Talk:2010 Stanley Cup playoffs

Time

I suggest that we put all of the game times in terms of the same time zone. It's confusing to see a list of times; unless you make a point of checking (and I think most people don't), it looks like it's all in the same time zone. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But then you have to pick one time zone, which is pretty arbitrary and will still confuse some people. For example, if it's eastern time then someone may not notice where the page says, "All times are Eastern Daylight Time", check the time for a game on the west cost and then miss it by three hours. I think it makes more sense to simply include the time zone right after the time (which is what the page currently does). That way, nobody can miss it. -- Hux (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly arbitrary, but in my experience, people who do not live in the Eastern Time Zone are accustomed to all times being rendered in terms of ET, both for the virtues of commonality and the fact that it is likely to be convenient to the most actual users of the information. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Team order

I notice that each game is listed the opposite way around from the usual format, i.e. on this page the home team in each match-up is listed first whereas US convention is "[away team] v. [home team]". The stadium is linked, so that helps to avoid confusion a little, but it still might be confusing to a lot of readers to see, for example, "San Jose Sharks 1–2 Colorado Avalanche", and have to figure out that the game was actually played in San Jose. Was this ordering done for a reason that I'm not seeing? If so, no problem. But if not then I'd be happy to go in and switch them all around. -- Hux (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in that here in Canada as well, we use the away vs. home format. However, if you notice all the previous Stanley Cup playoff pages here (2009 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2008 Stanley Cup playoffs, and so on), the format has always been home vs. away. I think that if we were to change this page, then the other pages should be changed as well so that the format remains consistent between all the playoff pages. Bcperson89 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

After 4 games

ALL of the Eastern Conference quarterfinal series were 3-1 after four games. ALL of the Western Conference quarterfinal series were 2-2 after four games. (1) Is there a good way to include this in the article? It is very interesting to note. (2) Does anyone know if something like this has ever happened before, or at least where we could easily check? --Spidey104^contribs 03:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be interesting, but not I'm not sure if there is a good way to include it in the article, because the placing of miscellaneous trivia within an article is usually discouraged. As for the other bit, I'm not sure about that. Bcperson89 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

stat leaders

why not put flags? usefull info. Slaja (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they aren't representing their countries while they are playing for their club team. There is no national component to the Stanley Cup Playoffs. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Assists in game summaries

As we near the end of the first round, I am curious to see what everyone thinks of the addition of assists in the game summary tables. In the past, we've just listed goal scorers, but now we see an incredible expansion of information in these tables. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information such as stats. Is this just too much information? Thoughts? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's too much. Detailed statistical information can be found all over the internet. By the end of the playoffs, this will add 10–15 KB (estimate) to the article size. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

East playoff seeds

Please do not put teams in the semifinal brackets yet! As the page says, teams pairings are re-seeded after the first round. If the Canadiens win their first round series, they will play the Penguins (and the Bruins will play the Flyers). But if the Capitals win, they will play the Flyers, and the Bruins will play the Penguins. None of this is determined yet, so please wait until the end of all relevant games to make these changes. ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no need to advance any team to the 2nd round until we know exactly what line they'll be on. The whole point of the bracket is to visually communicate the concept of re-seeding, which it is doing wonderfully right now: we have several bolded teams advancing, but they aren't placed in the 2nd round yet precisely because the pairings are indeterminate. In fact, if Chicago wins tonight, there really isn't any need to put, say, Phoenix/Detroit on the one line in the West bracket. Anybody who visually inspects the bracket would be able to see that's the last remaining series and the winner would advance. There's no need to insult the intelligence of the reader by spelling that out just to get credit for more Wikifiddling. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you'd think there's no need to so insult the reader, but apparently you would be wrong. ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 03:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

West region

Vancouver can not possibly play San Jose. Either they'll play the blackhawks, or if the blackhawks lose, they'll play the redwings/coyotes. I don't see why Vancouver can't be advanced in the pair that doesn't have San Jose. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)