Talk:Montreal Expos/Archive 2

Merge discussion (I guess it is that time of year or something)?

An editor has added a merge template, are we doing this again? I am opposed to any merging. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it since it was a editor who clearly hadn't read the hundreds of discussions on this already. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, the articles should be merged. But consensus says otherwise, and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And just to reiterate, I remain as opposed as ever to any kind of merge. Resolute 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The multi-city franchises are slowly changing to have their history segments spun off to separate articles (e.g. History of Brooklyn Dodgers vs. History of L.A. Dodgers, but with just one main article). I could see that happening down the road here as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And I am just as opposed to a pointless rename. The team was the Montreal Expos, and the article is perfectly fine as currently named. Resolute 17:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Resolute - that approach has already been suggested, and didn't get consensus. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And the other MLB teams that moved are on a single page. So this one is the "odd man out". Not that it's the end of the world to be a "non-conformer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You just pointed out that the Dodgers article has spinout pages, in accordance with summary style, and so does its moving buddy, the Giants. The Nationals article follows the same pattern. As it already includes all of franchise history and records, there isn't anything significant that needs to be merged from this article. All the heat and light in this discussion boils down to what this article's primary title will be (redirects from other titles can easily be created). As I believe any reasonable primary title will not, in practice, affect the reader's experience nor change usability, it doesn't seem fruitful to keep trying to rearrange these deck chairs. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The main issue, if it is an issue, is one of consistent approach. To follow the style of the Dodgers, you would have a summary article called Washington Nationals which includes a brief summary of their history as Montreal; a redirect from Montreal to Washington; a History of the Expos, which would be essentially the current Expos article; and a History of the Nationals, which would be small but would theoretically grow over time. So the question becomes whether that rearrangement (to conform to other MLB club articles) is important enough to spend time doing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue comes down to, as it always does, consistent with what? Yes if we moved it, it would be consistent with baseball but then it would be inconsistent with all Canadian sports teams which use the new town new article system. Either way we could go around and around as we usually do, which I am sure no one wants to do and why I removed the merge template. :) -DJSasso (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Canadian sports teams, it's NHL teams in general that do this. That means Wikipedia is essentially cowtowing to the NHL's marketing - likewise with the Expos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Baltimore Stallions --> Montreal Alouettes, Ontario Raiders --> Toronto Rock, Salt Lake City Gulls --> Calgary Cannons --> Albuquerque Isotopes. The Canada project has at least equal claim to the article given the Expos are one of the more significant teams in the history of our sporting lore. Resolute 03:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, other teams in other sports market that way also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "redirect from Montreal to Washington". If you mean redirect Montreal Expos to Washington Nationals, well, Brooklyn Dodgers doesn't redirect to Los Angeles Dodgers. As for the rest, in terms of the Montreal history of the franchise, the Nationals article is already structured that way, and so the habitual calls for merge are superfluous. What seems to be requested is an article move. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It used to,[1] but someone changed it to redirect to the Brooklyn history page, which was not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As referenced in the edit comments, the discussion Talk:History_of_the_San_Francisco_Giants#Proposal_for_split_into_New_York_Giants_.28National_League.29 seems to have reached a general consensus to redirect a reference to the NL New York Giants to the article specifically about that team. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on that approach, this article should be renamed "History of the Montreal Expos". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood what you said earlier in this thread. For better or worse, the compromise reached with the San Francisco/New York Giants doesn't appear to have support with regards to this article. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And as I said, it comes down to whether we want a consistent approach, or to take a unique approach with each team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that question has been answered a few times already. And given the comments above, or in the discussions in the many, many previous merge/rename discussions, not enough editors find the consistency argument compelling enough for there to be consensus for a rename. To accompany Isaac's earlier reference to the deck chairs on the Titanic, I would suggest that you are flogging a dead horse. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, not enough people find it compelling enough to break consistency with one project in favour of another. Resolute 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That opens the can of worms as to why the projects are being done inconsistently among each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

2003 playoff race

A clarification: I meant in my recent edit summary that the Expos were in first for the wildcard race at the end of August, and still contending for a playoff spot, 13 games over .500. Though not a division championship race, I believe it qualifies as a significant period of competition for a post-season berth that occurred later than when the 1994 season ended. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense in first sentence

In an attempt to forestall the seemingly never-ending cycle of edit/revert of the verb tense in the first sentence, I have reworded it. (Using a plural verb is correct and all other articles I checked follow this approach, but for no apparent reason, some editors keep changing it.) Isaac Lin (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a CAN-EN/USA-EN thing I believe. I know British english uses one and US english uses the other and I forget which Canadian English follows. -Djsasso (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Canadian English follows the same approach as US English. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, grammatically, they should all be singular verbs, not plural, following verb usage for collective nouns. Usage, of course, has over time dictated that it be otherwise. -Dewelar (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to American and British English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, "Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Steelers are the champions." Isaac Lin (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, strike one for my old English teachers, then. I was always taught that to know if the verb tense is correct in these situations, one should flip the sentence around, and that one wouldn't say "A well known band are the Beatles". Then again, I haven't taken an English course in 20 years, so it's quite possible that, as I said, usage has since dictated otherwise. -Dewelar (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In practicality, it seems European speaking people view a team/group as a single entity (The Beatles is...) while North American speakers view a team/group as a collective (The Beatles are...). Every time a team sports article comes up as TFA, I've noticed that first sentence is edited quite a bit for this reason. I think that the naming of sports teams has quite naturally gravitated to support this practice: Manchester United is a football/soccer team, while the Texas Rangers are a baseball team. Resolute 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: a few months ago, someone restored the original wording ("The Montreal Expos were..."); I haven't reworded it again in the hopes this time that editors would leave it in the plural form. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why. If American English and Canadian English both call for the singular form, then what possible reason is there for the article, which deals with a Canadian team that played an essentially American game, to be written in any other variety of English? I can see none. Also, I see no consensus in the above discussion to use the plural form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, both American and British English agree on the plural form. Canadian usage conforms as well, from all the sources I've seen. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If Canadian and American English agree on singular form, that is news to me, as pretty much every sports team uses the plural. The only real exceptions are some MLS teams, and that seems fitting given that league has a major identity crisis and has no idea whether it is American or European. "The Montreal Expos were..." is the proper form. Resolute 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I had along explanation here involving two difference senses that a baseball team's name can take, a group one (25 players + staff) and a corporate one ("The Texas Rangers Baseball Club Inc."), but as I was writing it I found myself consistently and unconsciously choosing plural forms, so I concede the point, the plural form -- "The Texas Rangers are coming to town" -- is dominantwhen referring to sports teams.

