Talk:Montreal Canadiens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Montreal Canadiens is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Montreal Canadiens has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 15, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
September 7, 2005 Featured article review Demoted
April 19, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Montreal (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Canada / Quebec / Sport (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Montreal Canadiens:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : Retired numbers section to Honoured members section
  • Verify : Add more references
  • Other : Correct leaders section to make it viewable in 1024*768 mode

Retired numbers[edit]

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.

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)

Division championships[edit]

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)


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. (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). (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Seasons played[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC) 

Edit request from Jay92388, 9 May 2010[edit]

{{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 [1] 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. (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

X mark.svg 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 (talkcontribs) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


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, 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[edit]

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 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Infobox (part II)[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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. (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. (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Membership in major sports league[edit]

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?[edit]

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, 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,, 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[edit]

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. (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Media affiliates[edit]

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[edit]

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

GA Review[edit]

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)
  • 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"
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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:
  • The Retired numbers list needs {{sortname}} so that the people sort by surname.
  • The dates in the references still aren't consistent. Harrias talk 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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)