Talk:American Collegiate Hockey Association

message: ACHA Hockey is usually considered club hockey, but what impresses me is that it's a much higher level of competition and organization than most people think of when they think of club sports. Club sports used to be scrabbling together games against whoever you could get - high school teams, JV teams, amateur teams, or whoever. This level of club sports does exist, but the ACHA seems to be something quite different - real intercollegiate competition, and not just within a few miles of home. The ACHA seems more like a parallel organization like the NAIA.
I know most schools don't list club sports on their athletics web page, but do some schools consider their ACHA hockey team to be a varsity team?--RLent 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, ACHA teams are club sports at their school. that being said, the ACHA is prob. the best thing to happen to ice hockey in the US in the past 20 years.  it has organized entire generations into highly competative leagues whereas without it they would have languished in bad leagues beer leagues or not played at all. Dirk Pitt 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that most of the schools the consider ACHA teams apart of their athletic Dprts are mostly non-NCAA schools, I believe it dates back to the NAIA sponsoring hockey a long time ago. --Bhockey10 (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Club Sports

message: This article doesn't address what seems to me to be the most obvious question: how does this relate to NCAA hockey? All of the language used to describe the ACHA here would apply equally well to NCAA hockey, so what is it that distinguishes the ACHA from the NCAA? I suspect that the ACHA is, or at least once was, an organization of club teams, but the ACHA's webpage and this article never really clarify that. I would suggest a high-level section titled something like "Relationship Between ACHA and NCAA Hockey". --Rkstafford 20:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: uh, no. the ACHA is an organizing body, like the NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association and the NAIA National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. but unlike them the ACHA only regulated college ice hockey and only does so with teams that are not varsity, meaning they arnt funded by the school as a sport, although they are sometimes funded as a club. comparing the NCAA and the ACHA would be like comparing Ford and Toyota you can do it. But why?Dirk Pitt 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  uh, no. The ACHA is nothing like the NCAA and thus should not have a wiki article.  They do not regulate college ice hockey, only the NCAA does.  ACHA allows teams to play under a banner that is all.  A comparison would be any house league which creates a league for teams to play in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Club sport. That is all.... sorry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with NCAA Hockey?

message: I don't know how to fix this, so I'll alert others. The Men's Division III map isn't accurate. It is missing the University of Nebraska, a member of the NCCHA. 76.84.22.27 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men's Division III Map 

message: This article reads like it came from ACHA's public affairs dept. I have an issue with the following statement made "ACHA teams attract considerable on-campus attention and the quality of play is considered quite high, especially in the top division."
This is simply biased nonsense. As someone who has seen every level of hockey played, and coached at many different levels, ACHA hockey is not even close to being on par with Major Junior (CHL) hockey, and probably equates to Junior B in overall skill level. Have seen a number of ACHA games, mainly in Tucson and Tempe AZ, and again, the quality of play does not impress at all. I would move that the above statement be removed from the article due to bias, or provide credible hockey sources that echo the sentiment expressed as the sourced nhl.com article is merely quoting personnel involved in the ACHA. 12:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reason for removing seems more opinionated than the statement. It is properly cited so it can stay. That quote doesn't compare ACHA to Major Junior hockey at all. It just states that the quality is quite high and teams attract on campus attention that most other club sports don't. Top ACHA teams are on par with NCAA DIII and most of the ACHA DI teams have higher attendance than NCAA DIII teams. Penn State is leaving the ACHA for NCAA but even before the announcement the PSU team was one of the few sports with significant coverage in the school's paper along with basketball and football. I just skimmed the article but if you find anywhere where the ACHA is compared to Major Junior hockey that's probably a location of vandalism and needs to be fixed. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Top ACHA teams are on par with NCAA DIII"  and how did you come to this conclusion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of Play