Despite that, "The Montreal Expos were a bassball team..." still sits very badly in my ear, which I think has to do with their no longer being an existing team (i.e. group of players), so that what's left is their identity as a former corporate entity, and corporations etc. take singular forms in American English, as opposed to British English. No one's going to write "The Montreal Expos are coming to town..." any more, so dealing with this "team" as a group of players just seems wrong to me -- but as I have no clear reason as to why that should be, I withdraw my objection. (I wish I was more of a grammarian, so I could make a coherent argument supporting my gut -- or rather "ear" -- response.)

Sorry for any disruption, but please do believe it was an honest objection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. As I said in the old note above, the pluralization of the team name is what usually throws me. Given the name is plural form, I make the subsequent word the same. The trouble is teams that don't end in s. As an example, a press release the Abbotsford Heat put out a couple days ago used "the Heat is" and "the Heat are" in consecutive sentences! Gah! Resolute 04:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see that: "The Utah Jazz are coming to town..." vs. "The Utah Jazz is a team that...". I think there's still a bit of cognitive dissonance in regard to sports teams, having to do, at least in part, to our ability to conceive them as either singular or plural, depending on the context. If only English had a consistent neuter form! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(flushleft) What I have generalized is that the British (or English?) consistently use plural verbs (Montreal were the strongest team in 1994; the Montreal Expos were ...) while the Americans consistently match the verbs with the different names for the same entity (Montreal was; the Montreal Expos were). I know that I have seen Canadian use the British but I can't say how consistently. --P64 (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, we generally follow the American format in this case. As a rule of thumb, it does seem that the modifier is defined by the name of the entity and whether it is pluralized. Montreal is, the Montreal Canadiens are, the Montreal Expos were. This seems consistent across the four major sports, though Major League Soccer's identity crisis certainly muddles its articles up. Resolute 21:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I care little which version is used. British is just as good as American in terms of understanding.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for defunct teams and disestablished clubs

Rather than continuing to remove/re-add these categories, can any interested parties please obtain guidance on the discussion pages for these categories to determine what is appropriate?

The language does lead to a certain ambiguity. The club per se was not disestablished, as I understand it: the Delaware corporation set up by MLB acquired it and moved it to Washington, D.C. In common parlance, the team can be considered to be defunct, but in light of the myriad discussions on whether or not the Expos team is separable from the franchise, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For minor league teams, the categories for "Defunct" teams are widely used, including for cities where the franchise has relocated and been renamed. I'm not aware of complaints, and I think most users find it helpful to separately identify the cities that are currently active from those that once held a franchise. For the major leagues, as you know, the Expos are a special case because they are (as far as I'm aware) the only independent article on a prior incarnation of a current franchise that was located in another city. I don't see any alternative to the Category:Defunct Major League Baseball teams under our current classification system, but I'm open to suggestions. BRMo (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I propose removing the disestablished category, since the organization was not dismantled, but moved. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that change. BRMo (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor league clubs come and go. Major league clubs are another story. The franchise formerly known as the Expos transferred to Washington. I don't see how anyone can claim this franchise is "defunct", unless some international law required them to dis-encorporate and re-incorporate, which I've never heard in connection with the Expos/Nats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't claiming the franchise is defunct, we are claiming the entity known as the Montreal Expos is defunct. The two are different things. Unless you can show me where a team known as the Montreal Expos is still playing. And if you want to be technical the company that owned the expos in Montreal did shut down once the team was sold to MLB. MLB then sold the rights to the expos franchise/assets etc to a new company. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, the Twins were a new team in 1961. Which they were not. But were the Expos as a corporation legally shut down and were the Nats as a corporation started up in 2005? Or did they simply "move the headquarters" from one city to another? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

An entity changing its name does not affect its state of defunctness. The Nats marketers would like to have you believe otherwise, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And also by that logic, the Houston Astros only date to 1965 while the Houston Colt .45s are "defunct". Which would be silly. Just as silly as saying the Montreal Expos / Washington Nationals are "defunct". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A franchise is just the right to play in a league, a slot so to speak. Franchise does not equal Team. A team uses a franchise to play in a league (like a voter uses their franchise to vote in an election). A common misconception that the franchise is the team itself, which is not true. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, then, by this logic, isn't a team new any time it gets sold? After all, each time it gets sold, the "franchise" is transferred to someone else, right? Either that, or it's a new team each year, which is already solved by having team-season articles, and thus (to resurrect my term of art) "continuously existing team entities" supersede the idea of "franchise" -Dewelar (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just like when someone purchases a chain store franchise from the current franchisee, the franchise right is the same as before. To change locations, though, you would have to modify your franchise agreement to change the territory for which it was granted. In retail sales, it makes no difference if this is considered a new franchise or the same one as before; what may be of interest to customers is if the personnel moves with the store. In a similar vein, for an MLB franchise what is most relevant is if the organization's key assets—its players—were transferred. If so, then the average person will consider the franchise to have maintained continuity and so would consider it to be the same.

An analogy for a team being associated with a location is how a store is identified by its location. Say your corner convenience store is part of a chain, but the franchisee moves to a new location and the original store is boarded up. The original store is no longer operational, but the franchise has moved. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is how such things have been determined in the past. During another discussion I brought up the Troy Trojans. In several sources, I have seen that the Trojans franchise rights were directly sold to the New York NL team ownership. However, since it was simply the franchise that was transferred and not the "key assets" as you put it, the Trojans have remained a separate articles. The same is also true of the Worcesters and their successor, the Philadelphia NL team.

