Wikipedia talk:HOCKEY

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

I think we should maintain a list of long-term abuse (LTA) or sockpuppet investigations (SPI) that regularly affect this project. I often forget the links to these pages, and it would help fight vandals. There are four I am aware of. Are there any more? Flibirigit (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

From time to time, WP:LTA/PTC and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProTaylorCraft. Thankfully, they’re a hoaxster so pretty easy to catch. The Kip (contribs) 13:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a preferred place within Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Navigation where we could have such a list? Flibirigit (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer making any such list as low-profile as possible, in the interest of denying recognition. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that such a list is against WP:DENY when the LTA and SPI cases already exist. Is there a specific suggestion to maintain a lower profile list? Flibirigit (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I don't think having a list is against denying recognition. As I mentioned, I just think it should be kept low-profile. Thus I would prefer not having it in the navigation sidebar. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it could be pinned to this chat page. Are there other thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
One possibility I was thinking of is the cleanup department page. A link on this talk page, or the project page itself, would be more easily discoverable by new editors, which has its pros and cons. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I've added a pin to this section in the meantime. Further suggestions welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
@Isaacl IMO, DENY works great for garden-variety trolls and vandals, but LTAs and frequent sockpuppeteers like those listed above ultimately become pervasive enough such that they can't simply be ignored/reverted. The Kip (contribs) 05:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about ignoring such editors. Denying recognition is about minimizing the amount of cognitive effort spent on problem editors; it doesn't mean no time should be spent. isaacl (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with this edit, as I think it's relevant to discuss the location of a list within a discussion of whether or not there should be a list. I'm not sure what single-purpose account concern is being raised in the edit summary. If someone wants to boldly go ahead with making a list on this talk page, then I think it's better to make a separate list, rather than pinning this discussion. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I get SPI and SPA mixed up. I meant SPI. As I said in the edit summary feel free to uncollapse/revert, I was just trying to make the discussion take up a bit less space as it's been inactive for five months. Agree that there's probably a better way to keep this information handy than pinned as this discussion. Wracking talk! 01:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I have reversed the collapsed text. Also, nobody had proposed a better idea than having it pinned here, hence why it is still pinned. Flibirigit (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Better is in the eye of the beholder; personally I prefer putting it on the cleanup page. isaacl (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever but prefer it not taking up more space than necessary if it's here. If it's moved to cleanup (also fine), we may also want to make an effort at reorganizing Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Navigation to be a bit more reflective of active wikiproject work (... it took me a minute to find Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Clean up). Wracking talk! 03:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Just want to flag for everyone that Gymrat16 is becoming active again. Three of his anonymous sockpuppets were blocked earlier today. I suspect the anonymous editor who made this edit to the Washington Capitals article earlier today is also Gymrat (consider the edit summary: "It is important to note here that with the Capitals being trade sellers of the veteran core from 2023 to the present; the team seems to be in transitioning to a younger core in recent years. Combined with obtaining a plethora of draft picks, this can support the idea the Capitals are undergoing a rebuilding phase in some ways."), but since it's the only edit from that particular temporary address so far, it's not worth reporting because there isn't enough evidence (yet). 1995hoo (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

We've got a new one in User:At0068308 IP hopping and vandalizing several US Olympic hockey team articles. He gets reverted every day now. Llammakey (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
This editor is now claiming I am making death threats in edit summaries. Could I get an admin to look at this behaviour please. Llammakey (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Player info (teams played with years, awards with years, and draft details)

Hi there. I was wondering if there was a plan to set up hockey wikipedia similar to all other sports. I love hockey but I don’t have a lot of knowledge about it and want to get into it more. I use wiki as a quick way to learn more about players in all sports but it is increasingly difficult to find out specific accolades (Stanley cup finals, Olympic medals, player awards) with hockey players specifically. With other sports I learn quickly and can really adapt to the game better. I am hoping there is a plan to change the format to make it more user friendly. Having it similar to soccer or baseball would be amazing. I would have much more usage myself and would imagine more usage generally in hockey player Wikipedia pages if had the same format as other sports ~2026-32158-11 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to the infobox on the right-hand side of the screen? Fortunately there is a table of contents that can take you to the section with their accolades. It has been a long-standing consensus to not overcrowd the infobox. I am neutral on that subject though. Conyo14 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Éric Dazė to Eric Daze

Perhaps Éric Dazé should be moved to Eric Daze? I believe his name was more common without diacritics. They're not used throughout the content of his bio article. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note - an editor has since added diacritics to the aformentioend bio article. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to move it, yeah. From a search, there are more sources without diacritics, plus the NHL doesn't use them for his. Only Elite Prospects and Hockey Reference so far. Conyo14 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Still beating this dead horse I see. Go to talk page and make a requested move first. Llammakey (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks Conyo14. I'll consider opening up an RM in the near future. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

RM overturned?

Where's the discussion that overturned the 2024 Jan RM that called for the 2024 PWHL season be moved to 2023–24 PWHL season? GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The PWHL uses "2024 Regular Season" on its player pages (see their page for Marie-Philip Poulin, for example), so it seems reasonable to use the same label for the Wikipedia article. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests § Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages. Graham87 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to echo here that I am more than happy to do this bot run once consensus is established. phuzion (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
BRFA filed phuzion (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
This bot run is currently underway. phuzion (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

More Information on the Infobox

Hello, Over the past few of years I have gotten a lot more into hockey, and the USA's gold medal run has had me absolutely hooked on the sport for the past few months. I have noticed that compared to a lot of other American sports, the NHL player infobox does not list the years they were on the team, Stanley Cup championships, or individual awards such as the Conn Smythe, Norris, or Hart trophy winners. I would just like to know why these important accolades are left off, and should we seriously reconsider changing it? If the biggest problem is it would make the infobox too crowded, I don't think that's a good enough reason to leave all of that helpful information that casual fans would like to see. I would love to have an open conversation about this, and thank you for including me in your project! NJ Jurrjens (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is a table of contents that can take you to the section with their accolades. It has been a long-standing consensus to not overcrowd the infobox, though I am neutral on that subject. Conyo14 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
You keep saying you are neutral on the subject but you keep giving the same condescending advice to use the table of contents as if OP doesn’t know what that is.
It’s been over 20+ years of this stupid policy and it’s clearly impacted the sport’s reach with bringing in fans. Bring the infobox into 2026 already, or keep gatekeeping a dying sport that doesn’t need to be dying. ~2026-34857-90 (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Easy there, I am neither opposed nor for the infobox expansion. Just offering an alternative. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
To the IP - Wikipedia is not here to grow the game of hockey. It is here to be an encyclopedia. This is written for the general audience, not superfans. Please read WP:NOT. There are user-contributed websites, such as the ice hockey wiki, where you are free to "grow the game of hockey" at. Llammakey (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Here's some advice that's patronizing (as opposed to Conyo14's quite neutral response): readers who want to know more about championships, award wins and the like can read the articles. This is an encyclopedia, and if what you want is nothing beyond the statistical Cliff Notes, NHL.com's or hockeydb.com already got that covered. (And that being said, "it’s clearly impacted the sport’s reach with bringing in fans"??? "It" has "clearly" done nothing of the damn sort, and imagining that how we structure infoboxes has a measurable impact on the popularity of the sport of ice hockey is ... something for which I lack the words while still clinging to civility policies.) Ravenswing 15:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears IP editor went to Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography and made personal attacks there. In addition, a completely new user, who is probably the same IP, also did the same. – sbaio 03:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there some reason the members of this WikiProject don't follow the talk page of the project's most used infobox template? While I don't approve of the IP editor's personal attacks, I can share some of their frustration since I have in the past proposed changes to that and other infobox templates with little engagement. --NHL04 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Personal attacks are best ignored. Flibirigit (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

A note that this discussion has now been canvassed off-site by r/hockey here. The Kip (contribs) 07:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, I would like to respond to my original post. I understand Conyo14's perspective of not wanted to overcrowd the infobox, but I would counter by saying the infobox as it's currently constructed is not crowded at all. If anything, there is not enough information. I also disagree with Llammakey's point about how Wikipedia is not here to grow the game off hockey. Yes, it is true on the surface level that the website is an encyclopedia. However aren't encyclopedia's supposed to be an educational tool? Why can't these infoboxes be an educational tool that also grows the game? And to respond to Ravenswing, I hear you. We want the Wikipedia readers to read the articles, especially because we put in a lot of work as editors to make sure these articles are accurate and readable. But let's be honest, is the casual hockey fan taking the time to read a whole Sydney Crosby or Auston Matthews article? Probably not. Those casual fans are probably curious to read how many Stanley Cup's they've won, how many All-Star teams they've made, etc. All of that information is easily accessible and readable in the NFL, NBA, and MLB player articles and that's what the casual fan is looking for. With all that being said, the response that I am getting as to why the infobox won't change is because "that's just the way it is". That simply isn't a good enough response in my opinion, and the fact there is an entire Reddit thread that is talking about how changes need to be made to the infoboxes shows that there is an audience outside of the Wikipedia editors who want to see change. This offseason feels like a perfect time to overhaul the infoboxes and bring them to the standard that the other 3 North American sports leagues have. I would be more than willing to help modernize the infoboxes for NHL players, and I'm sure there are others. So can we make this overdue change happen, or continue the conversation that only leads to "this is the way it is"? Let's continue this conversation. NJ Jurrjens (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not opposed nor supportive of expanding the infobox. I offered an alternative to seeing the accolades. Conyo14 (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
To what end? You've so far failed to gain any consensus for your point of view, nor have you come up with any persuasive argument how the changes you advocate will "grow the game," or any evidence beyond your own wishes as to what the "casual fan" actually wants or needs. (I utterly discount Reddit threads; I can find Reddit threads that believe in flat earths, Pizzagate and that George Soros is financing Jewish orbital mind control lasers to influence political leaders.) As far as the "3 North American sports leagues" go -- there are in fact many dozens of sports leagues in North America, and many hundreds of sports leagues around the world -- there are all manner of standards regarding notability and common practices where the various Wikiprojects differ.

But perhaps you'll write these off as excuses, so here's another reason. Infobox creep has been growing like black mold for two decades on Wikipedia, and everyone who wants "overdue changes" has their own hobby horses as to what information the "casual" reader surely finds vital. You want All-Star Teams and Cup wins and trophies? Are you planning on including Calder Cup wins, AHL All-Star Teams and Butterfield Trophy winners? Gagarin Cup wins? Kultainen kypärä wins? Hockey East Rookie of the Month? (No, I'm not being absurd there; an editor claimed that that was a notable award for the purpose of satisfying guidelines.) Ravenswing 23:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No idea why you pinged me. You obviously did not read the link I gave you. This is not a good faith discussion. Llammakey (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on sourcing standards in articles under this project

Hey y'all.

The Stanley Cup is currently at WP:ITNC. In the discussion, BattleshipMan (talk · contribs) made a complaint that editors on ITN were attempting to hold sourcing standards of the article higher than what was necessary. He was rebuked, but this reminded me of a similar issue that unfolded three years ago, when the SC was nominated, initially posted, then pulled over sourcing issues. The ensuing controversy even prompted me to make a discussion post about it.

Given this, I would like to know the sourcing requirements of such articles per WP:ICEHOCKEY. Are there unique standards of sourcing acceptability on here that is not being understood. Although I hold that for a Main Page posting, sourcing quality is important, it doesn't sit proper with me if we at ITN are somewhat enforcing differing standards and overriding WP:LOCALCONSENSUSES in specialized areas. — Knightoftheswords 00:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If you ask me, ITN policy when it comes to sourcing is too strict and we need to ensure every championship wins get posted on the news feed as soon as possible, even with the enough sourcing that it has on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
ITN wants sourcing on tables of each game, even though external links to recaps should've been enough. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
All the stats were copied from some source such as the NHL site, and the article should provide corresponding citations. Whether or not the In the News project should relax its standards for certain types of information at the time of posting (with the understanding that all the information is readily sourceable and thus citations can be added) is outside of the scope of the ice hockey project. isaacl (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, we need to work on the sourcing of it real soon. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
If it's always an issue, why doesn't the nominator fix the issues then? Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Tidying up NHL Transaction pages

Sweeping changes were made without discussion to many historical NHL transaction pages. This largely include changes to formatting such as abbreviating "round" to "rd" when listing traded draft picks, and including extraneous information on draft picks, such as what happened to the draft pick after the trade (what number it ended up being, who was selected, was it traded again, etc.), information that is accessible already on the draft pages, and, frankly, is trivia otherwise unrelated to the trade at the time it was made. For example, from 2011–12 NHL transactions:

February 27, 2012 To Phoenix Coyotes
Antoine Vermette		 To Columbus Blue Jackets
Curtis McElhinney
OTT's 2nd-round draft pick in 2012
conditional 5th-round draft pick in 2013

turning into

February 27, 2012 To Phoenix Coyotes
Antoine Vermette		 To Columbus Blue Jackets
Curtis McElhinney
2nd-rd pick in 2012 Entry Draft
(PHI - #45 - Anthony Stolarz)8
conditional pick - 2013 Entry Draft9
(LAK - #103 - Justin Auger)10

plus additional notes about prior trades and how teams acquired picks (included on entry draft pages), incorrect team abbreviations, diacritics, random spaces, etc.

Phoenix did not trade Vermette for Stolarz and Auger. That info really is not relevant to the trade, and they are not part of the transaction that the page was designed to document. Do we want these additional notes? Or can I scrap them? –uncleben85 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean if the picks were conditional, keep, but otherwise meh. Conyo14 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Restore original format. The editor who made these changes was warned about it more than once (transactions and draft pages). It looked like the editor dropped the stick, but it appears that it is the other way around. – sbaio 03:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
+1. The Kip (contribs) 07:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Petition to move NHL season reset to July 1

It's been a couple of years since we've had this conversation. Last time it ended with more people saying they were fine with it, but it still got railroaded, so I gave up, but it's been a while, haha. I'm coming from it with a biased lens working largely on the NHL Transaction pages, I admit, but for my argument: Contracts roll over July 1, marking new salary cap limits and cap hits; new import contracts can be signed, extensions can be offered, etc.; it's a clean consistent break that falls on the same spot every year (as opposed to the draft that we currently, arbitrarily use); it would tidy up season articles that cover two separate Junes. Plus, the NHL reframes their transactions reporting based on July 1 (see: https://www.nhl.com/news/2025-26-nhl-trades) Should our 2026-27 pages start July 1? –uncleben85 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

In favor of July 1. Draft is way more arbitrary imo. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
I have a question here. When do most team season pages become active on Wiki? Conyo14 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Plus, the NHL reframes their transactions reporting based on July 1 – then why NHL has July 1 transactions for both 2024 and 2025 at 2024-25 NHL Trade Tracker? – sbaio 03:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Maybe there's a certain time of day that contracts roll over? That's my hunch. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah the roll over is noon Eastern, technically, I believe. Definitely not draft day though! :P –uncleben85 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Per the 2025–26 NHL season page, the season ended on June 14, 2026. The transactions page should match that. --NHL04 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
The issue, as well as the point raised by user NHL04 immediately above, raises an interesting question with regard to things like the Caps–Sabres sign-and-trade yesterday involving Alex Tuch. The new CBA, which is effective this coming September 15, restricts contracts to a maximum of seven years, rather than eight as the current CBA does. The NHL refers to the new agreement as taking effect in the 2026–27 NHL season. So if you use that definition, then the proper way to link the Tuch trade—and this is how I did it on the Caps' roster template—is to link the 2025–26 season and pipe the link to 2026. If, in fact, you can't sign a player to an eight-year contract as of the 2026–27 season, then the transaction could not be made during that season. I know the NFL distinguishes between the "season" and the "league year" partly because of issues like this. I don't know whether the NHL does the same, but it might be a useful distinction to observe if so. Anyone know? 1995hoo (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
The Tuch trade counts as a 2025-26 trade (even though the Cup has been awarded), and precisely because of the point you made (an 8 year deal would not be possible in the 2026-27 season) is why that distinction matters. Now, imagine that trade was made on Sunday, June 28, 2026. That would be well enough after the commencement of the 2026 Draft and would be placed on 2026-27 page, as per our current system, even though, once again, that is a deal that would not be possible under the new CBA, which begins in the 2026-27 season. July 1 first is a logical, consistent roll over date, that has actual bearing and significance to league business and collective agreements, and should therefore be used as a guideline for our articles (not the Entry Draft, which is arbitrary except for the fact that it symbolizes "new beginnings"!) –uncleben85 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
That's not actually correct about the Tuch trade. The wording of the new CBA keeps the eight year window open until mid-September. Ravenswing 03:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Ah, fair, I guess the same could have happened July or August. That's fair! –uncleben85 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm good with either July 1 or the first day of the draft. Big no to rolling things over the day after the Finals - that's not how things work, especially with the new CBA taking effect. The Kip (contribs) 00:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
It is literally how things work since the buyout period is directly connected to the end of the Stanley Cup Finals. "Teams can only complete a buyout during a specific window. It opens on the later of June 15 or 48 hours after the Stanley Cup Final ends, and closes on June 30 at 5 p.m. ET." There is also a clear uptick in trades at that point. --NHL04 (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
I think it's quite important to make a clear distinction for when business transactions of the prior and upcoming seasons start and end. Since, according to the CBA, players start getting paid in September, but they can sign a new contract with their current team prior to start of free agency, would that mean that Free Agency Day (July 1 most of the time) is the clear start of the 2026-27 nhl transactions? Hypothetically, if this were the very first season of the NHL, and it started with the NHL entry draft, would that not be the logical choice? But also, trades can occur prior to the draft too, so I would be okay with either draft day or start of free agency as our natural start. Conyo14 (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Buyouts don't mark the start of the new season though. –uncleben85 (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Leave it as is, what is currently established works fine. This honestly just sounds like change for change sake which seems to be the trend that a lot of Wikipedia groups are going with for some reason. Eh Oh Canada (talk)
Keeping things because "that's just how we do it" is also bad policy, though. What's the actual argument for Draft Day? July 1 is a much more consistent, relevant marker.–uncleben85 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
I feel it helps that the NHL tracks transactions from July 1, 2025. So, I think it'd be fine for transactions to go forward from there. Conyo14 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah July 1 is a much clearer cut point. Kante4 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hockey media member possibly creating an article about themself

Looking at User:EzraGennello/sandbox, it is possible that hockey media member wants to create an article about themself. Flibirigit (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Let them? I mean, obvious COI aside, there is nothing stopping someone from creating an article about themselves so long as it passes GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Autobiographies generally shouldn't be created directly in article-space by the subject, and should instead be submitted as drafts for independent AfC reviewers. Left guide (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
It could be a case of WP:IMPERSONATE too. For their protection, the account had been soft blocked. They can continue with the account name if they verify their identity (while conforming with WP:COI). —Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)