Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey:


Archive

Archives


Archive index

2004-06
1
2
2006
3
4
5
6
7
8
2007
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2008
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2009
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
2010
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
2011
44
45
46
47
48
49
2012
50
51
52
53
54
2013
55
56
57
58
59
2014
60
61
62
2015
63
64
65
2016
66
67
2017
68
69
70
2018
71
72

Contract details in team's season page

The last time I asked about the final roster in team's season page. I wrote that I would take a look at the team's season page format and try to create a style guide for it, but did not have the time to finish it and this effort lies somewhere in my HDD. However, while thinking that I should get back to it, I thought of contract details for players in such pages. Team's rarely publish the contract details in their official press releases and CapFriendly is used most times as a source for these details, but those details are questionable since no sources are listed. Should contract details be considered as WP:FANCRUFT? They might be relevant to a player's page (which is still unsourceable), but is hardly relevant for the team's season page. I thought that the season pages of Calgary Flames could be used as an example in this post, but looks like it still lists contract details here and there. I instead started experimenting in one of my sandboxes, but want to see other users' opinions before showing an actual example to everyone else. Opinions from other users would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

In addition, some users insist on listing contract type (one-way or two-way) in the transactions tables as can be seen at 2018–19 Montreal Canadiens season, which is nothing more than a WP:FANCRUFT and is only relevant to players' pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this should be on a case by case basis, I wouldn't do it for every player on the team for the very reasons you suggest, but if there is a particularly notable one that made a lot of headlines I would include it. Say Tavares for example. And in saying that it should be in the prose of the season page, not as a list. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand that listing contract details in BLPs is a case-by-case basis (I rarely add them), but my main question was regarding the tables' formats in the team's season page (for example, 2018–19 New Jersey Devils season). Should contract details be removed from the tables? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't referring to their bios themselves, technically season pages are supposed to have sections of prose at the top of them that talk about what happened in the off season and during the season. I would include the notable salaries in that prose section but I wouldn't in a list (aka table). -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is an example of the transactions' section in team's season page. I think that the free agents' tables should get some work and could be merged into one table as can bee seen at 2018–19 Pittsburgh Penguins season#Free agents (contract details should be removed) or two separate tables could be placed more closely as can be seen at 2018–19 Calgary Flames season#Additions and subtractions. At this point I am not sure which of the three formats is better. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that the contract length is FANCRUFT. The money value on the other hand is complicated by bonuses and not knowing whether whatever salary capfriendly or whoever lists is precise. I've never been a fan of listing departing players contract details with other teams. A transactions section like this minus the contract values is my preference. --SP17 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It is good that you showed what you prefer, but the changes being discussed here would touch all the teams' season pages. We are not changing the layout of the "Transactions" section and that could be determined later. We are discussing whether to list or not to list the contract details. I am not trying to change your opinion, but contract details are WP:FANCRUFT (contract's length included) since it only matters to a very small group of people and if a contract is really that notable then it could be mentioned in prose (BLP can have more information about it). In my opinion, all the transactions (excluding trades) should be converted from tables to lists since that is the format that WP:NHL prefers per many discussions in the past. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that length is cruft, as that is verifiable and important. If we are noting the signing, the actual length would be relevant as well. Only reason I don't think we should have the salary figure is because it is hard to verify. Length on the other hand is always announced. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
While I am against keeping the contract length, but I will accept whatever is decided (if decided). If we are going to continue listing the contract length then the field should be renamed appropriately ("Contract length", "Length" or similar). In addition, what about the contract type (entry-level, one-way, two-way, etc)? Yes, I know that the type is usually announced, but do we really need to list it? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah we probably don't need type. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
In a cap world, the salary hit and type of contract help a lot with understanding why teams make the moves they do. I agree, though, that the many readers aren't going to be taking advantage of this info, and so it may be better left to specialist web sites/databases. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────── Since there are users that agree, I intend to remove the contract details and leave only the contract length. Any objections? And how that field in the tables should be named? "Length", "Contract length" or there are better proposals? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Contract length is fine with me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying that "CapFriendly is used most times as a source for these details, but those details are questionable since no sources are listed" is just blatantly and demonstrably false. CapGeek is a verifiable and sourced web source as they do have sources for contracts. They note on their page whether a contract is confirmed or not as well. For example, here is a recent signing. You can notice that under the contract details a source is listed. Also, if you'd want to rid of the amount of the contract, then we should go with the annual average value which supplies better information than the contract total. I do not agree with this proposed new design either. Looks much worse and utilizes more negative space. If you were to change it to anything, you should've asked the curator of the Penguins season page since it easily provides the most information and the cleanest fashion. Nanerz (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the are no "page curators" as you are trying to imply and I do not have to ask anyone when a change is made per WP:BOLD. If you have not noticed, the format was based on the 2018–19 Pittsburgh Penguins season page with a few tweaks and I have not implemented the new format in the pages of the Calgary Flames, Philadelphia Flyers and Pittsburgh Penguins. The format was changed, because there is no need for 10 tables when the same information can be listed in less tables. Sometimes less is better, and WP:NHL does exactly that (for example, navboxes for Stanley Cup-winning teams are not created among other things). Secondly, very few news articles from the teams list the contract amount. Here are the examples of "reliable source" for players' contracts – Shea Theodore, John Tavares, Marc-André Fleury (no source is listed and only "CapGeek" is written) and many more. Reports from journalists are not reliable and the only reliable information comes from the teams. In addition, contract amount or type is WP:FANCRUFT and as I already wrote in my previous posts – it is only relevant to a very small group of people. If the information comes from the team, then it can be introduced in the player's page in prose, but there is no need to do that in team's season page. It is also strange that a new user pops out of nowhere (not talking about another account, which you are not using) and starts editing only the pages, which are related to the NHL teams' seasons and tries to force his/her opinion. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that contract type and salary information is of importance to only a small number of readers. Team transactions are heavily influenced by these and having this information presented as part of a team's season provides a greater understanding of its personnel decisions. That being said, a static table isn't the best way to provide this context; an interactive timeline would probably be better. Thus until this can be provided within Wikipedia, it may be better to allow other sites to fill this need. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, by curators I believe it was fairly obvious I was referring to those maintain a unique page from the other teams (those being Calgary, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis). Secondly, you state that you don't need to ask to make a change yet you did and no one saying you needed to. Thirdly, yes sometimes less is better, but not in this case. A better implementation would have been a single table for incoming and outgoing players akin to the Pittsburgh page yet you managed to make it look like an unorganized mess. My comment on asking the curator of Pittsburgh's page (as in the person who created the table) was simply out of respect to him. Fourthly, there was not 10 tables, there were 7, 2 of which most teams did not require. For my proposed table, there would only be 2 tables (incoming/outgoing players & re-signings/prospect signings). Fifthly, every signing if you have noticed does not source directly to CapGeek. They all have separate sources for their own respective signings. I do not understand how TSN, SportsNet, ESPN, etc. are not reliable news sources to you. Are there instances where sources are incorrect? Yes, as with every other news source. However these mistakes get corrected and shall get corrected when noticed. You are claiming that the only possible source for such information is only able to be found on CapFriendly, which is once again unequivocally false. Sixthly, you cannot claim that only a small group cares about this information therefore we shouldn't include it since you have no evidence of such and are simply relying on your own bias. Finally, you are no better than any other editor on this website. You are not above me or any other user that edits these pages. Is this how you treat all new users? Simply because I am a newer user does not mean that my opinion is any lesser to your own. I can edit whichever posts I want and do not have any necessity to edit any other pages than the ones I do. Check your ego at the door, for everyone's sake. This is not the first time you have treated me with disrespect. Nanerz (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
CapFriendly is generally considered not reliable, while there are some instances where they have a source, the vast majority don't, and they have often had wrong information so that site to this point has not been considered a reliable source. A perfect example of a non-reliable source was given as twitter is generally not considered reliable unless its something in regards to what happened on twitter itself. If Pierre LeBrun wrote it in an actual article with editorial oversight then it would be considered reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Again this is simply not truthful. You've offered no evidence showing that it is an unreliable source and as I stated above in reply to Sabbatino, it is not as if CapFriendly is the only source available. Stating that the vast majority don't is just blatantly false and nobody is using CapFriendly as a direct source to any contract, you can check this for yourself thus this argument is redundant. Nanerz (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, it is simply too detailed, and not reliably obtained enough for all players. Such information is routinely left to other specialized websites for all sorts of topics on Wikipedia. We don't house every single piece of information about every topic. Team season pages should match the format of our Featured level team seasons such as 1985–86 Calgary Flames season. -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel that alot of this discussion and the issues that come from it can be solved if we as a group decided to revise and restructure the actual template that this WikiProject has listed to fit the current needs of the Project. If memory serves me correctly I implemented the current style of Free Agent transactions on the Pittsburgh Penguins Seasons almost 5 years ago due to there was no need for multiple tables just to say if a player left or joined a team. While I agree that listing the year by year salary will explain alot of CAP issues, I do feel that the yearly salary is not what is being stated on that table. You are specifically listing what that player was signed and the length of said contract when they were signed. Further I disagree with adding the waivers section into the free agency, they are two different situations and if you have a player that was signed as a free agent and then lost to waivers the table may get confusing. I will reiterate the thoughts I expressed at the start of my post. I feel that the template for this WikiProject should be enforced with the standards we set forth and if someone wants to deviate from that standard they can bring it to the majority here and suggest a change. B2Project(Talk) 23:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with respect to whatever format is chosen by the group. I will follow the template the group wants to use. I just did not see anything in the 2018–19 Tampa Bay Lightning season page history saying the change was due to a decision by this group. The revision I made was only to follow the previous season format for uniformity. A note with the change next time would be appreciated if there is a format change such as this one. As far as disagreement goes it appears the format has already been decided upon. Magnus221 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

IIHF.com citations

For those that aren't aware, the IIHF revamped their site a few days ago to be more "modern" (I'll note I am not a fan of this trend most sites are moving to, for a multitude of reasons not relevant here). A casualty of this update is that all their old links to news stories (and possibly tournament stats; I haven't checked) are no longer accessible. This is notable because many of our international-related pages, especially those pertaining to smaller countries, utilize those links. I've emailed the IIHF to see what their plan is, but am not sure I'll get a response. Either way I wanted to make sure this information was spread, so anyone who cares can archive the relevant links. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate if the information is lost. I contribute to many biographies on persons in international hockey. Flibirigit (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, that's my thoughts as well. Most of the lower-division countries and tournaments don't get much (any) coverage at all outside of IIHF.com, especially in English. I really hope they fix this. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Got a response from them already. They do have them archived on the site, but it is a pain to search through. However I found that they are still reachable with their old url, with some slight modification: simply delete the "www." and substitute "webarchive." and it should work. This is obviously not ideal, but at least the articles are still online and reachable. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if there is an easy way to find all of the URLs I have used from them. Flibirigit (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I could probably rig up something in AWB to get them fixed. Not sure when I can get to it being a holiday weekend. But I will see what I can do. If you can send me a copy of one that is broken and now working with your fix I will try to look tonight. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach), citations numbers 40 to 46. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Djsasso: any luck with the above? Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely slipped my mind. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I was wondering. Flibirigit (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair use photos

Is anyone aware of a WP:FAIRUSE claim for photos of persons deceased for "X" number of years? I seem to recall one, but cannot find a specific license. Flibirigit (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The present policy mostly judges the waiting period for the deceased on a case-by-case basis (based on commercial viability/application). Funny enough though, a discussion adding a fixed waiting period has popped up yesterday in the NFC's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Images of deceased persons). Most of the people supporting a wait period suggest one that is six months to a year. That said, they couldn't reach a consensus on the issue the last time this was brought up (in 2017). So I'd probably just wait to see how that current discussion play out. Leventio (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
For some reason I was thinking it was closer to 25 years! Just to make sure, is Template:Non-free biog-pic the one in question? Flibirigit (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that should be the copyright tag you use. Leventio (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Atlanta Thrashers

Um, someone has just moved (without discussion) Atlanta Thrashers to History of the Atlanta Thrashers. I believe consensus is former NHL teams keep their own articles, no? (they've also done this to Montreal Expos for some reason - not sure what baseball wants.) What the hell? Echoedmyron (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, they keep their articles. This should be reverted. Ravenswing 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Looks like it was taken care of by Yosemiter. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what done for defunct/relocated MLB teams, with the exception of the Montreal Expos & Seattle Pilots. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I argued against it when the St. Louis Rams went to LA (you know, WP:COMMONNAME and more likely to be linked, searched for, etc). They did not care. It is weird that every project seems to treat these historical teams differently. The NBA is also mixed (see Vancouver Grizzlies and Syracuse Nationals as examples) for no real consistent reason. Yosemiter (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah the history version is what we managed to convince some of the other sports to do instead of following our lead when they disagreed that what we did was appropriate. They used to not even have separate articles and would have everything all on the new name. I figured it was just a first step which would likely lead to the names being shortened to their old team names per commonname. But it has never gotten to that point yet. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Gritty

Hello everyone. I'm currently watching the Gritty (mascot) article. I noticed text is being added to the article and I'm questioning its notability. Here are two examples of the text being added.

