Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Ice Hockey was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 3 January 2009. |
![]() | WikiProject Ice Hockey was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 1 November 2010. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Potential NHL Good Topic
[edit]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.
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
[edit]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)
Thanks for swift replies, I'll focus on improving existing articles. I'm feeling a bit rusty, could someone please take a look and give some feedback, I expanded Sebastian Collberg with info about his early career and international play, I'll try to write about his career post 2014 as well. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! —KRM (Communicate!) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)
[edit]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
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
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 ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Second-tier league argument regarding Mattias Norlinder
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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 Kettle meet pot. Perhaps you should brush up on WP:USTHEM. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:16, 7 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- The IP's behaving like a troll. Merely interested in being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 9 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In short, you've got nothing. Right. Gotcha. Ravenswing 03:24, 8 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)
- This is just pure WP:IDHT at this point, someone take it to ANI already. The Kip (contribs) 22:37, 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)
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
[edit]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)
|
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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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)
- @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)
- 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:
- Edits like this (used another IP for this edit), which is useless;
- Changing capitalization from "NHL entry draft" to "NHL Entry Draft" (edit above and once again different IP was used, the main IP that was recently blocked or even piping to its preferred version);
- Has been removing messages from other editors from its talk page (warnings or messages of any kind);
- Has a history of WP:OWNership regarding anything related to Montreal Canadiens.
All of that just shows that another block should be indefinite, but administrators rarely block whole range. – sbaio 12:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Update on Hockey Mountain revamp
[edit]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.
- 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)
Could anyone be so kind as to nominate this article along with the sister article (Eastern Conference) for deletion? I'd do it, but on mobile it's a tad difficult. Otherwise, I'll do it tonight. Conyo14 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters (2nd nomination) added it in. Conyo14 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Alberni Valley Bulldogs
[edit]Could a member of the WikiProject take a look at Alberni Valley Bulldogs and assess it per WP:NTEAM? In addition, there are also two non-free images showing the team's uniforms being used in the main infobox which might be an issue since given that articles about NHL and other hockey seem do something in the main infobox with respect to team uniforms. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The team passes WP:GNG, despite that the article is poorly written and lacking citations. Fair use images and other trivia has been removed. Flibirigit (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking at this Flibirigit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding any sources that call the game by the name the article gives it; neither of the references use the term "Miracle in Espoo". I have not found any sources that do use the phrase that predate the creation of the article, nor any sources at all that use the Finnish name (and there is no page for it on the Finnish wiki), which makes me suspect that it was made up by the creator of the page. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion unless anyone can find a source. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominate it for deletion. The name appears to be synthesized. Flibirigit (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found an article that uses the name "Espoon ihme", which would translate to "The Miracle of Espoo" and one Facebook post that uses the "Ihme Espoossa" version. These were the only mentions of either of those names so it's obvious that this isn't a real thing. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Asia League Ice Hockey
[edit]Asia League Ice Hockey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Requesting better name for Template:Player4 and similar
[edit]Template:Player4, Template:Player5, and Template:Player7 have inscrutable names that are not explained in their documentation. Can we please move these templates to better canonical names, like Template:Ice hockey roster current player, or something more reasonable? I'm fine with the current names existing as redirects, but the current names are not helpful. The naming guideline says: "Template function should be clear from the template name". If someone can explain what the three current templates are for, I'll be happy to rename them without breaking anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that editors who watch this talk page are not the same who care about updated rosters. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Which page would be a better place to address the above concerns about inscrutable template names? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe contact the roster editors directly on their talk pages? I personally have little use for rosters. Flibirigit (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, these templates should be merged and certain parameters should be made optional. – sbaio 05:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe contact the roster editors directly on their talk pages? I personally have little use for rosters. Flibirigit (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Which page would be a better place to address the above concerns about inscrutable template names? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that editors who watch this talk page are not the same who care about updated rosters. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Peer review
[edit]So I wrote above in the Notability section but didn't get any replies; It was a long time since I did anything beside general stats updates so would like if someone could take a look at Sebastian Collberg which I expanded and give som feedback, what could be improved and how are articles rated nowadays, etc. Best regards —KRM (Communicate!) 01:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Swedish links. I know that Eliteprospects cannot be used for GNG purposes. So, it looks fine as an article. If you're looking to make it a Good Article, you're probably almost there. Conyo14 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–)#Requested move 30 July 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–)#Requested move 30 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 12:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Subheaders
[edit]@XR228, they may look good but unfortunately they've taken away the table of contents navbox - appreciate the design, but maybe not something we should keep, unfortunately. The Kip (contribs) 23:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Female CHLers category
[edit]I'm thinking of making a category for women who have played in the CHL; is there a neat way to include both non-draftee players (eg Eve Gascon) and draftees who didn't play (eg Chloe Primerano and Taya Currie) into one category or should I just leave off the draftees who didn't end up playing major junior? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could just do Category:Female CHL draft picks and Category:Female CHL players separately - there's nothing saying a category with only two or three entries can't exist. The Kip (contribs) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Uniforms in the OHL
[edit]Hey all,
Was wondering if I (we) could start adding uniforms to active teams in the Ontario Hockey League.
