Talk:Ottawa Senators/Archive 2

"Legal Hit"
Did the NHL come out and say that Chris Neil's hit was legal? Many have argued that Neil went out of his way to hit Drury; others say that Neil put up an elbow. As a note, I'm not an angry Buffalo fan or anything, but without any sort of evidence that this hit, which was certainly controversial, was legal, then it seems to be in violation of the Wikipedia POV policy. 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did the NHL say it was a legal hit? I guess that's almost the same thing as asking "Did the referee see the hit, and was there a penalty?" Que-Can 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use the term "legal" in a game context, then it stands and falls upon whether a penalty was assessed. None was.  Far from being a POV violation, it'd be a POV violation to describe the hit as anything else under the circumstances.  RGTraynor 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive 2005-06
The archive has been created. I've also created a navigational header for all the pages under the Ottawa Senators tag. This should help people find their way around the current 3 pages. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's great for the talk page, but is it really necessary to have a self-ref at the top of the article? I've removed the template from the page; there's already a discussion tab. -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Roster
Some player's countries need to be changed...Czechoslovakia, U.S.S.R. and West Germany no longer exist as such.
 * Not really, I beleive the concensus is that the player's original country is shown. I've forgotten the discussion about this already, but I'm sure it can be found in the archive. [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Eric B ( T • C • W ) 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why is there no mentiion of the country when it's a Canadian or an American player ?
 * This isn't even a "consensus," per se, but a Manual of Style standard that carries forth throughout every encyclopedia and media outlet, as well as in the NHL Official Guide. RGTraynor 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does goaltender Kelly Guard, really belong on the Senators 'current roster'? GoodDay 21:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's #4 behind Martin Gerber, Ray Emery, and Billy Thompson. As of last season he was the backup in Binghamton. I wouldn't mention him until training camp rosters are announced. ccwaters 22:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thompson just signed with the Isle org, BTW. ccwaters 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Just to add, Jeff Glass is a sens prospect.)-Hasek is the best

Season by Season
Advise as to incorrectness regarding changes? If it is just the NHL (League column) I was actually just about to remove that, otherwise I am simply adding more information, that I think will enhance this record, as I have done on the pages for the Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Capitals, and the mighty Flyers. Harrias 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Informal Content
The 2005-06 Playoff section is full of information not up to Wikipedia's standards, such use of familiar terms (ie "Alfie") and use of contractions (could've) etc. Should this be removed or cleaned up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsterdam528 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 July 2006
 * Indeed it should be.--[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Eric B ( T • C • W ) 11:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as they are specified earlier in the article I think nicknames should be left (such as "Alfie").--[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]- Sensfan07
 * There are quite a few sections that use these terms to be cleaned up. (i.e. their brethren drank from Lord Stanley's Mug). Remember people this is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.198.132 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 May 2007
 * This discussion page is too informal. Please remember to sign your contributions.[[Image:Flag of Quebec.svg|20px]] 🇨🇦Que-Can 05:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Envelopes ?
What's your point ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.192.190.33 (talk • contribs)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey for more discussion, this affects more the just this article. ccwaters 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== Current Roster == Recommendation; when a team captain/alternate captain(s) are injured short-term: eg (injured) tag by players name, there should be no need to add extra 'C's or 'A's to other players. However if a team captain/alternate captain(s) are injured long-term: eg (IR) tag by players name, then add extra 'C's and/or 'A's to other players. GoodDay 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC) *I've recommend this, so as to cut down on edits being made to the 30 team articles 'current rosters' when injuries occur. GoodDay 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Christoph Schubert?
As of now, Schubert is playing as a forward. Even though the roster says he plays D, he can play forward, too. Should we add him in the forwards section of the current roster? Or both? Hasek is the best 04:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither. The Ottawa team website lists him as a defenseman, and since the Current Roster section reflects the official roster, that's how we should list.  RGTraynor 08:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ray Emery
Ray Emery is reported as a day-to-day basis according to the Ottawa Senators website... do we put him on IR or just Injured?
