Talk:List of Stanley Cup champions/Archive 1

Team Logos

The team logos had been added to the page several edits ago. Pictures add colour and character to the page. As such, they have been replaced.

I don't like losing them myself, but those are all copyrighted images -- regardless of any color or character -- and experts in fair law use are saying they need to go. RGTraynor 15:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:NHL Entry Draft#Fair use and copyright violations. Using these pictures in this article is a violation of the copyright. -- JamesTeterenko 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team logos are on all the wiki team website pages (see for example Ottawa Senators, Toronto Maple Leafs). The National Hockey League page has it's symbol on it.....the Mazda, Ford Motor Company,and Volkswagen pages all have the symbols for these companies that are copyrighted so what is the difference? Really, that is absurd! If the law is that clear get rid of all symbols from all companies. General Mills, Kellogg Company, VISA (credit card), The Walt Disney Company,Wal-Mart,CNN...etc... The team logos are being used in conjunction with the team name and are linked to the team wiki pages. There is no slander or negative publicity associated. Let's wait for the legal injuction or tear down all the company logos.Djjtox 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FAIR. There is a difference between "those logos are everywhere!" and using them in ways that don't violate copyright. It's not always about "slander or negative publicity." An overuse of team logos can be treated as copyright infringement. --→Buchanan-H e rmit™..Talk to Big Brother 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champions by franchaise

Hopefully I have resolved the Montreal/Toronto dispute and made the list more accurate at the same time.

"NHL champions by franchaise" was inaccurate, since Victoria was not an NHL team (Hamilton was the NHL champion in 1925). I have listed "Stanley Cup champions by franchaise" going back 3 years before the NHL. There is no reason for the list to begin with the NHL, given that there have been other leagues. It was a challenge cup for over 20 years, with multiple champions per year, and only became a regular annual contest in 1915 (at the time, East vs. West). So I have begun with 1915; that allows us to list all the Canadiens' 24 cups. The Arenas and St. Patricks have been taken out, since they were just different names for the Maple Leafs, who in all accounts I have seen have 13 cups, including 1918 and 1922 (and no, I'm not the obnoxious Leafs fan, I'm from Victoria, and not even obnoxious enough to list the cup the Aristocrats were cheated of around 1913).24.64.223.203 05:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is well over a year late but dude!... ya misspelled "Franchise" 3 times.. That's not even how you spell it en francaise.-Rainman71 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the Ottawa Senators are listed as winning 9 cups since 1915. This is not true. Since 1915 they have only won 4 times. Is there any reason for this? Unless you are counting their total wins(in which you should state that in a note.)--Jasohill 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2-3-2 Format

The Stanley Cup finals have used a 2-3-2 format in the past - 1983-84 and 1984-85 - to save on travel costs. It reverted back to the old 2-2-1-1-1 format in 1986. 192.147.12.31 18:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanly Cup Champions by year

On the page Stanley cup champions by year, for the year 2004 Calgary Flames is listed as the winning team for Stanley cup, but the stanly cup won by Tampa Bay Lightning that year. as a Canadian I wish that was true but the fact is the otherway around.144.95.36.4 13:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (144.95.36.4 13:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There has been a little vandalism on this page the last few days. If it continues, it will proabably have to be semi-protected. -- JamesTeterenko 15:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic vandalism

I hate to say it, but I think this article needs protection, at this point. It's being heavily and continually vandalized, and it isn't (at this point) as if it needs to be updated more than for the amount of time each year it takes to type in the results from the most recent Cup finals. RGTraynor 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I couldn't resist... call me Kreskin -Rainman71 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" List

Why does the table of champions on this page not match the list maintained by the Hockey Hall of Fame? (http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SilverwareTrophyWinners.jsp?tro=STC) I am not a hockey historian so I would have it match what authoritative sources seem to say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.16.135 (talk • contribs) .

What exactly are you referring to that is not matching? The dates? The links to the teams? This list on Wikipedia is more expansive than the one on the Hockey Hall of Fame's web site; that one only lists dates and teams. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I will admit that the quality of the table decreases for the entries before 1915 when the Stanley Cup was referred to as the "Challenge Cup", and it was sometimes awarded twice during the season. It also seems the primary source for the table was http://www.nhl.com/cup/champs.html instead of the one on the hall of fame's web site. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not seen the latter link; once upon a time I am reasonably certain that the NHL website's list of Cup winners matched the HHoF's. I was referring to the pre-1915 champions, and I recognize there are challenges to listing them. I wasn't aware of this more expansive listing at the NHL's site.

