Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#User accessibility concerns

Recently I published an edit on the Anaheim Ducks article stating that the Red Wings were a rival of the Ducks. Then it was undone because the source I had used was unreliable. I re-added the paragraph with a more credible source, only to be told that one source was not enough to prove a rivalry. So should the Red Wings be considered a rival of the Ducks? I have [https://www.ocregister.com/2010/12/03/ducks-red-wings-skating-with-the-stars/ another source] that says this, but I'm not sure if it's enough. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can't read the source, because it tries to sell me a subscription within seconds of accessing the article. But as somebody whose first NHL team was the Wings (I grew up in Windsor, and moved to Toronto quite a while ago), I'd find it far-fetched to say that the Wings and the Ducks have a proper rivalry. They just haven't faced each other often enough, and there is limited shared history between them. Regards, PKT(alk) 23:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, that's too bad. I'll just print what the source says: "The Ducks will resume their rivalry with the Detroit Red Wings on Friday at Honda Center. Besides many intense playoff series and tangible hatred for each other, the rivalry has almost always featured great players on both sides who are definitive faces of their respective franchises." Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There are any number of sportswriters on deadline who toss up hyperbole salad; having just read the article (yay for NoScript on my browser), this is just another one. For my part, the teams play in different divisions, and haven't faced one another in the playoffs for a dozen years now. The bar for notability on sports rivalries is set very high: we're talking Habs-Leafs, Yankees-Red Sox, Celtics-Lakers and the like. Ravenswing 00:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Aren't there plenty of rivalries detailed, especially on List of NHL rivalries that involve teams that don't play in the same division? I originally stated that the Ducks had a rivalry with the Red Wings, meaning that it used to be a big rivalry. Could listing it under the "Historical" section of the List of NHL rivalries article work? Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sounds reasonable. Go for it. Ravenswing 14:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sorry {{ping|Mk8mlyp}}, but the Red Wings and the (Mighty) Ducks have never had a "big" rivalry. PKT(alk) 16:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was the one to originally delete the paragraph regarding it. From a fan's POV, any team can be a big rival. For Wikipedia, it requires proof. Conyo14 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Rivalry articles are heavily scrutinized, but rivalry paragraphs or big fights are fine. Conyo14 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://pucksofafeather.com/2019/03/12/anaheim-ducks-top-5-rivals/ FanSided] doesn't appear to be reliable [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22FanSided%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 per community discussions]. The [https://windsorstar.com/sports/rivalry-between-wings-and-ducks-only-growing-stronger other] [https://www.ocregister.com/2010/12/03/ducks-red-wings-skating-with-the-stars/ two] sources in question look like routine daily coverage from local beatwriters who's job is to exclusively cover (and in some ways promote) these specific teams. Windsor is across the river from Detroit, and Anaheim is in Orange County. For Wikipedia's purposes, they don't carry much weight, relatively speaking. If one looks hard enough, sources like this can be found for just about any pair of teams, which would cause Wikipedia to indiscriminately call every pair "rivals" in wikivoice, thus diluting the quality and due weight of stronger historically-significant rivalries. If reputable books and national/league-wide outlets provide serious secondary coverage of this as a "rivalry", then maybe an argument can be made. Left guide (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::After scouring through Wikipedia, I have found an article that calls the Ducks and Red Wings rivals: "The Red Wings won the Central Division title with 112 points before defeating the Columbus Blue Jackets 4–0, rival Anaheim Ducks 4–3, and then-division rival Chicago Blackhawks..." That is from the 2009 Stanley Cup Finals page. The word "rival" before Anaheim Ducks also links to a non-existent section on the NHL rivalries article detailing the rivalry between the two teams. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, and that paragraph in the article is unsourced, so anyone could've added that as original research. Left guide (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

IIHF World Ranking is seeing the repeated insertion of uncited material and non-neutral tone at IIHF World Ranking by an IP. Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IIHF_World_Ranking&action=history article history]. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Now raised at WP:ANI#Disruptive IP range at IIHF World Ranking. Left guide (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:Detroit_Red_Wings#Streaks_and_almost-streaks, I'm discussing the significance and sourcing of some information about performance during historical periods with @Sbaio. Is anyone interested in contributing their perspective to the discussion at that page? TheFeds 20:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

