Ice Hockey NA‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I am pondering some changes to this template. First, I would like to convert the current table format to a collapsible navbox format, as was done with everything else at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Navboxes. I'm also going to suggest including defunct professional leagues, such as the World Hockey Association, and the International Hockey League (1945-2001). I think this would make it more complete, and consistently formatted. Flibirigit (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you start adding defunct leagues it will become messy, as there are tonnes of leagues that were at their time the equivalent of what we look at the IHL to be. I have no problem with making it colapsible, but I don't think you should add the defunct leagues in. -Djsasso (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking of keeping defunct league in a separate group. The current leagues at the top, defunct leagues at the bottom, and the whole thing would be collapsible. I'm going to play around with a test page for it the box with and without defunct leagues. Flibirigit (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means give it a go. :) -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put a test template below, without any levels. I'm working on the display if we wanna put levels in. Flibirigit (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There are two more test templates located at User:Flibirigit/template. Any feedback? Flibirigit (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Test box 1 might look better if the High/Mid/Low Level headings were group items instead of list items. Test box 2 might have the same problem but it could become very tall. The Major/Minor League headings draw my attention before I see the Defunct Leagues group/sideheading. Current Leagues lack a group/subheading so those become a bit diffuse. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New proposal

I've bascially scrapped some other ideas and replicated the previous template, and converted it to a collapsible navbox format. Have a look at ((Professional Hockey)). I hope this is a good solution. Flibirigit (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Test templates

Test box 1

Test box 2

How is the new IHL listed as a low level league when it has a higher salary cap than the ECHL? Acronjsmith (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:International Hockey League (2007–). Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where in the world did hockey start using "AAA, AA, or A" because they have not used it. The letters were created by lower level leagues and fans. Calling LNAH Semi-pro and calling SPHL or AAHL or even the FHL professional is laughable. Semipro by definition is engaging in a sport or other activity for pay but not as a regular occupation, I know guys in ECHL, IHL, and specially AAHL and FHL have summer jobs. LNAH players make as much as SPHL players and more than AAHL and FHL.Sportslogo (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While not as formalized as baseball, and therefore open to a certain amount of debate as to exact levels, such as in the prior section, the use of the familiar "Triple-A" and such classifications is done for hockey. See these links:[1][2][3][4]. With that in mind, and considering the prior consensus to include them here, I have reverted your removal of them. A discussion at wikiproject talk page would be the place to gauge if consensus has changed. oknazevad (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But none of the leagues use the label AAA and AA, it's incorrect. How can the AAHL, FHL be on the same level as the SPHL? Sportslogo (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wether or not the leagues use them officially doesn't affect the validity of the classifications. As for which league goes in which classification, that's usually a matter of player salary more than anything else. oknazevad (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, consensus at WikiProject Ice Hockey seems to have been (for quite some time) that the "A, AA, and AAA" classifications are not used. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive5#Minor League Hockey.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has also been had out with the IHL (here) and the ECHL (here). In both cases, consensus was against the use of letter classifications.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do realize that you're responding to a nearly year-old discussion? oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was that really necessary?

Yes, I do.

Anyway, the only prior consensus that was established (by the WikiProject, 4 years prior to this year-old discussion) was not to use the classifications in question. Consensus on the use of the classifications on this template was basically achieved through tacit acceptance. I would ordinarily just be bold and edit using the practice used by the WikiProject, but I preferred to discuss it here prior to removing the designations as it had previously been a subject of discussion.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the snark. My point, though, was that the tacit acceptance, as you so perfectly phrase it (and I mean that; I'm going to have to use that in the future) is more recent than that discussion, which seems to me that the current consensus is to include them (per WP:CCC). oknazevad (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad you like it. I don't have any personal beef with the classifications; I've just seen them discussed at length and rejected by the WikiProject on several occasions. As no one seems to have recently objected in this particular instance, I'm happy to leave it alone.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]