text:
Talk:NHL entry draft

List of drafts
I noticed that in the list of drafts it jumps from 2006 to 2008. Is there any reason for this? Where is 2007? Masterhatch 17:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Might just be because whenever that part was last edited, whoever did it already knew the '08 draft will be held in Ottawa. Maybe the place of the 2007 draft wasn't known. Bigdottawa 13:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use and copyright violations
The following was just posted to Copyright problems in the "Fair use claims needing a second opinion" section:
 * NHL Entry Draft ([ history] · [ last edit]) This page itself is not a problem, but all of the XXXX NHL Entry Draft pages from 1963 to present linked from this page make extensive use of team and university logos. (Didn't want to list 30+ pages here individually.) I hate to be a spoilsport and suggest the removal of someone's hard work, but this does not even come close to meeting the requirements for use of these fair use images. Use of logos, I believe, is more or less restricted to use in articles about the specific organization that owns the logo. While I see the aesthetic value of using these logos on said pages, I don't believe it's legal. Hope this is the right place to raise the question; I'll also be posting this to NHL Entry Draft to alert interested editors of the potential problem.
 * I'm posting this here so anyone interested has a chance to comment. ⇒ B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 13:10, Saturday  April 8   2006  (UTC)
 * I agree. Yes aesthetically pleasing, but not appropriate with regard to fair use. They should go from those pages and be used on team articles only. Mark83 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Given no objections, I am in the process of removing the logos from said pages. If someone wants to help, that would be great as it's a somewhat tedious project. ⇒ B. Rossow   talk  contr  Tuesday,  April 25 ,  2006  @ 14:40 (UTC)
 * Well hold up, because I have HUGE objections over this. Nevermind the countless hours spent on finding logos for all the drafted players, but these logos do exactly what the fair use says they can be used for: to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question.  What's the problem  here exactly?  Now who's going to spend the countless hours re-inserting the logos? Bigdottawa 11:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, the proper time to object would have been three weeks ago when this was posted for discussion. Second, the use of the logos in this manner is most assuredly not fair use.  It is purely aesthetic, not at all critical to identifying the team in question.  The fair use notification in the copyright tag is not accurate when it suggests, at least to some, that ANY use of the logo is fair use as long as it's illustrating the subject.  That's not what fair use law says (and having taught fair use in workshops for nearly a decade, I'm rather familiar with fair use doctrine).  Fair use applies when the use of copyrighted material (in this case, an image) is integral to demonstrating the subject.  This is not the case here; the team name alone defines the subject without ambiguity and the logo, while visually pleasing, is without question not necessary in further identifying the team. So to answer your last question, no one will be spending countless hours re-inserting the logos because doing so would be a violation of U.S. and international copyright law. Sorry. ⇒  B. Rossow   talk  contr  Friday,  April 28 ,  2006  @ 17:56 (UTC)
 * If the copyright tag on this site CLEARLY states logo's can be used to illustrate the sports team, which is what the logos on the draft page or doing, then the logos on the draft pages are perfectly okay, according to the copyright tags on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I didn't bring up my objections weeks ago, but I don't use the site every day, so I didn't catch it then.  And someone should definitely re-insert the logos, because there use is in line with what the copyright tags state. Bigdottawa 14:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright tag is not intended to be all-inclusive in its explanation. Further, the coyright tag is user-edited and does not convey official, complete Wikipedia copyright policy. You clearly do not understand fair use law and, regardless of how you interpret the [incomplete] copyright tag, the use of these logos in this manner is without question a copyright violation. Reinsertion of the logos would be a direct violation of international copyright law and could expose Wikipedia to unnecessary liability issues. You really should do some reading about fair use and not just rely on a condensed version in a copyright tag. ⇒ B. Rossow   talk  contr  Sunday,  April 30 ,  2006  @ 15:28 (UTC)
 * If you're going to remove the logos from the Awards section of each season, then you should have replaced it with the team name of the player who won the award...scsgoal31 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's not as bad as I thought, it was only the last few seasons that logos were used...remembering what team the player was on at the time shouldn't be a major issue...I'll see what I can do about putting them in the format of the 01-02 season and prior.

Table out of date
The Player Numbers By League Summary is out of date - hasn't been updated since the 2003 draft. I've put a template up, hopefully it can be fixed. BoojiBoy 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Steals
I've changed the "draft steal" from Dominik Hasek to Dino Ciccarelli. My reasoning is that I'm not sure that Hasek can be considered a steal - he was a total shot in the dark because he was playing in Czechoslovakia at the time and was not considered likely to defect to the West. I don't think that you can say that the Blackhawks "stole" him merely because the Berlin Wall fell six years later. BoojiBoy 15:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Supplemental Drafts

 * I was wondering if anybody knows anything at all about the supplemental drafts. I am particularly looking for draft dates and locations, but I am under the impression that they were at the same locations.  As of now I can confirm that '93 and '94 drafts were in the same location as the main draft from here, but as I said I am not sure the dates are the same but I would have to assume they are.  Right now I am in the midst of doing the grunt work of just getting the information onto the supplemental draft pages and I plan to be done all the drafts within the next few days. MBob 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I did the NHL Supplemental Draft article and what's contained is all I know. BoojiBoy 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Draft Lottery?
I don't know enough to do it myself, but I think the Lottery should be mentioned in this article TheHYPO 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now added, along with the rest of the draft seeding procedure. — Lomn 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2009 in Montreal?
Where was it officially announced that Montreal was hosting the draft in 2009? I see the link to the article on canadiens.com saying that they are BIDDING on the 2009 Draft within the 2009 NHL Entry Draft page, but I find nothing on the internet to support that they are OFFICIALLY hosting it.

busts and steals removed
Per WP:V, et al, I've removed the entire busts/steals section. Its a wholly unsourced subjective list. Should worthwhile sources emerge, I see nothing wrong in principle with the section returning, but I think it's important not to let it devolve back into another overlong list like the article is unfortunately already saddled with. For those interested in re-adding the section, here's the diff of the lists at the time of my removal. — Lomn 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

compensation?
does anyone know if there any financial compensation to drafted amateurs former minor league teams?

(ie: when Sidney Crosby was drafted to the NHL, did his junior team the Rimouski Océanic receive any financial return?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.95.254 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Extremely late answer here, but no, I can't imagine that they would. The draft is a strictly internal NHL agreement, and the only parties bound by a draft choice are the 29 NHL franchises that didn't draft the player. As for when the player actually signs an NHL contract, that is a different matter of course. If the player is still under contract with another club, that club is in a bargaining position because it could simply refuse to release the player from the contract, and sue him for breach if he leaves the club anyway. While most clubs aren't too keen on actually prohibiting their players from taking a chance like this, they will certainly demand remuneration. There is a general contract between the NHL and the IIHF currently under renegotiation (and contention, as some European clubs feel the figures are too low), but I don't know if the Canadian leagues would be covered by that. If the player is not under contract, I don't think any such demands can be made (compare the soccer situation: Bosman ruling and Transfer (football)). — JAO • T • C 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that when a Swedish player moves to NHL, his Swedish club(s) is paid $225000 as per a signed agreement between NHL and the Swedish hockey league. In return, any player has the right to break off his contract if he gets signed to an NHL club, the club cannot refuse the transfer. I would assume there are similar agreements with many other leagues. MatsT (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reason for lottery
To most of us, it's probably kind of obvious why the lottery takes place, but it could certainly be covered in some detail. How common was it, for instance, for teams to actually be accused of throwing games for draft purposes? I vaguely recall that this might have been one of the reasons that Eric Lindros didn't want to sign with the Nordiques, but I'm certainly not sure about that... — JAO • T • C 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't cite any references, but I do remember actual stats from sports analysts. Teams would play second, third, and fourth lines more often in games near the end of the regular season. This was not illegal nor controllable. It however did give the less experienced players more ice time against teams that were hungry and strong trying to get higher standing for the play-offs. There may have been other ways as well. I don't have the desire to find citations, but others may wish to for the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Compensatory draft selection
Resolute removed the section Compensatory draft selection here, however the section is referenced and contains useful information, so unless there is a consensus that this section does not belong in this article, I will restore it. Dolovis (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You never learn to step back, read and understand, do you? The material you are complaining about is already in the article.  As I explained in the edit summary, I merely removed your duplication of said content.  I already merged your compensatory draft selection article, rewording as needed to fit into the article. Resolute 02:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It reads better as it own section. Dolovis (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A single paragraph rarely makes a good section. If you can bring in other aspects of the system of compensatory picks to create a decent section out of it, by all means. Historically, for instance, teams would trade for pending UFA's they knew they couldn't sign because it would net them a pick (Theoren Fluery to the Sharks, and Curtis Joseph to the Flames, as two examples).  That might give you a basis from which to find sources and build a section. Resolute 04:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization in headers
The "Eligible Players" section header has the first letter in each word as an upper-case letter. As far as I know, usually only names should be capitalized. Is it correct to capitalize both words? If yes, is there some policy/guideline information I'm missing? Hey Mid  (contribs) 21:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is counter to the MOS. Only proper names should be capitalized. Resolute 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to get rid of 'Entry'
It's no longer the Entry Draft, as there isn't the Waiver Draft to differentiate from. Can we make this page just the NHL Draft and include the history of the previous time as NHL Entry Draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arusnak (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Trading of draft picks
The thing which I do not understand is how can teams be trading draft picks if the results (standings) of future seasons as well as the outcome of the respective lottery -- these being the two determining factors for a draft position -- are not known to them? As far as I know, teams are trading specific (eg a No 2 pick) and not just any pick in a future draft. There should be an (obvious) answer to this, it's just I haven't figured it out yet ... Thanks to anyone who is helping me out on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.91.2 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Team A own a pick in a certain round. So they trade say their 1st round pick 2016.  They trade it.  Now team B owns that pick (and their own) in the first round.  Where the obtained pick will occur will depend on how team A finishes and lottery results. I guess it is sort of like a futures market. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is something of a gamble on the part of the team acquiring the pick.  They will know what round the pick they acquire will be in, but not the specific place until the season ends.  Some trades are designed to account for this.  The Jay Bouwmeester trade to St. Louis, for example, included a 2013 first round pick going to Calgary.  However, as a condition of that deal, if the Blues missed the playoffs (thus drafting between 1-14, depending on the lottery result), they would have instead given Calgary their 2014 first round pick, plus an extra fourth rounder. Resolute 13:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for making this clear to me (and so swiftly). In central European leagues, we do not have such a sophisticated system -- or any draft system for that matter -- so it's nice to receive tutorials from people who know. Patrick H. (Austria)... and by the way, Resolute: It seems that you have taken one of the pictures in the article on Alex Plante (in a Calgary Hitmen uniform) who now happens to play for my local team: Dornbirn Bulldogs. It's a small world after all! Patrick H.

French Translation of "Entry Draft"
It is unnecessary to include a French translation of "Entry Draft" at the start of the English article. It adds nothing to the content of the article and its inclusion is arbitrary. There is no reason to select French as the one foreign language that gets its own translation. There is already a French version of the article, which, by the way, does not currently have a translation of the article's topic into English - and so it should not. The insistence of editors to include a French translation in what is an English language encyclopedia article seems to me the politically motivated actions of language activists. 2001:569:79A0:6300:B87F:EBC0:491B:FFFA (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For any admins looking into this issue, this editor started a conversation on this subject over here and did not receive consensus for their proposed changes. Since the conversation activity died down this editor has continued with their edit war while using different IP addresses. Deadman137 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The above is misleading. If it was anyone, it was the user above engaging in an "edit war". There was talk posted here justifying the change to which person above did not respond; he would just unilaterally alter without justification. I had not seen any of the related discussion on the other page. And I have no control of my IP address, which must be dymanic, I guess. This is much to the chagrin of Deadman137, who obviously has his own agenda, which he intends to pursue - unfortunately to the detriment to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79A0:6300:6D13:EB4D:7FF2:20FE (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Get off your soapbox, you're just upset that you're not going to get your way. If there was any policy or good reason to make the changes that you proposed they would have been made and accepted as the consensus of the community. You lost this one, move on. Deadman137 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Amateur"
Stating that the teams draft "amateur players", when in fact they draft both amateur and professional players, is plainly inaccurate. It's like saying that the NHL teams are based in the U.S. because most NHL teams are. The sentence "teams take turns selecting amateur players from junior, collegiate, or European leagues" is particularly misleading since amateur players are virtually never drafted from European leagues that are not junior.BlueSwede92 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on NHL Entry Draft. 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/20010128131400/http://nhl.com/futures/drafthistory.html to http://www.nhl.com/futures/drafthistory.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324023923/http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement8.asp to http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement8.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010128131400/http://nhl.com/futures/drafthistory.html to http://www.nhl.com/futures/drafthistory.html

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) 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Player and team names
Why is it that we dont include letter like Ä, Ö, Å, Ø, ẞ, Š in the player and team names in the articles about the drafts? --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 17:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this is a non-bio NHL article & we don't use diacritics in such articles. They are used in (for example) IIHF articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Eligible players section way out of date
The text does not match what the cited NHL's Hockey Operations Guidelines say. I would update it myself but translating the NHL's wording into plain English is probably better left for someone more practiced in hockey talk.

Currently it says: All players who will be 18 years old on or before September 15 and not older than 19 years old before December 31 of the draft year are eligible for selection for that year's NHL Entry Draft. In addition, non-North American players over the age of 20 are eligible.

Whereas the NHL says: Entry Draft Eligibility All players age 19 or older [(i) any player who will be age 18 on or before September 15 in the year in which such Entry Draft is held, or (ii) reaches his 19th birthday between September 16 and December 31, both dates included, next following Entry Draft, can attain eligibility by delivering to the League a written notice (Opt in Form) prior to the later of May 1, or seven days following the date such player finishes competing on his team in the year in which such draft is to be held.] are eligible for claim in the Entry Draft, except: (i) A Player on the Reserve List of a Club, other than as a try-out; (ii) A player who has been claimed in two prior Entry Drafts; (iii) A player who previously played in the League and became a free agent pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (iv) A plyer age 21 or older who had played hockey for at least one season in North America when he was age 18, 19 or 20

And yes, the NHL managed to misspell "player" in exception (iv). - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Current lottery odds
There are two lotteries held, but the table is a little wrong here. It was explained in the lottery video that if a team that doesn't have a chance to 1st overall pick wins the first lottery, Ducks will keep the 1st overall pick regardless of the result of the second draw and the first lottery winner has its draft position locked.

Therefore, if Senators had won the first lottery, they would have moved to 2nd with Ducks keeping 1st. Then the second lottery winner would have got 3rd pick. I think the table on the 2023 NHL Entry Draft is therefore correct. 2001:14BA:5045:2C00:7C05:AEC0:B17:995D (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential page moves
FWIW a recently closed RFC, may effect 'this' page & related pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * (copied from my other comment for visibility) As the RfC closer, I can confirm that the close applies only to pages related to the NFL draft and has no impact on other leagues or sports. There was some discussion of them at the RfC, but was unrelated to the RfC question or the consensus reached. Anyone trying to use it to bypass discussion on other articles is not interpreting the close correctly. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2024

 * 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

– As with other sports drafts, these are not proper names. They are not consistently capitalized in sources. Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we should use lowercase entry draft and amateur draft. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * NHL Entry Draft → NHL entry draft
 * 1963 NHL Amateur Draft → 1963 NHL amateur draft
 * 1964 NHL Amateur Draft → 1964 NHL amateur draft
 * 1965 NHL Amateur Draft → 1965 NHL amateur draft
 * 1966 NHL Amateur Draft → 1966 NHL amateur draft
 * 1967 NHL Amateur Draft → 1967 NHL amateur draft
 * 1968 NHL Amateur Draft → 1968 NHL amateur draft
 * 1969 NHL Amateur Draft → 1969 NHL amateur draft
 * 1970 NHL Amateur Draft → 1970 NHL amateur draft
 * 1971 NHL Amateur Draft → 1971 NHL amateur draft
 * 1972 NHL Amateur Draft → 1972 NHL amateur draft
 * 1973 NHL Amateur Draft → 1973 NHL amateur draft
 * 1974 NHL Amateur Draft → 1974 NHL amateur draft
 * 1975 NHL Amateur Draft → 1975 NHL amateur draft
 * 1976 NHL Amateur Draft → 1976 NHL amateur draft
 * 1977 NHL Amateur Draft → 1977 NHL amateur draft
 * 1978 NHL Amateur Draft → 1978 NHL amateur draft
 * 1979 NHL Entry Draft → 1979 NHL entry draft
 * 1980 NHL Entry Draft → 1980 NHL entry draft
 * 1981 NHL Entry Draft → 1981 NHL entry draft
 * 1982 NHL Entry Draft → 1982 NHL entry draft
 * 1983 NHL Entry Draft → 1983 NHL entry draft
 * 1984 NHL Entry Draft → 1984 NHL entry draft
 * 1985 NHL Entry Draft → 1985 NHL entry draft
 * 1986 NHL Entry Draft → 1986 NHL entry draft
 * 1987 NHL Entry Draft → 1987 NHL entry draft
 * 1988 NHL Entry Draft → 1988 NHL entry draft
 * 1989 NHL Entry Draft → 1989 NHL entry draft
 * 1990 NHL Entry Draft → 1990 NHL entry draft
 * 1991 NHL Entry Draft → 1991 NHL entry draft
 * 1992 NHL Entry Draft → 1992 NHL entry draft
 * 1993 NHL Entry Draft → 1993 NHL entry draft
 * 1994 NHL Entry Draft → 1994 NHL entry draft
 * 1995 NHL Entry Draft → 1995 NHL entry draft
 * 1996 NHL Entry Draft → 1996 NHL entry draft
 * 1997 NHL Entry Draft → 1997 NHL entry draft
 * 1998 NHL Entry Draft → 1998 NHL entry draft
 * 1999 NHL Entry Draft → 1999 NHL entry draft
 * 2000 NHL Entry Draft → 2000 NHL entry draft
 * 2001 NHL Entry Draft → 2001 NHL entry draft
 * 2002 NHL Entry Draft → 2002 NHL entry draft
 * 2003 NHL Entry Draft → 2003 NHL entry draft
 * 2004 NHL Entry Draft → 2004 NHL entry draft
 * 2005 NHL Entry Draft → 2005 NHL entry draft
 * 2006 NHL Entry Draft → 2006 NHL entry draft
 * 2007 NHL Entry Draft → 2007 NHL entry draft
 * 2008 NHL Entry Draft → 2008 NHL entry draft
 * 2009 NHL Entry Draft → 2009 NHL entry draft
 * 2010 NHL Entry Draft → 2010 NHL entry draft
 * 2011 NHL Entry Draft → 2011 NHL entry draft
 * 2012 NHL Entry Draft → 2012 NHL entry draft
 * 2013 NHL Entry Draft → 2013 NHL entry draft
 * 2014 NHL Entry Draft → 2014 NHL entry draft
 * 2015 NHL Entry Draft → 2015 NHL entry draft
 * 2016 NHL Entry Draft → 2016 NHL entry draft
 * 2017 NHL Entry Draft → 2017 NHL entry draft
 * 2018 NHL Entry Draft → 2018 NHL entry draft
 * 2019 NHL Entry Draft → 2019 NHL entry draft
 * 2020 NHL Entry Draft → 2020 NHL entry draft
 * 2021 NHL Entry Draft → 2021 NHL entry draft
 * 2022 NHL Entry Draft → 2022 NHL entry draft
 * 2023 NHL Entry Draft → 2023 NHL entry draft
 * 2024 NHL Entry Draft → 2024 NHL entry draft
 * 2025 NHL Entry Draft → 2025 NHL entry draft
 * 2026 NHL Entry Draft → 2026 NHL entry draft
 * College players in the NHL Entry Draft → College players in the NHL entry draft
 * List of Djurgårdens IF Hockey players selected in the NHL Entry Draft → List of Djurgårdens IF hockey players selected in the NHL entry draft
 * List of Färjestad BK players selected in the NHL Entry Draft → List of Färjestad BK players selected in the NHL entry draft
 * List of Frölunda HC players selected in the NHL Entry Draft → List of Frölunda HC players selected in the NHL entry draft
 * List of NHL Entry Draft broadcasters → List of NHL entry draft broadcasters
 * List of Norwegian players selected in the NHL Entry Draft → List of Norwegian players selected in the NHL entry draft

Some data – In book n-gram stats, upper and lower case are very mixed, nothing close to "consistently capitalized", which is the criterion in MOS:CAPS, nor "always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence", the criterion in WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Note – I've also proposed downcasing "Hockey" in "Djurgårdens IF Hockey players"; we could alternatively just omit that word. The article Djurgårdens IF Hockey might also do with a name change, as the article doesn't mention that among the various names. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Djurgårdens IF is an athletic club with teams in many different sports so some type of differentiation is necessary. As far as the capitalization of that article I could care less. Deadman137 (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the article title about players drafted in the NHL entry draft, is that enough, implying hockey? Or you'd prefer to keep hockey in that title? Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe Djurgårdens IF Hockey is the name of their league. Djurgårdens IF is the branding of several sports in Sweden, but "Hockey" precedes all of their team names too. So, it could be a trademark. However, omitting it might be a better solution.
 * I'm not opposed to lowercased draft. Entry draft is very unique and I don't see it too often outside of NHL.com. Conyo14 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To explain the Djurgårdens IF situation. Imagine if the Miami Dolphins bought the other major professional teams in their metropolitan area and renamed all of them the Miami Dolphins. You would then wind up with Miami Dolphins football, Miami Dolphins hockey, Miami Dolphins baseball etc. that's what the Djurgårdens IF situation is. Whether football, hockey and baseball would be capitalized or not in that situation, I don't care.
 * Dicklyon: The title of these articles are not trademarked so I really don't care what the outcome of this review is. The only thing that I would ask for is, if the result is to move the articles could you at least wait and do them in the morning after this closes so that our watchlists are not overloaded while we're covering games in the coming days? Deadman137 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh that's interesting. Then I will support lowercase hockey, the others I will also support lowercase entry/amateur draft per the result completed in the NFL draft debacle. Conyo14 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment Some relevant guidelines are MOS:CAPS: Naming conventions (capitalization): —Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, lower-case all. These are not "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of reliable sources". Capitalization varies widely by publication and even by writers within publications. When it occurs, it is most often a) in headlines/headings/captions/etc. written in title case; b) in sites and other materials that are published by NHL, an NHL team, a fan club of an NHL team, ticket sellers, cities promoting events, and other non-independent sources; c) or by amateur "journalists" at unreliable sites we would not cites as sources (and which typically have a lot of other style faults in their writing; i.e., they are not evidentiary of how to write English properly). As in all these others sports over-capitalization cases we've looked at over the last several months, the capitalization is serving nothing but a marketing/promotional purpose, and no case can be made that these terms "are" proper names, because lower-case usage across a large number of independent source materials immediately ddisproves that these things are given capitalization treatment as proper names in English by parties who are not trying to promote them with marketing stylization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per the extensive research above as well as my and others' comments at the NFL draft discussions regarding the MOSCAPS prohibition of non-independent sources from counting toward title capitalization consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Unnecessary capitalization is an epidemic on sports articles. Flibirigit (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment List of NHL Entry Draft broadcasters has been placed at WP:AFD. Conyo14 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:NHL entry draft


text: User talk:70.16.159.53

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

title: User talk:70.16.159.53


text:
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station

Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, nicknamed Rosy Roads, is a former United States Navy base in the town of Ceiba, Puerto Rico. The site operates today as José Aponte de la Torre Airport, a public use airport.

History
In 1919, future US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, toured Puerto Rico, visiting Ceiba. When he returned to the White House, he expressed a liking for the terrain where the base was to be located. This was during the World War I-era, and the US could benefit from an air field in Ceiba. While Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, its territorial rights belong to the US, which made it feasible for the US government to build an air base in Ceiba.

It took many years for the US to become convinced of the need for an air base in Ceiba. When Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany began to invade other European countries, the US, led by then President Roosevelt, considered the idea of a naval air station in Ceiba. With war in the European and Pacific theatres, they saw an airbase in the Caribbean as necessary. President Roosevelt ordered the creation of the base in 1940. In 1941, $50million (equivalent to $ million in ) was appropriated to develop a protected anchorage in the sea area between Puerto Rico and Vieques, an area later named Roosevelt Roads by Navy Secretary Frank Knox on 15 May 1941. On 22 August 1941, President Roosevelt signed a naval works among other things, authorized another $21.97million (equivalent to $ million in ) for a protected fleet anchorage at Roosevelt Roads.

The base had been inaugurated, but scaled down to maintenance status with a public works office in 1944. From then until 1957, the base endured many shifts, being opened seven times and closed eight times. Meanwhile, it continued as a source of employment for the citizens of Ceiba.

In 1957, it was upgraded to Naval Station status. Fort Bundy was located there, but it crossed over to parts of Vieques, a fact that became important in the future. A US military mission, the M3, was located there. It was part of the "Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Puerto Rico Base Communication Department". M3 had a fleet center, a technical control facility and a Tactical support communications department among other things. The M3 was designated to help Puerto Rico, the US and other Caribbean and Latin American countries to deal with drug trafficking, illegal immigration and other problems. The main purpose of the base was tactical support for land/sea/air maneuvers at the Naval Training Range in Vieques.

In 1969, the US Navy established Camp Moscrip which held a rotating US Navy Construction Battalion (Seabee).

For the next 47 years the base was utilized for flight practice, as well as other missions and control of the area's air space. In August 2002, a MC-130H airplane carrying seven airmen crashed in the town of Caguas, while en route from Roosevelt Roads to Rafael Hernández Airport in Aguadilla. All seven perished, in the largest air tragedy in Caguas's history.

Within the industrial area the drydock, a bombproof power plant, a sewage pumping station, and a machine shop were completed. The drydock, 1100 by 155 feet, and built in the dry, was first used in July 1943. The power plant, a bombproof structure with 4-foot-thick concrete walls, was equipped with two 5,000-kw steam-driven generators. The drydock was dedicated on 15 February 1944, and the Bolles Drydock, in memory of Captain Harry A. Bolles, (CEC) USN, who was killed in Alaska in World War II.

In January 2003, Admiral Robert J. Natter said that, with the upcoming closure of the Naval Training Range in Vieques, Roosevelt Roads was no longer needed by the Navy. Later that year, a military appropriations bill required the Secretary of the Navy to close within six months of the enactment of the act. The base officially closed on 31 March 2004. At the time, there were nearly 1,200 active-duty officers and sailors at Roosevelt Roads. United States Special Operations Command South moved from Roosevelt Roads to Homestead Air Reserve Base. U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command moved from Roosevelt Roads to Mayport Naval Station. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) 74 (Seabee) moved from Roosevelt Roads to Little Creek, Virginia. When Roosevelt Roads closed, the only U.S. naval base in the Caribbean was the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. From the time that Congress voted to close the base until its closure, Roosevelt Roads closed faster than any other military installation on US soil in several decades. After its closure, 200 sailors and civilians remained to help in the transition from a naval base to a naval agency coordinating the closing process.

Of the former base's property, about 30% was transferred to the government of Puerto Rico and its municipalities, 40% became a wetlands preserve, and the remainder was offered for sale at public auction.

US Naval Forces Southern Command

U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command (NAVSO) directs naval forces and interacts with partner nations to shape the maritime environment within United States Southern Command's Area of Focus (AOF). With a focus on Theater Security Cooperation, NAVSO works to strengthen and build effective alliance and friendships, develop partner nation capabilities, and maintain US operational access to defend the US.

U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command (COMUSNAVSO), headquartered at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, was the Naval Component Commander to the U.S. Southern Command, based in Miami, Florida. It provides strategic and operational command and control for U.S. Naval Forces in South America, Central America and the Caribbean.

On 10 December 1999 the US Navy established Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, also known as NAVSOUTH, in a ceremony aboard USS Vicksburg (CG-69) inport Roosevelt Roads. The new organization is responsible for Navy operational forces in the United States Southern Command's area of responsibility (AOR), including Naval Special Warfare Unit Four, a training detachment for SEAL teams from the SOCOM operational area. It oversees US naval forces participating in drug enforcement operations and interaction with South American naval forces, including the annual UNITAS operations around South America. As the Navy's senior representative, Commander, United States Naval Forces, Southern Command (COMUSNAVSO) serves as the principal liaison with the government of Puerto Rico. In January 2004 The Navy decided to relocate U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command (USNAVSO) from Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, to Naval Station Mayport, Florida. Since the Navy had to close Naval Station Roosevelt Roads by 31 March 2004, relocation of USNAVSO was a high priority.

Life on Roosevelt Roads
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, or Roosey (pronounced "Rosy") as it was frequently called, was home to hundreds of military personnel and dependents. Education for children of those based at the Station was initially provided by teachers who were DOD contractors from the US. Later, more local teachers were hired.

Radio and TV entertainment on the base during the mid-1970s was limited. News and information broadcasts were provided by Navy and Marine Corps journalists from the studios of The American Forces Caribbean Network (AFCN). Families could tune into the on-base AFRTS radio and TV station's family-oriented shows, or rig an antenna for signals from St. Thomas or San Juan. At one time, the AFCN operated repeater transmitters broadcasting radio and TV to San Juan, and Ramey Air Force Base, located on the west coast of Puerto Rico.

At the El Coqui Theater, in the Bundy area of the base, movie goers watched films as swifts, a small batlike bird, flitted across the screen. Bats were abundant on the island, but the brightly-lit screen attracted these small birds whose stiff-winged flight was easily distinguishable from the flutter of a bat. Birds hunt using superior eyesight and the projector provided welcome light for them in the darkened theater while bats who depend on echo-location do not need it and were seen only incidentally. But both served as first-class controls on the persistent infestation of mosquitoes (and Mimis, an almost invisible biting midge with a most painful bite) encountered everywhere on the island.

The base equestrian stables were near the golf course aka:Lake Bundy. Most of the 'horses' were technically ponies, although several thoroughbreds, washouts from race tracks, occasionally found a home on base. The base flying club had many members, and met regularly to plan trips and activities. Flight instruction was available to all members.

The Vieques effect
In 1999, David Sanes, a civilian employed as a security guard by the US Navy, died from a stray bomb while observing a routine exercise. As a consequence of this many Vieques citizens and Puerto Rican activists from other towns (Ruben Berrios, Tito Kayak, etc.) began activism against the military presence in Vieques, which included illegally entering the live -fire areas at the military reservation. Other important activists included Jesse Jackson, Robert Kennedy Jr., Al Sharpton, US Representative Luis Gutiérrez D-IL, US Representative Nydia Velázquez D-NY, Rigoberta Menchú and Edward James Olmos (the last was jailed in Puerto Rico for trespassing on federal property). An agreement between the Clinton Administration and the Government of Puerto Rico (then Gov. Rosello) agreed to cease all live bombing on Vieques by March 2003.

Fort Bundy was affected by the protests, because part of it was in Vieques. After Sanes' death, there was a struggle between the (State equivalent) constitutional Government of Puerto Rico and the US Government. This was over after President George W. Bush granted Puerto Rico the rights to operate the former military possessions in Vieques, including Fort Bundy, a portion of which was aboard Roosevelt Roads Naval Station. As a consequence of President Bush's decision, the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station became NAPR (Naval Activity Puerto Rico), where DoD Police provides security, but is a military installation. On 31 March 2004, the station again became inoperative.

The future
After the military left the station, Puerto Rican Governor Sila María Calderón announced that her party, the PPD, had political goals to turn the base into an international airport. This was backed in 2005 by the then-new Governor, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, who asserted that the area might be converted to an airport. He also stated that Ceiba as a town would serve as an economic and tourist center for eastern Puerto Rico, and that converting the former military base into a civil airport would be part of a plan to open seven or eight large airports in Puerto Rico.

As of January 2009, approximately 2900 acre of the former Naval Station was being marketed to the public by the Los Angeles group of Colliers International, on behalf of the Navy's Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office, as a public auction to commence in the near future. The remaining portion is in the process of being conveyed to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other Federal agencies in various stages. Since November 2008, Puerto Rico Ports Authority operates the José Aponte de la Torre Airport.

In 2012, the former Roosevelt Roads Naval Station was under consideration as a possible location for the SpaceX private launch site, but was not selected.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Operations began marine operations at a new facility at Roosevelt Roads Naval Station on 30 August 2018.

Marine Environmental Remediation (MER) Group signed an agreement with the LRA to rent Pier 3 as a ship recycling facility in April 2016. MER Group is the first true GREEN recycling facility within the US. There are currently three ships, Seven Polaris, Lone Star and the Atlantic VII, at the pier for recycling. The company will bring over 700 jobs to the local area.

As of October 2018, Ricardo Rosselló's administration made it the launching port to Vieques and Culebra

In mid-March 2020, José Aponte Hernández, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico said he would request from Jenniffer González Colón, (the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico) for funds to restore a former hospital to operational status. What was discussed was the possibility of using the former hospital located on the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to treat persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in Puerto Rico.

Hurricane Maria rescue
In 2017, Roosevelt Roads military personnel arrived at Roosevelt Roads after Hurricane Maria to assist in rescue efforts. Units such as the United States Air Force 821st Contingency Response Support Squadron, 821st Contingency Response Group, the United States Army 1st Armored Division Aviation Brigade and the 101st Airborne Division "Dustoff" unit arrived at Roosevelt Roads. Marines and sailors set up a supply staging base receiving around-the-clock airlifts at Roosevelt Roads. This was the first major military activity at Roosevelt Roads since 2004.

US Army Reserve, Army National Guard and remaining military activities
The United States Armed Forces keep some portions of the former Roosevelt Roads Naval Base including 54 acres transferred for the Reserve Component of the United States Army that includes the existing Roosevelt Roads US Army Reserve Center and an Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC).

The Roosevelt Roads Armed Forces Reserve Center was opened 10 September 2011. This facility with 78350 sqft can serve 600 personnel on a rotating basis 345 service members per weekend. This AFRC includes a vehicle maintenance shop, storage building, weapons simulator, learning center, wash bay and parking.

The Armed Forces Reserve Center at Roosevelt Roads accommodates the United States Army Reserve the 973rd Water Support Company and The Puerto Rico Army National Guard 7 FT Landing Craft Detachment, 380th Engineer Platoon, 232nd Engineering Dive Team and a Recruiting/Retention Office.

This facility serves about 600 service members on a rotating basis with the maximum expected use of the facility being about 245 Reserve and Army Guard members per weekend.

The Roosevelt Roads US Army Reserve Center is home for the 346th Transportation Battalion, the 390th Seaport Operations Company, the 273rd Transportation Detachment Movement Control, the 432 Transportation MDM Truck Company (CGO) (EAB LINEHAUL), the 5th Battalion Army Reserve Career Group, the 764 TM Field Feeding TM, the 969 Quartermaster Detachment Petroleum Liaison Team and the 756th Engineering Construction Company.

The US Army Reserve Boat Maintenance Facility located at Ensenada Honda bay was transferred to the Puerto Rico National Guard Landing Craft Detachment, 191st Regional Support Group.

A small US Navy Reserve Support Detachment, of mostly recruiters and just over a dozen support personnel.

The Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF) Drone Launch Facility at Isla Cabras operating under the United States Coast Guard.

title: Roosevelt Roads Naval Station


text:
User:Aubade~enwiki

'''Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.'''

title: User:Aubade~enwiki


text:
User talk:Klamothe

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Spinboy 04:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Klamothe


text:
Curtis Roads

Curtis Roads (born May 9, 1951) is an American composer, author and computer programmer. He composes electronic and electroacoustic music, specializing in granular and pulsar synthesis.

Career and music
Born in Cleveland, Ohio, Roads studied composition at the California Institute of the Arts and the University of California San Diego. He is former chair and current vice chair of the Media Arts and Technology Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has previously taught at the University of Naples "Federico II", Harvard University, Oberlin Conservatory, Les Ateliers UPIC (now CCMIX, Center for the Composition of Music Iannis Xenakis), and the University of Paris VIII.

He co-founded the International Computer Music Association in 1980 and edited the Computer Music Journal from 1978–2000. He has created software including PulsarGenerator and the Creatovox, both with Alberto de Campo.

Since 2004, he has been researching a new method of sound analysis called atomic decompositions, sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The first movement of his composition Clang-Tint, "Purity", uses intervals from the Bohlen–Pierce scale.

Publications

 * Roads, Curtis (2015). Composing Electronic Music. Oxford University Press.
 * Roads, Curtis (2001). Microsound. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-18215-7
 * Roads, Curtis (1996). The Computer Music Tutorial. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-68082-3
 * Roads, Curtis, Pope, Stephen Travis, Piccialli, Aldo and De Poli, Giovanni, eds (1997). Musical Signal Processing. Routledge. ISBN 90-265-1483-2
 * Roads, Curtis and Strawn, John, eds (1987). Foundations of Computer Music. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-68051-3

Compositions

 * POINT LINE CLOUD (2005) @Asphodel (Excerpt @ youtube)
 * Half-life (1998–1999)
 * Clang-Tint (1991–1994)
 * nscor (1980)

title: Curtis Roads


text:
Talk:1963 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Bill Cosburn - 1* (depends on if SHL top level predecessor Division 1 is covered under criterion 1)

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1963 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1964 NHL amateur draft

Ken Dryden
There seems to be a conflict between the information provided in this article about Ken Dryden, and the information that is provided in his own article. This article makes note that after he was drafted by Boston, he informed them he would be going to university and they traded his rights to Montreal. His own article makes note that he was drafted by Boston and his rights were traded to Montreal, but that he didn't find out until the 1970's that he was originaly drafted by Boston because his agent told him that it was the Canadiens who drafted him in the first place.

Any idea as to which piece of info is correct. If his own article is correct, he couldn't have informed Boston of his plans as this particular article claims. 142.68.232.107 (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1964 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1965 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1965 NHL amateur draft


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Atlasia

 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 CDC   (talk)  22:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Atlasia
The US Presidential Atlas site may deserve an article, but I do not think Atlasia deserves one. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. --MAS117 21:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The whole concept of "micronations" is lame -- most of them are nothing more than social clubs, and none of them have any legal basis. That said, a lot of people take them seriously, so they have at least the importance of the imaginary planets of Star Trek. So they're entitled to articles. I would like to see articles that don't assume that Micronations have exactly the same status as "real" countries. They need to present themselves to a sceptical outer world. That means more talk more about what they're trying to accomplish, and less about their organizational trivia. (Is there a template for that?)  ---Isaac R 07:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I say below, I'm happy to expand the article at some point, but I haven't had a chance yet. If its allowed to stay, it will get done by me and other members. I'm also open to suggestions on presenting it in such a way that is realistic to the fact its not real. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like to agree with you, the general policy on wikipedia is to delete articles such as these. We have deleted other micronational articles that were just as deserving. Plus, as I have discovered today, there is a micronational wiki, and Atlasia is already on it. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 08:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The imaginary contents of fictional universes are not automatically entitled to articles. Read Fiction.  Your premise is flawed, therefore.  Also read the following:
 * Votes for deletion/R. Ben Madison
 * Votes for deletion/Talossan language
 * Votes for deletion/Principality of Sealand
 * Votes for deletion/Nova Roma (Micronation)
 * Votes for deletion/Societas Via Romana
 * Votes for deletion/Empire of Septempontia
 * Votes for deletion/Atlantium
 * Votes for deletion/Almea
 * Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * Be nice, Uncle, and don't strawman my arguments. I said nothing about "automatic entitlement". I simply pointed out that we have articles for imaginary planets. Fiction allows that if the article on the imaginary universe needs to be broken up -- and given the obsessiveness of SF fans, that need is inevitable. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't strawman your argument. Your very words were "So they're entitled to articles.".  Moreover, we don't have articles for all imaginary planets, only some, and subject to Fiction.  (See Votes for deletion/Synnax, for example.)  Again, your premise is flawed.  Further: No, the need for an article to be broken up is not inevitable.  Not even the most obsessed sci-fi fan can find more that can be said about Synnax, for example. Again, your premise is flawed. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * Not having month or two to spare, I can do no more than skim your list. Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. If so, I'm not inclined to fight the trend -- as I said before, I consider the whole concept lame. Still, I notice that, after a lengthy battle, the most notorious micronation, Sealand, retained its article. Indeed, that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles, since it takes the time to document the scepticism over its premise. Another model: the Republic of Texas.---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. — The precedent is mixed, because the issue is complex, and varies from case to case.  I gave a selection of precedents from across the spectrum precisely to demonstrate that. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles — You're thinking about this in the wrong way. You're talking about model articles, and clearly thinking that the criteria are whether the article has been polished to some standard of presentation.  The actual criteria applied are far more to do with the subject rather than the quality of the article.  Note that Republic of Texas and Principality of Sealand both stake claims to physical territory, and indeed have both been in (somewhat one-sided) conflicts over those claims, whereas the Republic of Atlasia has no claimed geography at all, for example.  Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: silliness is not grounds for exclusion. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The bottom line, given your leaping to false conclusions both here and elsewhere in other VFD discussions ("why are we giving the Micronationoids such a hard time?"), is that perhaps you should sit down and read the prior discussions thoroughly. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * As long as we're criticizing reading habits, perhaps you should take another look at the civility rules? ---Isaac R 23:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This article basically summarizes the constitution of a 100-member club (if we are to believe this article, rather than the empty Citizens of Atlasia list) that some people have created with the help of some web hosting. There's nothing whatever here about the club's achievements, history, features of interest, or goals. Delete. Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * For the record, the citizen page is a problem we've been having issues with: Please go here to view the genuine list of citizens whose pages have been put on the AtlasWiki. I'd also happily fill out the details of the country at some point but I cannot write novels at a time. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all micronations. RickK 21:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable micronation. Jayjg (talk)  03:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * delete only coz of 2 hits on google which are both to wikipedia Yuckfoo 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I'd like to point out that there is another micronation on Wikipedia, the Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia, that is much smaller than our own, and yet their page is for some reason allowed to remain. The reason Atlasia is not generally well documented on Google is that we've only really just started to branch out to advertise to the wider world to recruit new members. Previously we had never bothered to register stuff with google to recruit, so it won't show. For the record I am the article's author and a member of the nation. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like Cyberia has never been on VfD. I shall put it on too. I am familiar with both Atlasia (I am a forum member) and Cyberia to know that neither deserve articles. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep New Progressive raises good points. --Ilikeverin 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Spinboy 22:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Advertising. Non-notable micronation. Wikipedia is inconsistent. The existence of other micronation articles is not a reason to keep this one. Nominate the others for deletion if they are not notable. I don't think a traffic court would revoke a ticket for going 15 mph over the limit just because other cars were going 20 mph over. In fact a good reason for deleting this article is so that future micronation promoters will not cite this one as precedent. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most certainly not notable. Indrian 05:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What dpbsmith said. Plus, only hits are Wikipedia and a mirror. Niteowlneils 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Xezbeth  18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above. Slac speak up!  03:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonnotable "internet micronations" CDC   (talk)  21:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Personally, I don't think the true Catholic Church should be accorded an article, either, but that's my personal bias. I understand that the information may prove informative or enlightening to others, and I see this situation as similar. As long as someone is proclaiming their willingness to expand and improve the article, I think the deletion discussion should be tabled. --MikeJ9919 23:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * An interesting comparison. There probably aren't that many more True Catholics than there are Atlasians. They only have two priests, one of which is their Antipope. On the other hand, the True Catholics are a lot more interesting than the Atlasians. ---Isaac R 23:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you make such an assertion? --New Progressive 17:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete for all the reasons Dpbsmith said. --Dcfleck 23:04, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * Delete all micronations. 7 Google results is not major enough. Master Thief Garrett 07:04, 24 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:
Kina (musician)

Kina Cosper (born January 25, 1969) known simply as Kina, is an American musician, best known for her work with Grammy Award-nominated group Brownstone (after their nomination), and her 2000 solo single "Girl from the Gutter".

Solo career
Kina was born in Detroit. At age 21, she moved to Los Angeles, where she worked as a server and in clerical positions as she tried to establish a musical career. She found success with her single "Girl from the Gutter", which received strong airplay and peaked at number 21 on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart. She then released her self-titled debut album on July 18, 2000. Kina peaked at number 14 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart.

"Girl from the Gutter" was followed by the single "Me", which peaked at number 3 on the same chart. "Have a Cry" was released to radio but never charted.

To date this is Kina's only released album. Kina parted ways with DreamWorks Records shortly after the final single release.

A few years after their release, Kina's songs began popping up in various TV shows. In fall 2005 "Give & Take" and "I Love You" both appeared in an episode of the UPN sitcom Girlfriends. Kina's song "Sincerely" was also featured in the motion picture Beauty Shop.

Albums

 * Kina (2000)

Singles

 * "Girl from the Gutter" (2000)
 * "Me" (2000)
 * "Have a Cry" (2000)

title: Kina (musician)


text:
Talk:British Overseas citizen

older entries
This information came from the British Home Office website

It would be great to have an expert elaborate on the topic further

Numbers
Also an estimate of total numbers would be interesting Gil Gamesh (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on British Overseas citizen. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2008/03/11/citizenship-report-full.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724053340/http://www.citizensuk.org/2011/03/strangers-into-citizens-take-action-with-british-overseas-citizens/ to http://www.citizensuk.org/2011/03/strangers-into-citizens-take-action-with-british-overseas-citizens/

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) 22:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

UK Court Judgement on Statelessness
This article probably needs to be tidied up given this recent UK court judgment:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1586.html

Especially para 37 'In my judgment, a British Overseas citizen who is not a national of any other State, and who is not under article 1(2) of the 1954 UN Convention a person to whom the Convention does not apply, is a stateless person for the purpose of paragraph 403(b) of the Immigration Rules. He has nowhere else to go. The fundamental purpose of the Immigration Rules, identified in s.3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, is to set out who can come and stay here. A BOC who has nowhere else to go is in this context a stateless person. His BOC status is a "formal link of a political and legal character". But that is not the test.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruritanian2018 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Understanding the language in the "Acquisition and loss" section
Here's an attempt at restating some of what's in the "Acquisition and loss" section to see if I understand it correctly.

The above conditions define why someone might not be a CUKC in 1983 and hence why you might not become a BOC. But is this information relevant to this article? If we have an article on CUKCs, then surely the above information belongs in a section of that article on "Loss of CUKC status"? That section would also include the final transition to BOC status, but why does this article need to mention the possibility that someone was a CUKC in 1962 and lost that status with the independence of the country they were born in, twenty years before BOC status was created? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BOC status was created in the 1981 law and became effective in 1983 (on 1 January?)
 * Only CUKCs could become BOCs; if you became a BOC in 1983 it's because you were a CUKC before 1983, though not all CUKCs became BOCs and there are (limited) ways to have acquired BOC status since then.
 * A CUKC might have had connections to more than one country/colony/territory (colony for shorthand in what follows) etc. A connection might mean that they were born there, or had one or more parents born there, or were resident there for some period. A CUKC could therefore have connections to more than one colony.
 * Between 1948 and 1983 some CUKCs stopped being CUKCs. This could happen if all four of the following conditions were true:
 * They had a connection to a colony that became independent
 * The connection was sufficient for them to become a citizen of that colony
 * They had no connection to any other colony sufficient for them to remain CUKCs on that basis
 * They took no action to remain CUKCs (as was possible for British subjects in Burma, for example).

 * Sorry this took a while. Yes, I think this information is crucial to this article since the bulk of all BOCs would have gotten that status in 1983. It's context that shows the type of people who became BOCs. If we removed this context and all that was listed in the article was the bare requirement of being a CUKC without UK right of abode in 1983, I think readers would be left asking "what kind of people were they?" Horserice (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that some characterization of the remaining CUKCs is necessary, since by 1983 only a few of the original class of CUKCs qualified to be BOCs. I think an English description that makes less of an attempt to be rigorous would be more appropriate, though.  The problem with the bullet list as it stands is that it's not complete enough to be able to answer every question about the transition from CUKC to another status before BOC (e.g. you'd have to know the details of each country's rule for acquiring citizenship at independence), but it does contain a lot of information that isn't of interest to someone reading about BOC status. How about something like:
 * Almost all British Overseas Citizens acquired the status in 1983, when CUKCs without right of abode in the United Kingdom were reclassified as BOCs. From 1948 onwards, CUKC was the main form of citizenship for residents of the Commonwealth who did not qualify as citizens of their country of residence.  Most CUKCs living outside the UK lost that status over the next 35 years as many countries in the Commonwealth acquired independence, though those excluded by each new country's citizenship rules remained CUKCs, and there were other ways that CUKC status might have been retained [with a suitable link to explain "CUKC status might have been retained" that covers what's currently in the bullet list but with more details].
 * The current lead in sentence to the bullet list says "there are a variety of circumstances in which an individual could have acquired BOC status", but that's not all it lists: it partly lists ways in which a person might not have lost CUKC status, which is obviously related but not the same thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The FAC didn't gain traction, it's too bad about that. In terms of this suggestion though, I gave this some thought and I'm fine with moving the list out of the article. How's this?:
 * Becoming a British Overseas citizen is generally not possible. The status cannot be acquired by naturalisation and can only be transferred by descent if an individual born to a BOC parent would otherwise be stateless. It is expected that BOCs will obtain citizenship in the country they reside in and that the number of active status holders will eventually dwindle until there are none. Almost all British Overseas citizens acquired the status in 1983, when CUKCs without right of abode in the United Kingdom were reclassified as BOCs. From 1949 onwards, residents of independent Commonwealth countries who did not qualify as citizens of those nations remained CUKCs. Most CUKCs living outside of the UK lost that status over the next 35 years as more British colonies gradually gained their independence, but differing citizenship laws in each new country created situations in which CUKCs resident in those places did not become citizens [link out here]. No new BOCs were created by reclassification after 1983 except in 1997; British Dependent Territories citizens who were connected with Hong Kong and would have been stateless after the transfer of sovereignty to China on 1 July 1997 acquired BOC status on that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horserice (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At a first read through this looks good. I am fairly busy this week but will try to find time to read through again and will comment again.  Yes, sorry about the FAC, but I think it would help at the next FAC if I were ready to support before we even get there, so I'll try to keep going as if this were a FAC review.  More later, perhaps this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, that would be awesome. Appreciate you having gone through all this info up until now. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:British Overseas citizen


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 2

April 2

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Kbdank71 16:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:People of Foo and Category:People from Foo
Voting result:

"Fooian people" (2): VivaEmilyDavies, Joy

"People of/from Foo" (5): Gene Nygaard, Instantnood, Grutness, Thryduulf, Kbdank71

Consensus is to keep.

Category:People of Grenada, Category:People from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Category:People of Swaziland, Category:People from Luxembourg, Category:People from Macao, Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Standard practice is to use "Fooian people" rather than "People of Foo" (as seen in Category:People by nationality, although this wouldn't work for Category:People of the Dominican Republic or Category:People of Dominica as "Dominican" in used for both). Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina should be merged with Category:Bosnian people, under the name of the latter. "Bosnian" seems to be the preferred "neutral" adjective for Bosnia and Herzegovina, as opposed to "Bosniak" which refers to a particular Bosnian ethnic group - "Bosnian" is neutral even though it does not specifically reference the distinct geographic region of Herzegovina, possibly because that region does not have a distinct political, legal or cultural identity. The others should be moved to Category:Grenadian people, Category:U.S. Virgin Islands people, Category:Swazi people, Category:Luxembourgeois people and Category:Macau people (please note that, perhaps confusingly, "Macau" can serve as an adjective, and that while both "Macao" and "Macau" are used in English, "Macau" is used for both the Macau article and Category:Macau. The adjective "Macanese" refers to people of Portuguese-Macau ancestry and wouldn't be appropriate.) Sorry the length of this proposal! --VivaEmilyDavies 21:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding People from Bosnia and Herzegovina, I'll just paste what I already said on the talk page:
 * Your argument is correct, except that it unfairly discriminates against the people from Herzegovina. Go ask any Hercegovac if they feel like a Bosanac and they'll probably tell you to go to hell, if not something worse. :)
 * Hence this entry must not be changed back to "Bosnian people". "Bosnian and Herzegovinian people" would be correct, but cumbersome and awkward, so it might as well stay as it is. --Joy [shallot]   22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A very good point. (Should Category:Bosnian people be emptied?)

 * Oh, I just moved that one article over. I had redirected it over previously so I didn't notice the new entry. --Joy [shallot]

 * Maybe it would be better to actually delete Category:Bosnian people? If people put articles into it they'll think it's worked okay because it shows up in blue at the bottom of the article. Most people won't double-check by clicking on the link to make sure! VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm still not 100% convinced by you - the adjective "Bosnia-Herzegovinian" is also used in English (actually it is the adjective I usually use), as is the slightly more common "Bosnian-Herzegovinian", so either could provide a slightly less unwieldy fallback. Standard English usage is to use "Bosnian" to refer to the entire country.

 * That's probably because there are many more things Bosnian than there are Herzegovinian. Bosnia is first mentioned in the name of the country for a reason, but Herzegovina isn't omitted for a reason, either. --Joy [shallot]

 * Searching the BBC website, which uses fairly standard British English, "Bosnia" and "Bosnian" combined throw up approaching 30,000 hits to "Herzegovinan" 3 and "Herzegovina" 306. (1, 2, 3, 4)It is discriminatory and it is unfair. However, it is standard English (unfortunately... I guess it would soon change if most English-speakers had to meet a Hercegovac on a regular basis!). I dislike the word, but as an English language work, en.wikipedia really ought to use standard English (unless it either technically incorrect or highly offensive). Something that makes me lean slightly further towards "Bosnian" is the fact that the embassy of BiH in the UK calls itself the "Bosnian Embassy" of the "Bosnian government" here - but elsewhere the embassies in the USA, Pakistan and Australia prefer to avoid an adjective altogether by strenuously using the phrase "... of Bosnia and Herzegovina".

 * *.embassyhomepage.com is a known scam site, so it's not authoritative at all :) Omitting Herzegovina is both technically incorrect (because the country's name includes it) and offensive (because they *never* consider themselves Bosnians). --Joy [shallot]

 * Oops sorry! VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be silly to cause offence for no good reason, and there are some grounds for saying that BiH lacks a suitable neutral English adjective for use in WP (not uniquely - Dominica and the Dominican Republic do, for a different reason). Yet I think it is impossible to deny that in modern English "Bosnian" is the standard term and some official BiH organisations do use it, so while I wouldn't use it privately, on Wikipedia I still believe it's the correct choice. --VivaEmilyDavies --VivaEmilyDavies 00:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)00:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Consider an analogous example: Category:Trinidad and Tobago people. Tobago is much smaller than Trinidad, but it's not discriminated against in the naming. --Joy [shallot]

