Talk:2007 Stanley Cup playoffs/Archive 1

Final
Don Cherry is apparently going to do a segment on NBC during the finals

Predictions
Would it be appropriate to list series' predictions made by various sources (i.e., ESPN already made some) prior to each round's start? If so, how should it be done? -- megarockman 13:19 CDT, 9 April 2007
 * Predictions shouldn't be on the article page. People can make their own here if they like. [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Eric B ( T • C • W ) 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Officials
I think this should be incorporated into an article somewhere, but, I'm not sure where. According to this article, the following officials will participate in the Playoffs:

Referees:


 * Paul Devorski
 * Eric Furlatt
 * Mike Hasenfratz
 * Dave Jackson
 * Marc Joannette
 * Don Koharski
 * Dennis LaRue
 * Mike Leggo
 * Dan Marouelli
 * Wes McCauley
 * Bill McCreary
 * Mick McGeough
 * Dan O'Halloran
 * Dan O'Rourke
 * Tim Peel
 * Kevin Pollock
 * Rob Shick
 * Kelly Sutherland
 * Don Van Massenhoven
 * Brad Watson

Linesemen:


 * Derek Amell
 * Steve Barton
 * Lonnie Cameron
 * Pierre Champoux
 * Mike Cvik
 * Greg Devorski
 * Scott Driscoll
 * Shane Heyer
 * Brad Kovachik
 * Brad Lazarowich
 * Steve Miller
 * Jean Morin
 * Brian Murphy
 * Derek Nanson
 * Thor Nelson
 * Tim Nowak
 * Pierre Racicot
 * Dan Schachte
 * Jay Sharrers
 * Mark Wheler

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NorthernThunder (talk • contribs).


