Talk:2006 Stanley Cup playoffs

message: 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)
thread_title: Webcast?

message: 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)
replies: text: Well done, keep up the good work, I agree with those changes. Loading 50+ tv chain images was a little redundant along with the linking. --Maraulth 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey now, the TV images were nice looking! Added a professional and colourful look to the tables. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series table revamping 

message: 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)
replies: text: I beleive it was put there to be in the middle as was the Western conference one was as well. --Ramorous 16:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting it in the middle makes it less clear where one begins and ends and the next begins, I find.--Sonjaaa 16:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You can also see that the wording is on the same line as the logos for both conferences. This doesn't seem confusing to me. --Ramorous 21:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I addressed any possible confusion by color coding the halves of the bracket with the respective conference color.  Check it out, let me know. Z4ns4tsu 00:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Made a color change. I think it looks better now. Z4ns4tsu 02:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I like it!!!--Sonjaaa 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the table thingy

message: 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)
replies: text: They're tagged as minor, which makes it easy to pick out the real changes in the history. I'm just impressed - I live four blocks from the Stampede grounds in Calgary, and Wikipedia had the game result before I heard the horns from the parade of cars on the way home. --ByeByeBaby 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me, sitting here all night waiting for goals to be scored so I can add them.  Talk about a guy who knows how to spend a Friday night!  Anyway, that's exactly why I tag all those edits as minor. Skudrafan1 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid-Game Updates/Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: They are nice, they look somewhat cluttered though... but that's just my personal view -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 11:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they have a lot of information, but the presentation seems a bit cramped.  Maybe try using different shades or colors to mark headers and boundaries.  It would also make more sense to me if the home team was always listed last and the game's winner was in bold.  Good start, though. Z4ns4tsu 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In progress series tables 

message: 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)
replies: text: You know, they use logos in the paper and other publications (like on TV). Do they have permission from the NHL to do so? -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Since they are registered trademarks, yes. Rituro 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cute logos gone?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eliminated teams 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting up articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: The closest we've come in recent years to having 5678 (although not in the same year as a 1234) was when 4678 won in the Eastern Conference in 1998 (also a Detroit Cup year).
*Less exciting, but... the conference finals go 24 68, which is also a pattern. Zorkon
**"Who do we appreciate?" "Time to transubstantiate!" Wahkeenah 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1234 5678 

message: According to the North American Sports Network, at least games 1-4 of the SC Finals are being broadcast on their network.  NorthernThunder 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European broadcaster 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Final series table 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  Sure, the Oilers had an impressive run... but so did the 'Canes.  So did the Sabres.  So did the Ducks.  There is plenty of information (in fact, too much) on this page already, so there is no need to be creating new pages detailing each team's run. --Skudrafan1 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skudra, I don't understand your argument. If anything, it sounds like there is an overload of information here and it'd be better if segmented; with each individual series as an interchangeable templatized article. 
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  into each one. 
All of them can support an article on their own. Attic Owl 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, what I'm saying is that we don't need this much specific information about each series at all.  Because this page was being written as the playoffs were going on, there were, at times, long write-ups of each game.  And quite a bit of that stuff has stayed, despite the fact that it is cluttering up the article.  What I am saying is that a lot of this article needs to be pruned.  If anything deserves its own page, it's the 2006 Stanley Cup Finals.  For example, check out how the NFL playoffs, 2005-06 page is handled, with each conference playoff game getting a short write-up, and then Super Bowl XL having its own page.  In conclusion, what I'm saying is that the conference playoff portions of this page need to be shortened, and then (perhaps) the Finals series could get its own page.  That would be more than enough information on this particular playoff year. --Skudrafan1 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest difference is that the NFL uses a single elimination format while the NHL uses a best of seven series format. A game could likely be summed up in a paragraph or two like in the NFL article, but there are far more games to discuss, as well as post-playoff consequences(the City of Edmonton debated whether or not to have a celebration) and the run up to the playoffs (the Oilers barely made the playoffs, their entry was decided at the last moment)
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)
replies: text: While there may be far more games to discuss, my argument is that every single game does not need to be discussed. --Skudrafan1 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Succession box at the bottom 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nhl.com/news/2006/05/272996.html
** In 2006 Stanley Cup playoffs on 2011-05-26 02:15:04, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Stanley Cup playoffs on 2011-06-14 07:15:52, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/hockey/nhl/wires/06/12/2040.ap.hkn.stanley.cup.0883/index.html
** In 2006 Stanley Cup playoffs on 2011-05-26 02:15:04, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Stanley Cup playoffs on 2011-06-14 07:16:02, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy/2006/serieso/game5_recap.html
** In 2006 Stanley Cup playoffs on 2011-05-26 02:15:04, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Stanley Cup playoffs on 2011-06-14 07:16:15, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3