"Introduced in 2018, the mascot drew widespread comment for its frightening appearance and was embraced by the alt-right for use in racist internet memes. This was retaliatory, and was motivated by the widespread sentiment of the american left that the mascot should be used as "their very own Pepe the Frog"."

and

"Gritty has been the subject of numerous alt-right memes in which he is portrayed as loving Adolph Hitler and wearing various Nazi affiliated clothing items. He is represented as similar to Moonman, alternatively known as Mac Tonight, a former marketing character of Mcdonald's who has been similarly appropriated by the alt-right for us in racist internet memes."

I come here to the users passionate about ice hockey asking for your thoughts on the article and the direction it needs to go. FunksBrother (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Gritty being associated with any white supremacist groups. However, I did see the Philadelphia city council passed a resolution on October 25 concerning Gritty. It specifically mentions Gritty being widely declared Antifa. I am not sure how "widely" Gritty has been declared Antifa or how truthful that statement is, but it is out there apparently.[1] Most likely it is just social media being social media. By that I mean that it is people making him into whatever they want him to be. Magnus221 (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Magnus221. Now, I thought I saw Gritty's image used in an Alt-Right parade but it could've been photoshopped and Google shows nothing. It was right to be deleted (it was unsourced anyways). Literally googling "Gritty mascot Trump" shows he was only used in Anti-Trump matters. As well, there seems to be far more support he is being used by people leaning left.[2] HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Philadelphia City Council honors Gritty, and it's hilarious". 6abc.com. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
  2. ^ Crouch, Ian (October 10, 2018). "How the Left Won the War for Gritty, the New Mascot of the Philadelphia Flyers". New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2018.

More on women's hockey for NSPORTS

Not sure why the project was not notified as it pertains to NHOCKEY, but editors are still questioning why women are not strictly mentioned in the SNG. Yosemiter (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If enough folks are questioning it, then it should probably be updated. There is a big push for WP:Women in red, and consensus can change after time. Flibirigit (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Although the folks questioning also claim they do not know anything about hockey. As I said in that discussion and many other times, finding independent reliable sources for both the CWHL and NWHL has been a challenge. However, I am still not opposed to adding it to WP:NHOCKEY #3 with an extra statement of minimum games played. That would eliminate the players who were in the top 10 scorers after the first few NWHL/CWHL seasons, but never played in any league again and got nearly no media attention. As women's leagues play far fewer games per season, I would probably suggest 25 or 30 games minimum in that league (not a combo). It should be noted the extra stipulations is why it has not been directly added, because it changes it from a simple "player achieved..." to "player achieved... if they did X plus Y in Z time". Makes it awkward. Yosemiter (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that achieving preeminent honours such as top ten in the history of the NWHL/CWHL should be sufficient for NHOCKEY #4. Just a thought. Flibirigit (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
NHOCKEY#4 is meant to be about college hockey specifically as there is no All-American in the NWHL/CWHL. There is not even All-First or Second teams either in the NWHL, just MVP, Top Forward, Top Defense, and Top Goaltender. Defensewomen (and men) in particular get lower GNG-worthy coverage as they don't score much. There is a difference in real-world niche notability vs. GNG/BLP wikipedia notability. Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe women should have their own bullet point instead. I think it would get lost in point 3 due to the first-team all-star thing if its not applicable. Move 4-6 down to spots 5-7, and create point 4 for women? Flibirigit (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but as investigated in this long discussion, it still would satisfy the goals of the Women in Red project, which is full equivalency to NHL players' presumed notability standards (stepping on the ice in said league). The more stipulations needed for a woman player to qualify (my example of "did X plus Y in Z time"), the more it looks like we are actually being more restrictive on women (as men simply need achievement X). As opposed to simply "Does this BLP meet GNG regardless of gender?", which should inherently be non-biased. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused on how adding a separate bullet point is related to what you just said. Flibirigit (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean, making essentially a new SNG specifically for women's hockey that is more restrictive than it is for men's players would not satisfy what the non-hockey editors are looking for. They imply they want Played in the NWHL, they are notable, period. No stipulations, no extra qualifications, just total inclusiveness. They want the NWHL in NHOCKEY#1, regardless of GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that consensus supports inclusion in NHOCKEY#1, but I could be wrong. It appears there is consensus for something lower down at NHOCKEY#3 or NHOCKEY#3A. Flibirigit (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, the consensus is that it in no way meets NHOCKEY#1 using the definition in GNG.

