Talk:List of Montreal Canadiens seasons
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed overhaul
editI have completely re-written the entire page in my sandbox and am proposing that this new page be used as the list from now on. Usually I just do the whole bold thing but as I don't normally edit Canadiens articles I figured I would ask first. You can see the proposed new page at User:Rejectwater/sandbox/seasons. Please discuss. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this, a much better and cleaner look. Also like your work on the Detroit list. Just not sure about the split during the NHL years. Is that necessary. Would love it if you could do the other teams which use that outdated format. Jmj713 (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The split is certainly one of the things to discuss. I find it easier to maintain the tables this way (almost 100 seasons in a single table is a HUGE table) and it also takes into account the way things have changed in the league over the years. Conferences were just introduced in the 1970's, for instance, and the O'Brien Cup used to be a big deal (or at least it seems like it could have been a big deal). List of NHL seasons is split into five different tables. I actually have an alternative version of the Detroit list I am still working on at User:Rejectwater/sandbox/draftpicks that uses two tables. One of the things I am looking at there is the use of column headers (as seen on the current version of that list) is a violation of the accessbility guidelines at MOS:DTT. In any case, as far as the Montreal list is concerned, I agree this is a cleaner look, I appreciate your comments, and I have considered updating other lists in the series but that will take some time. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I just like the flow and "wholeness" of a single table. This is, after all, one team. Also, would it be too complicated to add Conference finish to Division finish. Personally, to me the Division finish doesn't really tell much. Anyway this format is very much superior to the older style, but is currently used by just 13 current team season lists. Ultimately, I'd be great to have a uniform look to them all, including the defunct teams. I'm really happy you've taken it on so far, because I've been thinking about this too. Jmj713 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- List of Winnipeg Jets seasons lists both Conference finish and division finish. It certainly provides more information, especially now as division finish has limited significance on playoff seeding except for division winners. This is one of those things that changes across eras- conference finish means nothing prior to 1974, but today is often more important than division finish, which to me is another reason to have multiple tables to show the changes that have taken place across the eras. Another question involved with this is what order to list everything in. I prefer GP-W-L-T-OT-GF-GA-PTS-Finish, which is how I have set up my new proposed Montreal list, but usually it is done as Finish-GP-W-L-T-OT-PTS-GF-GA. Either way works and makes sense in it's own way. If we were going to add Conference finish I would want to go with GP-W-L-T-OT-GF-GA-PTS-Div Finish-Conf Finish. As far as complexity it isn't any more complex than anything else in the tables. My concern would be the overall size of the tables. The new versions are pretty massive. As for the one table idea, I know what you mean about flow. At one point I had a version of the Detroit list that used four tables and it looked terrible. At the same time, 1967 is an obvious place to have a break. One thing that I don't like with the single table format is the large number of "Does not apply" cells that you end up with. The tables work better filled with data rather than dashes.
- I understand what you mean about cells that don't apply, but on the other hand that also serves to point out these differences in formats and record-keeping. I think a single table makes for a more even scanning and reading experience, in my opinion, and you can quickly ascertain when a certain division or conference existed, for example. Maybe the dashes aren't necessary in these cases, maybe the table key for "does not apply" can be changed to a blank cell. Jmj713 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I also have in mind shooting for Featured List for all of these- blank cells are a no go. In any case it's six of one and half a dozen of another- table cells that exist only to display a lack of applicable data. Let's just agree to disagree on this and wait for input from others. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It has been several days without further discussion, There was agreement that it was, overall, a good update. There is a question of whether to keep the NHL seasons split into two tables; we can consider that to be an open debate at least for now. Rejectwater (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I also have in mind shooting for Featured List for all of these- blank cells are a no go. In any case it's six of one and half a dozen of another- table cells that exist only to display a lack of applicable data. Let's just agree to disagree on this and wait for input from others. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean about cells that don't apply, but on the other hand that also serves to point out these differences in formats and record-keeping. I think a single table makes for a more even scanning and reading experience, in my opinion, and you can quickly ascertain when a certain division or conference existed, for example. Maybe the dashes aren't necessary in these cases, maybe the table key for "does not apply" can be changed to a blank cell. Jmj713 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- List of Winnipeg Jets seasons lists both Conference finish and division finish. It certainly provides more information, especially now as division finish has limited significance on playoff seeding except for division winners. This is one of those things that changes across eras- conference finish means nothing prior to 1974, but today is often more important than division finish, which to me is another reason to have multiple tables to show the changes that have taken place across the eras. Another question involved with this is what order to list everything in. I prefer GP-W-L-T-OT-GF-GA-PTS-Finish, which is how I have set up my new proposed Montreal list, but usually it is done as Finish-GP-W-L-T-OT-PTS-GF-GA. Either way works and makes sense in it's own way. If we were going to add Conference finish I would want to go with GP-W-L-T-OT-GF-GA-PTS-Div Finish-Conf Finish. As far as complexity it isn't any more complex than anything else in the tables. My concern would be the overall size of the tables. The new versions are pretty massive. As for the one table idea, I know what you mean about flow. At one point I had a version of the Detroit list that used four tables and it looked terrible. At the same time, 1967 is an obvious place to have a break. One thing that I don't like with the single table format is the large number of "Does not apply" cells that you end up with. The tables work better filled with data rather than dashes.
- I just like the flow and "wholeness" of a single table. This is, after all, one team. Also, would it be too complicated to add Conference finish to Division finish. Personally, to me the Division finish doesn't really tell much. Anyway this format is very much superior to the older style, but is currently used by just 13 current team season lists. Ultimately, I'd be great to have a uniform look to them all, including the defunct teams. I'm really happy you've taken it on so far, because I've been thinking about this too. Jmj713 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The split is certainly one of the things to discuss. I find it easier to maintain the tables this way (almost 100 seasons in a single table is a HUGE table) and it also takes into account the way things have changed in the league over the years. Conferences were just introduced in the 1970's, for instance, and the O'Brien Cup used to be a big deal (or at least it seems like it could have been a big deal). List of NHL seasons is split into five different tables. I actually have an alternative version of the Detroit list I am still working on at User:Rejectwater/sandbox/draftpicks that uses two tables. One of the things I am looking at there is the use of column headers (as seen on the current version of that list) is a violation of the accessbility guidelines at MOS:DTT. In any case, as far as the Montreal list is concerned, I agree this is a cleaner look, I appreciate your comments, and I have considered updating other lists in the series but that will take some time. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Montreal Canadiens seasons. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhl.com/cup/formats.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)