Talk:Hap Holmes

message: There's nothing much found on Holmes' early life nor the circumstances of his death. The older versions of the article said that he died in Florida when vacationing but that's a bit dubious (World War II), and I haven't been able to find anything to back such a claim up. I think this is the best article about Holmes on the internet, and I think this should make a nice GA. Maxim(talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick question about the birth and death dates. I just added an external links section, and looking at his Legends of Hockey bio, it says he died in 1940, but doesn't give a day or place. As it stands, the article says 1941. In regards for the birth date, the article says 1888, Legends of Hockey says 1889, and the NHL.com player page says 1892. So really, what dates should we take as accurate? Kaiser matias (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to be 1892. The book and a bunch of pretty reliable online source say 1892. I think the HHOF has it wrong here, they're the only ones that say he was born in 1889. Maxim(talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you have rather reliable sources. I just saw a bunch of conflicting numbers, and wanted to make sure you didn't just take some random number. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1888 must have been a typo of mine... I seriously have no from where that came from, unless I copied what was already put in an early revision. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on the article

message: A recent change made to the references section to use shortened notes with full book references in separate sections was changed back to the previous layout. It seems more and more common on WP, when different pages in a book are being cited, to use separate shortened footnotes displayed in an automatically generated Notes section, and then placing the full book citations in a separate References or Bibliography section. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened_footnotes, where you can also link to some examples. See also “Style recommendations” at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Like many things in WP, these are suggestions and not commands, but using the approach is more in keeping with that used in academic reports. If other editors feel a split Notes / References approach is not right, another approach for this page, where there is only one book with three pages cited separately, would be to combine the references into one with a pages parameter of 99–101. This would reduce the specificity of the references ever so slightly, but would allow the three separate references to be placed into one within a single References section. Finally, whether these suggestions or the existing approach are decided upon, perhaps more complete cite book references with oclc parameters and 13-digit ISBN numbers could be adopted for the two book references in the article. This was included in the previous edit, but was inadvertently erased when the change back to the single References section was made. The code for the two cite book references is included here for ease of use:  and  --papageno (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally thought that if there are going to be only four footnotes for books, it would make clutter to split it up into References/Notes. That's my opinion on it. As for the better cite book refs, I inadvertently deleted them with the undo function. I'm a bit busy right now (see my talk), so I'm not going to add the right now, but I'm fine with you fixing that. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And combining the page references into one reference listing all three pages, ie 99–101? --papageno (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Layout of References 

message: Reference 8 says the somewhat muddled “In ice hockey, when a goaltender is referred to as have won or lost the game when he was playing the game the team lost or won.” Is this edit more what the sentence should mean? “In ice hockey, a goaltender is considered as having won or lost a game if he or she played for any part of the game that was won or lost.” --papageno (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be a bit misleading, as it's not any part of the game. The goaltender who is on the ice for the game-deciding goal gets the win/loss/tie in their stats. Maxim (☎) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is “In ice hockey, a goaltender is considered as having won or lost a game if he or she was on the ice for the game-deciding goal.” --papageno (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Not entirely true see Clint benedicts hhof statistics and Percy Lesuers in 1913. Clint benedict is recorded in 1913 to havae a record of 7-2-1 with 10 gamesplayed according to the hhof. Percy lesueur (same year) has a record of 7-10 18 games played. The ottawa senators have a record of 20Gp 9W and 11L. At least in the NHA this is not always the case It would be interesting to sort this out if it can be. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goaltender lost or won