Talk:Montreal Expos/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: It refers to Expo 67, which was held in Montreal. Adam Bishop 23:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the team 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category help 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The history of the Montreal Expos does not belong in Washington. 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Expos = distinct team from Nationals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not to be forgotten -> Expos All Stars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pearson Cup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wiki Gods need to step in 

message: 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)
thread_title: ==

message: This needs to be trimmed down, majorly.  gavindow 04:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abnormally long "not to be forgotten" list 

message: 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)
thread_title: Practicalities, history etc

message: 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)
thread_title: Result

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  I say merge with Washington 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced and irrelevant statement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Same Franchise? 

message: 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: . ProhibitOnions (T) 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  L in logo? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expos or Nationals? 

message: 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:
*A formal AfD discussion at:
**Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos (April-May, 2005), where the consensus was to keep the Montreal Expos article.
*And various ongoing talk page discussions at:
**Talk:Washington Nationals#Utterly ridiculous... (January 2005 - September 2006)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#The history of the Montreal Expos does not belong in Washington. (April-May, 2005)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#Expos = distinct team from Nationals (April-May, 2005 and May-June, 2006)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#Wiki Gods need to step in (June-July 2005)
**Talk:Washington Nationals#Expos-Nationals Cleanup (August 2005)
**Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 1#Teams by city or by franchise? (September 2005 - August 2006)
**Talk:Washington Nationals#This needs to merge with Montreal Expos (June 2006)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#Editing incorrect statements (June 2006)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#Merge (September 2006)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#I say merge with Washington (September 2006)
**Talk:Washington Nationals#The Definitive answer to the Expos/Nationals controversy (September-October 2006)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#Why not just pretend the Expos never exsisted? (November 2006)
**Talk:Montreal Expos#Same Franchise? (April-June 2007)
**Talk:Washington Nationals#Same Franchise? (April 2007)
Skeezix1000 13:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous merge discussions 

message: Here are 15 reasons to merge the Montreal Expos article here, and not on its own:
* Washington Bullets
* Los Angeles Raiders
* Anahiem Angels
* Los Angeles Rams
* Chicago Cardinals
* Minnesota Lakers
* Philadelphia Athletics
* Kansas City Athletics
* St. Louis Browns
* Charlotte Hornets (NBA team)
* Houston Oilers
* New Orleans Jazz (NBA team)
* New York Highlanders
* Seattle Pilots
* Houston Colt .45s
:—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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reasons to keep Expos here

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Compromise for clarity's sake

message: I have posting this notice about a Contradiction in the article. It shows 2 different Average Attendance Figures in Montreal. One of them being 10,031 and was cited by "Montreal Expos (2003). Expos Media Guide 2003." and the other being 12,081 and was cited by "Montreal Expos (2004). Expos Media Guide 2004.". This leads me to believe that the 2nd Figure of 12,081 was the 2004 figure and shouldn't have been in the section on 2002-2003 "Purchase by Major League Baseball" section and should have been mentioned on the Final Season section.  Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a contradiction, but the wording is confusing.  The paragraph starts of saying that despite an increase in attendance in 2002 (from 7900 to  10,000), the team was forced to play some games in San Juan.  It then lists the 2003 averages.   I had to read it twice to catch on that 7900 is the 2001 average, 10,000 is the 2002 average, and 12,000 is the 2003 average.  I'll see about rewording it. Resolute 15:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded.  It should be less confusing now. Resolute 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction on article 

message: I have assessed this as B Class, given its level of detail and organization, although it requires more referencing and in-line citations and some sections could stand to be expanded. I have assessed this as Mid importance as the team plays a strong, but not vital, role in Canada. Cheers, CP 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: I set up archiving on this talk page due to some very outdated comments.   jj137 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: :Image:Au revoir.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Au revoir.jpg 

message: Though it is true the Expos had the best record in MLB in 1994 when the season prematurely ended, this is not equivalent to a World Series Championship, and so should not be included within the section in the summary box listing the number of World Series Championships. I propose removing this note from the summary box. The ranking of the Expos in 1994 is noted within the article itself. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best team in MLB in 1994