Talk:2008 Stanley Cup playoffs

Search

A search for "2008 NHL Playoffs" doesn't give this page as a result, how can this be changed? CoW mAnX (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Jmlk17 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn by nominator --Djsasso (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for New Bracket

To leave your comments about this new bracket redesign, click, here.

2008 Bracket

To leave your comments about this new bracket redesign, click, here.

2007 Bracket

Comments are appreciated. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To leave your comments about this new bracket redesign, click, here.

Comments

1. Oppose Not even slightly, Makes it alot harder to read, and possibly violates policy by having graphics for the sake of making it look good. Very hard to read this version. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose It just doesn't do anything better than the current one. Grsz11 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose As per Djsasso, this might be against WP:DIAGRAM. It's a good idea, but I think the basic template is much more efficiant, and frankly, having it as a standard across Wikipedia is much better than our project using something completely random. – Nurmsook! (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose: More complicated and is not an improvement. Goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (diagrams and maps). This article is also the incorrect place to discuss a template used on hundreds of articles. Flibirigit (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Little artistic appeal and is rather confusing without the conjoining lines.
6. Oppose because I find it hard to read. The current style is a very conventional bracket design that is familiar to most sports fans. Why change what works? BTW, I note that the 2007 bracket shown here contains several errors (first-round and second-round series that are incorrectly located on the bracket due to the NHL's practice of reseeding), although I recognize that accuracy wasn't the point of including last year's bracket here. 1995hoo (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Why change what works? The original is much cleaner, and the balls for the seeds is kind of corny and places all the emphasis on seeding and not on the matchups and results.Civil Engineer III (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Agree Becuase it looks great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.88.132 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose It is very hard to read and the colours of the previous version is adequate. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator withdrew suggestion. Flibirigit (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Game Summary format

The text is a bit difficult to read in the game summaries as it stands now, with the small, italicized text. I'm not sure if it's just me, but I can barely read any of it - if it weren't italicized, it wouldn't be so bad, but the combination of smaller text size and the formatting makes it very difficult. Just want to throw that out there. --24.3.143.146 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Game winners

To leave your comments about your preferences regarding the series summary tables, click here.

Should we make a little note as to denote who scored the game-winning goal in each game? Jmlk17 05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• We italicized the name of the player who scored the GWG last year, I think we can simply do that again this year... – Nurmsook! (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah we can italicize it. I just forgot to do so. Also apparently the creator of the other template has reworked the template and thinks it won't be as bulky as last year. Should we give that template a go and see how big the page gets. It was already getting pretty huge when I switched it over to this version (19k) considering that only 4 games had been played. But he says he made changes that should save 2k per series. -Djsasso (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A preview of how the new template will look like can be viewed here. However, I just wanted to make a few points regarding this template.

I have simplified the template at much as possible, eliminating details that could be considered as excessively detailed, such as game attendance, game officials, and separated period by period scoring. Also under this revision, the recording of scoring can either be listed as it is on the current template, or the scoring can be listed in an extended format with the time, running score, and assists (although that was the major cause of the extended size of the older template). However, I think a good meeting point of these two extremes is to just list the overall time in the game and the goal scorer's name.

Also, many of the details that are this new template, but not currently displayed on the current format are the presence of all possible remaining games, the game time of remaining games, as well as the stadiums hosting the games and the television coverage of the games. If the new template is reduced to simply eliminate the details that are currently left out, I imagine that the size will be comparable to, if not less than the current format. Thank You. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think including assists would be better, something like:

Roberts 1 (Laraque, Talbot)- 01:08.

Only include the first initial if there are two players with the same last name. Also, in every game 3 and 4, you currently have the higher seeded team appear twice (e.g. Montreal Canadiens — 7:00pm — Montreal Canadiens). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely overlooked that mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, it should be fixed now. Thank You. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 00:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to request if possible that any other comments or suggestions about the proposed template are posted in an expedited matter so that a template for the summary of each series is finalized, therefore easing the amount of difficult that would otherwise be involved in switching templates later in the future. Please let me know as soon as possible, particularly if you find any bugs in experimenting with this template. Please leave comments in the section below. Thank You. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Regarding Series Summary Tables

To leave your comments about your preferences regarding the series summary tables, click here.

