Talk:Ottawa Senators/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cups in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NHL's own Media Guides date the franchise solely from 1992 - in year to year record, in club records, in coaching, captains' and GMs' histories, in head-to-head all-time records, in Stanley Cup wins. To quote from page 93 of the 2005 Guide, "Franchise date: December 16, 1991 - 13th NHL Season" In no way, shape or form does the NHL treat them as the same franchise, and the league's made its POV clear, whatever some scrap of metal and wood in a storage box in back of the team offices might read. I read the Senators' official site, and among other things, I glanced at their career leaders board. Not one original Senator is mentioned. Yet if it was just one franchise, Cy Denneny would be the Sens' career goals leader with 245, and Frank Nighbor, George Boucher and Hec Kilrea would make the leader board. Denneny (5th) and Nighbor (9th) should be in the career points leaders. Boucher would be second in penalty minutes with 604, King Clancy 4th, Alex Smith 5th. Hall of Famer Alec Connell should be the career leader in goaltending games, wins and shutouts, categories in which Hall of Famer Clint Benedict should be listed 5th, 3rd and 3rd respectively. If the current Sens' ownership doesn't even believe they're really one franchise, I see no reason for Wikipedia to reflect it.

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

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

The Sens have Stanley Cup banners hanging up in SBP's rafters, not to mention I am 99% sure (yes I know I will have to find a source) that they received a "certificate of reinstatement" is that not enough to prove they are the same team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.215.172 (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Montreal Canadiens hang the Montreal Expos banners up. Does that mean the Canadiens are the same team as the Expos were? All both of those things are were promotional gimics and honouring the past. The certificate was just a element of their first home game ceremony, it was never intended to be official. The Ottawa Senators don't recognize the records of the past Senators team and the NHL itself does not link the two together officially. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Abitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Support M.Nelson's proposal to add a footnote in the infobox. Readers expecting to see 11 would be directed to the original franchise article via a footnote link outside the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.3.41 (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the 0 in the Stanley Cups field. I think it sums it up. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your footnote looks good. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Note that I reformatted the references section per National Hockey League, making this footnote an actual footnote rather than reference (I also tweaked the inline citations and bibliography bits). -M.Nelson (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, that wasn't so hard. lol UrbanNerd (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bilingual

I have no objections to having the French name listed. The team operates in both English and French. The Senators have a bilingual web site: [1]. What are the objections? The Canadiens site has the french name in the infobox. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Canadiens are the only team within a french Province/State, that's why. Are we going to change every team in Canada bilingual ? Les Feuille D'Erable de Toronto ? Les Graisseurs D'Edmonton ? UrbanNerd (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you one of those people who boos the french words of Oh Canada? Seriously? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow really ? No need to resort to cowardly personal attacks. Sad. UrbanNerd (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That was no attack. It was a silly response to your silly comment. I asked 'what are the objections' in the first sentence. You did not provide a reason for your objection, only that you object. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an irony in you pulling out a personal attack of your own ("cowardly") while complaining about someone else doing same. And while I am indifferent to the inclusion or exclusion of the french name in the infobox, I would like to note that the Ottawa CMA includes several hundred thousand people in Quebec. Resolute 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Typical off topic whining I expect from Resolute. You must have literally zero friends in real life. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Consider this a final warning: One more personal attack, and you will be reported. Resolute 22:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The legal name of the Canadiens is Le Club de Hockey Canadien. The legal name of the Senators is not in French.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  00:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that a reason to object? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care but I don't have a problem with it. The Sens have a connection to French, they make announcements in both English and French after goals and in the introductions. Other Canadian teams outside of Ottawa and Montreal use English only.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The city of Ottawa is officially bilingual, is it not? That's the difference between Ottawa and the other Canadian cities mentioned. Freshfighter9^talk 02:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ravenswing. Plus WP:UEIA says to list "widely known" non english names in the body, not the infobox. I'm not sure if you could even argue "Les Senateurs" is a widely known alternative name. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not say "not in the infobox". What specific rule is broken? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It says list "widely known" non english names in the body. The infobox is not the body. And I'm not sure "Les Senateurs" is not a widely known alternative name even for the body. Perhaps you should read WP:OFFICIALNAMES. UrbanNerd (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the other teams outside of Montreal, the Senators are known by a different spelling in French. That is a unique fact that can be reported in the article. Since you object to it being in the lead, where would an 'appropriate' spot for it to be mentioned? Officialnames only states that an other name might be irrelevant. Since they operate differently than the other teams, that makes the french name relevant. IMO. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Come to that, perhaps we should give as much credence to the French name as the French Wikipedia gives to the English name. Oh, wait: it's nowhere in the article at all. [2]  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added (Ottawa Senators en anglais) to the lead of the French wikipedia article. I'm not trying to be a defender of bilingualism, here. It just seems such a minor point to allow the french spelling. It's relevant here because the Senators operate somewhat bilingually. Not because we need a translation, which we don't. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that got reverted quickly. :( I'm not sure what the big problem is here? You go to the Senators official site, it has a choice for a French page or an English page. You click the Enlgish and it says "Ottawa Senators." You click French and it says "Sénateurs d'Ottawa"... what is the problem? Is the issue where we should put the name, or if we should even include it at all? Ibanez Guy (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean on the French Wikipedia? I don't know. I don't know whether to chalk it up to language hostility, non-knowledge of the club, rules or what. I don't believe there is a rule in either wiki -forbidding- the mention. I can't place the French name here, or the English name there! My French is too poor to ask why it was reverted there. Maybe I'll try anyways. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I rather expect that the answer is that it is the French Wikipedia, and as such, proper names are generally rendered in French. I wish there was a stronger ethic here on that score.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  20:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There are other pages on the French site with the words ( XXX en anglais ) in the lead. I looked for the proper way to do it there. So, it's not a hard and fast rule. Getting back to your point, why would you ban the French spelling from the article? The team operates using both names. It seems inoffensive to me and doesn't set a precedent. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely sets a precedent. It seems like every frenchmen on wikipedia is trying to add french to every english article possible. If you want to add french EDIT ON FRENCH WIKIPEDIA ! This is english wikipedia ! I'm not fully opposed to adding it in the article somewhere that (in french) the team is referred to "Sénateurs d'Ottawa" but the not infobox. Maybe you could add it to the section where you go on and on about the french at games like it's an advertisement for the language. What's next adding spanish to the LA Lakers, San Diego Padres, and Dallas Stars articles ? There's a lot more spanish people in those states than french people in Ontario. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the French who want to add foreign words and spellings, as we know from diacritics debates. But this is not setting the article title. There is no dispute that Senators is the common and official name. The topic of announcements, etc. in bilingual has been asked about before. It should be in the article. The French broadcasting was not covered at all. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed set a precedent, but only for Bilingual franchises. Also, not to be a compete A-hole, but there isn't an English word in San Deigo Padres the argument would be whether or not to call them the Saint Jacob Fathers. Which no one would call them anyway and it would be a pointless translation since they are known in English as they are in Spanish. A better comparison would be the Phoenix Suns who have worn jerseys with the Spanish name "Los Suns", but even they don't make you choose a language prior to entering their official web site.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually they would be the Padres de San Diego in spanish. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty spurious example, given that "San Diego Padres" is the official name of the team.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well WP:UEIA to put it in the body of the article. I'm not saying I'm against mentioning it, I'm not some anti-frnech fanatic. But it should stay in the body, not the infobox. Where were you looking to add it ? UrbanNerd (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty simple issue. The team is officially bilingual. All you have to do is go to their official website to see that both Ottawa Senators and Sénateurs d'Ottawa are used by the organization. In addition, the team's third jerseys include shoulder pathches with one reading Ottawa Senators and the other reading Sénateurs d'Ottawa. It really doesn't get much more simple than that. The entry should clearly include the French version of then name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:FFC0:1F6:591E:519E:B729:0 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above that as the Ottawa franchise has an official French team name and communicates with the public (which includes its fans from Gatineau, Quebec) in both English and French, it is reasonable to include the team's French name in the lead sentence. isaacl (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Ottawa Senators (French: Sénateurs d'Ottawa) are a professional ice hockey team based in..." That's it right? That's all we're arguing about? Complete with personal attacks no less. Rejectwater (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• I completely support the Senators' right to be as bilingual as they please, to include the French name in their literature, on their website, and anywhere else on their official publications as they like. With Quebec as half their metro area, that only makes sense for the franchise to do.

  The English Wikipedia is not the Ottawa Senators' website, nor part of their literature, nor are we required to conform to Canadian law regarding bilingualism, nor are we required to be bilingual just because the Senators choose to do business bilingually. We are no more bound to render information in French for this article as we are to render information in French for any other subject located in, or pertaining to, a Francophone region. (That being said, I like to think we can discuss this matter without personal attacks or accusing people of having this agenda or that.) Ravenswing 20:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • In accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on widely-known names for a subject, it is reasonable to include the French name for the team, as it is widely-known by that name. isaacl (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Revival?

The Senators/Eagles franchise folded in 1935, period. This franchise is a seperate entidy, an expansion franchise of the Class of '92. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No-one disagrees about that. What you and Ravenswing disagree about is what revival means in sports terms. It has never been used to mean anything other than it is a reused name and colours. I believe it is being helpful, but I can see now that it can be confusing too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I highly recommend that the term Revival be kept out of this article. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the subject matter of the Revival page as we do often hear terms like revival being used for teams that have been named after old teams. This is pretty common. However, whether or not it should be linked to in an infobox on the Senators page is a completely different matter. One which I could go either way. Probably lean towards removing as a bit of undue weight and being that it could be confusing to editors not familiar with the way the term is being used. That being said I have no problem with the term and the link being in the prose where the proper context can be given. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I should not have reverted. That was a mistake. The infobox is best the way it is now. Simply founded in 1990, started play in 1992. Leave out the links. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm going to try and stay civil, but editors like GoodDay that lack basic editing skills make it very hard. I cannot even count how many absolutely absurd edits I've seen signed by the likes. Let me dumb this down for you, because you clearly lack the ability to have a meaningful debate. Here goes: The "expansion/revival" tag has been on this article for YEARS. Someone changed it, I reverted so that it could be discussed. You come in with your usual inane contribution and start a near edit war. If the consensus is to remove the expansion/revival tag then so be it, I'm not against it being removed, I'm against the removal of a longstanding fact without discussion.

My preference would be to keep it, but again I'm not that against removing it. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be for you to attempt to discuss this in a civil fashion. Claiming that you are going to "try" to do so in the same post as levying a battery of insults is a poor way to go about it. Ravenswing 07:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As there is no official definition of an NHL team revival, it seems unnecessary to include this in the infobox. I think it can be fairly used within the text, though, in accordance with its everyday meaning. isaacl (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• My point in removing the term from the infobox was exactly that -- that while I disagree with the notion that "revival" is anywhere near a useful term, I'm not seeking to remove it from the article, but lacking any official standing, it doesn't belong in the infobox. Ravenswing 07:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Use the term "revival" might give the impression that there's some type of continuation between the original Senators and the expansion Senators. It means "a restoration" of something from a previous time. I guess whether the old Senators were "restored" by the league is open for debate, but I'd say no as I don't know if that's a truly accurate way of describing the franchise. As far as I've always been concerned, they're an expansion team just like the Tampa Lightning are.ChakaKong^talk 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well its being used in the context that the name was revived. Not the franchise. That is where the difference is. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The franchise is the subject of the article though, is it not? That was NOT revived, it was created new. ChakaKong^talk 16:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So according to some editors here, the revival of any professional sports team that has folded/ceased operations at any point of time is impossible ? UrbanNerd (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, no one has said that, and once again, you're pushing the boundaries of civility. Quite aside from that generic questions as to the value of the term "revival" as applied to sports teams is not the business of this talk page, no, this franchise wasn't "revived." It folded in the 1930s, and any team deriving any lineage from the original Senators folded in the 1950s. The league recognizes no revival, the team recognizes no revival, the old team's Cups are not claimed, the old team's records are not credited. Ravenswing 02:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bahaha, Pushing the boundaries of civility ? What on earth are you talking about ? Please quit pouting, it's very effeminate and ungrounded. All I said is under your definition, there is no way of a defunct franchise becoming a "revival". How is that uncivil ? UrbanNerd (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil. It means rude, impolite, lacking courtesy. This is the only way you seem to be able to interact with other people. Learn to express yourself without the hostility. ChakaKong^talk 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I see that no one can answer my question about how any defunct franchise can become a revival. So I guess we'll go with there is no such thing as a revival ? UrbanNerd (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Senators were never defunct. They've been active since their first (1992-93) season. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Revival is a misleading term. This is an expansion franchise. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused with the difference between franchise and team. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The Senators aren't a revised franchise 'or' a revised team. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, wow you're a gem. Actually it is a revival "team". Can you answer my basic question on how any defunct team or franchise can become a revival then. Because by your definition there is no such thing as a revival. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Team name in lead sentence

Regarding this edit: I believe the general consensus in the discussion at Talk:Ottawa Senators#Bilingual was in support of including the team's French name in the lead sentence, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on widely-known names for a subject, and its presence in the article for three months suggests there has been no strong opposition. Would anyone like to offer additional points of discussion on this topic? isaacl (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support it. The team advertises itself in both English and French, etc. Alaney2k (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think the consensus still holds and I would note the IP fighting it is a block evading UrbanNerd. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  That editor seemed to agree with putting the info in the body of the article and had also referred to Wikipedia's guidance on including widely-known alternate names... isaacl (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry which editor? UrbanNerd? He says a few times in that discussion that he doesn't think its even notable enough for the body. Either way the IP matches up with a number of other IPs he has used to evade which all geolocate to the same place. Some are even in the exact same blockrange. -DJSasso (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  "Well WP:UEIA to put it in the body of the article. I'm not saying I'm against mentioning it, I'm not some anti-frnech fanatic. But it should stay in the body, not the infobox." Maybe they've changed their mind, or forgotten about their conclusion. isaacl (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah I do see that. Thought you were implying you didn't think they were the same person. Was just pointing out why I said what I said about who the IP was. :) -DJSasso (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  Oh for pity's sake ... that jerk is still fooling around with his antics? Someone should send him back to kindergarten until he gets the concept of playing with others right. Ravenswing 06:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Isaacl. And lets collective ignore UrbanNerd - he has nothing to offer. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not that it makes a lot of difference since nobody would be foolish enough to lift his block at this point, but it may be time to consider a community ban for UrbanNerd. Resolute 14:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

He was acting up over at the Commons today too. As I mentioned over there, his life is apparently quite empty. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ottawa Senators. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080420181658/http://senators.nhl.com:80/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=360923 to http://senators.nhl.com/team/app?articleid=360923&page=NewsPage&service=page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070916180557/http://statshockey.homestead.com/plusminus.html to http://statshockey.homestead.com/plusminus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

alternate uniforms 2018/19

Help me Sens fans - did last year's centennial jersey become this season's alternate jersey? if so, I'll add it to the infobox. Tdunsky (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Team Colours

Recently, team colours have been switched to red and gold, from red and black.

I’m wondering if it should be switched back to red and black - as jerseys will be primarily black (and red is a no brainer)?

Gold has always played a prominent role in the team logo - so I’m not sure if a change is warranted with the new logo in place. Mcnasty1point0 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I'd be in favour of reverting it back to the red-black arrangement. Leventio (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong road uniforms?

Hello,

I believe that the road uniforms depicted in the infobox are incorrect, and reflect the classic whites; the new ones have white forearms as opposed to black on the old ones. The new ones can be seen here: https://news.sportslogos.net/2020/10/07/sens-return-to-their-roots-unveil-new-uniforms/hockey-2/

The Kip (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a GA.

This article needs serious attention and is a bad look on WP:HOCKEY for this to remain a GA as is. The article has been poorly maintained reference-wise since its promotion nearly 14 years ago, and I do not have the time to fix all of it. It falls apart around the time of the Bryan Murray era dated about 2009. Thankfully, some great information is there, it just needs referenced. I think it's possible to fix this one, but again, I can't be the one to do it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the eras need serious rework. It doesn't make sense to me that the Pierre Dorion era is all considered the same when an era clearly ended when they traded away Stone. We are currently in a brand new era as of a couple years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidnasty (talk • contribs) 06:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because they're not good anymore doesn't mean it's the end of the Dorion era. It definitely is the end of one, but the article isn't written from that context and honestly I think that form of organization by management/leadership is fine. I'm more concerned about the lack of references in much of the Bryan Murray and Dorion eras and the writing quality of much of the Dorion era. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I got the idea from looking at the other Canadian teams. They mostly seem to revolve around the players/team success and I honestly think it would be a better format for this article. The early years/Martin parts are great but I wouldn't be opposed to splitting up the Murray era at the point where Alfie left. I also think a new subtitle for the team implosion/rebuild would work great. Current format isn't terrible considering how important Murray was to this franchise but I'm personally just not a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidnasty (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I got my example from Toronto's article, which is much more a proper GA. They use both your and my approach. Two leaders, two team states per heading. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ottawa Senators/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There's concern that the article references need work (lots of unsourced text), and possibly the organization needs a rethink. (t · c) buidhe 15:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please mark in the article where citations are needed and I will add them. The team is well covered by the media and I have access to the Ottawa Citizen newspaper dating back prior to 1990. Alaney2k (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I have filled out all of the citations needed. And added alts to images and replaced the dead link. Can you explain what you mean about a re-org, and did you have concerns about some prose? Alaney2k (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Alaney2k, thanks so much for your work on the article! It looks in pretty good shape now, so I'd be in favor of keeping it, but I want to know what User:DannyMusicEditor thinks because he had commented on the article organization. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have some things I'm concerned about. For instance:

The next season, Ottawa would be challenged to repeat the success they had in 2011–12, due to long-term injuries to key players such as Erik Karlsson, Jason Spezza, Milan Michalek and Craig Anderson. Despite these injuries, the Senators would finish seventh in the Eastern Conference and head coach Paul MacLean would go on to win the Jack Adams Award as the NHL's coach of the year. Ottawa would play the second-seeded Montreal Canadiens in the first round of the playoffs, eventually winning in five games, blowing out Montreal 6–1 in games three and five. The Senators would advance to play the top-seeded Pittsburgh Penguins in the second round, this time losing in five games. During the off-season, the Senators traded veteran defenceman Sergei Gonchar to the Dallas Stars for a sixth-round pick in the 2013 draft. July 5, 2013, would be a day of mixed emotions for the city and fans, as long-time captain Daniel Alfredsson signed a one-year contract with the Detroit Red Wings, leaving Ottawa after 17 seasons with the Senators and 14 as captain. The signing shocked numerous fans across the city and many within the Senators organization. The day finished optimistically, however, as Murray acquired star forward Bobby Ryan from the Anaheim Ducks in exchange for forwards Jakob Silfverberg, Stefan Noesen and a first-round pick in the 2014 draft. The hope was that Ryan would be the guy to play on the top line with Jason Spezza after Alfredsson's departure. Murray would also sign free-agent forward Clarke MacArthur to a two-year contract that same day and bring back former defenceman Joe Corvo to a one-year contract three days later on July 8, 2013.

This is all supposedly supported by a single citation at the end. Does it really cover all this? That seems like an awful lot of content for one web article to cover, and it's not even a web reference that I can just click on.

I have similar concerns here:

At the beginning of the 2014–15 season, defenceman Erik Karlsson was named the franchise's ninth captain, with the club also re-signing Bobby Ryan to a seven-year extension. After firing head coach Paul MacLean after 27 games with an 11–11–5 record and replacing him with Dave Cameron, the Senators would win 32 of their last 55 games. Goaltender Andrew Hammond would compile a record of 20–1–2, a goals-against average of 1.79, and a save percentage of .941 to get the team back into playoff position. The Senators later became the first team in modern NHL history to overcome a 14-point deficit at any juncture of the season to qualify for the playoffs.

I know for a fact that the nearest citation (the end of all that) does not cover everything said in that paragraph. You've done great with the citations where buidhe requested them, but I would like you to make sure the citations you have added cover everything up to the points of citation, and anything that isn't be cited accordingly. While this is excellent progress, I fear there may be more to be done, I'm afraid. If you would like to continue working on this, I am unopposed to it staying open. P.S. the organization comments were not me - someone else did express concerns, but I'm not sure it's quite nearly as important as the referencing in the article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to continue editing and adding references. I am the person who worked to make this a GA in the first place. I'd like it to stay that way. I never realized how little references have been added in the interim. Alaney2k (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Note: I have notified WP:HOCKEY about this. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe:@DannyMusicEditor: Is there any further work that you would like covered? I do plan to add a section on rivalries with Montreal and Toronto, but I don't think that is necessary for this reassessment. Alaney2k (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the article looks much improved although I'm sure there is still room for improvement, GA is not expected to be perfect. I'd support keeping at this point. The citation density is quite high so I expect that the problems dannymusiceditor noticed have been resolved. Thanks for your hard work on this article! (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with buidhe, and do not see any problem areas that must be addressed before the article is passed. The lead is a little short and I would like that expanded, but it is fine enough for GA. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)