Talk:Stanley Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Stanley Cup is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Stanley Cup is part of the "National Hockey League awards" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2008.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:



Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] When exactly do the Stanley Cup champs have to give the Cup back?

For example, the 1998 Red Wings repeated as Stanley Cup champs, but did they, for example, have to give the Cup back before the postseason started, or do they have to give it back when the team is eliminated? Using the 1997 and 1998 Red Wings as an example, did they get to keep the Cup two years straight without having to give it back in between their 1997 and 1998 championship years?76.177.160.69 (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Championship team only gets the Cup for the summer. Each player gets their day with the cup and the cup is usually at the home opener of the winning team. Once the season is back on the cup is frequently used for promotional purposes by the NHL and I have never seen any team physically posses the cup in any promotion after the next season starts. Seen0288 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The Anaheim Ducks paraded with the Cup for the Tournament of Roses Parade (in Pasadena, California near Los Angeles) partway into the 2007-08 season. Brad May was with the Cup for Anaheim's parade float. 24.85.1.205 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

This article will be on hold for GA until image copyright problem is resolved. OhanaUnited 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at this diff. It seems that all is settled now. Evilclown93 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

1. Well written? Pass Y Some WP:WTA are found, but doesn't really affect a lot and pretty hard to avoid using them. So I gave it a pass.

2. Factually accurate? Pass Y Seems to have sufficient information on all important facts and dates with references.

3. Broad in coverage? Fail N It looks like there's too much information on the section "Traditions and anecdotes". Do we really need to get into the details?

4. Neutral point of view? Pass Y

5. Article stability? Pass Y I consider this a pass with due regards to the fact that it changes once a year after a team wins the Stanley Cup.

6. Images? PassY The debate about the image of the cup is over so I give it a pass.

The only thing need to be done is to shorten up the Traditions and anecdotes section. OhanaUnited 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Broad in coverage Y Done This article passes GA criteria. OhanaUnited 12:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should include a broad coverage of all anecdotes. I myself would like to add one or two, but i'm limited in my capacity to do so. #29 Phil Borque was a member of the Pittsburgh Penguins when they won in the early 1990's. They won in 91 and 92, but I'm not sure which year he was on the team or which year this happened. While partying at #66 Mario Lemieux's house in Pittsburgh Phil threw the trophy into the pool. The trophy didn't fare well in the chlorene and had to be polished before the parade in downtown Pittsburgh the next day. He told this story a few days ago on the radio. He is currently the color comentator on the radio with Mike Lange on 105.9 The X, whose call letters are WXDX. There was also a commercial that stated the stanley cup engraver in 2001 finally had to learn how to spell Borque. This is incorrect because Phil Borque was already a member of the Pittsburgh Penguins when they won the cup. I apoligize for posting this in the wrong place but I knew if I put this information in here someone more knowledgable could inject it into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.25.81 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


I also would like to say the Traditions and Anecdotes section should atually be expanded. For a trophy which is held in such high regard with in it's community, it's actually had an incredible, long and eventfull history. That is after all what makes the cup, The Cup. Just a suggestion, if that particular area becomes rather lengthy, it could be moved to a page onto itself. Thank you all for your time, and have a good evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.29.202 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When sections get that long and bloated like this section would be it is split out onto its own article. This one is located at Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup. -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What material is it made up of?

Is it known what the Stanley Cup is made of? I was a little interested in finding this out, but I didn't see any such info included in the intro or anywhere else in the article. What it is made of may be worth including in the article, IMO. Dominicus Cerberus 07:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that it's made of silver several times. --Krm500 09:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that I knew to search for the word "silver," I did find that it was mentioned once that there was a silver band on the cup, and it was stated three or four times in the article that silversmiths worked on the Cup. But if the Cup really is made of pure silver, then I think that should be outright stated somewhere in the intro. At least two of the mentions of silversmiths weren't even made until the middle of the article. Dominicus Cerberus 22:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Main Page

