Talk:2007–08 NHL season

message: that quote on them being the first league wide innovation in North America is false, the first to do a league wide change of uniforms (by reebox again) was the Canadian Football League in 2005.
:Do you have a source? Jmlk17 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False info on jerseys

message: Please don't make predictions on the article page.  Post predictions here on the talk page if you must, or better yet, go to http://forums.espn.go.com/espn/forum?room=nhl Hoopydink 22:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, link was added here nearly 18 months ago though. :) Jmlk17 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions

message: I thought they still had to be voted on by the  GMs- is that wrong? Because if that hasn't happened yet, we should change will to may in that sentence. Cptjeff 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure it's all set and ready for this new season. Jmlk17 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Jerseys?

message: With the Ducks and Kings set to play in London in September, wouldn't this mark the first time the NHL has held regular season games in September? Kaiser matias 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure...perhaps. :) Jmlk17 07:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games in September 

message: What exactly is the difference? The two notes about the outdoor game and the London game should go under Regular Season because they are about Regular Season games. I don't understand the split we have here. Thunderstix33 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably should be together. Jmlk17 06:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  League Business vs. Regular Season 

message: I have removed the section because right now it is based entirely on speculation and POV. It's one thing to add a debut section for a finished season where you know which players became "of note", but at this point it's really POV. -- Scorpion0422 00:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think the 1st overall selection counts? Jmlk17 02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that he does, but if the section is there just for Patrick Kane and Erik Johnson, then soon people are going to start adding other players, who really haven't done anything of note yet. So, I think it would be best to leave the section out until the end of the season. -- Scorpion0422 02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, alright.  You're probably right anyway... Kane might not stay up in the NHL, or something else may happen.  :) Jmlk17 02:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added the debuts, and the top 5 that I can think of Bwilkins (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You might want to add a comment on the article as well, explaining the situation. :) Jmlk17 19:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Debuts

message: Have we planned a way to denote playoff statuses in the standings table templates? Detroit just clinched, LA is a game away from being eliminated... colors, Xs and Ys, etc? Colors would conflict with the highlighting in teams individual season articles. I say change that highlighting to bold text and use colors like 2006-07 NHL season (and maybe use red for eliminated teams while the season is still in progress).ccwaters (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the best would be letters.  As you said, Colors will conflict with highlighting.  X for clinched playoff spot, Y for clinched conference division, Z for Presidents Cup conference, perhaps E for eliminated.  I was going to look into this this weekend as I realized when I updated the Western conf last night that Detroit had clinched, however had not time because I had to get some sleep before going to work early this morning.  Pparazorback (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check it out now, I added playoff formatting. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth emphasizing how the NHL styles the various accomplishments. Specifically, teams raise banners signifying that they won the "[Name] Division Championship," "[Name] Conference Regular Season Championship," and "Presidents' Trophy." MrArticleOne (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That was discussed earlier when the conference standings were created.  If the conference ranking numbers were put in the divisional standings, then every division would have to be updated even if no team played because their ranking may change.  Unless every editor updates each division, then the numbers are willy nilly.  -Pparazorback (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the regular season is over and the standings no longer need to be updated, can we get rid of the conference standings now? NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Standings and playoff status

message: Ok, this is hard to be proven but here is how it works.
1)If the Islanders win all their 6 remaining games, they will be at 85 points, one point better than the Bruins. They can only go higher than the Bruins to make the playoffs.
2)But the Bruins aren't the team they need to catch, because they will play twice against the Sabres and the best case scenario (for the Islanders) gives the Sabres 85 points as the eight placed team. Yet again, the Islanders would be ahead of the Sabres because they would get more wins in that case. So the Islanders would still have a shot or would they?
3)But the Sabres have to play the Leafs once and the Bruins have to play the Leafs twice and if the Leafs lose one of this matches, it gives the Sabres or the Bruins 86 points or more. If the Leafs win all their matches, it would put the Leafs at 86 points, one more than what the Islanders can get. 
I don't think someone can find a counterargument, unless there is a rule in the NHL that tolerates two teams to lose the same game. --65.94.184.88 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I looked at Boston and Buffalo and found the scenario that would keep the Islanders mathematically in it, but did not consider Toronto.  You are correct that no scenario exists that would keep all three of these teams under 86 points, thus the Islanders that can only get to 85 points with 6 wins are indeed eliminated. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islanders are mathematically eliminated. 

message: Colorado Avalanche have 95 points (not 94, as it is currently noted in the article) after the end of the regular season, so they take the 6th seed without a need for the tiebreaker. I don't know how to edit standings tables, so please someone edit it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.229.102 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standings - correction 

message: I believe the bracket is incorrect. In its current form it would possibly pit the #1 and #2 seeds in the Conference Semifinal. It should be that they would be pitted in the Conference Final (if they survive to it).
I don't know how to edit it, so if some could use the CBSSports as source for the correct order. --Laisak (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured out how it works now. I hope I didn't brake it. --Laisak (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playoff Bracket 

message: Let's all wait until the Conference Quarter-Finals have completed, before we re-seed the teams. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Patience

message: I guess there is always some contention about listing the "top" goalies.  For example, Dan Ellis from Nashville had the best Save Percentage in the league (and played 44 games).  There should be a better breakdown of goalies by the key indicators.Bwilkins (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Goaltender Stats

message: What is our actual DEFINITION of "of note" when it comes to debut players.  I see names that sure, may have played a good part of a season, but are they "of note"??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I always thought we should wait a few years. It was easy for past years as we typically used people who eventually entered the hall of fame. But the typical creep occurred and people wanted to put the debuts section on the new seasons as well and so there was no definition for those players. Personally I would only put people who were nominated for rookie of the year until its far enough away that you can start adding people based on HoF careers. -Djsasso (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: heh ... are you coming back to edit this specific article in 15 years?  LOL Bwilkins (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No but its hardly easy to decide which players are more notable than another player since all players who played professional are considered notable by wiki standards. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Debuts "Of Note"

message: Ok, there have been a few "rumours" of certain players retiring, then actually not, and others being added to this list that I had actually never heard that they were indeed retiring (or going to Europe!).  Because of this, I started using the REF on each last game that was added - after all, everything needs to be verifiable, right?! Bwilkins (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Linden & Tarnstrom aren't coming back to the NHL? GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tarnstrom is 33, and is signed to play for AIK next season - not likely to return.  Lidstrom treated the last half of last season as if it was his last, and the experts seem to agree. Bwilkins (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lidstrom??? GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He means Linden. -Djsasso (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I undestand Tarnstrom's situation (his leaving for Europe). But, Linden hasn't retired or said he was gonna play in another League. Having him on the list is premature IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically I think both are premature. I am not sure that Tarnstrom should even be on the list to begin with. Is he notable enough? Personally the only people I think of when seeing people on that list are people that are going to have shots at the hall of fame. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, so far the list is open to anyone (noting other NHL season articles). Also, it would be difficult to restrict to possible HHOFers, as that couldn't be done with the First game entries. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that using the word notable is POV, as anyone who has played a professional game is notable per wiki standard. So you need some sort of objective line drawn in the sand. Personally I find the easiest being people going into the HHOF. Or atleast people that were voted on, tho I can't remember if hockey releases those stats. First game entries is even simpler, you restrict it to people who went up for rookie of the year or won a major award during their career. As is or was last time I looked the people we had listed on this page were only the rookie nominies and the top goalie. And then once you get to a point where the peoples careers are ending you add in those who meet the hhof criteria to the first game list as well. -Djsasso (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Going by what happend at the NHL team rosters, concerning HHOF members? I'd be concerned about creating a Notable criteria for the Debute & Last game sections of these season articles. PS- May I remove Trevor Linden? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah remove him, and the thing about HHOF members is exactly the point. Before we just said notable players and so people were adding everybody and anybody to the list of notable players on the team pages but once we said they had to be HHOF members then those edit wars ended. By having a set criteria, ie have to have won an award, then you avoid all the POV additions of players. As I have gone back over some of these lists and there are complete nobodies on some of the years. I might have to go through the seasons and prune a bit. -Djsasso (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, the criteria seems reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't ya know it? Just one day after I omitted Trevor Linden from the 'last game' list? he decides to retire. I've re-added him to the list. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been known for months ... that's why I don't understand why people were arguing.  There were even references provided.  The removal was pretty exasperating, and I almost did an undo. Bwilkins (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Crystal. It wasn't officially announced until today. -Djsasso (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between Crystal Ball and Linden is that Linden said "this is my last season".  Ergo based on his words, it was acceptable, even though an OFFICIAL announcement didn't come until today.  However, it's not worth arguing .. the fact that it was official the day after it was removed is victory enough :) Bwilkins (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's not that big a deal. But as you have seen this past year with Selanne and Neidermayer. Even through they said it was their last season it ended up not being. And in their case as there was in this case there was no official announcement. In the past we have generally not listed players as retired until they filed their retirement papers with the league. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Did Tim Taylor ever officially anounce his retirement? I remember disputing this back in February (when, IMHO he was prematurely removed from the Lightning's article). GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: ..and of course, if you deleted the original references, and have now re-added Linden, you will (of course) add new references, won't you? :) Bwilkins (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to add them (I only know how to delete them). Be my guest. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References on "Last Games"

message: Ok, there seems to be some ... "disagreement" on the use of country flags.  It was first removed by someone else on June 9.  At first, I disagreed, and almost reverted.  Then I thought about it for awhile, and agreed that country of origin is unimportant on this article - if you really want to know his citizenship, click to his page ... or even his team's page.  It was re-added yesterday, and I re-removed, and it was re-re-added today.  Can we get some discussion on the yea or nay on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We commonly add flags to the infoboxes and pages such as this for players when they win awards or if its a list of scoring leaders etc etc. There is a discussion about it somewhere but I can't remember the location off the top of my head. It tends to get debated fairly frequently. -Djsasso (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspeople The flag icons should be used for sporting nationality, not nationality.Asher196 (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Wiki:Ignore can be applied here. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be, but why why use the flag icons in the first place?  What purpose do they serve in the context of the NHL Season?  Why would a reader of this article need to know the place of birth of a particular player?  Since the names are all wikilinked, the information is readily available anyway.Asher196 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my original argument ... flags are on the bio page. However, TSN, ESPN and whoever STILL will say (at any course during the season) that "Russian superstar so-and-so"... I kinda started to agree with the keeping the flags there Bwilkins (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Country Flags

message: IIRC, the only time we should be linking to other Wikipedia articles is the FIRST time that the team/player is mentioned (except for special circumstances such as infoboxes, etc).  Should we not be following this a little better? Bwilkins (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal Links

message: Jagr & Emery (for example) should be listed under last game section. As there's is equally no guarentee they'll return to the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, we could easily remove them, if/when they return to the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed ... they should be there.  Someone removed another one a couple of weeks ago too.BMW(drive) 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should have columns.  "Player .. Last Team ... Reason" BMW(drive) 22:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep; Jagr, Emery & Tarnstrom should be re-added. As for the columns? I'm not certain of how to create those. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done BMW(drive) 23:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing, columns will have to be added to the First Gamers aswell. This column style would have to also be added to all the NHL season articles (eventually). GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't really agree, until a player officially places retirement papers with the league then we can't assume its their last game. It's no different than a number of players we held off the list for a year or two because they didn't officially retire.-Djsasso (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I would argue even if it were, of those three players the only one notable enough to be on the list is Jagr. -Djsasso (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I don't see why Tärnström should be mentioned. Emery could still return to the NHL. --Krm500 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Kapanen hasn't retired?  Did you READ the linked article?  That's why I have insisted on references.  I also think we need to re-add Emery and Jagr.  The whole idea behind having a "reason" column was so that we could TRACK those that perhaps COULD come back. BMW(drive) 11:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read the poorly formulated press release from the Flyers. He is not retired. --Krm500 (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Emery had one big season, I don't think he qualifies as a player of note. In fact at one point I thought it was decided that only players who won or were nominated for awards would be listed in the debuts or last games. But maybe I am mistaken. -Djsasso (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally I think the whole section should be wiped out. Because per WP:N every person with a page is notable and trying to choose people who are more notable than the others is inherently POV. Only way I could see to somehow avoid that would be to only list people who have been added to the hall of fame. Yes that means waiting a couple years after they retire but its the only way I see to avoid the POV. -Djsasso (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to keep it, although perhaps in a modified way.  A player who comes up and down from the minors is generally NOT considered to be "last game in the NHL".  Any player either has to officially retire from the NHL, OR who officially signs a contract outside of the NHL system (yes, they may return .. then again, so might a retired player!) can be listed.  What are there usually, 16 retirements a season?  Nothing wrong with noting them.  Maybe we need a column with "what makes them notable", or "how many seasons"? BMW(drive) 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last games [pending] 

message: Does anyone know how to edit the standings? As of today (June 20, 2013), the New York Islanders are listed as being in the Southeast Division, they were actually in the Atlantic division that year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity Project (talk • contribs) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The standings are in a protected, referenced template, if I remember correctly.  Do you have a source to confirm what you're saying? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes I do: http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm?season=20072008&type=CON (where the Islanders are clearly listed as being in the "ATL" division, different from Atlanta and Tampa Bay) and http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm?season=20072008&type=DIV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity Project (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

text: There's no giant rush ... this is a volunteer project, and I personally was not around a lot yesterday (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should be fixed now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standings