Template talk:Infobox NHL team

Thoughts by template maker

I made this template page so that I would have an opportunity to actually test this template out 'in the field', so to speak, and see what the response would be. At the time of this comment, the template is only being used on the Columbus Blue Jackets's team article. You can see the differences between this template and the currently standard (but also unsanctioned) template by checking any other team articles (i.e. Detroit Red Wings, Carolina Hurricanes, etc.). This template was made with the intent to try and slim the infobox down, as well as remove unrequired information (Captains and Alternate Captains, Alternate Logo) while adding information that would be useful (Media Affiliates, Conference, Division, Titles).

Feedback is greatly appreciated, as well as any code changes that might benefit this template.--Resident Lune 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new template is great, I sugest you apply it to all 30 NHL team articles (but keep the captain). GoodDay 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions.

Make Conference and Division optional fields and add league for use in non NHL team articles.
Make Owner optional and maybe the ability to change Owner to President.
Make Stanley Cups, Conference Championships and Division Championships optional. Add a field for use for non NHL teams, for example "Country" Championships.

--Krm500 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make an entry for team nicknames.

As a response to the entry above, I think all fields are optional. bmitchelf•T•F 04:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest increasing the logo size by 50 pixels more, but I don't know how everyone would react to that. (Mostly, the reason is the Ducks logo -- you can't really see it.) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after some testing in my userspace, the Anaheim logo would look PERFECT at 200 pixels wide, but the other teams' logos won't look good. I don't think a separate template for Anaheim would be accepted... Dunno, I'm just throwing some ideas out there. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a height setting rather than a width setting would make it so the Ducks logo would look more "normal." -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New possible templates

In trying to merge the current season link into the template, I made three test templates which are located at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox1 (go down to see the other two). The last two are based on the football (soccer) infoboxes which I think are much cleaner. What do others think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{current sport-related}} is sufficient on its own. It does not need to be inside the infobox. Flibirigit (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if it is included I like the 2nd example the most where the current season template is at the bottom. --Krm500 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the first example. also if it is incorporated, it might as well use it's own puck type icon instead of the soccer ball. IrisKawling (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I was about to go add the code from my newly created template: {{current NHL season}} to the top of this infobox. It's already at the top of every team page, and it would be a simple matter to add it to the infobox. If need be, we could add exception code in case the season page is not yet added. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you see here we used to have a current season template that was hockey specific but we merged it into the new reworked current template that you just replaced with your new template. -Djsasso (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any recent work on making a spot for the current season in the infobox? It seems the other major sports can do this, why not Hockey?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 15:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound facetious but the only sport of the big four to do it is Football. The other three do not. See New York Knicks, New York Yankees, New York Rangers to see that they are all done exactly the same. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

On January 29, 2007, there was a suggestion that the template be extended to support nicknames. Any opinions? Isaac Lin (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I overlooked the banner at the top of this page; should uses of this template be replaced by Template:Hockey team? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of current season to infobox

There is a discussion currently at WT:HOCKEY on merging the current season minibox into the team infobox. Please go there to comment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current season icon

It's rather silly that Winnipeg Jets, Quebec Nordiques, Kansas City Scouts, Montreal Wanderers (!!) etc. all have the File:Hockey current event.svg icon in their infoboxes. The current parameter ought to be conditional, or perhaps remove the icon altogether for historical teams. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question that should be asked is why do historical teams even have a "current" season. It should be a different parameter altogether. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the icon doesn't have to be considered only for current seasons just because that is the name of the image. After all its just a puck. On historic articles we link to the list of seasons. Seams to work fine. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The icon style, with the clock offset to the upper right, is commonly used on this wiki for other sports and other current events. Icons are used to suggest a meaning, and in this case, the meaning is clear: current event or current season. The image name is irrelevant; you can't even see it from the article because this template uses link= in the image markup. Also, I see the utility in having a link to the list of seasons article, but that link should not be the first infobox item. The only reason it appears first for non-historic franchises makes sense: the reader will frequently want to navigate to the current season article. But for historic franchises, the icon usage and the link position both make no sense. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the coding skill to turn it to a switch then by all means have at it. I just didn't think it was that big a deal. To me the puck with the clock just means season. But I agree to many it probably means current season. I personally like it being first so that its consistent with every NHL team. Historic and Current. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a website parameter

I think it would be handy to have a link at the end of the infobox to link to each team's official website. I mean, I really don't see any reason why would shouldn't have this. Thoughts? Vranak (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]

History field

History field seems redundant in cases where there is no noteworthy changes in team's history (for example Tampa Bay Lightning). Does anyone oppose removing it in cases like that? --Mika1h (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I certainly would not remove it in those cases. The section is useful in seeing in those cases that the name hasn't changed. It also makes it conform to all other team pages. -DJSasso (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former Arenas

I was wondering what thoughts there were on adding a spot for former arenas like the NFL and MLB templates have. A possible solution would be to add it along with the current arena with years to designate how long they've been in that arena (again, like MLB and NFL). Num1dgen (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Infobox support of city or location

Hello, there is a discussion of city / location support (equivalent to this template) in which you might be interested, here: Template talk:Infobox MLB#City or Location support UW Dawgs (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink for Avco World Trophy?

