Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format/Archive 1

message: This article has been refactored. To view the deleted text, go into the history of this article . This page was refactored on October 9th, 2005 by Masterhatch. Masterhatch 16:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

message: I think that it would be much more informative to give conference standings positions as opposed to division satndings. Conference standings are used for playoff seedings (except for division winners, but don't get me started on that) and they are a much better judge of team performance. For example, Vancouver finished 4th in its divison in 2006, but had a much better overall record than Chicago, who finished 4th in theirs. (42 wins vs. 26) Random89 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal of an encyclopedia isn't to reflect the world as we'd want it to be, but to faithfully note the one that is.  Despite our personal opinions about divisions, the NHL uses them, we don't get to abolish them on our own say so, and they have a material impact on playoff seeding.  RGTraynor 07:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should include both then, because conference standings have an impact on playoff seeding for more teams then division seeding. The goal of an encyclopedia is to inform the public, and conference standings are at least equaly relevant information. Random89 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the playoff brackets are given in the playoff articles for the particular years.  Your proposal would make sense if we did day-to-day standings, but since that's not properly Wikipedia's purview, and such standings are only given after the season's done ...  RGTraynor 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Division Standings

message: Note: this discussion was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey
Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Montreal_Canadiens brings up some issues with the current team page format. ccwaters 22:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes!  Someone finally commented on the fact that the "Facts" section and the infobox are essentially redundant.  So which needs to go?  Keep in mind that this really caused the en-us/en-ca fight earlier (since all of the infoboxed used "colours", even when it shouldn't have, it left the articles with mismatched US/Canadian spellings, often adjacent to each other on the screen).  I think these have all been fixed (for the NHL, anyway), but the same information should not be repeated within the article.  Flyers13 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NFL teams (Pittsburgh Steelers)are the same way. NBA teams (Golden State Warriors) do without the fact section. MLB teams (Seattle Mariners) display their farm system in the infobox (that won't work). Just some ideas... I've been switching lang to the team's country whenever I notice otherwise in my American Hockey League work. ccwaters 03:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I like the idea of using the team colours for the headers but I do agree that some of the colours are a little "off". If we can find the right colour matching, i think it would look pretty sharp. Masterhatch 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we can't just use the major color for the background and have text color be white in the headers.  Thing is, the basic HTML color words are a little "off." We'd have to go through and start matching them better. I changed the example on the right to match Ranger blue more accurately. It's #009 right now, which is a lot better than the #00F of "Blue."  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 11:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree on this... If we are going to colorize the headers, take the RGB hex triplet of the primary color (*usually* main color of home jersey) and use white for the text. You can grab the hex values from most graphics programs. ccwaters 23:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've gone through and redone them with the hex taken from their websites, except for obvious ones, like the Kings, Penguins and (*sigh*) Caps who all have black as their primary jersey color now. (removed the example infobox too)  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion on Team infoboxes 

message: A consensus was reached to replace the older method of displaying the "Current Squad" with the one currently in use throughout the 30 teams. The agreed upon table can be viewed here. To view the old discussion on the current squad, go here
Current roster outside links:
*http://tsn.ca/nhl/
*http://www.nhl.com/
:Just a suggestion: instead of listing the players in order by number, why not list them alphabetically? --Sparkhurst 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The advantage to putting the current squad in alphabetical order would mean you wouldn't have to move a player to the appropriate position; rather you would just change the number. Since this is Free Agent season, player numbers are usually not known until the training camp. Instead of placing them at the beginning or ending of lists and having to move them to the appropriate spot when they pick a number, alphabetically would be much easier. I realize this is a bit mundane but it seems like a good idea. --Sparkhurst 01:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Squad

message: I added a new addition to the infobox of "Minor League affiliates" which should cover the American Hockey League, ECHL, and (in some cases) the Central Hockey League and United Hockey League. NoseNuggets 8:30 AM US EDT Oct 7 2005
:Take them out. The infobox will be to large with that, and the other info I would like to see with other teams (see the Ottawa Senators). Well, you could add them, I guess- I dont really care about the size, but others might. Just stop removing the info from the Ottawa Senators page. Add, dont remove. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond that, are you freaking kidding us, NoseNuggets?  First there's the incessant additions (necessitating reversions) to the team pages, you're asked to make your pitch and gain a consensus, and now you're just unilaterally changing the format itself?  This is not how things work.  First you get a consensus around the changes you want, then if (and only if) you get the consensus, make your changes.  We've been reverting your unilateral changes for days now, and it would be a shame to have to go to arbitration.  RGTraynor 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if he breaks the 3RR then, we can block him. Although I dont want to break it myself, so I will need some help reverting his edits. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, the team pages need a lot of work and revision. Nosenuggets has opened a can of worms that i was hoping to avoid until after all the teams had the new updated current roster (squad) and season-by-season records. What I mean is, there is redundant information, that I am sure everyone has noticed, at the beginning of 90% of the team pages. You have the box and then you have much of the same info repeated right beside the box. My plan was to finish my current projects and then sit down and look at other sports articles and do some brain storming and comparing and see what other options were available and then introduce my ideas to this page. But I hadn't given it any serious thought yet. All I know is that the current format needs to be changed. Maybe, just maybe, Nosenuggets' idea of adding the affilaiates and mascots is a small part of the solution. So, let's keep an open mind to change as change does need to take place. Of course, Nosenuggets went about it all wrong and that has caused a lot of backlash against him. I am not saying that the affiliates and mascots are a good thing. Don't get me wrong there as my thoughts about that particular information being in the article are totally indifferent. I am just saying that change needs to happen and we need to keep our options open. Masterhatch 06:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do need to keep our options open, and new ideas are good.  We also absolutely want consensus on any change, we want people to ask before they just change, and we don't want reversion wars.  But hell, we all have limited time to spend, and the time I've spent dealing with this isn't going into writing new pages, as I'd been doing the last week.  RGTraynor 09:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor League affiliates

