Talk:2007 Stanley Cup playoffs

message: Last night I made a change to this article to show the top 10 goalies rather than the top 5, in order to offer more adequate coverage of how the top goalies are playing. This was changed back 8 hours later because this is "the standard on wiki NHL pages".
The number of top point-scorers fluctuates with the number of points, and the list generally stays between the top 7 to 11 players. Presenting only the top 5 goalies all the time is very poor coverage.
As a demonstration, the top goalies from 6-10 by GAA (Miller, Lundqvist, Bryzgalov, Backstrom, Nabokov) all have a better Sv% than Emery, and all but Nabokov have a better Sv% than both Emery and Hasek. These goalies, especially Miller, are certainly playing better than either Emery or Hasek, but they are not recognized here as top goalies because it is "the standard on wiki NHL pages" to show only the top 5 by GAA.
I propose that we set a new precedent by showing more than just 5 goalies. Here are two ideas:
# We can simply show the top 10 by GAA.
# Or we can include Sv% as a criterion — which I think is a better indicator of a goalie's performance. It could be the top 5 by GAA, and the top 5 by Sv%. This will almost always result in some overlap, so the list can potentially be anywhere between 5 and 10, but usually in between. At the time of writing, it would be 7 long — adding Bryzgalov and Kiprusoff, since Giguere, Turco and Luongo are on both lists.
Thoughts? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea here...Jmlk17 05:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only the top five (5) goalies? 

message: All of the game info/boxes from previous conferences (except Stanley Cup) has been sub-sectioned to provide a faster load of the main page. The main page was reaching over 100k and can be very slow to load especially for those on dialup. I have created the three subs and have copied the info to them. Once the round is over and Stanley Cup round begins the Conference Finals should then be moved over.  Eric B ( T • C • W ) 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think subpages are allowed. See WP:SUBPAGES. —MC 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As MC points out, a subpage is not allowed in this situation.  Besides that, I don't understand why you just did it without any discussion.  I am changing it back. V-train 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to be split then. Wikipedia:Article size I thought having sub-pages would suffice instead we can just create the pages without the / to make things smaller.  Eric B ( T • C • W ) 13:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to split. 90% of the text of the article is the series and summary templates, which take a lot of arguments. It might be justified if there were prose accompanying every series, though. But splitting a bunch of templates to different pages? (For future reference, sub-pages don't work in article space, so as to allow articles like GNU/Linux naming controversy have slashes in them. And there's no signature above...) Comrade Tux 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page Subsections 

message: Lets get this section removed entirely. There's no legitimate encyclopedic reason for it and any specific information should be included into the article itself.  Eric B ( T • C • W ) 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...if anything, turn it into a legitimate, well-organized prose though.  Some of that stuff IS interesting, even it there may be no reason for it in its current form. Jmlk17 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or at least minimize the most trivial parts. Jmlk17 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been much discussion about this from anyone else. If there isn't I'll just go ahead and remove it in it's entirety.  Eric B ( T • C • W ) 02:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not just entirely remove this section, as the majority of the information is relevant, however it is very disorganized. Here are some guidelines in how you should handle the trivia section. --Sukh17 T • C • E</sup></font></span> 06:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course that was the plan.  Eric B ( T • C • W ) 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: How are the Conference Finals called? "Prince or Wales" Finals or "Eastern Conference" Finals? --Howard the Duck 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've always just been called "Eastern/Western Conference Finals" and so forth for the rounds before it. The only one that deserves its own name is the Stanley Cup Finals.  Eric B ( T • C • W ) 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... thanks. --Howard the Duck 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of Bettman's useless legacies is getting rid of the historical conference names after the 1992-93 season.  Andrwsc 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which brings me to... what was it called before Bettman screwed up? --Howard the Duck 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Western Conference used to be Campbell Conference and Eastern was Price of Wales Conference.  The trophies won for the conference championships still bear those names.  And the divisions were Adams & Patrick in the Wales and Smythe and Norris in the Campbell.  Ah, the good old days.... Andrwsc 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what did they call the stage of the playoffs? The Prince of Wales Finals? --Howard the Duck 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1993-94 NHL Official Guide and Record Book called them "Prince of Wales Conference Championship" and "Clarence S. Campbell Conference Championship" series. (pg. 203).  Andrwsc 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. --Howard the Duck 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference Finals 

message: I'm watching the game and updating in as-close-to-real-time-as-is-possible.  Andrew647 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather pointless, isn't it?  This is an encyclopedia, not a sports ticker.  Andrwsc 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 4 Game 

message: The Game's 3 and 4 goal/no-goal controversies should be added. These are still argued about today and changed the whole course of the series, and basically changed the possible outcome of Game 4. Even if these were the right calls, they are surely noteworthy enough to be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.127.162 (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isles/Sabres Game 3 and 4 Controversies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007 Stanley Cup playoffs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131032027/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=0683ea58-afd3-4504-9597-99f85f3d3379 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=0683ea58-afd3-4504-9597-99f85f3d3379
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified