Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Second-tier league argument regarding Mattias Norlinder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversal of edits on Mattias Norlinder

Putting this template on for ease of page navigation, and to separate the talk page discussion copy from discussion on this page. The Kip (contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your reversal of edits on the wiki page for Mattias Norlinder is both disruptive and constitutes WP:Own. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC) As an IP, you have unusual awareness of this policy (which you've misunderstood). I am not owning the page, I am monitoring your edits because I find your edit pattern and the fact that you disregard the comments of others concerning. If you take such an issue with the way leagues are represented, take it up with WP:HOCKEY. Allsvenskan teams are not included in the infobox unless the player is currently there. Would you include the Laval Rocket as well? They're a professional league, after all. Of course you wouldn't. mftp dan oops 14:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe you need to brush up on the WP:OWN policy, rockstar. "No one, no matter what, has the right to...dictate what the article may or may not say." Furthermore, your reversal of my edits are considered a form of edit warring, which, when conducted "with dogged insistence" and "without good policy backup", in itself "may be an expression of ownership behavior". For the record, there is absolutely no difference in listing a HockeyAllsvenskan team in an infobox than a DEL2 team for example (compared to its DEL counterpart). See pages such as Lucas Lessio, Christian Thomas (ice hockey), Martin Réway, and Sebastian Collberg for further reference. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC) None of the examples you've provided me are supposed to have these listed, Charlottetown. Inevitably, European players who never end up playing for the North American leagues will slip in unnoticed. We aren't perfect, but that doesn't make it a precedent to follow. I've been doing this for years. mftp dan oops 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Except every single one of those players mentioned has amassed North American and/or National Hockey League experience...your point is invalid. By the way, your statement "I've been doing this for years" also goes against the WP:OWN policy (specifically, para 1 under Statements re pulling rank. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC) You're accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing, when you really should just take the good faith of someone who has been doing this a lot longer than you have instead of arguing with someone who's been established and seen how policy is applied, even if I can't dig up exactly where this was agreed upon in some deep archive. What else do I do? But that's besides the point. Humor me for a second, Charlottetown: say, instead of being a Canadiens fan, you were a Bruins fan (a far worse fate). Would you apply the same principle for David Pastrnak's tenure with Södertalje? I'd like to see how that would go. mftp dan oops 15:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC) The player in question (Norlinder) had pro experience prior to being drafted/North American debut. Since Modo Hockey embodies both the HockeyAllsvenskan team as well as its Swedish Hockey League (SHL) counterpart, this is an accurate inclusion. This can be seen in infobox for Nicklas Lidström whom played for Västerås IK in all of: Hockeyettan, HockeyAllsvenskan, and the SHL between 1987-89, with underlying wikipage being formatted only to its SHL parallel. Regardless, it does not take away from the experience gained in the other two professional leagues whom share the same namesake. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC) That is once again not how it works. In Lidström's case, since you brought it up, Västerås was promoted to the top flight in 1989, while Lidström was still playing in Sweden. Modo was never in the top flight when Norlinder played for them, so it is excluded, since he has played in a top-flight league in his career, though briefly. Whether it came before Norlinder was in Montreal, or whether the two leagues are related or not, is entirely irrelevant. mftp dan oops 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) You can see the exact same thing in infobox for David Reinbacher re EHC Kloten. He played in both the Swiss League and National League iterations of the team. Its inclusion in the infobox can be interpreted as either or. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC) No, it can't. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's there because he played for Kloten while they were in the top flight. I don't know why you're trying so hard to argue this, any established hockey editor would tell you the exact same thing. mftp dan oops 19:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC) And yet, an "established hockey editor" you clearly are not. Stick to your Green Day albums. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @47.54.219.33 Dan is absolutely an established hockey editor and they are telling you the same things I've been telling you that you've been ignoring. Please defer to precedent and stop putting second tier teams in infoboxes. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Yes, because I'm supposed to let the IP who's been editing since June 28 be wrong just because they don't like the community's opinion on how players have their teams listed in the infobox. I may die on small hills, but they are what's right. mftp dan oops 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @Wheatzilopochtli that's rich coming from the WP:OWN gatekeeper who has created a page for a 15-year-old WHL prospect who has played a total of ZERO professional games to date across any sort of league here or abroad. @MFTP Dan I've been active on Wikipedia a lot longer than my current IP address may lead one to believe (January 2013). 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) And yet you never learned the standard? Rich. I'll be bringing this to the WikiProject. mftp dan oops 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @47.54.219.33 DuPont passes GNG, and even if he doesn't I fail to see how that's relevant. Please stop hurling insults and accusations, and start acting collaboratively. Dan is right to escalate this if they choose to do so. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This IP appears to have a compiled quite a few reverted edits that they have been warned about for more than a month. It's beyond time that they were blocked for ongoing disruptive edits. PKT(alk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment on talkpage

