Talk:Stanley Cup/Archive 1

Hi there!

Can somebody explain the 1927 Games numbers 2-0-2 ?? / 82.182.115.84 17:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

During that time, unlike today, tied games may not have been decided with a sudden-death overtime. Before the advent of sudden-death overtime, ties were resolved with full overtimes (this explains one incident where one team scored three goals in overtime in a 5-2 victory) or were not resolved at all (one game in the abandoned Stanley Cup Finals series was a tie). There could also be the case where it was a sudden-death overtime, but the game was abandoned for other reasons. The true cause still eludes me... kelvSYC 17:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! So the game was tied in 1927? :) 82.182.115.84 04:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would assume 2 games were tied given the 2-0-2 standings. Remember that back then, they didn't have giant refridgeration units to maintain the ice nor even Zambonis. Much of the time games would end due to environmental reasons and what ever the score was at the time, that was the final outcome. Abmoraz 21:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps 82.182.115.84 is from Europe where the convention is Wins-Ties-Losses, as opposed to North America where it's Wins-Losses-Ties (or the ever confusing W-L-T-OTL-SOL-...whatever else they think of next). Anyway, the original writer was probably North American and meant 2 wins and 2 ties. --Grmagne 19:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The actual facts in the 1927 series was that the two tied games (as happened with a number of overtime games in NHL history) were called due to curfew laws in both Boston and Ottawa. RGTraynor 03:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Cups

Maybe I'm wrong, which is why I didn't edit, but if anyone can back me up - I remember very clearly reading somewhere that the real Cup is the one presented to the team (I'm very sure about this one, besides, it would be common sense that the winners get the real thing), one duplicate is displayed in the Hall of Fame and used for public displays and promotions, the other duplicate is kept in a vault. --Legalizeit 13:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the second duplicate in the vault, but according to this [NHL.com - The Stanley Cup] you are correct, the original gets presented to the team (at least at the Finals), and a duplicate (that doesn't have spelling mistakes) is in the hall of fame. Mtruch 14:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Over the years the bowl and top rings have been replaced, and they are in a locked vault in the HHOF. So it's really three-and-a-bit. kelvSYC 06:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Series vs. Trophy

This really seems to be two different articles, one on the Stanley Cup series and one on the trophy itself. My thought is that the article should be split as such, perhaps into Stanley Cup finals and Stanley Cup (trophy); any comments or concerns? Jgm 18:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Stanley Cup finals, although today is synonymous with the NHL's final series, is (on a technicality) unaffiliated with the NHL. The trustees of the Cup decide who gets to play for the Cup, and typically it's between the two NHL conference champions in the modern days. kelvSYC 21:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fascinating, can you add that information to the article? Jgm 00:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that the subject of debate (not to mention at the heart of current legal proceedings?) - Cafemusique 01:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The trustees have sole control of who gets to play for the Cup - it's firmly established as fact. The question regarding the current legal proceedings is that should the Cup be open to challenge by any other league (as technically, the Cup is still a challenge trophy)? Are the trustees essentially legally bound to award the Cup to the NHL and refuse all other challengers? Previous such arguments in the 60s (with leagues in California - not an NHL market at the time - wanting to go major league) and the 70s (with the WHA and the influence of international hockey) favored the NHL, but some say that with the negative effects of the lockout, things might not go the NHL's way anymore. kelvSYC 04:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cup Rings

I think the part about the player with the most stanley cup rings should be reworded, since teams didn't always give out rings in the earlier days.Also, I believe when the Canadiens first gave them out, they would add to the existing ring each year for players who already had a ring (ie add more diamonds or something). I'm not 100% sure about this which is why I didn't edit, but I am fairly sure about at least the first part

I've heard the same thing about the Canadiens adding diamonds to the same ring each time a player won a cup Priester 04:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Brawl

The bit about the Stanley Cup brawl is incomplete. One guy punching a referee is serious, but not a brawl. I read once that this event resulted in benches clearing. Anyone got an old book that says more?

I'm not sure this event is worthy of note, and I recommend deletion. Besides which, there have been other players banned for life in the NHL, namely Don Gallinger and Billy Taylor, both for gambling. Hoghee 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The event is worthy of noting, as it is a rare occurence during the Stanley Cup finals. It also lead to the adoption of new arena security policies. Flibirigit 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Should "rare" occurences comprise general encyclopedia articles? Perhaps it should be in included instead in an article on "violence in the NHL", not the Stanley Cup. As far as I know, it had no effect on any policies relating to Cup play, though I am interested in your source that it affected "arena security policies." Hoghee 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Today

Henri Richard was not "The Rocket". That nickname belongs to his older brother, the late Maurice Richard who was legendary for his offensive hockey skill. As for Henri, he was usually referred to in the english-language media as "the Pocket Rocket". http://www.hhof.com/html/exSCJ_15.shtml

Thanks for your correction! -- user:zanimum

play-off

I think there could be described in this article how the play-off is organized - the number of teams taking part in it, who plays who in which round, how many games are played and so on. Jan.Kamenicek 21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Playoff ceremony

I'm not sure how to say this, but shouldn't we put a picture of a team (any team, or maybe just a player we can all think about), holding the standley cup after winning the playoffs? Wouln't that be a good pic, and we could put if for nomination for the pictures! :) paat 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a non-copyrighted or otherwise PD pic. RGTraynor 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What's PD? paat 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

public domain, basically no copyright. -- JamesTeterenko 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, how do I find whats the copyright if there is one or not? paat 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are grabbing it from another website, look for copyright information on that website. As a warning, most good pictures of athletes available on the web are under copyright and not suitable for Wikipedia. For some sources of free pictures, check out Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. -- JamesTeterenko 02:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I think it would be appropriate if there were a picture of the current Stanley Cup, not just the original one. If anyone has a usable one, please upload it. Patrick 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate if busybodies didn't delete every pic out, too. RGTraynor 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Rideau Canal

"A member of the 1905 Ottawa Silver Seven tried to see if he could drop kick the Cup across the Rideau Canal. The attempt failed, and the Cup was not retrieved until the next day; luckily the river was still frozen over."

The Rideau canal is a canal, not a river as its name implies. I haven't changed this however because they could be referring to the Rideau River and not the canal.--72.57.229.236 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)fred

"Coincidence"?

It's an interesting piece of trivia, but is it important, in the grand scheme of things? Does the success of a baseball team really have anything to do with a hockey trophy? Maybe it's just me... Doogie2K 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and reverted. RGTraynor 14:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Playoff games of note

Isn't it odd that only none of the playoff games of note actually focus on the play on the ice? One is about a fight, the two others about events where no one actually played hockey. I think it would be better if there was made a "Years the Stanley Cup was not awarded" section, and a "Playoff series of note" with e.g. the time (1942) the Maple Leafs won 4-3 after trailing the Red Wings 0-3. Or the start of the Islanders (1980) or oilers (1984) dynasties. What do you think? JesperLærke 08:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne Clarkson

I assume this issue must have come up before, but during the lockout then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson threatened to take the cup from the NHL and give it to the best Canadian Womens Hockey Team. She later backed down when the idea wasn't popular and created the Clarkson Cup. This raises an interesting question regarding who is the legal owner of the Stanley Cup, and if it is indeed still held in trust by the people of Canada. Anyone want to add something about this ? Dowew 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The NHL is the legal custodian of the Cup and has been for eighty years. The Cup Trustees could, of course, vote to change that, since they have complete legal control over the Cup, but the Trustees have been NHL appointees for decades and consistently vote the way the league wishes. RGTraynor 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jazzier intro

I think this article could use a better intro. How do you like the following?

The Stanley Cup is the trophy awarded to the winners of the annual National Hockey League playoffs. It is one of the most-recognized symbols in North American sports and is at the center of several legends and superstitions. The cup is treated like royalty, attended to by full-time chaperones who carry it with white gloves. Unlike the trophies awarded by the other three major professional sports leagues of North America, the Stanley Cup is never copied. The cup winners keep it for only one year, unless they repeat as league champions.

Mwalcoff 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The lead section should also include a very brief paragraph about it originally being the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the intro really needs a whole paragraph on the original name? Personally, I think the original name can simply be mentioned in the history section. -- Mwalcoff 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if you or someone else plans on eventually promoting this to either good article status or featured article status. As per Wikipedia:Lead section, the intro should "give a broad overview of the subject", which in my opinion includes how it was originally used as a challenge cup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK -- how would you work that in? -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you would like, you can add your idea for the intro, and I'll add my idea after you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the current lead is that it contradicts the lower claim about the current cups; the intro says it's never been copied, and then the lower section says there are actually two copies. According to NHL.com, the original trophy is still awarded; according to the Hockey Hall of Fame, the original bowl was retired (although it doesn't say when it was retired), which means that the current trophy awarded and carried around by the winning team is not necessarily the one that's been drop-kicked, urinated in, etc. It would be nice to have an authority on the Cup rewrite these parts and clarify exactly what the truth is. - dharmabum 22:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a little more; the original bowl and collar were retired in 1962 according to this. - dharmabum 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to modify the lead a bit to clarify it. However, as you probaly noticed based on your recent edits, this article needs to be cleaned up becuase of the lack of references or source. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Spliting the "Traditions and anecdotes" section

I am thinking about spliting the "Traditions and anecdotes" section into a seperate article -- primarily the lists of adventures, misadventures, and engraving error, which all could go on forever. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Its part of the Stanley Cup's history. No one is going to look for a separate article for the traditions and anectdotes relating to the Stanley Cup. It should stay here. --The Animal 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with The Animal. The section should remain part of the article. Flibirigit 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with The Animal as well. The section should remain part of the article. -- P199 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with The Animal as well. The section should remain part of the article. -- Jimerb 13:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

1. The Stanely Cup is infact duplicated, three identical ones currently in the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame, 2. The NHL "adopted" the Stanley Cup as the Championship trophy in 1947 not 1926 3. There was no agreement between the NHL and the PCHA 4. The following statement is inaccurate that needs a reliable source “After the Portland Rosebuds joined the PCHA in 1914, the trustees declared that the Cup was to be symbolic of world hockey supremacy” First the desition was made in 1915, secondly it wasn’t the trustees that made that desiction it was the Governement of Canada 5. There in no agreement in place and never has been that the Stanley Cup could only be awared to an NHL champions.--StanleyPuck 04:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at my sources again, clarified and reconfirmed it. If you have any sources that differ, please include it. Otherwise, you have no proof and thus it stays. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Stanley's Mug

I took out the description of "Lord Stanley's Mug" as a colloquial expression because it is not commonly used in speech. It's tired journalistic wit. Not a crucial point but I thought I'd better explain it. John FitzGerald 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And how the Cup is depicted in the media is at least as important as otherwise. Sheesh, 95% of the recorded nicknames in player articles are media inventions. A bunch of hockey fans in a bar would never have referred to the "Stratford Streak" or "Mr. Hockey" or "The Great One." RGTraynor 04:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what your saying, execpt for the "The Great One", Whayne Gretzky is commonly referred to as "The Great One". Marcus1060 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in ordinary conversation between three-dimensional people (grins). RGTraynor 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No players with the cup?

Why? An article about the Stanley Cup and there isn't a single picture of a player rasing the cup? --Krm500 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Many such photographs are copyrighted. If you have a photo that is public domain , please add it. Flibirigit 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the article on Wayne Gretzky. That's a damn good picture to use if you ask me. --Wafulz 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And so it has been done. Flibirigit 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

...except that it is currently tagged as {{Fair use in}}, and only has a fair use rationale for the Gretzky article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia?

I think it would be worthwhile, with the vast history of the cup, to have a trivia section similar to other articles on the Wikipedia. For example, unless I'm mistaken, the Stanley Cup is known as the oldest continuously contested trophey in sports.--Mike Melzer 02:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some controversy over trivia sections in general, see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Also, the essential gist of "the Stanley Cup is known as the oldest continuously contested trophey in sports" is already currently mentioned this article's lead introduction section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand (sit?) corrected. I missed that statement in the write up, and was unaware that trivia was frowned upon. Thanks for the info. I'll go back and reread the posting guidelines before making any further posts.--Mike Melzer 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Most recognized symbol?

"it is the most-recognized symbol in North American sports"

At the very least, this requires a citationCheesy 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The name Stanley Cup

I want to include the mention of the Cup being referred to as the Stanley Cup as early as 1899, as cited in Hockey: Canada's Royal Winter Game (available in full at the Library and Archives of Canada site here). However I can't find the perfect place for it to fit in. So I'm hoping someone has the skill to weasle it in, as it would seem somewhat important to include how early it was being referred to as the Stanley Cup, and not just the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup. Kaiser matias 10:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup finals of note

What is the criteria for choosing which notable finals to list in this section? Otherwise, it seems more POV and original research. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Reply: It is the only game in history of the Stanley Cup final where a game was unfinished and there was circumstances beyond their control.

NHL.com has a citation in the History section. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.108.222 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

1942 Cup

There is a contradiction. It says they were the first team to win on the road in a game 7 finals, but the game listing shows they played at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raguv2000 (talk • contribs)

I am removing it. The source that is cited actually does not say it either. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

In the anecdotes and traditions section, we need a few citations. This is a general notice. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the article. Written pretty good, however I do have some minor issues:

• If I am remembering correctly, they created a new Stanley Cup in order to preseve the old one. If a source is listed, that should be included. There needs to be some reason why they made the first duplicate. In progress. Might be tougher to correct.
• The note about the Rangers taking it to McSorley's Old Ale House, if it can not be cited, should be removed. I've never heard anything about that until reading the article, and there's not citation, and there is plenty of other noted things the Cup has done to be able to removed an unsourced event.
• The Finals of note should just be removed outright. It is rather POV, and one could argue that every finals has been notable for one reason or another. Deleted

Other than those points, I think it could make a good case for FA status. Kaiser matias 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Kaiser did the PR already I just looked over this quickly. A couple of things I noticed:

• Is it really necessary to put the South Park thing there, specifically? It might be better if it said "For other disambiguities, click here" or something. Deleted
• The Adventures and Misadventures lists are kind of long, and long lists are generally not encouraged (unless they're specific list articles like "List of so and so"). Is it possible to convert them into non-bulleted prose?Rewritten
• You can get rid of that last section, because it doesn't pertain to the cup itself.Deleted

That's what I noticed after a quick lookover but for the most part it looks very good. Nice work! Sportskido8 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as when the duplicate was made, it was in 1969. Why? Err, because the original was over 75 years old, had undergone a lot of wear and tear, and silver just isn't that rugged?  RGTraynor  20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the source? That source is probably the difference between GA/A and FA. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked over the article again. It looks a lot better, and very well written. Should make the grade to FA if you submit it, I think. Kaiser matias 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of "Final of Note"

Who wants to get rid of the section outright? I want to see some more consensus as to wheter someone should blank it. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's getting attacked already, I don't think it will last a peer review and/or FA nomination. So removed it. The article won't lose anything without it. Kaiser matias 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley of Preston picture

File:Frederick Stanley.jpg I found this picture on the French Wikipedia. Any thoughts on it? The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This the orignial Cup. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both photos seem notable enough, as long as they have appropriate licensing. Flibirigit 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • License is "expired copyright". Not an issue. Evilclown93 22:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• In a related subject, I replaced a couple of images here that were put up for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a couple of free images from the U.S. Government. It might be helpful to find some more from the Canadian government to balance it out. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Never mind, unlike the U.S. Government, material from the Canadian government is not free content and therefore must follow Wikipedia's strict rules of fair use images, especially if you eventually want this to be promoted to a featured article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the image of Lord Stanley be used in the article? And imo there should be another image then the Glen Wesley one as the first image. Other then that, very good article. --Krm500 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wesley was one of the images I substituted for the one that was put up for deletion on Commons. There has been an ongoing copyright debate concerning images that just depict sports trophies. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeking permission for my images (taken at the HHOF) to be used here and on commons, under GFDL or compatable license. Hopefully they will say okay. --Aude (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the orange shirt is not good. I've cropped the pic to this. Evilclown93 13:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
File:Solo cup copy.JPG

You seem to have missed the whole point of that ongoing copyright debate concerning images that just depict sports trophies i.e. whether an image of just the Stanley Cup is actually fair use: a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art, and thus is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) who owns copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Likely that the Stanley Cup images will stay on commons, though the other trophies will be gone. Reasoning is that the original Cup was created in 1892, and Lord Stanley died in 1908. The copyright on the original cup (in the bank vault) has thus expired. This Stanley Cup is one of two duplicates or replicas -- one created in the 1960s and the second in 1993. According to the Derivative works page, "replicas are copies and not derivative works, which means they're not copyrightable by the person who creates the replica." So, I don't think copyright applies to these Stanley Cups either. --Aude (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As such, I have replaced the lead image with another one from commons. This one is high resolution, but there are some other choices including Image:StanleyCup.jpg (this is a good picture, but the size/resolution isn't quite as high as the other). --Aude (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A few more citation sources

Stephane Matteau taps Wales Trophy: [2]

I'm not sure if they are good enough. Evilclown93 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Or will it be better if the unsourced superstitions are cut anyways? Evilclown93 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

War On Terrorism?

The caption on the photo claims that it visited soldiers who were injured in the war on terrorism. However, this is very unclear to me. Could we be more specific and say the war in Afghanistan, or the war in Iraq?

166.66.106.43 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source of the photo is also unclear.[3] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Hey, just saw the FA objects that this got. The guys who objected to the grammar and references are right. The prose needs to flow and be "brilliant" in every which way and form. I'll see what I can do when I get a chance in the next day or so. But this has to be done quickly or it is going to be shot down, so if any of you can just go through and do this that'd be great. Also make sure the references are consistent (formatted the same throughout). Sportskido8 07:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When exactly do the Stanley Cup champs have to give the Cup back?

For example, the 1998 Red Wings repeated as Stanley Cup champs, but did they, for example, have to give the Cup back before the postseason started, or do they have to give it back when the team is eliminated? Using the 1997 and 1998 Red Wings as an example, did they get to keep the Cup two years straight without having to give it back in between their 1997 and 1998 championship years?76.177.160.69 (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Championship team only gets the Cup for the summer. Each player gets their day with the cup and the cup is usually at the home opener of the winning team. Once the season is back on the cup is frequently used for promotional purposes by the NHL and I have never seen any team physically posses the cup in any promotion after the next season starts. Seen0288 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Anaheim Ducks paraded with the Cup for the Tournament of Roses Parade (in Pasadena, California near Los Angeles) partway into the 2007-08 season. Brad May was with the Cup for Anaheim's parade float. 24.85.1.205 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA

This article will be on hold for GA until image copyright problem is resolved. OhanaUnited 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at this diff. It seems that all is settled now. Evilclown93 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

1. Well written? Pass Y Some WP:WTA are found, but doesn't really affect a lot and pretty hard to avoid using them. So I gave it a pass.

