Talk:Montreal Expos/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Name of the team

I'm confused about what an "Expo" is, in this context. Is it known what the name of the team means? I think this could be added to the article, if so. -- Creidieki 23:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It refers to Expo 67, which was held in Montreal. Adam Bishop 23:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category help

I've got a question with categories. We have Category:Montreal Expos players, but we also have Category:Los Angeles Dodgers players. Since the teams themselves are almost always referred to in a plural form (i.e. Montreal Expos) shouldn't the teams, when named in category, reflect this? It seems very inconsistent. Anybody want to take a stab? Rhymeless 05:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would go for Montreal Expos rather than Montreal Expo. Looking around the web references are almost entirely to Expos rather than Expo. I find it easier to think about a name such as 'Anaheim Angels'. In this case the single form would be 'Anaheim Angel Players' which seems to suggest there is a single angel. Angels feels more like a club, which is mainly a collection of players. I would though definitely prefer a single standard rather than inconsistency. MarkS 12:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The history of the Montreal Expos does not belong in Washington.

The history of the Montreal Expos does not belong in Washington.

  • Yes it does. it is the same franchise. Kingturtle 21:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • All this harping about consistency and insisting on it being the same franchise leaves me cold. I may not have a long history of modifying Wikipedia articles, but it seems to me that insistence on consistency smacks of authoritarianism, whereas exceptions reflect the anarchic nature of reality more accurately. It has been remarked that Wikipedia is not a democracy; well it certainly isn't an autocracy either. Rules are made to be broken. Live a little...--Exshpos 03:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Second that thought. Well written. --Madchester 02:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
        • If it was authoritarian, then I'd just create a redirect to Washington Nationals and then LOCK the article so no one could touch it. If you've at all been paying attention to the debate that took place at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos, this has been a very democratic process. over 70 people made their opinions known - and it took place without edit wars and without marginalizing the integrity of the Montréal Expos article. Kingturtle 03:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Expos = distinct team from Nationals

The history of the Expos can be kept on its own page as the are other examples of this happening. cf: Boston Braves, Washington Senators

Those examples involve situations in which two separately distinct franchises shared the same name. there were TWO Washington Senators, and that article explains the difference. Kingturtle 04:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with kingturtle. Like it or not the Nationals and Expos are the Same franchice. We do not have sperate articles for the Brooklyn Dodgers and LA Dodgers

That is an oversight. The Brooklyn Dodgers deserve their own page as well. - Pioneer-12 02:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The expos deserve their own page, so I created it.Txredcoat 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't wait to see the Expos back in their own standalone page.--Madchester 05:53, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

From the official MLB site: "On deck: Nationals right-hander Zach Day (1-2, 5.09 ERA) will take on Jeff Weaver (2-2, 6.23 ERA). Weaver is 1-0 with a 2.40 ERA lifetime against the Nationals franchise, while Day is 0-2 with a 5.54 ERA against the Dodgers." (emphasis added).--Canoeguy81 03:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that relocated teams deserve a separate page about the team's history in that city. The Nationals didn't always play with "Washington" on their shirts. The Nationals franchise might have started in 69, but the Nationals only started in 2005.

To me, it's just common sense to have this page up. Montreal isn't just another city that lost its team; it's the only French-speaking city (and one of only two Canadian cities) to have ever had a Major League Baseball team. Funnyhat 06:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen, MLB is pretty much treating the "Washington Nationals" as an expansion franchise as opposed to it being a franchise that was relocated. Except for records, everything about the franchise is different. The name, team uniform, mascot, etc. are all different for the Nationals compared to the Expos. Accoring to the Wiki article, even Expos' retired uniform numbers are being issued now. The Expos are a different team from the Nationals in every respect. Darwin's Bulldog 08:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

MLB is not treating them as an expansion franchise. MLB recognizes them as the same franchise, and the Nats consider themselves to be the same franchise as the Montreal Expos. They consider Gary Carter to be the only Hall of Famer for their franchise (meaning that he went into the Hall as an Expo). He certainly didn't play for them in Washington. A franchise can change its name, but it's still the same franchise. The Washington Bullets became the Wizards. They're certainly the same franchise. The Nationals can decide to unretire jerseys, but that still doesn't change the facts. However, I don't have a problem with having two different Wikipedia articles, as long as it's clearly mentioned in both that they are the same franchise, which they do.Politician818 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten -> Expos All Stars

The "Not to be forgotten" mini-list is nonencyclopedic, but the players listed are historically significant. The section should be replaced with "Expos All Stars". This will made the list selection criteria objective, and should also included most or all of the players currently on the list... and maybe one or two who aren't currently on it.

Oh, and don't forget to move Tim Raines's name to the Hall of Famers section when that happens in a few years. That boy is Cooperstown material. - Pioneer-12 02:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the Montreal Expos page has been redirected with most of it's info deleted and redirected to the Washington Nationals page. The Expos should have their own page with all the info was that listed prior to all this editing !!!

Pearson Cup

This article definitely needs a mention of the Cup contested between the Jays and Expos in the 80's and later in the 2000's. This page also needs emphasis on Prime Minister Pearson's association with the team, he served as honourary club president for a number of years.

  • Although it should be mentioned in other articles, Pearson Cup should be its own article. Kingturtle 18:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, done. HOw do I cite the source properly ? http://www.canadianbaseballnews.com/MonExpos/PearsonCup.html If you want to make another article, that's fine, but it is only one paragraph of a mention. Thanks.