 * Considering only 4 of the officials even have Wikipedia articles, I somehow don't feel that which officials are working for the playoffs is really a notable fact. Geoffrey Spear 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the individual game tables, list the officials working each game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.244.13.116 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Brackets
The NHL doesn't actually use brackets for the playoffs as they reseed everything each round. As such the brackets are inherentally wrong and should probably be removed --T-rex 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't use brackets for the first and second round, following rounds they do. It is seeded by points for the first and second which the bracket shown therein is appropriate. --[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Eric B ( T • C • W ) 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for continued disscussion, apperentlly this is mathamatically set at the conclution of the second round, but not before then --T-rex 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I put together the bracket that we're currently using, and I'm starting to work on something to replace it right now. Give me a day or so, and we should have something that is a better representation of how the playoffs actually work. z4ns4tsu \talk 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the redesign is pretty much done. Take a look at it in my sandbox and let me know if you think it looks any better. z4ns4tsu \talk 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only re-seed is after the first round because after the second round there is only 2 teams in the conference remaining, so no matter how you slice it, it's going to be the same matchup no matter what. Having "reseed after every round" doesn't explain how the playoffs work as accurately as "reseed after round 1". Plus, they make t-shirts every year with the championship team that feature a bracket system. I suggest a revert. BT14 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we advance Buffalo and Anaheim into the second round brackets as they will have home ice advantage and make a note of it? NoseNuggets 11:18 PM US EDT Mar 20 2007
 * Buffalo can, their seed is set. Anaheim cannot, they can be either first or second seed. V-train 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The exact same argument came up last year and was settled after much discussion. The visual representation is good and useful. It's the first thing someone likely wants to see when they look up this page: "How is the Stanley Cup tournament going?" There are no bracket lines connecting the first round with the second, and for anyone who wants to know, the explanation is immediately below, or should be. How you arrange them in the first round doesn't really matter, but last year it was decided to retrofit them so that they logically connect with the second round. I don't especially agree with that, but that was the consensus. Wahkeenah 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the seeds should not be moved to reflect the Second Round match ups. It does seem to imply that these match ups were pre-determined before the conclusion of the first round. The seeds should be ordered chronologically, as they were previously, by the seed of the higher team (i.e. the 1 & 8 seeds, followed by the 2 & 7 seeds, the 3 & 6 seeds and the 4 & 5 seeds. This will be the best and most logical way to imply that these match ups were determined after the conclusion of the first round, and then the reader can look below to see under what pretenses these match ups were determined (which is by the matching up the highest seed remaining with the lowest seed remaining). -- Sukh17  T •  C  •  E17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as that consensus goes, the actual voting from last year favored leaving the first round as it was originally seeded. The problem was that those who supported it were not as vocal as those who opposed and we didn't want to get caught up in an edit war. In the end, consensus was ignored and the seeds were re-arranged. z4ns4tsu \talk 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote for keeping the bracket the way it was instead of rearranging, for the same reasons as Sukh17 mentions above. It looks like it is in disorder when it is rearranged to match the second round.  It should just be in seed order, 1 2 3 4.V-train 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm seconding this (obviously, since I did the last revert to it just a little bit ago, lol) for the exact same reasons as Sukh. It only seems logical and sensible, and, as such, wonder if it's even worth going back to the past years' articles and editing their brackets to the 1-8 2-7 3-6 4-5 format. --Snojoe 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine that, a re-look; it's not in stone (or on ice) after all. As I said before, I didn't much care for the way it ended up, and if the consensus now is to order it 1-8, 2-7, etc. then so be it. It looks elegant, and the lack of the bracket line between the first and second columns is a good hint even without reading the verbiage. As far as retrofitting it... I wonder how many years back it goes? I'm guessing it was only last year that this started. Wahkeenah 