Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2011 Stanley Cup playoffs[edit]

The Playoff Seeds section is misleading since the Stars and the Rangers still have an opportunity to move into the Playoffs, and bump another team out. I commented out the Seeds to make it easy to put them back in once they are set. Reference:

Error9900 (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's supposed to represent what they'd be if the playoffs started right now. Therefore, it's slightly helpful. (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It should have said something along those lines then. Otherwise, it seemed like it was stating that those are definitely the playoff seeds. I just commented it out, though, since the seeds will be set soon enough. (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Team 1 vs Team 2[edit]

Look at previous seasons, I am aware how they are done on the NHL site but that is not how they are done on Wikipedia. I prefer NHL format but this has been debated almost every year and Team 1 being higher seed wins out. One95 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't the higher seeded team need to be slotted in as team 1 for the template to work correctly. As it is now, with the higher seeded team in position 2, the location of the games are all wrong. Ravendrop 02:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's correct as well. The arenas are all wrong now because team1 is supposed to be the high seed. One95 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's just how it's usually done internationally (Home vs Away). the NHL goes by Away vs. Home. Changing team 1 or team 2 doesn't matter, as the template puts the appropriate arenas in the locations depending on what you set team 1 and team 2 as. On last year's talk page, the discussion came down to the fact that no one wanted to change the previous years formats because no one wanted to spend all that energy changing all the teams around. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, on the page, game one of NYR vs WSH currently reads Rangers @ Capitals, with the arena as Verizon Center, which is correct. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't correct earlier. Either way, last year in the playoffs you see Washington Capitals on the left for games 1 and 2 against Montreal. Caps were the high seed.One95 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've figured it out. The stadiums/teams are purposefully mismatched in the coding so as not to display the international format. So long as editors are OK with the mismatching, the teams display as away @ home (in the NHL format), with the correct arenas. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like i mentioned, it boils down to the fact that no one wanted to waste a bunch of time and energy to change the playoffs from 2007 to 2010 to display the teams as away vs home (as they would have to change around all the goals too). As long as it is formatted in this way in the years to come, then we will be able to display the NHL format.Bcperson89 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also if you look way back, such as at the 1999 Stanley Cup playoffs, the tables are in the format of away @ home. Also, articles such as the 2003 Stanley Cup playoffs mention the victorious team first for each game within the series, regardless of whether they were home or away. So, constistency in these articles seems to vary on the type of table being used. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't get me wrong. I was, and am, a fan of having the home team on the right. I just know the debate from last year. One95 (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was in that debate last year too. But, having figured out how to code the tables properly to display away @ home with the proper arenas, I think the visual output should work here. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example from last year using NHL (away vs home) format[edit]

Here is an example from last year. Note that Montreal is now team 1, and Washington is team 2. The only mismatching in the coding of the template is the stadiums (so that away @ home lines up with the correct stadiums), but all the goal scoring lines up correctly (ie 1-1-1 and 1-1-2 are game 1 - period 1 - team (1 or 2)), so everything can work out fine. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that when noting the goals here, the lower team is number 1, and the higher team is number 2. (Note the actual game data, itself, though, is largely made up, as I didn't want to look back at last year's page to get all the scores and goal scorers) Bcperson89 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last year we had times in the middle. Are we doing that this year or going with the format below. One95 (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that was just a copy paste error that wasn't switched around. Bcperson89 (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
April 15 Montreal Canadiens 3–2 OT Washington Capitals Verizon Center Recap  
Michael Cammalleri 1 - 2:36 First period 15:33 - Joe Corvo 1
No scoring Second period No scoring
No scoring Third period No scoring
Jaroslav Halak 45 saves / 47 shots Goalie stats Jose Theodore 35 saves / 38 shots
April 16 Montreal Canadiens 1–4 Washington Capitals Verizon Center Recap  
Michael Cammalleri 1 - 2:36 First period 15:33 - Joe Corvo 1
No scoring Second period No scoring
No scoring Third period No scoring
Jaroslav Halak 45 saves / 47 shots Goalie stats Jose Theodore 35 saves / 38 shots
April 18 Washington Capitals 3–0 Montreal Canadiens Bell Centre Recap  
Joe Corvo 1 - 15:33 First period 2:36 - Michael Cammalleri 1
No scoring Second period No scoring
No scoring Third period No scoring
Jose Theodore 35 saves / 38 shots Goalie stats Jaroslav Halak 45 saves / 47 shots

More trivia[edit]

I see we're back to adding trivia about previous meetings in playoff series' again. What use is this information? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this was well-discussed here. Jmj713 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the consensus was to avoid stats like this. So why is it back? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw no such consensus, and historical data remains. I won't go into my reasons yet again. Feel free to re-read my points on why it's important to state historical franchise matchups. Jmj713 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes you did. It was specifically about edits like this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A certain amount of historical trivia is acceptable. We don't have to list the outcome of every single series that the teams ever played, but I don't see a problem with things such as the the outcome from the most recent series the team has played, and the overall record for teams in the total series played. Bcperson89 (talk)

A certain amount, but going back to the days of the Jets? Seriously? I haven't looked that the Boston Montreal series but if they list something from when Orr was playing or earlier, it's useless trivia. It has no bearing on the outcome of the game. It's just visual diarrhea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that's what the article is currently at. We have things such as listing the total historical series between the teams (eg WSH has won 3 of its 5 total series vs NYR), and that the most recent series was won 2 years ago 4 games to 3 in favour of Washington. I don't find anything wrong with that kind of format. Bcperson89 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Montreal has earned a record of 24–8 against Boston in the playoffs." Since the teams first met. WHO CARES? IT'S ALL CRAP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, many people do. If it's not your cup of tea, maybe you should stick to another topic. The Boston-Montreal playoff rivalrly is the greatest in Stanley Cup history, now entering its 33rd chapter. You still fail to realize this isn't about teams, but franchises. Jmj713 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia does. That's why we have the article List of the most frequent NHL playoff series. And right at the top of that is the MTL BOS series, and Montreal's record of 24-8 over Boston. Bcperson89 (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me explain it to you this way: how does this affect the series outcome? It doesn't. Therefore it's trivia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does it need to directly affect the series? It's a historical fact, simple as that. The Stanley Cup playoffs are an annually recurring event. They're not isolated incidents. There is very long history. Matchups are important for historical reasons. Jmj713 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are great many other historical facts that are trivial that could be included such as the dates on which the games were played, the numbers on the jerseys of the goal scorers, and a myriad of other things. The fact that some sports announcers fill space listing off some trivia and not others doesn't make more encyclopedic than the trivia that is currently listed in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are indeed trivial. Historical matchups aren't. Jmj713 (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should just close this discussion right now, because we're going to wind up going in circles here. It's clear that only one person opposes the way the article is presented right now, and that no one else has a problem with the historical data. Bcperson89 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no problem with providing the historical data. Indeed, I would say that there is even room for some editorial judgment. It's very relevant in, say, the case of Montreal-Boston, an established rivalry with real meaning to the fan base. It also might have real meaning for the Chicago-Vancouver or even Detroit-Phoenix pairings, which have seen meaningful and heated recent results. There may be others where it's pointless (albeit harmless). MrArticleOne (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't think the assists are absolutely necessary to include. In 2008 Stanley Cup playoffs and 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs, the goals (without assists) are included in the tables. On last year's article, I think they only served to make the data look confusing, and unnecessarily inflate the size of the page. I think that the recap links in the table can provide the assist information without the problems I stated above. Bcperson89 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, assists were a pain. One95 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been meaning to strip them out of last years article for awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WP:RECENT speaks against updating scores while games are in-progress. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has to stop. Wikipedia is not a scoreboard. Updating games in progress is not acceptable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we can just hide the information so that it's not visible on the page, but visible within the page's code. Bcperson89 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be in keeping with the spirit of WP:RECENT, but still breaking the principle. That is the solution that has been done on several European Soccer pages though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is fairly common to update sports events while they are happening. There is even a template specifically for pages that are doing it. I would also note that WP:RECENT is an essay which is one or more persons opinion. But it is neither a guideline or a policy. Thus something can't violate it or be against it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree it'd be better if we just did nothing until a particular game was over. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to add your opinion to the talk page. We're talking about this and it's the overwhelming opinion that in-progress updates should not happen. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry I see you and only you saying its unacceptable. And now MrArticleOne. That doesn't seem overwhelming to me. Would I add scores myself? No I would not. But I also would not remove them as that is just being petty. Especially since there is no policy prohibiting it. And there likely isn't going to be one. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry. You're mistaken, unless you're speaking of this article only. There are others on the page who agree but think that because of editors like you, it would be difficult to enforce. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So are we not updating at all or updating but keeping hidden? Either way I'll stop since I didn't see this discussion earlier. One95 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

based on the request below on page protection, I would suggest not updating. It would send a clear signal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Key/description needed to explain that a bolded team name means they won the series?[edit]

This might be a silly question, but I noticed that the Red Wings team name in the bracket is now bold since they won their series in the 1st round. However, nothing states that a bold team name means they won the series. Does this need a key or an explanation, or is it just supposed to be understood? I'm not sure that someone who isn't that familiar with NHL playoffs would know that 4 wins is enough to win the series, and it might be a good idea to make it clear. Thoughts? Error9900 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text at the top says it's a best-of-7 series. (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The formatting is to be understood and will become apparent when the round is complete. In most brackets like this, as soon as a team wins an one level they are moved to the next level. Since the matching are re-ordered in the next round it's not sure where Detroit will land so presently it's a bit confusing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure confusing is the word. I mean, the uncertainty that you mention is the nature of the playoff format. Indeed, this bracket design was put together to subtly educate the reader to this point. A totally uninformed reader may look at that bracket and go "wait, what's going on?" The idea is that they say to themselves, "well, after looking at this and reading the article it's clear enough that Detroit has won their series and moved on, so why aren't they placed in the next round?" And then the "eureka!" moment arrives: "Aha! They haven't been placed because they can't be yet!" MrArticleOne (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goalie leader TOI[edit]

I adjusted the goalie leaderboard to be in sync with minimum TOI as in past playoffs. At the end of SCF, it seems to be about 420 minutes. Currently its about 60 minutes (at, Nittymaki is not included with 42 minutes, but Bobrovsky is at 71 minutes). TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do you see that? At the referenced link it list Lundmark as top even though he has only played 13 minutes. Ravendrop 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
STATS -> League Leaders TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense to use the leaders v. the summary; I updated the reference to the link you provided above. Ravendrop 19:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Past discussion...Talk:2010_Stanley_Cup_playoffs#Goalie_minimum_minutes TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Premature Edits[edit]