 * Just injured; the Senators official website hasn't put Emery on Injured Reserve. GoodDay 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guys, he's not even injured anymore... He played YESTERDAY. --Deenoe 21:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that takes away the 'injured' tag. GoodDay 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regular Season '06
I don't think that every game or every couple of games should be chronicled on this page, it would get rather long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wi-king (talk • contribs)


 * I tend to agree. If we post the score of all 82 games its going to be pretty boring. We should focus on important events like in the past seasons. Peregrine981 22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that all 82 games should be chronicled and then, at the end of the season, someone should go back and edit it to only include the highlights of the season. Sensfan07, 26 November, 2006

Well, maybe we should make a link to the Senators' game-by-game schedule, such asthis so we don't need to write about every game. The reader can go back to the page and see the box score, highlights, etc from every game. We should chronicle the playoffs and moves/trades, signings, etc if anything does happen. On the 06/07 section, we can put the link there and it could say: "See regular season game by game results" or something. Hasek is the best 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. Peregrine981 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've wiped the entire section, linking to the Game-by-game results as HITB suggested. Later in the season (or perhaps after it), we can ascertain which specific events are worth including in the article. -Joshuapaquin 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Team captains, 1993-94
Though many NHL media guides simply list Shaw, Lamb & Dineen as captains in the 1993-94 Senators season; I've decided (on clear memory) to edit the list as Shaw, Lamb (co-captains); Dineen as captain. After Lamb was traded to Philly (during '93-94 season), the Senators gave the captaincy to Dineen (stripping Shaw). I can't find any 'varifiable sources' however, so if anyone disagrees with my edit; then by all means revert it, I won't dispute. GoodDay 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See HHOF website, co-captain Mark Lamb was traded to the Flyers (March 5,1994). Dineen became captain, succeeding Lamb & Shaw. GoodDay 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Roster Problem
There is a correlation problem in the roster. Patrick Eaves is listed as being born in Calgary, Alberta, but his nationality flag is clearly American. Can someone please fix this?Ohyeh 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's currently correct. He was born in Canada but is an American. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since alternate captain 'Chris Phillips' is currently serving as captain (wearing the 'C'), while Alfredsson & Redden are side-lined. I've left his 'A' in placed, added a / then the 'C' (didn't wiki-link 'C', left it only bolden). Done this to let unfamilliar readers, know Phillips is still an alternate captain (Senators haven't named him the 9th captain). GoodDay 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we take out the 07 stats?
On the regular standings chart season- by- season, should we take the 06-07 season out, due to how you can't put recurring things on wikipdia, unless you use a template? Hasek is the best 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't. --Deenoe 11:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For teams it is ok as there aren't many changes in stats but for players it is standard to not add the current season stats. --Djsasso 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Seeing that this article is constantly getting vandalized (blanking, writing hate comments) I suggest this page should be put up for semi-protection. Lots of other NHL teams use it too. Agree? And can anyone do this? Hasek is the best 03:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, I'll go put it at the suggested protection page. --Deenoe 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Semi has been declined. --Deenoe 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, didn't see that coming. I'll bet anyone that this article will be vandalised in the next 2 days. Hasek is the best 02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it must be frustrating to see an article you care about vandalized, but remember there are good reasons why protecting or semi-protecting is considered a last resort. I assume that each of you first came to Wikipedia because it was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Imagine if you came to Wikipedia and you picked your first article to work on and then you couldn't edit it after all. The concerns is that if that happens to a new contributor, he or she may wind up not contributing. By semi-protecting, we avoid the vandalism, but we lose the good contributions too. It's a complicated trade-off and one that the administrators have to balance on lots of articles every day. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, can't they just create an account then make some good edits on other interested articles (so people know they're not vandals) then they could edit? Hasek is the best 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great ... so because of an attempt to cater to people disinterested enough not to register and earn a few props, experienced editors throw in the towel and abandon articles. Smooth move.  RGTraynor 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a basic philosophy of Wikipedia; I didn't make it up, I'm just explaining it, and I'm not the administrator who declined semi-protection on this article. If the vandalism problem continues on this article let me know and I'll take another look at it. I see there have been IP edits today, but I don't know enough about the Senators (sorry, I'm an Islander fan) to tell whether they are pure vandalism or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, well there has been a lot vandalising over the past week and the Senators are one of the most hated teams in the NHL so there is just too much vandalising than others. That's why I requested in the first place. Hasek is the best 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears the vandalism is continuing. Almost all edits for the last month are either vandals or people fixing their crap. Can semi-protection be reinvestigated? There seems to be some precedence with the Leafs page getting semi-protection. Edgeware 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sens suck. If it wasn't for Bryden'S BS, the team would have moved to Cincy, OH 4-5 years ago. Its pathetic that league revenues from successful clubs have to go to the coffers of this "hard done by" team. CJ DUB 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. This talk page is for discussions on how to improve the article. I'm sure you can find a web forum for such banter. Please do. ccwaters 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article for chronology/deletion?
