Talk:2008 Stanley Cup Finals

Game recaps should include?

This is kind of last minute, but what are we going to put into the recaps for each game? I would obviously think each goal, and assists. But what about penaltys, etc.? And then obviously the prose recaps: How in-depth should they be? I think if we can get a good system this year, it should be easy to re-use in the future. Thanks! Blackngold29 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the same format as 2007 Stanley Cup Finals? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I figured someone might have a new idea about something. Blackngold29 03:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably should just leave them the way they are. I don't see any problems with :it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stats?

Should there be a section for statistics? I was thinking along the lines of this. It wouldn't be worth limiting it to the "leaders" because I don't think the numbers will get too high. Thanks! Blackngold29 14:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For just the finals, I'd lean towards no. I think it would be repetitive information and would clutter the page. Since we're listing goals, assists, and penalties already, that should be fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Page title

I've move-protected this article after there have been 2 moves. Lets discuss whether or not the page should be titled " 2008 Stanley Cup Finals " or " 2008 Stanley Cup Final ". I personally think it should be Final (no 's'), as that is what the NHL is calling it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The logo which is included in the article itself ommits the "s". It seems to me if the NHL is also doing so we should omit it also. Blackngold29 17:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Only issue with that is that the most common name should be used, which from my opinion in Canada anyways is Finals with an S. I don't care which we use as long as all the corrisponding articles are also changed. -Djsasso (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Right; if we change it to ..Stanley Cup Final , then we'll need to change all of the articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove the s, as there's only one series (the Final). GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I do not really care either way as long as all the Cup Finals have a consistent naming convention. To me it seems like a WP:ENGVAR issue. All the major Canadian media are using it without while the major USA media including NBC [1] is using the S. I remember getting into a similar discussion a few years ago where it seemed that only Americans use the S when a final round is contested in a "best-of" format; no other variety of English uses that convention. Of course, the league's headquarters is in Toronto, so they would use it without the S. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I say remove the "s" to stick with the official name.-Wafulz (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the reason I thought I always heard the s on the end was that it was a series of games, not just one game. Anyways I am with you that as long as we use one version through all the articles I am happy. I posted a link to this discussion on the project page so more project members can comment. -Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I can see why everyone would want to be consistant, but if the NHL itself is not being consistant; should we not follow them and keep the same title that they call it? On the other hand, If we are going to rely on the media over the NHL (which I've seen arguments about relying on media over a band on info concerning their albums (ie. notable sources over band or NHL)) then we evidently have to pick either the US or Canada's spelling it. And I don't see how we could say one is correct and the other is not. Blackngold29 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically it would come down to WP:ENGVAR which says use the version that was used by the first editor. Which in this case would be the version with an S. However, I think it looks like most people are starting to say move them to the version without an S so engvar is probably moot in this case. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the ToS still a guideline, or an official policy? If it is only a guideline I see no big deal about removing the S for this year and keeping it as is in the past, but if it is policy then we have to decide which one to choose. Perhaps asking someone here? Blackngold29 17:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still a guideline, but I think this is very much an either/or situation. If we are going to change this one we have to change all of them for consistancy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The link posted earlier about NBC including the S was about last season, although they continue to use it this year, Reuters has no S, the NHL has no S. And if the above claim is true than Canada is also leaving the S out. So it would appear NBC is the only news source who is including it. Blackngold29 18:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I never though about it, but now that it has been brought up it should be a no-brainer: The NHL calls it the "Stanley Cup Final". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do a simple Google News search with the query "Stanley Cup Final" in quotations, there are 3,164 results. If you search for the query "Stanley Cup Finals" in quotations, there are 9,313 results. —Sukh17 ^Talk 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is most important for verification. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but as mentioned above articles are supposed to be named the name they are known by in most common ussage. -Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this is what the guidelines say, but I still think we should stick to the official name. The redirect will solve any problems. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup I know, was just pointing it out. -Djsasso (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline says that the title should be recognizable, unambiguous, and not confusing. I don't think having "Final" over "Finals" causes any issues.-Wafulz (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I was just pointing out that was the reason google hits may be valid. I have already said I care not which method is used as long as its used throughout. -Djsasso (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking over the most recent years; 2007 uses "Final" and before that (from 2002-2004, 2006) the logos used by the NHL contained neither word. It was just East v West Stanley Cup. So from what I can see NBC is the only source that has ever used the S. Blackngold29 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's used with an S in Canada as well. CBC (argueably the most highly reguarded hockey broadcaster in the world) uses it. CBC. There are probably better links but I just picked the first one off the list that popped up. -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really consistent on their site. cbcsports.ca has "final" and "finals" within the current main article and the scoreboard, respectively.-Wafulz (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also. this is on the front page of cbc.ca.-Wafulz (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

During Game 1 coverage all the Versus graphics showed it as Final, though the announcers used Final and Finals interchangeably. I think some of the problem is that they only changed it last year, and everyone's still used to calling it the Stanley Cup Finals. I sure prefer it that way, but it doesn't appear to be how it's supposed to be now.-- SonicAD (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

