text:
Talk:Penalty (ice hockey)

Bench Minors
I'm not a hockey expert so I wouldn't want to actually edit this, but I came to this page looking for info on 'bench minors' and I think even though it's mentioned at the top it should go in the penalty list. In addition to BMs, isn't there a whole category of penalties relating to the conduct of coaches and players on the bench (roughing on-ice players, fans, etc) and other procedural penalties? If the former is part of 'unsportsmanlike conduct', shouldn't these examples be mentioned, or at least the method of penalising teams whose off-ice personnel commit infractions? And what about instigator/retaliator penalties? Are they still being called?

Sorry if I seem like a wuss not doing the research and making the edits myself, but I am truly a fan, not an expert, and I haven't even seen a game in two years (no TV, just radio).

Oh also, IMO it would be useful to have the penalties organised (or at least coded) by type (procedural/otherwise non-contact) vs 'contact', and maybe even info on the length of penalty usually assessed for each type. I know it might be preaching to the choir (yeah, I actually know the answers myself lol), but it would help the non-initiates to decipher the calls a little better.

Oh, and aren't high-sticking penalties assessed whenever the stick's up above the shoulder, not only when it's used to hit another player?--Anchoress 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not in the NHL. Play may be stopped if the player touches a puck with a high stick, but nobody gets a penalty for it.142.59.153.99 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that by IIHF rules, a bench minor may be served by any player in the team rather than any player on the ice as in NHL. IIHF rules, page 56 in the pdf. Since I'm new to this I suggest someone else edits this until I learn how. Sarksjon 08:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What sort of information is there about diving? I looked through the IIHF rulebook but they didn't have any information about it, just a picture of a dive.--Sillybulanston 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you mean, information? What are you looking for? Lord Bob 03:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean like, in the rulebook, there is no small paragraph explaining what a dive is or the legality of it, there is just a picture of a person diving. So my question is: Is diving a penalty or not? I believe it is in IIHF games but I'm not sure about the NHL rules on it.--Sillybulanston 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Diving is called as unsportsmanlike conduct in the NHL.142.59.153.99 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are double minor penalties assessed anymore? The NHL now seems to give major penalties to players who draw blood on a high stick or boarding call.142.59.153.99 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the NHL still gives out double minors, mostly for gross fouls that result in some minor injury. JJJJust 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I confirmed this in the rule book. Flip314 10:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Penalties In Minutes vs. Penalty Infraction Minutes
Google results:

"Penalties In Minutes" - 84,800 "Penalty Infraction Minutes" - 57

From the National Hockey League's "Puckology" page

"PIM An abbreviation for "penalties in minutes" (penalty minutes accumulated)."

In short: IT'S NOT PENALTY INFRACTION MINUTES! --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Trying to figure the history of this edit war (using WikiBlame, though I'm not an expert with the tool, so corrections welcome):
 * "penalties in minutes" was added in December 2004
 * two years later in December 2006, an IP edited it to "penalty infraction minutes"
 * about 15 months of warring between the two phrases, notably:
 * JJJJust changing it back to "in" in May 2007
 * an IP changing it to "infraction" on 7 June 2007
 * the following day, on 8 June 2007, JJJJust made the above talk page post, reverted IP's edit, plus added ref
 * in March 2008, 1995hoo edited the page to "infraction" without adding a source (and kept the old source that only used "in")
 * no edits until mine (1, 2), reverting it back to the original "in"
 * Specifically, the reason why I went with "penalties in minutes":
 * it's the term originally on the page
 * it's the only term that has been sourced
 * per JJJJust, web search in 2007, before Wikipedia could have popularized the term, "penalty infraction minutes" was practically non-existent on the web while "penalties in minutes" had more than 1000-times the results
 * Further input welcome, thanks 15zulu (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Misconduct, game misconduct, match penalty, gross misconduct(?)
Exactly what are these penalties and what infractions actually trigger that call? I know that "third man in a fight" gets a game misconduct in the NHL. There needs to be a distinction between game misconduct and match penalty - and "gross misconduct" is a new one to me... and I've been watching the NHL since the days of the Original Six. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A Misconduct (also known as a 10 Minuit Misconduct) is a non-time penalty and is usually awarded to a player for something along the lines of repeatedly challenging the call of an official, whereas not to further penalize the entire team. It can also be given out if a player breaks his stick so it cannot be measured, failure to wear protective equipment properly, and attempting to incite an opponent to fight.

A Match penalty is a 'Time Penalty' which refers to the 5min that gets put up on the clock and getting the player booted from the game. Best way to sum it up is that a match is a penalty that gets awarded because the player 'Attempted to injure' or caused an injury to another player.

"A Gross Misconduct penalty shall be assessed [to] any player or team official who conducts herself in such a manner as to make a travesty of the game" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert0288 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Spearing penalty
There was a spearing penalty in yesterday's Calgary @ Anaheim game. It was assessed as a double minor, not major; also, a game misconduct was not a subsequent penalty, but there was a roughing minor. This article, however, says the penalty is automatic major and automatic game misconduct. (→ Zachary ) 07:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Rule 86 Spearing
 * Spearing shall mean stabbing an opponent with the point of the stick blade whether contact is made or not.
 * a) A double minor penalty will be imposed on a player who spears an opponent and does not make contact.
 * b) A major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who spears an opponent. (See also :Rule 43 -- Attempt to or Deliberate Injury of Opponents.)
 * c) A match penalty shall be imposed on a player who injures an opponent as a result of a spear. (See also Rule 43 -- Attempt to or Deliberate Injury of Opponents.)

 * TheHYPO (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Coincidental penalties

 * In the NHL and U.S. college hockey, if minor penalties are assessed to one player on each team at the same time ("coincidental") while teams are at full strength, the teams will each play with four skaters in "four-on-four" play. Since neither team is short-handed, a goal in four-on-four play does not end either penalty. In USA Hockey and IIHF, however, coincidental minor penalties result in normal full strength hockey, and the players may not return to the ice until the first stoppage in play after the penalties expire.

Can someone shed light on what this paragraph is trying to say? IIHF rule 512d explicitly states that at full strength for both teams, substitutions are not allowed, leaving both teams with four players, so clearly the part about IIHF is misinformed – I don't know about the other organizations though. -- Jao (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Goals scored during delayed minor calls
I added information about the result of a goal scored during a delayed minor call because it seemed to be both appropriate to the article and important information. If this is unacceptable or if anyone else has a suggestion of how to make it better, please feel free to explain and change or delete it. Tstreet (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Globalize
These need to be globalized. I don't have a link to a rule book but from observation an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the Asia League Ice Hockey doesn't seem to require that your team play down a man, that combined with the language of the article is a clear indication that this is NHL centric.--Crossmr (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Goalie leaving crease
The entry for this used to read "Goaltender Leaving Crease: A goaltender may not leave the vicinity of his crease during an altercation. Once left the crease he can be checked. This is the only penalty in which the goaltender is sent to the penalty box and replaced with an extra attacker." I removed the last part because 1, I've never heard of this happening, ever, and two, the linked part of the rulebook doesn't seem to confirm this. Can anyone provide a better source? I'm pretty certain it's not true. 208.110.101.45 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

List of match penalties
I was wondering if we had some sort of list of match penalties in NHL history. I know it's a very rare occurance, so it seems like it'd be appropriate to have this article. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seperate List
Should the list of penalties be split off onto a seperate article? Eomund (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-write needed?
This whole article is quite haphazardly written, and seems to jump around a lot from being NHL-centric in one section, to international, to Canadian/US amateur. There are also a lot of sections that seem to just be original research, such as the whole 'penalties as a strategy'

The lists of Minor and Major penalties are quite poor, as in reality, almost all penalties are going to be a minor penalty for a regular infraction, and a major+GM for an accidental injury, with a match penalty for deliberate injuries, with the exception of certain stick penalties such as spearing.

