Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive63

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.

I've gone through Category: National Hockey League coaches navigational boxes , Category: National Hockey League general managers navigational boxes , and Category: National Hockey League team captains navigational boxes , and succession boxes are now in place for each person (save for a few redlinks) on every team navbox template in those three categories. There weren't a lot missing as it was. Given this WikiProject's point of view (at least in the past) that these types of navboxes are redundant clutter, might it be time to delete these? --208.123.180.77 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've come across inconsistancies with players born before the splitting up of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993 into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Per Djsasso's advice, I won't be making mass corrections, but would recommend that those corrections be made. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You probably won't have a problem changing those ones. Because unlike the Baltics those countries weren't still considered independent during Czechoslovakian time by nationalists. Estonia nationalists for example just consider the Soviet Union an occupier. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just completed correcting all Czech & Slovak players birthplaces at their respective articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There's something wrong with this. The roster is from 2013 [1], but says it is for 2014 [2], and we just had the bronze medal awarded for 2015. Shouldn't a separate roster article exist instead ? (the history of the article seems to be swapping lists of players for each WJHC (once for 2011, once for 2013) ) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone has updated the roster [3] to 2015's roster. Though, wouldn't it be better to have a List of rosters of the Slovakia men's national junior ice hockey team (or somesuch) separate from the general article? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reverted at Andrei Makrov (born in 1979), for having changed his birthplace from Estonia to Soviet Union. I was on vacation for a whole year (Apr 2013 to May 2014) & so may have lost track. Just curious - Is there a compromise for NHL & non-NHL players, born in Baltics between 1940 & 1991? If so, I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Makrov is notable enough to warrant a page; he only has a few seasons of low level league and international competition. But to answer your question, in general I think showing the SSR and Soviet Union is the correct compromise format accepted by consensus as shown by this diff. 70.24.36.167 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct, after all the going back and forth on the Baltic origin garbage, that was the compromised solution. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I've restored the 'compromise' version. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also inconsistancies with the Soviet-born players, who were born in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic & the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. I'll eventually correct these too. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Really unless you have a need to get into edit wars with nationalists....I would leave them as you find them instead of mass "fixing" them. I mean no offense by this, but you know as well as anyone that you tend to be a magnet for those kinds of arguments and this is one of the biggest areas on the wiki for that kind of argument. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I won't get into any edit-wars and/or long drawn out discussions with those who prefer Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. If any one of them revert my changes, I won't challenge them. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've completed corrections to all the player bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive me if this is in the wrong place; it has been a mighty long while since I have brought much of any issue to a talk page. For reasons that are either unnecessary or that I have yet to understand, suspension and fine tables in multiple season pages seem to be of a particularly great width, such that they are causing a large amount of gray space to develop off of the right margin of the page. I am used to seeing a small amount of gray space, but the suspension/fine tables are creating as much as half a screen's worth, and personally I do not believe that is a particularly flattering look for any page to have. I have checked the "Suspensions/Fines" subsection for season pages of every team that has had a disciplinary action taken against them so far this season, and only 2014–15 San Jose Sharks season did not appear to have this issue.

Suspension/fine tables are set to an exceeding width on various pages, such as: 2014–15 Edmonton Oilers season, 2014–15 Vancouver Canucks season, 2014–15 Los Angeles Kings season, 2014–15 Dallas Stars season, 2014–15 New York Rangers season, 2014–15 Nashville Predators season, among others.

There seems to me to be no particular need for the width of these tables to be set at such a high amount. The "explanation" field of these tables seems particularly wide in comparison to the others. I first noticed this issue on the Oilers' season page. I attempted to correct it, and the edit was reversed. If there is any mandate stating that these tables should be set this way, then all I ask for is an explanation and I will leave the matter alone. If not, however, I don't see the reason for it.

Forgive me for wasting valuable talk page space on what really is just a petty quibble, but I just can't seem to get over this one. I always prefer to keep that gray space off to the right to as much of a minimum as possible. Thank you, –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 09:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The only difference I can see between the Sharks table and the others is that the Sharks table allows the table size to float, while the others are hard coded to a width of 75em with each column having a specific percentage of that width. They all render fine on my laptop, so I imagine you are looking via a tablet or phone or something that isn't taking the forced widths too well? Anyway, let me know if it looks better on the Vancouver page after I changed it to match the Sharks.

FWIW, Most teams will only see one or two guys face a suspension or fine in a given year. It is something that I think is better handled in prose, but I also know that I am one of the few that maintains the prose on a team article, so at least the data is captured. Resolute 00:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't use my browser set to full screen, as I find the text column too wide for comfortable reading in full screen, and so for me the fixed width (in, say, the Edmonton Oilers season article) results in a horizontal scroll bar. I don't see much reason to specify a fixed width; in general, best practice is to let the browser worry about the width. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Do the Sharks and Canucks articles render properly for you? Resolute 01:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the suspensions and fines tables on these articles adapt to the browser width. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I can tend to think of wherein my browsing might be different than others' is that I often use a smaller screen resolution than some people (that should have occurred to me before!). That might be playing a part in it. At any rate, the table looks much better on the Canucks' page now. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 01:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolution was the other thing I was thinking of. Here is what I did on the Canucks page. Feel free to change the others if you so desire. If not, I'll probably tackle them a bit later. Resolute 02:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help! I tend to be very reticent when it comes to talk pages, so this issue—insignificant as it may have been—was really driving me up a wall! –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that they should be listed under the "Transactions" header but rather when they occurred, like having them included in the "Regular Season" header or etc. –B2Project^(Talk) 18:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

Yesterday I copy-edited the 2014–15 season articles for four NHL teams, fixing miscaptializations, replacing hyphens with endashes where appropriate, added missing commas, etc. Canuckian89 disagreed with some of my changes, so I asked him on his talkpage. He suggested that I go here, so here I am.

The changes he disagreed with were these:

• he changed "2014–15 pre-season game log" back to "2014–15 Pre-Season Game Log"
• he changed "2014–15 game log" back to "2014–15 Game Log"

I can't find any support for this in

We could drop the "2014–15" bit, as this is given from context, in order to capitalize the first word, if one capitalized word is desirable. It would then be "Pre-season game log" and "Game log" respectively.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS:HEADCAPS applies here, because it also applies to table headers. So it should be the lower case version. Dropping the 2014–15 would seem natural, because that is what the page is about. CRwikiCA talk

15:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, standard case usage should apply. Only the first word of a title unless it is a proper name. So in this respect, I would agree with you and disagree with Canuckian89. I would also support removing 2014-15 from the headers, as that is redundant and unnecessary in context. Resolute 19:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone whether there is a HockeyDB or EliteProspects type site for finding career stats for female players? What I mean are club team stats, mostly the European players who play at home are the ones that are hard to track. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

None that I am aware of. And of the few women's hockey bios I have written, finding club stats has proven to be a huge issue. International is easy, American university is easy. Everything else seems incomplete. Resolute 20:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah on most women's articles I would probably leave out club stats unless you find something particularly good for that individual. But as of now I haven't really ever found anything worthwhile. Trying to do club stats would leave whole years out and be so incomplete that it just wouldn't be worthwhile having partial information in there. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah if there isn't a database that is definitely a good idea for excluding stats. I guess the reason I wondered, is as I go with men's players I run across, I have been adding the medal template to the pages. EliteProspects does a great job of showing international player, I figured I would do the same with the female players I run across if there was a similar database. Since EliteProspects is Eurocentric, they have a wealth of smaller tournaments listed for players, that I never would have known about were it not listed. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

When I wrote Angela James' article, I pulled the stats right out of her biography. Even then they were incomplete, but I make note of that in the article. Resolute 15:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Angela James' article, can I add that I seriously dislike tacking the medal box onto the main infobox? I just moved it back, but I am not sure if this was one of Marc87's wider campaigns of changes. Resolute 15:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I do it for players who don't have an international section or who have a really small article because it looks much better than squishing text elsewhere. So in some cases it is definitely preferable. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the WikiProject have a preference for usage of United Kingdom in the bio articles, birth/place? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I would just leave them as found. Resolute 17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I agree. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated

Does the WikiProject have preference for including Canada in bio articles, for birth/deathplaces? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been in discussions on this, and you just have to look at pretty much any article to know the answer to that. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Some use Canada & some don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems standard to use the Medal templates on the players pages for international play, I have a few questions regarding their usage. First, I've noticed that Jordan Eberle for example has a Canada Games medal listed, other players have Spengler Cup medals etc., do we have a consensus on what tournaments are included, or are we simply at any time a player puts on a jersey with a territorial name on it, it goes in the Medal template?

