Talk:1992 Stanley Cup Finals

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could we ratchet down the vandalism talk?

The removal of the suspect sections by 99.192.118.141 and 142.68.235.244 are perfectly legit, and GoldDragon's repeated reversion of them without any explanatory edit summaries (except to claim that one removal - which carried an explanatory edit summary - was "vandalism") illegitimate.

This should be a no-brainer. The second paragraph is trivia, pure and simple. The first?

Despite the Penguins sweeping the Blackhawks, it was actually a close series that could have gone either way. Game 1 saw the Blackhawks squander leads of 3–0 and 4–1, and would eventually be beaten 5–4 after a Lemieux power-play goal with 9 seconds remaining in regulation. The Blackhawks most lackluster game was Game 2, losing 3–1. A frustrating loss of 1–0 followed in game 3, and a natural hat trick from Dirk Graham and stellar play from Dominik Hasek (who showed indications of the goaltender he would later become) could not secure a win in game 4, which ended in 6–5 final in favor of Pittsburgh.

First sentence: POV. Second sentence: "squander?" Third sentence: "lackluster" = POV. Fourth sentence: "frustrating/stellar play" = POV. The paragraph is written in sportswriterese, and plainly from the POV of a Blackhawk fan; I doubt, for instance, that a Penguins fan would characterize any element of a sweep of the foe in the Cup finals "frustrating."

Obviously a summary of the individual games is needed. This one isn't it, and edit warring over this isn't helping. RGTraynor 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]