2. Factually accurate? Pass Y Seems to have sufficient information on all important facts and dates with references.

3. Broad in coverage? Fail N It looks like there's too much information on the section "Traditions and anecdotes". Do we really need to get into the details?

4. Neutral point of view? Pass Y

5. Article stability? Pass Y I consider this a pass with due regards to the fact that it changes once a year after a team wins the Stanley Cup.

6. Images? PassY The debate about the image of the cup is over so I give it a pass.

The only thing need to be done is to shorten up the Traditions and anecdotes section. OhanaUnited 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Broad in coverage  Done This article passes GA criteria. OhanaUnited 12:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should include a broad coverage of all anecdotes. I myself would like to add one or two, but i'm limited in my capacity to do so. #29 Phil Borque was a member of the Pittsburgh Penguins when they won in the early 1990's. They won in 91 and 92, but I'm not sure which year he was on the team or which year this happened. While partying at #66 Mario Lemieux's house in Pittsburgh Phil threw the trophy into the pool. The trophy didn't fare well in the chlorene and had to be polished before the parade in downtown Pittsburgh the next day. He told this story a few days ago on the radio. He is currently the color comentator on the radio with Mike Lange on 105.9 The X, whose call letters are WXDX. There was also a commercial that stated the stanley cup engraver in 2001 finally had to learn how to spell Borque. This is incorrect because Phil Borque was already a member of the Pittsburgh Penguins when they won the cup. I apoligize for posting this in the wrong place but I knew if I put this information in here someone more knowledgable could inject it into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.25.81 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to say the Traditions and Anecdotes section should atually be expanded. For a trophy which is held in such high regard with in it's community, it's actually had an incredible, long and eventfull history. That is after all what makes the cup, The Cup. Just a suggestion, if that particular area becomes rather lengthy, it could be moved to a page onto itself. Thank you all for your time, and have a good evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.29.202 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When sections get that long and bloated like this section would be it is split out onto its own article. This one is located at Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup. -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What material is it made up of?

Is it known what the Stanley Cup is made of? I was a little interested in finding this out, but I didn't see any such info included in the intro or anywhere else in the article. What it is made of may be worth including in the article, IMO. Dominicus Cerberus 07:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that it's made of silver several times. --Krm500 09:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that I knew to search for the word "silver," I did find that it was mentioned once that there was a silver band on the cup, and it was stated three or four times in the article that silversmiths worked on the Cup. But if the Cup really is made of pure silver, then I think that should be outright stated somewhere in the intro. At least two of the mentions of silversmiths weren't even made until the middle of the article. Dominicus Cerberus 22:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Main Page

The article is now on the Main Page (big news... Ducks win Cup), so keep an eye out for vandalism. Evilclown93 01:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Engravings

The introduction of the article claims that the Cup is "the only trophy in professional sports that has the name of the winning players, coaches, management, and club staff engraved upon it". The 'Engraving on the Cup' section, later in the article, states that this is not the case - other trophies do have these engravings, but the Stanley Cup is unique in that it has them on the chalice, as well as the base and rings. This needs to be clarified in the introductory paragraph. Ygoloxelfer 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Grey Cup article states that "like the Stanley Cup, the Grey Cup has the team's name and players, coaches, & other staff members engraved every year onto the Cup." I believe that this is correct and that Stanley Cup article needs to be corrected.

As a person who's actually touched the cup and examined it in person, I know for certain that the above quotation is correct! That said, it takes a citation for it to be verified as Wikipedia true, so here it is: See bottom of the page. Amchow78 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see a better source. And to me it looks like engravings on the Grey Cup are actually engraved on plaque which is attached to the wooden base of the trophy. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this photo would better illustrate how there are engravings on the side of the Grey Cup.[4] Also, if I had access to the Grey Cup right now, combined with my camera, I would photograph one of the engravings upclose and upload it onto Wikipedia for all to see! Furthermore, though it may sound like I'm "pov pushing", I'm making a bona fide effort to point out a factual inaccuracy without a spiteful agenda ... a fact that the CFL website & the Canadian Football Hall of Fame are regrettably unable to provide me! :o( Also, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a major Canadian network, and it's credibility is not at the same level as the typical blogger.Amchow78 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That photograph you provided confirms what I said, wooden base with an engraved plaque. That might be the reason why you are having a hard time finding a source since it isn't considered as engraving on the trophy but rather on a plaque. I know what CBC is, but generally sources should be published articles, not an online pop quiz. When you add information like that to the lead it can easily be considered pov pushing, but I do not think that it was your intention. I think we should get some more input on this, and if more accurate sources are found we can work the information into the main body of the articles with a slightly more neutral tone. Regards.—Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I guess it's the way the sentence in the opening paragraph is phrased & how it's somewhat different than the way it's phrased in the NHL's website ("engraved on it" vs "engraved on the silver chalice"). The "engraving" portion of the article does a better job of making this distinction, and now that I see it ... it also gives an honourable mention to the Grey Cup! Therefore, I'll make that slight edit to correlate with the NHL's factoid, and leave it as is for the time being! I still respectfully disagree with the semantics of the claim, so I'll also see about trying to find more sources to back my claim about the Grey Cup when I get a chance! Amchow78 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that cannot be the reason because the names are not directly engraved on the Stanley Cup either. In fact every few years they remove one of the rings of names to retire in the Hockey Hall of Fame[5]. I can also affirm that the names of players, coaches, and staff are engraved (and placed) on the Grey Cup and, unlike the Stanley Cup, it has all the winning teams on it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for a Trophy Infobox...

I thought I'd ask here since the Stanley Trophy is the greatest trophy in the land...What are people's thoughts on a Trophy/Award Template? There are many, and I'm sure it's in the hundreds, big-time trophies/Awards in the world (Stanley Cup,World Cup,Claret Jug (golf trophy)Claret Jug, Naismith Award, Bednarik Award,etc). These awards stretch over all sports across the world. I think that this would be a perfect place to start lobbying people for this template. Thoughts? Fuhreeus 10:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel a trophy infobox would contribute much to an article, other than the date of its origin. All other information would be listed in the article. Flibirigit 15:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Stanley Cup isn't kept in a "bank vault" at the hall of fame as stated in the picture caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.171.32 (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANADA Assessment

I have assessed this as a Good Article (as it passed the requisite criteria) and of high importance, as most people would be familiar with the topic of the article and it is vital to understanding a specific topic (hockey) in Canada. Cheers, CP 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit

Maxim has asked me to copy edit this article. As I know nothing about hockey, I will be leaving a lot of internal questions in the article to clarify points before changes are made (these are best viewed with something like wikEd that color codes different kinds of edits). Also, I encourage other editors to alert me immediately if I introduce an error into the article - I want to know about it so that I don't make the same mistake in the future. Any extended questions I have, I will list here. (By the way, I think that the idea of a featured topic on trophies is excellent. I have been working on a featured topic myself (Template:Mary Wollstonecraft), but unfortunately, I have not had a whole project to help me out.) Awadewit | talk 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Originally, Lord Stanley intended that the Cup should be awarded to the top amateur hockey team in Canada, to be decided by the acceptance of a challenge from another team. - This sentence does not explain to the reader who is challenging whom or how that would be decided. Awadewit | talk 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, that should be re-written. Alaney2k 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• In 1895, Queen's University was the first official challenger for the Cup, not, however, without controversy. The Montreal Victorias, who won the league title and thus the Stanley Cup the next year, but the challenge match was between the previous year's champion, Montreal HC, and the university squad. It was decided by the trustees that if the Montreal HC won the challenge match, the Victorias would become the Stanley Cup champions. The Montreal HC would eventually win the match 5-1 and their cross-town rivals were crowned the champions. - I do not understand why if the Victorias were crowned the champions when the HC won the game - please explain the reasoning behind this decision. Awadewit | talk 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Cup went with the league, as well as the challenge series. The challenge was just really late. The challenge was supposed to be played before the end of the season, as it was supposed to pit league champion against league champions of the previous season! If Queen's had won, then their league (the Ontario HA) would become holder of the Cup and whomever won the 94-95 OHA season would take over as Cup champion. Victorias were the 94-95 AHAC champions and so took over the Cup on that basis. I hope this helps. Alaney2k 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article has to have a consistent style for reporting series results - either spelled-out numbers or numerals. I don't know if there is a conventional practice or not. Check around. Awadewit | talk 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the 1970s, the World Hockey Association sought to challenge for the Cup. The Trustees denied them.