But that isn't their point. It gets brought up in every AfD for a female player, no matter how few games or how little coverage the player received. They have made it clear, that because the player is female and playing hockey, they should be considered notable and that NHOCKEY is biased against women and should be ignored.

I am saying: if we do make a #3A that is more restrictive or defined, it is highly likely the same users will point out that it is more restrictive and that NHOCKEY is still biased against women's leagues and should be ignored.

Do you see the problem? In their eyes, if we follow GNG, the SNG is always going to be viewed as biased for not having it equal to men. The SNG is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Yosemiter (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no problem in making a change to NHOCKEY if there is a consensus.Flibirigit (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I was actually going to adjust the wording somehow awhile back to make clear women can pass nhockey by playing the in the world championships so that we would stop hearing the women can't meet nhockey argument but I could not think of a good way to word it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to handle NHOCKEY in these situations. It's like how do you get more people to show up for women's hockey at the Winter Olympics, to equal the number of people showing up at men's hockey. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I just responded to the village pump discussion, but when all is said and done, I oppose any change to the guidelines on this. Yosemiter is exactly right: the position of the other side in this is "They play in the NWHL, therefore they're notable, because screw the GNG, that's why." Nothing short will satisfy them, and they are generally unmoved by cites, facts, studies or comparisons; this is entirely a matter of ideology. Folks, we're not going to stop hearing this argument short of adding every women's league around the world (because we were getting the same carping a few months ago in AfDs for women playing exclusively in the Turkish domestic league) to #1. Ravenswing 19:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed - rightly or wrongly, women's ice hockey just doesn't get the level of coverage that men's ice hockey does. There's nothing (nor should there be anything) that WP:HOCKEY can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
While I certainly agree we are always going to hear a complaint of some sort. I don't see where it would hurt us to make a change like
  • Played on a senior national team for the men's or women's World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year.
Bolding mine just to show what has changed. This would at least stop the constant comment that NHOCKEY doesn't mention women and it wouldn't touch the leagues or anything and doesn't actually include anyone we don't already include, it just serves the purpose of clarity. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding in the national teams to NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It sounds good to me. Although we will still hear "NHOCKEY is biased" arguments (that is what the Village Pump discussion is talking about after all, that making the Olympics or IIHF WC is too exclusive). But at least it is something explicit in the SNG. Yosemiter (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah there will always be complaints. There have been since WP:ATHLETE was changed to WP:NSPORTS. That is never going to end, people who see their preferred articles being deleted are always going to complain that it doesn't say what they want it to say. But there are always wording things we can do that will alleviate some of the easier to avoid arguments. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's a step forward. Flibirigit (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This project should reconsider the following NHOCKEY text "a top level Canadian amateur league prior to 1909". Trying finding reliable sources for those guys that's more than stats. Also, the NHA is not mentioned in NHOCKEY. We should probably dump those players who did not play in the NHL if you want to follow NHOCKEY also. Those guys have little or no reliable sources also. Also, many one-game wonders have little or no notability. Like being listed in the stats and that's all. Alaney2k (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    The NHA is mentioned, its in the link at the bottom where we tell people to go look for leagues not explicitly listed above so that not every league has to be listed in the main text of NHOCKEY. Also remember meeting NHOCKEY doesn't mean an article has to be kept, if it fails GNG it still gets deleted, so if you can't find stuff for some one-hit wonders (after looking for hard copy paper sources of course) then nominate them for deletion. That being said pretty much every one hit wonder that people bring up I have seen sources for in the past. The only one I can remember not finding any for was a guy who we only had the last name for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

QMJHL

Need clarification here. Are we using diacritics in players names on QMJHL team articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have been told this numerous times. You have asked here numerous times. They are used anywhere they are normally used, as the QMJHL is a french league they are normally used there. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all I needed to know. Wasn't quite sure, since it's under the CHL. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
We even specifically mention it on the WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject_notice specially because you always ask about it. To quote "All North American hockey pages should have names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey)." -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a new season

Howdy. We need the red message updated to 2018-19, at the List of NHL statistical leaders article. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I updated the notice....but by chance did you update statistics? If you didn't then the notice is incorrect as it stands... -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the stats have all been updated at the conclusion of the 2017-18 season. They must have been, as IPs have started making updates from the 2018-19 season (which have been reverted since). GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey&oldid=868385859"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA