Talk:Quebec Nordiques

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

Please go to Talk:Colorado Avalanche if you have objections to the reversion.


What's the point with the salary conversions? Obviously their salaries have gone up... being high profile players, and with the effect of inflation over the past decade... --Madchester 07:14, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Can anyone elaborate on the seciton about the move from Quebec. I've always been told it was financial trouble, but I don't understand with the Canadian love of hockey...--68.167.34.42 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, it wasn't Canada that owned the team, it was Marcel Aubut. (grins) Ravenswing 16:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


List of Quebec Nordiques players[edit]

I have started a List of Quebec Nordiques players. It would be a great help is someone with a little extra time could fill in the missing gaps. I got all of the Quebec players who played in the WHA. I am just missing a few that played in the NHL. Thanks! Masterhatch 12 August 2005

Recent edits[edit]

1) Is the government of Quebec City mounting a credible, acknowledged bid to secure a NHL franchise, or does this remain wishful thinking on the part of fans? If the former, verifiable citations would be useful. If the latter, it's speculation better suited to Nordique-oriented web forums or blogs than an encyclopedia.

2) Please see the Team Pages Format for who merits inclusion in team Hall of Fame listings; Lafleur manifestly does not for the Nords.

3) The home provinces of honoured players are properly given in the entries for those players and are redundant here.

Ravenswing 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Accent on Quebec[edit]

This is also an issue in the Expos, and to a lesser extent the Canadiens, articles. The proper English spelling is Quebec (not Québec) and that is the norm in the English-language wikipedia. Using the accent in written English is an affectation, and we don't use Québec for the same reason we don't refer to places like Warszawa, Italia, Praha, etc. in English-language articles, except perhaps to mention the non-English version(s) or official version of the place name. For the same reason, the French-language Wikipedia uses place names like Terre-Neuve and Angleterre, etc., not Newfoundland and England.

And, frankly, it is just plain silly to spell the totally English term "Quebec City" as "Québec City".

Although the City and Province might have English versions of their names, other places like Colisée de Québec probably do not, so I have not reverted those back to the English spelling. Similarly, I am not aware if the official name of the franchise used an accent in both English and French, so I have left it as Québec Nordiques, and others more familiar with the team can deal with that particular issue. Skeezix1000 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. In French, the name of the team was not "Québec Nordiques" at all, but the "Nordique". I'm quite comfy with the diacritical being left out here, however much I agree with its use in le Colisée, which I've never heard translated into English. Ravenswing 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the "Nordiques" and never the "Nordique".^--Vince 13:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Support move because the team's English name is Quebec Nordiques and the city's name in English and here on wikipedia is Quebec City (without diacritics). Adding a diacritic to Quebec here, but not at Quebec City doesn't make sense. It's simple, in English, there is no diacritic on the Quebec Nordiques, and wikipedia should reflect that. Masterhatch 05:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Masterhatch.--Skeezix1000 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Masterhatch. Ravenswing 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: page moved. Eugène van der Pijll 19:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I went on google and typed in "Quebec Nordiques" -wikipedia to see what articles would show up and if they had diacritics in them or not. "Québec Nordiques" is no different than "Quebec Nordiques" when i tried both in google: they both came up with the same number of hits (309,000) and the same pages showed up. google search

google page one

google page two

The next four on page two do not have accents, but they are online shopping sites.

Discounting the french site that popped up in the google search, only two sites on the first two pages of google had accents. I also looked at some other, more reputable, sources online:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is clear "Generally, article naming should give priority 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." The majority of English speakers don't use a diacritic on Quebec and the English spelling of the city does not use an accent either. This proposed convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) also supports not using diacritics in article titles unless it is most commonly written that way in English. Quebec Nordiques, not Québec Nordiques, is the most common way to write that name in English. Masterhatch 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lindros edit[edit]

It was asserted today that Lindros said explicitly he didn't want to play in a "francophone environment." Now he certainly said he didn't want to play in Quebec, but I don't recall him ever saying the latter, and it isn't as if Lindros hadn't before pulled the "I don't want to play here" card ... unless someone is seriously suggesting that the Soo is a francophone environment. In any event, I slapped a citation tag on it; if someone doesn't come up with a source in a week, I'll revert the edit. Ravenswing 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this [2], which says that Quebecers beleived that Lindros didn't like French Canadians. Yankees76 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Is the name really pronounced with /dz/? Is just /d/, or is /dʒ/ intended? — 84.12.170.44 09:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this a decade later. Listening to (ostensibly) native French speakers online on various sites, and in tv clips from the era, I can see nothing to indicate a z sound in the word. I will make this change, but if someone with more information objects feel free to correct. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forsberg[edit]