Thanks for consideration. 27JJ (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- If someone's willing to put in the work, I don't see the problem. The Kip (contribs) 02:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Roger that. Ty for the response. 27JJ (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- My only concerns are that images meet requirements for non-free content and/or copyright. Prose regarding uniforms requires sourcing as per WP:RS. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- If they're the illustrated renders similar to NHL teams, they fall under fair use iirc. The Kip (contribs) 02:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is a fair concern, I had taken the time to try and familiarize myself with this. As reference, here is my upload of the Utah Hockey Club Uniform. The illustration, summary and licensing all meet the requirements as I have understood them. Fingers crossed that this won't be a problem. 27JJ (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Brantford 99ers team relocation
[edit]Does anyone have time to deal with the relocation of the Brantford 99ers? Several anonymous editors and one novice editor make repeated changes, but nobody is citing any sources. This team may benefit from the page move process or an article for the newest team name, the King Rebellion. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm working on a Draft:King Rebellion. Buffalkill (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking time to add sources! Flibirigit (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the 99ers article is actually discussing the Milton teams of the franchise's history, including the alumni section. All the Milton team names redirect to this 99ers article. For a junior A team, do we really need separate articles every time the team moves? I think this one should just get renamed. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support this idea. Looking at other OJHL team articles, they aren't usually split when the franchise moves. Brantford 99ers should become a dabpage with links to King Rebellion and Brantford Bandits. 162 etc. (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the city or town where a sports team resides is central to its identity. A change of location usually means new fans and new identity, even more so if they adopt a different name and uniform. In this case the King Rebellion chose a name that specifically references its hometown's history, i.e., the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion. Before the move, it was called the Brantford 99ers in reference to Jay-Z's 99 Problems. (JK) Buffalkill (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am indifferent as to a page move or a merged history. Whatever is chosen, it needs to be cited. Unfortunately one less thing named for Wayne Gretzky. Flibirigit (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Gretzky records
[edit]Can I draw people's attention to List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky? We have an editor who is trying to change 61 records to 62 by — basically original research. Masterhatch (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd welcome everyone else's input on that discussion, but as I've stated, the basis for my proposed changes is what the official NHL record book itself indicates instead of relying on a figure that comes from outside sources. Since I cite a pre-existing, official source, it doesn't constitute "original research." TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- NHL.com says 61.Masterhatch (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- And their record book lists 62. There are many sports columnists who sometimes write articles for their respective sports league's websites, but it does not mean that everything contained there is reflects the opinion of the NHL itself. Using another sports league as an example, this article on MLB.com lists the all-time single-season wins record as 60, whereas MLB's official leaderboards has it at 59. Again, the official record book is the definitive account. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- where's the link to the list that has 62? Counting from multiple links to get to 62 is SYNTH. All the sources say 61 so we cannot say 62. Masterhatch (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Far from being SYNTH, it falls under WP:CALC if "the results of the calculations are correct and a meaningful reflection of the sources." For example, on the list of players who scored the points in a single season, counting the number of times Gretzky is listed on the first page (top 50 players) gives the figure of 12. The fact that a third-party source doesn't happen to literally explicitly spell that out shouldn't prohibit us from using basic common sense to arrive at such a conclusion. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- 62 contradicts every source, so, no, not calc. Masterhatch (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- where's the link to the list that has 62? Counting from multiple links to get to 62 is SYNTH. All the sources say 61 so we cannot say 62. Masterhatch (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- And their record book lists 62. There are many sports columnists who sometimes write articles for their respective sports league's websites, but it does not mean that everything contained there is reflects the opinion of the NHL itself. Using another sports league as an example, this article on MLB.com lists the all-time single-season wins record as 60, whereas MLB's official leaderboards has it at 59. Again, the official record book is the definitive account. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:SYNTH. What you are doing is original research. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Masterhatch (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong again. I am using the NHL Official Guide and Record book to proof a record is officially recognized (listed) by the NHL. If a record that is present in a league's own official record book doesn't count "officially recognized," then no record is. In fact, there'd be no point continuing this conversation if you believe it so.
- At no point have you disputed that this record is officially recognized by the NHL. You have only argued the validity of the "61 records" figure. Such figures may be based on information that isn't accurate, and if an authoritative source like the NHL record book shows that there are other officially recognized records, then it follows the figure must be adjusted to conform and not the opposite. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh... I don't deny that that record is there at that link. The problem is no source says 62, not even nhl.com (which does say 61). And by doing math ourselves, thats original research. I think we need another voice in this. Masterhatch (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- NHL.com says 61.Masterhatch (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not original research to count the number of records held in the official record book, now present at https://records.nhl.com/. See Wikipedia:No original research § Routine calculations. As anyone can verify the count themselves, it's not hard (though tedious) to reach a consensus agreement on the number. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and that is exactly what I have done. Although I would have to recount to make sure of the validity of the figure, what I do know is that there are records listed there which aren't listed here, making the figure wrong by default. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- So, the problem is with the consensus on that official tally. For all known purposes, NHL.com along with all the secondary sources I've found list it as 61, whereas the NHL Record and Guide Book counts out 62. Therefore, I would suggest a note be placed for the one record that might be questionable. This could be a record the NHL came up with after his retirement and therefore awarded Gretzky an additional record despite having 61 by the time he set it and was recognized (or whatever). Either that, or keep it at 61, and place an addendum in the article with the record that wasn't recognized during his career but after the fact.
- Which edition of the Guide book is it? Conyo14 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. It was 61 at retirement and the article has to reflect that. If a record was added later, the article has to show that, much like it shows his records that have fallen. Masterhatch (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's the one that is available online, found on NHL.com. I believe that for a record to be "officially recognized," it must be featured on the Official Record book. Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing the "62 records" figure is necessarily the right one; it could be 64, 60, etc. What I am arguing is that the correct figure, whatever it may be, should only take into account the records officially listed in the Record Book.