• They sought to challenge or they actually challenged? (Awadewit)

• It wasn't a challenge cup anymore. Only the NHL could compete for it, and the WHA wanted to compete for the Cup with the NHL. The trustees didn't allow the WHA to do so. (Maxim)

• I got that. What I am trying to understand is a slight subtlety. Did they actually challenge and the NHL rejected their challenge or did they seek to challenge and the NHL said "if you try to challenge, we will reject you". These are two slightly different things. It should be clearer which of the two it is. Awadewit | talk 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

They seeked to challenge, and the trustees said "if you try to challenge, we will reject you". Simply they would not allow a challenge/competition from the WHA. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• "I would include this information in the article proper (Awadewit) But where? I don't see a good spot for it. (Maxim)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I still think the "Stanley Cup today" section is a bit stubby and awkwardly arranged and I think the trustee information could be better placed, but as for the sentence-level and paragraph-level prose, it looks good to me. Awadewit | talk 08:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions

As an actual, physical, 3 dimensional object, shouldn't this have dimensions, materials used, likely for the actual cup and then also the additional rings? Aboutmovies 11:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what section would think is the best? I haven't searched for sources, but I know with a good degree of certainty that it's made out of silver, it's about 5 feet tall, and 1 foot wide, just by looking at it, but the silver I know for a fact, the cup was made by a silversmith. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the people at FAC totally forgot about this matter. I'll take a look and try to find its dimension. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Found the dimension. I added the info to the lead section. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional image

I was looking through the List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame and saw this image of Syl Apps with the Cup:

File:Apps1.jpg

and noticed the Stanley Cup looked much different than it does in any of these pictures and different than how it currently looks. So, I figured this would be a good image to have in this article, though I'm not sure if it's already been in it. Has this image already been in the article and was removed or should it be added? The only downside, I couldn't figure out the year of this picture...looking at when he played and when Toronto won cups it must have been at the end of either the 1941-42 NHL season, 1944-45 NHL season, 1946-47 NHL season, or 1947-48 NHL season. The article says the Cup was redesigned in 1948, so maybe this would be a good picture of what it looked like before hand. Bsroiaadn^Talk 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been BOLD and put this image instead of the Campbell image in "NHL takes over" section. It would be a better choice, as the current pic only shows Campbell with the cup we know today. This pic gives more variety. Maxim_(talk) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming Stanley Cup

I've a contact from the Entertainment and Publicity director of the NHL sitting in OTRS. He's looking to explore ways of getting something on the front page for the upcoming competition. Anyone who can help with this or has suggestions, please email me. --Brian McNeil /^talk 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lock Out Season

There is no mention of the controversy during the lock out season. A group of people protested the NHL not awarding the cup because it is technically not the property of the league. The NHL had to admit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.165.5 (talk • contribs)

Please read the last paragraph of the "NHL takes over" section. It currently says, "The lockout was controversial among many fans, who questioned whether the NHL had exclusive control over the Cup. A website known as freestanley.com (since closed) was launched, asking fans to write to the Cup trustees and urge them to return to the original Challenge Cup format." Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism

Just undid some vandalism by 76.243.192.77. Checked his page and is the 2nd time hes done it. I recommend that an admin bans him. 99.240.227.140 (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave a messege on WP:AIV, they'll take care of it. Thanks! Blackngold29 03:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Women on the cup

This article states that 13 women have their names on the cup but the Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup article claims 12. Which is correct? Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Whichever one is backed up by a good source. I count 13. Blackngold29 03:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And I count 12. M. Norris is mentioned twice. First in the "first woman on the cup" entry and then a second time in the full list of women on the cup. Dismas|^(talk) 12:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yeah. There's 12. Blackngold29 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But there's something else funny here. If you read the cited reference a bit more carefully, you see:

• Marian Ilitch (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)
• Denise Ilitch Lites (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)
• Lisa Ilitch Murray (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)
• Carole Ilitch (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)

Four first names, same team, same three years, same surname/maiden name. Are there really four different sisters (or a mother and three daughters), two married, who were all on the Detroit masthead from 1997-2002? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Short answer: yes, there are. The first clue is that searching for "Ilitch" at Detroit Red Wings reveals that the owner is Mike Ilitch. Sure enough, Marian is his wife, and the other three are daughters. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"kidnapped" and held for ransom...?

I was astonished to read the "engraving" section of this article to learn that the cup had been, in the words of the article, "kidnapped" and held for ransom. There was no other mention of this event that I could see in the article, and the provided in-line reference doesn't mention a thing about the cup being "kidnapped" and held for ransom. I thought this might have been main-page vandalism, but I looked back through the history and saw that the version that was newly tagged as a featured article included this phrase. Ack. Shouldn't something be mentioned about this event that appears to be highly significant in the history of the subject of this article? Or is this just vandalism that nobody (including FA reviewers) noticed for months and months? Neil916 (Talk) 07:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like vandalism, but it doesn't look like it's fully supported by the source either. It looks like it was first added here, then removed and re-added with the reference right around here, by two eminently respectable editors on both occasions. I also didn't see anything in the source that correlates to this particular incident. In fact, it seems to contradict the statement that the existence of a replacement cup was first revealed in 1970; the ref contends the secret lasted about three years, which would put the year at 1967 or so, if my math is to be trusted. The reference does mention some sort of similar incident in Chicago during the 1962 playoffs, but it doesn't say anything about ransom, or even if the theft was successful—the ref only says "attempted to steal", but one of the engravers says it was actually stolen. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed that part for now. I've also changed the 1970 date to just "three years later", which is more in line with what the reference says. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

".. most coveted.. in the world.."

