Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Second-tier league argument regarding Mattias Norlinder

The following argument took place today on my talk page. This IP user, an apparent fan of the Montreal Canadiens, insists on including a team which at the time was a second tier team, Modo Hockey, to the infobox of Mattias Norlinder. I know better, and have attempted to explain to them that we do not do that here, but they dismiss my instruction as WP:OWN and it would appear to me they ignore my reasoning simply because they don't like it.

Below was imported from my talk page. Feel free to put this in a collapsible template or something so it is easier to discuss. It's a small hill, but I will die on it if it's right. mftp dan ^oops 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan for the record, I don't think you did anything wrong here either - consensus policy for a long time has been to include solely top-flight teams in infoboxes if a player's been on one, and only include second-tier or lower if that's the highest level a player reached - as such, if Norlinder only played for Modo when they were an HA team (not SHL), then Modo shouldn't be included, as Norlinder's played top-flight hockey with the Habs and Frolunda. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

They ignored you and reverted the article again Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."47.54.219.33 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That guideline is entirely irrelevant? It refers to broad consensus applied locally, whereas this is local consensus applied locally with no overarching broad consensus being overruled. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just pure WP:IDHT at this point, someone take it to ANI already. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Kettle meet pot. Perhaps you should brush up on WP:USTHEM. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If the pot is five veteran editors with the same long-standing consensus versus the kettle being one editor refusing to accept that consensus, sure. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip a classic example of trying to discredit someone by pulling rank. The select "consensus" of a few does not dictate the norm. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: "Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has knowledge that leads them to hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey it in an argument that other editors can judge on its own merits." 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying we've been here longer, therefore we know better about what should or shouldn't be included. We are saying that we know what the precedents are in this project and are in the right to enforce them because we've been here a while. Huge difference. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

From the discussion thread provided by @XR228, it appears that there has never even been a precedent set for leagues included in infoboxes. I see a huge divide amongst users when reading these. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would assume it’s somewhere in the archives. Just keep searching for it, I guess. XR228 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli: I trust you when you say that you know what the consensus is, but if so, can you show it to us? XR228 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It was already enforced as such when I started editing, I would not have been here for such a discussion. @Triggerbit told me that's how it worked when I was making Samuel Laberge so I deferred to them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. My honest opinion is that our IP editor should stop fighting, as everyone else agrees on what to do. I guess we’ve reached a consensus of our own. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

All I have seen so far in the entirety of this old thread is one or two editors making mention of a perceived rule of thumb in the context of either 7 "top" hockey countries or top level leagues for countries present at the world championships. Others have pointed out that there is no way to assess this in lesser known nation leagues (i.e. Ireland, Kazakhstan), and so long as they can be corroborated by underlying source, they are fair game for mention in an infobox. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

IP, if there apparently is no consensus on this topic, then why not create one now. Can you just accept that maybe the system that these people have been using for years works. I mean, there's no reason not to follow it. It's consistent. And, if we make the changes you suggest, many articles may have to be changed. XR228 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli wrong yet again. The consensus among infoboxes pertaining to professional athletes across other sports is that it includes a comprehensive history of pro teams played for regardless of a league's perceived notoriety. For example, point guard Tyler Ennis has played for several teams overseas of varying tiers of professionalism; all are nonetheless disclosed in his respective infobox. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s the basketball Wikiproject, they have their own standards/consensus. We have our own, if you want to change them start a proper discussion instead of insisting you’re correct and we’re stupid. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip not only basketball. Soccer, baseball, need I go on? The Ice Hockey WikiProject is the only swaying from this norm. Hence my point that a limited group of editors cannot override consensus on a wider scale (re professional athletes). 47.54.219.33 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus in any forum that supersedes this project dictating what teams should be put in our infoboxes. If such a consensus exists, I'd like to see the discussion that created it. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli i've literally provided the policy that says that a marginalized group cannot tailor pages/information that differ from wider community (in this case, professional athletes); yourself, @GoodDay, @MFTP Dan, & @The Kip have also failed to provide any sort of tangible proof that second-tier leagues are excluded from the confines of infoboxes aside from your own assertion. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You are misapplying the rule and you are willfully ignoring the four regular contributors of the project who are telling you the precedent that they have applied and seen applied. Your continued insistence that you are in the right and should have unilateral authority to create a new precedent is disruptive. Please just drop it. We have already taken action for your edit warring. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me try to help you here: if this matters so much to you, how come you haven't done the same thing? Don't you think your narrative would improve if you had any of your own tangible proof of this so-called all-encompassing pro athlete consensus? mftp dan ^oops 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Wheatzilopochtli—the point of consensus is that it is to be listened to. The problem has been solved. There is no point in arguing. XR228 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I reiterate from pulling rank: "Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has knowledge that leads them to hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey it in an argument that other editors can judge on its own merits."

None of you have given me any sort of notion that this is in fact the agreed upon consensus. And to your point @MFTP Dan if universally accepted across other subgroups pertaining to pro athletes, then I have every right to question why this not apply here. All I've been told up to this point is that the WikiProject for Ice Hockey is outside this realm of confomrity just because. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

But it's not really universal as you say. If it was, that would mean they decided that together. They didn't, they just happened to separately decide to do their thing similarly. If they did decide that together, realistically how could we have resisted and ended up with the standard we currently have at the hockey project? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. mftp dan ^oops 00:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan refer to Template:Infobox ice hockey biography used across all associated player wikipages in this WikiProject which states in its parameters for former_teams (referring to active players): "Professional teams an active player played for. Enter FULL NAME of teams in chronological order. Former teams will not display if (current) team field is blank" and played_for (retired): "Professional teams a retired player played for. Enter FULL NAME of teams". There is no cherry picking of professional leagues based on their perceived relevance. Similarly, you will see that it has been mentioned by other users on underlying talk page that infoboxes on hockey player pages should mirror other professional leagues in being as comprehensive as possible. I am not the only one whom has pointed out this disparity. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so, but most players' infoboxes display teams from the highest level of hockey in that country. To use a different system would mean to spend a lot of time changing each page. It's not worth it, and the system we have now already works. XR228 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive38#infobox -former teams and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive44#The existing top professional leagues XR228 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those WikiProjects may have their own consensuses, but the editors of WikiProject Ice Hockey have a different one. XR228 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What "wider scale"? We have nothing to do with how their projects dictated their rules. Each of them elected to make their rules independently of each other. The narrative that all those sports somehow came to the same conclusion together and that hockey just decided to defy it, and not that we did it independently from anyone else, is entirely false. We don't have some scale of infobox settings which covers every single sport here like you seem to insinuate. If you wanna argue that we need systematic change which aligns closer to the other sports, be my guest and make a new section with your proposal. Good luck. (I oppose.) mftp dan ^oops 00:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For baseball, the guidance on teams in the infobox is specific for post-integration era players who played in any one of Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, or KBO League. In this scenario, only these teams are listed in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep asking: show you the consensus. YOU show US where this sports-wide consensus that you claim to exist was formally established. Correlation is not causation. Strange though it may seem to someone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, there are any number of ways that the various sports projects differ in their practices and outlooks. Ravenswing 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Well said. XR228 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing and gatekeeping is not consensus. I have already highlighted how other users have noted the disparity of infoboxes in hockey related wikipages compared to its sport counterparts. The past discussions surrounding precedent used also proved to be polarizing. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In short, you've got nothing. Right. Gotcha. Ravenswing 03:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If the IP were this adamant, they could procure an RfC. Though I'd imagine it wouldn't go too well for them. Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP's behaving like a troll. Merely interested in being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay Not at all. Just merely strving to be a Wiki elitist like @Ravenswing suggests we all be. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing you literally have a self quote on your user page about being a Wiki "elitist"...that says all I need to know about you. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You missed a quote on my user page: "People who pick over this user page for ammunition to use in ... discussions: ... Searching for some dirt to fling because you can't win on the merits of the argument is a sure sign that a collaborative encyclopedia is not the environment for you. Maybe Fox News is hiring." That says all we need to know about you. You jonesing that much for another block? Ravenswing 05:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing "We are not required to pay any group of editors deference, their self-proclaimed "expertise" notwithstanding." You're really pushing a collaborative agenda there with that little gem, eh? 47.54.219.33 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Your latest block puts paid to your trolling, and maybe in the next three months you can get a better handle on how Wikipedia works. We're not into snipe fests here. Indeed, we don't have to pay any group of editors deference. But we do have to respect consensus, our only option there being to gather enough support behind your POV to change or overturn it. If you're just incapable of working collaboratively and respectfully, we don't need you around here. Ravenswing 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the IP is willfully edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

After a quick look I see that is a known disruptor at Montreal Canadiens-related pages. Various IPs from this range of this particular editor have been blocked more than once for such behavior. An IP range ban would be the best solution, but administrators rarely do that. – sbaio 03:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the IP continues to edit war on his own talkpage, removing the block notice. Best we be prepared, when he returns. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Reversal of edits on Mattias Norlinder

Putting this template on for ease of page navigation, and to separate the talk page discussion copy from discussion on this page. The Kip (contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your reversal of edits on the wiki page for Mattias Norlinder is both disruptive and constitutes WP:Own. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC) As an IP, you have unusual awareness of this policy (which you've misunderstood). I am not owning the page, I am monitoring your edits because I find your edit pattern and the fact that you disregard the comments of others concerning. If you take such an issue with the way leagues are represented, take it up with WP:HOCKEY. Allsvenskan teams are not included in the infobox unless the player is currently there. Would you include the Laval Rocket as well? They're a professional league, after all. Of course you wouldn't. mftp dan oops 14:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe you need to brush up on the WP:OWN policy, rockstar. "No one, no matter what, has the right to...dictate what the article may or may not say." Furthermore, your reversal of my edits are considered a form of edit warring, which, when conducted "with dogged insistence" and "without good policy backup", in itself "may be an expression of ownership behavior". For the record, there is absolutely no difference in listing a HockeyAllsvenskan team in an infobox than a DEL2 team for example (compared to its DEL counterpart). See pages such as Lucas Lessio, Christian Thomas (ice hockey), Martin Réway, and Sebastian Collberg for further reference. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC) None of the examples you've provided me are supposed to have these listed, Charlottetown. Inevitably, European players who never end up playing for the North American leagues will slip in unnoticed. We aren't perfect, but that doesn't make it a precedent to follow. I've been doing this for years. mftp dan oops 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Except every single one of those players mentioned has amassed North American and/or National Hockey League experience...your point is invalid. By the way, your statement "I've been doing this for years" also goes against the WP:OWN policy (specifically, para 1 under Statements re pulling rank. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC) You're accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing, when you really should just take the good faith of someone who has been doing this a lot longer than you have instead of arguing with someone who's been established and seen how policy is applied, even if I can't dig up exactly where this was agreed upon in some deep archive. What else do I do? But that's besides the point. Humor me for a second, Charlottetown: say, instead of being a Canadiens fan, you were a Bruins fan (a far worse fate). Would you apply the same principle for David Pastrnak's tenure with Södertalje? I'd like to see how that would go. mftp dan oops 15:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC) The player in question (Norlinder) had pro experience prior to being drafted/North American debut. Since Modo Hockey embodies both the HockeyAllsvenskan team as well as its Swedish Hockey League (SHL) counterpart, this is an accurate inclusion. This can be seen in infobox for Nicklas Lidström whom played for Västerås IK in all of: Hockeyettan, HockeyAllsvenskan, and the SHL between 1987-89, with underlying wikipage being formatted only to its SHL parallel. Regardless, it does not take away from the experience gained in the other two professional leagues whom share the same namesake. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC) That is once again not how it works. In Lidström's case, since you brought it up, Västerås was promoted to the top flight in 1989, while Lidström was still playing in Sweden. Modo was never in the top flight when Norlinder played for them, so it is excluded, since he has played in a top-flight league in his career, though briefly. Whether it came before Norlinder was in Montreal, or whether the two leagues are related or not, is entirely irrelevant. mftp dan oops 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) You can see the exact same thing in infobox for David Reinbacher re EHC Kloten. He played in both the Swiss League and National League iterations of the team. Its inclusion in the infobox can be interpreted as either or. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC) No, it can't. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's there because he played for Kloten while they were in the top flight. I don't know why you're trying so hard to argue this, any established hockey editor would tell you the exact same thing. mftp dan oops 19:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC) And yet, an "established hockey editor" you clearly are not. Stick to your Green Day albums. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @47.54.219.33 Dan is absolutely an established hockey editor and they are telling you the same things I've been telling you that you've been ignoring. Please defer to precedent and stop putting second tier teams in infoboxes. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Yes, because I'm supposed to let the IP who's been editing since June 28 be wrong just because they don't like the community's opinion on how players have their teams listed in the infobox. I may die on small hills, but they are what's right. mftp dan oops 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @Wheatzilopochtli that's rich coming from the WP:OWN gatekeeper who has created a page for a 15-year-old WHL prospect who has played a total of ZERO professional games to date across any sort of league here or abroad. @MFTP Dan I've been active on Wikipedia a lot longer than my current IP address may lead one to believe (January 2013). 47.54.219.33 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) And yet you never learned the standard? Rich. I'll be bringing this to the WikiProject. mftp dan oops 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC) @47.54.219.33 DuPont passes GNG, and even if he doesn't I fail to see how that's relevant. Please stop hurling insults and accusations, and start acting collaboratively. Dan is right to escalate this if they choose to do so. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This IP appears to have a compiled quite a few reverted edits that they have been warned about for more than a month. It's beyond time that they were blocked for ongoing disruptive edits. PKT(alk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's time for the IP to be blocked for edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have notified WP:ANI of the incident Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for the three player bios, so the IP will be barred from continuing their edit-warring there. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP continues to edit war & including on a new bio page. It's apparent that the IP isn't going to stop, until they're blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on your own talk page, it appears that you likewise have gatekeeping tendencies. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note - The IP has been blocked for two weeks. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Harassment on talkpage

Now, the IP is harassing me on my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny how he calls you "disruptive." IP should buy a mirror. XR228 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

IP is back

The User:216.208.243.230 is changing everything back to the way they had it on Montreal Canadians pages. This is the exact same behaviour as the previous IP. Llammakey (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a big issue with the edit you linked. I wouldn't change "publisher=Manitoba Hockey League" to 'website=Manitoba Hockey League", but there's nothing egregious about those changes. PKT(alk) 18:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody understands... 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a block evasion. Llammakey (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP is back to its behavior after block

So the IP has returned after block's expiration and immediately went back to old ways. I would report it, but I am unable to do it at this moment. – sbaio 03:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Should this go to ANI or edit war? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli@Sbaio you two really need to get lives. My edits have already been identified as non-egregious by admin above; stop harassing me. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all of them are. That's true. But you make your own standard to follow, as seen above. mftp dan ^oops 04:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI, and the previous blocking admin should be pinged. Someone who just dives back into the same behavior the moment the block expires needs a longer one. Ravenswing 05:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Before going through with the ANI report, I would recommend coming up with specific diffs that show disruptive behavior beyond the online personality they're delivering. Conyo14 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

They need to be blocked again, for a much longer period of time. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This particular IP has been doing:

• Edits like this (used another IP for this edit), which is useless;
• Changing capitalization from "NHL entry draft" to "NHL Entry Draft" (edit above and once again different IP was used, the main IP that was recently blocked or even piping to its preferred version);
• Has been removing messages from other editors from its talk page (warnings or messages of any kind);
• Has a history of WP:OWNership regarding anything related to Montreal Canadiens.

All of that just shows that another block should be indefinite, but administrators rarely block whole range. – sbaio 12:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Recently they seem to have an attachment to Rutger McGroarty as well, probably because it's recent hockey news. Or maybe they know my fandom and it's personal, wouldn't be surprised, but I have no definitive evidence of that. Probably just coincidence. Sucks, because some of what this user does is useful, but they have utter disregard for working as a community. mftp dan ^oops 16:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio warned them for their 3RR violation on Jayden Struble (assuming the 2605 IP is also them, which seems highly likely). If they continue I'm going to WP:EWN. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jake Wartenberg: has blocked the IP for three months for disruptive editing, so we’re all handled here. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

IP is back 2

2605:b100:b25:10cc:ad35:10de:233e:e612 appears to be the same user. See edit history at Mattias Norlinder. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Active at David Reinbacher too with a different address... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that’s what I call block evasion. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That would now be their second block evasion just in the last few weeks as I noted above. Their experience in doing this and using only IP addresses makes me believe that they are a previously banned user who keeps on coming back to get their wiki fix. Llammakey (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Might be what you're referring to but at one point they outright said something along the lines of "I've been editing much longer than my current IP would indicate." Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Self-incriminating IP wasn't on my bingo card. XR228 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

How does one deal with a mobile IP? What action can be taken here? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Same can be done to the main IP, a block of some length for Socking. Conyo14 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Jake Wartenberg as the original blocking admin. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI thread here. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Jake has rangeblocked the offending IPs for block evasion. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And a third time

User 142.163.116.80 has the same patterns of behavior Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by this IP. – sbaio 02:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio @Wheatzilopochtli after reports at both ANI and the EWN (the latter specifically over Daniel Walcott, they've been blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The .80 IP doesn't seem to be blocked yet if I'm not mistaken Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah yeah, my bad - that one’s been inactive for the last two days, so I assume it didn’t meet the threshold of disruption. The other one, which had continued into today, is blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Another new address at 216.208.243.73 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has rangeblocked the 216.208.243 IPs for a week. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a month actually. Maybe we can breathe for a little while... Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Prepare yourselves for a long winter. The individual behind the disruptions won't likely stop, until Wikimedia bans them. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This has the air of one of those who have been previously banned and now it is whack-a-mole until the higher ups step in. Llammakey (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as long as they’re editing under IPs there’s not a lot that can be done - admins are typically hesitant to rangeblock for more than 3-6 months unless it’s proven a disruptive IP is stable. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(moved from below) Block evader?

I'm kinda concerned about IP 142.163.116.80, who just showed up today. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Quacks like a WP:DUCK. I'll send to ANI. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, IP 142.163.206.14. Suffice it to say, he ain't gonna stop until Wikimedia bans him. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI filing here. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet (IP 216.208.243.93) another one? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Quack quack. Geolocates to Atlantic Canada yet again.

@Jake Wartenberg sorry to continue bothering - there’s another one. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think you should know. There's an IP hopping blocked editor, attempting to undo links to NHL entry draft, via making them "NHL Entry Draft", among many hockey pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some day I'll have JWB again, and can search out and fix those. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another duck

I'm in class all day today, could someone take out the new sock at 156.34.8.38? Same pattern of editing but quacked loudest at Ivan Demidov (ice hockey) Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Checked to be sure even though I think it's pretty evidently the same IP hopper, but the new IP does in fact also geolocate to Atlantic Canada. At this point I would request an extension of the blocks on every offending IP as they have made clear they will not stop evading their blocks until it is made completely impossible for them to access the website. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli Ad Orientem has blocked the IP. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan @Jake Wartenberg see above. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

and @Ad Orientem. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Sorry, but if I have dealt with this problematic editor before, I don't remember it. Who is this supposed to be? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem it’s more than like this IP range you previously blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip Blocked x 1 month. Probably would be a good idea to start an LTA page for this individual that can be quickly referenced and where we can keep track of their IPs/GeoLoc/MO/target articles and subjects etc. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll get around to it soon. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem appreciate the block! The Kip ^(contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LTA page created

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/47.54.219.33 for quick reference when future socks pop up. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Wheatzilopochtli and @GoodDay as the others here that're frequently dealing with said IP. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the list will grow. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice job with this, said everything I wanted to say Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting Jake has now extended the original IP’s block to a year and revoked their talk-page access after they repeatedly attempted to remove their unblock appeal, in violation of WP:BLANKING (and left some angry edit summaries in the process). The Kip ^(contribs) 03:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