- As an aside, using another sport, for the longest time, Ty Cobb's career hits total was listed for many years at 4,191. As it was an iconic record in baseball, that number was often used and repeated. However, research has shown that the mark wrongly counted a game for him twice and so it was actually 4,189. Eventually, the new number took precedence over the old one. I use this to show that there is no such thing as an infallible figure, even if it may be often repeated, and that when the evidence changes, so should the figures and not the opposite. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now, if someone could pull a source that shows a c. 1999 NHL Record book that actually only lists 61 records, that'd be another thing. Then it's just the NHL retroactively adding records. But I doubt that's where the number came from anyways. I think honestly, what happened is it first appeared on Wikipedia and then gained traction elsewhere, because whether we admit it or not, most people tend to get their information from the Wiki. Ironically, that same traction got the number to get accepted as fact and is now used as a justification for keeping it on Wikipedia. Maybe a tad bit circular... TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I really doubt wikipedia started the 61 number. I actually remember his retirement (I was in my mid-20s) and that number of 61 was being tossed around then and that was pre-wiki. The most likely case is a record was added retro actively, in which case, it really was 61 at retirement and could very well be 62 now. It wouldnt suprise me if they add more records retro actively in the future (say most 200 point seasons or most 80 goal seasons). Masterhatch (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happily, I have many of the NHL Record Books from the 1980s on forward to 2011. Just counted from 1999. Sixty-one. Ravenswing 09:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome! How does that book from '99 compare to wikipedia's 61? Does it give him the record for most assists by a rookie in a game? Masterhatch (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. Ravenswing 13:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so that's where the number comes from. Thank you for explaining where the "61 records" figure actually comes from. Do you also know if the 1999 Record Book also makes any mention of multi-goal/assist/point records? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. Ravenswing 13:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome! How does that book from '99 compare to wikipedia's 61? Does it give him the record for most assists by a rookie in a game? Masterhatch (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Now, if someone could pull a source that shows a c. 1999 NHL Record book that actually only lists 61 records, that'd be another thing. Then it's just the NHL retroactively adding records. But I doubt that's where the number came from anyways. I think honestly, what happened is it first appeared on Wikipedia and then gained traction elsewhere, because whether we admit it or not, most people tend to get their information from the Wiki. Ironically, that same traction got the number to get accepted as fact and is now used as a justification for keeping it on Wikipedia. Maybe a tad bit circular... TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Records aren't awarded; they're just a list of stats with someone at the top. If a list was removed from the NHL official records (say, if the definition of a stat was changed, so the old list was removed and replaced with a new list), or if the leader was bypassed, then it's reasonable to note that someone used to hold an official record, but that it is no longer the case. But if a new list was added for an additional stat, then the leader(s) achieved that record during their career, even if the stat was not part of the official record book at the time of retirement. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- So, I was the one who created the gretzky record article back in June 2005. Here is the original version. I don't remember which sources I used and I didnt add a source (wikipedia was a bit of a wild wild west back then). But I do remember at that time, all the websites had the same list and I do remember I didn't start that whole 61 record thing — in otherwords, I didnt take lists I saw and count 'em up to see how many there were. I also looked back at the Wayne Gretzky article from back at that time (from before my first edit) and it also had 61 records but witbout a list — only some highlights of the more impressive ones. Now, to figure out the 61 vs 62 problem, we need to take a closer look at the current official record book and compare and see where the differences are and go from there. Masterhatch (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with that approach. For what it's worth, as a starting point I did a deep dive through only the regular-season records as listed in the Official Record book. While I would appreciate somebody else confirming the exact specifics, what I can confirm is that there are over a dozen records listed in the Official Record book that are not mentioned in the article, with virtually every multi-goal/assist/point record missing. In fact, they're not even mentioned in the "Unofficial Records" list, which is strange as Gretzky virtually holds every record in that category, which certainly constitutes an extraordinary achievement.
- The following is every official record I found that is not listed, with a source for every one.
- Most shorthanded goals, career: 73.
- Longest assist streak, from start of season: 12.
- Most 3-point games, season: 40.
- Most 5-point games: 15.
- Most multi-point games, career: 824.
- Most 3-goal games: 10.
- Most multi-goal games, career: 189.
- Most 2-assist games, season: 44.
- Most 3-assist games, season: 27.
- Most 4-assist games, season: 12.
- Most 5-assist games, season: 4.
- Most multi-assist games, career: 575.
- Additionally, the article lists Gretzky's 7 assists in a 1979–80 game as the Official record for most assists by a rookie in a single game, whereas the NHL actually lists Gary Suter with 6 as the record-holder. That is because the NHL never recognized Gretzky's 1979–80 as a "rookie season" due to him playing the WHA before that. It's why he never won the Calder that year. While I would support including this record in the article, I would not assign it official status. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I went through the records listed at https://records.nhl.com/ and tabulated all of those where Gretzky is at the top of the list for each stat (including where he shares the lead). I went through the pages for regular season records, playoff records, and Stanley Cup Final records for skaters. I didn't go through the "Game 7" playoff records, as they require changing a drop-down menu to access the individual records, nor did I go through the "Overtime" page that also has a drop-down menu. (There were overtime records listed on the pages which I did go through, so I'm not sure what's distinct about that page.)
