Talk:Defenceman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defenceman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Stub

This article is still listed as a stub (though this may be my fault, as I was the last to make a large addition to the article.) That said, what do you folks think should be added? At present, my thinking would be along the lines of more on the play in various zones, and perhaps expanded discussion of the various overall play styles by defencemen/defensemen. Others? Battlemonk 02:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspiciously tall

Heights of 6'4" - 6' 7" seem suspiciously tall, even for professional ice hockey players. I know there have been some defenseman that tall and that pro-ice hockey players are above average in height, but 6'4" - 6' 7" on the average ? H Padleckas 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems about right, looking at various defencemen: in the five listed on [1] with a last name beginning with A, there is one who is 6'0", one 6'1", and three 6'4". There are several who range to 6'7", many 6'6", and so forth. It's a bit deceptive to say 6'4" as a minimum, perhaps, but it's certainly not untrue. Battlemonk 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Defenseman" for ice hockey

Proposal is soundly defeated. -- 02-28-06

The intent is to archive this decision, please do not edit.

I think the spelling of the word "Defenceman" for ice hockey should be changed in all instances to "Defenseman". Other sports, such as cricket, should continue to use the british standard "Defenceman", but it doesn't make sense for ice hockey.

The issue at hand are certain differences in the English language that have come about between North America and England since the colonies were started. Most can be attributed to Webster's logicalization of english, and I'm not sure if that applies to this word specifically, but it's notable anyway. Other such words include "Tyre" and "Theatre"

I have many different reasons for changing it in relation to the hockey article, and this is why:

Ice Hockey is predominately a North American sport, and using the word "Defencemen" would be the same as someone editing the baseball article and calling the person who swings the bat the "batsman" instead of the "batter".
Most European nations that play ice hockey don't speak english natively, and therefore would most likely use the north american spelling.
Google search results indicate that there are 620,000 instances of "Defenseman" while only 129,000 instances of "Defencemen" and most of those that reference "Defencemen" are referencing the cricket position.
Google was used to determine the frequency of both words on the International Ice Hockey Federation homepage at [2]. 66 instances of "Defenceman" and 506 instances of "Defenseman" were found.
Google was used to determine the frequency of both words on the National Hockey League homepage at [3]. 120 instances of "Defenceman" and 13,500 instances of "Defenseman"
Google: Swedish Elite League homepage at [4]. 38 instances of "Defenceman" and 7 instances of "Defenseman" were found.
Google: European Hockey dot net [5] 192 instances of "Defenceman", 252 instances of "Defenseman".
In the article itself I am commenting on, the word "Defensive" is used in a title. From a language standpoint, it doesn't make sense to have one word have a root of "Defense" and another root word be "Defence"

I believe I have proven that, in the case of ice hockey, the north american spelling should be used when describing this position. I have proven that there is not 100% consistancy in the usage, but I have also prove it is far more prevelently used by authoritative sources than the spelling "Defenceman" in the case of ice hockey.

