Talk:1993 Stanley Cup playoffs
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Croctotheface does NOT have the final say as to what is encyclopedic or not. What TV announcers say during the course of a game does have relevance within the article, especially if they are mentioned under the appropriately entitled section, QUOTES. Ericster08 (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, "QUOTES" are more or less appropriate for Wikiquote, not this wiki. Secondly, these quotes aren't exactly "Do you believe in miracles" quality. "And it's centered...SCORES!!! The Leafs have tied the game! Gilmour has scored with 2:43 left" could scarcely be more generic; hockey announcers say stuff in this vein for basically every goal that's scored in every game. If you want to file a request for comment or seek out a third opinion, I invite you to do that. Croctotheface (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done and Done. Ericster08 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3rd Opinion response
[edit]After looking at the quotes which were deleted, I agree with User:Croctotheface that the quotes don't add much to the substance of the article. None of them are iconic quotes; none are notable for their impact, for their construction, for their passion. Horologium (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Relevance of later seasons to this article
[edit]I don't see a reason to include information relating to later seasons, especially negative information. Lack of success is not notable in sports; only one team really has a successful season in the NHL. By choosing to highlight losses in the future, we are violating our principle of neutral writing. Moreover, this is an article about the 1993 playoffs; events that happened in subsequent years are not relevant. The reason given for inclusion in an edit summary was that the information is "factual," but the implication there seems to be that we must include any and all factual information, which is patently false. Croctotheface (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. In sports, stats are everything, and any kind of a streak, good or bad, is a stat. Jmj713 (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about the 1993 playoffs. It should certainly present stats--so long as those stats are relevant to the 1993 playoffs. How is the performance of a team in subsequent years, going all the way up to 2007 or so, relevant to 1993? And besides, there's the neutrality issue; merely saying "they're stats" doesn't mean that they're presented neutrally; rather, they highlight failures that are not altogether uncommon in hockey or any sport. As I said, when only one team wins a championship every year, lack of success is very common. Should we highlight all the teams that failed to win championships since 1993? Or should we stick to presenting information relevant to the 1993 playoffs in the 1993 playoffs article? Croctotheface (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I agree with you that it should be neutral. In my opinion, if a team's lack of playoff success is notable enough, it should be pointed out. Don't you think the fact the last time Toronto made the Stanley Cup Finals (in 1967) should be mentioned in that article? Jmj713 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about the 1993 playoffs. It should certainly present stats--so long as those stats are relevant to the 1993 playoffs. How is the performance of a team in subsequent years, going all the way up to 2007 or so, relevant to 1993? And besides, there's the neutrality issue; merely saying "they're stats" doesn't mean that they're presented neutrally; rather, they highlight failures that are not altogether uncommon in hockey or any sport. As I said, when only one team wins a championship every year, lack of success is very common. Should we highlight all the teams that failed to win championships since 1993? Or should we stick to presenting information relevant to the 1993 playoffs in the 1993 playoffs article? Croctotheface (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again, focusing on negative statistics places undue and irrelevant focus on a lack of winning, which, again, is not really notable in sports. Success is notable; lack of success, except in some extreme cases, such as perhaps the Leafs 40+ years without appearing in the cup finals, is not. It's possible that in extreme cases, such as the Leafs or Rangers, where losing goes on so long that it becomes something worth focusing on by itself, there is some merit to mentioning it. Even then, I don't see why we must mention it in the article on the 1967 finals or 1940 playoffs or whatever else. It surely will receive some coverage in the team article or, in such cases, potentially an independent article like Curse of 1940. I don't see how a handful of first round exits, or an 8 game playoff losing streak are the least bit illuminating about the 1993 playoffs, and nobody has explained that to me yet. Croctotheface (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just feel that the 1993 playoffs aren't an isolated event. Things that happened beforehand and afterward have meaning to it because it's part of a timeline. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with adding future information, negative or positive, as long as it makes sense in the context. Jmj713 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again, focusing on negative statistics places undue and irrelevant focus on a lack of winning, which, again, is not really notable in sports. Success is notable; lack of success, except in some extreme cases, such as perhaps the Leafs 40+ years without appearing in the cup finals, is not. It's possible that in extreme cases, such as the Leafs or Rangers, where losing goes on so long that it becomes something worth focusing on by itself, there is some merit to mentioning it. Even then, I don't see why we must mention it in the article on the 1967 finals or 1940 playoffs or whatever else. It surely will receive some coverage in the team article or, in such cases, potentially an independent article like Curse of 1940. I don't see how a handful of first round exits, or an 8 game playoff losing streak are the least bit illuminating about the 1993 playoffs, and nobody has explained that to me yet. Croctotheface (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not isolated, but I just don't see the relevance of this information. To me, it doesn't make sense in context, except at a trivial level. If, say, something that happened in '93 were made more significant by subsequent events, then it would make sense to explain that in the article. I just don't see that here. The intention seems to be to say that the Blackhawks or Islanders kind of suck/sucked; that's the meaning I think a lot of readers would get from this, anyway. Croctotheface (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)