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

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

IP is back

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

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

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

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

The IP is back to its behavior after block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This particular IP has been doing:

• 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)

IP is back 2

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

Active at David Reinbacher too with a different address... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that’s what I call block evasion. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That would now be their second block evasion just in the last few weeks as I noted above. Their experience in doing this and using only IP addresses makes me believe that they are a previously banned user who keeps on coming back to get their wiki fix. Llammakey (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Might be what you're referring to but at one point they outright said something along the lines of "I've been editing much longer than my current IP would indicate." Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Self-incriminating IP wasn't on my bingo card. XR228 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

How does one deal with a mobile IP? What action can be taken here? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Same can be done to the main IP, a block of some length for Socking. Conyo14 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Jake Wartenberg as the original blocking admin. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI thread here. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Jake has rangeblocked the offending IPs for block evasion. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And a third time

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

I have reverted edits by this IP. – sbaio 02:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio @Wheatzilopochtli after reports at both ANI and the EWN (the latter specifically over Daniel Walcott, they've been blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The .80 IP doesn't seem to be blocked yet if I'm not mistaken Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah yeah, my bad - that one’s been inactive for the last two days, so I assume it didn’t meet the threshold of disruption. The other one, which had continued into today, is blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Another new address at 216.208.243.73 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has rangeblocked the 216.208.243 IPs for a week. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a month actually. Maybe we can breathe for a little while... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

I agree. This has the air of one of those who have been previously banned and now it is whack-a-mole until the higher ups step in. Llammakey (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as long as they’re editing under IPs there’s not a lot that can be done - admins are typically hesitant to rangeblock for more than 3-6 months unless it’s proven a disruptive IP is stable. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(moved from below) Block evader?

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

Quacks like a WP:DUCK. I'll send to ANI. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, IP 142.163.206.14. Suffice it to say, he ain't gonna stop until Wikimedia bans him. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI filing here. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Quack quack. Geolocates to Atlantic Canada yet again.

@Jake Wartenberg sorry to continue bothering - there’s another one. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Another duck

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

Checked to be sure even though I think it's pretty evidently the same IP hopper, but the new IP does in fact also geolocate to Atlantic Canada. At this point I would request an extension of the blocks on every offending IP as they have made clear they will not stop evading their blocks until it is made completely impossible for them to access the website. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli Ad Orientem has blocked the IP. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan @Jake Wartenberg see above. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

and @Ad Orientem. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Sorry, but if I have dealt with this problematic editor before, I don't remember it. Who is this supposed to be? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem it’s more than like this IP range you previously blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Blocked x 1 month. Probably would be a good idea to start an LTA page for this individual that can be quickly referenced and where we can keep track of their IPs/GeoLoc/MO/target articles and subjects etc. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll get around to it soon. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem appreciate the block! The Kip ^(contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LTA page created

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

Courtesy pinging @Wheatzilopochtli and @GoodDay as the others here that're frequently dealing with said IP. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the list will grow. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice job with this, said everything I wanted to say Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting Jake has now extended the original IP’s block to a year and revoked their talk-page access after they repeatedly attempted to remove their unblock appeal, in violation of WP:BLANKING (and left some angry edit summaries in the process). The Kip ^(contribs) 03:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

New mobile IP

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

You know what, this is a previously confirmed range of theirs. 2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Their edits at Brady Keeper are also identical. Conflicted as to whether we should do anything right now - it's certainly block evasion, but as you said, they've seemingly stopped their disruptive behaviors for now. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also conflicted. My gut says all their IPs should have their bans extended to the match that of the main IP but for now I'm happy to leave them be and monitor their activity so long as they remain constructive. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

nevermind they're already arguing with me about the definition of the word prospect Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've no sympathy for any block evader. Block'em. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

All edits are identical to blocked IPs, but this time this editor is trying to avoid some of the stuff. – sbaio 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Two new IPs

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

142.163 is the same range as two of their previously blocked socks. 71.7 is new. The whole 142.163 range needs to be blocked but the 71.7 hasn't technically done anything to expose itself as the user that I have noticed yet, but I agree it is likely them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Four IP ranges are used for block evasion:

• 71.7.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 142.163.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 142.67.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 156.34.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All of these IP ranges are used specifically for Canadiens-related content so it is evidently the same person. – sbaio 03:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna be specific and mention 71.7.139.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.163.207.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.67.118.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 156.34.8.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the ones likeliest to be our IP disrupter. They are all geolocated in the same area. Conyo14 (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Renaming of Budweiser Gardens

