Jump to content

Talk:Montreal Canadiens/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that putting Maurice Richard, the best player of his time and the first one to score 50 goals in 50 games, in the "infamous players" section, is kind of unfair. Anyone agrees ?

Mm. We're talking a player who in his time was known as one of the most hot-headed players ever, and who had been repeatedly punished for accosting or assaulting officials. No matter his stardom, if Richard was playing today and carrying on with the same antics, he'd be in Marty McSorley company; players have been banned for life in recent years for less. Whether an "infamous players" section is desirable is one thing, but Richard's periodic thuggery makes his inclusion defensible. RGTraynor 01:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Just for yucks, I looked back over Coleman's account of the 1955 incident in Trail of the Stanley Cup. Richard clubbed his opponent (who'd dropped stick and gloves) over the head and shoulders with his stick, then when that was yanked out of his hands by a linesman grabbed another stick and beat Laycoe over the back until it broke, then wrenched out of a linesman's grasp to grab a third stick and beat Laycoe some more with it until a linesman wrestled him to the ice, after which Richard started punching the linesman in the face. This was Richard's second stick fight and second assault on an official just in the same season, never mind his record of previous (and subsequent) seasons. Compare and contrast to Marty McSorley and Todd Bertuzzi; nowadays mere banning for life would be academic, we're talking imprisonment. RGTraynor 10:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

True, but back then, there pretty much was no safety playing at all. If you tripped while going the 200, bam, your head would be in the boards...so it makes sense that a fight would be less safe. Also, though you might be right, in hockey, you NEVER hit someone with your stick in a fight. Not just because safety, but you'd look like a...lets see...pansy? Nachomania Forever!

Not to be forgotten

Do we really need this section? Isn't it kind of redundant and POV? In my humble opinion, it is simply a list of fan favourites; a list of players who, in the fans POV, are worthy of note. Most of these players already have a spot elsewhere on the page in such places as the written text about the history of the Canadiens, Hall of Famers, Future Hall of Famers, team captains, and retired numbers, not to mention here: List of Montreal Canadiens players. Masterhatch 3 August 2005

Thinking about it, yes we need a "Not to be forgotten" section. Would it be possible to set a limit on the number and importance of the players put there? The list here on the Canadiens isn't too long, but the one on the Leafs page is way too long. Masterhatch 4 August 2005

They're just overcompensating for how long our Stanley Cup list is.;)Habsfannova 18:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There; I've conformed to my tacit guidelines for key players throughout the Habs' history that weren't team captains or HHOFers (although anyone who thinks Roy isn't going to be first-ballot need to up his dosage), and to correct that most of the players previously cited played in the last decade. It's not a short list, but we're talking about a hundred year old franchise here. RGTraynor 18:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Racicot? I'll delete him tomorrow if there are no objections. ccwaters 23:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh... nevermind. He's gone. ccwaters 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Heh. I kind of liked Andre Racicot, and think he got a hugely bum rap all in all, but it isn't quite as if he's one of the most memorable players in the history of the franchise. RGTraynor 05:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Montreal Canadiens players

If you add players to the Montreal Canadiens article, could also be so kind as to add them here too: List of Montreal Canadiens players. That would be very helpful. Thanks! Masterhatch 5 August 2005

I REALLY don't think the nicknames need to be wikified...Habsfannova 02:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick names are a good way of separating players who have the same name as other notable people. Masterhatch 01:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Bird

Does anyone know, if & when the Canadiens will retire Larry Robinson's #19, it hasn't been worn since he left the Habs. Further more ,is it safe to say ,in the "Not to be forgotten" segment, that Patrice (Breeze-By) Brisebois will be forgotten?

I'm under the impression that the Habs will retire numbers in chronological order and will end up retiring Robinson's number as part of their 100th anniversary celebration. -- Xtanstic 11:05 20 October, 2005 (UTC)

We decided to get rid of blog links. The site that was left in seemed to more of a valuable research (complete with rosters, prospects, histories, etc). habsblog.com seems to be just that: some fan's personal soapbox. Not that there's anything wrong about that: but its not encylopedia material. Is it yours? The blogs certainly doesn't belong at NHL though. ccwaters 19:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


It is not a 'personal soapbox', there are several members engaged in Canadiens discussions and analysis. Although it is a newer site, it does collect stats , history, scores schedules, special events etc...and is updated daily at the very least.

When I originally submitted the link I did so because I felt it was relevant for someone searching for information about the Canadiens. Isn't that what an 'external link' is? If the word 'blog' wasn't in the url would it be perceived differently?

Thanks

Personally I'd get rid of all fan sites just to be fair, but that's just me. I'm not the only one watching this. They should chime in soon. ccwaters 20:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Ok if it is all fan sites fair enough. Just let me know the final decision, Thanks.
Well, I feel (and many agree) that Wikipedia is not here to promote other websites. The "external links" is there to show reputable sources for the information in the article. If the link in external links isn't a source per se, then it shouldn't be there. Blogs and fan forums have nothing to do with an encyclopaedia nor are they good sources. It isn't just hockey that deletes the blogs and non-source links out of wiki-articles; it is most articles. Masterhatch 00:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Factual Statement

I was a little disappointed to see my statement removed from this Wikipedia page. It was a clear and concise fact: "Toronto is a far better team than Montreal."

It is concise, I'll grant you that. Clear or a fact? No. For one thing, "better" how? Over the course of the respective franchises? Of course not. In the expansion era? Stanley Cups for Montreal: 10, Stanley Cups for Toronto: 0. In the last six years? Alright, there's something. For another thing, it's a POV violation. For a third, it doesn't come off as informative, it comes off as an in-your-face to Habs fans, and that's behavior better suited to partisan team blogs than to an encyclopedia. Now you could certainly say "Toronto has a better record the last six seasons than Montreal," but at best that's trivial and subject to change: as to that, you have noticed that Montreal is leading Toronto in the standings this season, yes? RGTraynor 20:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Toronto (leaf nation) is not even going to make the playoffs, "Toronto is a far better team than Montreal." When, 1960's for a year or two. anyways, enjoy the playoffs this year Leaf fan.

Missing

What's missing from this page is a history of the buildings. The old Forum is as much a part of this team's history as anything else. fvincent 19:24, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Hm, les Tricolores? Several sources indicate that "Le Tricolore" is the correct term, haven't found any references to "Les Tricolores". Tremblay 15:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Missing the coaches, too... Trekphiler 05:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried removing the "blank.gif" for the alternate logo, but it left [[Image:{{{alternate_logo}}}|100px]] on the page when I tried to remove it. Not sure if something else needs to be changed. Bigdottawa 01:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Retired "numbers?"

What's this about the Expos being "retired" by the Habs? Was a number actually set aside? If what this actually involves is a banner hanging up in the arena honoring the Expos, that's very nice, but it isn't a "retired number" and should be removed from said listing. RGTraynor 02:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the Expos part should be removed. Also does Bob Gainey, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard & other former players, whose number haven't been worn for some time (yet aren't retired numbers) have to be listed? I don't think they should be, (unless their numbers are scheduled to be retired) GoodDay 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It's back, for some reason. Being taken care of. 136.159.248.4 00:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Captains

The Habs (along with Captain Saku Koivu), have four alternate captains: #20 Richard Zednik, #27 Alexi Kovalev, #44 Sheldon Souray & #52 Craig Rivet. Is this corect? Mightberight/wrong 2:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC).

  • I'll answer my own question. Yes it's correct, I've watched the Montreal Canadiens on the French version of Hockey Night in Canada and have seen these four players taking turns wearing the 2 'A's per game. Mightberight/wrong 23:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC).
I had this same question with my friends the other night. They said that a pair wear the A's on the road while the other wear them at home. I'm not sure if this is true or not. Can anyone shed some light? Xtanstic 01:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that you mention it (rotating the 2 A's on home-road games), that is how it's done. In fact, in the last 2-3 years, NHL teams have moved toward this trend (of more then 2 alternate captains on a team). Formerly Mightberight/wrong, Now GoodDay 15:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

:Once more, User: 66.131.149.19 has (in the current roster section), stripped Kovalev & Souray of their "A"s (alternate captaincies). Just because a player is injured & out of the lineup, doesn't mean they're no longer a captain or alternate captain. The Montreal Canadiens have FOUR alternate captains, two for home games & two for road games. I have edited the article to show (correctly) the 4 'A's. the current roster is the 2005-06 season.GoodDay 17:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC) ::Yet another user, (this time User: 69.157.184.205), has taken the 'A's from Kovalev & Souray. I won't change it again, though I still disagree. I've surrendered the 4 'A's fight, Go Habs Go GoodDay 22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC) :I'm just seeking info, has Bob Gainey trimmed down the alternate captains to Kovalev & Rivet? Under Claude Julien, there were four alternate captains: Kovalev, Rivet, Souray & Zednik. GoodDay 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of logo design: are you sure the "CH" doesn't have something to do with "les habitants" (hence the nickname)?

