User talk:Deadman137/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Deadman137. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hi,

a short digging revealed nothing for the Jaffray-McMillan trade. It would probably be the best to just put the trade into the table twice (once for each team) and hope that others add in any conditions.

Speaking of conditions, the condition from the Christensen trade should be ressolved as the player has signed with KHL club Lev Praha. The pick should therefore now belong to the Rangers. If you add in the two rows for Anaheim and Calgary, could you transfer this pick to "mainspace" as well? Thanks, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you reverted the ending of the iorn man streak for the NHL player. If you have some information to provide that explains the different definitions (by sport) as to what constitutes an iron man streak, the info could be helpful to people who read the article. It would be great if you could add something to the article to that effect. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been holding off to starting the 2013–14 NHL transactions page until the contract turn-over, starting July 5 (effectively July 1). As it stands these pages are fairly arbitrary for when they start, but I was hoping to structure it now and for the future such that they run from July 1 to June 30 of the next year and are book-ended by the turn-over of player contracts. Just bringing it up to you, as I noticed you were the one that moved my New York/Minnesota trade to the new page.

Having the NHL Entry Draft as the turn-over also makes sense, except then there may be multiple "June" sections on each season's thread - like we have this year already.

No worries! No real right or wrong way to do this! Uncleben85 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Deadman! I hadn't noticed the piece in the Talk page when I edited the Draft page. I'll defer to your judgement on that; I know the name change is the tentative plan, however I'm curious if you've seen anywhere that says the name change is 100% in effect yet? Last I read was back in August, after the sale. At that time Anthony LeBlanc said they would "eventually" become the Arizona Coyotes.

“(The name change) will not happen until, at minimum, the 2014-15 season,”(Team's Name Will Eventually Become 'Arizona Coyotes' http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=679776)

Again, the plan is for 2014-15, but is that something we should leave until finalized?

As an active member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, you should be aware that there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment concerning how NHOCKEY will be interpreted. Dolovis (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As New Jersey just traded a conditional third-round pick in 2017 to Carolina, and this article will not be created before next year's trade deadline at the very least, we could utilize User:Soccer-holic/Draft picks as a temporary home for saving the information (as well as anything for the 2016 Draft) until there is enough information available for creating proper articles, if you like. That userspace page was created a couple of years ago for that exact purpose, so feel free to add. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like the NHL will be using the same draft order as last year, per a press release they just put out here, so I have updated the draft page accordingly. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 08:50, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but I noticed you changed my edits of "the Montreal Canadiens" and "the Edmonton Oilers" to just "Montreal" and "Edmonton", respectively. I'm mostly just curious why you did this. The standard to me seemed like, 'for each trade, link each team involved, the first time their name appears'. Uncleben85 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am little confused, because, yes they were previously traded picks, but even taking into account the previous transaction - let's look at the 7th round Panthers pick for example,

1. The Florida Panthers’ seventh-round pick was re-acquired as the result of a trade on July 5, 2013 that sent George Parros to Montreal in exchange for Philippe Lefebvre and this pick.
        Montreal previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on June 30, 2013 that sent a seventh-round pick in 2013 to Florida in exchange for this pick.

nowhere there is Montreal linked or referenced by nickname - not in the most recent transaction nor in the previous one. -Uncleben85 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Thanks for clearing that up. -Uncleben85 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm proposing a lot of changes to a fairly conservative hockey community, but I vote we continue to separate each round-table from the the round-notes. It creates a jump link in the contents table, making the page more navigable. Thoughts against it? -Uncleben85 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the NHL Entry Draft articles, including all trades and conditional trades, in impeccable shape. With appreciation for your expertise in this area, do you have any information on what “future considerations” were involved in the January 21, 2013 trade which saw Jean-Francois Jacques traded from the Florida Panthers to the Tampa Bay Lightning for future considerations? Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to keep all the transactions on the current page until July 1, but consensus doesn't seem to be there still, hahaha. So for now I'm putting them on the current page until 1) the draft starts or 2) somebody moves them over to the new page, and we go from there, but I'm holding off on initiating it! :P

With that being said, the Coyotes website is using Arizona, but they said the change would be done at the draft (other releases from them do just say "draft day"). Is it worth having "Phoenix Coyotes" and "Arizona Coyotes" on the same page, or should we just wait until the new one opens up? (If we move all of today's transactions over to the new page it would make sense to start it as "Arizona"). -Uncleben85 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to propose adding a "draftees based on league" table. I imagine readers would be equally interested in an aggregation of which leagues future NHL players are coming from as much as which countries they are coming from. A table of the top 5 leagues would probably suffice. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb34 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

All other NHL draft articles that you had no part of format it the way I did. So what are we going to do, change all articles pre 2012 to the formatting you like or just change the last couple of years. I'll leave it to you to see if you want to follow your own advice of following the convention.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me of uncivil behaviour when all I said is you aren't following the advice you are giving is in itself uncivil because it's a false accusation. Not to mention you ignored Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith completely. I will not be going any further about this as my goal isn't to start a fight and just trying to improve Wikipedia. I said pre 2012 that means 2011 and 2010. My question is still why didn't you change it to the way 2010 and 2011 when you were editing the 2012 page? From the advice you gave me you should have. Next yours or my preferences don't matter in this case. The only thing that matters is we follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style that adheres to all wikipedia pages (not just NHL draft pages) where I'm currently asking for on the correct style that should be used in articles. All examples for in the Manual of Style for lists do it the way I do; However, I'm still asking for clarification.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Wikipedia: Manual of Style and all seem to agree that this is the proper way to do it. as it'll count the numbers for you (something mine didn't do) and it's clear. If you don't mind I can handle the formatting change.

1. The Minnesota Wild's second-round pick will go to the Montreal Canadiens as the result of a trade on July 1, 2014 that sent Josh Gorges to Buffalo in exchange for this pick.

   Buffalo previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on March 5, 2014 that sent Matt Moulson and Cody McCormick to Minnesota in exchange for Torrey Mitchell, Winnipeg's second-round pick in 2014 and this pick.