Does someone have time to deal with Budweiser Gardens being renamed as per this CBC article? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone gets to it before me, I'll create a redirect for it, and copy-edit the material over. Conyo14 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Canada Life Place is available. But needs a new logo. Conyo14 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully I can play with this tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, the move was undone by Skynxnex. I will not move the page again unless it has a consensus under an RM. Conyo14 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears like the renaming is at a future date. Let's revisit this after October 11. Flibirigit (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is likely that once the rename happens and there's more coverage just than the initial announcements (like stories that just use the new name), it would be, based on previous arena renames, uncontroversial and so likely won't need a full RM (for example, I would support such a move then). But that's next month and the move was done improperly so needed to be reverted anyway. Skynxnex (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 and Skynxnex:, since it is now past October 11, I have submitted a WP:RM for the article to be renamed. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I doubt it won't be controversial this time haha. But no copy-edit violations for me. Conyo14 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I see the RM/TR has been carried out. Skynxnex (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello there. I'd just like to get you guys' opinions on what I've done to the 2024–25 Seattle Kraken season article. I've tried to make it a timeline, and I'd have no problem updating it throughout the season. XR228 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the timeline in the offseason consists of the transactions which are already included in the transaction section. The only notable things are Jessica Campbell joining the coaching roster and the TV deal.

The preseason is a bit too much. I'd say limit the events to be notable enough to not just be a recap, or scrap it entirely. Typically, a timeline in Wikipedia follows historic events. For sports it's a bit less bold. If you follow this for the regular season, it's good to get some trivia, or major injuries, or perhaps discussing the month-by-month of the team as that'll be generally covered. Conyo14 (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll write a few sentences after each Kraken game, maybe a sentence for every transaction, and a couple sentences for anything else notable. It will be a long article, but I'll enjoy writing it. XR228 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm recommending not doing that. Conyo14 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Conyo14. Timelines have to be turned into prose at some point. The season summary should mention losing streaks, winning streaks, significant team achievements (like first time the team came back from a 4–1 deficit, the first time they've won six games on the road), player hat tricks; essentially things that do not slot into the other section or are not apparent from just looking at the data. Or context. For example if player A misses time and it coincides with a slide in the standings. Movement in the standings at the end of each month might be of interest, because if a team was in second place in the standings in December and ends up last in April, that should be documented and explained somewhere, be it injury or poor play, big trades, etc. At least that is what I would be looking for in a season summary. Llammakey (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But like what if I could do that—but even more. Like summaries for every game and transaction. I wouldn't mind writing it (e.g. after a certain game, if there's something notable that happened or a certain player wasn't there or got injured, I could write about that, or if a certain player being called up from the AHL is important, I could write about that too). XR228 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the others here, this is already unwieldy. For example, the draft picks and free agency can be summarized with charts only, the timeline adds little that is useful. And timestamps?? Echoedmyron (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think having everything arranged chronologically works. I also plan to add more stuff, stuff which is far more than the charts could tell you. XR228 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I just don't think a timeline is the way to do it. A summary of the season as Llanmakey has suggested works well.

Perhaps if Wikimedia implements a "recap" section then you can place them there, otherwise it's too much for one article. I mean you're covering 82 games? Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing for 10–20 minutes per day doesn't seem that bad. XR228 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's try it for this season. If it doesn't work, then I won't do it for 2025–26. XR228 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think summarizing every game puts undue emphasis upon all of them. I feel that we should follow the lead of season summaries provided by reliable, independent sources. (For example, personally I wouldn't include events like the first time a team came back from a 4–1 deficit, unless that featured prominently in the season summaries provided by other sources. I'm not sure what makes the sixth road victory of the season more significant than any of the other road wins—by definition, each number of wins is achieved either once or never in a season.) isaacl (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If a certain game has something special about it (e.g. a player/team milestone or win/loss streak), I can tack a few sentences onto the game summary I write. XR228 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear: personally, I don't agree with writing game summaries for every game. isaacl (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: - it was significant team achievements achieved during the season, the road victories was just an example. Just to be clear. Llammakey (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand it was an example; I don't agree that winning a sixth road victory is a significant team achievement, though. I don't think the first time someone reversed an X-Y score is significant, or perhaps more generally, an N-goal deficit, is significant in the large scheme of things, either. When this first occurs is influenced by many factors, including strength of opponent. Any meaning that might be teased out from this stat would need a larger sample size. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you understood the point of either of my comments and the blatant obfuscation is off-putting. I think we should agree not to interact further. To the other editors - significant team achievements (as those noted by WP:RS) should be included. Llammakey (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then. I'll just continue writing game summaries, important events/milestones, and transactions. I think the timeline format has the potential to work. XR228 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You're working against the majority, but I wouldn't consider it disruptive until someone is bold enough to revert it. So, good luck. Conyo14 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You came here for opinions. We've all told you not to do what you're doing. You've said you're going to do it anyway. So why did you even ask? Echoedmyron (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted your 'time-line' style at the page-in-question & 2021–22 Seattle Kraken season. Please, don't re-add or add such style to any NHL team season pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok sorry. XR228 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the 2024–25 material prior to GoodDay's reversion and the level of minute day-to-day detail seems to me to violate the intent behind WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 1995hoo (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. XR228 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sorry about that. Anyway, hypothetically, if I, in the future, were to create a page called "Timeline of the Seattle Kraken" or such, could I do what I was doing (scaled back quite a bit of course) with these season pages there? XR228 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

