Talk:Ottawa Senators

Split Proposal

I propose that the section of the Team History from 1989 - 2004 be split into a smaller article. The section in the main article would be reduced in size quite a bit. The main article is already at 80K. Alaney2k (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would support this move as long as it is called History of the Ottawa Senators (1992-). That way it is clear what team it is and you can expand on it into the future and the name doesn't hamper it by having an end date which you would need to switch every year. Yes I know the history actually begins before 1992, but the start of play was 1992 so thats the date you should use. -Djsasso (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of what the title would be. Are you suggesting all of the team history go there, not just the segment that I've suggested? The text that I put into the 'proto' article is about 30k, so I thought that was a good size according to the guidelines for article size. So putting all of the history would put it up close to 50k by itself. Arsenal F.C. has multiple history articles. Of course it is much older. The Leafs should probably have multiples. Alaney2k (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally I would put it all there with a short synopsis in the main article. I don't see a need to have multiple history articles till the pages are over 100k myself. But I forget what the article size guidelines say. Either way I am totally ok with the split. This was more just a naming issue for me so you can consider me a Support. -Djsasso (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. The majority of the history would go in the new (or renamed existing) article, with a small synopsis in the main team article. Manchester United has six separate articles on it's history and each history section has it's own brief description of that period of its history in the main article. Patken4 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For a team that has never won a stanley cup, the length of this article is indeed ridiculous. perhaps rather than split it up some editing could be made to make it smaller and more condense? Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nah, it's not ridiculous when you compare with the longest articles on Wiki. I think what is going to occur is that the other NHL teams will all eventually need these 'History of' articles. And some will need multiples. I've already worked on removing irrelevant and minor points into the season articles. Alaney2k (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the summary for the main article at User:Alaney2k/sandbox/History of Ottawa Senators (summarized) Alaney2k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the more trivial aspects of team history can go into the team season articles, imo. I would tend to agree that the level of detail for the main Senators article is ridiculous, but at the same time, that is no reason not to have a History of article in its place, so why not, eh? Just make sure you remember to update the fair use rationales for the logos and team yearbook images now that you have them in the History of article. Resolute 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking about trivial, the history doesn't even include the Paul Anka episode. Still, it was interesting while it was going on. Just an indication of the level of desperation that went on to raise money. I often wonder how the NHL organization approved Firestone. Alaney2k (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When i attended Ottawa U bruce firestone gave a seminar in management and said `how he was approved`. He mentioned that during the day before the expansion teams were going to be announced he (and every other city in the running) were told that they were never going to get a team. Firestone actually was quite persistant in his behaviour with the governors( I think it was them????) and said he made sure before the final decison was made that he and his smiling face were the last group they saw. You could probably send him a email directly at Uottawa since he teaches classes there now if you wanted more accurate information....but it was persistance according to him..entrprenuship...I really just went for the free coffee and cookies. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA on Hold

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Well Done.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Some of the name's of the section should be considered renaming, for example, for the seasons, it might be better to place a main section titled Seasons, and subsections with the seasons, as it's current format is messy. Now the headings look better.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are many areas in the article that are unsourced, which is required in this article for verification of some of those claims. *Most of the lead of the article is unsourced. *Paragraph 2 of New GM and Coach is unsourced. *The final sentence of the first paragraph is unsourced (in the same section as the New GM). *The final paragraph of the End of the Jacques Martin Era is unsourced. *In the Afterthelockout section, the last sentence is unsourced (in the final paragraph). *The first two paragraphs in the 06-07 season are unsourced. * The final two paragraphs of the same section are also unsourced (under the First Stanley cup in 80 years section). *The last sentence third paragraph of the 07-08 season is unsourced. *The final sentence in the Sens Mile section needs sourcing. *The first and last paragraph of the Broadcastin section needs sourcing. *The retired numbers need verification. *As well as do the First Round Picks. *The team records need verification as well as the the team scoring leaders. They are no sourced, good, but The final sentence of the Sensplex needs verifiability. Now the article is factual and verifiable.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I will not fail the article, however, the sourcing needs major attention. Please notify when problems are fixed.TrUCo-X 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

After responding to my queries, the article is in much better shape of a Good Article:Pass.TrUCo-X 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa's Pizza Line

Really..because there is a source? Where is the source? Can you verify that the source is valid? Can you click the link to get the context of the source? When is a source not a source? If I cite an article, recent, that mentions the Sabre's famous French Connection line, can I then put a line in that article that refers to the line as current...simply because the source is current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrashh (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want it more than one way. First it's that you don't care for the author of the article, now it's that you claim the article is unverifiable. May I ask what your intent is, come to that? Do you deny that the CASH Line existed? That's all the source verifies, although if you really want to see an online-verifiable one that badly, why not this one from the Globe and Mail, only a week old [1] ? Now that being said, I refer you to WP:V and WP:RS, which quite explicitly states that newspapers are valid sources, and that sources are not required to be online to be verifiable. THN is held in many public libraries, and you're more than welcome to look up the citation and challenge it if it is in fact misrepresented. (Just FYI, I'm also posting this to the Sens talk page).  RGTraynor  19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. We've already gone through GA on this article. Alaney2k (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Too long

Opinions? Alaney2k (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article in general is not to long as the MOS says there should be between 30k-50k of readable prose on a page to be at prime length. This article has waaaaay less than that. The article size is 60k but a large chunk of that is table code and references which don't count as part of the 30-50k. That being said I think there is probably alot of details in the history section like the cup run that have alot of fluff in them that should probably only be in the history page or the season pages. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are also chunks that more properly belong in already-extant articles; for instance, who doesn't have "arena entertainment" or a dedicated practice facility now? The paragraph on Frank Finnigan can (and should, really) be in his own article. And so on.  RGTraynor  16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

