Jump to content

Talk:NHL conference finals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:NHL Conference Finals)

1971 to 1974

[edit]

There were no East Final & West Final during the 1971,'72,'73 & '74 playoffs. During the second round, East & West teams played cross-overs. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A complete change is needed

[edit]

There were 'no' Conference Finals in the NHL 'until' the 1981-82 NHL season. Would anybody mind if I did some major deletions? GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! Although: could the playoff format for the first few years after realignment (from, like, '68 until '71 or whatever) be construed as a Conference (or, Division) Final? MrArticleOne (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From 1970-71 to 1973-74, the winners of the preliminary rounds had 'cross overs' for the second round. In the second round, an East team played a West team, thus not a 'true' Division Final. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about 1967-68; 1968-69; and 1969-70? MrArticleOne (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are Division Finals & therefore shouldn't be mentioned. The concept of Conferences only began in 1974-75 & Conferenece playoffs in 1981-82. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated teams in Totals

[edit]

Should the Nordiques and the North Stars totals be added to the Avalanche and the Stars totals, or should they remain separated? Jmj713 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NHL Conference Finals. 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:

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) 22:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple tables

[edit]

The new (third) table that was added (similar to the Stanley Cup Finals appearances) and then combined with the previous second table is not, in my view, a good idea. We have the main table showing year by year CF participants and then an overview table, which shows more information than the new one, including things like consecutive appearances. If need be these two versions can be combined but I see no real need for the third table at all. Jmj713 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semifinals

[edit]

Should this article be amended to include talking about the Semifinal? I know it's not the same as the Conference Final, but it serves the same purpose. The appearances table becomes sort of misleading since we track CF and SCF appearances and wins. Jmj713 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to do this it should be limited to the time period where the league used a 16-team or greater playoff format. So basically we would add this current season and the 1980 and 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs to the current totals. This is consistent with what we did in the 2021 Semifinal series previews. Deadman137 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds logical to me. Jmj713 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 entries

[edit]

If we're not going to include the MTL/VEG & TB/NYI series into this article? Then the titles sub-titles should read (1994–2020), rather then (1994–present). GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unreasonable to do. Plus we could start a new table next season with a note about 2021 above it. Deadman137 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were going to include the Semifinal as an exception as discussed above since it's acting as such. Otherwise the appearance table is not showing the right info, since it's meant to show how often a team has reached the penultimate round. There should be a good way to account for it. Jmj713 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 February 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This discussion has only been open for a week it has already seen considerable input and so relisting is not likely to result in a consensus being found.

In this discussion, a clear majority of editors opposed the move, but consensus is not ascertained by counting votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

While those in support had a stronger argument, the argument was not sufficiently strong to overcome the numerical opposition to this proposal, and thus the result is No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Conference Finals → NHL conference finals – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, sentence case, not title case. This is not a proper name, and is not usually capitalized in sources, not even in the NHL's own pages. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria: comments relative to criteria in policies and guidelines would be most useful.

WP:NCCAPS says "... leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence".
MOS:CAPS says "... only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia".

Evidence:

