Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Shortcuts

WikiProject Ice Hockey was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 3 January 2009.

WikiProject Ice Hockey was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 1 November 2010.

Archives

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

2019: 73; 74

2020: 75; 76

2021: 77; 78

2022: 79; 80

2023: 81; 82

2024: 83; 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Potential NHL Good Topic

Hello there. I've been remaking Hockey Mountain as of late, and one of its new sections will be about the NHL. I've created a hypothetical good topic based around the NHL, as you see below. Feel free to give feedback.

National Hockey League

61 articles

XR228 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say this is a dashboard, rather than a topic. It will also require ongoing maintenance, because if and when ratings change, this dashboard would also need updating (as I just did for Western Conference (NHL)). That having been written, it's a nice tool for our project, IMO. PK T(alk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know 61 articles is a bit much, but this is the National Hockey League. 32 teams + all the other stuff. If/when we want to make an NHL topic, this is it. XR228 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, personally, with continuing to operate Hockey Mountain as a checklist for improving the pages of significant players. XR228 rightly pointed out that we should have a similar list for non-player NHL-related topics, and there's no reason not to have a Hockey Mountain Range. Ravenswing 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi gang! I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for ages but finally got some time and energy to start editing again. I started by creating articles for active players of Frölunda who yet didn't have any articles, and ran into trouble when I wanted to create Isac Born since there already was a draft which had been rejected. I expanded the article a bit and re-submitted the draft but it got immediately rejected. Have the rules about notability changed? Last time I was active it was enough if a player had played professionally in any of the top leagues, but the only thing WP:NHOCKEY mentions are lower league notability requirements. Can anyone help me? Best regards —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 23:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, welcome back! Lately, it's been specific to the National Hockey League as that it is the highest professional ice hockey league (and it's assumed they would have the GNG to support an article). However, this player does not satisfy GNG with the sources that were placed in there. So, maybe you could try to satisfy GNG first? Conyo14 (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2022 request for comment discussion resulted in removing criteria solely based on playing a game in a league. This includes the NHL. The sports-specific guidelines for having an article have always, since their inception, deferred to the general notability guideline, so there is no change from the original intent. However that intent was not always taken into account by those closing deletion discussions. The 2022 RfC now provides a more recent consensus view that playing in a league is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that there should be an article for the player in question. isaacl (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the surest method is this: demonstrate that the player meets the GNG by including in the article reliable sources giving the player "significant coverage." (Which, after all, ANYone creating a biographical article should do as a matter of course.) Ravenswing 13:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, recent consideration has been that playing a game in the NHL is enough to pass NHOCKEY - not so much for other major leagues, unless significant news coverage can be found. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing happened with tennis project guidelines. Our guidelines were simply playing in the major level of tennis was enough to create an article, so many stubs were created. But we also always had to pass GNG. Those two usually go hand in hand. We had also said you do have to show reliable sources for their notability and those were often left out. Our guidelines now say that playing at the major level of tennis is very likely to show notability but you must have sources to confirm it. Yeah, there are grey areas where if you played at Wimbledon 100 years ago you are going to have an article, period. But the newer emphasis on GNG does help stop articles being created with a serious lack of sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for swift replies, I'll focus on improving existing articles. I'm feeling a bit rusty, could someone please take a look and give some feedback, I expanded Sebastian Collberg with info about his early career and international play, I'll try to write about his career post 2014 as well. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)

History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have pledged to help on the page, but I cannot be the only one. Conyo14 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to help out a bit, but I can't guarantee anything. I somewhat disagree with the idea that there's not enough post-2013 content (cup winners, notable outdoor games, notable seasons, etc are covered), but the sourcing issues are a real concern. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sleeman Centre (Guelph)#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sleeman Centre (Guelph)#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second-tier league argument regarding Mattias Norlinder

The following argument took place today on my talk page. This IP user, an apparent fan of the Montreal Canadiens, insists on including a team which at the time was a second tier team, Modo Hockey, to the infobox of Mattias Norlinder. I know better, and have attempted to explain to them that we do not do that here, but they dismiss my instruction as WP:OWN and it would appear to me they ignore my reasoning simply because they don't like it.