Definitely looks good and smoother all-around. I like it. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 03:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think almost everything will look better than it does right now, and the proposal by Sukh17 looks smooth. But I understand that this can cause size-problems when all the games are played and details inserted in the templates.

So have you ever thought of making subarticle(s) with the boxscores?

• One article for all,

or, if it gets to big,

• One for each conference,

or

• One for all the quarterfinals, One for all the semifinals and so on...

I got the idea from the UEFA Champions League, a European football tournament. Subarticle: used there with great success.

If we do this, we can make even smoother boxscores, like the one I made for the 2008 NHL All Star Game, don't remember where I adapted the idea from. I thought it was from the 2007 IIHF World Championship, but it wasn't. But some ideas can maybe be adapted from that article anyway. Hope I gave you some useful input, and think about my proposal.

lil2mas (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with making individual articles for box scores is wikipedia is not a statistics database. We already run a fine line on alot of these sorts of articles of having too many statistics. It's already been suggested in the past that this page itself shouldn't be seperated from the main season page. Personally I like Sukh17's option if it is truely a space saver. Last year we were waaaaay up in size before the first round was even done. -Djsasso (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance we can add a nesting feature to these tables? After a few rounds, this page is going to be insanely long. – Nurmsook! (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Winning goalie

I don't understand the significance of having this on there. Can we take it out? That would leave more room for adding assists as someone suggested.Civil Engineer III (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the significance is to identify the winning goalie. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So you'd rather have 8 assists than one goalie? I'm not sure how this improves anything? Grsz11 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest the goaltender(s) of record is of more significance of the player(s) who record assists. Resolute 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Names

Why are all the names misspelled? For example Hasek instead of Hašek, Krejci instead of Krejčí, Selanne instead of Selänne, these all seem to be diacritical problems, why are these errors included here? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dominik92's concerns. If one does a search on wikipedia for "Dominik Hasek," "David Krejci," or "Teemu Selanne," they are redirected to articles titled "Dominik Hašek," "David Krejčí," and "Teemu Selänne," respectively. The use of the players names should be consistent with how are they are written on their article pages, which is the correct way. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree aswell, but it has come to my attention that this has already been discussed with these results:

• NHL-related pages: No diacritics at all
• Non NHL-related pages: Diacritics

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive13#Diacritics on non-team and non-player pages

But are WikiProject debates conclusive? And excuse my French, but what bullshit result is that? We're going to misspell people's names because a few people don't know what to make of diacritics? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In essence, I continue to stand with Dominik92. If this was an overarching Wikipedia policy, I could stand with it, however, I find it hard to support. Additionally, the policy was simply adopted due to a lack of objections, and consequently, a lack of support as well. Honestly, if this was a problem with the size of articles or some other technically specific problem, I could find substance to the policy which was achieved, but since that is not the case, I can only assume some editors are simply to lazy to type out the names with diacritics, which is not a valid reason for such policy. Thank You. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking this to WP:Village pump (policy), I actually now remember it being debated a while and yes, I'm sure some editors didn't want to type the diacritics and some just don't understand diacritics so want to get rid of them, this is not a valid oppose to them either, I suggest we establish an actual guideline on this, and factual accuracy is on our side. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Hockey articles, anyone's free to leave a comment, I've left my reasoning there and hope this can be finally solved. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is that there is often major edit wars revolving this. I personally prefer them with the diacritics. However, a large portion of the editors on wiki say that english doesn't use them. So a compromise was created to leave them on player pages but to remove them from non-player NA articles. The reasoning being the NHL does not recognize the diactritics. If you look at jersey's etc they are not on them. This is simply a way to stop the massive edit wars that are always on going. Another thing to remember is that the Wikipedia as a whole has never been able to decide on this issue for the same reasons. This isn't a simple matter its been debated pretty much since Wikipedia was created. I don't believe that a true solution will ever happen, and quite honestly its likely to go in the other direction and not have any that it is to include them. We are probably the only project that has managed to mostly smother the flames of edit waring that goes on reguarding diacritics. Except for the occasional flair up. But mostly this compromise works as intended. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A guideline already exists: Wikipedia:Use English. Diacritics are not a standard part of the English language. In English, Hasek (e.g.) is correct. Resolute 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Playoff Bracket Misleading

The bracket makes it seem like the winner of 1-8 will play the winner of 2-7; and, the winner of 3-6 will play 4-5. According to CBS Sports, the match-ups go 1-8 plays 4-5, and 2-7 plays 3-6 (http://sportsline.com/nhl/playoffrace/bracket). The bracket on this page should be modified. Jasoncknapp (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The NHL re-seeds in the second round. So the top remaining team still plays the lowest team and the second highest remaining team plays the second lowest. If you look at the bottom of that link you posted it explains. "Note: The Stanley Cup Playoffs are not based on a true bracket system. After the Conference Quarterfinals, the No. 1 seed is assured of playing the lowest-seeded team in the conference. The higher seed of any matchup receives home ice advantage." -Djsasso (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd inspect the bracket closely, the Conf. QF and Conf. SF aren't connected to one another. --Howard the Duck 11:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and the same complaint arises every year. The brackets are a convenient shorthand look at how the playoffs are going, and should stay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated: Would you guys go with the home team on top convention this year? --Howard the Duck 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Home team on top in the brackets you mean? They already are... -Djsasso (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They'd screw up once we go to the Conference Finals. See 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs for example. --Howard the Duck 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We won't know that it's screwed up till we know which two teams are in the final. The example you show is correct as the Carolina team was the home team. At which point all you would have to do to fix it is put the Western Conference on top of the bracketing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is rather awkward, isn't it? So that means you guys have to change the template or something. Why not follow the NBA convention that italicizes the team name with the home court advantage? In that way it wouldn't look silly as seen on the 2006 Playoffs page where the Eastern Conference Finals didn't line up correctly. --Howard the Duck 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well all you would do is cut the western conference teams and paste them above the eastern conference teams. But yeah italics works for me too. I am easy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to modify the template coding, though (switch the colors). Which brings me to... why is there a specialized NHL template when the general bracket template would've worked? --Howard the Duck 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The colours are based on the conference colours, but now that I think about you are right. Might as well just italicize. There is a specialized template because of the reseeding involved etc. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