I think the 05-07 seasons should be put somewhere else or made into a new sub section because there is no specific info in previous years, so I suggest they should be 1. Made into a chronology (though I think this would be the only team doing this and there alrady is an 06-07 season article) but could be deleted 2. deleting it all or 3. Shorten the facts and make them brief or mention the overall preformance of that year with highlights and some mentionable player totals. Hasek is the best 23:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah both need to be merged into their individual season articles. 2005-06 Ottawa Senators season and 2006-07 Ottawa Senators season --Djsasso 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gretzky Retiremnt
Put up a factual dispute due to the fact that most of the other NHL team pages list the date of league wide retirement as Feb. 6, 2000, whereas here it's listed as April 18, 1999 BT14 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Feb. 6, 2000. --Deenoe 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening line changes
I noticed that the opening line has changed, back-and-forth, a few times between "The Ottawa Senators are a professional ice hockey team, based..." and "The Ottawa Senators are a group of professional hockey players, based...." with the latter phrase being the current line. However, a quick glance at other teams (Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens, for instance) have the former. Shouldn't we been attempting some level of consistency? Besides, the Ottawa Senators are a team, not a "group of professional hockey players"...it would be like saying Microsoft isn't a company, but a "group of predominately computer professionals". Ccrashh 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're absolutely right. The other phrasing is simply bizarre. -Joshuapaquin 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1992 Expansion
There's a request for a citation, specifically on the line: "The Senators' bid had been considered something of a long-shot, particularly in the face of a financially much stronger bid from Hamilton, Ontario" - while no direct citations are available (since the NHL denied any such thing) Phil Esposito (involved in the bid for Tampa) did say that "Hamilton didn't get the team because of Toronto and Buffalo. Period. Toronto and Buffalo were very, very upset that Hamilton was even being considered because of territorial rights." - this from http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b3a45cfc-d9c2-4ccc-b37d-5f3dcfdc7bde (last two paragraphs). New to this Wiki stuff, but would that be considered a reliable citation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccrashh (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * It's a reliable citation of Phil Esposito's opinion, but perhaps not of the fact that the Sabres and Leafs were actually upset. But the citation doesn't offer any evidence that the Hamilton bid was stronger than the Sens bid or that the Sens bid was a long shot (either, or both, claims could be true, but we need a source).  It's also not clear if Esposito is suggesting that the Sabres and Leafs were the only reason that Hamilton didn't get a team, or that the Hamilton bid was simply not a real contender due to the territorial rights issue.  It could be interpreted either way.  I think we would need something more on point.  Skeezix1000 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah, I remember being hipdeep in that issue at the time. It's absolutely one editor's revisionist thinking that the Hamilton bid was considered especially strong.  Certainly the Hamilton backers were rabid about their bid, but that's about as far as it went.  Ottawa and Tampa were both considered long shots, and won as much on sentiment as any other factor.    RGTraynor  13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I sniped the style of the opening paragraph from an edit made by [Zzyzx11]] on the Anaheim Ducks. He commented that he was "(rewriting the lead section, modeling it after New Jersey Devils, the only NHL team article that currently is a featured article)" Ccrashh 12:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reinstatement?
This section (with it's 'reliable sources'), contradict the page (thanks to the NHL's attempt to re-write history). GoodDay 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How does it contradict the page? The team is the current era Ottawa Senators. It is important to stay with the facts. The original franchise was cancelled by the league. The new franchise is the reinstatement. The owners bought the rights. But it is not the same franchise, and the situation is unique. We should say that and we can say that, the way it is on the page. Maybe not enough for fans/purists/historians? Alaney2k 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Senators/Eagles (1893-1935) weren't cancelled from the NHL, the franchise folded (ceased to exist). The Senators (1992- present), weren't re-instated, the NHL expanded (new franchise). GoodDay 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On what do you base that conclusion? And, what do you mean by the NHL's "attempt to rewrite history"? I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just trying to follow the discussion here. Skeezix1000 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is, if the Senators were 'reinstated', that means it's the same franchise (which means the 2 Senators pages and the Eagles pages, should be combined as one). The 'edits' by Alaney2k, makes it appear as thought the Senators/Eagles were 'inactive' from 1935 to 1992, then re-activated as the Senators. GoodDay 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the business world, a franchise is operated by a business license. The hockey club folded, the franchise was cancelled. Otherwise, whoever owned the Eagles could have sold it. Like Ahearn had done. The franchise which can exist or not exist at any time for a business, was sold to the Firestone group. The club is obviously not the same, but the franchise is the reinstatement. It's not simple, so it's best to keep the articles separate because for one thing, it is completely different eras. I just say, the facts are that the franchise is reinstated and we should have that there. Maybe some better language could be used Alaney2k 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not restore, my edits (which are supported by the Senators page's TopInfobox)? GoodDay 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Reinstate' - to restore to a former state. That's suggests 'same franchise' (which, I dispute). GoodDay 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. "Reinstatement" would be a marketing term at best, the original Senators and the current team are distinct.  If the NHL does consider the team a reincarnation of the first franchise, that is fair to note as an interesting tidbit, but in reality, the only thing the new team shares with the old is its nickname. Resolute 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just concerned with the wording and how 'less familiar' readers might be confused. Perhaps, I'm over-reacting. GoodDay 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not saying I disagree with either of you, but it seems that both of you are making the assumption that reinstatement is being used in a legal sense, in the sense of corporate continuity. It strikes me that others could view reinstatement differently, regardless of any corporate connection, or lack thereof, between the former and new teams.  "To restore to a former state" does not necessarily mean same franchise.  Reinstatement could simply speak to a sense of continuity between the two eras.  There is no rule or definition that I am aware of that restricts it to the legal sense. And, forgive my ignorance, how do we know that they are separate franchises? Skeezix1000 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Senators records (team and individuals) are from 1992 to present. They don't include the old Senators records or the Eagles records. GoodDay 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I presumed that to be the answer, but could not find any indication of that on the NHL site (might have been looking in the wrong place). What is the source for that?  Skeezix1000 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Try the 'Ottaw Senators official website', it's the pages main 'source'. GoodDay 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just checked that website's 'club history', now I'm really confused. GoodDay 21:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so much looking at it in the legal sense, as the logical. There was a 60 year gap between the demise of the Eagles, and the founding of the new Senators.  There is no logical connection between the two franchises, aside from the name.  Much like how the Northern League bills itself as being established in 1902, though the modern Northern League (the sixth to use that name) was only founded in 1993.  Its promotional, and a tie in to history.  However, as I said, if the league has named the Senators a "reinstatement" of the previous franchise, then great, mention it in the article.  But for my POV, the history of the original Senators and Eagles should not be intertwined with the current team. Resolute 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. This discussion seems to be largely made up of people's views as to whether or not the new franchise was logically a reinstatement of the old franchise.  But Wikipedia is only supposed to be reporting on the facts, not the interpretations of its editors.  Here, it seems to me (assuming we can find sources) that the facts are: *The NHL reinstated the team in 1992. *But the new team's records are from 1992 to the present, and do not include the former team's records. *The current team draws on the heritage of the old team (Stanley Cup banners, etc.). That's it.  Those are the facts we have, and it strikes me that that is as far as we can go in the article.  Determining whether the NHL rewrote history, or whether there is continuity between the two franchises, and whether or not it is logical to deem it a reinstatement or not -- this is an analysis that creeps into forbidden WP:OR territory (not to mention WP:NPOV).  As Wikipedia editors, we include relevant facts in the article, we do not assess them.--Skeezix1000 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No the two articles should be kept seperate... all sources I have, including the NHL Official Guide & Record Book, list the old Ottawa Senators as a defunct franchise and the new ones as a current franchise, and they even list Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes type franchises together (so they should), even Wikipedia keeps the Whalers and the Hurricanes seperate, so there is no reason to combine the two articles. And as for the re-instatement word, what other word would you use to describe it? You can't say creation of the brand new Ottawa Senators, because there already was an Ottawa Senators team. CroCan    Mein Führer, I can walk!   02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we merge the articles. Skeezix1000 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, don't merge the 3 pages. PS- My apologies to all, for my over-reacting. GoodDay 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I am not going to get too far into this arguement but I do know that when they Senators re-entered the league they made a big deal about how this was the SAME franchise restarted and that it wasn't just another expansion team. That they even went to the old owners decendants to buy the rights to the franchise. I would have to look up links to prove it but it was a major news story at the time. I think what is confusing the arguement here is that people seem to think that the team folded when it did not. The franchise was put into suspended operations status with the intent to restart in the next season, however it did not restart atleast not for a very long time, but at no time did it actually fold. --Djsasso 21:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But, it suspended operations in St. Louis, not Ottawa. Also, if this is the same franchise, why does there website never mention them ever winning a cup? In fact it says that this year was their first-ever Stanley Cup finals game. I think the banners are more out of respect than them being the same franchise. Although I do think it's worth mentioning the original Senators in this article, I don't think they're actually the same franchise.  Bsroiaadn Talk 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is true on all acounts. But they suspended operations so that the team could move back to Ottawa I do believe, but I may be mistaken. And I think websites don't mention stuff like that because it can confuse the casual fan. But you are right it probably is mostly an honour thing, however I distinctly remember Bettman saying (paraphrased of course cause its been many years) at centre ice in Ottawa that he was proud to be able to resume the franchise in Ottawa by re-raising its banners to the roof. I think it should just be left as it was because it was never an issue before. --Djsasso 05:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The league bought them out in '35. The franchise reverted to the league and the players were dispersed. I put the reference in. At that point, they can't come back in. The team wanted to suspend for a year, but was turned down.Alaney2k 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a unique situation, and I think we should just state the known facts. They gave a reinstation at the start of play. But records are kept separately. Ottawa fans would argue it's the same, but other NHL fans would argue the other way, so it's best to leave it at the facts. It's fun to talk about. I will keep digging into it. Alaney2k 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I think that this is a good article, and should be rated as such. Any suggestions on what's left to be done so that the article can acquire a GA rating? Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 04:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps boost the inline references a bit. But it might be useful to nominate the article for peer review before looking at a GA nomination. Dl2000 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous logos
Shouldn't we keep the previous symbols? Other NHL teams (ex. Anaheim Ducks) have their old ones. --Hasek is the best 14:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They can go in the 'History of' article. Alaney2k 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll restore them somewhere. --Hasek is the best 22:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I though you meant this article. I already put them in here. Well, every other team uses their previous logos too. --Hasek is the best 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No harm in them appearing in more than one place. Alaney2k 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Senators
Why has 'so much' info about the 'original Senators' been placed in this article. It gives the impression that the franchise (1992- present) actually began in the 1880's (which is incorrect). GoodDay 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to the Ottawa Senators of today. There is history behind the name. The Sens are the club of today, and they have history too. It's spelled out clearly that it's 1991 for the current club and 1884 for the original club. And, there actually is less than there was previously. And, pardon me, but if it bothers you, maybe you should examine why it bothers you instead of complaining? Phrase the discussion in a neutral point of view, such as "I believe that XXX is misleading, what do other think?" For the record, I don't see anything misleading. See Montreal or Vancouver or Edmonton or Colorado, they all have played in other leagues and in the past too. :-) Alaney2k 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And in those cases, they are the same franchises. The Montreal Canadiens of 1917 wore the same uniforms, played in the same arena and had many of the same players - Lalonde, Pitre, Vezina, Laviolette, Coutu, Berlinquette.  This isn't a matter of a neutral view; the Senators of 1992 and the previous Ottawa teams of the same name are not the same team. Period.    RGTraynor  13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's a misunderstanding of the word 'franchise.' A franchise is a partnership or license from a 'parent' organization or association. Here is my example: From the period of 1917 to 1922, the NHA existed as an organization, inactive, but existed in parallel with the NHL. The Canadiens club had a franchise in the NHA and they have a franchise in the NHL. They voted on things in the NHA to stop Livingstone's efforts to revive play in the association, but they continued to play, using their franchise in the NHL. One club, two franchises. And, as I've said, the current Ottawa team/club is not the same club as the original. No doubt. But there is some doubt as to whether the current Sens club uses the reinstated NHL franchise of the original, or it is completely new. In any case, as long as it is spelled out clearly, the old club history is still relevant. I am not the person who put the original era section into the article. It's been here for quite a while. Alaney2k 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you've argued that the '2' Senators clubs are actually the same, why haven't you included the St. Louis Eagles? GoodDay 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they are not named the Ottawa Senators. The Eagles are mentioned in the article and in the infobox for the original club. There is an article for the Eagles too. The Eagles are equivalent to the Baltimore Ravens, which have their own article too, I'm certain. Alaney2k 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to get further into this debate but the ravens and eagles are not equivalents. The eagles were the senators renamed and moved. The ravens even though it looks like they moved are actually an expansion team officially. --Djsasso 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're gonna add those other Ottawa Senators, then you must add the 'St.Louis Eagles'. The Eagles & the orginal Senators are the 'same' franchise. GoodDay 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to the Eagles there. I didn't mean anything by leaving it off. Now to fend off all the other marauders! About the Ravens, while they are an expansion club, they do have a historical linkage to the Browns. That's all I meant. At the time, the Ravens -were- a move, and then became an expansion team as part of the deal to head off riots in Cleveland. And it was explicitly laid out that they were leaving the Browns history behind. Sort of, not unlike, the Canadiens shuffle in 1911 taking over the Haileybury franchise but the Les Canadiens name. I haven't completely researched how they did that when they were supposed to have only francophone players, who were already on the Canadiens. Which is related to what we are talking about. The odd behaviour of these leagues and what a franchise means. The Ravens controversy is on its page and two other pages. On this page, my intent is that you can go to Wikipedia and go to Ottawa Senators and see, in a quick way, yeah, there is some history behind the name, with links to it, that's all. Please believe me, I do recognize these are two different clubs! Alaney2k 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All that 'pre-1991' info doesn't belong in the TopInfobox. It' belongs at Ottawa Senators (original) and St. Louis Eagles. Plus, we need creation of new articles Ottawa Senators (QSHL) and Ottawa Senators (OCHL) (to handle senior hockey info). The origianl Senators/Eagles & senior league Senators are not linked like the WHA/NHL Edmonton Oilers or the WHA/NHL Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche. GoodDay 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is your 'opinion' and it is not neutral. You know it is being debated. There are links, as I've said before. It was 'Bring Back the Senators', the Gormans, the name, Finnigan, the reinstatement. Whether you agree with that stuff or not, it's relevant and factual. Not because it is my opinion. I put it in before it became controversial. It is relevant historically. Otherwise ALL of the articles about the NHL teams should have no dates prior to 1917 and no WHA or PCHL or WHL dates. And stop being so picky about Frank Finnigan. Alaney2k 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK Al, have it your way. GoodDay 21:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- I left a 'question' at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ice Hockey (concerning the TopInfobox), other then that, I'm through with this pointless argument. GoodDay 21:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest it's not really being debated. You are the only one who came out saying you want it in there. So technically consensus is currently that it not be left in the infobox. The difference again that you keep missing about the other teams is that the players and management and owners all continued on into the other leagues unlike in the senators case.--Djsasso 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; this is the POV being pushed by a single editor, in contravention to what both the league and the Senators recognize as the facts on the ground. From WP:WEIGHT: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."    RGTraynor  21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying, and of course it is my opinion, to show the linkages between the two clubs. If there are some references, or attributions to back up your point, that the clubs are completely un-related, then show them. I have not tried to do anything other than show those linkages. I am not trying to move to one article or something like that. I think that the linkages are important and the Sens do respect them. That's indisputable. They put the original-sens logo on the shoulder-patch, they had the previous patch on their jersey. It's you guys who want to deny that these linkages exist, by continually putting the words such as 'new' over and over and over. I think it is of interest to show those linkages. That is what I believe should be done. I have said over and over that these are two different clubs. But what you guys want is to deny or minimize these links. Which does not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia, to me. If two clubs are linked in some way, and of course there are several ways, such as the Canadiens, the Canucks, the Oilers and Canucks, then why can we not show the way the current Sens are linked to the old. Over and over, instead, all you guys want to do is deny. Let's be positive and inclusive, not elitist or strict. Alaney2k 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully one third of the history section on this article is dedicated to the original Sens, the campaign to bring the Senators name back to the NHL and the certificate PR. The links to the original franchise are very clearly mentioned, and hardly trivialized.  