Below was imported from my talk page. Feel free to put this in a collapsible template or something so it is easier to discuss. It's a small hill, but I will die on it if it's right. mftp dan ^oops 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan for the record, I don't think you did anything wrong here either - consensus policy for a long time has been to include solely top-flight teams in infoboxes if a player's been on one, and only include second-tier or lower if that's the highest level a player reached - as such, if Norlinder only played for Modo when they were an HA team (not SHL), then Modo shouldn't be included, as Norlinder's played top-flight hockey with the Habs and Frolunda. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They ignored you and reverted the article again Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."47.54.219.33 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is entirely irrelevant? It refers to broad consensus applied locally, whereas this is local consensus applied locally with no overarching broad consensus being overruled. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pure WP:IDHT at this point, someone take it to ANI already. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip Kettle meet pot. Perhaps you should brush up on WP:USTHEM. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the pot is five veteran editors with the same long-standing consensus versus the kettle being one editor refusing to accept that consensus, sure. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip a classic example of trying to discredit someone by pulling rank. The select "consensus" of a few does not dictate the norm. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: "Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has knowledge that leads them to hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey it in an argument that other editors can judge on its own merits." 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not saying we've been here longer, therefore we know better about what should or shouldn't be included. We are saying that we know what the precedents are in this project and are in the right to enforce them because we've been here a while. Huge difference. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion thread provided by @XR228, it appears that there has never even been a precedent set for leagues included in infoboxes. I see a huge divide amongst users when reading these. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it’s somewhere in the archives. Just keep searching for it, I guess. XR228 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wheatzilopochtli: I trust you when you say that you know what the consensus is, but if so, can you show it to us? XR228 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was already enforced as such when I started editing, I would not have been here for such a discussion. @Triggerbit told me that's how it worked when I was making Samuel Laberge so I deferred to them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My honest opinion is that our IP editor should stop fighting, as everyone else agrees on what to do. I guess we’ve reached a consensus of our own. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I have seen so far in the entirety of this old thread is one or two editors making mention of a perceived rule of thumb in the context of either 7 "top" hockey countries or top level leagues for countries present at the world championships. Others have pointed out that there is no way to assess this in lesser known nation leagues (i.e. Ireland, Kazakhstan), and so long as they can be corroborated by underlying source, they are fair game for mention in an infobox. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP, if there apparently is no consensus on this topic, then why not create one now. Can you just accept that maybe the system that these people have been using for years works. I mean, there's no reason not to follow it. It's consistent. And, if we make the changes you suggest, many articles may have to be changed. XR228 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wheatzilopochtli wrong yet again. The consensus among infoboxes pertaining to professional athletes across other sports is that it includes a comprehensive history of pro teams played for regardless of a league's perceived notoriety. For example, point guard Tyler Ennis has played for several teams overseas of varying tiers of professionalism; all are nonetheless disclosed in his respective infobox. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the basketball Wikiproject, they have their own standards/consensus. We have our own, if you want to change them start a proper discussion instead of insisting you’re correct and we’re stupid. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip not only basketball. Soccer, baseball, need I go on? The Ice Hockey WikiProject is the only swaying from this norm. Hence my point that a limited group of editors cannot override consensus on a wider scale (re professional athletes). 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in any forum that supersedes this project dictating what teams should be put in our infoboxes. If such a consensus exists, I'd like to see the discussion that created it. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wheatzilopochtli i've literally provided the policy that says that a marginalized group cannot tailor pages/information that differ from wider community (in this case, professional athletes); yourself, @GoodDay, @MFTP Dan, & @The Kip have also failed to provide any sort of tangible proof that second-tier leagues are excluded from the confines of infoboxes aside from your own assertion. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are misapplying the rule and you are willfully ignoring the four regular contributors of the project who are telling you the precedent that they have applied and seen applied. Your continued insistence that you are in the right and should have unilateral authority to create a new precedent is disruptive. Please just drop it. We have already taken action for your edit warring. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to help you here: if this matters so much to you, how come you haven't done the same thing? Don't you think your narrative would improve if you had any of your own tangible proof of this so-called all-encompassing pro athlete consensus? mftp dan ^oops 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Wheatzilopochtli—the point of consensus is that it is to be listened to. The problem has been solved. There is no point in arguing. XR228 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate from pulling rank: "Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has knowledge that leads them to hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey it in an argument that other editors can judge on its own merits."