-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I also realize I was kind of being a smart ass too. So sorry about that.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you're the one who usually does a lot of work on these draft pages, so I started a discussion on when the creation of draft articles would be appropriate, so hopefully we won't have to go through another 2016 mess again. The thread is on the hockey talk page. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 01:51, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for that disturbance on the 2015 draft page. I had read that it was the Blues, and the Sportsnet article was just a misunderstanding on my part. I had forgetting the Islanders became good LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spilia4 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies as well - specifically regarding the conditional picks table. Putting in a new reference link was just oversight on my part, and as for reference formatting, I was using the one from the transactions page; I didn't think it'd be an issue. I would say that the reference should, however, be changed from the TSN article to the official NHL release. TSN is valid, but if we have an official statement why not use it. Also, you also took issue with my sorting, which I don't agree with. It's been done for a while that the picks are (obviously) sorted by draft round and then if there are multiple picks in the same round, they have been sorted by date of original trade. The current two first rounders in the table are done that way, but the 3rd round and 7th round duplicates are not. I will be resorting those to at least keep the table consistent. -Uncleben85 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That is quite fair. I was under the impression they had previously been secondary sorted by date, but your way does make sense with the rest of the article, and changing the whole article is pointless. It works as is. I will do it that way on there from now on. -Uncleben85 (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at WP:HOCKEY. Also, I've reverted my changes, per WP:BRD. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you added that the 2nd round pick in the Kessel trade Toronto gave up was conditional. All the articles I've read state it is not conditional, and is simply a reaquiring. I've added it to the second round already, but if it's wrong please remove. Spilia4 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The league just released the report, all of the picks from Toronto are their own picks. Deadman137 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When do we start a discussion on NHL all-time head-to-head team matchups from 1917–18 to 2014–15? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.205.176 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to do that any time that you want to. It would probably be best to begin the discussion here. Deadman137 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to add the games played section back to the articles. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSportsGuy (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Shaw. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I added the league section because it is required by some teams and I aim to standardize the format for the season lists between all NHL teams, rather than make the list one way for one team, and another way for a different team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSportsGuy (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I'm doing goes against the guidelines of whichever Wikiproject oversees the hockey articles, but – and forgive me for templating a regular – Wikipedia clearly states that articles must not rely largely on primary sources. It's fine if you use a few, but 50 percent of the sources must come from outside NHL.com. If you wish to reply to this, I won't be able to reply back until tomorrow morning.--Nascar king 02:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, take your time in responding. There is no hard percentage of where citations need to come from, especially when the league usually provides better quality information than what can normally be found from secondary sources. I agree that more effort should be made to use non-league sources when writing series recaps however we don't need replace all of the citations when the information contained in the citations is verified. Most NHL articles normally rely largely on primary sources (the 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs article has 80% of its citations from the league). There is no set policy from the WikiProject on which is more acceptable to use so it has generally been left up to the discretion of the original editor. Deadman137 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand some of the cases where you undid my edits on different Stanley Cup Playoffs pages. They are not relevant enough to the article. But why isn't the New Jersey Devils missing the Stanley Cup Playoffs after becoming runner-up to the Stanley Cup relevant? 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That one is better suited to a team season article, rather than the main section of the yearly playoff article. The losing Stanley Cup finalists not making the playoffs the following year is a much more common event. Deadman137 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no special distinction? Readers should know that the team from Dallas has/have not faced the Blues thirteen times prior. Conyo14 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

See that's the thing, that section of the article relates to the total franchise history (including any relocations), not the specific municipality's involvement with the franchise, unless they last met when one of the teams was in a different market. As this is not the case in this circumstance we can just focus on the franchise history. Plus mentioning the specific Dallas based history would be inconsistent with the information in the list of NHL playoff series, which is based on the official guide and record book.

We will sometimes make exceptions like we did in the first round with Winnipeg last year and the Stars/Wild series this year, unless it is a first time/rare occurrence we usually ignore it because we shouldn't cover every single thing in great detail. Deadman137 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case then I understand, but then the List of NHL playoff series for the Dallas Stars should also include playoffs series from the Oakland/California Golden Seals as the NHL Official Guide and Record Book says.Conyo14 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw that too, though given how long it has taken just to get the round names correct, I don't know if I want to open that can of worms. Plus they only just added it into this year's edition. Deadman137 (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which, only 10 days left in the RfC. I'm confident that the round names will finally be changed.

Regarding the Stars thing, I'll open a talk section on the page after the playoffs are done.Conyo14 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to get more eyes on the Stars thing bring it up at the WikiProject. I don't know if anything will come from that conversation but it might be worth having. Deadman137 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Right now this links to bandy, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. Hockey on ice is ice hockey, and the redirect should justifiably go to that page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2015–16 Tampa Bay Lightning season page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh not at all! I appreciate it in fact! Thanks for the help. Cheers! -Uncleben85 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Um hey. Why are you changing some of the words (i.e. defenseman to defenceman, center to centre) to Canadian English? I know the Stanley Cup Finals articles are mostly written in Canadian English, but since I am American, I put my edits in... well, American English. I see no reason for you to change it seeing as how NHL articles are and can be written in both Canadian English and American English. Also, 2016 Stanley Cup Finals is not specified if it is written in mostly Canadian English. Note: I am not discouraging you from editing in Canadian English. I have no problem with that, nor will I change your edits back to American English. I just want a reason on why your changing it.Conyo14 (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It was only done for consistency with similar articles. Deadman137 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you for letting me know. Conyo14 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Logan Brown is not a Canadian player. He was born in the United States and grew up in the United States. He opted to play for Team USA in international play. Here's a source for that.

http://windsorstar.com/sports/hockey/spitfires-logan-brown-opts-to-play-for-u-s-not-canada

The NHL is listing him as an American in their draft tracker.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/draftsearch.htm

Please change Logan Brown to a United States player in the 2016 NHL Draft page. No other sources including the NHL are listing him as a Canadian player. He's not a Canadian player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.88.242 (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Deadman137 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.88.242 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I was working on it as you published it. With that said, I've already started the Province/State table as well. If you haven't started it, I don't mind doing it to save you time. If you're on a roll though, go ahead! Uncleben85 (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I had the patience for the table, but not the patience to go searching for those links, currently. Hahaha. Most articles I had found were articles on something different, with a small mention of the trade buried down in the article. -Uncleben85 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, what's your source on the Canada VS. USA numbers? Going through each player individually, reading into each of their profiles and biographies (not just place of birth, else Sean Day for example would be Belgian not Canadian), I counted 86 and 55, yet you reverted it back to 90 and 51... As it stands the two tables contradict each other, and I have no way of knowing which 4 players you are counting differently... -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Deadman! I put the player's names hidden with each state/province in case of something like this. I think it's also a matter of if we want to count where they were drafted from vs where they grew up/developed. Chychrun is one we counted differently, for example, as he trained as an American, but plays internationally as a Canadian (nhl.com had him drafted as an American though). I'll defer to your judgement though. -Uncleben85 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! -Uncleben85 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Deadman137 - here's why I made those changes.

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

• It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

1. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

• There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Deadman137 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Dead, just to make it simpler for you when I edit the draft pages in the future, when there are multiple picks from the same round pending, how do you sort them? I thought it was by date, oldest at top and more recent as you go down, but I notice you rearranged the 2017 and 2018 pages otherwise. Just curious what your process is! -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Re: "Unresolved conditional draft picks" Sorting Oh jeez! Thanks. It was right there under my nose the whole time, hahaha! Can't believe I never noticed that. thanks, Dead -Uncleben85 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not included him, as he was not an NHL player in 2015-16 and the page tracks contract changes from 2015-16 to 2016-17 or internally within 2016-17. I totally get including retirements of players of old, but sometimes they never make a formal announcement, or it comes years down the road, and trying to keep track of it all would be too tough. Might be worth having a conversation about, but I figure I'll keep the system consistent for now. -Uncleben85 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Was about to put the score of the game there, beat me to it. TheGRVOfLightning(talk) 05:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, anything I can do to help Thricecube _(talk) 14:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Deadman, is it cool if I change the head-to-head records on National Hockey League rivalries into the W-L-T format (instead of keeping them in the W-L-T-OTL format)? The W-L-T format is much easier to read and is less confusing, in my opinion. Jewel15 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

While it would make it easier, it would not be accurate. So it's best to leave it as it is currently set up. Deadman137 (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So I just went through and added the table for draftees by state/province. I sorted everyone to the best of my knowledge and to the extent that I could research, but I'm currently up in Nunavut for work and my internet is very limited, so my research was cursory at best, meaning there are a few I'm not certain of. I have placed them where I felt most appropriate, but also, as always I have included hidden text listing where each player belongs, and within that hidden text I've marked the players I am unsure, as well as where else they may fit in. The players are indicated by triple asterisks (***), and if you get the time, would you mind going through and vetting the list? Thanks Dead! –uncleben85 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, to make it even easier, here's a list of the players I could not come to a confident conclusion on (where I placed them/where else they may fit): Evan Barratt (PA/NJ), Drake Batherson (NS/IN), Sasha Chmelevski (CA/MI), Jack Dugan (PA/NY), Dylan Ferguson (BC/SK), Tyler Inamoto (IL/CT,NJ,MN,??), Jake Leschyshyn (SK/CO,NC), Ivan Lodnia (CA/MI), Bryce Misley (ON/AB), Kailer Yamamoto (WA/CA)

I'll look into this weekend to see what I can do. Hopefully there aren't too many judgement calls to make, but if I have to put the black hat on, so be it. Deadman137 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked back at some of the previous articles to compare and Misley should be listed under Alberta, but I could not find anything else that would change based on what you did. Deadman137 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Deadman137. You've been doing the game recaps for every nhl playoff game for a while now and I was wondering if you could help me edit in every game recap for every playoff year until 1979. Here is the link to the All-time NHL Playoff Results: https://www.nhl.com/info/all-time-nhl-playoff-results Conyo14 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, I've been working on this particular area off and on for four years now. Part of it was just me waiting for the past year for the league to publish all of the content. I'm guessing that we would operate the way that we currently do, I do the game reports and you write the summaries? If that's the case take a look at the 1981 article, it's close to being finished but it needs a little attention to get it done. The opening round and a couple second round series could use a proofreading. Give me a couple days and I'll see if I can get all the recaps up for that year.

Keep in mind the average working time for one playoff series is around about 1-2 hours when doing the writing, research and the game summaries individually. I'd have to double check but I think that I set it up so we could go as far back as 1975, however just getting the standalone articles complete would be an accomplishment in and of itself. Deadman137 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I'll be doing the game reports first as well, mainly working backwards from 2002. The series summaries can be done at another time. For the playoff years with no articles (up until 1979), could we create articles up until the 1966–67 season? At that point the playoffs are much shorter. That can be done next year though, because this current task will take a long time. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It honestly is more or less the plan that I've had for a while to get this completed to the beginning of the expansion era. The only reason that I've been focusing on 1979-present is because we have articles for those years and from 1980 onwards there are 15 series a year to deal with. As far as working with the template; everything you'll need is already there, if a game went to overtime I've already set the template up to deal with that. The team information is all there as well.

I'm going to go ahead and deal with a couple of series in the 80s and 90s that might trip you up. Lord knows that I had a bitch of a time getting them set up properly when I went through the template three years ago. Deadman137 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

So I actually couldn't get Game 3's boxscore to load for me on the Carolina-Montreal series, thank you for completing it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to load either, but I know where to find that information if something goes missing. If you come across that again in the future just do what you did this time and I'll figure it out. Right now I'm only concerned with getting you comfortable with the template. Deadman137 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

1998 Stanley Cup playoffs, I'm unsure what happened in the PHX–DET series, but the coding is not working properly. Conyo14 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I found it and fixed it. Deadman137 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The article about Mitchell's trade show me "November 24, 2017" as the date. Care to elaborate on your claim that all official announcements list "November 23, 2017" as the date? – Sabbatino (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That's bizarre, Sab! Often things will be announced but not formalized for a day or so, so it's certainly possible it didn't go through with the League until the 24th, however, the official NHL, Montreal, and Los Angeles releases (which includes the one you posted) read "Nov. 23" for me (external link to screenshots). Certainly curious though! I wonder if the NHL servers play off of your local time, if it's different? –uncleben85 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: It is evident that NHL need to get their stuff together. In the NHL phone app they list date and time, which makes it easier, while the website lists just the date. The worst part is that the NHL app converts games' times to my local time, while the NHL website does not do that despite both computer and phone having the same regional settings. I am not certainly going to check the app every time a transaction has been made. All these news' articles list "November 24th, 2017" on my computer, while the NHL app lists both the date and time – "Nov 24, 1:00AM" (my local time), which would be "Nov 23, 6:00PM ET". It is not my fault that NHL treat everything differently on computer and phone. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That only leads to confusion, with the way they have that set up! –uncleben85 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know it was alphabetical, was arranging by chronological because I didn't noticed. My bad. Also, regarding the Tomas Tatar deal, what do you consider confirmation because you didn't get rid of the Lightning deal and that's just as new. Relatively new to making changes on Wiki, not being stubborn or anything. I see you're one of the main curators of draft picks on wiki 74.181.179.40 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup my bad. I did my math wrong. We shall wait until the end of the Sharks or Kings game.Conyo14 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, information is flying around quickly tonight. Deadman137 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm weird that way, but for some reason trivial information interests me.Jewel15 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your post is steeped in irony. "Take it to the talk page" is a demand, not a request. That is the opposite of civil, polite and respectful. 2001:630:12:1074:5D83:8A76:5960:A393 (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is far from that, I'm just following community standards when something like this comes up. It's you that has violated the three revert rule and is edit warring. So do yourself a favour and stop before you get into any further trouble. Deadman137 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the first reversion was performed by your buddy Anaxagoras13; my original edit was not a reversion. Together you've reverted my edit seven times. Three reversions were performed by you. According to your own rules, you should ban yourself. 2001:630:12:107B:68A3:FC4E:A002:3EB4 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall ever actually dealing with Anaxagoras13 before this. For someone who proclaims to be so much smarter than everyone else, perhaps you should spend some time reading the policies of this website before you have another outburst. Honestly, there is nothing more for me to discuss with you, I wish you luck in dealing with whatever issues that have caused your recent behaviour. Deadman137 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Stanley Cup playoffs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dmitry Orlov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

		The Hockey Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your work in NHL and other hockey related articles. You are very deserving of this barn star and I am shocked you haven't been given this before. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Noticed that you recently went through and removed the diacritics from player birthplaces across a number of NHL articles. While it's correct that diacritics are not to be shown on personal names/team names, they are to be shown on birthplaces where there is not an Anglicized version (i.e.: Göteborg > Gothenburg, Montréal to Montreal). This has been discussed at length in the past (see here for a recent example). I have rolledback these edits per #5 here. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nurmsook: There was a discussion in October 2017 after which it was decided that all names, including places, should eliminate diacritics and the WP:NCIH policy was then changed. There was also this discussion in November 2017, but it discussed the use of diacritics in other North America-based leagues and was specifically tied to people. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: That October 2017 discussion did not specifically address the birthplace piece, though. The discussion is about a GM and how the existing language only covered player names. That's why is was changes to names, to cover all team personnel. The references to changing the language in NCIH also referred to our ongoing practice, which is to remove diacritics from everything except player birthplaces, as greater WP policy controls that. Where was the consensus that we are suddenly uprooting WP:HOCKEY's long fought diacritics agreement...I certainly don't see any. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nurmsook: Well, the fact that the WP:NCIH policy was changed (look at the second bullet) and that nobody made a fuss just shows that people were not against it. The second bullet does not specify what names, so that implies that it should be applied to people, places, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: That's because the reasoning behind the change was clarified by Yosemiter in the October 2017 discussion. The whole discussion was started because the original language was only around "player names", whereas Jarmo Kekäläinen is not a player. So Yosemiter asked "should the phrasing in NCIH be changed to include NHL personnel as well as players on team and league pages", because the language didn't already include non-players. That October 2017 discussion had nothing to do with birthplaces; it was solely a conversation about ensuring that all team personnel were covered where the "player names" statement previously existed. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I know very well about what that discussion was since I took part in it. As I already wrote, the change in the second bullet changed player names to plain names, which does not mean that it avoids other names than people. I rest my case and this should be discussed elsewehere. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It has been. Many times. The diacritics topic is something that took years of discussion to settle. As I mentioned before, the change of "player names" to "names" was to accommodate all team personnel, it did not have this more broad meaning that you are suggesting. Place names are covered in other WP policy, which is why they have always had diacritics no matter what page they are on. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I have been pinged, here is my two cents on NCIH: use whatever form of diacritics the league/team uses on the league/team page. The previous discussion was indeed only about people's names. However, Deadman137's edit here definitely matches the NHL source here. Perhaps it would be best to take this to the NCIH or hockey project talk page. Yosemiter (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing misguided about what I did, I knew full well what was going to happen when I did it, that's why I did it. The fact is that we are not consistent in how we apply this to North American hockey articles; we have tables where we pipe over a player's name in full English and then on that same line you'll find diacritics in where they're from. I support having North American articles because as noted the alternative would be much worse and waste a lot of time, but if you're going to have these articles then the entire article should be presented in English. The only thing that I'm looking at discussing (in a different venue) is how far does the North American compromise go? Deadman137 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I too believe that the dios should be removed from the birthplaces. Tried removing them from the NHL team rosters (years ago), but was always reverted on the argument that WP:HOCKEY couldn't over-ride other guidelines. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's good to hear that, though I certainly don't want to have to go through all of the trials and tribulations that you did about this issue after seeing what happened to you. I don't think we need to change the guidelines that much, just tweak one of them a little. If it was possible to get a minor exemption on this if a WikiProject has a defined policy around diacritics then it could work. It would probably go over like a lead balloon but it might be worth a shot to see if consensus has changed at all. Deadman137 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The ball is in your court. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You once again undid my edit saying the Capitals are Stanley Cup Champions. You said it's because each sport has it's own standard and that it did not belong on the lead cover. I mainly edit NFL pages and I am rather new to the NHL so whats the NHL standard then? The Pens have mostly their entire lead cover talking about their Cups. Is it you can't say "defending champions" or does the team have to have multiply cups or do have to use clever wording like the Pens page says " With their Stanley Cup wins in 2016 and 2017, the Penguins became the first back-to-back champions in 19 years." Mentioning their cup win in 2017 even if it's repeating sounds like a violation. When does a team get a mention of a cup win in the lead cover? The Caps page has barely any mention of their first ever cup win in till the very end in one brief sentence. (RavenLord64 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC))