2008 NHL Winter Classic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I think something this talk page is lacking is a consensus list. I am requesting that a consensus list for this project be pinned or put somewhere so we don't have to search the long archives. We don't need every single consensus in one, but just enough to make sure editors can easily find out how to correctly edit articles. I am talking specifically of the consensus part of the Talk:Ronald Reagan page. I think having something like that there would be helpful for editors. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a demonstrated need for this to occur? It often makes sense if there are certain types of disputes that repeatedly arise. Per WP:NOTBURO, we shouldn't make a list just for the sake of having one. FWIW, there is a series of style guides listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Structure, each of which may reflect varying levels of consensus; those pages might be a good starting point for what you seem inclined to accomplish. Left guide (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jrtrottier Jrtrottier], who was very active (and possibly disruptive) on Quebec and Ottawa hockey articles, has been blocked as a sockpuppet at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaepertank. A cursory review of the SPI archives and the user's edits seems to show a pattern of unsourced or poorly-sourced changes to attendance/capacity figures. As such, I suspect that many such figures should be checked. Any help would be appreciated. Left guide (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a standard: on league-wide NHL season pages (e.g., 2024–25 NHL season), each team name should link to its specific season article (e.g., "2024–25 Boston Bruins season") if that page exists.

This improves navigation for users. Should we make this part of our style guide? Abhiramakella (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:This does not improve navigation and is contrary to MOS:SUBMARINE. A link that shows only a team name should link only to the team. Flibirigit (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A new user created the categories :Category:NHL eventual champion elimination seasons, :Category:NBA eventual champion elimination seasons, and :Category:MLB eventual champion elimination seasons which was flagged as "really unnecessary" at the baseball project. A CfD may be in order. Left guide (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Among other things it's a terrible category title that doesn't make it obvious what it's for. Should be nuked. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nominated for deletion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 29#Eventual champion elimination seasons. Left guide (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

We have a new IP account that is doing a lot of content removal from NHL Standing templates for the past few seasons. I was hoping some knowledgeable editors could look over the past few years and make sure that they aren't doing any damage. You can find the templates listed in :Category:National Hockey League standings templates. Thank you, in advance, if you can supply some supervision here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Liz}} The IP editor from this range (mainly from Fort Lauderdale, Florida) has been doing this for quite some time and I have reverted edits from this IP range in the past. The strangest thing regarding these edits is that some of them are good and seem to be done after advices, but the same IP then go and do the opposite in other pages related to same topic. – sbaio 06:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add clickable footnotes to the details of players who had their names engraved due to petition? Kart2401real (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Kart2401real}} Is there an example application of how this would look? Left guide (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, 2014 Stanley Cup Finals#Stanley Cup engraving is an example. Click the footnote symbol, and it goes to the engraving notes section for the details. Kart2401real (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks reasonable to me, though the note might benefit from having a citation to a reliable source. Has someone contested this? Left guide (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Left guide that would be me. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Any footnote must be sourced to at least one independent reliable source. Flibirigit (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I personally find them unnecessary and over-complicated for how we’ve usually done it - it feels like fixing something that’s not broken. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Here's another example that is even older 2009 Stanley Cup Finals#Stanley Cup engraving. Kart2401real (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Which I still feel is unnecessary. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Should I keep those articles as is anyway, or revert? Kart2401real (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I removed the section in {{scfy|2016}} about {{tq|Players who were part of the 2009 and 2016 Stanley Cup wins}}. This felt overly trivial and filled with WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, seems like WP:OR unless there's a source connecting and organizing the players in that manner. Left guide (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NHL04 NHL04] has unilaterally changed the end date of the season cancelled by the labor dispute from February 16, 2005, the date the season was announced as officially cancelled, to the last date of the Calder Cup playoffs. Doing so in the team season articles in sections devoted to that season's transactions, not only is it jarring to mention another league's playoffs as the end date (without any explanation in the body) it is also disingenuous to use the edit summary "using deciding game of Calder Cup Finals as end date for consistency with other articles" when they are actually doing it to match their own edits. They have also made this change for