Talk:2006 Stanley Cup playoffs

Webcast?

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)

Champions

Is it appropriate to refer to the Red Wings and Senators as "champions" of their respective Conferences? It was my understanding the only championship was the one determined in the playoffs; they are only their respective Conferences' No. 1 seed. Is this wrong?

Apparently, the correct term is "Conference Champion," at least according to the press release from Detroit's web site. While I know that the Wings can have a bit of an ego, I'd imagine that they'd use the correct term in something official.Z4ns4tsu 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call, I stand corrected, or at least informed.

Images a friend took while at Game 1 of the Red Wings playoff series confirms this; the banners relevant to this discussion in their arena all read "[Season] Western Conference Regular Season Champions"

Oops! Please fix the title

Please fix the main title of the article to "2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs". I forgot one "f" in "playoff." Thanks. NoseNuggets 12:45 AM US EST Feb 26 2006.

The playoffs are not a bracket

Teams are reseeded after the first round of the playoffs (i.e., OTT-TB winnner might not play the BUF-PHI winner)

Yes, however it is an illustration of the playoffs. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to delete the black lines that purport to connect certain series to other series? Without those lines, I think it would be clearer that the Quarterfinals don't feed into the Semifinals in the fashion a neophyte might otherwise conclude.

Just finished modifying the 16 team bracket template to match the needs of an NHL Playoffs format. Check it out here and the directions/infobox code here. If you like it, let's use it for this page and any other hockey playoffs that need this format. Z4ns4tsu 18:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No one said "No! No! Don't change it!" So I went ahead and did. Let me know if you like it, but please don't just revert it, k? Z4ns4tsu 00:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One change I'd make to the bracket is we CAN have the lines going from the Semifinals to the Finals, and the Finals to the Cup Finals. I think that having lines there would call attention to their absence from the QFs to the SFs; as it is, someone who doesn't know better may just assume the lines were all omitted. I also agree with the below comment that the 4/5 series should go below the 1/8 series, since it is the most likely matchup.

The 4vs5 game should be right below the 1vs8 because it is the most likely match-up in the second round, and therefore saves editors the trouble of switching all the rounds around. Otherwise, great stuff!

I originally ordered it with 1v8 followed by 2v7 because that is how the NHL presents it on their playoffs page. I also think it looks better than having them in an arbitrary order after the first round, especially with the first set of lines removed and the explanation on the page. I'm not going to change it back right now, but I think that it should be dscussed. Z4ns4tsu 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, having some fixed order the series are listed in for the first round is great, especially since the note explains why things might not match up going into Round 2. I edited it to 1-8, 4-5, 3-6, 2-7, though, because that made it look like a traditional "bracket" (even though I know this is not a bracket system) i.e. the NCAA Tournament brackets. It just so happened that it worked out that way in the Eastern Conference (1-4 and 2-3 in second round) and, if Anaheim wins tonight, it would work out that in the Western Conference too (5-8 and 6-7 in the second round). I see someone edited my change with a note saying "those teams [SJ, ANA, CGY] can't possibly make those spots [the two blanks left in the Western Conference second round]". First of all, as I just explained, they certainly can make those spots... if Anaheim wins. And secondly, even if they don't, it doesn't matter, since the first round matchups are not connected to the second round matchups anyway. --Skudrafan1 19:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks good the way it is. It should be clear enough to the reader what is going on. In fact, someone needs to look at the NBA chart and upgrade it to look more like the NHL chart, as they haven't figured out how to make the individual slots the same length as the NHL chart has them. Wahkeenah 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two options. Either list the QF series 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5; or else list them 1/8, 4/5, 3/6, 2/7. Right now the chart is inconsistent; 2/7 comes before 3/6 in one and after 3/6 in the other. I think the strongest argument is in favor of going 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 because the NHL actually designates them Series A-H, and they are so designated going in that order within each Conference (i.e., Ottawa/Tampa Bay was Series A, Detroit/Edmonton was Series E, Nashville/SJ was Series H).

I agree with Wahkeenah. The current version is excellent. Rituro 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What the? The chart doesn't flow properly. You guys are nuts for defending that. The media that uses similar charts adust it so it flows properly after every round. Why are we doing something different? -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not supposed to flow. That's the point. The QF series are not bracketed into the SF series. However, I would point out that since the QF series are not bracketed into the SF series, shouldn't we put the higher-seeded team on the top line in the SF series? I can understand putting the team on whatever line it corresponds to for the Conf Finals and Cup Finals, since there's a bracketed line the team is following, but since the SFs aren't bracketed, we have the flexibility to put the team on either line. I think that would, again, emphasize that the matchups aren't bracketed.

Why is it not supposed to flow? Of course it's supposed to flow. That's what charts like this do. There would be no point of the chart if it were not illustrating how teams flow from one round to the next. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the NHL's playoff format does not flow like that. By retroactively changing it you suggest that that was what the "chart" looked like from the start. I mean, the NHL itself designates them Series A-H, and orders them 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 within each Conference. The NHL does not go back and retroactively change the order of the series designations because a certain team or teams advanced to change around the SF matchups. Neither should we be moving stuff around after the fact, and in fact I think the series ought to be listed in the same order the NHL lists them. Ottawa/Tampa Bay was Series A, Detroit/Edmonton was Series E, Nashville/San Jose was Series H.

No, because there is a note below the chart clearly stating otherwise. Don't make things confusing. If you see Ottawa and Buffalo and then look to the right and see Carolina, people are going to get confused. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Better to confuse a few people than have misleading information. Arctic Gnome 04:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing information IS misleading. What's confusing is NO other media source jumbles up the teams like you guys had. I'd say that would be original research. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The NHL playoffs are always seeded "top plays bottom" and displayed as such. Show me proof that any credible media source lists the teams otherwise. Rituro 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't know what other media you're referring to but it's not relevant anyways. This is an encyclopedia, which means we ought to be hyper-sensitive to absolute accuracy. As far as I'm concerned, the dispositive fact is that the NHL itself designates them Series A-H; we should list them in the same order the NHL does.

I don't see where there's any harm in re-arranging the initial brackets to match the subsequent brackets. However, maybe you could figure out a way to label the initial brackets 'A' through 'H' so that it's a little clearer how they were initially set up. Wahkeenah 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To my sensibilities, the literal A-H designations are not all that useful in this context. They'd only be meaningful to "insiders" working on this article and it would take more effort than it's worth to explain their significance. However, they are useful as a guide to how the series ought to be arranged.

Yes. That's what I was getting at. If you think about it, there is no actual "order" to the first set of brackets. Each one is a series against a pair of competitors. So it doesn't really matter what order you put them in, they are still the same set of series. And placing the otherwise-meaningless label on them provides continuity with the explanation of how the first and second round seedings are done. Wahkeenah 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone but Earl Andrew seems to agree they should be listed in the same official order the NHL lists them, I tried to make it so, but I must not understand the method by which the chart is generated. Someone else who "gets it" will have to do it.

I reverted it. Look, this is silly. NO ONE USES THIS TYPE OF CHART. Look, I can come up with many charts who use the sane version: here is CBS for example Plus, if you ever go to the Hockey Hall of Fame, they will have a similar chart. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more: [1] [2] [3] Need I say more? -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Earl Andrew. The NHL playoffs are not a normal bracket and teams get reseeded for the second round. As such they are also ordered by top seed. This means the bracket in its current form is great. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 00:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a bunch of media outlets got this wrong doesn't seem particularly relevant. The suggestion in all of those charts is that the winner of a given series advanced to the appropriate line on the bracket. That isn't true, or it's better to say it only became true after the fact; had other teams won, it would have looked differently. That's no way to run a railroad; the bracket at the beginning of the tournament should look the same as the bracket at the end of it.

The bottom line should be clarity. Wahkeenah 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And to me, this seems unclear in that it suggests those were the second-round matchups to begin with, instead of how the chips ended up falling.