I've chosen to oppose. I will accept the result of the RM, which can only have 'two' possible results. We've got Eastern Conference (NHL) & Western Conference (NHL), thus my choice. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you always choose to oppose capitalization fixes, without ever stating a good reason. It's been stipulated already that "Eastern Conference Finals" and "Western Conference Finals" are pretty uniformly capped in sources, and in fact account for essentially all caplitalization of "Conference Finals" in books. Where the conference name is not used, the "conference finals" is generic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A similar RM was attempted months ago, concerning Major League Baseball playoff rounds, with the result being - stay with capitalised version. I will not change my stance at this RM. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the concluded MLB RM discussion you're referring to. Concluded RM discussions listed at WT:MOSCAPS include these where there was a clear consensus to lowercase "baseball tournament":
There's also an open discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Conference_Finals_and_Semifinals_capitalization where the consensus seems to be lowercase, and the person claiming proper name status has not provided any basis for his claim. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The move at Talk:Division Series from only five months ago. The very same one you proposed and didn't gain consensus for. And the same one where you were called out for the exact same bludgeoning behavior. Your claim of ignorance is utterly disingenuous nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are an awful lot of RM discussions in "months ago", and if you had mentioned the words "Division" or "Series" instead of just "Major League Baseball playoff rounds", I would have easily found it. Anyway, it's good that an editor, with enough prompting, finally came up with a guideline-based reason to cap it, namely that "Division Series" is a registered trademark of MLB. A similarly trademark search on "Conference Finals" comes up empty. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the editor who said "Major League Baseball playoff rounds", not Oknazevad. My position hasn't changed on this RM's topic. I oppose lower-casing. PS - Trying to persuade me to change my position, will only strengthen my opposition to the proposed page move. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got out of sync about who I'm responding to in the tag team. I do realize that nothing I provide in the way of facts and evidence will affect your opinion: you oppose lower-casing. Dicklyon (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you always propose moves to lowercase, even in areas you've never edited before and are utterly unfamiliar with. Frankly, even the assertion that they're "fixes" is presumptive. It's tiresome. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Finals" is not a traditional plural. A single series is still the Eastern Conference Finals, because it consists of more than one game, but it's still a single thing. And the Conference Finals is a single round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, consisting of two series. It's a singular group. It's a subtle point, one often missed by the less sophisticated, but the fact that a name is uncreative and the same as the generic version save for the capitals doesn't make it any less a proper noun. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Here's the relevant, specific point: that this usage reflects the official name that the league employs for these things. This notion that the MOS somehow supersedes official formal titles -- or that individual editors know better than the league as to what the NHL is permitted to call its own institutions -- is getting very, very tiresome. Ravenswing 03:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in fairness to the individuals, the League makes it pretty hard to discern what is and isn't proper... Seeing as how they also refer to it as the "NHL conference finals" (see here). There doens't seem to be a uniform standard for the specific term. Leventio (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this "relevant, specific point" is asserted without evidence, and is contrary to the evidence I already linked above, which shows that the NHL does not treat this as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? MY evidence is that in every single NHL Official Guide and Record Book the terms are capitalized, running from the earliest one in my possession (the 1973 Guide) through to 2005 at least, which shows that the NHL DOES treat this as a proper name.