all team season articles the following season, again for the transaction sections, to indicate the start date of the following season. The former status quo was more than acceptable, no? Echoedmyron (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:"Consistency with other articles?" That's just plain BS. The AHL's schedule has nothing to do with the NHL labor dispute, and no kidding this was unilateral; there's no way in hell they'd have gotten consensus for this. Let's start reverting this at once. Ravenswing 11:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Reverts done. Ravenswing 14:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm mostly on the Swedish Wikipedia and write a lot about North American ice hockey there. I wondering why the English Wikipedia don't choose to structure the :Category:Stanley Cup champions like what the Swedish Wikipedia have done (or what I've done) with the :sv:Kategori:Stanley Cup-mästare. It's way more easier to navigate the category with subcategories for each year like this one :sv:Kategori:Stanley Cup-mästare 2008. And it's also easier to see which players won the Stanley Cup for a specific year. The ones who are in each category is players, coaches, executives, owners and other staff. The only problem with this structure is that the category list for the people who have won the Stanley Cup many times like Jean Béliveau and Scotty Bowman have many similar categories after each other. DIEXEL (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:We should be thankful Category:Stanley Cup champions even exists in the first place. :Category:World Series champions, :Category:Super Bowl champions, and :Category:NBA championship-winning players already got deleted unfortunately. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah but all categories would had been kept if English Wikipedia had structure these with subcategories for each year. As I said, it had been much easier to navigate through the categories and if someone wants to know which people won the Championship for a specific year, just click on one of the subcategories. That gives more to the readers than just one massive category for each League. DIEXEL (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Jross2166 has repeatedly editorialized at Mario Pouliot, adding unsourced content to Oshawa Generals, and violated WP:3RR. I will not not revert futher. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Ive attched the sourced link now for the 3rd time

:https://chl.ca/ohl/article/generals-promote-former-back-to-back-memorial-cup-champion-mario-pouliot-to-head-coach/ Jross2166 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:I removed the contentious statement and updated the lede. Conyo14 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mario_Pouliot&diff=1294145154&oldid=1294144454 this] violate Wikipedia policies on biographies on living people. It also removed neutral information which was cited to reliable sources. Flibirigit (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Edits such as those @Jross2166 are indeed in violation. Do you care to explain your disruptive behavior? Conyo14 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Zero sources for this accusation and its not neutral removing Jross2166 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The claim has many sources provided in the section for Rouyn-Noranda. Flibirigit (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::statement is not neutral and defamatory Jross2166 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It does not matter. Wikipedia posts everything about a person that would be considered significant for the lede. Conyo14 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::the fact that the accusations were false is considered significant either leave that or erase the statement. Without it is inaccurate Jross2166 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You have not provided a source saying the allegations were false. Conyo14 (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::if the allegations were founded he would have been charged they were false the statement was misleading Jross2166 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm going to revert your edit sir. I think you are misunderstanding the statement saying no charges were filed. That is neutral enough for the reader to put two together and if they don't understand, they can read the sources provided in prose or research further. What you are doing is removing content/adding without any source to back your statement. It goes against the WP:PILLARS of Wikipedia. Further disruption will head to WP:ANI Conyo14 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That's a very simplistic and inaccurate way to look at the legal system. It's ubiquitous for people not to be charged for accurate allegations for one reason or another. Ravenswing 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It doesn't sound like the allegations were false. The [https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey/2021-04-16/mario-pouliot-vise-par-une-plainte.php LP article] says that corrective actions were taken. Buffalkill (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The statement "Pouliot was investigated for alleged "inappropriate behavior" with colleagues, but no charges were filed against him", is quite neutral and is properly sourced in the appropriate section. Flibirigit (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::the allegations were false which is why no charges were brought. Jross2166 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hence why Flibirigit said there no refs to support your statement Conyo14 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Jross2166 [https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1785595/mario-pouliot-enquete-lhjmq-comportements-bathurst-rouyn-intimidation],[https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey/2021-04-16/mario-pouliot-vise-par-une-plainte.php],[https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1954037/rouyn-noranda-bathurst-baie-comeau-entraineur-pontiacs-bonnyville]. Conyo14 (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looking it over, I agree that this isn't really lead-worthy, but of course the incident belongs in the article. Ravenswing 22:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Would it help if the statement were expanded to make it clear that it was a workplace investigation conducted by the league (not a criminal investigation) and, if supported by sources, to state precisely what was alleged? Stating that "no charges were filed" makes it sound like a criminal investigation. And I think some people, when they read "inappropriate behavior with colleagues", may tend to think inappropriate means sexual. Or maybe my mind is in the gutter. The [https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey/2021-04-16/mario-pouliot-vise-par-une-plainte.php LP article] cites 5 ex-employees saying they witnessed "inappropriate comments and episodes of anger". Buffalkill (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::It highly suggest sexual misconduct the way its written and with the state of hockey currently it should either be completely detailed or removed from the main page into as its not significant information when its wasnt of criminal nature. Jross2166 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It not merely doesn't "highly suggest," but it doesn't "suggest" sexual misconduct at all. Are you genuinely claiming that the only conceivable inappropriate conduct is sexual molestation? Ravenswing 10:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the last paragraph under Mario Pouliot#Rouyn-Noranda Huskies almost does justice to the facts and Mr. Pouliot. However, the sentence {{!xt|"The QMJHL investigated, but no charges were filed against him"}} is illogical and potentially misleading. It incorrectly implies that (a) charges were possible (the QMJHL has no prosecutorial powers) and (b) Pouliot was exonerated, neither of which is supported by the sources. A more true statement would be something like: {{xt|"The allegations and investigative details were not made public."}} Buffalkill (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have removed the duplicate mention of the league's investigation; it was already in the first sentence. The cited source simply states "However, no charges have been laid against him". I have changed the sentence to read, "As of 2023, no criminal charges were filed against him". Your claim of "The allegations and investigative details were not made public", would not be more true based on the sources we have. Is there another available source which supports your claim?. Flibirigit (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I haven't seen any investigative findings but if they are known then shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? I've only seen the sources cited in the article. The [https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey/2021-04-16/mario-pouliot-vise-par-une-plainte.php LP article] states: "Quels faits lui sont reprochés ? La LHJMQ refuse de le préciser." Buffalkill (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I searched thoroughly and did not find any such investigative results. Have you? Flibirigit (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I only found speculation from unreliable sources. So, no details were published. Conyo14 (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, {{u|Bostonbruinsfan22}} appears to be making mass unexplained removals of awards, honors, and achievements from player articles. Was there ever a consensus achieved for such actions? Left guide (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes there is a reason. I was adding some medals in the awards section and User:Sbaio kept on removing it over and over because he said medals don't have to be in the awards, honors and achievements section because they are already on the medal tables seconds of the player articles. Bostonbruinsfan22 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::Medals are listed in "Medal record" table (usually found at "International play" section) and international statistics table. We usually add medals to the awards table when they are not added anywhere else. It is absurd to list the same thing three times in a row (usually the section order is "International play" → "Career statistics" → "Awards and honours/honors"). Therefore, we must decide for once where medals should be listed, because I remember some sort of discussion that discouraged adding medals to international statistics table (but editors keep adding them there). – sbaio 10:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

{{IP|173.237.112.17}} and {{IP|173.237.112.3}} edit history at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trois-Rivi%C3%A8res_Lions&curid=66466679&action=history Trois-Rivières Lions] quacks like a duck. Accuses me of being disruptive when copyediting for Encyclopedia tone. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Possibly {{IP|74.49.148.251}} is the same person. Flibirigit (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Still looking for a second opinion at Trois-Rivières Lions. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone, there appears to be some small issue with the infobox. On the games tab just underneath the logo, the user can hover over the first three games. There, the info will say "First quarter" for game one. This should say "game one" or not be active. Conyo14 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Conyo14}} Thanks for flagging; this appears to refer to the infobox atop annual series articles like 2025 Stanley Cup Finals. The fundamental problem is that {{t|Infobox ice hockey series}} embeds {{t|Infobox game score}} for series info. It seems likely that either a) editors are using parameters in ways they aren't intended, or b) the hockey series infobox template itself was designed improperly. Courtesy ping to {{yo|Dissident93}} who sometimes fixes complicated issues on sports infobox templates and is far more template-literate than me. Left guide (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Conyo14}} I cracked the coding well enough at {{t|Infobox ice hockey series}} to override with default 1, 2, and 3 labels and no hover. Should be all good to go now. Left guide (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::On that note, is there any way we could possibly change how the "Total" part is set up, so that the losing team doesn't have the total number of games they win in bold? The NBA Finals infoboxes (see here for example) does this correctly. The problem is that many of the Stanley Cup Finals pages have the total number of wins for both teams automatically bolded (as this is with Infobox game score), then the number of wins for the winning team is manually bolded as well, making the number of wins for the winning team double-bolded (see here). I have been trying to fix this page-by-page, but I figure it would be easier if the automatic bold was removed entirely, and the number of games won by the winning team was just bolded manually. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed something. The NHL website only listed every scratched player in the Finals since 2010. Before that, some scratched players weren't listed on the site. An example is Ken Priestlay in the 1992 Finals and Darren Rumble in the 2004 Finals. Why did the website mysteriously not list all the scratches on the roster before 2010? Kart2401real (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:NHL.com has natively been around since 1995 and gone through several updates including website owners since then. Unfortunately, some information gets 404'd. Conyo14 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

{{IP|158.247.84.158}} has made many edits recently to 1974 Summit Series. Most of the edits are beneficial, but the user insists on editorializing, using idioms, and not adhering to a neutral point of view. The user has not been receptive to suggestions, and this could be a potential edit war situation. The user is not being civil with the following edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1974_Summit_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1295455329 look buddy, if you want me to provide exact quotes from this 1974 book, i will, but you know, it steams me that you are picking on my perfectly acceptable contributions, especially since this article sat like a dog turd for decades, and i get the urge to have some fun and improve it, for which you should be damn thankful, and i i get from you is grief, no wonder nobody respects wikipedia]. Any thoughts are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've edited out the fan's pov statements. Some are fine to include since the book keeps it neutral in some areas. It's possible we are dealing with a WP:CIR issue at this point. Conyo14 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I could be wrong (because the IP geolocates to Ontario and not the Maritimes), but this IP is giving me Rubbaband Mang vibes. wizzito | say hello! 03:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::If you look at the time cards for [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/158.247.84.158 158.247.84.158] and [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/47.54.219.33 47.54.219.33] (the original IP) side-by-side, they both have roughly the same editing hours (16:00-6:00 UTC) wizzito | say hello! 03:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::158.247.84.158 has some of their most frequent edits between 16:00-23:00 UTC on Fridays, a time that is notably missing from the original IP's timestamp. wizzito | say hello! 03:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There is a thread above regarding LTA from the Habs fan at the Trois-Rivières Lions article, but nobody has responded yet. Flibirigit (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Two of those IPs geolocate to Nova Scotia, a common location of Rubbaband Mang socks. Pretty sure it's them. {{u|Izno}} and {{u|Ad Orientem}}, as previous blocking admins, do you two have any thoughts? wizzito | say hello! 04:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{rangevandal|173.237.112.0/24}} and {{rangevandal|74.49.148.0/22}} look worth blocking wizzito | say hello! 04:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Wizzito 74.49.148.0/22 blocked x 1 year (proxy). 173.237.112.0/24 not currently actionable. The fact that they are from Canada and editing pages on hockey is not enough. No recent evidence of disruption based on reverted edits. I could be wrong here. Feel free to send this to SPI if you think I'm missing something. 158.247.84.158 is stale with no edits in the last 5 days. Courtesy ping @{{u|Izno}}. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Toyota Center has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If a player doesn't play for a national team, do you still use a flag for the player's nationality? Kart2401real (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would say yes. Assadzadeh (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says no. Flibirigit (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Where, in an infobox? Only include countries that a player played for at the senior level Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Longstanding consensus is to list the country when a player appears in a game for senior team. – sbaio 17:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

