Jump to content

Talk:Washington Nationals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to reorganize article to cover ALL Washington professional baseball teams

[edit]

There have been professional and semi-professional baseball teams in the District of Columbia named the Washington Nationals since the 19th century. I propose that this article be merged with the several separate articles that discuss other teams in the same city that had the same name to include articles on the various Senators incarnations. Mention can and should be made that there is not an unbroken pedigree from then until now but it makes more sense to discuss professional baseball in DC as a whole as opposed to several articles, the main one of which also discusses baseball in Montreal. The Expos, I further propose, should get their own article.

Is this the proper way to propse a major change? If not, can a wikiexpert please propose on my behalf? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dliodoir (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, articles such as this one cover the history and organization of individual franchies themselves, not the cities. I don't know about a antricle on the hisotry of proffessional baseball in each city, if there are any already, or if they are a good idea or not, but the franchise artic les should remain about the franchises. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with BilCat, perhaps there should be another article about the various Washington Teams that have gone by the name of "Nationals", but that would be separate from this article. Fool4jesus (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the article, History of Washington, D.C. professional baseball. The article is short and isn't in very good shape, but it's the article that should cover the history of professional baseball in Washingon. BRMo (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several people named George Bush. Should we merge all of those biographies into one article? Resolute 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of Players

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nationals New Uniforms

[edit]

Whoever did this page, they need to redo the Nats uniforms. They unveiled new Ones

Merger Proposal

[edit]
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.
Discussion closed 19 August, 2012