Never mind that what the hell, man? You're claiming those links above as evidence, when they cap the proper names, and simply fail to cap collectives? Ravenswing 13:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's really the point. We cap proper names like "Western Conference Final", but not generic collectives like "conference finals". Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dick can you please stop bludgeoning the process? You've responded to every editor that opposes you so far and you've made your point known. The two of us have talked about this issue in the past and you admitted "It didn't occur to me that someone would consider these to be proper nouns." So your bias/argument is clear to see.
I also oppose this motion as these terms are generally used as proper nouns. Deadman137 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is often a perception that because caps are applied to proper names, phrases that are capped are proper names. Such an argument ignores that caps are often applied for significance, distinction or emphasis. But WP doesn't do that per MOS:EMPHCAPS. This article refers to finals over multiple years and is therefore analogous to presidents of the United States per Tony. The ultimate test, however, is consistency of usage per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Evidence by the nom would show that the NHL is not consistent in its usage. This strongly indicates that the threshold for capping here is not being met. Other evidence of capping in tables is not useful since usage is evident from other entries. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Ravenswing. The NHL capitalises, so should we. Masterhatch (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NHL does not capitalize it! Stop with the disinformation BS! Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dick you have been asked to stop bludgeoning this conversation, you have made your point of view known. At this point you need to step back and find something else constructive to do because your conduct is becoming disruptive. Deadman137 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deadman, are you trying to censor someone whose views are different from your own? Tony (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he's asking Dick to keep WP:BLUDGEON in mind. Not the first person in this discusssion to do that. Acting like that's some sort of censorship is pearl-clutching ludicrousness. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I thought that search result was worth noticing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As do I. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should read Ravenswing's response as it refutes your claims. This overly bureaucratic nonsense needs to stop as this site generally operates on the most common usage of words. Deadman137 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you suggested, I looked back at Ravenswing's comments. I don't see any refutation in them. All I see is an assertion that "this usage reflects the official name that the league employs for these things", without evidence. Dicklyon provided evidence. Am I missing something? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide evidence. What I didn't provide was online links to the NHL's official media guides, which the NHL doesn't put up free and online ... nor am I required to do so. Are you asking for publication information on those guides, from 1974 on forward? (Do note that the notion of "Conference Finals" is more recent than that; the league didn't use the term in the East and West Division days, or obviously before the 1967 expansion.) Ravenswing 20:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thank you. Yes, you referred to "NHL Official Guide and Record Book[s]". Sorry for missing that (perhaps it was since that was in a different paragraph from your signature). Are you saying that those documents cap collective terms like "NHL Conference Finals", or only more specific terms like "Eastern Conference Final" and "Western Conference Final"? In any case, I don't think that really refutes the evidence provided by Dicklyon that shows the NHL sometimes doesn't use caps – it just shows that in some publications they do use caps. And of course, NHL publications should carry less weight on Wikipedia than WP:Independent sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, can you at least quote for us what that style guide says about "NHL Conference Finals"? Are you just saying that they use that termed, capped thus, in sentences? Or do they actually discuss capitalization? Or not even? Dicklyon (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a style guide -- other than in the player stats sections, they give pronunciation guides -- and doesn't set out explicit "Media sources should capitalize X and don't need to capitalize Y" instructions. (Had they done so, I'd have quoted that long since.) But in the relevant sections, the Guides capitalize a number of your bugaboos: "Eastern Conference Final," "First Team All-Star," and so on. Ravenswing 15:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No such bugaboos. I've stipulated several times above that "Eastern Conference Final" is a proper name. This discussion is about "NHL conference finals", which the NHL often does not capitalize. Why do you keep veering off from the question? Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when it comes to what the NHL considers proper usage for its own terms, it doesn't. Ravenswing 15:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do find this bizarre, that Masterhatch can post a false factoid, and when I post evidence that it's false I get accused of bludgeoning. What's a mother to do? Dicklyon (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't act like a victim, you've responded to every editor that has disagreed with you. I'll quote from the relevant article "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear." You have more than exceeded the bludgeoning standard and are lucky that you haven't been reported at WP:ANI yet, as this is not the first time that you have done this. Deadman137 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per MOS:CAPS under section Sports, games, and other activities, "Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources: WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Tour de France, Americas Cup. Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion, international tournaments. None take italics or other special markup." The Conference Finals and each subsequent series are listed by independent sources to be capitalized, namely the NHL Official Guide and Record Book. Hockey Reference also uses capitalized Conference Finals. NHL.com is a tad more inconsistent. Other secondary sources also tend to switch between the capitalization and lower case marks. From what I've seen though, a header will often be capitalized, but the subtext will not. Conyo14 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. When the official title of the event uses caps, we do too. The Kip (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just repeating false info. There is no event "NHL Conference Finals", and the NHL often uses "NHL conference finals" to refer to the group of events. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, "NHL Conference Finals" refers to the entire round, both series included. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we've had any disagreement about what it refers to. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But if I understand correctly, it's not really one "the entire round", but rather a collective term for two separate final rounds – the "Eastern Conference Final" and the "Western Conference Final". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that round as a whole is also a proper noun. It's not particularly creatively named and the generic descriptive term is also used, but that does not make the proper noun any less a proper noun. That's the point the downcasing argument always seems to willfully ignore. oknazevad (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the decisions at the recent baseball RMs which kept the uppercasing of their end-of-season playoff schedules. That, along with the uppercasing of NFL conference championship games, seems to have set the style for consistent Wikipedia casing of North American high-level professional sport playoffs. Besides that, the discussion indicates that there is nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – Title Casing Is Gilding The Lily. We try to only upcase proper nouns, not simply do it for style or emphasis. Per MOS:CAPS, MOS:AT ad nauseum, it is crystal clear that in this case it's downcase for the power play. Pox on wikigilding! Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 21:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moved, against last RM result

[edit]

This page was moved to lowercase, contrary to the last RM result. The page move should be undone. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly better at a lowercase title, since it's not consistently capitalised in sources. I'd go for a revert and another RM. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had forgotten the no-consensus RM discussion from a year ago, and did the move in light of the month-long RM discussion at NBA conference finals that hashed out the relevant issues and came down on the side of following MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was the NBA, not the NHL or KHL. We had a discussion at @Amakuru:'s talkpage several weeks ago, about why you shouldn't be making unilateral page moves. Yet (again) you go ahead & make more. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the exact same premise, though, just a different sport. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And being a different sport makes a big difference. Different leagues have different issues.
most importantly, it's obvious that this was explicitly discussed and there was no consensus for a move. This is not uncontroversial and is exactly the sort of behavior that pisses people off about Dick's decapitalization crusade. Unilateral moves when there has been prior discussion are arrogant and non-collaborative. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. This page (and the others Dicklyon moved) should be moved back asap. And if Dicklyon really wants to have the capitals removed, he should go the proper route. While I support being bold, that's not what Dicklyon did here. He went against a previously requested move and then (disingenuously) claimed he thought the move would be uncontroversial. Masterhatch (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Conference Finals → NHL conference finals – We didn't reach consensus last year, but after the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals, with consensus to lowercase, it seems like the issues have been pretty well hashed out. That is, none of "NBA Conference", "Conference Finals", and "NBA Conference Finals" are proper names, and most likely the same applies to "NHL Conference" and "NHL Conference Finals" not being proper names. Different leagues may have different issues, it was pointed out above, so let's hear about those and decide. Maybe we can avoid re-hashing the settled issues about what the policies and guidelines say. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to follow this outline or change it:

Data

[edit]

n-grams: NHL Western Conference and NHL Eastern Conference appear capped only; these are proper names. NHL Conference is not common enough to appear at all, capped or lowercase, so there's no signal here.

News: Mixed capitalization, not the "consistently capitalized" that MOS:CAPS calls for, nor the "always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" that WP:NCCAPS calls for to support a decision to capitalize. Some samples of sites that use lowercase, with quotes from sentences (or in some cases from headlines, even) are listed here; the exact phrase "NHL conference finals" is not so common, so some of these are variations to help clarify what is or is not a proper name:

Survey

[edit]
  • Fully support— Tony (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The evidence seems very clear. While Eastern Conference Finals might be a proper name, the generic name of NHL conference finals is not.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but you're sowing confusion with "Eastern Conference Finals", which should be "Eastern Conference finals" since it's often lowercase finals in sources, right? Certainly we all agree that the conference name "Eastern Conference" is a proper name in most contexts including NHL Eastern Conference. Dicklyon (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, apologies, that was an oversight on my part. I've struck Finals from my comment above.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's clear that specific conferences are capitalized ("NHL Eastern Conference", "NHL Western Conference"), but "NHL conference finals" is by definition a generic descriptive phrase (there is no such thing as "the NHL Conference"), and is not often capitalized in sources, much less "consistently ... in a substantial majority", which the the MOS:CAPS standard (thus also that of WP:NCCAPS). We should not need to keep doing these near-identical RMs over and over again. All of our WP:P&G apply to all topics by default, and we even have MOS:SPORTCAPS specifically against this sort of habitual over-capitalization of sport-related terms. Any claim that some sort of exception is warranted is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional evidence, not a preference we default to against the sourcing and guidelines. Note: even the more specific "NHL Eastern Conference finals" and "NHL Western Conference finals" often have a lower-case f. It is typical across sport topics for divisions/brackets within a competition or series of competitions to take lower-case ("semi-finals" or "semifinals", "final 16" or "last 16", etc., etc.). There is no cause for any kind of exception here, and long-term, pro-capitalization resistance on the part of a handful of editors, after multiple RMs and now RfCs and AN reviews of RfCs, have concluded against their upper-casing preference, is never going to change that. This is a fact, plain and simple: Wikipedia capitalizes less than various fandom, specialized, and especially primary/promotional source material. There is no dance that can be done to get around this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If there is no event called "the NHL Conference" (and since "finals" is plural and thus indicates a classifying common noun rather than a proper name), then this seems to be a descriptive phrase rather than the title of a specific event or the title of a specific group of events. Ngram and source data have also been shown that does not indicate consistent capping by sources. (I thought I had commented on this RM already, but I guess that was just some other very simlar RM.) The marquee at these events does not have a big banner that says "Tonight at the arena: NHL Conference Finals". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per NHL.com's Playoff Format, which uses uppercase. PS - The result of this RM, will determine my position in this page's KHL counterpart. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also per Playoff Format history, which uses uppercase. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that comments on this !vote have been moved to a discussion section below.[6]

