Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
:BTW, concerning the active players, there should be some spacing between the current & former teams. Such a spacing would make the appearance less confusing for less familiar readers. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
:BTW, concerning the active players, there should be some spacing between the current & former teams. Such a spacing would make the appearance less confusing for less familiar readers. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
'''Completed''' are the list of chronological former teams in the infoboxes of ''active'' NHL players. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Notability? == |
== Notability? == |
Revision as of 17:03, 12 May 2012
Ice Hockey NA‑class | |||||||
|
|
---|
Archive index |
Discussion at Talk:2012 Stanley Cup playoffs
Some input to a discussion at Talk:2012 Stanley Cup playoffs. List stats as scoring, or skaters? Like people's input. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Goaltender stats table
I was going to updated a couple of goaltenders whose teams were knocked out of the playoff and was going to make sure the format for the table was correct and then found out there isn't one. I saw further down in the Player pages format thread that there was talk about making a standard but did anything come from it? Are we looking to keep it like the skaters format or different like Roberto Luongo or Tim Thomas who both have 2 seperate tables for regular season then playoffs? Any ideas? I just want to make sure I'm doing it correctly. ♣ B2project ♣(Talk) 06:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Generally we keep them as two separate tables because goalie stats are too long to fit both on one line. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Numbering of Buffalo Sabres post-lockout season articles
There's a dispute occuring at the 2005-06 throught 2011-12 Buffalo Sabres season articles. Input & advice would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't we have a huge debate about this a while ago and, if I'm not mistaken, settled on the compromise of "Xth season (Xth-1 season of play)" wording? Jmj713 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, the 2005-06 season was a season for all teams. Players were signed, draft picks were made and players were traded. It was simply that games were not played. That said, some teams (such as the Calgary Flames) do make such a distinction in their media guides. In that case, the team history sections said that the Flames were "in their 31st season and 32nd in Calgary". So there certainly is a strong case to be made for the current wording. Either way, I would get rid of the notation of when the Sabres franchise was founded. That the team was founded on May 22, 1970 is completely irrelevant to the 2011-12 season. Resolute 23:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Playoff section on team pages
Are we not using the Template:NHLPlayoffs for team pages? ♣ B2project ♣(Talk) 04:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, just the regular tables like the regular season. See 2011-12 Vancouver Canucks season, for example. Canuck89 (click here!) 04:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, sorry for asking so many questions. I'm just trying to make sure I get things right and don't cause confusion. Is there a set format for the columns because there are some discrepencies from team to team? ♣ B2project ♣(Talk) 05:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
NHL Awards nominees
Should we add nominees to our tables of NHL Award winners? Seems like it should be useful information. Right now, for the 2012 Vezina, it says it's Henrik Lundqvist's fourth nomination, and it would be handy to look up at the table and see just when those other three were. Jmj713 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No I wouldn't add that personally. Its mostly trivial. Who won is really all that matters for an award. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's time to update our infoboxes...
I believe MLB started the trend, followed by the NFL. For the longest time both the NBA and NHL had bland infoboxes that had no distinguishing features to reference the current team of a certain player. The NBA just started to do this I believe a year ago?
Basically the goal I have is to redesign all the NHL templates so that a team's primary/secondary colors are used in certain headers of the NHL sportsperson infobox.
Some examples to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_NFL_player http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_basketball_biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_MLB_player
And here's a quick shortcut to the current Ice Hockey template:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_ice_hockey_player
I believe this shouldn't be a long project at all. Obviously there are currently more important matters to be addressed but for those with any spare time we could work to make this work. Ideally this could get done in less than a month? At least a rough draft?
I'd like to help as well but I'm a bit confused on how colors work with the above templates. Once I figure that out I think it can be done rather quickly.
--Yankeefan4477 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's been talked about before, but personally, I think the baseball and football infoboxes are obnoxious and ugly. I am very much opposed to adopting such a scheme. Resolute 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- As discussed in this thread a better option to maintain accessibility is to keep the header with high contrast colours and to add a thick border with appropriate colours. isaacl (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I do think the hockey player infobox should be redesigned. Looking at a few football player's infoboxes, assuming you remove the "Career highlights and awards" and "Career stats" sections (these things should be in the article somewhere and not the infobox), it would be an improvement if a hypothetical hockey player infobox redesign looked like that. I like how similar info is grouped in the football player infobox, i.e. DoB, PoB and Hgt & Wgt are grouped under Personal Information, things like College and Draft are grouped under Career Information. In the current hockey player infobox, there are dividing lines where it doesn't seem necessary. Why do Born and Ht & Wgt have to be divided? Position and Shoots? National team is in no man's land. There is one instance where a dividing line is actually needed, between NHL Team and Former teams, and it isn't there. This leads to editors listing the former teams in the opposite order, putting the most recent team first and the least recent last. The football player infobox is far superior for the way it lists teams the player played for. -- The areas I consider the football player infobox inferior or weak is the heading that lists the number and team and the player's position under that. There has to be a better way to do that. It looks especially bad for retired players, listing just the number(s) in the header with the position below it. Your main point regarding the color coding I disagree with as I consider it unnecessary. Another minor gripe I've always had with the current hockey player infobox is that the font size is too small. --70.15.124.143 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here's something I came up with. Just ignore the bullet points and the indentations.
- Chris Pronger
- image
- divider__________________________ (most important/relevant info for a hockey player first: who does he currently play for, what position does he play, and is he a left or right shot/glovehand?)
- NHL team: Philadelphia Flyers (since field disappears for retired players, maybe stick "Hockey Hall of Fame inductee, [year]" somewhere in this section; perhaps stanley cup championships as well [there is an easy solution to the Pocket Rocket problem])
- Position: Defence Shoots: Left (may need to give Shoots separate line due to players who play multiple positions)
- divider or heading - Personal information
- Date of birth: October 10, 1974 (age 37)
- Place of birth: Dryden, Ontario, Canada [end abbr.]
- Height: 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) Weight: 220 lb (100 kg) [why is Stones listed in the current infobox?]
- divider or heading - Career information
- Amateur team: Peterborough Petes (field not absolutely necessary due to players w/numerous amateur teams)
- NHL Draft: 1993 / Round: 1 / Pick: 2 (or Round 1, 2nd overall pick, 1993)
- Draft team: Hartford Whalers
- divider_____________________________
- Years active - 1993–present
- Hartford Whalers (1993–1995) [use actual bullet points for teams, listing years not absolutely necessary]
- St. Louis Blues (1995–2004)
- Edmonton Oilers (2005–2006)
- Anaheim Ducks (2006–2009)
- Philadelphia Flyers (2009–present)
- Years active - 1993–present
- divider_____________________________
- National team: Canada (if no Int career section, move National Team to below Amateur Team or Draft Team)
- World Juniors (1993) [use actual bullet points for events]
- World Championships (1997)
- Olympics Games (1998, 2002, 2006, 2010)
- National team: Canada (if no Int career section, move National Team to below Amateur Team or Draft Team)
- --70.15.124.143 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you actually look at the information on the infobox it is grouping like information together. The lines make sense once you realize why they are there I suppose. Born is sperated from height and weight because the born and died info is one section about where they are from. The height/weight section is together because it is the physical characteristics section. The current team and former teams should definitely not have a line between them because they are a group of teams the player played for. The national team is down in a group of general career info (ie when they played and if they are in the hall of fame). The only ones I would probably adjust is moving the shots and position info into the same section as the physical characteristics. (I would note that in the former teams section you are supposed to put the most recent team first per previous discussions)-DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, but we can consider if it is possible to make it clearer. And it might be worth discussing moving things around, e.g.: putting team info right at the top. Resolute 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I have no problem adjusting them if we can find a decent way to do it. I wouldn't put the teams right at the top though, I would still list birth and physical info at the top as that is how you generally find most "info" boxes on sports pages or hockey cards or similar situations so it is likely how readers are conditioned to see that information and to expect it. I don't mind most of the suggested changes above, but I wouldn't put the amateur team in. I also wouldn't put the years of each team in because that is over crowding the box and would be better left to the prose in the article. I also wouldn't put each international appearance in the infobox as the international play template already does that. Generally the other sports especially baseball crowd far too much information into their infobox. So the closer we can keep it to the minimal we currently have the better. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, but we can consider if it is possible to make it clearer. And it might be worth discussing moving things around, e.g.: putting team info right at the top. Resolute 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you actually look at the information on the infobox it is grouping like information together. The lines make sense once you realize why they are there I suppose. Born is sperated from height and weight because the born and died info is one section about where they are from. The height/weight section is together because it is the physical characteristics section. The current team and former teams should definitely not have a line between them because they are a group of teams the player played for. The national team is down in a group of general career info (ie when they played and if they are in the hall of fame). The only ones I would probably adjust is moving the shots and position info into the same section as the physical characteristics. (I would note that in the former teams section you are supposed to put the most recent team first per previous discussions)-DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here's something I came up with. Just ignore the bullet points and the indentations.
