Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive3

This page 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.

1992-93 Western Ontario Championship, lost provincial title game in game 5 to Toronto.

Brent Marsh - team captain - 6'3" 225lbs strong playmaker - 60 assists. Good leader and very physical- died October 1993 in Napoli via car accident, he was 24 years old.

Kelly McCabe - 5'10" 175lbs finesse style - natural goal scorer - 35 + goals in 40 games was good enough to lead team. Played college hockey in Hamilton before signing as temp player in Florida's semi-pro Sunshine Hockey League.

Darius Grant - 6'1" 195lbs - drafted in supplemental by New York in 1991 - played for Syracuse of the AHL and now coaches at a Division II school in upstate NY.

Hamilton Blackhawks Junior B hockey club - Best season was 1992-93, won Western Ontario Region. Notable players: Brent Marsh - 44 GP 19 G 60 A 79 PTS, drafted by Philadelphia in 1992, went to play in Italy 1993 and was killed in an automobile accident. Kelly McCabe - 44 GP 37 G 40 A 77PTS, played concurrently for the Marauders, later played in SHL in the USA. John Frankel - 44 GP 2 G 10 A 12PTS, drafted by New Jersey in 1993, played sporadically for the Devils, Bruins and Avalanche before retiring in 1999. Any other info on this team- file with Hockey Legends

Your help is requested to help document the history of the Toronto Marlboros Junior A hockey club article I recently created. It operated for over 80 years and deserves an adequate entry. Please add your historical knowledge. Thanks. Flibirigit 14:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly regulars at this WikiProject are arrogant and unwelcoming... so says

21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very much so, considering him barging into this WikiProject and ordering us around. I am all for people coming in and making contributions before they tell us how we ought to be doing things, and have little respect for those who can't be troubled. Ravenswing 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here have a knowledge of Quebec Junior hockey? DMighton 06:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are you talking QMJHL hockey or Quebec Jr. A or Jr. B, etc? Croat Canuck 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Quebec Junior Hockey Leage (QJHL) was the precursor to the modern day
  Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL). In 1969, junior hockey split into Major Junior and Junior divisions. This is similar to what happed with the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA) in 1972, producing Tier I (now the Ontario Hockey League (OHL)), and Tier II which is governed by the OHA. Flibirigit
  14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you need translation help for french web sites then go to [1] then cut & paste the URL to get the entire document traslated. Flibirigit 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I speak French if we're looking to translate hockey articles.  RasputinAXP  c 16:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Rasputin.. could you query this topic in french wikipedia? Flibirigit 16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • fr-wiki has a long article that is fundamentally the same, except for the two paragraphs at the end; one contrasts the Q with the OHL and the WHL and the other is the effect the NHL lockout had on the league last year. I can parse them and move them into the article, if that's what you're asking for. It's not referenced, though.  RasputinAXP  c 17:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • That would be great for the English version of the
          Quebec Major Junior Hockey League article. Please add those paragraphs. But I was hoping there was some history for lower junior levels today, or anything prior to 1969. Flibirigit
          18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Sure, I'll plug it in. There's nothing there history-wise that isn't already covered, though. It's been put in there, and I orgot to sign my name. Doh!  RasputinAXP  c 19:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• This would be great if some one new something about that league and its history. See
  ccwaters
  16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I'm talking Junior "AAA", Junior "AA", Junior "A"... and the Junior "BB"/"B" Leagues. Respectively, these leagues would equal to Tier II Jr A, Jr B, Jr C, and loosely Jr D (and maybe what we used to call Jr E). I'm looking for histories translated, champions, leagues I may have missed, information and W-L-T records for their most famous teams. My girlfriend is bilingual, but she doesn't understand sports terminology... so it's been a strugle.... and I would like it if someone could lend a hand. I am especially having a problem with this right now, the regions seem to be their own leagues according to Hockey Quebec regional websites... but this page (seemingly a governing body) hasn't been updated since 2005, leaving me to search out 5 or 6 individual leagues in a language I do not understand all over the internet. DMighton 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Give me links and what info you're trying to pull out and I'll give you a hand.  RasputinAXP  c 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Defi Junior A Montreal-Metropolitain
• Lac St-Louis Junior "AA" The teams names for 10 or so centres in the Junior "AA" League
• A website for Bas St-Laurent Junior "AA"... and the information in that

• All of hockey quebec is broken in regions and 7 or 8 of those regions have their own system of Junior hockey... the highest being Junior "AA"... so anything that can be found... I've been mostly google-ing for these leagues... but have found it tough. For leagues I am looking for info on from Quebec... look at "my page" and any Quebec league there... I need help with. DMighton 19:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are the leagues I've been working with:

• Quebec Junior AAA Hockey League
• Ligue de Hockey de La Capitale
• Ligue de Hockey Junior AA Bas St-Laurent
• Ligue de Hockey Junior AA Beauce-Bellechasse
• Ligue de Hockey Junior AA Estrie-Mauricie
• Ligue de Hockey Junior AA Lac St-Louis
• Ligue de Hockey Junior AA Laurentides-Lanaudière
• Ligue de Hockey Junior de Montréal
  (Defunct)
• Ligue de Hockey Junior AA Richelieu
• Ligue de Hockey Junior AA Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean
• Ligue de Hockey Junior A Bois Francs
• Ligue de Hockey Junior A Rive-Sud

And there are plenty more I haven't got to yet in the Junior "A", "BB", and "B" categories.

Your help is needed to clear up the following:

• The
  Montreal Jr. Canadiens
  team in the OHA played from 1961 until the end of the 1972 season. The OHL media guide states that the Jr. Canadiens suspsended operations at that time. The QMJHL media guide states otherwise. See below.
• I believe that the Montreal Jr. Canadiens changed names to the
  QMJHL
  media guide, and the roster from the 1971-72 Jr. Canadiens has many similar players to the roster from the 1972-73 Bleu-Blanc-Rouge.
• A team named the Kingston Canadians started playing in the Ontario Hockey Association for the 1973-74 season. The OHL media guide claims that it is the re-activated Jr. Canadiens franchise.

Questions

• Were the Montreal Bleu-Blanc-Rouge an expansion team to the QMJHL in 1972, that signed players from the defunct Montreal Jr. Canadiens?
• Were the Kingston Canadians an expansion team to the OHA in 1973?
• Is there any common ownership between the Montreal Jr. Canadiens and the Kingston Canadians?

Possible scenario #1

• The Montreal Jr. Canadiens suspended operations after in 1972
• the players from that team are released to play elsewhere, some of them sign with the expansion team Montreal Bleu-Blanc-Rouge
• The franchise resumes operations starting all over with a new name, new city and new players

Possible scenario #2

• The Montreal Jr. Canadiens are sold, switch leagues and change names. and take their players with them.
• The Kingston Canadians are an expansion franchise owned by the same people who controlled the Montreal Jr. Canadiens.

Possible scenario #3

• The Montreal Jr. Canadiens were one franchise that split into two separate entities in the Montreal Bleu-Blanc-Rouge and the Kingston Canadians.

Sources

• I have used the media guides from the OHL & QMJHL, as well as roster and players statistics from www.hockeydb.com & www.legendsofhockey.net
• Could someone please provide concrete evidence to explain this from citing a book, newspaper article, repuatable web site, or quote a reputable person?

Thanks alot !! Flibirigit 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that the Kingston Canadians are an expansion team, separate from the Jr. Canadiens. Perhaps the OHL media guide was implying that it was re-activated in much of the same way the Cleveland Barons of the AHL were the re-incarnation of the Cleveland Barons of the NHL, or that the Toronto Marlies of the AHL are a re-incarnation of the Toronto Marlboros of the OHL. The one season hiatus in between the extinction of the Jr. Canadiens and the start of the Kingston Canadians also seems to point in the direction that they aren't the same franchises. On Hockey Draft Central [2], it says Ian Turnbull remained in the OMJHL (he played with the Ottawa 67's the next season) when his Jr. Canadiens moved to the QMJHL, thus becoming the bleu, rouge and blanc or whatever. Andre St. Laurent, another player from the same time, moved to the Red-White-Blue after playing for the Jr. Canadiens, and it says nothing about a transaction involving him in Hockey Draft Central, and it would have made mention of a trade or change of his property, but in the fact it says nothing probably implies that the Jr. Canadiens just moved into the QMJHL with a new name. It also makes sense in that this was the time of the increased use of the NHL Amateur Draft, and players could no longer sign that C-Form when they were 14 or 15 that said they belonged to the Habs or the Maple Leafs or whoever. So thus it wouldn't make sense to call the team the Jr. Canadiens anymore, since players from that team could be drafted by any team, in the NHL, so that might have been the reasoning for the name change. Hope this helps. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked around here, and I don't see any announcements here or on the NHL talk page that there was a change to the format of the team info boxes. When did this occur, and where was it announced? I've fixed up the Edmonton Oilers' page, but it strikes me that this is kind of annoying to do for all 30 teams, especially ones with long histories, and more importantly, makes the template way the hell too long, again, especially for the teams with long histories. I mean, that's four extra fields that now eats into the Oilers' (admittedly small) WHA history section--and this is a club that's only been in the NHL for 26 years. If this was a consensus reached among TPTB, then whatever, but I couldn't find any hint that a change was in the works. Doogie2K 04:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Also, I notice that it now seems to repeat a lot of information in the "Facts" section. Given that, would we not want to simply go with one or the other? Doogie2K 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer smaller info boxes. The larger boxes deter from reading the article. Flibirigit 14:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blame

ccwaters

14:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just did.

ccwaters

14:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love those over enthusiastic IP addresses... now if only an anonymous editor would complete team histories for me... LOL Flibirigit 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Awesome--glad I didn't delete the stuff when I entered it, but commented it out. ;) Doogie2K 15:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright... does anybody know what happened to the Ontario Provincial Junior "A" League, known in the 80's and early 90's as the Ontario Hockey Association, between the years of 1988 and 1993? I cannot find a list of champions... but I know it existed... possibly not at the Jr. A level. If it was Junior "B"... who were the champs during those years? Why did they not compete for the Sutherland Cup? I'm really confused... can anyone shed some light? DMighton 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, is there any agreed standard for the disabig part for a ice hockey player? I have seen several variants:

1. Name (hockey)
2. Name (ice hockey)
3. Name (hockey player)

What brought this to my attention was the Michael Green disambig page, is Mike Green (hockey) the same person as Mike Green (ice hockey), and if so, what should the article title be? I did look at some project pages, but couldn't find any discussion on this topic but it would be nice to have a consistant naming scheme. (Regards, MartinRe 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Right now I don't think there are any standards, but I think (hockey) is the most common and simplest solution. There have been some other players with multiple articles. If you do come across another please requesst a merger. I try to query possible article name for players when I do links but duplication do happen. Although in some cases there are several hockey players named "John Smith" in which all three of those bracketed disambiguations have articles. Flibirigit 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The (hockey player) one is definitely the worst of the three, and is too specific. I had this talk with User:Jerzy about this, and if you want to see the discussion it is on my talk page. But the disambig brackets are supposed to be as brief as possible. I personally think that it should be (hockey), although (ice hockey) suits just fine. (hockey player) isn't good though, and those pages should be moved to (hockey) or (ice hockey). I did a bunch of that a month and a half ago before my wiki-break. If i was pushing for a uniform standard, I would choose (hockey). Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So would I. Ravenswing 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with "hockey". -- JamesTeterenko 22:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a stick in the mud, but i am not happy with (hockey). Why? because there are other hockeys out there, such as ball hockey, roller hockey, field (grass) hockey. I think (ice hockey) is by far the best for ice hockey. Masterhatch 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also prefer (ice hockey) as the shortest non ambigious disambig qualifier. Otherwise, as Wikipedia grows, if two people with the same name play two different type of hockey, we might end up in a situation with pairs of articles "Name (hockey)/Name (ice hockey)" vs "Name (hockey)/Name (field hockey)" depending on who was named first. Also, from my original query, it appears that there are two Mike Greens playing ice hockey, what is the best way to disambig between this type of situation? By team is too fluid, nationality would be unlikely to be unique, year of birth perhaps? Or something else? MartinRe 10:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Year of birth is the standard version (see Billy Harris (b. 1935) and Billy Harris (b. 1952) in that situation. But there are even some more sticky situations, like the case of Stephane Richer, where there were two of them born in the same year. Then its anybody's guess. I personally don't worry about the inter-sport name problems (ice hockey, field hockey), etc. because other than ice hockey, there aren't that many people in other forms of hockey that are notable enough to warrant their own article. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the sticky situations, we could go with their full names or their middle initials if available. The NHL Official Guide & Record Book distiguished the Richers as

unsigned comment was added by Aottley (talk • contribs

) .

Updating Stats Argument

Here's a fresh idea for those stats that we don't want updated mid-season. Why don't we put one of those little disclaimers that don't show up in the article but only in the edit box saying something along the lines of "Please refrain from updating the statistics until the completion of the regular season" and put it on the top and/or bottom of the stats segments. Does that sound good? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me...just throw it in HTML comments (aka < ! - - without all them there spaces in between)  RasputinAXP  c 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Come to that, I've been considering putting a similar tagged disclaimer in the Hall of Fame sections saying "Do not edit this before seeing the Team Pages Format and discussing your intent in the Talk page." I say go for it. Ravenswing 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will do that, its been most bugging me with those top-ten scorers for each franchise list I put on, because people feel they need to update it, and since players totals for individual teams are harder to compile, it makes it a little Messier (no pun intended). Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Drumroll for the pun.....BOOOOOOOOOOOURNS!! Flibirigit 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I put it on all the franchise top-ten scorers list, and in the List of 1000 point scorers and List of 500 goal scorers. Those were the the things that those updaters were bugging me the most, if you have an annoying peeve with them somewhere else, feel free to put a disclaimer in yourself. (Hans Moleman: "I was saying Boo-urns!") Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so I am clear, your qualm is only with statistics such as regular season standngs, playoff standings, and specific player statistics, correct? Which means that rosters are still open and understandably altered throughout the season as players are injured, sent down, called up, etc., right?--Resident Lune 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah updating rosters are fine and should be encouraged. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated all of the CHL "alumni" categories for deletion to be renamed to "player" categories. If you have an opinion on this matter, please comment

19:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this deletion. The unique purpose of the CHL and other junior leagues are to graduate players to higher levels. Junior teams are alma mater and part of the production sytem for professional players. Accordingly the categories should be called "Alumni". Flibirigit 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely remember seeing a guideline/policy on sport figure articles that said they are wiki notable only if they reached the highest level of play (ie NHL). So we shouldn't see any current major junior players, only those that passed through to the big time. I really don't care, but I think that where Flibirigit is coming from. Now about that

ccwaters

20:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind seeing all the un-notable Spirit players deleted but the CHL alumni category should not be deleted, renamed, or otherwise touched. BoojiBoy 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as every Player that played for the Spirit.. I thought it a bit excessive, but as opposed to deleting it, I moved all those article links from the Saginaw Spirit Team Page to its own page, it was just toooo long. Flibirigit 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: the guideline at

ccwaters

20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Going back to the original question... Categories for Junior Teams should be listed as "Alumni," and categories for Professional Teams should be listed as "Players." Flibirigit 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is also OK to have categories of "Team A Players" for current players such as the hot prospects mentioned, but they should be moved to alumni as soon as the player graduates. BoojiBoy 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I created all those alumni categories a few months ago (a lot of work), and I do agree with Flibirigit, BoojiBoy, and Ccwaters in that it should stay alumni. That's what the purpose of the categories were to list players that graduated to the NHL level. That's my opinion. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; look, they don't let you play in juniors beyond a certain age. The word for former participants in a situation like that is "alumni". Ravenswing 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• One unrelated note about alumni categories: I have gone through them all while comparing them to a list of teams and found that there are two major missing (team) alumni categories: Category:St. Catharines Black Hawks alumni and Category:Calgary Centennials alumni. Those both will need to be populated. Also, Tri-City and Moncton subcats were missing from the WHL alumni and QMJHL alumni categories respectively but I have added them in. BoojiBoy 19:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah sorry about that, when I had been creating and populating those categories I was using the HockeyDB and since the leagues split in the late 70's, I only went back that far (although the QMJHL is a section). I knew that in time those older defunct junior teams from the early 70's and 1960's would be created and populated eventually, I just didn't have the gusto anymore to do it after creating and populating categories for over 100 junior teams. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You did great work too, I'm more just pointing out that there are still two missing (out of a hundred or so, which is pretty awesome!) BoojiBoy 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done a lot of work populating the Ontario Hockey League Arenas and the Quebec Major Juior Hockey League Arenas categories. Yesterday I started working on the Western Hockey League Arenas category and have populated it as well. The OHL and QMJHL categories are more or less complete to the best of my knowledge - I know of one missing O and two missing Q rinks, which I will create soon - but I have two questions about the WHL category that I'm hoping someone who knows the Dub better than I do can answer.

1, has

, but am not sure about the NHL building. In some ways this question will be redundant since the new WHL expansion team will play there, but I would like to know if we can add it to the category now. I suppose we can add it under future but I would still like to know if it is past as well.

2, An article in the Brandon Sun says the Wheat City Arena was demolished in 1969, and the Keystone Centre was built in 1972 according to the venue's website. Where did the Wheat Kings play between 1969-72, or is either source wrong? (Both sources are on the individual arena pages.) BoojiBoy 18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Rexall Place has not hosted a WHL team. The Ice played in

Northlands Agricom, and as you mentioned, the Oil Kings played at the Gardens. It is possible that the second incarnation of the Oil Kings (which lasted only one season: 1978-79) played there, but I do not know. I can't imagine the Oilers would have been all that happy to have the competition in the same building. Resolute

21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gardens was torn down after the Coliseum opened as far as I know, so the 78-79 Oil Kings probably played there. At any rate I have added it to the category since the new Edmonton WHL team has already been announced as playing there. BoojiBoy 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What does everyone think about making a template for players that show their career highs in stats? KD Rules 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I made something along those lines a while back, see Bob MacMillan. There are a few pages where that is used. But that is more temporary than anything, as hopefully someone with a lot of time on his hands will come along and extend those into complete career statistics tables, a la Mike Gartner. I don't know what purpose a template would serve if the full career statistics are already there. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that the logos have been removed from the

main page, with the reasoning being that they are more decorative than demonstrative. Now, so far, the season pages, draft pages, and other records pages haven't been touched at all, but I'm wondering if they will be/should be de-imaged in the near future. Does anyone here have any thoughts on this issue? And furthermore, is this really an issue of legal ass-covering, or is it simply a case of trying to avoid picture overkill and taking away from the "free encyclopedia" concept? Personally, I think, it's the Internet, a multimedia carrier, and that the full multimedia capabilities should be taken advantage of, so long as it does not harm the user experience (do 5-10 KB GIFs really make it hard?). Besides, I've found that teams generally tend to encourage use of the logo outside licensed contexts as a means of promotion (Calgarians: has anyone sued the guys that own that building in Sunnyside with the big, black Flames logo on the side facing the C-Train tracks?). Does using the logo in the season pages really matter that much, is I guess, the other major question I'm trying to get at.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doogie2K (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts. It's proper etiquette here. On your point, it's not really ass-covering - fair use images are only disallowed in all non-article and article-talk spaces, including Template space and Category space. I believe there is also a movement to replace all GIFs with PNGs whenever possible (that GIF royalty thing). The most likely reason is due to aesthetics: There may be a feeling that the images detract from the overall quality of the article. The season pages are really data-centric and will probably suffer from lack of quality until Wikidata comes along. Using logos there is okay as it follows Wikipedia conventions established in other sports.

One more thing: Sunnyside station is side-loading - both platforms face the tracks, and there are buildings on both sides of the station. kelvSYC 02:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You would have a great deal of trouble suing people for painting the Flames logo on something right now. Good times to be a Flames fan.  :)

Personally, I agree with the movement to seriously reduce the number of logos used in pages. In the WHL season pages I am building, I have used only one image in the 25 or so season pages I have: the WHL's 40th anniversary logo for this year. I might add the WHL logo shield for each year at some point, but I wont put team logos on for exactly this reason. I am not fond of the idea of putting the team logo beside each entry in the season-by-season pages. It's completely useless. I like them beside each team name on a league page under the "member teams" headings, but otherwise, I think a section marking a team's logo history in each team page is more than enough. Resolute 04:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Oops about the signing--usually remember. Sorry. Anyway, The GIF-royalty thing does make some sense. As for the aesthetic argument, I think it's just that: I personally don't think it detracts from anything, but I can see how others might disagree. Finally, the reason why I brought this up in the first place is because it happened at

2004-05 NBA season

, which suggests a change in the status quo here could be in the offing, too.

Also, I don't get what you're saying about Sunnyside. I know all about the orientation of the station--I pass through there every day on my way to work/school. Doogie2K 04:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I definitely think that having a team logo next to each line in a season-by-season record is way too much. --cholmes75 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks. I've benn pondering for a few days on creating pages for NHL season transactions. Example: "2005-2006 NHL Transactions" which will include all team-to-team roster movements for the specified year. What do you guys think - good or bad? Thricecube 20:28 PST, 11 April 2006

I think a trade register would be very useful, but for every transaction? Personally, I'm not sure that the recall and demotion of Mark Girodano is notable enough for inclusion. Resolute 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean every call-up and demotion and such, I mean strictly team-to-team transactions, such as the deadline, free agent signings, waiver claims and trades in general. Thricecube 8:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, yeah, you kinda said that, didn't you? That's what I get for commenting late at night. I like this idea. Resolute 21:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005-2006_nhl_transactions . I know it doesn't look that great; my table-making skills are less than desired, but I have plugged all the raw data in. Please, anyone, feel free to correct this uglyness. Thricecube 20:14. 12 April 2006 (PST)

You should consider moving it to

2005-06 NHL transactions. BoojiBoy

03:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing so myself. Should we add a references section? Either way, great job with the list. Well done. Resolute 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The page looks good. We should also probably have it for previous seasons and a main article for links to each season. -- JamesTeterenko 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll start to do the previous seasons tomorrow. Thricecube 06:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've completed all the data for the 2003-2004 season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003-04_NHL_transactions . If you look at the March trade deadline, you will notice that part of the table is out of sync with the rest. This is due to a 3-way trade involving Buffalo, Boston and San Jose. I have no idea how to line it up with the rest. So can some table-genuins please fix it up? Thanks. Thricecube 10:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Random question: are waivers included in this? For example, Ottawa claimed Mike Morrison from the Oilers at the trade deadline--how/should it be accounted for in the transactions articles? Doogie2K 16:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd list it exactly like a trade, only mention it in the box as a waiver deal. i.e.: "To Ottawa: Mike Morrison. To Edmonton: Waiver pickup" or something like that. Resolute 06:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we include this summer's trades and the draft day trades in 2005-2006 or 2006-2007? Thricecube 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think this summer's trades should be included into the next season as the current's season trades have been closed. --Maraulth 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated one of our members, Ravenswing, for adminship yesterday, and I feel I had to put a message in here for people to vote as the users in this WikiProject are the ones that deal with him the most on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it, and I'm sure he would, if you would vote on the matter. I'm not trying to rally everybody to vote "support", cuz your vote is obviously your choice, I just think it would be best that users here contribute to the discussion. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ravenswing. Thank You. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hah, beat you :P  RasputinAXP  c 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, and the anonymous sockpuppets are kicking in as well (although there's little doubt which charming friend of WikiHockey it is). That aside, thanks for your support and input, folks. Ravenswing 19:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, as long as I get your support if I'm ever put up for admin ;)  RasputinAXP  c 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a safe bet with no backscratching involved; you're a dedicated and skilled editor. Ravenswing 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of teams have "rivals" sections now, near the top. Are those really necessary? I think they might be a little POV. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 03:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think a rivals section is beneficial, however nowadays it has become POV (Toronto and Atlanta? C'mon). I would say the rivalries have to be obvious, like Toronto/Montreal, Toronto/Ottawa, Edmonton/Calgary, Boston/Montreal, Detroit/Colorado etc... Perhaps standards could be imposed to define "rival", whethers is because of geographical proximity, or a series of punch-ups spaced close together, or they seem to meet each other all the time in the playoffs. Something along those lines. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 14:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Edmonton-Dallas doesn't count, I dunno what does. These guys have played each other in six of the last eight playoffs--limited only by a pair of playoff misses by one or both participants--and going back even further, the last time both clubs made the playoffs without playing each other was

1990, when the Stars were in Minnesota. Doogie2K

16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And then this year they go without playing each other. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So far. You're assuming Edmonton can't beat Detroit. ;-) Doogie2K (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not it at all, I'm assuming Dallas can't beat Colorado! Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I say do away with the whole rivals listings on team pages. The article about rivalries is fine though, since you actually have to substaniate the rivalries which are claimed to exist, rather than just add the entire Eastern Conference as the rivals of the Carolina Hurricanes - a slight exaggeration of something I zapped earlier this year --Legalizeit 16:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just created Miracle on Manchester about the NHL greatest NHL playoff combck, and added it to the List of sporting comebacks. Kevlar67 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Every article on conferences and divisions only talk about divisional alignment, division champions, and teams that have won the Cup from that division, all of which could be inferred from either individual team pages or season pages. Divisions and conferences are otherwise not notable when they are created internal to a league (as opposed to say,

14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Playoff Pages

Do we really need to dedicate a separate article on the Stanley Cup playoffs? Why not incorporate them into the main season pages? After all, a season isn't over until the playoffs are over and the Cup is awarded. kelvSYC 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The playoff pages were created since certain contributors (mostly IP address) felt it absolutely necessary to make daily updates. Those playoffs sections are often taking up more space on article than the history and league information, and overall were detracting from the main article about the league. See: Ontario Hockey League. Although I do not think playoffs are a necessity, it keeps some contributors involved, and information is stored to make a season page in the future. Flibirigit 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the

2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs page, and I wanted to update it (now that the seeds in the Western Conference are finalized), so I looked for a previous playoffs page to compare it to, and as far as I can tell, it's the first one. Is there a plan to do pages for all the past Stanley Cup Playoffs? For every other year, it's just a subsection on the main season page. I feel that since Wikipedia articles are not news reports, it's not necessary to have a separate page when we could simply follow the old format, which merely reported on who won each series with a brief overview at the top of the section. The Disco King

19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a 1993 playoffs page that was so sparse on data it was eventually merged with the main season page. Our existing format does not allow for a separate page on the playoffs - it might be a holdover from other sports (Major League Baseball articles have separate articles for each round). And even our playoff sections are inconsistent - some only list the Stanley Cup Final, some list the final scores of each game, and some only list the number of games won and the number of goals scored. I have to admit NHL season articles are pretty bad (Canadian Football League season articles are worse, though). kelvSYC 05:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet, I'd also like to add that we do have the incentive to keep a separate page for the Stanley Cup playoffs - one is that it is not synonymous to the NHL playoffs, and another is that the 2006 one is surprisingly well written for a page with nothing but data on it. kelvSYC 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice to those who work on OHL-related stuff - the correct name of the team is Mississauga IceDogs, not Mississauga Ice Dogs. The alumni category (Category:Mississauga Ice Dogs alumni) is incorrectly named and will have to be moved; we can't do it while the current moving debate is going on but once that process is over it should be nominated for a speedy move. Be sure and use the correct notation in your articles when appropriate. BoojiBoy 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please visit

03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Playoff Picks

Alright, a little fun here, who do you guys have pegged for the Stanley Cup this year? My Pick(s) is the San Jose Sharks, with the Sens and the Flames being the two back-up picks. Is it possible to find consensus? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotta go with the Flames. The Stars are scary. Nobody in the east truely terrifies me as a Flames fan, except for the fact that everyone is so soft out east, while the western champ is going to have to suffer three grueling rounds. Resolute 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure hoping for the Flames. The longer they stay in, the more playoff games I get to see, and the more days I go into work with less sleep than is ideal with no voice left. However, if I have to exclude my favourite, I'd definitely have to go with Detroit. If Hasek's recovery is reasonable, Ottawa would have to be a favourite. Some underdogs that I think might go far are the NY Rangers and the San Jose Sharks. -- JamesTeterenko 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've set Detroit and Ottawa all year. However, with Hasek gone and the Sharks red hot, I think it will boil down to Sharks and Flyers. Who am I rooting for? Well, my beloved Canucks are enjoying the course now, so I'm going with Buffalo because they are the most exciting team to watch. -- Thricecube 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I went all graphics-happy (I blame WP) and made a massive thingy on my ISP webspace. (Note: This is not a promo. I don't get money for people visiting there.) As for who'll take all the marbles, I'm thinking Ottawa over San Jose in 7, with Hasek coming back just in time to take the Sens to the promised land. Doogie2K (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What's with the sudden conversion from plain text to logos all of a sudden? Do we really need a San Jose Sharks logo next to Jonathan Cheechoo when we write about him as a member of the Sharks? And why in some recent playoff series boxes we have the same two logos repeated up to seven times? Once is enough, and those should only be in the standings boxes. Plain text should suffice for every other instance. Using logos too much will degrade the quality of all our articles. kelvSYC 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue was brought up on the Ottawa Senators article by me. See here The issue is that the [NHL Stats] page and the actual [NHL Standings] page are showing up with inconsistant information. They do not seem to be counting the Goals For/Against when a shoot out is involved. It is my beleif that they do this as it was said the extra goal is only to be counted to show the win.

We need to come up with a concensus as to how to count this. I for one would point to the actual Stats page rather than the standings one as the stats show a more accurate depiction of the actual scoring. --Maraulth 14:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that only the league standings page reflects the SO-GWG. All other stats pages disregard the shootout "goal". On that basis, I would exclude shootout goals from all stats pages but the overall league standings. However, I despise the shootout, and would like to see any mention or record of it eliminated. But that wouldnt really be NPOV, would it? ;o) Resolute 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On the

18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, but personally, I dont see the necessity. For the

WHL playoffs, I simply reorganized the first round as needed to have the 2nd round matchups flow properly. I like the lines as they show a direct path from one series to the next. I think a simple note stating that teams are reseeded after the first round would suffice. Resolute

23:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New Junior "A" League

Hello guys, I elected to start an article for the Greater Metro Junior A Hockey League, anybody heard of this yet? DMighton 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added my name to your list of semi active people. I hope that I did everything right. If you have questions just ask me. John R G 05:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While going through my Watchlist today, I saw that a specific IP went through each and every one of the NHL teams and, going by what they described their first edit as, "Updated former Soviet block countries". Now I'm not really sure what to make of this mass editing. Sure, countries change their names and break off from other countries, however for all intents and purposes, a player like Sergei Federov was born in the U.S.S.R., since it was called U.S.S.R. at the time, and not Russia.

Any chance of getting any sort of concensus here?--Resident Lune 15:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is not merely here, nor merely Wikipedia-wide, but is a widely-held practice in encyclopedias in general: that being that the country of birth listed is the de jure political entity extant at that particular location and at the time of birth. Therefore, a fellow born in Transcarpathia in 1937 would be listed as having been born in Czechoslovakia, no matter that for almost all of his life his home town would have been in the Soviet Union and would currently be in Ukraine. Ravenswing 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proper names#Place names dictates that U.S.S.R. should be used in such cases. "Many place names have a historical context that should be preserved, but common sense should prevail. There can be few places that have not been parts of more than one culture or have had only one name. An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki is the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony. To be clear, you may sometimes need to mention the current name of the area (for example "what is now France"), especially if no English name exists for that area in the relevant historical period." See also Mikhail Gorbachev, for example. All edits by that IP address should be reverted. BoojiBoy

20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Masterhatch 06:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When you think if it, if you were born in Canada and next year they, for god knows what reason (Harper maybe?!), changed the country name to something else, where would you be from originally? Where would you have been born? Canada of course, so this is something that I have to agree with when it comes down to country names at time of birth. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 11:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, I've been editing quite a few of the NHL player articles to bring them up to the said standard. However, in looking over the many players who aren't on the "players needed to be formatted" or however its dubbed, Tie Domi for example, gives a brief spiel of his hegiht, weight, is he left or right shot etc... might I propose, that in addition to the specs already laid out to create an NHL player article, we design a template info box quick facts with picture.. any thoughts? Boort 09:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good... 1-2-3 Not Me! Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Created {{icehockey-player}} & {{icehockey-goalie}} templates. I have listed suggestions for what could be placed in the different fields. The template is demonstrated at the Tie Domi article. Flibirigit 22:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PLAYER Born = birthdate Died = deathdate / alive Position = name of position Height = height Shoots = left / right Status = current team / free agent / retired / Hall of Famer

{{icehockey-player}}

GOALIE Born = birthdate Died = deathdate / alive Height = height Catches = left / right Status = current team / free agent / retired / Hall of Famer

{{icehockey-goalie}}

I'm liking the tables you made. Though I'm wondering if it might look better or worse with a box for the player's photo put at the top of the fact box? That's just how I have seen a few other fact boxes set up in other sections.--Resident Lune 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put in a photo section because many articles dont have photos, and if there was a photo, its size would change the display dimensions. I figured that articles with photos could easily have both the box and a thumbnail. Flibirigit 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm one who would consider himself an opponent of listing a player's weight on Wikipedia, just because its so subjective and fluctuates day-to-day, and year-to-year. Guides never seem to agree, and it just seems that it can never be close to accurate. Also if its a player from the past, that creates even more confusion because the first sentence your saying "is a former hockey player...etc." but with the weight your going back to the past, and guessing what is weight was during a 10, 15, 20 year period and also having to explain that it is his weight from his playing days, not what he weighs now. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the weight section. Flibirigit 04:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

looks good.. wondering if we should put present team they play for... and might be stretching it... but also their salary.. but definitely team should b thereBoort 08:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

look at the template for figure skaters i.e. Sasha Cohen... is there a way to get a photo embedded i nthe template? Boort 08:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem with salary, and Ravenswing raised this point in a different discussion a while back. 1) Salaries are subject to bonuses, and can fluctuate and change, 2) You can never have complete proof of what their salary actually is, some clubs have a policy of not releasing complete salary info. 3) Your basically inviting a vandal to come in and mess around with it with what they feel the person is really worth (same with weight) and 4) I feel personally that for other than cap issues in the other than the modern NHL, its really nobody's business how much a player makes, let alone mentioning it an encyclopedia. In other bio articles salary is usually not mentioned, other than approximate net worth, which is a little different... I think weight and salary are both way too subjective and fluctuatable (i made up a word) to put in a template... It would be best to leave them out. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Insert the current team in the Status field of the box. Flibirigit 04:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally the died row seems a little morbid to me. I think having it as an optional row would be best -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its possible to have an "optional" row in a template, it could be taken out instead. Flibirigit 07:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Now understand that was just my personal opinion, however it could be incorporated within the first row sort of like when a Biography is written up Eric B ( T • C • W ) 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We could take out the birth/death dates altogether. We could also put in a field for when he was drafted/ signed from minors. Flibirigit 04:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Follow Up action

There hasn't been much discussion about the infobox recently. I assume that the proposal is accepted as is, and we can add it to the project templates for use articles. Any comments? Flibirigit 02:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any specific player who follows a perfect example of this new infobox? Thricecube 22:47, 14 May 2006

• The infobox is currently on the Tie Domi article for demonstration. See discussion above the "Follow Up action" header. Flibirigit 02:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I am a member what kinds of things can I do to help out ice hockey on wikipedia. I would just like some information. Thank you. John R G 05:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of things to be done!! 1. looking for and removing vandalism, 2. Expanding player article stubs, 3. Fixing miss-guided links, especially with players. 4. Copy-editing artikles with badd sspeling an grammer in thoze. Masterhatch 05:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know John R G if you ever have any questions about anything regarding editing hockey articles, feel free to ask me at my talk page or any other user who is in the active section of the WikiProject... you could also help with Categories for player articles, providing career statistics tables in player articles and all the things Masterhatch mentioned above. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Some guy is going around and deleting all the junior hockey logos pretending they are decorative. DMighton 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? BoojiBoy 16:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A user was going around deleted the logos from their league pages claiming they are decorative. I've since reverted all of his changes... one was the British Columbia Hockey League. DMighton 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a sysop who has made a habit of deleting such images... although you are correct that the logos fall under fair use. I'll keep an eye out as well and revert when necessary. BoojiBoy 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of these leagues will never have individual team pages... so I think that it is OK that the logos are on the main page and find it annoying that someone who knows nothing of what he is editting is making judgement calls. He could have at least talked to us or left a detailed explanation behind his rationale. Thanks Booji. DMighton 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, even with team pages, there is no valid reason to delete the logos from the league pages. There is a huge difference between posting a logo once beside the team name in the list of franchises and posting the logo beside every single mention of the team. IMO, if the page looks like this:

2003-04 NHL season, then we've crossed the line from fair use to decoration. Otherwise, leave the logos alone. Resolute

00:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said. DMighton 03:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

2003-04 NHL season that page makes baby Jesus cry. I understand fair use, but he seems to have gone overboard. Eric B ( T • C • W

) 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He's screwed around with a ton of CHL-related pages now. I've reverted all of them except for the individual player pages (which he is probably right about) but we have to be vigilant. BoojiBoy 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert my changes. Fair use on Wikipedia is not just about legality, but also keeping it to a minimum. Please read

12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If a team does not have an individual page, that's not a reason to include the logo in the league list. The subject of the article is listing the teams in the league. Team logos do not add significantly to this subject. There are many more significant pieces of information about a team than what its logo looks like. Let's be honest, logos are added because its easy and it looks nice. This is not a valid reason to use fair use. ed g2s • talk 13:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Virtually every team in existence is identified as much by their logo as they are their name. I believe that including the logos on league pages (at least) once does constitute fair use, as they do serve a purpose. If you wish to argue that they are not needed on the playoff brackets, then I might listen, however I would ask that you leave the logos included in the member team lists alone. Resolute 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; since you are positioning yourself as an expert in fair use law, do you mind giving us a cite of the exact case where logos cannot be used in this instance? Not your supposition, not someone else's premise, I'm looking for case law or regs here. Ravenswing 15:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Logos can be used: "to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. It qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement." Pages like 2003-04 NHL season were obviously overboard before, but league pages illustrating the team in question, especially when the team does not have its own article, qualify. I trust that the other members of WPIH will agree. BoojiBoy 14:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I don't mind if you want to delete the NHL icon logos on the OHL team pages, but you can't take a table that says "Philadelphia 2004" under NHL status and make it just say "2004". Deleting valid information with no rationale constitutes vandalism and will be reverted. BoojiBoy 14:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I just caught 2005 Memorial Cup where the ONLY changes you made were to the colouring of the table, not anything to do with fair use, yet you justified recolouring the table under a fair use banner. (See page history.) If this isn't a clearcut case of vandalism I don't know what is. Apart from obvious cases such as the aforementioned 2003-04 NHL season, your ice hockey edits will be reverted by WPIH if you don't provide detailed justification, and also you should stop making false claims under your page edits. BoojiBoy 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ed g2s: Please stop vandalizing pages using "fair use" as an excuse. If you want to remove the logos, at least show the courtesy to replace them with team names. We should not be expected to go around cleaning these pages up becuase you are too lazy to do a proper job. Resolute 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This was accidental. Please

assume good faith, vandalism is deliberate. The wikitable conversion was done as a matter of house keeping, but the images were left in accidentally. ed g2s • talk

22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is vandalism, I also haven't seen him removing album covers from discography pages. I say leave the logos, and if he feels that it is truly a legal issue, he should contact the leagues and ask them what they think. I think the user is imposing his will on the hockey community and is being flat out finicky and has no basis in his argument. I have personally been in contact with the ontario junior a leagues, and they are happy with what we are doing and are willing to provide us with most of the information we want as well as digital logos. Logos are factual information that help differenciate one team from another. Esthetics are not an issue here, I just think Ed g2s is just trying to cause problems. DMighton 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"I just think Ed g2s is just trying to cause problems", again, please

assume good faith. ed g2s • talk

23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we set a uniform standard of when it should be used? Team and league pages OK, player and season pages not? How much should be reverted? BoojiBoy 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not about fair use law. Wikipedia's policiy is to keep fair use to a minimum, and only use it when absolutely neccessary, and when it significantly adds to an article. Yes a logo identifies a club, sometimes as well as the text, but when the text is present, there is no need for the logo. Each fair use image used on Wikipedia poses a problem for any potential third party user. "Free" does not mean "we probably won't get sued", but that anyone else can use it for whatever purpose they like. As contributors to an open-source project, you should be working out ways to avoid using copyright material, not making excuses for its use. ed g2s • talk 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a related discussion here:

Talk:NHL Entry Draft which covers this issue from a legal angle as well. ed g2s • talk

23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed is in the right here, as usual. The addition of non-free content on Wikipedia is generally unacceptable, because it violates one of the two primary aspects of the project's goal... we only permit it to the extent that we believe we must in order to fulfill the other half of our primary goal. In order words, since we intent to be a free content encyclopedia we only permit non-free content where our only alternative is to neglect our role as an encyclopedia. In this case it is clear that the logos are being used a decoration (and fine decoration as well, the use of the table to make the tree is quite clever) which is an application of unfree content that we specifically forbid. So, while there may or may not be a legal issue here (indeed with no commentary on the copyrighted works our fair use claim may be week indeed) which would be dispelled with a permission note they copyright holders might grant... that is a all irrelevant because to permit wikipedia to include excessive unfree content would be to permit it to fail at its stated goals.

More information, including the strict prohibition on decorative uses of non-free content can be found at

Wikipedia:Fair_use. I'd also like to advise the other editors here in the discussion, that Wikipedia isn't a game of ice hockey, and Ed's working to protect and improve the project. I'm sure that Ed is more than willing to work with you and discuss these matters, but it's hard to achieve productive ends when people jump straight to wild accusations and incivility. --Gmaxwell

23:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"...when the text is present, there is no need for the logo." Using this argument, I would recommend that every logo on every article be removed, as there is no need for them. Afterall, why have a GM logo with the General Motors article? Does the logo really add anything? I mean, if you don't know that the article is referring to General Motors, then you have bigger problems going on.

The problem here is that there is no concensus on how much is acceptable use. Evidently, you believe that NO logos on the league specific pages should be allowed. Personally, I do not accept this. These logos are all trademarked by their leagues, and they are all identified with their leagues. When people see a Calgary Flames logo, they not only think of the team, but the league as well. IMNSHO, the inclusion of team logos on a league page are acceptable under both

.

I would propose the following solution: On the league pages, the logos be included once, beside each team name in the list of current franchises as they are valid identifiers for both the team listed alongside, and the league itself. On the playoff brackets, season pages, awards pages etc, their use would generally be decoration, and so should be removed and replaced with the team name. Resolute 00:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this proposal. Additionally, if you guys are going to continue to be so hardline about our use of logos, then just tell us they can't be there and let US clean it up. I'm sure that this Ed guy is fully capable as an editor, but I created most of the league articles and in turn (due to your "copyright policy") will be forced into the tedious task of making team stubs -- so I would like to be the one to remove the logo. I am not satisfied with Ed G2's present method of editting (it is rushed and doesn't make it very easy for me to retrieve each logo's location) and would rather if he LEFT US to this seemingly inevitable cleanup. DMighton 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this proposal. Team and league pages ok, everything else not. I will also assist with the cleanup project and am reverting the league pages per this discussion. BoojiBoy 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

QMJHL reversion

I reverted the

as well): go to the store and personally take pictures of each logo. The picture can then be uploaded as GFDL usage. It's a project and a half, but it would seem we have no other choice if we'd like to continue using the team logos as we are.

That said, it's going to be difficult to do for teams in leagues like the QMJHL so we'll have to be creative in other ways.  RasputinAXP  c 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a derivative work, and as such, still protected by copyright unfortunately. ed g2s • talk 08:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Clean-Up

Alright... all of the current CJAHL leagues are done as well as the OHA Jr. "B" teams. I am tired and will hit the sack, probably will continue tomorrow.

What is left is the EOJBHL, TBJBHL, all Ontario Jr. C leagues, Jr. D, Ontario Senior, Canada-wide Junior "B" and Canada-wide Junior "C". I guess when that is done that I'll move on to box lacrosse. DMighton 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: All of Ontario is done except governing bodies, the SOJHL, MLH, EOSHL, and WOAA. I hope to do these overnight, then move to the Maritimes later this week. DMighton 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to keep a better eye on what people are writing in the player bios. I just cleaned up the Teemu Selanne and Jose Theodore bios, and they contained waaaaay too much POV. There is nothing even remotely encyclopedic about critiquing a player's game.

Added and checked all external links for the teams in the SPHL. John R G 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand it is our policy to include NHL stats totals at the bottom of career stats tables, as well as leagues of arguably equal calibre (WHA, for example). I've noticed Cs-wolves in particular has been adding stats totals for every single league a player has played in, no matter what level (we're talking Junior B and Midget AAA...), no matter how many games played (one game in the AHL was enough for him to make an AHL Totals, in one article). Refresh my memory: it is still our policy to include only NHL totals, right? --93JC 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always made an effort to include the European leagues when I do stats. However, I never add a totals row if he's only played one season (you can just read off the stats from that season) and I've generally avoided the North American leagues from the minor level. I would not be in favour of including only NHL totals, because many players have made significant impacts outside the NHL and besides, it's too North America-centric. WHL, AHL, maybe. But not junior, midget, etc. A suggested standard from me would be for all professional leagues where the player had more than one season. --Legalizeit 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Added and checked all the links for the [CHL]. The only problem was the oklahoma City Blazers site. I dont think it is working anymore. John R G 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the Oklahoma City Blazers site and the link is working now. John R G 06:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

I started a site for the WHA Super Junior League.John R G 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this league will exist mainly because some of the teams are in a different league now. It probably is dead now. John R G 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it existed in the first place. Only a handful of games were ever scheduled, let alone recorded, the site claims two teams that never were part of their doings. The "new" WHA blew it when they had the chance, it's a mouldering corpse now, and those still involved should just let it die and have done with it. Ravenswing 20:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

According to a friend of mine in Tampa, it did exist, and did play some games. How many were played, who played, where they were played? Who knows? I'll have to pick his brain to see if this league actually will continue to exist. Resolute 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I added and checked all the external links for the UHL. The Bloomington Prairie Thunder are the only team that does not have a home page yet. John R G 05:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started doing some updates on the Frölunda HC. Since I'm biased I would like too have an outside opinion about what too write about them. What should be on Wikipedia? So far I have only added the current roster during the silly season and team captains. Some changes need too be made to the text on the page.

If you search on Frolunda Indians, Frolunda HC or Frolunda you don't get any search results. How can I (or does an admin do this?) add so if you search on these words that you get directed to the page? I can't imagine english speaking people using Å, Ä, Ö when they search. What is the best solution to this problem? Krm500

I have created the redirects (which will automatically go to the appropriate page if you search on that term). So, they are there now. I read through the page quickly, and it seems fine. Welcome aboard! If you want to know more about redirects, see Wikipedia:redirect. -- JamesTeterenko 21:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a template infobox for ice hockey teams. It supports both standard and alternate logo, and all but three parametres are optional.

It can be found

.

Examples are found on the

.

Nehle 15:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A point for debate - when a team is renamed but otherwise remains the same, i.e. the same city, players, arena, etc., should the previous incarnation of the team be merged into the main article? I ask due to the fact that there are three OHL teams that have renamed themselves, the Owen Sound Attack used to be the Owen Sound Platers, the Kingston Frontenacs used to be the Kingston Canadians and the Kingston Raiders, and the London Knights used to be the London Nationals. I believe that it is useful having individual articles about the previous incarnations, but because it was the "same team" with the same history the info should also be incorporated into the main team article. So, for example, Kingston Canadians should still exist, but the information and records within should also be merged into Kingston Frontenacs, as the Fronts' history didn't start in 1989. Thoughts? BoojiBoy 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles were separated to adhere to size limits of 32KB per page. Flibirigit 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the situation isn't all that clear-cut:

• Teams (c.f. Fort Wayne Komets) where a relocating franchise is swiftly replaced by a team of the same name;
• Teams (c.f.
  Cleveland Barons (2001-2006)
  where a relocating franchise is slowly replaced by a team of the same name;
• Teams (c.f. Springfield Falcons/Springfield Indians) where the franchises, ownership and/or the nickname change, but the players are the same;
• Teams (c.f.
  Springfield Kings
  ) where the franchise just changes names, but otherwise maintains common ownership and players.