I propose that we get some protection for this page, to avoid premature edits to the bracket and series tables. I already noted some activity along those lines with last night's Chicago/Vancouver game. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reiterate my request for protection. Anonymous users continue to edit the article prematurely. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the discussion above (JIP?). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see where you bring up my request here but I don't see where the discussion above actually reaches the merits of the question. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we prevent edits while the games are ongoing, then there's no reason to lock it to anon edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how we can stop established editors from doing the constant in-game edits other than suggesting that perhaps it is not the wisest thing to do. But we could save some hassle by blocking anonymous editors, who seem more inclined to fiddle with and/or vandalize the bracket. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with adding semi-protection to the page. Last year there were lots of non registered accounts making false edits, etc. It has been alright so far this year but I've noticed that the vandalism is starting to pick up. One95 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before it's even seriously considered, you'd have to account for what percentage of anon edits are productive and what percentage are acts of both fandalism or vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know of absolutely no rule that requires such an analysis. A subjective evaluation by the experienced editors who are maintaining the page should be sufficient to assess whether protection is needed. There is room on Wikipedia for judgment. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said it was a rule, I was implying that the majority of anonymous edits have been productive and it would be incorrect to request protection for a few vandal attacks, most of which are caught in a timely manner. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't protect the page, this page is a gateway for us to gain many interested hockey editors for the future. Semi-protecting it will only scare them away. And its on enough peoples watch lists that catching vandalism should be pretty easy. -DJSasso (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure that scaring away people who edit recklessly is a bad thing, but it isn't an issue that I am prepared to rally to the defense of either. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well not all IP editors are reckless editors. Something like 90% of constructive edits to the wiki are made by IP editors. Unless the page is being mercilessly vandalized protection is usually not a good thing. -DJSasso (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not just any article on the Wiki. It's an article that, for a limited time, attracts fans who are inclined to edit irresponsibly. The generalizations about anonymous editors are not necessarily applicable here. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not going to happen since you haven't made your case that the anonymous edits are disruptive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a substantial argument on Wikipedia that anonymous edits should not be allowed at all. Given that that is considered a legitimate position to take, it seems entirely appropriate to take the less aggressive approach in this context and simply say we don't want anonymous edits during the pendency of the tournament. No anonymous editor is likely to do anything that an established editor won't do; it's almost entirely a bunch of people trying to log in and be the first to receive credit for making the change even when it is a conscientious one (let alone obnoxious edits). When that is the best case scenario, I do not see what positive good anonymous edits are going to do while the tournament is ongoing. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Log in" was a poor choice of words -- what I meant is it's a race to open the editor, make changes, and click "Save page." Obviously anonymous editors don't have an account to log in to. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I'm the one to state that I know of no policy that wants to completely exclude anonymous edits. Given that I'm calling you on it, it's not a legitimate position to take nor is it even conscionable.

You have not made your point. Move on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not say there was any such policy -- I said there was substantial argument on Wikipedia to that effect. It has been discussed at a policy level: see this for example. While the consensus was against it as framed, there was substantial debate on both sides, with a substantial (40%) minority in favor of forbidding it completely. I have not proposed that, but instead have proposed protecting this article due to a predictable factual setting which distinguishes this article from the average article on Wikipedia. I make no appeal to policy (unlike yourself; you said that I'd "have to account for what percentage of anon edits are productive and what percentage are acts of both fandalism or vandalism," which suggests a per se rule). I make an appeal only to the subjective editorial judgment of the established editors as to what is in the best interests of this article remaining as factual a presentation of this information at all times. There is, moreover, precedent for this: it is exactly what was done for the Men's Ice Hockey Tournament at the 2010 Winter Olympics. See diff. Finally, I would note, Walter, that you have a tendency to be much too sure of yourself and present your positions as foregone conclusions in a way which does not facilitate debate; here are several examples of what could be construed as rudeness. I, for one, don't care to be dealt with as brusquely as you have just now. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Period Update[edit]

First period of the Penguins game has concluded and the game is a tie at 1. I'll make the score publicized when its ready.(AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Huh? MrArticleOne (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're trying to not post scores publicly during the game. That's what is for. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In other words, post the scores on the article when it's over. Anyway, keeping track of the Canucks and Predators tonight. (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]


I think is this the 2nd or 3rd year I've said this, but there should be flags on the top scorers section. It's on the top scorers sections for most tournaments, including the Champions league, and the Premiership. Slaja (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See MOS:FLAG for how flags are supposed to be used in articles. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't find anything there to explain why they are on other sporting events, but not here (other than consensus, which I'm trying to change). I'd like a something specific. Slaja (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the first reason: "Don't emphasize nationality without good reason." That the Sedins are Swedish, or that Ryan Kesler is American, or that Mike Fisher is Canadian doesn't really have any relevance to why they are in the table: that they are good at getting goals and assists. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As opposed to "They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities)." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's all fine, but it didn't address my question. The premiership isn't an international sporting event, yet still incorporates nationalities into the top-scorers section. For me the significant reason is recognition. It's much easier for the readers to recognize a player with a flag next to their name. Slaja (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just as an example of what I proposing so you can see for yourself:
Czech Republic Michal Neuvirth Washington Capitals 5 4 1 148 8 1.38 .946 1 349:04
Canada Dwayne Roloson Tampa Bay Lightning 7 4 3 256 13 1.77 .949 1 440:45
United States Brian Boucher Philadelphia Flyers 6 4 1 151 10 2.10 .934 0 285:30
Canada Carey Price Montreal Canadiens 7 3 4 242 16 2.11 .934 1 455:29
Canada Corey Crawford Chicago Blackhawks 7 3 4 218 16 2.21 .927 1 435:12

