Talk:2011 Stanley Cup Finals

Trivia point about Mark Messier-captained team
Apparently within the last 24 hours, this trivia point regarding the fact that both the Bruins and the Canucks have both lost to a Mark Messier-captained team in the Finals has been moved back and forth between the lead section and the "Path to the Finals" section, and also has been removed and reverted as well. Could we get a consensus on this? I'd hate to have this erupt into an edit war that would lead to a page protection during Game One. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This information is absolutely not necessary. It's trivial and does not belong in the article. There are many pieces of "trivial" information that the media has dug up that simply do not belong here. The fact that the Canucks previously lost to two New York-based teams also does not belong. What does them losing to two New York teams have to do with them playing the Bruins this year? What does both of these team previously losing to a Mark Messier-captained team have to do with the 2010–11 editions of each franchise? Both of these pieces of information just don't relate to this article. It's the same reason why I removed all of that information about other leagues. Like seriously? Why does that belong here? I say remove it for good. – Nurmsook!  talk...  14:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also going to mention the Canadian Olympic host city piece of trivia, and low and behold it has just been added also. There are many pieces of trivia that reason to either Boston or Vancouver winning the Cup. Frankly, none of that belongs in this article. Honestly, this article could be twice as long as it is now if you were to add all of the "well this trend suggests the Canucks will win, but this trend suggests the Bruis will win" trivia. Not necessary, and honestly the way it's written now doesn't really conform to WP:NPOV. – Nurmsook!  talk...  17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I say the fact that Vancouver previously lost in 1982 and 1994 to New York teams should stay, as it is a fact. Also, I see no problem with mentioning that their previous Finals appearances both lost to Mark Messier captained teams. See previous Stanley Cup Finals articles - neat information some peope consider to be unimportant "trivia" has always been included. Canuck My page89 (talk), 22:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this has already been discussed! Well, I left alone the fact that they both lost to Messier in the Finals (I'm not sure if it's true, but it's mildly interesting), but I removed the completely irrelevant fact that Messier finished his career in Vancouver. 98.82.190.59 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you people are not familiar with the notorious User:SNIyer12. His "work" is easy to spot. He loves to overwhelm articles with trivial information, generally looking for any way he can to include links to other articles he has worked on; that moronic Cinderella article is one of his favourites. Check out the archived discussion on him at the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals page.Djob (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Add me to the list of people who believe this is trivial and in no way belongs remotely near the lead.  Ravenswing  23:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rosters
I believe team rosters should only reflect those players that actually played in the SCF. When we get the official list of Champions, that can be added, as usual, and may include players that did not play in the SCF. We had very good rosters for the 2008 SCF, which noted which players did not actually play in the SCF, while also noting the past SCF of the players, which I think is a great and useful addition. Jmj713 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is basically the same question you asked last year. And the plan again is to temporarily use the the standard team roster templates while the Finals are still going on, and then reformat it once the series is over (although it appears that nobody has yet bothered to add that extra "Finals appearance" column to the 2009 and 2010 articles yet). Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I did, yeah. It's just that I don't like seeing these huge rosters with players in the minors and on IR in the Finals. Jmj713 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but these players are still part of the team, and may be still eligible to have their names engraved on the Cup even though they did not actually play in the Finals. Although Mikael Samuelsson is now on IR, he would still qualify since he played in over 40 regular season games and the first two rounds of the playoffs. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm not saying that. The list of Champions, when made official, will include those that were part of the team and did not play but qualified to be engraved. That's a given. The rosters, however, I believe, should reflect those that had ice time in the Finals as a record of those that actually participated in it. Jmj713 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All these players are on the official roster and that's what this roster list is supposed to be. One95 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When did somebody decide that the rosters should reflect who is eligible to be engraved on the Cup? That's what the engravement section is for. It should be the team's roster at the time of the series, pure and simple. In other words, all players who were eligible to play in the series, regardless of whether they actually did.88.103.9.230 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that the series is over, don't forget to reformat the rosters, please. Jmj713 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to retain Mark Recchi in the Bruins championship roster, now that he's retired. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To be picky, if indicating players with ice time, should it be players that dressed or were on a game day roster. Basically I'm asking if Tuukka Rask should be listed. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roster should be correct in indicating who qualified to have their name on the Cup. There may still be a need to change depending on if the Bruins petition the League to add Marc Savard's name on the Cup. As for Rask there is an acceptation for back-up goaltenders. They do not have to play 41 games like skaters nor do they have to play one game in the finals.


 * I'd already trimmed the Bruins' roster to reflect those who are Cup-eligible, while Leech44 did the same for the Canucks.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW ... according to the Globe, Chiarelli is considering petitioning the league to add both Savard and Kampfer to the Cup list ... for what it's worth.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  09:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Scoring yet losing
Of course it's far too early to know what will happen, but I'm curious--where could one go to look and see what team had the greatest edge in scoring goals in the Finals while losing the same finals? If the last two games follow the pattern of the first five games (Boston blowing out Vancouver at home, but blowing close games in Vancouver), it is entirely possible that the losing team will have scored more than twice as many goals in the Finals as the winning team. Has anything like that ever happened? Any way to find the answer without searching through 100+ years of Cup Finals? 98.82.190.59 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not that I am aware of. But if they are close to such a record, there is an excellent chance that the news agencies and media that cover the NHL will do all the research for us :-) Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this article I found on CBC (article), the fewest goals scored by a winning team was 9 by Toronto in the 1945 Finals (Detroit scored 9 in that series, too). So, it could happen that the Canucks could break this record if they win a low scoring game. Canuck My page89 (talk), 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What about a Cup-winning team pulling their goalie for another in the Finals? When was the last time that happened I wonder? Jmj713 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Canadiens in 1979, at least. Ken Dryden was pulled for Bunny Larocque at one point, only to go back in when Larocque was hurt.  Ravenswing  13:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But Larocque was injured in the pre-game warmup and didn't actually play. The last time I recall a Cup-winning team using two goalies in the Finals was the Oilers in '84, but that was because of an injury to Fuhr. The last time it was a coach's decision? Did both Bower and Sawchuk play for Toronto in the 1967 Finals?88.103.9.230 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver riots
Okay, do we have anything about the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots? ViperSnake151  Talk  05:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's already 2011 Stanley Cup riot, but I've added a small section here anyhew. It's definitely notable enough for mention here.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Stanley Cup Champions
Richard Donnan has been attempting to add the roster of the Stanley Cup champions as it appears on the Stanley Cup. I think Richard's additions provide some useful information. However, there is a great deal of repetition, since the previous section also lists the roster of players. This seems potentially confusing to the reader who may well wonder why some information is being repeated and other information is conflicting. I would like to discuss this and work something out. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's "potentially confusing" only if the section lacks anything saying "Team roster engraved on the Stanley Cup." (It would also help if the section didn't come off as if an illiterate wrote it.)  Ravenswing  13:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that some narrative explanation would help, plus some editing. Sunray (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine now. Thank you for pitching in with that. Sunray (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Game 3 Penalties
Just wondering how Andrew Ference received two misconducts in the same (third) period? Oversight or did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.76.148 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have been possible, since a Misconduct is 10 minutes and it happened 14 minutes later. However, I'm not sure about what's stated in the NHL rule book, but I know that in the IIHF, Hockey Canada, and USA Hockey rule books, a second Misconduct penalty in the same game is an automatic Game Misconduct. Since it was in the last 3 minutes, Ference obviously left the game anyway, so I don't know if there's any way to verify whether he was indeed given a Game Misconduct.88.103.9.230 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits of 2011 Stanley Cup Finals
(reposted from my talk page)

I think my edits are correct. They were on a team that made the finals for the first time, although they didn't play. Should I also note that they did not play as well? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the players don't play, they don't appear. Should the Bruins make it to the Finals this year, it's not going to be Matt Bartowski's "second" Finals appearance; he's yet to take the ice in one, nor is his name even on the Cup for one.  A hard and fast rule is that a player who doesn't take the ice hasn't taken the ice: the game that broke Garry Unger's consecutive game streak saw Unger on the bench, except that his coach physically prevented him from taking a shift.  The NHL didn't count the streak as continuing, even though Unger was dressed for the game and on the bench.  The likes of Bartowski, Khudobin, Arniel and Hnidy weren't even dressed for any Final games.  I invite you to remove these edits before they are, once again, removed.   Ravenswing   04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "finals appearance" can be interpreted differently, and is subject to semantics. When I said "appearance", I did not necessarily mean that they dressed or played; but are simply on a roster of a team that is in the Stanley Cup Finals.  I never said they dressed or were in the lineup.  And I noted that they did not actually appear, but rather were on the roster for the first time their team made it to the finals.  Unger's streak was that of games played.  How should I note that they were on a team that made it to the finals?  I never said Bartkowski's name is on the cup.  Marc Savard's name, however, is on the cup.  For example, if the Bruins go on to win the Stanley Cup this year, Bartkowski would get his second championship ring, day with the cup, and team picture appearance; as well as the first time his name would be engraved on the cup.  Do you not understand that?  How should anyone know that Trent Whitfield and Colby Cohen were on the roster and received rings, held the cup, were included in the championship team picture and get to spend a day with the cup that symbolizes Lord Frederick Stanley's bowl.  I know these facts about players' experiences and cite sources to back up my statements.  I am just trying to inform people in this article how many times a player has been on the team's roster when his team makes it to the finals.  It is not useless to mention how many times a player gets a ring, appears in a celebration on the ice, and spends a day with the Stanley Cup.  108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it really can't be; it is only subject to semantics from people eager to take inaccurate stances. The NHL very plainly limits recognition of players having appeared in the Finals (or playing on a team generally) to those taking the ice during a game.  That players who did not qualify appear in team pictures (as do many non-players) or receive Cup rings (as did over five hundred people employed by or connected to the Bruins in 2011, down to the ushers at TD Garden) has nothing to do with that, and I am quite comfortable with Wikipedia readers having no explicit clue that Trent Whitfield or Colby Cohen did not, in fact, appear in the Cup Finals when, in point of fact, they didn't.  I am also quite comfortable with Wikipedia readers -- should the Bruins win the Cup this year -- to have the impression that the NHL would credit Matt Bartowski and Anton Khudobin with being a single Cup winner ... which would, of course, be the case.  If you want to invent new, unrecognized definitions, get consensus on the talk page first.   Ravenswing   09:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The NHL, and Ravenswing are right, the IP is wrong. Let's keep things the way they are.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I change that and note that they did not appear and were not engraved on the cup; but were on the roster and included in the team picture? I was never under the impression that they were official cup winners and never meant that, but rather players on the roster who appeared in the Stanley Cup winning picture.  108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Players who were on the roster
I have found sources that state that Colby Cohen and Trent Whitfield were on the roster but did not appear in the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals. Should I cite them, mention that they made no appearance, and list them under the category  '* Did not qualify to be on the Stanley Cup, but included in the team picture.' ? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)