Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Stanley Cup champions

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 12:09, 15 May 2008.

---

List of Stanley Cup champions

Here's one I've been thinking of working on for a while but never got around to it. A couple of notes. For the Challenge Cup games (1893-1914) I've decided to just list the cup winners and leave the specifics to the List of Stanley Cup Challenge Games. It is a complex history, and I felt that List of Stanley Cup Challenge Games would have more room to give full explanations. As well, I decided not to model the table after the List of Grey Cup champions ( team | score - score |team ) because in one year there was a tie, and this table also lists the coaches, so having the score format that way would be a bit more confusing.

Anyway, all concerns and comments are welcome and I will do my best to address them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reject The part that was removed also removed the winners per league season. The Challenge Cup article details the challenge games, not the league championships, which counted also. The section removed also listed the winning goal scorers. Alaney2k (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I readded the tables. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Approve Thanks. I noticed that you removed the other table. That is the right decision. It's only importance was the listing of 'other' challenge winners for those years. But the table can go in the List of Challenge Cup article. You see, the 'others' count as Stanley Cup champs too, but the 'Full Chronology' covers it. I think the 'Full Chronology' heading is probably un-necessary now. Alaney2k (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I do think that what you and others have done to improve the list is good work. I don't want to convey any other impression. Just the table I felt was important. Alaney2k (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think the lead needs more references.
  • The lead mentions the Conn Smythe trophy, but I can't see any reference to it below.
    • It's mentioned in the lead because it ought to be mentioned somewhere, and the lead is the most appropriate place.
      • To be honest, I expected to see a list of winners somewhere, since it was mentioned in the lead. Peanut4 (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll try moving it to the NHL era section then. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The scores in the Challenge Cup era ought to be unspaced to be consistent with the game scores later on.
    •  Done
  • I think the playoff formats should be changed to "1926–27 to 1927–28" etc, just to make it look clearer.
    •  Done
  • Why are some names in square brackets in the references? Peanut4 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm actually not sure. I've fixed it now. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Those were my fault. I thought it was proper syntax. I neglected to correct them after learning it was not. Alaney2k (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good explanations of the myriad ways the cup's been awarded. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Prose unclear and faulty in places; formatting queries; ToC query.
• I've straightened out the opening to avoid rep. Is it OK to shift the scope statement "including finalists and challengers" to the end of the lead, as I've done? Being ignorant of the topic, I need to ask whether the list comprises only "finalists and challengers": if so, please use "comprises", not "includes" (which indicates there are other categories—and if there are other categories, can we be told what they are?).
• Structure: Why the second-level title "Champions", when that is all there is. Why not move the current third-level headings up to second level?
• I find it odd that tables are not numbered, as in most genres. (Not actionable, of course – just a comment.)
  • I'm not sure what you mean, do you mean like Stanley Cup finals I, II, III, etc? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry to be a pest, but there are ?five lists; do we really call it singular "List of ..." in that case?
  • It's all one list, it's just split up into five tables for simplicity. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Table 1: Missing comma fifth row
• Tables 2–4: is it possible to re-jig the width of the columns so that the full dates don't break in Column 1? I had to widen my window hugely to make them continuous; since all entries in the rightmost column break (rather than some), you might consider robbing from it to pay for the first width. This is not an issue in Table 5.
• All column titles should be in sentence case, not title case, shouldn't they?
• "There are two seasons that the Stanley Cup has not been awarded: during the 1918–19 season because of a Spanish flu epidemic and 2004–05 because of the NHL lockout."—"seasons during which"? Then remove "during" after the colon. Commas might go after "season", epidemic", and express the 2004–05 season using the same wording as for the other.
• "the trophy was an award for"—but no longer is? Unsure myself whether the subsequent attributions replace this role. Can you clarify?
  • It was originally for the top amateur team, now its for professional teams, and the subsequent sentences do explain it. I have done some minor rewording of that part. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I haven't looked at the rest of the prose, but it surely needs copy-editing. TONY (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed all of your concerns and I'll work on some copyediting. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that second-level title Champions is superfluous. See List of Super Bowl Champions. Alaney2k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Table numbering issue: maybe I'm just too new here, and it's not regarded as useful; I was wondering why tables are not headed "Table 1", "Table 2", etc. for ease of identification, possible referral in the main text, etc. It's a general question that I'm asking here, simply because as a reviewer I wanted to refer to the tables here somehow. TONY (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I get you. There aren't any (that I know of) FLs that do that. The tables are all under seperate headings, so you could use that as their title. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not done in FL List of Super Bowl champions, which is the most comparable. I don't know of any articles on Wikipedia that do number the tables like you suggest. Alaney2k (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am wondering if it is necessary for tables 2, 3 and 4 to be separate. Could they not be fitted into one section for when the Cup was an interleague championship trophy? Resolute 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive, well organized and well sourced. Resolute 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I made some minor edits, hopefully self-explanatory. The list looks great.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive article, very detailed. Explains the rather confusing details of the early Stanely Cup. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well-written, over-all concise but detailed when explanation is needed. Excellent list. -RunningOnBrains 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.