As the title to the article is for Penalties in Ice Hockey, all sections should be based on the IIHF rulebook only, with perhaps a separate section or article for where the NHL rule book deviates from the International rule book. Otherwise, there needs to be a whole different page for 'Penalties in the NHL'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.126.216 (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Triple-Minors
I've removed all references to triple-minors from this article (and the penalty box article).

There is no reference to any concept of a triple-minor in any rule book that I can find anywhere, and the references listed were from sports writers who were referring to combinations of penalties (a single plus a double minor penalty = triple minor?). It's not a "triple-minor" penalty in this case, but a combination of multiple penalties which is treated like three minor penalties. In fact, the treating of penalties in this manner allows for quadruple-minors, quintuple-minors, etc.

The fact that there are single infraction penalties which are treated as two minor penalties is notable and should be mentioned here, but triple-minors are misleading and not actually a single infraction penalty as was previously mentioned here. Aradil (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and good removal. Resolute 19:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penalty (ice hockey). 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/20100904162636/http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/khl-game-suspended-at-339.html to http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/khl-game-suspended-at-339.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521014527/http://www.nhlofficials.com/rules.asp to http://www.nhlofficials.com/rules.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

2019 - 2020 Season NHL Penalty Changes
I want to add the new NHL rule changes related to penalties for the 2019-2020 season. There are outlined in this article from NHL.com. I've also quoted them below. I would put an abbreviated version of these rule changes and a link to the article and rule book as references.

Bdreyfus (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Bdreyfus

title: Talk:Penalty (ice hockey)


text:
Ranald MacDonald

Ranald MacDonald (February 3, 1824 – August 24, 1894) was the first native English-speaker to teach the English language in Japan, including educating Einosuke Moriyama, one of the chief interpreters to handle the negotiations between Commodore Perry and the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Early life
MacDonald was born at Fort Astoria, in the Pacific Northwest of North America. The area was then known as the Columbia District or Oregon Country, disputed territory dominated by the British Hudson's Bay Company and the American Pacific Fur Company. MacDonald's father was Archibald McDonald, a Scottish Hudson's Bay Company fur trader, and his mother was Koale'xoa (also known as Raven or Princess Sunday), a Chinook, daughter of Comcomly, a leader of the "Lower Chinook" Chinookan people that lived near the present-day city of Ilwaco, Washington. She, however, died shortly after giving birth and MacDonald was briefly cared for by his mother's family. Around 1825, Archibald McDonald married Jane Klyne, a Métis woman from Canada, and brought Ranald to Fort Vancouver, the headquarters of the Hudson's Bay Company. It is unclear when MacDonald became aware of the details of his birth or of his Chinook ancestry. MacDonald was a member of the larger Métis community.

Based on the popular historical fiction of Eva Emery Dye, it has been repeated that "as a child of eight in 1832 at Fort Vancouver, he met three shipwrecked Japanese sailors, including Otokichi". In reality the three shipwrecked Japanese sailors were brought to Fort Vancouver in July 1834 [not 1832], arriving there about four months after 10-yr-old Ranald MacDonald had departed for the Red River Colony – so there never was the fabled "meeting of East and West". MacDonald's First Nations relatives might have had legends that their ancestors had come from across the Pacific, but saying that MacDonald "developed a fascination with Japan" and "theorized that it might be the home of his distant relatives" may or may not be accurate. In his autobiography MacDonald explained it in his own words: "My plan was to present myself as a castaway ... and to rely on their humanity. My purpose was to learn of them; and, if occasion should offer, to instruct them of us."

MacDonald was educated at the Red River Academy in the newly established Red River Colony, a part of British North America that later became Manitoba, Canada. Later, following the wishes of his father, he secured a job as a bank clerk and became a Master Mason in St.Andres Lodge No.516.

Japan
A restless man, he soon quit his bank job and decided that he would visit Japan. Despite knowing the strict isolationist Japanese policy of the time, which meant death or imprisonment for foreigners who set foot on Japanese soil, he signed on as a sailor on the whaling ship Plymouth in 1845. In 1848, he convinced the captain of the Plymouth to set him to sea on a small boat off the coast of Hokkaidō. On July 1, he came ashore on Rishiri Island where he pretended he had been shipwrecked. He was caught by Ainu people, who remitted him to the daimyō of Matsumae clan. In October, he was then sent to Nagasaki, the only port allowed to conduct limited trade with the Dutch.

Since more and more American and British ships had been approaching Japanese waters, and no man in Japan spoke English with any sort of fluency, fourteen men were sent to study English under MacDonald. These men were samurai, who had previously learned Dutch and had been attempting to learn English for some time from secondhand sources, such as Dutch merchants who spoke a little of the language. The brightest of these men, a sort of "language genius", was Moriyama Einosuke.

MacDonald stayed in confinement, at Daihian, a branch temple of the Sofuku-ji in Nagasaki, for 7 months, during which he also studied Japanese before being taken aboard a passing American warship. In April 1849, in Nagasaki, MacDonald was remitted together with fifteen shipwreck survivors to captain James Glynn on the American warship USS Preble which had been sent to rescue stranded sailors. Glynn later urged that a treaty should be signed with Japan, "if not peaceably, then by force".

Upon his return to North America, MacDonald made a written declaration to the US Congress, explaining that the Japanese society was well policed, and the Japanese people were well behaved to the highest standard. He continued his career as a sailor.

After travelling widely, MacDonald returned to Canada East (now Quebec) and, in 1858, went to the new colony of British Columbia where he set up a packing business in the Fraser River gold fields and later in the Cariboo, in 1864. He also participated in the Vancouver Island Exploring Expedition.

Although his students had been instrumental in the negotiations to open Japan with Commodore Perry and Lord Elgin, he found no real recognition of his achievements. His notes of the Japanese adventure were not published until 1923, 29 years after his death. He died a poor man in Washington state in 1894, while visiting his niece. His last words were reportedly "Sayonara, my dear, sayonara..."

Memorials and burial place
MacDonald is buried in the Ranald MacDonald Cemetery, Ferry County, Washington. The grave is 18 miles northwest of Curlew Lake State Park on Mid Way Road. The grave itself is a state park, the smallest in Washington State. The grave marker has the inscription:

There are memorials to Ranald MacDonald in Rishiri Island and in Nagasaki, as well as in his birthplace, where Fort Astoria used to stand in Astoria, Oregon.

Award
Since 2016, the foundation Friends of MacDonald - The Dutch Connection in the Netherlands has given out the Ranald MacDonald Award to writers/artists who shed new light on the relations between Asia, Europe and North America with their work. Some of the people who won this award are: Frederik L. Schodt (2016), Zia Haider Rahman (2016), Hajime Narukawa (2017), Bruno Maçães (2018) and the FENIX Landverhuizersmuseum in Rotterdam (2019).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ranald MacDonald


text:
Talk:Whiteness studies

Deep concerns over theory represented as fact.
The lead, as well as the rest of this wildly flawed article, treat the conspiracy of "white privilege" as a fact. This is horribly racist and not based in fact. The concept is only ever presented in reliable sources as a theory or an idea, and in no way represents actual scientific sources.

As an expert, I propose we obey the rules of WP:NPOV and not represent this racist conspiracy theory as fact. I've started by adjusting the lead. Innican Soufou (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 * This has been discussed at length, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that "white privilege" is a phenomenon (i.e., a fact), not a theory. If you simply defy consensus and edit this page and the page White privilege, your unsourced edits will just be reverted as disruptive. Also, I would strongly advise you not to use inflammatory language, accusing other editors of being "horribly racist" against whites. See WP:NPA. NightHeron (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reality is not dictated by the consensus of wikipedia editors, and it is not the place for wikipedia editors to determine what is, and isn't, a "phenomenon". Please educate yourself and supply scientifically credible peer-researched resources from respected scientific journals that prove your theorem, other-wise, shut up. Kellog2222 (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) — Kellog2222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Racism is as racism does, and you are certainly racist if you think the field of whiteness studies is valid.
 * The fact that academics have laundered it does not make it acceptable. 46.7.28.113 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "As an expert" Of what? Dimadick (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * an "expert white person" 2601:842:C180:1077:4525:A80:33E4:2BB9 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

WTF is white trash studies?
I think that at least needs a citation if such a thing actually exists 131.252.67.132 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. I agree that there is something not quite right here. The phrase "white trash studies" appears in the lede but not in the body of the article, which is bad per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The phrase does not appear in the article White trash except once in the title of one of the sources. The only thing that makes me hesitant to remove it is that it has been in the article since November 2019. Maybe it means something to somebody? Can anybody explain/clarify/reword this? If not, I propose removing it and adding White trash to the See Also list instead. DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per page 360 of the cited source: ...But whiteness studies did not originate solely with Morrison; in the late twentieth century, it had emerged as an academic discipline from two related but distinct scholarly threads: white trash studies and critical race studies. Although they both seemingly foreground whiteness, they offer whiteness studies different focuses, purposes, and effects.
 * White trash studies analyzes class issues associated with poor whites in the US. It takes its name from a pervasive cultural stereotype in order to undo that stereotype, much as queer studies embraces the term queer. White trash studies gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s as a means of critiquing representations and misrepresentations of lower-class white culture...
 * This seems like useful context, so it should probably be explained, briefly, in the body of both this article and of white trash. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section
I flagged the article per the policy that criticism sections are generally not recommended. Whether or not this policy applies to ideologies, I can't say as they are often found in philosophy pages.

My main concern is that the section leads with criticisms from three figures known primarily for right-wing political commentary; the first (Horowitz) runs an anti-left watchdog site. Highlighting these very predictable criticisms obscures the more legitimate criticisms from qualified experts and actually skews the POV in favor of the field. It would be easy to come away from the article thinking that any criticism is just partisan whining. 2603:7081:1603:A300:E62B:4133:FEEE:6E66 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't argue with your characterization of David Horowitz and Douglas Murray as partisan whiners, but I don't think you can dismiss the other two, Dagmar Myslinska and Alastair Bonnett, in that way. In any case, feel free to suggest other sources and critics who are more credible than Horowitz and Murray. NightHeron (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Whiteness studies


text:
Talk:Donegal (town)

Population figures wrong.
Just that.

Population: 2,339 ???????
 * I agree. The figure on the Letterkenny page is 15,062 so cannot possibly be under 3k for the whole county Jaqian (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the error. The figure quoted is for Donegal town and not the county. Jaqian (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Links?
http://donegaltownrfc.com/ doesn't seem to work, redirects to some Indian site? http://www.donegaltownrfc.com/ either goes to a 404 page, or to "The Internation Chamber of E-Commerce".

Mick T. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

pronunciation
The transcription had the 1st syllable as dunn rather than don in the English pronunciation. I can only confirm the later. Anyone know differently? kwami (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its doon in Irish but don as in done. I'm from Dublin and we'd say it as done-e-gall Jaqian (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Donegal. 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/20090524084754/http://www.letterkennyhomes.com:80/letterkenny/ to http://www.letterkennyhomes.com/letterkenny/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140403184658/http://buseireann.ie/pdf/1349438037-490.pdf to http://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1349438037-490.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140403185019/http://buseireann.ie/pdf/1349438036-492.pdf to http://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1349438036-492.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Clear consensus in favor of moving. (non-admin closure) — KB3035583 talk  01:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Donegal → Donegal (town) – see below for rationale. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed the name of this page to Donegal (town) and User:Onel5969 changed it back again saying, "No. You need to have a discussion of a move of this magnitude" I will now start that discussion.

 * I propose that the name of this page be changed to Donegal (town)
 * The page Donegal should be a redirect to the page Donegal (disambiguation)
 * There are many reason for doing this:

 * 1) Most people would assume that you mean County Donegal if you just said "in Donegal". For example, several articles refer to "hurricanes off of Donegal".  They clearly mean the county.
 * 2) In fact, some of the links that existed went to the town when the county was intended. I have fixed a lot of these mistaken links.
 * 3) There are many many Donegals as we can see on Donegal (disambiguation). It is not at all clear that the town should be singled out as the default link for all references to Donegal.
 * 4) The name Donegal (town) is consistent in style with County Donegal. One wonders why the editor who originally made the decision for the town to be the default did not choose the county instead.  It was, in fact, an arbitrary decision with no forethought involved.
 * 5) The user interested in things Donegal will be taken to the town by default and may not notice that there are a lot of other pages that start with that name. Not all WP users are sophisticated enough to know what a disambiguation page is or even notice that it is mentioned at the top of the page.
 * 6) To make things even more confusing, there are pages with the spelling 'Donegall'. These are listed at the page Donegall (disambiguation).  It was to try to clear up some of the massive confusion that I renamed the town page in the first place and then created the two disambiguation pages.
 * 7) No harm is done by letting the name Donegal redirect to the page Donegal (disambiguation). This is what most editors who used the name on their pages intended in any case.  But not all of them as I mentioned above.  Nothing changes.
 * 8) I am gradually changing all the appropriate links Donegal to Donegal (town). In the process, I run across lots of links where the town is clearly not intended–and those I fix.  Usually the confused editor wants the county and thought that Donegal would link to Donegal County.
 * 9) Most important reason: A naive user may be looking for something asssociated with Donegal town or county and simply be taken to the town page and then conclude, "Well I guess that is that.  There seems to be no page for the Donegal entity I was looking for."  This in fact is why I worked to hard to clean all of this up.  A colleague was looking for one of the Donegal pages and simply could not find it.

I strongly urge that the page be changed back to Donegal (town) for the reasons stated above.--Toploftical (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move. I think 's rationales above are quite sound.  Even when I came across the change, I tended to agree with it, however I don't think that 1 or 2 editors should make a change of this magnitude without discussion. And that's exactly what would have happened if I had simply allowed the page move to stand, and gone about fixing the over 500 dabs it created. Onel 5969  TT me 16:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The town is not the primary topic for the term "Donegal".  I would go further and move the dab to "Donegal".  That will leave links pointing to a disambiguation page, but it's less wrong and easier to detect than pointing to the wrong article.  Thanks to Toploftical for mending links.  I've edited the only template which linked to the town, which will fix several article links.  We should probably notify WikiProjects such as Disambiguation and Ireland. Certes (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move. It's consistent with, for example, Cork (city). Would also support moving Donegal (disambiguation) to "Donegal". I would go further still and merge the "Donegal" and "Donegall" dab pages. Scolaire (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move. A good idea; thank you for taking this initiative. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - people say "County xxxx" when referring to the counties of the island of Ireland, so there is no confusion with the town of Donegal and no need to move the article. Cork is a different case, as it can easily be mixed up with the stopper, or the material the stopper is made from. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:DABCONCEPT the county is named after the town which probably makes a stronger case for treating the town as primary among other uses.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this merits a broader discussion. We have Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Sligo, Roscommon etc at their own name. But Tipperary (town), moved there last year as "massively ambiguous with County Tipperary" by (pinging for hopefully a comment here). For Tipperary and Donegal towns, unlike my other examples, neither is their county town or largest town. In common usage: "I'm going to Donegal" would (to me) imply the county. But "I'm going to Galway" implies the city. "Donegal Town" refers to the town in conversation (always disambiguated). All my own experience, so bordering on WP:OR. I'm on the fence here so far. Declangi (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It might be worth re-examining all these cases just mentioned, but one additional argument is that, unlike most of these other towns, Donegal is not even the largest town in the county named after it. PatGallacher (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and User:Declangi's observation above. (Similar cases are Antrim, Leitrim, Louth and Tipperary.)  Note a recent RM discussion at Talk:Antrim, County Antrim.  —  AjaxSmack  20:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that both Donegal and Antrim have few substantially unrelated uses on the other hand Limerick and maybe Waterford (an in particular Cork which "(city)" prevents colfusion with corks in Ireland) do but its not the point of disambiguation to provide the very most specific article sought, if readers find themselves on the town, they can find the related topics via wikilinks per WP:DABCONCEPT. A lot of topics have subsidiary meanings such as Eye/Human eye and Liverpool/Liverpool F.C..  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If so, then County Donegal should be the DABCONCEPT page, not the town page. Making the town the primary topic because the "county is named after the town" does not serve readers well and is not based in policy. —  AjaxSmack  01:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The county is far more important than the town and like most Irish counties is frequently referred to omitting "County". -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Primary topic is County Donegal, unusually despite the county being historically named after the town.  For too long, the town has been unimportant, not the capital city of the county, and internationally the county is known simply as Donegal.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That may sometimes be true even within Ireland. A dab would highlight errors such as one I  the day before this RM opened. Certes (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Just to make my support official.   Who determines when a consensus is reached?--Toploftical (talk)
 * It's supposed to be processed after 7 days. This request is now in the backlog at WP:RM. --Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion following RM

 * Donegal should redirect to County Donegal.
 * The DAB page should stay at Donegal (disambiguation), probably with Donegall (disambiguation) merged into it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The closing statement is clear that should move to, which happened, but did we actually decide what to do with the newly vacated title Donegal?  I saw that Donegal had become a redirect targeted to Donegal (disambiguation).  (I don't know how it became a redirect to the dab: the page which at that time had the title Donegal has now been deleted.)  I interpreted this as a decision to make Donegal lead to a dab, so I requested at WP:RMTR that Donegal (disambiguation) be moved to Donegal per WP:MALPLACED.  If we want Donegal to redirect to the county then we can simply undo the move, as the current redirect Donegal (disambiguation) has no history, but I'll wait to check that this is the consensus rather than get things wrong again.
 * In case it helps the decision, I worked through the incoming links to Donegal last night and fixed them as follows:
 * 253 to County Donegal
 * 92 to Donegal (town) plus 9 more to (via the redirect, because that text was in a piped link)
 * 19 to Donegal GAA
 * 3 to Donegal Airport
 * 2 to Donegal County (Parliament of Ireland constituency)
 * 5 to different targets
 * Some links which I diverted to the county may have intended the town. When faced with statements like "Murphy was born in Donegal, Ireland" and no further clues in either the article or its sources, I erred on the side of caution and linked to county (true but vague) rather than town (precise but unverifiable). Certes (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! How did you straighten out all the misdirected links (county or town) so quickly?  Kudos!  BTW, thanks for making my original case so forcefully; the whole thing was a big mess and lots of previous editors were confused.  It is much better now.  I am glad that a consensus to move was found.--Toploftical (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Disambiguation deals with several cases like this each day. Tools like WP:DisamAssist help us to get through them.  Certes (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Those counts imply ordinary wikilinking editors think “Donegal” means the country? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems that many wikilinking editors think Donegal means the county. We can solve that problem by redirecting Donegal to County Donegal, but that risks accumulating bad links intended for Donegal (town), Donegal GAA, etc.  Alternatively, we can leave Donegal as a dab, so that DPL bot will notify editors about careless links and they will show up on reports if not resolved promptly by the expert.  Either works. Certes (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any other opinions on whether should lead to the county or to the disambiguation page?  We seem to be 1:1 at the moment. Certes (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe 'Donegal' should lead to (or be) the disambiguation page. If by default it leads to the county page, we just recreate the problem we all just solved, but in reverse!  Neither the town nor the county should be singled out as a destination page.  As mentioned above, leaving it as a DAB will help all future editors catch mistakes about which page they mean.  And by bypassing the DAB, readers may fail to find another page associated with Donegal that is neither the county and the town.  Best to let readers and editors who simply specify 'Donegal' be sent to the DAB.  That will be the most useful page for them to see.  Then they will be forced to make their links correct.--Toploftical (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
IvanScrooge98 changed the pronunciation of Donegal (town) in its heading from  to. However, I think that the last syllable should be “GAWL”, not ”AWL”. This appears to be more in conformance to the pronounciation at logainm.ie. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 * oh, I thought the issue lied with the pronunciation of the ⟨e⟩, which is what I changed. The last syllable phonetically begins with (as I left in the IPA), but according to Help:Pronunciation respelling key this is how we are supposed to resyllabify short vowels whenever possible. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 12:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the response. I'm not an IPA expert, I just happen to know how the local people pronounce it. I have to admit that due to my inferior eyes I initially misread “ɪ” for an ”r” but I also objected to the last syllable as described. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And, according to Help:Pronunciation respelling key, the dash should separate syllables: Respelled syllables are visually separated by hyphens ("-"). --AFBorchert (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is produced automatically. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 12:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donegal (town)


text:
Category:Ghostbusters

__NOGALLERY__

title: Category:Ghostbusters


text:
Talk:Penalty shot (ice hockey)

Empty net
We've got an internal contradiction here: "If an infraction which would usually attract a penalty shot occurs while the defending team's goaltender is off the ice (i.e. an empty net scenario), the attacking team is awarded the goal automatically, without going to the penalty shot." but "If a penalty shot is awarded and the penalized team had pulled their goaltender in favour of an extra attacker, the player fouled is automatically awarded a penalty shot goal, regardless of whether the puck went in."

Which is correct? --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The first statement is correct. The second is a mess and should probably be eliminated.
 * I recall one such case from circa 1970. Late in the game, Boston pulled goalie Gerry Cheevers in an attempt to salvage a tie. Bobby Hull of Chicago got the puck and skated towards the empty net, incidentally passing the Bruins' bench.  Cheevers, from the bench reached over and poked the puck loose.  Hull recovered it, and flipped it into the net, clinching the game, but then found out that the referee had already signalled the goal due to Cheevers' foul; i.e., had Hull missed the shot, the goal would have been awarded anyway.  Cheevers later said that he had nothing to lose as Hull was going to score anyway, though I suspect he could have been fined. (Interference from the bench is a rather extraordinary foul, and a referee might well award a goal to the offended team no matter what the on-ice situation happens to be.)
 * This serves to illustate why the rule is necessary: a player attacking an empty net would be subject to unlimited mayhem if a penalty shot were the worst thing that could happen.
 * I believe that was Hull's 401st NHL goal (or some similar milestone. He had recorded #400 earlier in the same game by more conventional means. I may be able to find a reference, so watch this space. WHPratt (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The facts. Pretty much as I remembered.
 * "Hawks Beat Boston: Hull Scores No. 400", by Ted Damata, Chicago Tribune, Jan 8, 1968; page E1.
 * Bobby Hull had scored his 400th NHL goal midway through the second period (Jan. 7) against Gerry Cheevers. At 18:45 of the third, The Hawks led 3-2 and were killing a penalty; Boston pulled the goalie for a 6-on-4 attack.  Eric Nesterenko intercepted a Boston pass and fed Hull near the Bruin bench.  Eddie Shack and Gerry Cheevers combined to hook Hull from sidelines.  Hull shrugged them off and scored on a 30-foot shot into the unguarded net.  Referee Vern Buffey had already signalled a goal.  The Hawks won 4-2.
 * It's not quite the perfect example of the application of the rule, because, as I noted earlier, this is flageant enough a transgression to warrant an automatic goal under any circumstances. But someone can add it to the article if they wish. WHPratt (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there are two classes of foul in play here: (1) if a player with a clear crack at an empty net gets fouled, the ref will award a goal no matter what happens; and (2) there may be other fouls, late in the game but away from the net (like a player leaving the penalty box or other illegal substitution) that warrants a penalty shot but not an automatic goal. In the latter cases, the goalie may return to the ice if he's been pulled. I suspect that's why both rules are present. WHPratt (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penalty shot (ice hockey). 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/20060630113935/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hkn_stanley_cup to https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hkn_stanley_cup;_ylt=ApG5xgDzac1UTUZl5PNv2zCs0NUE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203031750/http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/USAHockey/Menu_Officials/Menu_RulesEquipment/Rulebook%200709.pdf to http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/USAHockey/Menu_Officials/Menu_RulesEquipment/Rulebook%200709.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Penalty shot (ice hockey)


text:
Disciple whom Jesus loved

The phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς) or, in John 20:2; "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" (τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς), is used six times in the Gospel of John, but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus. John 21:24 states that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of this disciple.

Since the end of the first century, the beloved disciple has been commonly identified with John the Evangelist. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature (the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment. The authorship by John the Apostle is rejected by many modern scholars, but not entirely. There is a consensus among Johannine scholars that the beloved disciple was a real historical person, but there is no consensus on who the beloved disciple was.

John the Apostle
The closing words of the Gospel of John state explicitly concerning the beloved disciple that "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."

Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, recorded in his Church History a letter which he believed to have been written by Polycrates of Ephesus (c. 130s–196) in the second century. Polycrates believed that John was the one "who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord", suggesting an identification with the beloved disciple:

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) also believed that John was the beloved disciple, in his Tractates on the Gospel of John.

The assumption that the beloved disciple was one of the Apostles is based on the observation that he was apparently present at the Last Supper, and Matthew and Mark state that Jesus ate with the Twelve. Thus, the most frequent identification is with John the Apostle, who would then be the same as John the Evangelist. Merril F. Unger presents a case for this by a process of elimination.

Nevertheless, while some modern academics continue to share the view of Augustine and Polycrates, a growing number do not believe that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John or indeed any of the other New Testament works traditionally ascribed to him, making this linkage of a 'John' to the beloved disciple difficult to sustain.

Some scholars have additionally suggested a homoerotic interpretation of Jesus's relationship with the beloved disciple, although such a scriptural reading is disputed by others. Tilborg suggests that the portrait in the Gospel of John is "positively attuned to the development of possibly homosexual behaviour". However, he cautions that "in the code[...] such imaginary homosexual behaviour is not an expression of homosexuality." Meanwhile, theologian Ismo Dunderberg has also explored the issue and argues that the absence of accepted Greek terms for "lover" and "beloved" discounts an erotic reading.

The relationship between Jesus and John was certainly interpreted by some as being of a physical erotic nature as early as the 16th century (albeit in a heretical context) – documented, for example, in the trial for blasphemy of Christopher Marlowe, who was accused of claiming that "St. John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom, that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma". In accusing Marlowe of the "sinful nature" of homosexual acts, James I of England inevitably invited comparisons to his own erotic relationship with the Duke of Buckingham, which he also compared with that of the beloved disciple. Finally, Francesco Calcagno, a friar of Venice, faced trial and was executed in 1550 for claiming that "St. John was Christ's catamite".

Wayne Dynes also makes a link to the modern day where in 1970s New York a popular religious group was established called the "Church of the Beloved Disciple", with the intention of giving a positive reading of the relationship to support respect for same-sex love.

Lazarus
The beloved disciple has also been identified with Lazarus of Bethany, based on John 11:5: "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus", and John 11:3, "Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick."

Also relevant according to Ben Witherington III is the fact that the character of the beloved disciple is not mentioned before the raising of Lazarus (Lazarus being raised in John 11, while the beloved disciple is first mentioned in John 13).

Frederick Baltz asserts that the Lazarus identification, the evidence suggesting that the beloved disciple was a priest, and the ancient John tradition are all correct. Baltz says the family of the children of Boethus, known from Josephus and rabbinic literature, is the same family in the 11th chapter of the Gospel: Lazarus, Martha, and Mary of Bethany. This is a beloved family, according to John 11:5. The historical Lazarus was Eleazar son of Boethus, who was once Israel's high priest, and from a clan that produced several high priests. The Gospel's traditionally-ascribed author, John, was not a member of the Twelve, but the son of Martha (Sukkah 52b). He closely matches the description given by Bishop Polycrates in his letter, a sacrificing priest who wore the petalon (i.e., emblem of the high priest). This John "the Elder" was a follower of Jesus referred to by Papias of Hierapolis, and an eyewitness to his ministry. He was the right age to have lived until the time of Trajan (according to Irenaeus). Baltz says John is probably the disciple "ον ηγαπα ο Ιησους", and Eleazar is the disciple "ον εφιλει ο Ιησους" in the Gospel.

Mary Magdalene

Ramon K. Jusino (1998) proposed that the beloved disciple in the Gospel of John was originally Mary Magdalene. But as Matkin and others note, Mary and the beloved disciple appear in the same scene in John 20.

To make this claim and maintain consistency with scripture, the theory is suggested that Mary's separate existence in the two common scenes with the beloved disciple, John 19:25–27 and John 20:1–11, is due to later modifications, hastily done to authorize the Gospel in the late 2nd century (John 19:25–27 in particular, as the beloved disciple's presence at the foot of the cross is mentioned only immediately after Mary Magdalene is named among the list of women also present and not prior, nor is he listed accompanying Jesus's mother at the cross prior to the listed women; only upon being acknowledged and commissioned by Jesus to look after his mother is the beloved disciple's presence established). Both scenes are claimed to have inconsistencies both internally and in reference to the synoptic Gospels. This rough editing therefore might have been done to make Mary Magdalene and the beloved disciple appear as different persons.

In the Gospel of Mary, part of the New Testament apocrypha – specifically the Nag Hammadi library – a certain Mary who is commonly identified as Mary Magdalene is constantly referred to as being loved by Jesus more than the others. In the Gospel of Philip, another Gnostic Nag Hammadi text, the same is specifically said about Mary Magdalene.

Unknown priest or disciple
Brian J. Capper argues that the beloved disciple was a priestly member of a quasimonastic, mystical, and ascetic Jewish aristocracy, located on Jerusalem's prestigious southwest hill, who had hosted Jesus's last supper in that location, citing the scholar D.E.H. Whiteley, who deduced that the Beloved Disciple was the host at the last supper. Capper suggests, to explain the largely distinctive designation of the beloved disciple as one loved by Jesus, that the language of 'love' was particularly related to Jewish groups which revealed the distinctive social characteristics of 'virtuoso religion' in ascetic communities. The British scholar Richard Bauckham reaches the similar conclusion that the beloved disciple, who also authored the Gospel attributed to John, was probably a literarily sophisticated member of the surprisingly extensive high priestly family clan.

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz suggest the testimony may have come from a lesser known disciple, perhaps from Jerusalem.

James, brother of Jesus
James D. Tabor argues that the beloved disciple is James, brother of Jesus (the type of relative to Jesus, brother or cousin, depends on how one translates the word). One of several pieces of evidence Tabor offers is a literal interpretation of John 19:26: "Then when Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, Woman, behold your son." However, elsewhere in the Gospel, the beloved disciple refers to the risen Jesus as "the Lord" rather than as "my brother".

