Talk:2007 Stanley Cup playoffs

Only the top five (5) goalies?

Last night I made a change to this article to show the top 10 goalies rather than the top 5, in order to offer more adequate coverage of how the top goalies are playing. This was changed back 8 hours later because this is "the standard on wiki NHL pages".

The number of top point-scorers fluctuates with the number of points, and the list generally stays between the top 7 to 11 players. Presenting only the top 5 goalies all the time is very poor coverage.

As a demonstration, the top goalies from 6-10 by GAA (Miller, Lundqvist, Bryzgalov, Backstrom, Nabokov) all have a better Sv% than Emery, and all but Nabokov have a better Sv% than both Emery and Hasek. These goalies, especially Miller, are certainly playing better than either Emery or Hasek, but they are not recognized here as top goalies because it is "the standard on wiki NHL pages" to show only the top 5 by GAA.

I propose that we set a new precedent by showing more than just 5 goalies. Here are two ideas:

We can simply show the top 10 by GAA.
Or we can include Sv% as a criterion — which I think is a better indicator of a goalie's performance. It could be the top 5 by GAA, and the top 5 by Sv%. This will almost always result in some overlap, so the list can potentially be anywhere between 5 and 10, but usually in between. At the time of writing, it would be 7 long — adding Bryzgalov and Kiprusoff, since Giguere, Turco and Luongo are on both lists.

Thoughts? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, I would definitely like to see some stats on goalies with better save percentages. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 05:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea here...Jmlk17 05:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Subsections

All of the game info/boxes from previous conferences (except Stanley Cup) has been sub-sectioned to provide a faster load of the main page. The main page was reaching over 100k and can be very slow to load especially for those on dialup. I have created the three subs and have copied the info to them. Once the round is over and Stanley Cup round begins the Conference Finals should then be moved over. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think subpages are allowed. See WP:SUBPAGES. —MC 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As MC points out, a subpage is not allowed in this situation. Besides that, I don't understand why you just did it without any discussion. I am changing it back. V-train 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be split then. Wikipedia:Article size I thought having sub-pages would suffice instead we can just create the pages without the / to make things smaller.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 13:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to split. 90% of the text of the article is the series and summary templates, which take a lot of arguments. It might be justified if there were prose accompanying every series, though. But splitting a bunch of templates to different pages? (For future reference, sub-pages don't work in article space, so as to allow articles like GNU/Linux naming controversy have slashes in them. And there's no signature above...) C omrade T ux 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finals

I'm going to try and avoid an edit war on this, so please hear me out. This is nuts. Why can't we have an article on the finals? Is the NHL in someway less important than the NBA or the MLB? I know the hockey wikiproject made a ruling on this, but I don't think it is consistent with Wikipedia policy on a whole. If someone can tell me why the NHL shouldn't have articles on its finals and the NBA and MLB should, then I'll let this drop. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding myself pretty curious myself as well... Jmlk17 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this old version of the Finals talk page. C omrade T ux 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've already seen that (and you probably have), I would have no idea why the project consensus was to keep it together. I had no idea before today that there even was such a consensus... C omrade T ux 03:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yar, me neither. Thanks for the link though. Jmlk17 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's the consensus. C omrade T ux 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. Looks good, thanks again. Jmlk17 04:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have FA Cup Final 2007, 2007 NBA Finals, Super Bowl XLI, 2006 World Series, 2006 American League Championship Series, 2007 UEFA Champions League Final. There's no reason why we shouldn't have a separate Finals page...

