Jump to content

Talk:Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996)

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

Merger

[edit]

All of this should be merged into the Phoenix Coyotes article and this name redirected, as is done with most sports franchises that have moved. RickK 01:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Possibly the NHL portion should be merged with the Phoenix Coyotes article, however the WHA Jets should probably remain a seperate article. Also, the saga of the Jets in Winnipeg is not yet considered over by some die hard fans!--Nordberg 19:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article should stay where it is since it represents the WHA and NHL chapter of the Winnipeg franchise. There's also the regular talks of the Jets returning to the NHL. --Madchester 17:14, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • Also, the Winnipeg Jets have their own seperate identity within the hockey world, and that merits its own page. They may "technically" be the Phoenix Coyotes now, but the aura of the Jets is so strong that both are practically different franchises. It's like the Cleveland Browns and the Baltimore Ravens (before Cleveland came back)- Art Modell may have moved the Browns to Baltimore, but the Browns' prescence remained so strong in the National Football League that they essentially were not the same franchise. -RomeW
  • This should definitely stay its own article, just as for all other teams that have either ceased operations or relocated with name changes. The Jets and Coyotes, as far as I'm concerned, are two different teams with two different identities and fanbases. All they share at this point is some history. --Cholmes75 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Winnipeg Jets should, as it currently does, continue to have it's own page. As it is stated on the history page of my website Winnipeg Jets Online.com (http://www.winnipegjetsonline.com) "The skeleton of the Jets moved south of the border and became the Phoenix Coyotes but it's heart and sole remains in Winnipeg where it belongs and where it will soon be revived." Go JETS Go! - Lauren Robb 1:45pm, 11 September 2006

Absolutely oppose. This article has enough information independently of the Coyotes article to be merged. All of the NHL teams that have moved (and still exist in the NHL) have their own articles. --myselfalso 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Jets These words go together as much as the term New York Yankees. If, heaven forbid, at some point, the Yankees were moved to another city, would the New York Yankees site be merged with the site of the new city? I think not. The New York Yankees would then be an important part of history. The same for the Winnipeg Jets. DavidWill2 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You responded to a three year-dead discussion.  ;) There won't be a merger of any kind. Don't worry. Resolute 23:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color or colour?

[edit]

Heyo, curious, how does spelling work on WIKIPEDIA? Color or colour since it's about a Canadian team?

  • There are a few standards by which to go; WP:ENGVAR discusses them. The basic one is that an article with "strong national ties" should be in that language variant; therefore the Jets article should properly be in Commonwealth English, and "colour" should prevail.  Ravenswing  13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thanks alot... I changed the side bar to colour, but it didn't seem to work and killed the descriptors. I'll attempt to learn a little more about how wikipedia editing works before mucking around more, but in the meantime maybe someone could fix it (maintaing my goal of making it coloUr. - Nicholas
That's part of the infobox's template, not the article. I would add it in, but I'm not sure how to add it since I would then have to make both team_colors and team_colours optional, and I don't know how to do that. But, I'll read about them and test it in my sandbox. In the mean time, may I suggest making an account? Using an IP is fine, but getting an account would probably be smart because not all IP addresses stay constant, a lot of the time they switch, or may just be shared by an entire family or by a roomate who may happen to vandalize wikipedia and then you will also get in trouble for it if you use an IP. BsroiaadnTalk 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is not exactly about spelling, but since this is about a former Canadian team, can someone remove Canada in the first sentence, or at least change Pheonix, Arizona to include USA afterwards? I would but I cannot remember my password — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.212.98 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Winnipegjetslogo80s.gif

[edit]

Image:Winnipegjetslogo80s.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Winjetslogo3.gif

[edit]

Image:Winjetslogo3.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new section: legacy?

[edit]

I'm thinking the page probably could use a section that details the legacy of the Jets sine the move to Phoenix. I don't have any sources or even hard info, but it would be interesting if someone dug up data on how much revenue continues to be generated from Jets merchandise, or how the "Whiteout" phenomenon has persisted, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.241.120 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I found out that the exibition games here make about $3 million more than a regular season coyotes game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rddflag (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIN ICE

[edit]

I cannot believe that nobody, NOBODY, has cited the following: Thin ice : money, politics and the demise of an NHL franchise / Jim Silver. Halifax, N.S. : Fernwood, 1996. (Mchelada (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You're more than welcome to put it in the article. Is there anything in particular you wish to cite?  Ravenswing  13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As the NHL expanded in the United States, operating costs and salaries grew rapidly..." This summery creates the appearance that the primary reason behind the demise of the Jets was due to both economics and declining player quality. The “various schemes” devised are given secondary priority. Thin Ice reverses the position. It devotes substantial time to explaining the intricate relationships between the government, the business community, and grass roots organizations in reaction to the new marketplace of the NHL, a relationship which is not simply confined to the 1990s, but had existed from the moment the team was born in the 1970s. That deserves more than a passing reference. Presently, I am still reading the book and may elaborate the article when finished.(Mchelada (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The references might be appropriate in expanding List of defunct NHL teams69.157.71.11 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-WHA days - the WCHL (Western Canadian Hockey League), Bobby Hull's Salary

[edit]

If I remember correctly, The Winnipeg Jets was a team in the Western Canadian Hockey League of the 1960s. The WCHL, as the name implies it, consisted of hockey teams from major western Canadian cities. The bigger teams of this league helped form the WHA in the 70's.

Another factor, again if my memory serves me right, was Bobby Hulls salary. He had a huge contract. At one point there was some discussion of the financial strain of this contract: was it paying off, or was it too much of a burden for the Winnipeg market.

Aren't there some old time Winnipegers that can either refute, verify, or clarify these things? These may be significant factors for this article. DavidWill2 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I peeked at Western Canada Hockey League (assuming that's the league, you're speaking of) & there's no mention of a franchise named Winnipeg Jets. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to the Western Hockey League, which was known as the WCHL at one point. The C was dropped a year after the Edmonton Oil Kings moved to Portland. These junior teams did not form the basis of the WHA. As with the Jets, however, the owner of the Edmonton Oilers - Bill Hunter - was the owner of the junior Oil Kings. David is confusing the junior WHL with the Western Hockey League (minor pro), which drew the Phoenix Roadrunners and Denver Spurs into their league. Resolute 15:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hull's salary, at least for the first couple seasons, was shared around the league; it was felt - accurately - that the signing of Hull would give instant credibility and publicity to the WHA.  Ravenswing  01:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WHA - When Hull Arrived. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Winnipeg White Out

[edit]

The article Winnipeg White Out is, quite simply, a complete mess. 90% of the prose is irrelevant to it, and simply seeks to be a laundry list of as many teams that have encouraged fans to wear one colour as possible. It all needs to be removed. The result, however, is a single paragraph. That is insufficient for a stand-alone article, and I really don't see enough room for expansion there. As such, it would better be served as a section in the Jets article, with the White Out title redirecting to that section. Resolute 14:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two months, no opposition, and three supports later, merge is complete. Resolute 23:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox icon

[edit]

Isn't it a little silly to have File:Hockey current event.svg in the infobox, when the last season ended 15 years ago? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a required field on the template, if the field is delete or not added the it displays: [[{{{current}}}]] in red. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. My point is that it should be an optional field. Further discussion at Template talk:Infobox NHL team#Current season icon. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Point inflation"

[edit]

I object to the sentence Peregrine put in for the following reasons; first, the changes in point structure came well after the Jets moved. Secondly, the "it should be noted" construction almost always presages editorializing of some sort, as it does here. "It should be noted" by whom? Why? Do we take similar note of other changes affecting point totals, such as increases in games played or the expansion era dilution of talent?  Ravenswing  15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, if we do this we have to add such circumstances to many many articles, needlessly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. Even with the new point structure, a 100 point season is just as important. There is no need to try and devalue the Phoenix season. That said, is there even any need to note that the team had a 100-point season in Phoenix? Resolute 00:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you don't want it I won't insist. But to say that a 100 point season today is as notable an accomplishment as in the Jets era is silly. A 100 point season used to be quite "elite". Last year 8 teams (pretty much one in three teams) did it. Today it is the mark of a good, but not truly elite team. If we are comparing across eras, I think it is entirely appropriate to add in caveats. The wording of the article currently suggests that the modern Coyotes team was as good as the Jets team of old, which is pretty misleading IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any such implication is in the eye of the beholder. The article, in fact, doesn't say anything of the sort ... and were it to do so, that'd be editorializing in the same - and equally illegitimate - fashion.  Ravenswing  15:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads: "They also notched 96 points, which would remain the franchise's best as an NHL team until the 2009-10 Coyotes racked up the franchise's second 100-point season (and first as an NHL team)." (my emphasis) That is a clear statement that 96 points was the best (value judgement) until the 2009-10 Coyotes. It is not just an implication. Considering the fundamental change in the point system, it is an apples to oranges comparison. If we're going to compare the two teams, we may as well be transparent about it. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a value judgement. It is a numerical fact. 100 is better than 96 no matter what inflation may have happened. It is still a better result. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a "numerical fact" but that doesn't mean it isn't misleading. For example if you compare the price of a house in 1999 and in 2010 without adjusting for inflation, your numbers may be "correct" but you are not giving a very accurate picture of changes in value. The same is true here, a point is simply not worth what it was. Before 2000 only 3 or 4 teams at most, would make 100 points on an 82 game schedule. Teams routinely made the playoffs with less than 80 points under the same qualification system. I'll agree this isn't a huge, earthshattering deal, but if we are going to make historical comparisons we may as well get it right. Of course you could theoretically put caveats for all kinds of changes (rules, style etc...) but I think it is worth pointing out fundamental changes in the basic scoring system. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thrashers move

[edit]

I do not think this belongs here, it seems to me this is a different franchise. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. For myself, I've left that info alone because it gave the anons something to gravitate to. If the announcement expected to come tomorrow or Thursday happens, I intend to move the section into the article on the new team, once it is created. Resolute 18:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah as talked about over at the hockey project it doesn't belong here but gives the anons something to edit. Soon as its official it will be removed. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to be informed here of ongoing discussions held elsewhere that relate to this page. I don't see a consensus here to remove the section though, as Raven has claimed. Telling people a consensus exists elsewhere without pointing them directly to it is also unhelpful. I leave the section out for now, but I do think having it here prevents the incompetent from re-adding their own poor attempts to the article every 5 minutes. But whatever. Running off experienced editors only increases your own workload! - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the most recent discussions at WT:Hockey, and found no clear consensus there agaisnt having this section in this article. I've restored it again. If the move actually happens, we can remove it and link to the new article, as suggested above. - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same franchise, so stop adding that Thrasher-Winnipeg stuff. Either put it in at Atlanta Thrashers or at the city article Winnipeg. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the only consensus here has been to keep the info until a final decision is made. Please discuss removing it first. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section has been in the article for several weeks, and is fairly well written and sourced now, with little actual speculation. To just decide today to remove without achiving a consesnus here first it is not right. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anywheres? it belongs in the Thrashers article. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it needs to go, but there is no harm in letting it sit here for a few more days until the new team is announced. It will have a proper place, soon. Resolute 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's inaccurate & may cause only confusion. It belongs at the Thrashers article. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The section is about a team coming to Winnipeg. The Thrashers article focuses on the team leaving. It belongs on the article for the new Winnipeg team, which won't be re-created until it is announced. Resolute 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat need only transfer it to his sandbox & wait. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Calling it a "potential revival" is defintely the wrong thing for the heading, but I changed it. Having a short section that briefly explains what's been discussed in the news, and which points people to the Thashers article, prevents the anons from showing up and adding more speculatin and rumors. I don't see the harm in allowing it to remain until a final decision is made, then we can put a relevant link to the new page in the See also section. In the meantime, if the section can be trimmed a little more, that would be OK with me. - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that it's got nothing to do with the Jets/Coyotes franchise. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We actually don't know that yet. The NHL may allow the Jets name and history to be restored to Winnipeg. It's unlikely, but it could happen. - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be a completely different franchise, even if it's named the Winnipeg Jets. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will be whatever the NHL decides it will be. They may leave the Thrshers's name/history in Atlanta for a furture franchise, as was done with th NFL Browns,and the NBA superSonics. We don;t know either way at this point. WHat WP does as far as where to locate the article is irrelevant to the NHL's decisions. - BilCat (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same franchise. We already went through this bs, concerning the Senators. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has to do with whether or not to have a new article from the later franchise. It doesn't mean we can't have any info at all in the article. WP reports on what has been reported, and the section is useful to convey that information. The information that the Jets fans want the new team to be called the Jets, as reported in reliable sources, is also relevant here. Note to admins: I'm at 3RR now, so I won't be restoring the section again. - BilCat (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my momentary 'lack of patients', but information in the wrong article - even if temporary - is still information in the wrong article. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "in the wrong article". In Ottawa Senators (original)#1934: End of the first NHL era in Ottawa, there is one paragrpah on the new Senators team. What we had here was no different than that, just information on the return of NHL to the city. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, with that example, I've reverted myself. Arguing here & at Ottawa Senators (original), wouldn't be a good choice for me. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a mention of the relocation attempts is relevant to the article, especially as 95% of people reading this article will be looking for this information right now. Until the new name has been established and the relocation has been made official, we should leave it as is. There's no reason not to include it also at the Thrashers article. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI for anyone following this page, this situation is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Winnipeg_NHL_team Peregrine981 (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential NHL return"

[edit]

At this point - and certainly long before - this turned into a "Hockey in Winnipeg" section. This is not the proper purpose of this article; it is a historical article about a team that left the city 17 years ago. Since there is argument about the issue, I propose striking the section in its entirety. Only if the relocated Thrashers franchise is named "Jets" should there be a paragraph similar to that in the original Ottawa Senators article - and that is all there is there - but that bridge can be crossed when and if. Lacking that, the article should have a line along the lines of the "The market was subsequently home to:" comments in other similar articles.  Ravenswing  01:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly disagree. I think this article should be altered to say "The Winnipeg Jets ARE an NHL team" not WERE an NHL team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.13.139 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing is correct. This article is about the old team that left for Phoenix. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the section down to the basics about the move itself and the potential name. The details of the efforts to get a team back in Winnipeg are now at Winnipeg NHL team, so they aren't needed here, per the discussions in the previous sections. - BilCat (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Since I keep hearing nonstop yammering on about the potential new Winnipeg based NHL team (let's call them NT to avoid confusing them with the Jets or Thrashers) being called the Jets and speculation as to who owns the rights to the name and logo, (i.e they can't be called the Jets because the Coyotes own the name, or they might be called the Jets because the league owns the name) it might be of use to address the subject. It is my understanding that the the NHL owns the rights to all intellectual property of every past and present NHL team. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Summing up, I think there should be a section to address
1) who owns the name and logo
2) could NT possibly use the name Winnipeg Jets or any logo they used
3) if so, under what conditions could they use them (or who would they have to acquire them from) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.129.43 (talk)

It's all speculative at this point. We certainly can't add anything on the issue without reliable sources, and most of what they have had to this point is just speculation. Unless the NHL actually clarifies the name ownership situation publically, we may never know. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite aside from BilCat's comments, any such discussion still would not pertain to the 1972-96 Jets. It would pertain to the new franchise, in which article such a section - a BRIEF section, to avoid recentism and undue weight - would be appropriate.  Ravenswing  05:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name choice is relevant here, assuming "Winnipeg Jets" is the final choice. We'll know that soon enough, assuming the team moves in time for the 2011-12 season. - BilCat (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name is obviously owned by the NHL, but for TNSE (if they want to use it) it is a very relevant issue whether or not the league already owned the name prior to the Coyotes' bankruptcy. The article currently implies that the league only acquired the name when it bought the Coyotes in the bankruptcy auction, however I am 99.99% sure the league has acquired the rights as part of the agreement that moved the original franchise in 1996. I remember doing a trademark search that confirmed the league's ownership of the name, which I believe I did prior to the league buying the Coyotes out of bankruptcy. The thing is, if in fact the name was owned by the Coyotes and thus only acquired by the NHL out of bankruptcy, the name would be part of the bankruptcy transaction so TNSE would not be able to use it with just a nudge and a wink from the NHL. TNSE would have to offer buy the rights from the league at fair market value, and the U.S. bankruptcy court would have to be satisfied that such a transaction was negotiated in good faith before they approved it.

Edit request from Prambraj, 6 June 2011

[edit]

The Jets name is a nod from the Winnipeg’s aviation history, originally the hub for TransCanada Airlines, which became Air Canada and moved to Montreal.


