Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Ontario

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

Viewpoint

[edit]

Parts of this article appear to be irrelevant and possible biased in opinion. One example would be the discussion of an Ottawa-Pittsburgh playoff series that would not be relevant to the Battle of Ontario. The discussion of the hit, if deemed relevant, should be discussed in context of that specific game and the rivalry. Also, at times, the article reads like a defense of certain players instead of a neutral statement of facts.

65.95.155.238 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ontario → Maple Leafs–Senators rivalry – This article talks mainly about this hockey rivalry and only offers little information about the rivalries between the two cities. So, therefore it should only talk about the Maple Leafs and Senators, nothing else. Also, whether the cities are in alphabetical order means nothing in a rivalry. The Lakers–Rockets rivalry is a perfect example; the Lakers are in Los Angeles, the Rockets are in Houston. Nuggets56 17:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The rivalry between the Maple Leafs and Senators is commonly known as The Battle of Ontario. I very rarely have heard it referred to as anything but that. The name should not be changed. ChakaKongtalk 17:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that used here in the US? If not it should be changed. Nuggets56 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuggets56 (talk • contribs)

Does that matter? There is NOTHING American about this subject, really. It's a Canadian rivalry, thus the term widely used to describe it in Canada should be the tern used as the article's title. Seems to make sense to me, anyway. ChakaKongtalk 17:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you dig a bit you'll find that 63.226.215.252 has already admitted to being Bt8257, and Nuggets56 has virtually identical editing habits and has continued Bt8257's project of moving and renaming sports rivalry articles. It seems that this user is altering various templates under one account. He then uses another account to say "Well, the template says THIS, so therefor I have a justification to move/rename the article". I could be wrong about this but that's what seems to be happening.ChakaKongtalk 14:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just found another one: Special:Contributions/71.217.22.82. An SPI might be a good idea here. ChakaKongtalk 14:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem is if Bt8257 and Nuggets56 are the same person. Since 71.217.22.82 was last used in February, you might expect that 63.226.215.252 is on a rotating IP address account (both addresses are from Qwest, and geolocate to Bremerton, Washington) so if the user forgets to log on, the IP will change every once in a while. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several instances in which articles were edited as either Bt8257 or Nuggets56 and then edited again within literally a couple of minutes as one of the IP addresses. That makes the "forgot to log in" argument seem unlikely. Plus there are instances in which the IPs re-edit Bt8257 and Nuggets56's talk page comments. An SPI has already been submitted at any rate, so we'll see.ChakaKongtalk 23:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that. Yeah, that would be a big problem, pretending to be a different user by logging off. In case anyone following this thread is interested, the SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Bt8257 -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bt8257 -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI is still open but Nuggets56/Bt8257 has indeed been blocked for sockpuppetry.ChakaKongtalk 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Meeting

[edit]