These are good points. I didn't want to take as much out of the 07-08 season as the tagger wanted. I've chopped it a bit further. The main point was that the Cup run was a big deal back then and important to the current situation/team. I am not sure what you are suggesting about the Arena entertainment or Sensplex section. The Arena entertainment section mentions the mascot (which was a section by itself before) and the activities. The Sensplex holds the big tournament, should it have its own article? Finnigan is mentioned twice in the article -- in Bring Back and the Retired Numbers. The policy, if I recall correctly was that the Retired Numbers was prose. Finnigan was a big part of the expansion campaign, but that mention could be chopped. Alaney2k (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically the history section should just be a very brief summary of what is contained in the actual history article. So one or two paragraphs for each of the time frames in the history at the very most, so whichever information gives the best overview. As far as the sensplex, most arena's have their own pages these days. So that information might be better suited on the page for the sensplex. With a link either in the see also to the sensplex or better yet just adding the sensplex to the senators category. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have split off the Sensplex article. What I think has lead to the tagging is that I just edited the original article. The history needs to be rewritten to the summary style. I just condensed what was there, but it needs to be a different style, which will be more 'suitable' to a shorter length. I will do that. I have to set aside a few hours to do that. Alaney2k (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, ^^^^you are agreeing it is too long^^^^. Yes, the sections are weighty, anecdotal and highly trivial. Please put the tag back up that you took down CJ DUB (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is too long, but I do agree to rewrite it to a more summarized style. I disagree about the 06-07 season within this article. As it is the most notable part of the team's history to date, I think it can be longer than the 92-96 section. What others have said is that there is unnecessary information in this article. That likely applies to all 'non-idealized' articles. I did not take off the tag. Maybe you need to defend your opinion? Alaney2k (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I took off the tag as it is not appropriate for this article. It is well within the 30-50k readable prose guideline. So that tag is not appropriate. If you think the information in the article is not as well edited as you would like you are welcome to edit it. That being said you also are open to have those edits undone if others disagree with you. Alaney2k makes a great point that the 06-07 year was the most important year in the teams history and does deserve the same attention if not more attention that the inaugurial season. What is your reasons for thinking it doesn't? -Djsasso (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is not in summary style so the tag I put originally is correct. Please don't take down tags before there is discussion, espcially if the tag has clearly been put there in accordance with wiki guidelines on structure. I put up some new tags which alsp appply as per WP in the mean time, since you guys didn't agree with the first ones. CJ DUB (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually any editor can take down tags when they don't feel they are appropriate at any time. The shorten tag is still not appropriate for this article as it is actually one of the shorter sports team articles and is well within the size limits. If you don't like how the summaries are done then fix them, don't just throw on tags in an attempt be uncivil. -Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it completely makes sense to take down a tag that was put there even though the page very clearly violates wiki policy, regarding writing in summary style (Wikipedia:Summary style) CJ DUB (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No you keep adding {{tl:Shorten}} which has nothing to do with summary style. {{tl:Duplication}} has to do with summary style and I have no problem with that being added to the apropriate sections. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we agreed that the way forward is to summarize the History section? My approach would be to rewrite the content. But that means I may need to get different cites, no? Ones that agree with the summation? Before, for the split, I condensed the sections, which meant keeping most of the original cites. Alaney2k (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have to adjust the cites a bit, but as long as the cites you keep in the article cover the facts that are in the summary you are good. -Djsasso (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray Emery

I see at Ray Emery, he's decribed as a former Ottawa Senator. Seeing as Emery is on waivers (but hasn't been picked up -yet-); should he be removed from the Senators roster? PS- I've forgotten how we handle waiver situations. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Emery remains a Senator until claimed or bought out. I'd argue that his article is wrong at this time. Resolute 21:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He's been bought out, so I'll remove him. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not on the senators.nhl.com roster page, so the Sens don't think of him as 'on the roster'. Alaney2k (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cups in infobox

While I agree that it's a pain in the neck to keep reverting the fans who insist that the original Senators' Cups pertain to the current franchise, mentioning this in the infobox isn't any more legit than mentioning the Vancouver Millionaires' Cup in the Canucks' infobox. Perhaps we should start with putting this in hidden text visible only when trying to edit it.  RGTraynor  16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Doing that will help us to figure out if it is good-faith or not. Does it seem wrong to mention that it was the previous club that won the titles? People must notice on the NHL site or elsewhere that the list of Cups does not differentiate between the clubs. Alaney2k (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one appointed me NHL.com's webmaster, so my opinion on how they should be doing it is irrelevant. Here, we know they're two separate teams, and we need take no unusual steps to inform people that some other team by that name won a bunch of Cups. We just need to deter people who want to try to change the current team's article to claim that the franchise has won Cups, and something along the lines of <!-- *** DO NOT EDIT THIS SECTION. *** THE 1893-1935 SENATORS IS A DIFFERENT FRANCHISE, AND THE CURRENT SENATORS LAY NO CLAIM TO THEIR CUP CHAMPIONSHIPS --> in the infobox should suffice.  RGTraynor  17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

