Talk:2008–09 Montreal Canadiens season

Latest comment: 15 years ago by 74.237.54.62 in topic Stanley Cup Record

Image copyright problem with Image:Canadiens100Anniversary.png edit

The image Image:Canadiens100Anniversary.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it's their 99th season why is it being promoted as their centennial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.44.187.96 (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Proposal to redirect Montreal Canadiens Centennial Year to this page edit

Please see the discussion on the talk page for "Montreal Canadiens Centennial Year". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacl (talkcontribs) 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

100 seasons banner edit

Is there a way to explain the anomaly of that badge? as this is the Habs 99th season (would've been the 100th, had the NHL not lost a season, via lockout). GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

99th season of play, but still their 100th season as an organization. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 00:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
If not for that blasted 2004-05 Lockout, this would've been their 100th season of play aswell. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit

I've now removed this image from the article three (1 2 3) times over the course of the last 7 months. I'm doing this for reasons relating to the Non-free content criteria; specifically item 8, which states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (which, I don't believe it meets in this particular article) and item 10, which states "The image or media description page contains the following ... The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline" (which the file description page does not have). Please do not re-add the image to the article unless these issues are addressed. — Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Changing color of the [hide]/[show] linkamabobs edit

In this article, and in other Canadiens seasons, and probably in some other teams with blue as a main color, the [hide]/[show] "links" that show up in the top right of each month of the game log are pretty hard to see. For me and users familiar with the wiki drop boxes, this isn't a problem—we know where to click—but even so, it's still annoying. More importantly, I imagine a lot of people don't even realize there's more to the "Game log" section than the month headings and the logs for the current month (the only one displayed by default). Is there any way to change the color of that link, without changing the color of every wikilink in the article (e.g. the [edit] buttons)?

If not, other options might be to swap the red with the blue, or to slightly tweak the blue to make the link more visible. Or to leave it unchanged, I guess. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stanley Cup Record edit

there should be a mension of the fact that if Montreal loses in the playoffs, their record of winning cups in every decade snice their founding will be shot.--74.237.54.62 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, if it gets coverage in the press. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cant imagine why it wouldnt --74.237.54.62 (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply