Talk:2016 Stanley Cup playoffs

Round Names

This was disputed last year as to the consistency of both media, the NHL, and the NHL Guide and Record Book, but no agreement was met to change them. The 2016 and 2015 NHL Guide and Record Book both use First and Second Round. Whether it's shorthand or not can be debated, but both the NHL and official guide book use it. If the format on the NHL playoffs change the names, then we should follow suit. Quarterfinal/semifinal mostly refers to all eight teams having a 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, and 4-5 seeding while First Round refers to mainly just all eight teams facing off in some way. In today's case, the conference leader faces the second wild-card regardless of division, but the second and third seed in the division face each other. In the next round, the winner of the 1st place/wild-card team faces off against the winner of the second/third place divisional team. This change mostly allows Wikipedia to stay consistent with third-parties. Some third parties may still use the quarterfinal/semifinal because they have not adapted yet, but the NHL has. Not to mention the Bracket Challenge labels it as first round.Conyo14 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My position remains unchanged from last year, so obviously I support Conyo14's proposal. Deadman137 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tomorrow, 4/7/2016, a playoff series will possibly be decided, it is crucial that a consensus be met. So far I have the support of only one other editor, who is also a primary editor on the playoff articles. If there are no further arguments on this particular subject then the 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs Wikipedia article along with its bracket will have First and Second Round in place. After the playoffs end, I will change both 2014 and 2015, including any title/links associated with them. Conyo14 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My position remains unchanged as well. "First" and "Second" names are just shorthand names. There is evidence on NHL's own website where Quarterfinal and Semifinal are used along with these interchangeably. And how can you have still a Conference Final with the preceding two rounds not called Quarterfinal and Semifinal? Doesn't make sense. Jmj713 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Jmi713, the name for conference final can still exist. It existed during the 1980s when it was a divisional-based playoff format. The name was still conference final. Also, I do not see anything on the current NHL.com's website to suggest a Quarterfinal/Semifinal naming system. ALSO, the main reference that we are using is the NHL Guide and Record Book which clearly states the use of First and Second Round, then Conference Final. Conyo14 (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The guide is the NHL's own source and we've firmly established that we overrule the NHL's weird insistence on using the singular Final for the Stanley Cup Finals, while most media outlets use Finals. Same with the rounds. Many media outlets have been using Quarterfinal and Semifinal names through the last two years. I haven't checked for 2016 yet, but I'm sure they'll continue to. Jmj713 (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a discussion on Final vs Finals. This is a discussion on the current 1st and 2nd Round vs Quarterfinal and Semifinal. Wikipedia must stay consistent on the round name changes as it has with the change in 1993-94 from divisional-based rounds to quarterfinal and semifinal. Wikipedia may be able to overrule the NHL on some parts, but Wikipedia CANNOT overrule itself. In terms of other media sources, they are inconsistent. After the NHL changed the playoff format in 2013-14, both NHL.com as well as other sites were still using quarterfinal/semifinal. In 2015, many sites, including NHL.com, adjusted to the new naming system. Wikipedia should not be the last site to change because of a few editors say otherwise. Conyo14 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that the league is our primary source for every NHL article (80% of all supporting articles in last year's playoff article were from NHL.com); it seems pretty stupid to not follow what is written about the subject matter when there is no consistency amongst the third party articles. Unless we're going to consider no longer using NHL.com as a legitimate source for citations, but that would open up a bigger can of worms as then all sports articles would be prohibited from using stories from their league's main website.