As an example of the opposite, the St. Louis Maroons article was recently merged with the NL's Indianapolis Hoosiers article (now located at St. Louis Maroons/Indianapolis Hoosiers) when information was uncovered that the Hoosiers in fact acquired the Maroons' players in addition to their franchise slot. I believe these two examples are illustrative of your own argument above, and thus show us how the Expos/Nationals should be treated as well. -Dewelar (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, such an inelegant name and contrary to WP:NAME. I hope it doesn't serve as a precedent for other 19th century teams that also acquired rights to other teams' players. BRMo (talk)

I don't disagree, and I didn't name the article that. It should probably be Indianapolis Hoosiers (National League) per previous precedent, but the team spent three seasons called by each name. If you have any other ideas, feel free to move the page at your leisure :) . -Dewelar (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The transfer of ownership happened when Loria sold the team, with the creation of a new U.S. corporation acquiring the Expos assets. So from a legal perspective, the original "Club de baseball expos" (if I recall the name correctly) ended in 2002, and there was no change in status when the team moved to Washington, as the new MLB-owned company remained in control. However, since the franchise was acquired, from a larger perspective, the organization was not really "disestablished" (not sure why Wikipedia has adopted this word for this scenario).

Regarding the team being defunct, certainly in everyday usage, I believe most people would consider the Montreal Expos incarnation of the franchise to be defunct, in the sense that it is no longer in Montreal. So on the basis of following common usage, it is probably sensible to call teams who have moved away defunct. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But you can't call the Dodgers or Giants "defunct". What's different about the Expos? I say only one thing: That certain editors forced separate articles about the Expos and Nats back in 2005, based solely on the Nats desire to distance themselves from their roots. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the term "defunct" (in the sense used by DJSasso) is unreasonable for categorizing the Expos—I'll note, for example, that the team history on the New York Yankees official website says that in 1903 Farrell and Devery purchased "the defunct Baltimore franchise of the American League." [2] On the other hand, I wouldn't object to coming up with an alternative category name to apply to former incarnations of existing MLB franchises. Although such a category would only apply to the Expos article at present, I think it's inevitable that eventually some of the MLB team history articles will grow to the point where they'll need to be split following Wikipedia's summary style (as much as Bugs and some other baseball editors dislike the idea), and a new category could recognize that teams like the Expos, Browns, Pilots, and Senators are fundamentally different from the the other teams shown in Category:Defunct Major League Baseball teams (like the Cleveland Spiders and the Louisville Grays). Does anyone want to brainstorm to come up with a name for such a category? (I'm stumped, myself.) BRMo (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The defunct label seems apt enough when looking at some definitions of defunct: "Having ceased to exist or live", "no longer living, existing, or functioning". Given how a team is closely associated with their home venue, it would seem reasonable to consider a team that has moved to no longer exist/function in its old city. Since the whole issue is around teams that move, they could just be labelled as "MLB teams that have moved". Isaac Lin (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Or more concisely, "Relocated MLB teams". Isaac Lin (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the average person may well consider the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants to be defunct teams, and obviously this view has nothing to do with whether or not there are Wikipedia articles for the teams, but with how a team is identified with the community where they play. The absence of a separate Wikipedia article only means it isn't possible to place the team into the MLB defunct team category in Wikipedia; it doesn't change how the team is viewed by the general public. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether called Montreal Expos or Washington Nationals, it's still the same corporate entity. You all are reading way too much into a name change. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful with terms like "corporate entity," which has a specific legal meaning. Without actually knowing, I'd guess that it's not unusual for MLB franchises to pass from one corporate entity to another when ownership changes hands (and sometimes even when ownership doesn't change if there's some legal reason to change the corporate structure). A "corporate entity" is not the same thing as a "franchise." BRMo (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I asked whether the Expos literally dissolved as a corporation and then were reformed, or if they simply moved their "headquarters" from one city to another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's what y'all need to do: You've got a category called "Defunct baseball teams in Canada", which is a fair statement as they are no longer in Canada. You cannot say "Defunct Major League Baseball teams", because they still exist as a corporate entity, in D.C. But you could say "Defunct baseball teams in Montreal". That would square with the argument that to Montreal citizens, the team is defunct, while in reality the team itself is not defunct, it simply moved to another city. And that would work for all the other clubs Badger is trying to change. The Giants clearly are not a defunct MLB team. But they are a "defunct baseball team in New York", using the logic others are arguing here. Ya follow? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Teams are categorized both by league and by geography, so the fact that there's a Category:Defunct baseball teams in Canada doesn't resolve the problem of how to name the category in the categorization by league. "Relocated MLB teams" would apply to both the Nationals and the Expos, so that doesn't help either. How about something like "Former MLB teams that have relocated"? BRMo (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest way to solve this dilemma is to see who owns the trademarks to the name and logo of the Montreal Expos. If MLB owns the trademarks, the team is defunct, if the Nats own the trademarks, it is simply moved. Since the Expos/Nats situation is unique to MLB, in that no team has moved recently enough to have trademark issues, so I'm not sure the correct answer. In the NHL and NBA (NFL possibly too), when a team moves and changes its name, the logo and nickname trademark become the league's property (except in the case of the Hartford Whalers), as the league has considered one team to be dead and the new one to form. So depending who owns said trademark with respect to the Expos, would determine how MLB legally has addressed the team. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that a strict legal answer is what is required; the term "defunct" in this case doesn't have a distinct legal meaning. It's more a question of what categorizations would be most useful for Wikipedia to have. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are hoping to have discussed, using the defunct category on teams that have moved is pretty much standard through all sports. The subject known as Montreal Expos is defunct and no longer exists, however it now exists under the name Washington Nationals. But there is no team currently called the Montreal Expos, which means the subject of the article is defunct. Haven't seen any arguing about this category in a very long time, so I am thinking there isn't really an issue with it being used. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Expos are not disestablished, disenfranchised, defunct, disestablishmentarianist, or anything else. The Orioles are now the Yankees. The Red Stockings are now the Reds. The Pilots are the Brewers. The Senators are the Twins (and the Rangers). The Angels are the Angels are the Angels (what a silly naming history). The Athletics and Braves are both Athletics and Braves across their many cities. Nothing of philosophical/Wikiped-ial significance occurred when the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals. The same players under the same contract to the same franchise with the same license to play within the same league were Expos the day before and Nationals the day after. I can understand using that moment as a breaking point for a history subsection on the page, obviously, but Washington Nationals should be a summary article for both with the content of Montreal Expos moved to History of the Washington Nationals, listed via hatnote under the summary Nationals article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• You just fought that war, and lost. For at least the ninth time. Don't disrupt this discussion by trying to rehash the exact same debate that just ended. Resolute 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not to mention none of that has bearing on what I am talking about. Even the baseball project uses defunct on minor league teams that move. That is why I find it so amusing that they fight so hard to keep the MLB teams as single pages when they do the exact opposite for their minor league teams. And as mentioned farther up in this discussion the term "defunct" by definition fits the Expos situation as having changed names and no longer functioning under that name. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that war has been fought. If it was then Baltimore Orioles (1901-1902) would exist separately. Washington Senators would exist separately. They do not. QED the matter is not settled in either direction. Wikipedia is better served by a unified position in either direction. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yes, it has been fought. Literally nine or ten times now over the last seven years, and every single time, the consensus was that Montreal Expos will remain split from Washington Nationals. I certainly encourage the baseball project to expand those other articles, but leave it to them to do so. This specific discussion is about the use of a disestablished category. Personally, I favour the inclusion of a category that denotes that the franchise stopped being the Montreal Expos in 2004, by whatever name is considered most appropriate, but since I consider the category feature mostly useless, have no great objection if it should be removed. Resolute 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• A matter is settled when it is settled, not when the land is dotted by various stand-alone and contradictory versions of the same principal. The Philadelphia Athletics and Washington Senators had far more history, tradition, and success in their original names/cities than did the Expos, if the logic works for the Expos then there should be a Philly As article and a detailed Senators history. As it stands it's just whiny Expos fans getting what they want and ignoring the consistency of the project as a whole. And I bring this up because it goes to this situation. The Expos are not defuncy or disestablished, as a team/franchise/club/any other noun. They are in Washington under a different name, just like the Orioles are in NY and the Senators in Texas/Minnesota. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I am not sorry to say that WP:CANADA has as much right to this article as WP:MLB does and not only has consensus wrt this article been firmly established, it is consistent with other Canadian relocated teams. As noted, I agree that those other articles should be expanded. Better coverage of the history, which is better for the reader. Especially a reader specifically interested in the Philadelphia A's or Brooklyn Dodgers, but not necessarily the KC or Oakland As or LA Dodgers. As I said above, I most certainly encourage those who care about those histories to restore Philadelphia Athletics and similar to standalone articles.

• On this topic, however, I've no objection to a different category naming scheme to denote relocated teams. We could even expand into two trees: One for franchises, and one for relocations. So, the Expos article would have Category:Sports franchises established in 1969 and Category: Sports teams relocated in 2004. The Nationals article would have Category:Sports franchises established in 1969 and Category:Sports teams established in 2004. Such a format would accurately reflect the lifetime of both aspects of the franchise. Resolute 20:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Personally I am of the opinion that the only reason they aren't split into separate articles already is because they happened before wikipedia existed. If they had moved after wikipedia was created they would probably be split as well. To me it seems like the only real reason people don't want to split them is because they haven't been split already. It is far better for the readers for them to be split because it allows or more information for the reader, allows far more history to be explored, and is a generally better way of going about things. So if you are going to name call and say its just a bunch of whiny Expos fans getting what they want, I could say the reverse, and that its only a bunch of lazy baseball editors that don't want to put the work into splitting the other articles. So maybe lets not attack each other eh? Things go alot smoother when people don't. -DJSasso (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: First, I propose removing the category of "Sports clubs disestablished in 2004", as the club moved and was not disestablished. (Though I do not believe the exact legal details should dictate the category system, for those who are interested, there was no change in legal ownership when the team moved to Washington; the team remained owned by a Delaware corporation that was owned by MLB.) Second, I propose adding a category, "Relocated Major League Baseball teams". (I suppose implicitly there is a third proposal, to not add the category "Defunct Major League Baseball teams".) isaacl (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's not about ownership of the article, it's about simple consistency. EG every article on a US President should follow a similar style whether or not they served in the military and thus fall under WP:MILHIST. This clearly is not the standard, and claiming consensus by reaching an agreement just on this article is nonsensical. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't need to make any claims. I have numerous discussions that show consensus exists. Whether or not you accept that fact is immaterial. Resolute 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you are discussing a different topic than the categories for this article? If so, to make it easier to follow this thread, can you discuss it in another section (perhaps the one below)? isaacl (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Relocated" would be a good category to use with clubs like this. "Defunct" or "disestablished" is incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(cut and paste from talk Wikiproject Baseball --P64)

disestablished. Something was established, probably in 1968 rather than 1969, and disestablished 2002 or 2004. Evidently the establishments/disestablishments categories and the births/deaths categories are parallel by rationale. Establishments include sports clubs (explained as "sports clubs or sports teams") but also companies and many others, not all organizations of any kind.

AOL is in categories established 1983 and established 2009 (two establishments), never disestablished.

Peanuts is in 1950 establishments and 2000 comic strip disestablishments (wow).

Regarding defunct I say "attend to the nouns and the adjectives will take care of themselves". (nouns: team, (ball)club, franchise, corporation, organization ...?) I am inclined to say the same about disestablishment but I don't know how. --P64 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what your position is. In the proposals, specific nouns are used: disestablished clubs, and relocated teams; do you have a view on the proposed category removal and category addition? AOL was initially created, and later spun out of its conglomerate. Original Peanuts strips started and ended. Not sure if these are suitable analogies. isaacl (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand the sports teams and clubs hierarchies, or the companies and organizations hierarchies for that matter. Compare Category:Sports teams and Category:Sports clubs. See also the companies and organizations categories and wikiprojects, if you are interested. (One point does seem clear. People working on companies have decided to let sports clubs go their own way, although some sports clubs are companies.)

All of that "higher up" confusion excuses a lot of baseball confusion. Careful distinction between baseball teams and baseball clubs, perhaps both distinct from baseball franchises, would be valuable in the baseball articles and lists. But let me retract any suggestion that classification of those articles and lists would then be easy.

Observation. The Cleveland Spiders article (Cleveland Spiders) is in both sports teams and sports clubs hierarchies. The Cleveland Spiders category (Category:Cleveland Spiders) is in the sports teams hierarchy alone.

One principle is clear although its meaning is murky. It's within the teams hierarchy that some are defunct. It's within the clubs hierarchy that one is established or disestablished in a particular year. --P64 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Sports clubs category, I believe for team sports it differs from the Sports teams category only due to the common terminology used in different countries—some countries do not use the term "team" and only use "club". I have taken a look at all the articles for relocated teams in the Talk:Montreal Expos/FAQ. Other than Montreal Alouettes, Round Rock Express, and Calgary Flames, all non-MLB destination team articles use the year of the move for the established category. All MLB destination team articles use the first year of play of the original team. All of the departing team articles use the year of the last season for the disestablished category, except for Seattle Pilots, Winnipeg Jets, and Quebec Nordiques, which use neither the established nor disestablished categories. Thus the use of the disestablished category for this article conforms with this sampling of teams that have moved, and the use of "club" just a matter of using a non-North American term for "team". isaacl (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't simply a matter of North American vs. overseas terminology. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#team, club, franchise (because classification is not the point), I have displayed some of the great variety in lead sentences of ballclub articles, covering nouns and also adjectives such as "American". It's good that some people are thinking about how to be more careful.--P64 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Recall the scope of the categories is beyond MLB, so MLB articles ought not to use the club categories in a way that is not synonymous with team, as this will lead to inconsistencies with the category contents. isaacl (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not really sure why it is necessary to tag this article with a "defuct" or "distestablished" category. It's not needed, since it is neither. If anything, this should go into the "History of Major League Baseball teams" category, since I don't think anyone disagrees that it covers the history of a Major League baseball team. Rlendog (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Creation / Early years

So we've got creation of the MLB franchise, the ownership, and the playing field all sitting there, then it skips to opening day and all these guys come running out onto the field. Where did they all come from? Shouldn't there be something abut the team president, who the first GM was (and if they were some super-respected person or not) and how the players got onto the team? Presumably there wsa an expansion draft? Or did they directly buy players from other franchises (there being no free-agency in those days I think)? Were the first players all cast-offs? I can't even find a link to an article about the draft, if that's wht happened. Please correct me if I've missed something, but it looks like that part of the story is missing. Franamax (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of that is covered in 1969 Montreal Expos season. Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the main article should cover original management personnel and player acquisition (primarily the expansion draft).

This case may be exceptional. The articles on ballclubs generally suffer from too much duplication, both within (lead section and body sections) and between (parent article sections and child articles). --P64 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to History of the Montreal Expos

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 consensus. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should be moved to History of the Montreal Expos, since there seems to be no hope of getting it merged to Washington Nationals. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You really do just love stirring up trouble, don't you? Resolute 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What with you folks & your 'stirring' charges? If it were up to all of you, the 'pedia would become stale. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the criteria of a FA is that it no longer undergoes any major changes. So the actual goal of the wiki is to try not have change for the sake of change. But he is correct, all you ever do is show up in an already intense discussion and throw gas on the flames. You would think the last round of ANI and what not would have taught you to not keep doing that. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You're boring me. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The rename proposal was discussed significantly with the last merge discussion, and as with the merge, was pretty significantly shot down. Resolute 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem, it was all intertwined. If you want these 'Expos/Nationals' discussion to cease? seek a 'period of time' in between discussions. That's what was done with the Republic of Ireland naming hassle. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than just restating the same arguments and positions over and over, we can just point to Talk:Montreal Expos/FAQ. If anyone has some new arguments to raise, or some illuminating points to counter various arguments, please do share them. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually if I recall,we were suppose to give Resolute some time to bring this article up to WP:GA before trying an WP:RM. So far,I haven't seen any progress on that front from anyone.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was actually Isaacl who said he might try working on it, but my memory could be wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it was me, and my offer was to try and get to FA the interference on the article ended. I did define a rename discussion as interference, but obviously I cannot control or stop others from discussing. Also, I never set a time line for when I would work on this article, so I'm not going to say to delay any discussions pending that work. Right now I'm still in hockey mode, but the article is on my radar, and I do expect (hope) to be working with Issac and other interested editors when the ball season hits its stride. Obviously I would oppose a rename for the same reasons I presented in the merge discussion: the article's scope will exceed simple history. Resolute 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also it would be good if proponents of a given view could weigh its shortcomings compared to other proposals, and discuss how those shortcomings could be minimized. isaacl (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've spoken on the rename issue so many times that I am afraid that I no longer have the patience to engage in extensive discussion on this. While I know that everyone here is operating in good faith, I can't help but feel that these endless rounds of merge and rename proposals are abusive. I don't say that to blame anyone, because no one here is being abusive (we all have the best interests of the articles in mind), but the whole thing is just exhausting. Suffice it to say, I can't for the life of me figure out why a rename is necessary, for the reasons ably summarized in the FAQ. I wish I could be more constructive, as Isaac urges us to, but the proposal is a solution in search of a problem, so it's difficult to make additional observations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just that the Expos (and Pilots), stick out like a sore thumb, among the MLB team articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I can't see why we would move an article from its most common name to satisfy subjective views as to what allegedly sticks out like a "sore thumb". I think it's been made clear (repeatedly) that there are differing views on that point, and that no one should take that assumption for granted. In any event, it's just as easy to say that it's the other baseball articles that stick out like a sore thumb among Wikipedia articles generally, with this unnecessary "History of" verbiage. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can persuade WP:BASBALL to split up its team articles (WP:HOCKEY style)? that would be darn cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's my take on this proposal. This one seems to contravene general English grammar. Calling this History of the Montreal Expos, would imply that there is an article called Montreal Expos and this article is the history of that topic. It would be like calling a page History of the Dodo Bird. For the ease of someone who is not familiar with Major League Baseball, the simplest thing is to leave this page as Montreal Expos. A note in the lead could indicate that this is the history of the Washington Nationals franchise during their tenure in Montreal as the Expos. For the record, I do think splitting the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants etc. from their History of... articles would make the most sense as well. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has contributed since March. I think it's fair to say this discussion is wound up. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

Move?