Secondly, since I noticed most people were placing the {{MedalCountry {{ih|CAN}}</nowiki. etc. even if the medal was acquired at say the [[IIHF World U18 Championships]], so I adjusted it to the proper templates, meaning that players could conceivably have <nowiki>{{ih18|CAN}}, {{ihj|CAN}} and {{ih|CAN}}, as well for the World U-17 Hockey Challenge medals, I have been placing {{flagicon|CAN}} [[Canada men's national under-17 ice hockey team|Canada Pacific]] as the team and only changed the flag when they played for Canada Ontario (I hadn't run across any player who medalled for Quebec, but would do the same there). Also, in the future, there may very well be a player who medalled at the Youth Olympic Games and thus would have played for the {{flagicon|CAN}} [[Canada men's national under-17 ice hockey team|Canada]] Is this the intent of the template or is there a standard form?

Thirdly, I assume it is consensus that the team that competes at the

Lastly, I noticed that the player infobox allowed for the medal template to be encoded right into the template, but I've noticed that many players have it either as a standalone template below the player infobox (in which case I see no reason it shouldn't be encoded into the player infobox) but on other longer articles, it seems to be placed in a international play subsection. Do we have a consensus to where it should go? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not certain if we have ever discussed this, so there is no consensus and I have tended to leave the templates as I find them. For my view, I would prefer to see only top level events and IIHF sanctioned junior events. So Olympics, world champs, world junior, U-18. The Spengler Cup absolutely should not be there as it is a club tournament, not an international one. The Team Canada that plays there is essentially an all-star team not a national team. The U-17 challenge and world junior A challenge are Hockey Canada events, not IIHF, I believe, so I personally would not include those either. I really don't know what to do with the Ivan Hlinka. Canada Cup/World Cup is kind of annoying because they did not hand out medals, so it is improper to list the winners as gold, losers as silver, etc. I'm undecided on whether I prefer removal, or creation/use of a template that says "Champion" rather than "Gold". Resolute 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as the

Olympics

medals would be recognizing this team. I believe to be eligible for the Olympics, you had to play for the national team, they didn't add anyone specifically for the Olympics. I know in other sports, especially individual ones, they do recognize any time that the athletes represents their home nation. Of course, outside of tennis and golf, I can't think of an individual sport that you would represent your country and not be in an international governing body tournament.

Do we have any soccer editors that could chime in? How does the soccer project use this template? Since soccer is probably the best guideline for international play, with various international tournaments at various scales, it is likely the best rule of thumb to use a similar format. I personally would like to see some consistency as to how we as

WP:Hockey use the template, as a portion of our MOS. That way, we don't run afoul of a 3RR problem. I was in danger of it over Nail Yakupov, so I conceded the edits to avoid an edit war. Shootmaster 44 (talk

) 05:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that we have discussed it for hockey players. But any other sport I have run into include any event which a player is playing for a team that is representing their country. That is personally how I prefer it, as its supposed to be a list of their international competition. I have always assumed that was a wiki-wide consensus for all sports. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So in otherwords, non-IIHF sanctioned tournaments should count? So the Spengler Cup counts for Team Canada, but not the others? Does the World U-17 Hockey Challenge count where there are multiple Team Canadas? So this would obviously mean that the Canada Games should not count then, since they are simply representing a sub-national team (in this case provincial, but I am sure there are non-Canadian examples too). So do we designate the different national teams they played for as I mentioned above? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the U17 is always problematic for stuff like this. I have seen it done where I believe there is a parameter in the template that allows for the "team" they represented (ie Team Ontario). And they just put in for what team the player was on. I wouldn't go to things like the Canada games personally just because you need to draw the line somewhere. However, it is technically the medal template, not the international play template. -DJSasso (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As for where the template should be, it was only recently changed in the infobox that you could attach it to the infobox. Like maybe 6 months. The only time I would attach it to the infobox is when there lacks an international section in an article or the article is incredibly short so that having two boxes one after another looks silly. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of College hockey team Navigation boxes are making a come back on player pages.. eg Joe Pavelski. These should be an easy nomination for deletion as in the past right?? cheers Triggerbit (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed them too but largely ignored them. These are actually a conflict of projects, which makes them less of a slam dunk to delete. The college sports folks like the clutter, so they could vote to retain them. Resolute 23:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and nominate them. If you find some of the older ones deleting championship winning teams (which I can give you links to if you would like as I just looked some up) then you can show a bit of precedence in the Tfd. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A concept history article for the NHL was created and subsequently AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Hockey League lore. This poses two questions. The primary, should it be kept, and the secondary, if kept, how to improve the implementation. I invite people to comment on the former at the AfD. We'll see about the latter if it is necessary. Resolute 00:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the AfD was just closed, I'll restate what I posted there: I believe the more typical approach in Wikipedia for an overview article listing "notable events and incidents considered important or memorable" for a topic is to have a "Timeline of..." article. I think the motivation for such an article should be clarified: is it essentially a summary article for the "History of the National Hockey League" series? isaacl (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to consider what the word "lore" means. In that case, it's different from just a history of the NHL, it's more like the culture and the traditions of the League. As an example, It's the difference between Stanley Cup#History and Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup. Tavix |  Talk  01:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that the AFD has been withdrawn, perhaps this discussion should move to the article talk page? I think there is some clean up to do here. Resolute 02:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the team's seasons articles all have the draft picks on it from the previous season. For example, the 2014–15 [Team] season page will give information on the 2014 draft. The 2014 draft was at the end of the 2013–14 season though, and the order was of course determined from the results of that season and not the current one. So I'm wondering if there's a reason this is set up the way it is.

The new season is considered to start with the draft or rather its the first major event after the new season begins. If you search this pages archives you will see a number of discussions about it. Basically we mark the end of a season with the awarding of the Cup and the awards as that is the point of the season, in other words to win the Cup. To use an example of the draft, while the order from the previous seasons results are used, the players cannot play in that season, they play in the new season. Really its part of the "Off-season" but generally most people would consider the off-season to be a pre-curser to the new season, not an addendum to the previous season. Seasons in sport really begin and end with the first and the last game but for the sake of ease it makes more sense to put the off-season at the beginning of the coming season. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation!

Gloss

02:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I need this template to be redone. Template_talk:Ice_hockey_team_roster. We need there to be suspensions. Slava Voynov and other people should be able to be displayed on rosters as SSPD. Like the inj, it should be a tiny image or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Joker16 (talk • contribs)

Not sure that that is something that should be done, because a suspended player by definition is removed from the roster so he is no longer on the roster in this type of suspension. The only players that get put on the roster are those officially on the team roster. -DJSasso (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well our one definite source on the NHL Rosters are from the NHL pages online, and they have no SSPD markers. Even just an other notes column on the outside would be fine.

MLord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the Inj="yes" flag on roster templates to be used whenever a player is injured, or only when they're on IR? I thought it was the latter... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. Should only be used when they're on IR.

Gloss

00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So I'm pushing to call for noting the national team in the infobox, even if said player only played at the World Juniors; they still represented their national team, and it should be recognized. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if we could modify the infobox to allow for two countries, and specify which teams. i.e. for Jarome Iginla, something like Ntl team = Canada (Jr., Sr.). One would require ability to use two fields for the former Soviet Republics, Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic (or Slovakia), and the odd case like Hnat Domenichelli. Resolute 17:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It can already handle multiple teams, as there are a fairly large number of players who had two teams, and some who have had three teams (Soviet Union/CIS/Russia). So I long ago adjusted the infobox to handle for that. So it would just need a way to display junior or senior. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If we had to do it I would go with Resolute's suggestion, but I would rather we just left it at Sr. teams. Really being a junior national team member in most countries isn't really a big deal. That being said your mentioning of nationality rules with Jr. teams is actually a bit off, prior to playing senior Junior level players can change countries at will and they are pretty open, it isn't until they turn senior that it becomes hard to change countries. Outside of Canada the junior tournaments are hardly followed so there are not alot of notability coming from just playing in the junior tournaments. The reason it is held in Canada so often is because its a money losing venture in most other countries as they don't follow the World Juniors like Canada does, they follow the senior mens. If I see an article on a player (outside wikipedia) and I see that it mentions a player played on a national team I would never think they were talking about a junior team unless the article was specifically about said junior tournament or the player was still a junior. When the media talks about a player (who isn't still a junior) having played for a national team they are almost exclusively talking about the Olympics or the World Championships so I believe it would confuse people to make it appear like they played for the national men's team when they played for the national junior team. It would also put us out of step with most other sports who also only use it to mean senior. -DJSasso (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion that it is easy to change national teams at the junior level, and more difficult at the senior level is false. The rules are identical, they don't differentiate based on age. Ask Evgeni Nabokov what it was like. The British Junior team was disqualified last year for entering a player that lived and played in England but was born somewhere else without ever representing a different nation before. It can be more flexible in regards to the first nation they represent, but it is the same whether they are at the junior or senior level.

