Talk:2007 Stanley Cup Finals

Finals or Final

Is official name Stanley Cup Finals or Stanley Cup Final. On logo is Final? Kedarus 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the official name is Final, as this is the name used on the NHL website also. Move the page, I guess? Comrade Tux 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Finals should be used as the event is plural. There is more than one game. That's the way the NBA articles do it, plus you very rarely hear "Stanley Cup Final" in the vernacular. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the series as a whole could be taken as singular. There is one championship series. While "Stanley Cup Final" may rarely be spoken in the vernacular, the logo designed by the NHL clearly reads "Final" as does everything else written on their website. See this image off their front page: [1]. 160.39.225.114 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The NHL has officially renamed it the "Stanley Cup Final" so the page should reflect this

Game times

Does anyone else think that the times should be in a uniform time? I thought they were always listed in EDT. Jmlk17 07:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In the playoffs article, they were listed in the home team's time. So I carried over the standard - although it might be better to list the time zones for both the teams, so they could all be listed as "8:00pm EDT/5:00pm PDT". Comrade Tux 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Jmlk17 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

West Coast

I edited the original copy here because the previous copy had the 1925 Stanley Cup being won by a team on 'The West Coast of America' when it was actually won by the Victoria Cougars (Canada). hevato

Game templates

I presume we're going to use the game summary template for this page as well. If this is the case, should we also use the main template for the series? Or maybe a single-game fork of it so we can fit in some prose for each game? Comrade Tux 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a single game fork personally, since this series truly does make it or break it for the season. I'll definitely be in on it for sure though. Jmlk17 08:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would go ahead and make the fork, but since it looks like it's going to be replaced with a table, I'm not quite sure what to use. Maybe just having some prose would be best? Comrade Tux 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, giving it some more thought, it would be a good idea to design one now for all the rest of the finals articles that are supposed to be created. Comrade Tux 03:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

CUP FINALS article??

Do we really need this article?? This should be re-directed to the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. This article need an AfD. GoodDay 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We plan to write some prose besides the usual template at the playoffs article. Why not have separate anyway? Other sports (baseball, American football, basketball) get their own articles for the final game/series. Comrade Tux 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it creates duplicate infomation. WP:Hockey came to the concensus to only have it in one location. There is no pressing need to have it in two locations. Especially if there is a redirect in place. --Djsasso 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

By the same rationale, the playoffs article shouldn't exist, because it's duplicate information. We could just list the scores in a table as was done for all previous seasons. Comrade Tux 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't done like that in all previous seasons. This would be the first time that the finals have their own seperate article except for the back when more than one league competed for the cup. And no the playoffs are their own seperate article because they are seperate from the regular season. The finals are not seperate from the playoffs. --Djsasso 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, fine. It'll look a bit weird to have a big block of prose below the Finals and nothing below anything else, though. Comrade Tux 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the entire playoffs should have prose really. I am sure it will eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole playoffs chunk itself gets merged into the main season like the older seasons are. --Djsasso 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ALL Stanley Cup Finals and Stanley Cup Playoffs articles (except for the 'multple league Cup finals'), should be merged/redirected into their respective NHL season articles. Afterall, it's alot of repetative information. Next thing you know, there'll be Conference Finals, Semi-Finals, Quarter-Finals articles. GoodDay 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a ton of prose in the articles that currently exist (2001, 2003, 2004, 2006) besides this year's. All that their respective season articles have are the bracket and scores. Comrade Tux 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Allright then, keep the Playoffs articles. GoodDay 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're all settled on 'redirecting' to 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, can we now redirect this talk page? GoodDay 21:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CUP FINALS article

Yeah, I'm sold on this article (now). Be sure to create other Cup Finals articles aswell. By creating others, it'll show this isn't an article that'll be ignored after the 2007 Finals. GoodDay 20:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I was planning on creating one for the 2006 Finals. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I'm confused. I thought a consensus had said no to this article...Jmlk17 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus" was "established" only a few hours (two, I think) before this article was originally redirected. There's since been more opposition, and there hasn't been any to recreating the article. Comrade Tux 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its all good to recreate it. Though the original concensus was from a concensus from last year when this came up I believe so not quite 2 hours. --Djsasso 23:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh...well, looks like I missed out on it. My apologies. Sounds completely good for me on this end here. I wanted the article the whole time, and am looking forward to working with you all on broadening and expanding it. Jmlk17 05:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Commenting the Article

I'm happy to see it's been pointed out, that this Ottawa Senators franchise is seperate from this Ottawa Senators (Original) franchise. Frustratingly, TSN & HNIC continue to say things like since the Senators re-joined the League.... Anyway, thanks Wikipedia, for being accurate. GoodDay 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Great article guys, but where is Joe Motzko and Ryan Carter?

Sorry folks, but the Ottawa Senators of the current era are reinstated from the previous era. In 1935, the NHL bought out the Ottawa management and players. They took back the franchise. In 1992, the NHL provided the ownership team with a certificate of reinstatement. It's their league, they control the franchises, if they give a certificate of reinstatement, why should we deny it? The Senators wear a patch on their sleeve, it has Est. 1894 on it. They do have a claim of official connection to the past. Obviously they are different eras, different management, different players. But there is no-one around from the original 1909 Canadiens either, folks. This was the first appearance in the finals for the current Senators, but the Senators DO share an official link with the first era Senators. The whole point of the drive back in 89 to 91 was to bring back the senators to Ottawa. That's what people in Ottawa supported, the link to past history, etc. Why rain on the parade? Alaney2k 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Game summaries...

Do we really need them? Meaningful prose is a lot more useful to the average reader than a list of goals and penalties in my opinion. If we're going to have a summary at all, may as well use the old summary template, since it gives a better look (yes, the game parameter is still built into the single-game template). Comrade Tux 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do need them. No use having an artice on the finals if you're just going to least the scores and a small paragraph of prose. I'd like to see more prose myself, but I only really gain interest when the Sens win (and alas they did not) ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the penalties, then? Comrade Tux 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, penalties are normally part of game summaries. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree to keep the summaries. Wausauplanet 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Television Ratings

According to a blurb I read (and have in front of me) in the June 8th, 2007 edition of the Detroit Free Press, 'The Saturday (June 2, game 3) coverage of the NHL Stanley Cup finals between Anaheim and Ottawa had NBC's lowest rating ever for a prime-time broadcast - 1.1 (compared to House's 17.23, Cold Case's 9.03, King Of Queens 8.6, Law & Order CI's 7.41, etc.'. I think this deserves to be in the article, but I'm not sure where it belongs. I'd also like to find more information on the ratings for the other games. PolarisSLBM 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Make sure to include the Canadian ratings which were significantly higher. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ratings for games 4 and 5 don't appear to have been released yet, I'll add those (or someone else can) once they come out, presumably next Monday. PolarisSLBM 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, more lies Bettman told us (concerning California's interest in hockey). GoodDay 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There was interest here, problem was no one gets Versus. He's an idiot for putting the broadcasts for the freaking finals on a station that no one in the local market gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.13.139 (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the ratings for games 4 and 5 on NBC. I haven't been able to find the ratings for those games on CBC yet. It looks to be the least-watched Cup Finals in recent history (in the US, at least). PolarisSLBM 16:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, yes, it should be 'households', not 'viewers'. It slipped my mind at the time, but upon further review of my source material it indeed confirms that each rating point is '1,096,000 households. The Canadian ratings point equals 735,000 households. PolarisSLBM 14:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sens over Ducks

At pretty much every opportunity, the prose favours the Sens over the Ducks. Beginning with the 2nd sentence where it says the Sens lost the series, the Sens get mentioned first. I'm pro-balance not pro-Duck but the Ducks won. How their victory was notable (2nd Duck appearance, first Duck win, first first-time winner since 99, first West Coast team winner since 1925, third-straight time Sunbelt team defeated a Canadian franchise) should lead the list. The "firsts" for making the Finals and losing should be after the firsts for the win. And the academic debate about the history of the Sens franchise and banners should be much further down in the article. Canuckle 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the academic part about the Sens, I agree that it doesn't belong. I hope I've made the text better. I'll review to see if I've made it more even. However, I do think there is more to say about the Sens? Alaney2k 05:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Sports/Everybody+crucifying+Dany/1746009/story.html
  • In 2007 Stanley Cup Finals on 2011-05-26 03:01:52, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Stanley Cup Finals on 2011-05-27 15:19:05, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Stanley Cup Finals on 2011-06-15 18:06:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Stanley Cup 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071017124241/http://canada.com:80/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5f37beb9-e64b-4762-a467-cef15d0eb37c&k=89106 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5f37beb9-e64b-4762-a467-cef15d0eb37c&k=89106

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)