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the following text to the playoff bracket section, as to serve as a warning against reordering them, since it seems clear here people are in favor of leaving them in the format they're in. " " Hopefully, this will deter most people from doing so. I figure most won't check the talk page, so, it's something... --Snojoe 04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, as for the retrofitting the brackets... I'm thinking it'd be more work than anyone would want to dive into. It goes back to at least the 1998 Playoffs/Season page and the brackets on some of the articles between that season and last season are so out of whack, it's ... beyond confusing. If anything, I'd say just retrofitting the 2004 and 2006 playoff articles would be a start, and if someone wanted to go from there, they could? --Snojoe 04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now that we have decided to keep the original seeding order after the re-seed, what about the other format for the template? Are we ready to roll that into production (i.e. put the code there in place of the code that exists in NHLBracket)? z4ns4tsu \talk 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at it... I don't know, I'm not too wild about it. I prefer what we have over what you're proposing; the current one look a bit more cleaner. Maybe it's me, but I'm just used to seeing brackets that are spaced apart -- normally because they're all connected -- and this looks a bit... off, I don't know. I'm impartial either way, so whatever people decide to do is fine with me. Just my two pence. --Snojoe 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to go with Snojoe concerning this. I really prefer the bracket that is there already. If you check out NBC Sports, they are also using a bracket similar to what we have, except that the teams are actually reseeded. -- Sukh17  T •  C  •  E16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this on Z4ns4tsu's talk page, but I'll say it here too for the group: I think the bracket can be improved, but instead of precisely what Z4ns4tsu has currently proposed (which I say has a sort of "stack" appearance in the QFs), by making the top and bottom of the SFs flush with the top and bottom of the QFs. I think that would visually emphasize that the QFs are a "pool" or "bullpen" of sorts that the SF teams are drawn from, but in a necessarily uncertain fashion. I appreciate Z4ns4tsu's effort at working on a different visual representation, however, and commend him for his efforts. I think the particular implementation I suggest is superior to what is currently being used because I think the biggest reason the current design causes some controversy is that it uses the traditional "stair step" design, and people want the stair steps to match up like they do in other sports. Emphasizing the "pool" aspect is, I think, key to communicating the message we're trying to get across visually. 76.10.24.245 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Spacing?
What's with the spacing? When I first looked at the page and saw the Pens/Sens lines, I was confused, and realized there were lines going on to the next score, it makes it difficult to read what was going on. Shouldn't there be clearer spacing between the scores (3 - 0, 3 - 1) and who scored, so things aren't carrying over to the next line? --Snojoe 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC) triva is wrong this is the 2nd year that all 4 wha teams have missed the playoffs the first was the 1993-1994 season Ranul 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any problems. What parts appear incorrect or confusing to you? -- Sukh17  T •  C  •  E02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Penguins/Senators Game One, just looking at it, there's a bit at the Third Period. Heatley scored to make it 4-1, but that whole detail line carries over to the next table line, and as a result, the next score's detail line appears at 6-1, not 5-1, which (when first glanced at) could appear to give some incorrect information. I had edited the lines in the table before to make the scoring equal to the team's player's, but it was reverted back to what it's at now. --Snojoe 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you're talking about. It should not be a problem as most people view it at a minimum 1280 pixel width screen. I am editing the actual template for another solution though, so it looks fine for all users, and any editor can be satisfied with his edits without having to see how many breaks they need to add in between. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Sukh17  T •  C  •  E03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was it then, yeah. I'm on 1024x768, so that does explain it. But, if you're working on a new template, then I'll drop the conflict and just deal with it for the time being. Good luck with that, and thanks for the clarification. --Snojoe 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this problem, and now unless a user has a really small screen size (for example less than 800 pixels wide, the goals should appear for all users on one line, and in line with the score column as well. -- Sukh17  T •  C  •  E07:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Final Score in Series Table
 Check out the newer design at the bottom of the page!