Tabor also cites a passage of Jesus referring to James as "my beloved" (twice) in the 2nd century apocryphal Second Apocalypse of James as indicating James to be the beloved disciple. This passage reads:

"And Jesus kissed my mouth. He took hold of me saying: 'My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those things that the heavens nor the angels have known. Behold, I shall reveal to you everything, my beloved. Behold, I shall reveal to you what is hidden. But now, stretch out your hand. Now, take hold of me'."

Reasons for concealing the identity by name
Theories about the reference often include an attempt to explain why this anonymizing idiom is used at all, rather than stating an identity.

Suggestions accounting for this are numerous. One common proposal is that the author concealed his name due simply to modesty. Another is that concealment served political or security reasons, made necessary by the threat of persecution or embarrassment during the time of the Gospel's publication. The author may have been a highly placed person in Jerusalem who was hiding his affiliation with Christianity, or the anonymity may have been appropriate for one living the withdrawn life of an ascetic, and one of the many unnamed disciples in the Gospel may have been either the beloved disciple himself or others under his guidance, who out of the humility of their ascetic commitment hid their identity or subsumed their witness under that of their spiritual master.

Martin L. Smith, a member of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, writes that the author of the Gospel of John may have deliberately obscured the identity of the beloved disciple so readers of the gospel may better identify with the disciple's relationship with Jesus:

Art
In art, the beloved disciple is often portrayed as a beardless youth, usually as one of the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper or with Mary at the crucifixion. In some medieval art, the beloved disciple is portrayed with his head in Christ's lap. Many artists have given different interpretations of John 13:25, which has the disciple whom Jesus loved "reclining next to Jesus" (v. 23; more literally, "on/at his breast/bosom," ).

title: Disciple whom Jesus loved


text:
Talk:Ice hockey rink

Air Canada Centre, not "Center"
Changed the incorrect American spelling of "center" in "Air Canada Centre".

Parallelagram
What is the parallelagram about behind the goal? What year was it added? This should also be in the article. --Stang281 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Goaltenders may play the puck behind the goal line only in a trapezoid-shaped area defined by lines that begin six feet from either goal post and extend diagonally to points 28 feet apart at the endboards. The updated CBA with diagrams is at http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/rules_changes072205.htmldarrennie 02:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Crease rule change in NHL
There is mention of a "controversial final game of the 1999 Stanley Cup Playoffs". This either needs to be expanded, linked to a Wikipedia article, or linked to some external website that explains what the controversial call/play was; because I don't know and my guess is only an avid NHL fan would know. -- Awcolley 17:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Diagram
The main diagram is not to scale. Since this image is the fourth image in a Google search result for "hockey rink" it seems like this image should be re-made to scale. If there's support for this, I'm happy to make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 830hobbes (talk • contribs) 00:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The main digital is actually well outdated (the IIHF has adopted the NHL's trunicated crease, for example) and needs to be redone anyway. If it's being done to scale, I actually think we should have two separate images, one for the NHL rink, one for the IIHF rink, which can be displayed next to each other, instead of the overly crowded attempt to put both sets of pages on the same diagram. oknazevad (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The diagram is also missing a crucial piece of information, namely, the distance of the defensive zone faceoff dots from the goal line. Per the NHL rulebook, this distance is 20 feet, and the dots' centers are 44 feet apart. See https://nhl.bamcontent.com/images/assets/binary/308893668/binary-file/file.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.68.227.78 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ice hockey rink


text:
Talk:Five on three

Removed subjective opinion.Isopropyl

title: Talk:Five on three


text:
Talk:Gordie Howe hat trick

Hat trick
Ironically, it appears that Gordie Howe never actually had a Gordie Howe hat trick in any game. This is currently being researched by Liam McGuire in Ottawa but so far apparently he has been unable to find a Gordie Howe game which meets this criteria (goal, assist, won fight).

According to "The Myth of the Gordie Howe Hat Trick", Monday, April 10, 2006, Gordie Howe did earn a "Gordie Howe Hat Trick" on December 22, 1955 against Boston's Lionel Heinrich. See: http://www.640toronto.com/station/blog_jeff_marek.cfm?bid=74

And if you noticed he wasn't even the first to do it. That distinction goes to a guy named Harry Cameron. He fought a guy named Couture to go with a five point night, three of them goals, as the St. Pats beat les Habitants 7-6. 24.83.3.54 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. that got me wondering, how many players have had hat tricks and GH Hatters in the same game? 24.83.3.54 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. What about fastest Gordie Howe hat trick? 24.83.3.54 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently, it says that Michael Cammalleri is the most recent person to complete one on December 16, 2010. There are two main problems with that. First of all, the source links to an article about a completely different game. Also, in the game he was actually on on that day, he didn't get the GHHT, as he an assist is a requirement, which he did not get. Moose paste inventor (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gordie Howe, in fact, had only ONE Gordie Howe hat trick in his entire career and you do NOT need to win the fight you just need to be involved in one.

List Article?
I wonder, why can't we create a seperate article titled, List of National Hockey league players with Gordie Howe hat tricks ? Im new to this.

oops forgot to sign 24.83.3.54 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd be willing to help compile this, but it will require much research as most clubs don't officially record them. IrisKawling 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest person to get a Gordie Howe Hat Trick is Sean Couturier. He was playing for the Philadelphia Flyers in a 6-4 win over the New York Islanders on January 4th, 2018 at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.188.231 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Roy hat-trick, the goaltender's equivalent?
I wonder if Patrick Roy or anyone else did this type of hat trick. Which entails goaltenders to: 1. Get into a fight (Roy gets a lot of them in his time, and he even alleged to instigate his son to do it).

2. Record an assist or a goal

3. Record a shut-out.TimHowardII (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Importance
Honestly, from years of watching hockey, and NEVER hearing ANYONE say "Gordie Howe Hat Trick", I do not believe this has enough, if any importance to Hockey that would necessitate the existence of this stub. Secondly, this article's only reference depicts this "Gordie Howe hat trick" to be just a saying that was made up by an announcer or something, and has no actual pop cultural influence.

I'm nominating this for deletion.  TheSpencer  -  Talk to me!   01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm in agreement to the triviality of this. I can't believe that the Hockey News is really keeping track of it!! I'm not even someone who is against fighting in hockey. That's not my problem with it. It's certainly not encyclopedic and rather juvenile. I've never heard anyone use this expression before and can't take it seriously. BashBrannigan (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that "I've never heard it" isn't a valid reason for deletion, nor is notability subjective. The fact is over 600 news stories and 19 books use the term. That is sufficient to make it notable, as defined by Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if you've never heard it used, myself. The Calgary Flames media guide, for instance, lists when each player recorded a GHHT as a season highlight.  It is known and used. Resolute 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I guess you learn something new everyday, although what you learn isn't necessarily good. I know hockey was sold in the US for the fighting, so I'd be inclined to think this was mostly an American term as I'd still NEVER heard of it. Nonetheless, if it's in newspapers and books, then I suppose it's notable. Sad, though. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You would be surprised, actually. ESPN may sell hockey on the fighting, but the league itself has long been concerned with the apparent negative publicity fighting has given the game in the States.  Especially back in the 70s and 80s when bench clearing brawls were relatively commonplace.  Ultimately, the league's popularity suffered in the US such that it did not have a national US TV deal for many years until FOX's contract in the early 90s.  Thus, rules like the instigator and the 10 game suspension for leaving the bench to fight. Resolute 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolute, I can remember coverage the NHL got back in the 60s on US networks, I think CBS, and then they were selling Bobby Hull instead of Dave Shultz. I'm not against fighting, just fighting as entertainment. I guess that's why the "Gordie Howe hat trick" stuff bothered me. Hockey is popular in the US where people play it. If the NHL wants to expand in the US it has to get parents putting their kids into hockey and most parents won't do that if they think the game is about fighting. As far as this specific topic, I'm still unconvinced it is really "encyclopedic". BashBrannigan (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick is VERY well know to people that know hockey. While not an official NHL stat it is something that well informed fans would know and certainly the player that it happens too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDC161.136.102.59 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have to win the fight?
My understanding of the definition is simply a goal, an assist and a fight. I've never heard that you need to win the fight to have it count, and indeed the only reference for this article doesn't say anything about winning. phreakydancin (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you are correct. Someone recently the change to say "and win" and I have now changed it back. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not if you win or loose the fight as long as you're involved in one and at least get a five minute penalty...and that part shouldn't be a problem :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.51.107 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides, "winning" the fight is subjective, not an official statistic, and not reflected in the box score. Drmikeh49 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Article seems to be specific to the NHL
It specifies that Lucic of the Bruins was the last to achieve a Gordie Howe hat trick for example and does not limit this just to NHL games... (I am a sure at some level of ice hockey - somewhere else in the world - someone else achieved this fear more recently than Lucic 178.2.192.204 (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All other leagues in the world frown upon fighting in the game of ice hockey, as it was was on the main reasons the International Ice Hockey Federation is fighting to keep the National Hockey League from expanding to Europe. Sorry for all of the links as I was bored Bazzledorf (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is grossly incorrect to claim that all other leagues frown on fighting. It is also curious to claim that the IIHF is "fighting" to prevent the NHL from expanding to Europe when the NHL has expressed no interest at all to do so.  It is also all irrelevant to this discussion.  The term "Gordie Howe Hat Trick" is pretty much only used in the context of the NHL and North American hockey, so it is logical that the topic would be NHL specific.  At the same time, the last person to do so in the NHL is pretty trivial, and I'd say to simply remove the statement if you feel the need to do so. Resolute 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-season?
Columbus Blue Jackets' defenseman James Wisniewski achieved the feat in a pre-season game against the Pittsburgh Penguins on September 15, 2013. Though it's not an official stat, does this qualify the Jackets for the "teams who have achieved the feat" paragraph? Nytebreid (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.50.1 (talk)
 * Hmm, actually, I've gone and removed that entire paragraph. For one thing, teams do not complete an individual "achievement". For another, I think it decidedly unlikely that any team has not yet had a player record one, and since the list is completely unsourced, it seems better to leave it off.  Thanks, Resolute 14:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the Cameron hat trick?
Given that Cameron was the 'first person to achieve the hat trick,' and that he did so a full eight years before Howe was even born? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 23:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whomever did it first, the term is pretty much exclusively known as the "Gordie Howe hat trick". We always follow the sources. Resolute 23:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Tyler Lewington just scored a Gordy Howe Hattrick in his second NHL game scoring his first NHL goal. Not sure why the edit was deleted. I’m watching the game.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.192.180 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a list of every single occurrence, and this isn't necessarily noteworthy. Additionally, the entry wasn't sourced, the date wasn't written properly, and Gordie Howe's name was spelled wrong. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gordie Howe hat trick


text:
Berney Arms railway station

Berney Arms railway station is a stop on the Wherry Lines in the East of England, serving the settlement of Berney Arms on the Halvergate Marshes in Norfolk. It is located 15 mi east of Norwich and is the only station on a short stretch of single line between Reedham and Great Yarmouth. The station is managed by Greater Anglia, which also operates all trains serving it.

It is several miles from the nearest road and thus is accessible only by train, on foot or by boat; it is a relatively short walk from the River Yare where private boats can moor. It was adopted in 2010 as part of the Station Adoption Scheme.

History
The Bill for the Yarmouth & Norwich Railway (Y&NR) received Royal Assent on 18 June 1842. Work started on the line in April 1843 and it was opened on 1 May 1844. Berney Arms opened with the line and is situated east of Reedham and west of Great Yarmouth (originally Yarmouth Vauxhall). The Y&NR was the first public railway line in Norfolk. A local landowner, Thomas Trench Berney, sold the land on the marshes to the railway company on the condition that Berney Arms station be built. A few years later, the railway stopped serving it, saying that there had been no agreement for trains to actually call at the station that they agreed to build; however, after lengthy legal proceedings, it was agreed to serve the station in perpetuity.

On 30 June 1845, a Bill authorising the amalgamation of the Y&NR with the Norwich & Brandon Railway came into effect and Berney Arms station became a Norfolk Railway asset.

The Eastern Counties Railway (ECR) and its rival the Eastern Union Railway (EUR) were both sizing up the NR to acquire and expand their networks. The ECR trumped the EUR by taking over the NR, including Berney Arms, effective 8 May 1848.

By the 1860s, the railways in East Anglia were in financial trouble and most were leased to the ECR, who wished to amalgamate formally but could not obtain government agreement for this until an Act of Parliament on 7 August 1862, when the Great Eastern Railway (GER) was formed by the consolidation. Actually, Berney Arms had become a GER station on 1 July 1862, when the GER took over the ECR and the EUR before the Bill received its Royal Assent.

The system settled down for the next six decades, apart from the disruption of World War I. The difficult economic circumstances that existed after the war led the government to pass the Railways Act 1921 which led to the creation of the so-called Big Four companies. The GER amalgamated with several other companies to form the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER). Berney Arms became an LNER station on 1 January 1923.

Upon nationalisation in 1948, the station and its services became part of the Eastern Region of British Railways.

The post office at Berney Arms station, which had opened in 1898, was closed in 1967.

The station featured in the second episode of the 1989 ITV game show Interceptor.

Upon privatisation in the mid-1990s, the station and its services were transferred to Anglia Railways, which operated it until 2004; National Express East Anglia won the replacement franchise, operating under the brand name 'One' until 2008. In 2012, Abellio Greater Anglia took over operating the franchise.

The former Berney Arms signal box is preserved at Mangapps Railway Museum in Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex.

In October 2018, the line between Great Yarmouth and Reedham was closed for a major upgrade of the signalling system, as part of works on all the Wherry Lines. While the line was closed the station remained open, although no replacement service was available due to the remote location. Its reopening was delayed until February 2020, with the station reopening on 24 February 2020.

Least-used station
On 1 December 2020, Berney Arms was announced as the least used station in Great Britain for the 2019/20 period (April 2019-March 2020), with only 42 passengers using the station. The low numbers were largely due to the station being closed for major signalling works along the line for much of the 2019/20 period, but were also caused by the local pub being closed down; this is also one of the main reasons that passenger numbers had been falling dramatically since 2016/7.

However, the station was used by 348 passengers in the year to March 2021; the greatest annual percentage increase for any station in the UK.

Locality
The station is located around 600 m from the River Yare, in an area of exposed grazing marsh. The surrounding marshland is managed as the RSPB Berney Marshes reserve and is adjacent to Breydon Water, a major site for wildfowl.

Berney Arms Windmill, owned by English Heritage, is located on the Yare near to the station, as is the Berney Arms public house (currently closed).

The Weavers' Way and Wherryman's Way long-distance footpaths both pass near the station.

Services

The line is one of the two Wherry Lines that run between Norwich and Great Yarmouth; services operated by Greater Anglia. Services are formed by Class 755 bi-mode multiple units.

Two trains per day in each direction stop here between Norwich and Great Yarmouth on Mondays-Saturdays; the service is increased on Sundays to four trains in each direction.

Service frequencies generally increase slightly during the summer period, to three trains in each direction per day and five in each direction on Sundays.