The CH is definitely an abbreviation for "Club de Hockey Canadien". The official story can even be found on the Canadiens homepage, www.canadiens.com
fvincent 19:02, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
Really? Would you mind giving us the full link? I always thought it stood for "C"anadiens "H"abitants. Alireza Hashemi 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Not to add a political stir to the page, but I was thinking: Should we add Quebecois flags to relevant players, seeing as how the team is in Quebec and takes pride in that heritage?Habsfannova 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh..no. That's a big can of worms. :) Its been decided that those flags are country of birth and not nationality anyway. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format#Player_nationalities ccwaters 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, when we start putting flags on every player reflecting their province or state of birth. I'm sure that Jaromir Jagr is just as proud of growing up in whatever Czech province he did. RGTraynor 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, sorry, just thought it should be a special thing for the Habs...Habsfannova 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well ... unless it is something that people want to extend to every player in the league, based around every provincial-level subdivision, then it does assert that something about Quebec makes it uniquely worthy for such a citation. And that is bringing in a political issue, I'm afraid. RGTraynor 01:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. I don't have any alternate (Or assistant) plans, either, RG...;-) Habsfannova 01:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
If this is going to be discussed, it should be noted that, when the Forum opened in 1924, the Canadiens were considered the team of Montreal's French and the Maroons were the team of Montreal's English, until the Maroons folded in 1938. When the Quebec Nordiques went from the WHA to the NHL in 1979, it was during the first high point of Quebec nationalism, and the Nords were in the provincial capital, and so the old system was reversed: The Nordiques were the team of the French, especially the separatists, while the Canadiens were the team of the English and those French who were federalists (Canadian nationalists who wanted Quebec to stay in Canada). The Habs-Nords rivalry was tough on the ice and nasty in the stands, although there was never anything like the Richard Riot of 1955, which some Quebec nationalists still, half a century later, like to think of as the beginning of Quebec nationalism. Maurice Richard admitted he was wrong to attack Hal Laycoe and the linesman, and he was smart enough to ask the people to stop rioting in his name, and after that he was smart enough to say "Keep me out of politics." Anyway, while the Canadiens (as their name would suggest) have been dominated by players of French descent, they are, first and foremost, Montreal's team, and secondly the team of French Canada, especially now with the Nordiques gone. I should also note that, in their last few years, the Montreal Expos had the Canadian flag on their left-field fence and the provincial flag on their right-field fence. But the Canadiens, while very active in promoting Quebec youth hockey, are a Canadian team first and a Quebec team second. But then, what do I know? I'm from New Jersey and root for the Devils, but we never would have made it without ex-Montrealers Jacques Lemaire, Larry Robinson, Claude Lemieux, Stephane Richer and city native Martin Brodeur. -- Pacholeknbnj, 10:00 PM EST, March 14, 2006
Uh, the Richard Riot the start of Quebec nationalism? Not even close. I'm sure Louis-Joseph Papineau and Lionel Groulx are just a tad more important then a hockey riot. And most sports teams in Quebec have both flags...even in Centre Bell. I wouldn't even say they even have a stance on "Canada" or "Quebec" "First."Habsfannova 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Team announcer shared by Expos in the 1970s?

I remember the announcer shouting John Bocabella in the same way the announcer at the Forum announced Yvan Cournoyer John wesley 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Popularity

Something has to be put into this article about the wide popularity of the Montreal Canadiens, I know there might be some potential POV issues, but if the Toronto Maple Leafs page has a claim to being one of the most popular teams, then Montreal certainly has a claim as being one of the most popular as well. User:Kingsean1 11:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Infamous?

Maurice did start that riot, but did not approve of it, and even went on the radio, asking rioters to stop. So was making a riot happen that you wanted to stop make you infamous? And they listened to him...

No, I'd say any claim to that around Richard comes more from the fact that no superstar in hockey history has such a record of violence and assaults against officials. RGTraynor 13:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but it didn't state that. Nachomania Forever!

23 or 24 Stanley Cups?

The article repeatedly claims 24 Cups, but the year-by-year listing only shows 23. 69.137.220.179 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They won one in 1916, before the NHL started.Habsfan|t 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Proper spelling

The title of the article should be changed to "Le club de hockey Canadien" in order to reflect the proper spelling of the team name. 67.160.202.16 07:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And of course it would be on the French Wikipedia. This is, however, the English Wikipedia. Come to that, click on the English language tab on the Habs' official website, and you're directed to a page headed with "The Official Page of the Montreal Canadiens." RGTraynor 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if we were to use the "Americanized" version, its still spelled wrong. It should be Montréal Canadiens. 67.160.202.16 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Americanized?? http://www.canadiens.com/eng/index.cfm http://tsn.ca/nhl/teams/?hubname=nhl-canadiens http://www.forecaster.ca/hockeynews/hockey/_4qc90jbtip20/teamhome.cgi?Mtl http://www.cbc.ca/sports/stats/nhl/teams/ http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Montreal/home.html ccwaters 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The Anglophone media spells it wrong, just like how they butcher foreign player names by not including diacritics. 67.160.202.16 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Its not the Americans, its the entire English speaking world. Care to expand those in the wrong to include the Canadiens themselves? first link was the team's official site in English. ccwaters 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The team's official site can't even spell the player's names properly with diacritics, so you expect me to be suprised that whoever made the team's site can't get the team name right either? Diacritics need to be included in the article, any other spelling is incorrect and unencyclopedic. 67.160.202.16 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't get to choose what is correct. Common usage determines what is correct, and common usage falls on the side of 'no diacritics'. All these assertions from you don't change the fact that the overwhelmingly most used spelling in the english world has no acute accent, nor should it since it doesn't even reflect the common english pronunciation. Deal with it. Aottley 02:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do other people insist that other hockey related articles must include diacritics then, dispite this supposed "common usage"? 67.160.202.16 03:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Because there's a minority of language warriors (almost all Europeans) who insist that English usage conform to the linguistic practices and rules of their own languages. (That many English names, on their own-language Wikipedias, conform to the local spellings rather than to their English equivalents is something which they studiously avoid answering whenever the question is raised.) It's been a political football for some time. RGTraynor 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Perezhogin's flag

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format#Player_nationalities and User:Buchanan-Hermit/NHL Player Nationalities (Flags). Basically Perezhogin played for Russia in World Juniors and therefore represents Russia. Also if you google him you'll notice he's was most often referred to as a Russian, hardly ever a Kazakh. Perhaps his is ethnically a Russian, much like Evgeni Nabokov? The flags are meant to represent nationality not place of birth. ccwaters 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'll change it. --Soopafred 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

French-Canadian Drafting Rights?

Has anyone else heard or read about this. Nonetheless, I'd like to see some proper referencing. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Its absolutely false: http://www.nhl.com/futures/drafthistory.html ccwaters 15:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As part of the phasing out of the sponsorship of junior teams by NHL teams (who would thereby own the NHL rights to the junior teams' players), the Montreal Canadiens were granted two additional picks (coming before all of the other draft choices) specifically for drafting French-Canadian players. This special dispensation was eliminated for the 1970 draft. See http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/draftindex.html, http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononep198802.htm. It existed only for a brief period of time, and the draft itself only existed since 1963, and so doesn't play the role that was described in the section that was added to the article. Isaac Lin 20:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Accent on Montreal

Someone went through the articles for both Expos and Canadiens and converted every occurence of "Montreal" to "Montréal" (on the grounds of "standardizing spelling" according to the comment in the history). For the same reasons set out in much greater detail on Talk:Montréal Expos, I have reverted the spellings to the English version of the city's name, in order to be consistent with most Montreal articles in the English Wikipedia. I appreciate that Montréal is the official name of the city, but Montreal (without the accent) is a perfectly valid English-language equivalent, and the one used in this Wikipedia. Frankly, the use of Montréal comes across as an affectation where the norm in this context is to use Montreal. It also reaches new heights of absurdity when an article refers to the "Montréal Gazette" or "Montréalers" -- someone probably went through the article adding accents without regard whatsoever to context.

