Talk:Washington Nationals

message: There have been professional and semi-professional baseball teams in the District of Columbia named the Washington Nationals since the 19th century.  I propose that this article be merged with the several separate articles that discuss other teams in the same city that had the same name to include articles on the various Senators incarnations.  Mention can and should be made that there is not an unbroken pedigree from then until now but it makes more sense to discuss professional baseball in DC as a whole as opposed to several articles, the main one of which also discusses baseball in Montreal.  The Expos, I further propose, should get their own article.
Is this the proper way to propse a major change?  If not, can a wikiexpert please propose on my behalf?  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dliodoir (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, articles such as this one cover the history and organization of individual franchies themselves, not the cities. I don't know about a antricle on the hisotry of proffessional baseball in each city, if there are any already, or if they are a good idea or not, but the franchise artic les should remain about the franchises. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed with BilCat, perhaps there should be another article about the various Washington Teams that have gone by the name of "Nationals", but that would be separate from this article. Fool4jesus (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the article, History of Washington, D.C. professional baseball.  The article is short and isn't in very good shape, but it's the article that should cover the history of professional baseball in Washingon. BRMo (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

text: There have been several people named George Bush.  Should we merge all of those biographies into one article? Resolute 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to reorganize article to cover ALL Washington professional baseball teams

message: I've attended numerous games at Nationals Park this summer, and here are some observations of mine that seem to contradict information in this article (and official baseball history). I'm not sure how any of this would fit into the article, but I thought I would point it out none the less: The Nationals fly the Washington Senators (Twins) pennants for the WS and the AL from the 1920's & 1930's here is a picture of the scoreboard with the 4 pennants for reference. The outfield wall only lists number 42 as retired as well. Skinfan13 (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennants 

message: I added the Expos' retired numbers to the infobox to agree with, and with a reference to, the Retired numbers section. --Thnidu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired numbers 

message: I think it's somewhat significant to mention that the Nationals stole Walgreens' logo and the controversy that goes along with that. Thoughts?169.234.21.242 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stole"? The Nationals revived the Senators' old logo. There's no "controversy" about it. More importantly, if Walgreens had wanted to sue, they should have done so back in 2004 or 2005. They'd never prevail if they attempted anything now. Therefore, it's irrelevant. 1995hoo (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Um, no. Firstly, the Nationals did revive the logo from the second version of the Senators; their caps were essentially identical to the Nats' home red hats. (In fact, it was replica Senators' hats that were handed out at the press conference, leading to the Nats adopting the logo.) Secondly, because a curly script W doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the threshold of originality needed to copyright it, so there is NO THEFT. And thirdly, there is NO CONTROVERSY; Walgreen's hasn't threatened to sue, and other than an occasional "gee, ain't that funny" remark, there's no ongoing brouhaha in the news to refer to, meaning the very idea of a "controversy" is not allowed on Wikipedia. Just because you are hung up on a plain and simple bit of nonsense doesn't mean we have to listen to your childishness. oknazevad (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First off..the Walgreens logo was around BEFORE the Senators started using the logo. And second...yes, it absolutely IS trademark-able. Don't just guess. Bluffing is a bad way to go through life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.255.149.63 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to browbeat someone for "bluffing", you should make sure you know what you are talking about yourself. Oknazevad was talking about copyrights, not trademarks. And given a baseball team and a pharmacy exist in considerably different categories with no likelihood of confusion between similar marks negatively impacting Walgreens, the odds of a trademark infringement suit being successful are not good. Which is probably why Walgreens has done nothing, and why there is no actual controversy worth mentioning. Resolute 23:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

text: The difference is that Walgreens and Wegmans were similar business entities so their could have been some trademark confusion.  I seriously doubt anyone would confuse the Nationals and Walgreens since they are in completely different businesses. Your comment that they "stole" the logo implies that they did so intentionally. Simply adopting a similar cursive W doesn't invoke theft. And as the other commenter remarked, they simply adopted the old Senators logo. In order to win a Trademark infringement lawsuit they would have to show that the Nationals use of the W causes enough market place confusion to damage their brand... which it doesn't seem to do. As for if it should be mentioned on this page... I can't find any reliable sources that mention any controversy about this... the only mentions i see on the web are from various blog sites, which is not enough to rise to the level of needing to be mentioned. Spanneraol (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To build on that and further undermine your foolishness: using the word "stole" is a blatant accusation of malfeasance and intent. That is, they were specifically intending to imply that they either were Wagreens or somehow affiliated with them. One is a baseball team the other is adding store; there's no potential for confusion. Secondly, you throw this accusation around with no actual sources, completely violating the no original research policy; someone commenting that its funny that they look alike on a joke website doesn't cut it. So your complete lack of knowledge and accurate insight to the situation is exactly what I'd call foolish and dumb. You aren't being "thorough"; you're being stupid. oknazevad (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walgreens Logo 

message: This sentence, "Coincidentally, the sitting President at the time of the move, George W. Bush, had at one time owned the Rangers," doesn't tie with anything in the article and isn't sourced to anything, let alone something related to the Nationals. I'll delete the sentence.  That said, the whole section regarding the move to Washington, and the stadium and TV deals is woefully undersourced.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The move into Washington

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Washington Nationals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20041121&content_id=915341&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917091223/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/01/rob-dibble-fired-by-nationals-in-wake-of-stephen-strasburg-comme/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/01/rob-dibble-fired-by-nationals-in-wake-of-stephen-strasburg-comme/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the Chiefs as a Nationals affiliate since the New York Mets now own the Chiefs franchise, and have put TBD in the affiliate table until such time as their AAA affiliate is known.  107.11.164.32 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the Chiefs as the affiliate as the still are through the conclusion of the current season. Don't change this until Nationals season ends. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Chiefs as a AAA affiliate 

message: Hello! It seems that a big chunk of this article's history is duplicative (The "Washington baseball revived" section in particular), and other minor things make the page seem disorganized (postseason and season heading, the player and people of note section seems like they could be merged into a player and personnel section). Can I make those changes to the article with an account?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.204.192 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout 

message: The "Retired numbers" section needs an image for Ryan Zimmerman's No. 11 jersey, which officially was retired on June 18, 2022. It is the first jersey number the Nationals have retired, and it needs to be represented graphically in the same way retired numbers are depicted for other MLB teams. Mdnavman (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need "retired number" image for Ryan Zimmerman's No. 11 jersey