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)

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)

Yeah we definately need to find a way to nest the goalscorers at the very least as this page is going to be far to long at the rate this is going. -Djsasso (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if you look at many other pages for other playoffs, like the NFL, those pages are around 60 kilobytes in size. At the conclusion of the playoffs, the summary tables, which provide a great deal of information regarding each game, will take up approximately 45 kilobytes. Depending on what information you want to take out from the current format, this size can shrink drastically. For example, removing broadcast information would result in an estimated final size of the template to around 38 kilobytes. That's my two cents. Thanks. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 00:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This time we aren't talking about page size but about page length. It takes too long to scroll all the way to the bottom. What we mean is that is there a way to Show/Hide part of the information like we do with navigational boxes. -Djsasso (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind looks like someone did it.-Djsasso (talk) 00:58, 23 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)/Archive 44#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)

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)

This is a good idea! Since the current table only show the players with the most points. So if a player have a lot of assists, but no goals, he might not even be in the table... (The same with many goals, few assists)
So I've taken the liberty to add the players who have scored the most goals/assists/points so far in the tournament. lil2mas (talk) 10:26, 22 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)

Use of flags and team logos

We use country-of-origin flags more than team logos. This is somewhat confusing, because isn't the team more important to keep track of which player is performing well for which team?--Sonjaaa (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because teams that play more games will have better scorers etc. just by the sheer fact they have played more games. So that information is not all that usefull. Whereas the number of players and where they come from is still a rather important (in the eyes of sports fans) piece of information. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You also have to consider that we just can't use team logo's for this kind of thing in general because of fair use. The logos for these teams all have a copyright and the fair use typically only allows the logos' use on the team pages themselves. It's the same reason for why we had to remove all the logos from the NHL Entry Draft pages. – Nurmsook! (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I totally meant to mention that as well. -Djsasso (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have Wikipedia:FLAGCRUFT? I don't think where the players are from is too relevant in this particular article. Also, there is some overlinking here, is there something I'm missing or shouldn't everything just be linked on first occurrence like in other articles? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the situation for linking, if it would require searching through the article to find the other link then in general you link a second time etc. -Djsasso (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Distracting flags must go! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Use_of_flags_for_sports_people Who can remove them? --206.248.172.247 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You know going to a guideline page and changing it to apply to your situation is not considered good faith. -Djsasso (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not change the guideline. I just added more examples. The guideline as is (without the NHL example I added) already clearly states the flags cannot accompany the player names here. Please read the Manual of Style before saying I am not good faith.

"Flags should only be used where that person is representing a national team or country such as the Olympic games. Flag usage such as Delray Beach International Tennis Championships or using a national flag for Formula One teams and drivers are incorrect as they are not representing a nation."

--Sonjaaa (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice the word should? It doesn't say can't. There are exceptions to everything where putting the flag in helps the reader and gives important information. It is an extremely common standard to place flags next to the names of players in major competitions to show the percentage of players that come from specific countries. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like User:Sonjaaa have misunderstood the paragraph. The paragraph [1] he is referring to was added by User:Gnevin about two weeks ago, and was only added after a suggestion on the talk page, which hadn't been discussed and therefore haven't reached consensus.
Anyway; The reason why Gnevin is suggesting flags on "Formula 1 drivers" as incorrect use, is because there aren't any National team for Formula 1 drivers. But he is suggesting that flags on "Football players" should be allowed, since they can be a part of a National team."Hockey players" can also be a part of a National team, and can therefore, according to Gnevin, have a flag next to them. lil2mas (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course they can be part of a national team, but they aren't representing Team Canada or Team Sweden here! They are representing the Philadelphia Flyers, etc. Let's stick to Wikipedia's official Manual of Style. If you don't like the rules, then discuss them on the Manual of Style talk page to try to change them. --Sonjaaa (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sonjaaa here. The manual is pretty clear on this matter. I know this is a matter of pride, but the flags can be confusing. For example, the Canadian flag next to Chris Osgood doesn't mean much since he is now a US citizen playing for the Red Wings. What exactly is the purpose of the Canadian flag icon other than pride?Asher196 (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As already stated, the paragraph at WP:FLAG was very recently added, as a suggestion, with no consensus yet established. Grsz^talk 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:FLAG

"Do not emphasize nationality without good reason - Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles"; without the flag next to him, he looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles". Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy."Asher196 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably is just a matter of national pride, which is why some editors are so opposed to removing them. On the technical side, however, it makes editing easier without them—at least for me—because now most player's stats only take up one line, instead of running on to two lines. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. For my part, the first (or second, or third ...) thing I think of when I see a list of leading scorers is not "Gosh, from what country could these guys possibly come!" For those who do, that's why all the names are linked to their player pages.  Ravenswing  12:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WP HOCKEY agreement

I thought we agreed, to keep diacritics off the player's names when dealing with NHL related articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whah hah ha, I see the dios are on the other SC Playoffs articles, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the other thread. You are about the only one who cares enough to remove them. As you were the only one who actively campaigned to have them removed, which means you are the only one who is probably ever going to enforce the compromise. -Djsasso (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm the last of the Mouhigans, eh? I'm sticking to the NHL team rosters; as it's becoming increasingly impossible to invoke the non-dios half of the compromise, across all the Hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We need some kina of warning/message, to inform editors not to add diacritics, per Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey compromise. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not make any sense to remove the diacritics. First, if you are simply removing them, you are forced to go through a redirect page, where as a direct link is preferred according to wikipedia policy. If you decide to go the way of still linking directly to the article but keeping the the visual appearance of link as without diacritics, then you are just adding a huge amount of space to the page which also does not make any sense in this case. People should honestly reevaluate the reasoning by which they formed this policy and/or compromise. Thanks. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The compromise was reached, after nearly 2 years of 'edit wars' & 'heated discussions' concerning diacritics on Ice Hockey articles. Trust me, pandora has been sealed in his box; let's not let him out 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through the entire archives of discussions on the diacritics subject, yet I have failed to see any true consensus reached. It simply seems that there have been only three or four consistent users commenting on this discussion consistently, while numerous users have brought this back to the table again and again. Even now, as this article is an example, I feel far more editors are still in disagreement over the policy on both sides of this argument. The problem is that this so-called compromise was hatched out with little relevance to the core of the discussion, and additionally, I feel that very few editors, such as yourself, GoodDay, actually bother to enforce this "compromise."

In my opinion, the way that this has been hashed out, the only logical solution to this is to go completely one way or another. It does not make sense to go through redirect pages, and further, it does not make sense to hide the diacritics in the general case, as it tends to waste space. I don't see why an individual would be bothered with Jaromír Jágr, as it looks the same as Jaromir Jagr, which is commonly seen. I can see the problem with names like Sandis Ozoliņš, as its appearance is quite different from the common usage of Sandis Ozolinsh.

Thus, in the most logical sense, I find that there are two sensible options: either no diacritics at all, (and just a parenthetical reference to the spelling using diacritics on just the player's page,) or you use diacritics consistently on all pages with the exception to uses where the appearance becomes significantly altered, as in the Ozolinsh vs. Ozoliņš case.

Thanks and have a nice day. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The compromise is quite clear. Diacritics for Player pages & Non-NHL related articles; No diacritics for NHL related articles. Neither side (pro-dios or anti-dios) will accept all one way or the other. Been there, done that, didn't work. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the fact—nobody seems to find this compromise satisfactory. There are multiple flaws with this compromise, as I have pointed out, and you need to stop repetitively just referring to that compromise, as such. I would appreciate it if you could bring about some other substance to this rather than, as in the discussions that I have seen continuously erupting over this subject, just pointing back to some compromise which has been given a false sense of authority over all these articles. Specifically, the manner by which this debate has gone seems quite unacceptable to me considering the continuous reappearance of this debate. This compromise quite seriously needs to be thrown out, as it has proven over and over again to be insufficient. That is simply the fact, and there is no truth beyond that. Thank You. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics tend to get me tempermental (if I discuss them too much). I'd recommend you contact Resolute, Djsasso & Ravenswing for a better explanation concerning the compromise (they're better communicators, then I; IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that many people find the compromise "satisfactory." For myself, I strongly disagree with any diacritical marks that are not commonly used in the English language appearing on the English Wikipedia in any form whatsoever. In the particular case of ice hockey, the English-language reliable sources where these proper names are rendered without diacriticals outnumber those that do by fifty to one at least, and I resent the degree to which the language warriors have barged onto this Wikipedia and forced usages upon us which they would not dream of reciprocating (and, in my observation, don't) on their home-language Wikipedias.