Discussion

"Defense" is the US spelling, not the North American spelling. The correct Canadian spelling is "defence" (as well as British). "Defensive" is the correct spelling of the word no matter where you are. See here for a reference. Note that Canadian English does not match US English exactly nor British English exactly. In the other examples you gave, the correct Canadian spelling is "tire", just like in the US, and "theatre", like in Britain. I believe that there is no reason to change the article name. -- JamesTeterenko 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I was wrong about using "North American" spelling, so "Defence" is the british and canadian spelling. Still, that fault on my part doesn't change that "Defenseman" is far FAR more prominately used Internationally in the sport of ice hockey. Why shouldn't we conform to the ad hoc international standard?--Jeff 16:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "Most European nations that play ice hockey don't speak english natively, and therefore would most likely use the north american spelling", then what is the ad hoc international standard ? Canadian spelling ? US spelling ? Pick one. -- PFHLai 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my suggestion, going with the predominate US spelling. --Jeff 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 March 2004, the predominate Canadian spelling was chosen [6], and has been in use since. I am not saying 'Defenseman' with an 'S' is wrong, but it would be wrong to go against standard wikiprotocol to switch from one version of English spelling to another. This goes for any article in Wikipedia. Unless an obvious mistake was made, e.g. using American spelling in an article about Medieval Britain, we do not switch. -- PFHLai 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The proposed move is not supported. Defenceman with a 'C' is fine. The spelling style preferred by the first major contributor to the wikiarticle should be respected, as per Wikipedia: Manual of Style. -- PFHLai 16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." from Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. The "remaining with the the original contributors style" clause is only in effect if nothing else applies. In this case, the article's dialectal use of english is contrary to the used standard. It just doesn't make sense that wiki should use a spelling that is contrary to what the standard is. --Jeff 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that hockey does not have a strong tie to Canada? -- JamesTeterenko 19:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not not at all. I am, however, suggesting that all evidence i can find suggests that "Defenseman" is the accepted spelling of the word in regards to the ice hockey position.. --Jeff 19:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the Canadian Dictionary link above, it states that the correct Canadian spelling for the word is with a "c". If you want Google evidence (which isn't the greatest way to tell), how about searching Hockey Canada. It has 131 hits containing one of the words (defence, defenceman, defencemen), while 82 hits with one of the words (defense, defenseman, defensemen). If you remove articles that have both spellings (speaking to potential typos), the usage is even more in favour of defence. 112 hits for defence and 52 hits for defense. Do you have any sources that suggest that the correct Canadian spelling is defense? -- JamesTeterenko 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard ? 'Defenseman' with an 'S' is not the but one of the accepted spellings. The wiki has not used a spelling that is contrary to what the standard is in the English-speaking world. 'Defenceman' with a 'C' is widely used in Canada. -- PFHLai 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Look, I've been in the thick of the linguistic wars as much as anyone, and have gotten into defenseman/defenceman battles myself. That being said, it is self-evident that a large percentage of contributors, players and teams are based in and from Canada, and use ca-en usages for the term. "Defenseman" is the accepted spelling of the term only in the United States, it is not the accepted spelling in Canada, and trying to impose a universal standard where none actually exists would be a violation of the rules and needlessly antagonize many valued Canadian contributors. This is the English Wikipedia, not the "United States Wikipedia." Ravenswing 19:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a tiresome subject. We been at this before and the end resolution was the context of the article dictates the spelling. Basically "when in Rome, do as the Romans" ccwaters 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose like every other person who is involved with Wikihockey. I've this argument with Ravenswing before only on the topic of "centre" over "center". However as it stands, both American and Canadian/English spelling can work, depending on where the player was born and where he has played the most notably. I do think that Defenseman (ice hockey) should redirect to Defenceman (ice hockey) so that it is not just a blank page. Croat Canuck 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just created the redirect. -- JamesTeterenko 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Defenseman already redirects to this article anyway, and like everybody else said, defenceman with a C is just as correct and arguably more common. 216.167.244.113 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE ice hockey should use Canadian spelling by default 132.205.45.110 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Defensive is from the root defence. Defencive hasn't been a word in any form of English since the 17th century.--Cherry blossom tree 00:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- FYI much of the use of "defencive" was my doing, and as I am a historian and had just been doing a lot of reading before writing this, I am not going to make any defence (har, har) of my actions. All told, though, really, just leave it the way it is. Inconsistencies are one thing, but arguing over which is right isn't going to be useful. It's defenceman, so "defence" is proper. If it were "defenseman" I'd argue the same way for "defense". Battlemonk 06:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Spelling differences between various versions are trivial and we don't switch version without a good reason. No good reason has been provided. Zocky | picture popups 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the funny thing is I have to think about how to spell it. Defense or defence, gray or grey. ccwaters 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment articles about American players and teams should use US spellings, and about Canadian players and should use Canadian spellings. In all other cased the language of the major contributor should apply. For the main article a redirect and an explanation in the introduction should suffice. Kevlar67 07:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Words

Hi original proposer here. I see there's pretty much no way of winning this one and bow to the overwhelming concensus. I almost give up. I like Kevlar67's suggestion regarding the spelling in articles about the NHL or any other US-centric ice hockey article. I checked around, and the spellings are "defencemen" in the NHL article and probably many other places that might have a better arguement for it there. I will raise the question again in the future after I find out how "Defens/ceman" is spelled (or if it is) in the inscription on the James Norris Memorial Trophy. --Jeff 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussions

Hey wait a minute! You should ***NOT*** be changing NHL articles just to fit your American tastes. Ice hockey is a Canadian game, and most of the players who've ever played for the NHL have been Canadian. Canadian spelling should be default for NHL articles. I don't give a crap about British spelling, it's Canadian spelling that counts in Ice Hockey. (Why would the European IIHF want to hold it's centennial celebration, the world championships, in Canada otherwise? Since Canada scrupiously ignores the IIHF otherwise). 132.205.45.148 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A day late and a dollar short, sir; if you were paying attention, the proposal has already been withdrawn. That being said, en-ca shouldn't be "default" any more than "en-us" is. Wikipedia's Manual of Style goes into some length as to how national linguistic conventions should apply, and that's what we do here. Ravenswing 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been closed on the article Defenceman (ice hockey), with the point understood that the position is for an international game, and therefore the regional clause of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not apply to this article. Therefore, the arguement that wins this (keep the spelling as-is for this article) is that it was spelled as the major contributor felt, and there is nothing in the Manual of Style that allows a change at this time.