Prambraj (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source for this? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true and wouldn't be hard to find but I am not sure where they want it put. Not enough info here to go on. -DJSasso (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✗ Not done for now. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 13:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section "NHL returns to Winnipeg"

[edit]

That section should be deleted as it's about a different franchise. That sections belongs at Winnipeg NHL team and Winnipeg. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with keeping the section in the article here, as the idea of an NHL hockey team in Winnipeg does relate to the former Jets (which were after all the only other NHL team ever in this city). Bettman already stated in public that he would hand over the name Jets to the new team if they wanted it, and apparently at no cost! So this information is relevant to the old Jets because the name is still available, and that is what this section is trying to present as a fact, not that the new team itself has anything to do with the old Winnipeg Jets as a team. Just the name is at issue here. If it turns out that the new team is called the Jets, we can add that in later as another link to the old Jets. --Skol fir (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The team is now the Jets again so I think it's relevant. Skootles (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, particularly if the new Jets choose to honor the records, retired numbers, achievements, etc... of the old Jets (which seems likely). There'd be a good argument to make that the new team is now the continuation of the old team since the Coyotes do not honor or recognize any attachment to the old Jets records. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. They do, of course. Hull and Hawerchuck, for example, have their numbers retired by Pheonix. Jmj713 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Admins: I have created a disambiguation page Winnipeg Jets (disambiguation) in the event that this page gets moved. I would appreciate it if someone would please change the top line of this article (where it says For the current NHL team, see Winnipeg NHL team.) and change it to:

For other teams that have used the Winnipeg Jets name, see Winnipeg Jets (disambiguation).

Thank you. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry it will all be taken care of. Mostly all been planned out already. -DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote's return rumor paragraph

[edit]

Since this has been an on going remove and replace thing I figured I'd open up the discussion to get the ball rolling. All this paragraph is is a bunch of speculation which is clearly stated in the this line "..increased speculation that the franchise could relocate back to Winnipeg". It proceeds to talk about rumors that were denied and ends "However in April 2011 this was denied by the league and since then nothing came of it." So all of this is rumor and hear say that is unsupported by actual facts. With the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg it's not like this is ever going to happen. So I see no reason to document rumors of a possible return. Furthermore if is to have a legitimate chance of staying it needs to add the information about Glendale paying the league for one more season which effectively killed the move and the fact that True North Purchased the Thrashers and moved them instead, IMO. Cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is important information, it is not relevant to this article. It belongs at either the new team's article or 2010-11 Atlanta Thrashers season or 2011-12 Winnipeg Jets season. In this article it placesundue weight on something that did not happen, while also being a case of recentism. Resolute 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, talks to bring back the Coyotes to Winnipeg have been confirmed, so it isn't speculation anymore.[1] Furthermore, this info does NOT belong on the Thrashers page or the 2011-12 Jets page, as this article is mainly suppose to be about the old Jets franchise which includes what happened to it as the Coyotes. Since we already included stuff like Brett Hull's short stint (which is well past the old Jets move in 1996), the True North proposal for the Coyotes has to be a shoe-in. Demon Hill (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things like Brett Hull's stint with the Coyotes doesn't belong on this article either. The history of this Winnipeg Jets team ended in 1996. The attempts to return the NHL to Winnipeg belongs in the new Jets article, and that includes efforts to buy the Coyotes. Resolute 13:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is suppose to be about the old Jets franchise, which includes any potential relocation attempt back to its original city (even in a brief mention). The reason why Brett Hull's stint was mentioned is because the Coyotes "unretired" a number that the old Jets previously retired. Demon Hill (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really doesn't. The articles for the relocated teams have been thoroughly clogged, repeatedly, with rumors, reports, ephemeral bids and the like for moving Some Team Or Other into the original cities, oftentimes building up to as much text as given to the actual history of the teams themselves. Heck, there's even a standalone article covering the nonsense. With only a single exception - and that's been thoroughly covered in the pertinent article - it's all been moonshine. No, in fact, we don't need a mention, brief or otherwise, of every such attempt in every possible article, and I urge those interested in such articles to put work into the history the teams actually recorded - which would certainly look better under WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL - rather than into illusory rumors.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical question

[edit]

"Winnipeg Jets were ..." Is this really correct English ? Although the team name indicates plural (Winnipeg jet-S), the team do remain as one single unit, or not ? And hence correct English would be "Winnipeg Jets was...". I'm far from sure of this, English isn't my native language. But I raise the question UaruRamirezi (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around: treating the team as a singular is North American English. Treating it as plural is British English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article renaming proposal

[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to call this Winnipeg Jets (original) instead of Winnipeg Jets (1972-1996)? This would gel with the Ottawa Senators (original) and the modern Ottawa Senators. Plus the word "original" would work better than a list of dates in the article title.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope because there was a team before that team called the Winnipeg Jets. They were not the original Winnipeg Jets. They might have been the first one to play in the NHL but it would not be appropriate for this team. The Ottawa Senators on the other hand were the original Senators. I would think it more appropriate to move the Senators article if any, I am actually kind of surprised it has survived at that disambig since we long since moved to using dates as disambigs when a team spanned different leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was another Winnipeg Jets team, besides the 2 NHL franchises. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I forgot that the Monarchs were called the Jets originally.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHL Manitoba Moose

[edit]

While the Manitoba Moose are currently part of the AHL, when the Minnesota Moose were acquired by True North they were part of what was then the IHL. Many IHL teams were ultimately absorbed by the AHL. Therefore the line "however; the American Hockey League's Minnesota Moose moved to Winnipeg as the Manitoba Moose a few months after it was announced that the Jets were leaving town." should be "however; the International Hockey League's Minnesota Moose moved to Winnipeg as the Manitoba Moose a few months after it was announced that the Jets were leaving town." Reed Solomon (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

MOS:RETAIN does not apply to this because it is talking about varieties of English, of which this is not. WP:DATERANGE does however apply to this because it lays how exactly how you are supposed to show a date range. Secondly, it was not at that title for 7 years. Regardless even if that was the case, consensus changed when it sat at the new title for months. You can't just ignore the Manual of Style guidelines because you don't like it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retired numbers

[edit]

Are the numbers originally retired by the Jets (#9 and #25) hanging in the Coyotes arena in the Jets colours or the Coyotes? The Demise and relocation section (3rd to last paragraph) says they're in the Jets colours, whereas the Retired numbers section says they're in the Coyotes colours. 194.28.127.52 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been to that arena in a few years, but they were in Jets colours. Resolute 23:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Matches the few pics I could find online, so I've made a WP:Bold edit. 194.28.127.52 (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Jets (original)

[edit]

Seeing as we've got Ottawa Senators (original), perhaps this article could be moved to Winnipeg Jets (original). GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are the standard we use on all other teams when in the same league. I believe the reason the Senators are at original is because their start date is somewhat fuzzy so making a date range would be inaccurate possibly. And because they were in multiple leagues (the other typical disambiguator we use when teams were in different leagues) -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in late, but to be honest, the reason I named the article "(original)" instead of a date range was that it was thirteen years ago and we didn't have standard nomenclature for that sort of thing yet? Your notion as to the fuzzy dates/multiple leagues for keeping it that way works, though! Ravenswing 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old Logo?

[edit]

Why does this article use the old Jets logo as the main image in the infobox, instead of the current logo? The old logo should be moved to the history section, I would think. Air♠CombatTalk! 16:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) → Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996) – This should really be an uncontroversial move per MOS:DATERANGE but it seems this article might have a slight WP:OWN issue as it seems the same user has always reverted to this style. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion either way, but I do want to point out but the date contentions for ice hockey seasons, at least in North America, are in the (19/20)xx-yy format. For example, 2019–20 NHL season. The distinction in MOS:DATERANGE is that consecutive years may be defined as such, which works for seasons. The current format for this article seems to be derived from that practice. Of course, contrast the title here with History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942), or better Ottawa Senators (original). Either way, we're inconsistent across the board. :) Maxim(talk) 16:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, but a lot of it is that there are just plain different approaches different people used over the years. I'm responsible for "Ottawa Senators (original)," and the simple fact of that matter is that 15 years ago, we were just starting to get into the idea of forking off such articles; that was the first name that occurred to me. (Heck, the notion that every player deserved his own article was still forming up -- one of my early edits was putting Syl Apps Jr into his father's article, a man who'd played in the All-Star Game and retired his team's second all-time point scorer!) Were the original Sens to get a date range now, I'd only kick over it because the team played in several other leagues before AND after its NHL time. Going to the MOS generally wouldn't bother me. Ravenswing 18:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go accusing people of OWN issues, you might notice the first move was from Winnipeg Jets to Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) because a new Winnipeg Jets team came into existence. And the second happened because it was an undiscussed move by a editor who had to be banned and censured on a number of occasions, and MOS:DATERANGE actually used to require it to be that format. As for naming. I don't have an opinion, other than the two digit version is what we use in all hockey team dismbiguation titles that include a date, so if we change this one we have a bunch more to change. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia style calls for full years if not consecutive, so the dates need only be changed if the years span more than two seasons. Hopefully you know of the others and can find them easily (thanks for pointing out that MOS:DATERANGE has changed). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winnipeg_Jets_(1972–1996)&oldid=1210978868"