Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts: WT:HOCKEY WT:NHL

WikiProject Ice Hockey	(Rated NA-Class)	Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:Ice hockeyIce Hockey articles
Ice hockey portal v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey:
Create templates that can be inserted that will identify missing information. Create a uniform ice hockey league article format. Create a uniform ice hockey team season article format.

Archives
Archive index 2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 2007: 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 2008: 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 2008: 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 2009: 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 2009: 32 • 33 • 34 • 35

Contents 1 Game or match? 2 Talk:1997 NHL Entry Draft 3 Ice hockey in the summer?! 4 List of NHL statistical leaders 5 issue, team 6 Deletion of Miracle on Ice images 7 team template 8 Revisiting Mickey Renaud 9 Panonian League 10 Cleanup Listing? 11 Sticking around Anaheim 12 Olympics question 13 Nicknames 14 List of NHL one-gamers 15 Altering year name 16 Montréal Canadiens 17 List of AHL seasons

[edit] Game or match?

A question from someone who doesn't have English as his first language: do you say "hockey match" or "hockey game"? I've seen that NHL playoff articles use expressions like "Game 1". In some contexts, one of them feels a little awkward compared to the other, e.g. "match result" vs. "game result" (more awkward). Or am I just imaging that?

Are the words "match" and "game" totally interchangeable, or is any of them preferred? Or is this an American English-British English issue?

LarRan (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They are interchangeable, however, game is what is mostly used in North America anyways. And you tend to only hear the word match atleast in my opinion when writers, announcers are trying to use different words than the normal so they aren't constantly repeating the same word. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure that it is another translation that got garbled by the Atlantic Ocean. In North America, we always refer to it as "the game". In Europe, it seems to often be referred to as "the match". Resolute 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'game of hockey', as opposed to the 'match of hockey'. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Though the game of hockey is a general term which in this case describes the sport itself. So yes LarRan, when talking about a single event both game and match are interchangeable. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As we're getting near the Winter Olympics, I've created a bunch of convenience templates, with the purpose of saving both data storage and typing. You can check them here: Category:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey templates.

So, is it your opinion that those templates/categories that concern matches/games should be renamed? And as soon as anyone gets news on the rosters, please feel free to fill out those templates.

(I'm not ready with all just yet. I also intend to rename the group standings templates.)

LarRan (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well KRM can best say what is used in Europe, the Canadian in me says yeah, game is better. But I don't know how often match is used in the other countries of the world. Being that this is an international tournament we need to go with the most common to all the countries involved. I always think soccer when I hear match or tennis. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As a question, are the roster templates even useful? They would only be used in one article. Resolute 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are in fact articles that focus on the men's and women's rosters. I admit that I created them myself, but there were already redlinks to them from the main article on the tournament(s), so I guess it was just a matter of time before someone created them. (Previous tournaments also have this kind of articles.) These two articles - as I created them - include the 12 men's and 8 women's roster templates, respectively (which means that they can be kept rather small in size). Each of the templates will be used in two places: in the rosters overall article(s), and the article of the nation's participation in the games. This way these two will never diverge. So if we can find editors from each participating nation (shouldn't be that hard), we'll get nice and reliably sourced info on the rosters, as they are announced. LarRan (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

For the time being I'll keep them where they are ("match"). If there's a consensus for "game", then we rename them. LarRan (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

After contemplating the matter for some time, I think I'll go with the "game" designation. LarRan (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:1997 NHL Entry Draft

I just stumbled upon this discussion and thought it might want a wider audience as it could affect numerous articles. I have not formed an opinon yet as I havent really read much of the discussion. But thought with the number of scandinavian editors we have here as well as north american. It couldn't hurt to have more eyes on the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- ISLANDERS27 06:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ice hockey in the summer?!