On main page it says:

The Stanley Cup is the most coveted ice hockey club championship trophy in the world, awarded annually to the National Hockey League (NHL) champion.

So, how can it possibly be the most coveted trophy in THE WORLD, if it's awarded only to the NHL champion, which is American? Is wikipedia getting way too America-centric? Seems so.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.40.240.137 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

no, just some or one of its editors.--68.9.116.76 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really American, just a majority of the teams are. The HHOF is in Canada. Plus players fight for rankings around the world to be apart of the NHL to get their names engraved on it. That is why they call it that. Asatruar (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is actually quite a bold statement, I think a rephrase would be good. --Krm500 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To win the Stanley Cup one has to be part of the NHL, and thus to be one of the 24 american or 6 canadian teams.. Sure they accept other players, but that's not like the Olympics where anyone(whose country is recognized..) can participate. Thus it can't be the most coveted hockey cup in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.40.240.137 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can. People from all over the world try to make it into the NHL. The NHL is considered the top level hockey league no matter where in the world you live. Which would make its championship the most coveted. -Djsasso (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a presumption, unfortunately.  Ravenswing  18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule, of course some may choose not to go to the NHL etc. But in order for something to be the most coveted trophy in the world for hockey only 51% of the people have to feel its the most important trophy. And I would say that is easily the case for hockey fans around the world. -Djsasso (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't even have to be coveted by a majority, just by a plurality. Unless there is another club trophy more coveted than or as coveted as the Stanley Cup, the Stanley Cup is the most coveted club trophy in the world (though not necessarily the most coveted throughout the world, which seems to be what the original IP thinks it claimed). I'm 100% sure that this is the case (the second most coveted/prestigious club championship would probably be the new KHL, and I can't imagine that it will come anywhere close to the Stanley Cup), but it's probably impossible to source such a thing, so I agree with its removal. It might be mentioned that the International Ice Hockey Federation thinks that it is the only club championship important enough to be a prerequisite for the Triple Gold Club, though, which might say something about prestigious but not really about coveted. -- Jao (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I realize it had to be a plurality. I just said 51% because at that point there is no way another could be more coveted. I think the main problem is that in some parts of the world the Ice Hockey World Championship (though obviously not a club trophy) is more coveted than the Stanley Cup. That is the only real contender to the Stanley Cups claim. As far as sourcing all you would really need is a WP:RS calling it the most coveted championship trophy which I wouldn't think would be that hard to find. That being said we can definately tone down the language. I was just pointing out that it wasn't an outrageous thing to say. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "DiamondNHL100–45" :
  • <nowiki>[Diamond], pg. 45</nowiki>
  • Diamond, ''The Official National Hockey League Stanley Cup Centennial Book'', 46

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cup wins by city

Is there a list of Cup wins by city? As part of the Habs centennial, a newspaper article said that Montreal has won the cup 36 times, 24 by les Canadiens. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of champions article seems to indicate there are another 25 Montreal wins to the 24 of les Habitants. 76.66.198.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

Name scratched of (with photo)

Why did they do it? Is it against the rules? If it is then why did they allow this in the first place? It seems the NHL is making a lot of errors and it seems strange since it seems common but unacceptable for a trophy of this significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The scratched off name was added by the owner of the Edmonton Oilers. He added his father (without permission from the league), and it was later scratched off. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So I'm guessing the league wouldnt have given him permission if he asked right? Or was it that he just didnt ask? But my biggest question is how did the owner add it? Did he take an engraver and scratch out the name? I thought they had special people do it that was beyond the owner of the Stanley cup champions team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure they just added his dad's name to the list of people to put on the cup and then it was later found out that his father didn't actually have any real job duties with the team which meant he wasn't elligible to be on the cup. -Djsasso (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

the bowl and its manufacture

There seems to be some confusion - I have changed the phrase which said the bowl was 'forged' in Sheffield as silver is not forged. It would have been made in Sheffield by one company - the hallmark will tell you who - and then sold by G R Collis and Co in London. Collis and Co didn't make it: they only operated as manufacturing silversmiths (as opposed to retailing ones) in Birmingham and London, so if the bowl was made in Sheffield it was by another compnay, and Collis acted as the retailer in London. It was a punch bowl, a specific type of bowl, so I have linked to that. Further information here [6] [7] [8]. BTW, Boodles and Dunthorne Jewellers is spelled the British way as it is a proper name. 86.137.138.12 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)