18abruce (talk

) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A junior player is allowed to change teams without hassle prior to turning senior. When they turn senior they are stuck with the first team they represent as a senior player unless they go through rigorous hoops including sitting out of international competition for awhile. A junior player can play for one team one year and immediately play for another team the next. Unfortunately I am forgetting off the top of my head the famous case of this. They do have to meet the citizenship rules etc which are the same at either level, but the switching from one team to another is easier which is what I was referring to. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Although looking at the wording on the IIHF page they have changed how they phrase it so they may have changed. It used to specifically mention senior competition for the 2 year and 4 year case, and implied playing for a junior national team wasn't considered having played for that national team yet. I am guessing what used to talk about junior is now the 2 year case and the 4 year case is what was the senior players. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It has always been the case that if you played even with your national junior team you were stuck with that nation. Reference 1987 and the Sykora case where by that time playing for even the Polish juniors in 1977 made him ineligible for the West Germans. They lengthened the waiting period, but it was the same regardless of which IIHF tournament you played in. The 16 month waiting period for players like Adam Jones is a lot more specific than it used to be, but again that only relates to the first country you represent, not the level it is played at. My apologies for referencing Nabokov, his tournament at the senior level with Kazakhstan and my memory was failed there.

18abruce (talk

) 19:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A little delayed in returning to this, but I had a thought to avoid using two flags/teams/whatever in the infobox for junior and senior: not sure if its possible, but perhaps modify the field so its possible to direct it to either the junior or senior team. That way if said player only ever played at the junior level it would link to that, but if they made it to a senior tournament it would go to that one only, as its a little more important/relevant. Though I have no idea if this is possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I came across the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees and liked it so much that I thought we could try adapting it for the List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Like so:

Year	Nat.	Name	Pos.	Pro Team(s)	Years
2014	CAN	Rob Blake	D	Los Angeles Kings	1989—2001; 2006—2008
				Colorado Avalanche	2001—2006
				San Jose Sharks	2008—2010
2014	SWE	Peter Forsberg	C	Modo Hockey (SEL)	1989—1994; 2004—2005; 2008—2010
				Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche	1995—2004; 2008; 2011
				Philadelphia Flyers	2005—2007
				Nashville Predators	2007
2014	CZE	Dominik Hašek	G	Chicago Blackhawks	1990—1992
				Buffalo Sabres	1992—2001
				Detroit Red Wings	2001—2004; 2006—2008
				Ottawa Senators	2005—2006
				HC Pardubice (CEx )	2009—2010
				HC Spartak Moscow (KHL)	2010—2011
2014	USA	Mike Modano	C	Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars	1989—2010
				Detroit Red Wings	2010—2011

There are problems though. If we limit it to NHL and top league European teams, then we run into problems for women, international players and early amateur players because if we include national teams for Vladislav Tretiak or amateur teams for Harry Watson, someone will come along and try to add similar teams for others. A possible solution would be to simply list the years for the early non-NHLers and not include the team names. There is also the fact that NHLers tend to shift between teams more than NFLers, resulting in a much longer list. Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that falls into a TMI problem, honestly. There are only four players on your example, but they take up 15 lines on a table. The four for 2013 are 12 lines. 2012 is 18 or 19. 45 lines of code for the last 12 players. Multiply up to 250 players and you are looking at probably 800-900 lines. Looking at the current table though, I do think a years active column could add value. It would also take away the concern with female, international and early amateur players. Resolute 20:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• List of current NHL team rosters
• List of current NHL Eastern Conference team rosters
• List of current NHL Western Conference team rosters

I came across these articles, and I'm wondering what their use is. Do any other sports have this? Are they lists that are really needed?

I use the conference articles for easier access, when I'm correcting the birth countries. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We have

List of current NFL team rosters (split into NFC and AFC), and List of current NBA team rosters. So all of the Big Four leagues have similar list structures. I also tried MLS too, but didn't see one. Not sure how useful they are though... If someone wants to see one team's current roster, they'd go to the team article. Tavix |  Talk 

02:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought. GoodDay, these would be useful perhaps in a subpage of this WikiProject, so you and others who use the articles for that use would still have them. But I don't really see how they're useful in the mainspace.

Gloss

02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If the only thing that's useful about these lists is simply having all 30 templates in the same place, we have Category:National Hockey League roster templates. Just a thought... Tavix |  Talk  02:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The category entries have to be open, so as to analyze the rosters. Where's the List articles show the rosters fully. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we've had this exact same discussion a couple years ago, and the same thought emerged: article, or project subpage? Personally, I am indifferent to them. If they are viewed as having no value as an article, then projectifying (if I can coin a neologism) makes sense for people like GoodDay. Resolute 16:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am fairly indifferent, but if you look at them as a list of all players currently playing the NHL as opposed to just a collection of rosters, you begin to see why its probably a valid list article. And being that the other big 4 have them, I don't see a compelling reason to move them out of article space. -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey all,

As far as I can see, the reason player statistics are not updated mid-season is that "it complicates things and Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide up-to-the-date statistics". If a bot was conceived to do this specific task daily, making things less complicated, would the Wikiproject be willing to reconsider its prohibition of mid-season updates?

Acebulf (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A bot could do mid-season updates, or weekly, or whatever, sure. But for me personally, my underlying concern is that it will always be an arbitrary and necessarily out of date total, so going by full season is the cleanest and most consistent. A mid-season update, for instance, would only encourage various people to update for their favourite player or team while leaving the other 2500 active players untouched. That is the patchwork of inconsistent updates I worry about. Daily updates would alleviate that, but honestly, I don't want to see my watchlist flooded by 1000 updates a day. Resolute 14:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup that would seriously flood peoples watchlists. -DJSasso (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the currently template for

I feel like this has been a perennial proposal that has been rejected a few times but I can't think of any links off the top of my head to previous discussions. But from what I do recall the reason we don't list the others, is that being in those others don't tend to be super defining of those players. I can certainly see some arguments for the IIHF perhaps but even then I doubt many people could tell you who was in that one. I definitely would not put ones for universities or minor leagues. The reason we put the hockey hall of fame on the infoboxes was to make it stand out from infoboxes of other players. When you start putting every hall of fame imaginable on the infobox you take away from that. I would sooner remove what we currently have before I added all hall of fames. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we've gone down this route with the KHL draft, but not so much the HHOF box - at least previous discussions never went anywhere. From my point of view, I don't really see an issue with it, myself and I think that these other Halls are defining, even if they are a clear step below the HHOF. But I might suggest a limited list. Perhaps adding no more than two variable HOF boxes that can be adapted to fit IIHF, AHL, Canada's Sports Hall of Fame, USHHOF, etc. Resolute 16:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I would exclude the AHL Hall of fame, as the AHL is a minor league. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, they're really aren't THAT many Hall of Fames that it would get out of hand :-) I like what Resolute said - it should really be only used for the prominent ones. I just don't like the restriction of only being able to select HHOF only - agree with GoodDay about it making it seem somehow superior. It's 90 percent Canadians (not that there aren't great Canadian players :-)). Only a handful of people are in multiple ones, so I don't think it would take over the template in any way...

talk

) 17:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it depends where you draw the line. There are hundreds if not thousands of halls of fame that hockey players can belong to. For example a player from Winnipeg could be in the IIHF Hall of Fame, Hockey Hall of Fame, Canada Sports Hall of Fame, Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame, Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame, Winnipeg Sports Hall of Fame and that isn't even getting in to halls for other leagues or halls for cities/states in which he played on a team. Someone like Gretzky for example could be in multiple tens of halls. Once you start trying to decide which ones to include you get into the problem that baseball has with what awards to include on theirs. It just becomes way to subjective, by using just the HHOF we avoid the subjectivity because even though it is mostly Canadians, it is easily the most notable. Like I said above, I could possibly see adding the IIHF as well for non-NA players but anything else would become a far bigger issue. -DJSasso (talk)

Hmm. Well, should we consider adding only IIHF for now and then seeing where things go over time? Resolute 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be limited to three HOF - HHOF, IIHF and one left for national. This covers notability. I don't think this would get out of control. It works beautifully on the French template and looks classy.

talk

) 00:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would favour deleting HHOF membership from the ice hockey bio infoboxes, as it suggests their membership is above all others. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Use {{start date}} for the date on which an organisation was "established", "founded", "opened" or otherwise started, unless that date is before 1583 CE.

and somewhat lower down

Use {{Birth date}} for the "founded" date.

