Jump to content

Talk:New Jersey Devils/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wow

This article needs so much work it's not even funny. I'll see what I can do...fixing up little things here and there. --Sportskido8

Update: I am trying to get this to FA-status, and I think it's getting very close. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. --Sportskido8 12:33 EST, 24 August 2006

List of New Jersey Devils players

I have created a List of New Jersey Devils players to compliment the one in categories. When making player additions to the New Jersey Devils article, could you also add the player to the list of Devils players? Thanks! Masterhatch 5 August 2005

Is this a complete list that will be updated periodically? Do we have a master database for this information anywhere? JHMM13 (T | C) 07:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Devils Captain soon?

Say RGTraynor and/or Masterhatch, do you know if the Devils plan to name Patrik Elias captain, when he returns to the lineup? Or is the captaincy to remain vacant for the 2005-06 season?

No knowledge, although possibly the Devils' website has an archived press release to that effect. In any event it's speculative, and there's no need to post anything until and unless the Devils make any formal announcement of a new captain. RGTraynor 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added Scott Niedermayer to the Devils "Captain list", as he's on the captains list, in the Offical New Jersey Devils website. GoodDay 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Because we really need more reminders of how we got shafted this season?? ;) JHMM13 (T | C) 07:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the is team most of the most amount of American players in the NHL! Marcus1060 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Scouts and Rockies

Why are you expanding content knowing that such content has articles to themselves??? ccwaters 14:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I plan on expanding the Scouts & Rockies articles beyond what they say, and the history of the organizations should be mentioned in the article on the current version of the franchise. I'm thinking ahead to when this is further expanded, since I plan on improving this article to Featured article status. Besides, they're still only paragraphs compared to the main article as a whole. Anthony Hit me up... 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe others disagree, but I think this article should only explain the circumstances of the Rockies relocation to NJ. Its also borderline plagiarism of the source you cited. It is obvious you took thier copy and merely editted it to your liking. ccwaters 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Current practice on the NHL Team Pages is to write up the history of previous incarnations of the same franchises on their particular pages, and have a very brief summary at best on the current page. Expanding the KC/Colorado pages makes perfect sense; duplicating the same text on the NJ page is redundant and liable to be reverted. RGTraynor 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Relevant to this discussion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the New Jersey Devils

Steve Gionta

dont remove that. Lionelxhutz 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? It is fairly unimportant information. It is quite common for relatives to be in the same sport. See Notable families in the NHL for a number of examples of relatives that have actually made it to the NHL. I will remove the information. -- JamesTeterenko 03:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Until Steve does something notable, he doesn't belong in the article. --cholmes75 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we come to a consensus on whether or not the logo should be used in the season-by-season record table? I don't know if it is legitimate fair use as I'm not a lawyer. I would rather see the logos removed from that table because they are pointless and repetitive. In an article called "New Jersey Devils", can't we assume that someone looking at that table would know its referring to the New Jersey Devils? Is the fact that the logo once had green in it somehow relevant to their record on the ice? --dm (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Squad locked

In these last few weeks, the Devils section current squad has been blocked from getting edited. Why is this the case? GoodDay 20:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Devils captains section ?

Where's the 'team captains' section? GoodDay 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved to a sister article I created: "Notable players and award winners." In order to get a good peer review and gain FA-status down the road, you have to eliminate lists and extra information so that the article is less cluttered. That's why I moved the captains section. --Sportskido8 9:42 EST, 25 August 2006
But the other NHL team articles have a 'captains section'. Are those articles going to have sister articles too? GoodDay 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because the other articles have it does not warrant a reason for this one to have it. A lot of the team articles have long lists in them and look very sloppy. --Sportskido8 12:14 EST, 26 August 2006
Alright then, I'll leave it up to the Wiki community to decide whether all 30 NHL team articles should or shouldn't have the same formats. GoodDay 19:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
They should all look nice, let's not kid ourselves. But a lot of them don't, and I wanted to pull this one away from that. That's all. --Sportskido8 17:48 EST, 26 August 2006

New retired jersey images

In my opinion, the new retired jersey images, which are just amateur Microsoft Paint creations, make this article look very much like a fan site created by an 9-year old, not an encyclopedia entry. (The numbers aren't the same size, the names aren't level with each other, the edge lines have inconsistent thickness, etc.) What does everyone else think? Does anyone have any ideas for a more official-looking solution, or would it be better to not have any images? --Muéro 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You two are the most annoying people I have ever dealt with on this site. Muero, if you don't like the images then go make one yourself. They do not look sloppy or unprofessional. And let me tell you something. I can make a better picture in Microsoft Paint then you can in $1000 imaging software. You're right though...those two little pictures make the ENTIRE article look like a creation from a 9-year old. I put something interesting there because just listing the retired numbers in a sentence is boring, and two numbers aren't really enough for a table like the Bears article has. You always make the biggest deal over the smallest things. I wonder if you do this to other people too, or just me. I fixed the Daneyko banner a little just now but I'm sure you still have a problem with it.
Chlomes...how can you criticize the article after not doing a single thing for it, ever? At least Muero makes a couple of edits from time to time. The only thing you have done is post a fair-use picture to it, only to later on object to its FA nomination by saying "some photos on there have questionable status." Seriously...don't go on there and slam the article if you claim to care about it, because it really looks like you don't that much.
I'm not trying to fight here, but coming on and insulting me like that was unnecessary Muero. Keep those comments to yourself next time, or say it in a way that doesn't make me feel like I wasted an hour putting those images together.
Clearly annoyed,
Sportskido8 1:34 EST, 27 August 2006

