![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Does anyone know if there is a webcast of the game available? It would be a neat thing to be able to say "this is the info and this is the event, click here!" The magic of the digital age, perhaps just a dream. Superbeatles 23:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to refer to the Red Wings and Senators as "champions" of their respective Conferences? It was my understanding the only championship was the one determined in the playoffs; they are only their respective Conferences' No. 1 seed. Is this wrong?
Please fix the main title of the article to "2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs". I forgot one "f" in "playoff." Thanks. NoseNuggets 12:45 AM US EST Feb 26 2006.
Teams are reseeded after the first round of the playoffs (i.e., OTT-TB winnner might not play the BUF-PHI winner)
OK, I see what the issue is now. The question is, who decides the bracket structure, the National Hockey League, or CBS. I would tend to go with the NHL. However, I don't even see a tournament chart on nhl.com, just the schedule. Maybe somebody can find one buried somewhere on nhl.com and cite it here, and that should trump any news media outlet. If not, then CBS wins. Wahkeenah 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Such ado over so little. Yes, all the series are assigned letters, but the letters for the A-H games are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with anything, except that the A-B-C-D survivors play among themselves and the E-F-G-H survivors play among themselves, because they are in separate conferences. So it doesn't really matter, ultimately what order the first round games are shown in because, aside from the conference separation, the order is meaningless. I'll be amused to see how this all turns out, because the chart makes total sense to me either way. Wahkeenah 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a fundamental flaw in the argument that assigning letters A-H to these matches implies some kind of "order" to them. There is no order. It does not matter what order they are shown anywhere, the second round matchups are still the same. Therefore, it does not matter what order the brackets are shown, because they are only for reference. User Rituro unwittingly brought this to my attention. The NHL could just as easily call the pairings E-1-V-8, E-2-V-7, etc., but that would be unwieldy and even more confusing, so they just use A-through-H instead. The letters are merely "names" or "identifiers" of the pairings, they do not imply any kind of order. Wahkeenah 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
With all this debate, I would like to get an idea of where everyone stands on the issue. Do you think that we should list teams in the flowchart by seed (A-H) or by retroactively lining them up?
User | Choice | Reason |
---|---|---|
Arctic Gnome | By Seed. | The current layout is misleading because it looks like the 2vs7 winner was pre-determined to play the 3vs6 winner. |
IP 65.42.16.135 | By Seed | The chart is not a bracket; it is a graphical representation of the NHL playoffs. The NHL's playoff format includes a reshuffling of the deck after the 1st round and the graphical representation should reflect that. Additionally, the series are designated with ordinals that reflect the order they ought to be listed in. |
Earl Andrew | current layout' | The proposed layout is misleading because when you see two teams play eachother, you expect the winner to be in the column next to it, not some other team. This is how brackets work. The point of the chart is to show which teams beat eachother and who they played next, not the playoff seedings. That's in a different section. Not only that, the chart violates Wikipedia policy, as it is original content, as no credeble media source uses any similar table to the one proposed. |
Wahkeenah | Either way works | Clarity is the important thing. The notion that the letters represent some kind of "order" is a misinterpretation. There is no actual "order" to the first round. It's just a lack of imagination on the part of the NHL at assigning names. No matter what titles you give to the first round games, the second round pairings work out the same way. |
Skudrafan1 | By seed | Lining them up by seed is simple, and not at all misleading because the footnote under the bracket explains why you don't see the 1-8 winner in the slot next to their matchup. What seems confusing to me is having the matchups lined up differently in each conference. As Arctic Gnome said, the way it is shown now makes it look like the second-round matchups were predetermined, which, of course, they weren't. |
Z4ns4tsu | By Seed. | Multiple: One - this was the original purpose for creating a new chart in the first place; Two - it is the correct and official way to list the games according to the people who pay for it; Three - all the reasons to change it have been either disproven (that it is confusing: lots of people say other wise), are invalid (the media's opinon doesn't count, they rarely get things associated with the NHL correct in the first place, or refuted by Wikipedia best-practices; Four - it looks better to have order in the first round than chaos. |
Croat Canuck | Current layout. | I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the other way. Also, this way is the way I've seen it done very often, and it makes the more sense to somebody who doesn't know much about sports. |
Resolute | Current layout | Much ado about nothing. Leave the chart as is, as it displays how one team flows from one series into the next. The note after the chart that mentions that teams are reseeded after the first round is more than enough to explain how things work. |
Ravenswing 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | Current layout | Much ado about nothing says it all. |
Eric B | By Seed | The proper order and template can conform to sorting it by seed. There is no need to follow the media's design for this. An encyclopedia should show facts and as such should be sorted by seed. |
Rituro | By Seed | Every single layout I've seen for the NHL playoffs has displayed in top vs. bottom format. This includes all media sources and informal write-ups. The argument that top vs. bottom will appear "confusing" to people who don't follow the sport is irrelevant. You don't change the way a sport is played or reported to accomodate the ignorant. The onus is on them to learn the nuances of the sport. Another point: top vs. bottom is far more readable. The eye naturally catches 1, 2, 3, 4 as it reads down the column as well as 8, 7, 6, 5. Trying to go in some bizarre, retroactive order depending on who won in each round makes the chart that much more difficult to read. |
Andrwsc | No flowchart needed | I think the playoff bracket is misleading no matter how it is structured -- especially using the word "bracket" in the section title. I think the simplest, clearest way to document each year's playoffs is by listing each series in order (hopefully conforming to the NHL's usage of "Series A", etc.) with a paragraph or two of descriptive text and a short table of game scores. The work in progress for 2004 Stanley Cup Playoffs looks fine to me. Using a bracket flowchart on these pages is excessive. It looks to me like someone getting carried away with Wikipedia table and formatting skills with no great benefit to the page. |
Comment: I don't think it's Wiki policy to count votes from IP addresses. --
Earl Andrew -
talk
18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to what some recent voter said, you should leave the brackets. It is much easier to see what's going on than having to wade through a bunch of text to figure it out. Wahkeenah 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I just figured I'd explain my edits before they got reverted because it can look like I'm removing a lot. Essentially, I see no reason to have 50+ little icons saying that each game is on CBC or OLN, so I replaced those with text and linked the first in each series to CBC, NBC Sports, OLN, or TSN.
Second, I revamped the "Location" column. Now it lists just the home team, with the first home game being a link to the arena. At the very least, on the advice of WP:CONTEXT, we don't need each instance linked, and truth be told, I'm in favor of removing the arenas or listing them once in the article. This makes it so that column can be much thinner. That also allows the date/time column to be wider, so that no row takes up two lines. I imagine that once the games pass, we can remove the time for each game (and the TV), but as long as we have it here, it shouldn't force each row to a second line.
Third, I didn't change it but similar to the overabundance of team icons, possibly we can do without the team icons. I think an ideal place would be to put them with the playoff seeds and then remove them from the bracket and the series tables. That way, the bracket doesn't have the vertical centering thrown off and the header for the tables isn't so tall. Jonpin 10:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I loved the logos so add them back on,
please.
Shouldn't the word "Eastern Conference" appear above "Ottawa" to show that all the teams below are Eastern Conference. Why does it appear in the middle of the conference. That's a bit confusing.-- Sonjaaa 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the new colours! Can we make the shade of red a bit lighter for easier legibility?--
Sonjaaa
03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this seem to be a little too much? Adding the results at the end is fine, but we'll have way too many edits for nothing. --
Eric B (
T •
C •
W )
01:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Guys, do you think we should remove the regular season and previous playoff meeting information? Now that all the series have begun, it's all sort of irrelevant, do you agree? -- Skudrafan1 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Game | Date | Score (home in italics) | NJ goals | NYR goals |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | April 22 | Devils 6, Rangers 1 | Elias 2, Gomez, Klee, Rafalski, Langenbrunner | Prucha |
2 | April 24 | Devils 3, Rangers 2 (2OT, 4:13) | Gionta, Kozlov, Elias | Straka, Sykora |
3 | April 26 | Devils 4, Rangers 1 | Madden 2, Gomez, Gionta | Sykora |
4 | April 29 | Rangers 1, Devils 0 (OT, 11:41) | none | Nylander |
5 | April 30 | Devils 2, Rangers 0 | Gomez 2 | none |
Total | Devils win series 4-1 |
Gomez 4, Elias 3, Gionta 2, Madden 2 | Sykora 2 |
I'd like to know what people think of the tables I have at User:Jonpin/Stanley. Completed games have number, date, overtime if applicable, score with home team highlighted, and goal scorers. Games to be played have number, date, time for relevant time zones, home team, TV coverage, and "if necessary" if necessary. I've updated it through the end of CAL/ANA game 3 and as DET/EDM game 3 goes to OT. Jonpin 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Much thanks to Arctic Gnome who gently explained my gaff of posting a question into the article. That was my first interaction with Wikipedia & I apologize for the goof. I now understand the discussion section
What happened to the cute logos of every team in the big table thingy? Something about fairuse or copyright? :-/ -- Sonjaaa 12:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
But wikipedia also uses it on the NHL team pages so can you add it back on, I don't know how to do it, I tried.
Is it really necessary to have a section which points out the teams that are eliminated? I would think that those would be fairly easy to determine given when you point out who advances. Given the eventual outcome, every team except for the Stanley Cup winner would be listed there. Spicy 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I like "teams on the brink", because it tells you what to watch out for in the next few days. And it is temporary. When the playoffs are over, the section will vanish. So it doesn't pollute in the long run.--
Sonjaaa
16:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
So as to decrease the amount of kb in this article, how many of you think it would be necessary to give the rounds their own articles? JB82 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1234 from the EC and 5678 from the WC... I'm sure this is no common occurence, does anyone know if/when it last happened? It could be noted somewhere. Hazelorb 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (Edit: "If Anaheim wins, all four lower seeds in one conference will have won their series for the first time since the conference format began in 1994." from [4] so I'm sure this is the first time it's 1234 5678 as well)
There has been once when 1234 won in the western conference and 5678 won in the east. That was the year when the last time Detroit got the cup.
According to the North American Sports Network, at least games 1-4 of the SC Finals are being broadcast on their network. [5] NorthernThunder 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, why does the Final series section differ so greatly from the rest of the playoff article? Or is this just temporary until the series is over, at which point it will be made to match the rest? 136.159.225.209 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose merging Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs to this article. We don't need an article on each team in each playoffs of each sport for every year. Thoughts? Powers 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That way you can put in, let's say, the Oilers versus the Sharks series in...
2006 Stanley Cup Western Conference Semi-Finals, Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffsand San Jose Sharks in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs
and insert the template {{edmonton-sanjose-2006playoffs}} into each one.
All of them can support an article on their own. Attic Owl 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is more than enough for an article for each teams' playoff season, however I agree that efforts shouldn't be duplicated, that the Edmonton versus Anaheim series could be indentical in both the Edmonton article and the Anaheim article, saving time. Attic Owl 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I would just as soon delete the Oilers article. Final scores and goal scorers are already listed on the main article, along with important events from each series. While I presume that the Oilers article is intended to ultimately have much greater detail on all games, every minute detail of each game is not required, and is not encyclopedic. What is, or will be, of value is already contained within this article. If there is a need to split the current article because of size, I would propose that a split along conference lines would be more appropriate:
2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Western Conference),
2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Eastern Conference) and
2006 Stanley Cup Finals.
Resolute
23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The succession box at the bottom is, in my opinion, a shoddy way to link the SCP articles together. A better way, I think, would be to create a template listing Stanley Cup Playoff years, in much the same vein as soccer articles do. (Case in point, the template at the bottom of the 2006 UEFA Champions League Final article that enables quick access to any of the years it was played.