Discussion

[edit]
A relevant guideline is MOS:CAPS:

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization...Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Draft Kings is a gambling website and should not be considered a reliable source. Also, Light House Hockey is a sub sector of SB Nation, which is a reliable source. Conyo14 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further: the NBC New York article uses both capitalized and lowercase. NHL.com only lowercased their title, which cannot be used for the data you're presenting. The Guardian lowercases "conference" proceeding Western, which is just wrong. Sports Illustrated only lowercases for their sub title, everything else is capital C and F. Sportsnet uses capital "F" for the "Eastern Conference Final", but in prose uses conference finals, so I don't know what to make of that. It's the same with Sports Media Watch and AP News. Everything else is consistent in lowercase. Perhaps expand your search to include the newspapers of past conference finalists. Conyo14 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, what's your position in the 'survey' section? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsnet uses capital "F" for the "Eastern Conference Final", but in prose uses conference finals, so I don't know what to make of that. It's the same with Sports Media Watch and AP News: It could be that those specific source treat "Eastern Conference Finals" and "Wesrtern Conference Finals" as a proper noun. But the title we are discussing is the RM page's title, and for that they lowercase "NHL conference finals".—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's a bit awkward discerning the two due to the nature of context. Especially in that, I thought it was settled with this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive81#RfC: NHL round names capitalization. After all, how can you have conference finals without an Eastern and Western Conference playoff structure. It would be in the best interest to consider more sources over a period of 40 years since that's how long the conference final has existed. Conyo14 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC close ends with In sum, I do find a consensus against capitalization. Is there some nuance I'm missing? —Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, proceeding that RfC I chose to not deal with this page since it had the RM close as no consensus. So now with data that purports around the fact of the capital "f", it makes it more confusing for me. It's okay. I'm not positioning myself to a side yet. Conyo14 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that at that RFC, you removed "Finals" from the proposal after there was already overwhelming support for lowercasing it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
huh? Conyo14 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned an RFC above. I'm pointing out how you eviscerated it in this edit. Did I misinterpret something? Dicklyon (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eviscerated? What a word... doesn't seem very appropriate tonnage though. If I recall correctly, and frankly, it was eight months ago, I narrowed the scope. SCf vs SCF is more contentious to debate. Though if you had a problem with that, you should have started the RfC yourself, instead of having me do it. Conyo14 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a fine word. By removing "Finals" from the RFC, you ripped the guts out of it, leaving it for later contention, rather than letting the consensus there prevail. Dicklyon (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the last RM was only a year ago. I'm contacting the rest of the editors @WikiWikiWayne, Randy Kryn, The Kip, Cinderella157, Deadman137, BarrelProof, Oknazevad, Ravenswing, Sbaio, Leventio, SMcCandlish, Old Naval Rooftops, and Masterhatch: who participated then, that have yet to chime in to the current RM. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Also those participating in the recent related RM at Talk:NBA conference finals that might not have seen this one yet: @SounderBruce, Firefangledfeathers, and BD2412:. I hope I didn't miss anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And some from the related discusstion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#NHL Conference Finals moved to NHL conference finals: @SportingFlyer, Flibirigit, and Hey man im josh:. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about GoodDay's !vote

