Talk:Winnipeg Jets

Merge it?

A lot of sports teams that simply change cities and names get they're old team's page merged into it, so are there two seperate pages? I'm under the impression that all the team records are to be kept and not erased, so I really feel this is just a waste of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.166.80 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Two separate pages. Just like Atlanta Flames/Calgary Flames, Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars, etc. One95 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between" Winnipeg Jets/Winnipeg Jets" and "Atlanta Flames/Calgary Flames", so I don't think that logic should rule this. 128.103.7.195 (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope we always split ice hockey teams that switch cities. It allows for more detailed information on both pages because we aren't trying to cram so much onto one page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

it just seems that there's a difference between switching cities and returning to a city under the same name as an old franchise (in essence, reviving the franchise). When [other] people search for the article on Winnipeg Jets, they don't want to see Winnipeg Jets (old franchise) and Winnipeg Jets (new franchise). They wanted to see Winnipeg Jets (the franchise). The cramming onto one page argument doesn't hold up. (If you think it does, then you'd have to support breaking up the pages for the original 6 teams because they are "cramming too much" information on it. Even worse than cramming, we now have an article that is dislocated and redundant. 128.103.7.195 (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The old Winnipeg Jets franchise is still active in Phoenix. We are not going to introduce a significant factual inaccuracy for the sake of convenience (or, IMNSHO, laziness). They are two separate franchises, two separate teams, have two separate histories and two separate futures. The only thing they have in common is a name, and it would be just as ridiculous to merge Terry Fox (baseball) into Terry Fox on that same basis. Resolute 02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention we do actually break the Original 6 teams up into multiple pages. For example we split out the history section to the History of the Montreal Canadiens page etc. Splitting pages up is extremely common and how we organize things on wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the best example is the Ottawa Senators (original) and the Ottawa Senators, two different teams and histories, same common name. So no, I don't think the article should merge either. --Skippingrock (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

June 21st

Shouldn't creation of this article wait until the NHL board approves the deal to True North. While unlikely, we've seen franchise re-locations fall apart at the last minute. --Airtuna08 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The strength of the ref from NHL.com gives it enough credence to have an article, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be. But people are going to keep recreating it if we don't. It can always be redirected if things fall apart on the 21st. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is fine, but I think the 2011-12 season article is a bit early, until the board approves the deal and it is known for sure that the team is moving to Winnipeg for the upcoming season. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. The NHL Board of Governors have not approved anything, yet. The Thrashers article continues to be in 'correctly' in present tense. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While you're technically correct per WP:Crystal, trying to delete the article would be an exercise in futility. Better to leave it as is, rather than delete it,and then have to delete all the aother sub-standard articles that pop up between now and official approval. - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If approval were several months from now, then I'd support deletion, but as it's pretty much a rubber-stamp at this point, per reliable sources including Bettman himself, it's better to keep it and do it right. I agree that the season article is premature, though. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That the board of governors meeting is only 3 weeks from now, it would be kind of pointless to delete this now. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 22:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but the league has announced the relocation. The BOG vote is just to ratify. Either it passes, and the team gains permanent entry, or it fails, and we have a historic situation on our hands worthy of an article. In no scenario is deletion appropriate. Resolute 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not talking about the Hamilton Predators here... it seems like this is a foregone conclusion. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How would this be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL? It's verifiable, it is notable, there's a strong likelyhood this will occur, the NHL agrees. This isn't all that much different than when a league announces expansion franchises. Patken4 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It has now 01/06/2011 been confirmed on NHL.com so the article shouldn't be deleted but modified later on when everything is determined. Are tehy really going to play in the SE group? with sunbelt team and washington or are they going to redefine the group geographically?80.223.219.15 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything in the references says that it is too late to realign, which will make for some long roadtrips for in-division games. One references says that as of the following year, the Red Wings may be moved to the east (as has always been promised) so that the Winnipeg team can be in the West. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TBDs in infobox

True North Sports & Entertainment Ltd. is purchasing the Atlanta Thrashers franchise along with all of its player and front office contracts. Like any other NHL team, I think the status quo should be preserved until official announcements are made to the contrary. Therefore I believe the GM, coach and captain should be preserved as Dudley, Ramsay and Ladd. Meanwhile it has been officially announced that its minor league affiliate will be the Moose franchise in a yet to be determined location. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is official who GM, Coach, & Captain. They havent spoken to either of them. There been articles that they dont Rick Dudley as their GM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Until it is officially announced that they have removed or resigned from their current position, wikipedia policy is that they still hold the position of GM, coach, or captain. We shouldn't be making assumptions about what might happen.99.246.179.122 (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Wolves is Minor League affiliated

its says Minor league affiliates: St.John's AHL Team but, its still Chicago Wolves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wolves were the affiliate of the Thrashers, but per the agreement to effectively lease the Moose to St. Johns, the new St. John's AHL team will become the affiliate of the new Winnipeg NHL team. Resolute 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wolves already looking for another parent club, with a decision to come perhaps next week. [1] Patken4 (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wolves new parent club are the Vancouver Canucks.---KDB_31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.69.160.42 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Captain

Andrew Ladd isn't the captain yet. With Coach & GM uncertain, its may effect him from signing with new team & possibly new coach may choose a new captain. Asking to remove Ladd to vacant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Until an official announcement to the contrary, Ladd should be assumed to be the captain. Frequently captains are RFA, UFA, suspected of retiring or of being traded or removed, but until an official announcement is made the player remains captain.99.246.179.122 (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, he's still the captain of the Thrashers until the move is approved. - BilCat (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same franchise. Until the move is approved this team doesn't exist, in which case this page should be deleted. Since this page does exist, Ladd is the captain. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No. This artice is about the pending move. Once that's been approved, it'll be expanded to cover the team. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is about the team, the "Winnipeg_NHL_team", sale is not mentioned. The article mostly assumes that the sale is a done deal with league approval only being a formality. Meanwhile all references about Ladd refer to him as captain of the team in Winnipeg. They also portray him as assuming that role. 174.119.19.211 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No. The Atlanta Thrashers article is about the current team,which is why it sats "The Atlanta Thrashers are", not "were". That's inline with Wikiproject Hockey's preferences on the issue. - BilCat (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)- BilCat (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this argument's going nowhere haha. Definitely avoid putting Andrew Ladd as captain until there is something in writing that says Andrew Ladd is the captain of the Winnipeg Jets. That, at the very earliest, won't come until June 21st. You can't be captain of two teams, and right now, Andrew Ladd is the captain of the Atlanta Thrashers. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 15:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

'Tis best to wait until the next season, if the relocation is approved. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

They sold out their season tickets in two minutes. I think its long since passed the if stage since they have now almost sold out their building for 3-5 years. But I know what you mean. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.124.130.132, 5 June 2011

TSN and CBC's Hockey Night in Canada is reporting Rick Dudley has been let go by True North Sports and Entertainment as GM of the Winnipeg NHL team.

74.124.130.132 (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• So how about we wait until the team announces it? Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we don't "lose" somehow by not being right out in front of breaking news.  Ravenswing  02:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to agree - no formal reference for such a statement yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Founded 2011?

Wouldn't it be conicided with the founding of the date when the franchise was founded team? its just like other relocated teams history dates back to the franchise's original founding like Calgary Flames traces thiers back to the Atlanta Flames?Justwisted (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. To be consistent with the other NHL team articles, the year founded is when the franchise originally entered the league, not when it relocated to its current city. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Advanced page move discussion

If True North does in fact rename the team "Winnipeg Jets", I'd prefer that we do what is currently done with Ottawa Senators and Ottawa Senators (original):

• Winnipeg Jets → Winnipeg Jets (original)
• Winnipeg NHL team → Winnipeg Jets

Of course, this would be moot if another name is selected. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple discussions about this on the ice hockey project page. But basically it came down to how we usually handle teams with the same name and different time periods. Winnipeg Jets (1972-1996) and then Winnipeg Jets. I think Ottawa was handled the way it was because there was no clear start date. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer your idea Zzyzx, Winnipeg Jets (original) & Winnipeg Jets. Hopefully, the new re-located franchise (if confirmed by the NHL BoG), will choose another name. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with DJSsso's plan. It's generally how Wikiproject Ice Hockey takes care of issues like this, and unlike the original Senators we have exact dates with the Jets. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• +1 to DJ. Hopefully, True North will pick the Jets; I'd rather that the Winnipeg fans were made happy than our own (temporary) convenience be met. (And yep, DJ ... when I created the original Senators article, there was not only a question as to when the franchise was created but when it ended, and as Alaney's later research proved, we would have been wrong on both counts. Plainly this wouldn't be the case with renaming the 72 Jets' article, which should conform to our customary usage.)  Ravenswing  14:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer DJ's proposal as well. There was another Winnipeg Jets that played in the WHL in the late 60's and early 70's. In addition, it seems we've generally used years disambigute between two teams with the same name and who played in the league. Look at Category:Defunct ice hockey teams in Canada and Category:Defunct ice hockey teams in the United States. Patken4 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is mixed, but the original Winnipeg Jets were a WCHL team, so moving the NHL Jets to the proposed name would be incorrect. Given just about every report indicates that TNSE is intent on making it a provincial name rather than city, even if they go with Jets, it would more than likely be Manitoba Jets, mooting this discussion. Resolute 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be the Winnipeg Thrashers. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It most definitely should not be Thrashers; the TNSE already has stated that it will not be, and that the rights to the name and logo will remain in Atlanta. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Atlanta owners have retained all of the copyrights and trademarks to the Thrashers. I wonder why. A future team in Atlanta? Of course, they've had two shots at it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the Winnipeg Jets (original) proposal for the current Winnipeg Jets page, if indeed the new team is given the name Jets. Sort of falls into a similar category as the Ottawa Senators (original) and Ottawa Senators, as two different teams with the same name, except Ottawa had to wait about 60 years for the NHL to return. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 04:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above (original) doesn't work because there has been other Winnipeg Jets teams before the NHL one. We use years on every other team there is no reason not to continue that with this team. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope the BoG will approve the sale & re-location. If they don't, this is all moot. GoodDay (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

