Talk:Ottawa Senators/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

No Title

Think we've got a problem here. I don't know enough of the current situation to intelligently edit (and I'm pressed for time this morning), but I don't believe the sale of the team to Melnyk is final yet. Last I heard, there were still waiting on an agreement to buy the Corel Centre. The sale of the team was conditional on that agreement coming together. (Which, of course, everybody expects will happen. But we shouldn't call him the new owner until he actually owns the team, not just agreed to purchase it.)

Logo design

Logo design is listed as Roman gladiator, but the Roman helmut is most associated with Roman legionnaire. 24.217.211.99 15:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'Gladiator' is probably an ignored error for 'Roman'. 'Legionnaire' may be more appropriate than 'soldier', as it includes 'cavalry'. The logo seems indistinguishable. Pædia | talk 17:41, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

New box

I really don't like the new box...It either needs to have some sort of border or use something other than white, which blurs into the article proper...but since I see it on at least one other change, I won't go willy-nilly editting this one. Is there a WikiProject or some place discussing this format? Because it's looking really nice, except that it needs something to make it appear more distinct from the article text. - Cafemusique 11:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes there is a wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Earl Andrew 23:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of the "New Box", is there any real reason why 29 NHL team pages use one box, and the Ottawa Senators page use this other one? Records should be in a records or trivia section, team jersey pics in a thumbnailed picture box, and the team box conform to that used in all the other Team Page entries. RGTraynor 18:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the box that the Senators are using was intended to be the box that all the teams were going to use. But the "alternate" box got used instead (how or why I don't know). Personally, I don't like the one being used by the Senators. A while back, there was a brief discussion about the box on the team format page of wiki ice hockey project and I switched it so that the "other box" came first and the lone box got moved and became the alternate box. Cleaning up the Senators is on my to-do list and part of my cleanup plan was to change the box. But alas, there just aren't enough hours in a day for work, social life, and wiki. Masterhatch 5 September 2005

Heh, fair enough. If you don't get to it, I will. (grins) RGTraynor 02:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Be my guest. Cleaning up the Senators page is low on my priority list. Masterhatch 5 September 2005

:-( hey now, maybe there is a way to clean the box up? I made it to resemble some of the soccer (football) teams out there. They have similar boxes with similar information. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to conform the Senators' page to the standardized box used with every other team page (and for the most part, with the minor league team entries as well)? Plainly the MLS teams have their own standards, but we have ours. RGTraynor 07:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can divide the box up? Have the main box for consistency with other teams, and have a second for additional information. Or just one big box that looks more like the other teams. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Earl, look. You were one of the ramrods of the Team Pages Format in the first place. You know full well that there is a standardized box used by every NHL team and every AHL team page. I can understand you want information in the Ottawa article that isn't listed in the standard box, and those particular records are useful information, but that's what "Team Records" sections are for. If everyone gets to redesign team pages to their own liking, then we have no Format, we have anarchy. Now if you can get a consensus around changing the standardized box to including the things you want, go for it. RGTraynor 19:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You dont just remove information without replacing it somewhere else. There is no team record section on this page that you speak of. I don't see what's wrong with what I added. I would hope that we could adopt a similar format for all teams. It is a lot of work, it took me some considerable time to find the information for the Sens. Plus you also removed the jerseys, *and* you reverted a mistake I fixed with the colouring in the table. - User:Earl Andrew

You really never saw that coming? The work on the all other teams didn't happen overnight. If your so convinced it should be there, then why haven't you made an effort at gathering this information for other teams? Where did you get that jersey diagram? Are all 30 teams available? I really doubt it should be labelled as "logo" for a license. ccwaters 23:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I didn't wipe the information off the face of the earth; it takes all of 1.5 seconds to pull up the previous version from History. Nothing prevented you, or prevents you now, from putting in a team records section to hold records you find worth mention. I also demonstrably didn't delete the jersey pic from the database. Earl, what was wrong with what you added is that it sets up that there is one format for the Ottawa Senators, and one format for the other 56 teams of the NHL and AHL, and the difference is that the Senators' one is your personal creation. The box that I put in was nothing I designed or had any part in designing, but it was the standard box from the Team Pages Format used in the rest of pro hockey. I'll reiterate; if you think that the box you personally designed should be the standard, advocate the change and see if you can get a consensus. RGTraynor 08:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't sure how to liscense a hockey jersey. It is a modified immage form nhluniforms.com. Also, I believe here at Wikipedia, we are instructed to write what we know, and since I know about the Senators, what's what I did. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally thought that the old box was better than the new one. Far more interesting, though it could have incorporated some of the information of the new one, and the image was a bit large. I don't see why the Senators page should have to conform to the standard NHL format if we don't want it to. We should minimize red tape where possible. Having to get "approval" seems to convoluted to me. On this page, the other old box was more suitable. If the other NHL pages want to follow suit, good for them. Peregrine981 11:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Peregrine. I of course, agree with you 100%. I will revert back to my edits, and let me know what you think. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on "1967" and the "Ottawa Civic Centre" ??? ccwaters 19:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I just plain reverted it, didnt notice that glaring error. Thanks, I will fix it now. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What I think is that this isn't worth a reversion war, but at the very least I presume your involvement with the Team Pages project is at an end, Earl? RGTraynor 22:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I am still casually watching the page, and may contribute when I feel the need to. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Team Jersey
enter image here
League
National Hockey League
Current Coach
Bryan Murray, 2004-
Current General Manager
John Muckler, 2002-
Current national team coach
Eugene Melnyk, 2003-
Most Games
Radek Bonk: 686
Most Points
Daniel Alfredsson: 568
First Game
Ottawa 5 - 3 Montreal (Ottawa; October 8, 1992)
Largest win
Ottawa 9-1New York Rangers (Ottawa; January 24, 2003)
Largest defeat
(Last occaison) Ottawa 1 - 11 St. Louis (Ottawa; February 26, 1994)
Stanley Cups
Winners: 0

List of Ottawa Senators players

When you add players to this article, could you also be so kind as to add them here: List of Ottawa Senators players. Thanks! Masterhatch 5 August 2005

What's the rule here? The last 3 players added (Martins, Meszaros, and Ward) are most probably destined for the Binghamton Senators this season. I suppose that technically they are on OTT's roster until re-assigned at the camps?? That also applies to Patrick Eaves if he gets listed. I imagine similar additions are happening in other NHL rosters. ccwaters 23:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

They are, and I figure we ought not worry about it until training camp ends. The Bruins' official website lists people we know are going to be second-liners in Providence, after all, and I expect websites all over the league are doing the same. Might as well let it ride, since we don't know for a fact who IS going to be up and down. For all we know Chara and Redden break legs in camp, and then Ward will definitely be up this fall. RGTraynor 00:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Who put this on, and has a reason for it ever been proferred? Lacking any genuine commentary on what about the article is objectionable, I'm inclined to remove it. RGTraynor 08:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Reading your comment, I thought, did I add that tag? Anyways, I went back into the history and yes, I did at that tag on July 31st. That was quite some time ago now, but I believe I added it because of the ugly tables used. RGtraynor, you changed one of the tables. But the other two tables need changing. I am referring to the tables that use "dashes" between the stat numbers. Anyways, until those are cleaned up, I think that the cleanup tag should stay on. Masterhatch 11:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

When I get home tonight from work, I will change those ugly "dash" tables to the standard table used by most NHL teams. That way I can feel comfortable removing the "clean-up" tag. Masterhatch 05:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Half done

I am now half done the season by season table changing. When I finish the other half, I will remove the cleanup tag. Masterhatch 15:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Finished. Masterhatch 04:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Old vs New

Next question, while I'm thinking about it. We have articles split up with franchise shifts. Is there any rationale for keeping the original Senators and the 1992 franchise in the same article (other than the "reinstatement," which was a meaningless bit of feelgood okeydoke)? It'd be a lot cleaner as separate articles, there'd be tacit room for a good bit more history ... thoughts? RGTraynor 04:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of splitting them up. My reason? So more info can be added about the other Ottawa teams (the silver seven for example). As it is, this Ottawa page is getting kinda full and as it is, there is enough information about the original senators to warrent their own article. Besides, in reality, they aren't the same team. BUT this is probably a very touchy subject and before any changes are made, we should get more than just two or three people's thoughts on this. Masterhatch 04:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I do believe the Ottawa Silver Seven redirects here as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that the Silver Seven directs here, I was just commenting that if the Old and New were split, we could expand the information on the silver seven. The "Old" Senators have a long history and I feel that they deserve an article of their own.Masterhatch 05:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, Silver Seven directs here; I just checked. As to that, the term "Silver Seven" never seemed to be the contemporary name of the team (that was the 'Ottawas' or the 'Senators', depending) but a media-driven nickname akin to the Habs or the Blueshirts. Ultimately, though, it isn't even that I think the old and new teams deserve their own expanded entries (which I do) but that if the same franchise gets different entries just because they're in different cities, two different teams sixty years apart should have them despite identical names. RGTraynor 05:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I say split. See Cleveland Barons and the notice I added at the top: This article discusses the current American Hockey League team. See also: Cleveland Barons (NHL) and Cleveland Barons (1937-1972).

No one seems to object to the Senators being split. So, what name shall we give the "other" Senators team? How about Ottawa Senators (original) or Ottawa Senators (1901-1934) or Ottawa Senators (defunct). Any other ideas? Also, whoever gets around to splitting the teams has to fixed dozens of links. That's my two bits for today. Masterhatch 06:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest Ottawa Senators (historical) just like how the Conservative Party of Canada is split up. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be for the (1901-1934). Definitely not the (defunct). ccwaters 22:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I Object to the Senators split, When the Senators were re-created the NHL gave the new Ottawa Senators full rights to the history of the original franchise and presented the team with a plaque that re-instated the franchise into the NHL. I remember this from the original Montreal Ottawa pre-game ceremonys although I can't find an online source of the plaque. Anyways the banners for the Senators Stanley cup wins are in the Coral centre, and the NHL considers them the same franchise.

The Cleveland Barons example I don't think is applicable I would use the Cleveland Browns however, because they had a similar occurance of a team picking up and leaving town and a new franchise with re-instated that was granted full team history and name by the National Football League The only difference was the franchise being re-instated after three years instead of sixty years.

Another example of a similar occurence where this did not happen was the New York Giants came four years after the first New York giants The National Football league does not consider them the same franchise and did not grant the history of the franchise to the new New York Giants

You may think its feelgood okeydoke and does not matter but its contrary to what the decision of the National Hockey League was at the time, and its point of view.

--Cloveious 00:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the NHL "reinstating" the Senators name is mentioned in the article. They pretended for a day . I think that's all that's needed. Other hockey examples Hamilton Bulldogs (fans voted to keep the name), Fort Wayne Komets, Peoria Rivermen. ccwaters 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The NHL's own Media Guides date the franchise solely from 1992 - in year to year record, in club records, in coaching, captains' and GMs' histories, in head-to-head all-time records, in Stanley Cup wins. To quote from page 93 of the 2005 Guide, "Franchise date: December 16, 1991 - 13th NHL Season" In no way, shape or form does the NHL treat them as the same franchise, and the league's made its POV clear, whatever some scrap of metal and wood in a storage box in back of the team offices might read. I'm quite comfortable with the 'feelgood okeydoke' characterization.

RGTraynor 03:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RG on this. In all reality, they are two separate teams. Masterhatch 03:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In reality they are, and in realty they are not, I don't think mention of a certificate is all that is needed. Before you split this article I want to see that section expanded and researched as to why the NHL granted license to use the Ottawa Senators history as well as the name. Because more then just an 'feelgood okeydoke' characterization the decision to allow that came from somewhere what it precisely is and how far it reaches must be documented. History of The Ottawa Senators franchise --Cloveious 05:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to do such research if you wish. That being said, when the NHL's own publications ignore the previous team in describing the current one's historical record and totals, I'm comfy in the splitting I'll start when I finish this post. That aside, I've an observation for you, Cloveious, and a question. Observation: we commonly split team entries for different cities even when the entries involve the same franchise, the same players, consecutive years, complete continuity of ownership, and even the same nicknames. Question: if the Ottawas are the same franchise, how much was paid in compensation to the heirs of Redmond Quain and the Ottawa Hockey Association, and why was the exact same franchise fee assessed as was to Tampa Bay? RGTraynor 06:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I even have another one. I followed Cloveious' link to the Senators' official site, and among other things, I glanced at their career leaders board. Not one original Senator is mentioned. Yet if it was just one franchise, Cy Denneny would be the Sens' career goals leader with 245, and Frank Nighbor, George Boucher and Hec Kilrea would make the leader board. Denneny (5th) and Nighbor (9th) should be in the career points leaders. Boucher would be second in penalty minutes with 604, King Clancy 4th, Alex Smith 5th. Hall of Famer Alec Connell should be the career leader in goaltending games, wins and shutouts, categories in which Hall of Famer Clint Benedict should be listed 5th, 3rd and 3rd respectively. If the current Sens' ownership doesn't even believe they're really one franchise, I see no reason for Wikipedia to reflect it. RGTraynor 06:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you displaying the old banners as proof that they are the same team? Head down to their farm team and check out the banners they have in the rafters. There's Binghamton Whalers- Binghamton Rangers, B.C. Icemen (UHL), and current Binghamton Senators. I could probably find a pic somewhere... ccwaters 11:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll spare you the research... Why: PR/ Marketing. How: no one connected to the Original team was alive and coherent enough to protest it. ccwaters 13:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Splitting issues

Alright, I've completed the split; take a gander at it under Ottawa Senators (Original) and see what you think. I've changed the redirect from Ottawa Silver Seven, but I have not changed all the other links; Masterhatch, can you think of any offhand that would need to be changed other than the early NHL season pages on which you've been working? RGTraynor 07:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

(pants) Alright, I've changed the links for the NHL seasons and the trophy lists. I have NOT yet changed links for individual player entries or anything hanging off of the Hall of Fame pages. RGTraynor 08:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Great work RG. Off hand, I can't think of other links that need fixing (other than players of course). But this brings up another issue. Should I split the player lists too? What about the coach lists? Of course if one splits the player lists, one could also include the players on that list that played before the original senators played in the NHL. Same with the coaches. As for using (original), I was partial to that one too, but (historical) was also a good name. Overall, i think it was a good move to split. Not everyone will agree, but it looks cleaner and is now more informative (I think anyway). Masterhatch 10:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Consistency; we should split the player and coach lists too. I know, more work. As far as original vs. historical, eh ... "historical" to me begs the question: what makes one team "historical" as opposed to the other? They both occupy places in history; just different years. RGTraynor 12:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There's lots to do. Check out the "what links here" page (sorry I couldn't figure out how to link to it). I'll pound some out today... ccwaters 13:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The first 50 at Special:Whatlinkshere/Ottawa_Senators are ok... ccwaters 01:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

100... ccwaters 12:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

150... ccwaters 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

250 ... and a heck of a lot to go. RGTraynor 09:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Since I have been working painstakingly hard at completing the player lists, I will split the player lists up (more links to check too) and I will also do the coaches (again, more links to fix). It seems that I spend more time fixing links than actually adding to articles. Masterhatch 14:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The player lists are now split and so are the coaches lists. I also got all the links to those two (well, four now) lists fixed. I didn't touch the categories, though. They need some work. Masterhatch 16:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I'll pitch in on that list. I bet you two are ready to clobber me upside the head with hockey sticks right now for suggesting the split, huh? (grins) RGTraynor 04:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It had to be done. I've been eyeing it for a while. ccwaters 11:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Found something odd in New York Americans while cleaning this stuff up. Its says the Americans tried to merger with the Sens after the 1933-34 season. Is the date wrong, or is it supposed to be the Eagles, or is it just plain false? ccwaters 11:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who typed that part of the Americans. I got it from this site [1]. It could be that it was meant to say "St. Louis Eagles". I think this requires more checking into. Masterhatch 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a rumor floating to that effect in December 1933. Frank Calder denied it, which led the press to think coverup, and both teams told their players there was nothing to it. During a March league governors' meeting (but before the season ended), the move to St. Louis was approved. RGTraynor 20:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The ripple effect

This split has caused a ripple of minor problems and bad links. While checking things out, I happened to notice this useless category: "Category:St. Louis Eagles players". It should be merged with the "Category:Ottawa Senators (Original) players". Ccwaters, you have been playing around with categories a lot more than I have of late and are much more familar with them than I. Truth be told, I am rather unfamilar with the categories. Think you could spare a minute or two to fix it? Thanks in advance! Masterhatch 14:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, later today probably ccwaters 16:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There was just one entry there (Bill Cowley) I added him to the Senators category. Its kind of misleading. If you had some else in mind, I'll try to figure it out. ccwaters 22:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Captain's List

Does anyone know for certain, which players were captains of the Senators during the 1993-94 season. I know from a "Hockey News magazine" that I own, Mark Lamb & Brad Shaw served as Co-Captains of the Senators (1993-94), until Lamb was traded (Feb.'94? to the Flyers). However, did Shaw then serve as co-captain with Gord Dineen? or was Gord Dineen (sole) captain for rest of season? Does anyone know? GoodDay 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The NHL Media Guide lists all three as captains during the season, but the Guide's practice is only to identify those who were in any given season, not the order or the combination. I suppose I could go into the basement and break out my Hockey News' from that season, but that's a lot for a relatively petty issue. RGTraynor 21:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. GoodDay 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Goals For + Shoot Out Win

The Season-by-season record keeps being modified to add in Shootout win goals when NHL stats show otherwise. Should Goals For include shootout goals according to Standings or Goals For actually reflect goals received?--Maraulth 03:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the site [www.nhl.com] seems to be counting them, that's what I was going by. -- VederJuda 03:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean, been counting em that way as well, but according to the stats page for Goals For it says slightly different, which is why I was updating the scoresheet that way.--Maraulth 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I just checked again after seeing the note on the last edit to the page, and NHL.com is counting differently depending on the page. In the overall standings they count one point extra per win [2], but on the team summaries they don't [3]. Now that is annoying. -- VederJuda 03:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Official Website Link

The link should remain as being www.ottawasenators.com as this is the official site link. Pointing towards the english or even the www2 subdomain can cause problems in the future and as such the official page should remain the same.--Maraulth 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Senators Third Jersey merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senators Third Jersey. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Cow - Big Lead

Will Ottawa shatter its record for most lopsided win of 8-0 from earlier this season? They lead Toronto 7-0 early in the third. Not bad for Game Number One Thousand.

Yeah was hoping they'd average out 3 goals a period this game to shatter that record... too bad though --Maraulth 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten??

Would it be useful to add a "not to be forgotten" list like other sites have? Add famous or infamous players from the past -- well, actually there may not be that many... Barry Zuckerkorn 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, we had those in all the NHL team articles, but we took them out. ccwaters 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't realize they were taken out. Barry Zuckerkorn 20:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What's happening?

Okay I don't know if this is just my computer, but the article is shown to not exist. It has a history, when you go to create it all the real stuff is there, it has not been deleted... everything is there and correct except it does not show up as a page and just shows the standard page for any non-existing article with the option of creating it, etc.. What the heck is going on here? Croat Canuck 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just clicked save page and it was back to normal, although my edit on that does not show up on the edit history. Quite a strange occurence. Croat Canuck 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Salaries