It's pretty much a mess, and coming up with one rule to fit all would be impossible. Ravenswing 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. And Traynor, I was only referring to "teams that were renamed but everything else remains the same". Perhaps we could add in the overall records for each team only? That way we could show the Fronts having history dating back to 1973 while maintaining a smaller article size. BoojiBoy 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is, are we talking about the same franchise with the same ownership and (probably) with complete continuity of play? Has Kingston had the same ownership throughout? Ravenswing 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they have not had the same ownership; in each case the team was renamed by a new owner. The franchise still remained the same though, total continuity in each of players, arena, city, etc. The main point I was making is that it is inconvenient to have to browse three separate articles to see the overall record of what amounts to one team, by whatever name. BoojiBoy 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem incorporating franchise records into one article. However the present article size for each time will grow over time as more history is added, and eventuallly surpass the 32KB size (expecially those teams with current squads listed). Granted that only a few NHL and OHL teams are substantial in article size at the moment, but all teams will become rather lengthy in the near future. Some of those teams may need a separate article just for history (ie. Ottawa, Peterborough, Oshawa, London, S.S.Marie, Windsor). I don't know much about AHL history though. Flibirigit 18:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would keep them in the same article only if it was the same franchise with a minor renaming:

ccwaters

18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If a team changes ownership (with no other changes), we definitely wouldn't give it a new article. If a team changes the name (with no other changes) we likely wouldn't create a new article. I do not believe that both of these happening together would warrant us separating the article into two. As a side note, we have some articles where a franchise has moved to a new city, but there is only one Wikipedia article (new owners, new name AND new city). See

Blazers/Cowboys (WHA) article. -- JamesTeterenko

22:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If each incarnation of a franchise has substantial history text, the two can be separated accordingly. We need an AHL history expert add to expand those articles. Flibirigit 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Yearly Results from the Platers years into the OS Attack article but left the rest of it unchanged. See Owen Sound Attack#Yearly Results. Thoughts? BoojiBoy 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna do try and do something along these lines for the WikiProject Page, but there would be too much red tape in doing it and getting people to vote on things and such. So I just did it on my user page. What I did is I followed basically the same format as the Main Page, only did it for hockey. So it includes a featured hockey article, a whack of interesting did-you-knows (all that I can source), and also provides an in-the-news section as well. I thought it turned out pretty well, and I would invite anybody to take a peak at it... its something I'll try and maintain and change every few days or so. It helps to increase general hockey knowledge, and many of the did-you-knows aren't even in actual Wikipedia articles. If you'd like to take a look at it, just click here. Thanks. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the beginning of a portal for ice hockey? I like. --Legalizeit 12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I never thought about an ice hockey portal. That's good thinking. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This rocks. Ravenswing 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking good-- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well good, its what I was going for... Just so you know I have hundreds of those "did-you-knows" ready to put in from personal research, so there won't be any copies, and I'll put them in an archive so people can see them after they've been taken off. The featured article will be changed every week, and the news will be updated every few days or so... I might add another part too, but yeah, thanks for the support and since people like it I'll keep doing it. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It took me a chunk of last night and today, but I reverted, rolled back and removed the logos from every NHL team's entry. Whosoever puts those stupid 25 pixel logos back in there will witness great vengeance and furious anger rained upon them. Fair use only applies to when we use it once as illustration, not as pretty little decorations. I will take a deep breath now.  RasputinAXP  c 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you don't lose any information when you're cleaning up. I had to revert your edits to St. John's Fog Devils and then re-do the table to keep the information about where each player was drafted from in the expansion draft. BoojiBoy 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a championship table to the San Diego Gulls site. I would like to know if that is something you like before I do other teams like San Diego Gulls. John R G 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC) I also did the Fresno Falcons. John R G 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI for your next post... use the [[ and ]] brackets to linkify the page you are mentioning. IE: [[San Diego Gulls]] will output: San Diego Gulls -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Championship tables for Jacksonville Barracudas

Knoxville Ice Bears Columbus Cottonmouths John R G 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Championship Tables for Colorado Eagles Tulsa Oilers Wichita Thunder Laredo Bucks Oklahoma City Blazers and

Im not sure what the trophy was because I heard it changed names 2 or three times can someone look into that for me. Thanks John R G 06:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the championship tables for the CHL. I got an email from the CHL showing who won what championship. If anyone wants a copy of the email just contact me. John R G 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Championship Table and information about Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs. John R G 06:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Championship Tables for

06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hockey in x

I've been toying with the idea of creating a new category, and article called Hockey in Calgary, which would act as a timeline of hockey's history in Calgary, and help bring all of of the hockey pages together for this city. Im undecided on how to format it however. I am not sure if I want to go with a straight chronologial order, or divide the page between professional, amateur and junior hockey. Right now I am leaning towards the latter. Anyone have any suggestions or input on how to improve this concept? Resolute 00:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am working on a similar article, but for
  Thunder Bay, Ontario. I would organize the article in chronological order. I think it might be best suited as part of city history, but depending on how substantial the research amounts to, it could stand alone. Flibirigit
  03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• • How do you plan to do this for Thunder Bay? Just curious. I did do an article for the
    Thunder Bay Junior B Hockey League. I also created a page for the Thunder Bay Flyers which were the area's primary Junior team from 1984 until 2001. Pre-1984 there was the Thunder Bay Junior Hockey League... which may have dated back periodically to World War I with the Fort William War Veterans. If there is any info you need, just ask... but if you have any info on the TBJHL (19xx-1984) please share... Hockey Northwestern Ontario will not answer back my e-mails -- so any help is appreciated. DMighton
    06:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • I'd like to include as much as I can. Right now its just a list of teams on a piece of paper on my desk. Flibirigit 08:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, new to the group, been working on OHL pages, etc. Can someone please clear up..... the different Team Canadas,,, and the World Junior Championships. right now there are:

(and will maybe get to U-18), but thought I'd put in the request for someone who knows this stuff to do it,, plus you may already have plans in the works for this anyway. Feel free to blow it off, just thought I'd ask.  :) PS -- GO PETES GO !!! (couldn't resist)

I'll start

World Junior Ice Hockey Championships ASAP.  RasputinAXP  c

16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, oops. Looks like we were working on a redundant article:

Ice Hockey World Junior Championships Resolute

17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll try to help out with these clarifications as well. Resolute 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual name of the tournament is IIHF WORLD U20 CHAMPIONSHIPS,

• IIHF Main site
• IIHF List of Tournaments
  

Maybe it'd be best if we merged the articles for this together into one with the correct name, and created re-direct pages for all the other things people call this tourney. --also, add a link on page International Ice Hockey Federation to whatever article is the final one for this tournament.

Would it be necessry to create a page with all 50 goal seasons. I have a book which lists all 50 goal seasons in history as well as the game no., team game no., opposing goaltender etc. The book also has a section that lists all 100 point seasons.

I don't feel we need it;

WP:NOT and all.  RasputinAXP  c

21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that that is the NHL Official Guide & Record Book that you possess. There are pages like that for 500 goals and 1000 points, but if you are really willing to make a quality (and I stress quality) page, then by all means go for it. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I need your help guys. It seems some people don't know how brackets work. No admitedly, the NHL doesn't use a bracket system, but some media sources use a bracket to illustrate the NHL playoffs. Wikipedia does the same. For some reason though, some users think that the bracket should be ordered by seed, thus messing up the next round. You expect to see Ottawa vs Tampa next to Buffalo vs Philadelphia because Buffalo and Ottawa played eachother in the second round. However, some think that Carolina and Montreal should be next because of seeds. This is misleading, because normally in such charts this would mean that Carolina would play Ottawa, which didn't happen, and would lead to some confusion and probable vandalism in the future. Straw poll is here

07:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Memorial Cup Round-Robin Standings

Please read Talk:2006 Memorial Cup and vote. BoojiBoy 01:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)