... or name the new team after locally-identifiable things: The Winnipeg Mosquitoes From Hell, or perhaps the Winnipeg Springtime Floods  :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair Jets were identifiable because they did alot of aeronautical engineering and plane building there and it was the headquarters for the major Canadian airline at the time. Alot of people just assumed it was called that because of Bobby Hull. (I'm still hoping for Manitoba Blizzard) -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I support this.Dr. Pizza (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rumblings today are that the name will be announced tonight at the draft with the Jets being the name. I prefer going with Winnipeg Jets (original) but since DJSasso mentioned (original) doesn't work then I say just use the first year of their NHL existence. So Winnipeg Jets (1979) and Winnipeg Jets. One95 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, Winnipeg Jets (original NHL team) and Winnipeg Jets (NHL team) and Winnipeg Jets (WCHL team) make the most sense when considered together. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if the team is named the Winnipeg Jets it will clearly become the primary topic (topic most likely searched for) so it will get the undisambiguated name. So all that really matters is what we call the original nhl one. Which might as well be the years since we do that on most every other team that no longer exists. With the odd exception like Ottawa. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's just all pray it won't be the Winnipeg Jets. If it has to be the Jets (ugh!), make it the Manitoba Jets at least. Jmj713 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you it looks like it will be the Winnipeg Jets. The current team as Djsasso said should be named Winnipeg Jets and I say the previous NHL team goes by the year. With the media reports of the new names I'm guessing this page will need semi-protection. The changes have already started. We'll have to see if it gets worse I guess. One95 (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to semi-protect the original Jets article as well; just reverted a change there myself. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully-protected it for 24 hrs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to protect this one as well; IPs are jumping in faster than can be reverted. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jets name - legal issues

While the Jets name is obviously owned by the NHL, 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. Some of the related articles currently imply that the league only acquired the name "Winnipeg Jets" 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.

It does matter how the league acquired the rights, because if in fact the name was owned by the Coyotes and thus only acquired by the NHL out of bankruptcy then the name would be part of the bankruptcy transaction - 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.

You're correct about the NHL having ownership of the Jets trademark at least in Canada. According to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office the NHL had the rights prior to the Coyotes' bankruptcy. However not being a lawyer I don't understand your reasoning about the NHL requiring a judge in order to sell one of its assets. The judge was required for the transfer of assets from the previous Coyotes' owner to the NHL. It shouldn't be any of his business what the NHL does with it now. How many sales would he be the judge of? 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article explicitly states that the NHL owns the Winnipeg Jets name "through its ownership of the Coyotes" or something to that effect - if the CIPO information is correct then the article is flat-out wrong - and should be promptly corrected to emphasize that the Coyotes' bankruptcy had nothing to do with the league acquiring the Jets name. If on the other hand CIPO's information is inaccurate, and the Jets name in fact belongs to the Coyotes (and only through the Coyotes to the league) then the fact the league bought the Coyotes through bankruptcy may be an issue requiring attention before someone else (e.g. TNSE) could use it. When the league bought the Coyotes the U.S. bankruptcy judge set out some conditions, most importantly that any profits from a re-sale go to the creditors. That doesn't mean the judge is personally monitoring the present situation in Winnipeg as it relates to the Jets name (he surely has better things to do), but if for the sake of argument the Jets name is part of the Coyotes organization, and if the Coyotes' owners (the NHL) tried to give another team permission to use the Winnipeg Jets name under those circumstances, the Moyes-era creditors could possibly petition the bankruptcy court in Phoenix for an injunction, and demand that nobody else be allowed to use the name Winnipeg Jets unless they paid the league (for the purpose of distribution to the creditors) fair market value for the trademark.

I agree that the article is currently wrong and should be corrected. In addition to the official Canadian evidence, the US Patent and Trademark Office also indicates that the NHL had ownership of Jets trademark prior to the bankruptcy (click here and enter Winnipeg Jets). 174.119.19.211 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Add-on

I think its time to add-on some category from the Atlanta Thrashers. Season-by-season record, Team captains(as Ladd first), Honored Members(With Steen, Hull,& etc. but also add Dan Snyder), Statistics and records(Re-Fresh). Please delete bottom GM category, there is already one at the top-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubvirk (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of those won't be on this page as those were all Atlanta Trashers captains and records and will be on the Atlanta Thrashers page. As for starting new ones for the people and events that happen in Winnipeg that will happen once the team is officially approved in 12 days. -DJSasso (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Steen and Hull had their numbers retired by the Jets, not the current team. Likewise, Snyder's number was retired by the Thrashers. Unless the new Winnipeg team chooses to retain the honour to Snyder, or re-retire Hull and Steen's numbers, they do not belong on this article. Resolute 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They did, True North said they would retire #25 and #9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Later commentary from the same blog suggests that no firm decision has been made. Regardless, it should not be mentioned in this article unless TNSE formally announces such a retirement. Resolute 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would they wanna retire #9 & #25? Hull & Steen never played for the Atlanta Thrashers. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