I propose that Montreal Expos be merged into Washington Nationals. There appears to be precedence to have teams who have moved cities and changed names, to be merged into a single article. Some examples are Washington Senators (1901-1960), St. Louis Browns, Brooklyn Robins, and Washington Senators (1961-1971), which are teams that have moved cities and changed their names. Boston Braves (baseball), Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants (NL), and Philadelphia Athletics are examples of teams who moved cities, but kept their names.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you want to open that can of worms again. Take a look at Talk:Montreal Expos and you will see it has been proposed several times and each time consensus was to keep things as is. If we are opening a formal discussion, I vote against this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently Oppose - Since I was told to give my reasons for this vote, I will. The Nationals in their entire incarnation have treated themselves as a completing the lineage of the Washington Senators franchises. In their media guide you will notice they give a long history of baseball in Washington, but very little beyond the 2005 season for this franchise. In addition, failure to recognize the several retired numbers of the Expos and many of the historical records of the franchise means that they themselves are not considering themselves to be the Expos. In addition, when the Expos left Montreal, I believe Baseball Quebec was awarded the history of the Montreal Expos. Now to cite Wikipedia policy, merging these articles would cause the Washington Nationals article to become too large and unwieldy for the user. Thus, the simplest way to split the lineage of the franchise would be to split it at the 2005 season with the history of this franchise before that being kept at Montreal Expos and the history after that being kept at Washington Nationals. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said below that I believed that MLB considers the teams to be the same franchise, and the main article seems to confirm that as well, but these are new revelations. Is there a source to confirm what you said? If so, that is a f=different ball game.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the history of the Expos being left to Baseball Quebec, I will have to do some digging but I am certain that it was given to them. As for the other the source I can point to is a deadtree book. Any of the Washington Nationals' Media Guides since their creation will illustrate this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had the organization wrong, but the Expos' archives were donated to four Quebec museums. Thus, meaning the history of the Expos did not travel to Washington with the franchise. The press release from 2004 can be found here. Ergo, it can be inferred that the Nationals had no intention of being the same team simply a team that occupies the same franchise "slot". Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed the team closely and am not aware of any so-called "awarding" of the Expos history. Given the utter neglect MLB showed for Montreal during its final seasons, I don't believe it would have bothered to do anything like this. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Updated based on above comment) OK, physical archives I can understand being transferred. Officially, though, franchise records and historical events are considered by MLB to include the team's history in Montreal and Washington. isaacl (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. The Nationals own website says that they are the same team with shared history. [1].--Jojhutton (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As the proposer, there is clear precedent to not have separate articles for what are clearly the same team. (See Examples above). Its redundant and the two teams share the same history and records. There is no reason to have separate articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Nationals article, as well as the articles on the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Francisco Giants, follows article summary style; it contains a summary of the team's history in Montreal, while linking to an external article for more details. isaacl (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its nice that you feel very strongly about this. I must remind you however that consensus can change, and bad mouthing the proposal in your edit summery is clearly disruptive towards reaching a consensus. If this continues to be proposed time and time again, that may be a clue that there is merit to the proposal and referring to it as you say Shit makes it look as if you are unyielding and not willing to work with others. Also, you failed to give a policy reason for your opposition. I remind you that this is not a vote, but the decision to merge should be based on policy and guidelines not on what we like and not like.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you failed to invoke any policy in support of your proposal, so I am not at all certain what you think your point is in complaining that I've not offered any myself. But, if you like WP:NOTPAPER. These repeated debates from people pushing an WP:IDONTLIKEIT based "policy" of denying the history of previous incarnations of franchises got old about four debates ago, so you will have to forgive me if I express my frustration at having to hold the same debate over and over and over and over again. But tell me, if you fail to get your desired result this time around, how long will we have before you try to do so again? Three months? Six? A year? How many times does one get to apply WP:CCC before it starts to become WP:POINT? Now, I am not saying your proposal is not being made in good faith, but this is the 8th or 9th time this argument has been brought up. And you accuse me of being unyielding? Until you bring an argument stronger than "we do it this way on the baseball project", I probably will be viewed in that way. The Expos article is also under the mandate of WP:CANADA, and I've already noted that the team holds a historical significance to our project. So please, show me a real argument that favours a merge, because I simply am not seeing one right now. Resolute 02:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually WP:MERGE which is used in every single merge proposal by default, IS the policy, which defines the reason to merge as Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Also read: WP:DICTIONARY about why wikipedia can't have articles on every incantation of the same topic.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that they don't have a large overlap, so your default policy argument does not apply. Neither does WP:DICTIONARY, which I find to be an incredibly flimsy argument. The Expos article deals with the Montreal Expos, a baseball team that existed between 1969 and 2004. The Nationals article deals with the Washington Nationals, a baseball team that has existed since 2004. Yes, they are the same franchise, but there is a significant difference between each incarnation, and attempts at trivializing the Expos history - which this proposal would do by necessity - does the reader a considerable disservice. As I say in every one of these debates: If I am interested in the Montreal Expos or Seattle Pilots, that does not mean I am interested in the Washington Nationals or the Milwaukee Brewers. As both a reader and an editor, I find these merge proposals to be damaging to the project. As a reader, I don't care about the Nationals. And that fact is true for most former Expos fans. The only thing the Expos and Nationals really have in common is that a few contracts transferred from one to the other one winters day in 2004. Other than that, they might as well be two entirely different franchises. Yes, the record books are shared, and that fact is easily reflected at an article like Washington Nationals records. But the divorce between the Expos and Nationals is significant, as is virtually every other franchise relocation. The Expos history was Montreal's and Canada's, not Washington's. The Nationals' future is Washington's, not Montreal's. Same franchise, but two significantly different topics. Resolute 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, MLB considers the teams to be the same and not separate teams with separate histories. Thats probably the best reason to merge per the Overlap section. But the continued reference to previous outcomes on this proposal and how long you have opposed this proposal isn't an argument.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not all that relevant, as we are not hiding the fact that the Expos became the Nationals and the Nationals were the Expos. The articles are linked, though they remain separate topics for Wikipedia's purposes. And despite GoodDay's statement below, you already have a split of the Pilots-Brewers articles, and also of the San Francisco Giants and New York Giants, albeit the latter being at an unnecessarily awkward title: History of the New York Giants (NL). In truth, the trend even in the baseball project has been very slowly towards splits, not merges. Resolute 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to hide the fact that there were a Montreal Expos. In fact I hated the idea of them leaving. The Nationals article already covers this and probably could use some major expanding in this area.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summary style is suitable for topics with sufficient information such that having spinout articles makes the presentation more manageable. I believe changing this article to not use summary style would make it unwieldy, and is not warranted. isaacl (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per outcome of numerous past merger proposals. As for precedence, there are numerous independent articles for other sports franchises that crossed international borders:
Edmonton Trappers/Round Rock Express
Vancouver Grizzlies/Memphis Grizzlies
Baltimore Stallions/Montreal Alouettes
Atlanta Flames/Calgary Flames
Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes
Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche
Hwy43 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, there's the Milwaukee Brewers & Seattle Pilots. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the articles for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants follow summary style, as does this article. isaacl (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's alot tougher to 'split' 28 articles, then merge 4 articles into 2 (Pilots/Brewers & Expos/Nationals). GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that most of MLBs franchises have never relocated, so wouldn't apply to the argument. In truth, I believe there is currently a relatively even split where teams have relocated: Expos/Nats, Pilots/Brewers, Brooklyn/LA, New York/San Fran. The old Baltimore Orioles/New York Yankees are not, nor are either incarnation of the Senators. Resolute 04:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokers, how many of the current 30 clubs are 'relocated'? GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, my knowledge of the origins of the teams with 19th century founding dates is limited, but since MLB came about in about 1901, I believe just those seven. Resolute 04:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of those 7: The Braves & Athletics would need a 3-way split each. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By my count from the World Series article, nine franchises have moved. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just going to admit that error as well. I can't believe I forgot the Braves and A's. Resolute 04:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still adds up to 7 current franchises, though. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is nine. The seven I mentioned above by name, as well as the Braves and the A's. But it remains relatively even, as four have a split of some kind, five do not. Resolute 04:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it's 9: Braves, Giants, Dodgers, Athletics, Pilots/Brewers, Expos/Nationals, Senators/Twins, Senators/Rangers & Browns/Orioles. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orioles/Yankees makes 10, then. And also, don't forget, it's Brewers/Browns/Orioles, since that franchise played in Milwaukee in 1901. -Dewelar (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the Angels once actually played in L.A. before moving to Anaheim and becoming the California Angels, then the Anaheim Angels. Now the L.A. Angels again.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That weren't a re-location though. The New Jersey Devils moved from East Rutherford to Newark, not long ago. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its moot for this discussion, but I can see your point. But I don't think the people of Anaheim would agree. Yet, they actually played in L.A. and used Dodger Stadium for a time, then decided to bolt L.A. for Anaheim. And as a big FU to L.A., who wouldn't build them a stadium, they changed their "Location name" to California, because they were afraid no one would know where Anaheim was.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, quite a handle. PS: If the Expos had gotten the strong support their Wiki-article tends to get, they'd still be in Montreal. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it did not require a change to the franchise right granted by MLB, so as far as it was concerned, it was just a change of venue. isaacl (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely,but don't tell the people of Anaheim who are sick of being called L.A.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article for the Brooklyn Dodgers only called History of the Brooklyn Dodgers but "Brooklyn Dodgers" redirects there an not to the LA Dodgers page. IMO that's just semantics as it is the same thing as having a unique article for Brooklyn only they avoided a similar discussion that we have here by adding the words "History of".--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, that article & History of the New York Giants (NL) article, gives me an idea to solve these re-curring RMs. Perhaps the Montreal Expos should be moved to History of the Montreal Expos. Then make Montreal Expos a re-direct to this article (Washington Nationals). GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed in Talk:History_of_the_San_Francisco_Giants#Proposal_for_split_into_New_York_Giants_.28National_League.29, the consensus reached in that instance was to redirect the former team's name to the history article. This is done for the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers. isaacl (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move Montreal Expos article to History of Montreal Expos & have Montreal Expos redirect to the History article. Afterall, the Expos article is a historic topic. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but no. This article documents far more than just the history, and there is no need to move to an unnecessarily cumbersome name. The current title, like the article itself, is fine as is. Resolute 06:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now opposing the 'merger'. The Expos article will continue to exist, but should have a new title. GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by Oppose per precedent of New Amsterdam/New York City, Ninevah/Mossul, Babylon/Baghdad, Istanbul/Constantinople/Istanbul. This is certainly not a Pilots/Brewers level merge since the Expos existed for decades and have plenty of history of their own reported in RS. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There's no reason an exception should have been made in this one instance. The articles should be merged, and the Canada Project can retain the newly combined article in its scope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both teams are notable on their own, the elimination of the expos article is a detriment to the encyclopedia. In terms of overlap the Nats article could be trimmed leaving the "main article" tag at the beginning of the history section. Much of what is included in the Expos article would most likely not be included in the Nats article without overwhelming the reader on what they came to read...the Nationals. If they want to know about what happened prior to the move in-depth than there is an easy link to the full article.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both articles are already very big. a WP:SIZE split is entirely appropriate. Merging the two together just gives you a gigantic article that's hard to read and navigate. Since the Expos are a discrete and easily separatable portion of the franchise, what's wrong with having an article? We have a separate article for the Brooklyn Dodgers. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we should have Montreal Expos moved to History of the Montreal Expos. Then have Montreal Expos redirect to that History page. Afterall, the Expos are historical. GoodDay (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History of the New York Giants (NL) & History of the Brooklyn Dodgers are darn good titles. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the articles themselves are not in the same format as the Expos article is. This is a complete team overview, as you would find at Montreal Canadiens, not a historical article as at History of the Montreal Canadiens. Also, lets not obfuscate the debate with side bars. This debate is already convoluted enough. Resolute 07:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Giants/Dodgers solution would work, if given a chance. GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So would the current solution. It's worked fine since the day the article was created. Ultimately, I would rather there exists a complete article than a compromise one. The former benefits the reader. The latter does not. Resolute 07:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sticking with opposing the merge for my stated reasons. History of the Montreal Expos just may stop/slow down the constant calls for a merger. GoodDay (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Good Day. Mostly based on consistency with other articles. As the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants each are formatted and titled in this fashion. That way the Canadian project can still have its article, the Baseball project will still have consistency, and perhaps this will finally be laid to rest, as you appear to be using the fact that this continues to be brought up over and over again as an argument to keep. This is a good Compromise for both sides and we should be looking to compromise. Otherwise this will continue to be brought up again and again for years, until it finally prevails.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid conflating arguments together (which happens too often in this particular debate), can we keep this thread to the original merge proposal, and if it does not reach consensus, open a new thread on the Expos talk page regarding a rename proposal? The problem with the peanut butter approach is that everyone raises objections based on their particular interpretation of what is being proposed; it will help if we can discuss one specific proposal at a time. isaacl (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes, and now you are reduced to threats, Jojhutton. "Do things my way or I/we will continue disrupt the article with WP:POINTy move requests." The baseball project can still have consistency by doing things properly, and building proper articles for relocated teams under their team names. Far more can be said than just the base history of the teams, never mind WP:COMMONNAME and the like. Resolute 17:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a threat and I never said that I or we will continue to bring it up. (Who is WE anyway?). It's a historical fact that this will come up again. As you said this has been brought up numerous times, and all by different users by my understanding. You think that it will go away after this? Users come and go and new users who may not even be registered today may want to bring it up again a year from now. I have never participated in any previous discussion on this topic so your attack of my character has exhausted my Good Faith. Remember to comment on content and not on people. Read WP:NPA.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your frivolous ANI report exhausted my good faith, so at least we are even there. And yes, it is a historical fact that this comes up every once in a while, just as it is a historical fact that it is rejected every single time. Perhaps it is time to list this at WP:PEREN and throw a big red box at the top of both pages stating "This has been discussed a dozen times, and consensus is always to keep separate". Resolute 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know we were at War, so I saw no need for your reference to "Getting Even" with me. What you seem to be objecting to here is several editors expressing a compromise. History of the Montreal Expos would be an excellent title for an article and should finally "put to bed" the constant need for multiple editors to ask for Merging. If it keeps coming up, that would be a clue that there may be an issue here, rather than calling the proposal Shit. So Are you willing to work toward a compromise solution that will benefit both sides and both projects?