message: TO: 198.84.241.55, please assume good faith toward myself as well as the other editors. You have been Bold, the action has been reverted by myself and other editors, before continuing to remove the section, it is time for a civil discussion. See BRD Cycle. Please discuss before we mass-deleting sections, as I've said before, there's three types of players on the list:
* One: The notable players section does have some players that meet the notability standards for stand-alone articles (they have their own articles!) Those players should 100% be included. 
* Two: Players that have had extended careers in minor pro hockey, or in Europe and are close to meeting the 100+ game standard. I personally think those should be included but I am open to a civil discussion here on the article talk page between you, me, and other interested users. 
* Three: Some players have played only a handful of games in minor pro hockey. I don't have an opinion either way, they can be kept since they played some pro hockey or they can be removed from the list.
: There are only TWO players that have a wiki page that are on that list.  ONLY ONE meets wiki standards, while that other only played a handful of games in the ECHL.
:: Therefore, the rest of the players do not meet the standard, and thus, should not be included.  If you wish to revise the list to only include the ONE person, please feel free.  However, please do not re-add those players who do not meet the standard of 100 ECHL games. Best
::: I kept the players with articles (their individual notability is a separate issue not for this talk page or discussion); players that have played in the highest level of their respective country's league; and long-time minor leaguers (mostly ECHL or its predecessors that could have articles. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  AAHL is not even close to the ECHL.  Turkey and Poland are not notable leagues.  Sorry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Turkey and Poland.  I don't need to say more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You -do- need to say more, actually... saying more is a rather critical part of having a civil discussion with other editors (which has been asked of you in regards to your persistent content removing edits).  As was pointed out earlier by another editor, in keeping with the BRD Cycle, you have been Bold, your edits have been reverted (by multiple editors), and now it is time for a civil discussion.  Dropping token comments in the talk page (such as "it's Turkey and Poland. Sorry." ... [-delete-]) does not equate to having a civil discussion.  To avoid this descending into an edit war, please stop the disruptive editing practice of persistently and unilaterally removing page content (un-reverting multiple other editors) without FIRST having a civil discussion and allowing the community to arrive at a consensus.Fishbert (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow wiki policy.  Need I say more?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please tell us which wiki policy gives you free reign to forego civil discussion per the BRD Cycle and persist with disruptive editing.  As has been pointed out before, the notability guidelines you've frequently bandied about apply to pages themselves; not to page content.  If there is some other guideline you are attempting to adhere to with your disruptive behavior, perhaps a civil discussion here in the talk page is a better way to communicate this to the rest of us.  A good outcome of civil discussion may be to clearly define a standard for inclusion/exclusion of players to the list in question.  But as it stands right now, per the disruptive editing guidelines, it is inappropriate for you to continue to bull-headedly un-revert the other editors who have tried to engage in a such a civil discussion with you about the changes you are intent on pushing through.Fishbert (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about you READ the entire HISTORY of the discussion and NOT JUMP IN and cherry pick.  If you did, you would note that WIKI POLICY is clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable players section 

