Talk:Montreal Expos

This article survived a vote for deletion. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

If we're referencing the Washington DC rumour, I think this article from the Globe and Mail should probably be worked in somehow. I'm not sure how to do it, or whether to do it. - Cafemusique 09:23 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Name of the team

I'm confused about what an "Expo" is, in this context. Is it known what the name of the team means? I think this could be added to the article, if so. -- Creidieki 23:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It refers to Expo 67, which was held in Montreal. Adam Bishop 23:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category help

I've got a question with categories. We have Category:Montreal Expo players, but we also have Category:Los Angeles Dodgers players. Since the teams themselves are almost always referred to in a plural form (i.e. Montreal Expos) shouldn't the teams, when named in category, reflect this? It seems very inconsistent. Anybody want to take a stab? Rhymeless 05:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would go for Montreal Expos rather than Montreal Expo. Looking around the web references are almost entirely to Expos rather than Expo. I find it easier to think about a name such as 'Anaheim Angels'. In this case the single form would be 'Anaheim Angel Players' which seems to suggest there is a single angel. Angels feels more like a club, which is mainly a collection of players. I would though definitely prefer a single standard rather than inconsistency. MarkS 12:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The history of the Montreal Expos does not belong in Washington.

Yes it does. it is the same franchise. Kingturtle 21:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- All this harping about consistency and insisting on it being the same franchise leaves me cold. I may not have a long history of modifying Wikipedia articles, but it seems to me that insistence on consistency smacks of authoritarianism, whereas exceptions reflect the anarchic nature of reality more accurately. It has been remarked that Wikipedia is not a democracy; well it certainly isn't an autocracy either. Rules are made to be broken. Live a little...--Exshpos 03:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second that thought. Well written. --Madchester 02:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
    - If it was authoritarian, then I'd just create a redirect to Washington Nationals and then LOCK the article so no one could touch it. If you've at all been paying attention to the debate that took place at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos, this has been a very democratic process. over 70 people made their opinions known - and it took place without edit wars and without marginalizing the integrity of the Montréal Expos article. Kingturtle 03:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expos = distinct team from Nationals

The history of the Expos can be kept on its own page as the are other examples of this happening. cf: Boston Braves, Washington Senators

Those examples involve situations in which two separately distinct franchises shared the same name. there were TWO Washington Senators, and that article explains the difference. Kingturtle 04:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with kingturtle. Like it or not the Nationals and Expos are the Same franchice. We do not have sperate articles for the Brooklyn Dodgers and LA Dodgers

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

The expos deserve their own page, so I created it.Txredcoat 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't wait to see the Expos back in their own standalone page.--Madchester 05:53, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

From the official MLB site: "On deck: Nationals right-hander Zach Day (1-2, 5.09 ERA) will take on Jeff Weaver (2-2, 6.23 ERA). Weaver is 1-0 with a 2.40 ERA lifetime against the Nationals franchise, while Day is 0-2 with a 5.54 ERA against the Dodgers." (emphasis added).--Canoeguy81 03:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that relocated teams deserve a separate page about the team's history in that city. The Nationals didn't always play with "Washington" on their shirts. The Nationals franchise might have started in 69, but the Nationals only started in 2005.

To me, it's just common sense to have this page up. Montreal isn't just another city that lost its team; it's the only French-speaking city (and one of only two Canadian cities) to have ever had a Major League Baseball team. Funnyhat 06:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be forgotten -> Expos All Stars

The "Not to be forgotten" mini-list is nonencyclopedic, but the players listed are historically significant. The section should be replaced with "Expos All Stars". This will made the list selection criteria objective, and should also included most or all of the players currently on the list... and maybe one or two who aren't currently on it.

Oh, and don't forget to move Tim Raines's name to the Hall of Famers section when that happens in a few years. That boy is Cooperstown material. - Pioneer-12 02:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pearson Cup

This article definitely needs a mention of the Cup contested between the Jays and Expos in the 80's and later in the 2000's. This page also needs emphasis on Prime Minister Pearson's association with the team, he served as honourary club president for a number of years.

Although it should be mentioned in other articles, Pearson Cup should be its own article. Kingturtle 18:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, done. HOw do I cite the source properly ? http://www.canadianbaseballnews.com/MonExpos/PearsonCup.html If you want to make another article, that's fine, but it is only one paragraph of a mention. Thanks.

For information on how to cite sources, see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Kingturtle 03:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]