...unless the NHL bills it and the playoffs as one continuous "process". Currently the NBA distinguishes the Playoffs from the Finals. --Howard the Duck 14:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its less important to consider other sports and more important to consider other years. What makes the 2007 last playoff series more important than the last series in any other year? I think the most important thing here is to strive for consistency across the NHL articles. Let the WikiProject figure out the best way of representing each NHL season (regular and playoffs) with a consistent article structure and encyclopedic quality. We should have a distinct article for the final series for all years or none of them. If 2007 diverges from this pattern, that's awkward and biased. Andrwsc 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lot changes from each season to the next. Wikipedia has many more users now than it did in 2006, when it had more than in 2005, and etc. I'm willing to bet that the 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs will be a much bigger, and much more informative than these current playoffs are. I'm not saying that this is the only reason, nor the main one; but it is playing a role nevertheless. Jmlk 17 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's obvious. I guess I believe that we should work towards a "timeless" Wikipedia so that it doesn't suffer from recentism so much. Andrwsc 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the goal :). Jmlk 17 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I may be getting off on a tangent here, the playoffs articles are somewhat inconsistent already. There are separate articles for five seasons, all of them in the past few years, and all other seasons just have a playoffs section in the main article. It was pointed out on the (redirected) Finals talk page that this page might get integrated into 2006-07 NHL season unless prose is written. C omrade T ux 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are tangential! I think the point is that we should figure out what we want, and then go do it. Specifically, I think the consensus for what we want is two well-written articles per NHL season, one for the regular season and one for the playoffs. That means that a lot of article splitting/creation/expansion needs to take place to achieve that goal. But let's not give up on past years just because they currently fall short of that goal. Andrwsc 21:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The playoffs are much different than the regular season. I'm not sure where I first heard it, but a good hockey quote is "There are two seasons: the regular, and then the playoffs". Hence, I agree with what Andrwsc said: we need the two separate articles, but they need to not overshadow one or the other, and they need to both be good articles. It's a bit of work in the end, but there's a lot of people who edit these articles, and we can all do it quite easily. Jmlk 17 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series summary boxes, again

Per discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, it's been noted that this article is over 100kb - and that's without a prose description of each series! 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs is 2/3rds that length even with all the prose it has. The main culprit of the size issue is the summary boxes we're using for series; even though there was consensus to use the current format, it's excessive amount of entries and details add way too much to the article. Keep in mind we are constructing a general-purpose encyclopedia - do you really think the average person is looking at this article to find out what exact time Chris Chelios scored a goal, or how many saves Ray Emery made in a game 5? Given this, I'm proposing we replace the series boxes with this stripped-down, modified version of the table used in 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs (again with the Sharks-Predators series used as it's example):

Game-by-Game		Score		Nashville goals	San Jose goals	Winning goalie
1	April 11	Sharks 5, at Predators 4	2 OT, 8:14	Radulov 2, Dumont 2	Carle, Grier, Rivet, Michalek, Rissmiller	Nabokov
2	April 13	at Predators 5, Sharks 2		Forsberg 2, Dumont 2, Radulov	Clowe, Rivet	Vokoun
3	April 16	at Sharks 3, Predators 1		Suter	Clowe, Michalek, Marleau	Nabokov
4	April 18	at Sharks 3, Predators 2		Arnott, Hartnell	Michalek 2, Pavelski	Nabokov
5	April 20	Sharks 3, at Predators 2		Arnott, Fiddler	Marleau 2, Clowe	Nabokov
Sharks win series 4-1				Dumont 4, Radulov 3	Michalek 4, Marleau 3, Clowe 3

I added the "Winning goalie" column for those who insist on some sort of goalie stat in the table. This format is simple, straightforward, doesn't add any excessive detail, and is much, much smaller. Does anybody have any problem replacing our current boxes with this format? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article needs to be toned down a lot when it comes to space. I can just imagine people on dialup trying to read this article must be having heartache let alone those who edit and preview to download the article twice over.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. Only reason the time and such need to be noted at all is for things like that goal that was nine seconds into the first in the East Final. Which can be put into prose by the series. C omrade T ux 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. The page is getting exceedingly long in length, and the box above seems alright enough. Jmlk 1 7 09:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this simplified summary. The only thing I'd like to add is an indication of who scored the GWG. For OT games, the time is also useful (not just "OT", "2OT", etc.) Both of these are usually seen on series summary tables, like those found in the NHL Official Guide & Record Books. Andrwsc 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics for the GWG maybe? C omrade T ux 17:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have italics for any overtime goals. Besides, I don't think pointing game winners are really necessary unless they're overtime goals. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Game winners win the...uhm...game (obviously). Perhaps they should stay italicized in order to stand out a bit more. Jmlk 1 7 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NeoChaosX on this one. The GWG stat, except in OT games, is usually meaningless. If a team scores three goals in the first to go up 3-0, and then trades goals with the other team throughout the rest of the game to win 5-2, the guy who scored that third goal in the first period has the GWG. It's basically just a stat of luck, for the most part. The fact that he scored the third goal had nothing to do with the fact that his team gave up two goals after it, and yet he gets the GWG. Not worth noting, except in OT situations. Skudrafan1 18:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't disagree with you that the definition of GWG is sometimes problematic. However, total GWG is a relatively common statistic and often-cited record. I think it is comparable to recording the winning goalie in these summary tables. Andrwsc 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, showing the game winning (or tieing, for reg. seasons in past years) goal scorer and the "goalie(s) of decision" are more common in game summaries than a full list of all scorers. It seems odd to me to include the goalie but not indicate the GWG scorer. Andrwsc 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a long process. Think I'll try an external text editor and import some in. I've started the Eastern First Round if someone wants to do the West and go from there.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking so mcuh better already though...keep up the great work! Jmlk 1 7 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do more after the game or tomorrow at work (don't tell my boss) ;)