EDIT for signature. DamionOWA 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Does anyone know if there is a webcast of the game available? It would be a neat thing to be able to say "this is the info and this is the event, click here!" The magic of the digital age, perhaps just a dream. Superbeatles 23:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to refer to the Red Wings and Senators as "champions" of their respective Conferences? It was my understanding the only championship was the one determined in the playoffs; they are only their respective Conferences' No. 1 seed. Is this wrong?
Please fix the main title of the article to "2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs". I forgot one "f" in "playoff." Thanks. NoseNuggets 12:45 AM US EST Feb 26 2006.
Teams are reseeded after the first round of the playoffs (i.e., OTT-TB winnner might not play the BUF-PHI winner)
OK, I see what the issue is now. The question is, who decides the bracket structure, the National Hockey League, or CBS. I would tend to go with the NHL. However, I don't even see a tournament chart on nhl.com, just the schedule. Maybe somebody can find one buried somewhere on nhl.com and cite it here, and that should trump any news media outlet. If not, then CBS wins. Wahkeenah 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Such ado over so little. Yes, all the series are assigned letters, but the letters for the A-H games are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with anything, except that the A-B-C-D survivors play among themselves and the E-F-G-H survivors play among themselves, because they are in separate conferences. So it doesn't really matter, ultimately what order the first round games are shown in because, aside from the conference separation, the order is meaningless. I'll be amused to see how this all turns out, because the chart makes total sense to me either way. Wahkeenah 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a fundamental flaw in the argument that assigning letters A-H to these matches implies some kind of "order" to them. There is no order. It does not matter what order they are shown anywhere, the second round matchups are still the same. Therefore, it does not matter what order the brackets are shown, because they are only for reference. User Rituro unwittingly brought this to my attention. The NHL could just as easily call the pairings E-1-V-8, E-2-V-7, etc., but that would be unwieldy and even more confusing, so they just use A-through-H instead. The letters are merely "names" or "identifiers" of the pairings, they do not imply any kind of order. Wahkeenah 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
With all this debate, I would like to get an idea of where everyone stands on the issue. Do you think that we should list teams in the flowchart by seed (A-H) or by retroactively lining them up?
User | Choice | Reason |
---|---|---|
Arctic Gnome | By Seed. | The current layout is misleading because it looks like the 2vs7 winner was pre-determined to play the 3vs6 winner. |
IP 65.42.16.135 | By Seed | The chart is not a bracket; it is a graphical representation of the NHL playoffs. The NHL's playoff format includes a reshuffling of the deck after the 1st round and the graphical representation should reflect that. Additionally, the series are designated with ordinals that reflect the order they ought to be listed in. |
Earl Andrew | current layout' | The proposed layout is misleading because when you see two teams play eachother, you expect the winner to be in the column next to it, not some other team. This is how brackets work. The point of the chart is to show which teams beat eachother and who they played next, not the playoff seedings. That's in a different section. Not only that, the chart violates Wikipedia policy, as it is original content, as no credeble media source uses any similar table to the one proposed. |
Wahkeenah | Either way works | Clarity is the important thing. The notion that the letters represent some kind of "order" is a misinterpretation. There is no actual "order" to the first round. It's just a lack of imagination on the part of the NHL at assigning names. No matter what titles you give to the first round games, the second round pairings work out the same way. |
Skudrafan1 | By seed | Lining them up by seed is simple, and not at all misleading because the footnote under the bracket explains why you don't see the 1-8 winner in the slot next to their matchup. What seems confusing to me is having the matchups lined up differently in each conference. As Arctic Gnome said, the way it is shown now makes it look like the second-round matchups were predetermined, which, of course, they weren't. |
Z4ns4tsu | By Seed. | Multiple: One - this was the original purpose for creating a new chart in the first place; Two - it is the correct and official way to list the games according to the people who pay for it; Three - all the reasons to change it have been either disproven (that it is confusing: lots of people say other wise), are invalid (the media's opinon doesn't count, they rarely get things associated with the NHL correct in the first place, or refuted by Wikipedia best-practices; Four - it looks better to have order in the first round than chaos. |
Croat Canuck | Current layout. | I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the other way. Also, this way is the way I've seen it done very often, and it makes the more sense to somebody who doesn't know much about sports. |
Resolute | Current layout | Much ado about nothing. Leave the chart as is, as it displays how one team flows from one series into the next. The note after the chart that mentions that teams are reseeded after the first round is more than enough to explain how things work. |
Ravenswing 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | Current layout | Much ado about nothing says it all. |
Eric B | By Seed | The proper order and template can conform to sorting it by seed. There is no need to follow the media's design for this. An encyclopedia should show facts and as such should be sorted by seed. |
Rituro | By Seed | Every single layout I've seen for the NHL playoffs has displayed in top vs. bottom format. This includes all media sources and informal write-ups. The argument that top vs. bottom will appear "confusing" to people who don't follow the sport is irrelevant. You don't change the way a sport is played or reported to accomodate the ignorant. The onus is on them to learn the nuances of the sport. Another point: top vs. bottom is far more readable. The eye naturally catches 1, 2, 3, 4 as it reads down the column as well as 8, 7, 6, 5. Trying to go in some bizarre, retroactive order depending on who won in each round makes the chart that much more difficult to read. |
Andrwsc | No flowchart needed | I think the playoff bracket is misleading no matter how it is structured -- especially using the word "bracket" in the section title. I think the simplest, clearest way to document each year's playoffs is by listing each series in order (hopefully conforming to the NHL's usage of "Series A", etc.) with a paragraph or two of descriptive text and a short table of game scores. The work in progress for 2004 Stanley Cup Playoffs looks fine to me. Using a bracket flowchart on these pages is excessive. It looks to me like someone getting carried away with Wikipedia table and formatting skills with no great benefit to the page. |
Comment: I don't think it's Wiki policy to count votes from IP addresses. --
Earl Andrew -
talk
18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to what some recent voter said, you should leave the brackets. It is much easier to see what's going on than having to wade through a bunch of text to figure it out. Wahkeenah 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I just figured I'd explain my edits before they got reverted because it can look like I'm removing a lot. Essentially, I see no reason to have 50+ little icons saying that each game is on CBC or OLN, so I replaced those with text and linked the first in each series to CBC, NBC Sports, OLN, or TSN.
Second, I revamped the "Location" column. Now it lists just the home team, with the first home game being a link to the arena. At the very least, on the advice of WP:CONTEXT, we don't need each instance linked, and truth be told, I'm in favor of removing the arenas or listing them once in the article. This makes it so that column can be much thinner. That also allows the date/time column to be wider, so that no row takes up two lines. I imagine that once the games pass, we can remove the time for each game (and the TV), but as long as we have it here, it shouldn't force each row to a second line.
Third, I didn't change it but similar to the overabundance of team icons, possibly we can do without the team icons. I think an ideal place would be to put them with the playoff seeds and then remove them from the bracket and the series tables. That way, the bracket doesn't have the vertical centering thrown off and the header for the tables isn't so tall. Jonpin 10:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I loved the logos so add them back on,
please.