As always, I'm happy to discuss this point further. I couldn't find a Wikipedia guideline on this point, but would obviously be interested if there is one. If there has been a prior discussion on this point elsewhere, I would be interested in knowing that as well. Skeezix1000 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm given to understand the en-version of Wikipedia is officially accent- and diacritical-free, which makes all the uses on all the team pages (including the liberal use of diacriticals in European player names) out of bounds. RGTraynor 22:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
While I'm not objecting to the lack of an accent in this article, I do have to question the "en-version of Wikipedia is officially accent- and diacritical-free". Given that the English language isn't "accent- and diacritical-free" (for example the word resumé) then how can Wikipedia be free of such things? Do you have a pointer to that policy? Nfitz 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
On a similar note, why is Vezina spelt "Vézina" in the article?67.160.202.16 10:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the NHL's official website accentuates the "e" in "Montreal" [1], but not all the time. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Billy Coutu Incident?

Why is the Billy Coutu incident listed under the Montreal Canadiens' infamous moments? At the time, he was playing for the Boston Bruins against the Ottawa Senators. I don't see the Canadiens connection other then being traded from Montreal after the preceding NHL season. — Dorvaq 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the statement. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Na Na Hey Hey Song

So the following protion underneath the Trivia section isn't sourced: "Canadiens fans, especially during home playoff games, usually chant the "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" song in the final moments of a game they are about to win." But, it doesn't necessarily contravene Wikipedia's sourcing guideline, as:

  • The fact is not likely to cause contention. Any Canadian hockey fan will back this statement up. The "Na Na Hey Hey" song is very much a part of Canadian hockey — not just in Montreal. I also wouldn't be surprised if some American hockey clubs use this song as well.
  • The fact is widely known. Any hockey (not just Montreal) fan, however casual, who has watched or experienced a Montreal home playoff game where the Habs were about to beat the visiting team, will remember the Habs fans chanting the "Na Na Hey Hey" song during the final moments of the game. Note, this event occurs during regular season games as well, but is more prominent during the playoffs.

— Dorvaq (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The real issue is: Why is it notable? You can hear this at any sport venue. Why is Montreal unique regarding this? Do they do the wave up there too? ccwaters
I think it is just somewhat more popular with Montreal fans as I don't seem to hear it as much with other teams' fans, except for the Quebec Nordiques when they used to compete in the NHL. Of course, this could be anecdotal evidence on my part. On a side note, I am not the author of this statement, I simply did not agree with the reason it was removed. If the consensus is that it should be removed because it's not noteworthy enough, well then that's fair. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"I think" isn't good enough for Wikipedia. To place such a statement here implies it carries special significance for Montreal. There needs to be a source for that information. Fagstein 21:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. "I think," "somewhat" and "seem" are way out there on the subjectivity scale. RGTraynor 01:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

'75 vs. Soviet Red Army

Someone started an article on the Super Series between the Soviet and NHL teams, but they didn't get far. Please help, especially with 1975-76 USSR Red Army ice hockey tour of North America, which involved the famous Red Army - Canadiens match-up. Thanks. Kevlar67 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1909-1932 Section

There's a sentence in this section that reads "<< This is an UNTRUE "FACT"......THE 1909-10 Team was "Le Club de hockey Canadiens"( The name it regained {after a brief time as the Canadian Athletic Club } in 1918, when the team was sold to former Canadiens Goalie Leo Dandurant ), anyone who doubts this can look for the 1909-10 team in their blue jerseys with a large white "C" on them....unfortunately, this "Haileybury myth" is still being repeated ( Including here ). ." I've deleted this sentence, because while I can't vouch for the accuracy of the statement, it's an editorial comment with no attribution. If the statement is, in fact, accurate, I'm happy to bring it into more Wikipedia-appropriate language and add it again. 64.81.139.191 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an inaccurate statement. As the article states (cf Coleman), there was indeed an unrelated "Les Canadiens" club in the NHA in 1909, provoking a trademark controversy. I'm sure it would have been cleaner and more feelgood for certain fans if the O'Brien silver interests had sold Les Canadiens to George Kennedy and Haileybury to Eddie Livingstone instead of the other way around, but that's what happened. To quote Coleman (and I'll put the cite into the main article):

The Canadien Athletic Club represented by George Kennedy was granted a franchise, as was Quebec ... taking over the franchises of Haileybury and Cobalt. It was understood that the Canadien club in acquiring the Haileybury franchise would also obtain the players of that club ... Les Canadiens franchise owned by J.A. O'Brien of Renfrew remained in the association and it was expected to be taken over by a Toronto club in 1912.

RGTraynor 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 64.81.139.191 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retired Numbers

I've seen publications that have included Aurel Joliet & Elmer Lach in Habs number retirement lists. What caused the confusion? GoodDay 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Article fix-up

Hello all. I just saw that this article used to be featured and that it has deteriorated in recent years so I kind of felt bad and started getting it back on the right track. This is a great team with a great history and it deserves a good article. If you want to join me on this quest, take a look at the New Jersey Devils article and use that as an example. Sportskido8 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've readjusted the 'team captains' & 'head coaches' sections, making them easier to follow. PS- Head Coaches (like the captains), should be listed 'by person' not 'by season' example: Geofferion 1979 then Ruel 1979-80 Instead of Geofferion & Ruel 1979-80. GoodDay 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

George N. Gillett, Jr.

I'm a Liverpool fan, and Gillet has just bought my club. How is he generally perceived by canadiens fans? What can we expect from him, and how do they feel about the fact he has just bought a soccer club?Musungu jim 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your interest, but WP's articles aren't the place to discuss this. Anyone responding to Mr. Musungu jim should do it on his talk page. Kevlar67 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony Esposito

Under the current Honored Members guideline as WPT, Tony Esposito should be added to the Honored Members section. GoodDay 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Honoured Members incomplete

This section looks great (to me personally), however it doesn't conform to the guidelines at WPTP. The guideline calls for all player in the HHOF, who've played for the Habs, to be listed. For example: under the current guideline 'Denis Savard' should be listed. GoodDay 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Top Infobox

Removed French version of Montreal Canadiens & Bell Centre. Why? The English version aren't on the Montreal Canadiens article at French Wikipedia. GoodDay 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the 'Les Canadiens de Montreal'. Since, there wasn't any consensus to remove it. I used the Quebec Nordiques page, as an example. What the French Wikipedia does, is it's own choice. GoodDay 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this article due to vandalism that is taking too long to get reverted when it appears. - Mark 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Haileybury Hockey Club --->Montreal Canadiens? Nope ...

Happened to find this press release in which the Canadiens themselves date their founding to 1909, and do not claim the history of the Haileybury Hockey Club. I'd have mentioned this here first, but you can't get much more authoritative than a team press release. Blueboy96 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the hockey club today doesn't reconize Haileybury becoming the Habs, doesn't mean it's true. Obviously the people associated with the Habs organization today did not do the proper research to support their claims. Its well documented in the book Trail of The Stanley Cup that Ambrose O'Brien sold George Kennedy his Haileybury HC in 1910/11. The 1909/10 Les Canadiens were a different organization then the Habs today. But todays Habs are claiming ownership of that team because they see the rosters were the same and didn't do the proper research to see if the organizations were the same. The Les Canadiens were sold to Toronto interests. This type of historic inaccuracy is very similar to how the Toronto Maple Leafs and the NHL refer to the 1917/18 team in Toronto as the 'Arenas" when they were clearly called the "Blue Shirts" or "Torontos" (Just read the newspapers on microfilm from that season and you will never see the name "Arenas" used at all!). The Arena name did not come about untill December of 1918 just before the start of the 1918/19 season. The NHL even went as far to incorrectly carve "Arenas" on the original Stanley Cup when it was retired in 1969.Giantdevilfish 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, we still need references verifying your point. If you have some, put them in. It's not enough to tell people to "Just read the newspapers on microfilm". I've done some digging on the internet and everything I've found agrees with Blueboy96. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference is right in Trail of the Stanley Cup, Charles L. Coleman, Vol I, p. 201 (1966). It was properly cited in the article in this revision [2], which the revisionist historians promptly removed. There is nothing in WP:RS which requires a source to be available on the Internet.  RGTraynor  18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you misread my point. I was not suggesting that the source needed to be from the internet. In fact, I was encouraging him to put sources in if he had any, as I couldn't find any over the internet. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq, when I was talking about reading newspapers on microfilm I was talking about the Toronto Blue Shirts (I was able to read the Toronto Star's sports sections on microfilm from Nov 1917-Apr 1918) and I was using the whole Blue Shirts/Arenas situation as an example of how an organization can be wrong when it comes to reconizing their own history. Ask the Toronto Maple Leafs what their name was in 1917/18 and they will tell you it was "Arenas", when that is simply not true. That name didn't come about until 1918/19. (You can read about this in detail in the book Deceptions and Doublecrosses: How the NHL conquered Hockey). As far as Haileybury/Montreal goes (as RGTraynor pointed out) its documented in the book Trail of The Stanley Cup. I never had a chance to read Montreal papers on microfilm (I live in Toronto).Giantdevilfish 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, it just may be a good idea to do so; I'd wager the Boston Public Library has microfilm from the pertinent time period for newspapers from a city as important as Montreal. Happily, Coleman cites his sources in the intro to TOTSC. Basically, the issue here isn't really (IMHO) that the hockey establishment is deliberately covering up history. It's just that hockey is prone to as many shibboleths and myths as any other sport. Heck, Coleman said himself that many of the game's myths proved not to be true when critically examined.  RGTraynor  18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RG, I was talking to a hockey historian from Montreal named Michel Vignault via E-Mails. He said that he researched the season from Nov 1909-Apr 1910. He came across the legal battle between O'Brien and the CAC. He said he never came across which franchise was actually given to George Kennedy (head of the CAC). This info would be from the summer of 1910. So if you can research papers on microfilm make sure its from late April to November of 1910. Here is an excerpt of an E-Mail I had with Michel.

But my research was from November to April of each season, so I missed out some facts that were done in the summer time. One thing for sure, the CAC went to court against the Canadien for using the name without their permission. Also, the CAC, formed in 1908, wanted to get a hockey team in 1909 and 1910, so they took the opportunity for this lawsuit to get a team. Maybe you can find something by looking at the newspapers on microfilms during the period of April-November 1910. Giantdevilfish 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mm, it wouldn't have occurred to me to go before the summer of 1910; the impression I had from Coleman was that the franchise was given to CAC as settlement of the suit. Why they were handed Haileybuty instead of Les Canadiens I couldn't say, but there have been other whacky franchise-for-franchise deals, like the legal shuffling of the Boston Celtics-Buffalo Braves franchises in 1978.  RGTraynor  19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason Haileybury was given to George Kennedy was because the Les Canadiens had already been sold to Toronto interests, and Cobalt had been sold to the Quebec Bulldogs (who were planning on joining the league for the 1910/11 season), and since O'brien wanted to hang onto his Renfrew club, the Haileybury team was the only one available. I really would like to see the Montreal papers from the summer of 1910, because that is when the court case was apparently settled.Giantdevilfish 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1920.gif

Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1920.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Resolute 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1918.gif

Image:Montrealcanadienslogo1918.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Resolute 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Logos

I think the logos should be put into a collage together in the Logos section of the article, rather than being pictures all scattered around. It might look better. Sportskido8 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree... everything looks disorganized. There should be a visual timeline, not just a textual one. Cristo39 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who were the first Montreal Canadiens?

As it reads today, the article suggests that the team known as Les Canadiens in the 1909-1910 NHA season became the Montreal Canadiens in 1910-1911. However, it would seem that the 1910-1911 Montreal Canadiens team was actually the continuance of the 1909-1910 Haileybury Hockey Club. (See articles at Haileybury Hockey Club, Toronto Blueshirts, and National Hockey Association.) Now I know these articles are poorly referenced, but I have read on the subject and from what I can tell, "Les Canadiens" are unrelated to today's Montreal Canadiens. It would be interesting to see if anybody has some good sources to set the record straight on this matter. 209.105.207.181 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's actually the case, and I've had the article reading that from time to time; the original cite is from Coleman's Trail of the Stanley Cup. The problem is, there's a powerful stretch of revisionist history, going through to the Habs front office, that just can't stand the concept that the technical lineage of the team starts in an Anglo mining town, not in the Quebecois heartland. I think TotSC is referenced in the article, but if you want the page ref, it's pg. 201, Vol I, with the following text:

(1911) Prior to the annual meeting of the National Hockey Association, an item in the Montreal Herald stated that he Club Athletique-Canadien, a registered and incorporated body, claimed the name Canadiens. Mr. George Kennedy, proprietor of this club, was seeking admission to the NHA and if refused would insist that the NHA drop the name Les Canadiens under which a franchise was operated the previous year. He had not objected to the use of the name at the time, although he considered it was undoubtedly an infringement. The annual meeting of the NHA was held November 12th, 1910 ... The Canadien Athletic Club represented by George Kennedy was granted a franchise, as was Quebec represented by Joe Power and M.J. Quinn, taking over the franchises of Haileybury and Cobalt. It was understood that the Canadien club in acquiring the Haileybury franchise would also obtain the players of that club. However, the contracts up to that time did not provide any control over the players at the termination of a season and the clubs had bid against one another for their services. Les Canadiens franchise owned by J.A. O'Brien of Renfrew, remained in the association and it was expected to be taken over by a Toronto club in 1912.

 RGTraynor  23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the revisionist history will of the Canadiens is, this does need to be corrected. We shouldn't let attempts at rewriting history overrule the facts. Resolute 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Have made edits to the article today to clarify the origins of the franchise. 209.105.207.181 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of Stanley Cups

We need to fix this problem with how many they have. Either this article is incorrect or List of Stanley Cup champions is incorrect. What are some reliable sources for stuff like this? BsroiaadnTalk 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Habs have 23 in the NHL and one in the NHA. They have won 24 Stanley Cups, no matter what anyone says. I have no idea why people still seem to think they have 23. Well I gues they have 23 and one more...Dbrodbeck 11:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's 24 Cup championships. The Montreal Canadiens and the Stanley Cup, are older then the NHL itself. The Habs first Cup victory was in 1916 (a year and a half, before the NHL's birth). GoodDay 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, so why do people keep changing it to 23 on the page. Seems to me it ought to be 24 in the article. Dbrodbeck 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Likely because they are using an NHL source, and the NHL often disregards the other major leagues that have existed in the past. Resolute 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Canadiens hang a banner for 1916, so it should be recognized here.Dknights411 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Top Infobox

The 'french version' of Montreal Canadiens has been removed. What, about the Quebec Nordiques page? GoodDay 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO the french name which is the official name of the franchise should be included in the infobox, just like in the Nordiques article. --Krm500 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm neither for or against 'the french version' (recently, I've stop pushing english on English Wikpedia). I'm just concerned that the Nords and Habs pages are inconsistant. Hopefully, these 'french version' inconsistancies will be resolved soon. GoodDay 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I don't care either but I was just thinking of the Manual of Style. The MOS for infoboxes say that the english form should be the default and the native should be presented in parenthesis. --Krm500 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That version is being added to the infobox (English top, French bottom and in parentheses), as per discussion above. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Cup Drought

Length of drought altered to reflect lockout season. Only thirteen seasons have elapsed since the Canadiens last cup win, though fourteen years have passed.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montreal Canadiens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Montreal Canadiens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Division championships

Wasnt the nhl's criteria for division champs winning the division in the playoffs not the regular season standings (during the time when the adams division existed)? I asked this as the canadians are listed for winning the division title in the info box for 1991-92, when they lost to the boston bruins in the adams division final that year. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ottawa, I will need to do some further checking, but If I remember well, the team that finished first at the end of the season was givel the division title, in the playoffs, they called it division final, but was really a conference semi-final, (they just got the right to play for the ability to be in the conference finals), I know they kept changing terminology and playoff format (not much but enough) from year to year during that era. I have to get out and talk to some people to make sure, but I think that is about right. If not I'm sure there will be someone to tell me!--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've yet to find a definitive answer, but my experience tends to agree with Ottawa. I know for a fact that neither the Oilers nor the Flames, as two examples, cared one whit about the regular season Smythe championship - Both teams only hung banners for playoff division titles, and both media guides only list playoff titles from that era. i.e.: The Flames won the Presidents' Trophy in 1987-88, but don't list that season as a division winning season, whereas the Oilers do. Ditto 1986, but in reverse. I would be inclined to remove that mention of a division title myself. Resolute 02:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed the confusion at 1991-92 Montreal Canadiens season & 1991-92 Boston Bruins season articles (for example). GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That they are both division champions?., Yep. The confusion runs even further with several more seasons in the 80s for the canadians where they win the regular season division and lose in the playoff divison final. Maybe some sort of asterik and note for those seasons could be made in the article (ie regular season divison champions). The only reason i think they kinda should be listed is today we judge the division champion based on regular season performance and new editors would likely just add them back if they werent familliar with the playoff format of the 80s. Just a thoughtOttawa4ever (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Another note is these issues seem to be present in the detroit redwings articles as it is listed as winning the divison by regular season and not the playoff divison championship for the 1980s and early 90sOttawa4ever (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
If you look at the NHL playoff format page it doesn't say champ, it says winner. I know, I know a champ is a winner but is a winner a champ? --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Seasons played