The bracket has been created especially for the NHL playoffs and have been this way since the start of the playoffs. It is properly done, you will notice no graphics pointing that the first groups are merged to the second. You will also need to note that the point of an encyclopedia is to have the proper facts, not necessarily meaning to have it look good in the process either. The facts are there, it is stated that in the Conference Semi-Finals that teams are reseeded. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 02:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It was clear to me either way. As you say, the text explains it. Maybe y'all need to take a vote on it? Wahkeenah 03:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for what I see as of 7:30pm EDT. It has the series arranged in the same order the NHL designates them (A-H in the first round in that order; I-L in the 2nd; for what it's worth, East Finals are always Series M, West Finals are always Series N, and Cup Finals are always Series O).

If there were some way to incorporate the series letter codes into the brackets, that might make things clearer to the novice. Wahkeenah 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• My two cents: I agree with Wahkeenah that we should use the format that all of the other media uses. After all, one of Wikipedia's policies is that "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of what other media do, I can't say as I've ever seen the series listed in any other order on the NHL's website, which is what matters most. User:65.42.16.135 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What matters most is that it be clear. Wahkeenah 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it only ought to be as clear as the NHL makes it. If the NHL chooses to obfuscate the issue (or if some users feel the NHL's treatment of it is obfuscatory) that's something to take up with the NHL. What's official are the A-H series designations. User:65.42.16.135 02:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what good are we? We should rename ourselves "parrot-pedia". Wahkeenah 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On a matter like this, the expression of the information is properly a decision of its owner. It's like the PGA TOUR or THE PLAYERS Championship. It's awfully silly that they have it rendered in all caps, but that's their choice. User:65.42.16.135 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• That doesn't affect the meaning, though. This is not like a Unix system where "PLAYERS" means something different than if it's spelled "Players". The article needs to be informative, not just a monkey-see-monkey-do. Wahkeenah 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess to my sensibilities, there's no underlying truth here. What the league says goes. Monkey-see-monkey-do is what's informative. We're free to explain and so forth as much as we want, but as far as how information is styled, that is the domain of its owner. And the league styles the series A-H, in that specific order.

At this point, I'm not even sure where the problem is. The brackets are currently in the A-H order, right? They could be left that way, or someone could put the 'A' through 'H' in them somehow and the try to retrofit them as a normal tournament bracket, but there's already the verbal explanation underneath, so I don't get what the hassle is at this point. Wahkeenah 04:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, someone messed up the brackets again. I should let everyone know that Wikipedia is NOT original research. That means you can't just make up a playoff bracket without using any sources that do the same thing. As I already pointed out, the media prefers to use a bracket that actually makes sense, and we at Wikipedia have to be able to source our contributions based on non-original content. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what the issue is now. The question is, who decides the bracket structure, the National Hockey League, or CBS. I would tend to go with the NHL. However, I don't even see a tournament chart on nhl.com, just the schedule. Maybe somebody can find one buried somewhere on nhl.com and cite it here, and that should trump any news media outlet. If not, then CBS wins. Wahkeenah 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The NHL uses the same bracket as shown on the links I've provided. I have never seen them do otherwise. I'm sure the NHL oversees the hockey hall of fame, and while I don't know if it's still there, when I was there a few years ago they had a playoff bracket on display. This was back in 1997. Anyways, they used the same bracket as shown on the CBS site. The point of the chart is to show what teams played what teams and to follow it along to see who they played next. This intent is lost if the order is changed to not make any sense. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree. However, can you list the specific URL on the nhl.com site that shows the bracket? Wahkeenah 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no bracket on the NHL page one way or the other. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The NHL doesn't put a bracket on their website, but they DO list the series in a particular order. General bracket principles apply from Rounds 2-4; it's just from round 1 to round 2 that we have an issue. They aren't listing a bracket on their site but since they designate the series A-H that's all the information I need or want. I am blind to how CBS chooses to make it look; I distrust the way most media cover the NHL anyways.

http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy/2006/playoffsked.html; if you View Source, you'll see the league has embedded an anchor next to each series (facilitating linking directly to it) designating it Series A-N (Series O will be posted when the Cup Finals roll around). This is the only official information we've got, and the bracket we reconstruct should reflect this information.