Shouldn't the word "Eastern Conference" appear above "Ottawa" to show that all the teams below are Eastern Conference. Why does it appear in the middle of the conference. That's a bit confusing.-- Sonjaaa 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the new colours! Can we make the shade of red a bit lighter for easier legibility?--
Sonjaaa
03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this seem to be a little too much? Adding the results at the end is fine, but we'll have way too many edits for nothing. --
Eric B (
T •
C •
W )
01:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Guys, do you think we should remove the regular season and previous playoff meeting information? Now that all the series have begun, it's all sort of irrelevant, do you agree? -- Skudrafan1 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Game | Date | Score (home in italics) | NJ goals | NYR goals |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | April 22 | Devils 6, Rangers 1 | Elias 2, Gomez, Klee, Rafalski, Langenbrunner | Prucha |
2 | April 24 | Devils 3, Rangers 2 (2OT, 4:13) | Gionta, Kozlov, Elias | Straka, Sykora |
3 | April 26 | Devils 4, Rangers 1 | Madden 2, Gomez, Gionta | Sykora |
4 | April 29 | Rangers 1, Devils 0 (OT, 11:41) | none | Nylander |
5 | April 30 | Devils 2, Rangers 0 | Gomez 2 | none |
Total | Devils win series 4-1 |
Gomez 4, Elias 3, Gionta 2, Madden 2 | Sykora 2 |
I'd like to know what people think of the tables I have at User:Jonpin/Stanley. Completed games have number, date, overtime if applicable, score with home team highlighted, and goal scorers. Games to be played have number, date, time for relevant time zones, home team, TV coverage, and "if necessary" if necessary. I've updated it through the end of CAL/ANA game 3 and as DET/EDM game 3 goes to OT. Jonpin 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Much thanks to Arctic Gnome who gently explained my gaff of posting a question into the article. That was my first interaction with Wikipedia & I apologize for the goof. I now understand the discussion section
What happened to the cute logos of every team in the big table thingy? Something about fairuse or copyright? :-/ -- Sonjaaa 12:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
But wikipedia also uses it on the NHL team pages so can you add it back on, I don't know how to do it, I tried.
Is it really necessary to have a section which points out the teams that are eliminated? I would think that those would be fairly easy to determine given when you point out who advances. Given the eventual outcome, every team except for the Stanley Cup winner would be listed there. Spicy 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I like "teams on the brink", because it tells you what to watch out for in the next few days. And it is temporary. When the playoffs are over, the section will vanish. So it doesn't pollute in the long run.--
Sonjaaa
16:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
So as to decrease the amount of kb in this article, how many of you think it would be necessary to give the rounds their own articles? JB82 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
1234 from the EC and 5678 from the WC... I'm sure this is no common occurence, does anyone know if/when it last happened? It could be noted somewhere. Hazelorb 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (Edit: "If Anaheim wins, all four lower seeds in one conference will have won their series for the first time since the conference format began in 1994." from [4] so I'm sure this is the first time it's 1234 5678 as well)
There has been once when 1234 won in the western conference and 5678 won in the east. That was the year when the last time Detroit got the cup.
According to the North American Sports Network, at least games 1-4 of the SC Finals are being broadcast on their network. [5] NorthernThunder 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, why does the Final series section differ so greatly from the rest of the playoff article? Or is this just temporary until the series is over, at which point it will be made to match the rest? 136.159.225.209 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose merging Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs to this article. We don't need an article on each team in each playoffs of each sport for every year. Thoughts? Powers 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That way you can put in, let's say, the Oilers versus the Sharks series in...
2006 Stanley Cup Western Conference Semi-Finals, Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffsand San Jose Sharks in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs
and insert the template {{edmonton-sanjose-2006playoffs}} into each one.
All of them can support an article on their own. Attic Owl 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is more than enough for an article for each teams' playoff season, however I agree that efforts shouldn't be duplicated, that the Edmonton versus Anaheim series could be indentical in both the Edmonton article and the Anaheim article, saving time. Attic Owl 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I would just as soon delete the Oilers article. Final scores and goal scorers are already listed on the main article, along with important events from each series. While I presume that the Oilers article is intended to ultimately have much greater detail on all games, every minute detail of each game is not required, and is not encyclopedic. What is, or will be, of value is already contained within this article. If there is a need to split the current article because of size, I would propose that a split along conference lines would be more appropriate:
2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Western Conference),
2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Eastern Conference) and
2006 Stanley Cup Finals.
Resolute
23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The succession box at the bottom is, in my opinion, a shoddy way to link the SCP articles together. A better way, I think, would be to create a template listing Stanley Cup Playoff years, in much the same vein as soccer articles do. (Case in point, the template at the bottom of the 2006 UEFA Champions League Final article that enables quick access to any of the years it was played.
EDIT for signature. DamionOWA 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
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!