Wiki Gods need to step in

The vote here was utter idiocy. This article, pursuant to every other moved franchise article, needs to be merged with Washington Nationals. It's time for the powers that be (i.e. the wiki supreme court) to step in and do it for Wiki's sake. If not, we set a horrible precedent for two articles about the SAME DAMN THING ==Zpb52 06:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, I would agree with you IF the Nationals celebrated their franchise's legacy, like what the Dodgers do with its Brooklyn days. Instead from what I'm seeing, they're celebrating the legacy of Washington baseball with little or no mention of the team's Montreal days. It's exactly like what the Milwaukee Brewers did after moving from Seattle in 1969 (The short lived Seattle Pilots). To me, that's two completly different things. When you're talking about sports teams, I believe you have to take into consideration onto weather or not a team acknowledges its own roots, and I think the Nationals would do all they can to forget their Expos days in order to start all over again. That said, I think this article deserves to stay. Dknights411 19:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC) Can you really blame them for trying to forget Expos' history? LOLPolitician818 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nationals have issued the number 30 to Mike Stanton. This number was retired by the Expos franchise in honour of Tim Raines. This is yet one more example of how the Washington team does not intend to honour their franchise history. --Exshpos 17:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are no Wiki Gods! This is not an authoritarian regime and exceptions make the rules. Indeed other franchises should be allowed (i.e. unharrassed) to have seperate pages to document the history of each franchise in each of its incarnations. The fact is that there have been few, if any, franchise moves in any sport since the rise of wikipedia. That makes this uncharted territory. None of this was an issue in the past for obvious reasons. Wikipedia is an evolving memory project, not a fixed history text with rigid POV's. Kudos to those who are responsible for the whole idea of Wikis in general. Exshpos 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

"Quebecois identity" inclusion or excision

I removed the following comment which does not belong in this article. "This search for a uniquely "Québécois" identity later stirred the creation of the separatist movement in the 1970s." A. Lafontaine 14:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, we need to debate that excision. Quenec history and its course and its repudiation of "English" baseball for Canadiens "hockey" was a factor in Montrealers in not supporting the team. It was not the only one but yet a significant factor. It is implied and should be re-instated.
I disagree yet many have called it an "English or American" sport. This debate is what makes the Expos unique to any other MLB team. No other MLB team has to put up with this "misperception" by the media and the local masses.

I tend to agree with A. Lafontaine that the comment, being a debatable conclusion, doesn't belong here. It's also a subject that is best pursued elsewhere. You're right (whoever you are), of course, that it's a debate, but debate belongs on talk pages and not article pages. Perhaps providing a link to the appropriate page for such discussions would be a good compromise. Compare Québécois and Talk:Québécois. --Exshpos 20:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) \\ Ben Franklin speaking:

It was me of course, but logging in is a major pain for me. Per Drapeau's bio, he was under the influence of Lionel Groulx, the French Canadain nationalist. We all agree Drapeau was one of the fathers of the Expos. Lionel Groulx was a Catholic promoter of French Canadian rights. He was a major mentor of Mayor Drapeau. This led Drapeau to improve Montreal including the raising of French Canadians in the MOntreal EAST AREA, where it is an economic blight. Anyone who had spent time there before or now (except for Angus) will have to agree. Brian Mckenna's biography "Drapeau" documents this ideology.

They were of course Federalists as far as I know. Now afer 1979, the separtist Parti Quebecois came in and PQ was never really a big fan of the "anglophone" Expos. No other MLB team had to put up with the realities of Quebec Politics. To not even mention, these dynamics from the Quiet Revolution to Bouchard's pulling of funds, would be negligent of the socio-poltical landscape. This would be a disservice to history. I did not ask for more than one short mention. It should be re-inserted, but I'm open to a re-phrasing. The Nationals do not have to jump throught these hopes. Arguably the French business community kept some distance from the Expos esp. after 1994. No one wanted to save the team anymore. "anglo" Bronfman was out. It is a unique history that cannot be lumped for the economic reasons of the Dodgers moving out of Brooklyn for instance. If believe that the Expos should be a separate entry, then you must also see its special history that is so different from any other American sports team. BENFRANKLIN. This wiki thing does not stamp my name, despite my registration. Go figure.


More info on Lionel Groulx: "Lionel Groulx called the Canadian Confederation Canadian Confederation, or the Confederation of Canada, was the process that ultimately brought together a union among the provinces, colonies and territories of British North America to form the Dominion of Canada, a Dominion of the British Empire, which today is the federal nation state called Canadan a disaster and espoused the theory that Quebec's only hope for survival was to foster a Roman Catholic Quebec as a bulwark against English power. He also developed a Quebec history curriculum that ignored the fact that France chose to keep Guadaloupe and hand over Quebec to Great Britain in the 1763 Treaty of Paris Treaty of Paris was signed on February 10, 1763, by the Kingdom of Great Britain, France and Spain with Portugal in agreement.

. Groulx was very successful promoting his brand of ultramontanism Ultramontanism literally alludes to a policy supporting those dwelling "beyond the mountains" (ultra montes), that is beyond the Alps—generally referring to the Pope in Rome. In particular, ultramontanism may consist in alleging the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies.

..... Click the link for more information. . Through his writings and teaching at the university, and his association with the intellectual elite of French Quebec he had a profound influence on many people including Michel Chartrand Michel and Dr. Camille Laurin !!"'Bold text'

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Lionel%20Groulx


- If you want to make it a superficial Expos entry without a hair of a mention of Quebec history, then that's fine. But this is the very same approach by MLB and those who want to annex Expos under Washington. You are bleaching the Expos clean of its unique history. As they say in Quebec, Je me souviens. and that haunts the lack of Expos support as one factor. The Angels never had to put up with this history and they have Guerrero and Cabrera, former Expos players. I'm a Federalist but I recognize the unique situation of Montreal. Four or five words that hint of this is not much to ask. I know of CKAC, the French listeners complained "Baseball is not a Quebecois sport" and no one called to refute that "view". I of course disagree but the customers didn't. I think their failure to draft Gagne shows the Expos did not know how to market the team the way Alouettes do when they draft one or two Quebecois to their teams. They drafted 3 LAVAL graduates this year. Larry Smith knows Montreal, the way MLB managers never bothered with. I hope you don't make the same mistake.

