Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Major changes to Transaction pages

Over the past year, several of the NHL Transactions pages (namely 2001-2011) have silently been receiving major changes to them. Some of these changes include:

  • Renaming Waivers to Waiver and introducing a new background colour scheme
  • Breaking up trades into Pre-, Post-, and Draft segments
  • Including history of traded picks

As far as I can tell, none of this was discussed, and I would like to argue against them.

-"Waivers" as a header makes more sense than "Waiver", just as we wouldn't label a section as "Trade", singular.
-The background colours are without reason and inconsistent not only with the rest of the Project but with the parent page, itself. Trades are already dated and sorted by month; there is no need to specificy Pre-, Day 1, Day 2, or Post-. Maybe some prose sentence about when/what day the Draft was run should be included?
-History of draft picks and prior trades is semi-relevant information, but not directly related to the topic at-hand: transactions specific to that NHL season. These, imo, would be better served in the draft pick's proper Draft page (which they are already there).

Thoughts? –uncleben85 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree to everything. These were bold changes done to the pages. They should not have had this level of change without some consultation. Especially singularizing "Waiver". Conyo14 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Seconding what Conyo said. The Kip (contribs) 07:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I checked a few of the pages and they didn't have a "Waivers" section before, so the editor may not have intended to deviate from usage on other pages. How trades should be grouped is a matter of convenience. If it's easier to maintain with smaller tables then some division may be desirable, though once the big rush of trades is done, they could arguably be combined together. To set context, I think it would be helpful to have a sentence stating when the draft occurred. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't like the colours set for the table in the "Waiver" section, though for that matter, I don't think it's a good idea to set the background colour for the trade tables in any of the transaction pages. Support for different skins and dark mode is much harder when colours are being explicitly set. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not opposed to dropping the alternating colours, if there is a consensus on that. You make a good point about skins and colour modes. –uncleben85 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators

Howdy, requesting more input at this discussion, concerning the Senators. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Same addition attempted at the Montreal Canadiens article. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Licensing of ice hockey uniform images

I nominated several uniform images for deletion on the Commons, based on how such images are handled as fair use at Category:National Hockey League uniforms. Any comments or insight are welcome. See the discussions here, here, and here. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, based on my understanding of Commons' rules about being free use only, and based on those uniforms including (low-res) versions of copyrighted crests (which makes them derivative works), the can only be considered fair-used and shouldn't be on Commons. They need to be re-uploaded locally before they're correctly deleted from Commons. Probably would up there because the creator didn't understand the proper licensing, which happens. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
So far, the only response on the Commons disagrees that the uniforms should be fair use. I notice that National Football League uniforms are all on the Commons, whereas Major League Baseball uniforms are fair use on Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Saw the same thing happen with the baseball uniforms some time ago. The Logos are all copyright. It's fair use. The only way to upload them to Commons would be to remove all branding, which would make it an inaccurate depiction and useless. The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Oknazevad and Silent Wind of Doom: Comments on the deletion requests at the Commons would be helpful. Flibirigit (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Don Cherry ... racist or controversial ... again

Yet another discussion at Talk:Don_Cherry#Abiding_by_Wikipedia's_rules if anyone cares to comment. Flibirigit (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships & other IIHF tournaments

I thought at articles like Ice Hockey World Championships, we had agreed on showing "Czechia", rather than "Czech Republic". Just like we've been doing for post-2021 tournaments? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Different team name from country name should be handled at a general level on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports, not within a single sport. Anyway, it doesn't apply to the name of the country (not the team) in the mentioned article anyway. FromCzech (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
You changed the names in October 2024. My reverting was merely restoring the status quo. Again, the IIHF now uses "Czechia". GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, Wiki follows Wiki conventions, not the IIHF or any other external conventions. You changed the name in October and I was the one who restored the stable version. And Ice Hockey World Championships is about the overall history, not just a post-2021 tournament. FromCzech (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Overall history, means we have to use "Czechia" somewheres in the article. PS - This isn't some attempt to 'get around' the country's name, btw. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hot articles list

Howdy all,

I recently tried to set up WP:NHL at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Hot articles config.json, in order to generate a hot articles list for the project. However, as Category:WikiProject Ice Hockey articles is empty of actual articles, the list can't generate. In order for it to do so, (I think) we need to manually add the aforementioned category to articles, as the automatic categories added by talk page tags classify articles into the class-based subcategories.

Don't get me wrong, I understand this is a big project - there's somewhere around 56,000 ice hockey articles. Is anyone willing to join me on it? I feel like at minimum we should try to classify NHL articles, given Euro and international articles don't get quite as much attention. The Kip (contribs) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way of populating the list via the talk page links, such as Category:Start-Class Ice Hockey articles or Category:FL-Class Ice Hockey articles? Llammakey (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Progress report

4,270 articles, about 10% of WP:HOCKEY, have been added to Category:WikiProject Ice Hockey articles, including all of the articles in the following task forces:

checkY Vegas Golden Knights

checkY Boston Bruins

checkY Seattle Kraken

checkY Women's ice hockey

checkY Columbus Blue Jackets

Buffalkill (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)
They ignored you and reverted the article again Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is just pure WP:IDHT at this point, someone take it to ANI already. The Kip (contribs) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@The Kip Kettle meet pot. Perhaps you should brush up on WP:USTHEM. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
I would assume it’s somewhere in the archives. Just keep searching for it, I guess. XR228 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
Cool. The Kip (contribs) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@Ravenswing: Well said. XR228 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@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)
In short, you've got nothing. Right. Gotcha. Ravenswing 03:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
The IP's behaving like a troll. Merely interested in being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)

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

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)
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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)

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. PKT(alk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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

Harassment on talkpage

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

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

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)

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. PKT(alk) 18:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad somebody understands... 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but it is a block evasion. Llammakey (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Should this go to ANI or edit war? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@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)
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)
ANI. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
They need to be blocked again, for a much longer period of time. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This particular IP has been doing:

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

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)
@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)

@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)

IP is back 2

2605:b100:b25:10cc:ad35:10de:233e:e612 appears to be the same user. See edit history at Mattias Norlinder. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Active at David Reinbacher too with a different address... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Now that’s what I call block evasion. The Kip (contribs) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
That would now be their second block evasion just in the last few weeks as I noted above. Their experience in doing this and using only IP addresses makes me believe that they are a previously banned user who keeps on coming back to get their wiki fix. Llammakey (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Might be what you're referring to but at one point they outright said something along the lines of "I've been editing much longer than my current IP would indicate." Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Self-incriminating IP wasn't on my bingo card. XR228 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
How does one deal with a mobile IP? What action can be taken here? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Same can be done to the main IP, a block of some length for Socking. Conyo14 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Jake Wartenberg as the original blocking admin. The Kip (contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I've opened an ANI thread here. The Kip (contribs) 09:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Jake has rangeblocked the offending IPs for block evasion. The Kip (contribs) 19:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And a third time

User 142.163.116.80 has the same patterns of behavior Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by this IP. – sbaio 02:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Sbaio @Wheatzilopochtli after reports at both ANI and the EWN (the latter specifically over Daniel Walcott, they've been blocked. The Kip (contribs) 16:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The .80 IP doesn't seem to be blocked yet if I'm not mistaken Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah yeah, my bad - that one’s been inactive for the last two days, so I assume it didn’t meet the threshold of disruption. The other one, which had continued into today, is blocked. The Kip (contribs) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Another new address at 216.208.243.73 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Ad Orientem has rangeblocked the 216.208.243 IPs for a week. The Kip (contribs) 03:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a month actually. Maybe we can breathe for a little while... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Prepare yourselves for a long winter. The individual behind the disruptions won't likely stop, until Wikimedia bans them. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This has the air of one of those who have been previously banned and now it is whack-a-mole until the higher ups step in. Llammakey (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as long as they’re editing under IPs there’s not a lot that can be done - admins are typically hesitant to rangeblock for more than 3-6 months unless it’s proven a disruptive IP is stable. The Kip (contribs) 19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(moved from below) Block evader?

I'm kinda concerned about IP 142.163.116.80, who just showed up today. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Quacks like a WP:DUCK. I'll send to ANI. The Kip (contribs) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, IP 142.163.206.14. Suffice it to say, he ain't gonna stop until Wikimedia bans him. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI filing here. The Kip (contribs) 22:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet (IP 216.208.243.93) another one? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Quack quack. Geolocates to Atlantic Canada yet again.
@Jake Wartenberg sorry to continue bothering - there’s another one. The Kip (contribs) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think you should know. There's an IP hopping blocked editor, attempting to undo links to NHL entry draft, via making them "NHL Entry Draft", among many hockey pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some day I'll have JWB again, and can search out and fix those. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another duck

I'm in class all day today, could someone take out the new sock at 156.34.8.38? Same pattern of editing but quacked loudest at Ivan Demidov (ice hockey) Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Checked to be sure even though I think it's pretty evidently the same IP hopper, but the new IP does in fact also geolocate to Atlantic Canada. At this point I would request an extension of the blocks on every offending IP as they have made clear they will not stop evading their blocks until it is made completely impossible for them to access the website. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Wheatzilopochtli Ad Orientem has blocked the IP. The Kip (contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel Quinlan @Jake Wartenberg see above. The Kip (contribs) 18:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
and @Ad Orientem. The Kip (contribs) 18:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@The Kip Sorry, but if I have dealt with this problematic editor before, I don't remember it. Who is this supposed to be? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem it’s more than like this IP range you previously blocked. The Kip (contribs) 00:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@The Kip Blocked x 1 month. Probably would be a good idea to start an LTA page for this individual that can be quickly referenced and where we can keep track of their IPs/GeoLoc/MO/target articles and subjects etc. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll get around to it soon. The Kip (contribs) 01:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem appreciate the block! The Kip (contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LTA page created

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/47.54.219.33 for quick reference when future socks pop up. The Kip (contribs) 01:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Wheatzilopochtli and @GoodDay as the others here that're frequently dealing with said IP. The Kip (contribs) 02:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I suspect the list will grow. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Nice job with this, said everything I wanted to say Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Worth noting Jake has now extended the original IP’s block to a year and revoked their talk-page access after they repeatedly attempted to remove their unblock appeal, in violation of WP:BLANKING (and left some angry edit summaries in the process). The Kip (contribs) 03:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

New mobile IP

They're back at 2605:b100:b32:1e94:515e:7b0d:a26f:b10f and the related range. Not doing the usual stuff and have been largely unproblematic at the new IP but told on themself with the use of the phrase "the foregoing" at Jesse Ylönen. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You know what, this is a previously confirmed range of theirs. 2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Their edits at Brady Keeper are also identical. Conflicted as to whether we should do anything right now - it's certainly block evasion, but as you said, they've seemingly stopped their disruptive behaviors for now. The Kip (contribs) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I am also conflicted. My gut says all their IPs should have their bans extended to the match that of the main IP but for now I'm happy to leave them be and monitor their activity so long as they remain constructive. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
nevermind they're already arguing with me about the definition of the word prospect Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I've no sympathy for any block evader. Block'em. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
All edits are identical to blocked IPs, but this time this editor is trying to avoid some of the stuff. – sbaio 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Two new IPs

Looks like the block evasion is being continued – two new IPs appeared at Filip Mešár and both edit content related to the Montreal Canadiens. – sbaio 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

142.163 is the same range as two of their previously blocked socks. 71.7 is new. The whole 142.163 range needs to be blocked but the 71.7 hasn't technically done anything to expose itself as the user that I have noticed yet, but I agree it is likely them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Four IP ranges are used for block evasion:
All of these IP ranges are used specifically for Canadiens-related content so it is evidently the same person. – sbaio 03:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm gonna be specific and mention 71.7.139.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.163.207.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.67.118.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 156.34.8.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the ones likeliest to be our IP disrupter. They are all geolocated in the same area. Conyo14 (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Block evader is back