Which makes me start to think that this page should be re-written to be more clear – possibly to make it more like some of Wikipedia's Featured Lists. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like even the Hockey Hall of Fame site is unreliable. The pages for both the 1897-98 winner and the 1898-99 winner currently have the same text. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the two 1900 challenges against the Montreal Shamrocks are listed on one page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I initially brought it up because the list as it is seemed too "loud" to me and in comparing it to the HHoF site, they obviously had a shorter list. I thought that whatever methodology they were using, we would be wise to emulate; I was concerned that in an effort at being hypertechnical in listing all challenges to the Cup, we might tend to confuse more than enlighten, and if it was conventional for other sources to present the material in a different way, perhaps we should as well. However, this discussion demonstrates to my satisfaction that the HHoF isn't using any particular methodology worth emulating in its presentation.
    - You are correct. As you probably noticed, when the Cup was first introduced, any team could request to challenge for the trophy at any given time, thus it was awarded numerous times per year. Therefore, as we discussed, I would like to eventually rewrite this whole page; but I may wait until the current ongoing finals are over because user's are probaly going to start editing this page once either Edmonton or Carolina wins the Cup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was indeed aware of that, and in fact I looked into it as part of the dabbling I've done in noting the number of times the various franchises have had players winning the various individual awards. The "counting" of Stanley Cups is widely known (Montreal with 24, then Toronto and Detroit) but it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see how this project (which is filled with pedants like me) had hashed out how to deal with the challenge era.
        Looks like I will wait at least a week or two until I begin to work on this page to get it to a possible featured list candidate. Not only there will be heavy editing on here for the next week as the current Stanley Cup finals come to a close, but I would like to do more research on the Challenge Cup era myself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I rewrote the list using three addition references. I made two radical changes: First, the list is now sorted from oldest to recent instead of vice versa. Second, because the lack of information of the losing team head coaches during the challenge cup era, I replaced that column with the various, annually changing playoff formats that were used. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Site

I don't like the new set up of the page as the most recent champion is all the way at the bottom of the list. I prefered the old list with the list of champions in chronilogical order beginning with the most recent champion. This is too big of a job for me to change so could someone with more experience please revamp this? Thanks --Djjtox 13:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. If you read the discussion above, I redesigned the page to make it more resemble the articles listed on Wikipedia's Featured Lists – almost all of the chronological lists or timeline lists that have been promoted to featured status are sorted from oldest to most recent. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which there are those who like it just fine the way it is. Editing for a purpose is one thing; editing for nothing more than a preference for one style over another is purposeless. RGTraynor 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the previous poster that with sports or some other current event, I think a list that goes from most recent to furthest in the past is most sensible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.16.135 (talk • contribs) .

For your information, the following are sports-related chronological lists have been promoted to featured list status, and are in fact sorted from oldest to most recent:

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really know what to say. Most of these are sports I don't follow or especially care about, but I would re-sort the Super Bowl/NFL material from most to least recent if I was writing it originally. I don't see the table as a narrative, and so to me it ought to lead off with the information that is the most relevant to the most people, which is going to tend to be the most recent results. I should point out, it's otherwise a fine reworking of the table that I think is far more readable and presents information that is more interesting.

1922-23 Finalist

Shouldn't Edmonton (WCHL) be listed as the 1922-23 finalist, not Vancouver (PCHA)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.164.42.214 (talk • contribs) .

Fixed. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Red Wings, 10 Stanley Cup titles?

Could this be 11 Stanley Cup titles (Victoria Cougars 1925) ? GoodDay 21:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, if the Detroit Red Wings had any connection with the Cougars other than having bought out the rights to their players and therefore naming the team in Victoria's honor, which they didn't. RGTraynor 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for clarification. GoodDay 02:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Goals

I added the Winning Goals column yesterday for all the goals that I have data on (I also have data on Coach of the losing team that's missing from the early years - should I add it?). An asterisk was added for the 2007 Cup-winning goal by Travis Moen, which was credited to him but in actuality was an own goal by the opposing team. I'm not sure such trivia should be added to the main table, because there could be (and probably are) other similar events in the past that make the winning goal an own goal, but we may not have that information due to age. Perhaps the trivia section could be added back again, and the clarification of the goal by Moen added there.

