Talk:New Jersey Devils

Updating Devils Records

Would it be okay to add the record set back in 1988 by Patrik Sundstrom (while playing for the Devils) for the most points in a NHL playoff game? It still stands today, but it was tied a year later by Mario Lemieux, so no one has broken it as of yet. The information is listed on Sundstrom's own wiki page, so its not new information. DeadEndX (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Updating playoff-clinching seasons

There is a line in the first paragraph which reads: Under current general manager Lou Lamoriello, the Devils have made the playoffs in 18 out of the last 20 seasons, including each of the last 11. At what point is it safe to include the 2008-09 season (which would increment all of these numbers by one)? Ordinarily, we don't include the present year for statistics but there would be a notation to that effect. Such a notation would seem out of place in the first paragraph. -sme3 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Text color in infobox and other boxes

The color of the headline text in the infobox and some of the boxes towards the bottom of the article (with a red background) have been changing back and forth between white and black for quite awhile. Right now, the colors are inconsistent (white-on-red at the top, black-on-red at the bottom). What color should it be? Personally, I think white-on-red is more legible, but I don't know if there's a policy. -Sme3 (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is supposed to be the main team colours. So it should be black-on-red. -Djsasso (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, here we go at it again. PLEASE, lets reach some consensus before changing it back and forth! There are three colors (red, white, black -- in that order according to the article infobox), so let's reach some sort of consensus here about what it should be. Personally, I think white on red is easiest to read. -Sme3 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before it should be the two main colours, ie black an red. White is part of the colours for every team. But yes white on red might be easier to read, however all other teams seem to follow the two main colours leaving out white. I am not even sure why white is listed as one of the colours to be honest. The only reason it gets changed is someone new comes along who doesn't realize we have a colouring scheme for all the NHL teams. Really its not a big deal to just revert an move on. -DJSasso (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Devils' official colors are, or the practice on other teams' Wiki pages, our primary concern should be legibility. Black letters on a red background are difficult to read. That's why on the Devils' own website, wherever there's a red background they generally use white text. Also, we (Wikipedia) should be emphasizing our independence and objectivity. Using a team's colors in an article — except where necessary to inform readers of what those colors are — sends the wrong message. —D. Monack ^talk 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Readability should always trump colour coordination. If there are concerns that red and black make it hard to read, then this should be a no brainer. Go with Red and white. Resolute 21:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can accept the concept of using the team colors, but exactly what are the team colors? If you look at their uniforms, they have white lettering on a red background (or red lettering with a black border on a white background). Under the assumption that we aren't using the white background, I would think the white lettering/red background is as close as you get to team colors. -Sme3 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

POV Flag

This section is ridiculously biased and has nothing to do with the Devils style of play, it's more a rip on the team. Also to the above poster, you say that Lemaire is going to 'bring the trap back'. The trap never left, every team plays at one point or another. You clearly dont watch hockey if you think the trap is an embarrasment and is going to ruin the league because like I said before, every team is doing it.

"This style of play, coupled with mediocre attendance and television ratings that continue to plague the franchise (despite the organization having a perennially successful on-ice product) led the team to be chastised by the media and hockey purists for "making the NHL boring".

What does any of this have to do with their style of play? 'Boring' is in the opinion of people and what do attendance and television ratings have to do with a section about style of play, they clearly do not belong their. If these are so called hockey purists, then apparently they don't recognize the Canadien teams of the 1970s either, because they also played the trap. Sound defensive hockey and fundentals is more of a purist hockey vision than a 6-5 game.

The section also claims that "although the Devils have twice led the Eastern Conference in Goals scored, once leading the NHL in goals scored (295 GF in 2000–2001)" and then again "Devils coach Larry Robinson asserted that the Montreal Canadiens (who also won the Cup many times) he played on in the 1970s used a form of the trap, though it did not have a name", "Under Brent Sutter, the team adopted less of a trap and more of a transitional, aggressive forechecking style of play which also emphasized puck possession and instilled the cycle to start the 2007–2008 season."

All three of those quotes are contradictions to the original arguement that the Devils are the only team to ever play the trap, and that their style of play is original. EVERY TEAM in the NHL plays the trap at some point or another, and during the late 90s to the lockout every team played like that, the Devils just mastered it.

I vote to remove this section or it definitely needs a revamp. 69.115.47.105 (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The section doesn't claim they are the only team to do it. It just says that it is what they are known for. Which is compeltely accurate. You ask any hockey fan the type of hockey the devils play and this is what they will tell you. This entire section is well cited. And this is a Featured Article which means it has been deemed one of the best articles on wikipedia. In other words that people deemed it to not have issues with point of view etc. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Then how does mentioning the teams 'medicore' attendance and TV ratings have anything to do with their style of play? How come it fails to mention that they are in the top 10 for NHL TV ratings and an increase in attendance the past few years? That doesn't seem very neutral to me, more like a dig on the team. The section is titled 'style of play', is it not?

The Devils arrived in an already saturated market in 1982 with the Rangers, Flyers, and Islanders taking up a majority of the fanbase. Just like the Yankees/Mets and Jets/Giants most people already rooted for the Rangers in North Jersey and the Flyers in South Jersey. THIS is why the Devils suffered from medicore attendance and TV ratings, you can't just tell someone to root for a new team overnight. The children of these parents are most likely going to be fans of the same team too, as they will be brought up this way. The Devils had to grow their fanbase through youth hockey programs, reaching out to new fans of the sport, and that is not an easy task. Most of the Devils fanbase was young and they are just now starting to able to consistently buy tickets to the They had the most sellouts in franchise history this year and they are 7th in ratings in the entire NHL. I would say this directly contradicts the fact the 'boring trap' (since it's only boring when the Devils play it, when Pittsburgh wins a cup with it, it is called 'solid team defense') is correlated to the TV ratings and attendance.

I'm sure other team fans were very bored as the Devils just kept winning, so I don't understand why these opinions are valid. 69.115.47.105 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the anon that the section does not read as very balanced, and I Do not think we can dismiss the concern just because the article is an FA. It's been a couple of years since it was so promoted, it may be time for a reassessment, one that accounts for the POV concerns in this section. Just because an article was once promoted t. fA doesn't mean it should never change, especially when new contributors with fresh eyes raise valid concerns. oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that the paragraph does not say what you think it does. It says the their style of play combined with the mediocre attendence and tv ratings led people to call their style of hockey boring. And that is true, I don't think a game goes by that they are playing where it is not mentioned. It would actually be more POV to remove this sort of information than to have it. Because this was a constant topic of discussion for years (and still is) in hockey articles and on hockey shows. We don't cut out information just because it might make fans of a specific team unhappy. Its well sourced information, and it would be extremely POV to remove it, especially considering its probably the most defining fact about this francise if you ask any hockey fan across north america. (as for the Penguins playing the trap that is amusing...they don't even remotely play the trap...if anything they play the exact opposite of the trap) I am also curious where you are getting your ratings numbers from. Last time I heard them quoted on TV (and I would have to find a source before I ever thought about putting it in the article) was that they were something like 25th in the league as far as ratings go. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please watch the Stanley Cup finals again, the Penguins had it on lock down. Every team plays the trap. They drop 4 back and clog the neutral zone up in tight playoff games. http://puckthemedia.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/your-final-nhl-local-tv-ratings-and-viewership-rankings-in-the-us/ http://devils.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=527991&cmpid=rss-News%20in%20English68.192.196.44 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

small mbox

I can provide screenshots for the small mbox issue, if this issue is really important to you.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The smaller box is indeed standard on all NHL articles, as well as MLB and NBA ones (the NFL and MLS use an infobox that incorporates the link).So I'm going to change it back to align the Devils article with the rest of the NHL articles.oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be, I'll have to check out some other articles. I don't see that as a good reason to retain a version which causes a technical issue, though. As a compromise, I've moved the mbox to the season-by-season section.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no trouble with that, though others might, since the use of the small box and placement is part of the standard format of NHL articles. This Kay be something to bring up at the relavant wikiproject talk page, as this is a Featured Article (cool, huh), so they would definately want to be kept abreast of such a change.

I will say that I also prefer the smaller box because the big one is just so large and domineering, that I feel is should be saved for the sort of articles that appear on the current events section of the main page, in other words the sort of life changing event that will draw thousands of page views within hours, not something as routine as an ongoing NHL season. If the Devils wind up winning the cup (a really good possibility the way they're playing. To which I say "yea!"), then we'd need the big tag, in large part because the page would need major changes. Those aren't needed for routine games, so they don't need the big tag.oknazevad (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Although I'd have never touched it if it didn't cause the text in the lead to start overlapping the infobox, I must admit that the comment about the obtrusiveness of the large mbox is spot on. I actually find even the small one, when located in the lead, to be fairly obtrusive (even aside from the issue it creates with the text). I also agree that if they do win the cup (fingers crossed!) then we'll need to change or add a hatnote mbox at the top again. Regardless, it may have taken a shootout, but at least we beat the damn Rangers!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that people have been removing the box from various articles. I would very much like to see a screenshot, because I have never noticed an issue with the box on multiple articles, computers, resolutions and browsers. Resolute 04:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

and if I find the time or inclination, I might try to integrate the link into the main infobox. Resolute 04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll get you one... although, right now Microsoft happens to be pushing a Windows update to me, and I need to go so I can get up in the morning, so give me ~20 hours.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am curious too because I have never seen this issue on the multiple browsers I test pages on on. I currently am running firefox 3.5.7 on winXP and it doesn't do this. I am curious if this is something unique to your particular computer? I am also curious what resolution you are running as I just ran through all the ones I am capable of at the moment on this computer and never got an overlap? -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also moved other uses below the infobox as I have noticed in the past that it can cause such things. Perhaps that was the real culprit. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the link should be right near the top. Was thinking we should add a line to the infobox, either right above, or right below the logo, that points to the current season article. Resolute 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an outstanding idea (putting the text and link in the infobox). As for my rig, I actually have two systems here, and three monitors (2 different sized LCD's, and one CRT). The problem seems to occur regardless of what setup I use. Anyway, putting the {{otheruses}} below the infobox seems to have done the trick. It still sort of bugs me that the mbox isn't the same size as the infobox, which causes a word or two to be shown over the infobox, but that's a minor quibble.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Resolute, I don't think anyone would have a problem adding it to the infobox. I would say probably right below the logo. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorporating a "current season" link into the teams infobox, which, as I said above, is done for NFL and soccer teams, is probably the best way to go. But that'd have to be done at the project level, as the infobox is a standard template used on all NHL teams, I I believe other leagues as well. So one of us should mention it there. Ohm, I nominate you since you promted the whole conversation.. (PS we should probably try to get the same thing done for the NBA and MLB articles, too.oknazevad (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Resolute and I edit as part of the project extensively. Its come up before as something we should think of doing, its just been pushed to the back burner a few times. Once some code is created it will be mentioned. As for the other projects its up to them, I rarely try to get other projects to match ours as some of them get pretty confrontational about other sports projects suggesting how they do things. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sample created and WT:HOCKEY notified. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Devils Dancers

Why isn't the Devils Dancers mention in this article when they are part of the New Jersey Devils Culture and Entertainers between period.--Mr. Unknown (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason nobody writes about the games teams run in intermissions to keep the fans entertained: it's not-notable, trivia and quite irrelevant to the team itself. Resolute 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:1995Devils.jpg listed for deletion

A file used in this article, File:1995Devils.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recentism

The last few seasons are starting to get bloated on this article and much of it could probably be cut out to the individual season articles. Anyone up for the challenge? -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's my thought that the History part should be split out as History of the New Jersey Devils. With a little spit and polish, it could probably requalify for FA with little trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove Zach Parise

its a personal issue to us all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbain942 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, attempts to represent history as it was. We do not alter the record to suit the point of view of the fans. Resolute 18:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Zach Parise was scarcely the first free agent ever to leave a team, and certainly won't be the last. (Come to that, I've noted that the Devils, themselves, sign other teams' UFAs.) Ravenswing 03:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternate captains

Jagr is currently wearing an A against the Rangers, and I remember him wearing one another time this year, but it appears he is not a regular appointee. With Salvador out last year and this, theyve had 3 As and now with Elias out, it looks like Jagr is taking the third A. I cant find any sources in a google search, but I can see it on screen. Should we update this or make some note of it?--Metallurgist (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In general, we often note only the permanent alternates (at locations such as List of current NHL captains and alternate captains or a team season article such as 2013–14 New Jersey Devils season). It is quite frequent that a player will wear an A for a game or two due to injury of one of the three regular captains/alternates, so it can become confusing and messy to try and track these short term assignments. Though, of course, if a source says that Jagr wears/wore an A for a reasonable length of time, it would make sense to add that note to his article. Cheers! Resolute 15:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Article issues

This article currently has a variety of issues that make me concerned about its' status as a featured article. A lack of proper citations, some dead links, unreliable sources, and prose issues. Before a featured article review, the idea is a talk page discussion should take place, so that leaves me here. This article needs a lot of work to meet the current featured article standards. Is anyone willing to put in the work? Gloss 22:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Even as a Rangers fan, I'd be interested in working on the article in my spare time. I think that a lot of the problems could be solved by forking the current history content into a History of the New Jersey Devils article and cutting back on what's presented here. That would take care of the weight issues noted at the (delayed) FAR and make the article a bit easier to source. I'm going to be busy in real life for the next couple of weeks, so I wouldn't object if the FAR was resumed in a week or so, though I'll try to do what I can in the meantime. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that the team has even been around long enough to need its own history page. Most of the bloat could probably be moved to season pages since that is what they are for and they are often neglected badly when it comes to adding prose. That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with a fork. -DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

At 40 years, I think a fork is justifiable. The article is nearing 100kb as it is, so a size-based split is also warranted. Also, as I noted on the now paused FAR, I'd be willing to help with copyedits if someone's willing to do the work on the references and sourcing (and probably the recentism as well). Resolute 00:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and create a new article with the current history content (with properly attribution, of course). The first paragraph of the history section here has been redone, and if you like the work you can expect more of it in the days/weeks to come. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: About that last statement you removed for the jerseys in 2007–08, I found this - if you think it's worth re-adding. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt. Gloss 03:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• I added the sentence back with the source. Thanks for finding that! Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hall of Fame revert

This text was quite superior to what is there now; it was reverted with no discussion, although it had consensus at Wikipedia:Featured article review/New Jersey Devils/archive1. I suggest restoring it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I responded at the FAR, having not been proper pinged by it. I'll repeat what I said there, in brief. The prose version is a choppy wall of text that is too long to read comfortably and lacks cohesion and flow in the paragraph. It doesn't work as one big paragraph, and if it's going to be broken up because of that, it should just be a set of bullet points, because no matter how it's formatted it still reads like a list. oknazevad (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I see a problem turning it into prose, the Calgary Flames featured article does a good job of it for example. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oknazevad, the FAR is linked at the top of this page. For this article to pass FAR, it needs to be stable (see WP:WIAFA, 1e), so reverting against consensus can endanger its featured status. Do you have the FAR watch listed? DJsasso, you might want to look over the FAR as well ... it has been four months of work to get to this point! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Giants2008, there was an edit before I tidied up the prose in the list that may need review ... I didn't want you to miss it since I edited right after it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sources to support that, and a number retirement for such a prominent player should have something out there that is sufficient for our purposes. The edit has been undone. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wording in the lead paragraph

Hello, I am writing this message to ask other editors about a proposed edit change? I am requesting to change the wording in the lead paragraph of the New Jersey Devils article to this version. Specifically, the reason why I am proposing this edit change is because I feel like it reads better, and I also feel like an average reader of the New Jersey Devils article would maybe think it reads better too. I am writing this message in order to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS with other editors as to how the lead paragraph should be written. Please feel free to respond to this message. I'm not expecting to claim ownership; rather, I'm intending to start a dialogue and reach consensus as to how the lead paragraph should be written. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the current version reads better. However, if others prefer your proposed changes? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think that the current version is perfectly fine. And as one user wrote Please do not remove this link; this article has been subject to featured article review within the past few months, and no FA article reviewer objected to this important definitional link. Therefore, I think no changes should be made. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the changes worked their way back into the article. I don't have an issue with the first couple of adjustments, but there is a "Rockies. The Rockies..." as a result. I've never liked this type of structure, in which a word ends a sentence and appears at the start of another, and the regular FA reviewers don't care for it much either. I'll go ahead and make an edit to fix that, if it's okay. Also, I'm happy to see that the East Rutherford link was restored. At the FA level countries and big cities are often left unlinked, but I think a link is useful in this case. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Angels" April Fools 2016

Just a notice, the Angels thing is a very elaborate April Fools Day prank, please do not change the article, because as far as I am aware the Devils are not actually becoming the Angels. 2601:18C:C100:7090:6C72:C9D4:E7DA:3AAA (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

One Jersey Network

Should the Radio and TV section be updated to include the One Jersey Network? [1] Fishnet37222 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Jersey Devils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mq4a17QY?url=http://www.nhl.com/trophies/smythe.html to http://www.nhl.com/trophies/smythe.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk1JmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTk2NDMyJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg%3D%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bergenrecord.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MDEyODgwJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg%3D%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430150057/http://sportsline.com/nhl/gamecenter/recap/NHL_20060418_NJ%40MON to http://sportsline.com/nhl/gamecenter/recap/NHL_20060418_NJ%40MON

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Jersey Devils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518075307/http://devils.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=600577 to http://devils.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=600577

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Jersey Devils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050719080011/http://citypaper.net/articles/112901/cs.cover2.shtml to http://www.citypaper.net/articles/112901/cs.cover2.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927012151/http://www.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060930&content_id=1410377&oid=36218&vkey=15 to http://www.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060930&content_id=1410377&oid=36218&vkey=15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518075310/http://devils.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=600573 to http://devils.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=600573
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214200535/http://www.msg.com/tv/network-talent/deb-placey to http://www.msg.com/tv/network-talent/deb-placey

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Jersey Devils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170821085812/https://www.iheart.com/live/tojn-7262/ to https://www.iheart.com/live/tojn-7262/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Uniform Set of the New Jersey Devils.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Le Red Bull Arena.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Les Widdifield" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Les Widdifield and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 11#Les Widdifield until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)