Isn't this a contradiction? Which is right? Not that I expect to use the template myself, but I noticed this while browsing randomly and editing HC All Stars Piemonte.

(I had this section on WP:Village pump (technical), but figured this was a better place for it.)

To discuss this with me, please

Hi Thnidu. I haven't checked the history, but I would bet that the contradiction in documentation is a result of a sloppy merge of two similar templates. Resolute 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Resolute. I bet you're right, but somebody who knows about this template should fix it, and I'm not that person. --Thnidu (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a case of that is what was done originally and then there was a standard template created for microformat comments and it had a comment about the start dates. And whenever it was added to this particular page they didn't remove the old comment which I have now done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed there is a lack of the use of {{

 | goals = 1 1 2:59 John Doe,Richard Roe,Bob Koe
2 1 5:12 Jan Jansson,Kate Carlson
2 2 8:15 Cindy Samuels
 | next_field = ...

isaacl (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I like hockeybox for events with multiple games - for for the NHL context, the playoffs or Stanley Cup Finals would be useful. For single game events, I think we have more leeway to expand the data, which is why I did 2011 Heritage Classic the way I did. Resolute 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah for single game events I don't expect the data to be templated, I generally perfer custom to that particular article so information can be expanded on that might be more relevant to that particular event. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The AHL is going to announce that at least five teams will relocate to California next year to create a Pacific division, and in at least two cases, that is going to result in a straight swap of ECHL and AHL affiliates as many of the NHL parent clubs have already, or are in the process of, buying teams. It leads me to wonder how these flips should be treated in the cases where teams are doing league flips. i.e., the Adirondack Flames are expected to announce a drop to the ECHL on Friday, one day after the Calgary Flame are announced as moving their AHL team to Stockton. It is a bit of a muddy situation since it could be argued as franchise relocations (Adirondack AHL --> Stockton and Stockton ECHL --> Adirondack), or as the two franchises remaining put, but changing league affiliations. How we treat this technicality will determine if we do a split, Adirondack Flames (AHL) and Adirondack Flames (ECHL) or retain one article for both league affiliations. I believe LA is also likely to do a league flip this way, while San Jose is simply relocating their AHL team without moving ECHL at this point and nothing is really known about what Edmonton is doing with their ECHL franchise after Bakersfield gets promoted.

Ideas, suggestions on how to handle the article changes? Also, needless to say that some eyes on all of the affected articles will be good after tomorrow when well meaning people start to change things prematurely. Adirondack Flames/Stockton Thunder, Oklahoma City Barons/Bakersfield Condors, Norfolk Admirals, Manchester Monarchs/Ontario Reign and Worcester Sharks will all definitely be affected. Resolute 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your description correctly, the Stockton organization, for example, is relinquishing its franchise rights in the ECHL and obtaining new rights in the AHL, so there is no organizational continuity from Adirondack to Stockton. Is this the case? I'm not familiar with the precedents; what has happened in the past when an owner changes affiliation? isaacl (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to dig through histories to come up with an example off the top of my head. GoodDay's mention of the Canucks is the closest I can think of as well, but the NHL explicitly does not recognize the WCHL Canucks as part of the franchise. I initially thought the Rockford IceHogs were a comparable, but that turned out to be a UHL team folding and being replaced by a relocated AHL team. Even then, it is more complicated; You are close on my description, but in the case of the Flames and the Kings affiliates, it is actually a double swap. The Flames own the Adirondack franchise (though locally managed), and they are purchasing the Stockton franchise. They will then swap league affiliates. So for league affiliation continuity, the expectation is the AHL team will transfer from Adirondack to Stockton, but the ECHL team will transfer from Stockton to Adirondack. (Same with Manchester and Ontario on LA's side). But since the same group will own both franchises in the same markets pre- and post-move, this will not be as clear-cut as a standard relocation. That is where I struggle to find an easy editing solution. Resolute 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If the names stay the same I would treat them as league changes. If the team name changes I would treat them as moves. If there is a mix then I would probably treat them as moves to keep them in line with the actual teams that are moving. Worcester and Norfolk. And I say this only because both teams are owned by the same entity anyway. And if the name is the same it makes things less confusing to consider them having just changed leagues. But if the name changes that isn't a problem. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kinda seems like the Vancouver Canucks entry into the NHL situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We seem to use league disambiguators on some team articles, so that would seem like a reasonable solution. For example, we have the case of the Peoria Rivermen (Peoria Rivermen (AHL) and Peoria Rivermen (SPHL), although there is no direct link of continuity between those two franchises). However, much like GoodDay noted, we also have the Vancouver Canucks and Vancouver Canucks (WHL) (I'm not sure how the WHL and NHL recognize the link between those two teams, but it seems like the case we have between the AHL and ECHL today, where the team switches from one league to another. In that case, I like the idea of having separate Adirondack Flames (AHL) and Adirondack Flames (ECHL) pages. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 21:33, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

The continuity question is the one that is problematic in my view. As you say, most examples are team A folding and team B replacing, even if they have the same name. In this case, neither team is folding, and neither is relocating. So there still exists continuity. Or for the Bakersfield Condors, the team will continue to exist, but it's ECHL membership is being promoted to an AHL membership. The Oklahoma City Barons are done after the season, and the Oilers will have a vacant ECHL membership with no determined future. At least the Sharks and Ducks are easy. The Worcester Sharks and Norfolk Admirals will be straight relocations. Resolute 21:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha! And to add to the confusion, the rumours out of Calgary right now include renaming the Adirondack team the "Adirondack Thunder". No word on whether the other franchise becomes the "Stockton Flames". Resolute 21:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

From the perspective of the fans in each city, I think they will look on it as a promotion/demotion of the organization from one league to another. So I think treating it as a reaffiliation/change of franchise, rather than a move, would probably best align with reader expectations. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Flames have apparently filed a trademark claim on the name Stockton Grizzlies so that looks to likely be the name for theirs. -DJSasso (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, look. How about we do it this way? Whatever's decided, the current teams will remain the current teams through the end of the season, right? So why not set up appropriate redirects from Future Franchise (AHL) to the current teams pending the season's conclusion, with appropriate sections discussing the relocation? Anything else, I think, would be a CRYSTAL violation: whatever the AHL announces isn't going to automatically (a) get the ECHL to sign off on it, (b) make new local ownership groups appear, (c) guarantee new team names/colors, or -- most importantly -- (d) not be subject to change if leases can't be obtained or local ownership groups screw the pooch. Ravenswing 23:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For other similiar situations. There's the IHL's folding in 2001 & some of its franchises moving to the AHL. Also, we've the WHA folding in 1979 & four of it franchises moving to the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone moved the Bobby Ryan page to

Hmm. The Hurler has a pretty good resume of his own. Personally, I'd probably leave it as is. There is probably enough of an argument for the other athletes that a dab page works. Resolute 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I recall a similiar situation (years ago) with the St. Louis Blues article. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Either way it needs a discussion if they want to pursue it so I reverted it, and left it up to them to put in a move request if they feel it needs it. I think its pretty clear Bobby Ryan is the primary topic. Especially being that he was an Olympian and plays a sport popular in multiple countries. I am pretty sure the coverage would far exceed what the Hurler could dig up. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the "Aftermath" section in the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals article. Any input is welcome. isaacl (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm almost positive I've asked this before, and if I haven't, I know many others have. Is the standard for adding alternate captains to

To me being listed as an alternate in game programs and the official game summaries are only indicative for those games, not of being a team's alternate captain in general. The Newsday reference however is harder to dispute, it's a reliable source reference indicating he's been named an alternate captain for a prolonged period even if its only temporary in Kyle Okposo’s absence. I probably wouldn't add him to the list, but I wouldn't remove him either with such a reference. 65.95.104.173 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I preffered the article the way it was, with the captains & alternate captains formatted together. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We go by the NHL team official website. It's too much of a headache, to insert & remove temporary injury fill-in alternates. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm talking about this one specific case here. Regardless of how much of a "headache" it is for us, shouldn't the goal be to keep the articles as accurate as possible? Having a reliable source, as I linked to above, that tell us that Clutterbuck has been named an alternate captain should be enough to accurately source that he has become one. If someone got the letter for a game or two, sure it may not make sense to add it in, but serving the role for a few months.. and having it reliable sourced, seems like enough for including it in.

Gloss

17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We should go by the NHL team official website, concerning alternate captains. PS Your mass changes to the article, has (IMHO) made the article more difficult to understand & likely update. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You said that already. That's not what this thread is about. But perhaps you'd like to check out

Gloss

17:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as we've stated our positions on these 2 issues, it's best we allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Since a Mass changes discussion related to the new format has also been started on the list's talk page, I'll respond there. 65.95.104.173 (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the official team roster website should be the primary reference, however the problem with only going with these official rosters is that some teams don't update theirs or are very slow to do so. The Oilers roster still doesn't show any captain or alternates. Orpik was correctly added as an alternate in the list in October even though the Capitals roster incorrectly still showed last season's alternates for a few more months. 65.95.104.173 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see this talk page section [5], I'm looking for input if anyone has anything to add.

Let's keep an eye on this hockey bio. An IP recently tampered with its death place. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like an IP is adding a ton of information to this article that may be accurate but very trivial. They have been adding content for the last two or three days and it would probably be best if some more people took a look at this. Deadman137 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently we seem to have a Devils super fan (all edits are from the same area, likely the same user) going through the three New Jersey Devils' championship seasons and adding a bunch of stuff. Some of it is useful, but we may want to look through what they are doing. Deadman137 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Not that idiot again. Not so much a Devils superfan, but one completely obsessed with half-assing the addition of trivial bloat about TV and radio broadcasts. They've hit numerous articles - usually championship teams or New York-area teams - in multiple sports with this crap. Resolute 21:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP's (possibly SNIyer12) at it again. Perhaps a ban will get his attention. Regrettfully, there are editors out there (registered or not) who have a one-track-mind & require a ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

At the very least it might be a good idea to semi-protect the six articles that are being targeted. Deadman137 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, semi-protection is needed. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Already is banned I believe. We play wack a mole now. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that the NHL is tracking advanced stats I guess the next question should be when or if we start adding these stats to player articles? Deadman137 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't include every stat counted as it is, so I don't see any need to include any of the advanced stats. Those can easily be linked to as an external link if we need to. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I say we don't. Baseball articles aren't loaded down with columns detailing WAR, win shares or runs created, however much those are stats with wide acceptance for decades now. No one heard of Corsi ratings five years ago, and I'd like it to stand the test of time before we put it into thousands of articles. Ravenswing 16:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the same mind set that we don't need to put these in. I figured that there was no harm in starting the discussion. Deadman137 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm a little caught up by the name of the article.
  Advanced statistics. Since it is discussing the topic of "Advanced statistics in ice hockey," I'd like to suggest the article be renamed to reflect that. Tavix |  Talk 
  21:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I
    started a discussion yesterday on the article's talk page; feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk
    ) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Ice Hockey members, please review these discussion threads: [6] and [7]. The changes proposed would affect the way we currently format all single-season NFL articles, and ultimately single-season articles for NHL and other major sports teams, too. Your feedback on the relevant talk pages is invited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never believed that a style used in one project needs to carry over to others, so what results from the NFL project's discussion does not necessarily have to be implemented here. Though discussion is always good. One comment on that discussion though. as far as background shading goes,

WP:ACCESS would probably be the key consideration. And in that respect, the guideline is to not use only colour to denote something, which is why we usually see silly little things like †, #, and the like attached to entries as visible markers to denote something. In the case of our tables, the scores themselves double as that marker, so no change is strictly necessary. Resolute

16:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Like Resolute, I believe that there's no reason why the templates and styles used by one WikiProject needs to be slavishly copied by others, and I certainly maintain that there's nothing about the American football WikiProject that makes it the arbiter of how other sports projects do things. Since I don't edit football articles, I don't think my feedback there's worth a whole lot! Ravenswing 05:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

While I generally agree with both of these comments. It can't hurt for opinions to be given. In some cases it is worth while to have a somewhat standardized format so readers don't constantly have to be figuring out how the same thing is being shown. I think this is probably one of those cases. That being said, I doubt there will actually be a change away from what is currently done. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As it stands, all draft picks involved in a transaction, conditionally or not, are listed on the NHL Transactions pages, and have links to the appropriate drafts. Within those linked draft pages, until each pick is finalized, there is a table listing draft pick conditions. If a pick is successfully converted and changes ownership, it is recorded permanently on the draft page. However if a pick is not converted, it gets wiped from page, as they should; these picks no longer affect change ownership, therefore no longer effect the outcome of the draft, and therefore do not need to be on that page.

However, as the main transactions page does not list conditions on draft picks, or the final outcome, this information is lost. For example, this year the Arizona Coyotes traded Philip Samuelsson to the Pittsburgh Penguins for Rob Klinkhammer and a conditional 5th round pick in 2016. The pick was conditional on Samuelsson playing 40 or more games for Arizona in the 2014-15 season. This conversion became impossible in late January when there were not enough games left for Samuelsson to hit the 40 game threshold that would trigger the exchange, and any mention of the transaction was removed from the 2016 NHL Entry Draft page. Now, if you go to the 2014-15 NHL Transactions page, and click on the 2016 link under that transaction, it brings you to a seemingly unhelpful page. It is still important to note the initial conditional pick on the Transactions page however, as that was a part of the risk the teams took when making the trade.

But to stop from rambling on anymore, would there be any sense of creating a new section within the transactions page (or, a little more out there, possibly even a separate page since the transaction pages are fairly long as is), that lists all conditions on the picks and if the conditions are met or not? All the information would be all in one spot and you could easily compare which picks actually changed hands or not.

Or would it be more realistic to not list the conditions but instead simply note "(not converted)" where appropriate on the Transactions page? -Uncleben85 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Those articles don't need another table. I think the best approach would be to use some type of symbol for unconverted conditional picks, similar to what is done for salary retention. Deadman137 (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the transactions page should list the deal at the time it was made. We could add a sueprscript to denote if it was converted or not, or we could add a note at the head of the table along the lines of "See the appropriate draft article for the resolution of conditional trades." Resolute 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

To put into context what happens when a conditional pick can not be converted look to the edit that I just made today in the

2015 draft article. Some type of superscript or symbol to designate what happened with the condition is probably needed in the correlating transaction article. Deadman137 (talk

) 21:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Should bandy be a part of this WikiProject? 78.78.1.90 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, no. Bandy is an entirely different sport. Resolute 14:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, completely different sport. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some bandy articles which have the template for this project on their talk pages. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody have a free diagram that could be put on the

You could create a copy of File:HockeyRink-Zones.png that highlights the location and use that, if you like. Resolute 16:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the articles about the years when the NHL did not have yet divisions, and all 6 teams played together. For example this article, or this. In the infoboxes we see written "Division". But may we call these round robin division? Maybe better is, in these articles to replace the word "division" (in infoboxes) with "place in the regular season"? It should be more correct--Unikalinho (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A user is attempting to mass delete the famed

• ChHL, Innisfail, Fort Sask, and Okotoks all here: [8]
• Bentley Generals [9]
• Stony Plain Eagles [10]
• NCSHL [11]