That being said, it is the only consensus we've ever reached on the issue, and the only reasons it keeps being raised is that there are (a) newer editors unaware of it, or (b) editors who don't believe in working within consensus and want to edit war over the subject. There is no other common ground, because there are only two other possibilities: either no diacriticals at all, anywhere, or open season everywhere. For either option, there are too many people perfectly prepared to go to the mat to oppose it. I fail to see why this would be a good idea.  Ravenswing  23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe a final solution must come from above, as both this article (and other articles) and the ice hockey wikiproject have consistently proven to be an unsatisfactory arena for achieving a viable consensus. Editors are naturally going to add diacritics, while others, but particularly the more vocals ones, are going to revert to hide the diacritics. The continuous warring can only come to an end with some sort of policy that endorses either side, or makes a very clear and sensible grounds for the specific use or exclusion of diacritics. Thank You. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is there is no above for a decision to come to. All such policy decisions come from wiki editors in the end and at the moment is that the entire site is pretty evenly split between wanting them and not wanting them. There is even a page that I forget the link to that pretty much says don't bother arguing the diacritic debate cause no decision will ever come from it. -Djsasso (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a relevant discussion currently ongoing with relation to the Manual of Style. Here is a link to that specific discussion. Thanks. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 01:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiding diacritics

What is the point of hiding diacritics behind a pipe? If you're not willing to show them, then why bother making a direct link to them when the non-diacritic term will certainly redirect to the correct article. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because by direct linking to the diacritic version you avoid a redirect that saves bandwidth and computational time. If possible you should always avoid redirects. -Djsasso (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

GRRRRR, somebody put the dios back in. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Situation fixed, by Nurmsook & myself. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's just pray it stays this way... – Nurmsook! (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody is probably going to always come around and un-hide the diacritics all the time. It is too bad that you will continue to waste time enforcing this "compromise" when there are so many more items of importance on or related to this page, which would benefit from your efforts. Some items that could enhance the article far more significantly are descriptions for each of the series, and additional prose throughout the article, in addition to numerous other subjects of concerns. Thank You. —Sukh17 ^Talk 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, I've said that from the begining. The amount of effort put into diacritics is rediculous. -Djsasso (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear gentlefolk, Myself & others will be riding shot-gun - to inforce the compromise (hiding & adding dios on all Ice hockey articles, where required). We must not release Pandora. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is most people would rather you put the effort into improving articles rather than silly reverts. :P haha -Djsasso (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm improving the articles-in-question (at least for the anti-dios side). GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha oh I figured you would think that. It's priorities I guess. Most people even people that agree with your side of the arguement think that constantly fixing them is a much lower priority than some of the things Sukh17 mentioned. -Djsasso (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I won't throw in the towel (at least not permanently, giggle giggle). GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Goaltending Leaders: Minimum games?

Shouldn't there be a minimum amount of games (or TOI) played in order to be included in the goalie stats leaders? Curtis Joseph is currently included despite having played just over one game. And after replacing Jose Theodore in Game 1 of the Western Conference semifinals tonight, Peter Budaj would now be included in the list with a 0.00 GAA after 37:42 TOI (possibly the only time he'll play in the playoffs this year). I think there should be a 4 game (or ~240' TOI) minimum at this point. -- TexasDawg (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Budaj should definately not be included as there is typically a standard 60 minute TOI limit in place. I would say at least 120 minutes, but I'd be fine with 240. This list really should only include the main goalies, not so much the backups, but it's open for discussion. – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What about 120? 240 is a complete series, but 120 would just be two games. Any thoughts? Jmlk17 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1/3 of the teams total minutes? Just a random suggestion. Grsz^talk 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about π games, which is 188.495559 minutes. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

f(x+1) π ! ? Grsz^talk 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

While we figure this out, I've removed Curtis Joseph, as I believe the consensus is that he did not play enough. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done... agreed. Jmlk17 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think he would need to play a certain amount of his team's games. I don't think we want to end up with a goalie with 2 games when everybody else has 15. Grsz^talk 05:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Four games: A goalie with four playoff games is a goalie that can theoretically win a round. Winning a round seems like a good qualifier. So, four games. 240 minutes. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Conf Finals

We might as well have this debate now, so it's (hopefully) over by the time it's relevant. My position is that the home team should be on the top line when the pairings are arbitrary and not pre-determined, as in the QFs and SFs. Once the pairings are not predetermined (Conf Finals, Cup Finals), teams should simply be advanced to the line they most naturally belong on (top or bottom) irrespective of whether they're the home team. Generally speaking, when you're drawing up a bracket from scratch (i.e., pairings are arbitrary) you put the home team on top, but after that they advance to whatever line they belong on, since a bracket isn't primarily designed to express who the home team is, but instead tournament paths. Point being: if the 2/5 series in either Conference ends before the 1/6 series, the 2/5 winner should be placed on the bottom line of the Conference Finals. My hope is to reach consensus on this, both as a point of policy going forward and so that we know what we're going to do as this round gets closer to being finished. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we need to convey home team in the bracket at all except in the initial pairings so I am fine with it just advancing to the next most apropriate line. Brackets usually are not meant to indicate home team. -Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so does that mean someone can fix up the 2006 Playoffs ECF bracket once and for all? --Howard the Duck 06:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. As someone pointed out on last year's talk page, consensus was reached in '06 but the "dissenters" were more vocal and either apathy or worries about a revert war caused the majority to avoid pressing their position in the actual implementation. I planned on going back and making them uniform if/when the new bracket is approved (and it's looking like it will; not much commentary on it). I have asked some friends to look at it and help me debug it but they object to the Wikipedia syntax. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it done with the higher seeded team on top?Asher196 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the point of my comment. It is higher seed on top when the pairings are arbitrary, which is the QF and SF. After the SFs, the pairings are no longer arbitrary, and so I am saying we ought to simply have teams feed onto the most appropriate line of the bracket they belong on, irrespective of their seeding/who has home ice. For example, irrespective of who will have home ice in the Cup Finals, I am saying that the Western team should be on the bottom and the Eastern team on top, since that's how our bracket is designed. Or, to put it another way, even if Colorado beats Detroit in the SFs, Colorado should be on the top line in the WCF, because that's the line they most naturally feed onto. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of consistancy, I think it should remain high seed on top until the SC finals, at which point the EC goes on top and WC goes on the bottom. But thats just my opinion.Asher196 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My position, and I think Djsasso and Howard agree, is that at that point there's no consistency at all. I see our position as the most consistent one: when the pairings are arbitrary, high seed/home team is on top. When the pairings are not arbitrary, they just feed onto the proper line. The QF and SF rounds are "likes" (because the pairings are arbitrary), and the CF and SCF rounds are "likes" (because the pairings are predetermined). I think the approach I propose is more consistent in that it is consistent within those rounds of the playoffs that are comparable. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the only place where a distinction on which home ice advantage should be acknowledged is on the Cup Final -- on every playoffs series, the higher seed gets the home advantage. That's pretty easy to determine. --Howard the Duck 04:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary Times