Why did they hold a winter sport at the Summer Olympics in 1920? -- ISLANDERS27 05:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a demonstration sport, as the Winter Olympics weren't held until 1924. As the article Ice hockey at the 1920 Summer Olympics says, the games were held in late April, so not exactly summer. And with the games played in an indoor arena, it was no problem. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. -- ISLANDERS27 05:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also important to note that at the time, they were known simply as the "1920 Olympic Games", not the "1920 Summer Olympics". The tournament was also held in April (the entire Olympics was spread over four months) which is actually earlier than the World Championships and Stanley Cup finals these days. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. -- ISLANDERS27 06:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Several Summer Games were supposed to have International Winter Sports Weeks, the 1920 actually did, and so did the 1924 one. The 1924 week was retroactively renamed as the first Winter Olympics. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As a point of interest Bettman recently said he asked the head Olympic guy if they would consider moving ice hockey back to the summer games so all players could participate, but he told him no because the winter games were dependant on ice hockey ticket sales. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of NHL statistical leaders

We've a problem there, with an IP account. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A number of us watch this page, so don't worry. -DJSasso (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have reverted the IP up the bat if I knew. -- ISLANDERS27 07:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] issue, team

The kazakhstan team HC Kazzinc-Torpedo page might be better to be moved to not have the HC there. I can't do it though. Some help please? I try but it does not work. (LAz17 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)).

Thanks for the help. :) (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)).

*sighs*... it's about notability, issue-solving and proper naming. -- ISLANDERS27 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Miracle on Ice images

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 9, a triplet of images for the Miracle on Ice have been nominated for deletion. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that possible for an IP to nominate images? -- ISLANDERS27 07:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But the IP didn't nominate them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why are you asking? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I like to look over other's shoulders. -- ISLANDERS27 06:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you question the ability of IP editors to suggest deletion? If it occurs on the FFD page, then it is possible, that page is frequently patrolled by admins afterall. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Off hand, the only image of the three that has a real NFCC claim is the goal celebration, only on the Miracle on Ice article (not the US National team article) and only if the moment the image depicts is described in the article and the image helps convey a message that the text alone can't. The other two I would consider lower value, defeating the minimal use requirements for non-free content. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- ISLANDERS27 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] team template

I brought this issue up in the past. Basically there is a KHL team template. I was given the go ahead to fix up a bunch of teams by adding the KHL team template. Now recently I ran into this - Kärpät - the template there is just plain hockey template. So, what should I continue with the KHL team template, or should I go to this new thing as seen on Kärpät? (LAz17 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

I like how the regular hockey team template has a line to separate the logo and the website from the middle content. Also, the hockey name is in the box itself, not over it. Aesthetically that looks well. However, the KHL template has a lot more information, so there are ups and downs to both of them. Personally I think that league should not be placed as high up as is seen on the hockey team template. (LAz17 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

IMO we should only have one template for all hockey teams world wide, doesn't matter if they play in the NHL, KHL, SEL, NLA, or 3rd division in England. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The NHL ones have simply far far more information on them, so I think it would be appropriate to keep them separate. The others though, I think there should be some stuff done to keep them together maybe? (LAz17 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

From earlier, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive34#team_page_question (LAz17 (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

This looks interesting. I'll look at it soon. -- ISLANDERS27 06:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The KHL is a variation of the football (eu) ones. The NHL template is mostly like the mlb/nfl ones. No problem with having congruent infoboxes with the other sports projects. I think the KHL one is better, obviously.--Львівське (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

the KHL one also matches the IIHF/intl team ones, as well as hockey league infoboxes.--Львівське (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand you now. -- ISLANDERS27 07:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with ones seperate by league, that way they can be customized to the specific league. I hate templates that have 100's of parameters in every possible configuration because its trying to be everything for everyone. Wikipedia is not paper so there really isn't a huge need to only have one. As long as we keep a basic layout for all of them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So in the future should I used for example this template, Kärpät, or this one, HK Partizan? Let me know soon, I want to do some more stuff with teams, but have stopped such edits 'cause of this uncertainty. (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

Can someone answer my question so that I can resume fixing up and making new hockey team pages for the not-so-elite leagues? (LAz17 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).

Hello? (LAz17 (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).

Based only on what is visible in those two articles, I'd probably go with the one on HK Partizan. It has more info while still keeping it all relevant. Resolute 05:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem, personally, with using different templates for different leagues, however I believe it would be good to have some uniformity. A quick scout around shows that {{Infobox NHL team}} has a very different look from {{UKIceHockey team}}, which in turn is very different from {{Hockey team}}. Still other articles, such as Newcastle Vipers, use a custom infobox in the article to mimic the NFL team style.

Maybe it would be best to have the specific templates for various leagues, but base them around a common core template which would help ensure consistent styling across all Ice Hockey Team articles. My personal preference would be to use the {{Hockey team}} style, as it is most consistent with the generic look of infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. I'm not a great fan of {{Infobox NHL team}}, as I find the table borders and zebra stripes somewhat intrusive, and {{UKIceHockey team}} is styled as though it were a navbox. Thoughts? AJCham 11:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the opposite, I wish more of them could be modled after the NHL infobox which looks better and is easier to read. (probably because of what you call zebra striping). -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle has since been moved to {{Hockey team}}. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting Mickey Renaud

Starting some table reformatting and cleanup on the Flames season articles, I came back across Mickey Renaud, who's article we deleted about two years ago. I hadn't realized until now that the OHL had created a trophy in his name. I given to believe that if the OHL chose to name a major award for him two years after his passing that lasting notability has been established. Would there be any objections if I undeleted the article and restored it with updates? Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that he would be notable enough. As one of our criteria has been that a junior player had to win an award, I think Renaud having an award is similar, if not more notable, than them. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination), there's no mention of the trophy, so that's a development since the last AfD. My thought is to expand his biography section in the Mickey Renaud Captain's Trophy article; once enough sourced background is there, we can split his bio off. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as a junior player goes, his biography was rather well developed already when deleted. I can restore it to my sandbox if you wish to see what was already written. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 17:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a great bio. With additional text about the retirement of his number and the establishment of the trophy, I support a separate article. Then the trophy article can focus on winners of the trophy (with a section on the establishment of the trophy from the OHL standpoint and not Renaud's bio). —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely seem to recall having this conversation before, and that the trophy can be notable without the actual person being notable. I think we should just redirect to the trophy article. As I believe that was the outcome of the conversation I seem to recall. I am going to see if I can find it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The conversation I am thinking of is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive28#MIckey_Renaud. The conversation mentions a number of cases where a trophy being named after someone does not automatically mean someone gets a individual bio article. An example in the WHL is the Four Broncos Trophy, all of whom its named after do not have articles. Which I would suggest is the most appropriate example being a somewhat similar situation of a junior player dying. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, how did I miss that conversation back in the day? Though it goes without saying that I prefer separating the two. Either way, the infobox should be removed from the trophy article, as that is not a biographical page. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 18:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a trophy being named after four individuals—the group could be notable, even if the individuals are not. I prefer the separate article option also. However, if we do not split the article, I would favor keeping the infobox lower in the article, where Renaud's biography is covered. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I should be clear. I have no problem seperating them if that is what people feel is best. Just wanted to point out the other conversation. Personally I have a hard time believing a junior player who was not all that elite of a player meets the notability requirements. However, if we can find reliable sources on stuff other than his death that talk about him specifically and not the trophy then I am 100% behind splitting. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see an article on him, IMO having his number retired and a trophy named after him makes him notable, even though those things happen because of his death. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against a separate article, but I do have some reservations about it. I don't think a special case should be made just because an article was well developed. The articles should be separate because the both subjects are notable. Since the last discussion, two potentially notable events have occurred; a trophy was named in his honor and his jersey number was retired. Do either/both of these events make someone notable? For example, Red Tilson doesn't have an article (his article just re-directs to the the award named for him). Is Red Tilson now a notable subject? In addition, Scott Miller has his number retired by the Spitfires but doesn't have an article. Is he also now notable? It would seem to me that either/both of them would also be notable if Mickey Renaud is notable since their claims to notability aren't all that much different. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mickey surely has to have more notability now than he's ever done. -- ISLANDERS27 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Does Mickey pass either WP:ATHLETE or the GNG? If so, he merits an article. If not, he doesn't. That a trophy was named after him is part of the criteria for neither guideline. Notability isn't inherited or transferrable.  RGTraynor  10:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Panonian League

Should the Panonian League have different articles for different seasons? I can do it. (LAz17 (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).

