Talk:List of teams that have overcome 3–0 series deficits

Might want to add the Celtics. They forced game 7 2601:193:8201:7140:4171:C43B:703:B3C4 (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Were going to have to see it tonight, if they can pull it off, or if it is just a forced 7 104.218.156.198 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

NHL: the claim "211 teams … faced a 3–0 deficit"

Under: National Hockey League ➝ Successful comebacks ➝ "211 teams … faced a 3–0 deficit". The problem is the reference doesn't say that. It doesn't say 211 teams. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I found Nicholas J. Cotsonika, an NHL.com Columnist, saying "Of the 210 previous teams to fall behind 3-0 in the Stanley Cup Playoffs …". This makes the Oilers the 211th team. I'll fix the current incorrect reference.

But we still have a problem. The text says "211 teams … have faced a 3–0 deficit … Only four of those teams overcame it …". This is now nonsense. The Oilers are counted in the 211 group but the outcome of their series is not yet decided. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Text was saying 4 teams out of 211 overcame the deficit. This is incorrect. It's 4 teams out of 210. The 211th is now and we'll find out soon whether four or FIVE teams out of 211 overcame the deficit. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I had the page protected at WP:RFPP to keep IPs/new editors from prematurely adding the Oilers. Easier just to do so in a few days, when we actually know what category (successful or unsuccessful) to put them under. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Edmonton Oilers 2nd NHL Stanley Cup Finals after 0-3 deficit to win

Unless the 2024 Florida Panthers avoid the historic collapse, the 2024 Edmonton Oilers will become the 2nd Stanley Cup Finals after being down 3-0 to win the Stanley Cup Finals on Monday, June 24, 2024. 50.240.185.174 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Let’s wait to add it until we know who actually wins/loses, okay? The Kip ^(contribs) 04:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Why bold font in the very first sentence?

That bold font seems to have been there from the very beginning¹ and I believe most Wikipedia articles don't use bold font that way. I suggest we change it to regular font. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_teams_that_have_overcome_3%E2%80%930_series_deficits&oldid=947831887 KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the reverse sweep? Most list articles use the bold font to describe the article's title. Conyo14 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm mostly referring to "list of teams that have overcome 3–0 series deficits".

I am not seeing¹ what you assert — that "Most list articles use the bold font to describe the article's title". I also am not seeing such articles repeating their title in the first sentence.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

From your example, the first sentence says: This list of lists of lists is a list of articles that are lists of other list articles.. Further This is a list of Canadians, people who are identified... from Lists of Canadians. The sports lists in that article, most have the boldened title repeat in the first sentence. Not all, just most. Conyo14 (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:B and MOS:FIRST are the relevant guidelines here. That said, the lead here probably could be reworked; it's rather clunky right now. Hamtechperson 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it a 3-0 deficit or an 0-3 deficit?

I found no guidance from the Web on whether to write "a 3-0 deficit" or "an 0-3 deficit ". The mass media use each one, it seems.

Here's how Google (or the NHL?) reported the June 13th results¹. Edmonton Oilers (0-3) Florida Panthers (3-0) (FLA leads 3-0). It seems from the Oilers point of view the "0-3" conveyed the dire situation clearly. A player can simply say "We're 0-3". It seems we could say the Oilers were "0-3" in the series, or trailing/down "0-3", or facing an "0-3" deficit or hole. In each case the "0-3" seems like a stamp that conveyed the dire situation clearly.

I suggest we use the expression "0-3" more generally in this article, rather than "3-0".

(1) https://www.google.com/search?q=nhl#sie=m;/g/11v_9vdltk;7;/m/05gwr;dt;fp;1;;; KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Gonna need more reliable, secondary, independent sources than a google search to change a title such as this to fit your ask. Conyo14 (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My post here wasn't about the title. It was about the expression "0-3".

Also, my post contained an argument — which you seem to have completely missed. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My answer is the same, you need WP:RS, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:SECONDARY sources to assist your claim. Conyo14 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

My claim does not require further assistance. It's a logical argument. Logical arguments are supported by logic. No source is required.

Secondly, you're inexplicably demanding some kind of source from me while you're totally missing the fact that no kind of source is provided in defence of the "3-0" expression currently being used. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I found instances in this article's history where contributors changed "3-0" to "0-3" and … guess who reverted those edits … without providing the slightest of "reliable, secondary, independent sources" to support their own preferred, counter-intuitive "3-0"? Could it be the same person who now demands … "sources to assist" … any argument (no matter how logical and self-evident) which favours changing back to the intuitive "0-3"? KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Cracks knuckles) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

Should I go on? Conyo14 (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

More: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Conyo14 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Cracks knuckles) You just proved a point of mine — that you didn't understand my original post! In it I said "The mass media use each one, it seems". So, in response to your references to mass media using "3-0", I can provide references to mass media using "0-3". Now what are you going to do? I suggest falling back on logic … and I provided exactly that — a logical argument. Should I go on?KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Provide them then Conyo14 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Here you go! I provide these 12 with more info than you provided and from more prestigious sources than many of your own.