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we first reach a consensus on the merge proposal? I have not seen any arguments for how a merged article would be an improvement over the current summary style employed by this article. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not "at war", but I hope you can see how I was put off by your running straight to ANI rather than discussing your concern at my talk page. In either case, I am willing to extend an olive branch on this front. My apologies on offending you. As far as the naming compromise goes, and assuming that you are withdrawing the merge request, this new discussion should be moved to the Expos talk page as Issac suggests. However, I don't favour this rename proposal for three significant reasons. First, we generally title articles at their common name. As such, an article discussing the Expos should be at Montreal Expos. Second, the article, properly constructed, would discuss far more than just the bare history, so the title would be improper. I have in the past contemplated taking the Expos article to FA status in the hopes that that would short circuit these merge requests, and that brings me to my third point: For a team with 35 years of history, it is entirely conceivable that the article could grow so large as to necessitate a split: the parent, Montreal Expos, discussing all aspects of the team, and child, History of the Montreal Expos, discussing the history in greater detail. Indeed, the entire tenure of Loria's ownership, Peurto Rico and the eventual move could constitute an article in its own right, so I am extremely confident that such a split may well be necessary. So my compromise offer is such: I will endeavour to bring the Expos article to the quality level of an FA article, and if I feel that such a split is not necessary when I am done, we can return to this rename proposal. If I come to the point where there is too much information, then we retain the parent Expos article as titled, and hopefully passed to FA, with a complete child article on the history to go with. This is something that I feel would be of the greatest benefit to the reader, which is who we as editors should be looking to write for. Resolute 18:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that we are all willing to discuss a compromise. I think we should let this proposal run its course, then move on to a possible RM at the Expos article. If the ANI was a bit of a shock, I apologize. I mulled it over in my head for a few hours before asking for advice at ANI. Should have discussed with you first. We can discuss any renaming issues at a later date after you've had a chance to work on the article, but take a look at History of the Brooklyn Dodgers and History of the New York Giants (NL) and see if that format won't work at the Expos article as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I thought that, when the Expos moved to Washington, they "adopted" the "old Nationals'" history (like the expansion Cleveland Browns did for the original Browns')? I might be wrong on that, but even so, there's really two very different teams here that happen to share a joint history. This isn't like a ship that changed owners and names. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - these are entirely different teams. I live near DC and wasn't aware that the team even came from Montreal. (ON the other hand, I couldn't give a rats ass about baseball...) WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general principle, but what I support more than anything is treating these articles in a consistent manner. If the Expos must remain a special star, and the recent split of the Pilots (which appears to have occurred "under the radar" in November after 6+ years of happy existence as a redirect) is allowed to stand, then let's go ahead and start splitting them all out. -Dewelar (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, splitting off the history of a franchise into a series of subarticles is a logical way to keep article length in check. And relocation of a franchise is the most unambiguous dividing line for a split that I can think of. Whether the article's title includes "History of..." like the Giants and Dodgers articles, or not like the Pilots and Expos, is a matter that can be decided at the article level (though I strogly support the use of redirects from the other version). Generally, this the way the Ice Hockey Wikiproject does it, and it works. The reasoning is sound: a team that relocates is serving an entirely different market and fan base; it has almost nothing in common with its previous incarnation. The issuing by the Nats of numbers retired by the Expos is the clincher; they obviously don't consider themselves the Expos anymore, so why should we? oknazevad (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Nationals do not seem to consider themselves an extension of the Expos, (if I am not mistaken, even Expo retired numbers are now worn by current Nationals players). I prefer the way it is done in the hockey project, as noted above. Plus, the Expos are of cultural significance on their own. (Oh, and do we have to do this like every few months?) Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, according to their website, they do. Here are pages from their official site: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically there is a disconnect between their official franchise history, which includes the franchise's past in Montreal, and their marketing approach, which has ignored the Montreal period, at least until Andre Dawson was elected to the Hall of Fame, after which the Nationals introduced a Ring of Honor to honor all Hall of Famers for MLB teams that had played in Washington, plus Dawson and Gary Carter. The Nationals had returned the Expos retired numbers to service (the retired numbers had been used by active players), but now that their web site lists the numbers that were retired in Montreal, perhaps that will change (the current roster listing does not assign those numbers to anyone). isaacl (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The re-issuing of sweater numbers are irrelevant. See re-located NHL franchises. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to what? If you are discussing the suggestion to add the retired numbers to this article, it's notable to state that the numbers were brought back to service and actually assigned. If you mean this merge proposal, I was just clarifying some of the discussion above related to Washington's marketing. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to clarify, the bring back retired numbers, doesn't break with the franchise's former incarnation (See Nordiques/Avalanche & Whalers/Hurricanes). GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that with the addition of the Ring of Honor, which is fairly new, plus the recent addition of the numbers at their web-site and the fact that current active roster doesn't have anyone with those numbers is a fair basis that the numbers are now retired by the Nationals.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye on the Nats 'next month'. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do have Non-Roster invites to camp that have those numbers, but thats a whole other category I think, and doesn't apply here.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no overlap between the two articles. One team attracted the attention of an entire nation. The other is just an MLB team. A large portion of the readership of the Expos article is very likely interested from the Canadian perspective and cares not a whit what has happened to it since. Franamax (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconfigure as History of the Expos and History of the Nationals, with the "main" nationals article as the umbrella article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Because the Montreal franchise changed its name (from Expos to Nationals) when it moved to Washington, any merged article would be very long and confusing to the reader, as the verbiage would switch back and forth from "Expos" to "Nationals" (as well as from "Montreal" to "Washington"). I like GoodDay's suggestion of following the convention that is used for the Brooklyn Dodgers—which re-directs to "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers"—and the New York Giants (NL), which re-directs to "History of the New York Giants (NL)". Under GoodDay's suggestion, we would (1) re-name Montreal Expos as "History of the Montreal Expos" and then (2) re-direct "Montreal Expos" to "History of the Montreal Expos". Eagle4000 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There does appear to be a shift in some of the comments that the Expos should be renamed History of the Montreal Expos. I have already mentioned that I would be in favor of that compromise. I wouldn't think that the article would need to be changed around too much and as User:Resolute had previously mentioned, he plans on bringing the Expos article up to featured status. Thats great because the article falls under the Baseball wikiproject. The only problem with it may be the fact that the naming issue hasn't been resolved and may hold it up until the issue is resolved.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However article naming usually adopts the simplest form possible. In this case "Montreal Expos" and "History of the Montreal Expos" are one and the same (until Montreal gets an MLB team named the Expos again) - so why wouldn't we use the simpler title? Is "Montreal Expos" likely to cause confusion? Whereas "History..." may indeed cause confusion, as it tends to imply there is also a current article. Franamax (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that we don't have a "Brooklyn Dodgers" article. The Brookly Dodgers are the same club as the L.A. Dodgers. The Montreal Expos are the same club as the Washington Nationals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a mistake on another article does not require that we expand that mistake here. Resolute 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my plans to bring the Expos article up to Featured status is contingent on the elimination of interference from those seeking to subjugate the Expos importance, impact and history. And I consider the rename proposal to be interference on that front. Resolute 20:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure anyway feels that merging the Montreal years of the franchise into the main article was an attempt to subjugate the Expos importance in the article. I loved the Expos and always went to games when they were in town because I got hear O' Canada. Can't get that anymore, unless I drive up to Anaheim. Its always been about consistency and precedent. The consistency among MLB articles is for them to not have separate articles for every city a franchise has called home. Precedent has been established to create "History of... articles to combat this, and give the fans of those teams a page to call their own.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is precisely what a merge would force. People who go to the Washington Nationals article want to read about the Washington baseball team. If you were going to do a proper merge, 90% of the article would have to be about the Expos - and that does a major disservice to the reader who cares about the Nationals. So in truth, details on the Expos would be significantly reduced to balance what the most likely reader of the Nats article is looking for. Well that cheats the reader looking for information on the Expos. As one of those people, I don't care about the Nationals at all. My interest in the franchise ended the moment it relocated, but your claim is that when I say I want to read about the Expos, I actually mean the Nationals. That is as wrong an argument as has ever been uttered on Wikipedia. They are one franchise, yes. But they are two entirely different topics that do not have a significant overlap in either content or readership. A merge forces you to pick your poison: cheat the reader looking for info on the Expos, cheat the reader looking for info on the Nats, or cheat the reader looking for info on both. A merge is just a terrible solution all around.
And no, no such precedent has been established at calling such articles "History of..." It exists on two articles, while the proper team name exists on two others. I could very easily argue the same precedent says that the other two articles should be renamed to Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants (NL). Resolute 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a merge would "cheat" (so to speak) Montreal Expos fans by taking away an article that validly stands on its own. I also agree that "no such precedent has been established at calling such articles 'History of...' It exists on two articles, while the proper team name exists on two others." As Resolute notes, we "could very easily argue the same precedent says that the other two articles should be renamed to Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants (NL)." I like the "History of ..." convention, but it is not a binding precedent. Eagle4000 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Jojhutton both, what is the "same reason" and why is it a "MLB article"? It is also an article about a nationally important occurrence. The topic is not the "MLB team that beacame the Nationals", it is the "Expos". Then they got sold and moved, that's where the story ends. For a good portion of the likely readership, we could just as easily rename Washington Senators to Future of the Montreal Expos. Kidding, but hopefully I'm illustrating why I think it's a standalone topic. Consistency of naming within the baseball project, while desirable, should have an overriding reason. In this case, sport-specific and "nation"-specific naming disagree, so the simplest titles should be used. Perhaps with those little notes at the top, like "for the current/former MLB franchise see [Sens/Expos]"? Franamax (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Resolute states, "no such precedent has been established at calling such articles 'History of...' It exists on two articles, while the proper team name exists on two others. [One] could very easily argue the same precedent says that the other two articles should be renamed to Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants (NL)." Although I like the "History of ..." convention, Franamax's suggestion might be the better way, i.e., put a hatnotes (?) at the top of Montreal Expos (e.g.,
For successor team, see Washington Nationals.
) and Washington Nationals (e.g.,
For predecessor team, see Montreal Expos.
). Eagle4000 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I need to revise my prior suggestion. I would not add a hatnote to Washington Nationals, as that article is about an entire franchise. We could, though, still add a topnote to Montreal Expos, as I noted. Eagle4000 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with hat notes on one or both articles, though they are superfluous. Both the lead and the infobox state that the Expos became the Nationals (or that the Nationals used to be the Expos), while there would be numerous spots throughout a fully constructed article that would point to the continuity of the overall franchise. Resolute 23:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up before on the Expos article; because the first sentence is quite clear on the disposition of the Expos, personally I feel an additional hatnote is unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently 14-3 against a merger. Perhaps closure should be considered? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned previously, that depends on your definition of "entity" ;-D . -Dewelar (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear what Wizardman's definition of entity is in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Montral Expos have their own separate history, much like the Cleveland Browns did when the Baltimore Ravens were formed, and somewhat like the Seattle SuperSonics situation (their history will be shared between OKC and any future Seattle team). As a result, the Expos have their own article. An example of a situation where a merge is appropriate is the Houston Oilers, which moved to Tennessee and changed their name, but kept the history. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The links provided by Jojhutton above would seem to disagree with that assessment; i.e., the Nationals' official website recognizes the Expos' records and history as part of their own. -Dewelar (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heres what happened with the Browns. As a condition of the NFL letting the Browns leave Cleveland, Art Model agreed to relinquish the Browns history, colors, and name. As a franchise, the NFL now considered the newly named Baltimore Ravens to be an expansion team, with the intent of placing another team in Cleveland in two years. All of the Browns records and history reverted to the new Browns. MLB did not do this, so the comparison isn't applicable.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the historic entity known as the "Montreal Expos" has its own separate history—which is why I like the idea of re-naming Montreal Expos as "History of the Montreal Expos" (and retaining it as a separate article, i.e., no merger with a future "History of the Washington Nationals"). The Expos' history, however, is part of the overall history of an MLB franchise that is now known as the Washington Nationals. Similarly, the History of the Brooklyn Dodgers is part of the franchise history of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Eagle4000 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and if there is any guideline or precedent that encourages merging an article of this size into another articles history section that is ridiculous. Whether this is a continuation or starting point of some other franchise does not matter. There is enough material here on a distinct and separately notable topic to maintain this article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose - Article/subject of significant cultural importance for Montreal (and Canada), that goes far beyond the franchise itself. I'm not fundamentally opposed to a reconfiguration as proposed by Baseball Bugs, but I fail to see an issue with the status quo. Also, per SchmuckyTheCat, a merge would involve a significant reduction in content to keep the resulting article at a reasonable size, and I can't see how this can be beneficial to the encyclopedia. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 06:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the same reasons I have opposed the last 5 or 6 times this has come up. There is absolutely no reason to merge these into one. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all the reasons given during the numerous previous proposals. Someone needs to create a big warning template at the top of the page asking editors to read all of the previous merge discussions before initiating a new one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also opposed to the unnecessary rename to "History of the Montreal Expos". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with many of the comments, but I believe the most important should be both size of a combined article and the use of the two different article to a user - echoing comments already made, a reader searching the history of the Expos will very rarely be interested in the ongoing and updating history of the Nationals. --Fresh (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose - While the "History of..." solution may work and would be consistent, I don't think it is necessary. The "History of the Montreal Expos" article happens to be named "Montreal Expos," which is an equally appropriate but simpler name. Frankly I think "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" and the like ought to be moved to "Brooklyn Dodgers" but that is a different debate. Rlendog (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Any subsequent proposal to move the article to "History of the Montreal Expos" would be in service of an alleged naming convention that doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The Montreal Expos were a unique cultural and social phenomenon from any US-based team (and any team based in English-speaking North America, for that matter). As a business, they faced unique challenges that Washington or any US team did not. Their achievements were uniquely their own, as were their failings. Moving a team from Montreal to D.C. represented such a qualitative change to the socio-cultural and economic life of the team that I believe separate articles are absolutely necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Options

[edit]

Perhaps instead of just "Support" and "Oppose", how about grouping comments on the various options:

  1. Do nothing.
  2. Merge Expos into Nationals.
  3. Move Expos to History of Expos.

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, lets resolve one debate before we begin the other. Trying to determine a plurality of multiple opinions just unenecessarily confuses the entire debate. Also, as noted repeatedly, a rename discussion belongs on the article that is proposed to rename, not a completely different and, frankly, irrelevant article. Resolute 19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "oppose" items above are arguing for option 3, so just-plain "oppose" is a bit confusing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by "many" you mean two, you'd be right. Don't pretend that either options two or three have support of more than a very small minority of commenters. Regardless, keeping the merge debate and the rename debate separate is the simpler, and less confusing way of doing things. A multiple choice debate makes sense at Seattle Pilots, where there are three or four good merge options. But this debate is about two entirely separate issues: First a merge, and if rejected, a rename. They aren't a joined debate, and trying to force it that way is nothing but an attempt at forcing a confused debate. Resolute 22:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of building a consensus, I'd like an agreement to be reached on the merge proposal first. As I stated above, in the past, these discussions have spiralled into too many directions at once, so I would prefer to deal with one specific proposal at a time. Let's try to make some progress, even if just a small step. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best we wait for the 'Merge proposal' results, first. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Good sense has not prevailed so far in this multi-year debate, and I'm not optimistic it will this time, either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean that good sense has not prevailed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - There have been a few references to wanting to make one or both of these articles a featured article. I can say that these naming issues are one of the things that can hold up GA, FA type of debate.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as I said above, My offer to (help Issac) make this into an FA article is contingent on the end to interference on this article. At this point it appears that consensus also opposes a rename, so I trust that this will be resolved prior to even getting to GAN/FAC. And given that this discussion would settle the issue, I have every confidence that any oppose !vote based on a desire for a rename will be discarded by the FAC scrutineers as little more than WP:POINT. Resolute 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, an RM will be made at Montreal Expos, after this 'Merge request' is closed. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Pennants

[edit]

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

Retired numbers

[edit]

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

Current status of retired numbers?

