Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Assessment

message: For the examples of articles of each class, wouldn't it be an idea to have in-project articles serve as your examples?  (e.g. New Jersey Devils or Fighting in ice hockey for FA-class; Al Iafrate or Brandon Wheat Kings for Stub-class)  Doogie2K (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That table is a standard table across all of wikipedia. I suppose we could create our own table but that would just be replicating this one which is standardized. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Should FL be added to the list of available classes here and in the  project template? I believe it's on a par with FA, but for list articles rather than full-blown articles. --JD554 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never noticed this comment here but, I did add FL a month or so back. So it is there now. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured List

message: I am requesting the article Dauphin Kings to be rated again. It has been expanded considerably and is past a stub. --Daniel (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Before going too much further to work on either approach, which approach do you favour? This is for ranking players.
Approach 1. - Determine top, high and low-importance players/figures by consensus. Develop a list for 'top', which is limited in number.
Approach 2. - Determine top, high and low-importance players/figures by using their achievements in a formula where a player moves up in importance by the number of achievements attained. It would be expected that any 'top-level' players will be limited by the formula to a small number.
Enter your !vote into either section. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't make it clear. I think there is consensus for the topics to be worked out. It's a question of either working on players importance by individual determination; where I suggest using a ranking system based on achievement. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus could be used to determine the number of articles under any given importance heading as well.  A cap is more of a starting point, to focus discussion.  Canada Hky (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might just add another layer of arguing to the discussion, distracting from the purpose of trying to present an encyclopedic account of ice hockey. Most of the discussion has seemed to centre around "which players should be considered at which level of importance". I prefer to ask "what topics should be covered to gain a certain level of understanding of ice hockey", and let the number of topics worry about itself. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to.  It could quite easily work your way.  I guess the better question for the poll would be - how do we slot articles by importance (regardless of how many there are) - do we set a formula or use consensus?  Either way (set number, or just let things sort themselves out), I still think discussion is the way to do it.  Canada Hky (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree with Isaac. We have determined, if loosely, what topics belong in the 'top' range. I've not had anyone disagree with it being a 'pyramid' of fewer articles in the 'top'. I don't think we need to set a hard number. It would be helpful if there was a tool to determine 'how many articles fit under topic x', so we could see how things shake out. There are lots of NHL season articles. There are lots of Stanley Cup Final and soon, playoff articles. Would it be too many to put in the 'top' category? I think so. So how do we cut that off. But we can and the only way is by consensus. If we put those season articles into high, then that's 200 articles right off the bat. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of the season articles I would be putting in low. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that fit with Wiki 1.0 guidelines? That would create a lot of red-links? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean. How does picking importance create redlinks?-DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If those are ranked too low, would they be excluded from Wiki 1.0's DVD? So the NHL and player articles that are included on the DVD references to seasons would be redlinks. Or maybe they are changed in the process to non-links. Since there are probably lots of links to the seasons, it might not be a good idea for completeness. I would rank them higher than individual players of limited experience. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: # Canada Hky (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting Approach 1

message: # Since I proposed it, I think it is an easier method to achieve a reasonable separation of players. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting Approach 2

message: Is this a bit of a false dichotomy? As I mentioned earlier, I do not support a hard limit on the number of articles in a category, but approach 2 alone (without exceptions) doesn't quite fit the philosophy I suggested. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't make it clear. I think there is consensus for the topics to be worked out. It's a question of either working on players importance by individual determination; where I suggest using a ranking system based on achievement. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus could be used to determine the number of articles under any given importance heading as well.  A cap is more of a starting point, to focus discussion.  Canada Hky (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might just add another layer of arguing to the discussion, distracting from the purpose of trying to present an encyclopedic account of ice hockey. Most of the discussion has seemed to centre around "which players should be considered at which level of importance". I prefer to ask "what topics should be covered to gain a certain level of understanding of ice hockey", and let the number of topics worry about itself. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to.  It could quite easily work your way.  I guess the better question for the poll would be - how do we slot articles by importance (regardless of how many there are) - do we set a formula or use consensus?  Either way (set number, or just let things sort themselves out), I still think discussion is the way to do it.  Canada Hky (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree with Isaac. We have determined, if loosely, what topics belong in the 'top' range. I've not had anyone disagree with it being a 'pyramid' of fewer articles in the 'top'. I don't think we need to set a hard number. It would be helpful if there was a tool to determine 'how many articles fit under topic x', so we could see how things shake out. There are lots of NHL season articles. There are lots of Stanley Cup Final and soon, playoff articles. Would it be too many to put in the 'top' category? I think so. So how do we cut that off. But we can and the only way is by consensus. If we put those season articles into high, then that's 200 articles right off the bat. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of the season articles I would be putting in low. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that fit with Wiki 1.0 guidelines? That would create a lot of red-links? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean. How does picking importance create redlinks?-DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If those are ranked too low, would they be excluded from Wiki 1.0's DVD? So the NHL and player articles that are included on the DVD references to seasons would be redlinks. Or maybe they are changed in the process to non-links. Since there are probably lots of links to the seasons, it might not be a good idea for completeness. I would rank them higher than individual players of limited experience. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Greetings, would a member of this project please review and rate both Whitecourt Wolverines and Whitecourt Wolverines (2008–2012)? They surely are no longer stubs. Also, please advise if the former is worth a GA review in its current state. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: by Resolute in response to request here. Hwy43 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating requests 

message: I have stumbled upon a list of biographies of ice hockey players who seem to not meet the requirements for notability, and are poorly referenced in their articles.  I was wondering if anyone here might like to take a look to make sure this is appropriate or add to the the discussion at articles for deletion. 
 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Öhman
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Pettersson
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niclas Burström
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrik Marklund
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrik Enberg
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pontus Petterström
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Allen
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Larsson
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristofer Berglund
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niclas Lundgren
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ville Varakas
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Gunderson
Scottsadventure (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice hockey player biographies for deletion