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 Not moved per WP:SNOW. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Montreal Expos → Montréal Expos –

• Accent mark as per official logo. Againme (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• This needs discussion and a reading of WP:OFFICIAL. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Our article about the city is at Montreal, which is the common Montreal/Quebec/Canadian English spellings of Montreal. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• But this is not a common name like that of a city, but a proper name with no translation possible, and with an accent mark. Againme (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How is "no translation possible"?!? Proper names for places are translated all the time. Montréal → Montreal. I could go on. Warszawa → Warsaw → Varsovie → Warchau, etc. Proper names for sports teams are also translated all the time: Canadiens de Montréal → Montreal Canadiens, etc. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article itself says that the club was called Les Expos de Montréal in Canadian French, not Les Montréal Expos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Shall we change every article about every sports team from Montreal too while we are at it? They were referred to in the press without the accent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - On Wikipedia, we don't base article names on logos. Nor do we defer always to an official name (by the way, "Montréal Expos" is neither French nor English, but a French spelling with English word order; it's also not the official name). We name articles based on the most common/recognized English-language usage. In English, they are most commonly referred to as the Montreal Expos. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#French names, Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

  In this case, I don't think we should be picking an article name that is correct in neither English nor French. I'm not even sure that the logo was intended to be read with "Montréal Expos" as a single term. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: the team used the term "Montreal Expos" for English communications, and common usage in English reliable sources matches this. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is the English wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is the official English name of the team. The Expos media guides I have specifically refer to the team as the Montreal Expos when they write in English. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not the French Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per GoodDay. Steam5 (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

Date format in references

According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style for dates and numbers, YYYY-MM-DD format is acceptable in references. Wikipedia's guidance on citation style states that "nearly any consistent style may be used" and gives YYYY-MM-DD as an example of an acceptable use. Since the date format of all the citations had been consistently in YYYY-MM-DD format, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on retaining the original date format and on retaining the original citation format, I propose restoring the citations to YYYY-MM-DD format. (That being said, I recognize that this is a trivial style issue; on principle, though, I believe unnecessary changes should be discouraged.) isaacl (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well, probably because that is how I always date citations myself. Resolute 19:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, I will implement the proposed restoration of the original date format used in the references. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

FieldTurf surface

Regarding the recent edit I made, note according to the 2002 and 2003 Expos Media Guides, an Astrograss surface was installed for the 2002 season, and as described in http://www.fieldturf.com/en/artificial-turf/artificial-turf-news/expos-to-play-what-is-likely-final-season-in-montreal-on-fieldturf and http://www.fieldturf.com/en/artificial-turf/artificial-turf-news/expos-roll-out-new-rug, a FieldTurf surface was leased for the team's final season in Montreal. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Historic Games"?

Most of these are unsourced, and not historic at all. There are some no-hitters and perfect games, Pete Rose's 4,000th hit, fine. But then there are attendance records (franchise, that is), "almost" no-hitters, and other items that have nothing to suggest they are "historic". I may start deleting these soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This one is absolutely going... – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

August 26, 2003 – The Expos rallied twice to claim a 14–10 win against the Philadelphia Phillies and put themselves within two games of the National League Wild Card playoff spot. It was the second-biggest comeback in Expos history.

Technically all of the Expos games are historic since they occurred in the past and the team has since left Montreal. Unless this is nomenclature used across the board in other team articles, shouldn't it be "Notable Games" (assuming the whole section doesn't end up being deleted, that is)? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, technically all games are "historic". They're not all notable from Wikipedia's standpoint though. Some sort of "floor" needs to be set for inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's my point. We're using the wrong term in the header. No wonder the section is full of crap. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The need to locate appropriate sources for everything, coupled with a desire to migrate the entire timeline to the history section at once (so it isn't left in a partial state) has been a deterrent for me in improving this text. Nonetheless, I'll try to see what I can contribute. isaacl (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No objections, so I changed the header from historic games to notable games. I will leave it to others to determine whether the section itself is worth salvaging or not. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Montreal Expos Player of the Year

Not enough notability for a standalone page. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What I would do is repurpose that article and call it List of Montreal Expos award winners and list anyone that has won an award with the team. Something like List of Calgary Flames award winners. I think this would be a better option than merging into this page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I think we have "X award winners" pages for all of the 'active' teams. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

While I do not support the existence of separate articles for the Expos and Nationals, as long as those are going to exist, I think DJ's suggestion is a good one. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I say eliminate the Washington Nationals page instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchLamarch (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have boldly performed the merge. The article will never expand as the Montreal Expos no longer exist. None of the other baseball teams have individual articles for "Player of the Year," so this one is no different. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no actual support for this merge so it was inappropriate. As such I have reverted it. There are numerous pages that will never expand on wiki. Future expansion is not a criteria for an article. That being said it could expand in the form of prose talking about the award itself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning that it's "too long". It's just a list with 36 short and repetitive entries. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this list is even notable as it's own thing.. either rename it and add other award winners as DJ mentions above or just delete the thing. Spanneraol (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

More that the Expos article is at a point where such types of information are usually spun out into their own articles to keep the main article from getting too long. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I found another article that I think merging Montreal Expos Player of the Year to would be more appropriate, List of Washington Nationals seasons. The chart in the article already has an "Awards" column that we can easily add all of the "Player of the Year" award winners to and we can also add a footnote briefly explaining the award. Only five other awards were given out to Expos players during the franchise's history. Face it, realistically, while the Montreal Expos article may continue to expand as more information about the team's history comes out, the List of Washington Nationals seasons article will not expand significantly to the point where we have to make a separate article for award winners like the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox for decades to come. So vote below, do you support merging Montreal Expos Player of the Year with List of Washington Nationals seasons? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the other teams yet; does anyone know what are the common practices used for them? isaacl (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Many teams have a List of Award Winners and League Leaders page. That would be appropriate here.See New York Yankees award winners and league leaders for an example of how that is done. Spanneraol (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Major League Baseball team trophies and awards, I count 26 award winners and league leaders pages, and one page for team-specific awards, Philadelphia Phillies annual franchise awards. Is there a lack of consensus for the notability of team-specific awards? isaacl (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

