Talk:Defenceman

message: This article is still listed as a stub (though this may be my fault, as I was the last to make a large addition to the article.) That said, what do you folks think should be added? At present, my thinking would be along the lines of more on the play in various zones, and perhaps expanded discussion of the various overall play styles by defencemen/defensemen. Others? Battlemonk 02:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: Heights of  6'4" - 6' 7" seem suspiciously tall, even for professional ice hockey players.  I know there have been some defenseman that tall and that pro-ice hockey players are above average in height, but 6'4" - 6' 7" on the average ?  H Padleckas 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems about right, looking at various defencemen: in the five listed on  with a last name beginning with A, there is one who is 6'0", one 6'1", and three 6'4". There are several who range to 6'7", many 6'6", and so forth. It's a bit deceptive to say 6'4" as a minimum, perhaps, but it's certainly not untrue. Battlemonk 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspiciously tall 

message: "Defense" is the US spelling, not the North American spelling.  The correct Canadian spelling is "defence" (as well as British).  "Defensive" is the correct spelling of the word no matter where you are.  See here for a reference.  Note that Canadian English does not match US English exactly nor British English exactly.  In the other examples you gave, the correct Canadian spelling is "tire", just like in the US, and "theatre", like in Britain.  I believe that there is no reason to change the article name.  -- JamesTeterenko 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I was wrong about using "North American" spelling, so "Defence" is the british and canadian spelling. Still, that fault on my part doesn't change that "Defenseman" is far FAR more prominately used Internationally in the sport of ice hockey. Why shouldn't we conform to the ad hoc international standard?--Jeff 16:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "Most European nations that play ice hockey don't speak english natively, and therefore would most likely use the north american spelling", then what is the ad hoc international standard ? Canadian spelling ? US spelling ? Pick one. -- PFHLai 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's my suggestion, going with the predominate US spelling. --Jeff 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On 31 March 2004, the predominate Canadian spelling was chosen , and has been in use since.  I am not saying 'Defenseman' with an 'S' is wrong, but it would be wrong to go against standard wikiprotocol to switch from one version of English spelling to another.  This goes for any article in Wikipedia. Unless an obvious mistake was made, e.g. using American spelling in an article about Medieval Britain, we do not switch. -- PFHLai 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." from Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. The "remaining with the the original contributors style" clause is only in effect if nothing else applies. In this case, the article's dialectal use of english is contrary to the used standard. It just doesn't make sense that wiki should use a spelling that is contrary to what the standard is. --Jeff 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that hockey does not have a strong tie to Canada?  -- JamesTeterenko 19:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not not at all. I am, however, suggesting that all evidence i can find suggests that "Defenseman" is the accepted spelling of the word in regards to the ice hockey position.. --Jeff 19:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, in the Canadian Dictionary link above, it states that the correct Canadian spelling for the word is with a "c".  If you want Google evidence (which isn't the greatest way to tell), how about searching Hockey Canada.  It has 131 hits containing one of the words (defence, defenceman, defencemen), while 82 hits with one of the words (defense, defenseman, defensemen).  If you remove articles that have both spellings (speaking to potential typos), the usage is even more in favour of defence.  112 hits for defence and  52 hits for defense.  Do you have any sources that suggest that the correct Canadian spelling is defense?  -- JamesTeterenko 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The standard ? 'Defenseman' with an 'S' is not the but one of the accepted spellings. The wiki has not used a spelling that is contrary to what the standard is in the English-speaking world. 'Defenceman' with a 'C' is widely used in Canada. -- PFHLai 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, I just created the redirect.  -- JamesTeterenko 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, the funny thing is I have to think about how to spell it. Defense or defence, gray or grey. ccwaters 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Hi original proposer here. I see there's pretty much no way of winning this one and bow to the overwhelming concensus. I almost give up. I like Kevlar67's suggestion regarding the spelling in articles about the NHL or any other US-centric ice hockey article. I checked around, and the spellings are "defencemen" in the NHL article and probably many other places that might have a better arguement for it there. I will raise the question again in the future after I find out how "Defens/ceman" is spelled (or if it is) in the inscription on the James Norris Memorial Trophy. --Jeff 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Words 

message: I'm inclined to X this section out as another doomed-to-be-POV-ridden bit overwhelmingly (as is usually the case with these lists) stuffed with current players; excuse me, nine out of the twelve most notable defensemen in hockey history played within the last five years, Wade Redden's among them, and Doug Harvey isn't?  No.  I'd be interested to hear what people think, but we either need to get this section under control and keep it there, or just lose it altogether  Ravenswing 13:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a postscript, if you're going to pick twelve defensemen to cite, here'd be my list:  Moose Johnson, King Clancy, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, Bill Gadsby, Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr, Brad Park, Vyacheslav Fetisov, Denis Potvin, Paul Coffey, Ray Bourque.  (If you get the notion that list spans eras so we don't get nine guys who played in the 2000 season and three guys who played before 1990, you're right)  Any current player added would have to knock off not only someone already there, but Potvin/Coffey/Bourque.  Ravenswing 14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How about if we create a separate page for a full list of NHL defencemen (we could do this for all the positions).  The Notable list on this page could have restrictions such as those you are proposing.  How about notable Hall of Famers with a couple (2 or 3) current players who are having a notable year (current players can be anything from top rookie to off-ice problems that are making headlines(jail or court)).  That would get rid of Redden.  We can place an editer's note at the top of the edit page to notify people of the restrictions. Trapper 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that "notable" lists, almost by definition, constantly become inflated and are POV-ridden.  I spent two weeks reforming the "Notable Players" list that used to be part of every team page, balanced for position and era, and half my edits were trying to keep off the favorite current player of every anon IP wafting through.  It's far more trouble than it's worth.  Ravenswing 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does sound problematic.  What do you propose we do with this list then?  It's a shame if we scrap a list like this b/c people looking for great players might otherwise have to scroll through hundreds of names. Trapper 17:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My vote is we scrap it.  There are many resources available for those looking for lists of great players, including the HHOF listing available on Wikipedia.  Ravenswing 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable defencemen 

message: This article should not be tagged with the WikiProject Canada banner. I removed it the other day, but this was not an established thing I was undoing—the banner was only added about three weeks ago by an IP editor who didn't add the same banner anywhere else. Probably just browsed by and thought, "This seems relevant to Canada...". I removed it because the position has no more to do with Canada than fighting in ice hockey, coach (ice hockey), ice hockey rink, checking (ice hockey), Jeremy Roenick, or the Elitserien—these things are related to the sport, but not so much related directly to Canada.
Yes, ice hockey is Canada's national winter sport. The article on ice hockey should be tagged with this WikiProject. In fact, I just added the banner to Talk:Ice hockey. That's right, the same IP didn't add it there, which confirms my suspicion that this was just an innocent drive-by edit not given much thought. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You should maybe actually ask this at WP:CANADA as its up to them what articles are included in their project. A project could decided the United States was part of their project for example because they are canada's neighbour. Its up to the individual projects to decide their scope. So that is the talk page that would be appropriate to ask this. -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified them of the discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For what its worth, I have no problem with it being removed. I just wanted a clear consensus to do so, rather than one editor deciding it shouldn't be there. :) -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But... all it took was one editor to decide it should be there. :( — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I would not tie such a generalistic concept to a specific nation's wikiproject myself.  Given there are about 100 nations registered with the IIHF, do we slap each nation's project onto this article?  I think not. Resolute 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Resolute on this.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I think it should be part of WP:WikiProject Canadian sport, since hockey is defined as the official (declared by Parliament) winter sport of Canada, so the elements of ice hockey would seem to naturally be covered by WP:Canadian sport - since WP Canadian sport does not have a separate banner, it would necessarily use the WP:Canada banner. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WikiProject Canadian sport is a task force of WP:Canada so its banner is the WP:Canada banner with the sport=yes parameter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of WikiProject Canada? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Defenceman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316025744/http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=p197902&type=Player&page=bio&list= to http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=p197902&type=Player&page=bio&list=#photo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified