Talk:Montreal Expos

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." [1] 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)