After having another look at the category, I see there are a few pages for team-specific awards or sections within the corresponding team award winners page. Thus I agree with DJSasso's original suggestion, with the additional proposal of naming the page "Washington Nationals award winners and league leaders", covering the entire history of the franchise, including the period in Montreal. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Division name

I have started a discussion on how the division name should be displayed. Any comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Last president

Regarding the appointment of Tony Tavares as team president, given that at that time the franchise was expected to be folded, I don't believe he was hired with the intent of overseeing the team's sale or move. Thus I propose that the corresponding sentence in the section Montreal Expos#Purchase by Major League Baseball be modified to read as follows: MLB appointed former Anaheim Angels president Tony Tavares as team president to oversee business operations, and Mets assistant general manager Omar Minaya as vice-president and general manager to run day-to-day operations. The responsibility for "business operations" covers the team's eventual move to Washington, so I don't think any further detail is required. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of rumours

Through the years, there have been numerous rumours of groups interested in returning an MLB team to Montreal. I suggest that at a minimum, until there is an announcement directly from the spokespersons of the group in question, the rumours are not sufficiently notable to be included within this article. (The credibility of the announcement would be another factor in determining notability.) Accordingly, I propose reverting this recent set of edits. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be a different team anyway, I don't think it belongs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, I will proceed with the proposal. isaacl (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Newsworthy is not necessarily noteworthy. We, of course had this same issue with the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques articles that prompted me to create Potential National Hockey League expansion. But expansion and relocation in hockey is a constant, ongoing topic. Baseball has been far more limited in that regard. Resolute 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That article too attracts a lot of less than noteworthy speculation, in my opinion, but hopefully it aids in keeping the other articles free of idle speculation. Relocation is a constant threat pulled out by baseball owners trying to cut a better deal with their home cities, but the three decades of franchise stability between the last two moves raises the bar regarding the credibility of proposals. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically if it is written about by multiple sources it is notable, speculation or not. The speculation itself can become notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Many events that are not deemed to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion are covered by multiple sources, particularly when it comes to sports. This includes routine events and unsubstantiated speculation, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on unverifiable speculation. I do not believe that perennial rumours without any official statements from the purported parties in question are sufficient to meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. For the speculation itself to be notable, there needs to be notable coverage of that, but even so discussing specific non-substantive rumours as part of this would be giving them undue weight. (There have many, many similar rumours in the past, and they cannot all be covered without swamping the article.) isaacl (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Except that speculation would not be routine coverage. The way around giving undue weight to any one rumour is to talk about them in the general sense. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, talking about specific rumours (as had been done in this case) should generally be avoided if they are not independently notable. I disagree though that speculation can always be denoted as non-routine. Speculation is cheap; any one can start a rumour out of wishful thinking without any facts behind it, and in cases such as these, they go round and around forever. isaacl (talk)

Which is where the multiple reliable sources comes in, one paper would not be multiple, but once multiple papers talk about it then it would become notable. If a source is considered reliable we believe they have done the research. That is the whole idea behind reliable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that once rumours of a certain sort (such as expansion franchises) start making the rounds, they'll pop up everywhere with vague citations. If the rumours are not given credible citations by the various sources, then I do not believe they are sufficiently notable for inclusion. The standard for sports journalism coverage is different than Wikipedia's guideline for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the text in question. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Washington Nationals

The Expos/Nationals are all one in the same franchise...no need for separate articles. Vjmlhds 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Resolute 20:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: Why not? They're the same team - just moved from one city to another. MLB recognizes them as one in the same. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an arbitrary argument, no different than proposing that all 30 current team articles be merged into Major League Baseball, since they are all part of MLB. Additionally, and as one example, Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul are the same city. It would be no more appropriate to merge those three articles. Beyond that, a merge would be completely inappropriate on size reasons alone. The Expos and Nationals are aspects of the same franchise, but they are not the same topic. And "Montreal Expos" as a topic retains independent notability. Such a merge does not benefit Wikipedia in the slightest, as a merge would necessarily destroy much of the written history of the Expos to fit the desires of current readers at Washington Nationals, who would be expecting to read about the team in Washington. Conversely, most readers seeking information on the Expos aren't terribly likely to care about the Nationals. Etc, etc, etc. This has been discussed and rejected many times in the past. Resolute 22:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See the FAQ above. This has been discussed to death, consensus can change, but it seems unlikely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I could see to justify such a merge is that as far as I know, most of the other teams in MLB that have relocated (such as Washington Senators (1961–71) etc, yet not Seattle Pilots) have the former teams' merged within the current incarnation, but then that's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, isn't it? I agree with all of Resolute's points. For similar reasons most of the NHL's relocated teams have separate articles, and it works just fine. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See the FAQ for more info, including lists of moved teams and how they are handled. More teams have a corresponding spin-out article. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nope, not a chance. In fact some baseball articles are slowly spinning out the old locations to their own articles, albeit they have started putting the words "History of the" in front of the old team name but I figure that will eventually be removed for brevity. I am often surprised with how much baseball editors (in general not necessarily the nom) are so keen to condense baseball articles into less pages when the topics can be covered so much better by more pages. You would think fans of a given sport would want more information not less. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I surrender. I know when I'm licked. Withdrawing merge request. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A merge to the Nationals, or renaming this page History of the Montreal Expos, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Renaming this article to History of the Montreal Expos is similarly inappropriate and unnecessary for the many reasons set out in the many past discussions on this point. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rivalries

I'm currently working on the relationship between the Blue Jays and Expos - will probably have my sandboxed version added later today. But what I don't know is the basis of listing the Mets and Phillies as rivals in the infobox. Jonah Keri's book, for instance, never made much of a mention of either team. Other than Toronto, the only other team hauled forward as a rival was the Braves, and then, really only as a temporary battle around 1994. Should we be listing the Mets and Phillies in the infobox? Resolute 15:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Expos and Jays were not rivals in the usual sense of on-field competition, but of course, from a business perspective, they competed for advertising dollars and thus fan attention. I think the trade of Carter to the Mets added something to games between the two teams, but otherwise, other than geographic proximity, personally I don't see anything special about the Expos versus the Mets and Phillies as compared with Pittsburgh and St. Louis, all of whom the Expos faced (and failed to overtake) in September pennant races. Once the Braves joined the NL East, they were naturally rivals as the perennial division winner, but again I don't see anything particularly special beyond that. isaacl (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That about confirms my thinking, thanks. When I bring my sandboxed draft live, I intend to call the section "Relationship with the Toronto Blue Jays" rather than "Rivalry", given it was mostly business, and something of a love-hate-love relationship over the years. Resolute 15:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If they'd been in the same league, I imagine the Montreal–Toronto rivalry exemplified by the Habs/Leafs competition would have emerged. But with their in-season encounters, prior to inter-league play, being limited to the exhibition Pearson Cup, I think the on-field rivalry was a generally friendly one. A Jays–Expos World Series encounter would have been fantastic for the two fan bases. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I read Jonah Keri's book, and I think there's something to the Expos-Blue Jays, but as Isaac says, it was mostly on the business side. The Expos pushed hard for a second Canadian team, and then the Blue Jays helped doom the Expos in the long run. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. If the Rays were to relocate to Montreal, that would be the rivalry forming event. I think I am just going to remove the "rivals" parameter from the infobox entirely. None of the teams actually really fit the implied meaning. Resolute 23:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Partnership agreements

Regarding these changes: as the term "cash call" is jargon, I suggest it is preferable to use a more explicit phrase within this article. Also, the statement regarding "most partnership agreements" including a provision for requesting additional investment is unsourced, and the scope is unclear: does it refer solely to baseball ownership groups? Unless a citation is available, I suggest the statement is not required. isaacl (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: first, the edit summary is misleading; the change is not grammar related. Second, the information is redundant, as Brochu's inability to call for additional equity investment was already mentioned previously. Accordingly, I suggest reverting this edit. isaacl (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the loose comparison to "most partnership agreements" is not needed. All we care about here is the nature of the Montreal partnership. Can reword if "cash call" is viewed as jargon. Agreed on the second part as well. There isn't any great need to refresh the reader's memory on the fact that Brochu could not request additional funding. Resolute 16:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: it would be appreciated if editors would contribute to this discussion before changing the sentences in question. Inserting "called their bluff" seems an unnecessary non-neutral wording; the reader is capable of making their own judgment call on the events that occurred. Regarding the change to the section on radio coverage, do you have any sources that Loria specifically wished to change radio stations, rather than simply go to whoever was willing to cut a better radio deal? isaacl (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted all the way back. I'm sorry, but nearly all of it was POV, weasel words or unsourced. Resolute 13:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Radio deal

Regarding this edit: as previously requested, can you provide a citation regarding wanting to replace the Expos flagship radio station? The cited source does not state this. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@HangingCurve: - I second this, and have again reverted your additions. Please do not add unsourced material. Resolute 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Payroll

Regarding this edit: the first diff in this edit restored previous text:

The team payroll for 2000 increased to $33 million, nearly double the $17.9 million from the previous season. However, Loria's options for rebuilding the team were somewhat limited. He discovered that he needed to improve the team immediately in order to win back the fans' trust, rather than relying on long-term improvements via the draft.

I believe the text I had written follows a better narrative, placing cause before effect: a need to win back trust resulting in an increased payroll:

To rebuild the fans' trust, Loria needed to improve the team immediately, rather than relying on long-term improvements via the draft. To that end, he increased the team payroll for 2000 to $33 million, nearly double the $17.9 million from the previous season.

In addition, it avoids implying that Loria discovered anything at some specific point in time, which is unsourced. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, my suggestion is to revert back to before HangingCurve made all these changes. This passage, as he constructed it, does not reflect the source material at all. He is, in fact, taking Jonah Keri's opinion and reinventing it as the internal thought process of Loria. Your changes, while an improvement, don't remove that problem. Most of these changes, therefore, have to now be checked just to see if the following sources actually support what is being added. And I'm also seeing a bunch of completely unsourced additions. These changes, bluntly, are degrading the quality of the article. Resolute 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm with Resolute on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In general I double check changes against the source material, and where I see contradictions I make appropriate adjustments, though it's certainly possible I've missed some unsourced additions—I too bring my own knowledge of what occurred to the table. I don't have access to Keri's book at the moment, but as I recall Keri expressed the opinion that the team needed to bring some talent to the team immediately in order to regain the fans' trust.

As I expressed earlier, I'm a bit concerned about relying too heavily on Keri's analysis. As thorough as he has been in his research, he also brings a fan's perspective, and this influences his writing. For example, it's unclear to me that the draft could not have used as a component of rebuilding the team, in spite of what Keri states (Pittsburgh and Kansas City being two recent examples of teams rebuilding while facing fan discontent).

I'm not sure a blanket revert is warranted, as there have been a number of good details added. But more opinions are needed to help sort through the more dubious additions that dwell on less-essential info, or inject points of view or assumptions of motivations by Loria, Minaya, and so forth. isaacl (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your expertise and attention to detail is pretty much the reason why I suggested a revert rather than doing it outright. But in this case, the cited passage is of Keri's opinion. And to answer your question and looking in hindsight (as Keri was), I would agree that the organization needed immediate success when Loria took over. In part, and unlike KC and Pittsburgh, MLB was already targetting the Expos for contraction around that time. Resolute 00:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And re-reading that section, we're going from discussing the year 2000 to noting the following two years, then jumping back to 2000. What a mess. Resolute 01:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we agree at least that the text should not imply it is describing Loria's thoughts. Whether or not Keri's analysis can be taken as an objective view on what motivated team management still seems unclear to me. isaacl (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the original text that simply noted the doubling of payroll was sufficient. Especially on the heels of Loria's "no longer business as usual" comment. Keri's opinion is superfluous at best, and an anachronism at worst. In either case, it doesn't add value. Resolute 00:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest anonymous sources

Regarding this edit which I have reverted: it's possible that this latest story from an anonymous rumour has more substance than the many others that appeared over the years. However given the long history of speculation, I believe it is prudent to wait for some official announcements from potential investors. Feel free to weigh in. (For reference, Talk:Montreal Expos/Archive 2#Notability of rumours is the last discussion held on this topic.) isaacl (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Official confirmation that the rumour is inaccurate: [3] isaacl (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)