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should these tables have the full name of each player displayed, or just the last name (as in the example above)? I like the last name only. I have two other suggestions: the full name of the team can be shown for goal scorers (no need to abbreviate as "NSH" when there is more than enough room for "Nashville"), and I think the columns should all be sized at fixed widths so that the tables line up neatly from top to bottom on the page. I've edited the example above to illustrate what I mean. Andrwsc 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just followed the 2006 model slightly, I'll do the rest in that way with just the last name and full team names up top. (When I get around to it). I did do the Finals one so that it can be updated properly since it will be ridiculous to redo it once its over.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous format appearance was better; what should be rid off was the switches and just manually boldface the winner. I've closely mimicked the appearance of the template which was used here and the NBA Playoffs will end up with about 46 kilobytes (with series summary). --Howard the Duck 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a much better number Howard :) Jmlk 1 7 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you'll get rid off the series summaries, the 2007 NBA Playoffs article is only 34 KB, 2006's page which didn't have series summaries had 40 KB (although 2007 had 10 more games than 2006, excluding the NBA Finals). --Howard the Duck 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Some fixes/minor edits may be required. So please look over, I've missed a few.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my personal opinion that the old style, although quite evidently a size issue, it was much more aesthetically pleasing than the simple tables that have been used as replacements.

I have come up with another method which would not be too difficult to implement. It can be found here. It uses the same template, but the game summaries are vastly reduced, and according to my predictions, it would cut down on at least a third of the size of the previous combination of templates. Thus far, only the first game summary for the Buffalo/N.Y. Islanders series has been configured. I am still working on a way to make the scoreboard at the top of the summary a little better looking. If anyone has any ideas or comments and suggestions, feel free to message me. Thanks. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 03:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, except for a few things. There should be a column for overtime in the scoring table so that can be accommodated more easily (just put - in for when there's no OT, and no need to note how many there were). Also, there should probably be a line break between each goal in the scoring list, and maybe bold or italics for the winning goal. Just as long as it still cuts the size down by a lot. C omrade T ux 03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, that comparing the raw number of characters in your game summary and the original one, it's only cut in about half. Plus the length of the series templates, it won't cut the overall length that much. We're down to 32KB with the tables - around 20KB is a lot of length extra for a better appearance. C omrade T ux 04:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 50% is right, I originally underestimated that it would only reduce the size of the series boxes along by about one third. Also, I do have a column for OT built in, and as you suggested, I only intend to have one column regardless the number of overtimes. And if you want the scorers in separate rows, a simple break will suffice. However, I am still looking into a better way to display the scorebox, as I don't really like the table that much either. I'm going to look at it more, but I doubt I'll have a final product before the end of the Stanley Cup Playoffs due to other impending circumstances (such as Finals). --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just wanted to see if people agree with me on the issue of appearance, and what a good number in terms of size would be acceptable. I am sure there are different parts that I can condense and possibly eliminate which I am not seeing at the moment. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the cosmetic issue is a decently big one, at least in my opinion. It just looks a little, uhm, plain right now. Some color or something could probably go a long way in making the article look better. But the boxes do make the article shorter and a much better, concise one. Jmlk 1 7 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the goal scorers really that important? Perhaps dividing them into periods isn't necessary. For example for Game 2 of the Finals, using {{footballbox}}:

May 30, 2007

Ottawa Senators	0-1	Anaheim Ducks
		Pahlsson 14:16 3rd

Honda Center

--Howard the Duck 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The big thing is to cut down the article's size it was way over 100k and viewing the proposed new one above still has just that information at around 82kb. We have to keep in mind that people out there still use dialup and as such cannot go around to big pages all the time, let alone editing it which will download it twice over. The ones now are not cosmetic, but maybe spruce them up with some color or something. The one for the football above seems nice too, but again it "may" be a little much with all the goal scorer info and what not.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the bulk of size probably came with the switches. If the switches were turned off and we'd just manually boldface the winner and just add the goal scorers without dividing it further into periods, this will float at around 45+ KB. --Howard the Duck 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switches? If the switches are in a template, they're not really in the raw size of the article. The size is an issue because of all the markup that has to be downloaded in order to edit. If the switches are off in a template, they're not part of the markup that has to be edited. The functions are only actually called on the server side to convert the article from markup into HTML for viewing. C omrade T ux 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you meant the switch parameters (team, stadium, won)? Then we'd have to repeat each of the teams 4-7 times in the markup, though... C omrade T ux 18:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was the switch parameters I was talking about... however in the 2007 NBA Playoffs page we didn't list the (top) scorers for each and game, we just relied on the series summaries. --Howard the Duck 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The game summaries (NHLPlayoffs/Game template) made up over 70% of the text from the original-format version of the article. Definitely what we should be aiming to shorten, if we are going to use the basic design from before. The summaries can't be cut entirely though, as the scorer is important enough to include in my opinion. I think a modified version of the football box to put a whole series in one template would do just fine, perhaps with a show/hide on the scorers for the high-scoring games. C omrade T ux 08:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section

Lets get this section removed entirely. There's no legitimate encyclopedic reason for it and any specific information should be included into the article itself. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...if anything, turn it into a legitimate, well-organized prose though. Some of that stuff IS interesting, even it there may be no reason for it in its current form. Jmlk 1 7 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least minimize the most trivial parts. Jmlk 1 7 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been much discussion about this from anyone else. If there isn't I'll just go ahead and remove it in it's entirety.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 02:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not just entirely remove this section, as the majority of the information is relevant, however it is very disorganized. Here are some guidelines in how you should handle the trivia section. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 06:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course that was the plan.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conference Finals

How are the Conference Finals called? "Prince or Wales" Finals or "Eastern Conference" Finals? --Howard the Duck 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've always just been called "Eastern/Western Conference Finals" and so forth for the rounds before it. The only one that deserves its own name is the Stanley Cup Finals.

Eric B ( T • C • W ) 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... thanks. --Howard the Duck 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of Bettman's useless legacies is getting rid of the historical conference names after the 1992-93 season. Andrwsc 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings me to... what was it called before Bettman screwed up? --Howard the Duck 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Conference used to be Campbell Conference and Eastern was Price of Wales Conference. The trophies won for the conference championships still bear those names. And the divisions were Adams & Patrick in the Wales and Smythe and Norris in the Campbell. Ah, the good old days.... Andrwsc 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what did they call the stage of the playoffs? The Prince of Wales Finals? --Howard the Duck 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993-94 NHL Official Guide and Record Book called them "Prince of Wales Conference Championship" and "Clarence S. Campbell Conference Championship" series. (pg. 203). Andrwsc 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. --Howard the Duck 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 4 Game

I'm watching the game and updating in as-close-to-real-time-as-is-possible. Andrew ⁶⁴⁷ 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather pointless, isn't it? This is an encyclopedia, not a sports ticker. Andrwsc 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isles/Sabres Game 3 and 4 Controversies

The Game's 3 and 4 goal/no-goal controversies should be added. These are still argued about today and changed the whole course of the series, and basically changed the possible outcome of Game 4. Even if these were the right calls, they are surely noteworthy enough to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.127.162 (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Stanley Cup playoffs. 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/20160131032027/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=0683ea58-afd3-4504-9597-99f85f3d3379 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=0683ea58-afd3-4504-9597-99f85f3d3379

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]