Talk:Toronto Blueshirts

Canada: Ontario / Toronto / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Ice Hockey

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

Untitled

Why is this whole article about the Canadiens forming?????-Rainman71 21:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you read the article, you'd know that the original Les Canadiens franchise was not the current Habs franchise, and that the original Les Canadiens turned into the Toronto Blueshirts. Seeing as the team lasted only seven years in any event, there's not a lot to write. Ravenswing 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team name

Spelling was never Blueshirts as one word. Yes, it has been mistakenly spelled that way by some modern sources, but I can (and will, since it has been questioned) provide citations to show that this was not what the team was actually called. Just like the Toronto team in 1917-18 wasn't called the Toronto Arenas, no matter how many times you've read that. But that's a story for another time. Blue Shirts is what they were called. There is no "official" name since it was a nickname and not the team's legal name. --Walor 03:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a citation as I have searched through 20 some odd books and countless links since you made the change. And not once have I seen it spelled any other way. Before you make moves, even if they seem uncontested you really need to bring them up on the talk page. But yes I do realize that there is no official name. --Djsasso 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe going on the talk page first would have been a good move. And I'll admit to letting out an "oh, crap" when I saw the SIHR page, but fortunately some of the better researchers affiliated with the SIHR have it right on their own pages. As for the team name, it's very simple -- we have hundreds of reports from when the team existed where we can see exactly what they were called. We don't have to speculate, or rely on second-hand accounts written decades later. Archives of the Star and Globe are available online, and those of the other Toronto newspapers are in libraries. I don't know how many dozens of these anyone would need to see, but as a sampling through the years: December 26, 1912, January 22, 1914, February 15, 1915, December 18, 1916. I can't find any reference to "Blueshirts" -- not a single one. Occasionally you'll see it hyphenated Blue-Shirts, but in the overwhelming majority of instances, it's "Blue Shirts" and never "Blueshirts." That's what the team was actually called (when they weren't being called the Torontos). The proof is there for anyone to look up, it's not something I've just come up with. It's true that many modern sources have it wrong, but we shouldn't copy their errors. --Walor 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some serious citations as well, the more so in that "Blueshirts" is not merely used by "some" modern sources, but by each and every one of them, from Coleman to SIHR to the NHL's own files to the Hall of Fame. Beyond that, this change violates WP:NAME, which holds "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I'd be interested in seeing what citations exist to the contrary that are more authoritative than the ones referenced above. Ravenswing 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, RGT, it doesn't violate anything to make a correction. Are you seriously suggesting that English speakers can't recognize "Blue Shirts"? Please. If you really want to worry about edits, I'd suggest you should be concerned about ones that introduce errors -- like this nonsense you added today about "copyright infringement." Either you or the person you got that from (you added it without any citation, so I can't say who is to blame) obviously don't even know what copyright is. I'm sure it was a good faith edit, but it's also wrong (as anyone who knows what copyright is can immediately discern) -- and uncited. Maybe you should worry about your own edits first. --Walor 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-called "nonsense" comes from Charles Coleman's Trail of the Stanley Cup, the fundamental building block of hockey scholarship, Vol I, p. 201. That's my citation. Seeing as you haven't troubled us with yours, I'll be reverting this at once. Ravenswing 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]