:493F:7FA2:8A5D (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

They do. Bandy is a form of hockey, just like ice hockey is. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141213033639/http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canada/article.jsp?content=47048 to http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canada/article.jsp?content=47048#continue

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

:Online 09:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hockey on ice is up for discussion, see the RfD. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the section: Game, the article says that an ice-hockey "roster" consists of 22 players (20 players 2 goalies). Only 20 of them play (18 players and 2 goalies). What are the other two for? For instance do they act as injury substitutes? Also how is a defenceman added to make a seventh man? Why don't teams always choose to play seven players instead of six?

LookingGlass (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The article includes all the relevant information to the topic and presents it in a well written format with reliable sources to support it. There are some structural edits that could be made to improve the reading comprehensibility of the article.

• In the section of the article labeled Injury, there is only in-depth information about head injuries yet it was discussed that there are many different injuries that can be abstained from playing ice hockey.

• In the section Tactics, there are three main subdivisions: “Checking”, “Offensive tactics”, and “Fights”. The article states that “an important defensive tactic is checking,” but doesn’t include any other defensive tactics. Possibly change the “Checking” subdivision to “Defensive tactics” and expand upon these kind of strategies.

• The subdivision “Fights” seems out of place where it currently is. The subdivision “Pond hockey” under Leagues and championships also seems randomly misplaced. Perhaps make each of these into their own sections. “Fights” could be a section under Game, after or as a part of “Penalties” while “Pond hockey” could be a section under History. Jmmcgill (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Came looking for the length of the intermission (for the IIHF final going into OT) but there doesn't appear to be an entry on the page. It's a minor thing, but seems like a useful fact to work into the page somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.233.187 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK these vary basically between every league. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ice hockey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714041722/http://www.marquetteironrangers.com/kar.htm to http://www.marquetteironrangers.com/kar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is time we start calling the sport hockey in the article after the lead paragraph. It is extremely redundant to keep saying ice hockey all the time. Furthermore more people view the ice hockey page than field hockey (which has transitions into just saying hockey on its page). Furthermore ice hockey consistently gets more page views [2] and therefore its fair to say that is the "hockey" people are looking for. Thanks. 204.187.67.25 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree — "ice hockey" should be used at first reference (maybe per section), and when comparing the sport with other forms of hockey. But there's no need to keep repeating "ice" at every mention. Compare with football — the Canadian football article doesn't keep saying "Canadian"; it's understood that that's the code being discussed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd also agree. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As for not needing to repeat it, the issue is that the topic is ice hockey, not just hockey. To start just calling it hockey through the article would be systemically biased towards the countries that just call it hockey and the vast majority of the world calls it ice hockey. And that is coming from someone who calls it hockey. I would also point out the Canadian Football page does use it throughout the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really repetition, it's being specific. Like ice hockey federation, etc. A lot of the countries have x number of other hockey federations. So you can't really drop it to the absolute minimum. Alaney2k (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. This does not seem to be a serious problem. The topic is "ice hockey", not any of the other types. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If we limited ourselves to serious problems, a lot of Wikipedians would have nothing to do :-)

Sure, but that's the point — the reader knows what kind of hockey is being discussed. There's no need to keep repeating it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Lol. True and true. No need and no harm, either. I don't have any objection. Your suggestion above is fine with me. Alaney2k (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I did look at the field hockey article. I could not determine any standard for use of field hockey or hockey through the article. The term field hockey is used 67 times, so it's not once for field hockey and then done. The Canadian football article is smaller and maybe not a good comparison. And, looking at the ice hockey article, it seems like "ice hockey" is used the most in the lead paragraphs, but a lot of that is titles of competitions, or terms, like ice hockey federations. Alaney2k (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Hockey should appear in the lead as well. A lot of people call the sport simply hockey across North America/Europe. So that should be noted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It is actually mentioned in the lead. It is in bold even. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether it should be mentioned; it's whether there is still a consensus to keep repeating "ice", as per your revert here. My view is that "ice" is currently repeated excessively. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am aware, Sportsfan seemed to be of the opinion we didn't already mention it in the lead and we do in the last paragraph and in bold. My opinion as I mentioned in reply to you above is that it is not excessive, the sport is ice hockey, just dropping down to hockey would be favoring one part of the worlds terminology for the sport of ice hockey. It is being specific, not excessive. -DJSasso (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I see "ice" as disambiguation. There is no need to disambiguate once context is established. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Djsasso I mean "hockey" by itself and not with the ice attached to it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I don't see much need for the "also called hockey" language. I would just call it "ice hockey" at first reference and when making distinctions, and just silently drop the "ice" in other instances, without bothering to explain why. The final paragraph of the lead covers it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Look farther down the lead Sportsfan1234. Hockey by itself in bold. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ice hockey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813141916/http://www.library.dal.ca/archives/trela/letters/262fisher25jan54.htm to http://www.library.dal.ca/archives/trela/letters/262fisher25jan54.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cdn.nhl.com/rules/20062007rulebook.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110125132212/http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Highest-ice-hockey-game-attendance/blog/3099369/7691.html to http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Highest-ice-hockey-game-attendance/BLOG/3099369/7691.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130201014131/http://canadiantirehockeyschool.ca/video/mandatory-equipment to http://www.canadiantirehockeyschool.ca/video/mandatory-equipment

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In the Women's Hockey section, there is a quote that reads, "In Canada, to some extent ringette has served as the female counterpart to ice hockey, in the sense that traditionally, boys have played hockey while girls have played ringette.[citation needed]" I do not think that this line should be included. I do not know why there would be discussion of women not playing hockey when this section is quite explicitly about women who play hockey. Ringette is irrelevant. In addition, there is no citation for this sentence. If there is not a citation, why should it be kept in? I would like to delete it. --Gxbes (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removal. Although it is likely true that women tend to play ringette more than men it is unsourced and oddly placed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with it staying or going since it is unsourced. But up until recently, in Canada at least. Ringette was considered "women's hockey". So it is somewhat relevant from a historical standpoint. It probably isn't really true currently with the more recent growth of women's hockey. It probably should have a source found and that fact in some form should probably be in that section. -DJSasso (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Source added. There are likely better sources if I looked longer, but considering ringette was specifically invented to be women's hockey (dispite women actually playing hockey for 100 years) it does warrant mention in a section about women's hockey history. -DJSasso (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be real with you here, I don't like that sentence very much. But thank you for at least putting in a source for it. I understand that it has history as a sort of form of women's hockey. Since it is now sourced, I can't be too mad that it is included. However, I still think its placement is wrong. Since ringette is more of a historical sport than a current sport, would it be better to include it earlier in the paragraph? Leaving it where it is at the end communicates that it is still heavily used as a counterpart to men's ice hockey, and I do not think it has that sort of modern relevancy. If we can not remove it, can we at least move it? --Gxbes (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue where it goes in the section, just that it probably belongs there somewhere. It is still hugely played and might even still be played more than women's hockey at the younger ages, but I didn't go looking for that kind of information so it doesn't matter to me where it goes in the section. -DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The section dedicated to women's hockey is out of date. The most recent information present is from 2011. Many of the links in this section also lead to pages that are similarly underdeveloped and not current. The amount of information on men's ice hockey and men's ice hockey leagues is disproportionate to the amount of information on women's ice hockey. There are no mentions of professional women's hockey or its leagues on this page. Gxbes (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Some information from 2015 has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.71.98 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The templates {{ihj|CZE}} and {{ihj-rt|CZE}} are currently rendered as

) 19:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kompik: The template was changed this morning, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Czechia. But it should not have been changed so abruptly and we are working on fixing it. Yosemiter (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kompik: JFG seems to have fixed everything now. Yosemiter (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The Game section first compares the offside/onside nature of play with rugby, and then goes on to state: With the arrival of offside rules, the forward pass transformed hockey into a true team sport.

I'm dismayed with this wording. Even if the statement were true, and it isn't, it makes both codes of rugby look awful in an article nobody would expect. Splićanin (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It actually is correct, and I am not sure how it makes rugby look awful? It is just contrasting two different styles that different sports use as a way of explaining something. It isn't disparaging at all. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not correct since rugby football is a true team sport. Splićanin (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Splićanin: It could probably use more context here, but the gist of the source used, written by Ken Dryden, was the initial set of rules were made by off-season rugby players including the use of the on-side rules. However, unlike in rugby, this caused hockey to be very individualistic because of differences in handling a rugby ball vs a puck with a stick (ie, most points were scored without any immediate assists). So the statement the forward pass transformed hockey into a true team sport is solely about hockey becoming a team sport, and does not mean to retroactively imply that rugby was/is not because of its on-side rules. Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This explanation is a step in good direction. You should transfer it onto the article. Current wording is laughable and pitiful at the same time. Splićanin (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tbartlett16. Peer reviewers: Yuhanqiu, Mikeiwata.

Above undated message substituted from

) 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gxbes.

Above undated message substituted from

) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)