I just wanted to conduct a quick poll to see which format users seem to like better.

Cast your vote below the format you choose in the manner shown below.



Votes in Support of Choice 1

 * 1) On my monitor, the other choice takes up two lines, and since I run at a pretty high resolution, I'm pretty sure it will for most users. If possible, I always prefer single lines in tables. z4ns4tsu \talk 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I prefer to see the score next to the team's name, such as in this. Yes, the "Final" is redundant, which is why the option proposed by Psyklek at the bottom is better. <font style="color:1e90ff;font-weight:bold">David7581 \<font style="color:black;">talk 03:32, 18 April 2007

Votes in Support of Choice 2

 * 1) I would prefer this one because the other method leaves the "Final" column redundant for non-OT games (which most will be). It may take up two lines when OT comes around, but visually isn't it still one line?  -- megarockman 13:55 CDT April 17, 2007
 * 2) I also prefer option 2 for the exact same reason as above. It just looks a lot cleaner than the former option. --Snojoe 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I like this one as well. So much cleaner. Nurmsook 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Put me down for choice 2 as well.  --PCStuff 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation! -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I venture a third option? This is the method I've used in the World Championships pages. What do you think? Lord Tau 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not good at all. The page becomes too long and would take a while to load on slower connections.

I propose:

The redundant "Final" column is elimated, and since we're not in regulation, OT doesn't matter to the loser. (Psyklek 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

My proposal is just re-use what we had from the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs article. An example using this year's repeat series... Simple, informative and takes up the least amount of space (usually). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See, what my opinion on this is that in the case that this does not include as much information as the table at the bottom. If you fix the names such that you have the first initial in each case, then it becomes very long, and in addition, there is no information included here about goalies. If goalie stats were included, it would most likely result in having to adopt a two line format for each game, as some games, as has already occurred in these playoffs, have had two goalies play for a team in one game. Additionally, the format below is much easier in the fact that you can maintain that template throughout the series, as both a table for before the series begins, and also as a summary table at the conclusion of the series. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one I don't like all that much. I'm seconding Sukh on this one, I would like to see the Goalie information listed, and this one doesn't have that information there. Also, I'm one to look at +/- information, so I'd rather see who also got assists, and if their goals were shorthanded/power play goals, and the like. Of all the proposals, I like this one the absolute least, and am still leaning towards Option 2, if anything, or the newer one(s) Sukh or Lord Tau has proposed, one of those styles. --Snojoe 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New Solution
After recieving some more specific complaints and concerns, I am currently constructing a new template that features collapsible game summaries, so it will not take up too much space, and additionally, it will feature as much information as possible. Look forward to this new template in the near future.