The article is now on the Main Page (big news... Ducks win Cup), so keep an eye out for vandalism. Evilclown93 01:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engravings

The introduction of the article claims that the Cup is "the only trophy in professional sports that has the name of the winning players, coaches, management, and club staff engraved upon it". The 'Engraving on the Cup' section, later in the article, states that this is not the case - other trophies do have these engravings, but the Stanley Cup is unique in that it has them on the chalice, as well as the base and rings. This needs to be clarified in the introductory paragraph. Ygoloxelfer 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Grey Cup article states that "like the Stanley Cup, the Grey Cup has the team's name and players, coaches, & other staff members engraved every year onto the Cup." I believe that this is correct and that Stanley Cup article needs to be corrected.

[edit] Request for a Trophy Infobox...

I thought I'd ask here since the Stanley Trophy is the greatest trophy in the land...What are people's thoughts on a Trophy/Award Template? There are many, and I'm sure it's in the hundreds, big-time trophies/Awards in the world (Stanley Cup,World Cup,Claret Jug, Naismith Award, Bednarik Award,etc). These awards stretch over all sports across the world. I think that this would be a perfect place to start lobbying people for this template. Thoughts? Fuhreeus 10:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel a trophy infobox would contribute much to an article, other than the date of its origin. All other information would be listed in the article. Flibirigit 15:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CANADA Assessment

I have assessed this as a Good Article (as it passed the requisite criteria) and of high importance, as most people would be familiar with the topic of the article and it is vital to understanding a specific topic (hockey) in Canada. Cheers, CP 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

Maxim has asked me to copy edit this article. As I know nothing about hockey, I will be leaving a lot of internal questions in the article to clarify points before changes are made (these are best viewed with something like wikEd that color codes different kinds of edits). Also, I encourage other editors to alert me immediately if I introduce an error into the article - I want to know about it so that I don't make the same mistake in the future. Any extended questions I have, I will list here. (By the way, I think that the idea of a featured topic on trophies is excellent. I have been working on a featured topic myself (Template:Mary Wollstonecraft), but unfortunately, I have not had a whole project to help me out.) Awadewit | talk 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Originally, Lord Stanley intended that the Cup should be awarded to the top amateur hockey team in Canada, to be decided by the acceptance of a challenge from another team. - This sentence does not explain to the reader who is challenging whom or how that would be decided. Awadewit | talk 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right, that should be re-written. Alaney2k 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1895, Queen's University was the first official challenger for the Cup, not, however, without controversy. The Montreal Victorias, who won the league title and thus the Stanley Cup the next year, but the challenge match was between the previous year's champion, Montreal HC, and the university squad. It was decided by the trustees that if the Montreal HC won the challenge match, the Victorias would become the Stanley Cup champions. The Montreal HC would eventually win the match 5-1 and their cross-town rivals were crowned the champions. - I do not understand why if the Victorias were crowned the champions when the HC won the game - please explain the reasoning behind this decision. Awadewit | talk 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Cup went with the league, as well as the challenge series. The challenge was just really late. The challenge was supposed to be played before the end of the season, as it was supposed to pit league champion against league champions of the previous season! If Queen's had won, then their league (the Ontario HA) would become holder of the Cup and whomever won the 94-95 OHA season would take over as Cup champion. Victorias were the 94-95 AHAC champions and so took over the Cup on that basis. I hope this helps. Alaney2k 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has to have a consistent style for reporting series results - either spelled-out numbers or numerals. I don't know if there is a conventional practice or not. Check around. Awadewit | talk 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • They sought to challenge or they actually challenged? (Awadewit)
  • It wasn't a challenge cup anymore. Only the NHL could compete for it, and the WHA wanted to compete for the Cup with the NHL. The trustees didn't allow the WHA to do so. (Maxim)
  • I got that. What I am trying to understand is a slight subtlety. Did they actually challenge and the NHL rejected their challenge or did they seek to challenge and the NHL said "if you try to challenge, we will reject you". These are two slightly different things. It should be clearer which of the two it is. Awadewit | talk 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
They seeked to challenge, and the trustees said "if you try to challenge, we will reject you". Simply they would not allow a challenge/competition from the WHA. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 12:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "I would include this information in the article proper (Awadewit) But where? I don't see a good spot for it. (Maxim)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I still think the "Stanley Cup today" section is a bit stubby and awkwardly arranged and I think the trustee information could be better placed, but as for the sentence-level and paragraph-level prose, it looks good to me. Awadewit | talk 08:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dimensions