How many total seasons have the Canadiens played? According to List_of_Montreal_Canadiens_seasons it is only 99 so far, so 2009/2010 would be their 100th season. RomaC (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, 2008-09 was the 100th anniversary of the team itself. Just like you are actually in your 20th year when you are still 19. While this 2009-10 is the 100th season, Just like you are 20 once you have your birthday. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the missing season is from 2004–05, due to the lockout. Isaac Lin (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but what I said is correct as well. Or atleast that is what the team has stated when asked why the 100th anniversary celebrations are split over two years. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What I did was count the seasons listed on the page above, and added them up not counting the season that was not played (2004-2005), and the total I got was 99 seasons played so far. RomaC (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the 100th anniversary is in December 2009 and the team chose to celebrate it over two seasons. However, the fact that last season was the 99th season is not like how I am in my 20th year when I am 19, because if 2004–05 had not been cancelled, then last season would have indeed been the 100th season. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
But it would not have been the 100th year, do you see what I am saying. They counted by seasons for this year and years for last year. Last year even with the cancelled season was still their 99th birthday so to speak. December 1909 - December 2008 is 99 years so this year December 2009 they turn 100, which means that from December 2008-December 2009 was their 100th year. This is why so many people are confused as to why they are doing it for two years. -Djsasso (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential moving

Hi everyone, I have a question for you guys. Should we move the article Montreal Canadiens to Montréal Canadiens? This typography (the "é" in "Montréal") is also used by NHL and Canadiens' official website. Thanks in advance for your opinion. Sincerely, Jimmytalk 02:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, it seems to me that Montreal is a fine English spelling and this is the English wikipedia and all. Plus the wikipedia article on the city uses Montreal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Already debated and decided against because we follow the city name article. Personally I like to see it but overwhelming wikipedia consensus is against it. Diacritics are a huge debate on wikipedia which you really really don't want to get into. Trust me. -DJSasso (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In agreement with Dk & DJ. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your replies. That's exactly why I first wanted to ask people before proceeding to moving, which I won't. Sincerely, Jimmytalk 18:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oldest North American professional sports teams

There are at least two professional football teams older than the Canadiens: the Arizona Cardinals (founded in Chicago in 1898), and the Toronto Argonauts. I'm not sure if it is sufficiently notable to state that the Canadiens are the oldest North American professional sports team outside of baseball and football. I tried to find a reliable source with a list of all the oldest teams so a ranking for the Habs could be given, but did not find one. I suggest removing the clause regarding the Canadiens' place among teams in other sports. Any comments? Isaac Lin (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

THN's Canadiens anniversary magazine lists them, pg. 139. The oldest pro team in North America are the Toronto Argonauts at 136 years old. Then the Atlanta Braves (133), Chicago Cubs (133), Cincinnati Reds (127), St. Louis Cardinals (127), Pittsburgh Pirates (127), San Francisco Giants (126), Philadelphia Phillies (126), Los Angeles Dodgers (125), Arizona Cardinals (111), New York Yankees (108), Boston Red Sox (108), Chicago White Sox (108). The list ends there, so I can't say for certain if there are any teams between the White Sox and the Canadiens. On the history article, I simply mentioned they are the oldest pro hockey team. Resolute 22:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume the second instance of "St. Louis Cardinals" is actually the Arizona Cardinals? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I have fixed that. Resolute 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm, the above list is certainly incomplete. I'm surprised, for instance, that they included three of the charter franchises in the American League and not the other five: Detroit Tigers, Cleveland Indians, Minnesota Twins, Baltimore Orioles and Oakland Athletics. The Salt Lake Bees of the minor league PCL in baseball began as the Milwaukee Brewers of the American Association in 1902, the Indianapolis Indians have been around since 1902, the Rochester Red Wings since 1899 ... all in all, the Habs' antiquity is not at all notable in pro sport outside of hockey.  Ravenswing  10:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded it, I think it's worth noting that the Canadiens are among that list, regardless of which teams and which sports might be in it, that their longevity goes beyond the sport of hockey. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Retired numbers

Would somebody explain, why (sometimes) Aurel Joliet & Elmer Lach are included with Beliveau & H.Richard? Though this isn't the case at this article. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that on Aurel Joliet's wikipedia article it says "co-retired" but there is no reference, and I have not been able to verify that it is correct. Some people incorrectly lump all great players that have worn the same number into the same listing. Another theory is that Montreal Honoured him and people mistook that for retiring his jersey. Sometimes when a team changes ownership they do not always recognize previous ownership "honours", like in Detroit where number 6 is not officialy retired but honoured by previous owners, the Ilitch family does not mention anything about the honoured player, but it is unavailable for players to use. As far as I can tell the two players jerseys have not been retired, but they are hall of famers.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lach (16) is retired tonight, along with Bouchard (3), Someone who can edit a locked page should get on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.11.67 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would do it myself, but I'm not sure how bout to reflect the odd situation where it now appears #16 is twice retired (along with Henri Richard). Aoystreck (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Took care of it.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This was discussed previously on this page (see the archive), but I wasn't quite clear on the differences being expressed. In Montreal, English media and fans pronounce the team's name with the same stress pattern as the word "Canadians". However I have heard some broadcasters on American media pronounce the name with the final syllable stressed, as indicated in the edit I reverted. Given the lack of consensus on this matter, I have reverted the pronunciation. I suppose both pronunciations could be listed since they are both known to occur? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you would source it...but I know most of the time when I hear it like on CBC and TSN its said Canadiens with an emphasis on IENS not IANS like you infer in your comment. I rarely hear it pronounced like Canadians, usually its pronounced as the french Canadiens. -DJSasso (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It sounds like the French pronunciation, with a final "s" sound, like English usually does. Jimmytalk 03:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing is pretty easy, just more tricky for someone without access to local media to verify. The sportscasts of CBC Montreal, CTV Montreal, and CJAD radio all use the English stress pattern. Here's a web videocast from a local sports show host where you can hear various Montreal personalities pronounce the team's name. The Hockey Night in Canada announcers for Montreal games use the same pattern, and so do Ron Maclean and Don Cherry. It may be a regional thing, with some announcers inclined to stress the last syllable, for some reason. (And it is never pronounced the French way (CAH-nah-DIEN, three syllables), unless the speaker is deliberately saying the name in French.) Isaac Lin (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interview with Pierre Boivin, team president—hear him say the team name at the ~2:47 mark (note the interviewer also uses the same pronunciation). Isaac Lin (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess we have different opinions on what the french pronounciation is, Ron Maclean and Don Cherry were the examples I was thinking of that always say it the french way. The Pierre Boivin interview seems to actually be a mix of the two. He says the first half of the word how I think is the french way and the second half the english way. Quite odd. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, just to clarify: the common pronunciation I hear on, say, national English media for the word "Canadians" is cah-NAY-dee-uhnz, which matches how local Montrealers pronounce the team's name, and the examples I have given above. I have heard many American sportscasters and some Canadian announcers say "cah-NAY-dee-ENZ", stressing the final syllable, and with a short e sound instead of a schwa. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh I am sure both are said, I am just saying I hear the enz more often on CBC and TSN and the like. I am sure the Uhnz probably is common in the States. The stressing may vary though, but usually canadian media says it enz whether with a stress or not. That being said I don't think we need the pronounciation on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies again for not being clear—by "uhnz" I just meant the e is pronounced with the unstressed schwa sound, which is what I hear all the time on CBC. And it is the hard stress on the final syllable that really distinguishes the other pronunciation (basically people trying to emphasize that the name is not spelled with an a, but an e). Isaac Lin (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

It list that they have the second most hall of famers, but is this true? It is questionable because I have read elsewhere that they have 44 players, and 54 or so people enshrined, yet it only says 42 on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.77.240 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jay92388, 9 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, I request that someone change the Hall of Fame section of the article. It states that the Montreal Canadiens have the second most enshrined Hall of Famers, which is at 42. Yet,I found on another Wikipedia page, which is linked "List of Montreal Canadiens Awar Winnders" that " In the Hockey Hall of Fame, the Canadiens boast the most enshrined Hall-of-Famers with 44. All of their inductees are from Canada with the exception of former Defenceman Joe Hall, who was from England. 36 of these players are from three separate notable dynasties: twelve from 1955–1960, eleven from 1964–1969 and thirteen from 1975–1979. Howie Morenz and Georges Vezina were the first Canadiens given the honor in 1945, while Patrick Roy and Dick Duff were the last to be inducted in 2006."

I suggest that someone look at this, and make certain that it is correct. Thank you Jay92388 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this [3] 52 players that have played for the Canadiens have been inducted in the all of fame Zyrkon (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.
I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles.94.196.202.221 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

I have made an account, but since the page is semi-protected due to previous vandalism, I was told to do a request. So whoever can, if they could do so please edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay92388 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Can we please remove the french version of the team's name, from the infobox. This is the English Wikipedia. Note: we don't use a french version at the Quebec Nordiques Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know on this one. I think it might be appropriate to have the official legal name of the club listed. We tittle the page and the infobox with the English name, but I think we would be leaving something out if we didn't have the true legal name. Same way we do for locations with translations like Munich or players Pavel Bure. (not in the infobox but in the lead which I think is a fair comparison). -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Then should such a version be at the Nordiques page? Afterall, Montreal is bi-lingual where's Quebec City is francophone. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it probably should be on there as well. We just didn't have the French police pushing for it on that one cause the team no longer plays. -Djsasso (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer it removed here, as the French Wikipedia doesn't use the English version. I suppose others can decide. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Every Quebec-registered company must be legally registered with a French name. I don't think it is sufficiently informative to include the legal name in the infobox, which in any case is Club de hockey Canadien. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I like to point out further, at the French Wikipedia. They don't even have english versions in the English based NHL articles. For example, they've got Penguins de Pittsbugh in the infobox, but no Pittsburgh Penguins. It's time for fairness to prevail. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you ruling a French-English war in here? This kind of wars may exist in Canada, but you should not bring political problems on Wikipedia. Point of views are not acceptable when contributing on Wikipedia, and continuing so may result to a block. Both English and French Wikipedias have their own rules and they are not linked. As the team is officially known in French and is located in an officially French-language city, it seems essential for me to state the French name, as it should on any other French-language team's infobox. Jimmytalk 01:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to snap at me. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The French name is the official one - it's a relevant piece of information on the team. What they do at the French Wikipedia has no bearing here. We make content decisions based on the en-wiki guidelines, policies and consensus, not on tit-for-tat reactions to what other projects may or may not be doing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well RG said it best (for me), thus my reason for not pushing this further. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the French is appropriate, especially given that the Canadiens were once the only team to sign Francophone players in the league. However, I think the claim that the Canadiens are the only existing team to predate the founding of the NHL may be slightly inaccurate, as both the Chicago Blackhawks and Detroit Red Wings can claim their origins with the Regina Capitals and the Victoria Cougars (not a complete transfer of ownership, as the new franchises only purchased rights to the players themselves) predate the founding of the NHL as well. 67.171.9.106 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The claim is wholly accurate. That Chicago and Detroit - whose franchises predated the official demise of the WHL - purchased assets from defunct teams doesn't mean they are those teams, and the thing that's truly amazing to me is the number of people who swallow such a premise.  Ravenswing  03:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It's actually fun how the legend grows. The New York Rangers purchased the players of the Saskatoon Sheiks in the same way the Cougars and Hawks purchased players from Victoria and Portland. Difference is, the Rangers never made any note of it. Ultimately, however, all three teams were expansion teams. Resolute 15:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Do we then decide that the montreal canadiens began in 1910-11 instead because, "Montreal Canadiens suspended operation, but a separate Montreal franchise, also called Canadiens, took over the contracts of the players of the former Canadiens team."(from The Hockey Compendium page 179).174.90.254.168 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Captain

Despite rumours by La Presse, the Habs haven't named anybody captain 'yet'. Let's wait for the annoucement, please. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was willing to let it slide until the end of the day, but given the quote from Gionta at the Canadiens annual golf tournament (see http://habsinsideout.com/main/36721), either Habs management has let something leak before they really should have, or it's just another idle rumour. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
'Tis best we waint until the Habs official website makes the annoucement. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep. It doesn't matter how authoritative the rumor is, when the Habs make an official announcement, that's when we change the article and not before.  Ravenswing  20:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We need semi-protection & I'm going to seek it. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

add flag in front of Atlete name

I was trying to check the nationality of the captains after reading that there are only two american captains in the history. it would help if we can bulk add players' national flag infront of their names in the various lists. (like the way it shows in the current roster) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.59.253 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

I think there is a lack of key information such as ownership, economic value, etc - professional hockey teams are big businesses after all! User:PeregrineAY (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The ownership is already listed, as for economic value, would need good sources to add that kind of information. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Error in the History Section - Uneditable

In the main article on the Montreal Canadiens under the heading 'History', at the very end of that section the article talks about the Canadiens coming close to continuing the tradition of winning at least one Stanley Cup in each decade they have been a franchise. It references the 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs when they reached the conference finals as an example of them coming close to continuing that record. However, by 2010 the Canadiens had already played the decade 2000 - 2009 without winning a Stanley Cup. The year 2010 is the beginning of the new decade 2010 - 2019. Passenger2010 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a common misconception. Decades actually begin on the 1s. The most recent decade for example was 2001-2010. Which is why people often point out that it was incorrect to celebrate the millenium on Jan 1st 2000 because the millenium actually started on Jan 1st 2001. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the most useful start point for referring to the decade of the 1990s, etc, is the 0-year, as it is awkward to consider, for example, the year 2000 to be part of the 1990s. I'm in agreement with the second millennium / 21st century starting in 2001, but in that case, the periods of time are being numbered sequentially from year 1, whereas the decade names are just arbitrary labels (the 201th decade, on the other hand, would end in 2010). Thus I support removing the reference to the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me if it stays or goes, was just pointing out that it could be seen as part of the decade still. -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The criteria for "coming close", should be making the Finals. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a silly trivia-based statement on something that did not happen. I'd just remove it. Resolute 13:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. It is not trivial. It's a very impressive historical achievement. The Canadiens were within three wins of making it to the Finals. Thus the history section can read that they were close to making the Finals at least once ten decades in a row, like so:

Having won the Stanley Cup at least once in each decade since the 1910s, the Canadiens failed to make it to the Finals during the 2000s. The Canadiens came close, losing in the Conference Finals of the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs to the Philadelphia Flyers, their last possible chance for an appearance in ten straight decades. This loss ended a nine-decade streak of at least one Finals appearance per decade.