New mobile IP

They're back at 2605:b100:b32:1e94:515e:7b0d:a26f:b10f and the related range. Not doing the usual stuff and have been largely unproblematic at the new IP but told on themself with the use of the phrase "the foregoing" at Jesse Ylönen. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You know what, this is a previously confirmed range of theirs. 2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Their edits at Brady Keeper are also identical. Conflicted as to whether we should do anything right now - it's certainly block evasion, but as you said, they've seemingly stopped their disruptive behaviors for now. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also conflicted. My gut says all their IPs should have their bans extended to the match that of the main IP but for now I'm happy to leave them be and monitor their activity so long as they remain constructive. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

nevermind they're already arguing with me about the definition of the word prospect Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've no sympathy for any block evader. Block'em. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

All edits are identical to blocked IPs, but this time this editor is trying to avoid some of the stuff. – sbaio 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Two new IPs

Looks like the block evasion is being continued – two new IPs appeared at Filip Mešár and both edit content related to the Montreal Canadiens. – sbaio 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

142.163 is the same range as two of their previously blocked socks. 71.7 is new. The whole 142.163 range needs to be blocked but the 71.7 hasn't technically done anything to expose itself as the user that I have noticed yet, but I agree it is likely them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Four IP ranges are used for block evasion:

• 71.7.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 142.163.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 142.67.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 156.34.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All of these IP ranges are used specifically for Canadiens-related content so it is evidently the same person. – sbaio 03:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna be specific and mention 71.7.139.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.163.207.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.67.118.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 156.34.8.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the ones likeliest to be our IP disrupter. They are all geolocated in the same area. Conyo14 (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Block evader is back

156.34.8.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Llammakey (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to the blocking admin! Llammakey (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

142.176.20.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Llammakey (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't geolocate to the same region. Conyo14 (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Their behaviour and editing history sure makes it look like the same editor from the Maritimes. I mean the vast majority of edits are either about PEI or the Montreal Canadiens, especially since November 25. Llammakey (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"as a prospect to" vs "while under contract to"

An IP evading a block kept changing text on Canadiens-related bios from "for [team] as a prospect to [team]" to "for [team] while under contract to [team]". I reverted them, both because the former seemed to be to be standard wording for prospect bios and because the user is a well-known problem child evading a block, but then I was reverted again, this time by @MFTP Dan. Dan's reasoning was that the former text is ambiguous (i.e. a player could be an unsigned prospect), but I disagree with this because the text in question does not exist at all for unsigned prospects, a prospect being in the AHL almost always means they are under contract (and most of the bios in question are about AHLers), and the "prospect team" section of the infobox also indicates the player's contract status. Anyone else have an opinion? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary, I was of the belief that my preferred wording was, in fact, closer to standard. My actions were purely based on observation. My reasoning to it came after. I'm open to further discourse on the matter though. In response to your stance, I don't believe we should be relying only on the infobox to effectively get that point across. We should be open to conveying the point to everyone and spelling it out, not just people who know how professional contracts work. mftp dan ^oops 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan @Wheatzilopochtli my personal interpretation is admittedly arbitrary, but typically:

• I use the “as a prospect to” language for guys that’re sorta considered prospects, ex. under-25, little to no NHL experience, on their first (or occasionally second) contract if they’re signed. Examples include Daniil Chayka or Lukas Cormier - Mason Morelli is a good example of a slight exception, as despite being 28 he’s on his first NHL contract with little experience.
• I use the “under contract to” for anyone in the minors that doesn’t fall into that group - veterans over 25, on a later contract, occasionally with significant NHL experience. Examples include Robert Hägg, Callahan Burke, or Gage Quinney.

The Kip ^(contribs) 23:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You can still be a prospect to a team without having a contract; this is more specific. I'll give a relevant example the Kip would focus on: would you use the same wording of "as a prospect to [VGK]" for Trevor Connelly? As the argument is presented, what I'm understanding is we're using these two different things for the same purpose, and I think that's improper and problematic, frankly. mftp dan ^oops 20:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I also use the wording that The Kip described. That has been done since I started making edits here. However, I personally do not see the need for these two wordings, so "while under contract" should be used all the time if there is consensus. – sbaio 07:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and after thinking some about it, the word prospect is too arbitrary and subjective. I think we should adopt the uniform wording as proposed, and I would go so far as to remove the link to 'prospect' in the infobox when a player is contracted to one team but playing for another, because it is present even when a player is unambiguously not a prospect, such as Tristan Jarry. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The original player in question was Filip Mešár, by the way. mftp dan ^oops 22:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So, is this agreement to restore my edit and continue with this method going forward? Is that what I'm hearing? Or do we need more expansive participation? mftp dan ^oops 21:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you should be good. I proposed the template changes at its page. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Llammakey you weren't wrong to revert the IP user but I thought you'd want to be aware of this discussion re lead section phrasing for prospect articles Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw that. I just didn't want to change the page until the user was dealt with. I'm tired of playing whackamole with that editor. Llammakey (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that administrators tolerate this editor's block evasion using various IPs. – sbaio 20:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It is basically impossible to do a ban of a dynamic IP. The absolute worst case scenario would be a generic location ban, but that would make all non-block evading IP's in that area unable to edit too. Conyo14 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the proposed change to "while under contract" instead of the previous. Xolkan (talk) 21:52, 17 Nomember 2024 (UTC)

Logan Thompson image dispute - requesting input

The aforementioned article currently has File:LoganThompson2023.jpg as its primary image, as it's been for a while. @Gumbymma has repeatedly attempted to replace it with File:Logan Thompson-September 2024.jpg. It's worth noting that I myself took and uploaded both images, but chose to add the Capitals image to the body and not to update the infobox last month for the reasons detailed below.

Gumbymma has argued it should be switched to the 2024 Capitals image as it's of his current team and the article should be "up to date." They also added a personal attack towards me. They've technically violated WP:3RR by this point, but in the spirit of good faith I'm avoiding the EWN for now.

I have argued that the image should remain the 2023 Knights image because:

• Wikipedia prioritizes image quality over recency (see Alex Pietrangelo, Chandler Stephenson, Sergei Bobrovsky, Kevin Fiala, etc - all have more recent available photos with current teams, but the current images are higher-quality/a better view).
• In my opinion, the 2023 VGK image of LT is a clearer view, better-lit, a game image (rather than practice) and in general a better headliner image for the article at the moment.
• This is especially prioritized for GAs (of which Thompson's article is one), where quality images is even more important to the composition of the page.

I may have violated 3RR myself by this point, but I’m not entirely sure if policy dictates that a revert in response to a 3RR violation is a violation itself.

What does the community feel should be the image? The Kip ^(contribs) 23:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the 2023 image is better.

As for 3RR, you are technically in violation. There is a list of exceptions at WP:3RRNO, and this is not one of them. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha on 3RR, I’ll hold off on any further reverts. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree about the picture, but yeah 3RR was violated. Fortunately, Daniel Case has protected the image from being changed by anyone. Conyo14 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 @Wheatzilopochtli it seems they've ignored this discussion to force the image back in - do I have the standing to go to EWN? The Kip ^(contribs) 08:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, neither image is great - the 2023 image is blurry and foggy, while the 2024 image is on the dark side but at least it's crisp. Given the choice I would opt for the 2024 image if these are our only options. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would reluctantly keep Thompson's Knights in-game photo that is presently there. In my honest opinion, it's got the Caps image beat on clear view and lighting, though neither are ideal. Were File:Logan Thompson January 2022.jpg closer up (and not grainy af as a result), I'd prefer that one, because his face is clearly visible. On a marginally related note, I might argue to change Bobrovsky's image to him as a Jacket with his mask off. Or even what they use for his Commons profile. But we're not here for that. mftp dan ^oops 04:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to be super-pedantic (which is a Wikipedia specialty, after all), the Caps picture will be unsatisfactory to some people because as of this past weekend he’s no longer wearing the style of pads shown in that image. Apparently some people complained that the stars reminded them of the Confederate Battle Flag, so he’s had the stars removed. With that said, neither of the current images is great. The Vegas one cuts off his feet and isn’t quite in focus. I would offer to try to get a picture tomorrow night or next Wednesday night except that we don’t normally get there early enough to get a spot down by the glass for warmups (even less likely tomorrow if the election leads to riots, protests, whatever). 1995hoo (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gumbymma Consensus here was not in favor of the Capitals image. If you don't self-revert, I'll be going to WP:EWN. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding "played for" in relation of the 2004–05 lockout

For context: I am currently editing Pascal Dupuis in the hopes of getting it up to GA status. Would it be appropriate to put HC Ajoie under "played for", even though he only played 8 games due to the 2004–05 NHL lockout? Cheers. Kline • talk • contribs 00:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that as long as it's a top-level professional league, it's otherwise the same as with the categories, i.e. one game is enough for inclusion. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just looked at Martin St. Louis and it seems to be the same, thanks! Kline • talk • contribs 00:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

HC Ajoie played in second-tier league of Switzerland during the 2004–05 season so it should not be added to the infobox. – sbaio 04:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked that right after receiving an answer to this question. I don't remember where I saw the discussion what tiers are added to infoboxes but I do remember it's only the top tier they played at. Cheers. Kline • talk • contribs 02:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Kaitlyn Keon

Hi everyone - I found the article Kaitlyn Keon this morning, and I'm writing this to ask whether any of you think she's notable enough for an article. When I found it, the article claimed that she plays for the Boston Bruins and had played several years for the NY Islanders, so I got rid of that stuff today. Regards, PKT(alk) 12:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know if she is is notable enough or not but I'm pretty sure she didn't play for those teams. Xolkan talk 13:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly was not created with good intentions. I say delete. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've PRODded the article. If that fails, I'll put it up for deletion. Actually as I edit this, @The Kip:, our sock evader, Cody Taylor, has returned: [1].Conyo14 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it! ..... PKT(alk) 12:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Dubious NHL team article

