Talk:1994 Stanley Cup Finals

Canadian teams in finals

In the section "The series", the paragraph starting with "This Final is especially noted..." asserts something that is not present in the citation. In addition, there is nearly always a gap between the appearance of teams in any given category in the Stanley Cup Finals, and there isn't anything specifically notable about the 1994 Finals regarding this. I propose deleting this paragraph. isaacl (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The user inserting this tries to insert this sort of info in every possible tangentially related article. Standard procedure at this point is usually to just revert him. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that is was the last Canadian team appearance until 2004 is worth a mention, but the wording "is especially noted' is simply not true, so I've modified it. Other wording where something is mentioned as not happening, or not part of the section, also is gone. Those points belong in other articles, not this one. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Game seven

In this edit, the following text was restored:

Although Keenan avoided being the first coach to lose game sevens of the Stanley Cup Finals for two different teams, this unfortunate fate would befall Babcock in the 2009 Finals when the Red Wings lost to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Although the sentence provides a bit of colour and foreshadowing, ultimately the referenced event is not directly related to the topic of this article. In general, because the list of things that don't happen is very lengthy, the bar for including this type of information should be fairly high. I lean towards removing the text above, particularly given the fairly low noteworthiness of losing two game sevens for two different teams; any comments? isaacl (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In 2009, when the Stanley Cup Finals went to Game 7, Mike Keenan reflected what he went through in 1987 while with Philadelphia when they lost in Edmonton and in 1994 when the Rangers won. He also recounted that Mike Babcock, coach at Detroit, had coached in a Game 7 Final before and lost, in 2003 with Anaheim and was pulling for a win by the Red Wings. It is already mentioned in the article that Keenan being the first to coach two teams in Game 7 Finals is a feat that Babcock would also achieve. When the Red Wings lost, it became clear that Babcock was the first coach to lose Game 7 Stanley Cup Finals with two different teams. For more, see 2009 Stanley Cup Finals. -- SNIyer12 ((talk)) 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what point you are trying to make. Personal recollections by Keenan may fit better in his article. You have not addressed the issue of the notability of something that didn't happen, or why a future event (that was obviously unknown at the time of this finals) should be mentioned. Many events are the first of their kind; that doesn't make all of them notable, or all of the opportunities when they could have happened notable. isaacl (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This kind of foreshadowing is definitely inappropriate for this article. Something that did not happen has absolutely no relevance to this article, especially when the thing that happened is a result of the Finals in 2009. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I used the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals as a guide to it. It said that although Wayne Gretzky could not achieve the feat of being the first to captain two teams to the Stanley Cup, it was a feat that Mark Messier would achieve in the 1994 Finals. -- SNIyer12 ((talk)) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you added the original form of the current sentence, but in any case, pointing to somewhat similar sentences in other articles isn't a compelling argument in itself, plus there is no notable source saying that Keenan was specifically trying to avoid being the first coach to lose a game 7 with a second team (I'm pretty sure his primary concern was just trying to win the series, period). isaacl (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that Keenan was trying to avoid being the first coach to lose Game 7 Finals a coach with two teams. He said in 2009 that he wanted Game 7 at MSG because of what he went through in 1987 and the news media got after his Rangers to win the Presidents' Trophy. The only reason I added the information is because when the Red Wings lost in 2009, the news media mentioned that Keenan avoided that unfortunate fate that befell Babcock. I made this clear in the articles related to the Red Wings loss in the 2009 Finals. -- SNIyer12 ((talk), 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Although this is a bit of a tangent, if you provide the quote we can examine it—I'm pretty sure Keenan cared about losing, and losing game 7 again, but I highly doubt he cared about the specific feat of being the first coach to lose game 7 with two different teams, as this is only a trivial footnote in one's career. Regardless, the issue for this article is not what Keenan thought personally, but if there is a neutral, objective view that this fact is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely does not belong in this article. It is irrelevant to the article topic. I often wonder if you realize this is an encyclopedia. The type of information and writing that belongs is of a much higher level than a sports section news article. These kind of musing are fine for a sports reporter to put in their article but its not encyclopedic. -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If no policy-based comments are made regarding including this info, I propose removing it. isaacl (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Article stability: example

I previously discussed the issue of article stability. Here is a similar example: this edit removed a citation, and less than 24 hours later, this edit restored it. Although this is a minor point, again I suggest that when a series of edits is planned, they can be performed together first in a personal sandbox, to reduce the amount of back-and-forth editing made visible which causes instability in the article for readers and editors. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Next appearance of Canadian team in the finals

Since SNIlyer12 seems to have agreed that that mentioning the next appearance of a Canadian team in the Stanley Cup Finals is not sufficiently notable for this article, I'm not sure why this information was re-introduced. I propose reverting the edit (I'm not strongly opinionated about the matter, but would like to establish a clear consensus one way or another; I hope a few more comments than the ones above can be obtained). isaacl (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to discuss it every time he tries to revert back. It is what he does every few months he tries to sneak it in again. He is aware it shouldn't be there, discussing it each time just wastes everyones time when it has been discussed on countless pages over and over and over. Revert when you see it. He has been warned now that continued adding it against consensus could lead to a block. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't much of a consensus last time this was discussed; one editor agreed with including this fact (while removing the special emphasis given to it). (Most of the other articles that I know of where this happenstance was included have an established consensus, either through discussion or reversion by multiple editors, and I have no hesitation in upholding the consensus view in those cases.) isaacl (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

Regarding this edit, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive55#Aftermath. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotations

I'm not sure it is of sufficient encyclopedic interest to include quotes by the broadcasters from the end of the game. I propose deleting this section. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As there has been no objection raised, I plan to proceed with this proposal. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So, eh... where are we gonna put the quotations from the "Stanley Cup Finals" now? Like wikiquote or something? --Rod14 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The section needs to be deleted. If we keep it, then we'll have Bob Cole's call. MSG Network had the Yankees that year and Tony Kubek said that Sam Rosen should be ASHAMED and he was SO ANGRY at the Rangers winning the Stanley Cup, saying that George Steinbrenner let it happen through his cruel ruthlessness, intolerance, and his constant torturing and berating the Yankees. Kubek called it the "biggest shame" for the Yankees during their curse, which was brought by Steinbrenner's bombastic rule that led to the team's downfall in the 1980s and early 1990s and kept the Yankees out of October. Adding to the shame, the Yankees had the best record in the American League, which was also the second best record in baseball in 1994, but it was cruelly ended by the strike that canceled the World Series. Adding to the shame, Don Mattingly lost his best chance at his postseason debut and any hope of winning a World Series. -- SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)