Talk:100 Greatest NHL Players

Lemieux & Pronger

@Sabbatino: You reverted edits made by @Kaiser matias: & me to the last year Mario Lemieux played, citing the Marc Savard article. However, the Chris Pronger & Nathan Horton articles take the opposite approach. For Lemieux, this is a minor distinction, though there is a distinction. However, it would be a more major distinction for Pronger, as we would have to change the last year to the last year he was under contract & add additional teams for Pronger if we follow the Marc Savard article. How do you guys want to approach this? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10: Just want to let you know that there is a discussion at WikiProject Ice Hockey about this. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this article must be severely redacted for copyright violation, I believe

It's a nice article and somebody put a lot of work into it, but it is a copyright violation.

By presenting the *entire* list we are appropriating too much of the NHL's intellectual work. The list is here on the NHL website. This article essentially copies that article. It doesn't copy the text, but it copies the entirety of the names on the list, which compiling that list was the main intellectual work that went into the page. And the page clearly says "© NHL 2018. All Rights Reserved".

Not only that, but there's potential actual harm to the NHL here. If we simply describe the list or give a small fair-use excerpt, this will presumably drive some number of readers to view the whole list at the NHL website, and there's a "Shop" button at the top, so obvious material benefit. Presenting the entire list will satisfy some numbers of readers who then won't go to the NHL site.

In cases like this, it's common to list the #1 person on the list or the first few entries. This is probably allowable fair use. There's no ranking so we can't do that, but we can keep the stuff that tells how and when the list was compiled, and add a bit of our *own* intellectual work, stuff like "The team with the most players on the list who played for them is the Red Wings" or whatever. This is arguably original research and synthesis, but that's a grey area and to a reasonable degree, and is commonly done with list articles like this, so if there's no agenda that'd be OK IMO.

Sorry. It doesn't bother me personally, but the rules are clear and strict. I'll give it a couple-few days and then redact the article down to stub, willing to hear counterarguments first tho. Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Herostratus: The table used in this article is based on the table used in the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History article. That table has been in the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History article since 2009, so it seemed like it was an acceptable inspiration for this table. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10: Yes but that just means that 50 Greatest Players in NBA History should also be redacted, probably. Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century gives an example of how this is properly done. Ugh, I hate being a nudnik about this, but we are required to be scolds regarding copyright problems. Anyway, I have not (yet) redacted the material and have instead listed the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 April 3 for the copyright solons to adjudicate, and suggested as the replacement text for the article this: Talk:100 Greatest NHL Players/Temp. Herostratus (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that including the complete contents of the list is a copyright violation. The list represents the judgement of one or more people as to who the greatest players are and it's entirely possible for someone to claim copyright on that judgement. Copyright exists automatically and the creators appear to be exercising it here. See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists for a fuller explanation. I've deleted the article and moved Herostratus' version to mainspace as it is copyright-compliant. Note that even a partial recreation of the list is not acceptable under our fair use guidelines (WP:TOP100). Hut 8.5 21:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Would adding a list of players be a copyright issue? I am not talking about some sort of table, but a simple list with references next to players' names. That would not infringe the copyright and would just list all the players with references to back it up. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would. Just compiling the list was an important intellectual effort of the people who did it.

To reiterate, I think this sucks. I wish we could allow stuff like this. I, personally, don't care much about downstream use. But the Foundation does, and to have best downstream use we must be scrupulously clear of copyright violations. Another reason tho is commercial opportunity. If we present the entire 100 we will cause some non-zero number of people not to go the NHL site, where there is a shop. So we would be subject to a takedown order from the NHL (if they ever noticed or cared, which is possible) and we don't want that. It's too bad but it is what it is. Herostratus (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I do not see anything that is allowed on 50 Greatest Players in NBA History that cannot also be done here. But then again, it would be an uphill battle for you to try to redact what is a current Featured List. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. It could be that NBA list was by vote, therefore not the intellectual work and intellectual property of anyone. "A bunch of voters" can't hold a copyright, yet its not clear the NBA can just claim copyright of their work. Whereas this list was made by some particular persons sitting around a table or whatever and belongs to their employers (the NHL).