When I say "scaled back quite a bit" I mean not having stuff arranged by the literal time in the day it happened. XR228 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

When the history section of Seattle Kraken is too long,History of the Seattle Kraken can be made into its own article. Right now, it's still good as a section. No timeline though. You're going to run into the same WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. Just write in prose. It's not just a lot easier, but also better for content editing. Conyo14 (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. XR228 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Use Czechia in NHL pages

I realize there's currently an RM going on, concerning Czech Republic/Czechia. But we use "Czechia" for IIHF tournaments post-2022, so why can't we do the same for NHL pages, like 2024-25 NHL season? The NHL (like the IIHF) is using "Czechia", now. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

per the manual of style we are supposed to use Czech Republic Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:IIHF Women's World Ranking is out of date

The current IIHF Women's World Ranking list (1) was published on 26 May 2024 but Template:IIHF Women's World Ranking has not been updated since August 2023. Executing an update to the template per Template:IIHF Women's World Ranking/data is not as straight forward as one might hope (else I'd have done it myself) and it would be hugely appreciated if someone was willing to tackle it. Spitzmauskc (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I have...no idea how the spreadsheet thing is supposed to work. Has the website been updated since last time? If nobody can figure out the spreadsheet thing or it's broken, someone is gonna have to do it manually Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixing Lua errors

List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation has multiple Lua (programming language) errors: "too many expensive function calls." Anyone know how to resolve these? Flibirigit (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have asked for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Problem solved. The error was at {{IIHFteams}} instead. Flibirigit (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Roster navboxes

An editor has created {{Sweden roster Canada Cup 1981}} and {{Sweden squad – 1981 Canada Cup}} (both are identical), which is against longstanding consensus of the project. Can someone nominate them for deletion? I rarely use my laptop these days so it is inconvenient doing it on phone. – sbaio 16:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I found the following such templates: Flibirigit (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a good idea having that kind of information and roster for every best-on-best tournament. It would only be Canada Cup/World Cup and the Olympics. That would be 13 tournaments and perhaps the first Summit Series. Spuleri (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• {{Sweden roster Canada Cup 1976}}

  {{Sweden roster Canada Cup 1981}}

  {{Sweden squad – 1981 Canada Cup}}

  {{Sweden roster Canada Cup 1984}}

  {{Sweden roster Canada Cup 1987}}

@Spuleri: The longstanding consensus is not to create such templates. You should stop creating them. – sbaio 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I recall that previous discussions mentioned WP:TCREEP as a reason for not having navbox for team rosters by season. For example, Jean Beliveau would have 17 such navboxes for each season he won the Stanley Cup as a player or executive. Flibirigit (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not team rosters by season like one for every Stanley Cup winning team. It is a navbox for the few best-vs-best hockey tournament. That means only the CC/WCoH and five Olympics. That is standard with the footballers and basketball players.

And the boxes is possible to be sorted under a squad box. Or is it a good reason not having that useful information when it comes to hockey? Spuleri (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Best-on-best seems arbitrary to me, or at least nebulously defined, especially considering the NHL's absence from recent Olympics Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Spuleri: You have already been pointed to WP:TCREEP. – sbaio 21:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Seconding that these would quickly get out of hand. Imagine how many of these boxes would end up on a page like Marie-Philip Poulin. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not arbitrary since it has only been 13 tournaments where the NHL players has been available. Boxes for lesser tournaments is not necessary or boxes for Stanley Cup winning team. And the boxes could easily be sorted and minimized. Just look at the bottom of Zlatan Ibrahimovics page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlatan_Ibrahimovi%C4%87 Spuleri (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel that the example at Zlatan Ibrahimović is exactly what the project wants to avoid, since it is a lot of clutter. Flibirigit (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A lot of clutter? It is just a single box with relevant information. Or are you some kind of spokesperson for "the project"? Spuleri (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Will you please stop making those templates. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What is even the problem here? It is interesting and relevant information about players. Saying it is "a lot of clutter" is not even true. Spuleri (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Four editors are in agreement that the project is better served without these templates. We have explained our rationale and while it is your right to disagree with us, it is in everyone's interest for you to yield to the consensus of this discussion. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And the reasons is it you "feel" it is something "the project wants to avoid"? And is it is "a lot of clutter", which clearly is not true. Or that "these would quickly get out of hand" when it is limited to a few international tournaments.

Quite weak arguments really. Is this Wikipedia (free encyclopedia that anyone can edit) or your private page? Or how could you speak of it in terms of "the project" like that you decide what is good or bad?

The reason those boxes should be added is that you find them on several other players in team sports like football, basketball, volleyball, handball and others. What is the reason that hockey should be different? Please tell us. Spuleri (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you continue with an WP:IDHT approach? It's likely you'll end up getting blocked for disruptive editing. That's usually what happens when one editor doesn't heed advice from several. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not even answer the question here. Just some kind block threat. The question is:

The reason those boxes should be added is that you find them on several other players in team sports like football, basketball, volleyball, handball and others. What is the reason that hockey should be different? Please tell us Spuleri (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Not threatening you about anything. Just pointing out where stubbornness will lead you. Drop your ideas on this matter & move on. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No one has given a good explanation on this matter and said why hockey should be different to other sports.

What is the reason that hockey should be different? Please tell us! Spuleri (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason is simply that WikiProjects can reach a different consensus on how to handle articles. For example, hockey includes statistics for each season, whereas baseball does not. No two projects have to be the same. Flibirigit (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Poor comparison to baseball and their statistics. Just because a few editors thinks something does not mean it is the right thing. Wikipedia is open for everyone to edit, it is not your "project" in case you thought so. Spuleri (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What part of "consensus" don’t you understand? It’s not a question of what any one user feels is "right." It’s a question of what has achieved consensus. I already referred to the policy page explaining consensus. If you refuse to read it or are unwilling to abide by it, then you have no business editing Wikipedia, as abiding by consensus is one of the site's mandatory policies. 1995hoo (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I do know very well what consensus is and that a few people thinks they are right because they agree on something. But the problem is still that no one manages to deliver a good explanation in this case. It is just weak reasons like "a lot of clutter", consensus or that "these would quickly get out of hand".

But I think you all realize how you just acts like some poor parents that makes decision and cannot motivate it properly. Spuleri (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, resorting to personal attacks. Not sure what that's meant to accomplish. The time for discussion here is over. You can see the link below to "Deletion discussion" (and I saw that it was also posted on your talk page). I know you haven't had anything to say there yet, but if you want to try to come up with an argument to keep your templates, that is now the place to address the matter. Continuing to repeat the same points here will not accomplish anything for you. 1995hoo (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack? When? In case you missed it, it is actually relevant to ask for a proper explanation again and again since no one here is able to deliver it.

Or do you all just realize how backwards it is having Triple Gold Club or IIHF Centennial All-Star Team players pages but not when they participated in big tournaments? Spuleri (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you all realize how you just acts like some poor parents that makes decision and cannot motivate it properly. That is a personal attack. Also, participating in a tournament is pretty normal in ice hockey. Getting gold in all three (Olympics, Worlds, and Stanley Cup) is a tad rarer, same with the Centennial All-Star Team. I've no opinion on the navboxes, but you need to calm down and walk away from this. People have had their work undone before and you shouldn't take it so personally on here. Conyo14 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not and just a description. And the question is not about how rare something is. It is about how relevant something is.

Playing a Canada Cup is more relevant information in a box than being in the Triple Gold Club. Saying anything else is just backward. Spuleri (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Only "Okay 👍🏻"?

Or do you all realize that I am right in this case? Spuleri (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are starting to troll? Please tell us. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No to the proposed navboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No for the additional reason that the existing Summit Series/Canada Cup/World Cup template has a link to a page showing every participating team's roster for each of those tournaments. Could those rosters be improved? Possibly, as they currently just list the players' names, grouped into two lists for each team (one showing forwards and defensemen, the other showing goalies). I suggest that if you want to improve coverage of this information, improving those existing pages would be less disruptive than trying to insert new templates. (I notice user Spuleri has not made a single substantive rebuttal argument addressing the merits of any other user's comments, instead insisting, over and over again, that the proposed templates are "interesting and relevant information.") 1995hoo (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Having boxes with players sorted by position would be an even better idea. If someone knows how to fix them or maybe there is a template already.

The thing is that templates are interesting and relevant. And you find them under every big team sport. Your argument is that it is a lot of clutter and gets out of hand. Spuleri (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn’t respond to anything I said. Instead, you repeated the same boilerplate talking points you’re using over and over again, which essentially boil down to, "I think this and nobody else is allowed to disagree." Sorry to disappoint you, but "I don’t like it" is not a valid rationale as a matter of Wikipedia policy. You’ll have to come up with a real rationale other than "I think they are interesting and relevant" when everyone else disagrees with you. 1995hoo (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No one has given a good explanation on this matter and said why hockey should be different to other sports.

What is the reason that hockey should be different? Spuleri (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Conyo14 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So weak. A few people in this Wikipediaworld (the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?) has got some kind of arbitrary aversion against something that is more or less standard for every other big team sport. You ask for some kind of explanation but you cannot come up with anything that makes sense.

I really hope you all realize how poor handled this is. Spuleri (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS. It’s simply irrelevant whether you purport to object or feel that something is "poor (sic) handled" when everyone else has told you you’re wrong. Move on. Find something else to do. 1995hoo (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A few editors thinks not using relevant boxes does not mean it is right. But what is wrong is being a editor and not being able to deliver a reason that makes sense. Just some nonsense about "clutter" when it would only be a single box. Something that is standard in every other big sport on Wikipedia.

Or just explain how it possible to have boxes on pages with the Triple Gold Club or IIHF Centennial All-Star Team? That is waaay less relevant information compared to rosters for Canada Cup/World Cup and the Olympics. Spuleri (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to start an RfC on the subject if you're that passionate. I expect it will end in the same result though. Or you could WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other content creation within or out of the scope of ice hockey. Conyo14 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Not as passionate as people that deletes relevant information and is not able to motivate it properly.

Or how is it possible that trivial information like Triple Gold Club or IIHF Centennial All-Star Team is in players pages but not when they participated in big tournaments? Spuleri (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Free to edit, but not without consequence. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Conyo14 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You never even answered the question. Spuleri (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

We've quite a mess. Multiple templates need to be deleted, as well as all the links to them in player pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So embarrasing calling it a mess. Or are you gonna delete the Triple Gold Club or IIHF Centennial All-Star Team? And remove it from every player? Spuleri (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the navboxes-in-question, from 15 player bio pages. There's many more, but I've not the time to do'em all. It's up to those who want them removed, to remove the rest. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The related Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_October 17#Template:Sweden roster Canada_Cup 1976 has been opened. Flibirigit (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Will you delete the templates for Triple Gold Club and IIHF Centennial All-Star Team? Spuleri (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Soon be closed, with template being deleted. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also discovered that all the players that has been the "EA Sports NHL Cover Athlete" (!) even has got some kind of box. Embarrassing.

What is the relevance in that? And you cannot handle having a relevant template about international rosters for 13 tournaments. Embarrassing. Spuleri (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders

I don't have the energy for it, but the List of NHL statistical leaders needs to be updated, with the 2023-24 season stats. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Current Jets & Coyotes/Utah

Myself & an IP seem to be in disagreement about Coyotes history, properties, etc, being (potentially) given in full or in part to the current Jets. Last time I checked, the current Jets have 'no ties' to the Coyotes. There's two separate franchises: the Thrashers/Jets & the Jets/Coyotes. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You'd be correct. Which page is this on? Conyo14 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

At Arizona Coyotes page. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay I think the idea is a rational one, in that the NHL could potentially pull a Cleveland Browns/Charlotte Hornets sitation and retroactively give the old Jets' history to the new Jets. That said, it is effectively OR to speculate on that, so I'll leave it up to you. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

As it is all speculation. Likely best to delete entirely, all of it. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Consistency in NHL team intros

May we have consistency among the 32 NHL team pages' intros, concerning location. Either we include state/province, or we don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times over the years. In addition, there is a MOS, which has clear rules about this. – sbaio 21:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format includes the province in its intro. Left guide (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That example is almost 20 years old. In addition, the location there does not even exist. WP:CANPLACE and WP:USPLACE says not to use state when there is none in location's page title. – sbaio 17:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And has been regularly updated since; heck, THIS page was created over twenty years ago, for what little that's worth. Beyond that, yes, indeed, the location used on Team Pages Format is fictional. That's what they call in the business an example.

Beyond that, you're reading CANPLACE exactly wrong: "In articles that identify a Canadian location, the location should be identified with the information City, Province/Territory, Canada, or equivalent wording, unless the article text or title has already established that the subject is Canadian, e.g., it is not necessary to identify the "Parliament of Canada" as being located in "Ottawa, Ontario, Canada" (use "Ottawa, Ontario", or simply "Ottawa" if Ontario is already established)." Ravenswing 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

NHL award winner navboxes

108.51.96.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) attempted to create a navbox for recipients of the Vezina Trophy with this edit. If there is a consensus for such a navbox, it should be in the template space. Also, this bot request was submitted to transclude the template to all recipients. I looked at other NHL awards, and only Art Ross Trophy has such a navbox located at {{Art Ross Trophy}}. This might be a similar to situation to the recent discussion on roster navboxes. Any thougths? Flibirigit (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete imo. We already have a thing we put in the template area for award winners that links to the list of winners. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, delete them. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such navboxes. And it is strange that Art Ross Trophy navbox was not nominated for deletion, because additions of this navbox to player pages were reverted after less than 24 hours of its creation. – sbaio 03:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The template still had one transclusion at the Art Ross Trophy. It is now orphaned. Flibirigit (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

TfD is located at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_20#Template:Art_Ross_Trophy, as per discussion above. Flibirigit (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

A new suggestion to add more information to the player's infobox

Please see Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_biography#Team_Years for suggestions. Respond there if you want to. Flibirigit (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute at Erie Otters

There is a content dispute at Erie Otters. Comments at Talk:Erie Otters are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in 1,000-game totals

Noticed this while I was updating the 2024-25 season page for Schenn/Myers, as well as the 1,000-games page:

• NHL.com's records page lists 396 players with 1,000 games played.