As I gather evidence, I may propose a change of the spelling in US-centric articles like NHL or Derian Hatcher or other defenseman from the United States. The rabid defense of the spelling of "defence" is, to me, evident of Canadian-centric and anti-americanism for no reason other than to be contrary, something Canadians seem to be very good at. (I'm from Michigan, so I love you Canadians, that's meant in good humour <-- (british spelling!) :). Anyway, future proposals will be based on Wikipedia's regional specific clause in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Whether I propose changes to other articles will depend on what spelling the James Norris Memorial Trophy has inscribed on it, as well as frequency of use statistics from google, and more thorough reasoning of the regional rules. --Jeff 23:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the policy listed above of sticking to whatever it was originally written as, unless there are inconsistencies in the original article? That seems pretty straightforward to me. (Written as I look across the Detroit River at... well, Windsor. --Battlemonk 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be preferable to people diving into every NHL player article on a defenceman and changing the spelling to defenseman. As I read it, Jeff is proposing to change NHL player articles to defenseman, plus all American articles. While American articles are American, not all NHL articles are American. Since the majority of all NHL players Canadian, changing all NHL defenceman to defenseman is overbearingly American. 132.205.46.157 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm coming into this about three years late, but I've had my eye on this article for a few months, and I must say that the spelling really should be defense, not defence. It seems like people are saying that changing the spelling to "defense" is "overbearingly American" while the same can be said that keeping it at "defence" is overbearingly Canadian. I absolutely love hockey, and play as a goalie several times a week. I will love Canadians forever for giving us this awesome game, but seeing as how Wikipedia headquarters is based in the United States, the James Norris Memorial Trophy has written on it "DEFENSIVE player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position" and the Frank J. Selke trophy has written on it "who demonstrates the most skill in the DEFENSIVE component of the game", the correct spelling should be defense. I've seen several good examples of why a change should be made (as can be seen by Jeff's comments above) but no good reasons as to why it should be kept except for "it's fine where it's at". People are saying that the largest contributing editor should have final say, but is that seriously the way to go about this? If the largest editor spells it "defincive" does that mean the spelling is correct? No. I know hockey has strong ties to Canada, but that should be irrelevant. I just looked on the Wikipedia page for Russia and saw the word "defense" spelled just like that. Why don't we change it to the way the Russians spell it? The word defense is used by the NHL as well, not defence. And while most players in the NHL may be Canadian, it is still mainly an American league. Seriously, there are a million reasons to change the spelling to defense, and the few reasons to keep it are weak at best. Any thoughts, or is everybody going still unnecessarily stubborn about this? Normally I could care less about this sort of issue, but after reading the archives, I'm hearing way more reasons to change it than to keep it, which sound to me like people are just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first thing wrong with what you wrote is the Trophy actually has the defenceman spelling on it, someone once upon a time provided picture proof of that but I long since have forgotten where they may have hosted the picture. Secondly defensive is how that word is spelled in Canadian english as well. Thirdly the word defense is used by the NHL's american based web editor, but its often spelled defence in many of their documents. Fourthly the fact that the majority of its players are canadian and the fact that it was invented in canada lead to it meeting the standard that we use the english variant that the subject has the strongist ties with. Last but not least is that WP:ENGVAR says to leave it where it is and to not change it unnecessarily. Oh and the fact WP:CONCENSUS says to leave it here. Oh and one other comment, defence is how it is spelled in pretty much every english speaking country in the world except the US. Seeing it spelled as defense on other articles isn't necessarily a good arguement either because more than half the editors on wikipedia are American. I forget the actual percent but its pretty huge. And people tend to spell the word the way they are used to spelling it. -Djsasso (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And going by pure consensus is one of the biggest reasons so many people consider Wikipedia unreliable. We should be more willing to find the truth and research these issues than to just take a vote and say "um, I think it's ok". First off, everywhere I've looked online has the Norris spelling "defense" not "defence". Can you provide picture proof? I've looked around online but haven't been able to find it. Second, I get that "defence" is the Canadian spelling, but this website was created in the US, not Canada. Third, it doesn't matter than a majority of NHL players are Canadian. It really does not. I don't understand why this argument stands up. My favorite team, the Sharks, has like 3 American born players on it, a majority are Canadian. Do they play the Canadian National Anthem? No, because it's an American team in an American league (unless they are playing against a Canadian team of course). So the fact that there's a ton of Canadians in the NHL doesn't really matter. I hear you when you say that "defence" is apparantely how it's spelled in "pretty much every english speaking country in the world except the US" (not sure who "pretty much" is supposed to be, but whatever), but my problem is that there needs to be a standard. I've read that the guy who invented basketball was from Canada. Why isn't it spelled "defence" on basketball articles? Do you see the problem? If we don't have a standard like en-us, we spend more time over quibbles like this that we do actually improving the article. I've seen a TON of sites on Wikipedia that have arguments like this (defense/defence, or center/centre). I also love how everytime I spell the word "defence" as I write this, the word gets underlined like I'm spelling it wrong... The standard should be en-us, that way we can avoid discussions like this and get on with improving the article. I've presented good reasons for the spelling to be "defense" and Jeff posted some good ones too. The arguments for "defence" have brought us nothing but weasel words (like the "pretty much" you wrote earlier) and people going off about concensus because people would rather just say "yeah whatever, it's fine" then actually do some research. If you are that adamant about keeping it the way it is, whatever, I'm not going to make a huge deal about it. But if the almighty WP:CONCENSUS is all that matters, don't be surprised that the world continues to see Wikipedia as a joke. Stubbornness and Canadian bias is the only thing keeping "defence" alive. If I may quote Oliver Kamm "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." Supergoalie1617 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There actually hasn't been an arguement about this in years (ie you replied to a 3 year old thread which was the last time it came up) because its laid out pretty straight forward in WP:ENGVAR, which is the standard that is set. The NHL is also not an "American" league. It has Canadian teams and its head office is in Toronto with a satelite office in New York. The inventor of basketball was Canadian you are right, but he invented the game in the US in Boston. This website's servers are actually located in 3 different countries (Korea, US, Germany). Yes the "founder" was American but the people who write the content are all over the place. -Djsasso (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I do see what you're trying to say, but if I may...