Or maybe not. There are certainly very instances where an article gets away with something an another article gets caught just because somebody notices. Maybe the NBA article is skating. I don't know how the Featured List people work, I'm sure they look at accuracy and writing quality and physical presentation and so on; whether one of their criteria is to check to see if its a copyvio I don't know. Maybe not. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I only bring this up now because the NBA list is currently posted on the Main page as today's featured list, and wanted to preemptively raise the issue again before someone else does. Digging around, it appears that the actual reason for this discrepancy is that the NBA list was promoted in 2009, two years before the WP:TOP100 rule was first added in 2011 as a result of this discussion. Therefore it seems to be just a case that someone has not yet seriously challenging the NBA list after the WP:TOP100 rule was implemented, whether via featured list removal, WP:AFD, WP:CP, or all of the above. Also, the "uphill battle" I mentioned above is only a general reference of what likely might happen when going through a featured list removal process, and the possibility of more editors opposing such a challenge, and does not necessarily reflect what could happen with the NBA list.

As for this NHL list: given that this was created in 2017 after the implementation of WP:TOP100, as of now I will not proceed with this inquiry any further, and view my addition of {{External media}} to the page two years ago sufficient. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Strike that. Let it be known that the recently created NBA 75th Anniversary Team was made through voting compiled by a panel of 88 media, current and former players, coaches, general managers, and team executives.[1] Whereas this 100 Greatest NHL Players list was only created by a blue ribbon panel of "58 owners, executives, general managers and coaches, players, and broadcasters and media members", where each "member of the panel voted for 100 players, with each vote worth one point".[2] Just saying... Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Leagues and teams release these types of lists in a press release to promote itself. Subsequently, many new sources report the grouping and reproduce the same list as well. I don't see it as a copyvio like if Time or ESPN releases its own list to sell a publication or get traffic on its own website.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Toews and Kane

It seems a bit WP:UNDUE to list only Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane as the only players by name whose inclusion was considered controversial by some, especially if you’re going to list so many players who some feel should be included. One of the sources cited for this controversial actually list five players who shouldn’t have been included, and another of the other sources cited doesn’t really single out either player per se, but said their selections along with some others were surprising. Even the Vice source mentions players other than Toews and Kane who the writer felt didn’t deserve to be on the list. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

If the other sources there do mention the inclusion and/or omission of others as controversial (and I recall Malkin not being on the list was a big deal), then it definitely should mention them as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are three sources cited for this content. The first one mentions the two twice by name: once as part of the active players selected and once in a paragraph about selections considered surprising. It specifically states, "Less surprising were Toews and Kane, as they were picked for the LA All-Star Game, although their inclusion on the list was controversial."

The second source specifically names five players who were selected and five who were left off that the author felt should've been added instead. The five players who this author feels shouldn've been left off are Toews, Eric Lindros, Pavel Datsyuk, Scott Niedermayer and Mike Gartner. They are listed in descending order with Toews being #5, but it's not clear what the ordering means. There's no mention of Kane in this source.

The third source is more OPEd-ish than the other two. The writer seems particularly miffed that Evgeni Malkin was left off and makes his case by comparing his career to those of some others included in the list. He does say that Toews and Kane shouldn't have made the list, but he also says that there were other players who were snubbed and others such as Grant Fuhr and Adam Oates who should've been left off.

There's always going to be "controversy" when it comes to these lists, and not just when it comes to sports. These are all opinion pieces and there's always someone who disagrees and feels their list is better whenever there's a selection of anything like this. Anyway, it seems a bit odd, however, to single out two of the players selected when others also considered questionable additions. It's also not clear whether there was really any genuine controversy generated as well as what the response was to this controversy if there was. Didn't some writer feel that the selections were all OK? If there were such supporters, then content about that probably should be added for balance. FWIW, I'm not a huge hockey fan. I stumbled upon this article via the Toews article which I looked at based upon a promo I heard being read during a basketball game I was watching; so, I'm not a PO'd fan trying to change things because my guys are being dished. I just looked at the section and then looked at the sources, and wondered why these two were the only ones mentioned by name as being controversial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)