During the winter months up until the end of March, the last train from Great Yarmouth to Norwich does not stop at Berney Arms. This is because of the lack of light at the station and its surrounding area. After the clocks go forward, the last trains are timetabled to stop again (17:54 Mondays to Saturdays, 16:24 Sundays).

title: Berney Arms railway station


text:
Talk:One timer

Shouldn't it be 'one-timer'?
Seems to me when you say it, there's little pause between the two words, which tells me a hyphen might be appropriate. Thoughts? Vranak (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:One timer


text:
Talk:Power Play

Psychology
Can we create content for a proposed Power play (psychology) article? ~ Dpr 01:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section that says how long a power play can last. While the individual penalties can last 2, 3, or 5 minutes, the power play can go on indefinitely as long as penalties continue to be made. Since only two penalties can be served at once, any penalty incurred afterwards is queued until the previous penalties have been accounted for. Isopropyl

Sexual?
I followed a link here from Tie and tease but there's no appropriate matching reference here. Should there be? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Power play (sporting term) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Power Play


text:
Talk:Shot (ice hockey)

Right, left
It says here:

A player is said to shoot left if he holds his stick with the left hand on the bottom and the right hand on top, and is said to be right shot if he holds the stick with the right hand at the bottom and left hand on top. Most right-handed players (that is, in general, players who write, eat, and throw with their right hand) shoot left and most left-handed players shoot right. This is because the bottom hand delivers most of the power while the top hand is responsible for control and stickhandling.

A player shoots left if he holds his left hand on the bottom, and this is the hand that gives most of the power, but it is the right-handed players that shoot left? As I recall, right-handed people have most of their power in the right hand. Zhelja (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the wording is horrible; it should be something like "Most players place their dominant hand in the 'control' position (end of stick), rather than the 'power' position (middle of stick)".

Personally, I could never understand this. I cannot imagine putting my dominant hand anywhere else BUT the middle of the stick, and therefore am one of those very very few right-handed people who also SHOOTS 'right'. Asking me to shoot 'left' -- like every other player I know -- is like asking me to pick up a fork with my left hand!

I suspect you may be in the same boat, based on your query? Welcome to the club!

66.3.106.12 (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shot (ice hockey). 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/20070314085753/http://www.dunedinicehockey.co.nz/tips/shooting.php to http://www.dunedinicehockey.co.nz/tips/shooting.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shot (ice hockey)


text:
Talk:Extra attacker

Futsal
I have removed the reference to futsal, as a fusal team is required to have a goalkeeper on the pitch at all times (as per Law 1 of the Laws of Futsal. --Daveb 11:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

late season
If a team needs 4 points in two games to take a playoff spot from a rival whose season has already concluded, the tie-game pull can happen before the last game of the regular season (for that team). — MaxEnt 04:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulling Goalie in Ice Hockey Typical Time
In the current article, it is claimed (with no citation) that pulling the goalie typically occurs between 60 and 90 seconds before the end of the game. I was watching the recent Hurricanes-Islanders game, and the announcers mentioned that Patrick Roy started pulling the goalie earlier than that (2 or even 3 minutes before the end of the game), and more teams started doing it afterwards. From a search, I have found other people claiming similarly that the average time before the end of the game that the goalie is pulled in the NHL has indeed increased, and studies showing that pulling the goalie earlier is optimal. In the game I watched, the Islanders indeed pulled their goalie with about 2 minutes left.

While none of the sources I found probably are up to the standards of Wikipedia, would this be something that should be updated in the article? AWildHannahAppeared (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Extra attacker


text:
Talk:Slapshot

"Black Canadian"
Someone removed the term "Black Canadian" to describe Eddie Martin, including the hyperlink to the well-researched and well-written page on Black Canadians. I undid that and put the Black Canadian term back in. Normally I wouldn't point out a person's racial or ethnic background, but in this specific context it is important. By removing the "Black Canadian" reference, the editor helped to erase the history of Black Canadians in the formation of Canadian hockey and spirit, a process that is ongoing in the media today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction without sources
The following statements appear to contradict one another:

 * Al Iafrate holds the record during an NHL All-Star skills competition at 105.2 mph.
 * The hardest slap shot on record is 106.6 mph set by Chad Kilger on December 3rd, 2006 during the Toronto Maple Leafs skills competition. Kilger broke the record of 106.0 mph, held by Shawn Heins, set in AHL All-Stars game.
 * Bobby Hull is credited with the hardest slapshot on record, clocked on one occasion at a speed of 118.3 mph.

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Hull 118.3 mph figure is quoted here, which would make it faster than the one listed in this article. 76.71.45.191 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguity
Article states that the slapshot is the 'hardest' shot. Does this mean 'most difficult' or 'most powerful'? If meant to say most powerful, then wording should be changed. 'Hardest' is also used again later in the article. Ambiguous in this occurrence as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.226.132 (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone cite a reliable source for any of these claims, and can we figure out how to rephrase them such that they do not contradict one another? --Makaristos (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The wiki of both Chad Kilger and Bobby Hull has a reference to their hard shots. They don't contradict for simple reasons. Al Iafrate holds the old record (now broken by Chara) for NHL All-Star shenanigans. Kilger set his during a Leafs skill competition. Bobby Hull set his ages ago, though he did use a stick which by today's standards would be illegal (because of weight and stiffness). BTW, Hull's wrist shot was clocked at 105... As McInnis said, so much for technology eh? --Signed by a hockey head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.124.181 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Slapshot


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. C. Joseph

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 20:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

S. C. Joseph
Hoax. [ +t,  +c  ] 22:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * You could also think of it as a brilliant parody of teenager vanity pages. BJAODN.   [  +t,  +c  ] 23:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, obvious vanity and nonsense, and it's not funny, so no on BJAODN. Tempshill 23:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Amusing, but tries too hard for BJAODN. Removed from Category:Popes to avoid any confusion by visitors to the category. -- 8^D gab 00:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity/hoax. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax. Megan1967 06:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, why wasn't this speedily deleted? A2Kafir 23:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Talk:Slot (ice hockey)

title: Talk:Slot (ice hockey)


text: Talk:The point (ice hockey)

title: Talk:The point (ice hockey)


text: User talk:216.45.192.70

title: User talk:216.45.192.70


text: Talk:Russian Pro Hockey League

title: Talk:Russian Pro Hockey League


text:
Talk:Shutout

huh???
Just something for whoever edits this article to chew on:

Why on earth is this article still a stub?

--Ahudson 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great and goofy. Would a 0-0 tie also be a shutout?

---Yes. Walter Johnson had several shutouts that weren't wins.

A pitcher who enters a game in relief with none out in the first inning can be credited with a shutout if he gets out of the inning with no one scoring and finishes the game with no further scoring. (Unless they changed that rule somewhere along the way. A pitcher could have more shutouts than complete games.) WHPratt (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt

"team itself can be said to have “shutout” the opposing team." Shouldn't this be two words? Danchall (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby
The term 'nilled' was used of New Zealand's win over Australia. It is the equivalent of 'shut-out', I don't know whether it is applied to sports other than rugby league though.GordyB 13:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bizarrely, a few minutes after writing that, I heard the term used by a Scottish commentator who was commentating on the rugby union sevens in New Zealand.GordyB15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Boucher-Leighton
This play off year, Phillidelphia Flyers Goalie Brian Boucher was injured, and Micheal Leighton had to come in. The game was a shutout. Should this not be attributed to the "double shutout" section for Ice Hockey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.49.181 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Shutout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090815154924/http://www.usafootball.com:80/pages/amateur to http://www.usafootball.com/pages/amateur
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061215234519/http://www.worldcupweb.com:80/WCrugby/1999.asp to http://www.worldcupweb.com/WCrugby/1999.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shutout