 * I guess it probably helps that T&T is an English-speaking country so standard English just copies the way they refer to themselves, whereas we often mess up foreign countries in translation :) Two cringeworthy examples are the most recent BBC news stories with a BiH slant (1, 2) which use "Bosnia" for the country of BiH and "Bosnian" for the adjective. Contrast this to T&T (as the press sometimes refer to it when they don't write it out in full) where "Trinidad" is only used when referring to that particular island, not the entire political entity. However, the reason that WP uses "Trinidad and Tobago people" is that it is standard English. All I was querying was whether "Bosnian" is now so widespread that it has become standard (it's really the opposite situation to "American" where the adjective is underinclusive - rather than to the Americas, we usually, save for e.g. "Organization of American States" use it to refer to the USA alone. Hence, even though it might strictly speaking be wrong, we do have a lot of categories beginning "American...", simply because it is standard. I for one much prefer "U.S." for the USA, "Trinidad and Tobago" as the adjective for T&T and "Bosnian and Herzegovinan" or similar for BiH). Anyway, since you made a lot of very strong points, and I do dislike "Bosnian" myself, I think I'd rather opt for something like Grutness's current idea, but spell it with a "z" as seems to be more usual (Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian people). If anybody is interested the EU manual of style recommends using "of Bosnia and Herzegovina" instead of an adjective. However, if that approach is to be taken I'd prefer "from" (you wouldn't say "X is a writer of Bosnia and Herzegovina", more likely "X is a writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina, unless you're the BBC in which case you'd apparently say "X is a Bosnian writer"!) VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually "Trinidad and Tobago" as an adjective is not correct usage (in my experience as a Trinidadian). The only correct adjectival forms are "Trinidadian" and "Tobagonian".  But to call the list "Trinidadian and Tobagonian people" would force the removal of Derek Walcott who, despite being St. Lucian, spent a significant part of his life there, and alludes to Trinidad extensively in his poetry.  Guettarda 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have apparently been fooled by usage like "Trinidad and Tobago government", "Trinidad and Tobago Defense Force" and "Trinidad and Tobago Police Service" into believing that "Trinidad and Tobago" has become a kind of quasi-adjective. Thanks for pointing that out! VivaEmilyDavies 20:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (I thought I had made it clear that) it was the inclusion of Tobago that I was referring to, not the actual form with the adjective. That's another matter, please feel free to address it separately. --Joy [shallot]   21:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This is just another case of political correctness or of foolish consistency run amok among the Wikipedia categorizers. The very notion of "Foowegian people" is fraught with difficulty, since that is the form usually used in reference to peoples.  "Swazi people" can refer to an ethnic group, the Swazi people, and to individual members of that group, rather than to individuals "of Swaziland".  Gene Nygaard 00:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do see the point, but it is an overwhelming consistency (see Category:People by nationality) and using "Foowegian ..." rather than "... of Foo" makes more sense for people - precisely because (a) it is a bit fuzzier round the edges (just like people - and unlike, for example, political structures or geographic features which are better categorised by country) and (b) many historical figures can be classed as Foowegian even though Foo did not exist as a country at that time. The real "categorisation gone mad", as far as I can see, would be to try to class people together by country instead, with the view that that, being less fuzzy, it is somehow more exact. "Swazi" is better for categorisation than "... of Swaziland" when referring to people because a person who would fit easier into the first than the second ought to have a place to go (and does it really matter that Swazis who don't fit the Swaziland definition are side by side with those who do? They really aren't so different, and people will know how to find either). On the other hand, "Mountains of Swaziland" and "Olympic athletes of Swaziland" make more sense than their "Swazi" equivalents because the ambiguity would hold no benefit there. Consistency is only a limited good, but here it makes sense - I can't see why Swazis and Swaziland should be treated any differently to Bulgarians and Bulgaria (not everyone in Bulgaria is ethnically Bulgarian, the ethnic group predates the modern country, there are ethnic Bulgarians outside Bulgaria and the adjective doesn't distinguish nationality from ethnicity - but those problems don't cause much fuss and moving "Bulgarian people" to "People of Bulgaria" would probably get little support on its At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective.own) --VivaEmilyDavies 01:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If consistence is necessary I would prefer "People from Foo" or "People of Foo" to "Fooian people". The latter can mean ethnicity and citizenship, which is ambiguous. — Instantnood 06:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is precisely for this reason that I prefer "People of Foo" to "People from Foo". After all, an immigrant can become "of" a country, consider it home, play a major part in its life, and yet never become a citizen, so never be "from" a country.  Guettarda 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: please don't assume ambiguity is bad :) In an article, it would be bad, but that's where the ambiguity ought to be elucidated. Some people best fit multiple categorisations. I would really like it if everybody debating this thread had a quick look at Nikola Tesla first. The intro describes him as of Serb ethnicity, yet he worked mainly in the USA. He was, however, born in Croatia - which he regarded as his homeland! He is a messy and ambiguous person, and deserves to be categorised as such: which he is! He's in "American physicists", "Serbian scientists" and "Croatian scientists" - all of these are quite correct, and indeed useful. A person trying to browse for him but who has forgotten his name, yet remembers he was born in Croatia, or that he was of Serb descent, may try to use the category system to find him, and will be successful either way! Now if we did everything by "country from", he would be restricted to "Physicists from the United States" and "Scientists from Croatia". That would be silly, especially when his Croatian link is not even mentioned in the introduction. Just because it is seems less ambiguous and therefore seems somehow more "accurate" doesn't make categorising people by "from country" any better - I believe that it is a genuinely "foolish consistency". Now, I wouldn't want to see "Croatian mountains" - I wouldn't know if it contained mountains that only lay historically in Croatia, or mountains with special cultural significance to Croats, or mountains where the local population is ethnically Croat. But people aren't like mountains - people move around, change affiliations, belong to cultures that themselves rise and fall and very often they either predate or postdate the "country" that would describe them best (even saying that Tesla was from Croatia would actually be wrong, to be strictly accurate you might cat him in "scientists from Austria-Hungary", hence losing even the Croat connection). Also, could people please spend just a few minutes browsing around Category:People by nationality, Category:Professionals by nationality and Category:Nationalities by occupation to see how many hundreds of categories use "Fooian..." for people! You could change them all, but doesn't the sheer existence of this near-universal format suggest there is some consensus for classing people in this way? One that I would like to change to "from Fooland" format is politicians - e.g. ethnic Hungarian politicians in an ethnic Hungarian political party in Serbia-Montenegro ought to be classed in "Politicians from Serbia and Montenegro", because politics relates to the political structure of a particular country (as a political and legal entity). That would be in line with e.g. Category:Political parties by country. But I still think that "Fooian people" and the majority of their subcategories should be preserved, and exceptions without a particularly strong reason ("People from Dominica" and perhaps if, we take the EU convention, Bosnia and Herzegovina... but not Luxemburg) ought to be converted into "Fooian..." form. VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally I too am against this "Fooilonian X" idea, and have said so when this sort of thing has come up in the past. X of Foo tends to work far better in practice. If, howeverm the decision is to go with it, would Category: Bosnian and Hercegovinian people work? Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 11:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I dislike "Bosnian" too, just suggested it because I thought it had (unfortunately) become standard. If we do use an adjectival approach, would you agree with Category: Bosnian and Herzegovinian people spelt with a "z"? I think the "c" spelling is now regarded as wrong. Also, I agree that "X of/from/in Foo" is far better for almost everything - I just think that on the whole people are an exception. As I said above, please look at Nikola Tesla and have a think about it :) --VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I too much prefer "People from Foo" to "Fooian people" - see the quiz at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) and see how many adjectival forms you can get right, and then look at the answers and see how many are less than obvious. Thryduulf 12:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories are different from articles though in that they are browsed to, and rarely typed in. And even if the adjective is completely non-obvious (e.g. Myanmar not Burma for the country, but Burmese for the adjective, is currently in use) you can still browse via "Myanmar". However, in general, and especially for article titles, I too much prefer "of/from/in Foo". I just think that broadly, the categorisation of people should be an exception.VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Category:Glaswegians should be renamed Category:People of Glaswegia as well.  Gene Nygaard 17:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It would become Category:People from Glasgow (similar to Category:Chicagoans, which would become Category:People from Chicago). Actually I thought about nominating both of these for renaming myself, and if somebody else did, I would support! Cities don't usually have quite the same ethnic/cultural importance as nationalities, and many lack adjectival forms, so I would far prefer these to be standardised as "People from Chicago" and "People from Glasgow" etc. VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my comment above, I oppose moving "People from Foo" to "Fooian people". In my opinion "Fooian people" should be move to "People from Foo". — Instantnood 12:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose "Fooian people". The naming conventions recommend using nouns, not adjectives. -Kbdank71 14:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read the Naming conventions (adjectives) you quoted. "The naming conventions for adjectives is a naming convention for how to create Wikipedia pages about adjectives" so "At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective". That's about redirects of articles, in the article space, whose title is purely an adjective. The relevant policy would actually be Naming conventions (country-specific topics) but that is still in "proposed" state. --VivaEmilyDavies 16:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 3

April 3

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Kbdank71 16:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:People of the Philippines
Voting results:

"Filipino people" (1): VivaEmilyDavies

"People of the Philippines" (1): Kbdank71

''No consensus. Default is to keep.''

Move to Category:Filipino people - not only would this be consistent with the vast majority of nationalities (see Category:People by nationality), this category has a subcategory for "Filipino Americans", indicating that it is actually used for Filipino people in a wider sense than simply citizens or inhabitants of the Philippines. --VivaEmilyDavies 03:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See discussion at below.

Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, makes sense to keep discussion there, but separate votes up here perhaps? This is slightly different in that it clearly has "Filipino Americans" as a subcat, indicating to me that it ought to be ambiguous between nationality and country.--VivaEmilyDavies 17:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. The naming conventions recommend using nouns instead of adjectives.  -Kbdank71 13:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read the Naming conventions (adjectives) you quoted. "The naming conventions for adjectives is a naming convention for how to create Wikipedia pages about adjectives" so "At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective". That's about redirects of articles, in the article space, whose title is purely an adjective. The relevant policy would actually be Naming conventions (country-specific topics) but that is still in "proposed" state. --VivaEmilyDavies 17:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:1973 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY
--98.21.48.228 (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pierre Laganiere - 2
 * Paul Tantardini - 2
 * Terry McDougall - 2
 * Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added notes to those names in the article, referencing this Talk section. Jmg38 (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 * As with the 1972 draft article, if you think they meet notability standards, create the articles, source them properly, and be prepared to make your case against deletion.   Ravenswing     17:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1973 NHL amateur draft