- What previous discussions? Please point to them. Most hockey player articles I come across list them the logical way to list teams - in chronological order. -- Was this reverse order consensus arrived at last week or something? Template:Infobox ice hockey player makes no reference to putting former teams in reverse order. Featured article Ray Emery isn't listed like that. Ditto Roberto Luongo. And is this also the case for retired players? For instance, Wayne Gretzky isn't listed like that. Ditto Dominik Hasek and Theoren Fleury. -- I've never interpreted both (League) team and Former teams as one continuous list. Sure, the design may be faulty, but Former teams always seemed like a new list for listing the player's former teams and I've edited articles accordingly. -- I don't think I've changed the order of teams too often and I've never noticed such edits being reverted. I switched featured article Trevor Linden a few months ago with a clear as day edit description "corrected order of teams in infobox"[1], and it hasn't been reverted. Just how widely accepted is this consensus? --70.15.124.143 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I will have to look through the archives to find them, that has been the method we have been using for a few years so the discussion is from quite awhile ago but it did only apply to current players I believe. Retired players I believe are in chronological order because they aren't counting back from their current team like in the current player infoboxes. Most of your examples except Emery & Luongo are retired players. And in saying that the featured process doesn't look for things like that prior to featuring an article. There isn't criteria that they conform to every other article and I would bet most people aren't that anal about making sure to fix them when they see them wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Although Template:Infobox ice hockey player doesn't specifically indicate "reverse order" for former teams, it does indicate "most recent team first", which means the same thing. This needs to be updated based on the following discussion. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- What previous discussions? Please point to them. Most hockey player articles I come across list them the logical way to list teams - in chronological order. -- Was this reverse order consensus arrived at last week or something? Template:Infobox ice hockey player makes no reference to putting former teams in reverse order. Featured article Ray Emery isn't listed like that. Ditto Roberto Luongo. And is this also the case for retired players? For instance, Wayne Gretzky isn't listed like that. Ditto Dominik Hasek and Theoren Fleury. -- I've never interpreted both (League) team and Former teams as one continuous list. Sure, the design may be faulty, but Former teams always seemed like a new list for listing the player's former teams and I've edited articles accordingly. -- I don't think I've changed the order of teams too often and I've never noticed such edits being reverted. I switched featured article Trevor Linden a few months ago with a clear as day edit description "corrected order of teams in infobox"[1], and it hasn't been reverted. Just how widely accepted is this consensus? --70.15.124.143 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Order of former teams in infobox
I think it is an unnecessary make-work item to have a different order for the former teams of active players versus inactive players. Given that in most lists, Wikipedia editors generally favour chronological order, I support the proposal that the order of the former teams in the infobox be in chronological order for all players. (That being said, I realize that aligning all articles is another make-work job (albeit one-time), though I'd guess there are some editors like GoodDay (if he were to return to editing hockey articles) who would take on a good gnoming task such as this one.) isaacl (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I've always listed the former teams in chronological order, though limited to teams at the top-level (so NHL, KHL and Elitserien, but not AHL, Allsvensken, etc). I think most articles are already in that format as well, though not necessarily all. And like DJ above, I would rather not list years played with each team in the infobox. I find it adds clutter more than anything. We'd probably want to widen the infobox a bit if we were to decide to use things like that. Resolute 14:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that big a deal to me which way we use, but it isn't really a make work project since we have to move the teams from the former teams parameter to the played for parameter for retired players anyways. So usually it would get done at the same time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Flipping the list around is one more thing to remember to do... Regarding just including top-level teams, here are the some previous conversations on this (none very in-depth):
- For those who have played significant time in a top-level league, with the caveat that the discussion participants were limited, there seems to be a preference to limiting the list to top-level league teams. For those who have spent no or little time in a top-level league, listing lower-level teams seems desired; the exact line for "little time" has been left to editorial judgment. isaacl (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Give me the green light & I'll gnome those former teams into chronological order. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would say "green light" myself, as it makes the most sense. Unless anyone else has a concern? ... Speaking of gnomish tasks, we have about 2400 bios that are missing the "persondata short description parameter". It represents just under 30% of the templated problems with articles in our scope. All that would need to fix is to add "Canadian (or whatever nationality) ice hockey player" added to the hidden template at the bottom of each article. I've done a few from my little Flames project, but I'm no gnome, so don't have the patience for it at all! Resolute 19:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll continue with chronological order stuff & then I'll tackle the nationality thing. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some of them like Wayne Huizenga will need something different ;-) isaacl (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would say "green light" myself, as it makes the most sense. Unless anyone else has a concern? ... Speaking of gnomish tasks, we have about 2400 bios that are missing the "persondata short description parameter". It represents just under 30% of the templated problems with articles in our scope. All that would need to fix is to add "Canadian (or whatever nationality) ice hockey player" added to the hidden template at the bottom of each article. I've done a few from my little Flames project, but I'm no gnome, so don't have the patience for it at all! Resolute 19:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, concerning the active players, there should be some spacing between the current & former teams. Such a spacing would make the appearance less confusing for less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Completed are the list of chronological former teams in the infoboxes of active NHL players. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Notability?
Noticed that articles are being made for amateur players based solely on being drafted in the KHL draft. Did our guidelines change or should these pages be deleted? [2] --Львівське (говорити) 06:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The guidelines didn't, and the articles should. Ravenswing 07:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why Alex Galchenyuk and Mikhail Grigorenko have pages that I'm overlooking?--Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Both are top prospects that very easily meet WP:GNG? Resolute 23:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- That and, at least for Alex Galchenyuk, was kept (at PROD level) when the looser guidelines allowed the Jack Ferguson Award to be called a "major award". Ravendrop 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to afd it. I have been cleaning up a bunch of this users creations recently through prod and afd. This player never actually met WP:NHOCKEY but the creator had been mass creating minor award winners stating it met the criteria through winning a major award while most would not consider this award or ones like it "major". So since then that section of NHOCKEY has been removed to clarify things more. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- That and, at least for Alex Galchenyuk, was kept (at PROD level) when the looser guidelines allowed the Jack Ferguson Award to be called a "major award". Ravendrop 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Both are top prospects that very easily meet WP:GNG? Resolute 23:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