Have at look at Nebraska Knight Owls (NHL). Seems like wishful thinking to me. Flibirigit (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Should be merged into Potential National Hockey League expansion. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the entire history section is identical to a passage from that article. Nominate for deletion. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Same sock as above for Kaitlyn Keon Conyo14 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Good call; this is decidedly a WP:BULLSHIT deal. Ravenswing 07:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 @Flibirigit I'm tagging it for SD as a creation by a blocked user. I assume the SPI will wrap up fairly quickly, given the ample behavioral evidence - this isn't the first time our sock in question has created that exact article. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I cannot remember the exact editor, but I do remember that various IPs used to make such edits. – sbaio 05:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sbaio it's a sock of this LTA, there's even a reverted edit mentioning Cody Taylor. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. – sbaio 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14, @Flibirigit, @Sbaio - Turns out we stumbled upon a new sock farm. 10 confirmed or suspected socks from the last month or so blocked. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I do actually wonder how its possible to have so many accounts spring up for the sole purpose of hoax editing. Conyo14 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Junior stats in career statistics

Should we include U18 or even U16 statistics in the statistic section of player articles? Some include them and some do not. I don't know how the junior system works in North America but many articles about Finnish players are really inconsistent in this matter. U20 statistics are in most articles. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not, and I remove them when I see them. Include stats starting with U20 for Europe and "junior" for NA. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 to this. From past experience:

• For those who played in the US junior system, start with Tier II leagues (presently, only the NAHL; see Isaiah Saville).
• For those who played in the Canadian junior system, start with Junior A (list here; see Logan Thompson)

• For those that played in Europe, it varies, but I typically start with U-18 if available and U-20 otherwise. (see Carl Lindbom (ice hockey) or Mikael Hakkarainen)

The Kip ^(contribs) 01:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in the archives: top-tier junior stats only. Flibirigit (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise

I have nominated Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise for deletion. This has been discussed at WT:NHL in May 2024 and June 2024, but nobody took any actions so I went ahead with the nomination. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise. – sbaio 16:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on recent edits from a new contributor

I requesst a second opinion on recent edits by @UnreasonableMang0:. The edit summaries are becoming aggressive, snide and personal. Please see specifically here and here. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You are in the right. They are in the wrong. Any point they might have is made irrelevant by their aggressiveness. Cut and dry to me. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To your point, multiple reliable sources state unequivocally that Cherry was "fired by Sportsnet for making racist comments", or other words to that effect. The guidance at MOS:RACIST & WP:RSOPINION recommends using in-text attribution in addition to inline citations when sources use "contentious labels" like racist. As for the snarky edit summaries, I would recommend to @UnreasonableMang0 to take some deep breaths and not to edit while angry. Hope this helps. Buffalkill (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Jim Montgomery infobox appearance

Was there any discussion about combining two infoboxes into one like at Jim Montgomery (ice hockey)? It was first combined into one infobox on 22 June 2021, and then the design was changed on 1 July 2022. It looks rather odd and horrendous (in my opinion) not to have consistency among infoboxes, which leads to proposals like at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography#Add Infobox Fields (about half of editors in that discussion do not even edit ice hockey-related pages). – sbaio 16:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the infobox at Jim Montgomery. It uses two infoboxes to summarize his career. It is consistent with NHL coaches and with college coaches. I see no connection to discussions to expand infoboxes, when it only uses existing fields within infoboxes. Flibirigit (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Flibirigit I think the issue is that it basically duplicates his NHL coaching career info (Stars/Bruins/Blues are all noted twice) - I'm not sure whether to default to the college box or the ice hockey one. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The Kip got my idea what is wrong. In addition, coaching stints with statistics are listed in "Head coaching record" section so that duplication is not needed, and awards also have their own section at "Awards and honours". Usually college coaching infobox is removed when a coach joins a professional league (at least that is the case in NBA and NFL infoboxes). – sbaio 14:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The NHL playing/coaching career info, is all we need in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Awards and honors

@MikeVitale removed a bunch of tables from awards and honors sections and added weekly and monthly awards (eg NCAA rookie of the month). Not saying they're necessarily wrong to do that but I was under the impression that the standard was not to include these awards and to format the section as a table. Personally I much prefer the look of the table and I find weekly and monthly awards to be trivial. Anyone else have thoughts? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Monthly awards should be included in prose, while weekly awards are meaningless and are not worth a mention. Are any men BLPs affected? Because I only see that MikeVitale is editing women BLPs. – sbaio 14:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:NO-TABLES:

If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read.

Therefore, I removed table formatting, because it's really a simple list.

Also, per MOS:LTAB:

Avoid using tables for visual positioning of non-tabular content.

I also saw somewhere (which I can't find right now) that we should avoid having multiple "header" rows in the middle of tables, which the tables that I removed and turned into lists contained.

Further, I was using Kendall Coyne Schofield#Awards and honors (which, while I've edited that page, it doesn't look like I've edited that section, and definitely not recently) as an example of what a list of Awards might look like.

Finally, no, I tend to stay away from editing male hockey pages -- I figure that there are enough other interested folks who'll keep up with the men's game. --MikeVitale 14:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LTAB does not apply here, and fwiw I find the table easier to read than the lists. (Though it's not a huge difference and the MOS is on your side.) Not sure why it would matter whether you edit men's hockey pages. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you believe that MOS:LTAB doesn't apply? --MikeVitale 15:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It is definitionally tabular content, even if it could be represented as a simple list. LTAB says that tables should not be used to position text on a page if said text is not a table. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatzilopochtli: I was the editor who asked about men or women, because I went through MikeVitale's recent editing history and only saw women BLPs. So I want to see how men BLPs look with list if there are any. Tables at Sidney Crosby#Honours and achievements and Alexander Ovechkin#Honors, awards, and achievements look horrendous, and a simple list would be better in both cases. – sbaio 15:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

agree with Wheatzilopochtil - tables look fine - no consensus to change them - especially on Crosby and Ovechkin's pages where they would need a separate page if they were in list form. Llammakey (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Llammakey I don't understand your assertion that they would need a separate page "if they were in list form", but it's acceptable to include all of the awards (for anyone, not just Sid or Ovie) because it's presented in a table.

If it's going to be "too much" information to present in list form, isn't it the same thing (but larger) in table form?

Because if it is a list it would look like this Lionel Messi#Honours, which coincidentally has a list page that is in a table format. I would add that the list section of his honours is too big and replicates what is on the list page, which is in table format. Llammakey (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(Note/Edit: I'm not attempting to propose that we create consensus to edit all Awards/Honors sections to de-table-ify them. I'm just trying to understand your assertion that a list would require a separate page, whereas a table does not.)--MikeVitale 02:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• I’ll just say I find the tables more visually organized/pleasing - the lists often read as disorganized jumbles of information. Not having 5 or 6 unnecessary subheaders is a good bonus. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Couldn't quite find the words but this is why I prefer the tables. The lists just feel messy. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Location of PWHL teams

Exactly how should we show the location of teams in the 2023–24, 2024–25 PWHL season pages & New York Sirens page. The Minnesota & New York teams are located in "Saint Paul" & "Newark". Do we use the city name or what? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Actual locations of the teams is the better choice. There is no reconciliation issue with St. Paul MN. The minor discrepancy with the New York Sirens being located in New Jersey is factually correct, and similar to New York Giants and New York Jets. Regards, PKT(alk) 19:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Going by where they play their home games makes sense to me. Buffalkill (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So we should replace New York metropolitan area (which is too broad), with the exact location. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

100% agreed, GoodDay.......Cheers, PKT(alk) 22:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

NHL timeline moved

I am not sure if everyone saw it, but History of organizational changes in the NHL was moved to Timeline of the National Hockey League on 28 November 2024 per a WP:RM/TR request. There was a discussion at Talk:Timeline of the National Hockey League#Potential move to "Timeline of the National Hockey League" since March 2024, but nobody participated in it until recently. In addition, an editor has made changes to Template:Timeline National Hockey League regarding the 2004–05 season (that particular edit) and also made other change regarding teams. Just wanted everyone to know about these changes, because I myself am not sure if these were needed. – sbaio 09:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea of separating the years prior to the so-called "Original Six" era is sensible enough. That term has always been misleading for people not familiar with the league's history because, frankly, it’s incorrect, regardless of it being the accepted terminology. (That is, it is indisputable as a factual matter that those six teams are not, in fact, the "original" six NHL teams.) With that said, however, I don’t see anything in the table clarifying where these different "eras" are, so to the extent that particular edit could be deemed an issue, I’d be inclined to view it as harmless error. 1995hoo (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Seattle Kraken GT

Hello there. I've been trying to promote Seattle Kraken articles to higher statuses for the purpose of potentially being able to make a good topic about the team. Below is my idea for a Seattle Kraken GT. Thoughts?

Seattle Kraken

13 articles

Award winners

Broadcasters

Draft picks

Head coaches

Players

Records

Seasons

Climate Pledge Arena

Kraken Community Iceplex

Buoy

2024 Winter Classic

2021 expansion draft

XR228 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks good so far. They have no rivals yet and they have one playoff appearance in 2023. Conyo14 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ice hockey officials and Infobox ice hockey biography

Please see comments at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography#adding fields for officials. Hopefully we can come to consensus on how to best handle this situation. Flibirigit (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Visual timelines

Do people find these useful, or are they a bit much?

• Template:Timeline National Hockey League
• Kootenay International Junior Hockey League#Franchise timeline
• United States Hockey League#Junior league timeline
• Western Hockey League#Franchise timeline
• Ontario Hockey League#Timeline of franchises (since 1980)
• Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League#Timeline of teams

Buffalkill (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care for them, but won't fight about them. Flibirigit (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I also see no reason to keep these. In addition, please look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#NHL timeline moved since it is related to NHL timeline. – sbaio 19:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• I find the NHL one to be somewhat useful as a tracker or organizational changes, but the minor/junior leagues are typically so unstable with teams that I'm not sure of their use - they get massive and cluttered fairly quickly. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  The junior leagues timelines are all smaller than the NHL's. Killashaw (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think they are useful. A picture is worth a thousand words.--Killashaw (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Assadzadeh (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The NHL one is fine, I don't think the others are quite as useful. Conyo14 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

They're all pretty ugly, and many of the color combos fail MOS:COLOR guidelines at MOS:ACCESS. I think we're better off without them. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The color combos can be fixed Assadzadeh (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I like them alright, myself. Is there genuinely something wrong with them other than some people not liking the aesthetics? Ravenswing 05:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I only ask out of curiosity, not wanting to ban them. For me they’re like visual word salad. Buffalkill (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)