I think that saying that Forsberg is likely a Hall of Famer is quite over the top. He's a great player, and he may get into it with some luck, but with 860-something points so far, it's far from being a done deal... --Childhood's End 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's pushing it (2 cups, 2 Olympic Gold, 2 World Championships, Calder, Art Ross and Hart Trophies, almost 850 points in just 674 games - not including another 162 playoff points), however, I don't think it belongs in the article, as it is only POV. Yankees76 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the qualifications often used for Hall of Fame election in the various sports is "dominance." It can be legitimately argued that, over the last 10 years or so, maybe even the last 15 (1992 or 1997 to 2007), Peter Forsberg, when healthy, has been the best hockey player in the world. Fan polls, Hockey News polls of players, coaches and executives, and the like have backed this up. The only thing that's going to stop Forsberg from going to the Hall of Fame is not retiring. -- Pacholeknbnj 15:51, 8 March 2007 (EST)

A great many players (even post-expansion) have been elected with fewer points than Forsberg. Ravenswing 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French-language name of team[edit]

I restored the French-language name of the team in the infobox, which had been removed with the explanation: "Removed 'french version' of Quebec Nordiques (there's no English version at French Wikipedia)". Quebec City is an overwhelmingly francophone urban area, so it is appropriate for the article to make mention of the version of the team name by which they were best known in their home city.

As for the fact that the French-language Wikipedia does not reference the English version of the name, my response is "why should it?". The Nordiques played in a francophone city, so why should a francophone encyclopedia include the English-version of their name? The French Wikipedia does, however, include the English version of the team name in its article on, say for example, the "Rockies du Colorado" because Colorado is an English-speaking town. Like the English-language encyclopedia, the French encyclopedia appears to include the name of the team in a different language where it is relevant to do so.

In any event, what the French-language Wikipedia includes or does not include is immaterial here, and should be worked out by the editors over at that encyclopedia. What is relevant for this article is that the Nordiques played in a francophone town, and the name of the team in French is a very relevant piece of information for this article. Skeezix1000 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree, this is the English Wikipedia. The fact that Quebec City is francophone, should have no effect on this article's title. ALL 30 NHL team articles & the defunct NHL team articles, should be the same (all English titles). GoodDay 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the biggest supporter of the French language, especially since my two daughters are French, and French is their first language. However, this is an English language encyclopedia, and the English names of any article is used, whether the article is about a French-Canadian ice hockey team or a city in Poland. Warsaw is the capital of Poland in English, but in Polish it is Warszawa. The English Wikipedia references Warsaw in the title. I assume the Polish Wikipedia uses Warszawa. It is a tradition in Encyclopedias that goes back 100's of years. I understand your sensitivity on this issue, but if I'm search for the article on the Nordiques, I'm typing Quebec Nordiques. The French name of the team should be within the first sentence of the lead. Orangemarlin 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 'Orangemarlin'. If this were the Canadian Wikipedia, then I'd allow for English & French in the article title. Same for all the Canadian based NHL teams and former teams. But it's not. GoodDay 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said 'article title' (excuse me), I meant Infobox title. GoodDay 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Orangemarlin and GoodDay, you both seem to be confusing two distinct issues. First issue is what the article should be called. And, yes, I would agree, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and the article title should be the name of the team in English. Nobody has ever disputed that. If you refer to the old discussions above, I was one of the editors who initially suggested moving the article title from Québec Nordiques to Quebec Nordiques, in order to use the proper English-language name for the title.

The second issue is whether the name of the team in an another language is relevant information to contain in the main body of the article (such as in the lead paragraph or the infobox). The Nordiques played in a francophone city to a mostly francophone fan base -- of course the name in French is relevant, regardless of the language of the encyclopedia, because that was the name they went by in their home city and were known by most of their fans. This is not an issue of whether or not this is the English, French or Swahili Wikipedia.

Orangemarlin, you mention that the article on the capital city of Poland uses the English version of the city name for its title. But the Warsaw article also mentions in its first sentence and at the top of its infobox that the City is known in Polish as Warszawa. So if it's acceptable for the Warsaw article, as you suggest, why do you object to the same thing for the Quebec Nordiques article? Perhaps you are bothered by the inclusion of the French version of the name in the infobox? Information contained in the infobox has nothing to do with the title of the article. If, as you say, you come to this article when you type "Quebec Nordiques", that's because it's the title of the article, and it has nothing to do with any information in the infobox. However, I don't care whether the information is located in the infobox or in the lead paragraph -- there is no real distinction between the two, and it doesn't matter to me either way. I simply reverted the initial deletion of the French name, but didn't really take a position on where the French name should go. Some editor ages ago put it in the infobox. I'm fine if you want to move it to the first sentence of the lead, as you suggest.

GoodDay, you seem to be objecting to the inclusion of the French name in the article, regardless of where it is placed, because you keep editing the article to remove it completely. As I mentioned in my first post above, I disagree with your initial tit-for-tat rationale for deleting it. Then, in your comments above, you seem to suggest it would be okay to include it in a Canadian (bilingual?) encyclopedia, but not an English-language one. I'm curious why you believe that the French name is not relevant information for the article, and why you seem intent on deleting it entirely from the article. Skeezix1000 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the full intent, assuming that you wanted to change the title. I'm open to the infobox containing BOTH English and French names. Orangemarlin 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I meant to say (earlier) the Infobox title should be 'only' English (like the Montreal Canadiens). The Nordiques were always written as 'Quebec Nordiques' (only) in English publications. I've nothing against the French language. However, I shouldn't have made this into a English Wikipedia VS French Wikipedia thing, because it may develop into a English VS French linguistic rights debate (something I don't want). GoodDay 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is construing your comments as anti-French, so no worries there. No one is suggesting the article be renamed, simply that it contain a reference to the name that was used in the team's home city. This has nothing to do with the language of this encyclopedia -- Wikipedia references terms used in other languages in 1000s of articles. Articles on both Montreal and Quebec city, for example, have detailed descriptions of the English and French names for those cities. You have not explained why the French-language name is not relevant information for this article. The Montreal Candiens article is not a good precedent, because (a) it does refer to the French-language name of the club in the lead paragraph, and (b) you're the editor who has removed the French-language name from the infobox on at least a couple of occasions. Skeezix1000 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm currently in the minority (2-to-1 in favour of English & French inclusion), I'll concede to the majority will. English and French it is. GoodDay 00:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But we should settle the issue by consensus, not with you feeling outvoted. I guess I still don't understand why you object to including the French name in the article. Skeezix1000 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was more of an abstention than anything else. I just didn't want to change the title of the article. However, I think it's a good compromise, given that only three people are caring about this article. Orangemarlin 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Others might chime in eventually. Skeezix1000 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me for one. There's ample precedent throughout Wikipedia (I'm thinking country names, myself) for including the local language name of an institution either in an applicable infobox or somewhere in the lead paragraph.  Ravenswing  13:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:QuebecNordiques7279.gif[edit]

Image:QuebecNordiques7279.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:QUE-N 288.gif[edit]

Image:QUE-N 288.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the infobox[edit]

I would like to add to the infobox when the Nordiques took part in the Stanley Cup playoffs ...How to do this please ? Matt-san 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT = I found out, done.

French version, at Top Infobox[edit]

The Montreal Canadiens page, had it's 'french version' removed. What about this page? GoodDay 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS- I'm neither for or against the 'french version'. I'm just seeking consistancy for the Nords and Habs pages. GoodDay 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Numbers?[edit]

How could Peter Stastny's #26 have been retired. Once the Nordiques were eliminated by the NY Rangers in the 1995 Playoffs, they were sold and it was announced on May 25, 1995 that the team was being moved to Denver. The Blues were eliminated on May 19th, but Stastny hadn't yet retired. Furthermore, various sites list his number as being retired on February 26, 1996. There was no Nordiques organization to retire his number in 1996. It seems to me that it's something bogus like what happened in Hartford with the so called "retirement" of #5, #10, & #11. Another instance of numbers being "retired", yet the team no longer existed. MrNWA4Life 03:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? I left this post a year and a half ago. I edited it cause I was mistaken, thinking St. Louis was eliminated in the second round when it was the first round. My edit was put back to the incorrect fact that St. Louis was eliminated in the second round, which is INCORRECT. My post here has been changed back twice by two douchebags who think they run the site. Leave MY POST alone. The very next change and I will contact whoever does run the site and file a complaint for real vandalism. MrNWA4Life 10:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.104.47.165 (talk) [reply]

Using a word like "douchebag" is a great way to get yourself blocked, IMO. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We 'douchebags' are following policy. Sign in with the account, and update the comment, do not edit the comment. Really, even if it is yours, just add a correction, don't change the comment itself. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original comment was left by a different IP, the user MrNWA4Life has not commented on this page, and has not edited since 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=+MrNWA4Life&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

We may have to consider 'protection'. Alot of newbies are trying to add info about a possible NHL franchise in Quebec City. Info which doesn't belong at this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One has to break these facts to others, gently. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are good faith edits, not vandalism. Not a likely candidate for page protection. Resolute 21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. That aside, while we might prefer not to have this info in the Nordiques' article, that's a judgment call, and plainly other editors disagree with us. Page protection isn't appropriate for a mere content dispute in which there's no sign of edit warring.  Ravenswing  09:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no need for page protection as these edits are not vandalism. However this problem would never have existed if a very very short section on the possible NHL franchise with a link to the relevant page was included on the page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, well, I agree that there wouldn't be a dispute if we just gave in and allowed those posting irrelevant info here to do so.  Ravenswing  17:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, protection would be over-reacting. Besides, another NHL franchise in Canada? let's not kid ourselves. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think not? There are Canadian cities that want teams. There never was any clamor for teams in places like Nashville; at best, the Phoenixes of the world supported minor league teams. The only clamor was from magnates and wannabe magnates who saw dollar signs in their eyes, and the number of them (a) willing to lose hundreds of millions in Sunbelt cities and (b) able to get the financing these days is damned limited. Just watch ... Winnipeg and Quebec City will get teams back. It might take five years and a regime change, but they will.  Ravenswing  20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it'll happen after Bettman has resigned, but not before. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we bringing the team back?[edit]

I am a Quebecker, and recently (in fact yesterday) we organized a big march on the Abraham Plains to bring back the team to Quebec City. I think someone should add a section, something like "Potential return". --96.21.156.211 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sections grow like weeds on the pages of defunct teams. They almost completely exist on nothing but rumor, they typically confidently predict the imminent return of a team that never does, and they tend to violate numerous Wikipedia content rules and guidelines Beyond that, they don't actually have anything to do with the old team, and thus have no relevance to those articles. The only way there should be a new section added to the article - other than an expansion of pre-move history - is if, improbably, the Avalanche should move back to Quebec City.  Ravenswing  03:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as noted, the Nordiques are gone and will never return. If a new team arrives in its place, it will have a new article and a new history, both of which are irrelevant to the Nordiques. Potential National Hockey League expansion is where the possibility of a new team belongs. Resolute 03:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be satisfactory to add Potential National Hockey League expansion as a link under the See also section? Hwy43 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, though linking specifically to the Quebec section for context. Resolute 04:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be a fool to make a statement like, "The Nordiques are gone and will never return." The possibility of the team getting a Jets-like revival (via the Coyotes) is very real, especially with the construction of a new stadium and some serious talk from Quebecor. Even the mayors believe it'll happen. Even if it's just populism talking, it probably still deserves a section because the rumors have been so extensively covered in the media, and because the population has been so involved. - SweetNightmares 15:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't warrant a section in this article because speculation of another NHL team for Quebec is not relevant to a past NHL team from Quebec. The case for a future Quebec franchise is already well documented at Potential National Hockey League expansion. Resolute 15:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also (FWIW) - the original Nordiques - now the Colorado Avalanche - will never return, as Denver is clearly supporting the franchise. If another team moves to Quebec and adopts the Nordiques name, it would be a different team, and therefore not a "return" - as in the Jets' case. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I haven't heard anyting about the Avalanche being sold back to Quebec City, or for that matter being for sale. PS: To repeat what Echoedmyron posted, the original Jets never returned to Winnipeg. They're still in Phoenix. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are also a fool if you believe that the only important thing is who bought the team, not the branding. - SweetNightmares 22:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be linking this article to Potential National Hockey League expansion, as this article is about a franchise still in existance (as the Colorado Avalanche). WP:HOCKEY has had previous discussion about the Ottawa Senators & it decided to not treat it as a returned franchise. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but how does the continued existence of the old Nordiques franchise as the Avalanche, or the fact that the original Senators and the modern team are separate have any relevance to whether the potential NHL expansion article has value here as a see also link? Resolute 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'cause the Avalanche aren't returning to Quebec City, just like the original Senators didn't return to Ottawa, or the original Jets didn't return to Winnipeg. By linking PNHLexpanion to this article, we're creating the false impression that a new Quebec Nordiques would be the same franchise as the Nordiques/Avalanche. We shouldn't be confusing our readers. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea what makes you think that linking the expansion article would create such an impression. Resolute 23:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming we can't convince each other, it's likely pointless to continue. PS: I'm not appreciative of Nightmares' challenging me (via edit-summary) to 3RR, btw. GoodDay (talk)
I've mentioned this discussion at WP:HOCKEY, in order to get more imput. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please think about the reader in this instance. Most readers who come here in 2014 are probably not looking for the history of the Avalanche, they are looking for the return of the Nordiques brand, because the Nordiques brand has been discussed at length in numerous independent reliable media these past few years. It'll likely pick up again as the new amphitheatre nears completion. If you think that this is going to cause confusion about it not being the same team, then make this distinction in the article, simple as that. If you are not content with a "see also" section, then perhaps there should be a hatnote. - SweetNightmares 23:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with the Noridques/Avalanche franchise, which is still located in Denver, for the foreseeable future. Potential National Hockey League expansion would be best linked to Quebec City (as Quebec City is linked to PNHL expansion article).GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely has something to do with "Quebec Nordiques," which I'll remind you is the title of the article. If a team did come back, it would almost certainly be called "the Nordiques," just as in Winnipeg's case. Just take a look at this. It is already being called "the Nordiques." People Googling for information on the possible return of a Quebec City team are going to end up on this page; you want to prevent them from finding said information? - SweetNightmares 23:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm outvoted/numbered, etc, so unless other editors show up in agreement with me, my participation here is pointless. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I opposed -- and still do -- any section in this article pertaining to potential expansion, for reasons given above four years ago, to quote from MOS:SEEALSO: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." The potential for a NHL team to return to Quebec City is a reasonable "tangentially related" topic for someone reading this article. Ravenswing 23:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. But, in this situation, I'm apparently out-numbered & so, can't do anything further :( GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree? Why so? You genuinely don't think that the topic of whether Quebec City might get a NHL team again could possibly be of any material interest to anyone reading this article? (Demonstrably, that's not true ... and heck, you very confidently predicted uptopic five years ago that there'd never be another team in Canada.) Ravenswing 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't have a problem with linking to the potential expansion article, as long as the distinction is made that it would not be the same franchise.Echoedmyron (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've WP:boldly moved the link to a WP:hatnote, I think it's much more appropriate there. The return of the Nordiques is the commonly used term to refer to Quebec City expansion which someone may use to locate information. I don't think it's appropriate to read the entire article to get to the see also section for information related mostly in name only. I also removed the hat note for the Avalanche which is inconsistent with other moved teams and a link to the Avalanche is already present in the lead paragraph. If someone thinks the see also usage is better then change it back. 69.158.124.62 (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd[edit]

The sentence: "The league's Canadian teams (with the exception of Montreal, Toronto, and to a lesser extent, Vancouver)" is an odd construction. It's like saying "The league's Canadian teams, except almost all of them..." -24.130.65.122 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then rewrite it to your satisfaction. That's what we do here.Asher196 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section[edit]

People are wondering if and when the Nordiques might return to Quebec City. The obvious place to look on Wikipedia is this page. I realize this page is technically about the historical team, but there's nowhere else obvious to look on Wikipedia and this page is as close of an obvious fit as there is going to be right now. The See Also section guidelines (WP:SEEALSO) say it "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." It's not like I added a paragraph to the article body. How does what I've added here fall outside of this? Air.light (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be helpful if I added a small note after the link to clarify what it is about and how it relates to the possible gaining back of a team. Air.light (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This very link is already included as a hatnote as the very top of the article. Like, it's the first thing you see. I think the hatnote would be sufficient, although am not opposed to the See Also. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the last line in WP:SEEALSO – The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. As stated it is the very first line on the page so it is unneeded. (Also if the Nordiques do return, it wont be this team/franchise, as in the Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets (1972–96).) Yosemiter (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true about the last line in the "See also" guideline. I overlooked that part. Air.light (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team history[edit]

Would be open to having the team history being spun-off into its own article if it is too big. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I removed a bunch of nonsensical commentary regarding the WHA "hastily" awarding a team to Quebec after the San Fransisco ownership group "fell apart". The league granted Gary Davidson (or equivalently Davidson granted himself) a franchise to be based in San Fransisco. This team was sold to a sextet of Quebec City businessmen in Feb 1972. The team was never officially named and there are multiple WHA sources with contradictory names. Minnesota Fighting Saints media guide refers to this team as the San Fransisco Seahawks. Davidson was the president of the WHA and had no actual intention of running a team; especially one in a failed NHL market. He held the franchise rights for the express purpose of selling it for a profit (which he did). It is well documented that Quebec City attempted to join the league as early as August 1971 but they were passed over for unknown reasons (finances? arena?). Scott Surgent discusses this matter in his published book The Complete World Hockey Association Kav2001c (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quebec_Nordiques&oldid=1209926097"