Also, for decades clarification, take a look at: Template:Montreal Canadiens seasons. You will see that the 2010 playoffs are part of the 2009-10 season, which is the last season of the 2000s. That's why it was the Canadiens' last chance of making it to the Finals for the tenth straight decade. Jmj713 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a great many events in history that didn't quite happen ... people who didn't "quite" get elected, sports teams that didn't "quite" win the championship, wannabe record holders who didn't "quite" manage the record, people who didn't "quite" climb the mountain. Three wins short fails to achieve the goal no less than thirty wins short.  Ravenswing  00:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Yesterday I made an edit that was reverted and called vandalism. I corrected the part of the Hall of Fame section that said they had the most Hall of Famers to state that they have the second most. This is true. The Leafs have more. The Leafs have 60 players, the Canadiens 50. The Canadiens do have 11 builders, which counted, would take them to 61, but the Leafs have far more than one builder anyways, which would give them top spot again. Go to the lists and count them. The Canadiens have the SECOND most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.16.5 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I've reworded the passage as any claim to having the most would require a citation. Thanks, Resolute 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Team Colors

Could someone please correct the colors in the ECN-Uniform-MTL.PNG image file? (The black needs to be changed to blue.) I don't know how to do this and I was hoping someone out there could do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond71 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks blue to me... -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox (part II)

It's been 2-3 yrs, now. Would anybody mind if I deleted the french name from the infobox heading? It only clutters the heading & besides the French language Wikipedia doesn't use the english version for their Canadiens article or any of their NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And what the French Wikipedia does or does not do is completely, totally and utterly irrelevant to what we do. Resolute 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I've heard that excuse 'before' :) More importantly, is the clutter caused by the Canadiens de Montreal being in the heading. We've got it in the intro, which should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course we would. Each time you bring this up pretty much every person commenting tells you its a bad idea. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

P.K. Subban

Please can the space between Subban's initials be removed to match the usage by all references? I think the primary page should be P.K. Subban and P. K. Subban be made the redirect as opposed to the current reverse situation. Here are some primary references:

Scrolling through the Google results for "P. K. Subban" the first non-Wikipedia result with the space was about 125th. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Each publication has in-house style guidelines that dictate how the spacing is done. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Initials for Wikipedia's style guidance. isaacl (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the responding however the link you supplied is misleading as it contains a contradiction. The intent of these 2011-06-28 additions wasn't that initials must be followed by a space, but that when followed by a space, the space should be non-breaking. By "The main section for this topic is" it defers to the previously existing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names which states "There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them." In lieu of a Wikipedia guideline the article should be named following the overwhelming usage by reference sources. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
External references simply follow their own style guidelines. Perhaps you can ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey page if the hockey project has a preferred style. Continuing the conversation thread on Talk:P. K. Subban is probably better than moving it to this page. isaacl (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks, I copied this discussion into Talk:P. K. Subban#Space between initials, which I started a few months ago and asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive52#P.K. Subban. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

20,000

so... goal 20,000 vs Islanders 2013-03-06 ; still most goals of any NHL team as well -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Membership in major sports league

Regarding the recent edits to the sentence in the lead section regarding Montreal's membership in major sports leagues: personally, I don't think this information is necessarily important enough to warrant a presence in the lead section. However, if it is to be in the lead section, I think some of this micro-editing is overlooking the salient point: Canada's second largest city and second most populous province does not have representation in the largest sports leagues of Canada and the United States, other than the NHL. It doesn't matter if the Raptors, for example, decided tomorrow to leave Toronto: the point would still be that Montreal does not have a franchise in MLB, the NBA, and the NFL, the three largest sports leagues of the two countries.

Though I understand the point being raised about the CFL, I think this is a discussion best deferred to the talk page for Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada. Let that page establish the meaning of "major sports leagues" on the basis of reliable sources, and this article can simply refer to that one, without listing a specific number of leagues. (Alternatively, the whole sentence can be dropped from the lead section.) What do you think? isaacl (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole point of the sentence was to indicate it only had one team in the big four leagues which is a fairly odd thing thing to happen being that it is the second largest city in the country. Should it be in the lead or not. I am not sure. But I do know that changing the sentence to what it says now completely defeats the purpose of the sentence. Dropping it is preferable to what currently sits there since the sentence is now pretty meaningless for what it was intended to convey. -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Isaac in that I don't think the sentence even belongs in the lead (or really in the article seeing it's kind of a piece of insubstantial information in the first place)and I am also for the article you mentioned serving as a basis for what is and isn't a 'major' league.
The whole point of my edit wasn't that the NFL isn't a major sporting league that Montreal isn't part of -- my point was that the sentence uses a manufactured 'fact' that is misinformation to anyone not familiar with the subjects of the NFL and/or major professional sports in North America. To include a league that hasn't any membership outside of the US (and likely will remain exclusive) as part of a list that mentions the Expos departure and lack of NBA membership (especially given that the NBA itself only took on Canadian teams less than 20 years ago... and one of which has already left Canada) can be confusing to the uninitiated. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, then: if you're content with allowing the article Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada to define "major leagues" in this context, then I'm not sure why you consider the sentence to be misinformation (though perhaps it may not be a very important one)—it's true that the city and province has no representation in the three largest sports leagues, and although there are varied reasons for this, in the current sports business environment, financial viability is the key one for all these leagues. As reworded, the sentence is now more of an answer to a trivia question. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with the opinion that this is trivial. Montreal's lack of other major league (as America defines it) teams would belong in a Sport in Montreal article, but I don't see the relevance to the Montreal Canadians themselves. We don't, for instance, put similar language in the Jets or Canucks articles, though those teams are the only franchises in a Big 4 league in their provinces. Resolute 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I would also agree that this doesn't necessarily belong in the lead, or even in the article. If it stays, however, it is plainly incorrect to say that the NFL is among largest sports leagues of the two countries. The wording that existed before Ryecatcher corrected it was, at best, confusing and misleading (and the revised wording does not "defeat the purpose" of the sentence whatsoever - of the three big cross-border leagues, Montreal has one team). As as aside, I am not sure we should be allowing Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, or any other article for that matter, to "define" anything. Facts are facts. Montreal has two teams in the big four leagues in Canada, and the NFL is not in Canada. I wouldn't have thought these facts were controversial, but if they are, then delete the sentence and any reference to the major pro sports league article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Given the degree of integration between the United States and Canada sports markets, however, if an examination of the position of Montreal within the professional sports business is provided, it is reasonable to include both countries in this analysis, in order to provide adequate context. It's not a question of controversy, but what statement best serves the interest of the reader. The current wording provides a highly unusual context that I believe is more confusing to readers, including North Americans and non-North Americans. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but the current wording is factual. It's unclear how sticking to the facts is a "highly unusual context". The former wording assumes a certain viewpoint and knowledge, and moreover was incorrect on its face. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The previous wording, in part, was "...the Canadiens remain the sole team of the four major sports leagues of Canada and the United States..."; this does not require that the leagues operate in both Canada and the United States, but is referring to the four sports leagues considered to be "major league" in the two named countries, as further explained in the associated link. The unusual context of the current wording is that I don't believe most readers wonder about whether or not a city has franchises in leagues that have teams in both Canada and the United States; they are much more likely to wonder if a city has franchises in MLB, the NBA, the NFL, and the NHL. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this discussion is clear evidence that the previous wording is not nearly as clear or unambiguous as you seem to think it is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record.... when I said I was for allowing the article on pro sports leagues in N.A. to define anything, I meant that the CFL is included in that article. That same article, FYI is largely uncited (particularly the part about the 'Big Four' which while it is a term I've heard used in the States, I can't say if that is a shared notion by Canadians). So far as your requirements (or lack thereof) for its inclusion in concordance with the article is illogical -- the contextual point is a notation that Montreal lost the Expos and is not represented by the NBA (while Toronto is and Vancouver was). Meanwhile NO Canadian city has ever been represented in the NFL, so why even mention it? In any case, the CFL (a major sports league to Canadians) is represented in PQ by by the Alouettes -- and again, the NFL is exclusively an American league the argument for including its mention in the Habs article is non sequitur. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Big Four is extremely common up here in Canada. Mostly because people here are often trying to differentiate that the CFL isn't a major league, at best it is considered to be a minor league to the NFL but many would say it isn't even good enough for that. While it is certainly the biggest football league. No one in this country would ever consider it a major league. I think the reason it seems strange to you is that you aren't aware that Canadians very often try to measure themselves by what the US has or does not have. An example of this is an NFL team in Montreal. I would note that I believe other than you and Ravenswing everyone here is a Canadian. :) Not that it matters just pointing it out. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow - that's a bunch of questionable assumptions and personal opinions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
And the subject of many articles and books.... Its not like I am breaking some new ground with that comment. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
No, but you understand that it is opinion, don't you? And that many people would take issue with it? And that not all Canadians share your opinion as to what they all consider and what they all try to do? Seriously - not appropriate content for Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Which is why it isn't content, which is why its on the talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Except that it was most of those assumptions that underlie the original sentence in question, the one you wanted to keep.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is general agreement to omit the sentence, then I don't think we need to discuss its wording any further. Is there anyone who would not be willing to accept the deletion of the sentence discussing the lack of membership in other sports leagues? isaacl (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. This isn't a Sports in Montreal article. Ravenswing 04:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, does this mean you are willing to accept the deletion of the sentence? isaacl (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I have no problem removing it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete the sentence, as the NFL has 'no' Canadian franchises. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the NFL having no Canadian franchises doesn't render it outside of the "big four" sports leagues of North America. But yes, per my comment above, I don't see value in this sentence, so agree with removal. Resolute 17:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Barring any further comments, I assume there is consensus for removing this sentence from the article. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in question. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

1929-30 Division championship?

