Talk:Dominik Hašek/Archive 2

Uh...Hasek's awards image?

The image that has the replaceable fair use tag on it should be deleted, or not? I have a copy of it saved to my PC. I'll delete it now, but you can tell me here that if I get the pic again, I can revert it, and upload it back. Thanks. Hasek is the best 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a disclaimer asking it not be deleted because it's not replacable- it's a shot of him becoming the first European goaltender to win both the Hart and Vezina. An admin should eventually get around to it and decide whether the image will be kept or not. --Wafulz 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay nevermind apparently it was deemed replaceable or some such. I guess we all have the ability to duplicate a moment that happened ten years ago. Ridiculous. I'm trying to figure out who had it deleted and if it can be replaced. --Wafulz 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond in a while, I was busy today. Anyway, again I do have the copy of the photo. I'm pretty sure it was a replaceable one because the little section below the description said that it's a replaceable fair use image. It is on the Vezina Trophy page. But then, I don't know why it was deleted (but I know someone didn't delete it, I don't think), so I uploalded the same copy. I'll try the history section on the page, but I do know the replaceable fair use image tag on it was not done by anyone. I guess it's done automatically, like a bot or something, but I don't know. Hasek is the best 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I checked the vezina page and it actually did not show the image, just the red name of it, meaning it's not available to view. That's strange. That means it's not available to view. That's strange. Also, I agree with your comment: "requesting photo since it is damn near impossible to get an image without having it deleted". It's too hard getting a permanent image on this internet "enclyclopedia" (they're supposed to be books). Now when I was a stupid and lazy wikipedian (early above comments, that time), maybe you'd and again I know how disruptive copyrights and keeping images on wikipedia are. I even put a "This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive" userbox on my page. "Hasek is the best 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasek is the best 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, I'll try to explain.

• The text that said the image was replacable means that someone thought it was replacable, not necessarily that it was replacable.
• The image has been deleted from all of Wikipedia, not just from this article.

Now I put up a message on the image page that basically said "This image is not replacable since it shows Hasek becoming the first European goaltender to win the Hart and Vezina in the same year." An administrator then deleted the image anyway without contacting me. Also, I have no idea who it was and I can't find it in the deletion log. I'm not sure what to do at this point. --Wafulz 04:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I managed to find out who it was and I'm in the process of contacting the admin now. --Wafulz 04:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to check the history. Good. We should know why it's deleted soon. But dang, school (for me) is tomorrow! The Christmas year has gone soooooo fast. Oh yeah, It's my birthday tomorrow!!! Sweet. (I wish smilies could be used on talk pages, because I would've put on one here.) Whoops, I just checked that someone did put the tag on. It was "Crzrussian", indefinitely. His edit summary was something I didn't understand, except that I knew that it was for the tag. Hasek is the best 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, he used "rfu" which stands for "Replacable fair use". I wish editors would stop using acronyms all the time. --Wafulz 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Like "temp" for 'template'. Cause unexperienced wikipedians don't know what the heck someone means. But even I still don't much. But who does? Anyway, the short forms do make it quicker. Admit it (I do) that edit summaries can be annoyning, especially when somebody's in a rush. (I turn 12 soon.) But it arrives on the first school day after the break. Not a good 'present' isn't it? (Hey, would you still rather to change the "Hašek" to Hasek still, about the name controversy?) Hasek is the best 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to, but from above it's pretty clear that I'm in the minority, so we're gonna have to stick with "Hašek". --Wafulz 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually wanted to change it too. I don't wanna go on like this, but if it's NHL.com, The official site of the players, stats, schedules, etc, we should change it. NHL. com, again, needs to be accurate. As I said above, then why not change "Tomas Kaberle" to "Tǒmaš Kaberlé"? Diacritics can sure be hard to deal with and decide about the accents. Hasek is the best 05:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the Vezina and Hart trophy image is now back on the Vezina Trophy page; should we upload it here? oh yeah, I'd like to add I found an article (see bottom) that said the Sabres got outshot year after year, so I'm not sure where to put this; and this can just be for other things to cite or add. Hasek is the best 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives?

Should this talk page use an archive? This page is getting too crowded, and is tougher for low internet connected computers to access pages with many data and size. Thanks. (Oh yeah, we can still keep the templates on.) --- Hasek is the best 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the templates are a given. I'll make an archive now (keeping the most recent few messages here). --Wafulz 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, then. Hasek is the best 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I think we should withdraw the GA nomination for now- I count four citations needed, and I feel the prose is rather weak and choppy throughout most of the article. --Wafulz 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's true. There are words like 'posted' being repetitious. We need to maybe use more synonyms to words like instead "posted" we could say "recorded" or "notched" (a career high 41 wins...) If we use though words, it would be more smoother. In fact, now that I think I got a good idea of grammar, I could fix it up tonight, maybe. As for the citations, I'm not exactly sure what to do there - I could find articles on the net related to that and see if they're good, but without a doubt it'll be difficult. --Hasek is the best 03:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The best measuring stick we have is the article on Wayne Gretzky, which is featured. There are lots of subtle nuances in good writing and good grammar though, so it's best to think about the changes you want to make- remember, read it out loud first, and then judge whether it's good or not. Not to discourage you, but your grasp on grammar is a bit weak by Wikipedia standards (though it's on par with your age level). I'd suggest you make small changes. However, the best piece of advice I can give is to read through featured articles and see what they do- the best way to learn to write well is to read well. Also the Manual of Style and Ice hockey player pages style guide will help. --Wafulz 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I think I may have the hang of it, as I see the manual of style on wikipedia articles, like not using "before"..."then"..."next"..."then"..."now", etc. AS long as the sentences are easy to follow, are smooth, and not all repetitive, I can do much better than before. I'm not really sure what needs to be cleaned up, though, so whatever seems to choppy and repetitious, I'll try the best as I can. But I have to get some sleep now... maybe we'll try to some some work tomorrow. --Hasek is the best 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for GA-status because I didn't think it is A-class (yet), but that it is on par with Bob Marley, which is the example given for a GA-status article on the quality scale. The Hašek article has more sources than just about any other sports-related article that has been given GA-status. Most other GA-status sports articles don't even have any statistics or succession boxes, while Hašek's are very thorough. I agree that the prose could be improved, but it's almost certainly better than Andrés Nocioni, which was reviewed and has GA-status. For more info, please read "What is a good article?" --Muéro^(talk/c) 08:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Until the disputes over all Euro/French Canadian NHL bio article titles have been settled (Diacritic OR No Diacritics). This article (indeed all such articles) shouldn't be nominated for GA. There's some editors out there, who argue the title be 'Dominik Hasek' (most common English spelling). GoodDay 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Even setting aside the question of what is the proper name to occupy the one slot available for the article's name under Wikipedia:Naming conventions, there is one other glaring omission.

The guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives clearly provide:

• "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known"

That has improperly been removed from this article. Gene Nygaard 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by what you mean- do you meant his nicknames in sports? Or just "Dominik Hasek" (which is actually redundant). He's never been called anything other than "Dominik Hasek." --Wafulz 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No Wafulz, Gene is going through all articles and removes diacritics. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I guess that explains this diff too. I was wondering why I was being yelled at.... Gene, please assume good faith- diacritics are a relatively minor thing to to get so worked up over. --Wafulz 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GA On hold

I'm not really a Hockey fan but this article is off to a very good start. However, there are several one sentence paragraphs (particularly in the beginning-early years and early NHL career) that need to be addressed and one section that is two sentences. I'm going to put it's GA review on hold until these are addressed. However just to show you that I really am a tremendously nice guy I went out and found you guys a bullet proof fair use pic of him for the infobox. Quadzilla99 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I had trouble getting it in there but the picture is in, just get rid of the short paragraphs and it will be a GA. Quadzilla99 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: When I do promote it to GA, provided the paragraphs are expanded, I will remove all the sentences with {{Fact}} tags and put them in a section on the talk page until they can be verified. Perhaps I should have said that earlier. Quadzilla99 19:44 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing statements

I've removed some statements from the article because I'm not sure if they belong, or I think they might be too difficult to source. Feel free to list/discuss any others.

He has become a goaltending pioneer by introducing several new saves. One of his most notable is the "Hašek Roll", where he folds into a 'C' shape, covering the bottom of the net. He was also one of the first goalies to lay flat on their stomach with their pads outstretched to the sides to make saves.

I've removed this one because while I could find evidence of the move existing, I couldn't find a reliable source describing it. --Wafulz 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this(and this)? I don't have access to the full articles, but there is clearly a reference to Hasek's unique style. The existence of these references in reliable publications, even if they are passing references, should be sufficient for such a small point.ATren 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true. If I was to source that, I could only find sources from images and game action. Also for the conditioning thing in style of play, we should take off the citing. It should be because I seen Detroit games on "cogeco high definition", and I heard the commentary said that Hasek has been training more to have less risk of injury and so he's fresh for the playoffs. I know for sure they've said that.