• QuantHockey lists 400.

• This NHL.com article denoted Schenn as the 398th to reach the mark, inherently implying Myers is 399.

• The Canucks themselves stated that Myers is the 400th to reach the mark.

• Our own List of NHL players with 1,000 games played has 398 in the main table(s), with Schenn and Myers listed at the bottom in the "during 2024-25 season" table as 399 and 400. This is what I used to denote the two at 2024–25 NHL season#Major milestones reached.

Does anyone want to go through the time/effort of comparing these to see who/what is missing, and which one's correct? Should we even care? The Kip ^(contribs) 08:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for HL Anyang

HL Anyang 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) 10:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of Template:Triple Gold Club

There is a delete suggestion at Template talk:Triple Gold Club. Seems like a tit-for-tat discussion from the deletion of the roster navboxes in a previous section. Flibirigit (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's clearly been suggested out of spite, regardless of the merits of the deletion case Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUT and WP:BLUDGEON are what that editor is doing. – sbaio 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly redundant IIHF World Junior Championship navbox

{{IIHF World U20 Championships}} has existed since 2009, and includes a link to List of IIHF World Junior Championship medalists. Recently, {{IIHF World Junior Championship winners}} was created which contains the same information. Seems like this is redundant with the older template. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd delete it & then re-name the former to the latter. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I fixed my typo above to correctly link to the new template. Any other thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. Just requesting comment from the NHL project at Talk:List of National Hockey League players born in the United Kingdom#Jack Riley listing. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The confusion stems from what's likely two different players. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Panelian Raikas logo situation

The article about the Panelian Raikas ice hockey club includes a logo that was originally just a celebratory logo, but it has been used on jerseys for four or five years now. But this celebratory logo is not the official logo of the club and they seem to use both logos depending on the situation. Their website, for example, uses both of them and the jerseys have the newer one. Which one should be used on Wikipedia and would it be an option to use a file that includes both side by side? – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 06:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"as a prospect to" vs "while under contract to"

An IP evading a block kept changing text on Canadiens-related bios from "for [team] as a prospect to [team]" to "for [team] while under contract to [team]". I reverted them, both because the former seemed to be to be standard wording for prospect bios and because the user is a well-known problem child evading a block, but then I was reverted again, this time by @MFTP Dan. Dan's reasoning was that the former text is ambiguous (i.e. a player could be an unsigned prospect), but I disagree with this because the text in question does not exist at all for unsigned prospects, a prospect being in the AHL almost always means they are under contract (and most of the bios in question are about AHLers), and the "prospect team" section of the infobox also indicates the player's contract status. Anyone else have an opinion? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary, I was of the belief that my preferred wording was, in fact, closer to standard. My actions were purely based on observation. My reasoning to it came after. I'm open to further discourse on the matter though. In response to your stance, I don't believe we should be relying only on the infobox to effectively get that point across. We should be open to conveying the point to everyone and spelling it out, not just people who know how professional contracts work. mftp dan ^oops 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan @Wheatzilopochtli my personal interpretation is admittedly arbitrary, but typically:

• I use the “as a prospect to” language for guys that’re sorta considered prospects, ex. under-25, little to no NHL experience, on their first (or occasionally second) contract if they’re signed. Examples include Daniil Chayka or Lukas Cormier - Mason Morelli is a good example of a slight exception, as despite being 28 he’s on his first NHL contract with little experience.
• I use the “under contract to” for anyone in the minors that doesn’t fall into that group - veterans over 25, on a later contract, occasionally with significant NHL experience. Examples include Robert Hägg, Callahan Burke, or Gage Quinney.

The Kip ^(contribs) 23:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You can still be a prospect to a team without having a contract; this is more specific. I'll give a relevant example the Kip would focus on: would you use the same wording of "as a prospect to [VGK]" for Trevor Connelly? As the argument is presented, what I'm understanding is we're using these two different things for the same purpose, and I think that's improper and problematic, frankly. mftp dan ^oops 20:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I also use the wording that The Kip described. That has been done since I started making edits here. However, I personally do not see the need for these two wordings, so "while under contract" should be used all the time if there is consensus. – sbaio 07:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and after thinking some about it, the word prospect is too arbitrary and subjective. I think we should adopt the uniform wording as proposed, and I would go so far as to remove the link to 'prospect' in the infobox when a player is contracted to one team but playing for another, because it is present even when a player is unambiguously not a prospect, such as Tristan Jarry. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The original player in question was Filip Mešár, by the way. mftp dan ^oops 22:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So, is this agreement to restore my edit and continue with this method going forward? Is that what I'm hearing? Or do we need more expansive participation? mftp dan ^oops 21:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you should be good. I proposed the template changes at its page. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Logan Thompson image dispute - requesting input

The aforementioned article currently has File:LoganThompson2023.jpg as its primary image, as it's been for a while. @Gumbymma has repeatedly attempted to replace it with File:Logan Thompson-September 2024.jpg. It's worth noting that I myself took and uploaded both images, but chose to add the Capitals image to the body and not to update the infobox last month for the reasons detailed below.