About the notice: It should say 1883. 1893 was the start of the Stanley Cup. And it should say different club, not franchise. Both clubs are operators of the Ottawa franchise in the NHL. But more than that, the first club predated the NHL and the Stanley Cup. I'll put it in, with corrections. Alaney2k (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently corrected this section and promptly had my edit reverted. Most people do not understand that the current Ottawa NHL franchise is a continuation of past NHL franchise, Stanley Cup titles and all. I find it frustrating that everybody believes different because the current Ottawa franchise paid expansion fees to re-enter the league. After reading the "original" Ottawa Senators article and this Ottawa Senators article, they conflict each other in the fact that the St. Louis Eagles were sold to the NHL and mothballed for a more opportune time to return to Ottawa. After 58 years of the depression, WWII, etc it finally came in 1992. Can we not finally put this argument to rest and merge the two articles like they rightfully should be? Friarcanuck (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The two eras deserve two different articles, regardless of the franchise debate. We keep separate articles for the Colorado Rockies and New Jersey Devils. The NHL Record Book and Guide gives 1991 as the founding date of the Ottawa Senators, so, although you can make an argument that the current club is a revival of the franchise, it is not a continuation. While there are links between the clubs: name, Gorman, Finnegan, logo, colours, etc., 'bring back the senators' and on and on, the NHL wants the two separate and that's the way it must be here. If they were separated by a few years, even a decade, then one article would suffice. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Friarcanuck: Your edits reflect your opinion, which is wrong. Can you find a single reliable source to back your claim? The franchise relocated from Ottawa in 1934 before folding permanently. The current team was an expansion team. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. 1934 to 1991 can't exactly be viewed as any kind of temporary hiatus. Your so-called "correction" should have been discussed here first, although I can't see you ever gaining a consensus on this one. Freshfighter9^talk 03:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

alaney2k:I understand the reasoning behind keeping separate articles for different cities of a franchise, but nothing is mentioned of previous stops in the main article.

Freshfighter9:At this time I do not have my sources as they are packed in storage. You have asked for sources of my claim, but you haven't provided sources of your claim. At this point, you have nothing to backup your statement of my edit being "wrong". I may have went ahead and changed the article, but came back to DISCUSS why the changes were reverted. As far as I knew, this was a user edited/submitted site. Not one where you have ownership of every article regarding the NHL and Ottawa Senators. I've seen your posts on other discussion pages and I'm not sure you understand what a discussion is. Most times you come off like an asshat, like you have here. Friarcanuck (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Friarcanuck: Tread carefully, my friend. There is a policy against name calling and personal attacks here. I have no idea what an "asshat" might be, but I don't appreciate being called one. I suggest you let this one go and move on. Freshfighter9^talk 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we are talking the 1992- Senators in this article, the club of this era cannot claim the 11 won in the 1903-1927 period. The honours belong with that group. I would be interested in any sources you have. I have not seen anything other than a certificate of reinstatement given to the current Sens at their first game in the Civic Centre. But you have to look at that in comparison with all of the NHL stats and articles that keep the two eras separate. I don't believe there is anything that states the current Sens are a continuation of the original. Like I said, I think they are a revival. The difference being that they are connected, they honour the originals, but they are not simply a resumption. The Sens were continued after 1934 as a senior hockey team, the Eagles were owned by a new business organization of the Ottawa Auditorium, the "St. Louis Hockey Association" and the NHL franchise and players were transferred from the "Ottawa Hockey Association". SLHA survived a season and died. Their share of the NHL and the players were bought back by the NHL. The Auditorium people were considering a return to Ottawa, but the NHL disallowed the return in 1935. Anyway, if there is wording in this article that you'd like rewritten, then I'm open to it, but I think the 11 Cups has to stay with the original Sens and that article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The modern Senators are no more a continuation of the original Senators than the Colorado Avalanche are a continuation of the Colorado Rockies. They are different franchises sharing a single name. Resolute 14:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• This "issue" was discussed exhaustively five years ago, and I might as well quote myself from then:

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 read 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.

That Friarcanuck finds it frustrating that consensus is unanimously against him I recognize, but perhaps his next act should be to head over to the Vancouver Canucks article and argue that in a franchise with complete continuity with its WHL precedessor, ownership included, minor league star Phil Maloney is really the franchise's career scoring leader with 923 points. Good luck with that.  RGTraynor  16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this discussion until my sources can be guaranteed. No progress has been made by this discussion anyway. --Friarcanuck (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Abitrary break

• Sure there's been; we've reiterated the consensus supporting the obvious fact, attested to by the league and the team, that these are two separate franchises. I'd call that progress, using the mooted definition that "progress" = "me getting my way."  RGTraynor  10:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If the senators wanted nothing to do with the original senators they wouldn't have retired Frank Finnigan's number. Easy fix. Put Stanley Cups 0, (*11) linking to the original sens page. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Easier fix: accept the fact that the original Senators are not the current Senators. Should we also mention the championships won by the senior amateur team too? Resolute 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if your views have anything to do with being accurate or is it personal feelings ? It's really easy. The OTTAWA SENATORS have won 11 cups. They have the original logo on their jersey sleeve, Cup banners at their rink, and have a retired number of an original player. Just because there was a 65 year gap between play, and they were awarded a different franchise doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Personal feelings aside, it's pretty childish to not mention 11 stanley cups of two teams of the same city of the exact same name, that recognize eachother. There is absolutely NO downside in CLEARLY pointing out that the "current" franchise team has 0 and a link (11) to the original Sens. In fact it would ADD to the article, not take away from it. If the current Sens didn't recognize those Cups they would not have 11 banners at Scotiabank Place. Period. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. The current team hangs the Cup banners and wears the old logo as a way of acknowledging the past, but in fairness it is a different franchise. I've heard it said that the current Senators have as much in common with the team that won those Cups as the St. Louis Blues do. Tough call, but I'll back Resolute's position. Freshfighter9^talk 23:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What Calgary Flames fan, uh I mean Resolute (joke) doesn't seem to understand is that although they are different franchises the two franchises are connected. How could they be the same franchise with a 65 year absence ? Near impossible. The main fact that can't be overlooked is the 11 banners at Scotiabank Place. If the two franchises weren't connected there wouldn't be banners. Period. If the Senators franchise is advertising 11 cups, then 11 cups should be linked in the article. If it was written as Stanley Cups 0, (11) linking to the original sens page I think it would satisfy both sides of the debate. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You just said it all: they are two different franchises. Let's count the Cups won only by the franchise in question. Freshfighter9^talk 00:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly you just summed up the reason why we keep them separate. And why in the history section we link to the page of the other franchise, where you will find information on that franchise. I would note, that this isn't the first time this has come up and it always overwhelmingly comes down on the side of keep them separate. A nod to the past is completely different from being the same thing, which is what you would be implying by listing them here. You will also note, that the Senators don't claim those Stanley Cup wins, they list themselves as having no cup wins in their media guide. Those banners are just decoration and a nod to the past, but are in no way indicate this team has won them. The Senators have gone out of their way on a number of occasions to indicate that the two teams are not the same and that the only thing that connects them is that they have the same name. -DJSasso (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

False, calling 11 Championship banners "decorations" is ridiculous. Saying that the Senators celebrate their history with banners, retired numbers, and logo's but not cups is also ridiculous. No one is saying the number should be changed to 11. But 11 should mentioned and linked to show the clubs history. Not stating that the "Ottawa Senators" have won cups is poor editing. Again something along the lines of Stanley Cups 0, (11) linking to the original sens page I think it would satisfy both sides of the debate. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The practice on Wikipedia is not to reflect both sides of a debate. It's to report fact, as governed by consensus. We don't award the Wanderers', the Victorias' or the Maroons' Cups to the Canadiens just because they're from Montreal too, and we don't award the Blueshirts title to the Maple Leads just because they're from Toronto too, and we don't award the Millionaires' Cup to the Canucks just because they're from Vancouver too. For people who want to learn about the history of the original franchise, there's an article allowing them to pull it up. (Why, come to that, I created it for just that purpose.) It's even linked from this one for convenience's sake. How current Senators' management chooses to honor the city's hockey legacy is its business, but this is the Ottawa Senators' article, not a history of Ottawa hockey fan site.  RGTraynor  01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wanderers', the Victorias' the Maroons, the Millionaires', or the Blueshirts are different teams. If they were named the Canadiens, Maple Leafs, or Canucks and came back into existence years later it would be beneficial to mention the cups won during the early years. Anything else is/would be more personal point of view and not creating an a quality, informing article. Picking and choosing what history gets brought over to the current team and what doesn't is very POV and very unprofessional. "How current Senators' management chooses to honor the city's hockey legacy is its business" and ours. If they celebrate their titles, we should as well. 0 (11) link. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. The Maple Leafs total does include Cups won when they were the Toronto Arenas and Toronto St. Patricks. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Maple Leafs total does include Cups won when they were the Toronto Arenas and Toronto St. Patricks" But was that not the same franchise, just with name changes? If so it's apples and oranges and a bad example. Freshfighter9^talk 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware. The Cup total gets changed regularly to 11 by numerous editors. The current team honours the cups. So obviously people want the past cups honored. There is absolutely no harm in my solution. It would still show 0 and link 11 to the older senators team. I think this has more to do with personal feelings than anything else by not including it. More of a "pissing contest" if you will. Stanley Cups 0, (11) is a perfect solution. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to honour anything. In fact there is a policy saying that. We are here simply to report fact. The fact is that this team has won zero cups. If someone wants to see how many cups the original team won, there is a page for that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that a few editors seem to be writing POV policies and determining whether a team from the exact same city, with the exact same name are related or not. I'm sure if the Toronto Maple Leafs folded tomorrow and a new franchise of the exact same name was revived a year or two from now they would honor their 12 cups. Talk like "If they were separated by a few years, even a decade, then one article would suffice" is very questionable and unacceptable. We are not here to pick and choose which stats and facts get carried over to the newer senators, or to make ridiculous self made policies. We are here to report facts. The fact is the current team honors the cups, they honor the logo, and they honor the players. They are related teams. We should report this. Stanley Cups 0, (11) UrbanNerd (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No the NHL and the Ottawa Senators have made those choices for us, neither recognizes the old cups or statistics/records for the old team. Thus our infobox does not either. If we were to include them then we would be acting POV because neither the Senators or the NHL recognize those cups as belonging to this team. As for mentioning that the teams are linked, we do that in the history section with a link to the team who the cups belong to. As for your example, yes we would have seperate articles and keep the cups seperate if the Leafs were to do that, we do the same thing for every single sports team on wikipedia. Seperate teams are listed seperately. Even in cases where new teams have come along with the same name. The Houston Aeros for example won the Avco Cup in the WHA and the new AHL minor league team of the same name has the banners up and the retired numbers up, but you wouldn't dream of stating that the new Aeros were the ones who won the Avco Cup. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

UrbanNerd, it is pretty obvious that you are the one with the "personal feelings" on this issue, and I think you would be wise to stop throwing accusations of intentions out at other editors. To your comment "Just because there was a 65 year gap between play, and they were awarded a different franchise doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned", I have to ask: Have you even read the article? The historical Senators and their championships are clearly stated in both the lead and the background sections of this article. It is quite prominent. And yes, I am quite aware of the fabricated "connection" the current Senators are making. The Edmonton Oilers hung two Memorial Cup banners in Rexall to celebrate the titles won by the original Edmonton Oil Kings franchise in the 60s. They even used the current team's logo instead of the original to try and invent a history that does not exist with the new franchise. However, we are an encyclopedia, not a marketing firm. Our duty is to report the history accurately. The accurate history is that the current Senators franchise began in 1992 and has no Stanley Cup championships. The infobox reflects the championship history of the franchise accurately. The article body already provides the historical link to the original team in context. Resolute 15:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be very careful how you speak to me Resolute. You are treading very closely to personal attacks. I have obviously read the article, have you ? So let me get this right, let me see it from your pov. Tell me if I'm correct. It is perfectly ok to mention the 11 cups won by the senators in both the lead and the background sections of this article, but completely inappropriate to list them in the infobox ? Am I correct in my assumption ? Ok lead, Ok background. Not Ok infobox.