The Capitals' cup win is already covered in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead and is then covered in greater detail in the franchise history section. We have three additional articles (team season, playoffs and Finals) that also cover the topic. As far as mentioning that a team are the current defending champions, that is limited to the team season article. If you need some examples of how we try to set hockey team articles up, look at the good and featured articles, such as the Calgary Flames, Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs. Deadman137 (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I am working on the Province/State table as we go, so don't worry about that one!–uncleben85 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Trust me I don't worry about that table until after it gets posted. Deadman137 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deadman, why did you undo my edits? I would like to know. Thanks! Jewel15 (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for clarifying my edits to the 1994 and 1996 Stanley Cup Playoff pages. I didn't realize that the Avs were the third NHL team overall to win the Stanley Cup after relocation; thanks for clearing up the fact they were the first to do it in their first season in their new city. Cheers. Johnnysama (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnnysama: You're welcome, and I'm more than happy to help out with things like that. Deadman137 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with writing out either form. I was just a little concerned that to an outsider it would look like "NYR's 4th or 5th" not "NYR's 4th or a 5th" (if that makes sense). It's a slightly different format I've been working with since last(?) season. I've done the same thing in the Sep. 13, 2018 SJS/OTT deal, Dec. 30, 2018 EDM/NYI deal, Jan. 21, 2019 MIN/VGK deal, and last year's Dec, 19, 2017 PIT/DAK deal and Feb. 18, 2018 WSH/CHI. I'm going to edit it back for now, just for consistency within the article, but it's something I really think could use a second opinion on, besides mine, and I fully respect yours, so if you think it is clear enough without the distinct, please switch it over! Thanks!–uncleben85 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand why you have been doing that, because I used to do the same thing when I started out editing. I was then very quickly (though politely) asked to stop doing that because we only need to add a prefix when a team trades away a pick that isn't originally their's. The formatting of all those trades technically should resemble what was used in the Nick Bjugstad trade on the first of this month, just with exceptions made for conditional pick formatting. Deadman137 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing with the Bjugstad trade is that all of those pick are independent of each other. It's just in the Coyle trade, the same pick can come from two teams, was what I was thinking. Not listing them in the Bjugstad trade makes a lot of sense though!–uncleben85 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

We had the 7th round pick from the Sep. 11 BOS/NYR deal as "Conditions unknown." on the 2019 NHL Entry Draft. CapFriendly has the conditions listed as the following: "If McQuaid plays in at least 25 games in the 2018-19 season OR if the Rangers trade McQuaid at any point during the 2018-19 season, Bruins will ... receive a 7th round pick in 2019" (CapFriendly). If that is true, then McQuaid has played >25 games and the pick should convert, but I haven't found anything else corroborating it. What do you think? –uncleben85 (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm always a little sceptical of CapFriendly, they've got better over time but we would still need another source to confirm it. Deadman137 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I found the source that they're using, it's a tertiary source but it's the best that we're going to get. Deadman137 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I see you've kept the page sane against the waves of fans trying to do updates on individual teams :P We've now reached the point where all 16 qualified teams are known, so if it's okay with you I'd like that round to be updated now, and green backgrounds added to those teams in later rounds (like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NHL_franchise_post-season_droughts&oldid=835492327). -- Petrograd (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Petrograd:Go for it, once all the teams are known I don't care who updates the information. Deadman137 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough :D I'll do it if no one has done it yet :P -- Petrograd (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been taking the series recaps I work on in my sandbox. Either that or you and I have very similar writing styles. If you have been taking them from my sandbox, I do appreciate it; being on the West Coast, I often don't have the computer availability until much later. You are welcome to take the recaps I work on, especially for those earlier games.Conyo14 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I did just that, I've known for a while that you always keep a record of each series there and I also know that you properly cite them too. I only did that because the quality of what was popping up in it's place was a bit lower than what we're used to. I'm fairly certain that our writing styles are not the exact same, but we've both been doing this long enough that we know how to quickly encapsulate a game. Most of the time I'm more than happy to let you have the glory, though if we start getting crap in the summary I'll look to what you have stored because I know that I can trust that it be of high enough quality for the article. Deadman137 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll be busy tonight, so if Vegas wins in overtime, would you mind placing it for me? Conyo14 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Done if necessary. Deadman137 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Really? COME ON! Can we not frame it like we're laughing at the division winners? That sounds boring and I don't like that! I know we have to be objective, but in this case, can't we just say "all four wild-card teams upset the division winners and punched their ticket to the second round"? What's wrong with that? We still say objective, but we frame it in a good light. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: We're not making fun of the division winners, just stating what happened to them. Unfortunately what you're suggesting does not take into consideration the rarity of what has occurred during the opening round of this year's playoffs. Deadman137 (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Deadman137: Well...you're right. But it sounds boring. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: You're right it is boring, but our job is to document and accurately report what happened, without any concern to its entertainment value. Honestly don't let it get you down, it's just the guidelines that we have to follow. Deadman137 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Deadman137: Sure, but I'd like to catch the readers' attention and keep them hooked. It'll keep the wiki fresh and exciting. I mean, just look around on so many of the sports pages and you'll see so many examples of that excitement. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I know full well I didn’t put the complete box score in (Sharks-Avs), but I don’t see why there was any reason to delete the edit and say “not helping.” I consider myself a WikiGnome. Helping in small ways is what I like to do. Explain what I did wrong and I promise it won’t happen again. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@RedSoxFan274: I can appreciate the gnoming, it's that we need to take irrelevant information at that point off of the template and small well meaning edits create edit conflicts. Honestly you did nothing wrong, it was just faster to revert and add the box score from the one window than it was to copy and paste it into a new window. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. Deadman137 (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, let me apologize. I didn’t think I may have created an edit conflict on your end. I can see how that would be frustrating. Forgive me if I sounded harsh; it was just the “not helping” edit summary made me a little hot under the collar. I need to learn not to take things so personally! Thanks for explaining. Water under the bridge. :) –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 05:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not edited anything on Wikipedia so... I do not know why you are threatening to block me?

