Talk:Jacques Plante

Name

OK, anon contributor comes through and removes two names from the "born as" name, leaving it exactly the same as the name given to begin with. Is that really the case, and we should eliminate the "born as" part, or was it just some thoughtless vandalism? -- JohnOwens 01:29 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'm reverting, based on [1] and [2]. -- Salsa Shark 01:38 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

New to wikipedia, but someones tampered with Plante's statistics can someone fix this?

Done and done....lil late i guess though i pulled them off the old versions of the page from 2 years ago. kinda scary no one saw that, that long Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A few comments

I was looking over this article and noticed a few problems that will prevent it from reaching GA-status. Although I haven't looked it over thoroughly, a few things stood out:

1. The final paragraph in "Five straight Stanley Cups" is completely unreferenced.  Done
2. In the same paragraph, a word is missing ("to protect a broken ?").  Done, it was a nose.
3. The majority of the second paragraph in "The comeback to professional hockey" is unreferenced.  Done
4. The "Retirement and death" section is completely unreferenced. Done
5. The "Legacy" section is completely unreferenced. Done
6. The first time you use the abbreviation "NHL", you need to explain what it means. For example, "...the National Hockey League (NHL)." Done
7. Consistent verb tense is also nice. Almost every time that people use the conditional tense ("He would then join the World Hockey Association", "the Montreal Canadiens would retire Plante's jersey", etc.), it should be replaced. In this case, the article is in past tense, so "He then joined the World Hockey Association" and "the Montreal Canadiens retired Plante's jersey" would be better.  Done Maxim_(talk) 02:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure does, but I'll need some time to work on this. Maxim_(talk) 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Still working. :-) Maxim_(talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Update - I'm quite busy atm and I need to get the book back from the library... I realise now that I still need it, so the referencing might have to wait a bit more. Still working on verb tense. Maxim_(talk) 02:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Finished all. :-) Maxim_(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment His nickname "Jake the Snake" has no reference whatsoever and doesn't appear to be discussed in the text. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Added ref; it's not really discussed much, because it's not of huge importance; I have to keep the article under control, as I could go on for ages about Plante; the book is very comprehensive. I believe he got Jake the Snake while playing for the Buffalo Bisons because he went out of nets to get the puck, like a snake (dunno why people thought that :-p). I know this off the top of my head from the book, but I haven't found the specific part of it that says that yet. Maxim_(talk) 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, but you still need to make sure you add an accurate reference. The reference that was given didn't support the claim, as the nickname wasn't mentioned. The book by R. Plante gives the information on page 41, so I fixed the reference. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold comments

Really only the issues I have are with consistency—the content, references, etc., look great.

• Consistency in numbers—e.g., in the "Early life" section, you say "the eldest of eleven [actually, using words for numbers above ten is not recommended] children," "when Jacques was five years old," and "at age 12."
• Consistency in naming—a bit over a quarter of the way into the article, you switch from saying "Jacques" to "Plante."
• Either link all years or none at all.
• Consistency in en dashes—some seasons use hyphens for year ranges, others use en dashes. The article titles do use hyphens, but this is incorrect. Scores should also consistently use en dashes.
• The "Career achievements and honours" section reads like a trivia section—integrate relevant info into text or tables, remove the rest.
• This isn't going to affect my pass or fail of the article, but perhaps some of the images should be sized a bit smaller? (Specifically Image:Jacques Plante young.jpg).

Tell me when done. --Kakofonous (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All fixed but the second point. I use Jacques to differentiate from his father, Xavier, in the the early life section. Maxim_(talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Clear and descriptive.

2. Factually accurate?: Very well referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Great images!

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

Per WP:HOCKEY's decision to remove the nickname field from the infobox, it is being moved here for use later. "| nickname = Jake the Snake" -Djsasso (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Infobox image is copvio

As I've noted on the Commons page for this image, all Library and Archives Canada images that are post-1949 (and therefore not public domain) are copyright violations, LAC does not allow free use of its images (see Commons:Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada). There are several others used on this page so please watch out for them. --Padraic 14:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Small but important point - post-1949 photos can certainly be PD in Canada based on the 50 pma rule. For example, if a photo is published in 1950, and the photographer died in 1952, the image is PD in Canada after 2002. However, it's all academic (and doesn't apply to these Plante images), because Wikimedia also requires that the image be PD in the U.S., and you can't even claim URAA if it entered the public domain in Canada after January 1, 1996. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've previously checked the copyright status for the images, but in the case of the infobox image, here it clearly states "Restrictions on use: Nil", which is the definition of Public Domain. The LAC can't claim no restrictions then suddenly claim some on top, they've relinquished the rights to the image. In contrast, there previously was a Rangers image in the article but its description page has no note saying "Restrictions on use: Nil" which made it a copyvio. Maxim_(talk) 15:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The image has now been deleted, leaving the article without a lead image. Another one has already been chosen for the main page however.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Maxim, please read my correspondence with LAC and the previous deletion discussions as linked to above. The "restrictions on use: nil" does not refer to copyright status, it refers to whether the original creator put conditions on LAC itself. Yes, this is highly misleading wording, but elsewhere on the LAC it is made clear that derivative works are not allowed and similarly, LAC only grants one-time use licenses. --Padraic 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Padraic is correct. I am not sure that agree with him completely as to whether or not "restrictions on use: nil" refers to copyright status, but I do agree that the prohibition on derivative works is a deal-breaker. Moreover, neither of the two disputed images are likely PD in the U.S., so that presents a huge problem as well.

Given that File:Jacques Plante masque.jpg and File:Jacques Plante of the Montreal Canadiens hockey team.jpg are now both nominated for deletion over at the Commons, thought should be given to uploading one or both of the images locally here on Wikipedia on the basis of a fair use rationale (assuming the images meet the fair use criteria). IIRC, that's what was done with this image of Jean Beliveau. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

I just reverted [3] an edit by User:Maxim. (S)he had reverted [4] an earlier copyedit by another user, thereby restoring some bad syntax and punctuation. I don't like reverting a revert without explaining myself, so here you are. Happy editing. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Jacques Plante Accorded Greatest Forum Ovation !! Bolstered Juniors Nip Russians 2 -1

For folks that like reading the actual newspaper article on the famous event at the Montreal Forum. ( A year before it was his friend Doug Harvey vs the Russians. )

The Montreal Gazette, Dec 16, 1965, Page 42 1) Bolstered Juniors Nip Russians 2 - 1, Writer , Bob Scott 2) Jacques Plante Accorded Greatest Forum Ovation, Writer, Ted Blackman Gotto:::::: (Click on Link Below):::::::

Page 42::: Bolstered Juniors beat Russians 2 - 1 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ncQtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XZ8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6522%2C3737674

Page 42:::: Jacques Plante Accorded Greatest Forum Ovation. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ncQtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XZ8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4700%2C3740158 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.105.204 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency: 434 wins vs. 437 wins.

In this article (and in others), Plante is sometimes credited with 434 wins and 437 wins. From looking around it appears that NHL.com and hockey-reference.com say 437 wins while hockeydb.com is the only source I've found that says 434 wins. The differences between the two sources are 2 wins in 1954-55 and 1 win in 1960-61. Looking deeper, hockeydb.com has two of the extra wins credited to Charlie Hodge (one in 1954-55 and one in 1960-61) and one of the extra wins credited to Claude Evans (one win in 1954-55). Which source is considered to be more reliable? Does User:Ho-ju-96 have any insight? Sxg169 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I feel honored that you asked for my opinion (I edited Plante's stats in this article). The sources I looked at were the first two sources you mentioned; NHL.com and hockey-reference.com . I didn't look up Plante's stats on HockeyDB, although I think it is generally a reliable source. I thought something along the lines of "If I'm looking for official stats for the NHL, then nhl.com should be a reliable source of information". You may disagree with my reasoning, but that was the reason behind my edit. Nice detective work with finding the players that HockeyDB considers having those "controversial" three wins! Ho-ju-96 (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I did some more research, looking at the NHL Official Guide & Record Book, paper editions, from 1987-88, 2004 and 2010. In the 1987-88 version, Plante is listed as having 434 wins. In the 2004 edition, he is listed as having 435 wins while in the 2010 edition, he is listed as having 437 wins. My only guess (and it is just a guess) is that the NHL changed the definition of a win and then retroactively applied it to Plante's career. (As a side note, Terry Sawchuk also benefited from the new calculations, boosting him from 435 wins to 447). When I get a chance, I'll update all references in Wikipedia to 437 wins for Plante. Sxg169 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Drafted by St. Louis

Modest Genius, I added a citation as requested. He was drafted in the Intraleague draft which was sort of a precursor to the Waiver Draft that was cancelled following the 04–05 lockout. We don't have articles on all these old types of draft. It is an arcane part of now-defunct NHL procedure which I don't think is that well-documented in reliable sources. As far as writing article(s) on it, it would be difficult to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. For example I found a blog post on some of these drafts but there are no sources to follow and there appears to be disagreement between hockeydb.com and that blog post. Long story short, Plante was definitely drafted but it wasn't anything, dare I say interesting, like an entry draft or an expansion draft. Maxim_(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'd not heard of those procedures before. I've tweaked the wording slightly to avoid readers confusing this with the entry or expansion drafts, as I did. Modest Genius ^talk 10:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent uncited text deletions

Z1720, I noticed you deleted a bit of uncited text. I've restored most of that, with citations. Let me know if you have/had any objections to the text other than the lack of reference(s). I added references in the two places you tagged. Maxim (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim: Thanks for your work on this article. I'm glad someone was able to restore the information with citations. If this article meets the featured article criteria (after your additional citations) can you mark it as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)