2nd Place Team?

The column "2nd Place Team" should probbaly be renamed "Finalist", right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmj713 (talk • contribs).

iirc, it has something to do with distinguishing this page from what is currently on http://www.nhl.com/cup/champs.html. During the years when three league champions (NHL, PCHA and, WCHL) would play for the Cup in 1923 Stanley Cup Playoffs and 1924 Stanley Cup Playoffs, that web site lists two finalists for those years. Instead, this Wikipedia article merely just lists the one team that advanced and then lost the finals. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Vandalism == Ryker is the best

I'd like to echo was was said by RGTraynor above on 9 May 2006 (UTC) at 14:59. Seems some people derive some sort of fun from vandalizing Wikipedia. And this article has been under often attacks recently. Bitter fans?Jmj713 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Senators re-instated?

I've removed the 'reinstated' note, from the Senators and this page. If they were the same franchise, there wouldn't be 2 seperate Senators pages Ottawa Senators and Ottawa Senators (original). GoodDay 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand: The modern day Ottawa Senators are not just a "namesake". If so, there would be no cause to retire numbers of former Senator players such as Frank Finnigan, nor hang Stanley Cup winning pennants from the rafters of Scotiabank Place in Kanata. The arguement that the team did not compete for X years is invalid. If it were true, it follows in the same way that we should have seperate entries for all NHL teams twice: 1st for the pre-lock-out teams, 2nd for post-lockout, since none competed for X year{s) also. Using the arguement that "since wikipedia has two seperate pages" is also invalid. Those pages are subject to the same criticism of seperation, and perhaps should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.77.115 (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Senators franchise that exists today should not be categorized in this list with the original franchise that won a few Cups in the early days of the 20th century. The original franchise moved to St. Louis and was dissolved. The current team has Cup banners and player numbers hanging as a way of honouring the history of hockey in Ottawa, not because it's the same team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.47.69 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent with external sources, such as hockeydb.com. Alaney2k (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the team existance dates?

Why add those dates (at Cup finalist section)? It makes the section appear clumped. All that, just to justify adding (1991- ) to the Ottawa Senators? GoodDay 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gives some information as to the time period of the various franchises, in the least number of characters. At first, I thought it was better than original and current, but then I noticed that the league info wasn't consistent for the other teams either. Think it over, please! Alaney2k 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too cluttering; also inconsistant - it's not on the Cup champions section. GoodDay 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What section is that? Alaney2k 20:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanley Cup champions by year section. GoodDay 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But those have dates. The table we are discussing, is an 'over-all' one. Can we leave it on for a few days? Alaney2k 20:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I no longer mind the dates. Just wish there was a way to make them appear 'less cluttery'. Perhaps making them smaller will work -example: Montreal Canadiens (NHA/NHL) 1909-present . By the way, the Red Wings came into being in 1926 (not 1925). GoodDay 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- I still feel dates should be added to 'champions section' though. GoodDay 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the small text idea, definitely an improvement. I'm not sure about dates in the champions area. I'll let you know somehow... :-) Alaney2k 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider it; we can't have the article 'uneven' for too long. Someone may come along and remove the dates (as I prematurely did, earlier). GoodDay 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's not that. What's a consistent way to do it? You think we should extend what was done in the 'By Franchise' list to the other lists? Alaney2k 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean. GoodDay 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Challenge Cup Era

I have made the Challenge Cup era complete by having a complete chronology and a season-by-season record table. I would like some feedback about it. I think having the two makes the era's Stanley Cup play complete, but it does add to the size of the list. Alaney2k 19:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright to me. GoodDay 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Cup Era

I've removed most of the section - it's covered in a separate article, and I think the article with it is messy and confusing. --Maxim 02:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I like that. After all, it is a list of Stanley Cup champions, not a list of post 1917 champions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a rename. I see your point, and that makes the subarticle a fork. Maxim 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal over Anaheim in 2007-08?

Sounds like vandalism. This hasn't happened yet. 24.87.43.151 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and it doesn't look like it will happen, as of this writing. Alaney2k (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Win/loss record.