I noticed that this page lists the 1929-30 season as a division championship year, however I can not find any other page or source which claims this except for List of Montreal Canadiens seasons. Canadian Division (NHL), 1929–30 NHL season, O'Brien Trophy, Montreal Maroons, and List of Montreal Maroons seasons all state it was the Maroons who won the division that year. On the Canadiens website, http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/season/1929-1930, they say "Montreal finished with a 21-14-9 record, their 51 points putting them one up on the Sens and tied with local rivals, the Maroons, who claimed the division title because of two extra wins over the Canadiens." Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

They didn't; the Maroons had 56 points to their 51. Ravenswing 16:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it as it is not supported by any reliable sources. Rejectwater (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Very minor issue, but should we have the 1917 logo? In my opinion in kinda crowds the page, and it's really just the same logo with a more primitive construction. Knoper (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should, because it shows where the logo started and where it is now via the infobox. I would like to see all the variations of logos on team pages but unfortunately fair use makes it hard to do that. Logos are a major part of teams. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Knoper is right and I also think the centennial logo crowds the page. As Knoper points out, they are all variations on the same logo so they do not really add to the article. Permafrost46 (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd note it also depends on your screen. On my screen they are all off by themselves and aren't really crowding at all. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
1280 x 800 here, they are off by themselves too. Depends on one's definition of crowding I guess. Permafrost46 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
To address DJSasso 's point, I could understand the logic if it were something like the Vancouver Canucks or the Los Angeles Kings, where there were a few complete revamps that were around for a few years, but in this case it's almost like changing the Yankees logo just because it looks a little different on the hat in the 1920s. I find excessive logos clog the page up aesthetically, even if they line up properly. Knoper (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the logos, imo, is actually a result of this article being, well, crap. If it was properly constructed and fleshed out better, the logos could be moved about and give more space for the text to breathe. Resolute 17:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Amen. The "History" article is well sourced, and uses photographs to a far better effect than logos: You actually see the entire uniforms and players in their contemporary way without popping up sterile white examples in random places. Why the main page has to serve as an almanac for every bit of info instead of actually telling the story of the team, I don't know. Should the pages be merged? Knoper (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
They definitely shouldn't be merged. They were split out on purpose. What needs to happen is have better summaries on this page. Generally the goal of every team page is to eventually have its history split out to be on its own, unfortunately when that happened here this page wasn't rewritten very well to account for that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As the one who rewrote the History section so it was no longer a copy of the "History of..." article, I confess to preferring a very minimalist summary in the main article, leaving the spin-out article to do the heavy lifting. (I appreciate that others have different opinions.) isaacl (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I agree with a minimalistic history section on this article, but there just seems to be a lot missing in other areas. Or perhaps the number of sub-sections so close together throws it off for me. Resolute 15:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014

Remove subjective material without reference:
Current player PK Subban currently leads to the team with 20 successful dives, 34 elbow punches and 67 complaints to the refs. However, Subban refuses to fight anyone because he is known as a "pussy" in the league due to his cowardly dives into the fetal position. 174.117.73.121 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done unfortunately only part of this vandalism was reverted before the page was protected. - Arjayay (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Media affiliates

To any interested parties: I will start a discussion shortly at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey page about the media affiliates section in the infobox. Rather than reverting each other, please join in the discussion there. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the project talk page. isaacl (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

English TV deal announced, see talk

Just announced, they will be on Sportsnet [4]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Montreal Canadiens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


I'll take a look at this, hopefully tonight (UK time). Harrias talk 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My initial most significant thought is that the History section should be significantly longer. I know there is a separate article, but given the pretty stellar history of the Canadiens, I would expect to be able to find out more about the club here, without having to refer to that article. Harrias talk 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As the one who wrote most of the current section, my personal feeling is that although the section can be expanded to cover a bit more, such as some of the info in the lead section of the History article, I don't think it should be expanded significantly. Too much overlap with the spun-out article reduces the effectiveness of having a separate article. isaacl (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
'Significant' was probably the wrong word for me to use. However, I do think some more is needed, particularly to summarise performances in the last 20 years. I know we like to avoid recentism, but this almost does the opposite! Harrias talk 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The challenge I had at the time was that given all the decades before the 1980s when there were lots of championships to be discussed, from an overall historic perspective it was hard to find something comparable to discuss ("continued to fail to make the playoffs" being a fairly humdrum thing to note). However I think some discussion of Patrick Roy leaving, and Saku Koivu's tenure as captain would be suitable. (If I find some time I will try to add something; of course anyone is welcome to do so!) isaacl (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I did something, maybe the wording can be improved but at least it's a start! igordebraga ≠ 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Lead
  • as well as every American franchise outside of baseball with the arguable exception of the Arizona Cardinals, who unlike the Canadiens no longer play in their original city. I think this is too much detail for the lead: it might be worth cutting this bit, and just leaving the bit about being the oldest non-football franchise in Canada for the lead. This can still be included in the body of the article.
  • originally the Molson Centre Clarify this as "originally known as the Molson Centre"
History
  • Link francophone.
  • Move ref 13 to the end of the sentence, it looks odd stuck in the middle, rather than after punctuation.
  • However, local investors were found and instead it was the Maroons that suspended operations, and several of the Maroons players moved to the Canadiens. The two uses of "and" make this sentence a little clunky: can it be streamlined slightly, or split into two sentences.
  • In the 1976–77 season, the Canadiens set a modern-day record.. Does this mean that the record still stands, or that fewer losses had been incurred in the early years when not many games were played?
  • The next season 1977-78.. Needs an endash.
  • On December 29, 2008 the Canadiens defeated the Florida Panthers by a score of 5–2, becoming the first team in NHL history to reach 3,000 victories. Merge this into another paragraph, the MOS frowns upon single sentence paragraphs.
  • Do the Centennial celebrations really need a section to themselves?
Team identity
  • If "Club de hockey Canadien" is in speech-marks, Club athlétique Canadien should be too.
  • Most of the second paragraph is unreferenced: the citation given only seems to cover the final sentence, not the information about the jersey colours. (Ref #41, and the later page linked to from there would work for this.)
  • 1909-1910 should be 1909–10.
  • ...reading "CAC", Club Athlétique Canadien. Be consistent with earlier ways of writing the team's name.
  • 2009-10 needs an endash.
Rivalries
  • Another equally notable rivalry concerns the Boston Bruins, that since their NHL debut in 1924 have played the Canadiens in both regular season play and the playoffs combined, than any other two teams in NHL history. I think this sentence is missing a word?
  • 2011-12 needs an endash, as does 2014-15 twice and 2013-14 once.
  • 22 Canadiens games per season... Per MOS:NUM, don't start a sentence with a number as a figure.
Seasons and records
  • Endashes are needed for all the playoff results.
Current roster
  • I'm not keen on the use of flags without the country name, and nor is MOS:FLAG, but I guess it is an external template that you can't change without consensus, and I know how much North American sport loves its flags.
Leaders
  • In the Head coaches list, everything in the form 19xx–19yy can be written 19xx–yy, while 1997–00 should be 1997–2000.
Honoured members
  • The Retired numbers list need endashes in the years, and would benefit from being sortable.
  • In the Hockey Hall of Fame section, the above applies (19xx–19yy can be written 19xx–yy).
  • Both Hall of Fame lists need to use {{sortname}} so that the people sort by surname.
See also
  • This includes more than it needs to, trim out some of the fat.
References
  • Ref #1 is a bare url.
  • Be consistent with the date format. Most use YYYY-MM-DD, but a few use Month DD, YYYY, or DD Month YYYY.

Overall, a decent article, but one that would need a fair bit more work to go on to Featured status. I'll place the nomination on hold for the moment to allow time for these concerns to be dealt with. Harrias talk 10:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Think I've done everything, please check if it's enough. igordebraga ≠ 03:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally looking much better. As far as I can see, only two issues remain:

Think it's done now. igordebraga ≠ 16:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'll pass this now. Harrias talk 18:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

owner: Auston Matthews Bb gun04 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Tenure with team

Regarding this edit: I have started a discussion at the WikiProject Ice Hockey discussion page on how to list the years of tenure for a player. Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montreal_Canadiens/Archive_1&oldid=1259306831"