They want to honor them, by not forgetting them. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk)

Request to change "Winnipeg NHL team to "Manitoba NHL team"

The mayor of Winnipeg, Manitoba Sam Katz said that the team will be called "Manitoba _____"[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The entire article will be moved once a formal team name has been determined. Until then, it's the team that is/will be in Winnipeg. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Katz is not involved in ownership or management group making these decisions, and he was only saying he suspects it will be named 'Manitoba'. And considering True North maintains they haven't made a decision yet, it's hard to argue it WILL be Manitoba _____. Aoystreck (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Be patient. Only six more sleeps until you can expect to hear the official announcement on the franchise's new name. Dolovis (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: generally if sport franchise articles are formed before a name is created the article is named City of the team + League of the team + team. This article currently follows that format with Winnipeg + NHL + team. In some name change situations the previous name is still commonly used to get to the current name but with sport teams, as soon as a name is chosen not many people will use Winnipeg NHL team, Manitoba NHL team, whatever we name it right now... Bhockey10 (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: For pity's sake, this is a placeholder.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Ravenswing. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:Commonname. Winnipeg NHL team gets 3.5 million Google hits. Manitoba NHL team gets 47 Google hits. Until they announce an offical name, it should stay as Winnipeg NHL team. Patken4 (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

New team?

It's not a new team, it will be a re-located team. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a new team and a re-located franchise. Team doesn't necessarily equal franchise. -DJSasso (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling it a new team, doesn't seem accurate. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

But it is a new team. This isn't the Atlanata Thrashers in Winnipeg. This is a new team in Winnipeg. (i.e. built from the ground up) 174.5.111.42 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect, it essentially is the Atlanta Thrashers in Winnipeg. It may seem like it's getting built from the ground up because the new owners want to, but after TNSE purchased the team they could have done nothing and just called them the Winnipeg Thrashers. Making changes is good business though. The Winnipeg Team keeps franchise records from ATL, the ATL roster, draft positions, etc... New teams are expansion teams and there is a different procedure, etc... Bhockey10 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-linking "league permission"

The second sentence in the lead says: "The team came into existence after True North Sports and Entertainment purchased the then Atlanta Thrashers and obtained league permission to move them to Winnipeg[...]". The term "league permission" is linked to the National Hockey League article. Is the term really related to the National Hockey League? HeyMid (contribs) 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To wikilink "league" might make sense, but not permission - that aspect would require cite. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

TSN is reporting the name will be 'Winnipeg Jets'

Now that its official, can we change the page or do we wait till they do the "unveiling" at the draft tonight?--Львівське (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it until there is an official release....TSN also reported at one point the Coyotes to WInnipeg were a done deal....until it comes straight from the NHL or True Norths mouth it shouldn't be moved. After all its only a couple of hours until they make the pick that they are supposedly going to use to announce the name. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Official" announcements are made by the team and/or league. Not media. One95 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree . . . until someone has a legit reference from the team or NHL, I'm presuming that any edits stating that the name is XXX should be reverted. W4chris (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not official, but it is now on NHL.com ([2]) --CASportsFan (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Media report on strong rumors. It's part of how media operate, the different media companies all want to be the first to break events. Even though there are fact checking with usually multiple credible sources they are still just strong rumors. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet so it's better to wait until official team and NHL releases (which could come as early as later this evening at the Draft.) Bhockey10 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Now the that NHL is confirming it we'd probably be safe in making the move. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, nhl.com still shows it as a report and to be honest they are not the NHL or TNSE. Until it is an official announcement it can't be changed. Also, when you try to go to jets.nhl.com it says the server can't be found.Weatherman05071 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. People are now moving the page. I moved it back. Problem is that was a autoconfirmed user so semi-protection wouldn't have even helped. One95 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's what we know: virtually every media outlet out there, through their own sources apparently, have identified the team name as the Jets; at least one of the sources (I think the CBC) traced their information directly to True North, although said source also indicated that it wasn't quite official yet and that Mark Chipman has the opportunity to change his mind. I think it's worth stating that it's almost certain to be the Jets, given the overwhelming evidence in its favor, but probably not a good idea to move the article name until True North officially announces it (and God, I hope they do it tonight!). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

They confirmed they will. But the problem is people are doing it incorrectly too. Winnipeg Jets become Winnipeg Jets (1979) and this becomes Winnipeg Jets. Right now Winnipeg Jets is fully protected so only an admin can move it. One95 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I see; the other option is to create a disambiguation at least for the time being: Winnipeg Jets (WHA/NHL) or Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) for the original and Winnipeg Jets (2011) for the current team, and set up the main Winnipeg Jets article disambiguating them (and perhaps the 1967 junior team as well). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. I'm not going to touch all the moving. Just trying to stop all the premature changes.One95 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To that end, I've created a disambiguation page: Winnipeg Jets (disambiguation). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I can fix the pages when its announced. Listing to it on the radio right now. I will move to the names a few sections up when its announced. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you protect this page? I submitted a request earlier. One95 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If/when it's confirmed- then the original NHL team should move to Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) and this article should move to Winnipeg Jets. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what will happen. -DJSasso (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I figured Djasso's got it under control! thanks! That situation of course depends on the name being Winnipeg, it could be named Manitoba Jets, we'll see. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

ESPN, Toronto Sun, and Toronto Star all say they're going to be the Jets, but they're going to make that official during tonight's NHL draft, when they announce their #7 pick. –MuZemike 23:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

When it does get moved and you remove the NHL team parts, remember that the Jets wording and phrasing is hidden by comment symbols. Should make it easier to get done in one fell swoop.Weatherman05071 (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• We now have confirmation, it will be the Jets. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hah, had your finger on the button, did you, DJ? I was just watching the draft party in Winnipeg and the fans are going bonkers. Go Jets go!  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  00:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  Now the fun part of redirecting all the pages that link to Winnipeg Jets incorrectly. Feel free to join in with AWB. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  I'll start on it, in a couple hours.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a major problem here

Somewhere along the line we managed to lose the Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) article. It's redirecting to the Winnipeg Jets article, which currently displays the 2011 team article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh I will fix it. This is why we didn't want jumping the gun. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually its there for me...you need to clear your cache. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I forgot the ndash and put a dash....fixed now. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I fixed the redirect. Sorry about the confusion. No wonder I was confused... J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) is still under full protection. Should only be semi. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All the that and the new Jets article should probably be at least semi protected. There's already been some GO JETS Go and disruptive edits on the draft page. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason we're not merging the two Jets articles together as was done with the Cleveland Browns? Gateman1997 (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Because they are two separate franchises. The Browns are unique in that as part of the deal to move the team out of Cleveland, any new team that came in would assume the history of the old Browns. This isn't the case for the Jets who are two completely separate entities. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Will that view change if the new Jets do in fact take on the official history of the old franchise? Because the owners and the commissioner are both talking like that may end up being the case. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not likely, the Browns article should probably be split. But I don't edit football articles. They have different standards than hockey articles. We always split teams when they move where they tend not to. That being said everything I have read says True North doesn't want to take on the mantle of being the Jets other than in name it appears. They will likely honour the history. But I doubt they will officially work out a deal to somehow take the history away from phoenix and give it to the new Jets. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree on the Browns. They're explicitly listed by the league as being the same franchise, so there's no real basis to split them. But I agree here we've got no confirmation they'd be considered the same franchise. That said, is there any precedent for one "franchise" taking on even the name mantle of another "franchise" in the same league that is technically still in existence like this? I mean I know the Seattle Sonics have presented the future opportunity for this to happen, but other than that every other instance I can think of where a replacement team has moved to a city that previously had a team they either maintain their own identity from before the move or create a completely new one. Hell usually even expansion replacement franchises take on new identities. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the Ottawa Senators had the same situation. When the new franchise first joined the league the league presented them with a plaque or something like that which said they were actually a resumption of the old franchise but in the end it was really just a publicity stunt because over the years they slowly let that disappear and now you can't find mention anywhere that they are actually considered the same. The don't follow the same records really, they don't list their start date as way back when etc. Only thing they have done that is still around is a retired number for someone who played on the original version. In the end we keep them separate. -DJSasso (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• (reduce indent) Well in the Senators case it's not surprising. Wasn't there nearly 70 years between NHL teams? Gateman1997 (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree that its not surprising. Was just pointing out it was the closest example I can think of where it happened other than the Browns. But even they were different as it was set up for that to happen before hand. So really the team never actually left since they got an immediate expansion team. The other team didn't play with their history for a decade and then had it removed and given to another team. So if it does happen this will be quite unique. Besides split articles allow for more coverage in each one leading to a better experience for the reader. -DJSasso (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Chalk me up as another person unlikely to be impressed with any "assumption of the history" the new Jets and the league might finagle. I agree that it wouldn't, and shouldn't, have any more force than that bit of PR window dressing the Sens received, which was promptly ignored by both the team and the league. Seriously, folks, who thinks that True North is going to actually claim that Dale Hawerchuk is the career leading scorer for this franchise?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be a travesty if the new Jets attempted to own the original Jets stats and history. That's just plain wrong. Jmj713 (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Division Championships