Overtimes
Minor suggestion for any games into Overtime; since all games are of the sudden-death OT variety, wouldn't it (in theory) be a better fit, for multiple OT games (a la Canucks/Stars Game One) to just put:

First - xxx Overtimes No Scoring nth Overtime Scoring line

Instead of listing each Overtime individually? Just a thought... --Snojoe 21:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use the Hockey Night in Canada format, or so many minutes into OT? So, 78:06OT as time of goal (for the 4OT Vancouver/Dallas game from the other night, for example). Almighty Tallest 04:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

updates
nobody is updating this page consistently —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.228.98 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

New Series Box: Example
Following is a new template I have designed for playoff series. This is how it would look like for the current Sharks-Predators Series

How it would look before the series began.

Please leave any comments or suggestions. If nobody has any problems with it in the near future, then I'll consider that it is safe to go ahead and switch this out with the old series boxes currently in the article.

Thanks! -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments


 * I do have to say, it's somewhat similar to the third proposal above, with some key differences. However, I prefer the one above over this one, because this one looks a bit cluttered and hard on the eyes, whereas the one above is a bit easier to read. I do like the idea though, if it were spaced out a wee bit. Given all the suggestions though, I still the the option 2 (see above) is still the better of the few proposed. --Snojoe 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Going to second SnoJoe on this one. Having a listing like this for each and every game in these playoffs will make the page a complete clutter. I do not know why we aren't reusing the series box from 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs; they perfectly summarize the important information about each series (when it happened, who hosted, the result, and the goal scorers) without taking up too much space. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding the problem of too much information. The only additional information that appears on the main part of this is just the goalies' performances. Otherwise, the TV and venue information is just on the side. Each and every game in the last year's playoffs had a listing with Goal scores. The goal of this is to create a neater and fixed format throughout, so the table has uniform dimensions and all the information sections include that information on one line as well.-- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the goalies section is not required and it can be completely omitted, as with virtually any part of the template except for the team, the score/time section and the date.-- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New New Series Box: Example
Here is a new and improved series box that has the actually game summaries within the series summary table. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, now this I like very much. Very simple, very clean, and easy to read, I like it a lot. This one gets my vote for sure. --Snojoe 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second this one, however, I much rather like the grey box before the white one, like you see in IIHF tournament pages. Also, is attendance going to be included on this one? Nurmsook 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally fell that attendance isn't really that important of a statistic as pretty much all of the games are sold out, and I don't really feel that very many readers are looking for this. If it really is something you think deserves to go in here, then I can look into putting that somewhere also. Also, the color is a simple switch that can be done very quickly. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think that attendance is fairly important. You see it in most major tournament pages. Just a simple Attendance: 12,345 directly beneath the venue would be fairly simple to add, and although the majority of readers might not be focused on it, readers like myself do find attendance numbers to be somewhat interesting. Otherwise, it looks great, and my vote is 100% with this design!--Nurmsook 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is fine. My only complaint is to remove the TV networks for completed games; I could understand that field for upcoming games, but I question if it's necessary once a game (and eventually, a series) is completed. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can exclude pretty much any information from this except for the essentials, like team names, the center portion which would either be time or score and the date. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great Sukh17. That is definitely a winner. <font style="color:#1e90ff;font-weight:bold">z4ns4tsu \<font style="color:black;">talk 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just noticed, and I don't mean to be picky, but aren't the teams listed in the wrong order? I thought that the home team was always listed second. <font style="color:#1e90ff;font-weight:bold">z4ns4tsu \<font style="color:black;">talk 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is most definitely true. The thing was, to make the transition the easiest, in terms of being able to use the already existing game summaries. Obviously the order of the teams could be changed, and would require a great deal of work. I personally believe that the listing of the venue should be fairly clear. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to look at it this way, though, you're just adopting a European formatting, that's all. I'm a frequent browser of the Euro football pages, and they always list the home team first. --Snojoe 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bracket Problems
... and I don't mean technical problems. I've noticed a lot of people have gone and edited the bracket so that the teams that have won their series are already seeded in the semi-finals. To prevent this, and perhaps save people some time from going and editing back this, isn't there a warning of sorts (besides the text in the coding that specifically states to not edit it) that we could add on the main page to prevent people from doing so, or no? --Snojoe 05:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Eastern Semi-finals 1. Buffalo vs. 7. Tampa Bay 4. Ottawa Senators vs. 6. NY Rangers OR 1. Buffalo vs. 6. NY Rangers 2. New Jersey vs. 4. Ottawa Senatora Western Semifinals (As 2. seed, Anaheim is home-ice guaranteed, but not guaranteed of top spot.) More convoluted, but if I'm doing the math correctly, you have a couple of possibilities for seeds in the semifinals. 1-2-3-5, 1-2-5-6, 2-3-5-8, 2-5-6-8. In reality, that would mean: 1. Detroit vs. 5. San Jose 2. Anaheim vs. 3. Vancouver OR 1. Detroit vs. 6. Dallas 2. Anaheim vs. 5. San Jose OR 2. Anaheim vs. 8. Calgary 3. Vancouver vs. 5. San Jose OR 2. Anaheim vs. 8. Calgary 5. San Jose vs. 6. Dallas As you can see, especially in the west, you still have WAY too many possibilties for any other team to be seeded, and thusly, the only team that is guaranteed their seeding position is Buffalo. --Snojoe 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I was just readjusting them to be simular to the 2007 NBA Playoffs bracket set-up (just the city name except for "NY Islanders" and "NY Rangers" where duly noted), and the placement of Bufalo and Anaheim into the conference semi-final brackets as they are GUARANTEED home-ice advantage. Besides, the brackets are bigger when the full team name is used, hence the city designation.  Also, we should limit the links in the brackets to one for the sake of saving bandwidth space on the page. NoseNuggets 12:14 AM US EDT Apr 21 2007.
 * 1. Why should it be the same as the NBA?  I see no problem with the way the brackets are now.  2.  As I said above already, Anaheim could end up in either semi-final bracket.  They can be seeded first or second, depending on the result of Detroit-Calgary.  Therefore, they cannot yet be placed in a semi-final bracket.V-train 05:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, here we go. This is the possibilities of how the Semi-finals can play out, and also why you cannot seed Anaheim, nor any other team, right now, except for Buffalo.

In the west, yes, there are WAY too many. In the East, there are only 2 scenarios and both have Buffalo in the top seed in one series, and Ottawa, a 4 seed, in the other matchup NO MATTER WHAT. Therefore, they may not be the top seed in the second matchup, but they will be in that match up none the less. Therefore, Ottawa can be placed in the second match up. BT14 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they cannot. They can still earn home-ice advantage, which would make them in the top position of their bracket; otherwise, they would be in the bottom. That's why they cannot be placed. Yes, they will regardless end up in that matchup, just position is still unknown because of the home-ice scenarios. --Snojoe 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To us, yes, that would make sense. We know the top seed is listed first. But the the average person, they aren't going to look at the brackets to find out who has home ice advantage, they'll look to see who's advanced. We could go all day like this explaining it away. It's my feeling that it would be just as clear either way for someone who's just checking in to see who is out and who has advanced. BT14 17:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Series summary tables
Hey, I designed the tables used in the 2006 SCP article for concluded series, which I think might be good for inclusion in this year as well. I also just designed a summary table that could go at the top summarizing all eight series game-by-game (though it could also just be considered a waste of space). Both are visible at User:Jonpin/Stanley. What do people think? Should I move these tables in? Jonpin 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think the summary tables that we have now look better than what was used on the 2006 page. <font style="color:#1e90ff;font-weight:bold">z4ns4tsu \<font style="color:black;">talk 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Someone needs to explain what this line means: <tt>"Teams with the higher seed are awarded home ice advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1, best-of-7 series."</tt> --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The line has been expanded, but still doesn't say what "2-2-1-1-1" means. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Example: Team A hosts the first two games, Team B hosts the second two, and (if there's no winner at this point) alternate the last three games until there's a winner." That's what it means. --Snojoe 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you don't need to explain that to the talk page, you need to explain it in the article. You have to keep in mind that people reading this may not know much about hockey playoffs.  You can't just add a string of numbers and expect it to make sense to everyone.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been on the article page, I included it when I first put the explanation up there. I wasn't the person who put the number-string up there originally, however, but when I elaborated upon it, the example was the first thing I typed up and elaborated on. So I don't see what the problem was after that. --Snojoe 19:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing game officials
Why were the individual game officals removed? I believe this is important enough information. Certainly more important than game attendance. NorthernThunder 02:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Originally, neither Attendance or the Officials was included, as I did not find either that useful information. However, in proposing the new template that is now located on the page, the information about the officials was not found to be that important. If other users also find that this is necessary and useful information, then I can include this information once again. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Will the average Wikipedia reader really care which referees were at each game? I really don't think it's important enough to include in the templates. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be notable on some level, but NeoChaosX is probably right. Jmlk17 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bracket Problems, part 2
"Please do not reorder brackets to reflect the semi-final matchups."

I don't understand why this restriction is necessary, especially now that the first round is over. In all the previous Stanley Cup playoff pages, the bracket ordering reflects the reseeding of the semifinal matchups. Why should the 2007 page be any different??? Richiekim 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the Brackets discussion for details. It's all discussed up there, and you will see the result. --Snojoe 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Series Summaries
I was just looking back at the previous Playoffs page. I think it would be a good idea to proved a paragraph or so of summary for each of the completed series. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have at it. I agree; it would look nice. Jmlk17 06:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New issue?
I've noticed something, a bug perhaps? Or just my screen resolution again. Regardless, there are some scores in a lot of the games shows up on two lines. I'm thinking it might be an issue with the template, because it cuts off at the same spot in most instances, no matter which side of the template (team one vs. team two, it's occuring with both sides) once it his a certain point. There are SOME games where it's extended all on one line, which is considerably longer than some of the lines that are affected, which is what is striking me as odd. It's evidenced (for me, at least) in a few of the New Jersey Devils/Tampa Bay Lightning series games, amongst many others. Is this just me, or is anyone else experiencing this trouble? --Snojoe 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Are you guys only getting the score across two lines in the First Period, or all the Periods? When I shrink my screen, only the first period goals are getting squeezed and pushed to the next line. Anyhows, I will look into this and get back to you as soon as I can get a chance to fix it. I'm in the middle of midterms right now, so I might not get to it right away. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T •  C  •  E03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just you. It does that for me too, unless I widen my window.  I think the template needs just a bit of tweaking, so the line can extend further left (team1) or right (team2) since there is empty space there.V-train 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, it actually is only with the first period, odd. When I narrow the window on Game 3 of NYR-ATL, for example, the first goal goes to two lines first, even though there are "longer" goals in the other periods.  As I narrow it, each of the first period goals goes to two lines, while the second and third period goals just adjust to the left.  Good luck with midterms! V-train 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's only the first period scores that are affected; anything after that is perfectly fine for me at least. I'm thinking along the lines of V-train, in that it's the {team1} and {team2} sections that are affecting it. Take you're time on it, not like it's of absolute dire importance, and good luck with the midterms! --Snojoe 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)