Women's hockey[edit source]
Hey, how's it going? I was hoping you might be able to do this for me, to avoid confusion in the future... I know you are a college hockey person... I would like it if ice hockey and women's hockey teams from the same college had separate articles. As in Various College being ice hockey... and Various College (women's hockey) as the counterpart. I find that the two variations of the game usually have much different histories despite being at the same school/location. DMighton 03:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you think that is for the best... I focus on Junior hockey... so what ever works for you. DMighton 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Syracuse Orange[edit source]
Hi there. It is great to speak to a fellow Wikipedian. My wikipedia name is Maple_Leaf (User:Maple Leaf). I apologize if I did not do things properly on this site. I thought that I had to do like wikipedia and be very specific with the titles. I took all the information from my page and placed it on Syracuse Orange. I have also placed a redirect on Syracuse Orange women's ice hockey.
So far, I have created 24 pages for NCAA women's ice hockey teams. Going forward, should the women's programs have their own separate pages or should men and women all be under the same team name? Looking forward to hearing from you. Mark Staffieri 20:29, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Lt! I believe the best approach is to have the women’s program as a separate article. I contributed to the Rensselaer Engineers article with men and women on the same page and I find it becomes hard to read. The other concern is article size.
Currently, I am going on other team pages, and providing a link to the women's page. The important thing is that all the women’s teams in NCAA Division I now exist. Over 25 of the teams have their own pages, while the rest are part of the men's pages.
There are too many programs like Wisconsin, Minnesota and Harvard where the women’s programs have an extensive history. I created most of the women’s articles on Wikipedia so I will be dedicated to working on this on both sites. Cheers! Mark Staffieri 20:48, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Midwest Collegiate Standings[edit source]
Hi. I ran across the following standings in the Toledo newspaper and I thought that if anyone can use it you can. It's from 1951-52.
Colorado College 10-2-0-20 71-38 Denver 9-3-0-18 70-42 Michigan 9-3-0-18 77-41 North Dakota 6-6-0-12 65-54 Minnesota 5-7-0-10 49-49 Michigan State 3-9-0-6 35-72 Michigan Tech 0-12-0-0 39-97
Fanofpucks 23:22, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
NCAA categories[edit source]
I have a question for you concerning NCAA categories in regards to the categories clean-up I'm doing. What do you feel would be the best way to refer to NCAA teams in categories? Let's take Ferris State for instance. Which option would be best in your opinion?
- Ferris State Bulldogs players
- Ferris State Bulldogs alumni
- Ferris State University players
- Ferris State University alumni
- Ferris State University Bulldogs players
- Ferris State University Bulldogs alumni
- Something else?
The current categorization of everything NCAA is a real mess, with often two or three redundant categories for one University. So I thought it'd be great to have your opinion on the matter since you're our local NCAA expert :) --Yannzgob 21:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. I'll keep going with the standard format then. I guess a part of the inconsistencies also came from imported pages from Wikipedia and pages created by other users (me included) less knowledgeable on the matter. That'll be fixed in time. --Yannzgob 15:26, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
You are right - just a little overreaction.Fanofpucks 01:53, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Hobey Baker[edit source]
When writing the Ryan Duncan article I noticed that the Hobey Baker award stopped at 2005 (with the exception of 2008). Also the nominees were not linked.
The article was in bad need of an update. I updated it. Fanofpucks 20:30, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As the photo did not have a copyright and I acknowledged that the photo was from that site in particular, I assumed it was ok. As you know, the photos in question are never used for profit. If there is an issue or if you can provide a clearer definition as to what is considered public domain, I will ensure that future photos have a more accurate licensing description. Cheers Mark Staffieri 17:50, March 8, 2011 (UTC)