156.34.8.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Llammakey (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you to the blocking admin! Llammakey (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
142.176.20.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Llammakey (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't geolocate to the same region. Conyo14 (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Their behaviour and editing history sure makes it look like the same editor from the Maritimes. I mean the vast majority of edits are either about PEI or the Montreal Canadiens, especially since November 25. Llammakey (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
This IP is indeed the same via "foregoing" [1] Conyo14 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
They also use the word "whereas" in places it doesn't make sense. mftp dan oops 19:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible Canadiens block evasion

A completely new account (Rubbaband Mang (talk · contribs)) has started editing Canadiens-related pages right from the start. A quick looks at edits implies that it could be the same IP. – sbaio 05:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The interaction history is not good for them. Though, they haven't done their classic blanking the talk page aside from remocing their immediate block due to a bad faith username. Just monitor very closely. They've removed the caps from entry draft, which is something the IP usually capitilzed. Conyo14 (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been keeping tabs on this one. The only match to behavior I see is the alarmingly high rapid-fire small edits (see Cole Caufield). We had a minor spat, but I think if it was the same person they would not have agreed to work together to find a writing solution with me. The LTA was much more brazen and belligerent. We'll keep an eye, but as Conyo mentioned, if it's them they seem to have dropped the capitalization issue. mftp dan oops 15:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
From my tracking of IP users on the pages they frequented, it seems that not only have they dropped the capitalization thing, but their edits are on the whole more constructive and their behavior is more collaborative. I am in agreement that it is likely the same user committing block evasion but I am cautiously optimistic that they will stop being a problem. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I suspect it's an evade situation, TBH. But, I'll leave it to yas to decide. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Let's not act until we see definitive overlap of behavior. Remember, up until this supposed point, the LTA never registered an account, and was scornful, belligerent, and blatantly resistant and brazen toward any sort of community consensus. This account has barely, if any, of such behavior aside from edit-pace, of which most seem helpful and genuinely good faith. Why risk biting a good contributor and pushing a good thing away? (Don't respond with gaming the system, I've heard that one - too early.) mftp dan oops 16:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It is the same person. Used their favorite phrase "the foregoing" at Jake Allen (ice hockey). Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know they did that. I've corrected that wording a few times where it could have been better, but they didn't resist much, so I don't really mind personally. Their work has been much more constructive. What a weird turnaround. mftp dan oops 19:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes a 52nd chance works, I guess. The Kip (contribs) 19:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey, at the first sign of them showing aggressive willful ignorance, I'm not opposed to immediately closing the door again. An intriguing case, for sure. mftp dan oops 19:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Apparently, there doesn't seem to be a way for administrators to permanently stop the block evasions. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Never has been. Where there's a will, there's a way. mftp dan oops 19:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Funny how a word rarely used on Wikipedia, much less in most people's lexicon, is the smoking gun. Conyo14 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Seems like Bbb23 is not a fan of letting him work. I tried to help him and suggest he be honest and make an honest appeal to work constructively, but he opted to play dumb. Shame, poor choice. Can't say I didn't warn the guy. mftp dan oops 14:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

LTA update

As Wheatz has already noticed, I have updated the LTA case page to the first user identity identified by the community. I don't think anyone will have any questions or objections, but if you do, let me know. mftp dan oops 17:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be great if people would stop allowing the IP back in. It does not matter if they make "good edits". They do not wish to follow the rules, their contributions need to be wiped. Period. All you are doing is saying "Good person, we will allow your nonsense." Llammakey (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Active IPs

As of this week, the user is active at 142.67.118.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.176.20.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 71.7.139.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), among others. The original ban to 47.54.219.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) expires October 1. My last request for a block to their IPs at ANI a while back was ignored. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Activity noted at Alexandre Carrier, Patrik Laine (who gave me one dismissive revert before they decided they liked my second approach), and Ivan Demidov (ice hockey); I have corrected whatever problems there were with the edits. If I could do something about the access, I would. mftp dan oops 23:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@MFTP Dan take them to WP:SPI. I can later in the day if you don’t have time. The Kip (contribs) 17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not gonna lie, I have even less energy to deal with that drama than fixing what's actually problematic with their edits besides evasion. I obviously won't stand against them getting blocked, but I have better things to be doing when I know that someone is going to block them inevitably anyway, just for them to show up again. I'm the first guy they bothered, I'd rather review what little good they contribute in the process than put a target on myself. mftp dan oops 18:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I will, however, create a shortcut for the LTA's case page if we need to reference it in investigations or edit summaries. It will be located at WP:LTA/HABS. mftp dan oops 14:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@MFTP Dan SPI case filed. The Kip (contribs) 05:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

IPs at hockey pages

IPs @162.197.249.249: (contribs) & @184.55.60.49: (contribs) have been making hundreds of changes through multiple ice hockey pages. I don't know if these changes are actually productive or not. But, perhaps a review of those changes, would be required. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to provide links to make it easier for fellow editors to help. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Their respective editing contributions of late, will provide the necessary info. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
This attempted ping will not notify the editors since it was not combined with a signature (~~~~) in the same edit. In other words, start a whole new sentence with a signature to ping an editor. Flibirigit (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@GoodDay: and @Flibirigit:, I've courtesy-linked the IPs' respective contribs. The Kip (contribs) 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyhow, I don't know much about the first IP, but the second one has thus far been an invaluable contributor with maintaining/expanding various junior hockey and NCAA pages, for which I actually encouraged them to register an account some time ago - they didn't respond, however. I think they're fine thus far. The Kip (contribs) 18:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Another alternative @The Kip: is to have the effected articles "semi-protected" permanently. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Canucks

Ever since the Vancouver Canucks lost to the Oilers the other night, there's been a barrage of "unconstructive" edits to that article. Think it's worth protecting for a bit? Or should we just keep playing whac-a-mole with the vandalism. Usually vandals get bored after a few reverts but this guy is keeping at it. Masterhatch (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect it's the same individual, who's been making these disruptive edits to NHL teams' infoboxes' owners entries, for 2 or 3 years. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

AN report, over vandalism of NHL team infoboxes

I've made an AN report on this matter. Further input there, would be helpful. This vandalism of NHL team infoboxes 'owners section', has been going on for 2 or 3 years. I suspect mostly by the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, once again, I've gotten no support at this WikiProject concerning this matter. The administrators would do something, if some of you here would support my report at WP:AN. Very well, I'm removing all 32 NHL team articles from my watchlist & someone else can deal with the never ending vandalism-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay the “owner” vandalism is annoying but it’s a longtime joke often encouraged by lower-brow sports media, it’s not really something we can permanently fix and it doesn’t happen quite enough to justify semi-protection at RFP.
It’s a game of whack-a-mole - when we block one IP, another goofball will inevitably get the same idea and do it again. The Kip (contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
No longer my concern, as I've removed the 32 team articles from my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Brothers?

Are Jonathan Toews and David Toews, brothers? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A Google search returns a bunch of results, including reports from reputable media sources, saying that they are. 1995hoo (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
[2] yes. Conyo14 (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cahill Stadium

Notice

The article Cahill Stadium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved 15 years. Run of the mill, very small stadium. No references in French language article either. Not enough information to merge. Article created in 2005 and stadium closed in 2007.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

HHOF members in Stanley Cup Finals articles infoboxes

Do we really need two lists of HHOF members in the Year Stanley Cup Finals articles? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you provide an example? Conyo14 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
More precise the infoboxes of those articles. See 1971 Stanley Cup Finals where there's lists of 'ten' names for the Canadiens & 'three' for the Blackhawks. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh I see. It clutters the infobox a bit more. I kinda don't see the point, but others should chip in with their opinion too. Conyo14 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
I think they should be kept; maybe collapsible lists should be added if there's a large number (a la 1971), but having HoFers in the infobox for finals series/games seems to be a fairly common practice across all sports Wikiprojects; see 1993 NBA Finals or 1999 World Series. The Kip (contribs) 02:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
That is true, but WP:HOCKEY is no stranger to being different with their infoboxes. Conyo14 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is that the infobox should include key characteristics that are essential for a concise overview of the subject. My initial thoughts is that I do not feel a list of participating future hall-of-famers (from the perspective of the time of the finals) meets this criterion. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm considering 'deleting' the HHOFers lists from those articles, as those players weren't HHOFers at the time of their participation in the Cup finals. Any objections? GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

None from me Conyo14 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I do, but if I’m overruled I won’t fight it. The Kip (contribs) 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cleveland Barons (NHL)#Requested move 19 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cleveland Barons (NHL)#Requested move 19 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Cranbrook Memorial Arena

Is this small ice arena notable? It has been unsourced for 15 years. Can you please find and add reliable sources to this stub? Bearian (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope, just PROD it. Conyo14 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
A BEFORE search does show a number of recent articles on it for its renovation and it is on WHL Arenas. I'm not sure it would pass AfD, but an AfD might get us a redirect to Kootenay Ice. SportingFlyer T·C 01:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd be good with a redirect Conyo14 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Roster templates of Coyotes & Thrashers

Template:Arizona Coyotes roster & Template:Atlanta Thrashers roster should be deleted. Note - we don't have such roster templates for the Nordiques, Whalers, original Jets, North Stars, etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the note GoodDay. It is also important to note Wikipedia did't exist when the teams you mentioned in the notes stopped existing Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
My point is, such templates are useless as those teams no longer exist. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your giving your point GoodDay. I have saved a backup on my page nonetheless just in case a discussion over whether a final roster should be added to the article or not is started, just in case users do want to be able to see what the final roster was. And you ultimately never know Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Media rights at International Tournaments

There is a discussion at 4 Nations Face-Off regarding whether every non-involved countries' media coverage should be included in the article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Differences between team-season pages in "Regular season" sections

I was reviewing some NHL team pages for the current season this morning, and I'm surprised at the inconsistent formatting, colors, and columns across the different team pages in the "Regular season" sections.

Examples, but not an exhaustive list:

  • 2024–25 New York Rangers season has Game/Date/Opponent/Score/OT/Decision/Location/Attendance/Record/Points/Recap columns, and uses green/red/white for win/loss/ot-loss.
  • 2024–25 Washington Capitals season has #/Date/Visitor/Score/Home/OT/Decision/Location/Attendance/Record columns, links the score to the recap, and also uses the green/red/white colors for win/loss/ot-loss.
  • 2024–25 Pittsburgh Penguins season has #/Date/Visitor/Score/Home/OT/Arena/Decision/Attendance/Record/Points/Recap, and uses green/light purple/yellow for win/loss/ot-loss.

Last year, I created {{Game-won}} and other associated templates (linked in the "See also" section of the documentation) to help with consistent colors to denote which teams won/lost games. Those templates are currently being used in all of the 2024 NFL team season pages, the current-season PWHL pages, as well as in the {{CIH schedule entry}} (which itself is used in over 1,000 pages.)

What do the members of the WikiProject here think about creating consistency among the different team pages in these sections? Is it something that we'd like to strive for, or not? --MikeVitale 20:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Across the season pages sounds good! Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Is there a template for the legend? --NHL04 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of.
That said, I've been considering how we might create something similar to (or combine with?) {{CIH schedule start}} and {{CIH schedule entry}} that college hockey team season pages use. Example: 2024–25 Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey season and 2024–25 Minnesota Golden Gophers men's ice hockey season.
I like the code that goes along with using a template with named parameters for the information instead of just a bare set of table code. But then, I am a software developer by trade... --MikeVitale 23:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Personal bias, but I'd rather like to keep doing things the way they are at 2024–25 Vegas Golden Knights season - I prefer the less table-like look. The Kip (contribs) 22:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
When you say "less table-like", do you mean the fact that the VGK page has white borders around the cells instead of black borders like on the NYR page? --MikeVitale 23:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Pretty much, as well as the white background rather than grey. Just looks cleaner to me. The Kip (contribs) 23:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I much care about that.
If we were to build a template (as I suggested above), I'm sure we could build parameters into it so that either grey or white background could be output. --MikeVitale 23:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This morning, I completed editing the 2024-25 pages for all NHL teams to replace any type of manual styling (whether that was bgcolor=fff or style="background:#fff;") to use the {{Game-won}}, {{Game-otl}}, and {{Game-lost}} templates. This means all teams (for the current season) are now using the following web-safe colors to denote W/L/OTL:

#cfc -   Win (2 points)
#fcc -   Loss (0 points)
#fff -   Overtime/shootout loss (1 point)

Additionally, for future games, they were given a comment of <!-- {{Game-won}}, {{Game-otl}}, {{Game-lost}} -->. This will hopefully make it easier to use moving forward. --MikeVitale 17:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate the templates replacing the manual styling, seems quite a lot more straightforward/simple. The Kip (contribs) 17:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

United States men's national ice hockey team

Hi there, I want to constructive a competitive record in world championships and add back the datas, inclued the team result, position, games played, won & lost, GF, GA. The format will be same as olympic games. But unfortunately, a user Flibirigit seems that disagree and said that no WP:CONSENSUS to change it. How should I do and I need ask someone for help. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I repeat my suggestion made multiple times: Use a sandbox or user subpage to develop the chart, so it can be compared. It is best to have a current version and a proposed version to look at it. You are currently making test edits by overwriting a table on a talk page, which breaks the discussion history, and cannot be followed in a chronological discussion. Again, please use a sandbox for the test edits! Flibirigit (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
A previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive86#Edit_war_situation_at_United_States_men's_national_ice_hockey_team, directly related to the above. Flibirigit (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
@Stevencocoboy: Why do you ignore messages on your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Addition of Political tensions to 4 Nations Face-Off

There is a discussion at Talk:2025 4 Nations Face-Off#People booing. regarding whether the political tensions between Canada and the United States should be added to this article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

List of Canadian national ice hockey team rosters (low importance)

Just wanted to revisit an old discussion re:Criteria for a team's inclusion. See my same comment on the talk page there:

I feel like a decade and a half later we need to re-evaluate. If we are not including select and invitational tournaments like Canada Cup or Spengler Cup, nor are we including limited-entry Women's events like the 4 Nations Cup, should we really be including limited NHL-events like the 2016 World Cup of Hockey or the 2025 Five Nations Face-Off?

–uncleben85 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted 2025 4 Nations Face-Off from that article. The tournament doesn't quite fit there & it's addition seems based as WP:RECENTISM, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should be including the rosters of all best on best tournaments, as their prestige alone makes them worthy of inclusion. Events like the Spengler Cup can be left out though.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Best-on-best gets subjective, though, when participation is limited. The past two Olympics, for example, had Canadian rosters comparable to the Spengler rosters, and the 4 Nations arguably was missing some of the best players in the world due to the exclusion of specific countries. –uncleben85 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Best-on-best? No team Russia, Czechia, Slovakia, Germany? GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Best on best is subjective, I suppose, but is usually backed by reliable sources. This tournament was definitely considered best on best by the media, even without Russia. And if Russia is excluded from the Olympics, does that really mean we can't call it best of best? There's a reason why they're excluded, and we can't let it be the reason why we can't call this best on best.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
We do not need rosters at all on national team articles. They require constant maintenance and only replicate when is easily available on other web sites. The roster can go on the specific event article instead. Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move notice

An editor has requested that Dump'n'Chase be moved to Dump and chase, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Left guide (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens

@Diannaa: & @Mactin:, we don't show diacritics in the names of people per WP:NCIH, at North American-based non-player articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:2027 NHL entry draft

Howdy all,

With the trade deadline approaching, I figured it'd be a good time to get this draft page started up, seeing as a lot of 2027 picks are more than likely to be traded at this deadline. Feel free to take a look/make improvements; I believe I've gotten all the traded picks thus far, but I might've missed one or two. The Kip (contribs) 06:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Later today I'll add a section on top prospects since there's so much buzz around Landon DuPont. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Champions Hockey League

How do we differentiate between the two Champions Hockey Leagues in articles? The ZSC Lions have won the latest tournament and their article has a list of their championships, but since they have previously won a different tournament of the same name, the list includes the Champions Hockey League two times. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Champions Hockey League (2008–09), or keep the Silver Stone Trophy as the disambiguation. Conyo14 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

Resolved

May we have the 'red colored' edit notice, updated to 2024-25? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay I'm not sure if I follow. The Kip (contribs) 17:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Red lettered note says "Please do not include statistics from the 2023-24 NHL season". GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Ah. To be quite honest, I don't know how to fix that. The Kip (contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Only an admin can update that. Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@Djsasso: use to do it, every year. But, he hasn't been around the 'pedia, very much these days. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I've put in a request, at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Memorial Cup champions#Quality concerns and possible Featured list removal candidate. Comments are welcome there. Flibirigit (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I can help fix this, but I'm making my way through the Blair Atcheynum article right now, and I should be finished in the next couple of days. Llammakey (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I have done my best. Someone might want to give it a one over for grammar and such. Llammakey (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I have a digital photograph of the Porin Ässät goaltender Antero kivelä from the 1979 European Cup game against CSKA Moscow. I'm not sure where it was played, but it was in 1979. I'd like to upload it to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if it is protected by copyright or who the author would be. I'm pretty sure it was not played in Finland since Ässät are playing in their white away jersey. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 22:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Did some digging through Wikipedia's copyright policies/guides, I think Finnish stuff is 50 years from publication before it enters the public domain but I'm not entirely sure. The Kip (contribs) 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yevgeni Belosheikin

It has come up that it is possible that he received a gold medal as the third goalie at the 1998 Calgary Olympics. Eliteprospects claims it to be true, but the IIHF guide and record book does not list him on the roster. The official report from the LA84 foundation lists him on page 657 as part of the the Soviet delegation (spelled Evgueni Belocheikine). I don't know if the LA84 reference confirms him as a medalist or not though. I can't find him in the Olympics.com database but maybe it is incomplete or I am missing something.18abruce (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Lacking something from the IOC itself, the IIHF is the primary authority here, being the governing body for international hockey. Ravenswing 16:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I appear to have gotten myself into an edit war here. Interested parties could way in there to establish a consensus. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe you meant 1988, rather than 1998? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Overtime statistics

There is a user that keeps going around and adding overtime statistics on each NHL team's season page even though they've been reverted multiple times. Xolkan (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cheaters33: Is this you? They do not seem to be very talkative. However, what is the consensus on this type of content. I do not have an opinion. Conyo14 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's unreferenced and irrelevant, and should be removed. The Kip (contribs) 19:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Xolkan:I think in the end, the overtime statistics for NHL season teams does not have to be added which I understand why you remove the Overtime statistics since its not really necessary. NicholasHui (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I have removed them from the teams that had them. Conyo14 (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Championships in awards?

Do we include league titles, for example Stanley Cups, in the awards section for players? I see them in some articles but not all of them. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 20:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I can see the argument either way, I don't personally care. Whatever the consensus is I will follow. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
We almost always list Stanley Cups (see Keegan Kolesar, Luke Schenn, Patrick Maroon, etc), but I'm not sure about other league championships. The Kip (contribs) 17:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I've seen IIHF tournament championship medals and Olympic medals, but rarely European league titles. I think so long as it's an upper tier professional league, it can be mentioned. Conyo14 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

More input needed at List of Memorial Cup champions

The discussions at Talk:List of Memorial Cup champions would benefit from more participation. There is a possible edit war situation. Comments are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR has been violated. Flibirigit (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit delete request - Connor McDavid

To any Admin with the rights to do this - would you please delete this edit to the Connor McDavid article? I think it's over the line as far as vulgarity is concerned. TYVM, PKT(alk) 20:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I added a report to WP:AIV, I'll let you know if there's any changes. Conyo14 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
They indeff'd the user, but haven't revdel'd the edit yet Conyo14 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
{{admin help}} template added to flag admins. Left guide (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

American and Canadian to teams

User:Wamalotpark is added American and Canadian to teams in the lead. Wasnt this discussed in the past and decided to not include that? Or am I misremembering? Masterhatch (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked for discussion on the matter and could not find anything, so I went with a slight Wikipedia:Be bold to best match other major league formats. Wamalotpark (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a topic on a category regarding countries' professional ice hockey teams. There is nothing on whether it is appropriate for the lead. I think it's a contentious subject for some, considering the ownership and players are often not the nationality the team's location is based on. However, I think it is appropriate for each team. We do the same for the players, and other sports teams with multiple countries utilize it too. Conyo14 (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Good insights. Thank you. Wamalotpark (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary. Aside from the pointlessness of assigning nationality to a team in a professional league where the distinction between being American and Canadian is meaningless as far as league standings go - and to Conyo's point about players - it's also redundant. I don't need someone to say that something based in Toronto is Canadian or that something based in New York is American. (It would be interesting and worth noting if a team in Toronto was not Canadian, etc.) Adding these words here provides no urgently missing context and we can do without them. Echoedmyron (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I remember this being discussed many years ago and it was determined that listing American/Canadian in lead for teams is unnecessary. It will probably be quite hard to find that discussion since it happened many years ago and I do not have time to make many edits these days due to my busy work schedule. – sbaio 18:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I think what @Conyo14 and I agree on is that it is worthy of inclusion. For instance, take a look at Apple Inc. or any other major company. Even though the city is included in the first sentence, the nationality is included as it is an vital piece of information for the reader who might not be fully knowledgable on all the cities in the world. Wikipedia prefers articles to be able to be best understood even if printed, shared, etc. Also, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer have included it in all article leads, with the exception of the NFL, which doesn't have a team outside the US, and also due to the presence of "American football" as the sport. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I would say not including it would be very outside the general style seen on Wikipedia for articles. Pretty much every company, team, etc. whether it is association football's Russian Premier League or cricket's Pakistan Super League list the based country at the earliest possible instance. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Matti Kuparinen

I translated the Finnish article for Matti Kuparinen into English. I partially used a machine translation and then tried to fix the errors to the best of my abilities. I would still like an another opinion and perhaps someone could review my changes and try to point out the mistakes that I have probably made. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 13:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I also did the same with Veli-Matti Savinainen. I will try to improve many articles over the next few days. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Poriman55: Consider adding the template {{Rough translation|Finnish}} to the affected articles, which can help flag interested and competent translators. Left guide (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Beanpot Tournament Winners

This category was created today. It needs to be renamed to fix the capitalization error, but I'm not sure it has merit to exist in the first place. Could someone with more knowledge on categories voice an opinion? If it is kept it should be split into subcategories for men's and women's. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be nominated for deletion. It is a non-defining characteristic of athletes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I fully agree with Flibirigit, it's just irrelevant at the individual athelete level. PKT(alk) 23:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
WP:OCAWARD is the relevant guideline. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hell, I'm a native Bostonian, an alum and one-time season ticket holder of Northeastern, and I agree with the consensus: on a player level, this is overreach and should be deleted. The Beanpot is a big deal, but is it any more notable on a player level than (say) the annual Quebec peewee tournament? Ravenswing 23:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Nationalities on rosters

EC Red Bull Salzburg's Finnish goaltender Atte Tolvanen has received an Austrian citizenship and has already debuted with the Austrian national team despite being a Finn. Should the flag on the EC RB Salzburg roster template be changed to Austria or do we keep the Finnish flag because he is a Finn? What's the policy here? – User:Poriman55 - Talk 14:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As per MOS:FLAG, there should be no flags on rosters for non-national teams. Only when representing your country in competition is a flag appropriate. Flibirigit (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
There are currently flags on basically every single roster from the NHL to Europe on the "nationality" column... – User:Poriman55 - Talk 14:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Because editors have ignored the policies. Flibirigit (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed update to Hockey season stats note template

I have made some updates in {{Hockey season stats note/sandbox}}, the results of which can be seen at {{Hockey season stats note/testcases}}. I based this updated style on {{NBA roster statistics legend}}, which I believe "looks better" (yep, completely subjective.)