==========

"Maybe the most interesting influence on Montreal in the sixties was provincial level involvement. Jean Lesage’s Liberals came into power with the rising tide of the Quiet Revolution, armed with slogans like “It’s time for things to change” and “Maitre chez nous,” marking the transformation of Quebec “from a folk to an urban society,” as described in the exhibition. Part and parcel of this transformation was the rise of Quebec nationalism – an awakening that helped drive the enthusiasm of a distinct society. On the ground, this resulted in the development of projects like Complexe Desjardins. Perhaps the single most important person in all of this is Jean Drapeau. Montreal’s politically ambitious mayor from ‘54-57 and ‘60-86, Drapeau brought his city onto the world stage through many development projects, particularly his involvement in bringing the World Fair to Montreal in 1967." http://mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=3285 BEN FRANKLIN


"Drapeau preferred the big show. In 1969 his labour relations grew so bad all but 47 of his 3780-member police force struck. The army was summoned to quell the looting and nationalist street riots. Yet the same year he single-handedly brought Montréal a major league baseball team, the MONTREAL EXPOS. More circuses, said his critics. Said the mayor: "What the masses want are monuments." He declared they were his contribution to La Survivance, the survival of French Canadians. But the nationalism of his youth was so tempered he stayed neutral during the 1980 referendum on Québec independence."

http://66.59.133.172/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002392

==

Ben freaking Franklin again. wiki time stamps suck.

here is proof I logged on Sept 10, 2005.


Ben franklin I re-instated the sentence since there was no debate. i want to include that in 1979 many fans left the province, any problems with that ? some call it a factor in the loss of an expos fanbase.

Ben Franklin October 18, 2005 . day of the expos' recognition at the Bell centre.

   * BenFranklin
   * My talk
   * Preferences
   * My watchlist
   * My contributions
   * Log out

You can find instructions on signing on this page: User_talk:BenFranklin You can also use the formatting button on top of the edit window (second from right). GL! --Exshpos 23:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Abnormally long "not to be forgotten" list

This needs to be trimmed down, majorly. gavindow 04:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


The list is easy to read- all names should remain in memory of the Mtl Expos. Xpogrl Nov 28 2005

The word "ironically" is misused in this article.. I changed it to "coincidentally." It's listed under historic games, but I didn't want to make a whole new topic page just for one example of improper word choice. [[[User:Johnbish|Johnbish]] 22:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

Move Page/Accent on Montreal

The spelling of Montreal as "Montréal" throughout this article is just silly. I appreciate that Montréal is the official name of the city, but Montreal (without the accent) is a perfectly valid English-language equivalent. This is, after all, the English-language Wikipedia, and for the same reason that articles refer to Warsaw (not Warszawa), Munich (not München), Prague (not Praha) and Beijing (not 北京), references should be to Montreal, not Montréal. My experience is that most articles in the English-language Wikipedia use Montreal (and similarly, as does this article, refer to Quebec, rather than Québec) (although I am sure that anyone, if they dug around, could find exceptions).

I am certainly not trying to be anti-francophone here, and would never suggest that say, for example, Three-Rivers be used instead of Trois-Rivières. Wikipedia should be consistent, however, and even the main Montreal article uses the English name (except to mention the French spelling, and except when using French terms such as "Ville de Montréal" or "Communauté Métropolitaine de Montréal", etc.) Frankly, the use of Montréal comes across as an affectation where the norm in this context is to use the English version. It also reaches new heights of absurdity when the article refers to the "Montréal Gazette" -- someone probably went through the article adding accents without regard whatsoever to context.

Having said all that, it might be appropriate to refer to the team as the "Montréal Expos" since I believe the team logo had the accent, and the official name of the team might have been changed to appeal to francophone fans. I will leave that one to others who are more familiar with franchise history. But the name of the city, and certainly the name of the city's English-language daily, should be accentless.

As always, I'm happy to discuss this point further. I couldn't find a Wikipedia guideline on this point, but would obviously be interested if there is one. Skeezix1000 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • As an anglophone Montréaler, I always use an accent on Montréal and Québec. However, surely the test here is what did the Expos use in English. If you go to their old websiteyou can see they didn't use an accent. I'll do an edit here. It's pretty clear there shouldn't be an accent! Nfitz 21:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Their old website is pretty good evidence. As for "Montréaler", the Canadian Oxford spells it "Montrealer" without the accent. I think obviously some people choose to use an accent (sort of a hybrid between "Montrealer" and "Montréalais(e)", and perfectly suited to the city) but proper English-language spelling does not contain one.Skeezix1000 13:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, can't move the page ... someone must have moved it from there, to here. I've put in a request to move it. If anyone has any comments please add them here Nfitz 21:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Someone did move it... several times.
There are three pages involved:
  • Montréal Expos (the accented page)
  • Montreal Expos (the unaccented page)
  • Washington Nationals, a page to which both of the others have from time to time been controversially redirected, thus concealing the existence of the other page from other editors.
The move from the unaccented to the accented page name was back on 21 November 2004. This was unilateral and unfortunate, but could have been easily fixed.
Then on 3 April 2005 an anon recreated the page at the unaccented name, possibly a newbie unaware of the correct procedures. Again, at this stage it wouldn't have been hard to fix.
The problem is that the histories were then complicated by revert wars over whether or not the pages should redirect to Washington Nationals. Some of the participants and other editors at the unaccented name seem to have been in ignorance of the existence of a more comprehensive page at the accented name. As a result both pages now have major and probably significant overlapping histories; Why I say probably is it's not obvious whether the content represented by the history currently at the unaccented name found its way into either of the other articles, but if not there is likely to be useful material in the history currently at the unaccented name that has not been merged anywhere. It is extremely unlikely that no useful material was innocently added to the unaccented page during any of the several periods it was not a redirect, and existed in parallel to a more comprehensive article at the accented name.
It is not possible to merge the histories. To do so would be an irreversible mistake and result in an unrecoverable mess, and we would probably then be asking a developer to recover the pre-merge versions from backup. The lead time for doing this has been over a year in some cases, and we would then still have an even worse mess to sort out. Let's not go there.
What I therefore propose is to (carefully) swap the pages and histories between the accented and unaccented names. There is an enormous amount of work in sorting them out, but we don't need to do it fortunately. All we need to do to satisfy the GFDL is to preserve both histories so that someone could do it if they wished. This also preserves any useful and unmerged material.
The cost is, it further complicates an already complex story. Hopefully, these comments will be useful for anyone seeking to understand it in the future. Further comments welcome, I'll leave this a few more days before actually doing it. Andrewa 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Result

OK, page moved (back) WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Improper merge of histories

(Sigh) I fear that you may have done exactly what I said above was greatly to be avoided.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Montreal+Expos

   * 09:35, 28 December 2005 RN restored "Montreal Expos"
   * 09:34, 28 December 2005 RN deleted "Montreal Expos" (Deleted to make way for move.)

and from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=&page=Montr%C3%A9al+Expos

   * 09:34, 28 December 2005 RN moved Montréal Expos to Montreal Expos (WP:RM) (revert)

and when I display http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montreal_Expos&action=history I get no deleted edits, so it seems you restored them all.

It's not now easy to demonstrate, but take my word for it, these two versions of the article had overlapping histories. The result of merging these overlapping histories is that we now can't tell who contributed what. Pressing the prev link in the history next to an edit may now give a meaningful difference, or it may not. If the two versions being compared are both from the moved article, or are both restored edits from the deleted article, it will be. But if they don't match, it won't be. We can't easily tell which is the case, although we can often guess, so from the point of view of the GFDL, both histories have been destroyed.

Not good. Andrewa 01:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a continuation of a conversation from my talk page. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, see User talk:RN#Move of Montreal Expos article. I think discussion should continue here, especially if we need to get help as seems likely. Andrewa 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As I posted on my talk page
Sure, that's a fair assessment I guess. To be honest I don't remember that much overlapping history - just the redirects from the unaccented version, but maybe it is best to get clarification on it...

WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-December/033317.html Andrewa 03:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I was going to go on IRC tomarro, but that may be a better course of action. Thanks again and sorry for the confusion :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Montréal Expos → Montreal Expos – This article has been bounced back and forth between the the two article names a number of times (making a mess of the article history). The latest unilateral move was on February 5, 2006. Let's decide this for once and for all.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Neutral. I don't care, except that we should just pick one and live with it. Skeezix1000 14:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The name of the team did not have a diacritic, although the name of the city does. No evidence that the diacritic is correct. Andrewa 18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But we did do this properly back in December! We had a discussion here, no-one objected. We put it on the Requested move page. And it was done. We shouldn't have to do this every time a vandal changes the page! Just move it back. The logic is all discussed further up this page. Most importantly if you got to the Expo's old English-language website from before the move, you can clearly see that they didn't use an accent! It doesn't get much clearer than this! Nfitz 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. no accent is the prefered use on English wikipedia. Then please lock the redirect page. --Shuki 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Practicalities, history etc

The move back is not a problem, as there is no significant history at Montreal Expos as I write. It reads in full

(cur) (last) 16:24, 5 February 2006 WikiFanatic (moved Montreal Expos to Montréal Expos: This is actually the correct title.)

following the latest move. Andrewa 18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

More general discussions re diacritics

There is no consensus at this time as to whether diacritics should be used in article titles, and under what circumstances if so.

  • Some believe that diacritics should never be used, and often cite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) as their justification for this, resulting in several edit wars at that guideline and others over the years and an enormous archive of its talk page.
  • Some believe that all loan words should have diacritics if these are part of the original language.
  • Some believe that there are cases each way, and that each case should be decided individually (which is what we are doing here).
  • Some believe that there are cases each way, and that there should be policies or guidelines to cover some restricted areas (such as asteroids), but AFAIK there have been no instances of consensus on such rules despite many, many attempts.

I am in favour of option four, that we should have some rules but not an overiding one, and fall back to option three in need. But the lack of consensus on particular rules is no surprise considering that some strongly promote each of the first three options. So in practice, we are back to option three in all cases. Andrewa 18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

But Montréal Expos was the name of the team. Also, some people believe so? Not all people believe that diacritics shouldn't be used. Also, what about Álex Rodríguez? WikiFanatic 22:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I keep pointing out, the Expos used Montreal Expos not Montréal Expos consistently on their English-language website. Had they used the latter rather than the former, I have no problem in using the accent on the name of the article. However they didn't. Nfitz 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the MLB web page also refers to the franchise as the Montreal Expos, without accent ([1]). Skeezix1000 02:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Good, that's more evidence. But the evidence so far seems very one-sided. Apart from the {obviously invalid IMO) argument that as Montréal has an accent, every term derived from it should have an accent too, what's the reason for regarding the accented version as correct, I wonder? Why does WikiFanatic think it was the name of the team? The silence so far is deafening. Andrewa 06:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute of fact here. What was the name of the team? The name on the team badge doesn't tell us either way, as it's in block (all capital) letters, and these don't have accents in French anyway. The old website seems to indicate that there was no diacritic. What other evidence is there?
It's true that some people think diacritics should always be used, that's exactly what I said above. And others think they shouldn't be. Álex Rodríguez is a case in which I'd use the diacritic, as he does (even if his usage is "incorrect", it's his name). But this isn't an example of a rule, because there are no rules covering the use of diacritics, despite many efforts to write some. Andrewa 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
My general view is that the diacritic should be used in the case of a proper name (e.g. Jean Chrétien) or where it is a generally accepted English spelling (e.g. façade). For place names, however, the diacritic should not be used where there is a well established English version of the place name that is more commonly used among anglophones (therefore: Montreal, Munich, Copenhagen -- not Montréal, München, København), and it's an affectation to do otherwise in an English language text absent special circumstances, or (as noted above) the place name is part of a proper name where context requires the use of the diacritic (e.g. Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal). Where there is no generally accepted English-version of the name, the diacritic should be used (e.g. Trois-Rivières). And it is really not a good thing when diacritics are used indiscriminately in English-language terms, such as Québec City (sic) or Montréaler (sic).