Does the Southeast Division title as the Thrashers not count? Eric (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No that is on the Atlanta Thrashers article. Information about the team before it moved to Winnipeg stays on the other team page. -DJSasso (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The division title should be on the Jets' page in addition to the Thrashers' page. This precedent was set with other sports franchises that moved. For example, the Oklahoma City Thunder page lists championships from when the team was still the Seattle SuperSonics. Frank Anchor^Talk 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably need to wait and see if the new Jets are going to choose to acknowledge those championships. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't do it on any of the other hockey teams that move. There is a lot of precedent that we don't carry it over. That division championship happened while the team was the Thrashers not the Winnipeg Jets. To list it would be inaccurate. And technically the Supersonics article is completely wrong because all the history remained behind in Seattle officially. So those championships etc don't in any way belong to the SuperSonics. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it that the franchise scoring leaders transfer over, but nothing else does? IMO, we can't have a partial transfer like that. Transferring everything seems more logical to me than transferring nothing...it's still the same team, just playing in a different place. Especially since the official Winnipeg Jets team site claims all the Thrashers games as part of their history...[3] (as well as everywhere else on their site). Jamesa7171 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the division titles happened during the "Time Frame" of the Atlanta Trashers. Wheres as scoring leaders are an ongoing mark as Winnipeg Jets players begin to pass the Thrashes players. The two pages cover different periods of the teams history. This is how its handled on all of the other NHL teams that have moved. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read this interesting discussion. I recently removed someone's addition of the "Division Championship" (1) while the franchise was in Atlanta—for reasons other than the above—because I thought that when a team changes its name, it becomes a new franchise. On doing further research, I discovered that in the NHL the term "franchise" covers all the "stops" that team has made throughout its history. However, the reasons given above for not including the previous "stops" in the team's records also make sense to me, and I still support leaving out any records of the team as a whole before they were the "Jets". However, the individual team scoring leaders have to be carried over, since these players worked hard for this ranking, and deserve to keep their positions in the ranking, even if they are no longer with the team. --Skol fir (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) This is the NHL, Winnipeg wish they can rise a banner, instead they will rise banners that Phoenix already has. i say leave how its is & erase leader stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• As a reader of these articles, when I am looking at the Jets article, my interest is in Winnipeg. Since the infobox is intended to show facts at a glance, I would leave the focus there on Winnipeg only. But the Thrashers' division title certainly belongs in the section briefly detailing the franchise history in Atlanta. The scoring leaders table is trickier, as the overall franchise totals are often tracked by the teams themselves. Personally, I think for articles like this, we should use two tables side by side. One for franchise totals, and the other for totals in the current city only. Resolute 03:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Y'know, this is an interesting point, especially since we're not consistent in how we do this. The Phoenix article omits Jets scoring leaders, while the Colorado, Carolina and Dallas articles include the scoring leaders from the Whalers, Nordiques and North Stars. This is worth taking to the project talk page, I think.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  11:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I think its handled that way because the Coyotes themselves handle it that way. From what I remember reading and I don't have their media guide handy they don't actually acknowledge the previous scoring leaders etc. But I could be wrong, I just remember reading it in media reports. -DJSasso (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually I found a copy and it looks like they do combine them. What they separate out are franchise firsts and coyotes firsts. Must be what they were talking about. Yeah we should rewrite then. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • The Coyotes article had the full franchise table until about a week or so ago. I saw an editor change that, thought of the two-table idea, then just failed to do anything about it... Resolute 03:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"other teams"

"This article is about the current NHL franchise. For the previous NHL franchise with the same name, see Winnipeg Jets (1972–96). For other teams by this name, see Winnipeg Jets (disambiguation)."

There's only one other team. Why not just put "For the WHL team see Winnipeg Monarchs (WHL)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.129.43 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Because when it was originally written, it was not supposed to include the middle part and the only page there was supposed to be the disambiguation page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why a new article?

What is here is not much different than the content of the Atlanta Thrashers? I haven't looked at the other pro sports leagues yet, but in the NFL area, Houston Oilers redirects to a history of the Titans franchise article, Baltimore Colts (1953–1983) to the Indianapolis Colts page, and so on. Why separate articles for the NHL? Tarc (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Montreal Expos, Seattle Sonics, Minnesota North Stars all have their own articles. Some do some don't. I doubt if anyone created a separate article it will be contested. But what should be done (which what I'm doing atm) is putting summarizing the Thrasher's history just like the three teams I mentioned have in their new places articles.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sonics have good reason to be split from OKC. Their history is currently being held by the league for a future Sonics franchise (ala Cleveland Browns) should Seattle get an expansion or stolen franchise. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Those were just a few examples. A different NBA example is Vancouver Grizzlies. Most of the teams that haven't been split were from before wikipedia existed so they organically grew as one article and no one ever got around to splitting them cause its a lot harder to split after the fact than to do it from the start. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