First, this specific talk page hasn't had a discussion in this in several years, but I've seen other talk pages where arguments over this such thing take up a TON of room, and were discussed very recently. I only brought it up on this specific page cause it's the main article for "defenceman"

Second, there is a contradiction in part of your argument. You start by saying "[the NHL] has Canadian teams and it's head office is in Toronto with a satelite office in New York." OK, you are trying to say that because the NHL's main office is in Canada, the NHL can't be considered an American league, inferring that it is more of a Canadian league. Which, while on that topic, the NHL has 24 American teams, compared to Canada's 6, and I can't even remember when a Canadian team last won the cup. I'm sure you are already thinking "well most NHL'ers are Canadian" but if you read above I already diffused that argument. But anyways, you turn around and say that since Wiki has servers in 3 different countries (with it's main office, the location Wiki started, being in Florida), it can't be considered an American website. So does an organization/website having it's main office in a certain country make it tied to that country or not? Do you see the contradiction? Where the NHL is concerned, only the main office counts, not the satellite offices. But where Wiki is concerned, you turn around and say it doesn't matter where the main office is located. Contradictions like that are a strong indication of bias, because you are trying to twist things around to fit your views.

Third, yeah the inventor of basketball started it in the US, but you can still argue that basketball has strong ties to Canada, since it gave us the inventor of basketball. If Canada blew up before the basketball inventor was born, we would not have basketball (unless someone else invented it later, but you see my point) You see, there is simply too much confusion on what makes something have "strong ties" to a region. Since Wiki has no standard for this, it makes sense to go with en-us since that's where Wiki started (hey, wait a minute, Wiki has "strong ties" to the United States. Everything should be in en-us according to that...). With no standard, everything is subject to bias, such as this article. Again, I don't expect you or anybody to change all these articles, I'm just curious to see if you are willing to admit there is no good reason to have it spelled defence instead of defense other than bias.Supergoalie1617 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my point is not that the league is a Canadian league, my point is that it can't be called an American league because of things like where some teams are and where its head office is. Same with the website, the nature of the wiki means it can't be considered an American website because just as much of its opperations are outside the states as is in the states. Just like major corporations are no longer called American companies they are called Multi-national companies. I actually don't see any bias using the spelling that is on this page. Its the sense and not just in Canada but I know its felt around the world that Americans try to claim everything as their own which is why our standard exists, to stop American bias from trying to overrule everything. This wikipedia is English Wikipedia not American English Wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is English Wikipedia, not American English OR Canadian English wikipedia. If that paragraph isn't calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. You interpret "English" wikipedia as "Canadian" wikipedia, then get on me for saying that it should mean "American" wikipedia. You say "I know it's felt around the world (weasel words, no citations, a continuing indication that you are making this up as you go) that American's try to claim everything as their own." Sorry for suggesting that a website founded by an American who was born in America while living in America with it's main HQ based in America should be suggested as American... There is no American bias trying to overrule everything (in fact, it appears that Canadian bias has taken over here). You want to keep these articles Canadian-centric while getting on an American trying to do something similiar. I am simply suggesting a standard as to avoid this kind of thing. Make all of wikipedia en-ca, I could care less, just make SOME kind of standard. I've asked you what constitutes something as having a "strong tie" to a region, even giving the founder of basketball being Canadian as an example, but you have dodged the question several times now. Will I ever get a decent response with no weasel words? Another thing is that the article starts with (defense in the US), which implies it's spelled defense ONLY in the US and defence everywhere else in the world, which is not even close to being the case. It also shows the Canadian bias against America even more, because it singles out the US and none of the other countries that spell it "defense". In the above discussion, Jeff shows that defense is used far more than defence internationally, but that clearly does not matter to you. The only reason I started this discussion was to see if there was a good reason for the spelling to be "defence" over "defense". I have found none, yet I have read and brought up several good points as to why it should be "defense". Unfortunately all responses to my statements have been weasel words and uncited claims. It's obvious to me that bias and anti-Americanism is the only thing keeping it "defence", so I'm going to let this go. I've seen what I need to see.