Having said all that, I would agree with Andrewa that it is difficult to come up with a hard and fast rule for proper names like "Montre(é)al Expos". But unless the evidence/usage suggests otherwise, I am usually inclined to side with not using the accent on Montreal in an English language text. Skeezix1000 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can and should come up with some rules, and the summary you've just given above would be an excellent first draft for them! It's just that Wikipedia's governance makes it impossible to get them approved for the moment, unfortunately. Andrewa 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Result

We now have a strong consensus to use the unaccented name. The page was moved back to this name by the admin who moved it in the first place.

The request to protect the page is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy, and in any case protection would have been ineffective in preventing this particular move. Andrewa 16:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing incorrect statements

I cleaned up this article. The Expos were not the NL East Champs in 1994. Even mentioning that it was unofficial, in my opinion, is not warranted. It simply shouldn't be mentioned at all that they won their division in 1994. Listing them as "Major League Champions" in 1994 is also incorrect. The 1994 season had no champions. Perhaps the people who wrote this in are diehard Expos' fans who simply don't want to come to terms with the fact that their great season went down the drain with the players' strike. That's sad, but that's life. In any event, MLB doesn't recognize the Expos with having won anything in 1994. However, Felipe Alou did get to manage the NL All-Star squad in 1995.Politician818 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, isn't it a waste to have separate articles on the Expos and the Nationals? Why not just one article that lays out the entire history of the franchise, including both Montreal and Washington? Simply redirect people who type in "Montreal Expos" to the Washington Nationals.Politician818 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the rest of this talk page as well as the deletion debate, you would realize that keeping the Expos as a seperate entry has been justified and decided. MLB is treating the Nationals as an expansion franchise, regardless of policy. The history of the Expos as a Montreal team is worth documenting seperately. IMO the Dodgers, Giants, Athletics, Braves, etc. should all have seperate pages for their different homes (In these instances at least the teams kept the same names!). If there is interest, open discussion, and debate, then let it be...--Exshpos 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong. They're not being treated as an expansion team. You don't have to be obnoxious either. They're one continuous franchise. Two separate articles are actually a waste. It's like having two separate articles for "John Wayne" and "Marion Morrison." Different names, same guy. And no, those other teams shouldn't have separate pages. In the interest of accuracy, there shouldn't be separate pages for this single franchise on Wikipedia. People are letting their emotions run high, as opposed to simply reporting the facts. This may have been decided, but it's not really justified. Please don't condescend to me. I'm much smarter than you.Politician818 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Ex, you're obviously being a crybaby because your pathetic team moved to Washington. No wonder the Nats don't want to mention their franchise history. The Expos have no history. They're one of the worst franchises in the history of baseball. They've done nothing. If I used to be the Expos, I wouldn't want to admit it either. In fact, Wikipedia should just ignore that there ever was a team called the Expos. Bwahahaha. So get rid of this article, and ignore the Expos' history on the Nats' site. We don't want to bore people who read Wikipedia. Lol. I was nice at first, but you got obnoxious, so I feel that this rant is justified. Have a nice day.Politician818 00:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Do not talk down to me. I'm better than you.Politician818 00:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Ex, it's spelled "separately," not "seperately."Politician818 01:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, from a practical standpoint, a combined Expos/Nationals article would be too large if merged at this point. Second of all, Exshpos was not being obnoxious at all. He was meerly pointing out that an earlier vote had taken place saying that the Expos and Nationals articles should remain seperate, and that was the end of it (The articles for Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker went through this as well if I'm not mistaken). Not counting the fact that I'm originally from Montreal, I think the two articles should remain seperate, if anything for history purposes. There are a few team articles that have a seperate history article (the Lakers for one), and this article falls under that category.
Moreover, a major part of being a Wikipedian is civility. Just because you feel someone is being a dick does NOT give you permission to insult the guy. Remember, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! (this is an official Wikipedia policy IIRC) Please be more civil next time.Dknights411 00:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. A combined Expos/Nats article would not contain too much information. Together, they have thirty-eight years of history. The Giants have 124 years of history, and yet there is just one article on them. So that's b.s. and idiotic logic. Secondly, Ex was being obnoxious. BTW, I know of the vote. I have a right to disagree with it, though. I believe that in any sport, there should be just one article on one franchise. Good day.Politician818 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) What does "meerly" mean, btw?Politician818 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) The St. Louis Browns and Baltimore Orioles are one article if I remember correctly, and the Browns had much more history than the Expos.Politician818 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When I said "too large", I was refering to the actual size of the article (I think 40kb is the max Wikipedia allows). Also, the lack of a seperate St. Louis Browns page is a crime. The Browns deserve their own page. And you can substitute the word "meerly" with the word "only" if you wanted (they mean the same thing in this case).Dknights411 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant that "meerly" is incorrect spelling. You meant to say "merely." I know what the word means. If the article would be too long, then condense it. Like I said before, this franchise has accomplished nothing. That means that too much b.s. is being wasted on losing seasons.Politician818 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's probably one of the worst reasons for condensing an article. If that's the case, then we might as well delete the entire Los Angeles Clippers article, or the Chicago Cubs for that matter if we were to follow that train of logic. Yes, the Montreal Expos have won almost jack squat. However, that doesn't mean that it must be neglected at all costs. I'd rather have the so-called "b.s." here since it acknowledges the existance of a team that had one of the most unique stories in baseball history (First non-U.S. MLB team, based in a primarily French environment, an impressive alumni list for example). There's more to a team's history than just winning and losing. Dknights411 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstood what I said. I said that if an article can't exceed more than forty kilobytes, then it must be condensed. That's all. Why would I be for deleting the article on the Cubs? Is the Cubs article not less than forty kilobytes? What more can you print about the Expos being the first Major League team outside the U.S. other than that "they were the first Major League team outside the U.S."? BTW, it's spelled "existence," not "existance." There's enough room to list important information about both the Expos and Nationals in one article.Politician818 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Do not revert my minor edits. The "DC" in Washington, DC should not have periods. It's a postal abbreviation. Postal abbreviations have no periods. Another interesting thing to mention in either this article or the Nats' article is just why the Nationals have ignored the retired Expos' jerseys. Have the Nats explained this? That would be very interesting.Politician818 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Dknights, again, you mean "consistency," not "consistancy." Who is Wikipedia, BTW? Wikipedia includes all the editors, including me. "DC" should not have periods. That's incorrect grammar. "CA" (referring to California) has no periods. If you're concerned with consistency, then let's take the periods out of all articles containing "Washington, DC." Wouldn't you rather be correct than consistently wrong? Correct grammar will make Wikipedia look more respectable. You need a better reason for that last revert. Your own poor grammar isn't exactly helping your cause.Politician818 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) This article should also list that stadium in San Juan, Puerto Rico as a "home stadium" for the Expos. This article needs some grammatical cleanup. Can't we get a robot to do that? I'm getting tired of correcting grammar in all of these Wikipedia articles.Politician818 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I'm tired of people with atrocious grammar and spelling condescending to me. It's really annoying. My vast intelligence should be welcome here. I know what I'm talking about, and I'm helping Wikipedia.Politician818 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I'm a god in here (no offense to the real God). Everyone should bow down to my greatness instead of fighting with me.Politician818 03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I put the periods in D.C. because of the fact that the name of the article is Washington, D.C., not Washington, DC (even though it is a postal abv.). And when I say Wikipedia, I'm talking about the community. And just as an aside, your 'Wiki God' complex will not help you here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Dknights411 03:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Then change the article from Washington, D.C. to Washington, DC. Duh. You are not amusing me.Politician818 04:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Shouldn't this be merged with Washington Nationals? --Jdrouskirsh 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I say merge with Washington