I have not seen anywhere in hockey books or media where we list the times of the goals as is done in this article. It is always summarized by period. Why is this article done differently? Alaney2k (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because we are revolutionaries. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd move them to the customary North American style. The worlds begin this weekend: the IIHF 0-60minutes style is welcome there. ccwaters (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I thought that's what it was. Well, IMHO, the European and international league articles can use whatever statistical standards and usages prevail there, and that's where such usages can stay.  Ravenswing  20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So then should it be Period - Time left in period, ie 2nd - 2:36? Grsz^talk 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Goals/Penalties are recorded in time elapsed from the beginning of periods. http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?service=page&page=Boxscore&gameNumber=212&season=20072008&gameType=3 ccwaters (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Counting "up" from 0 seems silly, but I agree that it is the NHL's standard usage. We should respect that until they decide to break from tradition and go with time remaining instead of time elapsed. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you guys want to have separate sections for each period? I can look into something that hopefully does not take up too much space. Let me know, and I can look at the feasibility of such an option. The only barrier would be the detriment to the article's size, whic resulted in a very similarly designed template in last year's playoffs being removed and replaced with the tables currently on the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs page. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I just finished working on editing the template to allow for flexible reporting of scoring. In the following example, I have expanded the scoring report into a period-by-period summary for games 2, 4 and 5. Thanks. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sample Result

April 9	San Jose Sharks		2 – 3		Calgary Flames	HP Pavilion at San Jose	Versus, RIS, CBC
Ryane Clowe 1 - 06:06 Ryane Clowe 2 - 59:03		Scoring stats			02:47 - Stephane Yelle 1 05:17 - pp - Dion Phaneuf 1 36:21 - Stephane Yelle 2
Evgeni Nabokov ( 20 saves / 23 shots )		Goalie stats			Miikka Kiprusoff ( 37 saves / 39 shots )

April 10	San Jose Sharks		2 – 0		Calgary Flames	HP Pavilion at San Jose	RIS, CBC
No Scoring		First period			No scoring
Joe Pavelski 1 - 04:56 Torrey Mitchell 1 - pp - 18:09		Second period			No scoring
No scoring		Third period			No scoring
Evgeni Nabokov ( 21 saves / 21 shots )		Goalie stats			Miikka Kiprusoff ( 41 saves / 43 shots )

April 13	Calgary Flames		4 – 3		San Jose Sharks	Pengrowth Saddledome	Versus, RIS, CBC
Jarome Iginla 1 - pp - 13:22 Daymond Langkow 1 - pp - 30:14 Dion Phaneuf 2 - 41:18 Owen Nolan 1 - 56:15		Scoring stats			01:31 - pp - Ryane Clowe 3 03:19 - Patrick Marleau 1 03:33 - Douglas Murray 1
Miikka Kiprusoff ( 2 saves / 5 shots ) Curtis Joseph ( 22 saves / 22 shots )		Goalie stats			Evgeni Nabokov ( 21 saves / 25 shots )

April 15	Calgary Flames		2 – 3		San Jose Sharks	Pengrowth Saddledome	RIS, CBC
Jarome Iginla 2 - 03:19		First period			No Scoring
Dion Phaneuf 3 - 18:29		Second period			10:56 - pp - Ryane Clowe 4
No scoring		Third period			15:06 - Jonathan Cheechoo 1 19:50 - Joe Thornton 1
Miikka Kiprusoff ( 29 saves / 32 shots )		Goalie stats			Evgeni Nabokov ( 8 saves / 10 shots )

April 17	San Jose Sharks		4 – 3	2OT	Calgary Flames	HP Pavilion at San Jose	Versus, RIS, CBC
No Scoring		First period			No scoring
Joe Pavelski 2 - pp - 13:32 Patrick Marleau 2 - 18:07		Second period			04:03 - pp - Jarome Iginla 3
Jonathan Cheechoo 2 - 04:52		Third period			09:06 - pp - Daymond Langkow 2 18:43 - David Moss 1
Jonathan Cheechoo 3 - 08:23		Second overtime period			No scoring
Evgeni Nabokov ( 33 saves / 36 shots )		Goalie stats			Miikka Kiprusoff ( 22 saves / 26 shots )