req move for Maxim Sushinsky
Request move for Maxim Sushinski to "Maxim Sushinsky" - for whatever reason the article was spelled wrong, and against common use. --Львівське (говорити) 22:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Looks like Sushinski was more common in 2006 when the article was first moved, but both the NHL and en.KHL spell it with a y, so... Resolute 23:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikilinking
I am the reviewer at Talk:Mike Vernon (ice hockey)/GA1, which has progressed along pretty well except for one remaining issue. I have asked the nominator to consider linking to team season articles rather than general franchise articles. She has pointed out that she feels I am the only editor on wikipedia who does this. I mostly create college football and college basketball articles these days and both of these projects feel I am doing the right thing. E.g., my mot recent article creation was Drake Dunsmore who had notable performances against the 2009 and 2010 Iowa Hawkeyes football teams. The 2009 team lost a half dozen guys in the 2010 NFL Draft and was different than the 2010 team. I encourage linking to specific teams when they are mentioned repeatedly over the course of a career. Nominator Resolute (talk · contribs) is quite adamant that this is not proper linking usage. Although I seem to get favorable responses to keep doing what I am doing for the projects that I work for she says that HOCKEY does not want to do this. The responses in the discussion confound me. Why would you rather link to Winnipeg Jets than 1985–86 Winnipeg Jets season. I want to know what team the article references and the latter tells me it was the Jets during the Dale Hawerchuk. Infering a bit from the scoring leaders you might even say that Hawerchuk led the team although he did not hog the minutes (even the 2nd and 3rd scorers were centers) that year. Looking at the general franchise article I don't know who the article is referring to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:EASTEREGG you should link to the article the reader is most likely going to expect when clicking on the link. So if I click on a link that simply says "Winnipeg Jets" then I should be going to the Winnipeg Jets team article and not a season article. I would be confused if I was sent to a season article instead and frankly probably frustrated that I wasn't taken to the page I was expecting (and being an editor would probably be followed up by changing to link to where it says its linking to). The only time I would expect to go to the season article was if the links said something like "1983–84" or "1983–84 season". -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- If it became the HOCKEY convention, the reader might not only get use to being linked to the article with the information about the team being discussed, but also they might like it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think editors might get used to it, but the casual reader who only comes to a Wikipedia page now and then likely wouldn't and that is who we are supposed to try and write for. The casual reader who might not know anything about the subject and might not come to the site all that often. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- If it became the HOCKEY convention, the reader might not only get use to being linked to the article with the information about the team being discussed, but also they might like it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- The last time this topic was discussed by the baseball WikiProject, I wrote the following reasons why a careful judgment needs to be made on choosing to break the general rule of linking to the most obvious target:
- A few issues with a link that has non-obvious link text. First, not everyone can hover to see what a link points to, and so it is not discoverable by all users (someone using a screen reader, for example, may have no idea that the link will take them to something other than an explanation of the link text). Second, to take an extreme position for a moment, if all links pointed to subjects that differed (to some degree) from the link text, although it might (big if: if there is a clear choice for an alternate link, which is not always the case) offer some advantage for an individual link, collectively, they would all degrade the usability of Wikipedia. Users would be forced to look closely at every link before clicking to decide if that was the link they wanted to visit. Now of course the extreme position is not being sought here, but there is a line beyond which this degradation becomes significant, and I believe the line hews pretty close to keeping links as obvious as possible. Surfing through from topic to topic works because it's pretty obvious where you're ending up when you follow a link, without having to think to much about it. If you end up at unexpected places a few times, you quickly start to mistrust clicking through.
- There was a general consensus on linking to season-specific articles in cases such as List of National League pennant winners, where it is quite clear from the immediately-neighbouring cell that a specific season is in context, as long as there is a legend for the table describing the nature of the link (to make it more accessible). Otherwise, though, no consensus was reached on other situations where the context is sufficiently revealing to warrant a link to a season-specific article. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah cases like the pennant article I can certainly see a case for doing it, but in the middle of general prose I think would confuse more often than help because as you say it would start to force editors to have to check every link before clicking it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)I am not sure what is meant by clear. Consider "Following a 9–1 loss to the Hartford Whalers that was Calgary's 11th consecutive defeat, Vernon was given his first regular season start on January 9, 1986, against the Vancouver Canucks." We are obviously talking about the 1985–86 Whalers and Canucks. The articles with the information that says who Calgary played is in those season articles. There you will find out who the teams leaders where that year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please see the table in the article List of National League pennant winners to understand what I was referring to when I said it was "clear from the immediately-neighbouring cell that a specific season is in context". The table is a list of winners by year, so it is clear that each row refers to a specific year, and the table's key spells out where the link goes to. In the case of prose, it is not immediately obvious that "...Vernon was given his first regular season start on January 9, 1986, against the Vancouver Canucks" establishes a context where casual readers would expect that clicking on "Vancouver Canucks" would take them to a season-specific article. If their expectations are confounded a few times, they will become wary of clicking through links, and the utility of Wikipedia is diminished. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You aren't talking about the whalers or canucks at all. They are just secondary objects and somewhat irrelevant. Calgary lost 11 games before they gave Vernon his first start. I am intrigued by adding season links, but I think we are pretty conditioned to dumb links. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is a statement that HOCKEY Readers "are pretty conditioned to dumb links" a reason to keep linking to the general franchise article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there is the 'tremendous amount of editing work' factor. ;-> Are you volunteering to edit every hockey article? And I wasn't arguing any point. Just an observation. It's inertia/momentum, really. How do you propose balancing your idea with having the first link to a team pointing to the general article? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Linking to the "wrong" link because we have always done it that way and it would take a lot of work to clean up seems wrong. Season articles for college sports probably have only become widespread in the last 4 years. Many college basketball seasons remain unwritten and college hockey is far worse. Even programs with strong histories like Michigan have almost no hockey seasons. Pro seasons are pretty well rounded out however. Hockey would need a template like {{cbb link}} and {{cfb link}}. I don't even know whether the top junior teams have season articles. As Resolute has pointed out, even the majority of FAs and GAs in the sports that are starting to use season articles still have not been converted. The thing to do in my eyes is to encourage new articles as well as articles under review at GA, FA, FL and PR to use season links. Over time articles will sort of get cleaned up. I am not suggesting a relinking drive at all. Just start making new and newly reviewed articles use the season links is a good step.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there is the 'tremendous amount of editing work' factor. ;-> Are you volunteering to edit every hockey article? And I wasn't arguing any point. Just an observation. It's inertia/momentum, really. How do you propose balancing your idea with having the first link to a team pointing to the general article? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is a statement that HOCKEY Readers "are pretty conditioned to dumb links" a reason to keep linking to the general franchise article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is a little chaotic, but I just wanted to chime in by saying that I've always thought team names in historical contexts should be linked to the season being discussed. It's logical, that when a user reads a sentence describing something a certain team did in 1980, they'll click on the team name to find out more about the team in 1980. I know I've wanted to do just that numerous times. Also, standings should also link to that season's team article, because it does no good to look at the standings for the 1950-51 season and clicking the link to see how exactly a given team performed then and being transported to the team's general information. Jmj713 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- My above point about balancing the season context and introducing a general link to a team applies to your suggestion too. When I made the team season articles a while ago, I put team (season) in the game results sections. When I made the standings templates, I basically just copied over what we were using. Changing those could be automated now. I had to do it by hand. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, I link to general article for transactions (drafted by, called up by, traded to, committed to, letter of intent to, etc.) Most accomplishment happen against a particular season's team. The problem is in determining when to link to own team season articles. Policy on that could be reached by consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. for college athlete, I usually start with he is playing/he has completed his freshman/sophomore/junior/senior year for the YYYY-YY team season. This enables the reader to see if the description is current.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
As well, when reading a player's stats table, his season stats will usually be linked to the given NHL season, not that team's season. That's another problem. Jmj713 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- A few things. First, I am not a "she". Second, I do think your proposal violates both WP:EGG and WP:OVERLINK. But also, your system is both confusing to a reader and unnecessary. The first mention of a team should go to the team article. That is what a reader expects. Except that it now creates inconsistencies with the rest of the article subsequent mentions of the same team would go to different articles. (thus egg and overlink). Or, you make sure ALL links go to the various team articles, thus depriving the reader of the MOST OBVIOUS link they would be expecting. It is also unnecessary, as each new season is linked throughout the article. From each season article, the reader can view the positions of the teams, and continue on to specific season articles if they so choose. Ultimately, I oppose your format because I think it serves only to waste editor time and confuse the readers. Your arguments, both at the GAN and here, are unconvincing, and really boil down to little more than "I like it that way". Resolute 23:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is also the irony in this proposal in that it completely ignores the only season links that are actually relevant to a player bio: the team the player actually played for. Also, when you get right down to it, it really doesn't matter to Vernon's biography who was on the Hartford Whalers team that handed Calgary it's 11th loss in a row, or where they finished. All that matters is that Calgary lost to Hartford, and a consequence of that was that Vernon got the next start, and won. Resolute 23:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I continue to disagree with the EGG point. I think the reader would come to get use to it. It would be like editors who know not to look for talk in peoples signatures. Some people are even smart enough to know what to expect when they see lute.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Its funny you use that link as an example because the first thing that came to my mind was why is he linking to lute and when I clicked it I expected to go to the instrument and was surprised when it ended up at Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I prefer that any links to editors' talk pages be made more obvious, but if they aren't, it only affects interactions with other editors, and not the vast population of readers, to whom Wikipedia's guidance on intuitive link text is addressed. isaacl (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I continue to disagree with the EGG point. I think the reader would come to get use to it. It would be like editors who know not to look for talk in peoples signatures. Some people are even smart enough to know what to expect when they see lute.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is also the irony in this proposal in that it completely ignores the only season links that are actually relevant to a player bio: the team the player actually played for. Also, when you get right down to it, it really doesn't matter to Vernon's biography who was on the Hartford Whalers team that handed Calgary it's 11th loss in a row, or where they finished. All that matters is that Calgary lost to Hartford, and a consequence of that was that Vernon got the next start, and won. Resolute 23:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
<outdent>Here's my take on all this. If the team is mentioned it should go to the team article, if it is a date it should be linked to the season article. So if it says "Player A played for the Los Angeles Kings and led them in scoring in 1976-77." This is how I'd wikilink it and assume that most casual readers of Wikipedia would expect it to be linked as well. I assume that adding a date to a sentence won't screw up the syntax. So if you say are talking about a particular season and it says "he played for the Kings and scored 20 goals" you can always add "in 2000-01" if you feel it necessary to link to the season page. The other idea is if you have a section about a particular season on a player's page. What I mean is a section not a sentence or two, you can always add in a hatnote that shows the main page as the season page. However, unless we put a drive on all season pages, the player's page may actually contain more prose than the season page. I fear many of our season pages are basically stat driven and not prose driven. I am as guilty as anyone for this, I appear to be the only editor that tries to keep this year's Los Angeles Kings season page updated. So largely I have been keeping up with the game log and not adding much for prose. Heck, some of the teams seem to even lack a complete game log. So the season pages might not be super useful compared to the prose of the player's page.
