Talk:Ottawa Senators/Archive 4

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:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Now the article is factual and verifiable.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * After responding to my queries, the article is in much better shape of a Good Article:Pass. T r U C o  - X  22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * After responding to my queries, the article is in much better shape of a Good Article:Pass. T r U C o  - X  22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * After responding to my queries, the article is in much better shape of a Good Article:Pass. T r U C o  - X  22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After responding to my queries, the article is in much better shape of a Good Article:Pass. T r U C o  - 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  ?  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).    Ravenswing  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.    Ravenswing  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 (Summary style) CJ DUB (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No you keep adding undefined which has nothing to do with summary style. undefined 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)

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)

Language
At home games, are players introduced in both English and French, or just English? 98.209.116.7 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's bilingual if I recall. They say something like "Your captain, votre capitaine, Daniel Alfredsson."  Maybe someone else could confirm.  Cheers! Ibanez Guy (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's bilingual.  Maxim (talk)  01:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

End of an Era?
So, the last few weeks have been pretty crazy in Senators land. I was going to do a quick write-up on what has been going on under the history section since these changes have had vast, but I was thinking that it might be time for a new History section. I was thinking: "2011-present: Rebuilding" (while changing the previous one to "2004–2010: Bryan Murray era"). Any thoughts or objections? Cheers! Ibanez Guy (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. I would also like to see the new "Current status" section which was just added removed. Freshfighter9talk 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I threw in a couple sourced paragraphs on what has happened so far in place of the other stuff.  Obviously, things are going to change depending on how the rebuild goes, so some stuff might seem too detailed in retrospect maybe 6 or 12 months down the road.  We can change things up as we go. Cheers! Ibanez Guy (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead
I have removed the phrase "The club played most of four seasons in the 10,000 seat Ottawa Civic Centre and finished last in the league in all four seasons" from the lead. It wasn't really worded very well and this was 16-20 years ago and isn't really relevant in the lead anymore. Plus this is mentioned later in the article.

I also reworded "The team has had two changes of ownership, from Firestone to Rod Bryden in 1993 due to the arena development and its financing, and subsequently Eugene Melnyk after a 2003 bankruptcy" in the lead. Although this is relevant information, the number of ownership changes and owners financial history from 18 years ago isn't really relevant in the lead, and again this subject is already covered later in the article. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to summarize most of the article, so a mention later in the article is to be expected. That's not a reason to remove content from the lead. That's part of the WP:MOS for leads. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but statements removed weren't major topics of the article. A quick look at the other Canadian teams articles shows none describe ownership in the lead. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Jersey
Question: Is the new alternate heritage jersey replacing or in addition to the 3rd jersey from years past with the horizontal "SENS" logo ? I would assume it is replacing it, and the current 3rd jersey is being retired, but I am not completely sure that is correct. Either way the image showing the jerseys in the infobox should be updated to show the current heritage 3rd jersey. Not sure who has the skills to do that. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The SENS is definitely retired. (I'm happy about that) I'll give the graphic update a try... &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 22:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put in an update graphic. If anyone can do better, go ahead and replace it! &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. Good job. 70.55.51.23 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)