Slaja (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not much a fan of the look of it. Like MOS:FLAG says, the flags look kind of jarring. The flags don't really add anything relevant to the stats, also draw the focus away from the player's name. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that looks gawdawful! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely, it just distracts from the stats, which is the table's true purpose. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this were an international competition I would be all for it, because it could be considered important and show what team they are on. However, for the Stanley Cup there really is no point. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's see. Two Canadian and fourteen American teams started the competition. That seems international to me, unless the US is finally ready to become the eleventh province =)
But I agree, there are a great many in the football project who take every opportunity to remove flags for the exact reasons mentioned above. I will add two more: The players don't represent the countries they were born in during the tournament. Technically, they don't even represent the cities they play in either. They represent the team owners, but that's a different issue.
The second argument is that the entire debate around player nationality is divisive and to emphasize it gains nothing. I don't care if the goaltender is Latvian, Laotian, or Liberian. It doesn't matter to me if the top offensive performer is from Canada, the US, or Sweden. It doesn't change the achievement and as such doesn't need to be emphasized. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant international as in countries competeing against countries so the flags represented their teams. I am sure you knew that. :P -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understood, but the media in Canada is making a great deal, and make a great deal out of it every year, to describe which "Canadian teams" are still in the playoffs. I don't want to play into that at all since the players and the teams on which they play are merely mercenaries for their owners who have chosen to play in a specific city. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth (not sure where to best insert my remarks), I agree that there is no place for national flags when this is not a competition between national teams. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I'll talk to the premiership guys and see how they swayed consensus. I'll be back haha. Slaja (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also to be clear, the primary reason is recognition. None of this nationalism stuff. It's easier to recognize a player with a flag next to it, that's simply how humans work we associate images with concepts/people. Slaja (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It's easier to recognize a player with a flag next to it".[citation needed] Our eyes are drawn to the image, but I'm not sure how that makes it easier to recognize either that the player is a player or that the link is to a human as opposed to something else. We could just as easily have an icon of a helmet. You're going to have to elaborate this a lot before I buy it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems like a specious argument to me. There are lots of Russian, Canadian, American, Swedish, etc. players in the NHL. The flag doesn't do anything to help me recognize anybody. It might if the player was the only (or at least only prominent) guy from his country, but that is not the case often enough to do this. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. Could you imagine if we placed a Canadian flag next to every Canadian player? They're about 40 to 50% of the league. That's a lot of maple leafs! User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 01:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at this: [1], and then reevaluate your comments. I like it because it highlights the international aspect of the sports as well as increasing individual recognition. Slaja (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dislike it, because I find the flags to be very visually jarring. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 07:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that it increases individual recognition, and I reject the need of an encyclopedia article to serve the NHL's propaganda purposes by "highlight[ing] the international aspect of the sport." MrArticleOne (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to understand the difference between soccer/football and hockey. In most major soccer-playing nations, there is a top-tier professional league, and EPL is effectively equivalent to Serie A. It's actually a big deal for a Brazilian to play in say ... Norway. In hockey, regardless of what the KHL believes, there is only one truly "big league" for hockey players: the NHL. It's therefore not a really big deal have a Swede or American playing in the NHL ... where else would they play? Besides, if the footy folks want to make their tables ugly, cluttered, and Lego-looking, then please let them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems inordinately arrogant Bwilkins. How are readers supposed to determine this "natural" supremacy? That's subjective. Very flawed logic. But it seems that this is as far as were going to get now. At least I got the issue down to consensus. I'll be back next year. Slaja (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what was arrogant in my comment (maybe my signature?) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Playoff bracket: Conference Finals ordering of teams[edit]