A previous discussion at Talk:List_of_Stanley_Cup_champions#Captains_and_series-winning_goals does not appear to have a consensus in favour of the large-scale changes made. I have twice reverted, but more input might be needed. Flibirigit (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Three reverts now. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Six reverts by the now-blocked user. Anyone care to revert? I won't violate 3RR. Flibirigit (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Flibirigit}} I pitched in with a final revert, but feel somewhat bad about rolling back over the IP who made what appears to be some good-faith detailed corrections. Left guide (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I also reverted him twice and will continue to do so, if necessary. I left a message on his talk page as well, but his response gives me the impression that he won't stop. Is he blocked again or do we need to do so? Assadzadeh (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{yo|Assadzadeh}} They were indef-blocked about 20 minutes ago. Left guide (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Personally, I would have gone with 1 to 3 months instead, but that's just my opinion. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't know if you read his last rant or not, but it was clear that he has no intention of cooperating with other editors. As such, an indefinite ban is appropriate, which he can appeal at any time. Assadzadeh (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

After taking a look at all the NHL teams' various tables, I've noticed that the conference championship rows for each team don't mention the same thing as the number of Stanley Cup Finals appearances each team has had. So should there be a row added to the team table template specifically detailing each team's Stanley Cup Finals appearances? Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Are you referring to the infobox on the right-hand side of the article? Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please provide an example of the concern. Flibirigit (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. The infoboxes for each team have conference championship details, but those don't equate to Stanley Cup Final appearances from 1981 and before. So I'm asking if we should update the infoboxes to include Stanley Cup Finals appearances. For example, the Montreal Canadiens page only lists 8 conference championships, one of which did not end in a Stanley Cup Finals appearance, when the team has appeared in the Finals a record 35 times. The Detroit Red Wings page also only lists 6 conference championships when the team has made 24 Finals appearances. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There were no conferences until the 1974–75 season, so of course the numbers disagree for some teams. It’s not a problem—it’s just a fact of history. There wasn’t any point in conferences (or divisions, for that matter) during the so-called "Original Six" era, for example. 1995hoo (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::One other thought that occurred to me later: This issue is not unique to the NHL. Consider Major League Baseball. From 1901 up through and including 1968, there were two leagues and neither had divisions. The teams played the season and whoever finished first in each league "won the pennant" and advanced directly to the World Series. It was only in 1969, when each league expanded to 12 teams, that divisions (and the league championship series between division winners) were introduced. So, for example, the Yankees have won the AL pennant 41 times (the first in 1921, the most recent in 2024), but they have 21 AL East championships (the first in 1976, the most recent in 2024). Their most dominant years were during what the soccer jargonists would call the "single-table" era when there were no divisions. It's not a problem with the infobox. 1995hoo (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think this answers their questions about whether the SCF appearance should be entered. Keep in mind that ice hockey infoboxes are always a touchy subject when adding or removing information. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Conyo14 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Essentially, then, the proposition is to show Cups won (which the box already does) and Cup Finals lost (runner-up, as it were), correct? I don't have an opinion on whether that sort of thing is necessary or desirable, but I think if something of the sort were to be done, it would probably be clearer to have a line for Cups won and another line for Cup Finals lost, rather than having one line for Cups won and another line for all Cup Finals appearances regardless of outcome. I think that would convey the information more clearly while also reducing repetition. (That is, it is inherent in winning the Cup that a team must have appeared in that year's Cup Finals, right? So listing that Finals twice—once as a Cup won and again as a Finals appearance—is redundant and doesn't really help the reader who wants to know the years in which the team made it that far but failed to win. "Failed to win" and "regardless of outcome," BTW, are me being hypertechnical in reference to 1919.) 1995hoo (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Updating each team's infobox to include Stanley Cup Finals appearances is not necessary and would further clutters up the relevant info. There is already a section in List of Stanley Cup champions with this information. Assadzadeh (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|7}} Infobox is good as it is now and more clutter is not needed. – sbaio 18:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Neftekhimik Ice Palace has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for about 6 weeks. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. Run of the mill, small stadium.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)