April 20

Calgary Flames

7:00pm

San Jose Sharks

Pengrowth Saddledome

RIS, CBC

April 22

San Jose Sharks

7:00pm

Calgary Flames

HP Pavilion at San Jose

Versus, RIS, CBC

San Jose leads series 3 – 2

Take a look at what I did for Montreal - Boston on the article page. Only listing the periods for which there is scoring. Alaney2k (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What we need to do is be able to colapse the game summaries so the scoring can be hidden. It was like that a week or so ago but it looks like it has been removed. The length of this page is getting rediculous again. Its going to be huge once we add in the prose. -Djsasso (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like two things there. If it is collapsed, is the text not still there? Secondly, it's at about 41k and the 1st round is the biggest. So I'd project it out to about 100k. Is that completely unreasonable in your opinion? Alaney2k (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do people keep confusing length with size. The page size is fine. The page length is too long. The scroll time is unreasonable. There are length limits as well as size limits for ideal viewing of pages. -Djsasso (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'll leave the template editing to the template editors. Alaney2k (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a little weird, since in my view, all the game summaries are already collapsed... --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the issue. At work I use an outdated IE version that probably can't handle the colapsing. But when I switch over to firefox like I normally use at home it colapses. Odd. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the new design, where you have specified in which period the goal occurred. So now it's maybe a good idea to remove Scoring Stats, which is located below the scoreline. Then we would have the goalscorers right beneath the team name. =) What do you think? lil2mas (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've removed that line when using the period by period summary, so the first period line is now flush to the top of the game score. —Sukh17 ^Talk 10:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for updating to the period-by-period scoring. Alaney2k (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Series summaries

Currently, the article looks very unbalanced when there are summaries for only 3 of the 12 completed series so far. Either they should all have them, or the paragraphs for the MTL-BOS, DAL-ANA and DAL-SJ should be removed. The only problem with putting summaries on each series is that the article size will increase dramatically. 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, with summaries, currently is around 50 kilobytes long (shorter than this article now), but it still uses tables instead of templates like Template:NHLPlayoffs. The other possibility is to split the article. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We do normally have summaries for each series. They often tend not to be completed until after the playoffs are done. Summaries are something that definately need to be there, but seeing as this page is a work in progress it may be a bit before they are all on there. I've always said I prefer the old tables we used before, but I think we should give this format a shot until all the summaries are written to see what the size is then. As long as its below 100k we are probably good. -Djsasso (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's likely there are people who are not familiar enough with these playoff pages to know there should be summaries. I think having some summaries present and others absent will impel these editors to create summaries for the other series. I hope that our only stipulation is that we leave out summaries for series in progress. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's all remember, hide the diacritics when creating these summaries. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave that to you. You're doing a fine job of it. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is, summaries like that for the San Jose v. Dallas seem too long. In the summary I drew up for Montreal v. Boston, I tried to avoid stating the score unless it helped the prose (e.g. "with a dominant and convincing 5–0 win"), since the scores are detailed in the table immediately below. I also tried to detail only significant plays of the series, like the Metropolit goal in Game 5. A few more plays could still be added to that series, but since the table is, again, immediately below, the detailing of everyone who scored is excessive. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the "splitting up"-option here, where at least the conference quarter-finals should have its own sub-article. Leaving only the first line of the current match summary (the way it is showed when it is collapsed) left in this article, and having a link to the sub-article below the quarter-final header. This sub-article should contain the match summary (uncollapsed, maybe). The written summaries can remain in the main article if it doesn't take up to much size. lil2mas (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we were trying to avoid using sub articles for the playoffs as it stands the Finals get their own article but the earlier rounds should just remain on this page. The more sub pages we end up having the closer and closer we get to violating WP:NOT#STATS and possibly WP:NOT#NEWS. Personally I think we should have just the most pertanent information in the summaries and any further detail would belong on the playoffs portion of the season pages for the teams involved. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Singular or plural?