If you search for SkyDome, it redirects you to that damn Rogers Centre. So Montreal Expos should redirect you to Washington Nationals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.193.133.22 (talk • contribs) .

  • See discussion above. Skeezix1000 11:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just pretend the Expos never exsisted?

Last time I checked, Montreal was in Canada. If I want to look up the Expos' stats for the '95 season, DON'T SEND ME TO THE DAMN NATIONALS' PAGE!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.27 (talk • contribs) .

It would be helpful if you reviewed WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith. Thank you. Skeezix1000 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but in the interests of not biting the newbies and also of improving the article(s), I'm interested in the point they were trying to make here. Is there a scenario under which this could happen?
It seems to me that there's not currently, but that some of the above proposals might lead to it, and that's the point the unsigned anon above is making. And it's a valid one. Andrewa 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that I don't think one currently needs to look to the Nationals page for Expos information. I assumed the anon was refering to the above two comments above merging the article (I think you've made the same assumption). I believe that the earlier merge discussion, which I linked to above, came to the same conclusion as the anon was making. BTW, I don't think it is biting the newbie to kindly ask that he review certain Wikipedia policies, given the tone of his response to the above two suggestions/questions (whether his point was valid or not). Skeezix1000 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsourced and irrelevant statement

I edited out the following because it is irrelevant and not supported by a reliable and verifiable reference: "Quebec was a deeply Catholic, agrarian society. In the 1960s, socio-economic changes under the Quiet Revolution saw massive social upheavals and improvement of the status of French Canadians. The arrival of Expo 67, the new Metro subway and the Expos allowed Montreal and Quebec to see itself as international and "major league." This new-found pride and sense of "Quebecois" identity led to many social changes in the province, including giving rise to the Quebec nationalist and sovereigntist movements, and the presence of the Expos franchise paralleled these developments."

J Martin81 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Same Franchise?

I think the question of whether or not to merge the Expos/Nationals articles depends on one thing and one thing only: Are they the same franchise with a new name, or was the Expos franchise terminated and a new Nationals franchise created by everyone affiliated with the Expos? If they're the same franchise, then it's plain and simple: combine the articles. L2K 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you severly fail to completly understand this issue. It's NEVER that simple when you're talking about a sports team, and that something I feel Wikipedia fails to recognize, not just here, but across the board. The Expos and the Nationals are two completly different incarnations and are completly unrelated. To lump the two articles together like that would make it the whole thing look awkward. As far as the Nationals are concerned, the Montreal Expos never existed, and you can almost surely bet that they would never even so much as mention the city ever again. It would just be a mockery and a huge disservice to ignore the Expos history like this. I personally believe that every single incarnation of a sports team deserves their own Wikipedia article, including having seperate articles about the Brooklyn Dodgers, or the New York Giants, or the Milwaukee Braves. Different incarnations of a franchise goes through different things in different cities with different fans and different traditions, and each and every one of these deserves to be featured in their own seperate articles, no matter how big or small they may be. These articles should be seprated be incarnations, not franchises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dknights411 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
It should depend on one thing and one thing only: what do we do with every other team that moves? Answer: include that team's history in the article for the present-day franchise. There is no basis for maintaining this article as a separate item. Vidor 18:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue has already been canvassed, and the consensus was to have separate articles. If anyone disagrees with the conclusion that was previously reached, they should feel free to formally propose a merger. Otherwise, these one-off comments won't really ever go anywhere. Skeezix1000 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just one Comment---as a Washingtonian who has lived through the loss of both of the previous Washington MLB teams, I can understand the discussion that is taking place here. To correct the record somewhat, the team's Montreal history is mentioned from time to time in radio and TV broadcasts of Nationals' games. I don't know what the "official" position of the team's new ownership will be as time goes on, but, for now, Washingtonians consider the Nationals as the same franchise- relocated. This situation is not the same as the Cleveland Browns- Baltimore Ravens NFL situation, as in that case, the Ravens were forced by the league to leave their Browns history ( and records) in Cleveland. An expansion version of the Browns was permitted to pick up the name, history and uniform of the former franchise. In this case, the Expos and Nationals ARE the same franchise. --- Walt C.02:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)69.140.234.198W

I know it has been resolved already, but one thing I think alot of people are missing is that a team/franchise isnt just the players who play for it or the guys who own it. It's an identity. And when you move a team, you change that teams identity. A perfect example is the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Dodgers went from the team for the little guy, the immigrant of every stripe in an ethnically diverse neighbourhood, the team that broke the colour barrier, the very name, street car Dodgers, Dem Bums, evoking all things urban, gritty and also ran, to a team of arrive late, leave early effetists who drive to the game and buy sushi in their seats. Its no different with the Expos/Nationals. They have vastly different identities and ARE seperate teams. Maybe not personell wise, or owner wise. But they ARE different teams. If you dont understand that, you just dont understand what it is to be a fan. -Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.74.17 (talk • contribs).

