Talk:New Jersey Devils

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star New Jersey Devils is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Ice hockey Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Flag of New Jersey
Portal:NJ
 NJ Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)
[[1]] ccwaters 15:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Seinfeld???

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
  • Honored players is fine - but then the references to former coaches really should be removed since none of them earned their honors as NJ players. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:06, 29 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)

[edit] 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)

  • If you just don't want anon IPs to edit, it won't happen. Protection is only used as a measure against vandalism. You can make a request at WP:RFP. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:28, 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)
  • In my opinion, the level of vandalism does not warrant a IP block. 2 or 3 vandals isn't enough. Michael Greiner 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 can't find anything. I say revert the changes, and if it turns out to be true and verifiable then the info can be put back. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:41, 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)
  • Let's see how a 24-hour block works. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:18, 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)
  • I ran a WHOIS on 2 of the IPs doing this yesterday, and they both resolved to Adelphia. My guess is the same person using a work/home account. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)
  • I think it's just a dark shade of green. The photo is a bit underexposed too. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:37, 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENew_Jersey_Devils_3ade.html"