I know there's a bullet below the bracket that states, "During the first three rounds home ice is determined by seeding number, not position on the bracket." However, for the sake of consistency, wouldn't it be better to list the Boston Bruins above the Tampa Bay Lightning for the Conference Finals since Bruins are a higher seed, and the higher seeds were listed first for all series in the first two rounds? Error9900 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. This argument comes up a lot, like 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs (Montreal/Philadelphia), 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs (Carolina/Pittsburgh). The higher seed is only placed on the top in the first and second rounds due to the NHL's re-seeding between those rounds. However, after that, the playoffs adopt a strict bracket format. Thus, Tampa Bay is on top to show that they advanced by beating Washington, while Boston is on bottom to show that they beat Philadelphia. As another example, in last year's bracket (in the Finals), Philadelphia (7) is on top of Chicago (2). CanuckMy page89 (talk), 08:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with Canuckian89. It's a bracket after the first round and so if you come from the top, you stay on teh top. It's not designed to show home ice or anything else. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does indeed come up every year, and the best answer seems to be "Keep it simple." It's not rocket science the way wikipedia has these brackets laid out, it's just a visual aid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike the NBA, the NHL's home ice rules are much simpler: higher seed gets the home ice advantage. It's not that hard to determine that the #3 seed gets the home ice and not #5.
(However, it's different during the finals. I dunno how the people here solved this last year.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bracket does not indicate home ice advantage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's... nice. Brackets aren't supposed to show who has the home advantage anyway (since it's almost always the higher seed gets it). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no need for the bracket to indicate home-ice advantage in the Finals. The bracket indicates tournament path. That's it. In a sport like the NBA, where home advantage is pervasively awarded on a basis that does not appear on the bracket (and can produce highly non-obvious or counterintuitive outcomes), it strikes me as appropriate to offer some kind of an indicator. That's not the case here and there's no reason to try and devise a one-off solution just for the Finals. When the pairings are arbitrary (i.e., there is no definite path), as in the first and second rounds, it is appropriate for the home team to be on the top line simply because they need to be one place or another. After the 2nd round, however, there is a definite tournament path and the visual aid should do its job of expressing what that path is. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. The bracket does not indicate home ice advantage, nor does it need to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To make matters worse, all of the remaining Western Conference teams have a higher seed than the two remaining Eastern Conference teams. If home ice advantage were to be represented by the team being on top, we would have to invert the table so that the west was on top. It's just a non-starter again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a Wikipedia editor and I don't know all of your rules and precedents, so I'm sorry if I'm not allowed to comment here. I just want to say that IMHO you should take away the bracket lines between rounds 2 and 3 and put the higher ranking team on top in round 3 just like you do in rounds 1 and 2. I think you should keep the finals the way they are now no matter who has home ice. I'm saying this because in most sports the brackets mean that the winner of 1v8 plays the winner of 4v5 and the winner of 2v7 plays the winner of 3v6 and the winner of those games plays each other. But that's not true in the NHL. In the NHL, it's just the best remaining team in the conference plays the worst remaining team in the conference. The only place where it acts like a normal bracket is in the finals. I know that most of the brackets on Wikipedia don't show home ice, but IMHO the NHL should be an exception because it's not a real bracket. You have to put someone on top in round 3, and since it's not a real bracket, you should just put the higher team on top in round 3 like you do in round 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your statement is incorrect. There is no re-seeding after the second round, due to the fact that only 2 teams can advance to the Conference Finals. Thus, it is only after the first round when the NHL re-seeds (there is not enough remaining teams to re-seed after the second round). A bracket does exist afterwards in order to show the paths by which teams advance to the Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Finals. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 04:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canuckian89 is correct. The NHL officially calls the change after the first round re-seeding. This term is not used afterwards because there are only two teams in the conference finals and then again two in the finals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I'd say "there is no re-seeding after the second round" so much as I would say that, when you're down to 4 teams, there is no difference between re-seeding and a traditional ladder bracket. They are functionally identical, so whether you want to look at it the one way or the other is just two sides of the same coin. (The NHL does use the word "re-seed" for the 3rd round, see here, but the point is that they're functionally identical.) What's an inaccurate statement is to suggest that the transition from the 2nd to the 3rd round is any different than the transition from the 3rd to the 4th. Our anonymous editor is simply wrong to say that "the only place where it acts like a normal bracket is in the finals" -- the whole point of this is that it also acts like a normal bracket when going from the 2nd to the 3rd round. There is no difference. And that's the point of this design -- it uses a traditional "ladder" format where that is an accurate representation, and contrasts that with the non-traditional appearance from the 1st to 2nd round in order to try and visually communicate to the uninformed reader the concept of "re-seeding" where that concept effects a meaningful distinction between "reseeding" and a traditional ladder bracket. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date for Western Conference Finals start?[edit]