The only time I ever wikilink something that goes to a different page than what the text blatantly says is in Canadian football pages. When it is football related, I wikilink Saskatchewan Huskies to Saskatchewan Huskies football. I'm assuming that most people reading a football page are interested in the football team, not the general U of S athletics program.But that isn't really related to this topic Shootmaster 44 (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Climbing Hockey Mountain
Mother of mercy, I just spent six hours bringing Lionel Hitchman from stubhood to B. Something is plainly wrong with me. (Anyone want to see if I screwed anything up?) Ravenswing 10:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of your references (3 and 14, as two examples) are on the wrong side of the comma, and you still need the stats table. But damn... retired number or not, talk about an obscure player. Kudos! Resolute 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, I've always had a sneaking fondness for defensive defensemen; Dallas Smith, Ted Harris, Gary Bergman were among my favorites growing up. Now, sure, these guys get named to All-Star Games once in a while, and every rare once in a while they get a Second All-Star nod, but for the most part, the only time a shutdown defenseman gets serious fame is if he also can score. I did a survey for a hockey site once demonstrating the fact - in the entire pre-expansion era, from the institution of season ending All-Star Teams on forward, only once were neither of the First Team All-Stars among the top three defense scorers. Heck, from when the Norris was first awarded, only three have been awarded to anyone who didn't finish in the top five of defensive scoring (ironically, the first one of those to Bobby Orr), and from 1969 to 1982 the #1 defensive scorer always won.
You can tell I feel strongly on this issue!
Anyway, no one remembers Hitchman now, so I figured he'd be my next Hockey Mountain target. Ravenswing 20:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, I've always had a sneaking fondness for defensive defensemen; Dallas Smith, Ted Harris, Gary Bergman were among my favorites growing up. Now, sure, these guys get named to All-Star Games once in a while, and every rare once in a while they get a Second All-Star nod, but for the most part, the only time a shutdown defenseman gets serious fame is if he also can score. I did a survey for a hockey site once demonstrating the fact - in the entire pre-expansion era, from the institution of season ending All-Star Teams on forward, only once were neither of the First Team All-Stars among the top three defense scorers. Heck, from when the Norris was first awarded, only three have been awarded to anyone who didn't finish in the top five of defensive scoring (ironically, the first one of those to Bobby Orr), and from 1969 to 1982 the #1 defensive scorer always won.
I am working on bringing this list up to FL standards based on the (soon to be promoted) List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks, but am looking for some opinions on a couple of things. Firstly, how should the WHA-era draft picks be treated. Personally, I think that they should be included, as the main Edmonton Oilers article also includes the history of the WHA era. The question then arises as to besides the draftees, years and number, what stats should be included. Currently it is number of NHL regular season and playoff games played, but other options include WHA stats or NHL stats. Secondly, should the Oilers supplemental draft picks (currently not included) be listed; and if so, should they be in a separate table or included at the end of the entry draft years with some sort of notation showing that they were a supplemental draft pick? Note that the page is a work in progress and I have been concentrating on the formatting (rowscopes take for freakin' ever) so things like prose and images are still to come. Any other opinions of things to include/not include are welcome. Thanks. Another question: Would a table summarizing the number of players drafted by position and one summarizing the players by nationality be overkill? Ravendrop 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I included Supplemental Draft picks in the main table on the Flames list, using "S" in place of a round number. The WHA draft does present an issue though. I think it would work best to do it in two tables. One for the WHA draft using WHA statistics, and the other for the NHL draft using NHL statistics. That might be your cleanest solution. Resolute 20:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Makes the most sense. A format question: Since no goalie Edmonton ever drafted ever played a WHA game would it be reasonable to exclude the goaltender (W/L/T/OT/GAA) stats columns instead of having 5 solid columns of nothing but en dashes? Ravendrop 06:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The WHA format its a tough call IMO, while it seems a little pointless to add the columns there is something to be said about table consistency. I looked at the page and it doesn't look bad the way you have it, but it wouldn't surprise me if a question was raised at a potential FLC. I probably would have added the stats columns even though there is no numerical value to it, but that's probably just personal preference.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think I'll keep it the way it is (my personal preference) but add them in if its raised at the FLC, as really its not a big issue one way or the other. I am a little bit concerned about its size though, currently at around 130k, and that is before I put in pictures. Ravendrop 05:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
New Template??