PS. The examples you both gave are terrible. Houston Aeros were in different leagues and have no connection except name. The Oil Kings were also in different leagues and have no connection to each other except perhaps they both have the name Oil in their names. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

UrbanNerd: Consensus is not going your way. Just accept that and pick another battle. Freshfighter9^talk 15:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Nothing he said even remotely borders on personal attacks. You might want to tone down your language. Secondly, the infobox is for records of this exact team. When you write it in prose you can put it in its proper context, were you to put it in the infobox it would be out of context. As for the Oil Kings. They were in the same league (albeit there was a league name change). The Oil Kings are the junior team the Oilers own who played in the WHL in the 1960's and then the Oilers named their new junior team which started a couple of years ago as the Oil Kings which again play in the WHL. The Senators only have name in common as well. And league, but the league is irrelevant anyways since they are clearly two distinct teams. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion history it seems a handful of editors seem to "gang up" any editor whom wants to accurately display the option of 0, and 11 cups, and always seem to suggest they "give up". I also see they revert the enormous amount of changes on the article by countless editors who change the infobox regularly. Perhaps it is you who should "give up the battle". Wikipedia isn't a place for gang mentality fellas, which it sadly it is becoming. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is called consensus. Exactly how everything on wikipedia is run. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidently I failed to make my Oil Kings example clear - The Oilers own a new WHL team called the Oil Kings. This is the third different WHL team to use this name. For marketing purposes, they hung banners celebrating the first team's two Memorial Cups, using the new team's logo. This is simple marketing, not a real link between franchises. The Senators situation is the same. It's great that the Senators honour the history, but that does not mean we report the historical team's championships outside of that historical context. The infobox is not able to convey that context. The infobox reports important information about the article subject at a glance. The subject is the current team. It is in the article body that we can discuss the history of hockey in Ottawa and why the new team honours the original by using the same name. Resolute 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous comparison. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also very odd how the handful of editors seem to advertise their allegiance to other teams. A bit insecure fellas ? UrbanNerd (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we a members of the hockey project, it doesn't matter what what team this is I and I am sure everyone else would also hold any team to the same standard. I would flip the situation towards you however, the only people who ever want to try and inflate this teams wins are fans of this team, which clearly you are. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am not. I am simply a non-biased editor trying to put up a simple link (Stanley Cups 0, (11)) which any non-biased editor could see as a beneficial addition. It is the handful of editors which can't seem to look past their allegiances and biased views that have the problem with it. I wonder how many times in the past 5 years the cup total has been edited and reverted. 20 ? 50 ? 100 ? It's obvious the teams are connected and many, many people see the relevance. If the Canadiens folded and returned I would expect, and be in favor of the 24 cups being honored in the infobox. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually its pretty rare that someone adds it. Most people probably see that we link to the original team and they go there to see that information. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What you call insecurity, I call historical accuracy. As a historian, I prefer that we be as accurate as possible. No matter how you try to sugar coat it, you are trying to claim the original team's championships on this article. That said, I encourage you to file a request for comment if you would like further input. Resolute 16:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as has been discussed before, is that there is no definitive linkage between the original and modern Senators. The time period is just too far apart. The NHL keeps the stats apart, and so do the current Sens. While the first ownership really played up the linkage, as much as it is, with the NHL also doing so, at the time. It's not the case now. I would consider the current Sens to be a 'revival' of the franchise, but that's not the same as restarting a suspended franchise. The original franchise was transferred to St. Louis, then transferred back to the league. I don't like the 0 (11*) as it is kind of meaningless upon reading, even if I were to agree with the reasoning. I don't mind a note, or multiple line of text to list that the predecessor Sens won 11, but not if it makes it look like the 1992 organization won 11. That's not fair to the original organization's history. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in 100% agreement. It would actually hurt the articles integrity if were suggested the 11 cups were won by the current team. However being a revival of the former team it does merits mentioning. It makes no sense to mention it in the lead, and background, but not in the infobox. Although I feel it would illustrate best, I am not "sold" on the "Stanley Cups 0, (11)" wording. Perhaps "Stanley Cups 0, (Original Senators 11") or "Stanley Cups 0, (11-Original Senators") or some variation along those lines, with a link to the Original Sens article. A reader shouldn't have to search around to find out the 11 cups were won by the earlier team. It would be beneficial to the article to have a quick reference in the infobox. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By putting an out of context number in the infobox, you are suggesting those 11 cups were won by the current team. And a reader should not be met with the confusion of wondering why this team is claiming 11 championships from another. The infobox does not care about other teams, it cares about the modern Ottawa Senators, who have no titles and claim none. Your solution is as ridiculous as throwing a (1) on the Vancouver Canucks infobox to point out that a historical team representing the same city won a Stanley Cup prior to the current team's existence. Resolute 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you may need a lesson not only in manners but in history. The two teams do have ties to each other and do share a history . You can halt all these ridiculous comparisons like comparing the current Atlanta Thrashers with a minor league beer league team of the same name, they are irrelevant. Some list them differently some don’t. There is absolutely no reason in keeping a quick link out of the infobox. Not everyone (outside of the hockey project) would even know the two teams are different. Therefor a quick link would better the article. The current Sens have banners, retired numbers, memorabilia, and logos of the earlier team. Just because they recently don’t celebrate their long history “as much” as when they first re-entered the league doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be mentioned. And please no more comparisons to the Oil Kings, or Houston Aero’s, they are ridiculous. The naysayers that are 100% against any mention seem to be stubborn for no reason but for their own pov’s. I think since this a WIDELY disputed subject a solution as shown above would be beneficial. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You do realize, that people outside the hockey project not knowing that they were two seperate teams is even more reason not to do it right? To help stop the false impression that they are the same team. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's why clearly stating and/or linking to the earlier senators would be beneficial. -Scenario- Joe Schmo is looking up the history of the NHL. Oh the Senators have won 11 cups, comes to the Sens wikipedia article and it shows zero. "That doesn't make much sense !" -or- Joe Schmo comes to the Sens wikipedia article and it shows "Stanley Cups 0, (Senators 1883-1934 (11)) or something to that matter, and links him to the early sens article. "Oh the earlier senators won those 11, thanks wikipedia !" Joe Scmo goes home happy and informed. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a very good reason not adding it to the infobox, because it's not correct, they are different franchises. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they are a revival of a former franchise. Big difference. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No they are not, the current Senators are a different franchise which honour the hockey history of their town, but in no way are they the same franchises. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

According to you. They teamed up with reps from the former team to create the new team. They are different franchises with ties to each other. This could go back and forth all day. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This will only go back and forth as long as you keep it going. Freshfighter9^talk 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think I'm tired of wasting my time here. Consensus remains obvious. Resolute 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe User:Friarcanuck was correct in his "asshat" reference. Trying to have a discussion with the a group of hockey project members who gang up to push their view is useless. But I guess that is the problem with gang consensus. Recruit your friends. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice YouTube video. Consider this a warning for violating Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. You've made a habit of attempting to personalize the debate, and if it continues I will seek an uninvolved administrator to look into things. Resolute 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way (though I am admittedly a Sens fan), but would a possible compromise be a footnote next to the "0" in the infobox, with the note stating something like "though the original Ottawa Senators won 11 Stanley Cups between yyyy and yyyy, the two franchises are considered by the NHL to be entirely unique" or "Stanley Cups won by the original Ottawa Senators are not included in the modern incarnation's total"? -M.Nelson (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's worth mentioning in the infobox. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The very prominent mention in the lead isn't enough? Resolute 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Though a footnote that points out the obvious: that the current team is not the historical team might resolve this silly disagreement. I would not favour anything that includes the championships won by a different team directly in the infobox. Resolute 23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I simply see no harm in adding a footnote explaining the discrepancy. Though there is harm in explicitly mentioning the original Cups in the infobox (the infobox is for this team only), a footnote would clarify to the readers who think "hey, why aren't the 11 cups up here?" while still keeping a clear distinction between the two teams. The value added would be in this clarification; if you think that the lead is enough, then I won't argue with you. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm willing to concede on that point. Resolute 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I Support M.Nelson's proposal to add a footnote in the infobox. Readers expecting to see 11 would be directed to the original franchise article via a footnote link outside the infobox.

points of view i guess

Ive read a few of the updates and they seem to make the team sound a bit better than they actually are. For instance they made the playoffs in 11 of their last 12 seasons but they are one of the most successful teams. I agree that theyve made the playoffs 11 straight seasons but theyve missed the playoffs this year and since the trip to the finals have been struggling since. theres a few other small things as well like this; but anyway I think when the season is done maybe we could reconstruct at least the first section to downplay them as one of the more succesful teams without siding it the other way? I dont know for sure i just know the way its written now just doesnt read right and is kinda misleading. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki articles have to avoid what is called Recentism, which is giving more weight to recent events such as the team missing te playoffs this year. So over a longer stretch the last 12 years for example they made the playoffs 11 times and were arguably one of the most successful teams during that period. -Djsasso (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In the lead, the main point was the contrast, how poor they were in the first four years compared to the eleven years afterwards. They also are one of the top teams in terms of attendance, and in the upper half of the league in value, also improved from their first years. I'm sure we'll find some suitable wording changes, but they could be back in the playoffs next year, so we don't to go overboard the other way and say they are now a disaster either based on one playoff miss. Alaney2k (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see how if they were to make the playoffs next year it would make sense to say that they made the playoffs 12 of their last 13 seasons. And i certaintly see the potential that it can come accross the other way to say that the wheels have come off when theres no hard facts that they have. I just find the sentance at this time to be a bit misleading in the intro paragraph about the teams success, But i guess, who knows what will happen in the off season anyway ;) ? Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rem fancruft from header

Change this:

On the ice, the club finished last in the league for its first four seasons.[4] Since then, the club has been among the most successful teams in the league, both in the standings, qualifying for the Stanley Cup playoffs in 11 of the past 12 seasons, and in attendance.[5] The club won the Presidents' Trophy in 2003, and the Prince of Wales Trophy in 2007. To this:

On the ice, the club finished last in the league for its first four seasons.[4] Since then, the club has qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs in 11 of the past 12 seasons.[5] The club won the Presidents' Trophy in 2003, and the Prince of Wales Trophy in 2007.