People keep saying that it was "changed" for this year, but as I stated earlier, I can't find anyone other than NBC who has exclusively called it the "Finals". Who made this "change"? Blackngold29 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a stickler but after googling "NHL.com" and "Stanley Cup Finals" a fairly large number of official team pages came up and called them the Stanley Cup Finals. So my guess is that at the same time they tacked the word "Final" on the graphic they stopped calling it Finals in press releases. That's just conjecture though, as I still see them using Finals on a number of NHL official pages. -Djsasso (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't fully trust the NHL official pages, as they're not fully reliable. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can. I am just saying there is alot of ambiguity out there. Even at the official NHL pages. :P -Djsasso (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know; just making sure others know. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we tend to use the common name, which would mean "finals" I would think, since it's mostly referred to that way. But here is an NHL usage of "final" before this season, in 2006. -- bmitchelf•T•F 01:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the name comes from 'final games'. The Stanley Cup Final sounds like just one game. If the consensus is to change all of them, I hope I get some help in the changing. Most articles use the word Finals in the lead. The NBA articles use the word Finals in the title as well. The NBA seems to be continuing to use the plural. If the graphic is changed, then I guess the NHL has definitely changed the name. It is their championship, so they can do what they want. As the person who created most of the articles, I guess I should go on record as not being opposed; I don't really care. It's not that important. Maybe we should follow the lead of the NBA and just call the articles from 1926 onward as '(year) NHL Final'. Maybe the same for the playoff articles -- e.g. 2008 NHL Championship. The Cup is the trophy. Alaney2k (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think now that the no S version redirects to this version it matters even less which way we name it. Only thing I can think of is adding redirects from the non-S version to the to S versions for the other years. -Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ummm ... I wouldn't be quite so sanguine that one version is en-ca and the other is en-us. I just tried Googling the terms on the Canadian Google, and "Stanley Cup Finals" outnumbers "Stanley Cup Final" 3:1.  Ravenswing  10:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, I personally always thought it was the opposite, that the no S version was the american version. It wasn't until this conversation that I heard people think it was the other way around. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're now supposed to call it the "Stanley Cup Final" (which sounds asinine for a multiple-game series), then why aren't we also being told to call the entire postseason the "Stanley Cup Playoff" under the theory that the entire process constitutes a single playoff? But I do think the page reads oddly when "final" and "finals" are used alternately the way it is now. My inclination is to change them all to "finals" because that's how most people refer to the series. 1995hoo (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to consider a separate name? E.g. '2008 NHL championship', or '2008 Stanley Cup championship'? Definitely, the more common name within the media and among fans is 2008 Stanley Cup Final(s). However, it is somewhat ambiguous and not informative to non-fans. If we use an 'encyclopedic name' then we don't have to debate using an 's' or not, which kind of seems lame? Anyway, the names are just some samples, my point is maybe a separate title maybe more suitable? Alaney2k (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its just my perception but with a name like that I would expect to see the entire playoffs. I think leaving it as is with redirect from either the S version or the no S version is still the best way to go. Which version is the redirect doesn't really matter to me. -Djsasso (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NBC was also calling it Final during Game 3. -- SonicAD (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am becoming more convinced that we should label each individual final series as 'XXXX Stanley Cup Final'. This sort of series is properly called a 'championship final', but the common title has simply eliminated the championship part. (Really, the most correct title would be 'XXXX Stanley Cup Championship Final', but that is just too long) Commonly, we call the series the Finals, as in 'in the finals', but that is not a proper title. We should use a proper title. Alaney2k (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki standards actually say the opposite, that we should title pages based on their common name if it is different from their official name. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that 'XXXX Stanley Cup Finals' is not a name, it's a mish-mash of terms. There are games in a Tennis cup final match. So, I'm arguing that we should use good English, or keep good English in mind. The best title, in terms of english is to use 'championship final', but there are, arguably, two common names. The Finals, I agree, is the most common name, although it seems that the NHL has decided on an 'official' title. We should keep championship final in mind in terms of the copy. It is more of a question of what redirects and what is the final article title that should be employed here. Alaney2k (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• An RFC in 2016 has ended with keeping the current title with the "S". Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Path to the Final section

I agree that it needs expanded, but I don't really know what is notable and what is not. Would something like the fan support for the Penguins throughout the season (all games sold out) be notable enough for the section? Or would an overview of the actual teams' regular season play be more appropriate? Ideas? Also, I can only really write so much about Detroit since I've paid little attention to them throughout the regular season, so if anyone could help in that area it would be appreciated. Thanks! Blackngold29 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically that section should only contain a brief overview of the path through the playoffs that each team had to take. The only thing from the regular season should be for example that Detroit was the Presidents Trophy winner. The other information you mentioned would be in the individual season pages for the two teams. The path to the final section is a summary of the 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs article basically. Just like that article will have a summary of this one. -Djsasso (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Viewer ratings

"[Game two] was the most-watched Stanley Cup finals cable telecast in six years." (source) The series is also the most watched Final since 2002; and I'd be suprised if more viewers don't watch not that the series is moving to NBC in the US. I think this is pretty notable, but I don't know if it's enough to warrent its own section just yet. Blackngold29 21:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have viewer figures on the latter games in the final(s)? I don't want to add a new section until we can say how many people watched most of the games. Thanks! Blackngold29 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Michel Therrien's comments

Should the article mention Michel Therrien's controverial comments and accusations? [2] Are they important enough or just the usual stuff? --neonwhite user page talk 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so as every opposing team will claim the stars of the other team are floping so its not that unique. But thats just my opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless he makes some big controversial accusation, I don't think it's notable. There was a Detroit player last night who made a similar comment during an interview between periods; complaining about refs is nothing new. Now that Pitt has won I think it'll stop. Blackngold29 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. What's controversial about that? People pop off every hard fought series. Now if Therrien said that Chris Osgood was a crack dealer or Zetterberg clubbed baby seals in the offseason, that'd be another matter.  Ravenswing  18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In the hockey offseason or the seal-hunting offseason? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to get off topic, but that was the funniest thing I've read in about a month. Blackngold29 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Osgood has been accused of diving already, however, after Ribeiro hit him with his stick in the Dallas–Detroit series. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referring more to the videos shown to the referees who backed him up. --neonwhite user page talk 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the page?

After fifth game finished to the advantage of Penguins, first I saw a probably Red wings fan writing "Penguins Won, Fuck" and then after one minute it was changed by a probable Penguins fan to "Won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" and then few minutes later by somebody else everything was removed. Before I was thinking it is written by specific person in sport part of Wiki. Should somebody stop easy access of those fans? at least for few seconds after the game?

Why not just wait a half-hour to make the official version? The nuts will dissipate by then... 164.107.92.215 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is kind of expected in a current sports event like this. Just undo the edits (or remove them), warn them for vandalism, chuckle, move on. Blackngold29 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics

Please remember to hide diacritics on this article; as it's NHL related. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears some people have forgotten to do so. Thanks for hiding them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You might as well just remove them as you see them and not make a big deal about it. They will be added by people. Making a stink every single time isn't going to do anything. -Djsasso (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, I've thrown in the towel. I can't keep up with the inclusionists & the passers-by anymore. There's simply too many NHL related articles to keep an eye on. Oh well, I was advised of the difficulty. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these points notable from last night's game?

I watched last night's game. There are two things not in the article from the game that I thought might be notable, I just need clarification from someone else.

1) I think it should be made clearer that for the winning goal, Fleury was the one who knocked the puck into the net, and not a Wings player.

2) Should it be noted that the Penguins almost scored with about 3 seconds left in the game, potentially the tying goal?

MarkLucas (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interest in GA?

Is there anyone who is interested in getting this article up to Good Article status? I will help, but I don't want to do it by myself. I think it would be beneficial to future years if we have a solid template to work off. Thanks. Blackngold29 03:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a worthwhile thing to do, but it is too soon to nominate. Besides cites, etc., we don't know the list of names which will be engraved on the Cup. That's listed for all of the previous Final articles. Alaney2k (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

DO you have any ideas of stuff we can do before then. I'm not sure, but I think each player only needs to be internally linked once in the prose. Therefore any player who is linked in Game 1 Doesn't need it in Game 2. I would think the same goes for the recaps. Anything else we can do now? Blackngold29 16:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For GA status, I would just look and find references for any statement that could possibly be questioned. Make sure the endashes are used for scores. Maybe also add a bit more prose for game 4, it seems short compared to the others. If you want to take it a step further for FA status you would need to make sure all the red links are gone, there are two in the infobox, either unlink them or preferably create articles for them. -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about that. The cup engraving can be added later. 2007 is finished with all sections. That may be easier to get to GA first. Alaney2k (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I created an article for Marc Joanette, meaning there's just the one red link left. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'm going to create one for the other referee later. MarkLucas (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I created an article for Brad Watson as well, so there are no red links anymore. The articles aren't too detailed, but without more digging than I'm willing to do right now, it's hard to get info on referees. MarkLucas (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable, I didn't expect there to be much more than what you put. I just know the first thing they mention when reviewing articles is red links. So if you can get rid of them before hand the better. -Djsasso (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Players commented out of the rosters

There are some players commented out of the rosters (<!-- -->). Are they there for any good reason, or can they be removed? I assume they were put there so, in case of injury, their information was ready to go. (Note to self: User:Zzyzx11 added the rosters, including the commented-out players.) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of finals appearances

Weren't McCarty and Draper both also on the 1995 Red Wings roster? Rejectwater (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Also, the first sentence in the "Rosters" section states that "Years indicated in boldface under the "Finals appearance" column signify that the player won the Stanley Cup in the given year." However, I cannot see any years in boldface there. --Kompik (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No they weren't. They have only been to the finals 4 times each. -Djsasso (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the template have to be deleted?

I'm talking about the championship roster template below on the page. There's no reason to. It's good. All the MLB championship teams on wikipedia have one, so why not hockey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbamickmac (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that it just adds unnecessary extra clutter to the page. You're welcome to review and comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:2008 Stanley Cup Finals. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)