[edit]

In February 2011, the Washington Nationals website listed the numbers retired in Montreal, and the numbers were not assigned to anyone at that time. Thus the current assignment of these numbers is not a case of grandfathering existing players. I can only assume that the Nationals recognize this part of their franchise history, but the numbers remain free for assignment as they wish. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in other words they are honouring them but not necessarily keeping them out of circulation. They had a big press release about how they do consider them still retired numbers. I should see if I can still find it. The current assignment could also be a web editor just keeping someones old number without knowing their new number or a case of its just pre-season. I should also note the current website still lists them as retired. -DJSasso (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should use a terminology other than "retired numbers" because it is eminently clear that the numbers are not "retired" in the sense that term is normally used. I mean, all three numbers are currently in use, one of them by a regular starter this past season (Danny Espinosa wears Gary Carter's #8). Reading your comment makes me think of the way the Toronto Maple Leafs have what they call "Honoured Numbers" where they'll raise a banner for a particular player with his sweater number without taking that number out of circulation for future players (though they have "retired" two particular numbers by taking them out of circulation, both involving players who died). The section of the Nationals' website that relates to the franchise's history is a bit odd. If you look at it, it's readily apparent that the design doesn't match up with the rest of the site's layout. That's because it was carried over, with very minimal modification, from the Montreal Expos' site. Whether the Expos' site was created by MLB or some team-specific group is something I don't know. But I think this is a situation where if we want to say the Nationals "honor" the Expos' retired numbers we have to think about how to come up with a wording that makes it clear that "honor" doesn't mean "continue the retirement," because it's beyond any dispute whatsoever that the numbers are absolutely back in circulation. I'm going to try to tinker with the wording to clarify that particular aspect, but I won't delete the whole reference unless and until it's resolved here.
Also, regarding whether the roster on Wikipedia is old: The roster on the Nationals' own website lists all three numbers as presently being assigned (including the one to a non-roster invitee, which is a separate section on their site). To me the evidence that the team's own site lists Espinosa as continuing to wear #8 seems pretty compelling. 1995hoo (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Baseball Reference, Danny Espinosa wore #18 previously; Tyler Moore is a new roster addition; and Corey Brown made his first appearance last September, wearing #10. Thus I propose rewording the section to clarify that the numbers have been returned to circulation for all seasons, not just the first six. The retired numbers page is still there, though I haven't been able to find a way to navigate to it from the top level page. However, since at least one player was assigned one of the numbers last year and wore it during a game, it's clear the numbers are not retired, even if they continue to be recognized as previously retired. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To navigate to the "Retired Numbers" page you have to go to the "News" menu on the Nationals' site, then click on "Team History," then scroll down to find "Retired Numbers." The way they have it buried is further evidence of the rather strange relationship the Nationals have with the franchise's history in Montreal and with baseball's history in Washington. They initially focused a lot more on the latter, as seen back in 2005 at the first home game when they brought back the Senators players from the final game in 1971, as well as in that bobblehead promo in 2010 where they gave away a matching set of Frank Howard and Adam Dunn bobbleheads. It's pretty clear that part of their concern was that people from DC understandably feel no connection to the Montreal Expos. But at the same time, the old Senators' history really belongs to two still-existing franchises (the Twins and the Rangers). 1995hoo (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just did some further research and confirmed that (a) Isaac1 is correct that Danny Espinosa did wear #18 last year and the Nationals' website is showing that he now wears #8 and (b) the other two players assigned the "problem" numbers did not play for the Nationals in the past. Now, maybe the website entry is a typo and we'll find out next week that Espinosa is actually wearing #18. Maybe he'll change his mind and go back to the old number. Apparently he did wear #8 in the minors and wherever else he played prior to reaching the majors, so I think there's a good chance he's now moving to the number he wanted to wear (I'll have to do more research to find out who else wore #8 for the Nationals). But unless and until we can see that he's changed back, I think we have to consider the roster posted on the team's website as being pretty conclusive evidence that these numbers are indeed in circulation. If the Nationals had indeed decided not to use them anymore, then Espinosa wouldn't have been allowed to change his number.
Johnny Gomes wore #30 in 2011, by the way; he came over in a midseason trade. I think that's further evidence that the numbers weren't "retired" during 2011. Some further research has indicated that Espinosa wore #8 in the minors but was assigned #18 when he arrived with the Nationals because John McLaren, a coach with the Nationals, was wearing #8 at the time. McLaren continued with the team until Jim Riggleman resigned as manager last year. He acted as interim manager for a couple of games until Davey Johnson took over and then asked to be re-assigned as a scout because he was very close to Riggleman. That freed up #8, but presumably MLB's rules are like the other pro sports in prohibiting a player from changing numbers during a season (although I do recall Bill Ripken changing from #3 to #7 after the Orioles fired his father as manager in 1988). Anyway, that's pretty good evidence that #8 has always been in circulation. I did some other research and confirmed that #10 was worn by two Nationals players in 2011, Brian Bixler (who was with the team for a good while) and September call-up Corey Brown (who is now listed as a non-roster invitee for spring training). So, in other words, all three "retired numbers" were in use during 2011, the year during which the prior version of this article claimed that the Nationals resumed "honoring" those numbers. I think the evidence is clear: Those numbers ARE NOT "retired" in the sense of being taken out of circulation and have never been out of circulation since the franchise has been in Washington. I can post the names of all the players who have worn those numbers for the Nationals, though I don't have the same info for the coaches.
Maybe the use of "Franchise Retired Numbers" on Nationals.com (which is, let's agree, a peculiar choice of words) is intended to indicate that at some point the "franchise" had retired these numbers even though they no longer are. I don't know. That page is peculiar. 1995hoo (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think it's somewhat significant to mention that the Nationals stole Walgreens' logo and the controversy that goes along with that. Thoughts?169.234.21.242 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Stole"? The Nationals revived the Senators' old logo. There's no "controversy" about it. More importantly, if Walgreens had wanted to sue, they should have done so back in 2004 or 2005. They'd never prevail if they attempted anything now. Therefore, it's irrelevant. 1995hoo (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not the case since the Senators' old logo bears absolutely no resemblance to the Walgreens/Nationals logo. However, just because Walgreens may or may not win in court doesn't necessary preclude a footnote on the page about the uncanny similarity between the two logos. Since Walgreens had their logo for decades and decades before the Nationals did, it's worthwhile to mention something about the theft. 169.234.53.131 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


Ah, I see which logo you are talking about. The one that came out 67 years after Walgreens was founded. I suppose whether or not the logo looks similar enough to win a lawsuit is up for debate, however it should be noted that Walgreens sued the drug store "Wegman's" for using a logo that looks far less like the nearly identical Nationals' logo. This isn't a "curly script W" we're talking about. This is a logo that is virtually indistinguishable from Walgreens' logo, right down to the color pattern. I'm sorry that your obvious deep loyalty as a fan of the Washington Nationals' prevents you from acknowledging the theft, but sometimes it takes someone like myself without bias toward any particular baseball team to see these things. The quest for thoroughness is not synonymous with "childishness." Perhaps another neutral party besides myself can weigh in on this topic!169.234.54.226 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you Spanneraol. I see your point as I have a hard time finding any credible source with a quote from Walgreens about the theft and it appears that they have not taken legal action. I speculate that because the two businesses are not selling the same product, Walgreens likely views the Nationals logo as free advertising. As for you, Oknazevad, I'm sorry but you appear to be confused and got the impression that I wished to enter a war of personal attacks as I apparently offended your quite delicate sensibilities. Again, I only seek completeness in the page. Good luck in the World Series, whatever team you decide to support!Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The move into Washington

[edit]

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

National-Orioles MASN dispute

[edit]

Is it worth creating a section talking about the whole Nats-Orioles MASN dispute? If not, could it be put under "Nationals vs. Orioles"? Although keeping a neutral perspective would be tough, it has definitely been a big topic of discussion around this organization. Also, I noticed "TV ratings were among the worst in the league as of July 2008[56][57] but increased during the 2010 and 2011 seasons.[58][59]" in the Wiki page. I'm new to editing on Wiki, but should that be updated, or is it okay to leave (because it seems a little outdated to me). Thanks. AdamtheGOAT (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, check out what has already been written at the article on the rivalry between the Nationals and Orioles, Beltway Series. While it definitely needs work on its own, there may be some info that can be used in this article. It doesn't need to be extensive, but the situation should be mentioned. While it could be included in the section on Orioles vs. Nationals, the TV dispute is but one element of the rivalry. It's not like Baltimore and Washington wouldn't be rivals without the TV dispute. I would recommend putting a brief mention (it shouldn't have its own subheading) of it in the television section. Just make sure whatever you include has reliable sources.
As for the ratings, if you have updated ratings numbers (and their sources), I would include those, but still keep what is there to put it into context. In other words, new updates can show that in 2008, ratings were among the worst, then improved in 2010 and 2011, and now are... That kind of thing. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. That makes sense. Thanks! AdamtheGOAT (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Washington Nationals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Chiefs as a AAA affiliate

[edit]

I have removed the Chiefs as a Nationals affiliate since the New York Mets now own the Chiefs franchise, and have put TBD in the affiliate table until such time as their AAA affiliate is known. 107.11.164.32 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the Chiefs as the affiliate as the still are through the conclusion of the current season. Don't change this until Nationals season ends. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the unused "Footnotes" section?

[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. I'm wondering: why does the (unused) Footnotes section exist? Also, the link in it wants users to download a .asp file, rather than linking directly to, say, RFK Stadium at Events DC. (This is probably because the existing link is now outdated, and was once relevant.) Would anyone mind if I deleted the section? —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likely there was a footnote at one point which has been removed above in the article causing the section to be empty. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DJSasso: So I may remove the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocWatson42 (talk • contribs)
Yeah I would say be bold. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Done. Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout

[edit]

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

Need "retired number" image for Ryan Zimmerman's No. 11 jersey

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Nationals&oldid=1210415122"