Since making this change would impact over 400 pages, I figured that I'd propose the change first to determine consensus instead of just making the change and potentially getting reverted. What say ye? --MikeVitale 14:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do we need a complicated table/legend when we can use {{Abbr}}? Keep it simple. Flibirigit (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Because {{abbr}} doesn't work on mobile devices (where most of Wikipedia's traffic comes from), and it doesn't show up if an article is printed. WP aims to be understood in pretty much any format possible, and the Abbreviation template doesn't meet that goal. (Note that I'm saying this as someone who used to remove existing "stats notes" and replace them with the abbr template.) --MikeVitale 15:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The abbreviation markup can be also be used, but as MikeVitale notes, a legend is needed for those who can't hover, for reasons such as device/hard copy limitations or physical difficulty with precise hand-eye coordination. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
To facilitate support for dark mode or other themes, I suggest using a style sheet for the template (see Wikipedia:TemplateStyles). mw:Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis § Target night mode using standard media query as well as HTML classes describes how to support dark mode by hardcoding specific colours for dark mode. However a better approach is to avoid hardcoding by using colours from the standard set which adapt to light or dark mode – see mw:Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis § Use CSS variables or CSS design tokens with fallback for background and text where possible for more information. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@Isaacl Thank you so much for your comments about dark mode compatibility. Through your comment here, I have learned about how to make templates work well for both light mode (my preferred Wikipedia viewing style) as well as dark mode.
I have re-written the Sandbox template at {{Hockey season stats note/sandbox}} (which, again, you can see in the testcases) to be dark-mode compatible.
Thanks again! --MikeVitale 02:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I've converted the sandbox to use a style sheet. Note I believe the colours set in the --color-base and --background-color-base CSS variables are the default, so it isn't necessary to set the background colour and text colour to them (and could interfere with theme or user-specific style sheets). To avoid duplicating the skater and goalie legends, they can be separated into their own helper templates. isaacl (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I've also changed the markup to use table heading cells for the abbreviations, which improves the accessibility. I like the look of the bolded text, so I left it, but that can be changed in the style sheet if desired. isaacl (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
My updates to the sandbox notwithstanding, I think I prefer the compactness of the current format. The expanded version might be a bit easier to skim through, but I think readers will learn the abbreviations fairly quickly, and thus benefit more from the smaller amount of vertical space used. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Beanpot Tournament Winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Beanpot Tournament Winners has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Updating stats mid-season

Is it time to revisit hockey's policy of waiting till the end of season to update stats and new records? I bring this up because it seems every time a record falls, there's a mini edit war with IPs who want it updated RIGHT NOW! If memory serves, I was one of the editors that supported waiting till the end of season. Again, if my memory serves, my rational was that this is an encyclopedia and not tsn or espn. Basically, we're not a news website. I don't know what other professional sports do as I rarely edit them and pay no attention to their goings on. So, hockey world, do we keep status quo or do we start up dating stats as they happen? Masterhatch (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There is zero reason to update stats midseason. That would be an inordinate amount of work. That's what elite prospects and hockeydb are for. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I am helping you in this endeavor against the IP's who no-doubt will update the page on Sunday if Ovechkin breaks the record. So, status quo. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Good to hear. Masterhatch (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
@Masterhatch: it has happened. Prepare for the storm. Conyo14 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Roger that! Masterhatch (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
It started. IPs who can't read at List of NHL records (individual). Sigh. Masterhatch (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
If it gets worse, I could request a page protection for like 48 hours. It won't matter in 10 days when the regular season ends. Conyo14 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Conyo14, maybe getting that temp page protection is a good idea. (Yes, good thing we're almost done the season. Image had he broken the record in his 1st game next season?) Masterhatch (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Earl Andrew has page protected it until April 20. Once all April 17 games are complete, I can update the stats on the page. Conyo14 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Is Ovechkin's page being targeted with problematic edits too? If so, it might be worth requesting temporary semi-protection to stem the tide. Left guide (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    It's even worse there from the looks of it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    A good number of IPs keep editing the Ovechkin article to change the total number of goals at the bottom of the table without bothering to fix any of the other totals. Updating it at all looks like an error because without this season's line in the table, the totals don’t match the table, but updating just the number of goals is even worse. I genuinely find it baffling that these people think everyone else is so stupid that we didn’t know he broke the record and has 895 goals, rather than considering that there might be a reason why the data aren’t up-to-date. Especially when there are only ten days left in the season anyway. My last edit summary from yesterday reverting one of those people was admittedly perhaps a bit too tart. 1995hoo (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    Wayne Gretzky's article has seen increased action as well. The bickering edit summaries are comical. Hopefully it will calm down soon. A comment at Talk:Wayne Gretzky suggest classifying him a player with Russian ancestry. Any takers on that? Flibirigit (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    Heh. Gretzky did say something about having Russian ancestry when he was down in the Caps' dressing room after the game yesterday (we saw that on the postgame show on the Caps' local feed). But, contrary to what some people editing Wikipedia seem to believe, some things are just plain too trivial for inclusion. 1995hoo (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Here List of NHL statistical leaders too, but not as bad. Masterhatch (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Misinformation in the 2022-23 NHL season, Western Conference standings