If you can provide some sources and have it more than just a collection of statistics, then go all for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- ISLANDERS27 07:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Listing?

Is anyone in this project interested in a WolterBot cleanup listing? Although I don't do much work with this project, I find that cleanup listings are useful tools in my editing. I have no idea how to set this up, but I just wanted to bring up the topic. Kithira (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It may well prove useful, actually. I'm not sure how many projects under our scope are currently tagged as needing help. Resolute 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently found out how to subscribe to the cleanup listing, and I have done so. If anyone has objections, please post them here. Kithira (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sticking around Anaheim

Wowsers, the guy who took Niedermayer's stick (meant for the little girl), got a triple workover, a 'Bruce Lee/Charles Bronson/Chuck Norris' combination. Should we add this to the Anaheim Ducks article? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Would be a case of recentism I think and isn't directly about the franchise itself. It would belong on Wikinews though. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If we put in the articles all the incidents where fans and players have had tussles of one sort or another, the Rangers' and Bruins' articles would be twenty screens long apiece.  RGTraynor  17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The shoe incident, giggle giggle. Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Olympics question

If I might be forum-y for a minute, who are the projected goaltenders for the Olympic teams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.34.60 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Miller's the guy for America, I'd imagine Brodeur's in it as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

An anon editor (who claims he made 10 % of NHL pages here :-)) is adding various nicknames to the names of icehockey players at the very beginning of their articles. I tried to convince him at his talk page, but he continues. I do not want to edit war with him and so first I am asking others what they think about his contributions. Thanks for your opinions. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of NHL one-gamers

Forgive me if this has been discussed recently but I was away from ice hockey contribution for a couple of months until recently. But I would like to know what the current stand is with the List of players who played only one game in the NHL. In the discussion page it mentions why the page was created in order to prevent stubs from being made as he hated them. But eventually it was leaning towards creating an article for everyone, though only eight have been made from the list of redirects and the last noted comment on the talk page was in April 2009. So what is the current stand with this page, do we indeed create an article for them all or do we leave them as redirects. If this has been previously discussed recently I apologise for bringing it up again. Raphie (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We now create the players when we can since its long since been decided even minor leaguers get pages. When that page was created the creator believed that minor leaguers were not good enough for pages. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that mate. I'll work away on them when I can. Raphie (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone guess which player on that list who has won an Olympic Gold medal? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ronnie in 2006. David Moravec in 1998. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I checked all players on this list with careers that were dated in the 2000s to see if anyone had played their second NHL game. My research resulted in 6 players being removed as they had 2 or more games played now. -Pparazorback (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Altering year name

Is there any way we can change the names of some of the year-based entries (ex. 2007 NHL playoffs) so that other ways of writing it will redirect one to that page (ex. 2006-07 NHL playoffs, 06-07 NHL playoffs, 2006-2007 NHL playoffs these are the most common but there are others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.144.120 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The NHL playoffs occur after the regular season (thus post-season) & entirely within the calender year (Jan-Dec). As result 2007 NHL playoffs is used, not 2006-07 NHL playoffs etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

136.152.144.120, you can create redirects. For example, you can edit 2006-07 NHL playoffs and type:

#REDIRECT [[2007 Stanley Cup playoffs]]

Then if anyone types "2006-07 NHL playoffs", it will take them to the article "2007 Stanley Cup playoffs". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As a note, however, if you wish to do this, you will have to register an account. Only autoconfirmed users can create articles, which a redirect technically is. Resolute 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolute, I may just do that. However, I'd like others to keep this in mind when making any future articles. I don't think it is too much trouble, and it would make navigation much easier. 136.152.155.94 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly keep it in mind. Redirects are cheap. Resolute 15:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal Canadiens

Hesitating to post this since I'm afraid GoodDay might get a heart attack when reading it — NHL.com has finally started spelling Montréal Canadiens correctly. Time to move the article to it's correct location on Wikipedia, who will do the honours? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The city has an English name. The club itself makes use of it, and makes no attempt to claim that the team name includes a French version of the city name. Common usage in English reliable sources is to use the English spelling. English broadcast media pronounce the city's name as in English. The club embraces its bilingualism; why should an encyclopedia do otherwise? Isaac Lin (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh really, because the first thing I see when I go to canadiens.nhl.com is "The Official Web Site - Montréal Canadiens". —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I first see the splash screen, which has no words other than "Français" and "English", and then when selecting English, a search on "Montr" shows every instance of the city name on the page itself is in English. The team's press releases use the English city name. The team has historically courted both English and French communities and assumed a neutral point of view, which is in accordance with Wikipedia policies too. Why should common usage by reliable sources including the team be ignored? Isaac Lin (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because the NHL spells it a certain way does not mean we do. Should we replace every usage of "defence" with "defense" on Canadian articles too? Montreal is the English spelling, and this is the English Wikipedia. Resolute 05:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, wasn't that your side's argument to change everything since "NHL says so!", Örnsköldsvik to Ornskold for example. Anyhow, it's Montréal on NHL.com, soon we'll finally see the å, ä, and ö's on jerseys I predict. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about others, but personally I've always weighed in on the use of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR. Montreal (and names without diacritics) is used far, far more often in English. And I doubt you will see diacritics on jerseys anytime soon. Especially when European teams don't even put them on their own jersies - at least not for international teams. Resolute 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Isaac; The city and the team are separate entities, just because one has a simplified name (ie: Montreal) doesn't mean that the other, or we here at Wikipedia, has to follow that standard. See Gothenburg and IFK Göteborg for example. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Montreal is not a simplified name; it is the name in English, just as "Londres" is not a simplified version of "London" and "Moscou" is not a simplified version of "Moskva". The English name of the club is "Canadiens". The team has always followed common English usage by using the city's name in English as a modifying adjective for the club's name. With regards to player names, I believe you have put forward the argument that reliable sources ought to be ignored in favour of the name used by the player himself. In this case, with team usage matching reliable sources, why would Wikipedia choose to not match common usage? Isaac Lin (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The NHL also spells all NHL players names without you know whats. Let's leave the Montreal Canadiens article title as is. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"canadiens.com is the official Web site of the Montreal Canadiens. Montreal Canadiens and canadiens.com are trademarks of the Montreal Canadiens. "and the rest of the canadiens site does not use itwhat a webmaster uses on nhl.com isnt exactly the be all end all, but it is a factor..--Львівське (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My take is that whatever the team wants to use officially, trumps all other common names. Sokil Kyiv uses the correct spelling of the city name, not Kiev, but wikipedia recognizes the latter as more common. The team writes both in ukrainian and english, the city as "Kyiv". Should this mean wikipedia convert the team name to "Sokil Kiev"? No, that would be ridiculous. "Montreal Canadiens" is a formal name, you cant divide it in half and say half is correct half isnt, it's a total package. --Львівське (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, just like the Gothenburg/IFK Göteborg example I provided. The title of Montréal Canadiens website is spelled with the é, however I also see that they only use an e on most other parts of the website. Nonetheless I think it was worth mentioning that the NHL has started to identify the team as the Montréal Canadiens, a surprising turn of events. Isaac: Montreal is most certainly a simplification, not a translation, of Montréal. Cheers! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of Montreal describes the earliest references to the city with and without accent (in some cases, without accent while in French text), so it seems the two variants arose in parallel. Nonetheless, as an international city, Montreal has both French and English names, just as other international cities do. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would ya believe, I was considering getting the Infobox title fixed there & at Quebec Nordiques? GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, using nhl.com's site search, I found zero hits for "Montréal". Every usage on the site is the English "Montreal". the header of the Canadiens' official website (canadiens.nhl.com) uses the accent, but that is very likely only a lazy translation from the French page to the English. An issue that is very common with QMJHL team pages, where no effort of achieving credible usage of English is even attempted. Resolute 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the standings, do a mouseover on the Montréal logo at the top, etc. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens is preferred usage. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with the article staying put (no accents). GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of AHL seasons

I'm looking to improve this list, but this is kind of unchartered territory here. Suggestions about a format I've started at User:Grsz11/List of AHL seasons would be appreciated and that talk page. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)