The A-H order is artificial. There is no actual "order" to the first round, they are just pairs of games based on seedings. So you could retrofit the bracket to show the actual flow, with the letters posted in the brackets all the way through as a guide to the NHL's approach. I would say it's evident that the NHL site doesn't use a bracket precisely because of the confusion it could cause. If you're going to use a bracket (which I see no harm in doing), then you should do it whichever way is conventionally done and so that it makes sense to the reader. Wahkeenah 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have tired of arguing about it. I don't think the A-H order is artificial at all, or at least it is no more artificial than any other aspect of the tournament. The AFC/NFC distinction in the NFL is just as artificial, in other words. I believe very strongly in official designations and having information styled properly, and this is my understanding of the matter. I don't think I have anything further to contribute to the debate. I would appreciate anybody voicing their support who agrees but I don't have the stamina to continue to monitor this debate.

The A-H is not an order for a bracket. They are just letters designating series'. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they're designated in a particular order. They could be designated in ways that did not order them at all. They could be designated "DET/EDM Series" or so forth. They aren't. Ordinal designations were chosen instead. That's what my argument boils down to. I am not interested in what the largely misguided mainstream media do or your anecdotal evidence from 9 years ago.

Since the argument arround my original bracket seems to be based on media sources, here is a media link for you to look at. Sports Illustrated (by all accounts an authoritative source for almost any mainstream sport) lists the games in the same order as the NHL. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 IN THAT ORDER. Here's the URL: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/hockey/nhl/specials/playoffs/2006/playoffs.sked/. As for the argument of which sources should be used, let's check the guidlines: "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing" and "the most reliable material available is expected" from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I would have to argue that the most reliable source for information concerning a sport is that sport's managing league. By definition, the NHL MUST get the playoff games listed in the correct order because they are the ones who authorize the games in the first place. Also, just as an aside, while the Hockey Hall of Fame has information on past playoffs and hosts a lot of artifacts, it is only associated with and not controlled by the NHL. It is run by a separate group that has it's own board and they have their own priorities. The HHoF is a tertiary source of information just like Wikipedia and their decisions have no authority over what we do here. I also call for a vote on the matter and possibly a temporary lock on edits to that section until a consensus has been reached. Z4ns4tsu 05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Such ado over so little. Yes, all the series are assigned letters, but the letters for the A-H games are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with anything, except that the A-B-C-D survivors play among themselves and the E-F-G-H survivors play among themselves, because they are in separate conferences. So it doesn't really matter, ultimately what order the first round games are shown in because, aside from the conference separation, the order is meaningless. I'll be amused to see how this all turns out, because the chart makes total sense to me either way. Wahkeenah 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What does the sports illustrated article have to do with anything? It's not a bracket, so it's not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about the order of the series' on the page, we're talking about the bracket chart. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Earl, I think you are missing the point of this entire discussion. The NHL playoffs are not in a bracket form. It is a seeded single-elimination tournament; this isn't college basketball. The graph in the article is also not a bracket (as this discussion topic states) but is a graphical representation of the tournament. The top seed always plays the bottom seed. Illustrating that is the point of the SI article (besides invalidating your argument that "the media" represents the NHL playoffs one way) and the links to the NHL's playoffs page. Again, this issue appears to have two paths to resolution: one, a vote to determine consensus by the Ice Hockey project at large, or two, someone writes to the NHL and requests they look at the page and determine which is the correct format. Consensus or Authority, those are the options. Z4ns4tsu 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Until a vote is taken, can we revert the graph back to 1v8, 2v7, etc.? The current "retroactive seeding" made to match the remaining seeds looks wrong. Rituro 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How does it look wrong? It flows so that the winner of one pair can be found next to it. The alternative option presented would look wrong in that suddenly the table does not flow. Yes, the NHL is not a bracket, but since we've chosen to use a chart on this page, it should flow properly, otherwise there will be no point in having a chart. The SI article has absolutely NO chart on its page and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about the chart here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a fundamental flaw in the argument that assigning letters A-H to these matches implies some kind of "order" to them. There is no order. It does not matter what order they are shown anywhere, the second round matchups are still the same. Therefore, it does not matter what order the brackets are shown, because they are only for reference. User Rituro unwittingly brought this to my attention. The NHL could just as easily call the pairings E-1-V-8, E-2-V-7, etc., but that would be unwieldy and even more confusing, so they just use A-through-H instead. The letters are merely "names" or "identifiers" of the pairings, they do not imply any kind of order. Wahkeenah 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that all of media almost never uses the assigned letters. And it's also hard to find them mentioned on NHL.com. They are not explicitly listed on http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy/2006/playoffsked.html, only hidden from view in the HTML code. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read an historical account of the NHL (for example, the excellent Bowman biography by Hunter) they routinely refer to prior series in that fashion, which is in fact where I was first clued into that as the league's official internal designations for the series. As for the argument that there is no order, why, then, does the league choose ordinal designations? As someone pointed out, they could choose arbitrary designations that are not ordinal (like, Series OTT/TAM or something); however, they choose not to use such designations. They make use of ordinal monikers instead. Also, what happened to the bracket on the main page? It is now a crazy quilt that doesn't make a great deal of sense to me at all, nor does it even match what it purportedly is sourced from.

Earl Andrew's re-arranged method causes more confusion than putting them in A-H order. It now it looks like the winner of 2/7 plays the winner of 3/6, and the winner of 1/8 plays the winner of 4/5. This is completely misleading. Arctic Gnome 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am rather confused as to how it is misleading to suggest that the winner of 2/7 will play the winner of 3/6 given that this is exactly what happened. This bracket is designed to show how this years playoffs broke down. The note at the end is more than enough to explain why the chart looks as it does. Not at all misleading. Resolute 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

With all this debate, I would like to get an idea of where everyone stands on the issue. Do you think that we should list teams in the flowchart by seed (A-H) or by retroactively lining them up?

User	Choice	Reason
Arctic Gnome	By Seed.	The current layout is misleading because it looks like the 2vs7 winner was pre-determined to play the 3vs6 winner.
IP 65.42.16.135	By Seed	The chart is not a bracket; it is a graphical representation of the NHL playoffs. The NHL's playoff format includes a reshuffling of the deck after the 1st round and the graphical representation should reflect that. Additionally, the series are designated with ordinals that reflect the order they ought to be listed in.
Earl Andrew	current layout'	The proposed layout is misleading because when you see two teams play eachother, you expect the winner to be in the column next to it, not some other team. This is how brackets work. The point of the chart is to show which teams beat eachother and who they played next, not the playoff seedings. That's in a different section. Not only that, the chart violates Wikipedia policy, as it is original content, as no credeble media source uses any similar table to the one proposed.
Wahkeenah	Either way works	Clarity is the important thing. The notion that the letters represent some kind of "order" is a misinterpretation. There is no actual "order" to the first round. It's just a lack of imagination on the part of the NHL at assigning names. No matter what titles you give to the first round games, the second round pairings work out the same way.
Skudrafan1	By seed	Lining them up by seed is simple, and not at all misleading because the footnote under the bracket explains why you don't see the 1-8 winner in the slot next to their matchup. What seems confusing to me is having the matchups lined up differently in each conference. As Arctic Gnome said, the way it is shown now makes it look like the second-round matchups were predetermined, which, of course, they weren't.
Z4ns4tsu	By Seed.	Multiple: One - this was the original purpose for creating a new chart in the first place; Two - it is the correct and official way to list the games according to the people who pay for it; Three - all the reasons to change it have been either disproven (that it is confusing: lots of people say other wise), are invalid (the media's opinon doesn't count, they rarely get things associated with the NHL correct in the first place, or refuted by Wikipedia best-practices; Four - it looks better to have order in the first round than chaos.
Croat Canuck	Current layout.	I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the other way. Also, this way is the way I've seen it done very often, and it makes the more sense to somebody who doesn't know much about sports.
Resolute	Current layout	Much ado about nothing. Leave the chart as is, as it displays how one team flows from one series into the next. The note after the chart that mentions that teams are reseeded after the first round is more than enough to explain how things work.
Ravenswing 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)	Current layout	Much ado about nothing says it all.
Eric B	By Seed	The proper order and template can conform to sorting it by seed. There is no need to follow the media's design for this. An encyclopedia should show facts and as such should be sorted by seed.
Rituro	By Seed	Every single layout I've seen for the NHL playoffs has displayed in top vs. bottom format. This includes all media sources and informal write-ups. The argument that top vs. bottom will appear "confusing" to people who don't follow the sport is irrelevant. You don't change the way a sport is played or reported to accomodate the ignorant. The onus is on them to learn the nuances of the sport. Another point: top vs. bottom is far more readable. The eye naturally catches 1, 2, 3, 4 as it reads down the column as well as 8, 7, 6, 5. Trying to go in some bizarre, retroactive order depending on who won in each round makes the chart that much more difficult to read.
Andrwsc	No flowchart needed	I think the playoff bracket is misleading no matter how it is structured -- especially using the word "bracket" in the section title. I think the simplest, clearest way to document each year's playoffs is by listing each series in order (hopefully conforming to the NHL's usage of "Series A", etc.) with a paragraph or two of descriptive text and a short table of game scores. The work in progress for 2004 Stanley Cup Playoffs looks fine to me. Using a bracket flowchart on these pages is excessive. It looks to me like someone getting carried away with Wikipedia table and formatting skills with no great benefit to the page.

Comment: I don't think it's Wiki policy to count votes from IP addresses. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well feel free to delete it but it's just a straw poll anyways. You can delete or not as you wish but the preceding makes it clear I exist and have articulated my opinion.

You'd be wrong, Earl; there is no such policy. Over on AfD, an admin who rules on an individual debate generally takes into account the edit history of the voters, and tends to discount those from first-time or anonymous editors as an anti-sock/meatpuppet defense. Anonymous editors aren't disenfranchised, though, especially if they make reasonable arguments. Ravenswing 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Looks like we have a 4-4 tie. Hmm... -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OVERTIME! Wahkeenah 20:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're the tie breaker Wahkeenah! -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good one, since I said either way is OK. Wahkeenah 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Does my say count for anything or am I too late? Rituro 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (EDIT: Wahkeenah, re: your comments in the straw poll, I don't believe that's true. As far as I know, top vs. bottom is the "official" order.)

But it's a meaningless "order". Wahkeenah 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I count 6-4 in favor of ordering by seed.

Contrary to what some recent voter said, you should leave the brackets. It is much easier to see what's going on than having to wade through a bunch of text to figure it out. Wahkeenah 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I would be "some recent voter" (my user name of Andrwsc is clearly visible, by the way). If the consensus is to keep that ugly flowchart, then at a minimum I suggest that 1) the section title be renamed as Playoff Series Summary (or similar) and get rid of the word "Bracket" altogether, and 2) all connecting lines in the table be removed, not just from the first to second round as is shown now.

I shudder to think that somebody is going to add this to Wikipedia pages for all previous playoff years... Andrwsc 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that would be you. The original version, with no connectors between the first and second set, was fine as it was. The revised version, retrofitting to the actual flow of the games, was also fine. Without the brackets, you have to schlog through the verbiage. I don't see how that's useful. And if the word "bracket" bothers you (even though that's what it is), call it something else. Call it "Puck-marks" if you want to, I don't care. Just don't erase it on the grounds that there is disagreement among an obsessive few users about its precise layout. Wahkeenah 00:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no utility to deleting the connectors from the later rounds. In those situations, the connectors are accurate. It's just from Round 1 to Round 2 that the connectors are inappropriate.

Series table revamping

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)

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)

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)

I loved the logos so add them back on,

please.

the table thingy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I like the new colours! Can we make the shade of red a bit lighter for easier legibility?--Sonjaaa 03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Made a color change. I think it looks better now. Z4ns4tsu 02:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it!!!--Sonjaaa 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mid-Game Updates/Edits

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)

• It's just something I like to do, and I don't think it hurts anything. If others don't like it either, though, I will cease and desist. Skudrafan1 01:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Regular season series/previous playoff series info

Guys, do you think we should remove the regular season and previous playoff meeting information? Now that all the series have begun, it's all sort of irrelevant, do you agree? --Skudrafan1 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, keep it. It gives us a comparisan between the regular season and the playoffs and tells us the history between the two teams. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Once the series is over, there is no reason to keep it. It is information that has the flavor of a "series preview," not the sort of thing you'd see in an encyclopedia. When the series is over and we're fixing this up for posterity, I see no reason to keep the regular season and previous playoff meeting information.

It's of interest. I did not add the information as a preview item, I added it so we can compare the information the results of the series. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as though the information is of no value; however, it doesn't seem relevant to an article about the playoffs. While these playoffs are a current event, as I say it seems fine, but it'd be a shade on the weird side if I brought up an equivalent article for the 1972-73 Stanley Cup Playoffs and it had the same sort of information. In particular, the two teams' previous playoff meetings seems more appropriate for their respective team history pages once it is no longer being used as historical context for a current event.

Very well said. These are my feelings exactly. --Skudrafan1 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relavent to the playoffs. It IS the playoffs. It's just a brief synopsis of the history of those teams. I don't see what the big deal is. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Information about previous seasons has nothing to do with THIS season's playoff. The article is about THIS year's playoff, not any other. As noted, nobody is saying it should be deleted now, but I would highly recommend losing the historical information for the QF pairings when the Semifinals get started. At that point, the historical information for the SF pairings would be fine, until the Conf Finals begin, and so forth; after the Cup Finals are over, no more historical information is needed. On that theory, the information about the teams' regular season series is at least arguably relevant (since it is at least about the season that fed into these playoffs) and so I don't plan on arguing one way or the other about it.

My take on this is that at some point, we should probably start adding actual text to the series sections. As it stands, for instance, there's nothing about Jaromir Jagr being injured and possibly missing Game 2. As such, I think that past history can be used in a lead-in paragraph. For instance, for the Devils/Rangers, say something like "After an 11-game winning streak to end the regular season, the Devils claimed the Atlantic Division crown and the 3 seed, and faced the Rangers who suffered a season-ending 5-game losing streak to fall to the 6 seed. The teams split their 8 games during the regular season with each team going 3-1 at home. The Devils and Rangers were meeting in the playoffs for the fourth time, with the Rangers having won all three prior meetings, including the [[1994 Stanley Cup Playoffs|1994 Eastern Conference Finals]], notable for Mark Messier's Game 6 guarantee and hat trick and Stephan Matteau's double overtime winner in Game 7." I also think that once the series or possibly playoffs in total pass, since the TV networks and game time will no longer be relevant (excluding extraordinary circumstances such as a night game followed by a day game the next day, which can be mentioned in the text), the tables should be revamped to something like the following, where a note will be made that bold indicates overtime goals Jonpin 04:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Game	Date	Score (home in italics)	NJ goals	NYR goals
1	April 22	Devils 6, Rangers 1	Elias 2, Gomez, Klee, Rafalski, Langenbrunner	Prucha
2	April 24	Devils 3, Rangers 2 (2OT, 4:13)	Gionta, Kozlov, Elias	Straka, Sykora
3	April 26	Devils 4, Rangers 1	Madden 2, Gomez, Gionta	Sykora
4	April 29	Rangers 1, Devils 0 (OT, 11:41)	none	Nylander
5	April 30	Devils 2, Rangers 0	Gomez 2	none
Total	Devils win series 4-1		Gomez 4, Elias 3, Gionta 2, Madden 2	Sykora 2

Seems fine; it would be encyclopedia-like.

Question, why isn't Joffrey Lupul on the "top goalscorers" table? having scored 7 goals in this year's playoffs. I'd do it myself, but being mostly from a soccer background and also being a new hockey fan, I thought that you guys did your top-scoring charts a little different to soccer top-goalscoring tables... --Skully Collins 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Joffrey Lupul has 7 goals and 0 assists, so only 7 total points. The table isn't a "top goalscorers" table, it's a "leading scorers" table: meaning leaders in total points. The top ten players all have at least 10 total points, whereas Lupul (as 7G/0A) only has 7. --Skudrafan1 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AH, right...sorry my bad --Skully Collins 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In progress series tables

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)

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)

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)

Much thanks to Arctic Gnome who gently explained my gaff of posting a question into the article. That was my first interaction with Wikipedia & I apologize for the goof. I now understand the discussion section

Cute logos gone?

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)

• Yeh, somebody's afraid the NHL will sue wikipedia for the free advertising we are giving them by posting their logs. Wahkeenah 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Since they are registered trademarks, yes. Rituro 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But wikipedia also uses it on the NHL team pages so can you add it back on, I don't know how to do it, I tried.

Eliminated teams

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)

• Yes, it seems silly. It's right there in the brackets. It adds no new information. It is probably best to keep the article as short as possible, so you should go ahead and zap it.
  • Agreed, and I've removed it. I'm also iffy about the "Teams on the Brink" section, but at least with that I can see how it is of some use. --Skudrafan1 15:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I like "teams on the brink", because it tells you what to watch out for in the next few days. And it is temporary. When the playoffs are over, the section will vanish. So it doesn't pollute in the long run.--Sonjaaa 16:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The "teams on the brink" is acceptable, if a bit melodramatic. As you say, it will disappear by the end of the Cup tournament. Wahkeenah 16:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that both of those sections are superflous. I think that an "Upcoming Games" section towards the top of the page might serve all the purpose of "Teams on the brink" and more. Jonpin 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up articles

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)

• I think the Stanley Cup Finals should get their own article (2006 Stanley Cup Finals). All the Eastern and Western Conference games, though, should stay here. -Skudrafan1 02:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the article should simply be pruned. Is it really important to list each individual scorer for every game? Especially in the format the Conference Finals are currently being presented in? Resolute 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The conference finals format is our "in-progress" format, which changes to the "post-series" table once the series completed. I don't think the post-series tables are overkill at all. -Skudrafan1 16:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1234 5678

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) (Edit: "If Anaheim wins, all four lower seeds in one conference will have won their series for the first time since the conference format began in 1994." from [4] so I'm sure this is the first time it's 1234 5678 as well)

• This is from tsn.ca: "It would be the first time since the NHL adopted conference play in 1974 that none of a conference's top four teams, based on regular-season records, reached its semifinal round. Ironically, the four best teams in the Eastern Conference all advanced, the first time that has happened in either conference since 2002 and the first time in the East since 1996." 216.167.244.113 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been once when 1234 won in the western conference and 5678 won in the east. That was the year when the last time Detroit got the cup.

• Close, but not quite. 1-2-3-4 won in the West, and 7 & 8 won in the East, but Carolina (3) and Toronto (4) both won their first round series. 2002 NHL playoffs. --Skudrafan1 13:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

European broadcaster

According to the North American Sports Network, at least games 1-4 of the SC Finals are being broadcast on their network. [5] NorthernThunder 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Final series table

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)

• It is temporary. It has been that way since the playoffs started back in April: one table format for each series that is underway, and another table format for each completed series. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

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)

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)

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 {{edmonton-sanjose-2006playoffs}} into each one.

All of them can support an article on their own. Attic Owl 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Frankly, I would just as soon delete the Oilers article. Final scores and goal scorers are already listed on the main article, along with important events from each series. While I presume that the Oilers article is intended to ultimately have much greater detail on all games, every minute detail of each game is not required, and is not encyclopedic. What is, or will be, of value is already contained within this article. If there is a need to split the current article because of size, I would propose that a split along conference lines would be more appropriate: 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Western Conference), 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs (Eastern Conference) and 2006 Stanley Cup Finals. Resolute 23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I support a merge along the lines of Resolute's proposal. We do not need a specific article about the Oilers in the playoffs and I doubt it would survive an AFD. BoojiBoy 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think the information within the Edmonton Oilers article is saveable but is not specific to the Oilers and would support a merge. It had its merits when the postseason was occuring as a current event article but should now be removed. SportingFlyer 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Succession box at the bottom

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)

Dead link

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)

Dead link 2

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)

Dead link 3

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)