[edit]
  • NHL.com is not independent, and is anyways just one source, while MOS:CAPS' guidance is to consider what a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources do. —Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about nhl.com pages like this one or this one? And are you also planning to extend the result to Stanley Cup Final, where nhl.com caps "Final" but most sources don't? It's hard to tell what principals are behind your statements. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey now, both of you are bludgeoning the process. Please discuss below here. Conyo14 (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bludgeoning? Are you saying that a nonsense rationale in a !vote should just be left without comment? Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments on other people's responses, which are usually unneeded by the way, go in the discussion section, not here.
    And calling someone else's rationale "nonsense" just because you disagree is terribly uncollaborative behavior and you know it. You've already put in your 2¢. Let other people contribute without feeling the need to belittle others. oknazevad (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not belittling anyone. I agree with his observation that "NHL.com's Playoff Format uses uppercase", just don't see how that supports his opposition here, or why a result here would apply to another league, after how much he protested against such when I tried it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you don't see it as belittling is the problem. oknazevad (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oknazevad: Comments on other people's responses, which are usually unneeded by the way, go in the discussion section, not here Isn't that unique to Arbcom, where it's explictly written at WP:ARC. Otherwise, the policy WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS advises to ...work out the dispute through discussion, which sometimes involves replies and follow ups. Has something changed? —Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's long been considered good practice at RFCs to keep the survey section to people's !votes to make it easier on closers to gauge the consensus. Discussion should go below, and if further discussion leads someone to change their mind it's up to them to strike their initial !vote and replace it. Otherwise the survey portion becomes bogged down in pointless back-and-forth. There's a separate discussion sub-section for a reason. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an RfC regular, but I've generally seen the "Discussion" section to be about a topic not directly related to an existing !vote, or someone wanting to discuss a topic to fomulating a possible !vote. Breaking up the response from the original post interrupts the flow. The back and forth is part of a normal discussion, WP:WABBITSEASON being the exception. —Bagumba (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I, a heated topic, there's a whole slew of proposals, each with "support", "oppose", and "discussion" sections; there are direct indented responses to !votes there. —Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Masterhatch's !vote

[edit]

The link to an nhl.com page capping "Conference Finals" and the statement "plus same reasons I gave a year ago in this same RM" don't relate to our capitalization and title guidelines. What the NHL does is not very relevant, as Bagumba pointed out when GoodDay cited the same page. We worked through this at the RM discussion linked in the proposal (Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024). When I wrote in the proposal "Maybe we can avoid re-hashing the settled issues about what the policies and guidelines say" I meant to discourage repeating discussion of issues settles there, where at least 3 editors quoted the MOS:CAPS guideline about "independent, reliable sources". This issue was also discussed in more depth at the NFL Draft capitalization RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles, where the closer emphasized "substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" as a key relevant guideline.

As for "same reasons I gave a year ago", that was "I agree with Ravenswing. The NHL capitalises, so should we." Same flaw: both untrue per search at nhl.com and irrelevant per our guideline MOS:CAPS. Ravenswing had said the same thing, with more words: "Here's the relevant, specific point: that this usage reflects the official name that the league employs for these things. This notion that the MOS somehow supersedes official formal titles -- or that individual editors know better than the league as to what the NHL is permitted to call its own institutions -- is getting very, very tiresome." But this is still untrue (that is, nhl.com uses "NHL conference finals", not capped), and exactly contrary to our style and title guidelines. Not just MOS:CAPS, but also title policy, where WP:UCRN says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". Not that that's about how to style the commonname, but it definitely says that the NHL is not the right place to look, in spite of Ravenswing's rant.

There's a longstanding broadly supported consensus to follow MOS:CAPS in titles, and really no good reason we should even be here discussing this, so having the same opposing statements from the few who don't like our guidelines, or who don't like to follow guidelines, is just compounding the waste of time. Let's get beyond this please. Dicklyon (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"@Ravenswing:'s rant"? GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to this bit: "This notion that the MOS somehow supersedes official formal titles -- or that individual editors know better than the league as to what the NHL is permitted to call its own institutions -- is getting very, very tiresome." by Ravenswing. Obviously nobody is comparing Wikipedians' knowledge to the league's, nor suggesting any limitation on what the NHL calls its institutions, or how it styles them in its publications. We're only talking about what WP does. In that sense, yes, the MOS supersedes, and if Ravenswing finds that tiresome, he need not bother the rest of us with that feeling, in such as attack-like rant. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not (or shouldn't be) Wikipedia's place, to dictate how something should be named. We've gotta be mindful of WP:RGW, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Our choices have an out-sized influence on what others do (e.g. see what happens to capitalization of Eastern and Western Conference F/finals after WP starts capping those in the early 2000s), but we are not in the business of telling them what they can and can't do, style and name wise, in their own writings. That's why MOS:CAPS tells us to look at what sources do. Dicklyon (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]

Something the oppose votes might want to consider. The NHL's horrible redesign of a website made capitalizing a lot more inconsistent. While the NHL Official Guide & Record Book is still consistent, I feel the !votes made last time are much less strong when even the primary source is confused about their own silly caps. Conyo14 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Still, what the NHL does is not relevant, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really has to change for the good of both the reader and the encyclopedia, or be WP:IAR disregarded or lessened. Official names are often what the public is exposed to and commonly recognizes. There really should exist most leeway in the strict acceptance of MOS:CAPS as to commonly-recognized official names, and both should be factors in weighing capping decisions. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offering a different point of view, Wikipedia's independence from the subjects of its articles is part of what makes it valuable. People come to Wikipedia instead of going to promotional websites in order to get away from the marketing spin and try to get a more objective, complete and contextualized understanding of the subjects rather than just what benefits the interests of some promoter. Personally, I find puffery and promotional styling to be irritating, even when it is relatively subtle – sometimes especially when it is relatively subtle. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is clear about relying on independent sources. If you still believe the NHL's preference should be included, refer to the guideline WP:POINTY:

If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns.

—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading into my comments. I meant generally, not specifically to this RfC. BarrelProof, I enjoyed your clear analysis, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your otherwise unqualified comments were made in an RM. It's assumed you were talking about this RM. However, I accept your clarification that your comment was WP:TALKOFFTOPIC here. —Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Bagumba - What's your position in the survey? GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I often wait to see a range of arguments before committing. So far, the only rationale for capitalizing is the NHL's preference, but the MOS relies on independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is off-topic, and want to make that clear. I was answering the comments just above mine assuming my reply fit Dicklyon's comment. Many if not most discussions about caps that otherwise seem normal proper names get guideline-blocked, so no, I was not referring to this one (actually thinking more of the recent discussion at United States Capitol rotunda). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Randy. What's your position in the survey? GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Would be more comfortable with uppercasing if the proper name "NHL Eastern Conference Finals" etc. were used. Just as long as the lowercasers stay away from Stanley Cup Finals I'm good with the present trend of the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon Stanley Cup Finals, NHL Entry Draft, etc, would likely some day face an RM. Whoever chooses to open them. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so on the Stanley Cup Finals, that's pretty much baked into the culture. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your n-grams link (or this one) shows "Stanley Cup Finals" barely pulled ahead of "Stanley Cup finals" after Wikipedia started capitalizing it (which came mostly from this 2007 edit to the article that Stanley Cup Finals redirected to at the time). What culture are you saying it's baked in to? Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U.S., Canadian. Don't tell me you are going after the Stanley Cup Finals too (okay, tell me)? I think that's when the goalie-masked Wikipedians man the barricades. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a whole user page dedicated to the sourcing on the Finals. So, if it happens, I'll have plenty of backing. Digression aside, let's focus back on the task at hand. Conyo14 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

[edit]

Most of the editors who've been pinged to this RM, haven't chimed in & it's been a few days since the last 'survey' post. I see no reason for re-listing & so if there's no objections? I'll request closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, when the RM tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I know I didn't !vote, but I think the votes are pretty clear. Conyo14 (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NHL_conference_finals&oldid=1218599111"