None of you have given me any sort of notion that this is in fact the agreed upon consensus. And to your point @MFTP Dan if universally accepted across other subgroups pertaining to pro athletes, then I have every right to question why this not apply here. All I've been told up to this point is that the WikiProject for Ice Hockey is outside this realm of confomrity just because. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not really universal as you say. If it was, that would mean they decided that together. They didn't, they just happened to separately decide to do their thing similarly. If they did decide that together, realistically how could we have resisted and ended up with the standard we currently have at the hockey project? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. mftp dan ^oops 00:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan refer to Template:Infobox ice hockey biography used across all associated player wikipages in this WikiProject which states in its parameters for former_teams (referring to active players): "Professional teams an active player played for. Enter FULL NAME of teams in chronological order. Former teams will not display if (current) team field is blank" and played_for (retired): "Professional teams a retired player played for. Enter FULL NAME of teams". There is no cherry picking of professional leagues based on their perceived relevance. Similarly, you will see that it has been mentioned by other users on underlying talk page that infoboxes on hockey player pages should mirror other professional leagues in being as comprehensive as possible. I am not the only one whom has pointed out this disparity. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but most players' infoboxes display teams from the highest level of hockey in that country. To use a different system would mean to spend a lot of time changing each page. It's not worth it, and the system we have now already works. XR228 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive38#infobox -former teams and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive44#The existing top professional leagues XR228 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those WikiProjects may have their own consensuses, but the editors of WikiProject Ice Hockey have a different one. XR228 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "wider scale"? We have nothing to do with how their projects dictated their rules. Each of them elected to make their rules independently of each other. The narrative that all those sports somehow came to the same conclusion together and that hockey just decided to defy it, and not that we did it independently from anyone else, is entirely false. We don't have some scale of infobox settings which covers every single sport here like you seem to insinuate. If you wanna argue that we need systematic change which aligns closer to the other sports, be my guest and make a new section with your proposal. Good luck. (I oppose.) mftp dan ^oops 00:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For baseball, the guidance on teams in the infobox is specific for post-integration era players who played in any one of Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, or KBO League. In this scenario, only these teams are listed in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asking: show you the consensus. YOU show US where this sports-wide consensus that you claim to exist was formally established. Correlation is not causation. Strange though it may seem to someone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, there are any number of ways that the various sports projects differ in their practices and outlooks. Ravenswing 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: Well said. XR228 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing and gatekeeping is not consensus. I have already highlighted how other users have noted the disparity of infoboxes in hockey related wikipages compared to its sport counterparts. The past discussions surrounding precedent used also proved to be polarizing. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you've got nothing. Right. Gotcha. Ravenswing 03:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP were this adamant, they could procure an RfC. Though I'd imagine it wouldn't go too well for them. Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's behaving like a troll. Merely interested in being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay Not at all. Just merely strving to be a Wiki elitist like @Ravenswing suggests we all be. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing you literally have a self quote on your user page about being a Wiki "elitist"...that says all I need to know about you. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a quote on my user page: "People who pick over this user page for ammunition to use in ... discussions: ... Searching for some dirt to fling because you can't win on the merits of the argument is a sure sign that a collaborative encyclopedia is not the environment for you. Maybe Fox News is hiring." That says all we need to know about you. You jonesing that much for another block? Ravenswing 05:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing "We are not required to pay any group of editors deference, their self-proclaimed "expertise" notwithstanding." You're really pushing a collaborative agenda there with that little gem, eh? 47.54.219.33 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest block puts paid to your trolling, and maybe in the next three months you can get a better handle on how Wikipedia works. We're not into snipe fests here. Indeed, we don't have to pay any group of editors deference. But we do have to respect consensus, our only option there being to gather enough support behind your POV to change or overturn it. If you're just incapable of working collaboratively and respectfully, we don't need you around here. Ravenswing 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the IP is willfully edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look I see that is a known disruptor at Montreal Canadiens-related pages. Various IPs from this range of this particular editor have been blocked more than once for such behavior. An IP range ban would be the best solution, but administrators rarely do that. – sbaio 03:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the IP continues to edit war on his own talkpage, removing the block notice. Best we be prepared, when he returns. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of edits on Mattias Norlinder