I have an accurate re-creation of the Stevens banner here. I can make the Daneyko banner once I find my external hard drive (my stuff is packed away in boxes). – flamurai (t) 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I hurt your feelings, Sportskido8. At the time, I did not know who made the images. But the amount of effort isn't important. Quality is important, and the quality is not good enough for inclusion here. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor (You two are the most annoying people I have ever dealt with on this site. I can make a better picture in Microsoft Paint then you can in $1000 imaging software. You always make the biggest deal over the smallest things.); personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Also, I would guess that taking copyrighted images (the Devils logo), pasting them into something new (the jersey images), and then releasing that new image into the public domain is a copyright violation. I could be wrong, but if possible, could someone find out for sure and post a link here? --Muéro 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true. The Devils uniform design is copyrighted. You could make an argument for the banners being public domain (because they are so simple) if the logo wasn't on there, but since it is, that's also copyrighted. Honestly, I don't see a valid fair use rationale for the banners, since they're just being used for illustration. I'm pretty sure the jersey illustrations are fair use with rationale along the same lines as the logos. – flamurai (t) 18:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If we are allowed to use logos by using the "logo" license, why can't they be seen on other material? --Sportskido8 18:19 EST, 27 August 2006
Fair use is not black-and-white. It's not only about what you're using, but how you're using it. And in this case, the banners are just being used as decoration. Logos can be used for identification purposes, and we can also extend that to the illustrations of the jerseys. Take a look at Wikipedia:Fair use. – flamurai (t) 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we put the banners up without the little logo on the bottom? --Sportskido8 12:58 CST, 28 August 2006

section on scapegoat

I feel like this article could use a section on the Devils being considered a scapegoat for the decline of skilled play in hockey since their first cup. There are definitely enough articles about there by sports journalists blaming the Devils for everything that is bad with hockey. It's something that's too important to be overlooked, I believe. – flamurai (t) 12:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The hockey jersey images

I really have some doubts about the claim that Sportskido8 made those images ... and here is why: If you go to [[1]], go to the 2005-2006 jersey for the New Jersey Devils, you'll see that the jersey images here, and the jersey images there, are carbon copies of one another, which I would assume means that they are what is being used, but without any credit. In fact if you look closely enough at the image uploaded here, you can see slight blue outlining where the cutting was done, if I am not mistaken.  :-/ I wouldn't be surprised if there is a similar issue with the 1982-1983 jerseys also uploaded.

Just to point out, Sportskido8 uses the name "Jared" in his profile, while the owner of NHLUniforms.com uses "Andrew" in both e-mail and signature.

Unless there's a very good explanation for this, I'll be deleting them by the end of the night, if not sooner. Resident Lune 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The guy from nhluniforms.com can't own the copyright of these images, because the copyright belongs to the Devils. Look at it this way: I can't take, say, On the Road, make my own edition of it, and claim I own the copyright. Or if that doesn't hit home, if I redraw the Devils logo in MS Paint, I can't assume the copyright just because I made it. You can not assume a copyright by reproducing already copyrighted material. – flamurai (t) 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That was more a moot point than anything. All my point was, was that the user here was claiming the work to be his own, when it in fact was the work of someone else, regardless of if that other person had the right to make the images.
Regardless, though, the images were labelled with the incorrect copyright information, as I think I showed, and so I thought it best to remove them. Resident Lune 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain to me how the Chicago Bears article has a picture of all their jerseys but this one isn't allowed to. See their fair use rationale and use it for this article, which is obviously for educational purposes. I claimed it was my work because I had to do editing to fix the shade of green on the old jerseys. And no, there is no copyright on them. If we are allowed to use the logo then we are sure as hell allowed to use jerseys with the logo on them Resident Lune. --Sportskido8 14:48 CST, 29 August 2006
So let me get this straight. Because you took 10 minutes to cut and paste the jerseys from that website, and then tinker with the colors for the earlier Devils jerseys, you felt it right to claim that it was your work. By all means, if I am mistaken, please tell me. Because the way it looks ... you didn't draw the jerseys, add the numbers, the majority of colors, and make sure they were ultimately accurate, save for a little recoloring on one of the jersey sets. Frankly, that's about as "my work" as me taking someone's B&W drawing of a cartoon character, coloring it in, and saying it's my work.
Do you even understand what you did wrong? Regardless of fair use rationale or anything of the sort, you did not give credit to who made the images, and you adding a little color does not mean you created them or that they are your works. And only when you were caught red-handed did you add a URL on the image's pages to where you found them.
You're the one who said this article isn't allowed to have images of the jerseys, not I. All I did was catch you passing off someone else's creation as your own, without giving credit. Resident Lune 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked about the copyright status of this on Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Sports uniforms and authorship. Basically, the answer is that yes, the images on nhluniforms.com are probably subject to copyright, but if we drew our own (which I already have on my missing external hard drive), we'd be okay. – flamurai (t) 11:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Red handed...ok Resident. I don't know all these stupid image policies because I haven't been here that long. Why is everyone going bonkers over a couple of small numbers, which are such a small part of the jerseys? Just get rid of the numbers on the shoulders, nobody cares about them. We just want to show what the jerseys look like. Also resident, if the person does not claim copyright on the images, which I looked all over for, then I can do whatever the hell I want with them. --Sportskido8 11:23 CST, 30 August 2006
No, you can't. Copyright is automatically in place unless the author/creator explicitly relinquishes it. A copyright notice is not required for enforcement. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Beyond that, copyright law isn't optional, and Wikipedia seems pretty intent on following it. It isn't a crime not to be familiar with either Wikipedia fair use policy or copyright law, but if you're not, please stop insisting that whatever you choose to do is okay. "Because I want to" is not an exception found in such laws. RGTraynor 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah. Enough of this legal crap already. Can we please get the jerseys back up without the insignificant numbers on them so that section looks halfway decent? --Sportskido8 12:01 CST, 30 August 2006

Refs cleaned up and expanded

I cleaned them all up(but one or two that didn't load, they're pretty easy to spot). Added dates, authors, publishers, etc.. Converted a few titled external links to cite web and news templates along the way, but its probably for the better. Most refs were just urls, now they've got a nice collection of information about the references. Also fixed a double period (with a ref inbetween the two periods) in there somewhere. Kevin_b_er 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice move (and appreciated), but somewhere along the way you accidentally eliminated the headers for the Logo & Jersey sections, and I can't figure out what you did or how to reverse it. Anthony Hit me up... 11:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I figured it out. The ref duplication thing (with <ref name="otherref" />) had \ insted of /. Would've never found that if noone said anything. --Kevin_b_er 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the current mascot? --Sportskido8 11:25 CST, 30 August 2006
another of the same error in mixing up \ and /. User:Flamurai fixed it already. Kevin_b_er 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with archive

OK, I don't know what the trouble is in creating the archive page, but Wikipedia won't let me copy the existing talk page over to the archive... it just hangs there and then times out. I'll try again later, and besides, the talk page is archived on the older edits anyway.

In addition, I know Sportskido (and I to a lesser extent) was working hard on making this page FA. Now it failed, in part because we didn't go through peer review first. It might be bass-ackward, but I'm submitting this for peer review after the failed FA nomination to see what went wrong, and then we'll resubmit once we figure out how to fix the problems. Please feel free to comment, and let's try to keep comments positive (or at least constructive criticism). Anthony Hit me up... 20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Update - I see the problem. Upon creating what I thought was a new peer review for the Devils, I discovered Sportskido already opened one. However, he failed to do one very important thing: post it on the main Peer Review page. Therefore, no one actually knew the page was up for Peer Review, which is why no one commented on it. Now it all makes sense. Hopefully we can get a formal peer review on this and then resubmit using proper channels. Anthony Hit me up... 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I DID post it on the main page. Do you think I'm an idiot? Nobody was responding to it. And forget it...people like Chlomes are going to ruin this article and keep this page from ever being FA-status. --Sportskido8 16:49 CST, 31 August 2006
I went to the peer review page and didn't see it listed there, so I assumed you hadn't posted it there. Forgive me for that assumption. However, it's not in good faith to attack other editors like Cholmes, who are simply abiding by policy. This is not YOUR page, and other people will edit it. If you can't handle it, then don't edit here. I had a similar problem when I first started, until I learned (the hard way) that this is a community, and we're all here for better or worse to make this site as good as possible. So please keep that in mind before you start accusing other people of trying to sabotage your edits. Anthony Hit me up... 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok...don't defend someone when you don't even know them. This guy is trying to ruin the article. It's not a problem of editing, no. I understand other people can edit pages, no kidding. Like you said, it's a community, and Chlomes is here for the worse. He will take images or other things that can legally be on this site and nominate them for deletion AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. I really wish he would stay away from the Devils article because he hasn't helped one bit on it. By the way, I will only attack people if I feel like they've deserved it. So there ya go. --Sportskido8 18:46 CST, 31 August 2006
I'm not going anywhere. If you want to keep adding suspect/stolen images, I will keep tagging them as such. And as far as actually improving this article - you obviously aren't interested in anyone else's help anyway, but rather in cramming your opinions down our throats. So have fun. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
See, this is what I'm talking about. Sportskido, I know Cholmes through the NFL WikiProject, and he is not out to "destroy" any articles. He's done a fine job with football related articles, and I appreciate his input here on the Devils page. On the flip side, I fail to see what the concern is over the jersey images when they've been given proper credit. As a law student, I understand the concern over copyrights, but I also feel that sometimes "fair use" paranoia on this site clamps down too tightly. I seriously doubt the site owner will get angry, and if he does, he will likely send a letter first before just opening fire with a lawsuit. The Chicago Bears article made FA status despite "questionable" images, including one you yourself tagged, Cholmes. So let's settle this dispute kindly. I would appreciate not having to bring in mediators to end the debate between the two of you, and I hope the hostilities end now. (Drawing on my experience as a day-care assistant... never thought I'd be using it on Wikipedia.) Anthony Hit me up... 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"you obviously aren't interested in anyone else's help anyway, but rather in cramming your opinions down our throats." Let this be known Chlomes. I am interested in everyone's opinion...except yours. --Sportskido8 12:18 CST, 1 September 2006

Todo

Here's my list of things that need to be done to get this article to FA status. Feel free to add/strike out items as they're completed. – flamurai (t) 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Section on Devils defense-first play, how they are blamed for "destroying" hockey
    • The first step is to collect references. We need as many opinion articles mentioning this as possible.
No references, but Neutral zone trap has related content. ccwaters 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[[2]] ccwaters 15:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Date range vs. seasons

In this edit, I standardized date ranges vs. seasons as follows:

  1. Seasons are YYYY-YY (e.g. 1998-99) with a hyphen
  2. Date ranges are YYYY–YYYY (e.g. 1992–2004) with an en dash

– flamurai (t) 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seinfeld???

Is this reference to Seinfeld really necessary? Why is it in there? --Sportskido8 17:13 CST, 26 September 2006

FA anytime soon?

Now that this page has 40 properly placed references, how close is this article to another FA nomination? --Sportskido8 3:04 CST, 3 October 2006

The article looks good, but at first glance there is a few things I would like to see changed. First of all there should be a link "Main Article:" under the Kansas City and Colorado section. Second I don't like the way that the articles stops following the structure of hockey team pages on wikipedia. I would put the Famous player and Current roster under a Notable player section.

And since there is an AID in the hockey project why not use it? The devils could be the first weekly AID. How about it? --Krm500 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How do we use it? --Sportskido8 1:23 CST, 7 October 2006
Is this good enough for an FA nomination, or not? --Sportskido8 12:08 CST, 23 October 2006

Good Article Nomination

At the very least, I think this article deserves a GA nomination. Let's see how it goes. --Sportskido8 16:44 CST, 26 October 2006

Good plan. There are still some things I'd like to add when I find time to dig up sources. – flamurai (t) 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This is taking forever...geez...--Sportskido8 10:50 CST, 6 November 2006
The wait time on GA noms can be quite large. I can also tell you that some reviewers may not be as eager to review articles marked as long. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Day-by-Day record information???

If I remember correctly, somewhere in the Wikipedia bible it says not to make articles a news service, which is what we are doing by keeping the 06-07 standings in the season records table. I think we should just leave it blank, or say "in progress." --Sportskido8 13:14 CST, 3 November 2006

I agree. – flamurai (t) 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Leave it blank. Michael Greiner 21:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's left blank, my hunch is we'll be doing a lot of reverting. – flamurai (t) 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article assessment

I'm putting the nomination on hold due to concerns about the suitability of a number of fair use images. Other areas have room for improvement, but as this is a GA nom rather than an FA nom they are not necessarily a barrier; I'll pass the article if the image issues are resolved and the Broadcasters section is removed.

  • Images: The logos are OK, as is the team photo of the first Devils squad, and the Stanley Cup celebration. However, the pictures of Lamoriello is not covered by fair use, as he is not the subject of the article. The illustration of the Newark Arena is not needed, why have a fair use illustration of a building that hasn't yet been built when we already have a free use picture of the Continental Airlines Arena on Wikipedia? The information conveyed in the picture of the jerseys is already given by the other pictures, and it is reasonably easy to create a schematic diagram of the colours, as is done in articles about football (soccer) clubs (e.g. IFK Göteborg).
  • Going through the other criteria:
    • Well written: Pretty good, generally avoids use of jargon. The biggest concern is the volume of lists. The broadcasters list should be removed. It is only of any relevance to the North American TV viewer, and thus not encyclopedic.
    • Accurate and verifiable: FA standard referencing, no issues there. Could perhaps do with some print references for the icing on the cake.
    • Broad in coverage: Covers all the aspects I would expect, avoids the trivia which can plague sports articles.
    • NPOV: No obvious problems.
    • Stable: Yes, no evidence of edit wars.

Other things which have no bearing on the GA nom but would need to be sorted out to push the article to FA:

  • The player records could perhaps be converted to prose like in Arsenal F.C..
  • The number of subheadings could do with being cut down to make the TOC neater.
  • The lead is a little thin
  • It seems odd that the two year period from 2004-present gets more coverage than 1994-2000 when the Devils won two Stanley Cups. 2004-present should be reduced and merged with the previous subsection, and 1994-2000 should be expanded. Oldelpaso 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The major problems have been addressed. As for your other concerns:
  • The lead is really a standard sports lead, as evidenced by other sports team featured articles: Chicago Bears and Arsenal F.C.. Considering the Devils history is considerably shorter, I don't see what could be added. It contains all the relevant information about the team. Devils: 131 words. Bears: 162 words. Arsenal: 146 words. The only thing I see that could be added is a possible sentence about rivalries. Edit: With the rivalries sentence it is at 163 words.
  • I think that's just the nature of an in-progress article. Recent history is covered in more detail. Then as time passes, what is and isn't relevant becomes clearer. Plus, that 2004-present section starts on a clear delimiting point: the lockout. A lot happened. I really don't see much that can be cut at this point, except maybe one sentence about captains.
  • Newspapers are print sources, even if the articles are linked from the web site.
– flamurai (t) 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
GA passed. Oldelpaso 10:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to get the jerseys in there and a picture of Lamoriello, because they are an important part of the article in my opinion. How did the Bears get their jersey pictures passed for fair use? If they can then we can get these passed too. That being said, I'm glad this has GA-status. --Sportskido8 12:53 CST, 12 November 2006

The Road to FA-Status

I guess we're not that far away any more. I will try to do what I can from the GA-suggestions to get this closer to a featured article. I'm going to put the jerseys back up for now and when the creator of the images gets back to me I will include his email and his permission as well as the current rationale that we had for them (which was not bad in my opinion). It is essential in a sports team article that the jerseys be shown somewhere. As for the lists, I guess we can convert some of that into prose. --Sportskido8 12:56 CST, 13 November 2006


Would anyone be opposed to putting Season by Season records in its own article? Not sure about this. And see the Template page for a discussion about that too. --Sportskido8 2:16 CST, 14 November 2006
I'll leave the records table for now, since the Patriots article passed with it. I'm gonna go ahead and nominate this for FA and see what happens. It's come a long way since I first did that (which was a bit hasty, yes), but the article has every piece that it needs in my opinion and nearly 50 sources. I think it can pass now. --Sportskido8 16:17 CST, 14 November 2006

How about creating a History of the New Jersey Devils like the History of the Philadelphia Flyers article. My concerne is that the history section is too long and it focus mostly on the recent years. Look at IFK Göteborg which is a sports team with a FA status article, the article also has a short but good history section with a link to the more detailed History of ... article. --Krm500 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Captains & Head Coach sections

I've re-edited these 2 sections, to make them appear the same, as their counterparts in the other NHL team articles (the sections appeared as a Devils Fan site). Furthermore, these edits were made to shorten the length of the team article. GoodDay 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess they're ok now. Thing is though, you need to remember that since this is the first NHL team article with close FA consideration that it needs to set the standard for the future. So if something isn't like the other 29 articles it may not be a bad thing. --Sportskido8 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. A number of other FA sports team articles (Chicago Bears, Arsenal F.C., Sheffield Wednesday F.C., Everton F.C.) use tables in this manner. It's a perfectly legit use of tables. – flamurai (t) 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The cosmetics (appearance), isn't so much a concern to me. It's more the length of the article, that cause me to simplify thoses sections appearances. GoodDay 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work everyone!

Thanks for helping along in the effort to get this article featured. After the second time I nominated it I was very confident that it would get a lot of praise, and it sure did. Special thanks to flamurai and Anthony for working on this forever in the past few months. Can't wait to see this article on the front page. Can't wait. Sportskido8 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulation on the FA --Krm500 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Front page request

Now that the article is featured, I would like to nominate it to be on the front page of Wikipedia for a day. We need the lead and a picture on there, so basically, which picture do you guys think should be up there, and is the current lead on the page good enough? We could always add something to it for the nomination. --Sportskido8 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be the Brodeur photo since that's the only one under a free license, and the group shots probably won't work as well at a small size. I didn't know there was a nomination process for front page articles... Ah I see. My last FA got put on the front page without my intervention. – flamurai (t) 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I put it up for nomination. You can see it here. I ended up using the Devils logo because it just seems more sensical. Sportskido8 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The New Jersey Devils rule. That is all.

Better to rule in hell, then to serve in heaven? GoodDay 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Famous Players section

I'm probably nitpicking here, but the semi-new renamed section, seems to have a touch of Devils fansite to it? GoodDay 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert it back to the 'Retired Numbers' section, which appeared more NPoV. GoodDay 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed 'Famous Players' section & restored 'Retired Numbers' section. For reason, see Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. GoodDay 16:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but cosmetics really do contribute to the article sometimes. The new edits have made the article look uglier. Since this is the first NHL team article to make it to FA-status, I cannot look at the "Wikiproject consensus" as a guideline for team pages. I will have to change some of this back. Sportskido8 13:59 CST, 8 December 2006
I agree with you here. In fact, a common comment in FA review was to rewrite famous players lists as prose. – flamurai (t) 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, nothing personal against 'Famous Players', just was unconfortable about the arbitrary way the format change was entered. Just felt peers consenses should have been gotten first. Minor edits (no problem), however this was a major edit. PS-knew about the FA tag, hope similar changes are brought to all NHL team pages (similar changes to all NHL pages, removes suspicion of team bias). GoodDay 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sportskido, FA-status over Wikiproject. Michael Greiner 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ironic isn't it? By bringing up this discussion, I've got what I've wanted all along a consenses (on this talk-page no less). The consenses is to leave the 'Famous Players' section (title & contents) on the page. Now, I have no problem with it. PS- Should add 'Famous Players' section to all NHL team pages. GoodDay 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PS-Hope you guys/gals don't see me as a cranky Wikipedian. GoodDay 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the new format but it is a little hard to see the retired numbers on first glance, is it possible to bold them or maybe do something else? --Krm500 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Consider it done. GoodDay 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeking a further consensus: Would you guys/gals have a problem with dividing the 'Famous Players' section into 2 sub-sections with titles 'Retired Numbers' & 'HHOF members'? Since the first paragraph is about retired numbers, second paragraph is about Hockey Hall of Fame members. GoodDay 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I believe this will make the article a bit choppy. Each paragraph only has about three sentences. If they grow maybe, but not now. Michael Greiner 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point, 'Michael Greiner'. GoodDay 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the heading Famous Players seem a little misleading? I mean, without doubt the most -famous- Devil thus far is Martin Brodeur (and arguably he will be for a long, long time to come), but he isn't in this section for the obvious reason that he's still playing. Would a better label be something along the lines of "Hall of Famers and Retired Numbers"? 69.7.203.153 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Style of play

I think we need to reexamine the Style of Play section. The Devils have been cast as a "defense-first" team (in my mind) unfairly for many years. Jacques Lemaire's tenure ended years ago (when this trend started) and they really don't play the trap anymore. People continue to cast the team as it was in 1995.

Despite this (or rather, I guess because of it), there's not a single reference provided in this section that accurately describes the Devils style of play (either historically or currently). I have watched them for many years and I've never seen a player or coach, even during Lemaire's tenure, say "We're defense-minded first". One need only look at their plus/minus in current seasons or Brodeur's GAA over the years to see the Devils lean away from stifling defense. One need only look at their offense which (while not filled with powerhouses) has much greater speed, stickhandling prowess and shooting potential to see that the GM isn't buying into defense. The Devils have a very balanced game now and that should be reflect in the section -- with references.216.254.64.246 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Maple Leafs (for example) played the 'neutral trap zone' back in the 1960's. There should be mentioned the 'ntz' being created by the Devils, was the media's claim only (the terms, is the media creation). GoodDay 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on front page request

It may take a long time for this article to be on the front page. Still waiting. Sportskido8 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, we need a vote

I'm not sure that all of the changes that Darthflyer made today are good for the page. Any thoughts? Sportskido8 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That stuff doesn't belong in the main article. It's too trivia-ish. – flamurai (t) 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we create a separate page specifically to deal with this? Anthony Hit me up... 15:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Wait a sec, 'Darthflyer' removed the 'Famous Players section' from Philadelphia Flyers. Nobody (that I know of), consented to this. Is the 'Famous Players section' here, next to go? GoodDay 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :Not sure how to contact 'Darthflyer', he doesn't respond on his IP address discussion page (he only responds on Talk: Philadelphia Flyers or his Edit Summaries). GoodDay 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous Players section (again)

I've noticed 'Famous Players sections' hasn't appeared on the other 29 NHL team pages, Why? Though this section has givin' the Devils article an FA. This could (again) give the impression of a Devils Fan page (because only this NHL team article has this section). Furthermore there's no guideline of 'Famous Players' section at WPT. Unless the other (29) NHL team articles are givin' this section, I bring this up at Talk WPT. GoodDay 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to a potential 'edit war' at Philadelphia Flyers, I've mentioned 'Famous Players' section here. Why? It's been months & still only 2 teams has/had this 'section', the other 28 never got theirs. GoodDay 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Note - Copied and pasted my comments from the Flyers talk page.
There are a few things I'd like to point out. When was the last time the WikiProject Ice Hockey team format page actually updated? From what I can tell it was long before the Devils page received FA status. The list of things that have been updated since includes the additions of a new team infobox, the removal of the facts section, an updated team standings table, the addition of team records, etc. It is my humble opinion that once the Devils article received FA status it became the new standard for all hockey team pages.
From what I've read the reason for a change from the style that current reigns unchallenged on the other 28 NHL team pages to the Famous Players section was that a prose section would look better compared to more trivial lists that serves no real purpose to a layperson. A breakaway article was even created to place such lists.
Other than reverting the edits made by someone who didn't care to discuss removing the disputed section, I have one suggestion. Since there seems to be unease about the title "Famous Players" I would suggest changing it to Honored Players or Honored Members, especially the latter if you wish to include the coaches and owners. --207.69.138.143 14:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
All 30 NHL teams should either have this section (Famous Players), or all 30 shouldn't have it. GoodDay 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So I'm guessing you would rather remove it from this featured article and the Flyers article than add such a section to the other 28 teams? --207.69.138.144 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with a section called "Famous Players" is that it is going to run into POV problems. Famous by what definition? Any time you break out a specific list of players by anything other than pure statistical means (scoring leaders, etc.) there is subjectivity involved. The same thing for a list called "Notable Players". So my vote (although this is not a vote obviously) would be to not include such a list. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to be a Richard, but that is precisely why I suggested and changed it to Honored players. --207.69.138.144 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Honored members sounds like the best idea.--Krm500 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The title doesn't concern me, it's the content. Why (after 6 weeks) are the Devils & Flyers pages the only ones to have this content? The editors who first created these sections, should have continued on the other 28 teams. GoodDay 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Devils editors were focused on getting the Devils FA status; they were not necessarily focused on unifying the other 29 teams to look the same. They were not the ones who added the Famous Players section to the Flyers page either. That would be me. I added it to the Flyers page hoping others would help make the changes to that page and the other 28 teams. I didn't continue making the changes to other team pages because there seemed to be some measure of opposition to it. I've also been on the Internet very little recently. --207.69.138.144 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
All 30 teams should be in sync. Hopefully the other 28 will be included aswell. There's still no guideline for thess new sections at WPT. There should be a guideline added. GoodDay 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote above, WPT is in need of a major update. --207.69.138.144 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

See my proposed guideline at Talk WPT. Remember, coaches are included in section content. GoodDay 00:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This 'Famous Players' section (and it's new proposed name 'Honored Members) isn't getting a strong indorsement at WPT. It's currently 3 to 2 in favor. GoodDay 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was working on this page to help get it to FA status I never thought the "Famous Players" section would be a problem for the future. I didn't add it to the other 28 pages because I was focusing on this one, as 207.69.138.144 said above. "Famous" or "Honored", I don't really have a preference. Sportskido8 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your bewilderment over the fuss (which I've created). What's bugging me? Before you added this new section -the content, not the title- you should have went to WPT, gave an example (new section content) there & got a consensus for it (thus for all 30 team pages). It's been going on 2 months, and the other 28 NHL teams haven't gotten the same section-content. Furthermore, there's a dispute on the Philadelphia Flyers page (concerning the new contents). What it comes down to is this A)Does the WikiProject page have authority over all 30 NHL team pages, or B)Should each NHL team page, have it's own makeup (section, contents). By all means add your opinon to discussion at WPT. GoodDay 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Notion to protect this page from IP address editing

I am throwing the idea out there of protecting this page from being edited by IP addresses. It's kind of annoying. Sportskido8 01:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The sooner anon-users are permanentley banned, the better. Sooner or later Registration will be necessary to edit Wikipedia. I long for that day. GoodDay 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Last Stanley Cup Champion to miss the Playoffs the Following Season

This is a distinction that the Devils do hold. Not a proud one, but as a fan of a team, you should allow all information about them, warts and all, to be on the page. Fortunately, as the season is going, the Devils might not hold that distinction for much longer. The Carolina Hurricanes are doing a very good job of eliminating the Devils' ownership of the title "Last Stanley Cup Champion to miss the Playoffs the Following Season." I am the first to admit that I wouldn't raise a LSCCTMTPTFS banner into the raftors of Continental Airlines Arena, but I do think we should include the information on the page, at least until the Devils loose that distinction. CSTV 10:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't as if it hasn't happened a number of times before; it's scarcely a notable distinction. RGTraynor 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. In any case, mentioning it is one thing, but when you start using terms like "dubious distinction," that's just editorializing. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also a matter of relevance. Per Wikipedia:Trivia, I'd consider that information "interesting" but not "important". It's important to note that the Devils missed the playoffs the year after the won the cup in the history section, which is done, but it's not important to note that they're the last Cup-winning team to miss the playoffs the next season. – flamurai (t) 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In missing the playoffs by 2 points with a 37-33-12 record, It marked the first time in 26 years that a defending Cup Champion failed to reach the playoffs. I'd say that's an important distinction. Not a positive one, but a distinction nonetheless. --CSTV (talk back) 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(shrugs) Chicago's done it, Detroit's done it, Montreal's done it, Toronto's done it. It's happened in pre-NHL days as well. I'm with Flamurai; I'd mention it in the main text in the appropriate season/section, but it isn't a "distinction" worthy of a specific title. RGTraynor 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You've convinced me, I don't think it should be under its own section, but I agree it is worth mentioning in an appropriate section...eliminating the word "distinction". I recall when it happened in '96 and so much was made of it. Bizarre how it is a non-issue in other sports, but when you look at the track record-Montreal in 1970, Chicago in '39, Detroit in '38 and Toronto in '19, '23, '46, and '68, it really isn't that often that you see it happen. --CSTV (talk back) 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Biron/Clemenson trade ?

Has there been a goaltender exchange, between the Devils & the Sabres? I can't find any source to confirm this trade. An anon-user is persistant in making the 'trade' edits (both here & at Buffalo Sabres). GoodDay 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already tried reverting it. But the anon-user persists in reversing my reverts. He/she seems bent on an 'edit war'. GoodDay 21:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Good move, the anon-users actions on his IP adress 'discussion' page, merely proved his vandalising intentions. GoodDay 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Contacted new IP adress (concerning Biron/Clemmenson trade vandalism), giving him a warning. It might be the same editor using a different IP. GoodDay 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Akward Moments

Not sure how to add this to the article (plus I've no source), but someone may pick up on this. Can we add the akward momment, between Stevens & Daneyko, at the end of the 2003 Cup Finals. Stevens (Stanley Cup in hand) ignoring Daneyko & calling Niedermayer over to receive the Stanley Cup? GoodDay 03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can squeeze that in a sentence somewhere. Maybe there's a video of this on YouTube? Can you source that? Sportskido8 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing YouTube videos is iffy, since that would be copyrighted content and subject to removal at any time. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The only source I have, is my memory. Sure hope someone can provide a link or something. GoodDay 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've looked on youtube, nothing is there. Although that year was really before youtube's height. Michael Greiner 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid, this could be a lost cause. Perhaps it's best. GoodDay 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Playoff Swept Record

I once again removed the Playoff Swept record. Since the Franchise Records section is for just that, the Franchise, all statistics from the KC and Colorado days must count toward that record. Colorado was swept in the playoffs the only year they made the playoffs. That would eliminate New Jersey from having said record. Right now, only 2 teams that have qualified for the playoffs have never been swept in their existance, Nashville and Tampa Bay, but both histories are rather short. This "record" is more of a trivial fact then a record. The original poster of this record noted 5 teams, one of them being Carolina. While it is true that Carolina has never been swept in the playoffs since they moved to Carolina, they were swept multiple times while in Hartford. As such, they cannot claim to never been swept in their franchise history. Same holds true for New Jersey. Pparazorback 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Are my eyes deceiving me?

Or are they wearing black and red instead of green and red in this 1982-1983 devils photo? Anyone mind explaining that to me? lol. There's no way that can be right. Unless they started out with red and black and went to red and green for some unknown reason and that was never recorded or something. Bsroiaadn 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I ever heard. Maybe the photo's been retouched. RGTraynor 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I figured it might be just dark and that's making it look like black. But, it matches the skates very well, the skates are what I used to compare after I figured it might just be dark green. Did they have green skates? I think I'm gonna go later and search around for more pics, just to check it out. I'll see if any of my relatives (my uncle, dad, and stepmother are huge devils fans, especially) have any pictures from back then. I know my uncle does, I saw it on his wall once. Anyway, I'm rambling, now. haha. Bsroiaadn 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was at the game today, and saw some people with jerseys like the red and green, but instead of green is was black. Same striping, same curve at the shoulders, but black instead of green. Unless it was a fake old jersey, then there was a time where they played with it. But, I can't find anything on it, yet. :-/ Bsroiaadn 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is, whomever made the retro Devils jersey, didn't pay close enough attention to the colors (mistakingly putting black, instead of green). GoodDay 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems most likely. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. It looks like black in all of the old team pictures, anyway. Bsroiaadn 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Playoff results

I've been looking at a lot other NHL teams articles and some of them have playoff results (as in wins, games played, penalty minutes, etc.) and was wondering if anyone thinks we should have one here, as well. We have season results but for playoffs all it says is what rounds we won and when we were either eliminated or won the Stanley cup. I'd be willing to make the playoff stat chart, I just wanna see if anyone else agrees that it should be made or not. Bsroiaadn 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Give 'er a go, be bold. GoodDay 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Should this go in its own article maybe? Sportskido8 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should go in its own article. The list may clutter up this page. Michael Greiner 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have a suggestion for the name of the playoff result article? New Jersey Devils playoff results, maybe? If you can think of something better, please tell me. I'm not done with the chart yet, I've been pretty busy lately (my house got flooded) so I haven't been able to get on very much. But it should be done soon, hopefully. Bsroiaadn 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the main project talk page since this would be a good guideline? --Krm500 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it should be New Jersey Devils Stanley Cup playoffs results with a bunch of things redirecting to it. JHMM13 05:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Krm500, if you think it would be a good idea to put it there then feel free to. And to JHMM13 that's definintely a better name for it. Thanks. Bsroiaadn 03:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Alright, done. I put it at New Jersey Devils Stanley Cup playoffs results. It's not perfect, as you can see by going to it, but it's mostly done. Check the talk page to see what I mean. We should probably keep the talk about that article on that talk page, rather than this one. Also, I haven't added it to the Devils or the Devils seasons articles yet because I'm not sure if it's ready and I'm also not sure where I would put the wiki-link to it. Bsroiaadn 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate captains

An anon-user has been arguing, that the Devils currently (along with Captain Elias) have 5 alternate captains (including Brian Rafalski). Rafalski wore an 'A' last season (2005-06), but not this season (2006-07). The Devils this season named Patrik Elias as captain & Colin White, Jamie Langenbrunner, Jay Pandolfo, John Madden as alternate captains. Someone help us, who's correct? GoodDay 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As there's a 'reliable source' to back the Rafalski inclusion, I'll concede to it. PS- still can't recall #28 wearing an 'A' while the other (letter men) were in the lineup though (during 2006-07). GoodDay 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
PS- Why didn't that 'source' mention Jamie Langenbrunner? GoodDay 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Njdhockey's source, Jamie Langenbrunner is not an alternate captain. So, I've removed the 'A' (even though I disagree, with the source). GoodDay 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A more updated source says Langenbrunner is an alternate, Rafalski is not. Corrections have been made to the article. GoodDay 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotect}} Could you please add this template to the top: 

{{current sport-related|mini=1|2006-07 New Jersey Devils season}}

Thanks. 64.178.96.168 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. 64.178.96.168 19:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Longest season ending win streak in NHL history

Should we add this to the article in the records? This would be the reference, unless a better one could be found. Read the description for moment number 11, that's where it says it. Bsroiaadn 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Honored Members

Why is honored members under the current roster heading? That doesn't seem to make too much sense. Sportskido8 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

According to GoodDay's edit summary, it is to "Changed title appearance; to match other team pages" I agree that it looks messed up and either needs to be reverted or and Players section needs to be created with the Current Roster and Honored Members as subsections.
As we are going over edits we don't understand, can someone tell me why a separate season article was created for the first 20 seasons. There is no reason for it and it barely shortens the article. I suggest re-adding the seasons table. --Michael Greiner 12:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
They're starting to do the seasons thing for every NHL team article, long or short. It was initially conceived for teams like Montreal and Toronto, but for consistency reasons it looks like it may happen to all of them. I put in my two cents on the Wikiproject Hockey page saying that it probably didn't benefit the Devils, but if it has to be done, then I don't know. Sportskido8 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
See WPTP for reason of 'Honored Members'. See corresponding talk page, to voice your concerns. GoodDay 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand GoodDay. The question is why is Honored Members is a section under the heading of current roster? There is no problem with the Honored members name. Michael Greiner 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think he just made a mistake. "Current Roster" and "Honored Members" should be under the "Season by Season records" heading according to WP Ice Hockey team page format. I'll change it now to match it. BsroiaadnTalk 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, done. Although, I didn't go along with one part of the format. That being getting rid of the franchise records and moving them to another article, which I did half of. I copied the records to New Jersey Devils records but didn't delete them from this article so the changes wouldn't be too drastic before discussing them. BsroiaadnTalk 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils seasons

I added a new, better looking list. It is basically the same list as the Frölunda one but adapted to an NHL team. If someone could expand the lead and maybe add a couple of good refrences, I think it could be promoted to Featured List. --Krm500 10:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

List of New Jersey Devils players

It's been completely re-done, why don't you go over to it and see what you think about it? I can't take all the credit for it though, I did have help (a lot). BsroiaadnTalk 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Front Page!

I just want to be one of the first people to say congratulations! The NJ Devils page has been selected to be on the front page for June 30th! Great job everyone! PlatypusToby

Woo-hoo!!! It only took 7 months but it's great to see the article finally on the main page. Unfortunately, I won't be here to see it (on vacation in Virginia) but it's a good thing. --Michael Greiner
Finally! Oh man I am going to love seeing this baby. Sportskido8 05:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to take a screen shot! --Krm500 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, congratulations to all the editors who have worked on this article and mercilessly protected it from vandalism.JRWalko 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The spelling of Patrik Eliáš

Sorry, why was my edit reverted with the comment "revert diatrics before GoodDay has a fit"? What are diatrics, who is GoodDay, and what sort of jurisdiction does he have over this article? JHMM13(Disc) 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My edit comment was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek reference to User:GoodDay's position of ignoring diacritics (sorry I spelled it wrong it the summary) in team articles. GoodDay has at times been very expressive of his position and to follow a gentleman's agreement of their use at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ice Hockey (which has recently become policy). The policy is:

All 30 NHL team pages: Should be without diacritics. Wiki-linked names should have diacritics hidden. All Player pages: Should have diacritics applied (where required).

Sorry of any confusion I may have caused. Michael Greiner 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Since I've looked up the discussion about diacritics at the wikiproject ice hockey. JHMM13(Disc) 04:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys for working it out. PS- before GoodDay has a fit... hah hah, that's hilarious (but true). GoodDay 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Image:Devils 1982 1983 team photo.jpg

I've removed this image from the article due to the fact that fair use is contested, and the fact that the image has no source. Since this is a featured article that will soon be on the main page, it's hardly appropriate to have a policy violating image on the article. Further, the fair use claim for this image is dubious at best. Ok, it depicts the first New Jersey team. That doesn't add anything to the article. There's nothing in this photograph that adds to the article that text can not. --Durin 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the source to the picture (http://www.newjerseydevils.com/njd/fanzone/features/25series/1982-83.php). Generally, promotional team photos are an acceptable fair use in an article, and I think this one belongs to show the roster of the 1982-83 team. The article doesn't spell out everyone that was on that team but the picture clearly shows it. I think we should keep it. Sportskido8 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair use images are generally not acceptable and must jump through a lot of hoops to be acceptable. The default case is no fair use, and increased usage comes with increased demand on why it is in the article. You do not need a photograph to show the roster of the team. The 82-83 roster can be readily replaced by text, which makes it non-compliant with WP:NFCC item #8. Further, the 82-83 roster isn't even discussed, so it's depicting something of no use to the article. If you believe the roster is significant, then create an article on the Devils' 82-83 season and include the roster there. A fair use image such as this to depict the roster of the team would make sense. Here, it doesn't. --Durin 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I know the lead has been the same for a long time, but should we maybe put their style of play into it before it hits the front page? Seems like an important detail. But it's not a make or break decision or anything. I always thought the lead could be a little bigger anyway. Sportskido8 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

Wow, this page barely made it to the Main Page, and already it's being under sieged by anon saboteurs. GoodDay 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 'semi-protection' of this page, should be considered. GoodDay 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"Today's featured article" is almost never protected, unless vandals are literally edit-conflicting themselves. --Evilclown93(talk) 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant this page, not the entry at 'Main Page' (that entry isn't being vandalise). GoodDay 18:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant the article itself, and I was referring to all articles that are "Today's featured article". --Evilclown93(talk) 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. GoodDay 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Seinfeld

How could there be no mention of Seinfeld in this entire article? Patrick Warburton actually wore Devil's facepaint and chanted "Go Devils!" during the entire episode. Isn't that worthy of mention, perhaps in some kind of "Pop-culture References" section?

Oh well, Congrats on making FA.

I think pop-culture/trivia sections like that are a little unpopular, and I don't think this one alone would warrant the creation of one. Oh yeah, don't forget to sign your posts :) (use ~~~~) SGGH speak! 19:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It was previously decided not to mention Seinfeld in a now archived Talk Page discussion. Michael Greiner 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

UFAs

At what point do other editors here feel we should remove players that are UFAs from the roster? Technically speaking Gomez, Mogilny, etc, aren't Devils at this point. JRWalko 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

When they sign with another team, WP:HOCKEY guideline. --Krm500 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
As shown by Gomez and Rafalski, unfortunately. BsroiaadnTalk 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can someone please explain to me why the Devils page gets preferential treatment and does not have to conform to the same type of format & outline as the 29 other NHL pages do? By this, I mean referring to seasons as "1997-1998" as opposed to "1997-98", for example. Whoever took the time to find and link all references to facts and historical events obviously did their homework and put together a nice page, but I don't think this page should be held to a higher standard than the other NHL pages. Darthflyer 17:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your earlier edits since you removed the en dash (–) and replaced it with a hyphen (-), I didn't think about the year format. --Krm500 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Krm500 - I wanted to let you know that I undid your edit to the Devils page for a couple of reasons. First: if you want to eliminate the hyphens and replace them with "&ndash", that's fine. But please keep the year format consistent with other pages. Second: In addition to the format changes, I also made spelling corrections and eliminated a couple of POVs that were non-essential to the page. Just wanted to let you know. Darthflyer 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't do anything, you replaced the en dash with hyphens which violates the manual of style. --Krm500 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait a sec, let's adopt the 'manual of style' to all 30 NHL team pages. Consistancy, is paramount. GoodDay 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Howabout, this way: 2006–07, for example. GoodDay 23:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Darthflyer 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Devils captain & alternates

Seeing as the Devils official website is in a state of confusion (so is the Blues official website, for that matter) - Is there another source to back up Langenbrunner being named captain? The Devils website itself hasn't annoucned it (only added a 'C' to Langenbrunner, at it's roster). GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found others sources. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Jersey_Devils/Archive_1&oldid=1147974523"