Talk:New Jersey Devils

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the 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
NJ Portal

New Jersey Devils is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
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

Archives
  1. December 2005 - August 2006
  2. August 2006 - January 2007


Contents

[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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Radio Stations

Would it be worth adding the overflow radio stations that carries Devils broadcasts? Anyone know what the rules are for overflow games? Since moving from WABC to WFAN, it's no longer as easy as going to Radio Disney (1560) to find the broadcast. Sme3 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. WFAN is the flagship and produces the broadcast even if it is on WBBR or WWJD. I see the additional stations as non-notable trivia. --Michael Greiner 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)