The "Ottawa Senators-Toronto Maple Leafs" table has a "First Meeting" section which indicates that the first game was December 6, 1927. This information about the original Senators frachise is contradictory to the information in the earlier "Regular Season History" section which only counts games with the current Senators franchise. If we want to combine the franchises, the number of games and total records should also be combined. The subsequent "Post Season History" may also then need to be updated. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't only about the current Leafs and Sens franchises. It covers all Ottawa and Toronto rivalries. The article mentions the Toronto Malboroughs, Toronto Argonauts, Ottawa Rough Riders, as well as other teams that need expanded information. While I applaud you eagerness to edit wikipedia, you must follow wikipedias BOLD, revert, discuss cycle rules or you will be blocked from editing. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that the article is about more than just the current NHL teams. But please address the actual issue here. How to resolve the discrepancy that the first meeting doesn't count as a meeting. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue. The article box is about the teams named the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Ottawa Senators. It doesn't matter which decade it was in, who the owners were, if it was post lock-out, etc. Notice how the St.Patricks, Silver Seven, or Arenas are not included in the stats. It's just about the teams named the Lefas and Sens and the long history they have had. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current Senators have met the Leafs 90 times, this does not include any meetings of the original Senators. Not having the first meeting count as a meeting is the main issue and that you failed to address. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using team name as the primary delimiter does not follow our standard practices. By convention when discussing the Leafs, the St. Pats and the Arenas are also included. And to make things even more confusing the Leafs were renamed earlier when ownership was transfered, the league only recognized the name change at the start of the next season. This is becoming a very vague point which is irrelevant to the topic which is why renames are ignored by convention. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and update the figures to show ALL Leafs-Sens games. You seem to be very biased towards showing the Leafs in good light and the Senators in poor light. Judging by your IP address location in Southern Ontario you may/or may not be a Leafs fan. That is of no concern of mine, but may I suggest that personal allegiances stay out of this. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to support 99.246 in their opinion that the two Senators franchises should be differentiated. Also, given the Arenas, St. Pats and Maple Leafs are all one franchise, I think they should be combined. Is there a reason why the records of the original 1910s-30s meetings and the modern rivalry cannot both be noted? However, as a further question, was there an actual, notable rivalry between the original senators and the Toronto franchise? How far into WP:SYNTH are we going there? Resolute 23:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Ottawa, grew up in southern Ontario, never Toronto, but have always been a Habs fan. I can't imagine any edit that I've ever made that favours one over the other. Here are my first few, the only aspects in which I favour the Leafs is the central location of the ACC as opposed to the constantly renamed Palladium, meanwhile the Leafs have never been to the Stanley Cup in my lifetime and I hope that continues. In all other respects I favour them equally as any other Canadian team. If you're seeing any bias, you need to step back and edit elsewhere. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read wikipedias Civility article. There is no need for the stand-offish attitude or to tell another editor to "step back and edit elsewhere". I will not be bullied by a sock puppet. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to you, not Resolute so my indentation was correct. You too need to read the civility article. You called me biased for no reason. You repeatedly called me a sock puppet, I'd love to know of whom; using different IP addresses in different discussions is not sock-puppetry. You threaten me with blocks. I don't know what you mean by stand-offish attitude so I can't rectify it. I'll strike my advice that you didn't appreciate and instead take it myself and not return here tonight. Hopefully tomorrow things will be better. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are just about the last person on Wikipedia who should be telling someone else to read WP:CIVILITY, UrbanNerd. Also, I would suggest you read WP:AGF. Their editing anonymously does not justify your accusing them of being a sock puppet. Resolute 14:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's resolute with his useless input yet again. Never fails, like a broken record of dim-witted input. Keep to the subject at hand resolute. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a hypocrite. I treated you the way you did the anon. I can not help it if you are incapable of responding to anyone who disagrees with you in a mature fashion. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. Resolute 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, Urban Nerd, what's up? Threats and personal attacks aren't going to get you very far. You're behaving extremely uncivil. ChakaKongtalk 16:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this discussion. The First Meeting section is creating the impression that the 2 Ottawa Senators franchises are 1. Also, I'm in agreement with Resolute, the Maple Leafs, St. Patricks & Arenas are the same franchise & should be treated as such. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding the numbers correctly & in correspondance with the Infobox's title, the other sections are pointing to the current Senators. It's only the First Meeting section, that's pointing to the orginal Senators. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, perhaps the infobox needs to be updated to include all meeting since the existence of the Leafs and Sens. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do some splitting in this article (including the infobox), concerning the NHL & CFL. At the moment, the primary subject of this article, is the rivalry between the Arenas/St.Patrick/Maple Leafs franchise & the modern Senators franchise. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an articles primary subject is one thing doesn't mean you need to split the rest. An article can have several focuses within a subject. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article should be split into Battle of Ontario (ice hockey) & Battle of Ontario (football), withe Battle of Ontario a disambiguation page. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is absolutely no reason to do that whatsoever. Th information about the CFL and other leagues is minimal. If anything it would just need it's own section within the article. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'v nominated the article for a splitting, as CFL info can grow in time. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable, notable, independent, and non-promotional sources for the rivalry between any other teams than the Leafs and the current Senators franchise being called the Battle of Ontario? isaacl (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the ultimate question, isn't it? The original Sens could be noted in a background section leading into the modern rivalry. But I do have concerns about there being a lot of synthesis with the football side. Given most of the 1900s involved three Ontario teams, it is significantly unlikely that the "Battle of Ontario" was ever seriously applied to the CFL side of things until the Riders folded. The current rivalry would be Toronto-Hamilton. Suggesting a split is premature given we have to decide first if what is proposed to be split has any real value. Resolute 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a week since the last comment in this discussion. The consensus is that statistics should be kept separate for the different Ottawa Senators franchises. As such, I will remove the first meeting section from the infobox. There is also consensus that reliable sources should be found indicating a notable rivalry using the term "Battle of Ontario" between the original Ottawa Senators franchise and the combined Toronto Arenas/St. Pats/Maple Leafs franchise before adding their statistics in a separate infobox. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no sources have been provided to associate the term "Battle of Ontario" with any rivalries (in any sport) other than the current Senators franchise with the Leafs, I agree with limiting this article to the competition between the present-day Ottawa Senators and Toronto Maple Leafs. isaacl (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The box simply shows all meeting between the teams named Maple Leafs and Senators. It would be relevant to show all games to indicated for how many decades these cities have been playing each other. Whether you can find references showing the rivalry between the original sens and leafs was named "The battle of Ontario" is irrelevant. Although it's in the Battle of Ontario article the infobox isn't named "Battle of Ontario - Regular Season History" it's named "Ottawa Senators-Toronto Maple Leafs - Regular Season History". Technically the "Battle of Ontario" probably didn't start until the mid to late 90's anyways, 5 years into the current senators revival. But if consensus ends up being to remove it than that's what will happen. I think historic games since 1927 should be added to the total. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The box should relate to the article's topic, though. If the article is actually about the regular season record between all NHL teams based in Ottawa and Toronto, then including the information would be apt. However, it's been argued above that the article's topic is the specific rivalry known as the Battle of Ontario. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The box does relate to the article's topic. The battle of Ontario simply means games between the sens and leafs. When did it turn to it has to be the current era and documented on the internet? It would be hard to find any references for the NHL games between the two in the 1920's-30's. It would also be hard to get references showing that it was called the battle of Ontario in the early 1990's. Who are we to decide when the phrase was coined, or what era ir applies to. It's simply Leafs-Sens games, no matter when they were played. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The requested move discussion above discussed whether this article is just about games between teams known as the Senators and Leafs. The consensus seems to be that the article is about the specific rivalry known as the Battle of Ontario, and not about all games between the Senators and Leafs, irrespective of franchise continuity. If you want to make it about all games, then it might be appropriate to revisit the article name again. Internet sources are not required to determine the scope of the term "Battle of Ontario", but some reliable, notable, independent, non-promotional sources are required to avoid original research, precisely so we are not the ones deciding what competitions should be included. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough to view that there's a consensus for first meeting being the modern Ottawa Senators vs Toronto Maple Leafs. I inserted their first regular season meeting. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming consensus here was that games between the original Senators and the Maple Leafs/St.Pats/Arenas were never referred to as the "Battle of Ontario" and should not be included in the infobox. The historic first meeting was removed on October 3, but crept back in on February 17 with a misleading "update" comment. If you want to re-open the discussion do it here first. (I am the same editor as 99.246.102.93 above and 69.159.30.13 who reverted earlier today) 74.12.177.246 (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to add the first meeting as 1992. So the original 1927 date was moved to a separate "historical first meeting" as to not confuse readers. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was against such a "historical first meeting" for at least two reasons. No evidence that "Battle of Ontario" was used with original Senators and therefore should not be included in the infobox. That if evidence for an earlier "Battle of Ontario" rivalry is found, that the Leafs statistics should include those of the Arenas and St. Pats as they are a single team. 74.12.176.198 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