In context of the lead section in question and the sentence, I agree with listing the count of records that were recognized at the time of retirement. I'm sure there's someone with the appropriate record book who can count them up (I can't remember if I do). A note can be added about any additional records held at that time based on subsequent lists being tracked. isaacl (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can add a new section to the article that lists official records gained after retirement. Looks like there's quite a few. Masterhatch (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was just in the middle of revising my comment as I changed my mind. Out of practicality, I think it's simpler to keep the article's current note on what records continue to be held out of the original set held at retirement, and possibly add information about additional recognized records that are held at present. isaacl (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing the Lord's work with that list! While I still feel like they should be included outright as "official records," I won't object to including them but with an addendum that they constitute newly set/recognized records. At the very least, they deserve a mention. It's Wayne freakin' Gretzky we're talking about here. If we talk about his achievements, we better get them right.
- I propose that the "61 official records" figure be denoted as "widely credited with" as that is technically accurate as evidenced by the secondary source documentation, while not making a judgment value on what constitutes an official record or not. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The key issue is that it requires backtracking through history to figure out what additional records were held by Gretzky at the time of retirement, and that does start to stray into the territory of original research. Sticking with the NHL official record book from the time is safer. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have added the "widely credited" label to the 61 records figure. It's probably for the best to not attempt to go back to see which ones counted then and which didn't. That's a whole new hornet's nest and I wouldn't to open it.
- The question then is: what do we do about the records that ARE now officially recognized, but weren't presumably then? How do we talk about them? TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Both Masterhatch and I have suggested adding info on what official NHL records are currently held by Gretzky, even if they weren't tracked by the NHL at the time of his retirement. We can see what other people think. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding "widely credited": it's not a phrase I like in this context. There is no doubt about any of these records; they're events that have happened. The only thing that's changed is that the NHL is officially tracking more leaderboard lists. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's worth adding in information about the discrepancies of records that didn't exist. Unfortunately, yes, it's harder to track that. I'd say keep it at whatever most secondary sources say (i.e. 61 vs 62 records), and if the record book begins tracking a new stat, then we can write that in. Use best judgment for the stat and whether it's notable enough. Conyo14 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, "widely accredited" can be worded differently. I'm sure we can find a consensus. Conyo14 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The key issue is that it requires backtracking through history to figure out what additional records were held by Gretzky at the time of retirement, and that does start to stray into the territory of original research. Sticking with the NHL official record book from the time is safer. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was just in the middle of revising my comment as I changed my mind. Out of practicality, I think it's simpler to keep the article's current note on what records continue to be held out of the original set held at retirement, and possibly add information about additional recognized records that are held at present. isaacl (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that we have a direction to go with this. I think that we should continue the discussion at Talk:List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days so I won't be around much. Masterhatch (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Karel Vejmelka
[edit]Good afternoon,
I reverted an editor on Vejmelka's page after some drive-by tagging and now have the editor stating on my talkpage threatening to delete Vejmelka's page claiming the player does not meet WP:GNG. The page is currently cited, but needs more coverage. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Llammakey (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’d be happy to help, but also, SIGCOV or not, the premise of said editor that a player with 140 NHL games played “isn’t notable enough” is absolutely ludicrous. We’re talking about a full-time NHL goaltender here, not some random prospect that played one game. The Kip (contribs) 17:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is very hard to WP:AGF when the reviewer didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE search. Conyo14 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Especially given the sarcastic
you think I could find any? Noooo.
I've issued a deserved trout, hopefully should be the end of things. The Kip (contribs) 20:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Especially given the sarcastic
- It is very hard to WP:AGF when the reviewer didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE search. Conyo14 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)