I really am at a loss as to what you are fighting over here. Resolute 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Canadiens, Oilers and Canucks situations are different Al (Djsasso explained it to you). GoodDay 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Resolute. There is a huge section on this page explaining the things you claim the article is missing. I really don't understand why you keep trying to push even more of the old stuff onto this page. --Djsasso 19:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it just my imagination? or is the Senators history section bcoming 'overly' lengthy. GoodDay 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copied the section text of the 2003-04 season over to 2003-04 Ottawa Senators season, but that article is not finished. Then the section on this page could be chopped down or removed, though I think there were several important events that season. Alaney2k 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, just curious. GoodDay 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GA class
What's keeping this article at B-class? The only thing I can think of which needs some improvement is the intro that needs fixing. --Hasek is the best 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What should go in the intro? Alaney2k 17:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the parts of reinstating the Senators club back to the NHL, and Ottawa's recent Cup run. --Hasek is the best 21:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But, the Senators weren't reinstated. They were a 'brand spanking new' franchise. GoodDay 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well either way it can still be included. --Hasek is the best 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * GoodDay and I are on the opposite ends of the spectrum of the argument there. GoodDay pushes the point that it's completely new. I push the point that it is a 'revival' or 'reinstatement', e.g., like a Broadway play, if you like and the franchise purchase was necessary to revive the Senators. But I do think you need to propose what you think is missing a bit more specifically. I did add the current Eastern champs, etc. to the opening paragraph. There is some commented out stuff about 'namesake' etc. in the text for the opening paragraph, but there doesn't seem to be any suitable compromise. So I think we should leave the reinstatement to the following paragraph. Never mind GoodDay, there are many other people who base their opinion on Total Hockey and the NHL Guide Book only and who object to the reinstated tag and can't accept other terms such as revived or successor it seems. On the other side, if you take the historical view, there was Sens then and there are Sens now. There are links between the two, and those are important. I've tried to be objective in the reinstatement paragraph and I think it can survive scrutiny. Anyway, after all this, doesn't it go to 'peer' review or something like that first? Alaney2k 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus at WikiProject Ice Hockey has been 'no linkage' between those Senators teams. PS- I'm gonna bring up the schism (again) at above mentioned WikiProject. See what our peers views are 'lately'. GoodDay 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why, yes, a good many of us do base our opinion on the official NHL publications, which state clearly and explicitly that the franchise start date for the current Sens is 1992, and that there is no commonality of records or statistics between the teams. By contrast, you base your opinion on one item and one item only:  that so-called "certificate of reinstatement" issued as a publicity stunt, and never mentioned thereafter by either the league or the team.  I hope you're not too terribly offended at the suggestion that the viewpoints of the NHL and the Senators' organization on the subject are more valid than yours.    RGTraynor  18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you only read the NHL books, then you would not know about Gil Stein's info on the Sens winning the franchise. Or about the NHL pension plan, or the scalping of tickets, etc., on and on ... That's my point. Don't take it personally. Alaney2k
 * I should also mention that the NHL is known to have misinformed the public, dating back to its founding. I am glad people care but it's not worth causing blood to boil. Alaney2k 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the NHL is who gets to decide if its the same franchise or not. It is 100% up to them. So if they say its not the same franchise then guess what...its not. There is no question, no matter how much you argue it. The final say is with them and currently they are saying it is not. --Djsasso 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, find me the citation. :-) That's what we do with the rest of the stuff. Do you not want the certificate mentioned either? What? Alaney2k 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the certificate being there at all. In fact I might have even been the one who put it there the first time. I used to argue from your side of the issue as I have mentioned to you before. And I am sure someone has a link to the NHL listing the starting date as 92 etc. --Djsasso 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea. Source this reinstatement certificate.  There are numerous sources for the NHL's POV (and I'm getting just pissed off enough to cite every single NHL Record Book since 1992 for them), and demanding a citation, to be honest, is butting heads against WP:DICK.  So ... how about some sources?  What is the precise text of this "reinstatement?"  Your sole argument is based on that certificate, and no source for it, nor explanation of what it actually says, has ever been proffered.    RGTraynor  11:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but having it there validates using the word reinstated and that's what the objection seems to be. Alaney2k 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what's frustrating about this discussion? I have written and written and written on the Sens and other topics, adding content not on debating. Let's stick to the neutral viewpoint, shall we? Alaney2k 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's first see how things develop at WikiProject Ice Hockey, before continuing here. Whatever the consensus reached there, we shall all comply to it. GoodDay 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are concerns about 'undue weight' about the reinstatement, then we should be able to resolve that aspect without everyone involved in the project, though. What about moving the history section below the rosters, etc.? Alaney2k 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those things will be decided at the relating WikiProject. GoodDay 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To Do
I don't know if this counts, but several of the sub-articles are incomplete, such as missing seasons? Alaney2k 17:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Only two are incomplete, from 2000-2002. --Hasek is the best 21:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The logos area could add illustrations of the jerseys. Alaney2k 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but since the jerseys came out last month it's unlikely there'd be any PNG formats of the jerseys, never mind the problematic of licensing. --Hasek is the best 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the photo that the Sens gave out in the press release. This should be usable under the Wikipedia guidelines. I filled in the rationale template for the image. I think that any photo or illustration using the logo would be non-free use anyway. This one we know is acceptable to the team for public knowledge. Alaney2k 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks better. --Hasek is the best 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We could use some action photos. There are several legitimate stars on this team, and photos of Alfredsson, Heatley and/or Spezza would be good. Alaney2k 16:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'll put in what Wikipedia has so far. --Hasek is the best 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those look good, a good addition to the article. Alaney2k 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I nominated the article today. Alaney2k 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, though I believe the Sens Mile part is a bit too much just for Ottawa's fanbase when the went to the finals. --Hasek is the best 01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland Browns comparison
Removed Browns comparison concerning revived teams. The Senators are not a revived team - therefore, no comparisons. GoodDay 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither were the Browns. :-) Alaney2k 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to leave it out. GoodDay 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Though yes the NFL officially calls them revived and continues on with the stats. But either way it still doesn't belong. --Djsasso 23:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Browns reference was to show the Sens's reinstatement was not a legal revival like the Browns was. Seriously. Alaney2k 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Browns situation was resolved by the NFL and the Browns as a legal settlement. The original Sens moved from Ottawa to St. Louis where they folded there.  Any sentence trying to say that the records do not include the original club suggest that the two clubs are somehow linked officially which they are not. -Pparazorback 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the sentence that you removed! It only said the club did not compare records of the current club with the 1917-34 players. That, I thought, was clear evidence of behaviour of the Sens supporting the fact that they are separate franchises. That's why I thought it was important. And you've twisted it to mean the opposite. ! Both of those sentences were intended to bolster the 'separate franchise' facts. Alaney2k 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Eaves Citizenship
Is Eaves citizenship in doubt? Someone changed it today in the Current Roster section and GoodDay reverted it along with reverting some vandalism. I believe that Patrick Eaves is considered "American", and holds American citizenship, despite being born in Canada. This is similar to Dany Heatly being born in Germany, but holding Canadian citizenship. Since I say "believe' about Eaves, I wonder if some definite info about that might be necessary. We can put a note at the bottom of the Roster table. Alaney2k 17:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he's a dual-citzen. GoodDay 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was decided months ago (not sure), to use a dual-citizen's resident flag (not the birth flag). I'm not sure though, perhaps it's best to check with WikiProject Ice Hockey; see what the views are there. GoodDay 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Alaney2k here; Eaves grew up in Minnesota, attended an American high school, played for the national U18 team and the US World Juniors team, and went to Boston College. It's pretty much of a slam dunk.  He's no more "Canadian" than Rod Langway was Taiwanese.    RGTraynor  09:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That settles it for me, stars and strips it is. GoodDay 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick Foligno Citizenship
Can someone verify his citizenship? I believe he is Canadian, born to a Canadian father, while in Buffalo, NY. His flag on the roster is U.S. Has he played internationally for the U.S. or Canada? Alaney2k 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At this link it says he has dual Citizenship but has played for the U.S. Alaney2k 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain, but I think the Project goes with the international team flag, which would require 🇺🇸. GoodDay 23:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * 1) Senatorsupdate.png requires a fair use rationale. This process is explained via link on the tag used for the image.
 * 2) OttawaSenators.png, OttawaSenatorsAlternate.png and OriginalOttawaSenators.png need to list which article the rationale covers. (ie. this one)
 * 3) Seeing that there are several free and fair-use images on the page already, I do not feel that Ray_Emery_Mask.JPG qualifies for fair use in this article. Please feel free to explain to me if you disagree.
 * 4) The "Miscellaneous" section should be moved somewhere above all the statistics and given a more informative title, as it is part of the prose.
 * 5) The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to touch upon everything covered in the article which, for an article this size, will require several full paragraphs.
 * 6) Some statements require citations:
 * "That September, the group held a press conference to publicly kick off the "Bring Back the Senators" campaign with special guest Frank Finnigan, the last surviving Ottawa Senator to win a Stanley Cup, presenting him with a new number 8 jersey and hoping to have him drop the first puck at the first game if they emerged victorious. The other special guest was Joe Gorman, representing the Gorman family. The group unveiled drawings of the $55 million, 22,500 seat arena, now named the "Palladium." Also unveiled was a logo for the team using a stylized Peace Tower. The theme song for the franchise drive was Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down"." (The "Bring Back The Senators" campaign)
 * "Despite the negatives prospects, however, 18,000 fans sent in $25 pledges toward season-tickets" and every thereafter. (The "Bring Back The Senators" campaign)
 * The second paragraph of "The financing struggles"
 * "In the end, the firm of Ogden Entertainment, a New York city facilities management firm, backed the project in exchange for a 25 year contract to manage the facility." and everything thereafter (The financing struggles)
 * The last two paragraphs of "1992-1995: expansion club struggles," especially since the final paragraph contains statements that seem very POV without a reference.