To Address Andrew's Point

To address your point, being a fan has no bearing on writing an encylopedia article. In fact, what you said only makes your opinion void to many people because it showcases a blatant bias. Wikipedia has a very necessary rule about nPOV, you may want to read that in order to better yourself in the field of Wikipedia edits. I myself am not perfect, so don't think im patronizning you, the smartest people are those who accept help to accomplish their goals.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WalterWalrus3 (talk • contribs).


You missed my point. I wasnt saying that the article should be written from a fans perspective. Obvioulsy thats agaisnt the standards of Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that in the eyes of fans (IE: People reading wikipedia) The Expos and Nationals are two different teams (for the reasons I stated above). So merging the two topics doesnt make sense. - Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.74.17 (talk • contribs).

L in logo?

I always assumed that the white area in the Expos logo was an L, for "le baseball"; it certainly seems to be "elb" rather than just "eb" together forming the uppercase M. The description in the article doesn't mention this. It's possible also that the English "explanation" of the logo simply drops the reference to the L. Closest discussion I can find is this: [2]. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This has never been stated by the team, and I don't think it would make sense, any more than putting a "t" within an MLB logo to stand for "the" baseball. Isaac Lin 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The white area is just one half of the letter "M", which stands for Montreal. Therefore, the logo stands for Montreal Expos Baseball. Dknights411 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Expos or Nationals?

I merged the various discussion threads on this, since this has come up so many times and should be read together (and apparently hasn't been given the various threads). As stated below Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos is a good place to start. Cheers. Old64mb 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the intent was good, it usually isn't a good idea to make wholesale changes to a talk page such as moving comments out of chronologicl order. In this case, it got a bit confusing, as editors started adding new comments to the top of the page, where you had group archived the old merge discussions, rather than placing new comments at the bottom of the page where they belong. WP:TALK recognizes some very limited circumstances when one can edit the comments of other editors, but merging various threads to be read together isn't one of them. WP:REFACTOR suggests that the best approach is to provide a summary of previous discussions, and this page would likely benefit from a set of links to prior discussions, which I can add. Skeezix1000 13:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous merge discussions

The questions at to whether or not this article should be deleted and/or merged with Washington Nationals has been the subject of numerous discussions, including:

Skeezix1000 13:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Current Merge Discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merger, as per Madchester's closing of discussion below.


Addressing this subject, the Montreal Expos are the Washington Nationals. In no way, shape or form do they need to have seperate pages. I would have just gone ahead and deleted this article and merged it myself, but not being an expert on DEFUNCT Candadian baseball teams, (Note: Most DEFUNCT Teams don't need their own encyclopedia article, if you are confused, see wiktionary's definition of Defunct, here). The Kansas City Athletics, Brooklyn Dodgers, Los Angeles Raiders, and Tennessee Oilers all have one thing in common, they all link to an updated page, because, no matter your mode of thought, they don't need a page.

Either your semantics are that they are defunct and don't exist anymore (don't need their own article), or that they still exsist as another team (still, don't need their own article), in either case they should be linked to the currnet incarnation's page. I am going to fight this until the page gets merged, as long as there is an article about the Montreal Expos baseball team on Wikipedia, I will fight to wedge it in with the correct Washington Nationals page.

My Two Cents: WalterWalrus3 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons to keep Expos here

Here are 15 reasons to merge the Montreal Expos article here, and not on its own:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WalterWalrus3 (talk • contribs).
In all due honesty, and without insulting or signaling out anybody in particular, I personally find this whole practice of merging old franchises article into new ones to be completely stupid. Doing this completely undermines an entire chapter of a team's own history. Are they the same franchise? I'll admit that they are. But when a franchise adopts a completely new identity after a move, like the Nationals, or the Tennessee Titans, then they cannot be considered as a same incarnation. Should the history of the Quebec Nordiques be lumped into the same history as the Colorado Avalanche? I don't think so. The Nordiques have their own identity and history that is completely seperate from that of the Avalanche. The same is true for the Jets and the Coyotes, or the Whalers and the Hurricanes. It does no harm to recognize the older incarnations with their own SEPARATE articles, so I cannot understand the reasoning behind just simply merging everything together like that. I mean, would it make sense to merge the ten Doctor Who articles? I mean it is the same character. But they are kept separate because the ten doctors are completely dissimilar from one another in quirks, aesthetics, and personalities. The same thing can be said for the Expos and the Nationals, or the Oilers and the Titans. And I need to also point out and clarify one thing here. The Anaheim Angels, Washington Bullets, and Houston Colt .45 examples does not fit here. These teams just simply renamed themselves, while these other teams completely relocated. These are two completely different scenarios that CANNOT be put into the same category.