There might be a mistake at 2022-23 NHL season & related pages. If the Golden Knights finished first in the West? They should've met the Jets in the first round, not the Kraken. The Avalanche should've met Kraken, not the Jets. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct about that. The Kraken were the first wild card, not the second. Conyo14 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
As the first wild card team, shouldn't they have played the division leader (in the conference) with the second best record? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
They did. Colorado played Seattle in the first round. Conyo14 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
So many playoffs. I got confused with the 2024 post-season, where the Avalanche played the Jets. Oops. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
@GoodDay Ah, I just happened upon this discussion and got deeply confused for a moment. Glad to see it was figured out. The Kip (contribs) 05:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Ice hockey in Canada

The Ice hockey in Canada article has had several good faith edits recently which introduced, spelling errors, poor grammar, and repetitive paragraphs. Does anyone have time for a full copyedit? Flibirigit (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: You should be able to do it too if you compare your most recent revision to the page's most recent revision. Then on the following page, press "undo". Conyo14 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
The article needs a lot more work than a simple "undo". I'm too busy to do a thorough job, hence why I asked for help. Flibirigit (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
I reverted out the last six edits because I wasn't sure whether they really were good faith, although it may have just been incompetence. Either way, the edits didn't add anything useful. 1995hoo (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
NHL is the only North American Professional League that takes 50% of Canadian Players and is originated in Canada. So I think if we deal Ice Hockey in Canada like Ice Hockey in the United States. We must put NHL in the article. 211.52.162.218 (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Based on what I know about hockey, those look like good-faith edits. But they're unsourced with improper grammar and add little value as a separate section that essentially replicates what's in the history section. I think 1995hoo's rollback was the right call. Left guide (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  • 211.52.162.218 has attempted to restore the material, and I have reverted it. I also left a note on their talk page informing them of this discussion. Left guide (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    Ofcourse you think my addits have some grammar error and you only require sources. But it is not major things that we must deal with. It is a minor thing. If you are native of English Language, you could correct the grammatic errors. But you just reverted because you do not favour NHL article on the context 'Ice Hockey in Canada'.
    As I said, NHL is the league that is originated in Canada. The most popular and largest professional league in Canada and the main market areas of NHL in US are related to Canada. 1:10 ratio is economic and populational gaps between Canada and the US. But NHL team ratio between Canada and the US is only 1:3.5. I know 49 and over 50% of NHL Players are from Canada and the name of Stanley Cup is originated by Lord Stanley who was the Governor General of Canada.
    So I could not find any reason why NHL must not included. 211.52.162.218 (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    First, the NHL portion is already included in the history section, any further material requires sourcing. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. As for the poor English, technically, you should fix it yourself and not force others to do it. Everyone makes an editing typo, but something as egregious as the edits you're doing and telling others to correct them, it can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Conyo14 (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    +1 to Conyo14. You could have not made ungrammatical edits in the first place, and if you lack the competency in the English language to manage that yourself, perhaps Wikipedia is a poor fit for you. Ravenswing 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    If there's a way to integrate new material into the existing history section with cited reliable sources, I'd consider copy-editing. Grammar issues alone are relatively mild on the WP:DISRUPTIVE spectrum as long as the content is reasonably understandable, which it seemed to be. But with the way the content was added, it felt implausible to even invoke WP:PRESERVE. Left guide (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Next week I believe I will have time to give the article a once over. There are several uncited statements in the history section as is, and the sentence about the importance to Canadian culture is cited nine times (which the term "excessive" definitively applies). The participation rates also need to be updated as they are now 12 years old, if that is ok with everyone. Llammakey (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Llamakey, you make some good points. The "Women's ice hockey" section needs balance, as it is heavily slanted to recent events and omits several past leagues and tournaments. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
@Spitzmauskc: might be interested. I also notice that Canadian women's ice hockey history is in dire need of cleanup. Flibirigit (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've patched in some stuff and cited everything, but it probably needs a once over for coherence by a new set of eyes. I hope this helped. Llammakey (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
At a glance, it looks much improved! Flibirigit (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Wild Cards during the 1978 and 79 Stanley Cup playoffs

Under the Stanley Cup playoff format used in 1978 and 1979, the top two teams in each division qualified for the postseason, along with the four next-best regular-season records from those teams in the entire league finishing third or lower. Yet, I am having trouble finding any sources that explicitly use the term "Wild Card" to refer to those teams, nor can I find sources that published Wild Card-like standings for those two seasons like they do for the current format used today. NHL.com is among those that do not do this for those two seasons.[3][4][5]. Still, I would like to create such Wild Card-like standings templates so it is clear why these teams clinched playoff spots, because it is not immediately obvious by just looking at the divisional standings alone. But it would appear we would be the ones to first publish such Wild Card-like standings tables for 1978 and 79. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

[6], [7]. These sources explicitly use "wild-card" when referring to the playoff system. The playoff bracket and detailed breakdown is very helpful. Looking at the divisional standings is not helpful and hasn't been since 1993. In this instance, it's league standings you want to observe. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Zzyzx11: Out of concern for avoiding template creep I'm inclined to ask, is there a reason why a separate wild card standings template is necessary, as opposed to using a symbol like a small letter or asterisk to mark wild card teams in existing templates? Left guide (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Same reason why we have wild card standings for today's current 2024-25 season. It is easier to track and compare the points of all the teams that qualified or did not qualify in one table than try to compare them across multiple divisional tables. And unlike today's 2024-25 season where there are separate Eastern and Western Conference wild card races, those wild card races in 1978 and 79 were league-wide across the four divisions. Of course, I was thinking it would be easier to use Template:2024–25 NHL standings as a model, and create two similar templates for 1977–78 and 1978–79, with the option to display divisional standings, wild card standings, or both. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Taylor Hall province at 2010 NHL entry draft

I have opened a discussion on what Province Taylor Hall should be listed at on 2010 NHL entry draft #North American draftees by state/province Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive87&oldid=1289623603"