• They're not threatening you, they're warning you. And whoever you are, you are editing from an IP address from which edits were made. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay but that wasn't my edit though lol and that's not my IP address. So therefore its a threat.

• That's a non sequitur, and you can hardly maintain that your IP address is not your IP address. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a reply actually... You make no sense at all sir.

You do realize that you're not scaring anyone with your nonsense, right? At this point you get to make a choice, start being a constructive editor and be left to your own devices or continue on with what you have been doing and see where that gets you. Either way, the ball is in your court. Deadman137 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a question, Why do you keep putting that June Jones is on the XFL Houston team, when there is nothing confirmed from the XFL or XFL Houston?

Hi. How do we determine which team is listed in the "team1" and "team2" parameters of the infobox? I had a few ideas about the order but after looking at the previous years I am confused. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Easy, team2 is supposed to be the team with home ice under this set up, so for this year's article it's Boston and team1 will be the Blues or Sharks. What probably screwed you up after briefly looking at it was the set up of the 2015 article, which should be fixed. I'll deal with it sometime this weekend unless you beat me to fixing it. Deadman137 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The 2015 page confused me. Thanks for explanation. And I also fixed it. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have another question. Why do older SC Finals' infoboxes list the team with the home ice advantage on above? For example, the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals? I changed it at 1993 to reflect the newer years' pages, but then self-reverted after being not sure of it. Was there a different system in older years? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I cannot honestly say that I'm surprised that there are older articles like that. Any article that predates the website could have these issues but the correct formatting is still lower seed on top with higher seed beneath. There were similar issues with the playoff template setup in NHL articles as there were many different configurations until they were standardized earlier this decade. Deadman137 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. Looks like I will have to change it to the correct format unless you do it first. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: So it looks like the problem goes from 2006 back. There are a few done correctly such as 1996 and now 1993 but what will be found going further back could be all over the map. Deadman137 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'd just like to give you credit for removing the PIM category. Like you say, it's almost hopeless to keep an accurate track of this. Annoying, considering that all the other columns are correct. Thanks, good move! Stavol2 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps the page should show that the franchise also has one conference title? Now the readers need to know that reaching the cup final after 1981 also means winning the conference. Could we use the cell above "All-time series record" to write "1 conference title"? Would appreciate your input Stavol2 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stavol2:I agree completely, the biggest issue with that is the setup of the table. It is fixable but it would take some time to redesign the table to make the fix. I have no issues doing the work but I probably wouldn't start on it for another two to three weeks. Deadman137 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that for some other franchises the 3rd column says "Conference" and the 4th "Division" (but without the placing, which I think it would be a shame to skip). It was not my intention to put a heavy workload onto you. If you agree with this setup, I can do it. Stavol2 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stavol2: Don't worry about the work load, I was already planning to go through a bunch of these over the summer. Ultimately the goal for these lists is to try and get them to more closely resemble the state that the featured lists are in. Deadman137 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Stavol2 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Deadman! I don't know why I had it in mind that we were including the originating team for every pick, in the pick-only trades. A quick check to pages-past would've proven that theory wrong, but I took it for granted! Also, thanks for switching over to the new page... full disclosure, was lowkey trying to slip it under the radar ;) –uncleben85 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: I kind of figured that you were up to something when the current article was still a redirect, but I know why you did it. No worries on the team name stuff, even two editors that have been around as long as we have can still occasionally make mistakes. Deadman137 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Deadman, let's discuss because I am more than happy to admit I am mistaken if there is a rule stipulating that there is a tie breaker in place, but to my knowledge there is none. Can you site that for playoffs? Like I said, it makes sense if we were talking an award, but the designation is "Leading Scorer(s)" and both players ended up with 23 points regardless of goals and assists (or games played though you don't seem to be arguing that point). I've cited both the Commissioner's quote naming him to co-leader in the playoffs while awarding the Conn Smythe (in the edits - I'm not savvy enough to add that to the page itself), and the fact that it does not have to be a singular distinction as it is not a singular award. Again, I'll be happy to cede to the distinction if a tiebreaker can be cited, but stating "that's the way it is" does not meet the criteria being displayed. The fact of the matter is that both players tied for the most amount of points in the playoffs thus both deserve to have the distinction (unless of course, as I have said, "Leading Scorer(s) is a unique distinction given by the NHL rather than the general term).

