History of the Montreal Canadiens is a
featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the
Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontrealWikipedia:WikiProject MontrealTemplate:WikiProject MontrealMontreal articles
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.
Resolute00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
"...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)reply
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!
Resolute00:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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.
Resolute16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
Resolute03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
Resolute00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
Resolute03:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
Resolute03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
Resolute19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)reply
In the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure that 2010 is more notable than other years that haven't been included in this article, so I'm not sure it even warrants a single sentence.
Isaac Lin (
talk)
23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on
History of the 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.
I have just modified one external link on
History of the 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.