I've read the discussions regarding the Final/Finals issue and there was never any mention of their conclusion applying to all rounds in the future if there were ever any changes made by the league. Those conversations applied only to the last round of the playoffs and not all subsequent rounds. You can't pick and choose which facts that you like and don't like, after all Jmj you did use an excerpt from the NHL Guide and Record Book to establish credibility with the List of NHL playoff series as your primary reference when you created that article. Now a few years later you're refuting evidence from an updated version of the same book, so I'll ask you this one question; how can a book be reliable in one area and not reliable in another area when it is covering the exact same subject matter in both cases? Deadman137 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Until the independent sources for one way out number the other way Wikipedia doesn't change. Based on a quick search the quarterfinal/semifinal naming is still the common name. And common name trumps primary source. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually there are more for first round than quarterfinal. Google News search found 1,900,000 sources when typing in "first round nhl playoffs," compared to 78,000 sources when using "quarterfinals nhl playoffs." The common name is First Round. Conyo14 (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Except you can't do a simple google search like that because you will get back hits that are using the term "first round" in the non-Proper noun form. You have to do a compare how the terms are being used. There is a difference between calling it the first round and using the proper noun First Round. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If there are no other arguments that don't involve status quo bias, then I shall proceed with renaming the quarterfinals and semifinals first and second round respectively. Conyo14 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WHOAH, last time I checked, we had a consensus for continuing to use Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've brought this up at WP:HOCKEY, where this discussion should've been mentioned, originally. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jmj713. I think there is a clear case of the rounds being the semi-finals and quarter-finals. You still see them called this in a very large number of sources. You don't even remotely have a consensus to make the change so I wouldn't touch it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Like we argued with Jmj713, other sources, not including NHL.com, are inconsistent. Deadman137 made the point of NHL.com or the NHL Guide and Record Book are main resources for references and article content. Both of these sources explicitly mention First and Second Round beginning in 2014. So my case is that most people who want to keep it as quarterfinal/semifinal are using inconsistent sources or have status quo bias. We shall keep the names (First and Second Round) as is until the NHL sources mentioned above say so otherwise.

Also the List of NHL seasons by each team on Wikipedia was using First and Second Round before we were. So why should the NHL playoff articles be any different. Conyo14 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We should continue to use Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals, at this article & the 2014 & 2015 SC playoffs articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What is your reason for not using First and second Round GoodDay?Conyo14 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Team that meet in a Conference Final, would've advanced from a Conference Semifinal. Likewise, teams that meet in a Conference Semifinal, would've advanced from a Conference Quarterfinal. Note as well, teams aren't limited to their division opponents before the Conference Finals. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read Paragraph 5 then. Conyo14 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, the media still refer to them as the Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals. Therefore, I'm supporting that usage. Now, let's see what others have to say, further. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW - 2 editors agreeing to change to First Round & Second Round, is not a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Answer the question above please.Conyo14 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How about this, editors Djasso and GoodDay, do you both agree that NHL Wikipedia articles, including SC playoffs, uses sources and gets most of the content from the NHL and NHL.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conyo14 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Since secondary sources trump primary sources. The media would get the edge. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to the media like it is a single entity. Some media is more accurate here. -- Here's the thing about the common names argument: even when the first and second rounds were officially known as the Conference Quarterfinals/Semifinals, first/second round were used just as often as the official terms by fans and media, probably more so. --Parkfly20 (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright GoodDay, you want to know what the media is saying so I looked it up. I checked CBC, TSN, Sportsnet, ESPN (ABC), NBC, CBS, Fox Sports, THN, 14 newspapers from the metropolitan areas represented in this year's playoffs (combining the Kings/Ducks and Islanders/Rangers into one area each) and the team sites of all 16 playoff teams. In total the content of 80 articles were compared and the results were as follows: Conference Quarterfinals were mentioned twice, but those were from the Predators and Capitals team websites so they're inadmissible. Conference Semifinals were mentioned just once by the LA Times. Six of the remaining articles made no mention of any round names whatsoever. The remaining 71 (57 when you exclude primary sources) articles all used First Round or first-round to describe the upcoming events. So if the secondary sources are not in agreement with your position and the primary sources disagree with you, what leg do you have left to stand on to prevent this change?

Now getting into this ridiculous argument that you can't have a Conference Final without a Semifinal or Quarterfinal is absolute bull. How can you have a Stanley Cup Final without a Semifinal, Quarterfinal and Round of 16? I think that we can agree that both of these statements are completely stupid nonsense. Deadman137 (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite sure for many journalists, using 'first round' and/or 'second round' is more convenient then 'conference quarterfinals' and/or 'conference semifinals'. I'll accept the results of the (30-day) Rfc below, no matter what it is. PS - FWIW, I don't appreciate your usage of the words "ridiculous argument", "absolute bull" & "completely stupid". Please tone it down. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone else does not have a CLEAR CASE argument to say why it should still be quarterfinals and semifinals instead of the more popular by media and used by the NHL itself, first and second round, then there is a consensus to change it. Unfortunately a few editors don't want to see it changed, so there cannot be a unanimous decision, but they might no longer have an argument to display. The readers should know that Wikipedia is consistent with its primary source, in this case it is the NHL. Other associated media sources have already adhered to the change, so should we. Conyo14 (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus to change to 'first round' & 'second round'. BTW - You're free to open an Rfc on this matter, if you wish to have input from many more editors. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, it appears this article was created using "first round" rather than "conference quarterfinals". In this particular case, I would suggest the consensus not to change would probably hold at "first round". Resolute 22:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I know, but that would be confusing & inconsistent for even the disputed articles. By having all 3 articles with CQF & CSF, it makes the below Rfc question more understandable. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A request

Per WP:BRD & consistency, I've reverted/changed the 3 disputed articles to Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals. Howabout we leave them at that, until & if a consensus for First Round & Second Round is achieved. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Please change the round names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an edit request to change Conference Quarterfinals and Semifinals to First and Second Round for the following articles: 2014 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs, and the current project; this includes the brackets associated with their respective articles. This change was done by the NHL in 2014, but some editors say we should not change, but do not put a clear argument. So should we keep the status quo or adhere to the NHL's round names? Does Wikipedia allow secondary sources to trump the primary source? For more info please visit the talk pages for articles mentioned above, as well as the discussion currently in progress. Conyo14 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am inclined to follow the NHL's lead on this one, and it appears that "conference quarterfinals" and "conference semifinals" is depreciated. The first two rounds would more properly be called "division (semi)finals", but the use of crossovers/wildcards evidently made that inaccurate enough for the league not to go that route. Many sources are starting to follow this usage as well. ESPN in prose (though note the confused case in an image caption using 'conference semifinal'), TSN, CBC. Note that "first round" is not treated as a proper name in any. It seems to me that the NHL has no formal naming convention for the first two rounds at this time. That does mean we can probably use the previous titles if we choose, but on the balance of sources I am seeing, "first round" is predominant. Resolute 22:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals - Per consistency, we should continue using Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals, as those terms are still in usage. FWIW, I won't oppose the results of this Rfc (when it closes), no matter what that result is :) GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• First/Second Round: I'm not going to pretend I understand the ins an outs of every policy and guideline. However, from such an outside perspective, in reading some of WP:USINGPRIMARY (which I understand is neither a policy nor guideline), I don't agree that a "media" source should be used automatically over the league, at least not in this case, and especially when I'm sure we could find several secondary sources that use either one. I don't know why the league insists on calling it what they do now when it's been virtually the same conference-based format since 1994, but they clearly use "First Round" and "Second Round" formally since the most recent realignment. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can see an argument for the current years template as clearly things are changing, but at the time of the 2014 and 2015 playoffs that definitely was not the case so if there is a change to be made it would really only be applicable to this years template. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I really have no opinion on whether the rounds should be called conference quarterfinals/semifinals, or first/second round, but I think we need to get rid of the silly capitalizations – affecting even the name of this very section. Neither of the words "quarterfinal", "semifinal" or "round" are proper nouns, and although they may be referenced by NHL itself in their initcapped versions, they are not names of something (whether abstract or not), they're just ordinary nouns, and it only looks silly here on wiki (as does this section name). HandsomeFella (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Well that is actually part of what the argument is about, they can be both proper nouns and not proper nouns depending on context. The NHL when capitalizing them is using them as a name, thus making them a proper noun. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Capitalization of the round names, not including the preceding word (conference or first/second would stay capitalized), can be changed after the RfC is over, but this topic is merely the discussion of just the names, not the grammar. Conyo14 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok. GoodDay reverted me recently, re-introducing "silly-caps". HandsomeFella (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I reverted you recently, because of this Rfc's ongoing status. However, if others prefer to de-capitalize during this Rfc, which I assume also covers the 2014 & 2015 SC playoffs articles? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
      • This RfC is not about upper or lower case, so there was absolutely no need for you to revert my change. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
        • To be fair if GoodDay had not reverted you I would have done it. The proper grammar has been brought up briefly in 2014 or 2015. As we are still discussing what round names to use please wait until this wraps up and then we will address your concerns at that time. Deadman137 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• First/Second Round – I'm placing a vote in favour of the change. I have been looking at as many sources as I have had time to find and yeah you can find the odd article that is using Conference Quarterfinal/Semifinal but the overwhelming majority of secondary and primary sources are using some form of First/Second round. I do have question though, if the change is accepted should we consider changing the round names on the 16TeamBracket-NHL Divisional template or make them to each yearly template? For anyone worried that changing the round names on the 16TeamBracket would affect what readers would see with the templates used from 1982-1993, it won't as I made sure that there are manual overrides in place should a change ever be approved. Deadman137 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• • We probably should change the names on that bracket format that way we won't have to manually change them each article. I also vote in favor of the change to first/second round.Conyo14 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• First/Second Round Negative style points, but that's what the NHL calls them now: https://www.nhl.com/stanley-cup-playoffs If anything, given the current format, they're "Divisional semi-finals" and "Divisional finals" (wild cards be damned) but I'm not seeing any reference to that at all. Rejectwater (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• First/Second Round Similar to above comments, the First/Second Round is more in line with the current terminology. It will be confusing to mix up the old and new names for these play-off rounds. It is less wordy than the previous version and easier to read. If anything, a small paragraph referencing the older names should be added to ensure any potential ambiguity. Tale.Spin (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC officially ends in two days (PT) and it seems clear that almost all editors who contributed to the RfC have a case for First/Second Round. As with Tale.Spin's advise, a sentence stating the change from Quarterfinal/semifinal should be mentioned, probably in the 2014 SC Template.Conyo14 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If First Round & Second Round are adopted? then it would have to cover 2014 & 2015 as well. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course. It is in the edit request at the top. Conyo14 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of primary sources on 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs article