folded during the great depression

[edit]

The original Senators left the city in 1934 because it was a very small market and couldn't financially compete with teams from larger cities. The fact that the franchise folded in St. Louis a year later which technically was during the great depression is quite irrelevent to this article. I've tried to remove this, but UrbanNerd insists it should remain without providing any reasons. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Senators ceased operations in Ottawa and moved to St.Louis for one season due to the great depression. I have added some references[1][2] in the article to back this up. You need to provided references to back up your bold edits. Otherwise it's seen as original research. Or in other words your personal opinion. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you agree that "folded" is incorrect and that an indication that they left Ottawa is more appropriate. As for the depression point, I still don't think the reason why they left is an important aspect to this topic. Note that even the Ottawa Senators (original) page doesn't give the depression as a reason. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two refereneces I provided say otherwise. So it stays. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having a reference still doesn't mean it's relevant. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that referenced facts trump your personal opinion. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should point out, the original Senators relocated to St. Louis, Missouri & a season later, folded as the St. Louis Eagles. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the team relocated in 1934 is a key point to mention, i.e. don't imply folded in Ottawa. I don't think why they left, to where or their new name is very important to this article about the rivalry with Toronto but OK as it is somewhat related. That they folded elsewhere a year later I believe is best reserved for the franchise articles. 99.246.102.93 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.hockeycentral.co.uk/nhl/movers/Depression-Hockey.php
  2. ^ http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/icehockeyhistory.html

Splitting time

[edit]

IMHO, this article should be split into Battle of Ontaro (ice hockey) for the Arenas/St.Patricks/Maple Leafs rivalry with the original Senators & latter the modern Senators. Battle of Ontario (football) for the Argonauts, Rough Riders, Renegades & Tiger Cats rivalries. Battle of Ontario would be a disambiguation page. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, though I think the sociological rivalry between the leading cities of Ontario should be made the top article instead of a disambiguation page, and then the CFL and NHL rivalries would be subarticles. (And something like that should be created for Quebec as well, since the political rivalry between Laval, Longueuil, Montreal, Quebec City is huge) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we still using wordmarks for rivarlies?

[edit]

You can’t even find clear, high def photos of wordmarked logos. I don’t understand why don’t we just use the actual logo for a rivalry. I can’t think of any decent reason why wordmarks are used on rival pages. The reader can’t possibly be confused by the teams if we put the actual logo, and the page already mentions “OTTAWA SENATORS” and “TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS” dozens of times. These organizations are iconic by their symbols and not their wordmarks, it’s time we use the actual logo. CanadianOntarian (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those logos are considered non-free content, and Wikipedia is limited in how we can use them using a non-free rationale. As a result, we typically use the wordmarks for pages outside their main article (as the wordmarks do not have a copyright). See WP:NFC for details on Wikipedia's image policy on non-freely licensed images. Leventio (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ontario&oldid=1206177983"