Talk:History of the Montreal Canadiens

FA drive

As the Canadiens' 100th anniversary date is coming up December 04, 2009, it would be ideal to have an article related to the team featured that day on the main page. Since the Montreal Canadiens article has already appeared on the main page in the past, it is very likely ineligible, making this the next best candidate, imo. The first step is to get this to featured status (preferably along with the main article). I hope to start on a rewrite soon, but hopefully others, especially those with a much greater knowledge of the Habs history than I currently posess, will also aid in bringing this article to the necessary standard. Resolute 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting notes

These are things that I'm noticing as I go through copyediting. Some of them are notes to myself of things to revisit in subsequent copyedits, while some are questions for the article's authors.

• "The Canadiens are the most successful team in NHL history, winning 23 of their 24 Stanley Cups and 25 league titles total, as members of the NHL." There has got to be a less awkward way of wording this.

• Probably, though the attempted rewordings were incorrect. Montreal has 25 NHL titles - 23 Stanley Cups, and two titles that did not translate into a Cup win (1919 and 1925). I'll try to think of a better way to describe this.
• FYI - Habs have 24 stanley cups. Not 23 or 25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.55.108 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• "...growing tensions between French Quebec and English Canada" I don't like this, because it implies a uniformly French Quebec, but can't offhand think of a better wording.

• Tricky, but that is how it was described in the source.

• Should the lead be organized less chronologically and more thematically (e.g. all arena information in one paragraph, all information in standout players in another)? It's a little choppy right now, with the sentence about the end of the Forum stuck in the middle of a paragraph that's otherwise about on-ice performance.

• Good point. I'll reword.

• "Later that day the ECHA met and formed the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) to exclude the Montreal Wanderers..." As this is worded now, it suggests that the purpose in forming the CHA was to exclude the Wanderers. Is this correct?

• This is correct. The other league owners were upset that they would earn less money from the visitors share of the gate receipts when the Wanderers moved into a smaller rink.

• We learn of the Canadiens' first victory in the second iteration of the NHA's first season, but nothing about their first game. This seems odd, unless the two were one and the same, in which case this should be made clear.

• I'll correct this.

• "After using several different designs, the Canadiens' sweaters took on..." Dangling modifier. Will need to reword somehow.

• Agreed.

• Is there a picture of the C/A jersey? It should be in the public domain by now, and would be helpful in illustrating that section.

• I will see what I can come up with, though that part of the article already has a lot of images, including the original C in a maple leaf jersey, and the CAC jersies.

• "The NHA met its demise in the winter of 1917 following several long-running disputes with Blueshirts owner Eddie Livingstone over who owned the rights to various players." The league was in dispute with one of its own teams on this subject? That seems a little odd. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Teams specifically, though given the league itself was pretty much run by the team owners, the way you interpreted it could be technically correct as well. I will reword. Thanks for the responses so far! Resolute 00:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Addressed all of these issues as best as I can. Resolute 15:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Guy Carbonneau started off as a defenseman? His article says nothing about this (which doesn't make it inaccurate, of course, but I wanted to double check). Steve Smith (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• This might be a matter of personal preference, but I find the article somewhat underlinked where people's names are concerned. I appreciate the effort that has gone into avoiding repeat linking, but I think there are some places where relinking is clearly desirable (to choose one specific example, where the coaches admitted to Builder's Row are listed, only Toe Blake is wikilinked). I'll leave this up to people who have done more work than I have on this article, though, since it's basically a stylistic preference. Steve Smith (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Carbonneau bit was just a dumb mistake; fixed. re-linking on occasion could be good, I agree. Resolute 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• We're told the date of the NHA founding, but not the date of the team's founding; are they one and the same? If so, that should probably be clear.
• It seems to me that the "See also" section could use a lot of the "List of Montreal Canadiens X" articles (where X is "head coaches", "general managers", "presidents", etc. Any reason they're not included now? Steve Smith (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, wait, those are mostly redirects to sections of Montreal Canadiens. Is there any reason those lists, which are primarily historical, are in the main article rather than here? Steve Smith (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• In a lot of cases, those lists should exist as their own articles, and linked via the {{Montreal Canadiens}} template. (See also how the Calgary Flames article is set up). I don't see a need for a pile of lists at either this article or the main myself. Resolute 00:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I somehow didn't notice the template. All is well, and I am dumb. Steve Smith (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Image issues

I've gone through the images in the same way as I would at FAC. Here are the issues I've found:

• File:Jacques Plante masque.jpg is listed as public domain by virtue of it being so listed at Library and Archives Canada, but what the description page there actually says is "Copyright: Unknown". If this was taken in Canada in 1960, I would be extremely surprised if it was in the public domain.
• I sort of doubt that the fair use rationale for File:1993habs.jpg is going to pass muster, since I don't see anything approximating discussion of the photo (rather than the event it depicts) in the article. Steve Smith (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Plante image also states that there are no restrictions on use, but I'll swap the image rather than risk the fight over it. I never had any illusions on the 93 Habs image, but I just didn't want to remove it either, heh. Resolute 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• My understanding of what LAC means when it says "no restrictions on use" is that LAC doesn't put any restrictions on its use. If they're unsure of an image's copyright status, I don't see how they can say that the copyright holder, whoever that might be, isn't going to place any such restrictions. Anyway, I'm certainly not going to pick a fight about any of this, but the FAC image reviewer might. Steve Smith (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nah, I've been through FAC enough to know it's not a battle I would win, and it is not a battle worth fighting. If you caught it, one of the image reviewers would too. The article is perfectly fine with the changed pictures. Resolute 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim of greatest team in NHL history

In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on citations in the lead section, I believe it may be useful to have citations for the claim that the 1976–77 team is often considered the greatest in NHL history, as I think there are numerous supporters of the Oilers or the Red Wings who may take issue with it. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've always just gone with "if it is in the article body, it doesn't need to be re-sourced in the lead", but this is cool too. Resolute 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then I propose adding the aforementioned citations in the lead section. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you think it would be beneficial Resolute 01:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

I've been quite busy IRL, and I don't really expect that to change anytime soon. The article as a whole looks good, and I see the copyediting issues are being worked on. I got you a better lead image; I was surprised by the Rocket's image being absent in the lead tbh so I added it. The caption's a bit long, so trim it if you want to... oh, and I don't know what this alt= business is about, so it needs to be fixed or I need to get clued in. Maxim_(talk) 00:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but as great as Richard was, I just don't see his profile to be a superior lead image to that of the first team picture. This is about the history of the team, and I think it is better to have a lead image relating to the team, rather than an individual. I will keep Richard around though, he should be there. Resolute 03:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And the alt text is for people with screen readers... it's an accessability thing that is the latest cause celebre at FAC. Hard to write, that's for sure. Resolute 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Appropriate Use of Alternative Text" is an excellent article with examples of relevant alt text when taken within context of the surrounding content and intent of the image, following various basic principles. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Team founding date

With the previous wording, the inclusion of the Canadiens in the NHA is made clear, whereas it is only implied with the revised wording. However, the National Hockey Association article says that the association was founded on December 2, two days before the founding of the Canadiens. Does anyone have access to the referenced source or another one to clarify the date? Assuming this is true, I think two separate sentences are going to be needed anyway. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenish (p. 12) confirms the NHA was founded on December 2, and Le Canadiens on December 4. Resolute 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Captaincy

The Habs will be making history tonight, as they enter their 'first' season without a captain. Would this be significant enough for this article, to include? GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so, but we've always been on the complete opposite side of the debate on the importance of captains. I'd probably just note it in the 2009-10 team article, and if it gets some ongoing coverage, add it here later. Resolute 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the vacancy might not last long, in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 playoffs

I believe this section gives undue weight to a recent event, which ultimately is not very notable in the history of the Montreal Canadiens. I propose that it be removed from this article and possibly added to 2009–10 Montreal Canadiens season, with some editing to remove peacock terms. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, that is bad. Frankly, the 2010 playoff run deserves one sentence at most. Resolute 17:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)