After looking through a couple of the NHL team season pages I have seen that some articles have different layouts for season stats. Some have them listed side by side and some are in seperate sections. I also noticed that color formatting of the header rows seems popular. So I got bored and started playing around with the idea of a template to build the stats sections kind of like how the team roster is done. Here are a couple examples I came up with:
Player | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sidney Crosby |
Player | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Claude Giroux |
The template is set up so you input the NHL team abbreviation and it auto changes the headers to that team. In the template for the actual stats I have set up to indicate if player is a goaltender/captain/alternate captain/aquired/dropped. I am currently also playing around with on for goaltenders as well. If you want to use the templates just to mess around the code is:
{{User:B2project/Infobox | team = }} {{User:B2project/Infobox2 | first = | last = | dab = | Goaltender = | Traded = | Acquired = | Cap = | Regular GP = | Regular G = | Regular A = | Regular P = | Regular PIM = | Playoff GP = | Playoff G = | Playoff A = | Playoff P = | Playoff PIM = }} |} <!-- end of complete table to be placed only after entering stats for very last player-->
Any suggestions would be appreciated on how to improve or change it. I would like to know also if we get a decent push behind it if we could possibly make this part of the layout for team pages. Just trying to make more of the pages look uniform. ♣ B2project ♣(Talk) 06:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- In order to preserve accessibility, it would be better to keep the header with the same high contrast text and background colours for all teams, and then use a thick border with team-specific colourss, as discussed in this thread. isaacl (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I like the industriousness of it, but it seems horribly inefficient to me. That is a massive amount of code for a single player entry, as compared to what exists now: |{{sortname|Sidney|Crosby}}|| GP || G || A || Pts || +/-. A fully developed season article will already run 75-90k. These templates will push it over 100k easily, which is problematic. This isn't a spot where I think a template is as useful as one would think. Resolute 20:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I suggested the template because there is not one singular team that I found that follows the format that this WikiProject organized. It just would be nice to see some uniformity on things and I figured since all of the NHL team season pages follow the colored headers for pretty much every table within the article I figured having a template would be the easiest way to keep everything uniform. Also I did a sandbox test run with the 2011-12 Pittsburgh Penguins season and it acutally dropped the size down of the page. I'll do it for other teams but I don't think it's going to affect the size drastically. ♣ B2project ♣(Talk) 05:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- (stalker of B2project and his template development) Templates have the big advantage that you can change the design/format/whatever only at one page (the template itself) and all pages using the template still have the same new design. Depending on the transclusion count, templates are protected (at least for not confirmed editors) to protect them for vandalism (one page edit, changes e.g. 1000 pages) I like the idea and I'm really impressed by the template code B2project created. mabdul 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it makes it much harder for drive by editors to keep the status up to date and its the drive by editors that do most of our statistical updating. Its fine for regulars to try and figure most of this stuff out. But in general it makes it considerably harder for non-regulars. Also be aware that those format pages are very out of date. As mentioned earlier our "real" format pages are the pages that are already at FA/GA etc. The most recent example and thus the current format standard is 2010–11 Calgary Flames season. Seeing that you are a Pittsburgh fan you could probably try to model after 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season to keep seasons by the same team closer together in appearance. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The difficulty would depend on how the template is formatted on page. {{PlayerStats |last=Iginla |first=Jarome |GP=82 |G=35 |A=35 |P=70 |PIM=70 |PM=+7 |PGP=4 |PG=2 |PA=3 |PP=5 |PPIM=8 |PPM=+5}} wouldn't be hard to understand. But simplicity for potentially novice anons would definitely be of importance since they do most of our updates. Resolute 23:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- We/You could add a edit notice to the actual articles (as long as they need to be updated) explaining how to add/update the stats. Edit notices can be created (and edited) by admins and by accountcreators (I am one) but with a trick by placing only a template in it, the project members also can edit the edit notices.
- OTOH: did you try to request a Bot for such a task? There is a bot in the process (I doubt that it will get approved), which could then easily modified for your relevant pages. mabdul 07:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- The difficulty would depend on how the template is formatted on page. {{PlayerStats |last=Iginla |first=Jarome |GP=82 |G=35 |A=35 |P=70 |PIM=70 |PM=+7 |PGP=4 |PG=2 |PA=3 |PP=5 |PPIM=8 |PPM=+5}} wouldn't be hard to understand. But simplicity for potentially novice anons would definitely be of importance since they do most of our updates. Resolute 23:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it makes it much harder for drive by editors to keep the status up to date and its the drive by editors that do most of our statistical updating. Its fine for regulars to try and figure most of this stuff out. But in general it makes it considerably harder for non-regulars. Also be aware that those format pages are very out of date. As mentioned earlier our "real" format pages are the pages that are already at FA/GA etc. The most recent example and thus the current format standard is 2010–11 Calgary Flames season. Seeing that you are a Pittsburgh fan you could probably try to model after 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season to keep seasons by the same team closer together in appearance. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- (stalker of B2project and his template development) Templates have the big advantage that you can change the design/format/whatever only at one page (the template itself) and all pages using the template still have the same new design. Depending on the transclusion count, templates are protected (at least for not confirmed editors) to protect them for vandalism (one page edit, changes e.g. 1000 pages) I like the idea and I'm really impressed by the template code B2project created. mabdul 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I suggested the template because there is not one singular team that I found that follows the format that this WikiProject organized. It just would be nice to see some uniformity on things and I figured since all of the NHL team season pages follow the colored headers for pretty much every table within the article I figured having a template would be the easiest way to keep everything uniform. Also I did a sandbox test run with the 2011-12 Pittsburgh Penguins season and it acutally dropped the size down of the page. I'll do it for other teams but I don't think it's going to affect the size drastically. ♣ B2project ♣(Talk) 05:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I like the industriousness of it, but it seems horribly inefficient to me. That is a massive amount of code for a single player entry, as compared to what exists now: |{{sortname|Sidney|Crosby}}|| GP || G || A || Pts || +/-. A fully developed season article will already run 75-90k. These templates will push it over 100k easily, which is problematic. This isn't a spot where I think a template is as useful as one would think. Resolute 20:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
IIHF World Championship & Men's World Ice Hockey Championships articles
When I went to check up on the 2013 IIHF World Championship article, I found that it was re-directed to the 2013 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships article. IMHO, the redirect should be removed & 2013 IIHF World Championship article deleted. Why? because it's confusing, when you move from the 2012 IIHF World Championship article to the 2013 counterpart. It must be even more confusing for less familiar readers. PS: I was about to 'remove' the re-direct & recommend an AfD, but then I checked the article's edit history & wisely chose a less dramatic path. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- IMO, it should be a disambiguation page. There will be IIHF world championships for men, women, U-20 men, U-18 men and U-18 women. But you are right about the inconsistency. Should we consider moving the previous years tournaments to match this, and create 2012 IIHF World Championship and previous as dab pages? Resolute 20:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be content with any solution, that will bring consistency to these tournament articles, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- According to the iihf homepage the official name of the tournament is 2012 IIHF (Ice Hockey) World Championship. It's much like the FIFA World Cup were the simplest form refers to the top mens competition and all other competitions (women's, u-20s) use some sort of disambiguation. (though since that isn't a yearly tournament and it is staggered with many of the other similiarly named tournaments it isn't completely the same) I think its important that we keep the official name. A possible solution would be to create a hat note to a 2012 IIHF World Championship (disambiguation) page which could then list all the other tournies. Ravendrop 09:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- And such making the "Men's World Ice Hockey Championships" articles redundant? I have never liked them as to me they always seemed like made up articles that never had any official name, somewhat like an extra fancy disambiguation page (but thats my opinion). There is also the fact that all our articles for the under-20 WC use junior instead of U20. Shouldn't the articles use the official names? And one more point, I see that the tournament as a whole is for example "IIHF World U18 Championships", with the "s" attached which is then split into the "IIHF World U18 Championship", "IIHF World U18 Championship Division I Group A', ect. Currently all lower divisions follow after the championship creating a somewhat confusing structure with the main infobox only referring to the Championship and not the lower division. Any thoughts on fixing our structure across these articles would be great. Salavat (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- According to the iihf homepage the official name of the tournament is 2012 IIHF (Ice Hockey) World Championship. It's much like the FIFA World Cup were the simplest form refers to the top mens competition and all other competitions (women's, u-20s) use some sort of disambiguation. (though since that isn't a yearly tournament and it is staggered with many of the other similiarly named tournaments it isn't completely the same) I think its important that we keep the official name. A possible solution would be to create a hat note to a 2012 IIHF World Championship (disambiguation) page which could then list all the other tournies. Ravendrop 09:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be content with any solution, that will bring consistency to these tournament articles, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Howabout, I make stubs of the 'future' IIHF World Championship articles. Atleast that would be a start in the consistency direction. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
As there were no objections, I changed the following: 2013 IIHF World Championship, 2014 IIHF World Championship, 2015 IIHF World Championship & 2016 IIHF World Championship from re-directs to article stubs. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Now that I got those re-directs changed to stubs, we've gotta get rid of these other re-directs: 2013 IIHF World Championships, 2014 IIHF World Championships & 2015 IIHF World Championships. Shall I prod them? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Trading off exemptions
Seeing as LNAH & QMJHL related articles, are gonna be given exemption from the 'no diacritics' on North American ice hockey articles. Perhaps we should have a counter-exemption & allow diacritics to be hidden on Canada Cup & World Cup of Hockey articles, which are under NHL control? Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- With respect, I don't see a need for that, except to make a WP:POINT. The CC and WC articles are fine as is. Resolute 20:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey Season Articles
In the comment above about diacritics I saw a mention of the LNAH and decided to check out the pages. Anyway, long story short I noticed that each of the season pages has the team names in French. Since I doubt the LNAH gets much coverage in English, should the standings reflect the French name or the Anglicized version (i.e. Laval Chiefs as opposed to Chiefs de Laval)? I decided to simply redirect the French to the English, but thought I'd ask here to see what consensus should be as far as this goes. Since I am not super familiar with the league, especially since RDS stopped showing it, I'm not sure what it should show.
For ease of finding the season articles this is the template for the league:
Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
List nomination
Wondering if this list (List of HC Donbass seasons) is good enough for nomination quality criteria? --Львівське (говорити) 17:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm no FA/FL expert but I am thinking that that list is probably too small to qualify for featured status. Being that its only a couple years long and a bunch of those years were not played. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- When we did the NHL trophies FT, it was noted that a list with less than ten entries generally didn't qualify as it was too short. For a team with what looks like eight seasons under its belt, I am thinking that might not pass for this reason. I would ask at WT:FLC to see what the regulars think. They should give you a definitive response on whether it is worthwhile to nominate. Resolute 19:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
numerical milestone categories
I have nominated Category:National Hockey League players with 50 goal seasons and Category:National Hockey League players with 100 point seasons for deletion here. We don't typically have single-season numerical accomplishment categories. Note that I am not at all nominating the lists List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons and List of NHL players with 100-point seasons, as these provide more context and numerical precision.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)