As an actual, physical, 3 dimensional object, shouldn't this have dimensions, materials used, likely for the actual cup and then also the additional rings? Aboutmovies 11:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what section would think is the best? I haven't searched for sources, but I know with a good degree of certainty that it's made out of silver, it's about 5 feet tall, and 1 foot wide, just by looking at it, but the silver I know for a fact, the cup was made by a silversmith. ;-) Maxim(talk) 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the people at FAC totally forgot about this matter. I'll take a look and try to find its dimension. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Found the dimension. I added the info to the lead section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional image

I was looking through the List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame and saw this image of Syl Apps with the Cup:

Image:Apps1.jpg

and noticed the Stanley Cup looked much different than it does in any of these pictures and different than how it currently looks. So, I figured this would be a good image to have in this article, though I'm not sure if it's already been in it. Has this image already been in the article and was removed or should it be added? The only downside, I couldn't figure out the year of this picture...looking at when he played and when Toronto won cups it must have been at the end of either the 1941-42 NHL season, 1944-45 NHL season, 1946-47 NHL season, or 1947-48 NHL season. The article says the Cup was redesigned in 1948, so maybe this would be a good picture of what it looked like before hand. BsroiaadnTalk 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been BOLD and put this image instead of the Campbell image in "NHL takes over" section. It would be a better choice, as the current pic only shows Campbell with the cup we know today. This pic gives more variety. Maxim(talk) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming Stanley Cup

I've a contact from the Entertainment and Publicity director of the NHL sitting in OTRS. He's looking to explore ways of getting something on the front page for the upcoming competition. Anyone who can help with this or has suggestions, please email me. --Brian McNeil /talk 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lock Out Season

There is no mention of the controversy during the lock out season. A group of people protested the NHL not awarding the cup because it is technically not the property of the league. The NHL had to admit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.165.5 (talk • contribs)

Please read the last paragraph of the "NHL takes over" section. It currently says, "The lockout was controversial among many fans, who questioned whether the NHL had exclusive control over the Cup. A website known as freestanley.com (since closed) was launched, asking fans to write to the Cup trustees and urge them to return to the original Challenge Cup format." Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing Vandalism

Just undid some vandalism by 76.243.192.77. Checked his page and is the 2nd time hes done it. I recommend that an admin bans him. 99.240.227.140 (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave a messege on WP:AIV, they'll take care of it. Thanks! Blackngold29 03:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women on the cup

This article states that 13 women have their names on the cup but the Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup article claims 12. Which is correct? Dismas|(talk) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Whichever one is backed up by a good source. I count 13. Blackngold29 03:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And I count 12. M. Norris is mentioned twice. First in the "first woman on the cup" entry and then a second time in the full list of women on the cup. Dismas|(talk) 12:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, yeah. There's 12. Blackngold29 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
But there's something else funny here. If you read the cited reference a bit more carefully, you see:
  • Marian Ilitch (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)
  • Denise Ilitch Lites (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)
  • Lisa Ilitch Murray (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)
  • Carole Ilitch (Detroit 1997, 1998, 2002)
Four first names, same team, same three years, same surname/maiden name. Are there really four different sisters (or a mother and three daughters), two married, who were all on the Detroit masthead from 1997-2002? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. Short answer: yes, there are. The first clue is that searching for "Ilitch" at Detroit Red Wings reveals that the owner is Mike Ilitch. Sure enough, Marian is his wife, and the other three are daughters. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "kidnapped" and held for ransom...?

I was astonished to read the "engraving" section of this article to learn that the cup had been, in the words of the article, "kidnapped" and held for ransom. There was no other mention of this event that I could see in the article, and the provided in-line reference doesn't mention a thing about the cup being "kidnapped" and held for ransom. I thought this might have been main-page vandalism, but I looked back through the history and saw that the version that was newly tagged as a featured article included this phrase. Ack. Shouldn't something be mentioned about this event that appears to be highly significant in the history of the subject of this article? Or is this just vandalism that nobody (including FA reviewers) noticed for months and months? Neil916 (Talk) 07:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like vandalism, but it doesn't look like it's fully supported by the source either. It looks like it was first added here, then removed and re-added with the reference right around here, by two eminently respectable editors on both occasions. I also didn't see anything in the source that correlates to this particular incident. In fact, it seems to contradict the statement that the existence of a replacement cup was first revealed in 1970; the ref contends the secret lasted about three years, which would put the year at 1967 or so, if my math is to be trusted. The reference does mention some sort of similar incident in Chicago during the 1962 playoffs, but it doesn't say anything about ransom, or even if the theft was successful—the ref only says "attempted to steal", but one of the engravers says it was actually stolen. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed that part for now. I've also changed the 1970 date to just "three years later", which is more in line with what the reference says. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ".. most coveted.. in the world.."

On main page it says:

The Stanley Cup is the most coveted ice hockey club championship trophy in the world, awarded annually to the National Hockey League (NHL) champion.

So, how can it possibly be the most coveted trophy in THE WORLD, if it's awarded only to the NHL champion, which is American? Is wikipedia getting way too America-centric? Seems so.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.40.240.137 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

no, just some or one of its editors.--68.9.116.76 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really American, just a majority of the teams are. The HHOF is in Canada. Plus players fight for rankings around the world to be apart of the NHL to get their names engraved on it. That is why they call it that. Asatruar (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is actually quite a bold statement, I think a rephrase would be good. --Krm500 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To win the Stanley Cup one has to be part of the NHL, and thus to be one of the 24 american or 6 canadian teams.. Sure they accept other players, but that's not like the Olympics where anyone(whose country is recognized..) can participate. Thus it can't be the most coveted hockey cup in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.40.240.137 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can. People from all over the world try to make it into the NHL. The NHL is considered the top level hockey league no matter where in the world you live. Which would make its championship the most coveted. -Djsasso (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a presumption, unfortunately.  RGTraynor  18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There are exceptions to every rule, of course some may choose not to go to the NHL etc. But in order for something to be the most coveted trophy in the world for hockey only 51% of the people have to feel its the most important trophy. And I would say that is easily the case for hockey fans around the world. -Djsasso (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't even have to be coveted by a majority, just by a plurality. Unless there is another club trophy more coveted than or as coveted as the Stanley Cup, the Stanley Cup is the most coveted club trophy in the world (though not necessarily the most coveted throughout the world, which seems to be what the original IP thinks it claimed). I'm 100% sure that this is the case (the second most coveted/prestigious club championship would probably be the new KHL, and I can't imagine that it will come anywhere close to the Stanley Cup), but it's probably impossible to source such a thing, so I agree with its removal. It might be mentioned that the International Ice Hockey Federation thinks that it is the only club championship important enough to be a prerequisite for the Triple Gold Club, though, which might say something about prestigious but not really about coveted. -- Jao (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I realize it had to be a plurality. I just said 51% because at that point there is no way another could be more coveted. I think the main problem is that in some parts of the world the Ice Hockey World Championship (though obviously not a club trophy) is more coveted than the Stanley Cup. That is the only real contender to the Stanley Cups claim. As far as sourcing all you would really need is a WP:RS calling it the most coveted championship trophy which I wouldn't think would be that hard to find. That being said we can definately tone down the language. I was just pointing out that it wasn't an outrageous thing to say. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)