Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Why are the hockey infoboxes so empty of substance compared to other sports?

When you look at a page for an NBA, MLB or NFL player, you're given a list of all the teams they played for and the years they were on those teams, all of their championships, all of their accolades, and records they may have. When you look at the page for an NHL player, you see the teams they played for and the years of their career (though not the years they played for each team). Why is this? Somarain (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussions: [1], [2], [3] Conyo14 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And aside from everything else, a infobox is supposed to be a brief precis of the subject. If you want to find out information in depth ... read the article. Ravenswing 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Supposed to be brief according to whom? As I stated below, that opinion is not in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and it's certainly not the MO for pages for politicians, NFL players, colleges or countries. In addition, there are multiple things wrong with your second sentence. First, you shouldn't have to read an entire article to get basic knowledge. THAT is what the infobox is for. And second, in my brief look at Wayne Gretzky's page, basic information isn't covered in the rest of the article either. I was curious how many all star games he's played in. I couldn't get this from the infobox as you know. But it's not listed in the rest of the article either as far as I can tell. And this is supposedly a featured article. Look at the page for any NFL, MLB or NBA player and you could determine how many all star / pro bowls they played in in seconds, because their infoboxes list basic information. Somarain (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding years, unlike some sports, hockey player articles tend to include stats tables spanning a player's career, which can clearly show the reader the years spent with each team in a quick to locate format. But yes otherwise, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is a guideline and keeping the infobox brief and pertinent rules the day. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I see the word brief only once in that link and it's not referring to the length of the infobox. Even if there was a rule in that link about briefness, it's ignored almost everywhere. Joe Biden, Tom Brady, Harvard University, Chile, all of these infoboxes are far larger and more informative than those of NHL players. From where exactly comes this "brief infobox" thing? Somarain (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To your other comment, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Echoedmyron (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the NHL infoboxes don't even contain many key facts, so they're not meeting the threshold of that guide at all. To your other comment, WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Somarain (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree the hockey infoboxes are pretty sparse and could be improved. Maybe there is a reason why people keep bringing this up. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like sports WikiProjects are slowly becoming "fan sites" and reflecting sports databases, rather than remaining encyclopedic entries. Infoboxes are becoming too bloated at the expense of quality prose. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are separated from the prose. They also get facts across much faster than prose (obviously the facts should be listed in both sections). Somarain (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The one thing the hockey template has over the others is it's limited to the basic info. There are sections in the articles listing all those other things. The lone issue I have with the hockey template is its appearance compared to the other sports. I particularly like the way the baseball template looks for retired players. --NHL04 (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly argue it does not cover basic info. Nor do the sections in other articles. How many all star games did Wayne Gretzky appear in? You could not figure that out from his "featured" article, as far as I can tell. Not in the infobox and not in the rest of the page. Somarain (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All-star game appearances are typically listed in the awards and honors section Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's scarcely "basic" info. Now if you're concerned that the Gretzky article lacks an all-star game count, what prevented you from adding it? Ravenswing 22:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

How is not basic info? Remove Gretzky's name from the infobox and I have no idea that I'm looking at someone who was considered rather good at the game. All Star appearances tell that story quickly. But if you think an all star is too trivial, surely you don't think the same thing about Hart Trophies? For your last question, my time is best spent here. The worst thing about the article, and all NHL player articles, is the bare infobox. It would take minutes to find out from the player articles information you could find in seconds from any NBA, MLB, or NFL player article. I'm focusing my efforts where I could potentially make the greatest change. Somarain (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is very clear on Gretzky's hallmark achievements. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I note that Template:Infobox sports league has optional parameters for {{{current_season}}}, {{{current_season2}}},{{{last_season}}}, & {{{upcoming_season}}}, while Template:Infobox hockey league has only {{{current_season}}}. It would be useful to have those alternative parameters available during the 3-5 month off-season. It could even be set-up to switch automatically. I don't know how to edit templates. Buffalkill (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Iginla kids' nationalities

Various users keep editing Tij Iginla and now Jade Iginla, changing "Canadian-American" to "Canadian." Elite prospects (which is currently having technical difficulties) has them listed as both so I've been reverting the edits, and although they both lived, played, and attended school in the States throughout their childhoods I haven't seen another source explicitly say that they have American citizenship. Can anyone confirm that they they are or are not also American? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the users making the edits provided sources to contradict EP, I should add. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Elite Prospects should be used with caution, since some if its contents are user-generated with editorial oversight. Please see the about page for details. Flibirigit (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that on the about page, am I missing something? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can sign up for an account with Elite Prospects, then edit and create players. Flibirigit (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Aside to the main discussion, but relevant to the point you are making: is that true? Anyone can edit a player? I thought EP player profiles could only be updated manually by the player or player's agent after identity verification. I'm genuinely curious! –uncleben85 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would take any assertion that they were "American" with an enormous grain of salt. They are teenagers who were born in Canada to Canadian parents, and have played internationally for Canada. It is vanishingly rare for people of their ages to seek to become naturalized American citizens, and I'd like to see some very solid sourcing for anything of the sort ... and Eliteprospects just isn't that solid. Ravenswing 10:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Gender in medal tables

Should gender be included in the sport parameter of medal tables? I have been reverted both ways by different users so I think we should come to some kind of consensus. Personally, I am pro-gender for a few reasons:

1. Men's and women's ice hockey are two different classes of competition
2. A female or transgender athlete could medal in both categories
3. The medal table template uses gendered sports in its example

CC @Triggerbit @DetroitFan7 @Spitzmauskc Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you link to an example? Wracking ^talk! 17:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Berkly Catton has a gendered medal table, Lenni Hämeenaho does not. The template in question is Template:MedalTableTop Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be very opposed to any such inclusion. All that would do would be to inject a wave of disputes over gender politics as to whether any given player does (or does not) present as one gender or another or neither, and over a distinction that has never yet come into play. That a female or trans athlete could medal in both categories is as may be, but none yet ever has. (I don't think there's yet been a case where one ever has competed in both sides at the national or Olympic level.) Should that ever do happen, it's much better addressed in prose in the individual's article. Ravenswing 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the gender of the athlete, it is just specifying the class of competition in which they medaled. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm slightly in favor of including gender of the sport per #1. The gender of the sport is in no way a statement about the gender of the athlete (though, of course, it's often correlated). I don't think this would pose an issue with MOS:GID, because this is related to the class of competition. I do not anticipate major disputes being raised. See, for example, Harrison Browne—as far as I can tell, there has been no major discussion or dispute over the characterization of this (transgender male) athlete's classification within women's hockey.

Either way, we should try to be consistent and avoid male-as-norm bias (see also Wikipedia:Writing about women#Male is not the default). Wracking ^talk! 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion it's unnecessary and second Ravenswing thoughts. Triggerbit (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Concur. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with each of your points and feel including competition class leads to greater consistency in competition nomenclature overall, i.e. 'women's ice hockey/men's ice hockey' and 'world championship' rather than 'ice hockey' and 'women's world championship/men's world championship' (Wracking's note re:Male is not the norm is quite relevant here). The men's and women's world championship tournaments are not literally the same events and we would be leaving the reader to interpret competition class from a player's gender if we were to present both competition classes as 'ice hockey' and 'world championship.' Spitzmauskc (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur. If the player medaled in a women's world championship tournament, we should state that. If it was a men's world championship tournament, we should state that. There is zero reason to present less information. Who does that benefit? And it is very much important that we do not presumptively treat men as the default. Men are not the default setting of humanity. Period. oknazevad (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Lack of information should outweigh any inconvenience factor, and I don't think invites gender politic as much as it just presents facts. What we would be presenting is the simple fact of which event the player participated in, separate from the player's identified gender or biological sex as well as any editor or reader's beliefs on those matters. It provides clearer information as well as helps shift that gendered bias. –uncleben85 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

® and ™ in logos

Hello there. All NHL teams seem to have ® or ™ in their logos used on their respective websites, their respective Facebook pages and their respective Instagram pages. NHL also uses the logos with the marks on its website, see for example https://www.nhl.com/info/teams/. Therefore I argue that we should use this version as well. Sbaio however argues that there is no need for that, “that” referring to the addition of the marks. They argues that the logos without the marks are the versions used on the teams' uniforms and therfore we should use that version. I would argue that the one on the uniform is a printed version and the one used elsewhere is the digital version, and Wikipedia is a digital platform, hence the digital version should be used. What do you think? Jonteemil (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jonteemil - according to MOS:TMRULES, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." Regards, PKT(alk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that TMRULES applies to images, and WP:LOGO doesn't mention trademark icons Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I wouldn't say that logos would be article text nor citations. Jonteemil (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're only talking about logo images, I guess that if one of those symbols is in the image that's uploaded, there's not much that can be done - it's there. However, it seems to me that MOS:TMRULES tells us that they are not desired, unless it's unavoidable. I still agree with @Sbaio: that there is no need for the symbols. PKT(alk) 19:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Trademark symbols are not part of the trademark. Trademark owners optionally place them to let others know that the mark in question is trademarked. The trademark owner has the responsibility of enforcing its trademark rights; others are not obligated to indicate that a given mark is trademarked (as required by trademark law, they cannot use the trademark in a way that causes confusion about the origin of a product). isaacl (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Logos are proprietary and should not be altered or have elements edited out. Buffalkill (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable, however, to assume that the ® or ™ are not part of the proprietary logo. –uncleben85 (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Should I escalate this to WP:RFC? When thinking about it, not only ice hockey logos use these marks so there should be a Wikipedia-wide policy on this matter, whether it be ice hockey logos or fast food restaurant logos. Jonteemil (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If you do, take it to either WP:VILLAGEPUMP or the talk page of MOS:TMRULES, so you can get a larger range of opinions. Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Good advice........ PKT(alk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that's needed. Again, trademark symbols are not part of the logo. You can see, for example, the trademark registration for the Montreal Canadiens logo. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now posted WP:VPP#WP:Logo's stance on ® and ™ in logos. Jonteemil (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Stanley Cup winners in NHL season pages

Each NHL season pages should include Stanley Cup winners on players that played their first and last seasons who made significant contributions in their careers. If it frustrating that we don't list Stanley Cup winners on those players and we need a new consensus about it. That consensus not listing Stanley Cup winners on those players is not good and it gets frustrating having to click their links to see if any of them won the cup. So we should talk about a new consensus about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

[4] last discussion about 11 months ago. [5] original discussion on this section for NHL season pages.

My thoughts on this haven't changed. Sorry man, there's gotta be a bit more support for this. I just really don't care if Jordan Nolan or Devante Smith-Pelly played their final NHL games. Perhaps someone else can chime in? via myself from the last discussion. Conyo14 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonna second this. I wouldn’t mind adding to blurbs of guys who’ve already met notability requirements, but simply winning the Cup is not enough by itself. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it should. Stanley Cup is the biggest championship in NHL and is part of the Triple Gold Club. So therefore, it should be there. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just like months ago, your logic is recursive and boils down to “it should because it is.” The Kip ^(contribs) 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't. All manner of obscure people play on Cup-winning teams. This is trivia. Ravenswing 03:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not trivial. That is fact. You all are basing out of consensus that is censoring that information on NHL season pages and you are refusing to acknowledge that information as facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

…what? The Kip ^(contribs) 05:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, we're basing this on consensus. That is, in fact, how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 18:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but that consensus is not a good one or even a right one. In fact, that is considered censoring out something that should revealed as facts, not trivia based on that. That's a big flaw to it and it's very inconvenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, consensus isn't wrong just because it disagrees with you. That's quite literally how finding a consensus works; it's the majority's opinion, not everyone's. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's going to have to be amended because the majority's decision has caused problems by censoring of what should be on there, including the Stanley Cup winners, which is not right and deemed incorrect. Stanley Cup winners on the list of players who played their first and last games in NHL season pages are facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been on Wikipedia far too long to be ignorant of how it works. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Your personal approval is not necessary to validate consensus, and it doesn't become invalid because you yourself do not like it. This is not "censorship" any more than it is "censorship" not to include those players' birth dates, their hometowns, their junior/college teams, their marital status at the time of retirement, or any other bit of unnecessary cruft some disgruntled editor insists are "essential." If you want to know the players' CV, click on the links to the articles. Ravenswing 00:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That creates inconvenience of having to do that when users can see it easily on the first and last games of certain players who met the notable criteria to see the Stanley Cup winning accomplishment and it's equally frustrating of not allowing due to some consensus from the majority who failed to see it that way. It disenchants me that some consensus are causing problems and forbidding some things that we need to make things more convenient. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a suggestion to overload pages with more trivial facts. No thanks. We need more quality prose and fewer lists of facts. Flibirigit (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is frustrating to having not seeing Stanley Cup winners on those players. I know we can't list all players who won the Stanley Cup in first and last games. Just the ones who made massive contributions like winning certain trophies, played over 1,000 games and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm more okay with listing that for those who already met the notability requirement. Though like Flibirigit, quality prose should go above lists of trivial facts. Conyo14 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much this.

If it’s someone like Cogliano or Bergeron, who already meet the notability requirements? Go ahead and add it.

If it’s someone like Brayden Pachal or Alexander Volkov, who doesn’t? A cup win alone isn’t enough to add to the table. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that any players who already meet the notability requirements and won Stanley Cup should have the Stanley Cup on that table. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad you agree. That's what we should do. Players who already meet the notability requirements and won Stanley Cup should have that achievement on the list. In my opinion, the current consensus of first and last games is censoring some important contributions of player's achievements, including the Stanley Cup, which is a big deal. That information is facts, not trivia. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would've just assumed that being a Stanley Cup winner with their name on the cup would in and of itself imply notability. Actually, until now I thought that being in the NHL was notable. I'm new here. Buffalkill (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In this case they don't mean notable as in worthy of an article, but a separate standard of notability for inclusion in the NHL season articles when they retire. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Quite alright, Buffalkill. Participation standards have been deprecated generally sports-wide. Playing in a competition doesn't make anyone notable, any more. Ravenswing 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like playing in a top-level professional league is a pretty solid standard of notability, is it not? Whether it’s one NHL game or 1,000. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Depends. "Top-level professional league" also includes someone playing a single game in the top Austrian league in the 1950s. Or for the NHA in 1909. Or a guy who pitched a single inning for the Worcester Ruby Legs in 1889. And so on. The number of players for whom all that's known is "Smith, P." sportswide is very large. That's why the GNG's in play for the vast number of people who didn't win scoring championships or named to season-end league All-Star Teams. Ravenswing 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding such trivia. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not trivia. That is actually fact. That so-called consensus about the achievements in player's first and last NHL seasons is censoring out who are Stanley Cup winner in NHL season pages in the first and last games section and it does not make it convenient. If you want to compromise, then add Stanley Cup winners on players who made notable achievements like who won certain trophies, played over 1,000 games and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're mixing opinions and facts. Trivia = fact that miscellaneous. You mean to say it is not miscellaneous. Conyo14 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, regardless, we should settle a compromise to amend the consensus to allow to have players who made other notable achievements have the the Stanley Cup win on those tables in the first and last games in NHL season pages? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I see Jay Bouwmeester is listed with Triple Gold Club in the 2019–20 NHL season and Patrice Bergeron in 2022–23 NHL season. What does that you all? That means they are Stanley Cup winners and that's the more reason why Stanley Cup should be listed in each NHL season on players' achievements on their first and last games, not censor it based on poorly voted consensus by the majority on this. Therefore, that consensus should be amended, one way or another. I do have a case about it, no matter how strong and weak it is to you all. Stanley Cup winning achievement is considered factual information, not trivial. Consider that a fair protest and fairly reminding you that something most of all found convenient to be blinded by that consensus. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't force others to agree to what you want. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

But I tell you this. Because when I see the eyes and faces of the players who won the Stanley Cup, it's like seeing them win an Olympic Gold Medal and winning the Super Bowl. That it's one of the biggest notable achievements in any playoff games on any hockey player who got the chance to win the cup that naysayers are obliviously blinded by their negative views that they considered it trivial, which in reality it is not and have failed to understand why it should be the list based on their accomplishments and censoring that on that list. I will not accept the current consensus that suppresses the Stanley Cup achievement on the table list in the first and last games in NHL season pages, everybody. Not I and I never will. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors will not be bullied into your point of view. Refusal to accept consensus is disruptive behaviour. Flibirigit (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not bullying. That is a fair protest. It's about how an unfair consensus that censors out what should be listed in the achievements and reminding how the majority of you found convenient to refuse to acknowledge that problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn’t “unfair” just because you disagree with it, lmao The Kip ^(contribs) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Holy cow, drop the stick already. This is pointless. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That is the consensus I don't agree with and never will. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As i said earlier: Ok 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No one's forcing you to agree. But as I said uptopic, your personal approval is not required in order to establish consensus. Ravenswing 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no consensus forming for the proposal-in-question. Recommend this discussion be closed. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I do have a proposal that I will set up whatever it takes. Maybe not now, maybe not in awhile, but when it does, I will make a case about it and I will use this discussion to raise some awareness. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Chris Patrick (ice hockey) article needed

Similar to Eric Tulsky, the Capitals just named a guy GM who we don't have an article for. I lack the time to do research atm and I'm not great at writing exec articles anyways, but some points to cover in the article are that he's been with the org for 16 years, was drafted by the Caps in the 8th round of the 1994 NHL entry draft, won the Cup with them in 2018, and is the son of Dick Patrick and great-grandson of legendary HHOFer Lester Patrick. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Draft:Chris Patrick (ice hockey), which I've based off of Tulsky's article. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

And it's now published. Carry on. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Free agent infobox

Should a free agent be listed as such in the infobox? @Sbaio and I disagreed on this at Michael McLeod (ice hockey). I think it looks really bad in its current form with the lowercase t in team; either the free agent text should be removed or the template should be updated to say "Current team" if no league is listed. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This has always been the practice so I find it strange that you did not see that earlier. – sbaio 04:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the accusatory wording of your comment. I didn't see an instance of this until now; I've been editing regularly for less than a year and it's not common for a player to be a free agent for long enough that it appears on their page. I just wanted to have a discussion about changing either the practice or the template so that there's not a lowercase letter there. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally think the "‎ team" looks bad too, and would be in support of updating the box to say "Current team" instead of "[League] team". Is that really where we need to list the league anyway? It sort of implies there could be more than one active professional league/team. I also feel, just because something has been done one way for a while is not the best reason to continue it.--–uncleben85 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

British National League (1996–2005) nominated for deletion

British National League (1996–2005) has been nominated for deletion. The article needs a lot of work. Does anyone have time to play with it? Flibirigit (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Patrick family article

Myself and @Hey man im josh mused on this a bit at Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Patrick (ice hockey) - the Patrick family certainly has enough history, as well as WP:SIGCOV, to merit their own article, rather than being contained in subsections of Lester Patrick and Craig Patrick. Lester, Craig, Frank, and Lynn are all in the HHOF, while Muzz was a player and served as a head coach/GM, Glenn was a player, Dick is a longtime Capitals executive, and Chris is the Capitals' new GM. The "hockey's royal family" notion is used widely across secondary sources.

Examples of similar articles can be seen at Sutter family and Apps family. I don't really feel the drive to work on one at the moment, but I figured I'd drop the idea here should anyone be interested in attempting to flesh one out. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an absolute tragedy that this family, "hockey’s royal family" (according to the Washington Post), doesn't have a standalone article. I was shocked to find that not only wasn't it a GA yet, it didn't even exist! 7 Patricks have their name on the cup, 4 in the HOF, and more experience in high level non-playing roles. This is ripe for an excellent GA and possibly good topic if anyone were up for it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The individual family members are notable, but the family as a whole must demonstrate GNG to be notable. Has anyone found articles specifically talking about the Patrick family as a whole? Flibirigit (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

[6], [7] [8] Conyo14 (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also a book: "The Patricks: Hockey's Royal Family" ISBN:9780887801037 Conyo14 (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

... which I happen to own. The Patricks have been influencing professional hockey for 125 years now. Their impact on the sport, its legendry and lore dwarfs that of the Sutters, Appses, Howes ... Ravenswing 01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

AND YET WE HAVE NO ARTICLE FOR THEM! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hanson Brothers

Does anyone have time to clean up Hanson Brothers? It has been nominated a second time for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson Brothers (2nd nomination). I'm too busy right now to do it myself. Best wishes! Flibirigit (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"NCAA" vs specific conferences

When linking to a college player or team and referencing the league they play in, do we want to be saying "NCAA" or the specific conference they were in, such as Hockey East or NCHC? A more specific framing for the discussion can be found here: Talk:2024–25 NHL transactions#Listing college hockey imports –uncleben85 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I rarely see the conferences specified when it comes to hockey, whereas the CHL component leagues are differentiated every time. I would lean towards NCAA in most cases, but as long as we're consistent (and imo apply the same treatment to U Sports and its conferences) it really doesn't matter at all. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League

There are two pages we need to add to the History of the National Hockey League Featured Topic nomination: History of the National Hockey League on television and History of the National Hockey League on United States television. These technically are part of the "History of the NHL" series and should be added. XR228 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And both would need a good bit of work before they were FA-worthy. Ravenswing 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

True. But we shouldn't go ahead with the History of the NHL topic without working on these two first. XR228 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Ravenswing 03:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential NHL Good Topic

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

National Hockey League

61 articles

Western Conference

Eastern Conference

Pacific Division

Central Division

Metropolitan Division

Atlantic Division

History

Original Six

Commissioner

Entry draft

Potential expansion

Rules

Season structure

Television

All-Star game records

All-time results

Arenas

Attendance figures

Awards

Defunct and relocated teams

Mascots

Records (individual)

Records (team)

Seasons

Statistical leaders

Statistical leaders by country

Current broadcasters

Current captains and alternate captains

Current franchise owners

Boston Bruins

Buffalo Sabres

Detroit Red Wings

Florida Panthers

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Tampa Bay Lightning

Toronto Maple Leafs

Carolina Hurricanes

Columbus Blue Jackets

New Jersey Devils

New York Islanders

New York Rangers

Philadelphia Flyers

Pittsburgh Penguins

Washington Capitals

Chicago Blackhawks

Colorado Avalanche

Dallas Stars

Minnesota Wild

Nashville Predators

St. Louis Blues

Utah Hockey Club

Winnipeg Jets

Anaheim Ducks

Calgary Flames

Edmonton Oilers

Los Angeles Kings

San Jose Sharks

Seattle Kraken

Vancouver Canucks

Vegas Golden Knights

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

Well, I'd say this is a dashboard, rather than a topic. It will also require ongoing maintenance, because if and when ratings change, this dashboard would also need updating (as I just did for Western Conference (NHL)). That having been written, it's a nice tool for our project, IMO. PKT(alk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Update on Hockey Mountain revamp

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

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

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

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

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

Part 1: National Hockey League

1. History of the National Hockey League
2. Original Six
3. 100 Greatest NHL Players
4. NHL All-Star Game
5. NHL commissioner
6. NHL entry draft
7. National Hockey League on television
8. List of NHL awards
   1. Stanley Cup
9. List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams
10. List of NHL seasons

Part 2: List of NHL players

1. List of NHL statistical leaders
2. List of NHL career assists leaders
3. List of goalscoring NHL goaltenders
4. List of players with five or more goals in an NHL game
5. List of players with eight or more points in an NHL game
6. List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons
7. List of NHL players with 100-point seasons
8. List of NHL goaltenders with 300 wins
9. List of NHL players with 500 consecutive games played
10. List of NHL players with 500 goals
11. List of NHL players with 1,000 games played
12. List of NHL players with 1,000 points
13. List of NHL players with 2,000 career penalty minutes

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

Notes

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

Credits

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

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