Talk:Manitoba Moose (2015–)

Merger proposal

I have feeling this team will be called the Manitoba Moose again. If that ends up being the case then I propose that whatever may end p on this page be incorporated into the existing Moose page. Thoughts? Yosemiter (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I second the motion. Although the Jets are hesitant to use that name again, remember, they were hesitant to be the Winnipeg Jets again, too. I believe that the fans will make their voice heard no matter what, and should the team be announced as the Manitoba Moose, then I'm all for this being merged. Tom Danson (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely. If they are called the Manitoba Moose, then this would be merged with the existing article.Rkehler3 (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the obvious solution. It's the same franchise so there would be no reason not to merge. FYI, they were never the Winnipeg Jets. The original team is now in Arizona. The currents Jets are a completely different franchise.Correctron (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think its that cut and dry, standard procedure is a team leaves it gets a new page, while this is odd in that its the same franchise that left, I don't know if it isn't still cleaner to have its own page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I look at as a similar situation to when team teams would go on hiatus and return some time later (more common in early league histories than the present). Historical teams that were in that situation have the same page. By merging I believe it could significantly decrease confusion for readers and editors alike. Yosemiter (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

See the reason I think it needs to be thought about and discussed is because I believe merging them could cause a lot of confusion. Note I am not against merging them. I just don't think its a snap obvious decision. It is especially important when taken in the light of what we do with the St. John's team. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical precedent shows that we cover all iterations of an AHL team's identity on a single page under two conditions: 1. If a new franchise in the same league as takes up a former one's identity (name and similar logo) the year after its predecessor played its final season (see St. John's Ice Caps and Hamilton Bulldogs-however, Hamilton Bulldogs (OHL) gets a different page because it's an entirely different league and brand of hockey), and 2. If it's the exact same franchise which has resumed taking up that identity in the same league in the same city. This is a clear case of the second, so that is why I started the merger discussion. Tom Danson (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is a current discussion going on about splitting the two St. Johns franchises. The Hamilton situation is also a mess so that will probably be looked at as well. Hamilton is the way it is because of two franchises merging for a short while making it hard to split them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am for a merger here, however I could go either way with St. John's. Hamilton was a special case since it was actually two franchises for one year (and arguably could be split with redirects for each during the 2002-03 season). St. John's will be two different franchises and the carried over history will change. The problem with splitting will be when it comes to casual readers when they look up the team the 2016-17 season (presumably they are still playing) and they celebrate their 5th anniversary as a hockey team. Yosemiter (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup I can agree with that. I just wanted it to go through a full discussion before someone merged it on the fly. Biggest reason I can see for merging is they are likely only in Winnipeg for one year. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think they could be around for two years; sharing ice time with their NHL parents will likely cause some sort of issues for Manitoba and San Jose resulting in more relocations. Yosemiter (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point, all this talk about them only being around for one or two seasons is hearsay. Per WP:CRYSTAL, that should not be a factor in these pages. In fact, per the first answer their FAQs section of their website: "\Our goal is for the Manitoba Moose to stay in Winnipeg for the long term. This team represents our future; the players will live and work in Winnipeg and will take a role in our community. The long term viability of the franchise in this marketplace will be determined through a number of factors, not the least of which will include strong support from our community." So now's not the time to speculate on how long they'll stay. Tom Danson (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. I was just saying a short stay would make it more beneficial to merge. A long stay and I would likely be here in a few years discussing a possible split. But of course they will say they intend to be there awhile because they don't want a lame duck season. But Winnipeg couldn't support a pro team and a junior team, so there is no way they can support an NHL team and a minor league team long term. But as you say that is off topic. I was just making the point that a merged set of pages prevents the situation where we possible end up with a page for only a single season of a team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood-so I am still pro-merge. Just waiting for more people to chime in before I decide to boldly make the move. Tom Danson (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion is open, you are going to have to wait 7 days to merge. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As it's the same franchise, the articles should be merged. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I realize there is due process to be had, but I definitely agree that it makes most sense to have one article for the Manitoba Moose, not two, when it's the same franchise and ownership. As for the future of the team, that is all speculation. They may only be in Winnipeg a couple of seasons, but it could just as easy be long term.Rkehler3 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I Strongly agree with this merger proposal. Mark Chipman, Chairman of True North Sports & Entertainment has owned this team for the entire time the Moose was in Manitoba to begin with. The Jets are simply bringing the same Moose franchise they moved to St. John's in 2011 back home to Winnipeg. Furthermore, the new Moose page should just be deleted like the page never existed. Welcome back Manitoba Moose! Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There does appear to be a strong consensus for the merge. While I don't mind waiting the typical week it seems others are chomping at the bit with making edits and I can only post so many "Please see discussion" edits that are ultimately ignored, so should we merge now or 6 more days? Yosemiter (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait another one or two days...if there's no new opposition, then go ahead. Tom Danson (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It does need to wait atleast a few days because not everyone edits daily. Probably not 7 but it does need a few. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please merge, it's the same franchise, that would be like having the Oakland Raiders separate from the time they played before in LA, and then after they came back from LA.Dr. Pizza (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Slightly different situation since the LA Raiders aren't split out from the Oakland Raiders like would happen with ice hockey teams. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think that settles it...it's looking to be unanimous. DJSasso, at what point should we stop delaying the obvious and make it happen? Tom Danson (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Literally NO one has commented since then...it's time. Tom Danson (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This should be made as a redirect after merging --Yosemiter (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the sensible way to go. I would agree.Rkehler3 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)