Should it say "Dallas lead series" or "Dallas leads series" ?--Sonjaaa (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends if its past tense you will say Dallas lead the series. If it is present tense you will say Dallas leads the series. But I am guessing since you are talking about leading the series that it is past tense since they are definately not leading the current series. -Djsasso (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Sports uses past tense on both the current and previous series. e.g. Red Wings lead series 3-0 & Stars win series 4-2. lil2mas (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I was totally having a brain fart. I meant that in past tense it should be led not lead. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Present tense: Dallas leads the series. Past tense: Dallas led the series. Present tense: The Stars lead the series. Past tense: The Stars led the series. By convention, city names are singular, team nicknames are plural, even when the word is not obviously plural. Example (should it ever come to this): Minnesota leads the series. The Wild lead the series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is definately how it should look. The way it is now just doesn't flow at all, and is conventionally incorrect. – Nurmsook! (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Goalie stats section

Why does it need to be limited to the top five? But the more important thing is that it can only be numbered by one default catagory. Obvously anyone can sort it by any catagory that they want; but we cannot have a default listing by GAA and Sv% because they differ. It doesn't matter which one, but it can't be both. Blackngold29 05:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it be based on both save percentage and goals against average? It doesn't have to be limited to the top five, but it does have to be limited, otherwise it wouldn't be the "top goaltenders". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It can't be both because the orders are differnt depending on the stat. Marc-André Fleury has the highest Sv%, but Chris Osgood has the best GAA. So it has to be defaulted as one, or the other. Blackngold29 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why it says the goalies listed below are the top 5 of each. It doesn't say they are ordered by their ranking. -Djsasso (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As you said above, anyone can sort it by any category. This way they can see the top five by GAA or the top five by SV%. I think it would be fine if more goaltenders were included, like at the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs where the top twelve are shown. Obviously there isn't anything special about the number twelve, but if you look at the numbers that was a pretty good spot to make a cutoff (the same twelve are included whether you're basing it on GAA or SV%). This year it's not so clear cut—just look at Gerber's GAA rank compared to his SV% rank. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this falls under the heading "Statistical leaders/Goaltending" so saying "These are the top 5 leaders...." is redundant. The reader should be able to easily deduce the leaders of each statistical category and can rank them any way they choose.Asher196 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It'd not redundant as we need to explain the criteria we used for selecting the 6. -Djsasso (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Include more goalies

I think we should include more goalies in this list, like at the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Have a look at User:Twas Now/Sandbox, which includes the top fourteen goaltenders. There are 22 goalies with some minutes in these playoffs; six of these haven't played enough to qualify (Boucher, Budaj, Halak, Harding, Hasek, Joseph); two others have poor stats in both categories (Brodeur—3.19/0.891), Giguere—3.18/0.898). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have no problem with adding more. I think we just only had the top 5 since you have to cut the line somewhere. But I have no problem with more. -Djsasso (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the twelve in the 2007 one is a good amount, but is there any reason why we shouldn't just include all of them? I don't really care how many (though I'd like more than five), but if we're gonna have 12 why not 16? Blackngold29 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the bottom few shouldn't really be considered "statistical leaders". Unless we want to say that they are leaders of playing poorly. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please people. Remember to keep the diacritics hidden (example: Marc-Andre Fleury). GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, can we just eliminate all bolded numbers in the chart like on 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs#Goaltending? I think that's why I was confused over the way they were ordered, there's really no need for bolded numbers. Thanks! Blackngold29 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the list to include more goalies. On certain resolutions, each goalie's information should only take up a single line in the edit window now. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks! Blackngold29 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the GAA and SV% have been de-bolded. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. That was what lead to my original confusion. I think it looks a lot better now with all the changes, I suppose we won't have this problem for the finals. Thanks again! Blackngold29 04:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have included 14 goaltenders, why not include the remaining 3 who has played in the Stanley Cup Playoffs this year?? And the table should be bolded out after which category it is sorted by originally... lil2mas (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

22 goalies have played in the playoffs this year so it would be 8 more not 3. Having the cut off at 14 is fine. Boucher, Budaj, Halak, Harding, Hasek, Joseph, Brodeur, Giguere would be the other 8. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The source, NHL.com, states 17 goalies on both the GAA-list & SV%-list. Why? I'll add the 3 remaining... lil2mas (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that we are only listing the top goalies and those 3 you added had such horrible numbers they definately couldn't be called the top goalies. -Djsasso (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that their numbers aren't good, but why is for example Kiprusoff there then? He has let in 1 less goal than Giguere on only 9 more shots against him! There should be some consistency here... 60% of the goaltenders cannot be "top goalies"! lil2mas (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe its because the list includes the top 10 in each of the two categories. Kipper is in the top 10 for save %. Those three are not in the top 10 of either, and the remaining 5 haven't played full games so they are easy choices. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then Biron & Theodore should be left out aswell... They aren't top 10 in either of the categories. If they were to be left out, we would "only" have 50% of the goalies in this list. lil2mas (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the complaint was that we didn't have enough goalies using the top 5 in each (which is my preference). So the next logical step is top 10. I have no problem moving Biron and Theodore out. -Djsasso (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on the top 5 list. Because, as of now, there are too many goalies listed.
But I would propose a "Games Played"-limit: ...only list goaltenders who have played more than 8 games. In other words, only goaltenders who advances from the quarter-finals. What do you think? lil2mas (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Let's see what the others think. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The miniumum 8 games sounds reasonable to me. Blackngold29 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think eight is too high. Are you saying that Dan Ellis or Tim Thomas should not be considered for this list? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can definately see arguments for it, they did let in enough goals to make sure their team didn't make it out of the first round. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The criteria is based goals against average and save percentage, not wins. If you think wins should be a criteria then suggest it. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying to cut them out based on wins. We said cut them out based on games played. Which in a way yes does mean wins. Personally games played is probably the least controversial option. As if we do it based on top x we cut out goalies who made it alot further and should be recognized for such...if we do it the way we are doing it we have more than 50% of goalies listed. Personally I think we should have left it at top5 of GAA and Sv% like we had it but with my new and improved message that I put at the top of the table this time. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thus negating the initial complaint that not enough goalies were listed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I personally disagree that not enough were shown, I think 25% of the goalies that played in the playoffs is more than enough of them to show the Top goalies. If we went over 50% then we are no longer showing just the top goalies which would be the case if we lowered the number from 8. -Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I cut the list down at the 2007 playoffs. A minimum of four games makes sense to me, since that is the minimum amount of games required to win one round. To keep the list under 50%, I also think the top five in each stat is enough. If someone really cares to see all of the goalies represented, they can go to NHL.com — Wikipedia is not a statistics database. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Top 5 in each of the two stats and atleast 4 games played sounds good to me. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in official IIHF tourney stats, to qualify for the goalie leader board, one must be on the ice for 40% or more of the team's total ice time. Just throwing that out there to consider. ccwaters (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Television ratings

I remember hearing and reading about how much higher the ratings were for this year's playoffs. It's an important statistical measure that belongs in this article. Fdssdf (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2008 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app?gameNumber=221&gameType=3&page=Recap&season=20072008&service=page
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app?gameNumber=222&gameType=3&page=Recap&season=20072008&service=page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008122241/http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=Recap&seas=20072008&gtype=3&gnum=223 to http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=Recap&seas=20072008&gtype=3&gnum=223
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=Recap&gameNumber=224&season=20072008&gameType=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app?gameNumber=225&gameType=3&page=Recap&season=20072008&service=page
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app?gameNumber=311&gameType=3&page=Recap&season=20072008&service=page
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app?gameNumber=312&gameType=3&page=Recap&season=20072008&service=page
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=Recap&seas=20072008&gtype=3&gnum=313
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008113647/http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=Recap&seas=20072008&gtype=3&gnum=314 to http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=Recap&seas=20072008&gtype=3&gnum=314

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)