New York Post "Overcoming 0-3 series deficit"[23] Sports Illustrated "Final comeback from an 0-3 deficit" [24] Sports Illustrated "rallied back from an 0-3 deficit"[25] Sports Illustrated "Familiarity with 0-3 Deficit"[26] Newsweek "rallied back from a 0-3 playoff series deficit"[27] The Washington Post "rebound from 0-3 NHL playoff hole[28] The New York Times "Islanders Relive Two Comebacks From 0-3 Deficits"[29] USA Today "Dallas Stars in 0-3 hole"[30] The New York Times "An 0-3 Hole Is Huge"[31] Sports Illustrated "stumbled into an 0-3 deficit in a best-of-seven playoff series"[32] The Washington Post "fall into an 0-3 hole to start"[33] CBS News "In 0-3 Hole, Rangers Focusing"[34] KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST I think we are done here. I'll let others decide. Conyo14 (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not "we" are done. You can be "done" if you want (albeit for a pretty weak reason: one reference you don't like out of 12). I'm going to continue on, here, to provide other readers with a rebuttal to rest of your comment below. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I have source evidence that goes against your flawed logic. Perhaps if someone else is inclined to comment, they may. I have provided 22 difference sources though, some primary yes, but nevertheless media to seem to favor a 3–0 hole/deficit. Plus, if I am to fall on logic as you suggest, then the 0–3 series deficit would be a redundant usage of a sporting record intrinsically used by the primary sources who have used 0–3 as a record, but not to define how the series is being played out. It makes more sense to consider "3–0 series deficit" as it implies the "0" part is the lack of wins that the losing team possesses and they must overcome the 3 wins the other team has gained. The losing team is 0–3, and are in a 3–0 deficit. Conyo14 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

> "I have source evidence that goes against your flawed logic."

No. You have source evidence of "flawed logic"

> "media to seem to favor a 3–0 hole/deficit"

What's your source for that claim?

> "the 0–3 series deficit would be a redundant usage of a sporting record"

Redundant but consistent. The "3-0" series deficit would be a reversed usage of a sporting record and it would be self contradictory.

> "It makes more sense to consider "3–0 series deficit"

No. It makes more sense to consider "0-3" series deficit

> "it implies the '0' part is the lack of wins that the losing team possesses"

Same thing with "0-3" The "0" part is "the lack of wins that the losing team possesses"

> "they must overcome the 3 wins the other team has gained"

Same thing with "0-3" "They must overcome the 3 wins the other team has gained"

> The losing team is 0–3, and are in a 3–0 deficit.

No. The losing team is 0–3, and are in an 0–3 deficit! KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Title of the article

I suggest: "List of comebacks from 0-3 deficits in best-of-seven series in professional sports".

I think it's preferable to (1) make clear it's in professional sports (2) use the "0-3" expression instead of "3-0" (3) use "comeback" rather than "overcome" because, to me at least, "overcome" seems to imply winning the series whereas comeback seems to imply returning to even the series. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If an applicable comeback (successful or unsuccessful) from an amateur sporting event can be documented with reliable sources, why shouldn't it be included in this list? While most amateur sports won't use best-of-7 so as to keep things from dragging out over several weeks, they shouldn't be excluded simply because they're not professionals. Hamtechperson 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

> … amateur sporting … why shouldn't it be included in this list?

My position is we could start to deal with that question once an example is found. For now, the article should not explicitly or implicitly claim much about amateur sports cases without there being a sufficiently complete investigation of amateur sports series results. In the meantime, not having "professional" in the current title would imply that the current article already reports on amateur sports, but it doesn't. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Schmaltz Cup is amateur Junior C hockey in Ontario, and an example from that competition was added to the list on July 24. Even if it wasn't, adding a professional modifier would indicate that the article was closed to such an entry if one was found in the future, and would probably lead to a move back or a new article at "... in amateur sports" with few entries. Leaving the professional modifier out makes less of a claim as to amateur sports (maybe) than putting it in would (no). Hamtechperson 20:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

> adding a professional modifier would indicate that the article was closed to such an entry

Well, the current title doesn't contain the word "professional" and we could pause this debate (about including "professional" or not) until a title change was close to being made, but no change seems to be on the horizon. I suggested a change and you're the only person who responded. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah! You misspelled Schmalz! I see it now in the article. So, there it is! An entry that's not a professional team. Okay, I no longer suggest including "professional" in the title. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

HK Kurbads came back from 0-3 in 2016-17 Latvian Ice Hockey League Finals against HK MOGO 2A03:EC00:B17A:D1B2:0:0:0:2 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Conyo14 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

How about these three articles on the series by the Latvijas Hokeja federācija (Latvian Ice Hockey Federation)?

Game 3 outcome: https://lhf.lv/lv/article/5059/mogo-uzvar-kurbadu-un-nonak-uzvaras-attaluma-no-cempionu-titula

Game 4 outcome: https://lhf.lv/lv/article/5064/virsliga-4-finalspele-hk-kurbads-hk-mogo-74

Game 7 outcome: https://lhf.lv/lv/article/5092/foto-7-finalspele-hk-mogo-hk-kurbads-12 KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Conyo14 (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect names "Latvian Hockey League" & "Latvian Hockey Higher League"

Although there's a Wikipedia article titled "Latvian Hockey Higher League", it seems there isn't in that article any reference provided to support calling this league by that English name. No official translation into English of the league's Latvian name turned up in my Web searches. In Latvian, the league is called "Latvijas Virslīgas" and this translates to (according to Google Translate) "Latvian Premier League" (which makes perfect sense). If no official basis for "Latvian Hockey Higher League" can be found, then I suggest we change all such names to "Latvian Premier League".

The Latvian Hockey Federation (Latvijas Hokeja federācija) has a page about its 2017 Premier League playoffs [35] where it states the league's name — "Latvian Premier League" (Latvijas Virslīgas) — and the name of the playoffs — "Latvian Premier League hockey championship" (Latvijas Virslīgas hokeja čempionāts) KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)