Talk:Ottawa Senators/Archive 1a

message: Who put this on, and has a reason for it ever been proferred?  Lacking any genuine commentary on what about the article is objectionable, I'm inclined to remove it.  RGTraynor 08:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading your comment, I thought, did I add that tag? Anyways, I went back into the history and yes, I did at that tag on July 31st. That was quite some time ago now, but I believe I added it because of the ugly tables used. RGtraynor, you changed one of the tables. But the other two tables need changing. I am referring to the tables that use "dashes" between the stat numbers. Anyways, until those are cleaned up, I think that the cleanup tag should stay on. Masterhatch 11:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I get home tonight from work, I will change those ugly "dash" tables to the standard table used by most NHL teams. That way I can feel comfortable removing the "clean-up" tag. Masterhatch 05:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Finished. Masterhatch 04:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: I am now half done the season by season table changing. When I finish the other half, I will remove the cleanup tag. Masterhatch 15:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished. Masterhatch 04:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Half done

message: Next question, while I'm thinking about it.  We have articles split up with franchise shifts.  Is there any rationale for keeping the original Senators and the 1992 franchise in the same article (other than the "reinstatement," which was a meaningless bit of feelgood okeydoke)?  It'd be a lot cleaner as separate articles, there'd be tacit room for a good bit more history ... thoughts?  RGTraynor 04:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favour of splitting them up. My reason? So more info can be added about the other Ottawa teams (the silver seven for example). As it is, this Ottawa page is getting kinda full and as it is, there is enough information about the original senators to warrent their own article. Besides, in reality, they aren't the same team. BUT this is probably a very touchy subject and before any changes are made, we should get more than just two or three people's thoughts on this. Masterhatch 04:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe the Ottawa Silver Seven redirects here as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am aware that the Silver Seven directs here, I was just commenting that if the Old and New were split, we could expand the information on the silver seven. The "Old" Senators have a long history and I feel that they deserve an article of their own.Masterhatch 05:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, Silver Seven directs here; I just checked.  As to that, the term "Silver Seven" never seemed to be the contemporary name of the team (that was the 'Ottawas' or the 'Senators', depending) but a media-driven nickname akin to the Habs or the Blueshirts.  Ultimately, though, it isn't even that I think the old and new teams deserve their own expanded entries (which I do) but that if the same franchise gets different entries just because they're in different cities, two different teams sixty years apart should have them despite identical names.  RGTraynor 05:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say split. See Cleveland Barons and the notice I added at the top:  This article discusses the current American Hockey League team.  See also: Cleveland Barons (NHL) and Cleveland Barons (1937-1972).
No one seems to object to the Senators being split. So, what name shall we give the "other" Senators team? How about Ottawa Senators (original) or Ottawa Senators (1901-1934) or Ottawa Senators (defunct). Any other ideas? Also, whoever gets around to splitting the teams has to fixed dozens of links. That's my two bits for today. Masterhatch 06:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest Ottawa Senators (historical) just like how the Conservative Party of Canada is split up. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: My vote would be for the (1901-1934). Definitely not the (defunct). ccwaters 22:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the NHL "reinstating" the Senators name is mentioned in the article. They pretended for a day . I think that's all that's needed. Other hockey examples Hamilton Bulldogs (fans voted to keep the name), Fort Wayne Komets, Peoria Rivermen. ccwaters 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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'm quite comfortable with the 'feelgood okeydoke' characterization.  
RGTraynor 03:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with RG on this. In all reality, they are two separate teams. Masterhatch 03:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality they are, and in realty they are not, I don't think mention of a certificate is all that is needed. Before you split this article I want to see that section expanded and researched as to why the NHL granted license to use the Ottawa Senators history as well as the name. Because more then just an 'feelgood okeydoke' characterization the decision to allow that came from somewhere what it precisely is and how far it reaches must be documented. History of The Ottawa Senators franchise --Cloveious 05:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to do such research if you wish.  That being said, when the NHL's own publications ignore the previous team in describing the current one's historical record and totals, I'm comfy in the splitting I'll start when I finish this post.  That aside, I've an observation for you, Cloveious, and a question.  Observation: we commonly split team entries for different cities even when the entries involve the same franchise, the same players, consecutive years, complete continuity of ownership, and even the same nicknames.  Question: if the Ottawas are the same franchise, how much was paid in compensation to the heirs of Redmond Quain and the Ottawa Hockey Association, and why was the exact same franchise fee assessed as was to Tampa Bay? RGTraynor 06:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, I even have another one.  I followed Cloveious' link to 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.  RGTraynor 06:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Are you displaying the old banners as proof that they are the same team? Head down to their farm team and check out the banners they have in the rafters. There's Binghamton Whalers- Binghamton Rangers, B.C. Icemen (UHL), and current Binghamton Senators. I could probably find a pic somewhere... ccwaters 11:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'll spare you the research... Why: PR/ Marketing. How: no one connected to the Original team was alive and coherent enough to protest it. ccwaters 13:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old vs New 

message: Alright, I've completed the split; take a gander at it under Ottawa Senators (Original) and see what you think.  I've changed the redirect from Ottawa Silver Seven, but I have not changed all the other links; Masterhatch, can you think of any offhand that would need to be changed other than the early NHL season pages on which you've been working?  RGTraynor 07:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (pants)  Alright, I've changed the links for the NHL seasons and the trophy lists.  I have NOT yet changed links for individual player entries or anything hanging off of the Hall of Fame pages.  RGTraynor 08:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work RG. Off hand, I can't think of other links that need fixing (other than players of course). But this brings up another issue. Should I split the player lists too? What about the coach lists? Of course if one splits the player lists, one could also include the players on that list that played before the original senators played in the NHL. Same with the coaches. As for using (original), I was partial to that one too, but (historical) was also a good name. Overall, i think it was a good move to split. Not everyone will agree, but it looks cleaner and is now more informative (I think anyway). Masterhatch 10:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consistency; we should split the player and coach lists too.  I know, more work.  As far as original vs. historical, eh ... "historical" to me begs the question:  what makes one team "historical" as opposed to the other?  They both occupy places in history; just different years.  RGTraynor 12:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  There's lots to do. Check out the "what links here" page (sorry I couldn't figure out how to link to it). I'll pound some out today... ccwaters 13:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first 50 at Special:Whatlinkshere/Ottawa_Senators are ok... ccwaters 01:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  100... ccwaters 12:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  150... ccwaters 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  250 ... and a heck of a lot to go. RGTraynor 09:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The player lists are now split and so are the coaches lists. I also got all the links to those two (well, four now) lists fixed. I didn't touch the categories, though. They need some work. Masterhatch 16:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It had to be done. I've been eyeing it for a while. ccwaters 11:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Found something odd in New York Americans while cleaning this stuff up. Its says the Americans tried to merger with the Sens after the 1933-34 season. Is the date wrong, or is it supposed to be the Eagles, or is it just plain false? ccwaters 11:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who typed that part of the Americans. I got it from this site . It could be that it was meant to say "St. Louis Eagles". I think this requires more checking into. Masterhatch 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a rumor floating to that effect in December 1933.  Frank Calder denied it, which led the press to think coverup, and both teams told their players there was nothing to it.  During a March league governors' meeting (but before the season ended), the move to St. Louis was approved. RGTraynor 20:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting issues 

message: This split has caused a ripple of minor problems and bad links. While checking things out, I happened to notice this useless category: "Category:St. Louis Eagles players". It should be merged with the "Category:Ottawa Senators (Original) players". Ccwaters, you have been playing around with categories a lot more than I have of late and are much more familar with them than I. Truth be told, I am rather unfamilar with the categories. Think you could spare a minute or two to fix it? Thanks in advance! Masterhatch 14:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, later today probably ccwaters 16:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was just one entry there (Bill Cowley) I added him to the Senators category. Its kind of misleading. If you had some else in mind, I'll try to figure it out. ccwaters 22:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ripple effect 

message: Does anyone know for certain, which players were captains of the Senators during the 1993-94 season. I know from a "Hockey News magazine" that I own, Mark Lamb & Brad Shaw served as Co-Captains of the Senators (1993-94), until Lamb was traded (Feb.'94? to the Flyers). However, did Shaw then serve as co-captain with Gord Dineen? or was Gord Dineen (sole) captain for rest of season? Does anyone know? GoodDay 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NHL Media Guide lists all three as captains during the season, but the Guide's practice is only to identify those who were in any given season, not the order or the combination.  I suppose I could go into the basement and break out my Hockey News' from that season, but that's a lot for a relatively petty issue.  RGTraynor 21:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thanks for the help. GoodDay 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain's List

message: The Season-by-season record keeps being modified to add in Shootout win goals when NHL stats show otherwise. Should Goals For include shootout goals according to Standings or Goals For actually reflect goals received?--Maraulth 03:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the site [www.nhl.com] seems to be counting them, that's what I was going by. -- VederJuda 03:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, been counting em that way as well, but according to the stats page for Goals For it says slightly different, which is why I was updating the scoresheet that way.--Maraulth 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked again after seeing the note on the last edit to the page, and NHL.com is counting differently depending on the page. In the overall standings they count one point extra per win , but on the team summaries they don't . Now that is annoying. -- VederJuda 03:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals For + Shoot Out Win 

message: The link should remain as being www.ottawasenators.com as this is the official site link. Pointing towards the english or even the www2 subdomain can cause problems in the future and as such the official page should remain the same.--Maraulth 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Website Link 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senators Third Jersey. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Senators Third Jersey]] merged here 

message: Will Ottawa shatter its record for most lopsided win of 8-0 from earlier this season?  They lead Toronto 7-0 early in the third.  Not bad for Game Number One Thousand.
:Yeah was hoping they'd average out 3 goals a period this game to shatter that record... too bad though --Maraulth 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Cow - Big Lead 

message: Would it be useful to add a "not to be forgotten" list like other sites have?  Add famous or infamous players from the past -- well, actually there may not be that many... Barry Zuckerkorn 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we had those in all the NHL team articles, but we took them out. ccwaters 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be forgotten?? 