Justification: Perhaps a little less fancruft would be useful...I think its a stretch to call them one of the most successful considering TB and ANA have a cup and OTT has won precisely sweet fanny addams. All the other teams that have actually won something since 1992 might have somehting to say about this claim CJ DUB (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it is quite accurate the way it is. Look at the standings and attendance figures from this period to verify it for yourself. Stanley Cup wins alone do not define success. Previous attempts at changing this seem to have an anti-Senators bias, and I don't buy the "fancruft" assertion. Leave it alone, I say. --Freshfighter9 (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"In my opinion it is accurate". Well put, but that practice has no place in wiki. The text as it is uncitable fancruft, based on the synthesis of statistics on the team, also not allowed in wiki. Please find me a legit link that calls the Ottawa Senators as one of the most successful teams, in the NHL. And no, not the Ottawa sports media either. CJ DUB (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets wait for someone else's opinion. And no: not guys called "Ottawa4ever". CJ DUB (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet but I am more than sure that its been called one of the most recently successful franchises in the media. I know I have heard it a number of times myself on TV broadcasts. (yes I know me saying I heard it isn't good enough.) BTW Ottawa sports media would still be a valid source. And a compilation of the team record showing it has won more games than all the others would work as well. (Though I am not sure they did.) -DJSasso (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that simply asserting that they have been one of the most successful franchises is particularly useful. I think the more "fact based" and less POV version suggested is better. It is perhaps an interesting argument, whether Ottawa is one of the most successful, but probably not suitable for the opening section, since you would need to get into definitions of success, justifying it, etc... Perhaps for Detroit it would be suitable, as it is more or less indisputable, but here I think we need to stick to less inflamatory claims. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite WP:OR in that it's more-or-less verifiable. I would say keep it as it is. Even if it is considered "fancruft" it's relatively accurate. Colipon+(Talk) 09:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to keep it, there should absolutely be some sort of source cited, and definition of success included.Peregrine981 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember that this is the lead. It is to summarize the article. If it is in the article, it can be in the lead without duplicate cites. They have not won the Cup, but they have won the President's Trophy and the Prince of Wales, which are the other team trophies for success in the league. The point was that they went from bottom feeders, a franchise in complete disarray, to one that contended from about 2000 onwards. Alaney2k (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the phrase 'most successful' to 'more successful'. Maybe 'most' implied too much? Alaney2k (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The link supporting the statement links to a Forbes ranking based on revenue. This proves nothing about on ice success or attendance. (Plus it has Ottawa ranked 13th, which is barely more than middle of the pack)... At any rate, I still think it is a bit of a dubious statement to put at the front of the article as if it is a generally accepted fact, especially given some of the spectacular failures and nose-dives during the past 12 years. They've had their successes, certainly and have consistently made the playoffs, but overall I don't think it adds up to much more than a slightly above average team. It smacks too much of boosterism to me.Peregrine981 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

a. 'Among the more successful' is fairly synonymous with 'above average.' b. The suggested text at the start of the section is too terse, and does not mention attendance. c. Maybe the cite can go, if it's not clear how it supports the statement. Alaney2k (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the third paragraph with cites for the statements. Is 'one of the more successful franchises' a satisfactory statement for the paragraph? Alaney2k (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As it stand now in the article, I am happy with it. I personally do not think that adding the "more successful franchises" line is necessary. As they say, if you're the best, you don't need to say so, people will just know. Let the facts speak for themselves without editorial comment. However, I won't stand in the way if we have broad support for inclusion. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said the Ottawa sports media was a legit citation should probably turn in their wikik membership card. What home sports media doesn't call their team the 'most'anything? Like Peregrien says, 13th in value is middle of the pack. They also have the lowest neational draw of any of the 6 CDN teams. The text would be accurate if it were snes fans, and it was their standard of success. As buddy above so puts it. However, its laughable, considering the actual successful sports teams of the world, and again NOT CITABLE!!! CJ DUB (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It is obvious that you are not approaching this from a neutral point of view. The article is about the whole story of the Sens. From unlikely expansion team to solid franchise. It is a positive story, what's wrong with that? Alaney2k (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummmmm...Its edited completely by sens fans. Total conflict of interst there bud. CJ DUB (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. It has been obvious to me from the beginning that CJ DUB is a Sens hater, and thus has a very non-neutral point of view. --Freshfighter9 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's true, CJ DUB also gave me the vibe that he is not editing from a neutral point of view. If you look at the Leafs page, they don't have much about the records at all (perhaps because they are so dismal). At the same time, one could make an argument that the Sens' achievement from a bottom-feeder to a top club is worthy of mention because no other expansion NHL teams can say they have done the same in the 90s (Atlanta and Nashville come to mind). But then again, it is quite convincing to have the truth speak for itself. Colipon+(Talk) 23:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you better put down the Sens Revsionist Hockey History book. Both TBY and ANA have cups, and started out as hilarious bottom feeders. Not sure what this thread has to do with the leafs tho. CJ DUB (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But since you brought them up,

Regular Season - since 92/93

W L T OTL SOL 

TOR 610 495 112 36 25
OTT 559 547 115 34 22

Playoffs - since 92/93

GP W L Series Won 

TOR 132 66 66 10
OTT 103 49 54 8

Whoopsers....how'd that happen. The fact is the sens are not even the most successful Canadian team since their inception. Guess you can't use that now. CJ DUB (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness the statement deals with the period since 1996, not 1992. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, since the 1996-97 season, Ottawa has a total of 1171 points - an average of 98 pts a season. Toronto is the next closest at 1070 pts for 12 season, for an average of 89. So, yeah, over the last 12 seasons, Ottawa is the most successful team in Canada. Ccrashh (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get into a bash CJ DUB or Leafs vs. Sens thread here. I think we can summarize that he (and he alone, i.e. the consensus is the other way) objects to classifying the Sens as among the more successful franchises. I think the rest of us don't agree and we should just agree to disagree. Ad hominem attacks such as classifying us as Sens fans are inappropriate and won't sway anyone. Alaney2k (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Especially since I am a Habs fan and very much not a fan of Ottawa. As for the comment about all local media saying teams are great. This isn't true at all. Having lived in Calgary I can say Calgary media fairly regularly would be negative about their teams as have I also seen in numerous articles in other cities about their teams. The only place I ever see media always being positive about their team is Toronto. Leafs fans should really walk out on their team till they improve. Would force MLSE to make a better product. But you are right,, CJ DUB is clearly in the minority. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What he objected to was a reference to a page on the Senators site as a reference. What the page states amongst other thing was that the Sens placed third in the league in attendance for the 2007-08 season, certainly one of the 'top attendances' in the league. I doubt that the Sens fell much in placings last season, as they went from filling 101% of seating capacity to 99% of capacity, although 08-09 figures aren't available yet to compare. Nevertheless, I consider the team site and the local (print and tv) media to be 'reliable sources' for facts such as these. Not blogs, fan sites, etc. Alaney2k (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I figured he was responding to where I said above that local sports media is reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I'm in the minority or not, because its not an opinion that they are not "among the most successful". The purported claims to the contrary are opinions that are not citable. By the way Ccrashh, your measuring stick is irrelevant. If the objective were to get the most points, we'd have give the cup to Boston already, but they too are a Reg season only team over the last 10-15 years. If you look at the years where the leafs qualifed, their AVG points are OVER 100. Lets have a look at where it counts:

Since 1993
MTL: Has a cup
CGY: Went to game 7
EDM: Went to game 6
VAN: Went to game 6
OTT: Won a single cup final game (ECF 2x).
TOR: Went to game 7 in ECF 3 times, but has better playoff records than the other five.

TV audience (National):
TOR
MTL
VAN
CGY
EDM
OTT (on HNIC the sens only exceed 2M viewers when the leafs aren't playing).

I can find the citations of you guys want, but I wouldn't be calling OTT one of the greatest teams ever, being as they have a president's trophy, a singular cup final appearance (along with 20 other teams), we're bankrupt about 5 years ago, and recently engineered one of the most spectacular collapses of the last 5 years (after MTL). CJ DUB (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are on the record. Alaney2k (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. You guys know its long been established the Ottawa sports media is little more than a tool for the Ottawa Senators, right? I can find you a ref for that if you want. I can't believe anyone on here would think a local sports media ANYWHERE legit and unbiased. CJ DUB (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it just a matter of how to manipulate statistics? If you look at regular season records beginning in 1998 and ending in 2008, I think it's a safe bet that Ottawa has the best cumulative record out of all Canadian teams. Colipon+(Talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that he thinks the only way you can be successful is to win the cup. So there is one successful team each year and 29 unsuccessful ones. What he doesn't seem to understand is there is more than one type of success. The sentence never said Ottawa was one of the greatest teams ever, it said it was one of the most recently successful teams. Which is easily citeable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. You said above success means different things to different people. lol Huh? That's open to POV bigtime. So in sens land their a big success story. At least qualify what type of success they have. The team is not in "most successful" in anybody's category other than the Ottawa sports media you want to cite and in the hearts of fans. PS thought you might like to know I won emailer of the day on Team 1200 re: Ottawa's scoring problem. They basically said my email was wrong cause the sens are awesome. lol clowns. CJ DUB (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link you might find interesting relating to the objectvity of the Ottawa media: http://www.onefansopinion.com/2006/11/ottawa-senators-and-free-speech-like.html. Little more than a tool of the franchise. Quite a few firings, "reassignments" and strongly worded letters for those in the media who don't tow the line or are seen to be too negative in their reporting (Dan Brennan, Buzz Kirkpatrick, Lee Versage). Sorry but the Ottawa media has been nullified as a reference. CJ DUB (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

cjdub.... you certainly appear to have an extremely biased opinion. You are doing a poor job of trying to dress up your anti-Ottawa bias as something else. I'm not sure why you would devote so much of your time to something like this... arguing what constitutes "success". I personally am not in any way affiliated with "Ottawa media" and do not live anywhere remotely close to Ottawa, and I strongly disagree with your assertion that no one outside of Ottawa would consider the Senators "successful". You are very wrong.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We are going to get side-tracked if we get into a discussion about the Ottawa media's bias, and I don't think it is particularly relevant here anyway. I maintain that we should drop the "more successful" label, unless we can find a variety of people who say it, and source it, or qualify it somehow. Either that, or save ourselves a lot of trouble, and just leave it out, sticking to uncontroversial claims, that will not result in endless edit wars. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary "current roster"

I just noticed how some UFAs are included in the "current" roster while others aren't. Shean Donovan is now a UFA and unlikely to be re-signed, and he is included in the list. But Andy Sutton, who is also unlikely to be re-signed, has been deleted. Am I missing something here? As long as the player hasn't yet signed with another team (or announced retirement), they should either ALL be included in the list, or none included, no? (Also, is Zach Smith really a UFA? Unless they didn't qualify him, hard to imagine) 24.79.89.131 (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Its standard to list them all until the first day of the next season or until they sign with another team or announce retirement. However, various random people do come along and remove them from time to time. -DJSasso (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)