(Also, I am sorry about the double IP. One was from home and one from work - again not savvy enough to realize that probably came off as sock-puppety, and I'm not at a point where I think it's worth making a screen name for yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.187.234 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about the double IP, you're not the only person on here that edits from more than one location. I understand that the commissioner's statement is misleading but in this case, he is of no authority and his statements are pretty much useless. You are completely right that two players are tied in points, however in all levels of hockey if two or more players are tied in points the player with more goals is always ranked ahead of the other players. If you want examples of this, all you have to do is go all the way down to the bottom of the 2019 playoff article and look at the scoring leaders table to see this in practice and you can do that in any other season and find the same thing. This is what every league and championship event anywhere in the world uses to determine these ties. So a player with 8G, 15A is always going to be less than a player with 9G, 14A even though the point total is the same and when you're talking about a leading scorer that distinction makes all the difference. Deadman137 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Back on the work computer so it's the other IP here (I don't even know how to tag that at the end, but it's me regardless), also back from vacation so I didn't ghost you on the conversation (just no time or computer). I agree with you wholeheartedly if this was a singular title or award, but we are again talking about "Leading Scorer(s)" which should designating who had the most points of which both had 23. It's not something like "Most Prolific Scorer" or something with a superlative that requires a single person on a mountaintop. Again, there can be many players tied for the league lead in points, thus they would all have the "most points in the league," however only one could win the singular award that comes with that (the Art Ross, as you know). I'm, of course, talking semantically, but that's the point of Wikipedia to put info at face value. Therefore, I still believe both are entitled to the distinction, or the field name needs to be changed to justify why both aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.231.242 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Leading scorer is a singular award unless the players involved are tied in both goals and points, which is not the case here. You're more than welcome to your own viewpoints, but the opinions that you are arguing for carry no weight in the hockey world and as a result are completely inconsequential. Deadman137 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deadman, do you mind explaining why you felt my edit to the 2008 Finals article was too trivial? I added that piece of info because I felt that piece of information shows how dominant each team was during the playoffs. Jewel15 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jewel15: I fully admit that what you added was borderline for acceptance, the only thing was that I couldn't find a way to tweak it enough to be able to keep it in the article as it was written, hence why I removed it. Deadman137 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 NHL Entry Draft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyler Ennis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining why you thought my edit on the 1968 Finals page was too trivial? Mk8mlyb (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep an eye out for USEng. Red Jay (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have been following along with how this format is going, umm yeah. Will the play-in games be involved in the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs article? They're not technically "playoff" games. Should I include previous playoff matchups for the play-in series? I definitely think that more voices should be involved in how we do this article. Conyo14 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Conyo14: I've been keeping up with it. I know it's a grey area about adding these to the main article, on my end it wouldn't be much work to put them in. I've developed some template ideas for a 24 team format in my sandbox just in case. My stance would be if you're playing games under playoff rules to advance further in the same tournament, then they should count as playoff games. Ultimately the league will let us know how these games will be classified (regular season or playoff). It probably wouldn't be a bad idea just to prepare as if the play-in series are normal playoff series.

I was already planning on starting a conversation in the WikiProject once the league made announcement. Either way we'll likely have a fair bit of time to prepare. Deadman137 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! I would call these play-in games a preliminary round. We'll see what the League announces on it.Conyo14 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Someone's constantly putting up WPG info that's not exactly accurate.
2. Add the Western teams too.

See you tomorrow. –Piranha249 02:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piranha249: Sure, already did the Western teams with tiebreakers; I'm currently keeping the seeding section hidden as the top four can change. I'll look into the Winnipeg stuff. Deadman137 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked into the Winnipeg stuff and you were right to remove it. While this is the first playoff meeting between the two cities since 1987, we generally only focus on the history of the franchises involved. If the Flames were to play Arizona then we'd mention the 1987 series in that summary. The other thing to watch out for in this series is that someone may mention that this is the first time in league history that two relocated franchises have played each other in the playoffs after starting their existence in the same city (Atlanta). Deadman137 (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not intend on making a game-by-game summary of the round-robin series, but do you think that a summary such as "Colorado defeated St. Louis and Dallas in regulation, and Vegas in a shootout to take the first seed. St. Louis took the second seed earning an overtime win against Dallas and an overtime loss..." Of course I can mention the scores of each game and maybe even something notable such as Kadri's millisecond goal. Do you think it's necessary and doesn't ruin the flow of the article?Conyo14 (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Conyo14: I like the basic concept of your idea, as we should probably have something additional in this section. As far as how this should be written I'll leave that to your discretion, you have a pretty good sense for what should or shouldn't be in a summary. The only specific thing that I'll ask of you is that, when you go to put this in the article just place it above the standings table because the results heading will be removed after the round robin. Deadman137 (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will apply that to this year.

Hey, just curious, wouldn't the Coyotes and Blackhawks be re-seeded to 7 and 8 respectively for the first round of the playoffs? I just took a peek at the first round section of playoff article and the teams are still 11 and 12. Has the NHL explained how the re-seeding works? Yowashi (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yowashi: They haven't announced that they're re-seeding 1-8 so unless something changes best to just leave them as they are. If something does come saying that they're using 1-8, I'll fix it. Deadman137 (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yowashi: Literally as I was writing the response they announced the re-seeding, all qualifying round teams will be 5-8. Deadman137 (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding context to the result of the round-robin isn't done in similar articles because this playoff format has literally never been done before but if there has already been a discussion on it somewhere please point me in that direction. And why would we update the result of each round at its conclusion if we are supposed wait to update the numbers? Shouldn't it be an all or nothing type deal? You can't advance in the playoffs without accumulating goals or wins so it's a bit contradictory to the last column if a team should advance to the Finals and yet it reads all zeros. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tampabay721: The basic idea for the round robin record is just to keep it short and sweet. If you want to leave a note next to that saying that they finished second or whatnot I'm not going to stop you. As far as not updating the records during the playoffs, it's for the same reason that we don't do that during the regular season, it reduces the chance for errors. Deadman137 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

What I added was roughly the same amount of characters than what is said in previous playoff results so I would argue that it *was* "short and sweet" in comparison. It's the result of their performance in the round robin the same it says "won" or "lost" in whatever round. As for the stats, maybe I should rephrase my point. If you really wanted to wait until a team was eliminated to add to their playoff totals, why not just add colspan=6|To be determined to be shown beneath the postseason column and *then* say "don't update the playoff statistics until their season is over"? Because what you're going to do for the two teams in the Finals is have it read 0-0-0-0-0 which is an error in itself the same way if someone while good faith editing accidentally types the wrong number and, despite proofreading, overlooks it before saving. Furthermore, there are several teams whose tables don't even include historical playoff stats so uniformity among pages must not be an issue. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Deadman137, how could one reach you to discuss an NHL wiki question? Do you have an email address or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4500:3F9E:14E5:24BC:7878:ABF (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have a question about Wikipedia or the NHL to ask me this is as good a place as any to do it. Deadman137 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