For some odd reason, the people who run the various sports projects here aren't always on the same page. For instance, yes, the NFL convention is to treat franchises that relocate as one article. Yet, the convention for NHL teams is to separate incarnations of teams in different cities. Don't ask me why there's a difference, but there is, and the NHL teams have been quite consistent on the whole issue (see: Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes, Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche, Kansas City Scouts/Colorado Rockies (NHL)/New Jersey Devils, California Golden Seals/Cleveland Barons (NHL)/San Jose Sharks, etc.). Personally, I prefer the NHL way, since it gives more opportunity to talk about the teams' impacts on the individual markets they're in. But that's just me. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a slight correction. The Sharks were an expansion franchise. Not the continuation of the Barons. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A matter of much debate. Technically they were a demerger of the Minnesota North Stars and the Cleveland Barons. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And technically they weren't. No one has ever claimed they're any relation to the Barons from the league or the team (obstensibly the only people whose opinions on the matter actually matter.) Gateman1997 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why was there a special draft so the Sharks could select players from the North Stars?--184.163.28.65 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that was part of the negotiated price the Gunds insisted upon so they wouldn't just move the North Stars outright to the Bay Area.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the way we've always done it. That some sports WikiProjects do things differently is their lookout; I see no reason why there should be sports-wide conformity just for the sake of conformity.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the way the baseball and football projects handle franchise relocations is absolutely retarded. Not only is it lazy, but if I want to look up the Atlanta Flames, Brooklyn Dodgers or Vancouver Grizzlies, it is insulting to tell me, the reader, that I actually meant the Calgary Flames, Los Angeles Dogers or Memphis Grizzlies. Resolute 16:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not insulting. It redirects to the History of the teams page ie Houston Oilers or the section. They are one franchise so I don't see a problem with it either way (or having a separate article). Plus The Brooklyn Dodgers have their own page the Expos do and the Seattle Pilots. Plus MLB relocation is rare since the 50s and most MLB teams that moved earlier have such a long history that it makes sense to merge them into one.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg Jets are still in the eastern conference and southeast division?

I don't understand why the new Jets have to stay in the same conference and division as the Atlanta franchise. It just doesn't make sense. If I were Gary Bettman, I would either move this team into the Northwest or Central Divisions in the Western Conference and either move Nashville to the Eastern Conference to the Southeast division. Somebody tell Bettman about this. That would make a lot more sense. --E2e3v6 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is because they didn't have time to change the schedule for this year. Next year they are changing all the divisions. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

When NHL 2K12 comes out, I'll handle it. It's just a video game. --E2e3v6 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that's the difference between real life and a video game. In real life, they have to book arenas (with many teams needing to coordinate with NBA teams), hotels, charter flights, and blah blah blah. If this sale was done in January or February (which I believe is the cutoff date for booking arenas), maybe they could have moved the team to another conference, etc.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Quebec Nordiques moved to Colorado, they moved into the western conference right away.--E2e3v6 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

When Quebec moved there was time to facilitate the schedule changes. When Atlanta moved to Winnipeg it was too late to change the schedules, hence the conference/division alignment. 24.36.110.176 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Coyotes

"which will be the Coyotes' first appearance in Winnipeg in 15 years" this is incorrect. The Coyotes played exhibition games AT THE MTS CENTRE on September 17, 2006 and September 24, 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.11.186 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The name "Jets"

Can anyone succeed where I failed in trying to figure out what the name "Jets" means? I know that the pre-Atlanta Jets were named after a junior team, but I don't know what exactly a "Jet" is! Is it suppossed to be hockey players who skate like the have jets? Is it an airplane? Why does Winnipeg have anything to do with the airplane industry? I don't get it. I can't find anything on any of the internets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.11.220 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When the Jets first were created all those years ago, Boeing and Bombardier were big around there (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Aerospace engineering is/was big in Winnipeg. The national airline Air Canada had its headquarters there. And it had (and might still be) one of the busiest airports in North America for cargo etc. Winnipeg has a big history in the air industry. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ben Hatskin was a fan of the NFL's New York Jets, thus the reason for the 1972 to 1996 NHL franchise's name. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have heard this too, a reference is needed though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the legends. The other is that they named themselves the Jets to try and lure Bobby "The Golden Jet" Hull to play for them. I think Air Canada etc reasons are the more likely. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That one is almost certainly apocryphal, given the junior Jets were founded in 1967, at a time when I doubt anyone ever thought major league hockey would come to Winnipeg. Resolute 03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg is/was big in aerospace, but I don't think Air Canada played a major role and their headquarters have always been in Montreal. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article you referenced mentions that Air Canada's predecessor, TCA, had it's HQ in Winnipeg in the 1940's... At any rate, I know that I, too have heard the aerospace reasoning, but am having a hard time finding legit source to back that up. Would be nice, a it certainly sounds better than "he liked the football team" ... Echoedmyron (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I knew Air Canada was Montreal based and so was it's predecessor; I should gone back further or simply read my own links. Sorry for the noise. 99.246.179.122 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much relocation information?

I feel like there is too much information here about the nitty-gritty details of the relocation. Perhaps that seems relevant now, but a few years from now, I don't think readers will care that much about it, besides maybe the official relocation date. I think we should trim it down. 71.156.15.164 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It will definitely have to be, but for the near term, probably isn't bad to have in the main article. Ultimately, most of that detail should go into 2011–12 Winnipeg Jets season Resolute 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WPGJETS.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:WPGJETS.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please remember images tagged as fair use are not permitted on the Wikimedia Commons; non-free images should instead be uploaded directly here on Wikipedia. Commons:File:WPGJETS.png was deleted. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Logo

can someone post the actual logo, like the same size, transparent, & high quality like the other NHL logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty sharp logo to me.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

same same, what is the issue? Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say it's the artifacts in the image. Right now, the only image on the servers is a JPEG, which doesn't resize all that well. I think what he's requesting is an SVG version of the image. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i am asking for a SVG version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I do agree the logo doesn't look entirely smooth on the main page. It seems to be of a pretty low resolution probably due to the way Wiki resizes JPG images (can't entirely confirm this though). A PNG or a SVG version would be a proper replacement for it.--Vuzor (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There we go. Reconstructed the logo in Inkscape, saved it as a .svg and uploaded it. Looks sharp. --Vuzor (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Look the same to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Red?

I’ve been trying to put red up as part of the logo, but someone keeps taking it down, saying that the red is part of the maple leaf behind the logo, which I think is part of the logo? Is it, or is it not? That is the question. MTG1989 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• What the infobox states - quite clearly, actually - is what the team colors are. Since the Jets have stated outright that the team colors won't be released until September, the colors several users keep attempting to add to the infobox are pure speculation and hence can't be included.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Chicago Blackhawks logo has some green, blue, orange, and fleshtone colours in it, but that doesn't make them automatically part of the team colours... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.197.71 (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the front office of the Jets, there will be no red in the jerseys: "Chipman said the only red on the uniforms will be in the maple leaf on the logos". Jmj713 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Vector Logo

Please, wait until an official vector version can be found in a .PDF file on the NHL or Jets website before replacing the raster...we don't want to be misrepresenting the logo by re-tracing it. The last vector version I saw on the page has many points off - we want the official version of the logo, not a user-recreated version. Connormah (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have an official version of the logo from a PDF, downloadable from the Jets' website (http://jets.nhl.com/v2/ext/1112_JETS_MG.pdf) I plan to update my version with this one. Russ Jericho (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think someone already did it actually. -DJSasso (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no red in the colour description of the logo?

All the other colours are listed, why not red?

Because there will be no red on the actual jerseys which is where the official colours usually come from. -DJSasso (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Retired Numbers??

This franchise has not retired any numbers. Although the section explains the difference between the Jets/Coyotes & Thrashers/Jets franchises? There's still potential for confusing, by even having this section. We should delete it. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the talk of what the original Jets/Coyotes retired has nothing to do with THIS franchise, and I've removed much of it. The bit about Kane asking Hull for #9 is pertinent, and I left it in, as well as putting in the number that is retired for the franchise.

  That being said, there's a very simple remedy for anyone who feels confused by a "Retired Number" section for a team that has retired no numbers: read the damn section. Ravenswing 23:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps move the Kane piece (and of Little changing numbers) into the article body as part of the team's initial relocation history? Resolute 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus proposal for DMY

Most of the Manitoba articles use the date format DMY which were put in place around November 2012 such as at the article Winnipeg. Since the Jets are now a Winnipeg team, it would be more consistent to move to DMY format to match. WP:DATERET and WP:DATETIES come into play but as per the main point in the policy, consensus is the main factor and the rationale I propose is to make the date format align with other Manitoba articles. Let me know if there's any strong opposition to this proposal. Mkdw^talk 19:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your consistency argument regarding Manitoba-related articles holds little weight considering that the other side of the coin is that many NHL-related articles use MDY dates. This is precisely why we have WP:DATERET. Considering that Canada-related articles may use either style consisently, I see no reason why a switch is needed. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 23:49, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: I likewise don't see what value there is in a "Manitoba format," especially if it's the case that there is in fact no uniform consistency amongst Manitoba-related articles. There should be a purpose to consistency, not just uniformity-for-the-sake-of-uniformity. Ravenswing 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I could go either way, since when written in words (in the real world) the Canadian format tends to be MDY, however in numbers its usually DMY. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Wasn't here for an argument and respect the input here. Thanks. Mkdw^talk 20:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple of recent edits

I don't see how this edit, which I reverted, helps [4] indeed, it strikes me as snarky. It was reverted here [5] by a user that has attempted to add this a number of times. As well this same IP (both of these IPs geolocate to Florida, so it may be the same person) added this poorly worded (the word 'despite' is used twice in the same sentence) bit of trivia [6]. So, in sum, I see no reason for either of these edits. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Neither do I, which frankly seems moronic. It makes "fan traditions" sound like something that can be shipped around like so many cases of beer, and willfully denied to other locales. (Were that the case, one might imagine that Pittsburgh would file cease-and-desists on towel waving by the rest of the world.) Ravenswing 02:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• It continues, and agreed, is some sort of snark that doesn't belong in the article. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I've requested semi protection. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

50.65.38.90 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

National Anthem

Beginning in 2011 during O Canada when the line "Thy True North Strong and Free" is sung, fans yelled True North. Jennifer Hanson sang the anthems until 1996. Since 2011, Stacey Nattrass who was uniquely been known as Your Winnipeg Jets' Own sang the anthems at home games.

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)