 * The entire "1995-2004: Ottawa's turnaround" section
 * Everything minus the one cited statement in "2005-06: emergence as a Stanley Cup contender" (either that or drastically cut down the section so that it can be supported by the main article). Same goes for "2006-07: trip to the Stanley Cup Finals" and "First finals in 80 years"
 * The second half of "Sens Mile" requires citations and the first half needs to use citation templates or a similar format.
 * Most of "Team colours and mascot"
 * The entire "Miscellaneous" section
 * 1) All one-two sentence paragraphs must be expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
 * 2) If possible, references to newspaper articles should include information on who the author was.
 * 3) "Unfortunately, the good show could not disguise the lack of talent" does not sound very neutral or encyclopedic and calling them by their nickname ("the Sens") is absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I fixed the later problem, but please find a way to re-word this to be more encyclopedic. (1992-1995: expansion club struggles)

Normally, when a review encounters a small number of problems, it is placed on hold to allow for the changes to be made. In this case, however, since there are entire large sections without citations, and because I think some of the prose needs to be rewritten and carefully considered in light of the GA criteria, I am going to fail the article for now. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Once these concerns have been addressed, it may be renominated. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Class, Part 2
I think this was a very helpful review. I think we can get this done. I am optimistic. I don't know the source of some of the logo images. I do know how to write the fair use rationale, I've done that for the Sens jerseys. The original sources for the Sens logos is the Ottawa Senators organization.

I will work on the citations and paragraph fixups. Alaney2k 15:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the fair-use rationale for the logo. Alaney2k 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the intro, how about just using the same wording in other team articles then just use it as Senators related stuff. Ex. Montreal Canadiens had a paragraph about the arena, how about Ottawa's? And I think a little talk about the struggles and shining moments of the Senators are notable. --Hasek is the best 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the arena stuff for sure. I took out the original Sens stuff in the leading paragraph. And you put in too much detail about the folding and expansion. Those things aren't in the article later on. I think another paragraph or two including the financing, bankruptcy and the growing from bottom of the league into playoff contender and the lead will be done. Still have to figure out the Broadcasting and Sens Army sections. Alaney2k 15:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Number 18
The number 18, which was Brian Smith's old number is not used by the Senators. Brian did not play for the Sens but died tragically and the Sens honored him with a patch on their jerseys. While I am certain it is not retired, is that truly the case? Is it defacto retired, or just honoured? Alaney2k (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not retired, nor do I recall having heard of it being taken out of circulation. Embarrassingly, I've never heard of the Brian Smith tragedy. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He was killed by an escaped mental patient. He used to be the prime TV reporter for the Senators. Alaney2k (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see; the last player I recall wearing #18 was Marian Hossa in 2004. It would be rare in the NHL, if the Sens took #18 out of circulation for a broadcaster (who never played for them). I don't recall the # being raised to the rafters or any other ceremonies - This is all new to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Checked up on Smith, he died in 1995. As #18 was worn since then, it wasn't retired or taken out of circulation. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a team with a ceremonial jersey for a broadcaster, no? And the ceremonial jersey was raised? Alaney2k (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The patch can be seen here. How do you find out about numbers for past years? The patch is not mentioned on the Sens' site, but the camp they started in conjunction with the alumni is mentioned. I mentioned the patch on Smith's page; should that be noted here also? Alaney2k (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess so (though not certain), I do know however that #18 was worn as recently as 2004. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a general note, the NHL doesn't recognize the various banners honoring non-players (such as Al Arbour's coach's banner in Nassau Coliseum or the Billy Joel banner in the Wachovia Center) as being official "retired numbers".  RGTraynor  04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if there was an example of how to list the #18 honouring in this article. The team raised a banner, but they also had a patch on their jerseys for the '95-'96 season. They also had a patch for Roger Neilson more recently. The New York Rangers are famous for having many patches on their jersey over their history. Alaney2k (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any particularly encyclopedic reason to do so? Teams put decals, armbands and appliques on jerseys in tribute of this or that all the time.  If anywhere, a mention in the 2007-08 Ottawa Senators season article (or for whatever season/s this patch was worn) would suffice.    RGTraynor  16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI: Patrick Traverse and Marian Hossa wore #18 since 1995. Post-Hossa there have been 3 Binghamton Senators that wore 18, but none were called up to Ottawa. Therefore there's no obvious evidence of players swapping numbers in honor of him coming in either. ccwaters (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. So, adding a note about the patch and banner raising to the 1995-96 Ottawa Senators season article would cover it? Similarly, the Roger Neilson patch for the 2002-03 season? Alaney2k (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that covers it. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cash Line info
I don't want to sound paranoid, but there seems to be more information being added (accompanied by images) to the article, concerning the Cash Line. Is this acceptable, since the Cash Line article was deleted? I'm not complaining nor will I revert, just wondering. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nay, forget it. I'm just being paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)