Talk:2017 Stanley Cup Finals

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Game 6 controversy

Can we move the part about Patric Hornqvist's goal being reviewed for interference to earlier in the paragraph, and not directly under the controversy section? It's pretty clear that it was challenged out of desperation, and that there was no legitimate interference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.191.213 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edit, and it keeps the same exact information in a slightly different order while also keeping the same neutral point of view, and keeping one play from "appearing" controversial when there's no source that claims it was.

Section titles

I understand wanting to keep consistency across Stanley Cup articles, but I find the section headings to be a little... ambiguous and unencyclopedic... and in need of changing in all the relevant Stanley Cup articles if necessary. For example, the first section is a summary of each team's season and how they reached the finals. It is just called "Teams" and has a subsection with each team's name. However, further down, there is a section called "Roster" (with a list of each team's players) with each team's name as a subsection. Just looking at the table of contents and pretending I haven't read the article, how am I supposed to determine what is in the "Teams" section vs "Roster" section? They seem pretty similar just looking at them from a titling perspective. Something less ambiguous and more descriptive should be used. Like "Teams season summary" or "Route to the series".

I think the section title "Series" is also a little substandard. I mean, isn't the entire article about a "series"? So what should I expect in a section with that title? Something like "Matchups", "Game summaries", or "Series summary" would be much more illustrative of what content the section contains. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. In the past, the Teams section has been named Road to the Finals and Series was named The series. If this is better, please let me know, I shall change the previous articles. Conyo14 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably go with "route" over "road". And "The series" seems no better than "Series". It needs to be much more illustrative of what about the series the section is covering. "Series summary", "Game summary", "Series summary by game"... you get the idea. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route to the Finals is fine but no better than Road to the Finals. I would go with Game summaries over Series or The Series. Alaney2k (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to Paths to the Finals, which is what it was going back the furthest - although it was spelled singular Final in a lot of cases. Alaney2k (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name of the page

Shouldn't this page (and similarly all other Stanley Cup Final pages) be named '2017 Stanley Cup Final', with no 's'? The logo is spelled that way.

To whomever wrote this ^ please read the top of this talk page. Also reference Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals and also Talk:2008 Stanley Cup Finals#Page title as use of why use Finals with the s and not Final. Conyo14 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

experimenting with new parameters

I'm sure none of you noticed, but I added Conference Final results to the infobox (as seen here), however I'll be willing to table this until next year's Final for approval.Z.I. Barbour (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]