Talk:2010 Stanley Cup Final

Before any move regarding whether it should be "Finals" or "Final" in the page title, please review the discussion now archived at Talk:2008 Stanley Cup Finals#Page title. Two years ago, there was a page move war over this very issue, and the consensus reached was to include the "s". Therefore, renaming this 2010 article from "Finals" or "Final" would also be considered a "controversial move", and thus requires a request posted on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

In a nutshell, the eventual consensus back then was to continue to use the most common name at the time (per WP:COMMONNAME) instead of the NHL's official preference (see also WP:TRADEMARK). Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

An RFC in 2016 has ended with keeping the current title with the "S". Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Reply

I would suggest using the template for the rosters from the 2008 article. Jmj713 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

Zzyzx11 decided to use the roster templates while the Finals are still going on, that's a good plan. I can re-format it after the series is complete. I just went with the 2009 format originally. Speaking of which, I'll update the 2009 template to be like the 2008 one. One95 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

That's great, thank you. Eventually, all Finals rosters should look that way. I would, however, restrict it to just those players that saw ice time. Jmj713 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

Concur, minus the ice time qualifier. They're all on the roster, their names will be on the Cup, and they all get rings. Jauerback ^dude? /_dude. 11:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

I changed the teams around so they read in the standard format of "Away team" at "Home team" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.3.6 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

This subject was also discussed at Talk:2010 Stanley Cup playoffs. The NHL does use away vs. home (which I would be fine with), but Wikipedia has used home vs. away for simlar Stanley Cup articles in recent years. Bcperson89 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

Is there an article or section somewhere regarding the parade in Chicago today? My understanding is that the turnout was substantial (~2million). ---kilbad (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

Why is it not mentioned in the article? The goal surely shouldn't have counted. First of all, the light did not turn on which clearly meant that the puck did not go in. Second, that goal was not reviewed thoroughly. They only showed one angle. I'm a Red Wings fan so don't accuse me of being a bitter Flyers fan. Spartan9199 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

No, I'm not going to accuse you of being a bitter Flyers fan, or even a bitter fan of the Blackhawks' main division rival. However, like anything else on Wikipedia, all controversial claims must be properly sourced with credible reliable sources, written in a neutral point of view. So either nobody has yet bothered to research it, or they have done some searches but have not found sources that are credible and reliable to back up your claims that the goal "surely shouldn't have counted". Therefore, feel free to improve the page by adding some. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

And incidentally, one could easily refute your two arguments: First, the red light not turning on does not necessarily mean that "the puck clearly did not go in" if both the referee and the goal judge (who is responsible for turning on the light) initially missed the call on the play – that is why there is such a thing as video review/instant replay in the first place. Furthermore, "that goal was not reviewed thoroughly" is more of an opinion; if they feel that the first angle they see gives them "incontrovertible visual evidence" to overturn the original call, then there is no point in seeing the other angles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

In the section 2010_Stanley_Cup_Finals#Chicago_Blackhawks_2, there is an extra {{player5 at the beginning of the section, though I can't seem to find out where it exists in the code or why it is displaying. Hopefully another editor's eyes can spot the issue. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

Regarding this edit, there are a few issues: First, it is uncited; by opening up the context to all sports, there's a large universe of seven-game series that would have to be examined. Second, the nature of each sport is different; coming back from a deficit of three losses in the NHL is not a directly comparable feat with doing the same thing in MLB. I recognize, though, it is a piece of trivia that interests some. Opinions by others are welcome to help establish a consensus on this matter. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Reply

I would say the NHL 3-0 comebacks could probably stay, but I'm not sure of the relevance of mentioning other sports leagues comebacks there. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 23:27, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely leave mention of NHL comebacks but we probably don't need ones from other sports. -DJSasso (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Reply

If there is no further discussion, then I will proceed with reversing the edit in question, to remove the comparison to other sports. isaacl (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Reply

I have reverted the changes. isaacl (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Chicago Grant Park night pano.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 9, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-06-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Reply

Regarding this edit: please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive66#Removal of quotes sections from Stanley Cup Final articles, and the previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive64#Quotation sections. Based on strength of arguments, there is at present a consensus not to have a separate section for quotes. Please join the discussion at the WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page to discuss the matter further. isaacl (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC) Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Stanley Cup Finals which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC) Reply