Other than trying to stir the pot is there a good reason to change it? There are just as many good reasons as your reasons, we just differ on what constitutes good. I would say the fact the position was invented in Canada would pretty much be the best possible reason, can't really have stronger ties than that. Even still the alternate spelling redirects here so its not like the page can't be found. Heck in articles on american defencemen it even uses the american version. Other than to push your POV there really is no good reason to change it. It is clear that anti-International spelling is the only reason you want to change it. The problem with setting a standard as has been explained to you is what standard do you use? The spelling for 300 million Americans (defense) or the 1.9 billion people in the british commonwealth (defence)? Or some other variant that the english portion of the remaining 4.5 billion people in the world use. This is why we use WP:ENGVAR to avoid stepping on peoples toes and to ideally not have to have these rediculous discussions on which to use. If you want to get a standard set, whch by all means go ahead and try, that is what wikipedia is all about. This article isn't the place to do it. The talk page at the above mentioned page would be the place to bring it up. -Djsasso (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American jingoism rears its head again. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've long since gotten involved in discussions like this, but I know that the drive-by (mis)use of inciteful terminology isn't going to bring them any closer to consensus. ccwaters (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable defencemen

I'm inclined to X this section out as another doomed-to-be-POV-ridden bit overwhelmingly (as is usually the case with these lists) stuffed with current players; excuse me, nine out of the twelve most notable defensemen in hockey history played within the last five years, Wade Redden's among them, and Doug Harvey isn't? No. I'd be interested to hear what people think, but we either need to get this section under control and keep it there, or just lose it altogether Ravenswing 13:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a postscript, if you're going to pick twelve defensemen to cite, here'd be my list: Moose Johnson, King Clancy, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, Bill Gadsby, Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr, Brad Park, Vyacheslav Fetisov, Denis Potvin, Paul Coffey, Ray Bourque. (If you get the notion that list spans eras so we don't get nine guys who played in the 2000 season and three guys who played before 1990, you're right) Any current player added would have to knock off not only someone already there, but Potvin/Coffey/Bourque. Ravenswing 14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we create a separate page for a full list of NHL defencemen (we could do this for all the positions). The Notable list on this page could have restrictions such as those you are proposing. How about notable Hall of Famers with a couple (2 or 3) current players who are having a notable year (current players can be anything from top rookie to off-ice problems that are making headlines(jail or court)). That would get rid of Redden. We can place an editer's note at the top of the edit page to notify people of the restrictions. Trapper 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "notable" lists, almost by definition, constantly become inflated and are POV-ridden. I spent two weeks reforming the "Notable Players" list that used to be part of every team page, balanced for position and era, and half my edits were trying to keep off the favorite current player of every anon IP wafting through. It's far more trouble than it's worth. Ravenswing 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound problematic. What do you propose we do with this list then? It's a shame if we scrap a list like this b/c people looking for great players might otherwise have to scroll through hundreds of names. Trapper 17:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is we scrap it. There are many resources available for those looking for lists of great players, including the HHOF listing available on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to non-disambiguated title; issue can be revisited if other defenceman articles are created. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Defenceman"? It redirects here. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I oppose the move as (1) unnecessary, the redirect is in place and (2) there are other defencemen, even if they do not have current articles. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if there's other defenceman. If they don't have articles there's no point in having the dab. We can continue to link to defenceman (ice hockey) so if there ever is others they'll link there, though. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid this arguement which comes up now and then I am going to go ahead and create an article for atleast one other type of defenceman tomorrow. -Djsasso (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wouldn't that still leave this article as the primary topic, and the articles you create better located through a Defenceman (disambiguation) article, or a hatnote at the top of this article if you create only one? 199.125.109.135 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really in NA defencemen might be most commonly associated with hockey but in others its might be with another sport. But I would doubt even in NA if you say defenceman to the average joe that they would automatically think hockey...well except in Canada lol. -Djsasso (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing to disambiguate from, then there's no point in disambiguation. It's true that the redirect is already in place, which makes the change almost identical to no change. The only difference I can think of is that leaving the article where it is now is slightly more likely to result in double-redirects than moving the article would. I can't see a particularly compelling argument for either side of the question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. We don't move articles from an acceptable spelling to another unless there are strong national ties to a certain spelling. Jafeluv (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defenceman → Defenseman — Based, primarily, on WP:UCN. I see the discussion above (which is from 2006 by the way, please see WP:CCC), but I'm definitely unconvinced. The "defence"/"defenceman" spelling appears to be either some sort of neologism, or an anachronistic spelling (although it may be used in the Cricket world, the coverage of which I'm not familiar with). I know for certain that I have plenty of exposure to Hockey publications, including a couple of Canadian published magazines (the most notable of which being The Hockey News, of course), and I can't recall ever seeing this prior to becoming more active here. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but someone should start the convincing.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Defenceman is the Canadian English way of spelling it. I don't know if you read all of the above or not, but basically it comes down to WP:ENGVAR. I actually used to have a link to an article in the hockey news explaining why they switched to american spelling. It was from an issue a few months back about the Americanization of the game. But basically it came down to not wanting to confuse American readers. Defencemen is still the most common way to spell it outside of the United States in Canada and Europe. -DJSasso (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If THN changed their spelling, I'd think that would give more weight to the WP:UCN argument, and thus support a move on our part. Mentioning the spelling of "defenceman" should be prominent in the lead of course (the addition of a whole section explaining the history behind the spelling would be even better, considering we're a general audience encyclopedia), but if all of the major media has switched then we should reflect that.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is bolded in the lead. And as pointed below, if anything UCN points to the current version or at worst case that neither version has more use than the other. As for having a section describing the differences in spelling. No issue with that at all. -DJSasso (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Defenseman is an American spelling, while Defenceman is Canadian and European. I see no compelling reason for a dialect change, aside from the standard misconception that this is the American language Wikipedia. Reso lute 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. I always write "defenseman" because I'm from the US, but I don't see any reason to change things because somebody else has a bias. ENGVAR explains it pretty well. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you guys completely ignore the WP:UCN issue? This looks like a defensive reaction based on... something I don't understand. If everyone in the media uses "defenseman" in recent history, then why are we intentionally making Wikipedia different?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... everyone in the media..."? You mean US-based media, surely? Just take a look at this. Look at who uses "defenceman". TSN, Toronto Sun, Winnipeg Free Press. See a pattern? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, color me surprised... this is what I was asking for earlier. Wierd. I have subscriptions to TSN and the Toronto Sun (including back issues going several years back), but I've never personally seen them use "defenceman". *scratches head* the only thing I can think of is that they publish separate editions... Except, I lived in Vancouver Canada for a year (incidentally, I lived in Vancouver, WA after that. Talk about confusing people!), and I don't recall seeing "defenceman" there either. Is this an Ontario thing? There seems to be enough heat here to indicate that it may be tied up with the Canuck nationalist... er, stuff. Especially considering those of you involved in this discussion so far, which is really kind of throwing me for a loop.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TSN uses c. So does the Toronto Sun. And the CBC. Not to mention nearly every Canadian news publication. Defenceman with a C is also predominantly used in European publications as well. Reso lute 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt your word, I'm just telling you that I have physical possession of many copies of TSN, and the Toronto Sun, which do not use the "defenceman" spelling in the copies that I have. The only thing there is, they were all sent to a US address, so the only conclusion that I can come up with is that it's entirely possible that such major publishers dual publish for separate markets. If you can find an instance from the Vancouver Sun I swear that I'll loose my mind, considering that I read their paper every day for 11 months (maybe I just blanked the difference out at the time, though?). This certainly isn't a clear cut situation though... I'll have to ruminate on it for a while.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Vancouver Sun uses C too. :) FWIW, I am quite certain we are speaking of different publications when we use TSN. I am referring to The Sports Network, the Canadian sports network, while I believe you are almost certainly referring to The Sporting News, which is, of course, an American publication. Reso lute 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*bangs head on desk* Great, now I'll probably start seeing "defenceman" all over the damn place. "grumble, grumble" You're sort of right about TSN, by the way. I meant "THN", for The Hockey News. Transposed the single letter. *shrug* Thinking about TSN makes me nostalgic though, since I used to watch them regularly when I lived in North-Central Michigan...
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that too. Anyway, I must be off to the Flames game. If you really want to struggle with dialects, go do some good article nomination reviews. It is a struggle when you pick up a British athlete. I also love explaining the existence of Canadian English to people who think only American and British English exist, heh. Reso lute 01:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons you might not have noticed, and I am just guessing here, but I read an article once that described how as long as the first and last letter of the word are correct, most people will not even notice how the rest of the word is spelled unless they are specifically looking for mistakes. They had a whole paragraph written out were every word was spelled wrong but you could read the entire paragraph as if it was correct. It was the wierdest thing. -DJSasso (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← You're talking about:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rest can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Fcuknig amzanig huh?

That is/was a fairly popular internet meme for quite a while there. For more on the issue around that, Articles: Is Spelling Important? looks to be a pretty good resource. Incidentally, I looked around, and it doesn't appear that we have an article on that study/meme here on Wikipedia. That seems like it'd be a good idea for someone to work on... maybe I'll add an article request at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as it would be too much trouble to change them. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on dude, if that's not a pointy argument, I don't know what is.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much different between defenceman & defenseman. People know they mean the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about one page move here. It takes 10 seconds to do the move, so the "too much trouble to change them" comment is just strange. Aside form that, the whole issue here is based on WP:UCN to me, which is an overarching policy for all of Wikipedia. "Use common name" boils down to the fact that article titles should reflect the name which will be the least surprising to our audience.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the page, will create alot of indirects. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seam to think only Americans read Wikipedia. How about the other one and a half billion English speaking population of the world? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While KRM probably could have said this in a nicer way, it is true, you are assuming that the common name is Defenseman, when there is a preponderance of evidence that the two are equally as common if not less common than the current version. There is no clear evidence that defenseman is by far the most widely used spelling which is what you would be required to prove for UCN to be valid. -DJSasso (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Canadian press virtually always use "defenceman". According to some people above, the European press does, too, but I cannot vouch for this. And I bet India and other former British colonies also spell it "defenceman". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per given rationale, also here is an example of the use in European press [7]. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Swedish hockey fans delay match with dildo downpour": Greatest headline ever? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – All the NHL's major publications (such as the "NHL Guide and Record Book" and "NHL Rule Book") spells the word "defenseman". Centpacrr (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hockey world expands far beyond the NHL. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? As far as English speaking leagues go, they all spell it "defenseman", including the CHL website. So that leaves, what, OHL and WHL junior, and that british semi-pro league? --Львівське (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. What I'm saying is that citing the NHL as the final word for All Things Hockey is silly. "The NHL uses it, therefore it must apply to all hockey." Those NHL publications probably also specify that a rink should be 200 ft. by 80 ft.; that games tied after 60 minutes shall go into 5 minutes of sudden-death overtime, followed by a shootout if necessary; that a team receives 2 points in the standings for winning a game (even in overtime or shootout), the losing team receives 0 points, and a team losing in overtime receives 1 point. You can see how this falls apart. Those rules (and others) are different in international competition and in other leagues. Not only are there leagues other than the NHL, but there are national (and international) hockey organizations, as well various forms of media (hockey press, history books, etc.). Ergo, "The hockey world expands far beyond the NHL."