message: In an attempt to resolve the disruptive editing that's been going on with this page, here is an explicit section where we can discuss civilly as a community the question of who should and should not be included on the list of "notable players in professional leagues".  As has been pointed out before... 1) general wikipedia notability guidelines do not apply to page content; indeed, page content standards should be allowed to be more loose and open (to a degree) than page creation standards; and 2) the BRD Cycle clearly indicates that discussion in an effort to achieve consensus should occur before any further disruptive editing takes place; it is not appropriate to drop one-liner decrees in the talk page and continue to push the same edits on the article page, we should be working together in here, not fighting with the edit button.Fishbert (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the problem.  This policy ALREADY is in place, as it has been said before,it is the 100 game standard at the ECHL level.  However, YOU have failed to follow that policy, and as a result, YOU are trying to create your own.  HOW ABOUT YOU START FOLLOWING POLICY which clearly STATES that it DOES apply to LISTS and PAGES .  Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia notability guidelines (see the direct link I posted previously) explicitly state they apply to articles and list articles only, and that they do not apply to page content.  The list you continue to disruptively edit, rather than discuss civilly, is page content and as such does not fall under the Wikipedia general notability guidelines you continue to hide behind in pushing your unilateral disruptive edits.  Another editor has previously warned you on your talk page about trying to apply Wikipedia policy that it is obvious that you do not understand.  On my talk page you have claimed that BHockey10 and yourself have reached an agreement via civil discussion upon a standard for the list content, but reading this talk page (especially when taken in the context of accompanying edits to the article) it is clear that there has been very little civil discussion taking place, and that no agreement has been reached (indeed, you falsely accuse BHockey10 of engaging in an edit war over the content you claim to have reached agreement over).  As myself and other editors have implored you repeatedly, participate in a civil discussion here in the Talk page BEFORE making further disruptive edits to the page content (token comments dropped in the Talk page accompanied by continued disruptive edits is not a civil discussion, and is not per the BRD cycle [see the direct link BHockey10 posted previously]).  This is a community effort where we must work together; it is not your personal page to mold and shape as you see fit in a unilateral manner.Fishbert (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has already been discussed.  Please see history, and do not jump in claiming that you know better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the history.  What I see is an attempt by BHockey10 at a civil discussion, followed by your accusation of that editor conducting an edit war because he wouldn't just let you have your way.  I don't see any consensus on a page standard for including/excluding players on that list.  What I do see quite clearly is an openly hostile attitude from you toward working together with others to improve an article (this attitude is evident here, in page edit comments, and on user talk pages; your interaction regarding the ACHA with TheOriginalSoni on your own talk page—which you removed earlier today [April 7, 2013]—is probably the best example).  That is precisely the intent of this section of the article talk page; to work together with others to improve the article.  You may either participate in this process civilly and in good-faith, or you may continue being a disruptive editor (as mentioned on your user talk page, you clearly tick the boxes of being tendentious, not engaging in consensus-building, and rejecting or ignoring community input) and continuing to have your disruptive edits reverted per the "dealing with disruptive editors" guidelines.Fishbert (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a page standard inclusion/exclusion criteria for "notable players in professional leagues" section 

message: Dear Fishbert and Bhockey10, have you even checked the list of notable players to see if it is correct?  I have!  Please explain why you keep adding Nick Pappas to the list, when his stats are incorrect and he is the only listed player on hockeydb for his acha team!  Furthermore, you both have added him several times, and if you take a look at his dates, it says he played from 1995 - 90.  HOw is this possible?  Do you even check what you're editing, or do you just like enganging in edit wars?
:Nick Pappas (whoever he is) may or may not be appropriate to include in the list; same as the other players you keep unilaterally removing from the list.  Reverting your disruptive edits is not the same as declaring someone is correctly included; it is asserting that the reason given for exclusion—that the individuals do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines—is invalid, as the policy clearly states it does not apply to page content.  I have attempted to spark a discussion above to create a clear and defined page standard for who should and should not be included in the list.  I encourage you to participate (civilly and in good-faith... not something I've seen from you in here thus far) before continuing to press your unilateral disruptive edits.Fishbert (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have failed to address the issue - like always.  Please explain why you keep adding cleary incorrect information.  Do you think this is helpful?  Instead of reverting my edits, why don't you check to see what is being reverted is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the date typo and removed a semi-pro team from the "Nick Pappas" entry of the list.  What is listed there now appears to be entirely accurate, according to the previously-cited source.Fishbert (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rv the page, because the info on Nick Pappas is incorret.  Please see hockeydb.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The info on Nick Pappas was correct per previously-cited source (hockeydb) and you removed a lot more than just Nick Pappas.  You are using this one player as an excuse to further push your disruptive edits.  Participate in civil discussion on this talk page; do not continue to be a disruptive editor.Fishbert (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wiki policy is clear, many players in the list are not notable.  Stop adding your name.  Further failor to follow policy will lead to a block request.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out to you -repeatedly- and by -multiple editors- (one of which made the point on your talk page, that portion of which you later deleted), you are applying a policy incorrectly.  Wikipedia guidelines on notability state quite clearly, "They [Wikipedia notability guidelines] do not limit the content of an article or list."  Stop being a disruptive editor; engage in civil discussion in the Talk page so that the community can arrive at consensus on the article content.Fishbert (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind Editing