How did you edit the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs page? I'm trying to change something but the site said the page is locked Mannbell20 (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Only people who have the auto confirmed status and higher are able to edit that article right now. If you want to add something write a proposal and post it on the talk page of the article and if its accepted another user can add it for you. Deadman137 (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In the bracket section, why did you give the qualifying teams new rankings? Why is Chicago (12) now 8 in the series against Vegas? Just carry over their original ranking. Mannbell20 (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That actually was the original plan. The reason for the change can be found here [1]. Deadman137 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please change the font? The Leafs got elimination and it’s still in bold Mastergerwe97 (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering why you insist on deleting the reference to Paul Stastny regarding Joe Pavelski's injury in Game 7 of the first round of the 2019 NHL Playoffs. When you did it earlier today, you said "needs citation." It has a citation, which has always been there: "Sharks forward Joe Pavelski was cross-checked off the draw by Cody Eakin, then got tangled up with the Knights' Paul Stastny before hitting his head on the ice" [bold emphasis mine] comes directly from the article Sharks and zebras: The NHL kingdom's unintentional best friends, which is the original citation listed at the end of the sentence describing the incident. The citation is currently #53.

The implication from your omission and choice of words is that Eakin crosschecked Pavelski in the head causing the injury. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it is, at best, very misleading to anyone reading the article. The injury's proximate cause was Pavelski's head hitting the ice because of the second collision with Paul Stastny, not the crosscheck to the chest, which was a push backward, extremely common in such circumstances.

What is your objection to providing context and clarification of the sequence of events that caused Pavelski's injury? Are you concerned that the additional sentence makes an already fairly long article even longer? Did you not see the actual description of the entire sequence of events in the cited article? Please explain. USNPilot (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Further discussion brought forward from another page.

Deadman137 says:

"Stop with your edit warring unless you want to be blocked from editing. Now if you haven't exactly noticed over the last two weeks, nobody except for you even cares about this. Your edit gives far too much weight to the secondary contact with Stastny as he was already falling awkwardly from the previous cross-check and your assertion is borderline WP:OR. The purpose of the series summary is to give readers a quick glimpse as to the high points of each game and this wouldn't even have been mentioned if Vegas had successfully killed off the penalty. Your edit is barely useful in a team season article. I will strongly suggest that you find something else to do around here because your conduct suggests that you have a hard time letting go of things." Deadman137 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Response: If you are some special kind of editor who has the power to block other editors that you disagree with, then you should say so. If you have some sort of special Wikipedia status (or complex) where you are either unwilling or unable to tolerate other editors adding to/clarifying/changing anything that you wrote (I assume you wrote the original article), then you should say that as well. My edit was to clarify an existing sentence that was not only misleading, but partially false. First you said that I needed a citation. I pointed out that what I added was specifically in the citation already listed. Then you accused me of not being in accordance with WP:BRD. Your continually reverting a clarifying edit without any explanation is closer to a WP:BRD violation than anything I did. Now you accuse me of "borderline WP:OR." Seriously? My edit is very nearly word-for-word what the actual cited source says. How is that OR? Speaking of WP:OR, the existing phrase, "cross-checked Joe Pavelski up high," is clearly WP:OR, and possibly WP:POV, since nowhere in the cited source is "up high" even implied,let alone stated. You obviously haven't watched any video of the actual hit and resulting injury to Pavelski. If you had, you'd see that Eakin did not cross-check Pavelski "up high," but in fact hit Pavelski fairly low for a cross-check, hitting him just above the elbows (below Pavelski's chest). You'd also see that from that hit alone, Pavelski would have landed on his butt. It was the second collision with Stastny that drastically altered Pavelski's trajectory so that he landed on his shoulder/head instead. Just like the video shows and what the cited source actually says. I'm not sure why you seem to be wedded to the original wording, other than your point of view, and perhaps bias against me now.

I care about this because it's partially false, and taken as a whole, completely misleading. I'm not sure why you don't care, since you seem to be Wikipedia's reigning hockey guru. How about a compromise, Deadman? You said that the series summary is a "quick glimpse of the high points..." Okay, how about this? Instead of me trying to add clarification, you just change the wording of that last clause of that disputed sentence to something like, "..., Vegas' Cody Eakin was assessed a controversial major penalty and game misconduct as a result of a play that injured Sharks forward Joe Pavelski." That way, the flow and design of your series summary is preserved just as you like it, while the un-cited and untrue portion is removed, along with the misleading implication. It satisfies your above-stated criteria, and removes any possible WP:OR or WP:POV from the article. Would that be satisfactory to you?

I'd like to hear what you think about this and why. USNPilot (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you here that the Nassau Coliseum is closed indefinitely by Russian Billionare Mikhail Prokhorov.[2].

@SoonerFan4life67: Prokhorov and his company defaulted on their lease and no longer control the site. [3]

You've spent enough time making yourself look foolish on this, it's probably best if you move on and find something else to do. Deadman137 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't hear about that Deadman137. I'm very sorry.

I don't mean to add more work for you, considering you have been working endlessly on the playoff article and a bunch of other things, but I have decided that I want to take an indefinite break from Wikipedia to focus on other things. With that, I was wondering if you would be able to update the game log section on the Stars page during the Finals during my absence. The Tampa page should be in good hands since another editor looks after it. I plan on updating the statistics section on the Stars article once the Finals have concluded. However, I'm unsure if I plan on coming back to edit the 20–21 season articles on a daily basis (whenever 20–21 starts). If it's too much, I'll see if another editor can do it. Thanks. Yowashi (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yowashi: I can do it/make sure no one screws it up, besides now that the focus is off the main playoff article my stuff gets easier to manage. Deadman137 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, I'll be AFK tonight, so unless the game goes into triple overtime, I won't be able to do the tables tonight. If there is a game Wednesday, I will do those ones.Conyo14 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Conyo14: Guess we don't have to worry about Wednesday. Thank you again for all the work that you did, stay safe out there. Deadman137 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)