This amount of targeted PROD and AfD seems to be rolling towards

• Why's that? Couldn't it simply be that the nom found a bunch of senior league articles that were poorly (or un-) referenced and put them up for AfD? Honestly, the way to save the articles isn't to get mad, or come back with "Seems plenty notable to me" answers: who among us would accept that from a newbie editor? It's to post several good sources. Ravenswing 05:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly believe that that is what unreferenced tags are for. They are poorly referenced, I agree... and I am not sure if you noticed but I have already begun posting "several good sources" to articles along with my comeback of "Seems plenty notable to me"... so, why would I accept that from a newbie editor? No (as I have already started down that road and am not done), but what annoys me is the PRODing and then AfDing a bunch of Allan Cup-related articles without doing a source check. Thank you for your input, it is appreciated. DMighton (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• This McMatter isn't a newbie editor. He's been on Wikipedia for five years, he's got over 7,000 edits, and he's far from an AfD rookie. I don't think he's done the source checking he ought to have done, but this isn't vandalism. Ravenswing 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying he was a newbie editor... I was responding to what you said: who among us would accept that from a newbie editor?... anyways... the POINT thing was probably me just speaking in frustration... I retract the statement. DMighton (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would think the leagues (or in some Provinces' cases the teams) that compete for the Allan Cup are quite notable. League below the Senior AAA rank, get iffy and I wouldn't think there is much coverage out there. I follow the Lloydminster Border Kings, this season they switched to Alberta Senior from Saskatchewan, which means at least one season in Senior AA. Their league the Battle River Hockey League plays against the North Central Senior Hockey League for the Alberta Senior AA championship (being hosted this year in Daysland, a BRHL town). The Border Kings do not get coverage at all in Lloydminster. Both newspapers barely mentioned them (and only started showing scores after I kept on the sports reporters via Twitter) and local TV gives no coverage. The city barely knew they existed, I went to a few games and the highest attendance I saw was in the low 100s. Senior hockey's profile in Canada is slowly dying off I think. With the plethora of minor pro hockey and players playing in Europe, the quality has gone down significantly since the 1970s (which according to my Dad is when the Saskatoon Quakers disappeared and the major junior Saskatoon Blades became a big deal). The fact that this year because the Allan Cup is being held in Newfoundland, and as a result there are only two leagues and five other teams competing for the Allan Cup, says a lot about how notable Senior AAA hockey is anymore. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed deletions as well, but the proposals themselves are fair comment, not POINT. The notability of senior hockey has been fading for years; current teams won't meet the levels of historical ones. But, the easy solution is to show sources. Resolute 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Under the "Founded" section of the infobox, some teams use the date the franchise was founded, while others use the date the team began playing in its current location. Personally, I'd go with the latter, because any such "team" articles should be primarily focused on that one iteration of the franchise. However, there does not seem to be a clear consensus one way or the other, so that's why I'm asking you. what your thoughts are? Tom Danson (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Founded" = founded; that is -- or should be -- a no-brainer. If the intent of the infobox was to have "Moved" instead, the template should have said so. Ravenswing 11:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Like what Ravenswing said, the "founded" field should list the date that the team was founded. Any subsequent moves or name changes should be listed under the "history" field (NHL template) or "franchise history" fields (pro hockey template). Tavix |  Talk  14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed; whoever thought of adding that 'franchise history' section to the template is a smart cookie. Ravenswing 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So does founded mean the year in which the franchise started operations, or the first year in which it competed? I think most people expect first year of competition, but technically the organization is founded once it starts planning/operating after the franchise is granted. isaacl (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Could probably include both, if available? Resolute 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe it would actually be once they started playing, as the franchise is just the ability to compete. Sure the company existed prior to competition, but until they stepped on the ice the franchise to play hasn't actually been executed. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It is usually used to mean when they started playing. Doesn't matter if they have moved at any point. The confusion lays with the fact that people often confuse team with franchise. The franchise stays the same as it moves. Its been pretty clear consensus that its always been that way, but I can imagine lots of people have changed articles of minor league teams over the years and it was never noticed that it wasn't the correct date. I know we had a sockpuppet at one point trying to change all the minor league founded dates and we played wack a mole for awhile blocking all their new accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What if we changed the "founded" field to "first season"? That would remove any ambiguity. Resolute 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with using "first season" to remove ambiguity. isaacl (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually think this might cause more confusion since "founded" refers to the franchise and "first season" sounds more like the team's first season. I have been finding many minor league pages with this exact problem of editors changing the "founded" to the team's "first season" (which could be easily listed under the franchise history or the "operated" line for a past team). Yosemiter (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How about "Franchise's first season"? Once upon a time, teams were founded and started play almost immediately, but now organizations are created and start hiring personnel for years before the first season of play, including coaching staff. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say that Template:Capgeek is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 22. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 02:05, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to page protect Boston Bruins, because it get vandalized a lot by trollers and every time we ask for page protection, it gets ignored for no good reason on their part. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Bruins' page has had a lot of vandalism lately. Ravenswing 22:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Kind of a tough call. Three vandal edits in ten days isn't generally enough to lockout potential good faith people, but it does get tiring. I'm eyeing the article, but ping me on my talk page if it gets worse. Resolute 22:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Resolute: I seen that article get vandalized by trollers who are not fans of that team. I put it on my watchlist. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah to get protection you usually need to be hit by many different people in a day. But its on my watch list too so if I see it get up to protection level I will protect it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• I've got every team in the NHL and AHL on my watchlist, in addition to all defunct NHL/AHL/WHA team articles, and I wind up doing more reverts than constructive edits a good bit of the time. Ravenswing 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Then I would find some way to set up pending changes protection on those articles or page protect them so we won't have to do reverts a lot of times. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Highly visible pages are always going to get vandalism, that is just a fact of life of a wiki everyone can edit. Most edits unless there is a sustained attack on a page during a short period of time don't really take much time to revert. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about jumping on the list of NHL Goalies. Is there anyone that would like to assist me with this project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brnelson14 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

With the institution of a new

There I fixed the links, outside of User Pages and Archival Talk Pages. I really wish there was a portion of the move section that would just automatically fix the backlinks. As an aside, most of the pages could use some work. It appears that many were written by someone who's first language is not English. I'd say that if someone is interested, a grammatical/syntax cleanup on many of these pages could be used. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[12]

The New York Rangers page is really lacking citations. So I'm working on bringing them in. I have a list here of citations needed. I already put some in, and removed some POV statements. If I can get some help just citing these, I'd be pretty grateful.

1. most observers note a Ron Francis slapshot from the blue line that eluded Mike Richter as the series' turning point (needs citation)
2. The Rangers clinched the Presidents' Trophy by finishing with the best record in the NHL at 52–24–8, setting a franchise record with 112 points. (needs citation)
3. Alexander Karpovtsev, Alexei Kovalev, Sergei Nemchinov, and Sergei Zubov became the first Russians to have their names engraved on the Stanley Cup. (needs citation)
4. On September 12, 2011, Ryan Callahan was named the 26th Captain in New York Rangers history. (needs citation)
5. In the seventh game, the Rangers took a 2–0 first period lead, with Messier scoring later to put the Rangers up 3–1, the eventual Cup winning goal as the home team won 3–2, becoming the first (and to this date, the only) player to captain two teams to the Stanley Cup. (needs citation)

I'll be sure to find more, but as of now, this is what I have. I'll update this list as I go along.--Brnelson14 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

refs for those 5 items added. For the Ron Francis thing, I changed "most" to "some", as while I do see people call attention to it it doesn't seem overwhelmingly universal. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks a ton. I'm also going through and fixing the issues with one of the sections that Wikipedia has as having information that can be moved to a different article. So I'll be looking around. Also, I was disappointed with a lot of wording in the article. If you find anything, just change it, I have the article on my watch list so I can keep track of what is going on with it. Brnelson14 (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There's some mistakes in the order of teams in Conference standings, for the

Under Page Information look for the template used and update the template such as Template:1989–90 NHL Campbell Conference standings. I guess these were used to make it easier to update all the season pages at once. Yosemiter (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I fixed up a few, but it's tricky. From 1981-82 to 1992-93, playoff teams were determined by the top 4 clubs in each division :) GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I looked into the source for those tables and they are copied directly from the NHL website itself and they seem to be out of order there as well. Using the 89-90 table as an example, it lists Winnipeg above Chicago despite having fewer points. They were in different divisions then but that shouldn't really matter, so I guess the NHL just listed there historical standing incorrectly. Yosemiter (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble unbolding & bolding teams. From what I can tell, the sources & templates are mistaking the future practice of Division leaders taking up the top 2 spots. Perhaps the 1989-90, 1990-91 & 1991-92 Template conference standings should be deleted entirely. Finishing in the top 8 didn't automatically qualify for the playoffs, then. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you were trying to make it look like? Template:1990–91 NHL Wales Conference standings Yosemiter (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay:, try entering |- style="font-weight: bold;" before each line that you want to bold, it will save you lots of effort with the bold such as I did with Template:1992–93 NHL Wales Conference standings Yosemiter (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The former is a 're-direct', the latter is an article. Both need to be combined under the former's title or the latter should be deleted until the current season/playoffs is over. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I switched the articles content so the former is the article and the latter is a redirect as is done with every other season. I am not sure why you want to delete an article on the upcoming season except that it needs some citations for the schedule announcement. It had two invalid citations prior to my moving them. Yosemiter (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion isn't overly necessary. Thanks for fixing up the mixup. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Neil, the season just ended today, I'm not sure if you watch hockey, and he is the top goalie in all statistics. And the top goalie gets the trophy. It is official that it's him but is not officially given to him until the Nhl awards in June

@Thedude061899: Please read the article. "At the end of each season, the thirty NHL general managers vote to determine the winner." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Price won. Please refer to this websitehttp://espn.go.com/nhl/trophies

@Thedude061899: Either our article is wrong (unlikely) or that website is a prediction of who is going to win. I will raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Feedback? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear this is simple trolling other edits of his are just made up nonsense.

18abruce (talk

) 06:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there's an actual problem here; the Vezina Trophy article is untouched. Ravenswing 06:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at the Montreal Canadiens article, the Jennings trophy article, or the Carey Price article not the actual vezina trophy article.