Right now, this article is not notable because it fails on use of too many primary sources and fails general notability. Use of primary sources is fine, but the cannot make up the majority of references per WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia: Notability. I tried to replace some of the NHL.com sources with sources from the Associated Press and USA Today to establish notability. Yet, my efforts have been met with senseless reverting to the primary sources even though I've explained to the two editors that Wikipedia clearly states that primary sources cannot make up the majority of the references in an article. I don't want this to turn into a senseless edit war where a whole mess of editors end up getting temporary bans, but I don't want to see this article fall victim to a problem that a lot of other articles that's done this exact same thing and been deleted. If there's some reason why this hockey project chooses to ignore that Wikipedia policy, I wish to know.--Nascar king 23:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's a tad redundant in the first place for the links in the references and the recaps in the scoring summaries to both lead to the same thing. That said, I'm pretty sure this article isn't going to get deleted no matter how many NHL.com articles are used, especially considering NHL.com makes up the majority of all the references in the playoff articles dating back at least 5 years. I am unaware if such a challenge has been made before. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You have not been senselessly reverted. You have gotten into a borderline edit war with Conyo14 and you were both reverted per WP:BRD, until you could come to a reasonable compromise. I want to help you out with this yet your antics are not helping your case. Deadman137 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tampabay721 on both subjects. The fact that I used the links in the refs and the recaps are a bit redundant. But seeing as how the past articles have done the exact same thing as I have, there really is no need to reedit them. Also the policy states "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources). The policy also states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources," meaning we don't have to have a majority on any reliable source: primary, secondary, or tertiary. Conyo14 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Random administrator here. First, as it says at WP:NPOSSIBLE: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". So it is not correct to relate the number of primary sources in an article to the notability of it. Notability only concerns the question of whether there should be an article, not whether the current state of the article is good or bad. Second, there is no reason you can't use more than one source for a fact, so if two sources contribute something useful (eg. a primary source might provide reliability and a secondary source might provide background) feel free to use both. Third, provided you aren't using primary sources in an way that isn't allowed (especially, you aren't making personal interpretations of them and you aren't drawing original conclusions from them) there is no reason in principle that an article can't be mostly based on them. It depends on the nature of the article. For example, articles on demographics are often based mostly on primary sources published by government departments of statistics. Discuss with each other what choices will produce an article most useful for readers and dwell a bit less on legalisms. Regards. Zero^talk 08:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)