Gumbymma has argued it should be switched to the 2024 Capitals image as it's of his current team and the article should be "up to date." They also added a personal attack towards me. They've technically violated WP:3RR by this point, but in the spirit of good faith I'm avoiding the EWN for now.

I have argued that the image should remain the 2023 Knights image because:

• Wikipedia prioritizes image quality over recency (see Alex Pietrangelo, Chandler Stephenson, Sergei Bobrovsky, Kevin Fiala, etc - all have more recent available photos with current teams, but the current images are higher-quality/a better view).
• In my opinion, the 2023 VGK image of LT is a clearer view, better-lit, a game image (rather than practice) and in general a better headliner image for the article at the moment.
• This is especially prioritized for GAs (of which Thompson's article is one), where quality images is even more important to the composition of the page.

I may have violated 3RR myself by this point, but I’m not entirely sure if policy dictates that a revert in response to a 3RR violation is a violation itself.

What does the community feel should be the image? The Kip ^(contribs) 23:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the 2023 image is better.

As for 3RR, you are technically in violation. There is a list of exceptions at WP:3RRNO, and this is not one of them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha on 3RR, I’ll hold off on any further reverts. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree about the picture, but yeah 3RR was violated. Fortunately, Daniel Case has protected the image from being changed by anyone. Conyo14 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, neither image is great - the 2023 image is blurry and foggy, while the 2024 image is on the dark side but at least it's crisp. Given the choice I would opt for the 2024 image if these are our only options. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would reluctantly keep Thompson's Knights in-game photo that is presently there. In my honest opinion, it's got the Caps image beat on clear view and lighting, though neither are ideal. Were File:Logan Thompson January 2022.jpg closer up (and not grainy af as a result), I'd prefer that one, because his face is clearly visible. On a marginally related note, I might argue to change Bobrovsky's image to him as a Jacket with his mask off. Or even what they use for his Commons profile. But we're not here for that. mftp dan ^oops 04:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

List of teams & map added to hockey season pages

Trying to find the discussion where a consensus was reached to add "Teams" & "Map of Teams" sections to the hockey season pages. The former seems mostly decoration & merely gets somewhat repeated in the stats section, while the latter mostly takes up space. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Frontsfan2005: Will you please stop making these additions, without getting a consensus to do so, first. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll complete deleting them from (at least) the NHL season pages, tomorrow. Unless there is a consensus to keep'em. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

They were also added to the playoff articles. Not advocating for delete or keep, just letting you know. Conyo14 (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That editor has also added these to other leagues' season pages. I removed them from World Hockey Association season pages. – sbaio 14:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I added team maps to junior league season pages here and here as visual aides to the adjacent prose describing significant geographically changes in those leagues. In those specific cases I believe the maps add value. Buffalkill (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that being useful. The others, I mean, I don't know. Conyo14 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Completed removing them, from all the NHL season pages, NHA season pages & pre-NHA season pages. Over the days, I'll do removals from the AHL & IHL season pages. Then the OHL/QMJHL/WHL season pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio and Conyo14: I've contacted Frontsfan2005 on his talkpage, as he appears to be ignoring the pings. Meanwhile, he's continuing to add these maps & team graphics, to other sports season pages. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have started the process of removing them from the NHL playoff articles. Xolkan (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Completed removal from AHL, IHL (1945-2001), OHL, QMJHL, WHL & ECHL regular season pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability of first-round picks (1963-1968)

I recently noticed Ravenswing redirected the article for Orest Romashyna to List of Boston Bruins draft picks earlier this year with the following comment: No better than the answer to a trivia question. Played only part of a single junior season, utterly fails the GNG.

There are plenty of other redirect candidates among pre-1969 first rounders using the same reasoning. Romashyna is one of seven who did not play professional hockey (Art Hampson, Claude Gauthier, Claude Chagnon, André Veilleux, Joe Bailey, and Wayne Cheesman). I also count at least nine first rounders from the first six drafts with only a season or two played in the minor leagues. NHL04 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so, do the others need to be redirected then? Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would, for any that didn't have solid GNG-based reasons for keeping them ... and that's GNG as in "significant coverage to the subject" level, rather than namedrops. Ravenswing 00:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)