Talk:List of Stanley Cup champions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
-
- 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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))
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- Also, the two 1900 challenges against the Montreal Shamrocks are listed on one page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- Also, the two 1900 challenges against the Montreal Shamrocks are listed on one page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
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)
-
- 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:
-
- List of Test cricket grounds by date
- English football champions
- List of NFL champions
- List of Super Bowl champions
- Super 12 champions
- Swedish football champions
- Tri Nations Series champions
- List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions
- List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions
- List of NCAA Philippines basketball champions
- List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological)
- Swimming World Swimmers of the Year
- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
-
- 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:
- 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) .
[edit] 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) .