I thought that I would put the salaries of the players up (from the NHLPA website) because I know that alot of fans are intrested in the information. But it would be good to also have the years on their contracts since that is normally really hard to find. --Champben2002 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure if it's particularly useful or accurate because many teams have a policy about not releasing salary figures to the public. (The Canucks have such a policy in place.) It is basically whatever number they choose to release to the public, so I always question salary figures. However, the "years left on the contracts" idea might be useful. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So you believe the NHLPA website to be a bad source?--Champben2002 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say that the lockout negotiations were illustrative. Those player agents are all businessmen, and it should be pretty verifiable with a high degree of accuracy how much money the teams are or are not making. Yet both sides disagreed hugely on the particulars. Without seeing photocopies of the contracts, I wouldn't slavishly believe any reported salary. RGTraynor 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with RGTraynor, salaries are hard to pin down to an exact number. Another point to is are bonuses included in those? Signing bonuses? Other wages that are not verifiable or want to be verified (like in Brian McGratton's contract where the Sens pay him $150,000 to take out Sundin's knees with a pipe, and as he makes his getaway Sundin screams, "Why? Why?", anyways getting a lil off topic). The point is that salaries don't really belong in an encyclopedia because it is like, to steal from The Sound of Music, taking a cloud and pinning it down... Tsk, tsk, what ever happened to the age where personal earnings was private information? I'm not even old and I already have nostalgia overload. Croat Canuck 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't we add a picture of the season's team photo? It would be a good start since we haven't got any picture of a playing in action, or just any player at all paat 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's almost certainly copyrighted. RGTraynor 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So we couldn't use one of the copyriughts from the list?paat 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Very disturbing item

Messy Thinking The entire Senators article was replaced with this:

• Bold textOTTAWA FUCKING SUCKS, YOU HOMPSBold text

I. Kid. You. NOT!!!!!!

This kind of vandalism is, unfortunately, commonplace. Happily there are many editors who work hard on reverting it. RGTraynor 19:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its a relevant point. Sens do effing suck. Look, they just became the first team in the history of the NHL to be eliminated from the Stanley Cup playoffs by a shorthanded goal in overtime. Nice work guys CJ DUB 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of teams that would like to suck so badly as to have averaged over 46 wins and 100 pts over the last seven seasons, with four division titles yet. How many teams have bettered the Sens' record over that time? RGTraynor 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh...Detroit Redwings is one example...how about the teams that have won the Stanley Cup or have made it the final round. Regular season stats don't count in the playoffs. For example right now the Oilers...last seed in the West...are looking pretty good!Djjtox 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting note

I was just doing some digging, and I found out that perhaps Jacques Martin is the problem against the leafs, and not the Sens themselves. Martin is actually 0-5 in career playoff series appearances vs. the Leafs, as he also lost to them in the 1987 playoffs as head coach of the Blues. I just thought that was quite interesting, so perhaps Ottawa's playoff troubles against the Leafs are finished, and maybe the Panthers have now inherited them. Like I said, I found this quite interesting and just wanted to point it out. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Team Ultimate Fan and Rival Section

Over the history of a team there are always fans and rivals of the team. Each tries to better eachother. Ultimate fans dress up on game day to show thier support for the team while ultimate rivals produce creative songs, cartoons, and slogans to promote competition between fans. The rivalries between Toronto and Ottawa fans (Battle of Ontariio) and Calgary and Edmonton Fans (Battle of Alberta) have generated many such items. This rich history of one-ups-manship should be captured in order to ensure continued creativity and to document what has already been done. I propose, when adding a ultimate fan picture or rival created song, cartoon, or slogan, the actually year of the season at which time it was generated should also be presented in order to properly document the time period. Also, links to external pages indicating ultimate fan and rival can be reference such as Ultimate Fan or Ultimate Rival. This is all part of the rich team history! Djjtox 20:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There are thousands of forums on the Internet, they might like this idea. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, it would not be appropriate per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum or a blog. To quote: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not." RGTraynor 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving This Page Before Next Season

grrr I hit enter on the subject line...

I propose we archive most of these conversations to Talk:Ottawa_Senators/Archive_2005 for any conversations not current or involving the previous season. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 15:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. -Joshuapaquin 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. RGTraynor 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)