Putting this template on for ease of page navigation, and to separate the talk page discussion copy from discussion on this page. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your reversal of edits on the wiki page for Mattias Norlinder is both disruptive and constitutes WP:Own. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an IP, you have unusual awareness of this policy (which you've misunderstood). I am not owning the page, I am monitoring your edits because I find your edit pattern and the fact that you disregard the comments of others concerning. If you take such an issue with the way leagues are represented, take it up with WP:HOCKEY. Allsvenskan teams are not included in the infobox unless the player is currently there. Would you include the Laval Rocket as well? They're a professional league, after all. Of course you wouldn't. mftp dan ^oops 14:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to brush up on the WP:OWN policy, rockstar.

"No one, no matter what, has the right to...dictate what the article may or may not say." Furthermore, your reversal of my edits are considered a form of edit warring, which, when conducted "with dogged insistence" and "without good policy backup", in itself "may be an expression of ownership behavior".

For the record, there is absolutely no difference in listing a HockeyAllsvenskan team in an infobox than a DEL2 team for example (compared to its DEL counterpart). See pages such as Lucas Lessio, Christian Thomas (ice hockey), Martin Réway, and Sebastian Collberg for further reference. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the examples you've provided me are supposed to have these listed, Charlottetown. Inevitably, European players who never end up playing for the North American leagues will slip in unnoticed. We aren't perfect, but that doesn't make it a precedent to follow. I've been doing this for years. mftp dan ^oops 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except every single one of those players mentioned has amassed North American and/or National Hockey League experience...your point is invalid.

By the way, your statement "I've been doing this for years" also goes against the WP:OWN policy (specifically, para 1 under Statements re pulling rank. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing, when you really should just take the good faith of someone who has been doing this a lot longer than you have instead of arguing with someone who's been established and seen how policy is applied, even if I can't dig up exactly where this was agreed upon in some deep archive. What else do I do? But that's besides the point. Humor me for a second, Charlottetown: say, instead of being a Canadiens fan, you were a Bruins fan (a far worse fate). Would you apply the same principle for David Pastrnak's tenure with Södertalje? I'd like to see how that would go. mftp dan ^oops 15:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The player in question (Norlinder) had pro experience prior to being drafted/North American debut. Since Modo Hockey embodies both the HockeyAllsvenskan team as well as its Swedish Hockey League (SHL) counterpart, this is an accurate inclusion. This can be seen in infobox for Nicklas Lidström whom played for Västerås IK in all of: Hockeyettan, HockeyAllsvenskan, and the SHL between 1987-89, with underlying wikipage being formatted only to its SHL parallel. Regardless, it does not take away from the experience gained in the other two professional leagues whom share the same namesake. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is once again not how it works. In Lidström's case, since you brought it up, Västerås was promoted to the top flight in 1989, while Lidström was still playing in Sweden. Modo was never in the top flight when Norlinder played for them, so it is excluded, since he has played in a top-flight league in his career, though briefly. Whether it came before Norlinder was in Montreal, or whether the two leagues are related or not, is entirely irrelevant. mftp dan ^oops 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the exact same thing in infobox for David Reinbacher re EHC Kloten. He played in both the Swiss League and National League iterations of the team. Its inclusion in the infobox can be interpreted as either or. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's there because he played for Kloten while they were in the top flight. I don't know why you're trying so hard to argue this, any established hockey editor would tell you the exact same thing. mftp dan ^oops 19:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, an "established hockey editor" you clearly are not. Stick to your Green Day albums. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@47.54.219.33 Dan is absolutely an established hockey editor and they are telling you the same things I've been telling you that you've been ignoring. Please defer to precedent and stop putting second tier teams in infoboxes. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I'm supposed to let the IP who's been editing since June 28 be wrong just because they don't like the community's opinion on how players have their teams listed in the infobox. I may die on small hills, but they are what's right. mftp dan ^oops 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wheatzilopochtli that's rich coming from the WP:OWN gatekeeper who has created a page for a 15-year-old WHL prospect who has played a total of ZERO professional games to date across any sort of league here or abroad.

@MFTP Dan I've been active on Wikipedia a lot longer than my current IP address may lead one to believe (January 2013). 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you never learned the standard? Rich. I'll be bringing this to the WikiProject. mftp dan ^oops 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@47.54.219.33 DuPont passes GNG, and even if he doesn't I fail to see how that's relevant. Please stop hurling insults and accusations, and start acting collaboratively. Dan is right to escalate this if they choose to do so. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP appears to have a compiled quite a few reverted edits that they have been warned about for more than a month. It's beyond time that they were blocked for ongoing disruptive edits. PK T(alk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for the IP to be blocked for edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WP:ANI of the incident Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested semi-protection for the three player bios, so the IP will be barred from continuing their edit-warring there. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the IP continues to edit war & including on a new bio page. It's apparent that the IP isn't going to stop, until they're blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your own talk page, it appears that you likewise have gatekeeping tendencies. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The IP has been blocked for two weeks. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment on talkpage

Now, the IP is harassing me on my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how he calls you "disruptive." IP should buy a mirror. XR228 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP is back

The User:216.208.243.230 is changing everything back to the way they had it on Montreal Canadians pages. This is the exact same behaviour as the previous IP. Llammakey (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a big issue with the edit you linked. I wouldn't change "publisher=Manitoba Hockey League" to 'website=Manitoba Hockey League", but there's nothing egregious about those changes. PK T(alk) 18:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad somebody understands... 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is a block evasion. Llammakey (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is back to its behavior after block

So the IP has returned after block's expiration and immediately went back to old ways. I would report it, but I am unable to do it at this moment. – sbaio 03:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this go to ANI or edit war? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wheatzilopochtli@Sbaio you two really need to get lives. My edits have already been identified as non-egregious by admin above; stop harassing me. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are. That's true. But you make your own standard to follow, as seen above. mftp dan ^oops 04:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI, and the previous blocking admin should be pinged. Someone who just dives back into the same behavior the moment the block expires needs a longer one. Ravenswing 05:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before going through with the ANI report, I would recommend coming up with specific diffs that show disruptive behavior beyond the online personality they're delivering. Conyo14 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be blocked again, for a much longer period of time. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This particular IP has been doing:

Edits like this (used another IP for this edit), which is useless;
Changing capitalization from "NHL entry draft" to "NHL Entry Draft" (edit above and once again different IP was used, the main IP that was recently blocked or even piping to its preferred version);
Has been removing messages from other editors from its talk page (warnings or messages of any kind);
Has a history of WP:OWNership regarding anything related to Montreal Canadiens.

All of that just shows that another block should be indefinite, but administrators rarely block whole range. – sbaio 12:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently they seem to have an attachment to Rutger McGroarty as well, probably because it's recent hockey news. Or maybe they know my fandom and it's personal, wouldn't be surprised, but I have no definitive evidence of that. Probably just coincidence. Sucks, because some of what this user does is useful, but they have utter disregard for working as a community. mftp dan ^oops 16:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbaio warned them for their 3RR violation on Jayden Struble (assuming the 2605 IP is also them, which seems highly likely). If they continue I'm going to WP:EWN. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Wartenberg: has blocked the IP for three months for disruptive editing, so we’re all handled here. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Hockey Mountain revamp

Hello there. As many of you know, I have been revamping Hockey Mountain. I am not done yet, but I have categorized all the different parts. I will put it below. Feel free to give feedback.

Hockey Mountain is a name given in jest to the concept of getting ice hockey teams and players to Good Article (GA) status or better, to ultimately turn them into Good (GT) or Featured Topics (FT).

Articles listed as "WP:VITAL" have their goal marked as FA, in hopes that the editor who works on them will bring them to that level as suggested for Vital Articles. However, for the purposes of this project, they will be considered done at the GA level.

If you have any questions regarding the project, feel free to leave them on the talk page.

There are three parts which comprise Hockey Mountain. The first two parts contain multiple subsections.

Part 1: National Hockey League

Part 2: List of NHL players

Part 3: List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame

Notes

All parts of the National Hockey League are featured in Part 1, including the 32 teams.
While Part 2 is technically a subtopic of the Part 1, it is broad enough and has enough subtopics within itself that, for the purposes of this project, it can be considered its own thing.
There are no subtopics for Part 3. Instead, there are several GT/FTs that are arranged by year.