Any thoughts on adding a wikilink for Avco World Trophy? It will only affect a few pages, but it makes sense for the sake of consistency as there are links for the Stanley Cup and Presidents' Trophy. Also, "Avco World Trophy" is the only team trophy/award not pluralized. Shouldn't it be "Avco World Trophies"? Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Cup should be singular

I am not exactly sure how to go about making this change, but teams don't win "Stanley Cups", as there is obviously only one Stanley Cup. Should say something along the lines of "Stanley Cup championships", or wins or titles, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuskerPower (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change has been made. TrailBlzr (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: You've reverted it twice. Any actual objections? It seems obvious why "Stanley Cups" isn't correct. TrailBlzr (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object because the common usage is "Stanley Cups". The vast majority of times news articles mention how many times a team has won the Stanley Cup they will use Stanley Cups. Being that we generally follow what reliable sources use, that is what we have in the infobox. Even the Hockey Hall of Fame does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Montreal has won 24 Stanley Cups" vs. "Montreal has won the Stanley Cup 24 times"... These two sentences mean two different things. Only the second sentence is correct. (there is only one Stanley Cup). TrailBlzr (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with "Montreal has won the Stanley Cup 24 times", as there's only 'one' Cup. Overall, it's nothing that I'll lose sleep over, however. I imagine it would be a huge task, to make such changes across all the NHL related articles. Leaving the question: Is it worth the headaches? GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles use the phrasing "won the Stanley Cup [x] amount of times" with the notable exceptions being the Montreal Canadiens and this infobox. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the Habs are the only exception among the 31 NHL teams, by all means make the appropriate changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many other articles use different phrasing. Detroit Red Wings, Boston Bruins, Toronto Maple Leafs all refer to the teams winning "[x] Stanley Cup Championships". None of those use the phrasing "won the Stanley Cup [x] amount of times". Teams like New Jersey Devils use the phrasing "The Devils have reached the Stanley Cup Finals five times, winning in 1994–95, 1999–00 and 2002–03", without saying "Championship" or how many "Cups" they have won spelled out either. Wikipedia is consistently inconsistent. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Echoedmyron: I believe TrailBlzr is really only objecting to the use of Cups, not the actual pluralization of Championships. I have no opinion either way as Stanley Cups is indeed common short-hand in sources for Stanley Cup Championships. Yosemiter (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. My only objection is Stanley Cups. "Stanley Cup championships" is my preference. TrailBlzr (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until you realize that "Stanley Cup" doesn't just refer to the trophy but also the championship itself of which there are many.--DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Cup is a singular noun. Pluralizing it changes its meaning and adds ambiguity. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trim infobox

I suggest removing conference titles, division titles, and Presidents Trophy's from the infobox.

a) Many teams don't even recognize div/conf. titles or hang banners.

b) They don't have nearly the significance of a Stanley Cup title, and shouldn't be given equal footing in the infobox.

c) Hockey wikipedia has traditionally gone with minimalist infoboxes, only including the most basic information in the infobox while leaving more specific items in the article text.

d) This infobox is long enough to begin with, seeing what year a team won their division in the regular season is just clutter.

TrailBlzr (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the teams might not hang banners for them, it is critical information to put into an infobox about a team. Division/Conference titles are arguably some of the most important information about a team behind of course the Stanley Cup wins. We do go with more minimalist infoboxes, so that important information like this can stand out. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retired numbers are far more important than division titles to most franchises. Should at least include those as well if we're going to keep division titles. TrailBlzr (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this proposal either. Bottom line, the current infobox setup is more useful as it is currently constructed than what is being proposed; as this proposal would cause greater information loss and be less useful to most editors and readers. Now as far as retired numbers go we already dedicate an entire section in any article where that is applicable. Deadman137 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the President's Trophy wins, but would support trimming division and conference titles. With realignment and expansion, the meaning of them changes, and that information can't be adequately conveyed in the infobox.Canada Hky (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really change the meaning though? They are still always winning a division or conference. --DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind this compromise, Presidents Trophy clearly more meaningful than a divisional title. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, sorta partial towards retaining all three, but if were reducing things for the sake of minimalism, I'd be okay with just removing divisional titles (I don't think its even really a thing the League really takes note of). But I'd argue that both the Presidents Trophy and Conference titles are meaningful enough to warrant inclusion, as those are actual NHL awards. Leventio (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They call them out in the media guides and a number of teams do hang banners for them. I think its mostly only the original six teams that do not hang banners for it. So take that for what its worth. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb for what should go in an infobox is whether or not it is essential for a concise summary of the key characteristics of the subject. I believe that divisional, conference, and league titles are key characteristics to summarize an NHL team. I do not believe that retired numbers are key characteristics. isaacl (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media in infobox?

Do we really need to have the local media in the infobox? This seems to violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "exclude any unnecessary content", which this appears to be, since the media isn't actually part of the team. TrailBlzr (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]