I believe the years of appearances in the Stanley Cup Finals should all be listed like before, and not removed from this table. I see great value in it. First of all, it gives a compact overview of a team's SCF performance where dry numbers are too abstract. One can see consecutive wins (bolded years), consecutive loses (plain-text years), consecutive years of making the Finals, etc. Also, the Montreal total should be 34, since the 1919 Finals still counts as an appearance, like it does for Seattle. Jmj713 (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I think there is room to the right-hand side of the table to have that data. Otherwise, you have to look through all of the above tables, or go to each team's article. Alaney2k (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of listing everything twice? If anyone wants to find the Montreal Canadiens, just use Ctrl-F. The table is just meant to be a little way of getting quick stats for a specific team, if you want in-depth stuff, go to the team article. Besides, the page is currently an FLC and no list with a table like that has ever passed (in fact, I was tempted to remove it, like the List of Super Bowl champions) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean by "listing twice" - you used that phrase before, but to be honest I'm not sure what you mean. The table as it was before listed in the "Years" column every year a given team made the Finals. The year was bolded if the team won, and remained plain if it lost. Each row only had years for the corresponding team. Jmj713 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sick of dealing with you. I'm going to take the entire table and give it its own article and you can do whatever the fuck you want to it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's nice. No need to resort to that sort of language. I only want to understand what you were trying to say, I'm not trying to fight with you. I was trying to explain the function of that Years column; perhaps you weren't realizing what it was for. Using Ctrl-F does nothing the Years column did, which listed each SCF appearance, so, for example, if you'd look at the Montreal Canadiens, you'd see a list of all their 34 Finals appearances; you'd be able to see how many titles they'd won in a row, etc.; you'd be able to see a fact that you can't tell from just their overall record that they have attained a Stanley Cup title in each decade of their existence. Jmj713 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section is called "win/loss record" not "complete summary of Stanley Cup appearances". If someone wants to find out the years the Canadians made the finals, just go to its own article. The years a team won a cup and the years a team was runner-up are listed in the main article, so doing it in that section was unnecessary. But, I don't care anymore, do whatever you like to the list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to be upset with me and call me names, but in my defense, that table was actually originally called "Stanley Cup appearances" - it was changed to the Win/loss record only recently. Jmj713 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to get pissed off. This is already an odd-ball way to get FL status. Usually you make the improvements, changes before making it a candidate, no? Alaney2k (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did make improvements and changes to the article, and those are being rejected by a user who knows nothing of what a featured list is, so I got rid of the table and now I don't have to worry about it poisoning the FLC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your solution of adding the List of appearances article solves the issue. Thanks for doing that. This article looks really good, thanks for your work on it. Alaney2k (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup appearances merge

The article was only created because there was an edit war over it that was endangering the article's chances of becoming an FLC. Now that I'm aiming for a Stanley Cup FT, this page would also endanger that, so it should be merged back here. Having two seperate pages damages the usefulness of this article, and the appearances article is basically just a collection of trivia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how having this list interferes with a Stanley Cup FT, forgive my ignorance. Merging it back into the Champions article makes it that much longer. To me, I would rather expand this list to include all teams that have played for the Cup, not just the NHL teams. Possibly a new table. You don't get that info from the Champions list, at least not easily. This is my personal preference, because I am interested in the early history period. Adding that to the Champions would not improve that article. What do you think? Alaney2k (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much in favor of adding pre-1915 teams to the appearances table to make it complete and comprehensive, although having a separate table would probably make it less cumbersome. Alaney, we already touched upon this before, remember? Jmj713 (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It hurts a potential FT because it is just a big list of trivia and has 0% chance of ever becoming featured. Per the FT criteria, every page in a topic must be at least GA and this list would have to be included. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is very historically important statistical data considered trivial? Jmj713 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a statistical database, is why. -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is within articles. As it currently is, I think the list conforms to Wikipedia standards. And since we are dealing with sports history, statistics is an integral part of that, in my opinion. Jmj713 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having two seperate articles makes both of them less useful to casual users because then they have to keep going back and forth between the two. Recombining them (and using the smaller version of the table) would make this article a lot more useful. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that they are important, but we are always walking a very fine line between an ok number of statistics and too many statistics. Anytime we do a list that is purely stats you have to make sure you have a good chunk of prose on the list as well to balance it out. -Djsasso (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of FLC vs. FT doesn't hold any water here. The content of this article stands on its own merits and should remain separate. Keep the WikiPolitics out of it. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strike-through text~~