message: Okay I don't know if this is just my computer, but the article is shown to not exist. It has a history, when you go to create it all the real stuff is there, it has not been deleted... everything is there and correct except it does not show up as a page and just shows the standard page for any non-existing article with the option of creating it, etc.. What the heck is going on here?  Croat Canuck   04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I just clicked save page and it was back to normal, although my edit on that does not show up on the edit history. Quite a strange occurence.  Croat Canuck   04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's happening?

message: I thought that I would put the salaries of the players up (from the NHLPA website) because I know that alot of fans are intrested in the information. But it would be good to also have the years on their contracts since that is normally really hard to find. --Champben2002 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm not sure if it's particularly useful or accurate because many teams have a policy about not releasing salary figures to the public. (The Canucks have such a policy in place.) It is basically whatever number they choose to release to the public, so I always question salary figures. However, the "years left on the contracts" idea might be useful. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's just say that the lockout negotiations were illustrative.  Those player agents are all businessmen, and it should be pretty verifiable with a high degree of accuracy how much money the teams are or are not making.  Yet both sides disagreed hugely on the particulars.  Without seeing photocopies of the contracts, I wouldn't slavishly believe any reported salary.  RGTraynor 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed with RGTraynor, salaries are hard to pin down to an exact number. Another point to is are bonuses included in those? Signing bonuses? Other wages that are not verifiable or want to be verified (like in Brian McGratton's contract where the Sens pay him $150,000 to take out Sundin's knees with a pipe, and as he makes his getaway Sundin screams, "Why? Why?", anyways getting a lil off topic). The point is that salaries don't really belong in an encyclopedia because it is like, to steal from The Sound of Music, taking a cloud and pinning it down... Tsk, tsk, what ever happened to the age where personal earnings was private information? I'm not even old and I already have nostalgia overload.  Croat Canuck   03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Salaries

message: Shouldn't we add a picture of the season's team photo? It would be a good start since we haven't got any picture of a playing in action, or just any player at all paat 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost certainly copyrighted.  RGTraynor 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So we couldn't use one of the copyriughts from the list?paat 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Messy Thinking
The entire Senators article was replaced with this:
*Bold textOTTAWA FUCKING SUCKS, YOU HOMPSBold text
I.  Kid.  You.  NOT!!!!!!
: This kind of vandalism is, unfortunately, commonplace.  Happily there are many editors who work hard on reverting it.  RGTraynor 19:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of teams that would like to suck so badly as to have averaged over 46 wins and 100 pts over the last seven seasons, with four division titles yet.  How many teams have bettered the Sens' record over that time?  RGTraynor 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh...Detroit Redwings is one example...how about the teams that have won the Stanley Cup or have made it the final round.  Regular season stats don't count in the playoffs.  For example right now the Oilers...last seed in the West...are looking pretty good!Djjtox 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very disturbing item

message: I was just doing some digging, and I found out that perhaps Jacques Martin is the problem against the leafs, and not the Sens themselves. Martin is actually 0-5 in career playoff series appearances vs. the Leafs, as he also lost to them in the 1987 playoffs as head coach of the Blues. I just thought that was quite interesting, so perhaps Ottawa's playoff troubles against the Leafs are finished, and maybe the Panthers have now inherited them. Like I said, I found this quite interesting and just wanted to point it out.  Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very interesting note 

message: Over the history of a team there are always fans and rivals of the team.  Each tries to better eachother.  Ultimate fans dress up on game day to show thier support for the team while ultimate rivals produce creative songs, cartoons, and slogans to promote competition between fans.  The rivalries between Toronto and Ottawa fans (Battle of Ontariio) and Calgary and Edmonton Fans (Battle of Alberta) have generated many such items.  This rich history of one-ups-manship should be captured in order to ensure continued creativity and to document what has already been done.  I propose, when adding a ultimate fan picture or rival created song, cartoon, or slogan, the actually year of the season at which time it was generated should also be presented in order to properly document the time period.  Also, links to external pages indicating ultimate fan and rival can be reference such as Ultimate Fan or Ultimate Rival.  This is all part of the rich team history!  Djjtox 20:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. There are thousands of forums on the Internet, they might like this idea. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Ultimate Fan and Rival Section 

message: grrr I hit enter on the subject line...
I propose we archive most of these conversations to Talk:Ottawa_Senators/Archive_2005 for any conversations not current or involving the previous season. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 15:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. -Joshuapaquin 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, go for it.  RGTraynor 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving This Page Before Next Season