If anyone knows, can they add these dates with Vancouver vs. TBA? (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They start on Sunday, May 15. 17:00 PDT. An opponent is needed before this information is displayed. That could happen shortly or in as many as three days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the days are the same regardless, why are we compelled to wait until an opponent is known? I mean, if the NHL has "jumped the gun" on this issue with making the announcement, why can't we? MrArticleOne (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) The NHL has not jumped the gun. The host city is known and so the first two dates have been scheduled. They next two games are free for both of the teams competing so they can schedule those.
2) It is not appropriate to create the table with "Detroit or San Jose". It's not done in other sports and its' not done here either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair we do it on most other hockey articles when it comes to these situations. The Memorial Cup article for example or various international tournaments. We put the TBD instead of the team they are playing against. There is nothing saying it can't be done here. Please don't talk in absolutes. Consensus can change, assuming there was consensus not to to begin with. -DJSasso (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NHL has announced the complete schedule for the next series. See link. I just don't understand why this article cannot reflect factual information in the public domain as reflected in this press release which was issued for the very purpose that we're discussing. The dates are the same regardless of which team wins Thursday night. Heck, the times are almost identical. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for the link, I vote for display the schedule or at least the link on the main article, section Conf finials (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should statistics reflect who is still playing?[edit]

Several other championship articles make players who are still active bold. Would be good to include that with the skaters. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense to me. One95 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vancouver vs San Jose[edit]

In the page thing there it says both teams won the first 3 to lose 3 and force game 7 in both previous brackets... However, Vancouver won over Nashville in 6 games? There wasn't a game 7. I just wanted to add that in. I wasn't sure how to properly edit it in, so maybe someone can fix it? ^_^

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vancouver won three against Chicago in the first round and then lost the next three only to win the final game on home ice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. However they beat the Predators 4-2. Meaning They didn't win in game 7.

"Both Vancouver and San Jose played in a series during the 2011 playoffs (Quarterfinals and Semifinals, respectively) where each took a 3–0 series lead, only to see the opposing team win the next three games to force a seventh game. However, both won their respective seventh games to advance to the next round of the playoffs."

It includes both other rounds there, as if that's how it happened in both rounds, and what I was trying to say is about the 4-2 win over Nashville. (Unless I'm a moron, cause it does say they both did it and with it saying respectively meaning Van. did it first against Chicago. However even with that being said in the Semi's San Jose didn't win the first 3 over Detroit.)

-Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it specifically mentions Vancouver did it in the Quarterfinals and San Jose did it in the Semifinals. That is what respectively means. It means the first one matches the first team and the second one matches the second team. And yes San Jose did win the first 3 against Detroit. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The statement here: "NHL based article = no diacritics in player names" seems to contradict the statement here: "All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required)." Granted that's related to page notice, but there are other instances of diacritics on the page and unless you can show me a policy I say this is a mistaken idea and should be reverted. Where exactly is this policy? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The NHL is based in North America. WP:HOCKEY requests that diacritics be kept off of North American hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where's that written down, other than here? There are at least four other diacritics in this article and other NHL articles. I won't believe this "fact" until you show me a written policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll let Djssaso & Resolute, explain it. GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems odd that you would involve yourself in something that can't (or won't) explain. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how that's contradictory. NHL is North American, so NHL pages are North American. This page is North American. "All 'non-North American hockey pages" -- this is not a non-North American page. (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, it's page names for the players. Second, it takes gymnastics to change it so some xenophobic Anglophones don't have to see "funny letters" to make this work. In short, if the articles can be created then the links should be valid. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Walter, I am assuming you are new to the heated diacritics debate that has hampered productivity at WP:HOCKEY for many, many years. Basically, there are camps both firmly for and firmly against the use of diacritics on Wikipedia. To restore productivity and lower the chance of an all-out war breaking out on the diacritics debate, WP:HOCKEY established a compromise for ice hockey articles. That is what you see at WP:HOCKEY. Basically, the compromise was that all player pages and non-North American ice hockey articles (i.e.: leagues, teams, seasons, events) should have diacritics applied, but that any North American ice hockey article should have them hidden with a pipe link. This is why I hid the diacritics on David Krejčí in the playoffs article with a pipe link, because that tournament is a North American-based event. Unfortunately, over the last year and a half, this debate has re-emerged and users have begun to ignore the WP:HOCKEY compromise, because as a whole, there is no established usage on diacritics at Wikipedia. We just wanted to have consistency at WP:HOCKEY, because obviously without an established Wikipedia-wide policy on diacritics, it is a bit of a free for all. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Where exactly was that compromise hammered-out? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you search through the archives on WT:HOCKEY, you'll find the discussion in there (I honestly can't tell you the exact archive, as there are so many diacritics related discussions in there). It was created maybe 4 years ago (I could be wrong on that timeline) to keep things consistent with ice hockey articles, because Wikipedia as a whole, as I mentioned, it a free-for-all on the subject. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is one example from 2009, but a search of the project archives shows a pile of discussions. The compromise Nurmsook describes came into being over a long period of time, and has generally worked fairly well for us. That said, it is only a project guideline - our take in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR - which obviously could not overrule a Wikipedia-wide consensus on the issue. Unfortunately, we lack such a consensus, so generally have to hope that people will view our own guideline as a good compromise in the meantime. Resolute 00:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I understand more fully now. I'll agree to the change, but it should be made in all instances on the page, not just this one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On that note: Would you point out the articles-in-question? so as I can hide the dios. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article. When I did my initial search I discovered several other names that contained diacritics. I just re-checked and all of those names are piped. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You have, of course, read WP:BRD more than once. This morning, someone added an unref'd and somewhat useless opinion/WP:OR statement. I reverted it. You have now quite bizarrely reverted my reversion. What's up? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what BRD means in relation to my edit. This is a cycle related to two editors not multiple editors. It's also an essay not a policy or even a guideline. WP:CONSENSUS is what we should be looking at. Feel free to tag with a CN, but it was an odd bounce that resulted in the goal. Google "vancouver canucks san jose stanchion" and you'll find the refs. All of the news references are long dead. It's even mentioned, unreferenced, in the San Jose Sharks article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me be more clear, and of course show more class than to move discussions that have no reason to be here. Of course, you should also stop edit-warring.
This morning, added the phrase "in bizarre circumstances" at 8:08
I disagreed with the addition - strange goals do happen. As such, I removed it at 8:35.
Further re-adding should not occur without discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a reference, and there are more where I found that reference.
As for class, you're full of yourself and that shows no class. This is a discussion about something that should be done to achieve consensus and it should be done on the article's talk page, and not a single editor's. Rather than assume good faith on the anon's or my part, you assumed it was a conspiracy and you acted-out on your own, without consensus. I have provided one reference and I assume more could be added, not just here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Bizarre circumstances" isn't encyclopedic, and isn't supported by the reference either; the league doesn't call it that. The deflection is notable, however, so I've attempted a rewrite as follows:

" After a scoreless first overtime, Kevin Bieksa was able to capitalize on an unexpected rebound to score the series-winning goal 10:18 into the second overtime, sending Vancouver to the Stanley Cup Finals for the first time since 1994."

Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks great and you're right, "bizarre circumstances" doesn't really explain what happened. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]