I think I've said enough, but my point here is that the Expos and the Nationals, as well as any other articles that fit into this category, should be kept split to preserve their seperate identities. Just because they are the same franchise doesn't mean that they should be merged automatically. Dknights411 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have crossed four off those list for one obvious reason: They are the same incarnation of the same team. They simply renamed themselves. The rest are relocated teams, I believe, which seems to be your intent here. And in that regard, I am vehemently opposed to any kind of merge. The Montreal Expos history is unique to that of the Nationals. The 35 years the team spent in Montreal creates a very large amount of history that is completely impossible to adequately merge into the Washingtion Nationals article. And even if size constraints wasn't a problem, there is no reason to merge. In fact, I would actually vote the other way - these existing redirects should be canceled and full articles created at all of them. Resolute 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, per this comment: "Either your semantics are that they are defunct and don't exist anymore (don't need their own article)". Given that World War II is over, do you plan on AfDing it as well? History deserves to be preserved, even if you have some kind of bias against sports history. Resolute 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe there was already a merge up on this before and it was shot down by a pretty large margin because like the above two people mentioned there is a huge difference in history between the two. As in other articles when they get to big you split pieces off. In that respect this part of the history of the Nationals has been split off into its own page. Needless to say I am completely against this. --Djsasso 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As with the above, I think the Expos article should remain separate from the Nationals article. This is for a couple reasons. One, as time goes by, the history portions of the article will only get longer and longer. To keep the article susinct, the history section will have to be broken out into several sections. Look at the Manchester United F.C. page for an example of this (even though the team hasn't moved). The Los Angeles Dodgers article currently is at 81K. While not a huge issue, it would be trimmed if a page were kept for the Brooklyn Dodgers. With this, both parts of the Dodgers franchise articles could be expanded as necessary. Another reason is that once something is notable, it will always remain notable, even if it becomes defunct. In addition, each franchise move for each of the sports has it's own categories (players, managers, etc). To keep in synch with this, there should also be articles. While rare outside North America, there is at least one example of clubs moving, that being Wimbledon F.C. and Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. MK Dons were Wimbledon and articles are separated for both (a third article for A.F.C. Wimbledon, the amateur club born in Wimbledon, also exists). There are examples for two stadiums occupying the same plot of land having separate articles (Wembley Stadium and Wembley Stadium (1923)).

For your examples above, other than those where the franchise remained in the same city, only the Seattle Pilots would not deserve their own article. The reason being here is that I don't think a good article could be written for a team that lasted only one season and their history could easily be included with the Brewers. If someone could write a good article on the Pilots, then I would support a separate article for them as well. Patken4 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the proposed merger. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so if there is valuable content for the Expos article and the subject is noteworthy, then by all means have a separate article. Whether MLB treats the Expos and the Nationals as the same franchise is irrelevant. What matters is that the Expos have a storied history in Montreal and Canada that has the potential to be a great article. Skeezix1000 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to be 100% clear on my part, I am also vehemently opposed to a Nats/Expos merger. Dknights411 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed to proposed merger. Status quo looks fine to me. Only argument I've seen in support during my skim is structural. Given that the Montreal article has the length and notability within Canada to stand on its own, it would seem impractical to force a merger. Canuckle 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nothing new is being argued since the previous merge attempts were dismissed. The Nationals article is large enough without merging in the 35+ years of distinct Expos history, and its specially-notable international significance. Dl2000 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed to proposed merger. The Nationals page will just get bigger and bigger and having a separate article for all of the Expos history just makes sense. Keep things the way they have been. --AyrtonSenna 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed to proposed merger. The three comments above mine summarize my feelings almost perfectly. Jcb10 04:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Opposed This is not the first time I have weighed in on this issue (indeed, I was one of the first), so I'll try to say something new. I will use the example of the Dodgers. That page is too big already and deserves to be split into separate pages. How to split it? Naturally of course: Brooklyn deserves it's own page. This is normal on any page where the size begins to exceed a certain amount of material. See Wikipedia:Article size. That's not to say that the article should pretend that it is a different franchise, just an incarnation deserving of its own page. Peace, out...--Exshpos 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed This issue has been debated to death no less tha 15 times. Both articles are long enough as it is. Bouchecl 22:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (as an admin) Seeing that the poll has been open for a week, the overwhelming consensus is to keep the current article; as had been the case in the previous AFD discussion. --Madchester 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Montreal Expos deserve their own page/section

I am against this proposed merger. The Montreal Expos have over 30 years of history and are a distinct entity. This was the first professional major league franchise awarded outside the United States of America.

The Montreal Expos also known as Nos Amours retired the numbers of Rusty Staub, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson as well Tim Raines. The Washington Nationals do not even recognize the team's past as well as their previous star players.

Claude Raymond, of St-Jean, Que., thought something was askew when he dropped in on the Nationals' spring training camp in Melbourne, Fla., after the team was relocated for the 2005 season.

"I went to a game with my son and I looked on the field and there's Royce Clayton wearing No. 10, Marlon Anderson with No. 8 and Mike Stanton wearing No. 30. What is the thinking behind that?" said Raymond, a former Expos reliever, broadcaster and coach.

"Those numbers were retired but there they were on the field. That's not right. We had some great teams and we weren't bush leaguers. That makes me mad." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Expos007 (talk • contribs).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Compromise for clarity's sake

I believe that the issue that has caused so much furor here can be rectified by a simple addition to the beginning of the article. In order to provide clarity on the identity of the current franchise while preserving the historic nature of this incarnation, I believe the following should be addded to the top of this article.
Montreal Expos / Franchise: Washington Nationals
I have suggested that this be done in the case of the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers as well. See Talk:Los_Angeles_Dodgers.
A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Dallas_Stars.
Cheers.--Exshpos 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary, imo. The opening paragraph clearly states the franchise relocated to Washington to become the Nationals, and the infobox says the same as well. It is already clearly noted that the Expos are a previous incarnation of the Nationals. Resolute 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that such an addition would be completely unnecessary for the same reason -- that is what the lead paragraph is for, and here the lead paragraph makes clear the franchise moved to Washington. Such a heading would be unusual, and would, frankly, not look great. I am not sure why a compromise is necessary, since the overwhelming consensus was to have two separate articles -- given that consensus, I'm not sure that any out-of-the-ordinary header is required. Skeezix1000 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)