And, as for Hasek's desire to play for the wings for '03 - '04, we could take it off because of course, every player likes to stay with a team and since they won the cup the previous year, he would like to play again for them, if you will. Hasek is the best 03:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

I failed the GA as it had too many 1-3 sentence paragraphs and too many {{Fact}} tags. No one seemed to be willing to address my objections or even state whether they disagreed with them so I failed it. If you disagree just drop me a line or relist it and I'll step aside to let someone else review it. Quadzilla99 05:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I took off a couple tags. I know this article can be better. (But I found this site [1] that has tons of info, so I'll add a section of goalie records Hasek is the best 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I found another pic for him, one that demonstrates his flexibility. Quadzilla99 09:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was my image deleted?

Why was the image of Hasek in Buffalo deleted? It's tag is a 'movie screenshot' and I read WP:FAIRUSE and had a list of fair use types (GFDL, etc.) which did include a screenshot from a movie. That meant it had to be fair use. So I'm sort of confused. Hasek is the best 16:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The fair-use image would only be necessary if there was no other way to identify Hasek (ie he died and there were no free images to use) or if the moment that you showed was absolutely critical to his career and necessary for identification (ie the Hull goal). Fair use is basically a last resort when it comes to images of living people. --Wafulz 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to the first reason, that could be identifying him from Buffalo. But perhaps we don't need the image, I guess. Those reasons could be for the infoboxes' image as well. Hasek is the best 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, someone wrote "i'mm stoopid!" right here. But someone did it under my username. It wasn't my brother or me so maybe someone figured out my password? Whoever did that better not make bad edits. Hasek is the best 01:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

I'm a part of WikiProject Hockey, but I'll try my best to review this article with a neutral view.

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 24, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail. For the most part, it's fairly well-written. But, the Lead could use some improvement: "consecutive Hart Trophies; in the same year", is there really a need for a semi-colon? The "Conflict with Ted Nolan" section is pretty sloppy. Also, the progression boxes should go at the very bottom of the article.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail. The fact that there is a needs citation tag in the article is an immediate fail of this part. The following sections need at least one citation: Nominations, Transactions, All-Star honours, Career statistics (You should add "according to NHL.com or something). Check the Wayne Gretzky article to see how those sections are sourced. Any part that says he won a certain trophy should have a citation. NHL.com has a pretty good trophis section, so you could link there.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Very comprehensive.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. For the most part, it's written from a neutral POV.

5. Article stability? Pass. From what I can tell, it's neutral

6. Images?: Pass. Good use of images. Would it be possible to get an image of him early in his career?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

I was going to put the article on hold and allow you time to fix it. But, two criteria fails is a general fail. If you like, I can help clean up the prose of the article, but that would mean that I can not re-review it. --Scorpion 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the source I used for all three good now? The one website has tons of info on everything that we pretty much need to cite. Hasek is the best 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some sources and cleaned up some sections. Doing so means that I won't be able to review the article should it be re-nominated. -- Scorpion 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Breakaway saves

I had to remove this part because we need a better citation other than a compilation of videos, especially if we want good (and eventually featured) status for this article. The viewer defaults to Hasek's most recent games, so you'd have to dig very deep to get a proper source. Here's the material I removed:

Especially in his years in Buffalo, Hašek would unpredictably dive his body out sideways to take away the puck or trip the player with possesion of the puck in a breakaway situation, to result in covering the puck or get possesion of the puck for his teammates to bring up ice. (1:23)

I don't think it's worder properly either- do you mean the saves where Hasek comes way way out of the crease? I've seen him skate way the hell out to the blue line to dive and trip a player chasing the puck (as illustrated in this parody image). --Wafulz 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't respond cause I was at my hockey game, but yeah, that's what I meant; where he sprawls out of his crease to stop the puck. Weird how this wasn't mentioned by anybody or myself broght it up; even that no internet articles ever wrote something about it. Though it doesn't have have a great source, it should be included. Skating out to the blue line was Buffalo stuff; I never seen him yet play the puck far for at least this year unless it was a Detroit powerplay to pass it up ice recently. -- Hasek is the best 03:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)