Talk:New Jersey Devils/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

Team Logo

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)

  • I can't comment on the fair use aspect, but I do agree that adding logos to each year in the records table is rather pointless. --cholmes75 13:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Logos have now been removed from the table. --dm (talk) 23:55, 5 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)

  • Not really sure, but any edits to the Devils roster should occur at the Template for the roster, not on the main page; maybe that's why you've had problems? Anthony Hit me up... 22:24, 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)

  • Agreed. Less is more when it comes to images. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:22, 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)

  • That's a great idea. I can't believe that's been overlooked all this time. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:06, 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)