message: I added the logos on the season by season table for the Minnesota Wild and Vancouver Canucks. Have a look. If it is liked, I will do it to other teams. If it isn't liked, well, I will change it back. Masterhatch 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From Talk:Vancouver Canucks
So Water Bottle, you think that it looks better with the blank spots beside the season? Using your reasoning, why don't we use dito marks every time they consecutively miss the playoffs? or consecutively get knocked out in the first round? Those stats are repeating themselves. It looks much better (I think) with the logos beside each season. There is a discussion (although very brief) here and you are quite welcome to post your comments about it there. Also, there are about 4 or 5 teams that do it that way. Changing one and not the others makes no sense. The reason there are only four or five is because I haven't gotten around to finishing them all yet. I have been too busy with my List of NHL seasons of late. Masterhatch 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The logos look cool, and seem especially pertinent given the controversial history of Vancouver's uniform changes.  RGTraynor 18:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't use that as a source. I pointed you to that site because that is where it is being discussed and if you want to discuss it, that is the best place. Masterhatch 02:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, why do you need those logos? I stated my opinion on why we don't above. I didn't have time either to change all the four-five articles that have this. My goal is not to say "you suck" and then keep changing the Canucks article. See what's best for the articles, then we could adapt them into the articles. -- WB 03:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aesthetics. That is why. It looks so much better with the logos all the way down as opposed to three logos and a whole lot of white space. The logos add colour to an otherwise colourless table. Masterhatch 04:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I get it. Can we get anyone else to comment on this? -- WB 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season by season and logos 

message: I cleaned up some of the more ad ridden external links. Being linked to from wikipedia is a huge boost in search engine page ranking. Its prone to abuse/self promotion. I had to made some judgement calls: Personally, I'd remove them all to be fair, but some definitely had more research value than others. ccwaters 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! Masterhatch 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, are we removing them all? ccwaters 20:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess we can remove all of them that aren't informative sources. All the blogs and other ad related sites should be gone. Masterhatch 00:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Maybe its me but:
#There's an awful lot of wrestling with the captains listings lately. Is captaincy really that complicated? What's a tri-captain (Calgary Flames)???
#I think the rivalry listings are getting out of hand. Everytime I edit the Toronto Maple Leafs I barely resist changing it to... 
 "Rivals: The whole damn conference."
...in protest.
End rant. ccwaters 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The captain thing has been bugging me too. It almost seems like too much info added. But I'm not so worried about it that I feel reverting it is necessary. As for the rivals, they been buggin' the %@*$ outta me too. I never thought that we would have to come up with a limit. A rival should be between two teams that have been rivalling each other for a long time, not just the past season or two. There has to be some criteria set otherwise every team in the division will be listed and that is pointless. Any ideas out there?Masterhatch 15:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it's gotten to stupidity level; there are people adding teams on the basis that (say) the Leafs played a couple hard games against (say) the Flyers, there were a few fights, and now the fanatic starts breathing heavily every time he sees an orange uniform.  I doubt that rivalries pass POV muster, as to that.  Here's a thought: could we change it to "Traditional Rivals?"  That preserves the Bruins/Canadiens-type rivalries that have been ongoing for decades while possibly eliminating the chaff.  RGTraynor 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "Traditional Rival" idea. Makes sense to me. Besides, honestly, that is what i thought it meant in the first place. Masterhatch 05:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Me too. Carolina Hurricanes is one which has clearly gone nuts with this. On the other hand, I've got another one: Flames-Canucks, which is contentious. They do have a bit of a history which certainly was intensified in 2004, and this season in the fight for the division lead, but definitely it's nowhere near as big a rivalry as with the Oilers, nor is it as deep. It's definitely a rivalry, but a "traditional" rivalry? --Legalizeit 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will be a POV fight no matter what you call it.  How far back do you have to go for it to be considered "traditional"?  What I would prefer is a section called rivalries that explains the rivalry with facts.  If it is backed up with paragraphs, then it would be okay to list in the rivals section.  (I'd argue that you could write a few paragraphs on Vcr-Cgy, with the intense playoff series last year and Sutter publicly stating that Vancouver is the team to beat and in my opinion, the Vancouver games have by far been the most intense for the Flames this season.  I probably could find some newspaper articles to back this up.  I would argue this, but I don't find it important enough to do all the research and write the section.)  -- JamesTeterenko 17:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two things that have been bugging me recently 

message: I made everything "blahblah, Québec" when going through the rosters, but I'm having second thoughts. I vaguely recall something along the lines of "Quebec" is the province and "Québec" is the city. Is that right? ccwaters 01:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um no, they are spelled exactly the same. For wiki purposes, Quebec City is at Quebec City, Quebec and the province is at Quebec. Never use an accent in the English wikipedia when spelling Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said. Mainly because we don't have an e-accent-aigue on our keybpards.  RasputinAXP  T C 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec 

message: Would it be apt to put a list of the top-ten or top-five point scorers in team history on each NHL team page? I would be willing to put them in myself, I just need the go ahead from the WikiProject. Keep in mind (this is my opinion) that the totals would be franchise totals, not current team totals (ie. Ron Francis' total points with both the Whalers and Hurricanes). The reasoning is that the actual players were playing in the same organization, the team just happened to move during their tenure. As well, everywhere I look I see the totals for the franchise and have yet to find a source that does not have the all-time point leaders for only the Carolina Hurricanes. What do you think?  Croat Canuck   05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be franchise totals as opposed to totals for the individual cities.  That caveat aside, sure, go for it; it's a worthy inclusion.  RGTraynor 06:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, Hartford/Carolina stats should be combined, Quebec/Colorado, Winnipeg/Phoenix etc... Here's an interesting sidenote too, 3 of the 4 WHA teams have since left their original cities with Edmonton the only one still left (and that was close to leaving in the late 90's along with the others). More input is still welcome on this matter.  Croat Canuck   06:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top scorers

message: I posted this comment on the page at the Template talk:NHL Team Infobox page, and I'll also post here.  What's the thoughts on increasing the Team infobox to look similar to the NFL's?  I like the NFL's box, as it covers a lot of info in a relatively small space, info which is often duplicated on the main article or in the "Facts" subsection.  Just throwing it out there as a possibility.  Anthony Hit me up... 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I started looking at ways to standardize team pages across sports, incorporating different ideas from each sport.  My biggest thing that I've been working on has been the NBA season-records page, since it's a pain to find all that info in any one place.  I tend to think that's a good idea here as well (putting round-by-round info for each team in each playoff year) and to include past team names in the current franchise page (ie. include Whalers seasons in the Hurricanes page).  I'm sure that NHL fans are much more territorial than NBA fans are about franchise histories, (dunno if Whalers fans WANT that info on the Canes' page), so I'm hesitant to put all of that together.  On the other hand, I think it's really a big deal to include a comprehensive round-by-round summary of playoff years (series results are fine, no need for game scores).  Any thoughts?  Thanks! -- Kermitmorningstar 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think that the the example of Hartfords records and standings on Carolinas page would be kind of redundant, the articles make reference of the former identity of the team and believe that said references would contain links to Hartford Whalers. So I say nay to combining relocated franchises pages.  I also think that (if im reading your post right) that you want to put summaries of all the playoff series on a teams page?  That would make some articles (Montreal,etc) incredibly long, I do think that linking the playoff result portion of the table to the NHL Playoff Year page would suffice to show the summaries.  The cross linking seems to be so powerful, and I would be willing to assist in linking all the teams playoff results column to the proper years. sseagle 04:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season-by-season records

message: After the recent warring over the "Redneck Hockey" fad on Carolina Hurricanes, I did some quick research on how other NHL team pages handled odd non-play-related information, fan movements, etc.  It doesn't seem that there's any clear place within a team article to put information such as the Wings' octopus legend, the intradivisional status of NYI-NYR-NJD versus other NYC-area sports rivalries, Carolina's unique employment of a cheerleading squad, etc. -- things that are not key to the franchise's history, but are worthwhile notes to have in the article.
The Canes' article has had a non-standard Trivia section for some time, and seems to be a reasonable place to keep such information -- it segregates that stuff from on-ice happenings and makes it easier to weed passing fads out when they've run their course.  I'd propose that an optional first-level Trivia section be added to the template at the end of the main content, prior to the See Also and External Links sections, formatted as a bulleted list of one-paragraph-or-less notes.  Thoughts? VT hawkeyetalk to me 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against making it part of the template.  If the information is trivial, than it is not important enough to put in an encyclopedia article.  If it isn't trivial, then you should be able to work it into the article.  -- JamesTeterenko 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Trivia section 

message: Seeking consenses; the 'Retired Numbers' sections have been changed somewhat on the New Jersey Devils & Philadelphia Flyers pages. Do we accept this, with hopes of the other 28 pages going the same way? Or should the 2 pages sections be reverted to previous forms? GoodDay 00:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections were renamed 'Famous Players'. GoodDay 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would revert.  If some editor wants to change the way things are set up, he can seek consensus.  RGTraynor 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retired Numbers