Credits

Leech44 — Created Hockey Mountain
Ravenswing — Took over Hockey Mountain from Leech44
XR228 — Revamped Hockey Mountain

XR228 (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters

Could anyone be so kind as to nominate this article along with the sister article (Eastern Conference) for deletion? I'd do it, but on mobile it's a tad difficult. Otherwise, I'll do it tonight. Conyo14 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters (2nd nomination) added it in. Conyo14 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberni Valley Bulldogs

Could a member of the WikiProject take a look at Alberni Valley Bulldogs and assess it per WP:NTEAM? In addition, there are also two non-free images showing the team's uniforms being used in the main infobox which might be an issue since given that articles about NHL and other hockey seem do something in the main infobox with respect to team uniforms. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The team passes WP:GNG, despite that the article is poorly written and lacking citations. Fair use images and other trivia has been removed. Flibirigit (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at this Flibirigit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle in Espoo

I'm having trouble finding any sources that call the game by the name the article gives it; neither of the references use the term "Miracle in Espoo". I have not found any sources that do use the phrase that predate the creation of the article, nor any sources at all that use the Finnish name (and there is no page for it on the Finnish wiki), which makes me suspect that it was made up by the creator of the page. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion unless anyone can find a source. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate it for deletion. The name appears to be synthesized. Flibirigit (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that uses the name "Espoon ihme", which would translate to "The Miracle of Espoo" and one Facebook post that uses the "Ihme Espoossa" version. These were the only mentions of either of those names so it's obvious that this isn't a real thing. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Asia League Ice Hockey

Asia League Ice Hockey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting better name for Template:Player4 and similar

Template:Player4, Template:Player5, and Template:Player7 have inscrutable names that are not explained in their documentation. Can we please move these templates to better canonical names, like Template:Ice hockey roster current player, or something more reasonable? I'm fine with the current names existing as redirects, but the current names are not helpful. The naming guideline says: "Template function should be clear from the template name". If someone can explain what the three current templates are for, I'll be happy to rename them without breaking anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

So I wrote above in the Notability section but didn't get any replies; It was a long time since I did anything beside general stats updates so would like if someone could take a look at Sebastian Collberg which I expanded and give som feedback, what could be improved and how are articles rated nowadays, etc. Best regards —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 01:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Swedish links. I know that Eliteprospects cannot be used for GNG purposes. So, it looks fine as an article. If you're looking to make it a Good Article, you're probably almost there. Conyo14 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–)#Requested move 30 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–)#Requested move 30 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 12:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subheaders

@XR228, they may look good but unfortunately they've taken away the table of contents navbox - appreciate the design, but maybe not something we should keep, unfortunately. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok XR228 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Female CHLers category

I'm thinking of making a category for women who have played in the CHL; is there a neat way to include both non-draftee players (eg Eve Gascon) and draftees who didn't play (eg Chloe Primerano and Taya Currie) into one category or should I just leave off the draftees who didn't end up playing major junior? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could just do Category:Female CHL draft picks and Category:Female CHL players separately - there's nothing saying a category with only two or three entries can't exist. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms in the OHL

Hey all,

Was wondering if I (we) could start adding uniforms to active teams in the Ontario Hockey League.

Thanks for consideration. 27JJ (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's willing to put in the work, I don't see the problem. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Ty for the response. 27JJ (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only concerns are that images meet requirements for non-free content and/or copyright. Prose regarding uniforms requires sourcing as per WP:RS. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're the illustrated renders similar to NHL teams, they fall under fair use iirc. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a fair concern, I had taken the time to try and familiarize myself with this. As reference, here is my upload of the Utah Hockey Club Uniform. The illustration, summary and licensing all meet the requirements as I have understood them. Fingers crossed that this won't be a problem. 27JJ (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brantford 99ers team relocation

Does anyone have time to deal with the relocation of the Brantford 99ers? Several anonymous editors and one novice editor make repeated changes, but nobody is citing any sources. This team may benefit from the page move process or an article for the newest team name, the King Rebellion. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a Draft:King Rebellion. Buffalkill (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the 99ers article is actually discussing the Milton teams of the franchise's history, including the alumni section. All the Milton team names redirect to this 99ers article. For a junior A team, do we really need separate articles every time the team moves? I think this one should just get renamed. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]