Talk:2019 Stanley Cup playoffs

Islanders arena note
Just a quick reminder for everyone, the Islanders will be playing at Nassau Coliseum in the opening round. If they move on the final three rounds would be played at the Barclays Center. Deadman137 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Start date?
Is there a reference for, or confirmation by the NHL of, the start date of April 10? I have also seen a site list April 9 as the start date. I believe it should be the 10th, but I don't see anything official from the NHL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.89.40 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have seen ads from national networks advertising that date, also the league is listing April 10 as the closing entry date for their annual playoff bracket challenge. Deadman137 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For quite a few years now, the NHL has started the playoffs on the Wednesday immediately after the regular season has ended.

April 2019
Pittsburgh Penguins haven't clinched a playoff spot....yet.Dsides12 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is actually at Template:2019 Stanley Cup playoffs. But it is taken care of now, it was an editor with a history of unsourced or misinformed edits. Yosemiter (talk)

Western Conference, 1st round, VGK-SJS section
For Deadman137:

I was wondering why you insist on deleting the reference to Paul Stastny regarding Joe Pavelski's injury in Game 7 of the first round of the 2019 NHL Playoffs. The first time you reverted, you said "needs citation." It has a citation, which has always been there: "Sharks forward Joe Pavelski was cross-checked off the draw by Cody Eakin, then got tangled up with the Knights' Paul Stastny before hitting his head on the ice" [bold emphasis mine], comes directly from the article "Sharks and zebras: The NHL kingdom's unintentional best friends," which is the original citation listed at the end of the sentence describing the incident. The citation is currently #53. The next time you reverted, you failed to explain your reasoning, even though I listed the citation and explained it as you requested, and then asked for your input on your talk page.

The implication from your preferred choice of words is that Eakin crosschecked Pavelski in the head causing the injury. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it is, at best, very misleading to anyone reading the article, because that implication is not what actually happened in the game. More importantly, it's also contrary to how it was described in the citation for that sentence. The injury's proximate cause was Pavelski's head hitting the ice after and because of the second collision with Paul Stastny, not the crosscheck to the chest. Speaking of which, 99% of all crosschecks are chest high, either in the front or back, so saying he was crosschecked "up high," (which is nowhere in the citation anyway) implies that it was higher than normal, i.e. in the head.

What is your objection to providing context and clarification of the sequence of events that caused Pavelski's injury? It's what the cited article actually says. Are you concerned that the additional sentence makes an already fairly long article even longer? Did you not see the actual description of the entire sequence of events in the cited article?

An alternate edit would be to eliminate the current description of how the injury occurred in its entirety, and replace it with something like: "Vegas forward Cody Eakin was assessed with a controversial major penalty for a play in which San Jose forward Joe Pavelski was injured..."

Please explain your reasoning for wanting to keep the current, misleading description, or as per WP:BRD, it needs to be revised. Thanks. USNPilot (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion brought forward from another page.

Deadman137 says:

"Stop with your edit warring unless you want to be blocked from editing. Now if you haven't exactly noticed over the last two weeks, nobody except for you even cares about this. Your edit gives far too much weight to the secondary contact with Stastny as he was already falling awkwardly from the previous cross-check and your assertion is borderline WP:OR. The purpose of the series summary is to give readers a quick glimpse as to the high points of each game and this wouldn't even have been mentioned if Vegas had successfully killed off the penalty. Your edit is barely useful in a team season article. I will strongly suggest that you find something else to do around here because your conduct suggests that you have a hard time letting go of things." Deadman137 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Response:

If you are some special kind of editor who has the power to block other editors that you disagree with, then you should say so. If you have some sort of special Wikipedia status (or complex) where you are either unwilling or unable to tolerate other editors adding to/clarifying/changing anything that you wrote (I assume you wrote the original article), then you should say that as well. My edit was to clarify an existing sentence that was not only misleading, but partially false. First you said that I needed a citation. I pointed out that what I added was specifically in the citation already listed. Then you accused me of not being in accordance with WP:BRD. Your continually reverting a clarifying edit without any explanation is closer to a WP:BRD violation than anything I did. Now you accuse me of "borderline WP:OR." Seriously? My edit is very nearly word-for-word what the actual cited source says. How is that OR? Speaking of WP:OR, the existing phrase, "cross-checked Joe Pavelski up high," is clearly WP:OR, and possibly WP:POV, since nowhere in the cited source is "up high" even implied,let alone stated. You obviously haven't watched any video of the actual hit and resulting injury to Pavelski. If you had, you'd see that Eakin did not cross-check Pavelski "up high," but in fact hit Pavelski fairly low for a cross-check, hitting him just above the elbows (below Pavelski's chest). You'd also see that from that hit alone, Pavelski would have landed on his butt. It was the second collision with Stastny that drastically altered Pavelski's trajectory so that he landed on his shoulder/head instead. Just like the video shows and what the cited source actually says. I'm not sure why you seem to be wedded to the original wording, other than your point of view, and perhaps bias against me now.

I care about this because it's partially false, and taken as a whole, completely misleading. I'm not sure why you don't care, since you seem to be Wikipedia's reigning hockey guru. How about a compromise, Deadman? You said that the series summary is a "quick glimpse of the high points..." Okay, how about this? Instead of me trying to add clarification, you just change the wording of that last clause of that disputed sentence to something like, "..., Vegas' Cody Eakin was assessed a controversial major penalty and game misconduct as a result of a play that injured Sharks forward Joe Pavelski." That way, the flow and design of your series summary is preserved just as you like it, while the un-cited and untrue portion is removed, along with the misleading implication. It satisfies your above-stated criteria, and removes any possible WP:OR or WP:POV from the article. Would that be satisfactory to you?

I'd like to hear what you think about this and why. USNPilot (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)