However, now that I look at the talk page for the template, it appears that someone adjusted the final round incase the west is first seed over the east. -Djsasso (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't make things too complicated. The bracket is just a visual aid, it's not "official". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look guys, whatever suits your tastes. I just found it awkward on 2006 ECF that Carolina was at the top of Buffalo when it should be the other way around -- and that'll happen this year if a upsets happen. --Howard the Duck 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I say that we should get rid of all the lines that go from round to round, and just put the match ups placed with the top remaining seed located all the way on the top. Since there are no lines, the top seed in each match up can go on the top of each match up. There is no true bracket in the NHL, so thus drawing any line down doesn't really make sense either. Thanks. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 05:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the matchups are already predetermined once the Conf. SF starts since the two winners from each conf. will face each other for the Conf. Finals -- then the two conf. champions will face each other at the Finals. It's only the lines between the Conf. QF and Conf. SF that should be removed and the awkward rule of home ice at the top. --Howard the Duck 11:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that the contrast between "no lines" and "lines" in different parts of the bracket is important. It helps communicate that the teams are reseeded after the first round (not feeding into any particular portion of the bracket) but after that, the pairings are fixed. As for home team on top, the best approach (IMO) is to put the home team on top in the first two rounds, but then do the more natural thing of having the team feed into whatever line of the bracket it belongs on after that, instead of rearranging the bracket. Since the NHL uses a very simple method of assigning home advantage (higher seed), a mere visual inspection will resolve any ambiguities. Anybody who has followed the NCAA Tournament can tell who is the "home team" and gets to wear the white jerseys, irrespective of what line they're on, because seedings work pretty simply in conventional circumstances. Only in tournament situations with unorthodox rules (i.e., NBA, if we're being honest that's the only counter-example anybody is talking about) is something unique needed to signify the home team. As for the Cup Finals, I think any solution (or no solution at all!) would work; there's no particular need for the bracket design to communicate that very small nugget of knowledge. If you really feel it necessary, I think italicizing the home team is the best approach, with a note in the brief text introduction to the bracket explaining the convention. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've said that, there's absolutely no reason to be italicizing or doing any other distinction at all until the Cup Final since the higher seed always has the home ice advantage. --Howard the Duck 08:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we would even need italicizing for the Cup Finals. The same seeding rules would apply to that. The only way I could see using italicization would be if the same seed was facing each other. (E1 vs. W1, E2 vs. W2. etc.) --CrimsonBlood820 (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The same seeding rules do not apply. The team with the best regular season record has home ice in the Finals, irrespective of their Conference seeding. For example, if Washington (E3) played Dallas (W5) in the Cup Finals, Dallas would have home-ice advantage. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The brackets for the last 2 years, at least, use the E/W format in the finals. The bracket is merely a summary. In the previous brackets, the team with home ice is on top. That format could be used in the final bracket also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, this "home team on top" thing can become something of an obstructive fetish. If we make sure the home team is on top in the Cup Finals, we have to "flip" the entire bracket if a West team ends up having the advantage. I believe the NBA project italicizes the home team, since in the NBA, home court has nothing to do with seeding. I would recommend we do either that, or nothing at all, to indicate who has home advantage. Every bracket is more focused on tournament path (in terms of opponents) than home/away distinctions. That it can sometimes conveniently convey home/away distinctions is an incidental benefit. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or just change the colors in the last bracket, whatever's easiest. How was it done the last couple of years? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We never really were concerned with home ice advantage, I think that was why this came up because the other year it had the home team on top in the finals and he thought that was wierd. Personally I don't think it really matters. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Top Scorers Section?

• How about a top scorers section showing which players have the most goals/assists/points in the playoffs? (Similar to what is done with soccer tournaments at Wikipedia.) Would be informative and a good running guide for who the leading candidates for the Conn Smythe Trophy. -- TexasDawg (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure! There's always one, and I am pretty sure there is already the beginning of a template hidden in the coding in the page. Jmlk17 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Statistical leaders - Goaltending empty?

Just wondering if this should be filled out or are you waiting for the first round to end? Tjwallace87 (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding the top five goalies and also updating the stats for skaters (for April 18) Tjwallace87 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was just getting the section started. -- TexasDawg (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Location of Arenas

I really find the location of the Arenas pretty unnecessary. Wikipedia users can simple look up information on the arenas by clicking on the the arena's name to lead them to the article on the arena. Also, in almost every case, the location of the arena is already apparent in the team's title, except for the case of team's taking regionally based titles, such as Colorado, Minnesota and New Jersey. Lastly, the addition of the location also pushes the summary tables to extend to two lines for each game in most cases, taking up a lot of space. Thus, I believe it is in the best interest to simply remove this piece of information from this page. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 09:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we even really need the arena name at all to be honest. -Djsasso (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the location only pushes some of the tables to two lines. If it had been consistency, I might just like it. (I tried to prevent it from wrapping, but a few are still uneven.) So I agree on the removal of the location, but the arena name itself should be kept. lil2mas (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can justify having the arena names there, but the location is completely unnecessary, as it's fairly clear by looking at each individual series where the game is (read: Home team - {Score} - Away team | Arena), there's no point in having it included. --Snojoe (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless a team is playing some of its "home" games at a site other than its normal arena, it could be excessive. I think the various World Series articles list the home grounds, but that's not quite as much data, and there were some years where a team did not play on its normal home grounds. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)