18abruce (talk

) 06:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that it is the time of year when junior hockey franchises re-brand or relocate, I thought I should ask other editors opinions on the creation of new articles vs. moving articles to a new name for Tier III junior teams. User:Djsasso and I had a brief discussion over here about whether Tier III teams even are notable for their own pages and if they are then should every relocation be a new page. (Springfield Express used to contain the history for all four iterations of the franchise before being split into stubs). The majority of teams have just had their articles moved as low-level teams change frequently. Thoughts? Yosemiter (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, I would support new articles for relocations (

WP:NOTPAPER and the like). The question of whether Tier III junior in the US or Junior B/C/D in Canada is notable enough for separate articles at all is more of an open question that I am not certain I have fully formed opinion on at this point. Resolute

19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My vote would be to keep a single main article and use redirects for previous iterations. On merit, we know that one of these individual articles at Tier III wouldn't pass

WP:ROUTINE, and we know that they're never going to be more than stubs: annual won-loss records, an indifferently updated infobox, and the occasional mention of the team's most distinguished alum (a 4th-liner for the Sabres, or some such). Ravenswing

00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think they need to be split. Articles remaining small and stub-like aren't necessarily something I think is a problem other than to say obviously we want bigger ones. But I see no reason to move away from splitting like we do at any other level. As for the notability of the teams themselves. I would think many of them are probably not notable, but some of them probably are. So I would hesitate to make a blanket statement that applies to all Tier III teams. I think they would need to be handled on a case by case basis. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

For the wild card team in the bracket, shouldn't they be captioned as "W1" or "W2" instead of "WC"? Just a thought.

The problem is, we never know from year to year which wild card will face which division winner. For example, this year, P1 vs WC2 and C1 vs WC1. We don't know if the same will hold for next year, though. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 07:06, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to change, the later round seeds are already entered by hand anyway, the same can be done for the wild card seeds, listing them as W1 and W2 respectively. CRwikiCA talk 14:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It really isn't that hard to do, I used the current template for the all of the Stanley Cup playoffs articles during the Divisional era. It's just four lines of code for what is being suggested here. Deadman137 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi hockey fans!

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer), a new league table format has been developed since december 2013 to be more MOS compliant and improve updating. It has now spread its use to other sports such as handball, korfball, basketball and probably more I dont know about. The intention is to use the same format around wikipedia, uniform and consistent all over wikipedia so there is not so many different standings tables. It may help readers if they have the same base.

The new format can be found at Module:Sports table and example tables can be seen at 2014–15 UEFA Champions League, Template:2014–15 Premier League table or UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. This can be compared to current tables at 2014–15 NHL season and 2014–15 HockeyAllsvenskan season.

Columns can be modified and if there is interest a version of the module to fit NHL will easily be created (with ROW and so on). If needed I can make a comparison between two tables, for example a module version of hockeyallsvenskan table and then you can compare the two tables.

Is there any interest/comments? QED237 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No comments? Do you like the idea? Want example tables? QED237 (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I am not sure each sport should have the same tables. Sports are wildly different. Its been shown many times that one size does not fit all when it comes to sports. Also unless I am missing something that isn't used on your examples above, none of your examples are sortable which is not at all good as that is one of the most important features of a standings table. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, if a Lua module is going to be used, I prefer a less verbose syntax for specifying each team's data, like in my work-in-progress template (an example of how it looks in use is available at User:Isaacl/NHL standings/testcases/2012–13 NHL standings. isaacl (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Djsasso: A sortable option can be added to the module (that is one of the few functionalities that the module doesn't have).
@Isaacl: Module:Sports table has a lot of advanced features, which makes the code long, but also allows it to recreate pretty much any table currently used. The benefit of having only named parameters is that it is hard to break. If you remove only one value in your Module it gives a non-descript error message, in the generic table module it would just list that as 0. I understand you did a lot of work on your module, overall for Wikipedia it is probably sub-optimal if every league uses a slightly different forked version of a template. Keep in mind that troubleshooting should be relatively easy for novice users for anything on Wikipedia. Also, the hockey project deals with many more leagues than the NHL, if Module:Sports table is used for some of those, it does not automatically mean it has to be used for all. CRwikiCA talk 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The whitespace-delimiter format was designed to make it easy to copy-and-paste the results from a source with minimal changes, so in practice, I think it may be less prone to errors than with a named parameter format, where the value for each column has to be pasted into the right place. I have no issue with using a common template if it meets the desired needs of those interested in the sport or league in question; I'm only suggesting that an easier-to-update syntax is desirable. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I do like Isaacl's method better, makes pasting in results much easier and faster but I haven't looked into all the options possible. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A standings table is for standings and standings are in a special order. Regular stats table may be reordered, but never a standings table. QED237 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And yes there is nmo table that fits all, that is the purpose of the submodules but all table should have the same idea/base. QED237 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that readers would not want to re-order a standings table; I believe they like to sort on other columns directly from the standings table, rather than going to another page to do so. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that isn't true, you are making an assumption. Why would we have two separate tables that show the exact same data, but one that is sortable and one that isn't. That is just ridiculous. A standings table is a stats table. Our job is to present the table in the most usable way possible. And many users will want an easy way to sort the different columns to see that data laid out in the way they want it. But to force readers into seeing that information in just one order is extremely bad form. But if it can be added as CRwikiCA mentions that will make it somewhat better as you will find most tables we use are sortable for hockey articles. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Man, you have no idea how often I re-order standings tables, especially in hockey where various tiebreakers depend on games played, wins, ROW, etc. Or when I want to sort by goals for or against. Resolute 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I mentioned just about the same thing on the Module's talk page. Pretty much every time I go to a standings table I sort it in one way or another. I also pointed out that if you go to a website that displays standings they are usually sortable so readers would expect it. I personally can't imagine a situation when we wouldn't want to allow a user choice. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cant say that I agree, but if you want it as a option fine, as long as it does not affect all other tables and sports. IF we move a long besides the sorting issue, do you have any other comments or do you think it is possible to use the module? All columns will be modified to match the style of the local league. QED237 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would categorically oppose any change that is intended to force certain a visual style onto every sport/template, so absolutely, my intention is to ask for sorting only for projects/leagues/sports where it is wanted and useful. As to the coding itself, I find those soccer examples unnecessarily convoluted, but I also recognize that I am used to the current formatting. As long as the modules allow for visual formatting customizations (which seems obvious given the stylistic differences between the league table and tournament table in your examples), then I wouldn't oppose a coding change. I would be interested to see a mock-up of a season table for the NHL. Resolute 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are some differences that can be set for individual tables, for example small tournaments has the results next to the table, and for example 2014–15 Champions Hockey League could have the same style. The major difference today is the coloring, football tables (and some others) have always had coloring and a legend next to table explaining colors, but as some readers may be colorblind this new modules follow MOS and has color and explanation in the table. In NHL this would probably mean color will stay, but we have statusletters as usual for the normal "qualified for playoffs" and so on. Since a subtemplate has to be created for the NHL style, with ROW, maybe that is not the first example table to make but I can make an other mock-up table as example. QED237 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have done a quick example for HockeyAllsvenskan, (without inserting numbers and just added some statusletters). For NHL and proper implementation as I said columns would be modified to add ROW and division and also statusletters would be fixed to match the table (this is example use). User:CRwikiCA can look at the sorting. Also if you have any other suggestions just say so. The current example would be.

While the current is

k – qualified for HockeyAllsvenska Finalen; p – qualified for Slutspelsserien; e – eliminated from play-off contention; r – play in 2015 Kvalserien till HockeyAllsvenskan

What do you think? QED237 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem making a mock table for the NHL, but I will need to implement the sortability option first. I understand that hockey tables don't use colours (unlike soccer you can't qualify for 5+ different things, so it's not needed). Most of the current look is readily available in the module, the only difference is that team highlighting in the module is handled by bolding the entire line of the team rather than shading the background. Edit conflict, the table that QED proposes can also be easily adjusted to:

Footnotes etc are handled easily by the module as well. CRwikiCA talk 16:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont think they "grey split" is needed in the table but one alternative could be to have both division top3 and wildcards in same table for NHL and have the "grey split" to separate those (although the "rank would have to be modified). QED237 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted, the colour issue isn't a problem for NHL/North American templates as the standard is already to denote playoff qualification using letters. i.e. at {{2013–14 NHL Western Conference standings}}, although those should be modified anyway since bolding is not appropriate in this case. The standard is to use x–team name to denote playoff qualification, y– for division win and z– for regular season champion. So that is easy.

You noted that the NHL is a bit of a bear for a mock-up due to ROW. That brings up a question about backwards compatibility, as hockey has used many different standing systems in the past. There was the classic Win-Loss-Tie, then Win-Loss-Tie-Overtime Loss, Win-Loss-Overtime Loss-Shootout Loss, and now Win-Loss-OT/SO Loss. So if we plan to go backwards, then the coding has to be able to support all of this. After that and ROW in recent seasons, that just leaves the standard stuff. GF, GA, Points, winning percentage. How would the NHL's current Wildcard system work? That is essentially three tables per conference now: The top three in each division in their own table, and then the rest of the teams in a conference wildcard standing. (example in my link above.) Would that be done as three separate tables/templates, or merged as one? Resolute 17:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a minor comment: although I think the ability to support the various standing systems in the past should be examined for feasibility to better understand how future standings systems can be handled, it's probably not a priority to actually go and change the past season articles, in terms of value gained versus effort required. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to modify the style to start with x- etc instead of a letter in the end. It also seems to be that different North Americam hockey leagues use different table formats (and different rows to boot) is there a unified hockey guideline, or has it more evolved like this because different people edit different leagues? Every module call would in principle create one table, a single template could call the module three times in a row as basically happens now as well. CRwikiCA talk 19:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a unified guideline that I am aware of, no. The differences likely have a lot to do with different editors having different ideas, but also because leagues themselves are different. The NHL tends to lead, but lower leagues follow slowly, at different rates, and aren't always consistent. So table setups sometimes become muddled. Resolute 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There already exists some submodules, like WDL (Win-draw-loss, standard in many sports like football/soccer), WL OT (as in example above with win-ot_win/so_win-ot_loss/so_loss-loss like in all european hockey leagues) and WL (win-loss). All those are without ROW. So many hockey league are already covered it is America left, but more submodules can be created to cover more formats (thats the mock-up, it has to be created, not hard to do but feels like we should not create something if it never will be used so better to check interest first). The tables can be made in different ways, both in separate tables as it is now, and all in one table, that does not depend on the module, it is about how we use the module and how we want it to look. About the letters, how they are displayed can be modified, however my personal preference is to add it after team nama like example above, that is how I am used to see it and if it does not matter to much to you it makes tables more consistent on wikipedia. As User:Isaac1 says, it is more about future than looking backwards. QED237 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Letters preceeding is how it is done in North America, and that is the standard used in the real world and is what the reader would expect to see. Letters following for European leagues should be used if that is their standard. As to other formats, if part of this is to support

WP:ACCESS

concerns, then we should be looking backward as well as forward. But, looking at North America and the present time only, hockey would need W-L-OTL ROW (NHL), W-L-OTL-SOL (Most of the rest, and historically for NHL). The international tournaments are currently on a W-OTW-OTL-L format (the 3-2-1-0 point format). The other columns are pretty much standard. GF, GA, Pts. GD for international. We don't do Pct (points percentage) now, but I wouldn't mind discussing the addition of that.

Many of the historical standing formats likely already have modules that will work for you One of the key differences between North American hockey and European soccer, where I think most of these modules come from, is that losses precede ties. So a W-D-L module would not work as we would need W-L-T, and specifically noted as "ties" rather than "draws" (ENGVAR).

Much of this is cart before the horse, of course. Personally, I would support the changes if it improves our tables re: WP:ACCESS, but other editors still need to weigh in. Particularly whether your LUA format is better for everyone than what Issacl is working on. Resolute 14:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I had stopped work on my template when my request for feedback received none; if there's interest now, and an existing template can be extended to meet the desired needs, that's great! I started with the idea of having the entire league standings in one template, from which the individual division, conference, and playoff tables could be generated by passing in a parameter specifying what is desired. Continuing to use separate templates would make the module implementing the template easier to maintain though, so that might be better, even if it unfortunately means duplicating info in different templates. Knowing there are numerous editors who like updating these tables regularly, I wanted to devise an input format that would facilitate this, ideally with a copy-and-paste from a reference website and some minimal fixup editing. I assume the Sports table module could be extended with a different input parsing routine for the standings data, if there were sufficient will and consensus to do so, but either way, I think there can be benefits to moving away from the current hard-coded wikitable markup. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: The minor issues can be taken care of without too much of a problem I would say, I think we need to start from a core set-up and then work from there. The way the module is set up is that there are different style sub-module that effectively define the order and content of the rows, so a new style can accommodate to that. @Isaacl: It would be possible to call the sports table module from another module that would take care of parsing things differently, ultimately it depends what is easiest for users that regularly update these tables. Although that might defeat the point of using the sports table module as well. Did you receive any feedback at all about your work (or do you have a link to a relevant thread)? CRwikiCA talk 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, no feedback was received. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive61#Standings templates is the most recent post I made on this topic. I don't thing the purpose is defeated by having a pre-processing parsing routine; all of the functionality on the back-end would get reused, which is where all the heavy lifting is done. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Initial version

I created a new style for leagues with W-L-OTL and tiebreaker and implemented it for the western wild card standings as an example based on the kind of info in the current tables:

The |showteam=TTT parameter can be used to print any team in bold for team season pages. Any input is welcomed. CRwikiCA talk 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237, Resolute, and Isaacl: Just to alert you of the previous post. CRwikiCA talk 14:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Visually it looks fine to me, though "match(es)" should be replaced with "games" on the note. Is "tiebr_team" better than "row_team" for your syntax? If "ROW" is hardcoded into this module's header, then I would say the latter should be used to minimize confusion for any editors updating such a table. Resolute 15:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The ROW column is defined by a call to |tiebr_header=, to accommodate for potential different tiebreaker rules. If you think that is not ideal, I can change it into a hardcoded version and use ROW_team instead. The different flavours of English come into play, except for games vs. matches, is there anything else that is worded "wrong"? CRwikiCA talk 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That was the only engvar thing I noticed. I figured the use of "tiebr" was meant to allow for other functionality, but at the same time, if part of the goal is to make it easier for people to update the stats, then a confusing label runs counter to that. But something like that is fixable with a commented out note. Resolute 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: I adjusted this and updated the table. Is there any other steps you suggest taking, or would it be best to implement it now for the last month of the season? CRwikiCA talk 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection, personally. Might be interesting to see how easily some of our regular table updaters and the anons interact with it Resolute 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been swamped with real life, but I'll try to set it up this week, before it's too late... CRwikiCA talk 14:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: The final version would like as follows, is that okay with you?

CRwikiCA talk 19:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The new table looks great, though shouldn't the Pld section be GP for consistency? Deadman137 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

GP could be used instead, whatever the preference is. The only issue I see is that the VTE buttons are kind of awkward to use when the team names are sortable as well. CRwikiCA talk 14:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I will implement the new tables for the 2014–15 season soon for both the conference and wildcard standings now the regular season is over. CRwikiCA talk 17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been noticing that ThatSportsGuy (talk) has been going around to a bunch of NHL team pages and is trying to change the layouts of quite a few of these articles. The basic look that user is going for is fine but they are removing a lot of history with regards to all-time team stats. Deadman137 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey it's ThatSportsGuy. I just removed some of the stats because they don't contribute to a team's overall record. It's not like the number of points an NBA basketball team scores in a season are shown in it's list of seasons, so why should it be any different for hockey? It looks better when the tables show only the stats that contribute to a team's overall regular season standing, not stats such as goals scored in a season or penalties in minutes that have no effect at all on a team's regular season standing. Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Things like goals scored in hockey matter because they contribute to tie breakers. I don't believe the same can be said for basketball. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe a standard of "contributing to season standing" is a sufficient criteria. I think we ought to look at what reliable sources do when listing a brief summary of a team's season: what stats do they include as key characteristics? isaacl (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Either way its the standard across media for listing season standings to include GF and GA. And it can contribute to team standings due to tie breakers. -DJSasso (talk)

GF/GA are invariably included in media stats in hockey. I'm somewhat surprised that anyone knowledgeable about sports is confused about the fact that different sports have different stats which are considered important. Baseball and basketball have "games behind" included in standing blocks. Other sports don't. The Premier League includes a "goal difference" stat. Other sports don't. Football, baseball and basketball post winning percentage. Soccer and hockey don't. And Isaacl is entirely right: it's not our job to decide what stats are or are not important, or what should be considered meaningful were we in charge of professional sports. It's our job to set down what a preponderance of media sources considers important. Ravenswing 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And historically GF total has affected who has made the playoffs and who has not, like in

18abruce (talk

) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I appreciate the enthusiasm, ThatSportsGuy, but what works for one sport is not necessarily proper for another. Goals for and against is included in virtually every historical season list in hockey. It matters. Resolute 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Goals for/against is an easy one to deal with. Regarding penalties in minutes, personally I think it is a key characteristic to convey the context in which a team's defense must perform. isaacl (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)