Talk:List of NHL franchise post-season droughts

message: Is it really fair to call the Devils 2003 championship a "drought" considering they haven't defended it yet?
 -- Decumanus | Talk 03:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: After adding the drought lengths to the lists, I feel compelled to point out my rationale for doing so.  So here's a few proposed guidelines for the content of this page.
* Drought lengths should be in seasons, not years - We've all heard the number 54 associated with the Rangers' Stanley Cup drought, but the drought was no more 54 years long than there was a one-year drought between the Penguins' cup wins in 1991 and 1992.  The Rangers failed to win the cup in fifty-three consecutive seasons (1940-41 through 1992-93, inclusive), so 53 should be the number listed.  Also, the missing 2004-05 season messes with calculation via dates as well.
* Season counts - The number listed is the number of seasons since their last success in which they have failed to repeat that success.  For example, as of this writing, the Florida Panthers have missed the playoffs for the last 5 seasons, which is up to and including 2005-06.  If they clinch a playoff spot in 2006-07, then their entry should be removed from the list.  If they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs in 2006-07, then the season count should be set to 6.  Until either of those happen, don't touch the entry.
* Don't list droughts that don't even exist - i.e. The most recent (playoff teams/cup finalists/cup winner) should not be in the lists at all.  This one sounds obvious, but today I removed the Oilers' "drought" of not having reached the finals since 2006 (As of this writing, the 2006 finals haven't even been played yet).  Hopefully having the season counts there will make people think twice since they'd have to add "(0 seasons)" as well.
These are basically my opinions regarding what is a drought, what isn't, and how long they really are.  They make 100% perfect sense to me, and the point behind posting them is to prevent misleading info from being added.  If you have any opinions or ideas, by all means reply. Aottley 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look again.  The NBA and NFL lists don't show the lengths, only the last appearances/wins for each team.  And the MLB list agrees with me.  For example, think about the famous drought of the Red Sox.  What's the length colloquially given to it?  Eighty-six years (they won in 1918, then not again until 2004).  But the Red Sox entry in the longest World Series droughts in history list agrees with me, starting the drought in the first year in which the Red Sox lost (1919), ending it in the last year in which they lost (2003), and giving the length between those seasons, inclusive (85). Aottley 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines (proposed)

message: Just wondering if the Columbus "region" should be expanded to include the Cleveland Barons franchise as they are both in Ohio.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.200.103 (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities/regions awaiting first Stanley Cup 

message: Is this really needed or necessary?  Not to mention the page is "List of NHL franchises..." --ConkblockCity (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Countries' Stanley Cup droughts"

message: There are warnings indicating that the win drought and final drought sections should not be updated until the playoffs are complete.  I don't think that delay is necessary.  The win drought sections can be updated after the first playoff round when the 22 teams that didn't win are all known. Similarly, the final drought sections can be updated after the third round when the 28 teams that didn't make it are known.  This would be similar to the warnings for the appearance drought sections which indicate they should be updated after the regular season, but not necessarily the completion of the playoffs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.19.211 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to update 

message: I'd like to know what the criteria is for including the Minnesota North Stars in the California Golden Seals/Cleveland Barons drought streak. The North Stars did not fold and get replaced by the Barons, the way the Minnesota Fighting Saints had been replaced by the Cleveland Crusaders in the WHA; the organizations merged, and the North Stars retained their own franchise history as well as several of their players from 1977-78, and only took the Baron's spot in the Adams Division because Minnesota had been in the five-team Smythe Division, and the removal of Cleveland would have left the Adams with three teams if Minnesota had not changed divisions (which were not even geographically aligned at the time). Furthermore, the current franchise, the Dallas Stars, do not recognize the Seals/Barons history as part of their own, as per their own media guide as posted on their website: http://stars.nhl.com/v2/ext/MediaGuides/Web%20version/index.html. Kyojikasshu (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seals/Barons/North Stars? 

message: I added four footnotes where Vancouver played a potentially-deciding game with the cup in the building.  This would perhaps be better fleshed out as two tables: games played by never-winners with an opportunity to break the curse; list of games played by never-winners facing elimination in their own barn with the cup present in the building.  For the second table I would probably include whether the home team every held the lead (perhaps citing their largest lead, or the last tie-breaking goal if they never held the lead) as well as the time of the official game-winning goal. (Edit: it's likely other never-winners have faced elimination with the cup in their own barn, but I didn't check.) — MaxEnt 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vancouver futility footnotes 

message: The Vegas Golden knights Have not Played a Playoff Game
Because they Didnt start Yet It Was an Ip Address I ID,d, it as Disruptive editing and i warned him Paperkings (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: First, your revert is fine, but you don't need to report it on the talk page. Second, don't bite the newcomers, the IP did not act in bad faith. They just added something before we needed it. Deadman137 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone Has Violated a Rule 

message: I believe the Cleveland Barons should be added under the Ohio region with the Columbus Blue Jackets. They both played in the state. I remember seeing that Cleveland was in with Columbus for the droughts three years ago. Since then someone deleted it. Kingzwest (talk) 014:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the Cleveland Barons to Ohio with Columbus  

message: All droughts of the Coyotes will stay in the tables. The season totals will not update while their operations are suspended. A new note will need to be written for the Coyotes. If the team resumes play all numbers will resume counting from the season that they return. If the Coyotes fold only all-time records will be retained. Deadman137 (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arizona Coyotes