Let's have a look at the International Ice Hockey Federation. Google gives (from IIHF.com):
436 hits for "defenseman" (689 for "defense")

886 hits for "defenceman" (9,310 for "defence")

Or, using the IIHF's in-site search, you get:
1,040 hits for "defenseman" (430 for "defense")

2,260 hits for "defenceman" (2,120 for "defence")

Likewise for Google hits from the Hockey Canada website (hockeycanada.ca):
544 hits for "defenseman" (434 for "defense")

1,100 hits for "defenceman" (3,350 for "defence")

— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, aside from the CHL, predominantly American leagues use American spelling, and the rest of the world's leagues use Canadian and British spelling? I think we already established that. And, fwiw, the CHL uses c instead of s on it's defenceman of the year award. Reso lute 14:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, I think you missed the counter point, User:Twas Now. Львівське above wasn't suggesting that the NHL is the "final word" on hockey at all. The key point of his post was to point out that "English speaking leagues" are dominated by the NHL, which I think is would require remarkable sources in order to refute. Based on the responses so far, this issue appears to be tied in with a nationalist POV battle within the hockey related world/articles, unfortunately. It's unfortunate that people can allow their views to be so clouded by nationalism in the modern world, but this is hardly the first or most severe problem area in this regard, here on en.wikipedia.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Essentially, I've often thought of this as a proper noun. This is not a man of defense, but rather the hockey position Defenceman. It is the same reason that in basketball, regardless of country, the person in the middle of the forward line is called a Center, as opposed to centre. While Sports Illustrated isn't the source when it comes to hockey news, I'm fairly certain that they use Defencemen (and it is always capitalized). I would say outside of perhaps The Sporting News, Sports Illustrated is the biggest printed sports media publication. If this is an issue, I'm in favour of the article having a redirect that is defensemen. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect already exists, so people are never lost finding it. Most of the change proposals over the years have either come from what appears to be an "i like it" standpoint or an "america does it this way so should you" standpoint. While I am not saying this is the case for this proposal, that does tend to be what it boils down to. In this discussion, the one above and I believe there are a few others scattered at the project page and others, people have shown through google and the like that defenceman is the most used version. And your right in my view "Defenceman" is a proper noun for the name of a position invented for the game of hockey which was of course invented in Canada...so if you want to go the strong national ties route you could probably argue that way as well. - Djsasso (talk · contribs) 04:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is hockey, hockey should use Canadian spelling, since hockey is primarily a Canadian sport in the English world. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent a year in Canada, and found that, while the differences between its culture and US culture are much smaller than most Canadians like to think, I did indeed have trouble swallowing the whole Queen thing and those sorts of remnants of the British Empire. I asked someone once whether Canada had a state religion, like the UK. He said "yes, mass is on Saturday night". He meant Hockey Night in Canada. Hockey is just way more important in Canada than it is in the US. I never followed it closely enough to know how Canadians spell the name of the position, but however they spell it, I think that's what we should go with. --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyway, based on some of the evidence above I think that the best resolution here currently is a sort of Soloman solution, of declaring "no consensus". The media and official English sources are obviously split on usage, which significantly weakens the WP:UCN argument on either side. If common usage is 50/50, depending on location and publication reach, which appears to be the case here, I don't see that we have any choice but to make an arbitrary selection for the article title and provide plenty of redirects. We should definitely revisit this issue in a year or so, in order to check on the current state of affairs then. I'm sure that there are some (many, even) who would be unhappy, and even outraged, with a "no consensus" here, and I'm a bit disappointed myself (primarily because it always bugs mean to leave things unfinished, which this feels like), but that's the only resolution that makes sense to me at this time.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is clear there is no universally preferred spelling, can this request be closed or courteously withdrawn? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be, eventually. Relax, there's no rush!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a no consensus close as there has only been one support. While I see what you are saying this would still properly be closed as failed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're saying is that we should stoop to vote counting? I know that were on opposite sides of the issue here, but I'd hope that people are capable of setting aside their personal prejudices when it comes to evaluating discussions like this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying you haven't had a convincing argument to ignore WP:ENGVAR which says to leave the page on the variant it is using. And that your UCN argument has been roundly shot down by the above evidence. There is a clear consensus on the topic, it just doesn't agree with your opinion. That is the nature of consensus, sometimes it doesn't agree with you. You see what you have now agreed on after discussion, is that there is no strong national tie to either version, which means the national tie exception to engvar would not be applicable, which means the main point of engvar is what you would have to go by. The part which says leave it as is and don't edit war over it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering what Wikipedia policy defines the process of discussing an issue in a talk page as constituting "edit warring." Centpacrr (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say discussing at a talk page was edit warring. Please stop trying to misrepresent what I said. -DJSasso (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit of an ideologue about this I see, which is a shame, really. As for a direct reply here, I talked about UCN and ENGVAR above, both in the comment that you're replying to here and in the discussion between Resolute and myself. If you disagree with my analysis of that then OK, but completely dismissing what I said, or completely misinterpreting what I said, which is obvious from this reply, doesn't move the discussion forward at all. Please don't be one of those people who attempts to dictate consensus to the rest of us.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop being patronizing any time now, if anything you are trying to dictate the lack of consensus to everyone. You seem to be a bit of a rules are black and white person. If anything what I said plays right into that for you. You and others above proved that there is no strong national tie to either, as such there is a guideline that dictates how this should be handled. That combined with the so far landslide opposition to your proposal is what makes consensus, not anything I say. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The primary international variant does not = a "neologism". --Smashville^talk 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. I am a born American, and have lived in the United States all my life, but virtually all of my relatives going backwards on my family tree are born Canadian or at least immigrated from other countries (mostly Poland) to Canada. I am aware that there are many words that fall under WP:ENGVAR. I know that Defenseman and Defenceman are both correct and have yet to see an argument that should overturn prior discussion on this matter, from 2006 going forward. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ENGVAR; unnecessary and undesirable change from international spelling to US-spelling. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, current spelling is supported by WP:ENGVAR, and resurrecting this debate is frivolous in view of the preceding debates. Sheesh. PK T(alk) 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per ENGVAR. No common usage has been established one way or the other (that is, both are commonly used). There is no need to change from one common usage to another DigitalC (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked to from Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board

Oppose: Unnecessary requested move. The spelling is already established. ʘ alaney2k ^talkʘ 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Defense" is only used in the U.S., and looks really weird. I cringe every time I see it in the NHL guide. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely because the main offices of the NHL are located in the US (New York City) as are 80% (24 of 30) of its member clubs, and so is its top development league (AHL) which is headquartered in Springfield, MA, and has has 25 of its 29 clubs located in US cities. Centpacrr (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Part of WikiProject Canada?

This article should not be tagged with the WikiProject Canada banner. I removed it the other day, but this was not an established thing I was undoing—the banner was only added about three weeks ago by an IP editor who didn't add the same banner anywhere else. Probably just browsed by and thought, "This seems relevant to Canada...". I removed it because the position has no more to do with Canada than fighting in ice hockey, coach (ice hockey), ice hockey rink, checking (ice hockey), Jeremy Roenick, or the Elitserien—these things are related to the sport, but not so much related directly to Canada.

Yes, ice hockey is Canada's national winter sport. The article on ice hockey should be tagged with this WikiProject. In fact, I just added the banner to Talk:Ice hockey. That's right, the same IP didn't add it there, which confirms my suspicion that this was just an innocent drive-by edit not given much thought. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should maybe actually ask this at WP:CANADA as its up to them what articles are included in their project. A project could decided the United States was part of their project for example because they are canada's neighbour. Its up to the individual projects to decide their scope. So that is the talk page that would be appropriate to ask this. -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified them of the discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I have no problem with it being removed. I just wanted a clear consensus to do so, rather than one editor deciding it shouldn't be there. :) -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But... all it took was one editor to decide it should be there. :( — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not tie such a generalistic concept to a specific nation's wikiproject myself. Given there are about 100 nations registered with the IIHF, do we slap each nation's project onto this article? I think not. Reso lute 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Resolute on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be part of WP:WikiProject Canadian sport, since hockey is defined as the official (declared by Parliament) winter sport of Canada, so the elements of ice hockey would seem to naturally be covered by WP:Canadian sport - since WP Canadian sport does not have a separate banner, it would necessarily use the WP:Canada banner. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Canadian sport is a task force of WP:Canada so its banner is the WP:Canada banner with the sport=yes parameter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Defenceman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316025744/http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=p197902&type=Player&page=bio&list= to http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=p197902&type=Player&page=bio&list=#photo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]